The New Leader Of The Shamed...
News2 mins ago
What Did The Tudors Know About The Stone Age, Bronze Age Or Iron Age?
The kids at school (years 3 & 4) are looking at the stone, bronze and iron ages and we are wondering when we became aware of early life in Britain? We know that many discoveries such as Skara Brae and the cave paintings were found in the 19th century but what did people like the Tudors know?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by neddyw. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting q
but not set by teacher surely ?
It is surprisingly a scientific question ie that is one that could be settled by scientific inqury (as opposed to why did the Gt War break out ?)
and that is you can look at the growth of books that looked back at ruins and asked why ? First answers would be god put them there but why ?
and I cant recollet an antiquarian in Elizabeth's time....I think thereis one
1600's big landmark is Carew's review of Cornwall - possibly the first area review. 1640s - big growth - as some fella campaigned strongly that the Civil War was destroying sites before they were recorded.
1660s - Doesnt Pepys survey stonehenge ? anyway someone does and and The ROyal Soc get involved....
1700s century of dilettantes....
but not set by teacher surely ?
It is surprisingly a scientific question ie that is one that could be settled by scientific inqury (as opposed to why did the Gt War break out ?)
and that is you can look at the growth of books that looked back at ruins and asked why ? First answers would be god put them there but why ?
and I cant recollet an antiquarian in Elizabeth's time....I think thereis one
1600's big landmark is Carew's review of Cornwall - possibly the first area review. 1640s - big growth - as some fella campaigned strongly that the Civil War was destroying sites before they were recorded.
1660s - Doesnt Pepys survey stonehenge ? anyway someone does and and The ROyal Soc get involved....
1700s century of dilettantes....
This is a very interesting question and one that I don't know the answer to. I expect that the simplified answer is likely to be "not a lot". Much of the history that was written about in England during the Middle Ages and into the Tudor times was recorded by monks who had a natural interest in Christian history. So at a recorded level we're unlikely I'd expect to see much study of life in Britain before the arrival of Christendom. On the other hand it's possible that there was a certain amount of local knowledge about the origins of various landmarks in the area, where they had come from and what their significance was, etc. Some of this might have been the stuff of legend (such as the origin of the Giants' Causeway), but other snippets may well have had some truth in them. Of course such knowledge would be passed by word of mouth more than by writing it down, so it will probably mostly have been lost.
On the other hand, I don't have the time to do proper research into the subject, so you should take my above answer with maybe a pinch of salt. I think it's likely to be fairly accurate but simplified.
On the other hand, I don't have the time to do proper research into the subject, so you should take my above answer with maybe a pinch of salt. I think it's likely to be fairly accurate but simplified.
They might know of antiquities, carvings, monuments in their local area, but they didn't have any dating facilities to be able to consider how old they were. Any records would be kept by the monks - the monasteries were at that time the storage of all history, but probably not much that wasn't Christian.
A very intersting question for one who is a history graduate, albeit 50 years ago. I have to agree in principal with jim360 and boxtops in so far as I think they were aware of earlier times but lacked the knowledge and technology to investigate thoroughly (no Time Team) and come to any accurate conclusions. I would also consider the influence of the church in earlier times to be detrimental to anyone seeking wider knowledge of ancient times.
Yes, you also have to bear in mind that religious and mythical interpretations would likely colour such judgements.
So they might well see ancient features like stonehenge as evidence of King Arthur
Check out:
http://
http://
http://
http://
'Tudor' is a big century for changes in ideas - what was known at 1485 was a fraction of what was known in 1603!
Of course that's a very anglo-centric, Euro-centric view - there are Chinese annals and histories going back to the first century BC!
So they might well see ancient features like stonehenge as evidence of King Arthur
Check out:
http://
http://
http://
http://
'Tudor' is a big century for changes in ideas - what was known at 1485 was a fraction of what was known in 1603!
Of course that's a very anglo-centric, Euro-centric view - there are Chinese annals and histories going back to the first century BC!
Thanks for the help. We have to produce a 'production' at in March based on what we have learned in history this term. As this is a new area of the curriculum there are no ready-made plays so we are having to write our own. We thought it might be nice for the younger children if we started with a walk through history so that they can see where pre-history fits in with other periods they are familiar with so the idea is to 'interview' a Victorian to see what they know about the stoneage and then move on to a Tudor, Ancient Egyptian etc. I think a Tudor gentleman exclaiming that the idea of man not coming from Adam & Eve being blasphemous might be quite funny.
Thanks again
Thanks again
what you could do is build into the play some text to the effect that "those stones are mysterious, from the olden days" - to emphasise that the Tudors knew they were there, and felt they were revered, but didn't really know much more other than from legend and myth. They were big on fairies and witches and the other world (as evidenced by Shakespeare!)
... also, it would be interesting to run a timeline to include the Egyptians and the ancient Persians, etc. I read a fascinating book (I still have it) about the huge strides being taken in medicine, astrology, etc., in the Arab worold in the 1200s, when England still had untrained barber-surgeons and muddy tracks..
There was something on the TV very recently about the Iron Age, about their organised society and their undoubted skills - far from being the uncouth people, who stumbled into discovery, that we were taught about in my school all those years ago.
There was something on the TV very recently about the Iron Age, about their organised society and their undoubted skills - far from being the uncouth people, who stumbled into discovery, that we were taught about in my school all those years ago.
well done j-t-p I think you have named the first four antiquaries in England.
The one I was thinking of ( as his boke of cornwall came up at auction a few months ago) is a fifth:
http://
his history of cornwall was the second county history and not the first - oops - a/c to Wiki
The one I was thinking of ( as his boke of cornwall came up at auction a few months ago) is a fifth:
http://
his history of cornwall was the second county history and not the first - oops - a/c to Wiki
1200 islamic renaissance is a study in itself
actually coincides with one in England wh see above was crushed by the Church. 1200-1250 Roger Bacon and all that
Observationally the islamic renaissance turns to mysticism by the end of the century and no islamic scholar I have asked can explain why
besides confirm that mysticism took over
actually coincides with one in England wh see above was crushed by the Church. 1200-1250 Roger Bacon and all that
Observationally the islamic renaissance turns to mysticism by the end of the century and no islamic scholar I have asked can explain why
besides confirm that mysticism took over
.
some interest in Elizabeth's reign -s ee this
http://
some interest in Elizabeth's reign -s ee this
http://
The answer to your question extends beyond 'the Tudors'. Basically one of the upshots of the Renaissance was that some scholars examined the past and its artefacts and from this - very slowly - a sense of the huge chronology of the earth began to develop. Coming to realise how our human past fitted into this chronology developed alongside it.
Tudor scholar John Leland observed many objects and sites eg Stonehenge, but contemporary knowledge of chronology limited his thoughts to 'the Romans done it' or words to that effect.
Blessed Nicholas Steno, d. 1686, was one of the early pioneers of what we call evolution. Linnaeus (d.1778) classified humans as primates, which opened thinking in some quarters towards accepting the notion that humans had a 'primitive past'. These notes on pioneers of human classification might be useful: https:/
Here are some notes you might find helpful on evolution: https:/
Tudor scholar John Leland observed many objects and sites eg Stonehenge, but contemporary knowledge of chronology limited his thoughts to 'the Romans done it' or words to that effect.
Blessed Nicholas Steno, d. 1686, was one of the early pioneers of what we call evolution. Linnaeus (d.1778) classified humans as primates, which opened thinking in some quarters towards accepting the notion that humans had a 'primitive past'. These notes on pioneers of human classification might be useful: https:/
Here are some notes you might find helpful on evolution: https:/
Mosaics power points are absolutely fascinating.
obviously written from a point of view - Dart who discovered Australopithecus never gets a mention altho his discovery always does. I hadnt realised that Piltdown had obscured the acceptance of Dart's ideas. He was complimented by Prof Keith twenty five y (!) after his discovery: "Like professor Le Gros Clark I am now convinced on the evidence submitted by Dr. R. Bloom that Professor Dart was right and I was wrong."
There is in the slides a rather odd view that there was a slow progress to Darwin's view whereas the contemporary records of 1850s show his ideas came as an unwelcome thunderclap.
and finally if you want to read about evo-devo not every students cup of tea - Steven jay gould has written 1000 p on it. Structure of evolutionary theory.
Not much on tudors and the remains I'm afraid
obviously written from a point of view - Dart who discovered Australopithecus never gets a mention altho his discovery always does. I hadnt realised that Piltdown had obscured the acceptance of Dart's ideas. He was complimented by Prof Keith twenty five y (!) after his discovery: "Like professor Le Gros Clark I am now convinced on the evidence submitted by Dr. R. Bloom that Professor Dart was right and I was wrong."
There is in the slides a rather odd view that there was a slow progress to Darwin's view whereas the contemporary records of 1850s show his ideas came as an unwelcome thunderclap.
and finally if you want to read about evo-devo not every students cup of tea - Steven jay gould has written 1000 p on it. Structure of evolutionary theory.
Not much on tudors and the remains I'm afraid
PP - I think nearly 200 years from Steno to Darwin represent s slow progress towards accepting the distant origins of the earth. about 100 years from Linnaeus classifying humans as primates to Darwin, ditto.
But I'm glad you like my teaching slides.
And no, as I said at the outset, there isn't that much to say about 'Tudors' because the thinking developed outwith that period of time.
But I'm glad you like my teaching slides.
And no, as I said at the outset, there isn't that much to say about 'Tudors' because the thinking developed outwith that period of time.
Not a lot I can add except to say that one potted history I saw (probably on TV) about Stonehenge reckoned that most of the stones were only put back into their upright position in the late 1800s, once antiquarians had recognised it for the monument that it is.
Prior to that, the stones were largely disregarded - partially buried under accumulated earth or covered by weeds. Some exposed stones had fires set next to them by local farmers, to heat-fracture the rock for building material.
I would be interested to know how easy or difficult some ancient structures would have been in Tudor times. I was given to understand that much of the country was still heavily forested, right up until the age of the highwaymen. You would think that something like an ancient hill fort would be hard to ignore but there are dome which are covered by woods and you'd be hard pressed to tell that the steep slopes were man made.
Prior to that, the stones were largely disregarded - partially buried under accumulated earth or covered by weeds. Some exposed stones had fires set next to them by local farmers, to heat-fracture the rock for building material.
I would be interested to know how easy or difficult some ancient structures would have been in Tudor times. I was given to understand that much of the country was still heavily forested, right up until the age of the highwaymen. You would think that something like an ancient hill fort would be hard to ignore but there are dome which are covered by woods and you'd be hard pressed to tell that the steep slopes were man made.
Putting on my pseuds hat
History is re-written every generation - ( look at Paxo and 1914 ) and could be looked on as a social construct...
but it is still a valid question to ask when they started.
Stonehenges original reconstructions were based on the belief that it was a Druid temple. Mosaic's ppt details how important nationalism was in early anthropology,
so it is a question of what did the Tudors know ?
but also why did they think it important to change or add their knowledge ?
or chagne their theories in the light of new facts....
I still think the important stimulus was Bacon's experimentation 1600-1610.
History is re-written every generation - ( look at Paxo and 1914 ) and could be looked on as a social construct...
but it is still a valid question to ask when they started.
Stonehenges original reconstructions were based on the belief that it was a Druid temple. Mosaic's ppt details how important nationalism was in early anthropology,
so it is a question of what did the Tudors know ?
but also why did they think it important to change or add their knowledge ?
or chagne their theories in the light of new facts....
I still think the important stimulus was Bacon's experimentation 1600-1610.
Nationalism is an interesting angle on why historical grounding is important to many of us. You can't go around claiming "this land is ours" without spending time on creating and maintaining documented proof.
The trouble is that there is a permanent societal divide between the population who have been here since antiquity but who were illiterate in Tudor times, whose oral history is only sketchily preserved today and the replacement culture of 1066 and their descendents, who go to great lengths to record their pedigree because that's important for land ownership.
Ancient history would have been 'academic' to them in the present-day derogatory sense.
Oh, mustn't forget. In Tudor times, displaying any reverence towards ancient, possibly pagan, sites and artefacts and thinks like Druids might have been perceived to be signs of heretical beliefs, the handling of which would not make suitable for your play's audience, I suspect.
The trouble is that there is a permanent societal divide between the population who have been here since antiquity but who were illiterate in Tudor times, whose oral history is only sketchily preserved today and the replacement culture of 1066 and their descendents, who go to great lengths to record their pedigree because that's important for land ownership.
Ancient history would have been 'academic' to them in the present-day derogatory sense.
Oh, mustn't forget. In Tudor times, displaying any reverence towards ancient, possibly pagan, sites and artefacts and thinks like Druids might have been perceived to be signs of heretical beliefs, the handling of which would not make suitable for your play's audience, I suspect.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Can The Media Learn How To Pronounce...
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.