how did historian write the history of common people?
Answers
Answered by
0
Answer:
By excavating things
Explanation:
By this method they come to know their biography and they wrote about them
Answered by
0
Answer:
It has not “become”. It always was. Several reasons: Common people don’t make history except in masses—see various revolutions—and so they’re usually anonymous except for—in Christendom—church records which can be destroyed in war, rot on shelves, or get eaten by mice.
There was a history of the Medici—can’t recall the name—which detailed what the Medici had to do to keep on top. That meant keeping the common people sullen but not mutinous. So the commons had an effect there, as in many places, but you can’t find many sources or names about them exactly. They can be shown by primary sources to have been poorly nourished, smaller than the aristos, subject to diseases….
Braudel does have a ton of stuff on the common people but it’s about how they lived and only distantly related to any history they made. And if you don’t make history, you’re going to be one of those unnamed extras down at the bottom of the movie credits.
One historian—Paul Johnson, I think—noted that by the time of the Revolution the colonists averaged three inches taller than the Brits. This would be due to better nutrition and the likelihood that the smallest Brits had enough trouble at home that they couldn’t get sufficient resources together to emigrate to the colonies, thus reducing the “small gene” incidence. So, if he’s right, we know the colonists ate well, given the standards of the time. But details of agriculture, transport of food, hunting, stock breeding, trading with Indians, fishing, etc would have to be found in various obscure places, if at all.
Explanation:
hello dear here is your answer mark it brainlist ok and follow me. :)
Similar questions