Frank and all,
From the starter of the thread, another Frank
As a newbie to the list do I apologise about starting a thread that you have
done before, surely not, as that was history! Again, definitions do count,
because it far easier to find a course for 'English Local History' than
'History' at universities.
In matters archaeological, John Marshall tended to agree with you. He blamed
the Leicestershire Scholars for linking Local History (1966) to rural
history (not urban) and Landscape and Agriculture History. He also argues
that Local Historians have been taught to be interested in documents, such
as parish records.
Surely there is a difference if you are studying a company that trades
worldwide, what are you comparing it with to make a case study? you would
have to take several local companies in other countries, who trade world
wide to have case studies, thus allowing you to be a world historian, until
than just Local.
Regards
Frank Lorford
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Researching the family and history of Alexis Bénoist Soyer (1810-1858) and
Nicolas Soyer (1863-1937). En recharchant l'histoire familiale d'Alexis
Bénoist Soyer (1810-1858) et Nicolas Soyer (1863-1937).
Please web page: www.soyer.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Sharman <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Leicester school
> Does any of it matter much? I suppose everyone concerned is studying the
> past and everyone is doing so for a variety of reasons. It would be a bit
> difficult to argue that one reason for doing it is better than another or
> that one way of doing it is better than another.
>
> I have a vague recollection of our discussing this before, the main point
> then being whether or not local history was chiefly there for the purpose
> of feeding into regional and national history or whether national and
> regional history was there to provide a context for local history. Not
> surprisingly, no conclusion was reached.
>
> And for those who like this sort of debate, where does archaeology fit
> in? The local history of my home town has recently been added to in two
> cases by artefacts being found with makers' marks on them which change the
> history of two local firms. In one case a plate adds something to the
> general history of art manufactures and transport history. So is the
> information from these artefacts archaeology or history? And are the
plate
> and the lock concerned artefactual or documentary evidence? And is the
> information from the plate, local or regional or national history? Or is
> it the case that, if I am studying a locally based company that operated
> all over the world, I am doing world history? Or not, or what?
>
> I have an idea this is all a matter of definitions. And what the best
> definition of anything is tends to depend on the purpose of the
definition.
>
>
>
> Frank Sharman
> Wolverhampton
> 01902 763246
>
|