[prox]

While that is true for writing (who wrote this? Why? How critical is the author?) There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations. Ofcourse, the further you go back, you get more and more filters that make things fuzzy. Lots of things were made of wood for instance, it doesn’t survive on the whole.

Medieval lives in the west were very prone to disturbing forces : invasions, successions of lords/kings, religious clashes, poverty, draughts and deceases. My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village. Of 14 children, only one ancestor survived in that time of whom I descent.

Another part of the family in another section of the country lived reasonably well and in peace at least. They were able to marry into better living conditions.

Life in medieval times could be pastoral, but it could just as well be a wretched existence. It depends where you look and in what time.

[verisimi]

> There is a ton we do know. From literature/art to archeological excavations.

What do you think 'we' know? Is 'knowing' even a group activity? It is not of course, we can only know what we personally verify.

Now you can say that you are familiar with what an archeologist has written about what he found, but it is another thing to look at the sources for yourself and see if you concur with the conclusions.

I'd be interested to hear more on how you know so much about your family in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially if they were poor. If you have good information and sources that would definitely be unusual, at least as far as what I have found. Most people have hardly any records of their family history.

[prox]

In West Europe at least you get ecclesiastical records from the early 16th century onwards. In it are usually the names of the ones baptized, the parents and sometimes the ones witnessing (often the godmother/father but not always)

Futher records to piece together their lives are tax records, registries (like doing inventories for the government) and you have guilds and orders who wrote things down. From simple bookkeeping to extensive chronicles. If you are lucky you have early authors and artists describing the locale. Even better are judicial records which tend to be exhaustive and on the whole quite accurate in description. Often noting the exact words of the of ones involved. Also there are a ton of objects surviving. Just go to your local antiquarian and be ready to dive into the world of our ancestors.

All in all you get a pretty good picture of your ancestors lives and context they lived in.

While knowing is a personal accomplishment, and you can go through lengths to verify all by yourself, some sources can be trusted and create a bedrock of knowledge. Like if you know C# you don’t have to go and verify if every command works as described. You trust the authors and you know it was done with rigor.

[verisimi]

> My own ancestors in the 17th/early 18th century died from 6 different deceases and floods and harsh winters. There were “poor hunters” , hunters who kept out the poor from the village.

I am amazed you were able to deduce the above, via the use of ecclesiastical records, tax records, registries, etc. As an aside, what is a "poor hunter"? You write the term as if it a type of profession, but could it be that they lived off the land? Genuinely interested to hear more.

I agree that knowing is akin to a programming language, and that being able to test the methodology others describe brings it in line with the scientific method. This is personal verification.

History is assuredly NOT like this - it is an art form, a pastiche of bits of info that may (or may not) be authentic. History is re-written by the victor, and was likely a biased account in the first place! Moreover, we apply our modern way of thinking and interpretation onto what evidence we have. It's an interpretative act - what does this evidence evoke in you?

Professional historians are no different - they are just empowered to write the history we are taught today. And, of course, all history can be interpolated from a specific position - eg communist, feminist, capitalist - etc.

As I said, the history we are given/find is what is expedient, primarily for the governance structure. If that is not enough and you are personally interested, you can dig deeper. In that case you still don't know, but you will find a reflection of yourself. It won't be something outside of yourself that is in some way independently true. That personal analysis (personal story) has its own value, but its not that 'we know' about the historical world.

[prox]

Oh absolutely, there might be a bias in some the ways we look at them, but there is also a lot who can say without doubt (as in did person X live there —-not much bias about that for instance) or what kind of foods did they eat (also a lot of documentation about those things)

Recently I had a back and forth with a German historian and German history is a lot more less prone to filling in the gaps, where as in the anglicized sphere there is a bit more interpretation/extrapolation (in the academia)

A “poor hunter” was someone hired by the community (usually the towns council I believe) to keep the poor, the beggars and so on from the lands and homes. It was a profession! Some people had multiple jobs, and this could be one of them.

Doing genealogical research is great to do because you get out of the big scope of things and you follow your family through time into a historic context. It’s a long way from the broad strokes you learn at school, and it gets personal. I highly recommend it for anyone to do!