44 – Sources of Confusion

Ok... the dark ages. This is going to be a hell of a project, so let’s talk about what we know, what we don’t and why. I want you to be able to trust the stories I’m telling you, and so it’s required that I let you know how unreliable damn near every source we have from this period is. Lately there’s been a rash of people complaining about how this podcast includes speculation. Well, if it bothered you in days of Romano-Britannia, you’re going to lose your minds over what we have coming. So lets talk about our ignorance!

Click here to be able to read the full rough transcript.

  6 comments for “44 – Sources of Confusion

  1. Ron Titus
    June 18, 2012 at 9:36 am


    You made a very good point regarding sources, bias in sources and need to be aware of the same. As a university librarian, I am constantly working on making students aware of these points!

    Ron Titus

    • June 18, 2012 at 9:39 am

      Thank you :)

  2. Marisha
    November 20, 2014 at 9:58 am

    I was going to become a member of this podcast until I heard that it was run by a Liverpool supporter.
    As a true blue Scouse, I could not in good consciousness support a kopite ;-)

    Just kidding–this is a wonderful podcast, and I’m just grateful you don’t support Man U. But so far I haven’t heard anything about my North West Liverpool/Merseyside region, and frankly never have, and was wondering if that was because we don’t have much information on this area pre-Roman occupation?

    Is there any chance you have any good resources I could look into to gain a deeper knowledge into the ancient people of my damp and windy corner of Britain?

    (Go Everton!)

    • November 21, 2014 at 9:17 am

      The borders aren’t incredibly clear, but chances are that Liverpool was held either by the Cornovii or the Brigante (Cartimandua’s tribe) until Rome came along and took everything over. :)

  3. Lauren
    July 15, 2015 at 8:48 am

    If all historians have an agenda… whats yours?

    • July 15, 2015 at 10:46 am

      Well, my initial agenda is to make history accessible and to teach critical thinking. “Where does this information come from? Should I trust that source? What is the context?” that sort of thing.

      As far as personal biases, which I think is what you’re alluding to… I’m pretty openly critical of out of control wealth inequality. I also find it frustrating that 51% of the population is typically ignored in pop historical accounts, so I try to avoid perpetuating that issue. I also am very much focused on the lives of the people and the cultural aspects of history, since King-focused accounts strike me as myopic and out of date.

      I also like putting music and pop references into history accounts. I don’t know if that’s an “agenda” but it happens a lot. ;)

Leave a Reply