What is Chronicle 2000?
Chronicle 2000 began life as a personal millennium project. David Addy, the author, found that like Topsy, it grew out of control, and over-ran its target date of 2000 by three years. The intention was to emulate the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, using current English, and bringing the story right up to date. The area to be covered was the administrative area of St Edmundsbury Borough Council, in the West of Suffolk.
In the earliest years of our Chronicle there is little evidence directly related to the St Edmundsbury area, and so a wider geographical area is covered. The focus tightens to West Suffolk as the Chronicle proceeds. In addition mention is often made of events outside this area which would have had local consequences. A weakness of many local histories seems to me to be an absence of a greater context, which inevitably impacted upon the lives of our little area. Often a big local event can be seen as just part of a national mood or theme. I have tried to reflect the bigger picture, but will often have missed the mark.
The Chronicle began life in 1997, but grew a bit out of control, and was not substantially completed until 2003.
Now a few words about dates, and how not to take them too seriously.
Pre-Roman or 'pre-historic' dating
When the Romans came to Britain they had historians who wrote histories, military commanders who wrote reports, and a whole administrative structure which recorded events and dates. The peoples who lived in Britain before the Romans did not have writing and although they left permanent signs of their presence in the landscape, the exact dates of much of their activity is a matter of scientifically based detective work to reconcile often apparently conflicting evidence.
Techniques of dating by radio-carbon analysis, the examination of tree rings in relic wood, pollen counts, the occurrence of remains at certain levels in the soil, etc, are all evidence. Unfortunately the results of each technique can apparently differ by well over 1,000 years in some cases.
Also please be aware that some writers date events BP or Before Present, and in 1998, 4,000 years ago or 4,000 BP equates to about 2,000 BC. In our chronicle, dates earlier than 10,000 BC are dated BP in line with general practice, and BC then takes over.
If you see a date marked c.6,500 BC it stands for the Latin word "circa", for "roundabout" or "approximately". It really means, "as far as we know, and taking into account all the evidence, this probably happened at round about 6,500 BC".
Roman dating
Therefore, please treat the dates in our Chronicle with some caution. Roman coins are precisely dated and can be used as 'bottom line' dating; and for cross-dating cultures outside the Empire, from India to Scandinavia. There are problems, of course, such as the state of wear and the date the coins were lost or buried and so forth.
Even in comparatively modern times, we must remember that the calendar has been re-arranged more than once to the confusion of today's students of the past.
The Dark Ages
Please also note that the problem of dates comes back again after the Romans left Britain, because of a lack of written records. This lack of writing even led the post-Roman period to be known as the Dark Ages to early Historians.
The Vikings
From 630 to 869 the Saxon monasteries probably contained written material, some of which would undoubtedly have helped today's historians. However, it seems that the Vikings systematically destroyed or looted much of this material when they invaded the east of England.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles
The use of Latin as a written language declined in the 9th century and when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles were first started they were written in Old English. They were possibly started in Winchester by the monks and aimed to be a record of events from the birth of Christ, or 60 years earlier in two cases.
In the 10th and 11th centuries there was no general agreement as to when the year began. There were three options, none of which included 1 January. The three dates in general use were:
- 1st September - this was the old Roman Imperial tax date
- 25th December - Christmas Day, but dated as the birth of Christ
- 25th March - the date of the Annunciation
Early Chronicles start the year at Christmas, but another calendar in use at the same time begins the year in the autumn, the time of the Caesarian Indication. Unfortunately you cannot always tell what the start of the year is in any document. Probably Christmas Day was the commonest at this time.
By the 12th century it was becoming more common to start the year with the Annunciation on 25 March, but the use of the King's regnal year was also widespread in official circles.
So whereas a modern person would say that Alfred the Great died in 899, a contemporary who believed a year began on 1 September would naturally call it 900. King Harold was crowned on 6 January 1066 to a modern person, but on 6 January 1065, to someone who dated a year beginning on 25 March.
Dating in early modern times up to 1752
As printing became widespread, and more and more people began to keep records and diaries, more dating evidence has been left to us. The use of 25 March as the start of a year was now standard practice. However after 1582, even people in England grew more confused about the year. On the continent the new fangled Gregorian Calendar was in force, and the year there began on 1 January. By the time of the Civil War, a careful Englishman might even record a date such as 1 March as 1641/42, to signify the use of the English date.
A later example might also help to illustrate this issue.
On 13 March 1721, both Coke and Woodburn were found guilty of murder at Bury Assizes. Sentence was carried out the following day. This case illustrates the problem that modern people can have with the dating systems in use in the past.
From late medieval times, up until 1751, the English year began on Lady Day, the 25 March. Therefore the date known at the time as 13 March 1721, to modern eyes would seem to be properly called 13 March 1722. Dates have been "adjusted" like this over the years by later writers, and sometimes have got adjusted more than once, so that this trial has been written up as happening in 1721 or 1722, or even 1723. Does this matter? Yes, it does matter if we are looking to follow the sequence of events, or the cause and effect. To modern minds the events of January, February and March 1721 are assumed to have taken place before the events of April to December, 1721. But to the person in 1721 they naturally took them to occur after April to December.
Modern dates began in 1752
Until the end of 1751 the year began in Britain on Lady Day, the 25 March. If March was therefore counted as the first month, this explains why September was the seventh, October, the eighth, November the ninth and December the tenth month, as in their names.
In 1752 England and Wales finally adopted the Gregorian Calendar and an 11 day correction was needed to bring Britain into line with Europe. The day after September 2nd became 14 September 1752. The new year now began on January 1st. This new system had been in use in the Catholic world since 1582 when Pope Gregory instituted months of unequal length, and invented the leap year to keep local time in step with the movement of the planets.
Remnants of the old system linger on in our tax year in Britain. The Income Tax year starts on April 6, which is 11 days after the original Day 1 of the year when it was 25 March. Governments have since never been brave enough to change to a more sensible date.
