Professor Peter King - Inaugural Lecture - 5:30 Tuesday 8th May 2012

University of Leicester, Ken Edwards Building, Lecture Theatre 1: 5:30 pm on Tuesday 8^th May, 2012

'Homicidal crime across space and time. Why are some societies so much more murderous than others?

Homicide rates vary massively across time and between places, but attempts to explain these variations have revealed a number of paradoxes and contradictions. For example, in Europe in the Middle Ages murder prosecution rates were twenty times greater than they are now. The long-term decline in recorded homicides which was a major feature of the period from the fourteenth to the late nineteenth centuries has encouraged some historians to argue that the modernisation and the urbanisation process that occurred across Europe in this period was been the key factor behind this drastic reduction in levels of inter-personal violence. However, the geography of homicide does not necessarily back up this argument. In the second half of the twentieth century, for example, urban areas have been associated with very much higher murder rates. Drawing initially on Professor King’s recent primary research on nineteenth-century homicide rates in the two most rapidly industrialising and urbanising areas in Europe – England and Scotland – which has shown that homicide rates were 6 times higher in rapidly urbanising areas such as Glasgow than in peripheral rural ones such as the Highlands, the lecture will indicate how problematic this simplistic connection between modernisation and declining violence has turned out to be. It will then use data from across Europe, from twentieth century America and comparative world homicide rates available for the early twenty-first century as the basis for developing a model of the key factors that create high homicide rates in any specific place or time. By exploring the impact on homicide rates of factors such as the oppression of racial and national minorities, the survival of vendetta, the level and nature of state intervention, or the disruptions that result from large-scale in-migration into rapidly growing cities or industrialising areas, the lecture will attempt to develop a more sophisticated historically grounded understanding of the roots of high homicide rates in different societies.

Muddy Boots and Sat Nav

Richard Jones

The headlines are stark:  ‘Warning over decline in map skills as ramblers rely on Sat Navs’ announced the Daily Telegraph on 19 February of this year; ‘Sat-nav and the lost art of map-reading’ the same paper lamented on 16 June 2011.  Supporting these views, there are some hard statistics: sales of Ordnance Survey sheet maps have fallen by 25% since 2005; and in a survey conducted on behalf of Which? Conversation in July 2011, the frightening revelation that two-thirds of under 25s cannot read a map!

Large-scale maps, together with muddy boots, have traditionally been part of the English local historian’s essential toolkit.  If we are to believe what we read, and there is no reason to doubt it (recently I asked a second-year undergraduate group who among them now used maps—no-one raised their hand!), then one of the prerequisite skills for local study, particularly among the younger generation, is rapidly disappearing.  To whom does W.G. Hoskins now speak when we read passages such as this?

‘There are certain sheets of the one-inch Ordnance Survey maps which one can sit down and read like a book for an hour on end, with growing pleasure and imaginative excitement.  One dwells upon the infinite variety of the place-names (and yet there is a characteristic flavour for each region of England), the delicate nerve-like complexity of roads and lanes, the siting of the villages and hamlets, the romantic moated farmsteads in deep country, the churches standing alone in the fields, the patterns made by the contours or by the way the parish boundaries fit into one another, and in so doing so learns a good deal of local history, whether or not one knows the country itself.’

Pack up, turn out the lights, lock the door, it’s time to go home.  Or is it?

Cartographic literacy is a relatively modern phenomenon and certainly rare in the general populace much before the end of the nineteenth century.  Local historians who study earlier periods must accept, I think, that for the majority of those they study, maps were rather inconsequential.  The view that they formed of their world was not constructed as ours so often is.  It was known from the ground and not from some vantage point 35,000 feet above.  It was experienced in three dimensions rather than in a two-dimensional abstraction.  Buildings had facades not just floor plans, fields were defined as much by what they contained as their boundaries.  Once a map has been seen, it is never forgotten.  It burns itself into the imagination, structuring all subsequent impressions of place.  And because of this, I have begun to wonder just how wise it is to look at maps at an early stage in any study of a particular locality (a heretical position for a landscape historian).  But what should we make of Sat Nav technology?    

Even those who had access to maps in the past did not necessarily use or rely upon them when travelling.  William Cobbett revealed in 1823 that he ‘had not looked at a map of Kent for years, and perhaps, never’.  A year earlier he had made his way through Surrey and Hampshire without the aid of a map of the former.  To navigate he asked the way from those he encountered; or employed (not always successfully) the services of a local guide.  A lone traveller in the past was thus accompanied by the oral instructions of others.  In an echo of the woman who instructed Cobbett of the way to Hawkey ‘Right up the lane, sir: you’ll come to a hanger…’  so the Sat Nav now commands, ‘In four hundred yards, turn left’.  ‘Left’, note, not north or south, east or west.  Left, because the top of the Sat Nav map, just as it has been for travellers across the centuries, is where one is heading, not a privileged cardinal point.  Past geographies were always more fluid. 

Intriguing though this may be, it is often claimed that Sat Nav is doing considerable cultural damage, because it removes details which would be found on a map highlighting interesting aspects of the  landscape visible either side of the route being taken. Two miles west of Amesbury there is a fork in the road made by the joining of the A303 and the A344.  If you are off to Ilminster and the West Country, your Sav Nav will plot a course which highlights the lefthand side of the Y shape which emerges on the display.  The blank background on which your route has been superimposed has hidden one of the most iconic structures in the English landscape from your view—Stonehenge.  You continue oblivious to its existence if you rely on Sat Nav; you strain your neck to see it if you have a map.  But is this really any different from the Ogilby’s strip maps of the seventeenth century, destinations at the top of the page, the actual route clearly laid out with important junctions identified, but almost all other peripheral landmarks eliminated?  The Sat Nav screen is simply a digital version of the same. 

This aside, there is the question of distance.  From the sheet map, distance is a linear measure, and so it remains in the Sat Nav.  But here it is paired with time: ’52 minutes remaining’.  It is not only Sat Nav that deploys this experiential device to measure distance.  ’16 miles, 14 minutes to Jct 20’ announces the motorway matrix and we breathe a sigh of relief: the carriageway is clear and traffic is flowing freely; we will arrive at our destination on time and unflustered.  This equation of distance with time is also historically interesting, for it was time more than anything which dictated the daily cycle of local life, particularly agrarian life, in the past.  Have you ever wondered why the mile has become such a significant distance, and why it is the distance that it is, and not longer or shorter?  It is a distance that can be covered in a quarter of an hour on foot, a distance within which it is still economically viable to drive a team of oxen, have sufficient time to plough the fields.  The mile is a social and economic construct, a human not scientific measure.    

Then there is the question of route.  We can ask our Sat Nav to plot the quickest route, the most direct route, routes which avoid certain types of road.  And again, we might use this to think about how people navigated through the historic landscape.  Can we use these decisions and the routes taken to think about path-making in the past?  I would argue that it can.

Sat Nav thus makes us think differently about space, time, distance, and direction.  It does so because it challenges the hegemony of the sheet map upon which we have come to rely.  However disembodied the voice, Sat Nav returns us, it might be argued, to more fundamentally human ways of navigation and orientation based around the direction in which we are facing, and the time it will take us to achieve something.  This should help us, should we care to allow it, to think ourselves back more readily into the shoes of those who have walked or ridden in the past through the localities we study.  The new generation brought up with Sat Nav may just have the skills to gain a far better insight into the lives and thoughts of these people than those of us brought up on the Ordnance Survey.  To paraphrase once more the most paraphrased of phrases, Levi-Strauss’ ‘Animals are good to think with’, it might be contended that for local historians, ‘Sat Nav technology is good to think with’ too. 

Why was London the 'state slaughterhouse' of eighteenth-century England?

Peter King



The Unbloody code

Among the new perspectives I am currently working on is the geography of the so called 'bloody code' of the eighteenth century. This turns out to have varied massively between localities. The eighteenth-century 'bloody code' has much occupied historians. This accumulating mass of penal statutes that attached the death sentence to many, often minor, property crimes ( stealing a sheep, pickpocketing a hanky, stealing stoce from a particular bridge, even giving food to a gypsy were all capital offences by the mid eighteenth century) has always been seen as a central part of the criminal justice system. Many historians such as Hay and Gatrell have argued that the gentlemen of the eighteenth century loved the death penalty and used it strategically to reinforce their rule. When I started looking at the geography of the bloody code, however, I discovered that in some very large parts of England and Wales it was not bloody at all. In the middle third of the eighteenth century virtually no one was hung for property crime in Cornwall, much of west Wales and much of the north-west and the north. Murderers were hung everywhere but hanging for property crime was used massively in London but hardly ever in the west of Britain. Scotland, it seems, also made little use of the 'bloody code' although I have not researched this.

Even allowing for population difference the 'bloody code' was regional. The number of people hanged in London per head of population was as much as twenty times greater than that in certain western counties. Places like Cumberland, Westmoreland , Cornwall, Breconshire and even Glamorgan could go decades without a hanging for a property crime. The people of the west did not believe in the bloody code and refused to put it into operation but historians, by focussing on the centre - London, the Midlands, Lancashire etc - have missed this. London was a state slaughterhouse. Several hundred offenders might be executed for property crime there in any given decade. The state murder rate, or execution rate if you like, was much higher than the prosecution rate for murder in general in London. This was not the case in the West. So ….......why?

Herein lies a fascinating and complex story that I am trying to unravel. I have some ideas - prosecution rates in general were lower in the West - for all crimes and massively so. Also people did not see the state courts as necessarily the best way to deal with crime. The survival of Celtic languages in many of these areas also coincides interestingly.

Any thoughts would be gratefully received

Local History and the Death of the Parish

Richard Jones

I live in Upton, Nottinghamshire.  Last week the Upton Tonic dropped through my door.  This monthly newsletter does not claim to be a parish magazine, but that is what it is.  It reports on activities across the parish, includes the minutes of the Parish Council meetings, and is delivered to all villagers and occupants of outlying farms and houses within the confines of the parochial boundaries.  For the last couple of years, a second separate flier entitled The Four Ton Tattler has been inserted into the newsletter.  This provides church news including the orders of service in the churches of Upton, and the three neighbouring parishes of Rolleston, Fiskerton, and Morton (hence the four tons).  These churches constitute a single benefice.  On the recent appointment of a new vicar, the Four Ton Benefice was united with the Trent Group Benefice covering the parishes of Bleasby, Thurgarton, Halloughton, and Hoveringham.    Eight churches and their parishes are now served by a single vicar. 

These changes, and the quiet rebranding of a parish magazine as a newsletter, should interest local historians.  First, we might point to the fact that slowly, insidiously, stage-by-stage in piecemeal fashion, parochial identities and allegiances are being dismantled and replaced by larger spatial units.   We are witnessing nothing short of a fundamental change in both the way that the landscape of England is organized and how it is now perceived by its occupants.  These changes demand to be recorded if the death of parishes is not to be veiled in the same silence that accompanied their original constitution during the tenth to twelfth centuries.   

Secondly,  those who know their early history will recognize that we appear to be returning, in purely spatial terms at least, to the kinds of arrangements that preceded the formation of parishes, an England made up of greater and lesser ‘estates’ characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon period.  This emphasis on medium-scale territories is further reinforced by the formation of modern council districts.  What is fascinating  is that these new groupings are not based on historical precedents, but are carving up the landscape along different lines.  To take Upton as an example.  Upton’s history is closely associated with the minster estate of Southwell.  Recorded from the mid-tenth century, this comprised Southwell and eleven members or outliers.  Upton, Fiskerton and Morton were part of this estate family, but never Rolleston; likewise Bleasby and Halloughton were included in the estate, but Thurgarton or Hoveringham always lay beyond.   Even today, relations between Rolleston and Upton remain remote, despite being only two miles apart as the crow flies, while affinities with Fiskerton and Morton are stronger despite the two villages being geographically more distant.  The new landscape thus comprises new territorial units, while at the same time and perhaps more significantly destroys the older units from which it has formed.

As a local historian this situation intrigues me.  I ask myself, are there any lessons to be drawn from the current reorganization of the countryside that might help inform on the processes that must have been at play in the early medieval period?  Do new times always demand new solutions?  Why are historical arrangements apparently no longer relevant and what does this say about constitution of communities past and present?  Are we currently creating artificial, ill-fitting, internally incoherent territorial units and social groupings which will be inherently unstable, or are we creating new and appropriate territories which will shape the countryside for the next millennium?  And what role should I play, as a landscape and local historian, in helping to define these new territorial arrangements? 

Thirdly, there is the issue that gets to the heart of local history.  Since the nineteenth century, no other spatial or administrative unit has exerted so much influence over the practice of English local history than the parish.  The scholarly template was firmly established when parochial histories became the principal organizational device of The Victoria History of the Counties of England.  Across the country a constellation of groups continue to meet to discuss and research their parish resulting in the publication of hundreds of parish histories.  But what shape will local history take in the post-parish era?   Younger generations no longer share the sense of parish belonging which has been the foundation of the local history society.  Even now, most people when asked would be unable to tell you where their parish boundaries lie.   Few families enjoy a multi-generational connection with a single place.  This lack of rootedness will only be further eroded as the idea of the parish fades into the distance: as the parish magazine becomes a newsletter, the parish a benefice, the village simply a part of a planning district.    

My feeling, for what it is worth, is that local historians should not just sit back to observe and record what is happening (they must continue to do this of course).  Far less should they present a conservative voice that harks back to the golden age of the parish and condemn the ahistoricity of modern life (after all, while the parish has a long and noble pedigree, there was a time before the parish existed).  Rather they should be taking the lead.  They should ensure that the lessons of history that tell us that communities have continually organized and reorganized themselves according to particular circumstances are conveyed to the widest possible audience.  They should stress that there are many solutions not one, while at the same time demonstrating that some things work and others do not.  It is only when the long-term appreciation of the development of the English landscape is effectively communicated to all those responsible for or who must live with inevitable change that we will find the means avoiding the many pitfalls that lie in wait, and be able to develop new sustainable and resilient ways of living together.  The parish is dead (or at least dying), its raison d’être largely defunct in a multi-cultural society.  Local history must change as a consequence, in its scales of operation, in its horizons, and in its themes, if it too is not to become a historical irrelevance. 

What is local history?

Welcome to our first post on the nature of local history! The Centre for English Local History was established in 1948, under the guidance of W.G. Hoskins, a figure whose pioneering work has defined the research project of the ELH. The Leicester approach developed by Hoskins is committed to the study of past communities, and the material environment in which people lived and worked.

What does local history mean, and how do we practice it in an increasingly global society? The ethos of the Centre is simple enough. Broader studies of the past tend to rely on one particular method, but the ethos of the ‘local’ encourages the holistic study of lived communities. From economic, social and cultural perspectives, to the history of the landscape, politics and piety, this approach is profoundly interdisciplinary, examining localities from a variety of angles. This mode of history allows us to make observations that revise our understanding of wider national and international issues.

From reflections on the value of using local history, to the insights of anthropologists or social psychologists, this blog offers a forum for debate and discussion. We hope you will enjoy reading and participating in our posts. If you would like to join in or have a piece to contribute yourself, please do get in touch.

Dr Richard Jones on local approaches

Here Dr Richard Jones of the Centre for English Local History questions the meaning of ‘local’ both in the past and today. Should we conceptualise ‘local’ communities in terms of geographical space, or in terms of populations and human interaction? We invite your comments on this subject!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-SoNEm_3s