required from tenants-in- chief, but the application of this tactic was ‘imposed quickly,
artifi cially, and often quite arbitrarily’. 16 Therefore, it can be easily understood that the
availability of primary sources (and arguably the choice of secondary literature read too) is a
significant influence on a historian's research, with new archaeological discoveries possibly
changing the research field drastically.
As demonstrated by two of the most prominent primary sources used by historians
debating the Norman Conquest, the Domesday Survey (more commonly called the
Domesday Book) and the Salisbury Oath, William intended to elicit subordination from all
subjects, the conquered English and the emigrated Normans. To Holt, the relationship
between the two has not been thoroughly explored, stating that previous historians merely
treated them both happening i n 1086 as coincidental. Having already ascertained that ‘we
seem to no longer believe in feudalism…’, Holt continues ‘...let alone the notion that it was
established at a stroke in 1086’, recognising the modern interpretation that the
development of society takes a long time to emerge 17
However, as we have seen, there are still some minute disagreements over the
extent that feudalism previously existed in England before the Conquest. Instead, the
Domesday Survey and Salisbury Oath are evidence of the differences between Norman and
English feudalism, as William was able to impose ‘a more logical order’ in England, placing
himself firmly at the top of the pyramid. 18 Therefore, the interpretation of primary sources is
evidently a notable contributing factor in disagreements between historians, with modern
interdisciplinary research recognising potential unconscious personal bias towards texts, but
16 Garnett, p. 79 17 Holt, pp. 42-43 18 Chibnall, p. 80
15
Made with FlippingBook HTML5