Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merritt and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson looking at the Norman England historical environment.

We'll be looking at the sources and historical context dependency, and by the end of the lesson we'll be able to explain the strengths and limitations of key sources for Norman England.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key terms for today are source, historical context and contemporary.

A source is a direct or firsthand piece of evidence from the past.

Historical context is what is happening at the time of a historical event, possibly shaping it and contemporary means from the same time as something.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles and our first learning cycle is looking at visual sources.

So let's get going.

So the most famous visual source for Norman England is the Bayeux Tapestry and it's a 70 metre long embroidery, which has created some time between 1066 and the 1080s.

We think most likely would've been the 1070s.

And the reason being is that Bayeux cathedral was finished in 1077 and we think the Bayeux Tapestry was created to be displayed at that point as well.

Now if you look at the photo on the screen in front of you there, it shows the Bayeux Tapestry and it tells the story of the Norman Invasion and the Battle of Hastings.

And while it's of key importance to the Battle of Hastings, it also illustrates many aspects of Anglo-Saxon and Norman life and culture at this point in time as well.

And for example, the scene in the screen in front of you there shows a motte-and-bailey castle in France being attacked.

And if you look at the image, it shows Normans attacking Dinan castle in a war against Brittney.

We can see key features of the castle are shown such as the mottes which is that large hill, the large semicircle there.

We can see the palisade as well, which is that wooden wall of stakes.

And we can see a tall tower in the middle there as well.

And we can also see that it's surrounded by ditches.

There's a steep walkway or a drawbridge on there as well.

And also this image shows us how castles were defended and also attacked as well with fire and on foot.

So it tells us a lot about castles at this point in time.

Now much of what we know about 11th century Norman weapons, armour and equipment comes from the Bayeux Tapestry.

And in this scene on the screen in front of you there from the Bayeux Tapestry, we can see Norman Knights attacking the Anglo-Saxon shield wall, which is on the left there at the Battle of Hastings.

In this scene we can see a castle being constructed at Hastings.

Although it says Hastings, there is some debate amongst historians.

This might actually be the creation of Pevensey Castle, but certainly the Bayeux Tapestry says that it was at Hastings.

So that's what we'll go with today.

And in this scene we can see the Normans.

They've got a very distinctive hairstyle and they are building the castle there.

And castles were constructed very quickly, generally by conscripting local people to dig the ditches and pile up the earth for the Mottes.

But this scene as well as showing the building of the castle also appears to showed two of the workers fighting each other behind the Norman overseers back.

They seemed to be, you could even see on the screen there.

Seem to be hitting each other with their spades on the heads.

So maybe disagreements happened whilst these castles were being built.

Now we also get a picture of daily life amongst the Normans, including for the Norman elites as well.

And this includes food and drink, includes hunting, which was William's favourite hobby and also travel as well.

If you have a look at the scene of the Bayeux Tapestry on the screen in front of you there, we can see that it's Bishop Odo in the centre blessing the meal.

Bishop Odo was William the Conqueror's half brother and the man who commissioned the Bayeux Tapestry to be made.

So we would expect to see him feature prominently and he does.

William is next to him there as well.

Now women actually rarely feature in the Bayeux Tapestry.

There's only actually three women depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry.

And just to put that into context, within the same Tapestry there are 35 dogs depicted and 190 horses.

So I mean that might give you some indication as to where or how women were viewed at this point in time.

Okay, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So it's a discussion based question, and I'd like you to consider what makes the Bayeux Tapestry a useful source for understanding the historical context of Norman England? So pause video now, while you complete that task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you've done okay with that task.

So let's think of what you could have said then.

So you might have said that the Bayeux Tapestry tells the story of the Norman invasion and it illustrates key events.

Much of what we know about the 11th century comes from the, about the normal weapons, the armour and the equipment.

That all comes from the Bayeux Tapestry.

It illustrates important features of castles and castle building.

And it also shows scenes from everyday life like meals, religious practises and hobbies.

If you've got anything else than that, then that's absolutely fantastic, but hopefully you've got at least some of those on the screen there in front of you as well.

Now no source is perfect and the Bayeux Tapestry is no different in that respect as well.

It does have limitations.

As I said earlier, it was almost certainly made on the orders of Bishop Odo of Bayeux.

He became the Earl of Kent in 1066.

He was the richest man in England behind his half, brother William the Conqueror as well.

And the Tapestry, as I said, shows Odo playing an important role.

And you do have to wonder, did the embroiders who created the Bayeux Tapestry make his role seem more important than it actually was because he was their boss, he was the man who was paying them.

Another limitation is that the Tapestry generally shows events from the Norman points of view.

We do get indications that the created the Tapestry were Anglo-Saxons.

There are a few hints here and there and certainly they, in some cases, make the Anglo-Saxons appear better than you perhaps would expect in terms of their bravery during the Battle of Hastings for instance.

But certainly this Tapestry, this embroidery was created to be from a non perspective as well.

So naturally it would highlight certain aspects of the story from a Norman perspective.

So a really good example of that would be, for instance, when Harold swore an oath to William to honour his claim to be king of England and then he broke that oath, that was a really, really big deal from a Norman perspective.

And understandably that features prominently in the Bayeux Tapestry.

Now the Tapestry is also incomplete.

It's very likely that it had a final section showing events up to William's coronation in December 1066.

And the stories are speculated there's about three metres or so of the Tapestry that's actually missing.

As well as that the Tapestry is not always clear.

And a good reason for that, that historians speculate is that as I said earlier, the embroiders were English women.

There were Anglo-Saxons who lived, we think, around the Canterbury region, which is in Kent.

And therefore it's more sympathetic to Harold and the Anglo-Saxons than the Normans at times.

And as a good example, we can see that the image on the screen there in front of you, Harold's coronation, the caption calls him king or Rex, which is the Latin word for king.

This is unusual in the sense that the Normans never acknowledged Harold as king.

They always saw him as a usurper.

He was never the rightful king.

So the fact that the Bayeux Tapestry calls him king is unexpected.

As well as that, the Tapestry does almost certainly contain inaccuracies as well.

A really good example of that is the chainmail hauberks, which were worn by knights.

They didn't stretch down or we almost certainly did not stretch down to cover the whole legs as well, which is what they are shown to be doing here in the Tapestry.

For instance, we can see on the screen there that we've got Duke William who's riding into battle and his chainmail goes right down to his legs as well.

Now realistically, that would've been far too restrictive and uncomfortable for horse riding.

So that almost certainly wouldn't been the case.

What almost certainly would've been the situation though is instead that he would've had kind of a pleated skirt made of chainmail which can kind of sit over his legs and provide protection but also provide him far more movement when he's running his horse there as well.

And the reason why we think that the embroidery's got it wrong is that the embroideries probably wouldn't have seen Norman Knight's armour in detail when they were embroidering this particular source.

It's another check for understanding now.

So I've got a table on the screen there in front of you.

I'd like you to first of all decide whether each feature in the table is a strength or a limitation of the Bayeux Tapestry as a source for the historical context of Norman England.

So if there's a strength, does it tell you some good information about that particular feature? If it's a limitation, does it perhaps not tell you the full picture or is it an incomplete picture? Is it a wrong picture that this source is telling us? So pause the video whilst you complete this table and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you've done okay with that task.

So let's think about these features.

So the first one, a contemporary source and the Bayeux Tapestry was created in the period 1066 to 1080s.

We can consider that a strength.

It stops at the end of the Battle of Hastings, would be a limitation.

It didn't originally, we didn't think, but what we've got passed down to us, that is the situation.

It was made by order of Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who is the Earl of Kent.

That has a limitation.

It was embroidered by English women from Canterbury.

That is a limitation.

And a strength as well because it tells us some information about Anglo-Saxons that we probably wouldn't have got otherwise.

It generally represents the Norman view of events.

That is a limitation.

And it shows a range of features of everyday Norman life.

Well that's a strength.

There are things that we now know because of the Bayeux Tapestry that wouldn't necessarily have known otherwise.

So hopefully you've got a good understanding of the Bayeux Tapestry as well.

And you've got a table with ticks very similar to mine.

Let's move on to our first task for today now then.

So I've got an interpretation on the screen there is from Sophia and she says, "The Bayeux Tapestry is not a valuable source for understanding Norman England because it only covers the period 1064 to 1066." And I'd like you to consider to what extent do you agree with Sophia's view? I'd like you to write just one paragraph explaining whether you agree or disagree with Sophia, but most importantly why.

So make sure you explain why you hold your opinion about Sophia's interpretation.

So pause the video while you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you've done okay with that task.

Let's think of about what you could have said then.

So you could have said, I disagree with Sophia's view, that the Bayeux Tapestry is not a valuable source because it only covers a short period.

One reason for this is that the period covered is extremely important in English history.

And as a result the Tapestry is a key source for understanding the events of the Battle of Hastings and Norman weapons and armour.

A second reason is that the Tapestry is a contemporary source for information on features of Norman England such as castles and how they were constructed.

This means that the Tapestry is also a valuable source for a much longer time period.

Now alternatively, you might have agreed with Sophia's interpretation, in which case your answer might look something more like this.

I agree in part with Sophia's arguments.

The Bayeux Tapestry only goes up to the point at which the Normans won the Battle of Hastings, and even for the years 1064 to 1066, the Tapestry is not a fully reliable source.

It was made for a Norman audience.

And so only puts forward the Norman view of events.

However, I do think it has some value as a source.

For example, from the Tapestry, historians can understand a lot about the Norman military and the role of innovations such as knights and castles, which had a long lasting impact on England.

Now regardless of what your opinion of Sophia's interpretation is, hopefully you've at least explained the evidence that you've used to support your opinion.

That's the key aspect of this task here.

Okay, let's move on then to our second learning cycle for today, which is looking at text sources.

Okay, so compared to later periods of history, Norman England doesn't actually have very many contemporary text sources.

In other words, primary sources that were written in the Norman periods.

However, there are three important contemporary sources as well as a few other lesser ones that we can look at.

And they are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Doomesday Book, and William of Poitiers' 'Gesta Guillemlmi which is The Deeds of William.

Now so if we have a closer look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it provides us with a year-by-year accounts of key events in Anglo-Saxon and Norman England.

And strengths of this source include that it was a contemporary source.

The events being described were usually written within a year of them happening.

It was written English monks.

So historians can get an insight into English culture and English reactions to the Norman invasion and conquest.

And it also details key events such as battles and revolts and with different accounts which were written by different monks in different monasteries, sometimes providing different details.

And the reason being is that monks frequently got their information from travellers.

So different travellers to different monasteries would be able to provide different details of different events.

Obviously though the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, just like every other source out there has its limitations as well.

And these include the fact that it provides an Anglo-Saxon and monastic viewpoints, which is quite frequently biassed against the Normans, understandably so, but that is still a limitation.

Frustratingly as well, sometimes descriptions of key events are very brief because perhaps the monks didn't know very much about it or they didn't consider it particularly important that sometimes they're described very vaguely or quite simply sometimes they're just not written down at all.

They're just missing.

We also have different accounts of the same events which don't always match up.

And as a result it's hard for us a thousand years later to know exactly what really happened.

Are one of these sources correct and the other one false? Are they both correct but from different perspectives? Are they both completely made up? It's difficult to ascertain that sometimes.

And finally, it doesn't actually have very many accounts of everyday life for common people.

A reason being is that because it was written by monks, it is mainly from the perspective of monks.

So it tells us about what they were doing and what they found interesting.

So there's lots of religious matters discussed and there's also key military and political events as well because generally speaking, the travellers who came to the monasteries, they would know something about those things as well.

Let's have a look at the passage from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 1087, which was the year of William's death.

And in the passage it says "He caused castles to be built, which were a sore burden to the poor.

The rich complained and the poor cried.

But he was too relentless to care, even though everyone hated him.

Everyone had to submit themselves completely to the king's will if they wanted to keep their lives and their land and their goods and be in the king's favour." So we can see from the perspective the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that William of Conqueror was not a popular ruler and certainly for many Anglo-Saxons, that would definitely be the case.

Was that the case for everybody who was living in Anglo-Saxon England at this point in time? Probably not.

But this, as I said, is from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon monks.

So this is what they think about William the Conqueror.

Okay, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

Which two of the following are limitations of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a source about Norman England? Was it that it was written within a year of the events it describes? Was it that some events are only described briefly or vaguely? Was it that it provides insight as to how the English felt about Normans? Or was it that accounts are often biassed against Norman actions? So it shows two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose B and D then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

Okay, let's look at the next source now then.

Our next source we're gonna focus on is the Doomesday Book.

Now the Doomesday Book was compiled from William's great survey in 1086, and it provides an incredibly detailed record of landholding and resources in Norman England.

There actually wouldn't be a survey of the English people this detailed for about another 800 years.

So it was an incredible feat, especially for this particular time period as well.

Now strengths of it is that it provides masses of reliable data that historians can use in many different ways.

For example, looking at population sizes, economic growth and regional differences as well.

It's also evidence of how the Normans administration functioned and what information the Norman government was most interested in, which was money.

And finally the record was not just for 1086 as well, but also for 1066.

William the Conqueror when he was compiling this survey, wanted to find out the extent to which England had changed due to the Norman Conquest.

So by doing that, he looked at what different regions were worth in 1066 and then now 20 years later in 1086, exactly how have their values changed, which is really interesting from a historical perspective.

Naturally though the Doomesday Book does have its limitations, and these include that actually it doesn't actually cover all regions of England.

There were some regions that were omitted, for instance, London is a good example.

London was not included in the Doomesday book and certainly you would expect that not to be the case.

The records are also very difficult to interpret.

In some cases it often uses a quite a confusing coding system and there's a lot of abbreviations, and some of 'em are relatively easy to work out and some we are just not too sure about as well.

So that's frustrating from an historian's perspective.

And finally, the records are most detailed for Williams tenants-in-chief and provide less detail for ordinary people.

So again, now if you have a look at an entry for the Doomesday Book, this from Earley in Berkshire.

And the entry states, "The King, William the Conqueror, holds the land in Earley.

Almar used to hold it freely from King Edward." And so from here historians can work out that how much land William held personally.

And the reason being is that we can go through every single one of these passages and work out well, William holds this land William holds that land.

So by collating them all together from the whole Domesday Book, we know exactly how much land William personally held as well as other people as well.

And as an example, if we do this for Almar as well, we know that Almar's name crops up to 179 different places in 1066.

So quite a rich man in 1066.

But by 1086 his, the value of his land has dropped to just 17 locations.

So he's lost a lot because of the Norman Conquest.

Another entry we have for the Doomesday Book is from Newington in Oxfordshire, and this says "The Archbishop of Canterbury holds Newington.

In the time of King Edwared it was worth 11 pounds and now it's worth 15 pounds." So from this we can learn that lands in this part of southern England became much more valuable.

But if we contrast that with another entry from the Doomesday Book, which is from Carleton in Yorkshire, this says that "Ulfkil holds Carleton, in the time of King Edward, it was worth 40 shillings, two pounds, and now it is worth 20 shillings, one pounds." So from this we can surmise that lands in the north in this part of Yorkshire became much less valuable.

And realistically that's almost certainly due to Williams harrying of the north.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So for which two of the following questions, can historians use the Doomesday Book to help find an answer? Could it be that most people support the collection of information into the Doomesday Book? Was it that land in England become more or less valuable after 1066? Did William the Conqueror personally control lots of land after 1066? Or was it that did people give information about landholding enthusiastically? So choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose B and C then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

Okay, so the next text source we'll look at is the Gesta Guillelmi.

And this was written in the 1070s by a Norman priest known as William of Poitiers.

And it's a historical record of William of Normandy's life.

And strengths for this particular source include the fact that William of Poitier served as one of the personal priests of William of Normandy, with Duke William the Conqueror.

And so he knew William the Conqueror very, very well.

And the Gesta provides all sorts of information and insights into William's life, that historians otherwise would just simply not know anything it's all about.

It's invaluable from that respect.

It also provides in-depth information about preparations for William's invasion and for the events of the Battle of Hastings, as they were written just a few years after they happened.

Obviously there are limitations to the Gesta as well.

And these include that William of Poitier was a loyal supporter of William of Normandy, and much of the Gesta was written to praise and flatter his Lord, which is not unexpected.

The Gesta is also very one-sided and doesn't really consider the the Anglo-Saxon perspective on the invasion at all, which again is not unexpected, but it is just frustrating from an historian's point of view.

The account of the Gesta, it also stops in 1071.

So it doesn't actually give us a full account of the events after this point of view, of the whole Norman Conquest.

Let's learn the check for understanding now.

So when use of the Gesta Guillelmi, why do historians need to keep in mind that William of Poitier wrote it in order to promote William of Normandy and his claim to the English throne? So discuss this, spend a few moments doing that, pause the video while you do this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've done okay with that task.

So the sort of things you could have said.

You might have said that historians need to keep in mind that Poitier was writing in order to promote William's claim to the English throne.

He therefore includes details that support Williams's claim whilst neglecting those that suggest other claims were also valid.

So as you said, he doesn't look at the Anglo-Saxon perspective at all, he just focuses on the Norman perspective.

So hopefully you've got a similar sort of understanding of the Gesta Guillelmi as that.

Let's go for our next task today.

Now I've got a statement on the screen there in front of you, which is that the most important written source for understanding the historical context of Norman England is the Doomesday Book.

And what I'd like you to do is first of all, list three points that agree with that statement.

So what are three arguments agreeing with the statements? And then finally three points that disagree with that statement.

So three arguments of that statements.

And what you could do to answer this question is think about the strengths of other text sources for those counter arguments as well.

So pause the video while you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've done okay with that task.

So let's think of what you could have said then.

So in terms of points that agree, you might have said that it holds masses of reliable data about landholding and resources.

That the Doomesday Book shows how the Norman Government's administration functions and that the records are not just for 1086, but also for 1066.

So the Doomesday Book shows the impacts of the Norman Conquest.

In terms of points that disagree.

You may have said that some areas are not covered by the Doomesday Book, and London is a classic example of that.

That unlike the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it does not tell us how English people felt about living under Norman rule.

And also that unlike the Gesta, it does not provide an account of how Normans justified the conquest and the rule ever England.

If you have points that are different from the ones that I've got on the screen, that's absolutely fine.

As long as they're valid, then it's absolutely fine.

It's okay.

Okay, let's go for our third and final learning cycle for today.

We're just looking at material sources.

So material sources are physical objects from the past that can be analysed to gain insights into historical events, culture of the time and daily life as well.

And for Norman England, buildings are a great example of material sources.

And the photo we have on the screen there is of St Oswald's Priory in Gloucestershire, which was an Anglo-Saxon Priory that declined in importance in Norman England.

Now, in order for us to interrogate and understand Norman buildings, there are certain questions that we should pose.

For example, what does it tell us about Norman culture and values? Why was it built in that specific location? What was its purpose and what can we learn about Norman life from that? What were its impacts and its consequences? Why was the building built in that way? What was the functional functions of that building? Why did someone want to build this specific building? What was their personal motivation? And finally, what important events and people are connected to the building? So like other types of sources, like any source at all, material sources have limitations and strengths.

In terms of the strengths, now buildings provide evidence of technology and engineering skills.

Coins and trade goods show us where people traded.

And they also direct evidence from Norman England.

They haven't been rewritten or recorded by later writers, although buildings can be adapted, can generally see what those adaptations were and have a pretty good guess about when they would've taken place as well.

They also show us how non literate people lived and worked.

So people who were unable or unwilling to record things in writing, we now have a voice for them.

In terms of the limitations of material sources, though, if there are no written records, we can struggle to interpret how a material source was used or what it was used for.

Material sources frequently have been remodelled, extended or damaged.

And so the evidence can be incomplete or complex to untangle.

Most buildings survive because they're important.

And as a result of that, surviving buildings for ordinary people, what could be considered unimportant buildings, they're actually very rare to come across.

Now if you look at a photo on the screen there, this is Totnes Castle, which is in Devon.

What I like us to think about is what was the purpose of the motte-and-bailey castle at Totnes? So have a little think about that.

We'll move on in in just a moment.

I'll give you just time to think about that first though.

So coming back to Totnes Castle now then.

If we look at this photo of Totnes Castle from this perspective down at the bottom of the the Mottes there, we can just see how steep and imposing the sides of the Mottes are.

The path going up to the top there that would not have been there during the Norman period.

So one purpose of the Mottes was defence.

It is incredibly steep sided.

It's fireproof as well.

It's difficult to set fire to the earth line that way.

Also because it was made a stone, it made the castle far more difficult to attack.

And the reason being is that the castle had a military purpose and that was to control Totnes and the area around it.

It housed the garrison of soldiers who had ride out to deal with any trouble.

So what does Totnes Castle tell us about culture and values? Well, the Motte raised the castle high above Totnes.

It most certainly would've been the tallest building in the area at that particular point in time.

Therefore, as a result, it completely dominated the settlement and that was deliberate.

The Normans wanted everyone to know that they were in control.

Whenever you looked at to Totnes, you would see the castle.

You would know that the Normans are there, they're in control.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So I'd like to choose two correct answers from the screen there.

Motte-and-bailey castles were constructed to.

Was it to provide homes for Anglo-Saxons? To defend the soldiers who lived in them? To make the landscape look more interesting? Or to intimidate potential rebels? Choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose B and D, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

So let's interrogate another material source.

And on the screen in front of you here, we've got Winchester Cathedral.

So the first question to pose is, why was the building built in that way? Now, Winchester was the capital of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom and later Oldham of Wessex.

There was a cathedral or a minster that was built here in the seventh century.

And by the ninth century, it was actually one of the largest minsters or cathedrals in Europe.

Having said that, in 1079, the Normans pulled down the Anglo-Saxon minster, and they started building a new one.

If you ever go to Winchester Cathedral, you can actually see the foundation stones of the Anglo-Saxon Minster, just next to where Winchester Cathedral currently is.

Now Williams installed a new Norman Bishop at Winchester in 1070.

This is Bishop Wakelin.

And Wakelin introduced church reforms. And he was responsible for beginning the construction of the new cathedral in 1079.

And it was built in the Norman's favourite Romanesque style.

Now, if we have a closer look at the building, we can see that central tower there that was completed in the early 12th century, and also the transepts were completed under Wakelin supervision and they survived to this day.

Now, the Romanesque style that the cathedral was built in featured huge stone walls, which represented strength.

They're also relatively small arch windows.

I mean they're quite big windows because the building itself is big, but in terms of how much space they take upon the wall, they're relatively small.

And that was to allow for high walls.

And also glass was very expensive at this point in time as well.

The cathedral also towered over everything as well.

It represented Norman power of control.

It was also significantly larger than the Anglo-Saxon minster that was knocked down just next door to where this one was built.

The style was based on Roman architecture, and that was a deliberate feature.

The Romans had ruled Britain and just like the Normans, and the Normans wanted the English to think of them as being kind of the heirs of the Romans.

They wanted people to think of them as being just like the Romans.

The Normans built many cathedrals.

And of course cathedrals are places of worship.

The Normans are very pious, they're very religious, and for certain, for some time after the Norman Conquest, this was pretty much the only thing that the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans had in common with each other, was their faith.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So, which two of the following can be learned from studying Winchester Cathedral? Is it that the image which the Normans wish to project it? Is it the values which existed in Norman culture? Or is it the thoughts and feelings of Anglo-Saxons about Norman reforms to the church? So choose two of those options now.

Okay, if you chose A and B, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

Let's move on to our next task for today then.

So I'd like to answer each question on the screen here in just one sentence.

So from the physical remains, what have historians learned about firstly, the purpose of Totnes Castle, and secondly, the impact of Totnes Castle? So pause the video while you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've done okay with that task.

So for the first sentence, you could have said that historians have learned that Totnes Castle was built to house soldiers and to deter rebellions.

And for the second sentence, you could have said that historians have learned that Totnes Castle would've dominated the settlement of Totnes and intimidated the local Anglo-Saxon population.

Hopefully your answers follow a similar sort of vein to mine there.

And let's go for our next task for today.

I'd like to consider what can historians learn about Norman changes to the English church from the study of Winchester Cathedral? And I'd like you to list three points to answer this question.

So pause the video while you do that, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you've done okay with that task.

So let's think about what you could have said then.

So you could have said that the Normans were trying to recall the power of the Rowan Empire.

That the Normans wanted to show their piety and Christian devotion.

And that the buildings asserted Norman power and control over England's.

So if you've got the same as me on the screen, that's absolutely fantastic.

If you've got some other ones as well, then that's even better.

Very well done.

Let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So visual sources, text sources, and material sources can all be used to deepen our understanding of the historical context of Norman England.

There are strengths and limitations to each type of source.

Historians ask questions of sources to produce evidence for a particular inquiry.

For instance, what does Totnes Castle tell us about Norman culture and values? Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself.

Hopefully you learn something and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-bye.