ffence, but bore no direct relation to the individual criminal. This is a very ritualistic way of punishing criminals. They made examples of the lawbreakers so that similar crimes would not be committed. This resembles the samosud of Russia. Other distinguished features of samosud included community participation in the punishment, a real or perceived threat to local norms or to the communities well-being, and an attempt to prevent repetition of a crime through ritualized public humiliation of the offender or, in more serious cases, by ridding the community of the criminal altogether. In all cases public humiliation was used as a form of punishment, until the severity of a crime warranted execution. Many criminal historians base their research on government commissioned reports and police reports, so anyone that wasnt caught went uncounted. Some social historians base their research on personal diaries, newspapers and magazines, and oral histories. These sources are from one persons point of view and are bias in one way or another. Both Keith Wrightson and Richard van Dulmen used court records to tell their certain story. Stephen Frank used newspaper accounts, legal journals, government commission reports, and materials gathered by an amateur ethnographer. In the future, historians will have an easier time recounting the past because of the technology and good record keeping.The stories and accounts told in this anthology are very important. They tell the not-so-popular history. Social historians do not attempt to celebrate the heroes and heroines of a nations history, although that is precisely the type of feel good history that many in the public wish to read and to see taught in school systems. . It seems that the textbooks history students are used to reading tell only of the kings and the wars they were in. Books like The Social Dimension tell the truth about the conditions of the average person.I believe that the history of ou...
