Dave L. wrote

>"By examining change and diversity and differences in everyday material belongings, we can see how lots of individuals changed the society as a whole over time.
This is the modern anthropological approach, which gets away from the old nonsense of kings, armies, economic systems etc dictating how things developed. Most changes in fact arose from
> individuals and ideas evolving cultures from what they were to what they became."

It seems to me that all are dynamic and interrelated, to ignore the common man's contribution is a sin, but to ignore the impact of "the old nonsense of Kings, Armies, and Economies" is a sin of omission also.

Two examples,

The Thirty Years War reduced the population by 30%, caused massive damage to economic trade routes and commercial houses. This was the result of the Rulers and Mercenaries who rampaged all over Germany, not the individuals who suffered and somehow brought it upon themselves?

[en.wikipedia.org]

The King of England made longbow practice mandatory after Church on Sundays. This wasn't elective by the common man, but it had the long term effect of making the common man combat-equal to the Armored Noble. Certainly the English King never intended to level the playing field this way. Just as certainly the common man, had he decided on this course on his own, would have faced serious resistance from the same nobility.

[www.thebeckoning.com]

My point is nothing operates in a vacuum.
Sometimes it's the ground up changes, sometimes top down, and sometimes outside in.

Jammer