+0
hi everyone! i have a paragrahp
Hayles Tyes seems to have its name from a certain John Hayle who is documented in the 1380s, although there are records pointing to occupation of the site at a much earlier date. The name was still in use in 1500, and crops up again throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, usually in relation to the payment of taxes or tithes. At some point during the 18th century the name is changed to File's Green, though no trace of an owner called File has been found. Also in the 18th centuriy the original dwellings on the site disappeared...
I don't understand why the writer use present simple for all actions which happened in the past. please explain it to me. i'm a beginner in learning English
+1
RI2dWhen you write some thing own your own, you write them in present form even if you are describing some thing from the past.
That is simply not true.

It is not uncommon for people to write/talk about historical events in the present tense; it makes them rather more vivid. This is happens often in television documentaries.

It's also possible that the writer of this text was visualising the documents as being in the present time
Comments  
When you write some thing own your own, you write them in present form even if you are describing some thing from the past.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 fivejedjon's reply was promoted to an answer.
yeah i understood it thank you very much
one more quick question please. You can see the difference between two sides of this sentence: "The name was still in use in 1500, and crops up again throughout the 16th and 17th centuries"
Why didn't the writer use: The name is still in use in 1500, and crops up again throughout the 16th and 17th centuries
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.