What questions do you have about stuff from History, or am I the only one?

[EverySongbirdSays]

Hi all, HQ here. We're moving this thread over to History Club now where Songbird will be starting a Part 2 thread for more History quizzical shenanigans

The main history thing I've been pondering for the last couple of days since the weather shifted is the history of clothes.

So... how did Early Man manage in the winter, how did they make clothes out of animal skin?

After that, I understand that clothes production as we know it today began with the industrial revolution.

But how did people manage for clothes you know before we had cotton or machinery

How/when did we realise you could knit wool to make a jumper?

I'm sorry if it's a bit of a stupid question

Has anyone got any stupid questions I might know the answer to ?

Have just caught up with this thread.
Reading for pleasure generally was a province of the upper classes until probably 20th Century

I don't think that was so, Literacy became more common during the Victorian era, and ordinary people did begin to read for pleasure. Travelling traders - chapmen, there's the origin of another surname - included cheap books amongst their stock (chapbooks) and sold a lot of them.

Also, one reason we know so much about the Civil War is because there was a fair degree of literacy and the various factions churned out endless pamphlets, many of which survive.

And, sorry to drag P. Gregory up again, but she did a serious hatchet job on Lady Margaret Beaufort (GM of Henry VIII) in one of her books. I read an article by an archivist with access to her letters, which said that the PG Lady Margaret was not the same woman as the one she knew from her letters.

I don't think Gregory ever manages to summon up any empathy for people with religious belief. She writes them as either hypocrites or religious maniacs or in Lady Margaret Beaufort's case, both.

Jesus painted as white man- lots of reasons, although in other cultures he is often painted to look similar to local people too.

Art often reflects something of the artist, we tend to paint ourselves, so when we imagine someone we often imagine them similar to ourselves. Unless we are told otherwise. And the New Testament doesn't have much about his appearance. So it is left to the reader. There are also connotations of demonstrating white superiority later on.

But early on it is most likely that if you are asked to imagine a woman or a man with little description you will likely imagine one very similar to yourself.

I think Hilary Mantel made a real effort to depict Thomas Cromwell's religious belief in her novels - I'm not sure it always entirely comes off, in part because it's difficult to convey a hard-headed, immensely pragmatic character as also deeply religious to a largely secular modern audience (even if atheism would be incredibly contextually off) but some of it does.

Jesus is deeply unlikely to have looked like a Saudi Arabian of tribal Yemeni descent. He'd have looked like a Galilean Semite of his day - this is what a forensic pathologist working off some skulls of the right place and time, came up with as an average Joe -- apparently the average male was five foot one and 50 kg, and of course would have been dark-haired and eyed, olive-skinned and tanned from outdoor work.

I actually had as a child a photo-realist illustrated children's bible, which had Jesus as a rather attractive dark-eyed, dark-haired ME man in a historically-accurate knee-length robe

Reading for pleasure generally was a province of the upper classes until probably 20th Century

Yes, I disagree with this too.

By the fifteenth century, you already find manuscripts owned by people who were not upper class, and which contain texts that weren't just practical, but also entertaining. And that's also a society where people read aloud a lot (like Victorians reading Dickens aloud), so servants would also have access to reading for pleasure.

And also Protestant religious groups which laid particular emphasis on reading the Bible also encouraged literacy which then was not necessarily confined to religious texts.

The Dickens statistics are fascinating - some scholars estimate that when Great Expectations was serialised in his magazine Household Words, each weekly copy (and it sold in huge numbers) was read by about 30 people (the poorer ones clubbing together to buy it, and passing it around).

Finally got around to reading this thread. Very interesting.

I heard a theory once that in the bible when it refers to washing mens feet it's actually a euphemism for blow jobs....
Anyone have any idea if that's true or not?

LRD - it wasn't all famous authors either. In my village there used to be readings by anyone. They were called 'penny readings' and were so popular they could not always fit everyone into the schoolroom where they were held.

Given that ritual footwashing was an actual thing I'd be very surprised if that was what it meant.
However, it doesn't seem unlikely that at some point, somewhere or other, it has been used as a euphemism.

Yes I can't imagine someone's slaves giving all his guests blowjobs before dinner. Unless it was that sort of party..

Another thought from my very sparse historical education -

The standard layout for an orchestra used to have the piano and pianist facing the orchestra, until Liszt came along. He rather fancied that he looked better in profile, and moved the piano so that he sat in profile to the audience. The position of the piano in a concert hall had stayed as such since.

Son of Henry would be Harrison though wouldn't it? Not Henryson

OrianaBanana
That was my thoughts too. But then I put it down to slaves being (possibly) mostly women so they would be doing it and that wouldn't surprise me to be honest.
countess yeah, probably has been used as a euphemism at some point, and the person I heard it from could have got their wires crossed. I just nodded and agreed to be honest.

I mean you get Wilson not Williamson etc

Fascinating thread.

Funny loads of questions "How did they first ..." or "What made them ..." or "Who on earth thought of ..." regarding discoveries and inventions. I'm not sure if it's a side-effect of learning history as a child, or part of the arrogance of the western way, but our ancestors were no less "clever" than we are. (As the ever-watchable James Burke said in "The Day the Universe Changed" - they just knew different things).

One theory I've heard about breads origins, is that people were dipping oatcakes into beer, and discovered it would rise if heated. (The implication being the pub name "Brewer and Baker" got the order of discoveries right ).

Somebody mentioned wheelbarrows ... if anyone saw the excellent "Rome Wasn't Built In A Day" CH4 series (about a bunch of modern day builders having to build a Roman Villa using Roman methods) the first program featured an almighty ding-dong between the academic and the builders. They wanted use a wheelbarrow they had built (out of wood) and he was adamant that there was no written record of such a tool.

My "History Mystery" comes from a Time Team where they dug up bits of Sheffield. They wanted to make steel "the old fashioned way" and despite many attempts, they were unable to get the temperatures required. They finally had to use a modern kiln. Which suggests some lost knowledge - despite the literacy associated with the Industrial Revolution.

a theory once that in the bible when it refers to washing mens feet it's actually a euphemism for blow jobs....

How daft! Whilst I don't think it so ridiculous that the historical Jesus* might have had a wife or partner (who may or may not have been mary Magdalene), if that idea is meant to apply generally it takes no account of sexual taboos that would have already existed, and more importantly the state of feet and roads. People were walking many miles barefoot or in sandals with leather soles over dirt roads. Feet would have had a lot of protective hard skin, but they still got very dirty and sometimes cut from stones. It was important to wash feet often so the cuts didn't turn nasty (people were able to make this sort of connection even if they didn't have germ theory) and also most probably for comfort, especially in a hot country. Where there were stone floors I would not be surprised if stopping people tracking dirt around the building was also part of it.
Modern shoe soles are one of the great unsung inventions.

• I had always been under the impression most historians thought he did exist historically , but here is a dissenting view: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.15f170564013

this thread is over 900 posts now. If it gets to 1000 are people planning a second one?

regarding discoveries and inventions. I'm not sure if it's a side-effect of learning history as a child, or part of the arrogance of the western way, but our ancestors were no less "clever" than we are.

The Isaac Newton quote is very apt here - we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Though DH tells me that was Newton being a jerk - as person he was arguing with was a dwarf.

But I remember a time team expert find some roman glass and saying we didn't see that quality again till 20 century.

We do discovered things as the same time, parallel evolution or something in the zeitgeist, or repeatedly.

I read a review in New scientist about a book about scurvy. The cure was discovered a few times but the why wasn't understood - the disease had different forms so argued not same cause and vitamin c was identified till 1930s. They found things like Mediterranean Lemons kept it at bay then they'd swap for cheaper limes which have much vit c levels find it didn't work and assume whole idea was wrong.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231002-300-scurvy-a-tale-of-the-sailors-curse-and-a-cure-that-got-lost/

The Chinese discovered a lot of thing much earlier but didn't go out and conquer the world - through they did send out massive ships that explored but that got written out of well known history as guy in charge fell out of favour in his absence.

Michael Wood did a series this time last year about China and seemed to imply it was due to a different prevailing view of the world and china place in it than was around in the west.

Lurking

I have three specific examples of 'lost knowledge' in mind.

The first one I have no personal knowledge of. A lecturer in Chinese antiquities once told me, in passing, that the really early - and I mean really early - Chinese funerary bronzes have engraving on them which - if you take a cross section under a microscope - leaves a gouge which is at perfect right angles. A sort of |_| compared to the rough / which is all that we can manage these days with the finest tools we have.
I don't know the truth of that because it was something I was told, even if it was as a throwaway remark.

The other two, I saw with my own eyes. I was, many years ago, taking tea with a retired but eminent archaeologist. She had a drawer in her sitting room which contained her 'treasures'. She went to it and pulled out, among other things, some shards of thrown pottery which she'd picked up on a middle-Eastern dig. This was thrown earthenware - but it was translucent. (She'd never found it on any other dig, nor did she find a whole pot.) We can't throw pots in that way anymore as far as I know.

She also had a small number of metal 'things' that she'd come across and collected. Probably Celtic in origin, they were like solid metal balls with strange surface 'protuberances' - fairly large ones, shaped a little like mushrooms. I've seen the odd one since - some museums have one - and no-one knows what they were for. Nor ever will nowadays, I imagine. But they just fitted into your hand and seemed to cling on in there.

I guess that when she died, the contents of that drawer would - unless luck was seriously on their side - have been upended and thrown into the nearest bin. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi, eh?

also Richards/ Richardson. think former was shortened version or Peters/Peterson

Son of Henry would be Harrison though wouldn't it? Not Henryson

I wondered if Henderson - would also come from Hernry's son - according to Wikipedia is can be.

Henderson is a common Scottish surname. The name is derived from patronymic form of the name Hendry, which is a Scottish form of Henry. Some Hendersons also derive their name from Henryson. The surname Henderson is borne by numerous unrelated families in Scotland.

Why does Western art depict Jesus as white? Well, for one thing it's easier to convince sceptics to convert if the god you want them to follow doesn't look "other". Also, a pale body stands out much better against a dark background, so there is an aesthetic issue too. Plus, enough people do it and it becomes canon - like Judas with red hair, even though there is (I believe) no biblical reference to his colouring to support this

The Chinese discovered a lot of thing much earlier but didn't go out and conquer the world

At the end of "Connections" (James Burke again !) he suggests that the Chinese philosophy which drove their caste system precluded using knowledge in the same way the West did (once it got it's hands on it).

There was a fascinating BBC documentary recently which looked at the archaeology around the Terracotta warriors to suggest that there was actually a 2-way flow of knowledge into China from Egypt and Greece.

I missed that documentary but I've added "Connections" - to my wish list - eighth book that's been added thanks to this thread.

I missed that documentary but I've added "Connections" - to my wish list - eighth book that's been added thanks to this thread.

The book is good, but the series is sublime. Even 40-odd years on it's eerily prescient - basically it predicts the internet. (Also notice the woo of the flight number "911" as Burke stands on top of the WTC ).

And it has one of the best walkie-talkie-to-camera pieces ever. Brian Cox recalled it as one of his defining childhood images.

"The Day The Universe Changed" is good too.