it’s almost the end of 2020 but i absolutely do not give a shit because i’m having a personal breakdown over the fact a contemporary portrait of anne boleyn has been allegedly identified
i strongly caution against believing this outright, the article making this claim hasn’t been published yet (projected for early 2021) and the person making it has been discredited over sensationalist theories in art history before, but my little anne boleyn heart is fluttering
leanda de lisle is skeptical because of the eyes of the sitter showing a lighter color than the “beautiful and black” contemporaries commented on
but we should bear in mind that this is not only clearly damaged but could have been overpainted – and equally possible, the aging process altered the coloring, as it does so often.
what gives me hope is that this supposed anne portrait could be the lost image once in the possession of john, lord lumley:
“A relatively recent survey of the life and artwork owned by John, Lord Lumley, entitled ‘A Complete Pattern of Nobility’ by Dr Leo Gooch, which I’ve read, refers to this portrait of Anne Boleyn and gives more details. If I remember rightly, the portrait was damaged at some point by a fire while being stored in a building called ‘The Temple’, and was subsequently cut down. The reference to its existence in the 1770s relates to a reference to it in an inventory of art owned by a Hanoverian politician and collector called West, possibly for the purposes of an auction.” (x)
as we can see in the second photo, this is definitively a damaged painting and lends some credence to such a theory.
a lot of you hate historians and archaeologists, and i think that’s a problem
look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.
but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.
historiansbeinghomophobichasbecomeawholememe, anditfeelslike people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…
this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.
there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).
there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.
this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)
lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking
oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.
so why does this matter?
none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.
on a personal note, so many marginalized scholars are trying to survive the dumpster fire of academia because we care that much about making sure the stories that are too often unheard don’t get left out of history… and when that’s the entire focus of my life right now, it’s disheartening to see how many of my political allies are just going to assume the worst about the entire field
#reblog #this.... is exactly why i decided that i wasn't going to pursue academia.....
What 2020 event do u think will be forgotten by time
Answer:
The Soleimani assassination. I mean the second the pandemic started everybody forgot about it… I don’t mean people will not know that it happened, but definitely it will be overshadowed by everything else.
What 2020 event do u think will be forgotten by time
Answer:
The Soleimani assassination. I mean the second the pandemic started everybody forgot about it… I don’t mean people will not know that it happened, but definitely it will be overshadowed by everything else.
i really love being someone who studies history on tumblr because the way some people talk about history on here is fucking WILD and hearing history discussed with tumblr terminology will never not be hilarious to me. there’s absolutely no nuance on this site and i love it. one time i got a message asking me if julius caesar ever did anything problematic and i think about it every single day of my life
Okay, can someone be a bro and pirate the audiobook version of “Shadow King: The Life and Death of Henry VI” for me? I tried making an Audible UK account but it can still tell I’m in America and getting a VPN costs more than the book. I really want to read this book but I have focus issue and region locking audiobooks is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.
I keep hate-reading plague literature from the medieval era, but as depressed as it makes me there is always one historical tidbit that makes me feel a little bittersweet and I like to revisit it. That’s the story of the village of Eyam.
Eyam today is a teeny tiny town of less than a thousand people. It has barely grown since 1665 when its population was around 800.
Where the story starts with Eyam is that in August 1665 the village tailor and his assistant discovered that a bolt of cloth that they had bought from London was infested with rat fleas. A few days later on September 7th the tailor’s assistant
George Viccars
died from plague.
Back then people didn’t fully understand how disease spread, but they knew in a basic sense that it did spread and that the spread had something to do with the movement of people.
So two religios leaders in the town,
Thomas Stanley
and
William Mompesson,
got together and came up with a plan. They would put the entire village of Eyam under quarantine. And they did. For over a year nobody went in and nobody went out.
They put up signs on the edge of town as warning and left money in vinegar filled basins that people from out of town would leave food and supplies by.
Over the 14 months that Eyam was in quarantine 260 out of the 800 residents died of plague. The death toll was high, the cost was great.
However, they did successfully prevent the disease from spreading to the nearby town of Sheffield, even then a much bigger town, and likely saved the lives of thousands of people in the north of England through their sacrifice.
So I really like this story, because it’s a sad story, because it’s also a beautiful story. Instead of fleeing everyone in this one place agreed that they would stay, and they saved thousands of people. They stayed just to save others and I guess it’s one of those good stories about how people have always been people, for better or worse.
It gets better.
Here’s the thing. One third of the residents of Eyam died during their quarantine, but the Black Plague was known to have a NINETY PERCENT death rate. As high as the toll was, it wasn’t as high as it should have been. And a few hundred years later, some historians and doctors got to wondering why.
Fortunately, Eyam is one of those wonderful places that really hasn’t changed much in hundreds of years. Researchers, going to visit, found that many of the current residents were direct descendants of the plague survivors from the 1600s. By doing genetic testing, they learned that a high number of Eyam residents carried a gene that made them immune to the plague. And still do.
And it gets even better than that, because the gene that blocks the Black Plague? Also turns out to block AIDS, and was instrumental in helping to find effective medication for people who have HIV and AIDS in the 21st century.
Sorry I had meant the previous ask more jokingly because I got excited by gawain, I didn't mean to be rude. Gawain is one of those characters that who will change quite drastically depending on the story. The text I was referencing is Roman van Walewein but I read a friends copy and dont know where to find a PDF. It's Dutch but I do know English translations exist. Its basically if Gawain was the prince in the Golden Bird fairytale plus a lot of murder and sex, minus the gold.
Answer:
Oh you didn’t come off as rude! And thanks I’ll add it to my reading list!
Tbh Gawain and the green knight is the funniest shit. An ancient fae walks into Arthur’s house, challenges a rando to a death game, pranks him with magic, lives in his mind rent free for a year, challenges him again, this time the dude is pissing his pants in fear, and the dude just pats him on the head and says “bye nerd”
Answer:
Don’t forget the part where they make out with each other
Sorry I had meant the previous ask more jokingly because I got excited by gawain, I didn't mean to be rude. Gawain is one of those characters that who will change quite drastically depending on the story. The text I was referencing is Roman van Walewein but I read a friends copy and dont know where to find a PDF. It's Dutch but I do know English translations exist. Its basically if Gawain was the prince in the Golden Bird fairytale plus a lot of murder and sex, minus the gold.
Answer:
Oh you didn’t come off as rude! And thanks I’ll add it to my reading list!
Excuse me Gawain absolutely was murder-feral in one story the man killed so many people in a castle they thought they were being stormed by a whole army and then he killed some more. He leaves behind so many mountains of fictional bodies its funny. He just also happens to sometimes be a lover and not a fighter But yeah High Noon Gawain has too much revenge fueld bloodlust
Answer:
I’m new to Arthuriana so I’d like to ask which story that is and where can I find a pdf? Also yeah hnoc Gawaine bad
I’m bored and I have a new vaguely historical hyperfixation and it’s been too long since I’ve heard about who fucked mothman and who wore a miku binder, so this is an invite to send in some Hot Takes: Arthuriana Edition
You don't have to respond to this publicly but I thought you might want to know that the recent Marie Antoinette reblog came from a RadFem position, OP tagged as such including the tag TERF Safe. I have the tags blocked so I was quite confused when one of your posts was flagged (that being said, I do agree with the general sentiment of the posts content that Marie was done dirty by history and that is a historical trend we see to this day so I see why you reblogged)
Answer:
Oh ew, no terfs are allowed anywhere near this blog, thanks for letting me know
I don’t know if I can contain my “The Muppet Christmas Carol has better costume design than most Oscar-nominated period dramas” rant until after Thanksgiving you guys, I have…so many Thoughts
Ok, buckle up kids.
Basically they did not have to go as hard as they did here. A Christmas Carol covers 60 years of fashion through flashbacks and they still manage to do nearly everything right.
I’m mainly going to be talking about the human actors here because it’s harder to judge Muppet costumes proportionally, but those costumes are still on point 90% of the time.
First off, A Christmas Carol was published in 1843, and anyone who knows me knows I love the absolute train wreck that was mid-19th century men’s fashion. Do you like plaid? GOOD, BECAUSE IT’S ALL PLAID. Mixed with whatever else your little Victorian heart desires, color schemes be damned. Go wild.
This of course means I absolutely love Fred.
This outfit is hideous and it is also 1000% on point.
We also get to see him in a different outfit the next day, along with his wife and some friends.
First off, MORE PLAID, good for you. Second, I can literally find near-identical images of both these ladies’ dresses just by googling “1843 fashion plate”, I shit you not. To the damned year.
A good part of the story involves travelling through Scrooge’s life, so we get to see the costumes varying wildly over the course of several scenes. This was a time when styles were changing rapidly, and you had to keep up if you wanted to be fashionable and keep up appearances. Fashion changed so fast that you can often pinpoint an outfit to within a year or two like the ones above.
First, we go to Scrooge’s childhood school. Given the timeline that’s normally put forward Michael Caine is definitely not old enough to play Scrooge, but ignore that for now. Let’s say if Scrooge is 75ish in 1843, it’s about 1783 when we see him leaving school and going off to be an apprentice. We actually see a few years of Little Scrooge fashion, but it’s fairly standard stuff. Scrooge doesn’t have a super childhood and his clothing is pretty plain, but it’s totally on par for the time. Why this haircut though? It makes me sad.
Then we jump ahead a few years and it’s about 1789. The whole group is attending the Fozziwig Christmas party and have gotten tarted up like they’re about the storm the Bastille, including Gonzo and Rizzo.
Again, they look absolutely ridiculous and it is absolutely accurate.
Now, this is super ostentatious and a lot of people would have considered it way too French for their taste in this time period. But it definitely did happen (I’ve seen stripey bubblegum pink menswear in person) and like. It’s the Muppets. So, Rule of Funny.
Scrooge and Belle are dressed way closer to average Londoners of the time, and it’s worth noting that both are supposed to be somewhat poor. Fozzy pays everyone well but Lil’ Scrooge is still a skinflint and Belle is just getting by. They’re both looking darn good but their clothes are much more understated than everyone else’s and maybe even on the verge of out of style.
Even their hair is pretty good. Including his. Also, holy shit does this guy look like he could be a young Michael Caine. Like, he doesn’t actually look how Michael Caine looked when he was that age, but if I didn’t know that I would totally buy it. Wow.
Then we jump ahead another ten to twelve years or so. This is the period I know the least about, especially when it comes to outerwear, so Jane Austen stans please comment. I don’t think it looks too bad though.
Here’s a couple of fashion plates from 1801 and 1803 for comparison.
I’d also like to point out that there is a wide variety of costumes based on social class that we get to see in the 1843 “present” that you wouldn’t really notice. So while the Scrooge family that’s doing alright for itself is wearing the latest looks, the rest of the town is not. A few of the women in the crowd dancing around Scrooge during “It Feels Like Christmas” are wearing dresses a couple of years out of date. Not too far, but you can see some looks from the tail end of the 1830s before women started shrink-wrapping their sleeves onto their arms.
You can see something similar to these outfits from 1839 in the crowd.
Contrast this with Mrs. Cratchit, who is living in poverty and has put on her absolute best dress for Christmas; it’s silk but it’s ten years out of style.
This would have been the height of fashion in the early-mid 1830s.
And that’s important for making a world look real. Fashion was super important back then, but even so average people weren’t necessarily chucking their clothing out every year to keep up with the latest fashions unless they could really afford to. You would get there eventually, but you don’t want everyone in your universe, rich and poor, to look like they just stepped out of the latest fashion magazine.
It’s absolutely astonishing to me that they put so much effort into this. I don’t tend to go down the rabbit hole of nitpicking historical costumes in movies as much as some, but when a movie that you never expected does it very right it just throws me for a loop.
Was everything perfect? No, I don’t think any movie is. But this is the damn Muppets. They were under no obligation to do this. Add to that the fact that it’s one of the more accurate renditions of the story, to the point of including a ton of the original dialogue, both through the characters and through the narration, and they just created a masterpiece.
Rasputin in Popular Culture: Supernaturally vigorous man refuses to die.
Rasputin in Reality: A bunch of nerds who think they know how murder works because they read a book repeatedly fail to kill a man who’s too drunk to realise he’s being murdered.
Full offense but I’m so fucking sick of those posts that are like “I hate war history and political history, I only want to read about real history like things about culture and food and textile history uwu” because…I’m extremely sorry some shitty men tried to act like weapon history was more important than anything else or laughed at you for being interested in fashion history but the truth of the matter is that if you don’t realize that war and political changes have a direct impact on litterally every single thing in a society, you’re not gonna be able to study any other aspect of history in a relevant way. It’s not like fashion, science and gastronomy develop in their own little bubbles with no impact from the outside world and it’s genuinely silly to act like they do.
(Also I’m going to scream if I see another person implying that the only reason anyone could study WWII is because they’re creepy violent gun lovers. We live in a world where people’s knowledge of what actually happened during the Shoah is getting worst and worst by the years AND we’re currently facing a fascist uprising so yeah, y'all still need to hear about WWII.)
i want to simp over her but i dont know who she is please explain.... <3
Answer:
This is the tl;dr version but, she was the last empress of Austria and her life was a bit of a tragedy tbh. Her sister was meant to marry the emperor of Austria, but upon meeting Sisi he refused and said he wanted to marry the prettier sister or not marry at all. Sisi wasn’t cut out to be empress nor live in the city because she was raised in the countryside and was used to climbing trees and riding horses. She was depressed for the rest of her life and she wrote a lot of poetry. Her mother in law was shitty and didn’t give her any control over raising her own children or most of her own life. She was the one who got her husband to change the Austrian empire to the Austrian-Hungarian empire, thus making Hungarians equal to Austrians. She was eventually murdered by an Italian anarchist. She was obsessed with her looks til the end because that was pretty much the only thing she was known for. She chose her husband’s mistress for him and the first ever paparazzi photo was of her.
historicalhottakes07.12.2020 - 2 monts ago
21
in average
are photos
are videos
are texts
are gifs
are audio