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.
historians being homophobic has become a whole meme, and it feels like 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…
(source… really? nobody?)
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
I wanna hear these Opinions on steampunk color palettes, if you’re willing.
tbh “the Victorians did not go to the trouble of inventing aniline dyes so that we could wear neutrals” mostly covers it?
they went to a lot of effort to bring affordable screaming bright fuchsias and acid greens into the world, and we should honor their tacky, tacky choices.
The Cheddar Man is a Mesolithic skeleton that was recovered from England’s Cheddar Gorge in 1903. At around 9,000 years old, the Cheddar Man is the oldest complete skeleton ever discovered in the UK, and has long been hailed as the “first Briton.” DNA analysis on the Cheddar man from 2018 indicated that he was lactose intolerant, had light-colored eyes, dark brown or black hair, and had a dark to black skin tone. Although the discovery of the Cheddar Man’s dark skin tone was surprising for both scientists and the public alike, it corresponds with recent research suggesting that genes linked to lighter skin only began to spread about 8,500 years ago - approximately 32,000 years later than what was previously believed.
In addition to the development on his skin tone, the Cheddar Man surprised scientists in 1997 when DNA analysis revealed that he had a living descendant - a retired history teacher named Adrian Targett. Targett and the Cheddar man share the same mtDNA, which is passed down from mother to daughter. In other words, they share a common maternal ancestor. What is even more remarkable is that Targett lives in Cheddar, only a half mile away where his 9,000-year-old ancestor was discovered.
Targett was not invited to the initial reveal of his ancestor’s new facial reconstruction, but he has since seen it and has commented on the family resemblance. “I do feel a bit more multicultural now,” he once joked in an interview “And I can definitely see that there is a family resemblance. That nose is similar to mine. And we have both got those blue eyes.”
The development of the Cheddar Man’s skin tone has generated resistance, especially among far-right and white supremacist circles. Targett, however, is unbothered by it, stating that it is “marvelous what scientists can reconstruct once they sequence the DNA.” When asked if he thought whether the findings affected the way people think about race, Targett responded: “Yes, I do think it’s significant. Not many people in Cheddar mind it. But the lesson is that we’re all immigrants, whether you’ve been in a place for 10 minutes or 9,000 years. We’ve all come from somewhere.”
REBLOGGING HERE BECAUSE ONE OF YOU CAUSED THIS SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL SEE IT. I'M DRAWING THE CHILD AS A CHILD?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!
SO I HAVEN’T EVEN GOTTEN TO WATCH THE SHOW BUT HERE’S PIDGE AS A YOUNG CHILD! I’VE LOVED PIDGE SINCE I WAS YOUNG WATCHING VOLTRON FORCE! NOW HERE’S MODERN PIDGE AND I LOVE THEM? A LOT?! LOOK AT THE CHILD.
Here are 9 hairs that would look lovely with bonnets… if only the buns fitted underneath. Well now they can!
I have done very little to the meshes, just removed the buns and pushed a few spots in so they fit under the bonnets. All credit goes to the creators who I’ve linked along with their original meshes. Since the bun removal involved editing the meshes, you don’t need the originals for these to work but I would highly recommend getting them. Mostly because they’re all so beautiful, but also these edits are meant to be hidden by bonnets and look rather odd on their own.
Each edit was cloned from its original so they should be found next to each other but some are a bit further apart for some mystical reason. They have the same thumbnails but with a red circle saying ‘bonnet’ on them.
1. Get Famous hair - requires Get Famous
2. Charity Hair - original mesh by @cazmari-mods found here
3. Marigold Hair - original mesh by @saurussims found here
4. Maple Hair - original mesh by @hazelminesims found here
5. Venice Hair* - original mesh by @okruee found here
6. Danae Hair - original mesh by @teanmoon found here
7. Paulette Hair - original mesh by @birksche found here
8. Victoria Hair - original mesh by @batsfromwesteros found here
9. Sapphire Hair - original mesh by @stephanine-sims found here
Download (sfs)
Linzlu’s bonnets: Straw, Fancy and Christmas
*The headband for the Venice hair conflicted with the bonnets so I moved it. This means it works with the bonnets but no longer works with the headband overlay
I read your blog information and I also really love the Middle Ages! what is something you particularly like? or wish you could see more in media in which the Middle Ages are discussed?
The very messy marriage situation isn't used nearly enough. People could agree to get married without any witnesses or the church, and it wasn't uncommon for people to do that, then like the guy would deny they did it so he could marry someone else. The church really tried to get a hold of things, it's why it became a thing to announce to the church three Sundays in a row that you were getting married, so if you married someone else they could tell on you and such.
That said, there's something just wonderful about the idea of a couple in a stressful situation where all they have is each other, in a candle lit barn on the way to what could be death, saying whispered vows of devotion. I think this whole thing could be used way more.
Also I want more accurate clothing and hair. Give us the silly hats, cowards, hair shouldn't be so loose and visible. Let clothing be colorful, peasants dyed things too. Alack, modern fashions will always get in the way.
Embroidered head cloths and bag at the Museum of Scotland. Aren't they just beautiful? The dyes there in front of the second one is 1800s but the head wraps are 1500s if I remember correctly. Renaissance, but still, they are my beloved.
hey sweetie <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 don't hurt yourself. it's gonna be okay. you're a very beautiful and kind and vibrant young woman and I love seeing your face on my dashboard. you're not useless, you're not a waste of space, and to be honest I should have said this much earlier, instead of waiting for you to ask. <3
It's okay. I don't really get a lot of ic stuff, let alone ooc stuff. Most of the time I'm okay with that, but tonight I feel very alone unwanted. I just feel like I shouldn't even cosplay because that takes time away from important things like cleaning because that's all my mom seems to care that I do.
I did a graduate. Am graduate. Did a graduating. Time for summer then college. Wooo
Senior year is hell. Between AP English and pre-calc, and all extra curricular activities, and college stuff, I haven't had time to create stuff for this blog! I'm not dead, I swear, I'm just very busy and have been too tired to do anything! I'll try to post some stuff today! Tomorrow is districts auditions, then Monday is musical auditions, then I probably have band practice Tuesday, and then theater rehearsals will start up, and that's not even counting homework!
So sometimes I see bros on the internet talk about how women couldn’t have worn armor historically, because it was too heavy for them.
Here is a picture of me wearing armor when I was a nerdy 14-year-old girl who was about 5 feet tall and weighed less than 95 pounds. I sometimes wore it for 6 hours straight in summer heat, and I would run and turn summersaults in it for fun.
And before you start asking: this was authentic full steel plate with a padded arming doublet underneath. It weighed so much that I couldn’t carry the plastic tub it was stored in on my own. It was heavy. But once I was wearing it I just felt like I was being hugged or wrapped up in a really heavy blanket. That’s how armor works. The whole point is that the weight is distributed across your whole body, and your whole body can lift a huge amount. It has nothing to do with how strong you are or how much you can bench.
So if you think women are too weak to wear armor, you are wrong on so many levels. It does not even matter if you believe in your little misogynistic heart that all women are defined by their physical inferiority when compared to men, because you are also just wrong about how armor works. Even skinny teen girls can wear armor just fine. Everyone can wear armor.
gawaingirlies stay ga-w(a)inning. that’s what I always say.
Hello! I'm Zeef! I have a degree in history and I like to ramble! I especially like the middle ages and renaissance eras of Europe, but I have other miscellaneous places I like too!
270 posts