Edutainment

Anne was the last of the Stuart monarchs, and the first sovereign of Great Britain. Anne was born on 6 February 1665 in London, the second daughter of James, Duke of York, brother of Charles II.

She spent her early years in France living with her aunt and grandmother. Although Anne's father was a Catholic, on the instruction of Charles II Anne and her sister Mary were raised as Protestants. In 1683, Anne married Prince George of Denmark. It was to be a happy marriage, although marred by Anne's frequent miscarriages, still births and the death of children in infancy.

In 1685, Anne's father James became king. He was overthrown in 1688 and Anne's sister Mary, and her Dutch husband William, took the throne. Anne became their heir and with the death of Mary (1694) and then William, with no children, in 1702 Anne was queen.

Within months, the War of the Spanish Succession began. A series of military victories by John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, including the Battle of Blenheim strengthened England's negotiating position at the end of the war. Under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, France recognised Anne's title over that of James II's Roman Catholic son, James Stuart and confirmed England's possession of Gibraltar.

The last years of the 17th century had seen differing policies pursued by parliaments in England and Scotland which included disagreements over the succession. The solution seemed to be unification and so on 1 May 1707 England and Scotland were combined into a single kingdom, and Anne became the first sovereign of Great Britain.

One British parliament would meet at Westminster, and there would be a common flag and coinage but Scotland would keep its own established Church and its systems of law and education.

Full article: bbc.co.uk
Image source:

Alchemy has its origins in the ancient civilisations of the Babylonians and the Egyptians who had the ability to mine and refine metal ores, turning them into precious metals.

Early texts give recipes for producing various precious metals, gemstones and dyestuffs. One example of a popular alchemist practice was to add silver or copper to gold which made it appear that there was an increase in gold.

The theories behind alchemy in Renaissance Europe owe much to the ancient Greeks. According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, matter consisted of four elements, earth, water, air and fire. It was believed that as everything was made up of these four elements, it was possible to transmute any starting material into anything else.

Although turning base metals into gold, known by the Greek term chrysopoeia, was not the only aspect of alchemy, it was seen as the ultimate goal and it was believed it would be possible if the right combination of ingredients was mixed together. Although some believed finding the secret would be a long process of mixing the exact ingredients in the right way, others searched for what became known as the ‘philosopher’s stone’, a material that would turn anything into gold. Despite thousands of years of trying, the formula for transmuting base metals into gold was never found.

Alchemy is and was seen by many as a mystical art, some alchemists however took an approach that was more scientific. From the medieval period, the name for it was ‘chymistry’ and it laid the basis for the modern practice of chemistry.

Source: scienceray.com
Image source: 

His teenage life was extremely eventful. He became Prince of Wales at the age of 12, and by age 14 was already proving himself in battle fighting the forces of Owain Glyndwr, a Welsh rebel who was in favour of the Plantagenet kings, whose reign had been usurped by the young prince's father, Henry IV.

At the tender age of 16 Henry commanded his father's forces at the battle of Shrewsbury, establishing his reputation as a formidable soldier and a shrewd military tactician. History does not record whether he was troubled with acne and girl problems at this time!

Henry V ascended the throne at the age of 26 following the death of his father  in March 1413.

Two years later he sought to marry the French princess Catherine, but her father Charles VI would not allow it. Such a marriage and the accompanying Dowry would have meant giving up the Plantagenet lands the French had previously owned.

This refusal prompted Henry to declare war with France. After arriving at Normandy and capturing the port of Harfleur, the English army turned towards Calais, but were ambushed by the French at Agincourt. Legend has it that there were 25,000 French fighters and only 5,700 English. 

But the English were using longbows, and the French cavalry had muddy ground to contend with. It is alleged that the infamous middle finger salute originated at Agincourt, the scene of Henry's most famous battle. The confident French threatened to cut off the middle fingers of the English bowmen which they needed for drawing the bowstring.

Against the odds, the English defeated the French, and their gloating victory gesture has survived for centuries. Henry went on to capture Normandy, Rouen and other French lands the English had never held before.

Source: bbc.co.uk
Image source

The Celts are traditionally ignored in world history textbooks and course, but the Celtic way of life, Celtic institutions, and the Celtic world view were superimposed onto Germanic and classical culture. The later monolithic European culture is greatly influenced by these early peoples.

Most of what we know about Celtic life comes from Ireland—the largest and most extensive of the Celtic populations, the Gauls in central and western Europe, we only know about through Roman sources—and these sources are decidedly unfriendly to the Gauls.

We know that the early Celtic societies were organized around warfare—this structure would commonly characterize cultures in the process of migration: the Celts, the Huns, and later the Germans. Although classical Greek and Roman writers considered the Celts to be violently insane, warfare was not an organized process of territorial conquest.

Among the Celts, warfare seems to have mainly been a sport, focussing on raids and hunting. In Ireland, the institution of the fianna involved young, aristocratic warriors who left the tribal area for a time to conduct raids and to hunt.
When the Celts came into contact with the Romans, they changed their manner of warfare to a more organized defense agains a larger army. It was these groups that the classical writers encountered and considered insane.

The Celtic method of warfare was to stand in front of the opposing army and scream and beat their spears and swords against their shields. They would then run headlong into the opposing army and screamed the entire way—this often had the effect of scaring the opposing soldiers who then broke into a run; fighting a fleeing army is relatively easy work. If the opposing army did not break ranks, the Celts would stop short of the army, return to their original position, and start the process over agian.

Celtic society was hierarchical and class-based. Tribes were led by kings but political organizations were remarkably plastic. According to both Roman and Irish sources, Celtic society was divided into three groups: a warrior aristocracy, an intellectual class that included druids, poets, and jurists, and everyone else.

Society was tribal and kinship-based; one's ethnic identity was largely derived from the larger tribal group, called the tuath ("too-awth") in Irish (meaning "people") but ultimately based on the smallest kinship organizational unit, the clan, called the cenedl (ke-na-dl), or "kindred," in Irish.

The clan provided identity and protection—disputes between individuals were always disputes between clans. Since it was the duty of the clan to protect individuals, crimes against an individual would be prosecuted against an entire clan.

One of the prominent institutions among the Celts was the blood-feud in which murder or insults against an individual would require the entire clan to violently exact retribution. The blood-feud was in part avoided by the institution of professional mediators. At least an Ireland, a professional class of jurists, called brithem, would mediate disputes and exact reparations on the offending clan.

Even though Celtic society centered around a warrior aristocracy, the position of women was fairly high in Celtic society. In the earliest periods, women participated both in warfare and in kingship. While the later Celts would adopt a strict patriarchal model, they still have a memory of women leaders and warriors.

Source:  wsu.edu
Image source: fanpop.com

On the 8th of November, 1519, Cortes and his men arrived at the city of Tenochtitlan and were greeted with a state welcome by Moctezuma, who still did not know whether he was dealing with men or gods.

The Spanish acted like perfect guests for two weeks and marvelled at the sights of the city that included a huge market place, an aqueduct that carried water to more than a hundred thousand citizens and the Great Temple, which was a towering pyramid.

Cortes tricked his way into Moctezuma’s palace and took him prisoner and persuaded him to declare to his people that he had been placed under guard willingly; by 1520, the Aztec emperor declared that he was the vassal of the Spanish king Charles I. Cortes installed a crucifix on the Great Temple infuriating the people of Tenochtitlan and in a bid to quell any ideas of uprising, he slaughtered hundreds of unarmed Aztec nobles while they attended a ritual dance.

Moctezuma pleaded with his people to remain calm but was stoned by them and killed, leading to the city rebelling against the invading force. In just one night that became known as ‘the sad night’, two thirds of the Spanish force were killed along with hundreds of Aztecs and the remainder of Cortes’ men and their allies fled.

Cortes formed alliances with local towns and raised an army numbering around ten thousand men. He divided his forces into three and launched short, sharp attacks on Tenochtitlan which were fiercely resisted by the Aztecs. The Spanish then turned to siege warfare burning bridges and buildings, cutting off food supplies and destroying the capital’s aqueducts.

To make matters worse, many Aztecs were dying from smallpox, which they had caught from the Spanish. On 13th of August, 1521, after ninety-three days of daily fighting while their city burned around them, the Aztecs finally fell after the royal palace and Great Temple were seized and the new emperor had been captured.

The Aztec capital Tenochtitlan was left in ruins by the Spaniards; Moctezuma’s treasure and the Temple’s religious idols went missing, they are believed to have been smuggled out by priests and have never been found. Over the following years, Cortes built a new Christian city on the site and claimed the regions gold mines for Spain, generating vast wealth for the most powerful nation on earth.

Read more:  socyberty.com
Image source: Buy at AllPosters.com  

Fires in London were common, even inevitable, given the capital's largely timber construction.

Yet for years there had been warnings of London's total destruction by fire: in 1559 Daniel Baker had predicted London's destruction by 'a consuming fire'. In April 1665, Charles had warned the Lord Mayor of London of the danger caused by the narrow streets and overhanging timber houses.

Furthermore, a long, hot summer had left London dry and drought had depleted water reserves. Thus by September 1666, all that was required was a spark. This was provided at the house of Thomas Farynor, the king's baker in Pudding Lane, near London Bridge.

At 2.00am on Sunday 2nd September his workman smelled smoke and woke the household. The family fled across the nearby roofs, leaving only a maid, too scared to run, who soon became the first of the four listed casualties of the fire.

With only narrow streets dividing wooden buildings, the fire took hold rapidly, and within an hour the Mayor, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, had been woken with the news. He was unimpressed, declaring that 'A woman might piss it out'.

Yet by dawn London Bridge was burning: an open space on the bridge, separating two groups of buildings, had acted as a firebreak in 1632. It did so again: only a third of the bridge was burned, saving Southwark from destruction and confining the fire to the City of London, on the north bank.

Samuel Pepys lived nearby and on Sunday morning walked to the Tower of London. There he saw the fire heading west, fanned by the wind, and described 'pigeons... hovering about the windows and balconies till they burned their wings and fell down'. With Bloodworth dithering, Pepys went to Whitehall, informing the King and his brother James, Duke of York, of the situation.

Although Charles II immediately ordered Bloodworth to destroy as many houses as necessary to contain the fire, early efforts to create firebreaks were overcome by the strength of the wind, which enabled the fire to jump gaps of even twenty houses. By the end of Sunday the fire had begun to travel against the wind, towards the Tower, and Pepys had begun to pack.

By the following dawn, the fire was raging north and west, and panic reigned. The Duke of York took control of efforts to stop the fire, with militias summoned from neighbouring counties to help the fight, and stop looting. But the flames continued relentlessly, devouring Gracechurch Street, Lombard Street, the Royal Exchange, and heading towards the wealthy area of Cheapside.

By mid afternoon the smoke could be seen from Oxford, and Londoners had begun to flee to the open spaces of Moorfields and Finsbury Hill. By nightfall the streets were jammed with the carts of fleeing Londoners, and the fire was heading down Watling Lane, towards St Paul's Cathedral.

The next day saw the greatest destruction. Both the King and the Duke of York were immersed in the battle against the fire, which was contained until late afternoon, when it jumped over the break at Mercers' Hall and began to consume Cheapside, London's widest and wealthiest street.

Although demolition began to take effect in the east, in the west the fire had destroyed Newgate and Ludgate prisons, and was travelling along Fleet Street towards Chancery Lane. It was visible as far away as Enfield, embers were falling on Kensington, and flames surrounded St Paul's Cathedral, covered in scaffolding. This caught fire, soon followed by the timber roof beams. The lead roof melted and flowed down Ludgate Hill, and stones exploded from the building. Within a few hours the Cathedral was a ruin.

This marked the height of the inferno. On Wednesday morning the fire reached a brick wall - literally - at Middle Temple and at Fetter Lane. Workers took the opportunity to pull down more buildings and widen the break.

At the same time, the wind slackened and changed direction, turning south and blowing the fire onto itself and into the river. In the north, it was being checked at Smithfield and Holborn Bridge, and the Mayor, finally useful, was directing demolition in Cripplegate.


Written by Bruce Robinson: bbc.co.uk
Image source:  forcg.com

Accounts differ as to whether duelling existed in ancient Greece and Rome, but certainly it was a fixture in the barbarian Germanic tribes, later spreading through Europe and America.

The duel is defined as a prearranged combat between two persons, fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure to settle a private quarrel.

Thus the duel is distinguished from a brawl (which is not prearranged or fought according to rules), a war (a prolonged affair with many combatants), and a tournament (which although it operated by the same rules, was a test of skill that decided no private dispute). The customary duelling weapon was the sword, superseded in the 19th century by the pistol.

The duel evolved from its origins as a legal method of resolving disputes into an extrajudicial avenue for settling private matters that could not be regulated by law: matters of honor and insult. Coincident with the formulation of code, which provided procedural guidance in conducting a duel, were attempts by church and state to curtail the practice.

The fascination of duelling may have its roots in the curious dichotomy of a prevalent and culturally accepted yet illegal pursuit, governed by a “code.” Its persistence as a fixture in so many cultures speaks of its universal appeal as the expression of a visceral human response that managed to survive, in assorted manifestations, for many centuries.

But the notion of duelling as an atavistic reaction alone falls short of the mark, since it looks past the reality that duels were fought chiefly by one segment of society, its aristocrats. It is this social ingredient that defines the duel as an institution and has fixed its status as a legal conundrum.

Although condemnation by governmental and ecclesiastical authorities progressively increased, duelling originally was a legal means of deciding disputes between two people. The “judicial duel” or combat was based on religious belief: that God would protect the party in the right by allowing him to win.

Although many combats were arranged to decide criminal matters, combat also could serve as a means for resolving civil disagreements such as disputes over property. Women, the infirm, very young, and very old men were not required to enter combat but could engage champions on their behalf. The judicial duel was a ceremonial affair presided over by royalty who proclaimed the victor.

The earliest known law that governed the judicial duel is found in the Burgundian Code, an early East Germanic barbarian code promulgated in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. The date of legal establishment of the trial by combat traditionally is stated as the year 501.

Eventually trial by combat was permitted only in cases of serious crimes, such as murder and treason. The right to choose trial by combat existed in England until the early 19th century, where the last claim for combat occurred in 1817. Although the court granted this claim, circumstances did not permit the encounter, and promptly in 1819 Parliament abolished the right to trial by combat.

Source: www.gwu.edu
Image source

Britain's Stonehenge once had a long-lost twin just a stone's throw away from the prehistoric monument, archaeologists announced Thursday.

The discovery, made completely without digging, suggests that now solitary Stonehenge may have been surrounded by "satellite Stonehenges," archaeologists say.

"This finding is remarkable," said survey-team leader Vince Gaffney, an archaeologist the University of Birmingham in the U.K. "It will completely change the way we think about the landscape around Stonehenge."

Using the latest geophysical imaging technology, Gaffney's team captured digital impressions of the now buried remains of the newfound henge formation, just over half a mile (900 meters) from its world-famous neighbor.

Measuring 82 feet (25 meters) wide, the circular feature had a segmented ditch dotted with 20 or so large holes—suspected to have been postholes for a timber, rather than stone, circle, the team says. (Also see "Wooden 'Stonehenge' Emerges From Prehistoric Ohio.")

The circle's estimated date of 2,500 to 2,200 B.C. suggests "it was operating when Stonehenge was in its final and most dramatic form," Gaffney told National Geographic News (interactive Stonehenge time line).

Currently the leading view is that the immediate area around Stonehenge was a sacred, off-limits area where only a select few, such as high priests or nobility, were allowed. (See "Stonehenge 'Hedge' Found, Shielded Secret Rituals?")

"If [the newfound henge] was there at the same time, it demonstrates there was massively more activity going on in the landscape adjacent to Stonehenge," Gaffney said.

That isn't to say Stonehenge was open to anybody, he added, "but we are saying there seems to be more activity inside that boundary.

"Stonehenge," he added, "is one of the most studied monuments on Earth but this demonstrates that there is still much more to be found."

The team suggests the supposed wooden henge, like Stonehenge, performed an important ceremonial role for ancient Britons who gathered at the summer and winter solstices to mark the passing year with sacred rituals.

Also like Stonehenge, the now vanished henge is oriented toward the solstice sunrise with entrances to the northeast and southwest.

"This new monument is part of a growing body of evidence which shows how important the summer and winter solstices were to the ancient peoples who built Stonehenge," said Amanda Chadburn, as archaeologist with English Heritage, the government agency that manages the Stonehenge World Heritage site.

Source: National Geographic
Image source:  miskawalksmiles.blogspot.com

The Plantagenet period was dominated by three major conflicts at home and abroad.

Edward I attempted to create a British empire dominated by England, conquering Wales and pronouncing his eldest son Prince of Wales, and then attacking Scotland. Scotland was to remain elusive and retain its independence until late in the reign of the Stuart kings.

In the reign of Edward III the Hundred Years War began, a struggle between England and France. At the end of the Plantagenet period, the reign of Richard II saw the beginning of the long period of civil feuding known as the War of the Roses. For the next century, the crown would be disputed by two conflicting family strands, the Lancastrians and the Yorkists.

The period also saw the development of new social institutions and a distinctive English culture. Parliament emerged and grew, while the judicial reforms begun in the reign of Henry II were continued and completed by Edward I.

Culture began to flourish. Three Plantagenet kings were patrons of Geoffrey Chaucer, the father of English poetry. During the early part of the period, the architectural style of the Normans gave way to the Gothic, with surviving examples including Salisbury Cathedral. Westminster Abbey was rebuilt and the majority of English cathedrals remodelled. Franciscan and Dominican orders began to be established in England, while the universities of Oxford and Cambridge had their origins in this period.

Amidst the order of learning and art, however, were disturbing new phenomena. The outbreak of Bubonic plague or the 'Black Death' served to undermine military campaigns and cause huge social turbulence, killing half the country's population.

The price rises and labour shortage which resulted led to social unrest, culminating in the Peasants' Revolt in 1381.

Source:  royal.gov.uk
Image Source: AllPosters.com

On July 1, 276 American historians sent a letter to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in opposition to a proposal to license a casino located one-half mile from the Gettysburg National Military Park.

Beyond the individual signatories, the American Historical Association, National Coalition for History, National Council on Public History, Organization of American Historians, Society for Military History and Southern Historical Association sent a separate letter of opposition to the Gaming Board.

Although many individual historians have previously voiced opposition to the casino proposal, such a large and diverse group uniting in this cause demonstrates Gettysburg’s unique place in our nation’s heritage.

Among the signers are some of the most prominent historians in America, including James McPherson, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom and Edwin C. Bearss, Chief Historian Emeritus of the National Park Service.

In part, their message states that as professional historians, they “feel strongly that Gettysburg is a unique historic and cultural treasure deserving of our protection. Gettysburg belongs to all Americans equally—future generations no less than those of us alive today,” before concluding that “there are many places in Pennsylvania to build a casino, but there’s only one Gettysburg.”

Read more: National Coalition for History
Image source: poker-winning.com

Frequently history is stranger than fiction and none more so than in the tale of Alexander Selkirk: the real-life Robinson Crusoe.

Born in 1676, the seventh son of a cobbler, Alexander Selkirk grew up in Lower Largo, Fife. At the age of 19 he found himself in trouble with the Kirk Session after his brother’s trick of making him drink sea water resulted in a family fight.

Before his case was heard, Selkirk fled to sea hoping to make his fortune through privateering (effectively legalised piracy on the King’s enemies) against Spanish vessels off the coast of South America.

Within a few years his skill at navigation led to his appointment as Sailing Master on the ‘Cinque Ports’, a sixteen gun, ninety ton privateer. The expedition was a disaster. The captain of the ship was a tyrant and after a few sea battles with the Spanish, Selkirk feared the ship would sink. So, in an attempt to save his own life he demanded to be put ashore on the next island they encountered.

In September 1704, Selkirk was castaway on the uninhabited island of Más a Tierra (today known as Robinson Crusoe Island), over 400 miles off the West Coast of Chile. He took with him a little clothing, bedding, a musket and power, some tools, a Bible and tobacco.

At first Selkirk simply read his Bible awaiting rescue, but it soon became apparent that the rescue wasn’t imminent. He resigned himself to a long stay and began to make island life habitable with only rats, goats and cats for company in his lonely vigil.

After several years of isolation, two ships drew into the island’s bay. Selkirk rushed to the shore, realising a little late that they were Spanish. Their landing party fired, forcing him to flee for his life although he managed to evade capture and the Spaniards eventually departed.

Finally On 1st of February 1709, two British privateers dropped anchor offshore. Alexander lit his signal fire to alert the ships, who dispatched a rather astonished landing party to find a ‘wildman’ dressed in goat skins. Remarkably the privateers’ pilot was William Dampier, who had led the Selkirk’s original expedition and was able to vouch for the ‘wildman’.

Selkirk had spent four years and four months of isolation on the island, yet seemed stable when he was found. The experience had, in fact, saved his life. From William Dampier he learnt that he had been right to leave the ‘Cinque Ports’, which had sunk off the coast of Peru with all of its crew drowned except the captain and another seven men, who had survived only to be captured and left to rot in a Peruvian jail.

Selkirk re-embarked on his career as a privateer and within a year he was master of the ship that rescued him. In 1712 he returned to Scotland £800 richer, and surprised his family as they worshipped at the Kirk in Largo.

They had long given him up for dead and were astonished that he was alive, let alone alive in his fine, gold and lace clothes. In 1713 he published an account of his adventures which were fictionalised six years later by Daniel Defoe in his now famous novel: ‘Robinson Crusoe’.

Selkirk, however, could never really readjust to life on the land, and, in 1720, a year after he was immortalised by Defoe, he joined the Royal Navy only to die of fever off the coast of Africa.

Source: bbc.co.uk
Image source: diamondsgoldjas.blogspot.com

The spectacle of gladiatorial combat was initiated by wealthy Romans over 250 years before the birth of Christ as a part of the ceremonies held to honor their deceased relatives. Later, these games became separate events sponsored by Rome's leading citizens in order to enhance their prestige.

With the decline of the republic and the rise of the empire, gladiator games were appropriated by the emperor. The primary purpose of these life-or-death duels was to entertain the multitude of spectators that jammed the arena.

Although some freemen elected to live the life of a gladiator, the majority were slaves, captured during the numerous wars Rome fought to expand its territory. The prospective gladiator received extensive training and became proficient in a particular mode of combat and the use of specific weapons such as the sword, net or the three-pronged spear known as the trident.

The games began early, lasted all day and were usually divided into three presentations. The morning was devoted to the display and slaughter of animals, many of them exotic beasts gathered from the far reaches of the empire. Lions, elephants, giraffes and other rare animals all played a role in a display of butchery designed to advertise the diversity of the far-flung empire and Rome's mastery of Mother Nature.

The morning session was followed by a lunch break in which patrons could leave the arena to satisfy their hunger. Those who lingered were entertained with the execution of common criminals. An attempt was made to match the method of the condemned person's death with the crime committed. Those who had murdered were thrown unprotected to wild beasts. Those who had committed arson were burned alive. Others were crucified. Criminals also provided the fodder for entertainment in the reenactment of historic naval battles in which the arena was flooded and the condemned forced to play the role of the doomed crews of enemy ships.

The afternoon was devoted to the main event - the combat of the gladiators. Typically, gladiators with different specialties were pitted against one another. Much like a modern boxing match, the duels were governed by strict rules and overseen by a referee to assure these rules were followed.

Music provided an accompaniment with the band varying the tempo of its play according to the action in the arena. The crowd would ultimately decide whether the loser would live or die.

Read more: eyewitnesstohistory.com
Image source: linuxscrew.com

“When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.”

Hammurabi was the first king of the Babylonian Empire, extending Babylon’s control over Mesopotamia by winning a series of wars against neighboring kingdoms. Hammurabi is most remembered for his law code, including 282 laws regulating people’s relationships in Mesopotamia.

Marriage and Family Under the Hammurabi Law Code

Marriages were arranged by the parents for their children. All parties involved signed a contract because without it the couple was not considered legally married. The husbands provided payment to the parents of the bride, in return receiving a dowry from the bride’s family.

Women had very little rights in the marriage and failure to uphold their responsibilities were grounds for divorce. If the wife was not able to bear children or left home to engage in business, her husband could divorce her and did not have to return the dowry.

In the case of divorce, if the man divorced the wife for no good reason, the wife could get the dowry back with just cause. Consequently, if the husband died the wife inherited his lands and would decide which son would receive the inheritance.

Sexual Relations Under the Law Code of Hammurabi

Husbands were permitted to partake in sexual relations outside of marriage, but not wives. A wife that committed adultery, with her lover, was thrown into the river. If one party was pardoned, the other half had to be as well. Incestuous relations between a daughter and her father would result in banishment. Incest between a mother and her son resulted in both being burned.

Similar to many ancient societies, the father ruled the family and his wife with strict authority. No offense was off limits or unpunishable, as the father would embrace the “eye for an eye” aspect of the fundamental system of the Hammurabi Law Code.

Source: Lauren Axelrod at factoidz.com
Image source: fabrika.com.tr

Archaeologists investigating a mass burial of 97 infants at a Roman villa in the Thames Valley believe it may have been a brothel.

Tests on the site at Hambleden in Buckinghamshire suggest all died at 40 weeks gestation, very soon after birth.

Archaeologists suspect local inhabitants may have been systematically killing unwanted babies.


Archaeologist Dr Jill Eyers said: "The only explanation you keep coming back to is that it's got to be a brothel."

With little or no effective contraception, unwanted pregnancies could have been common at Roman brothels, explained Dr Eyers, who works for Chiltern Archaeology.

And infanticide may not have been as shocking in Roman times as it is today.

Archaeological records suggest infants were not considered to be "full" human beings until about the age of two, said Dr Eyers.

Children any younger than that age were not buried in cemeteries. As a result, infant burials tended to be at domestic sites in the Roman era.

Even so, say experts, the number at the Yewden villa at Hambleden is extraordinary. "There is no other site that would yield anything like the 97 infant burials," said Dr Simon Mays, a skeletal biologist at English Heritage's Centre for Archaeology, who has been investigating the finds.

Source: BBC History
Image Source

It's usually modern art that aims to overturn preconceptions, but a new show of 19th century paintings delivers more shocks than Tracey Emin.

One revelation is embedded in the title — "Black Victorians: Black People in British Art 1800-1900." The very concept of "black Victorians" may surprise.

There had, of course, been Africans in Britain long before Victoria ascended the throne in 1837, but in the 19th century they were a familiar sight — not that you'd know that from most accounts of the old Queen's reign. Yet Victorian art depicted many black subjects — not only servants, but also soldiers, sailors, actors, musicians and pugilists. "I began to look more systematically and discovered hundreds [of these images]," Jan Marsh says. "It both reveals Victorian art as not as white as we imagine, but also Victorian society as not as white as we imagine"....

Of course, many black Victorians did still occupy subordinate positions. In Thomas Faed's Visit to the Village School (1852), set in Scotland, a local bigwig and his wife listen to the youngest students reading, while some of the older pupils taunt their young black servant.

Such story pictures were put together from studies of professional models. Jamaican-born Fanny Eaton often turns up in the background of biblical subjects, but later in the century black models appeared on the losing side in topical battle pictures. Prints like Lts Coghill and Melville Saving the Colours, Zulu War, 1879 (1882), after Adolphe Alphonse de Neuville, may look stagey to us, but even back then not everyone found them convincing. A critic commented: "[We see] the ordinary Parisian negro-models, reproduced in more or less warlike attitudes"....

For the most part, Victorian society was one in which most thought black people inferior. Yet Marsh observes: "Although Victorian society was racist through and through, this is not reflected in the art."

Source: Time.com
Image source:   popculturepost.com   

Sacrificial remains of humans and animals, believed to be at least 2,700 years old, have been found in central China's Luoyang city, Chinese archaeologists say.

The bones are part of a recently discovered burial complex covering nearly a quarter acre (945 square meters) and containing 14 tombs, a water channel, and 59 pits from the Western Zhou dynasty. (Related: "Ancient Mass Sacrifice, Riches Discovered in China Tomb.")

During the Western Zhou period (1100 B.C. to 771 B.C.), the sacrifices of animals—and sometimes humans—to ancestors or deities were a routine part of Chinese culture. The sacrifices were often made to bless houses, said David Sena, a China historian at the University of Texas at Austin.

"In general, there's been a tendency to describe Western Zhou as a more humanistic period, when the practice of human sacrifices"—which were commonplace during the preceding Shang Dynasty—"were waning," Sena said.

"But I think the archaeological evidence shows quite clearly that human sacrifices persisted throughout the Zhou period as well."

Thousands of years ago, during the Western Zhou, the Luoyang area was home to a secondary, eastern capital of China.

Regarded by Confucius and other philosophers as a "golden age" of Chinese history, the Western Zhou period ushered in many of the characteristic political and cultural institutions of Chinese civilization, Sena said.

For example, the Shangshu, or "book of history," which purportedly records the speeches and deeds of the Zhou dynasty's first kings and which later became a classic, can be traced back to this period.

Source: National Geographic
Image source:  vochongnhanam.net 

The years after the Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold were full of turmoil. Collusion, treachery and rebellion were rife, and that was just the English. Threats from enemies, both foreign and domestic, to William's hard-won Kingdom never left him, yet he was able to complete Domesday Book, Britain's earliest, and still valid, public record.

William intended to make his rule easier as the successor to Edward, with the co-operation of the English. In this, the English magnates readily acquiesced, remembering the lessons learned from the Danish Conquest 50 years before.

After all, Edwin and Morcar were the grandsons of one of the most successful collaborators, and Waltheof had nothing to lose by supporting the new régime. We should also note that William did not move immediately against Stigand, despite the disapproval of the Pope. In fact, the two chief prelates of England were perhaps the staunchest supporters of William among the English magnates, once they had accepted William as God's chosen successor to Edward the Confessor.

William returned to Normandy in 1067, taking the three English Earls with him as hostages and leaving Odo of Bayeux and William fitzOsbern in charge of England. During these early stages of the Conquest, he was most concerned with the security of his newly won kingdom.

He ensured this security by granting a compact area of land to trusted Norman nobles whose task it was to build a castle and guard it against all comers. These were the castleries. The earliest were the so-called 'rapes' of the south, granted to William's two half-brothers, Odo of Bayeux and Robert of Mortain as well as his two trusted followers the Comte d'Eu and William fitzOsbern.

Orderic Vitalis: The jeers of the English outside Rochester reflect one attitude to the Conquest, expressed eloquently by Orderic Vitalis:

And so the English groaned aloud for their lost liberty and plotted ceaselessly to find some way of shaking off a yoke that was so intolerable and unaccustomed. Some sent to Swegn, King of Denmark, and urged him to lay claim to the kingdom of England which his ancestors Swegn and Cnut had won by the sword. Others fled into voluntary exile so that they might either find in banishment freedom from the Normans or secure foreign help and come back to fight a war of vengeance. Some of them who were still in the flower of youth travelled into remote lands and bravely offered their arms to Alexius, Emperor of Constantinople, a man of great wisdom and nobility.

Source: bbc.com
Image Source

It would be false to conclude that love involved nothing but suffering. Medieval love involved two main components: suffering and pleasure. I would first argue that love was pleasurable because it involved the sating of ones desires. When one loves something, one desires it.

Therefore, when one is with the object of one's love, then the desire is being sated. The sating of one's desires is clearly a source of pleasure. Hence, when one sates the desire that is involved in one's love, one is pleasured.

In addition to the larger characteristic of pleasure, there are three "mini-elements" of love in the Middle Ages. These three "mini-elements" support the fact that pleasure is a characteristic of love in the medieval period.

Sexual Pleasure

The most obvious "mini-element" of love is sexual pleasure. This element clearly supports the idea that love involved pleasure. Andreas Capellanus touches on this element of love when he quotes the Queen (of the so called "court of love") as saying that women prefer young men for lovers because of "physiological reasons".

The "physiological reasons" that she is referring to are clearly sexual. Apparently, "medieval ideas were far from the Victorian notion that women did not enjoy sex". In fact, "thirteenth-century German scholar, Albertus Magnus" believed that "greater [sexual] pleasure and appetite belonged to the woman". Whether or not this was the case, it seems that sexual pleasure was enjoyed by both partners involved in the love affair.

Fantasy

The second "mini-element" of love in the Middle Ages will be termed fantasy. Though it is not certain exactly what role courtly love played in medieval life, it is certain that it existed in the fantasies of the medieval people. The songs and poetry of the time period often centered on themes of love: "courtly love, the pure love a knight felt for his lady whom he sought to win by military prowess and patience; or the love he felt for the wife of his feudal lord; or carnal desires seeking satisfaction".

Whatever the exact theme, love was often the topic of these works. Also, these works often involved fantasy. In fact, fantasy was especially involved for those who read or sang the songs or poems. This is because the enjoyment of these things is predicated upon imagining that what they describe is actually taking place.

This imagining, I think, can be called fantasizing. Clearly, then, love was often the topic of these fantasies. In this aspect, love is again found to be pleasurable. For what are our fantasies if not creative imaginings for the purpose of pleasure.

Heightening of Honor and Worth

The fact that love involved the heightening of honor and worth conveys the final "mini-element" of love. Andreas Capellanus wrote about the effects of love which, according to him, included this characteristic:

Love causes a rough and uncouth man to be distinguished for his handsomeness; it can endow a man even of the humblest birth with nobility of character; it blesses the proud with humility; and the man in love becomes accustomed to performing many services gracefully for everyone. O what a wonderful thing is love, which makes a man shine with so many virtues and teaches everyone, no matter who he is, so many good traits of character!

The Countess Marie seems to agree with Capellanus. In a letter to him, she writes about the necessity of love to increase a man's honor and worth of character.

Certainly, pleasure is involved in the increasing of a man's honor and goodness of character. But is this pleasure only afforded to men? Georges Duby suggests that the answer is no. He believes that courtly love "gave a woman a definite [though confined] power". Duby also writes that women engaged in love affairs "were entitled to certain marks of respect".

Additionally, this characteristic of love is applicable to women in that love "compensated the medieval lady for the brutalities of marriage and recognized her existence as an individual".

The respect and compensation that love offered to women of the Middle Ages prove that love was pleasurable to women as well as men in that it involved the heightening of honor or worth of character.

Source: westminstercollege.edu
Image Source 

In the late nineteenth century, Arthur Wharton (1865-1930) was an athlete of legendary proportions, competing at the top level in many sports including cycling, rugby, cricket athletics and football.

It was previously believed that Wharton was the first ever black football player; however new evidence has recently come to light that shows this distinction goes to Andrew Watson, who played in Scotland in the 1870s. Despite this, Wharton was a pioneer in the sporting world, competing in arenas almost universally occupied by white people. He was a well liked, well respected competitor but unfortunately, his life story did not have a happy ending.

In 1886, at the age of 20 Wharton entered the Amateur Athletics Association (AAA) Championships at Stamford Bridge. As well as becoming the first black athlete to win an AAA championship, he also set a new world record at the event becoming the first man ever to run 100 yards in 10 seconds flat. Later that year, Wharton signed a professional contract with Preston North End football club, one the top teams in the world at that time. Ironically, despite being the fastest man on earth, he was to become a highly respected goalkeeper.

Wharton had a reputation as a hard man on the field and when he unleashed his trademark ‘prodigious punch’, it was said that he always connected with ether the ball, or an opponents head! In those days a goalie could handle the ball anywhere in his own half and players could barge him whether he was on or off the ball, which explains the logic of having a fast, powerful goalkeeper. Wharton seems to have relished the more physical side of the game and like many goalkeepers, he seems to have had an eccentric streak. In a letter to the Sheffield Telegraph and Independent (12th January, 1942) T. H. Smith wrote;

“In a match between Rotherham and Sheffield Wednesday at Olive Grove I saw Wharton jump, take hold of the cross bar, catch the ball between his legs, and cause three onrushing forwards – Billy Ingham, Clinks Mumford and Mickey Bennett – to fall into the net. I have never seen a similar save since and I have been watching football for over fifty years”.

Wharton stayed at Preston North End for three years before signing for Rotherham United in 1889. Five years later he moved to Sheffield United were he spent a miserable year, finding it difficult to hold a regular first team place. In 1895 he went back to Rotherham United, were he played in only fifteen league games in six years.

During his time at Rotherham, Wharton was also a pub landlord, running the Albert Tavern and later the Plough Inn in Rotherham then the Sportsman Cottage pub in Sheffield. During this period, he developed a drinking problem, causing his career to nose dive and eventually forcing him to retire from football in 1902. He spent the rest of his life as a colliery haulage worker and by the time he died, on the 12 December 1930, of epithelioma and syphilis, he had fallen into obscurity and was a penniless alcoholic.

Source: socyberty.com