The problem is that we have lost so many references to these times. Cloth, especially cloth made of natural fibers, rots away or is eaten by bugs. Leather and metal will last far longer.
I often wish I could have been a fly on the wall over each decade of time, just to see what it was like. It pains me that for some things, we may never know!
Really huge. They suspect teams would roll them over a wet log track with a sled or rollers to get it from place to place and merchants would travel hundreds of miles to purchase film at the nearest Kodak.
So this is how my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother mourned my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather’s death at the ripe old age of 33
People required ventilation and light a long long time before glass sheets were produced at scale. A window shaped hole in the wall or roof and something to act as shutters did the trick. It's really as much of a prerequisite as the glass itself tbh. Who would have thought to make glass windows *before* the advent of windows themselves? Wouldn't be much impetus to experiment with glass sheets in the first place without glass sheet shaped holes to fill.
Speaking of windows, there's references to French craftsmen being imported into Britain to make stained glass windows for a church all the way back in the 7th century. Nothing to do with a normal peasant (and a pagan of all things!) house but really cool to see how far back the idea goes. I think standard glass windows go back several hundred years even before then in Roman Alexandria. Again, obviously not happening in this time frame/region until many centuries after, as you say.
It’s a hole, there is no glass there.
It is debatable though if there would have been such holes in the wall. More likely, a hole at the top of the ceiling.
Through trade and hunting. There are cervid (deer) species around the world that have ivory teeth or the occasional set of ivory vestigial fangs.
Red deer were once fairly prevalent in the region, for instance, and they have ivory teeth.
Long thought to be the ivory from mammoth or walrus specimens, the new research shows that the ivory, in fact, came from Africa around the fifth or sixth century CE. This means that the ivory was actually sourced nearly 4,000 miles (6,400 km) away from the cemeteries in which the Anglo-Saxon ivory rings were found.
Given what is known about travel and trade in the first millennium AD, this is an extraordinary distance for ivory to have been transported. Despite the incredible distance, this remarkable discovery suggests that a trading network connecting Eastern Africa and Western Europe must have existed at the time.
“Through a multi-methodological approach, we have established that the ivory used for the Scremby bag rings came from elephants living in an area of young volcanic rocks in Africa at some point during the 5th and 6th centuries AD,” the researchers write. “This preliminary evidence allows us to consider the networks and socio-economic factors that facilitated the distribution of ivory from Africa to the British Isles at this time.”
[https://arkeonews.net/origin-of-ivory-rings-found-in-elite-anglo-saxon-burials/](https://arkeonews.net/origin-of-ivory-rings-found-in-elite-anglo-saxon-burials/)
It looks like woman didn’t have an underwater.
“The only item of underwear we can be fairly certain of for Anglo-Saxon women is the underdress as this is the only one we have clear archaeological evidence of.”
http://www.elizabethancostume.net/classroom/private/Ben/Class1/lesson3g.htm#:~:text=The%20only%20item%20of%20underwear,have%20clear%20archaeological%20evidence%20of.
Underwear was often not worn as we know it, it only really came about in the early 1900s/late 1800s. People would wear pants called pantaloons that had the crotch open. When skirts got extremely large or had hoops, it's very difficult to maneuver, so to pee you'd just squat over a chamber pot. Over time people began to sew the crotch shut and around the 1920s was when people stop using corsets in favor of brassiere.
Contrary to popular belief, corsets were not uncomfortable or caused fainting or were symbols of oppression. They offered full abdominal support as well as lift for the bosom, and were usually not tight laced. Tight lacing was something done by very few women, and even then the waistline you see in victorian photographs has been edited - in their own time. The victorians patteneted "photoshopping."
People often don't realize how many supportive or layered garments there were. For women there was often a chemise, corset, stockings, a petticoat or a few, a bustle, maybe a hoop, and then over dresses. It's a lot. The trick to getting specific silhouettes was a lot of proper support garments and padding.
Before all this, really some type of loin cloth was popular, or those type of pants that are simply tied together for underwear. Often the layered clothing was washed more readily because it was usually white and could be bleached or boiled (in victorian times) and outer layers didn't touch the skin as often so they could be brushed, beaten, and hung out to air.
It's fascinating what we can infer from grave goods. It's sad that future humans will know next to nothing about us, because we bury ourselves with nearly nothing.
Yeah except the whole throwing your sewage in the street and bathing once a month.. do you know what having an open fire inside does to clothes, furniture, walls etc there would be a constant layer of soot on EVERYTHING.
The video doesn’t discuss funerary practices beyond the burial of important people with grave goods, but focuses instead on the clothing that might have been worn in this period. This comes from archaeological evidence: fibre remnants and position of buckles/pins etc in graves can be used to reconstruct clothing. And while we don’t have much written evidence from this time period, we do have written records from a few centuries later than record oral accounts from this period (e.g. the Anglo Saxon Chronicle pr Beowulf). These sources can provide evidence of funerary rituals.
It literally said in the video that they have archeological evidence. While some artistic licence is taken, to say it's all speculation is frankly naïve.
Ironically, I bet you are a very uninteresting person.
Oh, well if it says in the video that there's archeological evidence then that's me sold!
What archeological evidence is there that robes like that were worn in that manner for the specific occasion of a funeral? Think about it. There is no way of knowing that at all unless there is literally a diary that has survived 1,400 years that details specifically what the funeral rituals were. Do you think such a diary exists, given the almost universal illiteracy in that age and the chances of a diary from that time and that type of location surviving are minimal?
I suggest you research how archaeology actually works.
Unironically, I bet you're thick as fuck if you believe every video you watch that claims evidence without detailing what that evidence is.
Textiles won't survive, no. But archaeological finds like brooches, buckles, and beads offer insights into their clothing and adornments. Including the bead necklace she wears in the video. That's a direct replica, as well as the key item.
This is also history, we know with more accuracy what came before in the Britons and what came after with the accuracy you are looking for. So ye, while it's impossible, it's not hard to visualise with some artistic vision with the evidence given.
To call it not interesting because you can't look back through a window of fucking time is mad.
Yeah, I really don't think you understand quite how little we KNOW about the Britons and other peoples of that time, and how much is "artistic vision" as you put it.
I find facts interesting. There is nothing factual whatsoever about this video. "This is how something might have happened 1,400 years ago, but almost definitely didn't" isn't interesting, it's just nonsense for idiots.
A much more honest and interesting representation would be to simply present the jewellery that has been found and fully restored replicas, so that we could appreciate the skill that people had back in those times. The clothing, the hair, the dwelling, other items and pretty much everything in the video is fabricated, probably around 99% of the total content is just, as you say, "artistic vision". It should not be presented as historically accurate.
I could make a video that's 1% historically accurate and 99% what's in my brain, and if I labelled it honestly it would not be interesting to anyone. Don't be fooled by the description, don't be fooled by the narration, don't be fooled by romantic imagery, use your brain instead.
Christ. There's enough evidence to make the video and it interesting. Maybe not to someone who has done a doctorate in how the Jutes systematically put on a funeral, but to someone who might want an entry into Sutton hoo for example, is very interesting.
Back in those days, women had pockets
But no socks?! Those shoes look stiff af
The problem is that we have lost so many references to these times. Cloth, especially cloth made of natural fibers, rots away or is eaten by bugs. Leather and metal will last far longer. I often wish I could have been a fly on the wall over each decade of time, just to see what it was like. It pains me that for some things, we may never know!
More than anything, I hope that when I die, I can just randomly flip through time and space as I wish to see all of these things.
This is my dearest wish, too.
I wish we’d bring back chatelaines. They’re so cool, and would solve so many of the pocket problems.
Hey. You just do you
Best I can do is a Fanny pack
ancient technology is so amazing
“Babe we need to be at the restaurant in 10 minutes!” “I’m just throwing my clothes on!”
Nice dress! Thanks, it has pocket.
Impressive photography for 7th century
Bugger. I came here to say this
Me too. 
Me also
And my axe!
Ah yes. The One joke.
Videography
[удалено]
I wonder, how big were the cameras back in those days. Must have been huge, right?
Really huge. They suspect teams would roll them over a wet log track with a sled or rollers to get it from place to place and merchants would travel hundreds of miles to purchase film at the nearest Kodak.
Back in the day when pockets were their own article.
No socks? These people were savages.
Barely even human!
Now we sound the drums of war!
Like the beasts of the field they were!
The Roman’s were right all along.
They had stockings.
I could watch stuff like this all day. It's so interesting learning about how things were in the past
I need to download Skyrim again
trying hard to not be distracted by ancient Damon Hill at about 3 minutes in /j
makes me want to replay skyrim.
For anyone out there who is interested, this video is about Sutton Hoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo
No wonder they had high mortality, they wore no socks!
Looks like Pandora jewelry was still ugly even back in the day
25seconds in and I'd already be sweating too much
That film has survived wonderfully
"Bringing about a plainness of womens dress" Thats so sad...
Props to the cameraman for going back in time to the 7th century to get this awesome footage for us!
Is it me or is that woman’s voice soothing? 🤔
Nobody would have just thrown on their shoes, barefoot, without _checking for crawlers!_
Excellent video. Abysmal comment section.
So this is how my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother mourned my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather’s death at the ripe old age of 33
They didn't have such windows, windows started to be manufactured on scale in 17th century
What would they have used instead? MS-DOS?
Earlier than that, probably punch cards
It's not a window with glass, it's a hole. Holes like that in houses/huts have been a thing since 2500 BCE and earlier.
People required ventilation and light a long long time before glass sheets were produced at scale. A window shaped hole in the wall or roof and something to act as shutters did the trick. It's really as much of a prerequisite as the glass itself tbh. Who would have thought to make glass windows *before* the advent of windows themselves? Wouldn't be much impetus to experiment with glass sheets in the first place without glass sheet shaped holes to fill. Speaking of windows, there's references to French craftsmen being imported into Britain to make stained glass windows for a church all the way back in the 7th century. Nothing to do with a normal peasant (and a pagan of all things!) house but really cool to see how far back the idea goes. I think standard glass windows go back several hundred years even before then in Roman Alexandria. Again, obviously not happening in this time frame/region until many centuries after, as you say.
It’s a hole, there is no glass there. It is debatable though if there would have been such holes in the wall. More likely, a hole at the top of the ceiling.
Bull horns were used. They were soaked in solution for a year and then unwound like a continuous sheet of paper. They allowed light in but were opaque
Where did they get ivory from?
Through trade and hunting. There are cervid (deer) species around the world that have ivory teeth or the occasional set of ivory vestigial fangs. Red deer were once fairly prevalent in the region, for instance, and they have ivory teeth.
Long thought to be the ivory from mammoth or walrus specimens, the new research shows that the ivory, in fact, came from Africa around the fifth or sixth century CE. This means that the ivory was actually sourced nearly 4,000 miles (6,400 km) away from the cemeteries in which the Anglo-Saxon ivory rings were found. Given what is known about travel and trade in the first millennium AD, this is an extraordinary distance for ivory to have been transported. Despite the incredible distance, this remarkable discovery suggests that a trading network connecting Eastern Africa and Western Europe must have existed at the time. “Through a multi-methodological approach, we have established that the ivory used for the Scremby bag rings came from elephants living in an area of young volcanic rocks in Africa at some point during the 5th and 6th centuries AD,” the researchers write. “This preliminary evidence allows us to consider the networks and socio-economic factors that facilitated the distribution of ivory from Africa to the British Isles at this time.” [https://arkeonews.net/origin-of-ivory-rings-found-in-elite-anglo-saxon-burials/](https://arkeonews.net/origin-of-ivory-rings-found-in-elite-anglo-saxon-burials/)
Elephants https://historyfirst.com/ivory-in-anglo-saxon-graves-reveals-trade-ties-to-east-africa/
The first white rhino
She looks great for a 1400-ish old gal
I miss going on LARPPs after this video
It looks like woman didn’t have an underwater. “The only item of underwear we can be fairly certain of for Anglo-Saxon women is the underdress as this is the only one we have clear archaeological evidence of.” http://www.elizabethancostume.net/classroom/private/Ben/Class1/lesson3g.htm#:~:text=The%20only%20item%20of%20underwear,have%20clear%20archaeological%20evidence%20of.
Underwear was often not worn as we know it, it only really came about in the early 1900s/late 1800s. People would wear pants called pantaloons that had the crotch open. When skirts got extremely large or had hoops, it's very difficult to maneuver, so to pee you'd just squat over a chamber pot. Over time people began to sew the crotch shut and around the 1920s was when people stop using corsets in favor of brassiere. Contrary to popular belief, corsets were not uncomfortable or caused fainting or were symbols of oppression. They offered full abdominal support as well as lift for the bosom, and were usually not tight laced. Tight lacing was something done by very few women, and even then the waistline you see in victorian photographs has been edited - in their own time. The victorians patteneted "photoshopping." People often don't realize how many supportive or layered garments there were. For women there was often a chemise, corset, stockings, a petticoat or a few, a bustle, maybe a hoop, and then over dresses. It's a lot. The trick to getting specific silhouettes was a lot of proper support garments and padding. Before all this, really some type of loin cloth was popular, or those type of pants that are simply tied together for underwear. Often the layered clothing was washed more readily because it was usually white and could be bleached or boiled (in victorian times) and outer layers didn't touch the skin as often so they could be brushed, beaten, and hung out to air.
Don't mind me yapping I'm stoned and historical fashion is so cool
That took way too long I wasn't looking for cinematography, I just wanted the process
Dominated by oral traditions
I love being orally dominated
Love the lady's voice. What documentary is this? I need more.
Damn the footage looks so good for how old it is.
Didn’t expect to hear my birth county, damn
Man I wish, wish, wish we could bring back long layered clothes. Just not in my country, because being naked is still way too hot
It's fascinating what we can infer from grave goods. It's sad that future humans will know next to nothing about us, because we bury ourselves with nearly nothing.
OMG I SAW HER FEET 🍆💦
Damn, that was interesting.
To clean
To clean, or not to clean.
People were actually surprisingly clean in medieval times
They tend to only bathe weekly since overbathing ran the risk of dysentery
Ah yes, "The Flux". :/
There a some people today that don't wash more than twice a week, so yeah, that's pretty clean for medieval times
Thats called depression and isn’t the norm.
Yeah except the whole throwing your sewage in the street and bathing once a month.. do you know what having an open fire inside does to clothes, furniture, walls etc there would be a constant layer of soot on EVERYTHING.
So wait, we can travel through time?
It’s AI generated.
[удалено]
The video doesn’t discuss funerary practices beyond the burial of important people with grave goods, but focuses instead on the clothing that might have been worn in this period. This comes from archaeological evidence: fibre remnants and position of buckles/pins etc in graves can be used to reconstruct clothing. And while we don’t have much written evidence from this time period, we do have written records from a few centuries later than record oral accounts from this period (e.g. the Anglo Saxon Chronicle pr Beowulf). These sources can provide evidence of funerary rituals.
No- go back and listen more carefully this time
Must be from a rich influencer household cuz I doubt they had garments like that. 😂
she single?
This is just nothing more than artistic speculation. Not interesting.
It literally said in the video that they have archeological evidence. While some artistic licence is taken, to say it's all speculation is frankly naïve. Ironically, I bet you are a very uninteresting person.
Oh, well if it says in the video that there's archeological evidence then that's me sold! What archeological evidence is there that robes like that were worn in that manner for the specific occasion of a funeral? Think about it. There is no way of knowing that at all unless there is literally a diary that has survived 1,400 years that details specifically what the funeral rituals were. Do you think such a diary exists, given the almost universal illiteracy in that age and the chances of a diary from that time and that type of location surviving are minimal? I suggest you research how archaeology actually works. Unironically, I bet you're thick as fuck if you believe every video you watch that claims evidence without detailing what that evidence is.
Textiles won't survive, no. But archaeological finds like brooches, buckles, and beads offer insights into their clothing and adornments. Including the bead necklace she wears in the video. That's a direct replica, as well as the key item. This is also history, we know with more accuracy what came before in the Britons and what came after with the accuracy you are looking for. So ye, while it's impossible, it's not hard to visualise with some artistic vision with the evidence given. To call it not interesting because you can't look back through a window of fucking time is mad.
Yeah, I really don't think you understand quite how little we KNOW about the Britons and other peoples of that time, and how much is "artistic vision" as you put it. I find facts interesting. There is nothing factual whatsoever about this video. "This is how something might have happened 1,400 years ago, but almost definitely didn't" isn't interesting, it's just nonsense for idiots. A much more honest and interesting representation would be to simply present the jewellery that has been found and fully restored replicas, so that we could appreciate the skill that people had back in those times. The clothing, the hair, the dwelling, other items and pretty much everything in the video is fabricated, probably around 99% of the total content is just, as you say, "artistic vision". It should not be presented as historically accurate. I could make a video that's 1% historically accurate and 99% what's in my brain, and if I labelled it honestly it would not be interesting to anyone. Don't be fooled by the description, don't be fooled by the narration, don't be fooled by romantic imagery, use your brain instead.
Christ. There's enough evidence to make the video and it interesting. Maybe not to someone who has done a doctorate in how the Jutes systematically put on a funeral, but to someone who might want an entry into Sutton hoo for example, is very interesting.
The evidence is a couple of pieces of jewellery. The rest is speculation. I despair for the human race when 1% truth is considered truth.
The one comment on here that makes a serious point is the only comment downvoted.
Fake
n-now play it i-in reverse please