How did mideival villages and even people before that find gold and sliver and other metals with out tech like we have now? Reason i ask i want to do a living history set up as a miner starting a mine.

Did it start with a bunch of healers just living together and the sick being brought there?

[deleted]

A quick google brings up a bunch of long blog posts and essays that all start off basically the same way: "we don't know. He died too fast." But that's obviously not a satisfying answer. What were his attitudes toward the bomb during his presidency? What did he tell his advisers about it? What have those close to him said on the matter since his death?

Obviously we can't get into the head of a dead man, and we can't predict an alternate future. But we can guess, based on some evidence, what he might have done.

The Rosenberg spy ring was instrumental in getting the soviets the information they needed to develop a bomb. If that never happened, was it likely they would have been able to do so on their own?

From the 75mm to the 76mm

I visited Monticello over the weekend and was learning about his plantation and his relationship with Sally Hemings, as well as their children together. However, it only hit me once I got home that all of their children together were all held as slaves under his ownership, and were only freed at his death.

Particularly considering that these children were only 1/8 black (the tour guide also gave a story of one of the children marrying a white man and living the rest of her life as a free white woman) and the fact that his wife had died years before any children with Sally Hemings were born, was it standard practice for slave owners to keep their own children as slaves, especially if the children in question passed as white in society? Is there any evidence that Jefferson regretted enslaving his own children? Would there have been societal/social backlash at the time from enslaving one's own children, in addition to having children with a slave in the first place?

Thanks!

So I know the Monarch is also meant to be the head of the Churches of England & Scotland (And I guess maybe Church of Ireland at the time), but since Cromwell rejected other Monarchical titles did he also reject the Governorship(?) of the Churches? If so did he select heads for them or just leave them to their own devices?

Third and final attempt to pose this question on this sub. Here goes:

As far as I know, the world's first coins were minted by the kingdom of Lydia (western Asia Minor) in the 7th c. BC, and spread throughout Eurasia and Africa in the ensuing centuries.

What I want to know is, why did it take so long? Presumably gold and silver acted as a medium of exchange in some form well before that date, as many kingdoms and empires valued them well before the existence of coinage. But what did that look like? How did the vastly interconnected trade networks of the Late Bronze Age work if the Mycenaeans, Egyptians, Hittites, etc. didn't have money? Was there always what economists call a "dual incedent of wants" for the goods being traded?

I just find it hard to believe that the empires of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptians, Minoans, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. all rose and fell with such a clumsy (or absent) system of currency and trade.

What am I overlooking? What forms did money take before the widespread adoption of coinage, how was wealth and debt kept track of, how was trade facilitated? Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this.

2 commentseditsharesavehidedeletensfwspoilercrosspost

I was recently on a trip to Rome where I obviously took a tour of the Colosseum. One thing that interested me was knowing when the stadium fell off in regards to gladiator battles and Colosseum culture as we know it. I learned that the arena at times was used as a theater for plays, it once hosted the cities homeless, so on and so forth. It ended up serving a multitude of community desires or needs before it became a exhibit that costed money for tourists to enter.

My question is, what happened between the end of the Colosseum as we know it and it becoming a tourist spot ran by the government? I want to know how the Colosseum went from a relic to one of the largest exhibits in the world. My guess was the push for a modern Italian history in the wake of Mussolini, but I am not sure.

[deleted]

Please correct me if I'm completely erroneous in my assumption, and forgive any biases I may incorrectly be following.

It seems to me that various American Indian cultures were very stunted by the events of the past- including, of course, systematic attack with the purpose of stamping them out. (while some culturally important customs, languages, religions, etc have survived and are kept alive by existing tribes, this seems to be a struggle to maintain going forward, and these tribes seem to fear for the future of their cultural traditions)

In contrast, it seems (to me, an outsider) that Hawaiian culture has had the chance to grow and evolve naturally over time while still maintaining a strong connection to the past. There seems much less... interference? And Hawaiian culture has achieved a kind of modern/historical balance.

My specific questions (assuming that I'm not totally wrong about this whole thing) :

• What, historically, made the difference in the maintenance of culture for the Hawaiian people?

• Does the physical aspects of an island come into play (isolation, removal from expectations of mainland?), or is it mostly political in nature?

• Is what I think of as "Hawaiian culture" actually not at all historically connected, and rather a outward appearance of tradition? (I am, of course, aware that a lot of things are just for tourists- but I'm meaning more as a whole)

I mean how did the root ‘mongol’ go from being ascribed to the Mongolian people to the term “mongoloid”? Sorry if I’m making that interpretation up. I just don’t get how it went from describing an Asian nationality to a term for anybody of any race with Down syndrome.

These camps account for over 1.5 million of the total holocaust death toll. Why were they only discussed for a few minutes during the Nuremberg trials? Was their role and importance simply not known at the time? If so, when did it become known?