Was it a particular scripture that describes them as such, or was it a trend in one part that became fashionable over time? Certain deities are almost never shown with multiple arms (like Ganesh) while others are almost always shown with many (Kali).

I'm having a small issue and hoping someone here can help (or point me to somewhere else appropriate to ask).

I am trying to attribute a photograph. It is a profile of a dead chimpanzee printed in roughly 1855 (based on dating the physical characteristics of the print). Someone prior to me credited the photo to "L. Rousseau". However, I cannot find any reference to an "L. Rousseau" in any scientific photography collection, the French Academy of Science, or any major museum collection. Anybody have a clue or new suggestions on where to look?

Were people able to go to the bank and get loans or was that too capitalistic? If people weren't able to did loan-sharks and criminal organizations pick up the slack?

I am completing a project on the impact of the 14th amendment. Though I Have found a good deal relating the topic to the 1960's civil rights movement and feminism, I'm struggling to connect it to the more modern gay right's movement.

I have cited Romer v. Evans, as well the Loving v. Virginia argument. Are their other helpful points I could use to connect the amendment with this movement?

Thank you.

During the 40's tanks evolved incredibly fast, gaining huge amounts of armor and guns becoming more than twice as large, but then kinda stopped. What happened after the war when it comes to tank development?

I'm in the midst of a rather quickly expanding research project on the topic of pre-Columbian Native American politics, and (surprise!) am finding it difficult to track down good sources. I've looked into the formation of the 3 Fires Council, and their conflicts with the Iroquois and Sioux (and, looking at some post-Columbian history, have also delved into the Iron Confederacy), but I'm having trouble finding much in the way of specifics. I know the 3 Fires and the Sioux fought, but over what? What caused the Iroquois and Ojibwe to clash? Who were some of the major players? What were the good stories?

In short, what stories do we have about Native Americans that don't involve Europeans?

What are the historical, ideological, and/or political reasons for the formation and popular adoption of an "ism" around women's rights? Why didn't the social movements of rights for blacks, gays, the disabled, etc create "ism"s? Did anyone advocate for an ism? If someone did try to create an ism, why didn't it become popular? Where there any prominent women's rights activists who wanted to drop the term feminism?

Edit: This question was inspired by an argument (which I am staying out of) going on in my social network about the label of feminist. This bit came up:

"Between 1850 and 1900, when the term "feminism" was rising to prominence, the biggest issues within the movement were women's suffrage and the ability to own property. Solving these issues was as simple as advancing women the same rights as men, and the focus on women made the term "feminism" a natural fit."

This made me wonder why wasn't "blackism" a natural fit for a movement advocating for black people to have the same rights as white people? or why wasn't "gayism" a natural fit for a movement advocating for gay people to have the same rights as straight people?

I'm curious about what activists at the time when these movements were starting up said about what they should call themselves. I see people nowadays arguing about labels all the time. Surely early activists had their own arguments.

Something else mentioned by the same person: "Another reason it's "feminism" is that the name was embraced by those opposed to feminism, too. By obscuring the connection to human rights, the name allowed them to trivialize the movement and paint it as a bunch of silly uppity wimminz who are trying oh so hard to be men or just haz the sads. In fact most of the historic texts that helped establish the term were on the side of the opposition...What do you do when your opponents have turned your name into a dirty word? You don't abandon it, you reclaim it. The LGBTQI community have done an excellent job of scrubbing the negative connotations from "gay" and "queer," turning the tables on the bigots. Inspired by their success, the atheist community has started doing the same over the term "atheist". Feminists beat both communities to the punch, pushing back hard on the term through the 60's."

Can someone knowledgeable confirm or deny these claims?

Hi and thanks for this fabulous subreddit!

I read Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class last year and found it really interesting. I read a little about Francis Place too. I know he had a collection of every leaflet or meeting minutes he could get his hands on. I'm looking for a means to better understand what these were like. What were the arguments and counter-arguments of the people who attended meetings and voted for or against a strike? What did the leaflets look like and how were they phrased? Were there so many leaflets anyway, did people paste placards or was most of the communication verbal (and with secret signs like Thompson describes for the Luddites)?

Obviously, the better way would be to catch a train and go to the British Library read the Place Collection, which I'll probably do someday when I'm richer and not afraid of planning things... but if there exists a book about this subject or that can make me understand what the atmosphere was at this time, could you please recommend it to me?

I should add that I'm not a linguist at all (I can read fairly complicated books but I could lack vocabulary if they are for linguists).

(I'm sorry if it is too vague a question, I did try the FAQ and the Book List but did not found what I was looking for.)

As far as I know the Romans kept well maintained records of prisoners or punishments that were given out, so shouldn't there be a record mentioning the order of Jesus's crucification?

Watching last night's World Wars series on the History Channel showed scenes of Hitler's earlier life as a struggling artist in Vienna. This made me wonder what ever came of his paintings. There must be quite a few paintings of his around Europe and I wondered if anyone ever revealed owning one.

Also any free stuff I could read about this online would be great.

How much had farming practices changed from the middle/dark ages to just before the industrialisation/mechanisation of farming? Obviously some of the tools would be different (metal as opposed to wood etc) but would the actual processes and to a certain extent the look of the fields/farms have changed? (I don't mind what examples you use; arable or pastoral I'm just genrerally interested!)

Just started learning about him, it seems like he did a lot of bad things. But were they all lawful, and look bad in retrospect? Or did he actually do illegal things

I learned only in the last year or so that the first human inhabitants of Iceland arrived likely only in the century or so before the first Norsemen. I was kind of surprised at the lateness of this.

So, besides Antarctica, what landmasses have been settled by humans only in the past thousand years or so? Only in the last century even? I imagine there are some tiny islands that wouldn't really have been liveable historically, but due to nearby oil or something, are considered worth it today.

I'm a layman, so I have no idea if this is en vogue in scholarly circles, but it seems like every part-time history buff has some pet theory about how the behavior of some historical figure was REALLY more motivated by mental or physical illness than personality or circumstance. Personally, I doubt there was any huge incidence of Asperger syndrome or neurosyphilis among the great figures of history, I think this speaks more to people's desire to explain the inexplicable & our modern love of pathologizing anything we find abnormal. That said, maybe it isn't so far-fetched to think Thomas Jefferson's behavior is consistent with some kind of autism, and we do indeed have some evidence that Hitler suffered from Parkinson's disease and some degree of amphetamine dependency.

I'd like to hear historians weigh in on the topic & maybe help we laymen separate the spurious from the legitimate.

I realize this isn't typical of questions on this forum, so apologies in advance if this is more a topic for r/badhistory.

There was another post about use of oil in siege warfare. How and where did the oil come from?

In the context of pre-WWII German politics, I've been attempting to tease out the difference between Völkisch schools of thought and plain ol' regular nationalism. I'm aware of the abstract nuances (the somewhat mythical idea that the Germans were an ethnically exclusive people, and a nostalgic emphasis on agrarianism, for example), but I was hoping someone could put into words a succinct and clear distinction between the two.

That is, if there even is a clear distinction.

I'm trying to find out how U.S. soldiers serving in the Vietnam War were politically affected when on tour/returning.

I live in New Mexico and a lot of the traditional stuff that the Native Americans here wear for their ceremonies and stuff is (as far as I can tell) wool, but they couldn't have had that before the Spanish brought sheep here. So what did people wear before that? Surely they didn't wear hides all the time? Especially here in the southwest that seems like it would be too hot to be practical.