How did the radio stations (before the entry of CDs and Cassettes) quantify the popularity of a particular song, did they conduct polls on ground?

I’ve noticed that many paintings such as those of Diego Velasquez depict 16th and 17th century Spanish men wearing black caps, doublets, hose, and sometimes coats.

This doesn’t seem practical in the Spanish sun. Were black clothes just for evening wear or was it some kind of flex to show that you stayed inside all day?

Apart from the ancient Greco-Roman world, there doesn’t seem to be many artistic traditions with a strong history of realism. For a long period, it seems like almost all art depicting people or things is allegorical at best, not designed to depict life as it is seen day to day. Yet clearly this has little to do with talent. I understand that there might be religious or cultural reasons for preferring more abstract depictions, but wouldn’t there be a market for people who wanted to see realistic art? For example, families wanting portraits of their loved ones. I am aware of the mummy portraits of Egypt, but to my knowledge, even those do not predate the Greek/Roman tradition of realism that they presumably would have been influenced by.

Why didn’t metal spread to Oceania before European times? I heard that Melanesians, Micronesians, and Australians had trade with East and Southeast Asia (and Polynesians traded with Melanesians and Micronesians). So why didn’t metal spread through trade?

Wikipedia briefly mentioned a square renamed in their honor in 1925, and an Opera in 1953, so evidently the revolt was viewed positively to at least some degree, but how did Soviet Authorities square this with the fact that it was essentially a revolt of liberal, upper class Army officers who wanted reforms that the Bolsheviks would have no doubt hated...?

Did they send ambassadors to Europe, for example?

Basically I'm confused as to why these disunionist abolitionists were disunionists. It would seem to me that Northern secession - if it was successfully and peacefully achieved - would make it harder to end slavery in the South. Were abolitionists just trying to end their perceived personal responsibility for slavery by leaving a slave-supporting government? If disunion succeeded, did they intend to keep fighting for abolition in the South? And if they did, how did they intend to do so given that the "Slave Power" would have been truly consolidated and guarded from foreseeable domestic political threat?

Or am I misreading the disunionists and assuming that their primary disunionist goal was Northern secession instead of dissolution of the current US government/Constitution and creation of a new, antislavery one with the South included?

As far as I know, King Arthur was a Roman-Celt who died defending Britain from the English tribes (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) who wanted new lands.

The English lost resources to a man in order to settle in new land due to Hunnic invasions. If anything, the English should be glorifying the leader that brought the English to Britain and defeated Arthur.

For me, this is comparable to the British writing a glorified epic about Napoleon’s life, from Toulon to Waterloo.

Something like this:

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, a man of extreme talent. Proved his wit in both rulership and war. Though the emperor, always led his army from the front. Never giving up, even in the most dire circumstances. Always coming up with new tactics to defeat his enemies while his enemies replicated his tactics. Loved by the people of France, feared and respected by his enemies. Even though the empire forged by him was dismantled, his impact reigns superior to all European leaders.

My theory is that while the Romano-Celts in Britain were very weak and unable to deal with the invading English, King Arthur was the only one who managed to give the English a run for their money. With great skill comes great respect. The English feared him so much that they respected him.

Do we have any idea how common it was for slave owners in the Antebellum South to sexually assault their enslaved women? Was it more than half, or a small percentage that were often (but quietly) discussed?

I recently saw a Twitter post about Columbus reaching (discovering) Bahamas and not knowing where he was. First response was:

""The first europeans to see it" is an accurate statement, yes. It's just silly and eurocentric to say "Europeans 'discovered' a continent filled with millions of people that had several cities as large or larger than the largest cities in Europe."

I dont want to discuss semantics if it is possible to discover something that already exist, even if you are not aware of its existance, but I am genuinely curious about statement about large cities in Americas? I tried to google, but I could not find any accurate estimates.

Question: What are some easily accessible sources that explain how the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean interacted with one another?

I understand that this is a broad question so let me give a little more detail. I teach a secondary school course on Greek and Roman myths. Before we delve into the myths themselves, I explain the cultural significance of these stories with relation to the history and culture of the Greek people. As part of this, we discuss the Egyptian Civilization, Minoan Civilization, Mycenaean Civilization, Macedonian Empire, and Roman Empire and their influence in the areas near and around Turkey and modern-day Greece.

Follow-up question: Were Macedonians and Thracians still considered Greek or are they significantly different enough to be considered their own people?

I’m writing a novel that takes place in Virginia, USA.

One male character in 1813-1815 embezzles and stashes cash from his very rich family’s fortune/business. He hides this away in, say, a trunk in a basement room of the family estate.

Then in 1899, the trunk is found.

My question is: what forms of cash, currency, gold bars, or whatever would have likely been put in the trunk in 1813-1815? and how could the character in 1899 convert it into usable cash (not necessarily legitimately).

I know that many types of legal paper tender from the early part of the century wouldn’t have had any value by the end of the century.

Were gold bars something that anyone could have gotten in 1815? How easy would it have been to convert gold bars to usable cash in 1899?

Could coins from 1815 be melted down and sold for metals in 1899?

Other suggestions or ideas?

Thanks,

Mary.

Was it like a modern university, where you need to have library privileges as an alumnus or a student to get access to the library? How did one gain access? Did you need a letter of introduction as one needed in the 18th and 19th Centuries?

I'm interested in the concept of police riot control across history. I'm sure riots have occurred for as long as there were governments - when did specialized units first develop to control those? Did the approach and tactical thinking in response to riots change much across history? How did the technical innovations in police equipment (rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas, ...) change these tactics?

Note: I'm also comfortable doing my own reading, but I haven't found any good comprehensive sources on these topics. If there is a good book, feel free to point me to it and I'll do the rest of the work myself.

Hello everyone, I have a question about the burial ship found in Mound One at Sutton Hoo. You can probably tell I just watched The Dig lol. So my question is, what happened to the imprint the ship left behind? At the end of the movie it appeared like they were reburying it, is that what happened? I cannot find an answer to this at all anywhere, which makes me feel like it’s an obvious answer. Is it just a mound again? If the archaeologists did in fact rebury it after they found it, why did they do that? To protect it? Has it ever been excavated again? Thank you in advance for any answers!

I'm trying to read a few books about the Roman Empire. My story is based on what the Roman Empire will be like in the 2nd century but I wanted to also consider what it was like in the century prior and the century after. Can anyone help?

The idea of the total state and Benito Mussolinis doctrines of fascism in the 1920 and 30s, what are they and how may we interpret them? Is the discourse of Italian fascism more authoritarian and nationalistic, or where they more in line with the even more extreme views held by the national socialists in Germany? Was Mussoloni inspired by for example the philosopher Julius Evola when he created/constructed his traditionalist and futurist ideology?