Humanities desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 22[edit]

People of Loulan[edit]

What kind of people inhabited the Loulan Kingdom? The article does really talk much about the people. Are they the same as the Tarim mummy people?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the article had a map. Probably some of the inhabitants were Tocharians... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London, 1886?[edit]

Each episode of the current BBC series The Secret History of our Streets begins with a shot of some gothic megalopolis that looks like something out of a science fiction film. The narrator says it's London in 1886; it patently isn't. Can anyone identify what this shot is? 91.125.140.38 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be based on London, because I recognise the tower of Westminster Cathedral in the foreground at the start, but other than that I've no idea. Mikenorton (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by 1880s in film it looks improbable that it is actual footage from 1886. Personally, it made me think of Metropolis (film), but having watched the opening scenes of that film, that doesn't seem to be the source. V85 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like artistic licence being taken to extremes. Drop the BBC a note and ask them as to what the designer ~~was smoking~~ where the designer go his 'historically based' inspiration from. --Aspro (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone (like myself) who haven't seen the show, the view of London 1886 discussed in this thread can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And after having viewed it it is obviously not historically correct. It looks like there are several buildings qualifying as sky scrapers in that clip. I suspect it is just some very cheap CGI footage spiced up to lure in audiences at the beginning of the show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In the days before elevators and tall factory smoke stacks, there would have been church spires only, poking up above above the general melee of city life. The BBC (as a public service) needs to be questioned..., regarding this probably misleading re-invention of past vistas of that great city.--Aspro (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were the Board Schools, rising above the smoke. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Boarding schools where over a kilometre high. Inversion_(meteorology)#How_and_why_inversions_occur. The Victorians were more advanced than I thought. Pity the poor little kids though- as they climbed all those stairs. --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Not "boarding schools" but "schools of the ~~Board of Education~~ School Board" - I went to one like this. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You when to a school like that! My commiserations. Its even got different gates for boy and girls. How comes you were able to turn your life around and end up here? Suppose you sneaked off to night-school to learn Greek and Latin or Shakespeare or something ;-) --Aspro (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The London School Board was as advanced as they got. The schools still sail above London, see them on the train between Clapham Junction and Victoria. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The building in the photo doesn’t look more than five stories high! How low did you think that the smoke went. Think your getting confused with H.G.Wells's Black smoke which crept along close to the ground. That was fiction. Before the Clean Air Act 1956 (and for a few years after – I know, I remember those smogs ) the tallest buildings were covered in black sooty grime.--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not above the smoke then but above the masses. Poetic licence. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So these comments of yours have nothing to do with the OP's question. So why post them?--Aspro (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the point, the only recognisable building is Westminster Cathedral - our article says that "construction started in 1895". Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is representing a visionary representation of London as seen through the eyes of the great contemporary writer Arthur Machen? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that (if I've got it right) the shot captioned "London 1886" is a silhouette of a skyline at night, it doesn't look like an actual cinematographic shot to me. There is period film in the opening sequence, and from the dress I'd say it was shot in the very early 20th century (I have photos of my ancestors on my mantelpiece, all dated from 1880 to 1930, and the dress fits into the 1900 - 1910 period). Slums such as that existed until late in the 20th century at least. Of course we know what London in the 1880s looked like from contemporaneous artworks, so making a realistic mock-up shouldn't be too difficult. Don't be confused by the number of high buildings you see: it could be an optical illusion dependent on viewpoint. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... This Birds Eye view of London in 1896 shows a much less cluttered skyline. They appear to have omitted some City churches and I suspect that there were more tall industrial chimneys, but they have included the two tall shot towers on the South Bank. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]