I'm back, baby! Thanks for bearing with me while we've been on hiatus. I've moved in, the internet is working, and I've managed to get through a week as a home-owner without starving to death and/or setting myself on fire.
Amid all the chaos I've been reading Sapiens- a Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari and I've been bursting to give it my recommendation. In Sapiens Harari attempts to describe and explain the entirety of the history of Homo Sapiens, from our creation to what could one day be our evolution. How did our species success in the battle for dominance? How did we become to believe in Gods, nations and human rights? Have we actually become happier and more peaceful in the process? By tackling these broad and significant questions and maintaining a critical historical stance Sapiens elevates itself into something special and worthy of a place on every good bookshelf.
The chapters are broken down by each revolutionary period in humanity's histories of thought and technology: the Cognitive Revolution ('A Day in the Life of Adam and Eve'), the Agricultural Revolution ('History's Biggest Fraud'), the Unification of Humankind ('The Arrow of History') and finally the Scientific Revolution (from 'The Discovery of Ignorance' to 'The End of Homo Sapiens'). Throughout this history Harari considers the reasons for human development, the impact we make to the world and people around us, how monotheistic religion conquered animistic religions, whether empires are truly evil or simply inevitable, how humanity managed to organise itself through the power of imagination and much more. As you can see, the scope of the work is massive and it's something I can very much respect. Using such large brush strokes, from a historical perspective, is always going to be problematic; a huge chunk of the discipline is dedicated to moving away from macrocosmic explanations of why history has turned out the way it has. But what Harari manages to do in Sapiens is effectively 'explain' human history's movement while still acknowledging that things could have turned out very, very differently and, in the end, history is always going to throw a curveball at you. Nothing is inevitable, but sometimes once humanity has chosen a path - as with the Agricultural revolution - it's almost impossible to move back to the way things once were. Instead of creating a deterministic view of history, Harari instead does something more clever in that he shows us the structures of human history and what built them. He, in a way, dissects human history down to its skeleton and shows you the movement of each ligament attached to it while still acknowledging that history is a living breathing creature. In doing so his arguments are far more convincing and you feel genuinely enlightened in places having read them. The book has already appeared on the blog in various forms, lurking in the sources. Recently my post 'Was the Agricultural Revolution the Worst Mistake in Human History?' was pulled entirely from Harari's extremely convincing argument, so if you'd like to get a flavour for the content of the book please head along to there. For a bonus, team this up with the equally excellent 'The Self Illusion' by Bruce Hood - that I reviewed in February - and proceed to feel like you know everything you need to know about how these funny little human animals tick. In short? Get it on your shelf, you'll be referring back to it for years to come.
I'm going to begin with a confession of sorts: I am not a linguist.
I'm in the very lucky position that my native language is one that - nowadays - is popularised as a global from of communication. Of course, it wasn't always so. Back in history, the primary Eurocentric language of learning was Latin. By having a relatively common language that spread throughout Europe and even beyond, it allowed people of many different cultures and native languages to share ideas through a simple unified form of communication. As a 'dead' language, Latin was quite firmly set and widely understood. English, for the time being, seems to have taken Latin's place and it is thought that around 750 million people are thought to speak English as a foreign language.
I've studied some languages at school and have unsuccessfully attempted to learn French, Spanish and even a little Japanese. The issue I had was one that is, I believe, shared by a lot of my native English speakers: without the necessity of using multiple languages in my everyday life the skills very quickly slip away. It's still my hope to learn (and retain) a foreign language in my future but, for the time-being, the prevalence of English as a language brings a rather curious question to mind: what does English actually sound like?
As an English speaker I always hear the languages of different countries as easily discernible accents. Within the English language itself there are also countless variations of accent: from South African to North-American to Welsh to Northern-English to West-Country English to 'R.P' English and more. But the form of how a language sounds is more than just accent. Wouldn't it be fascinating to take a step away from our comprehension of or own language and hear how we sound to other people? As ever, Youtube answers our call with this brilliant little drama, 'Skwerl':
Using what can only be described as the language from the Sims (or Simlish) we can get an idea of the tone of how American-English sounds without the comprehension of the words. (Also, as in my case, you can gradually drive yourself insane as you ask whether the guy actually once said 'Elton John' or whether you just imagined it.)
The Finnish Youtuber Sara took this to the next level, also comparing North-American and London-English alongside other languages like Finnish, East-Asian, French 'Not Russian but sort-of Slavish', Estonian and more.
Beauty seems to be in the ear of the beholder: for some British-English is 'fast' and 'aggressive', but for others it seems to 'flow' and have a certain music about it, which gives it a song-like appeal. For some, we don't seem to open our moths enough, making us sound like 'chickens', but for others English seems to sound 'refined'. Really, in the end, it depends on where you're from, what cultural assumptions link in with the language, and what you prefer.
Of course, English has never been a static language, and has evolved over time. Even if we discount the way that slang and changing cultural trends affect the language today it has undergone some major changes. As a lot of English's widespread use today is due to conquest, it is rather ironic that it's birth was the result of the country being invaded by outside forces too. Originally the inhabitants of England spoke a form of Celtic but as the country was invaded by the Germanic tribes in the 5th century ad, many native speakers were pushed West and North into what is now Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Nowadays some of these languages still survive as the Goidelic and Brythonic branches of the Celtic language. For example, Manx is a Goidelic form of language that is still learnt on the Isle of Man, although the last truly native speaker -Brian Stowell - died in 1974. Welsh, perhaps the most well known Celtic language, belonged to the Brythonic branch and is still in common use today.
The invading tribes all had quite common languages, and these developed into the British 'Old English' which occupied the island between 450-1100ad. J.R.R Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon and his love of the Mercian language (best known in Beowulf) influenced him heavily. You can see the influence of old English in the language and writing of the Elves. Nowadays, Old English is exceedingly difficult to comprehend to native modern-English speakers, but we still carry on many of the words that grew from it, such as 'water'.
Following on from Old English was Middle English which, again, was heavily influenced by another devastating invasion as William the Conqueror claimed England in 1066. French became the language of the royal court and so was very closley tied with class and power. Anyone aspiring to favour with the ruling classes would need to learn French and English was associated with the lower classes. Between 1100 and 1500 ad Middle English developed and, as English returned to some dominance in the 14th century, we can see it in its most well known from through the works of Chaucer.
"This parish clerk, this joly Absolon Hath in his herte swich a love-longinge, That of no wyf ne took he noon offringe; For curteisye, he seyde, he wolde noon."
As you can see (and as no doubt many a student has suffered through), the language was still one that is quite different to modern English as it is spoken today.
During the end of the Middle English phase 'The Great Vowel Shift' began, where there was a sudden and distinct change in pronunciation. For example the word 'Mice' changes from the pronunciation of mees into the high-i that we know today. As writing (and later printing) in these days was largely phonetic, this caused a great difference in the way the language was recorded. It is thought that this was due to a change in prestige and the desire to reinforce a new classism of language. As French was losing its prestiege a new English form of linguistic prestige was needed to easily display one's status. Alongside this, migrations from the Midlands put people into contact with Londoners this desire for a new verbal social status perhaps helped create this significant movement in pronunciation.
Early Modern English was the language of the sources that I studied in uni and, if you look closely at them, they are quite easy for a modern English speaker to understand. The greatest challenge was to get used to the font in the early printed works (and it's habit for using Ys for 'th' sounds and Us,Vs and Ws interchangeably). Once you have that conquered I found a handy (and somewhat ridiculous) way to 'cheat' your way into comprehension. Basically read aloud....and read it in a bad cornish or west-country accent. Yes, you will look like a berk, but things will be much easier to read.
The printing revolution gradually standardised spelling and grammar and, because London was the place that contained the most printing houses, the English language slotted in to fit with this London-based language form. In 1604 the first English dictionary was published and the whole process was made scholarly and formal. By the 1800s English's form was largely fixed and formed a solid base for the whole flurry of new words that came with the Industrial Revolution. As Britain's power grew alongside the technological innovations, it was the island's turn to become the invading linguistic force and the language spread quickly with the British Empire. Now the empire has faded away and America has become one of the great cultural powers of the world. the influence of the language is following suit and evolving English into even more forms into the future. So, in short, English is a pretty fascinating language from either perspective: as a native or as a non-native speaker. What is your experience with it? Have you seen the language evolve audibly over time? Are you a non-native speaker and, if so, what does English sound like to you? Have you had to suffer through any 'Ye Olde English' languages?
To finish things off, I leave you with Lily Allen's 'Smile' in Simlish, because you need Sim music videos in your life :)
There's something very odd about punching holes in your ears. For many girls (and, I assume, many guys) there comes a time in your childhood when you reach a crossroads. Your eyes, like a magpie's, are drawn to the shining bolts in the lobes of other children and the question that is never far from a kid's lips finds voice once again. "Am I old enough now?!"
So far as I can remember, I wasn't allowed earrings until I started secondary school, so there was always a waiting period of impotent frustration. Magnetic and clip on earrings were pointlessly painful and they would never beat the real thing. I wanted full blown pierced ears, like the older girls, and the whole new world of jewellery that was suddenly open to you. So, when I sat on the chair at Claire's to have two assistants stab holes in my earlobes with what effectively looked like Orwellian torture devices, I was nothing but happy and excited.
Since then I've had another three holes stabbed into my ears and filled with little gold decorations that I never take out. These are inexplicably a part of my identity now and it's always struck me as rather bizarre.
Why did early humans, who were surrounded by disease and death at even the slightest injury, decide that boring holes in themselves was a good idea?
The history of ear piercing is certainly ancient. In 1991 the oldest mummy in the world - Otzi- was discovered in a glacia in Austria. testing showed that he was over 5,000 years old and he has his ears pierced and gauged to holes that measured 7-11mm.
Interestingly enough, Otzi the iceman also has tattoos that covered parts of his body that, archaeologists believe, were subject to wear and tear and may have caused him pain. Given the theraputic nature of his tattoos, is it possible that Otzi's ear piercings also had a benefit to his health or spirituality?
Ancient Persians (525-330 BC) were known to pierce their ears, and many stunning examples of earrings have been recovered, as with this example made from turquoise, carnelian and lapis lazuli.
The depiction of a figure with an erect phallus on the above example may lead to speculation about the spiritual worth or relation to fertility that such jewellery might have. Certainly many historians and archaeologists are keen to assign spiritual reasons to these unexplained and apparently superfluous decorations. While ear piercing may have always simply been for decoration, like Otzi's piercings, it's difficult to know whether they hold greater meaning. For example, throughout history sailors pierced their ears under the belief that it might improve their eyesight. What is to say that ear piercing might not be therapeutic? Or sexually helpful? Or a protection against evil spirits? Loaded with a greater significance, it would be easy to see why our ancestors decided that an earring was worth the ever-present risk of infection.
For me, as for many women throughout history, ear piercing is as linked to coming of age as it is for fashion. In some respects it is a threshold, where one's parents acknowledge your agency and responsibility.You're no longer a rough and tumble child who is likely to pull them out and hurt themselves. You're growing up and, in a way, through allowing yourselves another form of jewellry you are adding to your arsenal for expressing your identity and -given our western standards of beauty - attracting a mate. In the end, while we may think it more subtle, there is little fundamentally different about piercing in British society than there is from, for example, the Ethiopian Mursi tribe's treatment of piercing where, upon reaching puberty, a girl is given lip and ear piercings that will be gradually gauged her whole life and assist in increasing her status.
In the end, it's difficult to know why the first man or woman decided to put themselves through the pain and risk of stabbing a hole in their ear for this decoration. But I, for one, am glad that they tried. Naturally it doesn't begin and end with ear piercings. Throughout history and into modern times, people can pierce all manner of parts of their bodies.
Note: Some of the below examples are rather 'Not Safe for Work' (NSFW) due to graphic nudity. These have been placed as links, click them to view the examples.
Nose Piercings It is thought that nose rings first appeared in India during the Monghol period of the 16th century, and excavations in India have reportedly not upturned any nose piercings before that period. In Inida, for example, traditionally the left nostril was pierced as, in Ayurvedic medicine, this was linked with femininity and the ease of childbirth.Traditionally, for for many families to the modern day, nose piercing is linked with marriage.
Tongue Piercings While the history of tongue piercing is in debate, it was widely believed that the Aztecs practiced tongue piercing as a form of religious blood-letting. In modern western culture it has generally been linked to provacative rebellion due to the sexual benefits it gives. Body modifications have naturally built on this, and nowadays it's possible to completely split the muscle into a 'snake/demon tongue' so that each muscle can move independently.
Lip Piercings
Like almost every piercing, lip piercings can also be gauged. Stick in a clear plug in there and this results in something that is equal parts awesome and horrifying. Which is exactly how it was intended.
Septum Piercing Septum piercing is a form of nose piercing that is inserted between the nostrils, as is commonly seen in bulls. Personally, I first saw this as the ring facing downwards in the bull style, but recently the fashion seems to be to invert it, so that the balls of the piercing peek out of the nose. For my taste this looks a little too much like a runny nose if you catch it in the corner of your eye, but it's certainly a delicate effect.
Belly Button Piercing Naval piercings can take up to 12 months to heal, and the risk of infection is high, but this didn't stop it being very in fashion during my secondary school years which tallies with the western 1990s and 2000s fashion trend that was seen among many pop stars. Reportedly a modern invention, it has apparently not been seen in ancient records or as widely adopted in more modern 'primitive' cultures in the same way that lip stretching and ear piercing has. Generally it is favoured by women due to the gendered differences in the fat distribution of their stomachs.
Corset Piercing This form of piercing was designed to emulate the historical practice of wearing corsets and the pretty criss-crossed ribbons and string that were incorporated into them. The piercing itself is believed to be a modern invention, having emerged in the mid 1990s as a form of surface piercing primarily as an erotic expression. Like all surface piercings (that is, those done on skin alone) the piercings are likely migrate and cannot heal properly as is seen in other piercings. this, added to the danger of tearing due to it's location, means that corset piercing is a temporary measure used for decoration or in BDSM play. But, due to the surface nature of these piercings, they can be worn almost anywhere on the body to impressive decorative effect.
It's debated when nipple piercings historically 'arrived'. Some people have pointed to specific pieces of roman armor where sculpted nipple rings on the breastplate were used to attach a cape, yet there is no documentation that actually physically piercing the nipples ever happened in ancient Rome. Again in other armour there are nipple decorations seen, but unsupported by evidence that the people themselves sported them. Also, as a side note, nipple tattoos have also become a body mod trend, and many of the results are rather lovely. (While either option personally make me wince, I have to admit that the angel wing rings are just lovely, especially with a tattoo combination.)
Genital Piercings: Female
Genital piercings are reportedly believed to have been first adopted by the tribes of Southeast Asia and it is thought that they were introduced into western culture through the reports brought back from such explorations. Despite the debate that had raged in the western world throughout history about whether the clitoris actually existed or not, and indeed for a long time it's existence was even actively denied, by the 1800s the discovery of the sexual benefits of clitoral hood piercings led to their adoption. Another piercing option is labia piercing which, like the labia-stretching practiced by some as part of traditional Rwandan culture, is viewed as aesthetically pleasing and is also adopted for sexual reasons, whether due to heightened sensation or due to BDSM or chastity-play.
Genital Piercings: Male Male genital piercings have as long a history as their female counterparts. One of the earliest mentions on record was the Apadravya piercing mentioned in the Kama Sutra in the second century (though this is hotly debated as possibly a myth). A similar piercing has also been traditionally adopted by the Sarawak and Sabah tribes or Boreno. The apadravya passes vertically through the glans and uretha and, while reportedly the most painful male genital piercing, is believed to have sexual benefits. Alternative piercings that serve much the same purpose are the palang, fraenulum and foreskin piercings. The foreskin piercing especially had practical purposes: for example in Ancient Greece the practice if Infibulation was common in male athletics and first mentioned in the 5th century. Here, geneital piercings were used as an anchor (a practice called kynodesmē) so that the member could be pulled out of the way to one side for modesty or in order to affect the male voice. This manipulation of the genitals for practicality is said also to explain the emergence of the Prince Albert piercing. It is said that Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband, chose to have this piercing prior to his marriage so that his member was held to one side to avoid unsightly bulges in the tight trousers that were fashionable at the time. Called a 'dressing ring' at the time, this would then attach to a hook within the clothing. The story itself has come under debate, with some questioning whether the originator was actually Prince Albert the grandson, rather than Victoria's husband, and many questioning the practice at all. It seems that we may never know, but there is no denying it's modern popularity for entirely different reasons. Finally, surface piercing further extends the creativity of male genital piercing, with some examples being the hafada piercing on the scrotum and guiche piercings - the latter of which is also chosen by many women. In the end, it seems that the variety of human piercings is only ever limited by our own imaginations. From ancient times to the modern day, they are still imbued with a fascinating arrange of meanings. Whether they work as marks of coming-of-age, as testaments of courage, badges of social rebellion, items of beauty, symbols of sexuality, or are for simply practical use, it is clear that piercings are a very important part of our culture.
Using such large brush strokes, from a historical perspective, is always going to be problematic; a huge chunk of the discipline is dedicated to moving away from macrocosmic explanations of why history has turned out the way it has. But what Harari manages to do in Sapiens is effectively 'explain' human history's movement while still acknowledging that things could have turned out very, very differently and, in the end, history is always going to throw a curveball at you. Nothing is inevitable, but sometimes once humanity has chosen a path - as with the Agricultural revolution - it's almost impossible to move back to the way things once were. Instead of creating a deterministic view of history, Harari instead does something more clever in that he shows us the structures of human history and what built them. He, in a way, dissects human history down to its skeleton and shows you the movement of each ligament attached to it while still acknowledging that history is a living breathing creature. In doing so his arguments are far more convincing and you feel genuinely enlightened in places having read them.
