# Paintings: A Winter's Mystery



## anotherlayer (Sep 14, 2020)

Subtitle: "*Depictions of winter do not arrive until the late 15th century*"

I picked up on a very quick thought mentioned by LifeKreationz about winter. He was talking about how Conspiracy-R-Us did a great video on Waste Management and The Great Stink. Both guys talk about how these massive palaces had both no heating and no plumbing. So... where are the earliest pictures depicting winter?

Let's start at Wiki: Winter landscapes in Western art


> The depiction of *winter landscapes in Western art* begins in the 15th century. Wintry and snowy landscapes are not seen in early European painting since most of the subjects were religious. Painters avoided landscapes in general for the same reason. The first depictions of snow began to occur in the 15th and 16th centuries.


Excellent, we have a starting date, too easy! We now know that it begins in the 15th century. And oh yeah, it also begins in the 15th and 16th centuries. Lol. Right off the bat, we're looking sketchy, like, first 3 sentences in.

Winter scenes were not painted because of religious reasons. Got it. Painters avoided landscapes for the reason. God hates landscapes. Got it.


> During the Early Northern Renaissance and even more during the Dutch Golden Age in the 17th century, interest in landscape painting was increasing. The winter of 1564–1565 was said to be the longest and most severe for more than a hundred years – the beginning of a cold period in northern Europe now called the Little Ice Age. For the next 150 years, northern European winters were comparatively snowy and harsh. Crop failures, heavy snowfalls and advancing glaciers that consumed Alpine pastures and villages made the era a grim one for European peasants.


1564. The year William Shakespeare is born and Michelangelo dies. Cool year. Ice age is interesting. Mini-reset before we get to the more current reset. Explains those layers.

So, if you take a look at the Wiki link posted at the top, they show about 50 paintings. 2 of them are from the 16th century, the other 48 or so are from the 1800s.

Now let's look at The Emergence of the Winter Landscape from some dumb website. Here it states:


> Pieter Bruegel’s familiar painting _Hunters in the Snow_  is now commonly regarded as the first fully realised winter landscape. But this painting did not appear until comparatively late, in 1565, and this raises the question of why such a seemingly obvious subject for painting took so long to evolve.


So, let's be real. We're not talking about the 15th century at all, we're talking 16th, at best. And let's quickly end the moment with this article with this delight. You can read the rest yourself, if you dare:


> Initially, this was probably due to European painters simply not recognising _any_ natural scenery in their works, let alone climatic conditions.


Say what? That's enough of that. I'm getting dumber by the second here. I'm just gonna stop short here. Not sure if this might spurn any thoughts, but at worst I'll put together the winter painting collection below to simply enjoy. And seriously, there are no 15th century painting of winter and snow. It is 16th century, at best. Enjoy!

*The Hunters in the Snow by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1565*

*Adoration of the Kings in the Snow by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1567*

*Winter Landscape with a Windmill by Hendrick Avercamp, c.1615*

*Winter Scene on a Frozen Canal by Hendrick Avercamp, 1620*

*The Castle of Muiden in Winter by Jan Abrahamsz Beerstraten, 1658*

*Dutch Snow Scene with Skaters by Jan Griffier, c.1695*

And that sums up the 16th century. It was apparently only snowing in the Dutch towns and every other idiot was too busy painting different versions of 'bloody' Jesus.





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Wayback Archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SearchingDate: 2018-11-18 06:08:46Reaction Score: 18


I distinctly remember Nik Research talking about pineapples being an export of Russia in the 1800's. He had gotten this info from an encyclopedia, I think. He was also talking about the huge Russian palaces and how they were built for a warm climate as it is near impossible to heat them.

They have been digging "fresh" wooly mammoths out of Syberia. Fresh enough that the dogs eat the meat.
_During excavations, the carcass oozed a dark red liquid that may have been fresh mammoth blood._
Fresh Mammoth Carcass from Siberia Holds Many Secrets


I agree that cold weather is a new occurrence, but could it be the dates we are given for these paintings are a lie?... Oh, surely not. These people have an impeccable track record.


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2018-11-18 06:17:14Reaction Score: 15




Searching said:


> I agree that cold weather is a new occurrence, but could it be the dates we are given for these paintings are a lie?


each and every one of them appear identical to mid-to-late 1800s folk art. We suddenly learned how to paint the outside world in the 16th century, then we learned nothing more for another 200 years.

*Aivazovsky - Little Russia 1868*


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-18 07:32:55Reaction Score: 17


I noticed that when we were looking at architecture of St. Petersburg, iirc. So many flat-topped roofs in an area that (now) has heavy snowfalls. Apparently, when the structures were built the weight of snow was not an issue.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2018-11-18 10:46:49Reaction Score: 23


I find the thematic difference between 15th and 16th century paintings very disturbing. It's like they they went from mythological content to more realistic one. Something is weird there.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-18 13:54:55Reaction Score: 12


Snowy winter scenes can be insanely beautiful. I really can't think of any reason why _nobody_ would paint them. I mean, just look at this and tell me you wouldn't even be tempted!


Maps of the old world seem to only indicate roughly Greenland and northward as being properly cold, which makes me wonder if maybe "winter" for most of the world was more like light jacket weather.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Ice NineDate: 2018-11-18 14:15:36Reaction Score: 15


Great topic, it would have never occured to me to look into this and it's a good one. So ok it never snowed anywhere for any artist to document until 1565, no wonder they didn't need central heating in those huge castles.  This is so weird. So it does seem that the mini ice age was the first time a significant amount of snow fell, so much so that artists wanted to paint it?  they sure must have built all those sleds and made ice skates in a mad rush.
Into the White
"Bruegel invented the snow scene, a unique achievement. All the other genres of painting - still life, portraiture, battles and histories, landscape - originate in antiquity. Depictions of snow originate with one man, and one terrible winter."
"Dutch artists took up Bruegel's new snow scene genre as winters deepened and hardened and the frosts that seemed novel in 1565 became routine (though still magical). "
Sound like they didn't even have any frost until 1565 ?


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2018-11-18 14:19:46Reaction Score: 35


Great topic.

Combining a couple of things:

79 A.D. no more: Pompeii got buried in 1631

Everyone naked on frescos, pinneapples, hedonistic culture - doesn't look like they fought harsh winters. Also no evidence for massive amounts of wood burned. Architecture is basically built on the premise of a warm climate. That always baffles archeologists and historians, but they get around this problem with assuming Rome "simply" burned the entire forests of Northern Italy with the help of an entire army of slaves doing nothing but putting wood into an oven all day.

_Indications for a 'heavier' electric field in the past_

Expanding earth, the sun, cosmology. The larger distance to the sun as the primary factor of changing climate and lower temperaturs. It's all connected: Earth expanding abruptly, cities petrified, cultures washed off the earth, poles freezing, oceans widening, etc.

400 year old Sahara Desert, or why people forgot everything they knew about Africa

Earth shaping event during the "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700.

All in all I think some of the early winter paintings may be mis-attributed when it comes to time frames. In reality the event that made harsh winters first appear in human history may very well fall into the late 17th and early 18th Century, in line with all the catastrophic global changes.

Look at how the chimneys appear to have been added later, long after the building was created itself: 


There is no way the world depicted in *Adoration of the Kings in the Snow by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1567* is the same world as the 1631 Pompeii. The former is the world that destroyed the latter.

There is no way of having a hedonistic Pompeii culture and running around without clothes when you are hit by a harsh winter every year. The harsh winters created the culture of what most people nowadays think of the Middle Ages: A harsh world based on working all day on the fields in summer, and sitting together in front of the fireplace in winter waiting for spring to appear. In reality this harsh world depicted by Pieter Bruegel really ended the Middle Ages, which was a prosperous time associated with the Reinassance paintings.

The real "Dark Ages" were after the first appearance of harsh winters, because culture had to reorganize completely. Lots of knowledge was lost, and it was this world that made the church possible, because people started to hope for the afterlife and an end to their misery. The catholic church only gained power after those climate changes. There are no churches in 1631 Pompeii. It also laid the foundation of the industrial society.


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2018-11-18 15:02:56Reaction Score: 7




KorbenDallas said:


> I find the thematic difference between 15th and 16th century paintings very disturbing. It's like they they went from mythological content to more realistic one. Something is weird there.


The dogs in the 16th century look cold. They got all the wrong coats.

Also, in picture #3 (Winter Landscape with a Windmill by Hendrick Avercamp, c.1615), I'm pretty sure that's a hockey stick that dude is skating around with. Sign him up!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ISeenItFirstDate: 2018-11-18 15:16:15Reaction Score: 9


I remember that they found a curling stone dated to 1511.  A person in that oldest painting looks like he's got a hockey stick, others appear to have some kind of curling stones.  The history of ice skating seems kinda suspicious to me, but they ("researchers") claim 4k years old.  Best decent evidence I could find in a brief search put it's more around the same 1500s time frame.  

Very interesting topic.  Kinda fits into the whole 14-1600s cataclysm that took down the global order.

There definitely looks to be a lot of ice recreation going on in 1565.  I don't think that means too much, I think people will find ways for recreation in even the worst circumstances.  

As for the dogs, they have a pretty high body temp, so I dunno.  A couple of them look like they have goat heads to me.  

I feel like there has got to be some publicly available information that could make for strong evidence here.  Maybe to do with the emergence and proliferation of colder weather flora and fauna. 
Dont know. Maybe we still lack enough legitimate sources.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-18 16:38:42Reaction Score: 11


"The world is ending, time to invent ice hockey!" some things never change


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-18 16:44:10Reaction Score: 12


Article describing volcanic eruptions in the year 536 causing darkness, crop failure, famine lasting 18 months. Just as they begin to recover, another volcanic eruption. When they begin to recover from that the bubonic plague hits. Add 1000 (made up) years and that puts us at 1536. Claimed to be the worst cold spell in 2000 years.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ISeenItFirstDate: 2018-11-18 17:18:01Reaction Score: 2




UnusualBean said:


> "The world is ending, time to invent ice hockey!" some things never change


Even condemned prisoners invent ways to amuse themselves.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-18 17:58:15Reaction Score: 9


PNW medieval quake. 
Japanese quake history in the 16th century.
January 18, 1586 7.9 _MK_ Tensho or Ise Bay earthquake. Some islands in Ise Bay reportedly disappeared[20][21]
With the flat-topped architecture of St. Petersburg, the lack of snow in paintings prior to the 16th century, the lack of heating source in all ancient buildings, is it possible the world climate was a temperate one with possibly only the polar caps containing ice/snow? The Piri Reis map showed Antarctica as being NOT covered in ice/snow. That was in the 16th century. Supposedly based on earlier maps but who knows if that's true and if so, how much earlier?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: esgee1Date: 2018-11-18 18:33:10Reaction Score: 8


My understanding is that we've been slowly coming out of an ice age over the last several thousand years. Planet Earth has been slowly warming back up getting back to it's normal climate. Perhaps it's really the last (mini?) ice age of the 14th to 15th centuries that we're currently coming out of? Prior to that it was warmer, and we're just now getting back to that? Anyway, interesting to ponder on.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-18 19:21:03Reaction Score: 5


NASA predicts mini ice age in 2020. You're probably right but for most of our recorded history we've had regular mini ice ages. Seems like the temperate weather conditions are the anomaly/climate change and freezing weather is the norm. Before recorded history? Who knows.

KD mentioned 15th century paintings as being more of a mythological theme and 16th century ones being more realistic. Don't think I'd ever noticed that before. Off to look at 15th century paintings.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2018-11-18 20:18:53Reaction Score: 8


I'm with _@dreamtime_ on paintings being improperly dated. Something does not add up there. This is more indicative of the 18th century, in my opinion. We have those outfits they are wearing. May be they could help us out to verify a thing or two. Like I'm not sure the things are matching up for this 1615 painting.

Wearing some of those shoes on the ice would give them a frostbite in no time.

*Winter Landscape with a Windmill by Hendrick Avercamp* *ca.1615*

Here we have these D'Artagnan and Three Musketeers on the right, and some 19th-20th century gold prospector looking guy sitting on the left.



*Definitely the Hockey*
*Funny fact:* Most evidence of hockey-like games during the Middle Ages is found in legislation concerning sports and games. The Galway Statute enacted in Ireland in 1527 banned certain types of ball games, including games using "hooked" (written "hockie", similar to "hooky") sticks.

The painting above is obviously dutch, so this Irish prohibition would not pertain there. But it's just interesting to think why they would prohibit hockey, and what we could get out of it. When was this 1527.

Another thing is this sort of activity all together. Some of the above paintings show ice-skating. I just don't see Atos inviting Portos, and Aramis to their local ice arena.



*Catch 22*What did winter military uniforms looked like in the 17th century and prior? They fought each other all the time. For example the US Revolutionary War lasted 1775–1783. So, US fought UK for eight years. What did soldiers wear during winter activities? This? If that's the case, they all would have died of hypothermia 5 days into the first winter.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-19 00:17:01Reaction Score: 5


A lot of them did die in Valley Forge. In perusing through the 15th century paintings, I ran across a few that the "experts" also think were dated incorrectly but they didn't adjust their dates by much-50 years or so. Baby steps, I guess.


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2018-11-19 01:23:23Reaction Score: 2




Ice Nine said:


> As for the dogs, they have a pretty high body temp, so I dunno.  A couple of them look like they have goat heads to me.


Yeah, I thought longer about the dogs, they're fine, they're fine. They do appear to be Italian Greyhounds, which are coincidently Pompeii's finest of breeds.


----------



## Magnus (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagnusDate: 2018-11-19 06:37:13Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> I'm with _@dreamtime_
> What did winter military uniforms looked like in the 17th century and prior? They fought each other all the time. For example the US Revolutionary War lasted 1775–1783. So, US fought UK for eight years. What did soldiers wear during winter activities? This? If that's the case, they all would have died of hypothermia 5 days into the first winter.
> 
> View attachment 12648
> View attachment 12649


What would you expect soldiers and generals to be clothed in during winter during this epoch?

Here they are depicted with woolen caps, woolen scarves, leathern or woolen gloves, ling woolen capes, leather or wool knee high boots, and layers.

And we are shown wooden huts or "tents" in the bsckground  so they werent sleeping in the elements. And they have fires burning.  

Bubble jackets and ski pants

Absolutely fine attire by Northeast winter standards, imo.  

Full disclosure:  am a New England Yankee


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2018-11-19 06:43:26Reaction Score: 7


I expect winter uniforms to be different from the summer ones, similar to what they had in WW1 and WW2. That aftermarket stuff they have on has nothing to do with uniforms.

Here are 1812 French soldiers in Russia. I don't know if they actually wore those, but this 1850s painting claims that they did.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: alieniamDate: 2018-11-19 10:42:55Reaction Score: 9




KorbenDallas said:


> I expect winter uniforms to be different from the summer ones, similar to what they had in WW1 and WW2. That aftermarket stuff they have on has nothing to do with uniforms.
> 
> Here are 1812 French soldiers in Russia. I don't know if they actually wore those, but this 1850s painting claims that they did.
> 
> View attachment 12687


Well, the popular history myth says that Napoleon soldiers were not prepared for the harsh Russian winters and this is why they eventually lost.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-19 16:37:02Reaction Score: 6


Honestly, those clothes look fine to me, at least practically speaking (I don't know anything about the fashion aspect). It doesn't take much to trap your body heat in, the real danger is when you get wet, you stop moving without getting inside some adequate shelter, or you run out of calories to produce heat.

_Spoken as somebody who doesn't own any coats and it's below freezing outside right now _


----------



## Magnus (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagnusDate: 2018-11-20 10:33:55Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> I expect winter uniforms to be different from the summer ones, similar to what they had in WW1 and WW2. That aftermarket stuff they have on has nothing to do with uniforms.
> 
> Here are 1812 French soldiers in Russia. I don't know if they actually wore those, but this 1850s painting claims that they did.
> 
> View attachment 12687


Did you notice there are no fires?
No gloves (bare hands)?
Tattered pants?
No wool socks, and no leathern boots, but just rags tied about feet?

Examine this photo a bit closer...
Did you really post it with the intentions of showing these clothes are *more? Appropriate than the ones on page 1???

Did you see any "left behinds" in the paintings on page 1?

Seriously confusing rebuttal post, KB

And can you elaborate on what you mean by aftermarket?? Aftermarket stuff?


----------



## Magnetic (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagneticDate: 2018-11-20 14:23:22Reaction Score: 16


As an artist I did not resonate with renaissance paintings but I never really isolated my reasons.  Well here they are 1) these paintings never showed sunsets or sun rises 2)  they never show spring, fall or winter as we know them now 3) they never show the sun , moon or stars in their paintings and instead show a verdant landscape with a non-directional glow of the sky. It seemed fake to me due to its non relation to what observers see today. Here are some examples:


There's mud in this one with damaged structures but no sun, moon, stars or seasons.




There is a reason for this fact that the sun, moon, stars, seasons, sunsets and sun rises are not in these paintings:  they were not seen at that time!  The magnetic field was opposite of what we have today and the current flow instead of being directed from the North geographical pole was directed from the South geographical pole.  This current flow made the sky glow and obscured the sun, and moon and the weather pattern was of a diffused light and a gentle heat about the entire earth.  The reversal of the geo-magnetic field, not too long ago, allowed view of the sun, moon, stars and changed the weather to a colder earth which old buildings needed to have fireplaces put into them like at the St. Petersburg Palace.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: lostwithtimeDate: 2018-11-20 19:26:33Reaction Score: 6




esgee1 said:


> My understanding is that we've been slowly coming out of an ice age over the last several thousand years. Planet Earth has been slowly warming back up getting back to it's normal climate. Perhaps it's really the last (mini?) ice age of the 14th to 15th centuries that we're currently coming out of? Prior to that it was warmer, and we're just now getting back to that? Anyway, interesting to ponder on.


My understanding is that we are at the tail end of an ice age.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2018-11-20 19:35:59Reaction Score: 12




1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.
Maybe relevant: Europe’s Little Ice Age: ‘All things which grew above the ground died and starved’



Magnetic said:


> As an artist I did not resonate with renaissance paintings but I never really isolated my reasons.  Well here they are 1) these paintings never showed sunsets or sun rises 2)  they never show spring, fall or winter as we know them now 3) they never show the sun , moon or stars in their paintings and instead show a verdant landscape with a non-directional glow of the sky.


And in the rare cases of the sun visible, it's just a big glow:


Looks like a lot of things in our world changed recently...


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-20 19:51:30Reaction Score: 6


_@Magnetic_, thanks for the artistic viewpoint. I never cared too much for renaissance paintings either-too busy (generally speaking). I, too, think we've had a pole flip in our somewhat recent history. Other than weather changing and the compass pointing to the South instead of North, I don't know that there would be too much different than now. Any weather changes would be sudden, I suspect, and we do seem to have evidence for rapid climate change. Those changes may have been due to volcanic eruptions, though, rather than poles flipping as there is plenty of evidence for large volcanic eruptions in the past.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ParacelsusDate: 2018-11-20 22:42:28Reaction Score: 5




anotherlayer said:


> Subtitle: "*Depictions of winter do not arrive until the late 15th century*"
> 
> I picked up on a very quick thought mentioned by LifeKreationz about winter. He was talking about how Conspiracy-R-Us did a great video on Waste Management and The Great Stink. Both guys talk about how these massive palaces had both no heating and no plumbing. So... where are the earliest pictures depicting winter?
> 
> ...


Being born in the "Northern Latitude" I've always taken it for granted that there are distinctly different seasons, and long harsh winter's. I could imagine someone un-accustomed to this type of weather believing that they were experiencing the apocalypse. Winter and snow can freak people's shit out!


----------



## Maxresde (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: maxresdeDate: 2019-01-07 01:15:22Reaction Score: 7


So I have not spent much time looking at old paintings, but I have suspected this same thing from a different angle.

I read some time back that chimneys were invented, again, in the 1500s. I remember saying to myself, 'and what in the world were people doing before that?'

If you look at old buildings they seem mostly to just have a hole in the roof. Of course, the indians had just a hole in the roof most of the time, but old buildings from rome, etc also seem to follow the hole in the roof line of thinking.

I had read also sometime back that these things called kachelofens, they have lots of different names, were also invented in the 1500s. These are sometimes called masonry ovens or stoves. They are supposed to be very energy efficient for keeping houses warm. According to what I read, the kachelofen was developed in response to government bounties to develop energy efficient home heating solutions at that time.

They are supposed to be kind of an outgrowth of the Roman hypocaust and the Chinese kang stove, which are basically like a raised floor with a fire underneath it that heated up the floor. I gather that at the time of the development of the kachelofen and the chimney/fire place that the older forms of providing heat must not have been up to demands of the time.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: GlumlitDate: 2019-01-07 18:37:26Reaction Score: 5




anotherlayer said:


> Subtitle: "*Depictions of winter do not arrive until the late 15th century*"
> 
> 
> *Adoration of the Kings in the Snow by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1567*
> View attachment 12602


1567 - Adoration of the Kings in the Snow 

The ruined buildings on the whole right side of this one...is this post-mudflood?


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2019-01-07 19:54:04Reaction Score: 14




maxresde said:


> Roman hypocaust and the Chinese kang stove, which are basically like a raised floor with a fire underneath it that heated up the floor.


It gets even better. The Roman hypocaust wasn't powered by wood and fire. I will prepare a thread for this topic to discuss in detail.

Here's the sooting that happened after a single test run to a surviving Roman villa when a Historian did the unthinkable: Put theory into practice.


----------



## _harris (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: 0harris0Date: 2019-01-08 01:35:57Reaction Score: 5


very interesting thread!!!



dreamtime said:


> 1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.


what's this enormous looking tower in the city?! looks so huge compared to the church towers?!

+++EDIT+++

found the building.. i think! _"Cathedral Of Our Lady Antwerp"_

__


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2019-01-11 20:13:04Reaction Score: 16




UnusualBean said:


> Maps of the old world seem to only indicate roughly Greenland and northward as being properly cold, which makes me wonder if maybe "winter" for most of the world was more like light jacket weather.


"In the travel notes of F. Arkhipov, participant in Dokhutorov's embassy to London during the civil war in 1645. England appears even during that time of upheaval as an idyllic land: 'In that English state... there is no winter, no matter how long you stay there-tis always summer. And all kinds of vegetables come to fruition twice a year. And in the winter time their gardens are all green, and there is never any snow.' " source


----------



## Magnetic (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagneticDate: 2019-01-12 00:38:35Reaction Score: 8


Interesting find about the lack of winter in britain in 1645!  To me this suggests that the magnetic field was opposite of what we have now.  Paintings from that time of other media should show a vague glow in the sky with  no moon, sun, sunsets, sun rises, or stars.  So the big disaster did not happen well before 1645.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BrokenAgateDate: 2019-01-12 02:24:24Reaction Score: 11




> I read some time back that chimneys were invented, again, in the 1500s. I remember saying to myself, 'and what in the world were people doing before that?'


Sitting around in  houses full of smoke, waiting for someone to invent chimneys, I guess.


> what's this enormous looking tower in the city?! looks so huge compared to the church towers?!


The Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Coughing


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SunBardDate: 2019-10-03 16:11:40Reaction Score: 5


Humans don't really seem adapted to cold weather. Even hearty northerners tend to migrate south and have to bundle up. Winter being a recent thing would explain a lot (perhaps a nuclear winter as a result of a cataclysmic war?)


----------



## Knowncitizen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: knowncitizenDate: 2019-10-03 17:41:10Reaction Score: 3




esgee1 said:


> My understanding is that we've been slowly coming out of an ice age over the last several thousand years. Planet Earth has been slowly warming back up getting back to it's normal climate. Perhaps it's really the last (mini?) ice age of the 14th to 15th centuries that we're currently coming out of? Prior to that it was warmer, and we're just now getting back to that? Anyway, interesting to ponder on.


I like this as it fits into the greater conspiracy of big oil/gas owning & running the world. So lets say that the current idea of stratosphere aerosol injection(going on for 40 years) to cool the earth preventing global warming/climate change is nothing more than big oil protecting their profits against natural warming as we exit the ice age and need less energy to heat our homes!


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-10-03 17:51:02Reaction Score: 2




SunBard said:


> Humans don't really seem adapted to cold weather. Even hearty northerners tend to migrate south and have to bundle up. Winter being a recent thing would explain a lot (perhaps a nuclear winter as a result of a cataclysmic war?)


I had an apprentice back in the mid eighties who could work outside all winter long in a thin jacket and shirt. He was built like a rake but didn't feel or suffer from the cold. Wasn't keen on getting wet but the cold was no problem to him whereas I was in multiple layers and still cold. Both born in the same north Western British town.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SunBardDate: 2019-10-03 19:17:32Reaction Score: 1


_@jd755_,
To be fair I'm descended from mostly Mediterranean stock and count anything below seventy as cold.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RecognitionDate: 2019-10-04 00:06:14Reaction Score: 6



Title: *Miracle of the Snow: Foundation of Santa MariaMaggiore*

Artist: *Masolino da Panicale*

Date: *c. 1428-1432*

Size: *144 x 76 cm*

Location: *Museo di Capodimonte, Naples.*



This painting, part of the altar depicting the Miracle of the Snow, was painted between 1428 and 1432 by Masolino da Panicale for the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. It has since been removed and can now be seen in the National Gallery of Capodimonte, Naples. To commemorate the Miracle of the Snow, every August 5th a cascade of white petals descends from the coffered ceiling onto the altar place during the religious festivities.



This painting commemorates the foundation of the Santa Maria Maggiore in the center of Rome. Legend says that between the 4th and the 5th of August of 352, Pope Liberius and Giovanni, a rich Roman gentleman, dreamed of Mother Mary asking them to build a church devoted to her on the Esquilino hill, one of the famous Seven Hills of Rome. The virgin also told them that at the place chosen to build the church it was going to snow. Generally, snow is extremely rare in Rome, even in the coldest seasons, so the following morning when a rectangle of snow was discovered on the Esquilino hill during the hottest month of the Roman Summer, it was regarded as miraculous. People crowded to see the patch of snow, which persisted despite the heat. As soon as the plot for the building had been staked out, the snow melted, and the first major church in Rome in honor of Mary was erected in it’s place.


Could be some spaceships came in and cold weather was a part of their function? A 'pollution' of sorts?



Jacopo Zucchi, 'Miracle of the Snow', 1580, mixed tempera on panel, Città del Vaticano, Pinacoteca Vaticana, inv. 42157.

More snow from spaceships:


The Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore is called “ad Nives” in a bull of Pope Nicholas IV in 1288, and to that year date the mosaics by Filippo Rusuti [a detail below], depicting the story of the miracle, still visible today in the 18th-century loggia that covers the original facade.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: panther lakeDate: 2019-10-04 00:56:05Reaction Score: 2


One reason that you don't see paintings with snow until the 16th century starts with the facts about the materials:  Up till then, paintings were done on wooden panels and on walls.  All those could not be moved without difficulty especially if the wood was a very large piece. When the artists in the 16th century realized they needed something lighter to paint on & move & send.....they started to use canvas which was available because of its use for ship sails.  I think once they started to use canvas, they then expanded the kinds of pictures they could paint. 
They could carry canvas outside & work in any season.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-04 01:14:34Reaction Score: 1




panther lake said:


> One reason that you don't see paintings with snow until the 16th century starts with the facts about the materials:  Up till then, paintings were done on wooden panels and on walls.  All those could not be moved without difficulty especially if the wood was a very large piece. When the artists in the 16th century realized they needed something lighter to paint on & move & send.....they started to use canvas which was available because of its use for ship sails.  I think once they started to use canvas, they then expanded the kinds of pictures they could paint.
> They could carry canvas outside & work in any season.


Where is this information from?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: panther lakeDate: 2019-10-04 01:31:40Reaction Score: 1


I think some of it came from wikipedia.  At the time I was reading a book about Vemeer the Dutch painter. I wanted to get some history of canvas (since I do painting as well) and I went to look up about canvas. 
From what I had learned about painting before then, it was done on wood or other hard materials. I've read off and on about various painters but it seems painting really took off at that time.
I'll see if I can find my original source on that but I'm on my phone at this time so research is harder. I don't have a home computer. But wiki should have something about it.

I still don't know how to use the tools on this site or on my phone. But I found on Wikipedia - canvas that it was first used 1410 but not till much later that it became popular.....and that happened (apparently) starting in Venice.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-04 02:03:55Reaction Score: 5


If one, or more of the 15th century painters left a text with this info, that arguably could be considered a source. Some pseudo-historian coming up with this hypothesis some time in the 19th century, provides us with a speculation. This one of theirs is not even a plausible one.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ISeenItFirstDate: 2019-10-04 03:25:19Reaction Score: 2




panther lake said:


> One reason that you don't see paintings with snow until the 16th century starts with the facts about the materials:  Up till then, paintings were done on wooden panels and on walls.  All those could not be moved without difficulty especially if the wood was a very large piece. When the artists in the 16th century realized they needed something lighter to paint on & move & send.....they started to use canvas which was available because of its use for ship sails.  I think once they started to use canvas, they then expanded the kinds of pictures they could paint.
> They could carry canvas outside & work in any season.


I have a hard time believing this.  I could see it being because good white pigment is fairly hard to come by, but I don't know to be sure.  Snow can be painted on just about anything, as long as you have white paint.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-10-04 08:08:42Reaction Score: 3




panther lake said:


> One reason that you don't see paintings with snow until the 16th century starts with the facts about the materials: When the artists in the 16th century realized they needed something lighter to paint on & move & send.....they started to use canvas which was available because of its use for ship sails.
> They could carry canvas outside & work in any season.


I find it inconceivable that people 'back then' were not curious or imaginative enough to paint on whatever material was available and see if it worked better than what they are using. look at what gets painted on today with paint and brushes, not digital printing, just about everything has been used and is used why would it be any different in any century.
This notion of things evolving with the passage of time is a constant in the mainstream as the only way to explain things enough to make the inexplicable sort of acceptable. It's cobblers.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: EmmanuelZorgDate: 2019-10-04 13:28:48Reaction Score: 1


As long as we are speculating here, it's not as though wood and canvas are the only options for artistic backing.  Animal hides (tanned)/ leather would also work, and some of them could be lighter in color than wood.  Also canvas has a rougher surface than leather, which in some scenes would probably make a difference to the image.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: rengelDate: 2019-10-04 14:09:41Reaction Score: 2




anotherlayer said:


> Subtitle: "*Depictions of winter do not arrive until the late 15th century*"


Sorry to act as a spoilsport here. One could easily state:
"Depictions of  do not arrive until  century."
Does this imply that  didn't exist before ?

This _might _hold for some subjects (i.e. cars, airplanes, or Coca Cola bottles), but is definitely wrong for others (i.e. brothels, moneychanger, or flower or kitchen arrangements (aka Still lifes).

And the question if there was cold and snow is at least implicitly assumed on other forums that discuss i.e. Cold weather clothing of Roman soldiers.

In our beloved mainstream there exists a discipline called 'Art History'. Not that I buy it all, but they have disussed genre painting and genre hierarchies quite extensively (two of many: Hierarchy of genres - Wikipedia, The Art Genre Glossary: A New Collector's Companion) and at least try to describe what was when deemed suitable to be painted.

Another point: Don't forget for whom the famous painters worked, who ordered the paintings and paid the bills. BTW, in the Mediterranean there is little chance to experience a winter landscape. Imho, cardinals weren't much interested in snow and ice.

And yet another point: Once genre art was acceptable other (or better modern) market forces came into play: What wasn't painted before? How can I (as painter) distinguish myself from my competitors?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: panther lakeDate: 2019-10-04 21:25:49Reaction Score: 1


Here's a link to information about painting and canvas with references.  It may answer some questions about canvas and materials.

_The evolution of preparations for painting on canvas in sixteenth century Spain_

The evolution of preparations for painting on canvas in sixteenth century Spain - Museo Nacional del Prado

Believe what you want as you wish. 

Rengel makes good points about location and culture at the time.

"cardinals weren't much interested in snow and ice."

Add to that the availability of the paint was DIY.  No little plastic tubes or metal tubes to hold the paint till you put it on your palette after going out into a snowy landscape.  Don't forget to bring your easel, a chair and turpentine to clean your brushes, extra oil in case the paint dries too quickly in the cold. Many artists did sketches then did the actual painting in their studio.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-05 00:31:02Reaction Score: 2


Do we have any non-re-enactment photographs of the Civil War with snow present?


----------



## Timeshifter (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TimeshifterDate: 2019-10-05 08:33:21Reaction Score: 8




rengel said:


> Sorry to act as a spoilsport here. One could easily state:
> "Depictions of  do not arrive until  century."
> Does this imply that  didn't exist before ?
> 
> ...


This reply could have been written by a wikipedia expert.

With respect, throwing mianstream wiki sources in to a debate like this totally defeats the object.

Mainstream art historians have it figured out? I work amongst some, and I can catagorically tell you they are soley fixated with immovable and un-provable narratives. Art historians are some of the most closed minded academics I have ever met, they will never accept anything other than the dogmatic opinions served to them by their dogmattic masters.

Reasons such as 'There are no depictions of snow pre 15th century because people only wanted portraits back then' is an insult to general human intelligence, Imo.

We won't find the real truths from the mouths of mainstream academia (and I am a mainstream academic in my day job)


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: rengelDate: 2019-10-05 16:37:56Reaction Score: 1




Timeshifter said:


> This reply could have been written by a wikipedia expert.
> 
> With respect, throwing mianstream wiki sources in to a debate like this totally defeats the object.
> 
> ...


A pity, you didn't respond to my main point:
"Depictions of  do not arrive until  century."
Does this imply that  didn't exist before ?

Apart from that:
Do you believe that art historians
- get the timeline wrong (say starting at about 1400 BC),
- get the dates of birth and death of the main painters wrong,
- get the dates of creation of the their paintings wrong,
- get the development of the various styles and genres wrong?

If so, what alternatives do you suggest based on what?

I don't care how narrow-minded some Wikipedia writer (or anybody els for that matter) is.
The only thing I do care for:
Are the alledged facts somebody provides plausible and backed up by sound evidence.
Hearsay, feelings, intuition, mislike, or mere opinions are _not_ sound evidence.

As I already asked in another thread:
Is a wholesale condemnation of 'mainstream wiki sources' intelligent behavior?
Information is there where you find it.
Just take the necessary precautions...

If one looks for raw hard facts (that is: dates, namens, places, times, not opinions and therories), Wikipedia is often the fastest way to find results.
If you want to fight/replace/improve/whatever mainstream theories you first have to know what they are.
Not using or ignoring data _because_ they are from Wikipedia is plain ... (you decide).


----------



## Timeshifter (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TimeshifterDate: 2019-10-05 17:39:30Reaction Score: 2




rengel said:


> A pity, you didn't respond to my main point:
> "Depictions of  do not arrive until  century."
> Does this imply that  didn't exist before ?
> 
> ...


XXX implies it is possible to have not existed prior. We should investigate further.

We dont ignore data (I certainly do not) from anywhere, we use it in the context that it is found and interogate it.

Knowing what mainstream theories are, does not mean we have to recycle them here as absolutes. What is the point?

And as for not believing' alledged facts unless somebody proves them plausible and backed up by sound evidence' would that be sound evidence have to be written by anybody, and anywhen, peer reviewed by people who have bought that anybody and anywhen narrative  hook, line & sinker, without their own thought and investigation?  That is stupidity and the worst excuse for research imo.

As for Hearsay, feelings, intuition, mislike, or mere opinions _not_ being sound evidence, I say you are missing out on a much broader scope of data by ignoring those things, than you would by ignoring main stream facts or proofs. 

And yes, I am saying in the main Art Historians are wrong and misled about many times, dates, places and people. Have a read around the forums to see just some of the ideas outside of the mainstream narrative.

Cheers


----------



## wild heretic (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: wild hereticDate: 2019-10-05 17:51:11Reaction Score: 6




rengel said:


> A pity, you didn't respond to my main point:
> "Depictions of  do not arrive until  century."
> Does this imply that  didn't exist before ?


Yes, absolutely they do! Especially something as ubiquitous as snow, winter and ice. It is extremely suspicious that something, not just very common, BUT an *absolute certainty of existing* over several months of the year in a European painter's environs, e.g. winter, is not present in *ANY* paintings before the the very minimum age of the 1400s and probably 1500s.

The fact that winter has never been painted before this time, *ever*, must mean winter did not exist back in the middle ages *UNLESS* evidence of a contrary reason is given.

Rengel, let's hear your reasons and cite the evidence underneath with links please. Can I start, and you can add?

1. Art historians have got the dates wrong and really a lot of those winter landscapes were painted in the middle ages not the 16th and 17th centuries proving that there has always been winter since man figured out paint. 

*Evidence: *None so far. In fact, I once found the opposite, where a painting attributed to the 1500s was actually 100 years later in the 1600s as the date painted on the bottom had clearly been altered when looked at close up. I'd have to search for that now in my old files.


2. Patrons, aka the church and other rich guys wanting their portrait taken, hated winter. All of them, without exception.

*Evidence: *Zero. Two obvious things wrong with this extremely implausible argument: A. Painters only painted for rich patrons and not as a hobby or because they could, or were wealthy enough themselves to afford lots of leisure time enough to paint. B. Suddenly in the 1500s lots and lots of patrons loved winter scenes and snow! Yes, the old cardinals were so stuck in their ways and the new generation threw out those winter hating traditions and commissioned artists to paint snow without abandon! Likelihood of such: *very close to zero*. 


3. Winter materials and gloves for painters hadn't been invented until the 1500s, so their little hands got too cold and their canvas and paint froze or whatever and they had to retreat inside and paint apples and portraits instead. 

*Evidence:* Zero. Obvious argument against: The painter can *look out a window* at the winter scene while baking next to a roaring fire in his hearth. 


4. White pigment hadn't been invented yet so ice and snow couldn't be painted. 

*Evidence:* Zero. In fact the opposite. Oh look white paint on medieval religious paintings. 

medieval paintings at DuckDuckGo

To counter this you would have to say that every painting before the 1500s with white pigment was really made post 1500s (without any evidence I might add), but then that is extremely unlikely unless there were no paintings at all before this time, at which point not just winter but everything else supposedly to do with the middle ages has to be thrown in contention and we are into brand new territory way beyond winter in paintings.

Anyone else who wants to contribute to the ridiculous counter arguments please start at 5. and continue...


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-05 18:03:51Reaction Score: 2


Just wanted to add a little into the totality of circumstances here.

You guys should see all the non-sense used by the mainstream in their attempts to explain how medieval castles and large building were getting heated during winter. There is no one specific source for this one, so just google around. You can start with this.

Obviously, any contemporary sources are missing for the reasons listed in this thread. But...there are a lot of contributions from various people, and here is a funny one:

_Nevertheless, the temperatures in most castles were probably not as icy as you would think from reading many novels. If nothing else, most castles housed large numbers of people and __they create their own heat__! _


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: rengelDate: 2019-10-05 20:06:52Reaction Score: 1




wild heretic said:


> Yes, absolutely they do! Especially something as ubiquitous as snow, winter and ice. It is extremely suspicious that something, not just very common, BUT an *absolute certainty of existing* over several months of the year in a European painter's environs, e.g. winter, is not present in *ANY* paintings before the the very minimum age of the 1400s and probably 1500s.
> 
> The fact that winter has never been painted before this time, *ever*, must mean winter did not exist back in the middle ages *UNLESS* evidence of a contrary reason is given.


I recommend 'Logic 101'.

Timeshifter got it right:
'XXX implies it is possible to have not existed prior. We should investigate further.'
That's my position too.



> Rengel, let's hear your reasons and cite the evidence underneath with links please. Can I start, and you can add?
> 
> 1. Art historians have got the dates wrong and really a lot of those winter landscapes were painted in the middle ages not the 16th and 17th centuries proving that there has always been winter since man figured out paint.
> 
> *Evidence: *None so far. In fact, I once found the opposite, where a painting attributed to the 1500s was actually 100 years later in the 1600s as the date painted on the bottom had clearly been altered when looked at close up. I'd have to search for that now in my old files.


Yeah, no evidence! And how do you know that 'really a lot of those winter landscapes were painted in the middle ages not the 16th and 17th centuries'?


> 2. Patrons, aka the church and other rich guys wanting their portrait taken, hated winter. All of them, without exception.
> 
> *Evidence: *Zero. Two obvious things wrong with this extremely implausible argument: A. Painters only painted for rich patrons and not as a hobby or because they could, or were wealthy enough themselves to afford lots of leisure time enough to paint. B. Suddenly in the 1500s lots and lots of patrons loved winter scenes and snow! Yes, the old cardinals were so stuck in their ways and the new generation threw out those winter hating traditions and commissioned artists to paint snow without abandon! Likelihood of such: *very close to zero*.


You seem to like irony and sarcasm. I try to take part in a civil dicussion, but what you apply here is a cheap tactic: You exaggerate statements ('All of them, without exception'; 'lots and lots of patrons', 'threw out these winter hating tradition') to make them appear ridiculous. That's not a civil discussion, this is ad hominem!
Just show me _verbatim quotes of my words_, before you claim what I have alledgedly stated.
For the interested: According to the common art history, genre painting (that is painting of everyday scenes, including winter scenes) came later than the great Italian Renaissance painters (Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo, et. al.). If somebody knows that better I'm willing to learn.


> 3. Winter materials and gloves for painters hadn't been invented until the 1500s, so their little hands got too cold and their canvas and paint froze or whatever and they had to retreat inside and paint apples and portraits instead.
> 
> *Evidence:* Zero. Obvious argument against: The painter can *look out a window* at the winter scene while baking next to a roaring fire in his hearth.


Are you quoting me?
Where have I witten 'Winter materials and gloves for painters hadn't been invented until the 1500s'? Or is this just sarcasm? Or what do you want to say?



> 4. White pigment hadn't been invented yet so ice and snow couldn't be painted.
> 
> *Evidence:* Zero. In fact the opposite. Oh look white paint on medieval religious paintings.
> 
> ...


Exactly where did I claim 'White pigment hadn't been invented yet'?
I gather, you haven't read my post.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-05 20:12:11Reaction Score: 1


Wondering if this logic can explain why they did not paint Tesla Cars in 2nd century AD.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: rengelDate: 2019-10-06 05:30:40Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> Wondering if this logic can explain why they did not paint Tesla Cars in 2nd century AD.
> 
> View attachment 30808


Nice, but let me try to take this remark seriously.
I can only repeat:

Timeshifter got it right:
'XXX implies it is possible to have not existed prior. We should investigate further.'
That's my position too.

That means: Both is possible - existence and non-existence.
We just don't know and must look elsewhere to find out.
That's just a corollary of the insight: The map is not the reality.
The fact that something has been painted or not, doesn't mean that it existed or not.

Of course, I understand that it might look suspicious to somebody (not me, in this case) that snow hadn't been painted before a certain point in time. But the same holds for card games, horse, races, sexual intercourse, etc. Virtually everything has been painted on some first point in time. Didn't it exist before, because it were only painted after this date?

From the fact that someting is depicted/painted/heard of/spoken about/reported...
or not one simply can't deduce its existence or non-existence.

As I see it, your whole forum rests on this premise.
You are interested in some known, unknown or controversial phenomen that might or might not have existed. You dig out representations of this phenomenon (pictures, texts, maps, etc.), present the results in a digestible manner, state your insights and hypotheses in an open, rational, non-agressive way, and wait for the reactions of others. This has drawn me to this forum, in the first place.

But then, if we can't agree on some elementary logic communication will become very difficult.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-06 06:05:30Reaction Score: 2


That’s where the totality of circumstances kicks in and investigators look for additional evidence of the existence of winter,

What did they use to heat enormous castles, cathedrals and palaces prior to 1400s. What did they use after? Did they experience any difficulties with heating those before, snd after 1400?

Where are the pre-1400 sleds?

Stuff like this.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: rengelDate: 2019-10-06 06:30:39Reaction Score: 1




Timeshifter said:


> XXX implies it is possible to have not existed prior. We should investigate further.


Yes, that's my position, too.


> We dont ignore data (I certainly do not) from anywhere, we use it in the context that it is found and interogate it.


Did I claim you did? Who is 'we'?



> Knowing what mainstream theories are, does not mean we have to recycle them here as absolutes. What is the point?


Who is recycling mainstream theories 'as absolutes'? The point is: Lacking a better alternative they are a starting point. Fomenko started with his famous Global Chronological Map. Art history does offer a time frame. You have something better? I'm willing to learn.



> And as for not believing' alledged facts unless somebody proves them plausible and backed up by sound evidence' would that be sound evidence have to be written by anybody, and anywhen, peer reviewed by people who have bought that anybody and anywhen narrative  hook, line & sinker, without their own thought and investigation?  That is stupidity and the worst excuse for research imo.


I haven't said that. You build up and then fight a strawman. This is dishonesty.



> As for Hearsay, feelings, intuition, mislike, or mere opinions _not_ being sound evidence, I say you are missing out on a much broader scope of data by ignoring those things, than you would by ignoring main stream facts or proofs.


I haven't said that either, especially I haven't said one should ignore these things.
I only have said they are not sound evidence. Flashes of inspiration and hunches are common in the history of sciences. But even these have to be backed up by further research.



> And yes, I am saying in the main Art Historians are wrong and misled about many times, dates, places and people. Have a read around the forums to see just some of the ideas outside of the mainstream narrative.


Hic Rhodos, hic salta!

	Post automatically merged: 10/5/19



KorbenDallas said:


> That’s where the totality of circumstances kicks in and investigators look for additional evidence of the existence of winter,
> 
> What did they use to heat enormous castles, cathedrals and palaces prior to 1400s. What did they use after? Did they experience any difficulties with heating those before, snd after 1400?
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm with you. That's the way it works.
You were suspicious, so you asked more questions.
I didn't claim snow and winter existed.
In that specific case, I only tried to show that jumping from one fact (missing winter paintings) to another (non-existence of winter) is not conclusive. The one fact might lead to hypotheses about the other one. But the hypotheses must then be corroborated by other means.


----------



## Timeshifter (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TimeshifterDate: 2019-10-06 10:05:48Reaction Score: 3


Data. Wiki, although known about, read, understood, to use in a context of 'this is what msn wants us to believe' and to direct people to it as so (as I do) wiki is not 'this is what non biased, no agenda specialists, believe or know as facts'

It is an open source means of propaganda at best. It is the agenda.

'Who is recycling mainstream theories 'as absolutes'?'

'I haven't said that. You build up and then fight a strawman. This is dishonesty'

No dishonesty meant.

You believe wiki et al should be used with caution, but also be utilised as the best source of info available?
You did post links to Wikipedia as a source of proof? for how academics and art historians have gathered absolute facts, or at least the best facts we have.

'In our beloved mainstream there exists a discipline called 'Art History'. Not that I buy it all, but they have disussed genre painting and genre hierarchies quite extensively (two of many: Hierarchy of genres - Wikipedia, The Art Genre Glossary: A New Collector's Companion) and at least try to describe what was when deemed suitable to be painted'

Again my point: indoctrinated art historians, discuss art history, using info from other indoctrinated historians etc, the blind leading the blind, or rather the ignorant leading the ignorant.

You wrote: 'Another point: Don't forget for whom the famous painters worked, who ordered the paintings and paid the bills. BTW, in the Mediterranean there is little chance to experience a winter landscape. *Imho, cardinals weren't much interested in snow and ice.'*

Could you back this up with some reasoning, as if not and with the greatest of respect, this line of yours could be straight out of a wiki quote, and I would ask where is the critical though in that statement? You have suggested that forum members (All researchers) should not use gut feelings, distrust, ideas, hunches as absolute facts, but your opinion of cardinals desire for subject matter should be?

We = serious researches with open minds and genuine questions, examining all or any means of discovery, whilst understanding mainstream data, but treating it with heavy caution and in some cases disdain.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RecognitionDate: 2019-10-06 22:09:52Reaction Score: 6


I believe the use of the word 'miracle' in many paintings of snow suggests that the rareness of the snow was notable. I'd also like to piggyback off this topic and suggest that the sky may have been painted as completely cloudless for a significant period of time. This quora link shows what they consider to be clouds first appearance in paintings. When do clouds appear in paintings? What is the first known example of a cloud depicted in a painting? - Quora The art scholars in our midst, please comment on the accuracy of the post

I find it interesting that the miracle of the snow is one of the first images of clouds (per quora, anyway). We have spaceship like crafts with people in several of these miracle of snow paintings.  A few of the Quora posts also have spaceship like shapes/faces in the first pictures of 'clouds', in different cultures. Snow comes from clouds as well. Is it possible that this cold weather and clouds suddenly appeared together?  Maybe right before or after the deluge? Could the deluge be intimately connected with the early appearance of clouds?

Some images showing a relationship between spaceships and snow: 




“Cumulostratus forming, fine weather cirri above” from ‘Essay on the modifications of clouds’ by Luke Howard (1865 edition) (via Internet Archive)

A cloud study of cumulus and nimbus rainfall by Luke Howard (1803-1811) (© Royal Meteorological Society)


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: BrokenAgateDate: 2019-10-11 02:27:58Reaction Score: 8




panther lake said:


> One reason that you don't see paintings with snow until the 16th century starts with the facts about the materials:  Up till then, paintings were done on wooden panels and on walls.  All those could not be moved without difficulty especially if the wood was a very large piece. When the artists in the 16th century realized they needed something lighter to paint on & move & send.....they started to use canvas which was available because of its use for ship sails.  I think once they started to use canvas, they then expanded the kinds of pictures they could paint.
> They could carry canvas outside & work in any season.


They had parchment, animal hides, and fabric, though. And any good artist can paint from memory to a certain extent. I don't have to carry my art materials outside in the cold in order to paint a scene with snow in it. They simply didn't depict snow in ANYTHING, not even stained glass or outdoor murals or bas relief carvings. Maybe stretched canvases made it easier to do snow scenes, but they still could have been done using what was available.


----------



## _harris (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: 0harris0Date: 2019-10-11 11:09:03Reaction Score: 1


maybe medievel europe was closer to the equator so they just didn't get snow? it was [supposedly] warmer on average ..

maybe some sort of pole / crust shifts happen, and every few hundred years?!

is there _any_ art from anywhere in the world that depects snow prior to these early european snow paintings?


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2019-10-11 13:23:47Reaction Score: 12




0harris0 said:


> maybe medievel europe was closer to the equator so they just didn't get snow? it was [supposedly] warmer on average ..
> 
> maybe some sort of pole / crust shifts happen, and every few hundred years?!
> 
> is there _any_ art from anywhere in the world that depects snow prior to these early european snow paintings?


If I draw the loose connection, it's a shift of the earth which pulls all of Europe north, causes havoc, creates the Sahara desert, mud floods from St. Petersburg down to Pompeii, forms the Great lakes, expands Hudson Bay, freezes woolly mammoths and eliminates the weak. And it happened on a weekend.

If winter existed 2,000 years ago, we'd have statues of gods in winter coats and not with their balls always hanging out.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-10-11 14:21:25Reaction Score: 7


I think there is a correlation between temperature and air pressure. Which could probably explain the giants as well.

_The pressure law states that for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure. This can be easily understood by visualising the particles of gas in the container moving with a greater energy when the temperature is increased._


----------



## anotherlayer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: anotherlayerDate: 2019-10-11 15:03:26Reaction Score: 6




KorbenDallas said:


> I think there is a correlation between temperature and air pressure. Which could probably explain the giants as well.
> 
> _The pressure law states that for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure. This can be easily understood by visualising the particles of gas in the container moving with a greater energy when the temperature is increased._


I can get behind this. The atmosphere was different prior to some sort of planetary cataclysm. It supported the use of over-the-air electricity we're always going on about. It supported bigger people and allowed for some sort of magic that allowed you to move 50 ton stones all by yourself.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CasimirDate: 2019-10-11 18:06:40Reaction Score: 3


Not to derail too much, but along the lines of "different" atmosphere/pressure parameters to cause the weather/growth patterns. In microbiology, cells and pieces of cells are limited in size due to a surface area to volume ratio. There's a limit where you're too big to pull materiel in. Its interesting because it depends on volume- how much you can fit inside, as well. link




I think there are many not necessarily obvious thresholds and ratios relative to humans experiencing the environment that would be hard to even fathom unless you accidentally record/measure one. re: magnetic fields, atmospheric pressure, climate in general, etc


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: aero618Date: 2019-10-11 18:13:43Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> I think there is a correlation between temperature and air pressure. Which could probably explain the giants as well.
> 
> _The pressure law states that for a constant volume of gas in a sealed container the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to its pressure. This can be easily understood by visualising the particles of gas in the container moving with a greater energy when the temperature is increased._


KD water comes into the equation when you relate temperature with pressure, as it's the water in the atmosphere that absorbs & transfers heat by being "energised"~ humidity levels may be a key to look at, although modern research, say with ice core samples can't determine historic humidity levels~ 
with the giants/atmospheric pressure relationship view~ have you concidered a slower spin of the earth (gravity) as a cause?


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2020-01-18 10:54:42Reaction Score: 9




1838, post-reset?

Category:Frederik Marinus Kruseman - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2020-01-19 01:39:15Reaction Score: 1




dreamtime said:


> View attachment 38643
> 
> 1838, post-reset?
> 
> Category:Frederik Marinus Kruseman - Wikimedia Commons


This one just looks like a winter scene to me. The building is old bit no bricks missing or roof damage. Chimney smoke from inside hearth (so not a displaced household). Kid on ice skates. Even a bare-headed baby outside that moma isn't huddling for dear life as protection from the cold.


----------



## CurvedBullet (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: CurvedBulletDate: 2020-01-20 00:34:16Reaction Score: 0




dreamtime said:


> View attachment 38643
> 
> 1838, post-reset?
> 
> Category:Frederik Marinus Kruseman - Wikimedia Commons


But when after a Reset I wonder? 'Cuz someone figured out ice skating. The use of the tools to fashion a blade was already there - swords, etc - but how'd the leisurely activity of ice skating come into play while another group of people are hellbent on sorting out wreckage. Curious.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2020-05-08 18:40:24Reaction Score: 1




dreamtime said:


> It gets even better. The Roman hypocaust wasn't powered by wood and fire. I will prepare a thread for this topic to discuss in detail.


Just wrote the article on it: _Roman Hypocausts are a myth_


----------



## wild heretic (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: wild hereticDate: 2020-05-17 18:39:58Reaction Score: 1




Magnetic said:


> Interesting find about the lack of winter in britain in 1645!  To me this suggests that the magnetic field was opposite of what we have now.  Paintings from that time of other media should show a vague glow in the sky with  no moon, sun, sunsets, sun rises, or stars.  So the big disaster did not happen well before 1645.



Seems to be, but It seems too late for England to not have winter. 1645 is very late for me. But it is what it is. 

Fascinating.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2020-06-04 04:39:33Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> We have those outfits they are wearing. May be they could help us out to verify a thing or two.
> 
> View attachment 12641


Ruff, in dresswear, crimped or pleated *collar* or frill, usually wide and full, worn in Europe, especially from the *mid*-16th century into the 17th century, by both men and women. The beginnings of the ruff can be seen in the early years of the 16th century, when men allowed the top of the shirt to be exposed.
(Brittanica)


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: GlobeHead69Date: 2020-06-05 09:15:22Reaction Score: 1


Could the trigger for the change be, something happened to the firmament?

Nuremberg
1561


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SomeoneDate: 2020-08-06 13:44:28Reaction Score: 0


Wow, this topic discussion was very heated, I believe everything is opinion, knowledge is opinion, truth is opinion, data is opinion, proof is opinion. Also I believe no one wants to criticize a ideia before it’s totally formed, it’s necessary the construction before the destruction (of a ideia) , if the ideia is not totally formed what chances does it have to compete (destruction) with more mature ideias.

seams there where a lot of global changes happening on that time.

there were a theory I came across once that even the gravity and oxygen levels had some change

if was never mention never happened? by the crude logic I would agree that the lack of proof is not the proof of lacking
But, the heck, we got pretty much mention of almost anything from ancient sources, et, vimanas, sex, Kama-sutra, advanced maths, quantum physics, you name it, there is just no winter.
Kkkkkkkkk

I m getting convinced of the ciclical mini-ice ages Theory, even fits some mythologies, ragnarock, frost giants

i m not an artist, so I don’t really know, but allow me to speculate a little

art with a patron would be more numerous, and better conserved, so better chances to survive.

hobbyist artists might have some limitations but they can improvise around it

I expect from a masterpieces to be best have something unexpected to differentiate it, giving a real glimpse of its time.


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 2, 2021)

Found this in wiki:


> According to T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, the ancient Indo-Europeans had *only three seasons*, which was probably associated with agricultural seasons. However, later, in almost all Indo-European peoples, the allocation of four seasons is recorded. The Slavic name of summer is an innovation, while maintaining the ancient meaning of "year"



Then they provide a table:





In order from highest to lowest: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter​Despite them saying that summer is new, the word itself has more varied pronunciation than the word for winter across languages. More specifically, spring has at least 8 different pronunciations, summer has at least 8 as well, autumn has 9 (Polabian calls autumn by the same name as winter, while Upper Sorbian and Chech show autumn to be related to winter) and the winter has 3. Maybe the winter is the more recent here? Here's another wiki article:



> A three-season calendar is a calendar in which there are only three seasons.
> 
> The three-season calendar in ancient times was quite widespread in the Ancient Mediterranean. For example, in the Egyptian calendar, the year was divided into three seasons: river overflow, sowing and harvest.
> 
> ...


----------

