Do you think women in the past had good hair? [Archive] - The Long Hair Community Discussion Boards

Marchpane

January 15th, 2011, 09:02 PM

So there are loads of paintings of the classic beauty in history with long, loooong, extremely beautiful hair. A lot of these, esp. the big favourites for icons (I love those!) are from the Romantic era, depicting medieval women with long, flowing locks. It is of course always shiny and thick. You also see it in the movies, like 'Tristan and Isolde'. (anyone seen that? just watch it for the haaaaiiir!:p) I kind of always assumed this was the hair women used to have, and what we all try to attain.

But when I think actually of all the science, time, special/exotic substances that we use (like jojoba oil, etc.), as well as particular washing methods and such, I wonder if the long hair you find here isn't much healthier and prettier than hair "back then" would actually have been. I guess I'm thinking European history specifically, as I realize that certain cultures have particular time-honoured methods that obviously really work and still do (like Indian). We also have better nutrition.

But perhaps when basically everyone has long hair, then everyone kinda knows how to make it look good. And of course if we're going way back to medieval times, they're not using heat styling or straightening or using cones haha. So I'm just curious, what do you guys think? Do you think women did have hair like that depicted in paintings and such?

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2577/blairleightontheaccolad.th.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/blairleightontheaccolad.jpg/)
http://img821.imageshack.us/i/blairleightontheaccolad.jpg

christine1989

January 15th, 2011, 09:24 PM

ravenreed

January 15th, 2011, 09:39 PM

Well, given the horrible beauty methods during some eras and the fact that people have been bleaching and dyeing their hair as far back as Roman times, if not earlier, I am pretty sure it was much like it is now, a case by case basis.

We have this myth that people didn't use things that were bad for them "back then" in the mythical golden age of healthier living. The truth is that people used what they had and sometimes it was very dangerous for them. During Renaissance times, women wore face makeup made from lead. To deal with the pitting that the makeup caused, they did a mercury facial treatment. That is just one example.

patchoulilove

January 15th, 2011, 09:43 PM

I think I agree with Christine1989 mostly, but to play devil's advocate, maybe their hair was relatively luxurious.

Think about all the crap we (collectively as modern Westerners) put into our bodies -- all the fast food, preservatives... unnatural processed junk. Back in the day, our ancestors at the very least had a diet that wasn't so alien to the body or as laden with antibiotics/hormones/pesticides, etc. PLUS they certainly had much more manual labor, fresh air, and exercise than our generation ever experiences. All of which could have contributed to excellent hair. On the other hand, intense bouts of famine in hard times probably wreaked all sorts of havoc also.

Hm. I'm torn. :D

FullMoonTrim

January 15th, 2011, 09:47 PM

:)Think about all the crap we (collectively as modern Westerners) put into our bodies -- all the fast food, preservatives... unnatural processed junk. Back in the day, our ancestors at the very least had a diet that wasn't so alien to the body or as laden with antibiotics/hormones/pesticides, etc. PLUS they certainly had much more manual labor, fresh air, and exercise than our generation ever experiences. All of which could have contributed to excellent hair.

You make some good points!

ravenreed

January 15th, 2011, 09:49 PM

In my grandmother's generation, they used to say that you lose a tooth with every child. That was because being pregnant took such a toll on women who didn't have adequate nutrition like we do currently. If it was so hard on teeth, what was the toll on the rest of the body, like hair?

Lamb

January 15th, 2011, 11:04 PM

I doubt it really looked like it does in the paintings of the time. Art is idealized so the beautiful hair was likely in the mind of the artist. I'm sure not washing it as much or with as many chemicals was good for their hair but with the narrow diet women of the past had to live with I doubt it was as thick as ours today.

This.
Lack of preservatives and processed stuff does not a good diet make, and you had to be born into a well-off (or very lucky) family to eat nutritious, abundant meals every day, even in countries like England. The Victorian ladies with their long hair, whose daguerrotypes and photographs we all drool over, lived among women who started working at age 8, got married early, had a child every year in conditions we cannot even imagine, and, as someone else has pointed out, lost at least one tooth (and heaven knows what else) with every baby.

Fresh air and manual labour are all very well - if you can eat well beforehand, and rest plenty afterwards. I doubt the average cottager had that luxury, even in countries like England, a century or two ago.

Contrary to popular belief, the quality of air in most places was actually worse than it is today in big towns and along railway lines. The famous London fog was actually more smog than fog...

So, no, I do not think women in the past had better hair than we do today.

milagro

January 15th, 2011, 11:20 PM

Agree with ravenreed and Lamb. Long thick and shiny hair would not have been thought of as woman's best ornament were it common. We know false hair, weaves and wigs are no new things. And I guess the habit (very general) of married women covering their head (the older the more) must have originated in some vanity, not only morals :) And if you consider a 25 yo female was deemed middle-aged a few centuries ago.. :)

skaempfer

January 15th, 2011, 11:52 PM

Have a Look at Rapunzel's Delight. These people have, one may presume, the best of long hair of the times. They would have worn it up all the time. The hair varies in quality down at the ends in the photographs, and I imagine that's pretty much the way it was.

Just as an example, I have dry, rather difficult hair. I wash it about twice a week, never use a dryer, use excellent, moisturizing shampoo and conditioner. DH used to have long hair, nearly to his waist. He used whatever supermarket shampoo was handy, no conditioner, washed every day and blasted it with the blow dryer when it suited him. He also did not trim at all on his way to waist. His hair was a good six inches longer than mine. And it was perfect. Mine was already splitting. He could have grown his down to his ankles and it still would have looked good.

So, yes I'm sure there were some women with gorgeous hair. Why wouldn't there have been? But certainly not all.

rose.grace

January 16th, 2011, 12:28 AM

:soapbox:I don't know if they were common or not, but I used to have many pictures women's hair of the past (not sure how far in the past you're talking) that had super thick, super wavy (probably from braids, which is probably how they kept themselves from being strangled in it from head to toe), super long hair that looked like a tent when down, and fell to the floor and beyond.

I think at least in those days (whenever cameras were first invented, it looks like) their hair was much healthier. I think one reason was that dying it wasn't so popular, cutting it was out of the question for many of them, and I read at the long hair site (where I got those pictures from) one man's opinion is that the longer hair is, the stronger and more self-sustaining it is; the less hairs are lost or shed. Alas, the site has been closed for nearly 3 years or I'd post the link. I wish I wouldn't have lost all my pictures, or I'd post them here, too.

Lack of junk foods back then, must have contributed, too, I believe, as well as lack of stress. Yes, I know women worked very hard back then, but the human body gets stronger with use and the more physically active you are, my opinion is, the less mentally stressed you are. People nowadays are so mentally stressed... always hurrying to get to a thousand places every day, to work, to school, to driving kids around--think road rage :p

But, everyone's daily life was different, as some of you have pointed out. I don't know if I believe women lost a tooth for every child. I think that was sort of a joke women had. I could be wrong. :shrug:

I've heard my ex husband's grandmother tell of how much more beautiful girls and women's hair was when she was young, than it is now, as a general rule, and I believe her.

I also believe shampoo is one of the worst evils ever invented, and, in itself has been a great contributer to thinner, sicker hair for the majority of the population. My grandmothers had great hair until they started using Drema and Breck, then Prell... Yuk!--and started buying white Wonder Bread instead of making their own "brown" (wheat) bread.

Then add PPT dyes... bleaches... perms, hair spray and the gazillion "products" women use now daily... that actually affect the health of hair at the roots... and the perms... especially of the 20's!! Ack!, burned their hair down to the scalp!-- but that wasn't a health problem, just a vanity one. :smirk:

Sorry for the long post... I'm in one of those moods and this is something I've pondered for many moons, myself.

Aveyronnaise

January 16th, 2011, 01:53 AM

I am one of those who thinks that it depended on the circumstance.I know for a fact that Victorians and Edwardians absolutely fried and ratted their hair they also used hair wrapped forms to get high pompadours. All of those lovely fuzzy curls we see in photos were made by using tongs heated on the stove . Yikes!
I think better hair would have probably been found in the ancient world where people had better hygiene. Still, like someone else mentioned, people have been self abusing for beauty ideals for a very, very long time.

Bene

January 16th, 2011, 02:00 AM

In general, I think they may have had slightly better hair condition than women generally do today. Not because they knew better or were more in tune with nature or anything like that, but because they were limited by technology. Sure, some women bleached, dyed, and used chemicals, but the practices weren't nearly as widespread as they are today. Nor were the techniques as streamlined, perfected, or readily available as they are today. Today, anyone can run to a corner store and get a box of dye and do some serious damage. Back then (whenever "then" is that we're talking about :laugh:), it wasn't that easy.

Also, considering how much of a pain in the ass it was to heat water for washing, hair had to go without it for a bit. Hygiene standards were different. Today, we hear of a lot of women washing every single day, and then doing all the stuff to make sure hair looks nice in order to make up for the stripping that washing does. And, by looking at a lot of old pictures, I don't think women were too concerned with frizz. So, heat styling obviously wasn't a thing.

Nymph

January 16th, 2011, 02:22 AM

I honestly think they had a lot, A LOT worse hair than now.

First, parasites and diseases. Headlice, ticks, everything. Non-noble women would probably have to shave it short every once in a while or scratch themselves bald every now and then. Poor nutrition doesn't help at all. Maybe noble women were a bit more spared, but they didn't know that you needed vitamins and things like that, plus people did not have access to other foods than seasonal foods. In summer and autumn you had enough fruit but in the winter people most probably suffered from lack of certain vitamins. Also, for good hair you need protein, and meat was certainly not common place food for medieval people. Their diet might have been more or less healthy, but since there was no fridge, they would have a pot with a mixture of vegetables and maybe some meat in it, on the fire, boiling all day long to prevent it from going bad. Whatever vitamin there was in there at that time was probably dead by the time you ate it.

Second: no soap, no shampoo. Their hair was greasy and sloppy most of the time (and I don't think they had discovered WO method :wink:) bathing in the middle ages was considered dangerous and thus not done often. It gets better during the renaissance and victorian age but then we go on to the third point

Third: funky hair styling methods. During the renaissance, blonde hair was the color people strived for. Renaissance ladies would collect cat urine, wet their hair with it and sit in the sun. Cat urine contains ammonia, and that would fry the hair into some sort of strawberry blonde when done repeatedly. During the victorian age, straight hair was considered ugly or an indicator of a bad character in women, basically everybody who didn't have curls naturally would curl their hair. They had hair pieces to add long locks, but most of their actual hair was probably rather damaged.

So, no, I think that the hair of ladies of ancient times didn't look better than ours nowadays.

Igor

January 16th, 2011, 02:43 AM

Frankly, I would say there is no way they had “good” hair.

First of all, paintings and art does not always mirror reality. It’s the artist’s fantasy world or the artist was paid to make the woman look good. We have examples from history of marriages being arranged by royalty where the fiancés have only seen each other on paintings and experience royal (Pun intended) disappointments when meeting each other in real life.
It’s highly likely the artist got the order “Make her look good or you lose your head”

When it comes to the photos of famous longhaired ladies, keep in mind that these women had those photos taken because they had the very best hair of their time. They were not a representative of the common population. They lived off their hair: The photos, the books and the “hair water” they sold. It’s known they collected their shed hair and not unlikely it was hidden under their real hair to make it look even more impressive.

When it came to hair care, they didn’t have the tools we had. Far from. For the majority, what women had of tools, it was only the brush. For about 500 years, people believed water led to illnesses (Following the black plague) and had to be avoided at almost all costs. Oils and brews were only used by the very top of society. The brush was used to brush out dirt and scalp gunk.

Diet was pretty horrible. If you read any real history, you will find that gastronomy was plagued by really bizarre theories, like that all food needed to be hot or it would cool down the body (Ruining lots of nutrients that way!) or that eating too many vegetable would cause you to take up herbivore properties like a dull, slow mind. Rich people ate salty meats and poor people ate porridge. Food was salted and spiced heavily to hide that a lot of food was half rotten when served. There was no way to preserve fresh food without altering them, right up to when the freezer became common.

Preservatives and junk food is actually a step up from the foods our ancestors ate. Just compare heights from the past up until now. Its common medical knowledge that people grow taller on a good diet. The general health of a population can be viewed simplified by the average height. Our ancestors were short. Very short. For my part of the world, we only recently caught up to the average height during Viking times, where people actually ate relatively healthy and the middle ages represented a huge dive in height.

When it came to handling and styling, it was pretty destructive too. Backcombing was actually believed to keep hair from falling out. Bizarre styling products containing heavy metals was used. Bleach, perms and dye from really strange sources was used: Urine and salts was common in those.

People were so plagued by lice that some women would shave their heads and use wigs. You know those cute little dogs you always see people posing with on classic art? They were bread to be cute little deflectors of lice. Yep, you read that correctly. People had dogs so their lice would be attracted to them instead of the owners.

I really think the belief that life was better “back then” is a completely romanticized idea by people who only know of the past from movies or generalised history books.

dropinthebucket

January 16th, 2011, 03:02 AM

It's an interesting question. They didn't have the toxic beauty products widely distributed through corporations that we have today, that's true. However, dangerous substances have been used for cosmetics throughout history. In Europe, Victorian women used lead face paints and lead enamelling to gain a white complexion (and lead poisoning); eighteenth-century women used prussic acid in their eyes to make them large and lustrous looking (two famous court beauties, the Gunn sisters, went blind from the use of this acid by the time they were 30); one of the most famously beautiful of the de Medici women used a solution of lye, human urine, and lemon to lighten her brown hair to blond, although strictly speaking this was not necessarily toxic (she did have to sit outside in the sun with the solution on her hair for several hours).

However, only the very rich could afford such items or lengthy processes. Much of what has been written about cosmetics history focuses on the aristocracy. By the eighteenth century, we do have cosmetics recipe books for the middle classes, which is somewhat more helpful for a generalized picture. I do think the masses of people were healthier in terms of what was used for the hair and in terms of cosmetic/personal care items in general, 1) because most couldn't afford any, 2) most used free or cheap natural products, if anything, and 3) regular bathing and hair washing was less frequent than today, as of course was regular hair cutting.

Too, urbanization plays another role, as once people were crowded into cities without adequate hygiene, wigs, perfumes, and other "cover-uppers" for the wealthy became the norm. In pre-urban, medieval Europe, however, literary and historical sources suggest a reasonable and healthy toilette, with natural items like licorice used as a breath freshener, eggs and honey used on hair, fresh cream used as a face wash, and herbs used as hair rinses. Even peasant farm girls had access to some of these items, and fresh water was available to dip hair into for a wash. Then, of course, there are the infamous medieval bath houses, built in the Roman pattern, but with herbs and less expensive perfumes substituted for the exotic perfumes used by the Romans.

But, to balance that, there were wide variations depending on period and region in terms of overall health, which surely had to affect hair health. In regions and periods where many were starving or undernourished, I would not expect the hair to be luxuriant. I have always wondered if peri-Revolutionary art in France, where the women have shorter, thinner hair is partly reflecting this.

Definitely an interesting and complex question, and I think it would be hard to make any generalizations, given the wide differences between class, region and historical period. Sally Pointer's _The History of Artifice_ is a great book for anyone interested in the history of cosmetics, full of interesting trivia and wonderful period summaries.

Aveyronnaise

January 16th, 2011, 03:06 AM

Bene

January 16th, 2011, 03:26 AM

Dragon

January 16th, 2011, 04:12 AM

Dragon

January 16th, 2011, 04:21 AM

NouvelleNymphe2

January 16th, 2011, 04:50 AM

Good question. From what I see in the museums here in France some people lived VERY well. When I say that I mean there aren't many people today, even very wealthy people, who lived that well. The disparity of wealth was was striking. The paintings in the Louvre are sometimes as big or bigger than the whole side of the average French home!!! The statues almost as high as a basketball hoop. Paintings...like bigger than the whole wall of the average modern home (from the ground to the roof). So you get the impression that the people who did live like this had every luxury imaginable, and i'm sure the women in this category could have had amazing hair. And I'm sure that the food was more natural/organic, which is always better for the body/hair. I don't think the paintings are pure imagination. The plants and oils have always been there for people to use/consume.

Othala

January 16th, 2011, 04:54 AM

Women in India probably had better hair in the Victorian/Edwardian and previous eras because they had to use natural detergents (saponins) to wash their hair and scalp and oils to condition them. The use of soap and shampoo (and cutting hair shorter) came later and with it much ruination and destruction of hair.

milagro

January 16th, 2011, 05:17 AM

very many valid points mentioned, and in support of one of them I am just putting in one pic:
http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/picture.php?albumid=7093&pictureid=93671
as you can see the gap between art image and it's prototype is quite distinct, though the lady in question did have gorgeous hair.

Igor

January 16th, 2011, 06:02 AM

Right, because having expensive art means that people were not flea-bitten and had poor hygiene? And not having invented pesticide means that naturally all food is produced, prepared and served much healthier and in healthier proportions?
Good question. From what I see in the museums here in France some people lived VERY well. When I say that I mean there aren't many people today, even very wealthy people, who lived that well. The disparity of wealth was was striking. The paintings in the Louvre are sometimes as big or bigger than the whole side of the average French home!!! The statues almost as high as a basketball hoop. Paintings...like bigger than the whole wall of the average modern home (from the ground to the roof). So you get the impression that the people who did live like this had every luxury imaginable, and i'm sure the women in this category could have had amazing hair. And I'm sure that the food was more natural/organic, which is always better for the body/hair. I don't think the paintings are pure imagination. The plants and oils have always been there for people to use/consume.
ETA: I already pointed this out, but it seems to be completely ignored because “Since it’s organic is good for you!”. But going back, food could not be preserved without altering it.

The obsession with organic food is completely modern. As a matter of fact it only developed just the last few decades. Just thinking back two generations, our grandparents would be more worried about having access to fresh vegetables at all. With no way to freeze and preserve vegetables, you could only eat what was accessible in season to you locally.

Just think about it:
Fruit could only be eaten within season. Apples would be the only thing that could last for a while, but going back further, fruit was not eaten a lot anyways because of silly theories on food.
Vegetables could last for a while, but the most dominant theories going some time back stated it was actually bad for you.
Fish was never fresh unless you were the fisherman. Transporting fresh fish for long was completely impossible.
Meat would go bad within the same day after slaughter.

Salting or pickling was necessary to preserve any food. But even then, it would be strongly spiced to hide the fact that food was half rotten when served.

Does this sound like a healthy diet?

Our varied diet with access to any food source we could possibly want is so much healthier than any organic food could ever be.

Modern movies and the old art is not a representative of how life was. People died from simple diseases and malnutrition.

Anywhere

January 16th, 2011, 06:55 AM

I don't think so. Sure, some may have, but diets weren't as food-laden as today and lots of crazy things were used and there was an era when women would let their hair out of the top of their hats, for constant sun exposure (which would also mean constant wind exposure) and I really doubt the updos they did were all that hair-friendly.

Madora

January 16th, 2011, 07:23 AM

@Milagro..Thanks for the photos of prb beauty Jane Morris! I've always loved her very wavy hair.

Braidy

January 16th, 2011, 07:27 AM

Too, urbanization plays another role, as once people were crowded into cities without adequate hygiene, wigs, perfumes, and other "cover-uppers" for the wealthy became the norm. In pre-urban, medieval Europe, however, literary and historical sources suggest a reasonable and healthy toilette, with natural items like licorice used as a breath freshener, eggs and honey used on hair, fresh cream used as a face wash, and herbs used as hair rinses. Even peasant farm girls had access to some of these items, and fresh water was available to dip hair into for a wash. Then, of course, there are the infamous medieval bath houses, built in the Roman pattern, but with herbs and less expensive perfumes substituted for the exotic perfumes used by the Romans.

But, to balance that, there were wide variations depending on period and region in terms of overall health, which surely had to affect hair health. In regions and periods where many were starving or undernourished, I would not expect the hair to be luxuriant. I have always wondered if peri-Revolutionary art in France, where the women have shorter, thinner hair is partly reflecting this.

Definitely an interesting and complex question, and I think it would be hard to make any generalizations, given the wide differences between class, region and historical period. Sally Pointer's _The History of Artifice_ is a great book for anyone interested in the history of cosmetics, full of interesting trivia and wonderful period summaries.

I agree on the peasant girl point. I know my great grandmother (ok, more recent than middle ages etc but still a product free era) had extremely thick hair and so did the sisters of my grandmother. They lived on a farm.

As for the point about the French Revolution. It was caused by (direct cause, not the only cause) a period of several years with bad harvests so there was a lot of famine so I guess your idea about that is quite right.

I think people might have had healthy hair in those days but that doesn't necessarily mean it looked very nice. I can't imagine a poor girl spending half an hour to comb out all of her hair when there's work to be done. An aristocratic lady on the other hand would surely have had a maid to do that for her every day.

The obsession with organic food is completely modern. As a matter of fact it only developed just the last few decades. Just thinking back two generations, our grandparents would be more worried about having access to fresh vegetables at all. With no way to freeze and preserve vegetables, you could only eat what was accessible in season to you locally.

The obsession is indeed modern but back then there wouldn't have been a reason to obsess about it cause organic food was all there was available no?

Atlantic

January 16th, 2011, 07:32 AM

Meat would go bad within the same day after slaughter.

Salting or pickling was necessary to preserve any food. But even then, it would be strongly spiced to hide the fact that food was half rotten when served.

I completely agree with Igor's main point that there was nothing especially healthy about pre-modern diets, and plenty that was unhealthy.

However, this idea that meat was frequently rotten and spiced to disguise this fact is a myth that appears to originate in 1939 with a biochemist (not a historian or food expert) names J.C. Drummond.

It is also untrue that meat goes bad within a day of slaughter, then and now. In fact, most people find freshly-slaughtered meat unpalatable, and your average 'fresh' supermarket beef is probably a week old.

The thing about baths and washing being rare is also a myth; at best, it seems to be based on some specific advice given during the Black Plague, when it probably was dangerous to use public baths.

The obsession with organic food is completely modern. As a matter of fact it only developed just the last few decades.

Yes, because there was no such concept as 'organic farming' until the invention of modern chemical pesticides, etc. It's interesting to note that a lot of organic regulations will allow toxic stuff if that stuff is from botanical sources and/or was in use early enough, like Bordeaux Mixture.

Medievalmaniac

January 16th, 2011, 07:41 AM

I keep reading about women in antiquity having healthier hair because they didn't do anything to it. But we do have documented evidence both written and pictorial in nature that women as far back as 4th century BCE curled their hair with marble rods heated in the fire. The Classical Roman satirists went to town on the ridiculous heights fashionable hair went to. For example:

Front -

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/530221/3950/Portrait-of-a-woman-of-the-Flavian-period-marble-AD

Back -

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_M2Cvj22ZTf0/R--RwyTlwUI/AAAAAAAAABQ/nltRbbN34Co/s1600-h/Flavisk+dam+-+bak.jpg

This was a very popular hairstyle in Flavian culture, c. 90 CE., and we have enough surviving statues showing this style to know it wasn't an isolated incident or an artist's fantasy - this is what women were wearing. There are also Ancient Greek vases depicting curled hairstyles that required marble rods to craft the curls, and even Greek vases showing the maid doing her mistress's hair. So, this (hair curling, dying, etc.) has been part of human culture from earliest documented times. I think that the hair depicted in earlier works (i.e. through the late medieval era) is probably more accurately portrayed, and we know that art from the 16th century on tends to err on the side of idealizing the woman's appearance, and that 19th century art in particular exaggerates feminine beauty, especially hair, lips and eyes. So - hair now, hair then - hair, is hair. It varied as widely in the ancient world as it does now, for the same reasons - cultural choices, lifestyle, diet and nutrition, available implements and supplements, and so forth. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. :)

milagro

January 16th, 2011, 07:48 AM

@Milagro..Thanks for the photos of prb beauty Jane Morris! I've always loved her very wavy hair.
You're very welcome! She or rather heroines she posed for, is one of my beauty ideals (I didn't took Proserpine as my avatar for nothing :))

Paula Auguste

January 16th, 2011, 08:04 AM

Igor's thoughts were exactly what I thought when I read the question. "The good old time" is so romanticized nowadays, that people forget just how hard life was back then. Yes, I think that there were women with long, thick hair; but I do not think that the hair (or the body) was necessarily healthier than today.

However, this idea that meat was frequently rotten and spiced to disguise this fact is a myth that appears to originate in 1939 with a biochemist (not a historian or food expert) names J.C. Drummond.

It is also untrue that meat goes bad within a day of slaughter, then and now. In fact, most people find freshly-slaughtered meat unpalatable, and your average 'fresh' supermarket beef is probably a week old.

Meat does not spoil within a day or a week, but only if it is cooled. Now, most farm houses used to have a deep cellar exactly for this purpose, but there is a reason why slaughtering normally happens either in spring or in autumn. Medievial diet consisted mainly of grains and cereals. Meat was rarely eaten and it was often dried or pickled to preserve it. So I am with Igor on the fact that people would regularly eat tinged meat just because you would not want to waste it. Even my grandmother cookbook (1950s) has a section about how to save spoiled meat.

Someone meantioned earlier that the food was free of modern preservatives. Yes, but consider what that means! Vegetables had to be pickled, fruit dried, eggs only in summer, milk curdled or fermented und so on.

So, to stay on topic: I do not trust the artist ;-) Even the photographs are sometimes misleading. Yes, the hair is long, but it is most often fluffy from braids and the models are supposedly not average. I remember looking at old pictures (1920s-1940s) with some older women from my village and one girl on the pictures was referred to as the "one with the thick braids". So, thick hair was always unusual.

Aveyronnaise

January 16th, 2011, 08:13 AM

The meat thing is interesting also because people had dry curing, smoke curing and salting at their disposal as well . My grandfather told me that his mother used to bury certain veggies in the cellar within a hay bed to preserve them.
I think the rotten meat thing is suspect especially after living in a more traditional area of France. There are a million different ways to preserve the pig and they are doing them all :lol:
But it is true that people with money used to eschew veggies, many of them suffered from gout as a result.
I remember reading about Victorian bakers adding saw dust to bread to stretch it and mercury to brighten candy colors.
The past is so darn interesting.

enfys

January 16th, 2011, 08:23 AM

As soon as we had time to look after our hair, we started messing with it. For some people this was 1000BC, for others the 1600s, for other classes more like the 1900s.

I don't trust paintings and I don't trust old photos. Photo manipulation was invented shortly after the camera :)

There probably always were exceptions to the rule, but like today the awesome long hair we see here is representative of a teeny weeny proportion of the population.

I wouldn't swap my health and life expenctancy for the bedraggled locks of any other era. Nor would I swap my diet.

Eire

January 16th, 2011, 08:27 AM

The fact that the plague swept so easily through villages suggests that fleas and lice were much more common then and living conditions were much less hygienic. I don't think that would reflect well on hair beauty.

Atlantic

January 16th, 2011, 08:42 AM

Meat does not spoil within a day or a week, but only if it is cooled. Now, most farm houses used to have a deep cellar exactly for this purpose, but there is a reason why slaughtering normally happens either in spring or in autumn.

Spring? Apring lamb, maybe, but here in Britain, the traditional time for the main slaughtering was late autumn, continuing through early winter. In fact, the Welsh word for November, Tachwedd, actually means 'slaughter', and the Anglo-Saxon word for the month, Blotmonath, means 'blood-month'. This was precisely because going into the cold months, fresh meat could be aged successfully and kept for longer.

Of course those who weren't rich – today and in the past – would probably try to use meat that was on the point of going off or 'tinged' (I've done it myself), but that's very far from using meat that is rotten. And anyone back in those days who was rich enough to afford spices was rich enough not to have to eat rotten meat.

Panth

January 16th, 2011, 08:56 AM

I think it really depends what you mean by "women in the past" - as is evidenced by the numerous replies you've got!

Just wanted to add two quick things. Firstly, thanks to Atlantic for setting the record straight about medieval food. *hugs* There are far too many myths propagated about the medieval era and that is one of the most pervasive and irritating ones.

Ok, enough of my re-enactor's ranting. :P

I'd also like to add some medieval images. Eve is a good one to look for if you're looking for images of loose hair in the earlier eras when it was the norm to cover your hair. Another good place to look is images of bath-houses. You can see in the second image on this page that Eve only has BSL-length hair: http://www.siue.edu/~ejoy/eng505syllabusSP10.htm

In this later image, she's reached classic... http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/info.shtml

Still, even in the latest images I've looked at (15th C) women never seem to get past fingertip and look pretty fairytale-y when they get there ... and these are the idealised images. As per the ideal image of beauty, they're all blonde/strawberry blonde and have 1 or 2 hair with braid waves. ^_^

For approx. 13th-15th Centuries, this is the longest hair I can recall seeing (lady in pink in bottom left): http://www.lessing-photo.com/p3/030802/03080255.jpg

See also these nice ladies:

http://www.clubmistic.ro/pozearticole/userfiles/image/indragostiti(1).jpg

http://www.natureculture.org/wiki/images/4/47/275px-BodleianDouce364Fol8rRomanRoseMirthGladnessLeadDan ce.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonyynot/5062558021/
http://cadieux.mediumaevum.com/The-beaten-wife_roman-de-la-rose.jpg

For earlier eras (especially the late 14th C, my particular interest) you can also try to calculate how much hair would be needed to do the hairdos such as these:
http://www.cottesimple.com/love_layers/RoAlex130vb.jpg

Also, they used false hair too:
http://www.neulakko.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Cornettes_final_neulakko.pdf

P.S. If anyone feels up to trying to work out how those plaited 14th Century hairstyles were done, I'd love to see your experiments. Every now and again I have a go but my attempts haven't been fully successful and I don't have a photo of my best effort (which involved sewing my plaits in place with silk thread...)

NouvelleNymphe2

January 16th, 2011, 09:13 AM

Right, because having expensive art means that people were not flea-bitten and had poor hygiene? And not having invented pesticide means that naturally all food is produced, prepared and served much healthier and in healthier proportions?
ETA: I already pointed this out, but it seems to be completely ignored because “Since it’s organic is good for you!”. But going back, food could not be preserved without altering it.

The obsession with organic food is completely modern. As a matter of fact it only developed just the last few decades. Just thinking back two generations, our grandparents would be more worried about having access to fresh vegetables at all. With no way to freeze and preserve vegetables, you could only eat what was accessible in season to you locally.

Just think about it:
Fruit could only be eaten within season. Apples would be the only thing that could last for a while, but going back further, fruit was not eaten a lot anyways because of silly theories on food.
Vegetables could last for a while, but the most dominant theories going some time back stated it was actually bad for you.
Fish was never fresh unless you were the fisherman. Transporting fresh fish for long was completely impossible.
Meat would go bad within the same day after slaughter.

Salting or pickling was necessary to preserve any food. But even then, it would be strongly spiced to hide the fact that food was half rotten when served.

Does this sound like a healthy diet?

Our varied diet with access to any food source we could possibly want is so much healthier than any organic food could ever be.

Modern movies and the old art is not a representative of how life was. People died from simple diseases and malnutrition.

perhaps i am incorrect, it is just the impression i get when touring Paris. i just don't see the very wealthy of that time bathing in their large porcelaine bathtubs made with solid gold fixtures riddled with lice. i assume those persons having enough money to live in the large houses or castles would have had soaps and oils, the best money could buy at that time. as their living conditions would have been very comfortable. i am talking about a very very small class of people. certainly the majority would fall in the category you describe.

Panth

January 16th, 2011, 09:17 AM

perhaps i am incorrect, it is just the impression i get when touring Paris. i just don't see the very wealthy of that time bathing in their large porcelaine bathtubs made with solid gold fixtures riddled with lice. i assume those persons having enough money to live in the large houses or castles would have had soaps and oils, the best money could buy at that time. as their living conditions would have been very comfortable. i am talking about a very very small class of people. certainly the majority would fall in the category you describe.

It really depends what era you're talking about. I'm currently reading a housebook (basically, a guide to being a housewife) from about the year 1390. It's aimed at what we would now call "upper middle class", not that that existed then. I haven't read all of it yet, but there is a section with an extensive list of methods to get rid of fleas from the bed. Now, this isn't the richest of the rich, but parasites are still a considerable problem.

enfys

January 16th, 2011, 09:17 AM

perhaps i am incorrect, it is just the impression i get when touring Paris. i just don't see the very wealthy of that time bathing in their large porcelaine bathtubs made with solid gold fixtures riddled with lice. i assume those persons having enough money to live in the large houses or castles would have had soaps and oils, the best money could buy at that time. as their living conditions would have been very comfortable. i am talking about a very very small class of people. certainly the majority would fall in the category you describe.

Private schools now still have headlice problems. Rich people can get lice too. If anything, headlice seem to prefer clean hair and the rich would have the cleanest hair around as the time!

Without the things we have now, like vacuum cleaners to help clean the room, washing machines with a boil wash and detergent and of course insecticides I can't imagine how anyone would keep on top of them.

Igor

January 16th, 2011, 09:25 AM

Don’t forget that people thought water was actually dangerous and a bath could bring on the black plague. From around 1500 to 1800, people never washed themselves unless it absolutely couldn’t be avoided. Instead people drenched themselves in perfumes and changed their underwear thinking it could absorb the dirt. It became in fashion to have your white undershirt poking up under your shirt and was seen as a sign of “good hygiene”

milagro

January 16th, 2011, 09:28 AM

perhaps i am incorrect, it is just the impression i get when touring Paris. i just don't see the very wealthy of that time bathing in their large porcelaine bathtubs made with solid gold fixtures riddled with lice. i assume those persons having enough money to live in the large houses or castles would have had soaps and oils, the best money could buy at that time. as their living conditions would have been very comfortable. i am talking about a very very small class of people. certainly the majority would fall in the category you describe.
I guess you assume that based on your modern perception of necessary hygiene :) Par example, Louis XIV bathed two or three times in his entire (rather long by his times' standards) life. Modern hygiene was yet to be discovered.

CurlySoleil

January 16th, 2011, 09:35 AM

NouvelleNymphe2

January 16th, 2011, 09:36 AM

I guess you assume that based on your modern perception of necessary hygiene :) Par example, Louis XIV bathed two or three times in his entire (rather long by his times' standards) life. Modern hygiene was yet to be discovered.

oh, sorry i guess i am applying my modern misconceptions. love the "par exemple."

Fethenwen

January 16th, 2011, 09:38 AM

Women of the past... I think it all depends on how far back are we talking about and what parts of the world.

If we go back about hundred years I'm quite sure that we will find very beautiful heads of hair, especially on those who had it relatively good and living on the country side away from the industries and cities.

I think the important thing is to ask those who lived back then, and read books and texts. As an example I know my grandmother had amazing thick long hair and no lice. They used very basic stuff without chemicals in their beauty regime, like nettle leaves, coal, birch leaves, vinegar, eggs and lard.

Yes, life was hard physically, but when I hear stories from old people about their lives they always tell me that they were very happy. People did not suffer from allergies and stuff like that.

But if we go back a few more hundred years and especially to early urbanized cities things were pretty different. I think hair-wise it must have been quite awful too. Not bathing and poor nutrition must have led to pretty tousled and dirty hair, I think people back in those days had worse things to worry about than hair.

But going back even further would make things very interesting, if we had more information about it. Like how did the ancient Greeks take care of their hair?

BelleLoupGarou

January 16th, 2011, 09:50 AM

It is quite possible that women back in that era had better hair than we do now. I'm only saying this because they did not have the kind of problems with the environment that we do now....Ozone layer deteriorating, pollution, smog...I dunno. Maybe not? Good post though! :)

milagro

January 16th, 2011, 10:01 AM

I think the important thing is to ask those who lived back then, and read books and texts. As an example I know my grandmother had amazing thick long hair and no lice. They used very basic stuff without chemicals in their beauty regime, like nettle leaves, coal, birch leaves, vinegar, eggs and lard.

Sure there were people with good hair as well. Especially young ones. And people did wash their hair :) I think Enlightenment era discovered hygiene as we know it today and further on XIX and XX ctries saw a huge progress in making it a common thing.
BTW as you Finnish have your sauna (Russian traditional version is a sort of wet steam room instead of dry, called banya) they must have somehow escape this Medieval aversion to water as well.

ETA love learnng about those things, too. I know antique Greeks and Romans washed their body with water and oil sort of scrubbing. I never thought of how they washed hair though. Hope someone comes with the info.

Fethenwen

January 16th, 2011, 10:19 AM

Sure there were people with good hair as well. Especially young ones. And people did wash their hair :) I think Enlightenment era discovered hygiene as we know it today and further on XIX and XX ctries saw a huge progress in making it a common thing.
BTW as you Finnish have your sauna (Russian traditional version is a sort of wet steam room instead of dry, called banya) they must have somehow escape this Medieval aversion to water as well.

ETA love learnng about those things, too. I know antique Greeks and Romans washed their body with water and oil sort of scrubbing. I never thought of how they washed hair though. Hope someone comes with the info.
Yes, I think so. And it that way also avoided a bunch of diseases and vermin.

dropinthebucket

January 16th, 2011, 10:35 AM

Great thread! where else but on LHC could you find such a wealth of interesting things about hair in the past? A couple of fun notes to add: I love Catherine's pics of Victorian ladies in Britain using newly imported henna to colour their hair (hennaforhair.com, forget where these are stashed exactly, but check around the site); and Supersizers, a BBC TV series, did a fabulous French Revolution episode where they note that Marie Antoinette slept with her hair in a tall box every night! The elaborate wig she wore needed to be protected, and took a long time to put on and get properly situated on her head.

Panth

January 16th, 2011, 10:50 AM

Also, you might like this article: http://www.mathildegirlgenius.com/NorthernLights/Hairstyle.pdf

ravenreed

January 16th, 2011, 12:23 PM

Pollution has been happening a long time. Any time you get large numbers of people situated in one spot doing ANYTHING pollution happens. Do you know how yucky leather tanning is? How long has that been happening? That is just one example. There is a reason in medieval Europe everyone, right down to pregnant women and young children drank alcohol rather than fresh water. Water was too polluted to safely drink. Smog came in big with the industrial revolution and has been around for quite some time.

Even without large cities, there was problems with cooking, ventilation and indoor pollution. I read something about women cooking over cook fires and having signs of lung damage that men of that era and region didn't have. Darned if I can remember or find it now. That is one of the hazards of reading too much!

It is quite possible that women back in that era had better hair than we do now. I'm only saying this because they did not have the kind of problems with the environment that we do now....Ozone layer deteriorating, pollution, smog...I dunno. Maybe not? Good post though! :)

Marchpane

January 16th, 2011, 01:37 PM

Wow, these answers are all so fascinating! I'm a big history fan, and the history of fashion and beauty is particularly cool IMO. :) It seems that you really would have to specifically focus on a region and time period to determine if hair was especially good or bad; also when you think about genes having some part in it as well (like Skaempfer's example), it seems it would vary a lot between people as well, as it does these days. Very interesting (and kind of scary!) to learn about some of the styling and hair care methods employed! (cat urine?!?)

Igor: For my part of the world, we only recently caught up to the average height during Viking times, where people actually ate relatively healthy and the middle ages represented a huge dive in height.

I didn't know that height was all about nutrition, I sort of assumed it was just an evolution thing. Very cool! So the Vikings were actually healthier/taller than a little before our time? Do you know what they did with their hair and such? The Vikings were such a fascinating people, though I must admit I know very little about them.

Thanks Panth for all those awesome links and images!! Great to compare art of the time with the Romanticized art. This is really so interesting. :)

Igor

January 16th, 2011, 02:07 PM

I didn't know that height was all about nutrition, I sort of assumed it was just an evolution thing.
Height has a lot to do with nutrition and having vitamins, mineral and energy available to build “excess” height. It’s a common way to compare living standards development within the same country or with other countries.

I have I have seen graphs showing the average height for both men and women going back thousands of years (Of course based on archaeological finds) in books, but I had no luck on the internet. The best I could come up with was this (http://forsvaretsuddannelser.dk/ForsvaretsDagOgVaernepligt/Pages/de_vaernepligtiges_gennemsnitshoejde.aspx) showing the average height for Danish recruits going back to 1852

*Disappointed in the internet*

Very cool! So the Vikings were actually healthier/taller than a little before our time? Do you know what they did with their hair and such? The Vikings were such a fascinating people, though I must admit I know very little about them.
You might find this (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=14032) interesting then. I can tell you more, but it will have to wait a bit…I’m all typed out after a 3 page reply to another thread :lol:

HairFaerie

January 16th, 2011, 02:12 PM

I think the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indians (from India), Native Americans (just to name a few cultures) probably had very gorgeous long hair!

I mean, a lot of stuff we have now is derivative of what they used back then. Olive oil, neem, henna just to name a few. Native Americans used animal fat (particularly bear) in their hair.

I can imagine their diet was exquisite compared to the fake garbage that they pass off as food these days. More natural and nutritious. They didn't have the medications that we have now that cam interfere with hair growth.

So, I am from the camp that people of the past probably had WAY better hair than *most* people do these days. (I am saying that in terms of the "general public".)

I can imagine they had absolutely gorgeous long hair in a lot of different cultures!

I was recently trying to do research on "ancient hair care methods" and was very disappointed with the scant websites concerning that topic. I found a few bits here and there but nothing super specific and thorough.

RoseRed27

January 16th, 2011, 02:33 PM

:soapbox:I don't know if they were

Lack of junk foods back then, must have contributed, too, I believe, as well as lack of stress. Yes, I know women worked very hard back then, but the human body gets stronger with use and the more physically active you are, my opinion is, the less mentally stressed you are. People nowadays are so mentally stressed... always hurrying to get to a thousand places every day, to work, to school, to driving kids around--think road rage :p

I don't mean to be contrary. I agree with you about how harsh some of the man made chemicals are today. Even though the people of the past had their own bad beauty information. But I think the stress of today, doesn't compare to the stress of yesteryear. When little Johnny has the sniffles, we pick up some pedialite and Motrin. Back then, simple childhood diseases were a death sentence. Today, food, clean water, health care (for most) is more accessible.

Though stress takes a toll on the lives of modern people. "I hope I have enough money to pay my bills". I think it would be far worse if we had to add some of the consequences from the past. "Because if I don't pay them, I will be jailed and my daughter sold." When I think I have it rough. "Darn, they ran out of my size skinny jeans, life is soooo unfair!". I think of the past. "Darn 'whites only', life is so unfair!" I think we have different stressors. Some worse, but for the most part I think we have it better.

We can calm down and realize "It's just an idiot in an SUV, no need to get worked up". I feel more in control. The people of the past didn't have the luxury of saying "It's just the plague, don't get worked up." :p I do think physical activity helps with stress. But if many of those activities weren't done, it would only add to the stress. And early 20's were considered middle aged, so I don't think their bodies were that strong, unfortunately.

And I think the loveliness of hair depended on money. If they were rich they had better food, cleaner water etc. And time to concern themselves with appearances. The pictures and paintings aren't the best representation. What if someone used today's photos as representation of our hair health? Not many people are taking pictures of themselves looking dowdy, so most pictures would show well cared for hair.

I also think it depends on where. Different countries, cities, towns have different practices, access to clean water, climate etc. I can imagine an average city dwelling English woman having average hair, but I can't imagine an average Hawaiian woman having "average" hair. :D Not with the agreeable climate, access to fresh produce, protein and omega fat rich fish and not to mention those genes! But maybe I'm just idealizing. ^__^

Meridon

January 16th, 2011, 05:12 PM

I can imagine their diet was exquisite compared to the fake garbage that they pass off as food these days. More natural and nutritious. They didn't have the medications that we have now that cam interfere with hair growth.

There were often famines, lack of crops - settlers coming and helping themselves to the lands, so I honestly doubt that Native Americans and other cultures where they were 'conquered' necessarily had the best nutrition either.

Loving reading this thread!

Lice don't care about class, they care about how diligent you and the people you are in regular contact with are in eradicating them. Washing and bathing was less regular generally, although I've read the Romans were very hygenic. I'm pretty sure that there was nice hair and bad hair, depending on a person's DNA.

lillithnight

January 17th, 2011, 12:33 AM

Woah. The average Dane in the millitary was 5' 6" tall. Considering that the average height for a male in most places is close to or taller then 6' then that is short.

Venefica

January 17th, 2011, 03:55 AM

First off all not all people with long hair use fancy oils and such, many just wash dry, brush and that is it. I think that what people ate min the middle ages had a lot more impact on their hair than what they put in it, that being said rich medieval and renaissance women did have herbal remedies and quite a number of things to help with hair care.

And this leads me to my point here. I think that rich women and nobility might very well have had the hair we see in paintings. Off course the paintings do probably somewhat augment reality but for the most part it is quite possible. However the common man had far to little to eat, worked, often out in the sun from sun up to sun down and would probably not even have the time to brush their hair. I have a feeling that commoner hair would not look that beautiful, though a noble woman's likely would. However unlike in fantasy movies I doubt you would find many peasant woman with long, perfectly tended hair.

In the renaissance for example Lucrezia Borgia is described as having heavy, blond hair past her knees. However off course when an artist might loose his head if he painted a noble in a way they did not like he might decide to, what shall we say, try to make his clients look as good as possible.

Venefica

January 17th, 2011, 04:09 AM

And if you consider a 25 yo female was deemed middle-aged a few centuries ago..

Sorry for the double post, but I just noticed this and I had to comment. It is true that the average age of death in some parts of the European middle ages where as little as thirty years. This however do not mean that a 25 year old was middle aged or that a 30 year old would look like a 90 year old today. Yes most unless rich did not reach the ages we reach today, but it was far from that extreme. What pulls the average age down is the huge amount of child deaths, the huge amount of women who died in childbirth, people starving to death especially over the winter, all the wars and so on. A 25 year old woman would no longer be considered young, but she was not middle aged either.

I also saw some comments in this thread that we eat so many preservatives, so much fat and so much sugar that the medieval diet was better, unless you where rich, no it was not. For example in Norway the typical everyday food was water porridge, now this is a little bit of wheat boiled in water to create a semi thick soup resembling snot. This was in poor families about all they ate, they might not get much sugar and conservatives but they did not get much nourishment either.

Aveyronnaise

January 17th, 2011, 04:29 AM

So is it safe to conclude that we at LHC could possibly have .....the most beautiful , healthy hair in the history of the world" ?

Igor

January 17th, 2011, 04:54 AM

Woah. The average Dane in the millitary was 5' 6" tall. Considering that the average height for a male in most places is close to or taller then 6' then that is short.
Yes, a development that all other industrialised countries seem to follow. Our ancestors were very, very short by our standards because we generalised have access to better nutrition and a variation in foods they could only dream of.

sakuraemily

January 17th, 2011, 06:44 AM

Dunno about people but Sisi did.

rose.grace

January 17th, 2011, 07:13 AM

I don't mean to be contrary. I agree with you about how harsh some of the man made chemicals are today. Even though the people of the past had their own bad beauty information. But I think the stress of today, doesn't compare to the stress of yesteryear. When little Johnny has the sniffles, we pick up some pedialite and Motrin. Back then, simple childhood diseases were a death sentence. Today, food, clean water, health care (for most) is more accessible.

Though stress takes a toll on the lives of modern people. "I hope I have enough money to pay my bills". I think it would be far worse if we had to add some of the consequences from the past. "Because if I don't pay them, I will be jailed and my daughter sold." When I think I have it rough. "Darn, they ran out of my size skinny jeans, life is soooo unfair!". I think of the past. "Darn 'whites only', life is so unfair!" I think we have different stressors. Some worse, but for the most part I think we have it better.

We can calm down and realize "It's just an idiot in an SUV, no need to get worked up". I feel more in control. The people of the past didn't have the luxury of saying "It's just the plague, don't get worked up." :p I do think physical activity helps with stress. But if many of those activities weren't done, it would only add to the stress. And early 20's were considered middle aged, so I don't think their bodies were that strong, unfortunately.

And I think the loveliness of hair depended on money. If they were rich they had better food, cleaner water etc. And time to concern themselves with appearances. The pictures and paintings aren't the best representation. What if someone used today's photos as representation of our hair health? Not many people are taking pictures of themselves looking dowdy, so most pictures would show well cared for hair.

I also think it depends on where. Different countries, cities, towns have different practices, access to clean water, climate etc. I can imagine an average city dwelling English woman having average hair, but I can't imagine an average Hawaiian woman having "average" hair. :D Not with the agreeable climate, access to fresh produce, protein and omega fat rich fish and not to mention those genes! But maybe I'm just idealizing. ^__^ Too funny!

Yes, you're right about so many things you said. I think it depends on so many factors. Where your mind goes when you think of the past. (I'm thinking about the fresh air, the farmers, the communities where everyone helped each other--women helped each other braid their hair, everyone helped harvest each others crops, etc.).

But the comparison between then and now; I think a lot depends on expectations. We have more technology and in consequence, expect more, faster. For example, I know from experience, since I don't have a car, I have to walk nearly everywhere, and it's amazing how impatient people get when they have to wait in their cars for me to cross the street--poor things... it's more dangerous to walk these days because many people don't wait. I feel so sorry for them since it takes them 1/50th of the time to get where they're going...

I think it's much more upsetting (thus, the stress) these days when people expect to be cured of just about every cold and disease, or at least have their symptoms relieved at the drop of a hat, and when that doesn't happen... they go to pieces. Back then (I'm imagining--just like in my post I stated that I didn't know if it was common or not) they pretty much expected things to end fatally and were probably overjoyed when someone did live through their sickness. Having life and health being so precarious back then, I imagine they probably tried to live as healthfully as they could. Prevention was everything.

Reading your reply I kept getting this Monty-Pythonesque image in my head: "She's got the plague..."

"Yes... but she has such thick, lustrous, beautiful hair!" :queen:

rose.grace

January 17th, 2011, 07:24 AM

I didn't know that height was all about nutrition, I sort of assumed it was just an evolution thing. Very cool! So the Vikings were actually healthier/taller than a little before our time? Do you know what they did with their hair and such? The Vikings were such a fascinating people, though I must admit I know very little about them.

I read one book about the Vikings. It said the women were remarkably beautiful and had exceptionally long hair that was very light blonde, but that it was fine and thin and tangled easily so they always wore it in ponytails or braids to keep it from tangling and catching on things... but it said nothing about any beauty regimens. The only other thing it said about them was that the women fought right alongside their men in battles and wars, etc. and everyone shared in raising the kids.

Merlin

January 17th, 2011, 08:18 AM

The Vikings were such a fascinating people, though I must admit I know very little about them.

I don't think 'fascinating' was the word the people of much of NE England would have used at the time...and given how many words in modern English are of Anglo Saxon origin then I'm sure we still use a lot of the words they probably used today - I suspect mainly while driving:)

Also remember that 'Viking' is not what you are, it's what you do. I believe the Anglo Saxon chronicle calls them Danes (hi Igor :run:)

milagro

January 17th, 2011, 09:19 AM

Too funny!

I think it's much more upsetting (thus, the stress) these days when people expect to be cured of just about every cold and disease, or at least have their symptoms relieved at the drop of a hat, and when that doesn't happen... they go to pieces. Back then (I'm imagining--just like in my post I stated that I didn't know if it was common or not) they pretty much expected things to end fatally and were probably overjoyed when someone did live through their sickness. Having life and health being so precarious back then, I imagine they probably tried to live as healthfully as they could. Prevention was everything.

Ahem... I'm not sure having no option makes life easier. Of course they were overjoyed when someone lived through sickness but they also must have been sad when they didn't which happened very often. Plagues and diseases aside, there were horrible infant death rate (and women' while giving birth and post partum) and very low life expectancy.
Don't know about prevention but the state of medicine, anatomy and general health care was amazingly low as well and sometimes quite ridiculous. They had some traditional remedies we still use, though.
No, I don't think they lived considerably less stressed life save for informational stress which is huge nowadays.

Panth

January 17th, 2011, 11:08 AM

Just another thing to throw into the mix. If we're talking European women, consider that until comparatively recently, they often covered their hair (and, depending on the era, the country, their age, their class, etc. their necks too). Now, that may be protective or it may be damaging, compared to today - it really depends on the style and the fabric they are using. However, at least for the lower class styles, I'd argue that it was probably protective (or at least easier - kept it out of the way, kept it cleaner, reduced parasite transfer, kept the smoke smell out) compared to not covering in the lifestyle they lived in.

Another bit of info: 15th Century fashionable ladies in England, France and the Holy Roman Empire plucked their brow line to extra-ordinary heights. The ideal was a perfect oval face, unblemished by a low hairline. Like this lady: http://www.virtue.to/articles/images/1400s_butterfly.jpg

rose.grace

January 17th, 2011, 11:13 AM

HintOfMint

January 17th, 2011, 11:31 AM

Back in the day, more people were much more deformed in many different ways. Smallpox scars, missing or crooked teeth... etc. However, in art, we have the idealized, photoshopped (heh) version of what people should look like. Even portraits weren't accurate because people wanted to look like the pretty/handsome version of themselves.

Locksmith

January 17th, 2011, 11:38 AM

I suspect quite a bias given that the women who had their portraits painted were wealthy and privileged, and so would have had a vastly, vastly better diet and easier life than most of their time. Also, painting the person in the best possible light was de rigeur until Cromwell, I believe, so... :shrug:

Buddaphlyy

January 17th, 2011, 04:08 PM

No I don't, never did. Mostly because of what other have said in the thread about diet and common beauty methods.

Jessica Trapp

January 17th, 2011, 04:16 PM

Interesting discussion. :)

Marchpane

January 17th, 2011, 06:11 PM

So is it safe to conclude that we at LHC could possibly have .....the most beautiful , healthy hair in the history of the world" ?

:D Haha I guess so! Sweet, this thread even has a thesis now lol!

Browniegirl

January 17th, 2011, 07:32 PM

In the Middle age long ,healthy hair was surely appriciated more than now,it's the style that mattered.But I don't think the average person really cared all that much about their hair, as long as they were not perpetualy searching it for vermin...I think the most common worries were if they would get food in the next few days, money to pay rent ( being beheaded is considerably more troubling than unhealthy hair:D) and how their crops,livestock, and family were faring.The scots had to be oppresses by the British, the Saxons by the Normans,....Hair not so important...but I'll get to actual question:o

Most people would hardly ever( If never,haha) wash, but they might have swam or got it wet seperatly.The hair never being exposed to shampoos, it woulden't be all that greasy.Peasants,lower classes, had their hair chopped of at roughly shoulder blade( In most cases, exceptions could occur) so as to not get in the way of cooking over a hearth, farmwork etc.Diet was the mpst important factor, I'd say.In that case, depends on how could the crops turned out that year!

TrudieCat

January 17th, 2011, 08:22 PM

To revisit an earlier point brought up here - just plain hygiene doesn't necessarily rid a person or a home of vermin. Anyone who's ever tried to get rid of lice, bedbugs, or fleas using modern methods and pesticides knows how hard it can be - the idea of dealing with lice with nothing but soap and water seems almost impossible to me. My guess is that lice were rampant among the rich and the poor. I just can't see how they wouldn't be, given the technology that was available before the advent of electricity and pesticides. Just because rich people might have bathed more doesn't mean that their hygiene practices would have been effective killers of vermin.

On a different note, there's some cool info on this thread!! Good thread. :)

MissManda

January 17th, 2011, 09:11 PM

This is a fascinating thread! I have really enjoyed reading what everyone has to say. :)

I don't think many of the people back then, especially commoners, didn't practice trimming/S&D. Maybe if you were a member of the upper classes, but even then they may not have been aware of damage travelling up the hair shaft (I imagine that it might have varied depending on the culture) so their hair might not have been as nice, but there were much more important things to worry about than damage/splits, so... It could also be possible that they did not have access to hair-safe (AKA: very sharp) cutting tools. I could be very wrong about this, of course, but I didn't see this point being mentioned, so I thought I'd throw it out there. :shrug:

milagro

January 18th, 2011, 12:20 AM

I like the idea of LHC setting an all-times touchstone of good hair :D

My guess is that lice were rampant among the rich and the poor. I just can't see how they wouldn't be, given the technology that was available before the advent of electricity and pesticides. Just because rich people might have bathed more doesn't mean that their hygiene practices would have been effective killers of vermin.

That's exactly correct. We have proves of that in references as well as items such as special lice-traps, back scratchers etc. Many of them were made of gold, silver, with gems and obviously not for the poor's use :)

grrlshapedthing

January 18th, 2011, 01:12 AM

their hair wouldn't nessicarily been better but up until the 30's it was still common to wash your hair less than once a fortnight.

BlueMuse

January 18th, 2011, 01:43 AM

I know England at least was pretty abysmal as far as hygiene goes, and that most of the very rich women in Queen Elizabeth I's day wore wigs (because of the lice). And she was considered eccentric for bathing once a month.

Her father also had a permanent, festering sore in his leg that apparently offended at least his fifth wife Catherine Howard (but that really has nothing to do with hair). And Henry was king through a plague of "giggling sickness" that killed a good portion of London. We're not sure what it was, but there are theories it came from the rampant lice problem.

Also, many peasants in the early Middle Ages would have largely chunky ale to eat. So imagine constantly drinking extremely boiled, fermented grain filled liquid that seconded as a food. And due to the serf/lord relationship, most of your crops would go to the lord of the area. There's a reason those guys ate better than most people.

Another fun fact is that babies diapers might have been changed a couple of times a day and switched out for new ones maybe every week or two. Also, I wish I could remember who it was, but one of the English lords actually tweaked out because a noblewoman pissed herself while he was standing talking to her (and didn't think anything of it) and apparently made the first big push toward privy systems because he was sick of people pooping in corners of his castle-- as was told to me by my history professor.

There was a narrow window of time called the High Middle Ages where things were somewhat better for everyone, but this was followed closely by the end of the Middle Ages that was characterized by black death, famine, war, and all the goodness of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Scary, scary things happened right on the eve of the Renaissance.

So yeah, I doubt hair condition was very good, or even much of a consideration during at least the late part of the period, at least for the common person.

milagro

January 18th, 2011, 02:12 AM

Also, I wish I could remember who it was, but one of the English lords actually tweaked out because a noblewoman pissed herself while he was standing talking to her (and didn't think anything of it) and apparently made the first big push toward privy systems because he was sick of people pooping in corners of his castle-- as was told to me by my history professor.

Interesting! That sounds so gross to the contemporary reader :D
One of the main reason silk was sought after and often cost its weight in gold (and caused many a war, one of them diminished Chinese population by some 2/3) was because lice don't like silk. Bedbugs don't care,though, AFAIK.

From Russian history, lice wasn't a problem due to the habit of weekly bathing until powdered wigs were adopted as fashion thing. But still there were bedbugs and such and frankly I don't think I'd venture close to those boyars bathed or not. Their outer clothes obviously were not designed for regular washing and dry-cleaners were nowhere in sight :D
It seems strange and irrational that people preferred to wear clothes of heavily-embroidered, sometimes encrusted fabrics and fur instead of neat and easy washable ones. Those dresses often were inherited or given as gift/distinction and cost a fortune. And the poor could hardly afford a lot of linen or further on, cotton, either. I guess it was more or less the same everywhere, judging by pictures and chronics.

Merlin

January 18th, 2011, 03:05 AM

.... because a noblewoman pissed herself while he was standing talking to her

It was one of the advantages of those lovely romantic 'Scarlett O'Hara' crinolines: women could pretty much go any time they liked under there by standing over a gutter, nobody would be any the wiser and your dress stayed clean.

One of the first things you learn as a history teacher is that kids are interested only in s*x, death and toilets - and one must have a fund of suitable material for all time periods to engage their interest ;-)

Locksmith

January 18th, 2011, 04:56 AM

I've heard the one about people just relieving themselves in corners - I think it was Versailles?

It seems strange and irrational that people preferred to wear clothes of heavily-embroidered, sometimes encrusted fabrics and fur instead of neat and easy washable ones. Those dresses often were inherited or given as gift/distinction and cost a fortune. And the poor could hardly afford a lot of linen or further on, cotton, either. I guess it was more or less the same everywhere, judging by pictures and chronics.

OTOH, AIUI while the outer clothes were rarely if ever washed, the clothes that were actually next to the skin would be linen, which would be washed regularly. I mean, I wash my jumpers far less often than I do my T-shirts and underwear which are actually next to my skin. :p Also, "bathing" irregularly doesn't mean not washing at all. I haven't got the book on me now, but I've at least one source saying regular washing was expected, at least in 14-th century England.

Then again, I forget where, I remember reading about some French aristocrat in the 1700s who had a hairdresser refuse to do her hair because it was so stiff and filthy and she hated the idea of washing it. :shrug:

dropinthebucket

January 18th, 2011, 10:55 AM

So is it safe to conclude that we at LHC could possibly have .....the most beautiful , healthy hair in the history of the world" ?

What she said!!! :D LOL

dropinthebucket

January 18th, 2011, 10:57 AM

But going back even further would make things very interesting, if we had more information about it. Like how did the ancient Greeks take care of their hair?

Sally Pointer has detailed info. on this in her book, with pics of artefacts and everything. (I know I keep flogging this book, but it is extremely good, with lots on the history of hair care, as well as cosmetics and perfume!)

Siava

January 18th, 2011, 12:35 PM

Her father also had a permanent, festering sore in his leg that apparently offended at least his fifth wife Catherine Howard (but that really has nothing to do with hair). And Henry was king through a plague of "giggling sickness" that killed a good portion of London. We're not sure what it was, but there are theories it came from the rampant lice problem.

Delirium, stupor, and gangrenous sores are just three symptoms of epidemic typhus - a disease spread by lice. Bleh! With lice so rampant and bathing almost non-existent during the Elizabethan era (even among the nobles), I can not imagine hair being in good condition for the majority during that time period.

I do believe our modern era has the healthiest hair. :D

ravenreed

January 18th, 2011, 12:47 PM

There was a color in the Renaissance called, "Isabella Brown." The name of the color came from a queen refusing to change or wash her shift until some battle was won, if I recall correctly. Being in mind that her shift started out white, you get the drift. This was probably Queen Isabella of Spain who was known to have boasted that she only had two baths in her entire life.

I've heard the one about people just relieving themselves in corners - I think it was Versailles?

OTOH, AIUI while the outer clothes were rarely if ever washed, the clothes that were actually next to the skin would be linen, which would be washed regularly. I mean, I wash my jumpers far less often than I do my T-shirts and underwear which are actually next to my skin. :p Also, "bathing" irregularly doesn't mean not washing at all. I haven't got the book on me now, but I've at least one source saying regular washing was expected, at least in 14-th century England.

Then again, I forget where, I remember reading about some French aristocrat in the 1700s who had a hairdresser refuse to do her hair because it was so stiff and filthy and she hated the idea of washing it. :shrug:

Cupofmilk

January 18th, 2011, 01:24 PM

I can only comment on what I have seen of hair. My great grandmother's hair. She cut all her hair off when she started to grey in the 1950s. Her hair was pretty long - I have seen classic+ pictures.
This might sound strange but we have her hair - lovely red auburn hair - I think it may have been knee length when cut offf as someone has cut the plait down I think. I would like to take some photos and share but people might find this a bit weird.
Her hair was in truely amazing condition - no split ends and very smooth. My grandmother remembered that she used oil on her hair and brushed it a lot with a BBB. She also used vinegar and egg apparently.

spidermom

January 18th, 2011, 01:45 PM

I like modern standards of hygiene - including shampoo (far from the most heinous thing ever; many of the most gorgeous longest hairs on this site are cared for with drugstore shampoo and conditioner) - so I doubt I'd think the long hair of the past was all that.

Siava

January 18th, 2011, 01:46 PM

Cupofmilk, I certainly don't find that weird at all! I'd love to see a picture of your great-grandmother's hair.

Artsy

January 18th, 2011, 03:03 PM

I remember watching an old soap Escrava Isaura, which is based on a novel from 19th century. There was a reference to oiling hair with olive oil to fight the dullness. I was surprised at that method at the time.

From what is known about history of the Eastern Europe, where I was born, a lot of women, even peasants kept their hair long and braided with ribbon. The older, married women wore their hair in crown braid or fake crown braid and covered with a scarf. The younger girls wore their braids as a sign of beauty. I have also seen references in literature that stated that people bathed regularly in rivers/lakes in the Summer month.

As it comes to food available in Eastern Europe, a lot of vegetables and fruit are still imported. Before 17 or 18 century, I don't remember exactly, there was a reference in some literature, the main grains for consumption were buckwheat and barley. Vegetables were limited to cabbage, leeks and some sort of beets and roots. Berries, mushrooms and fruit were available in season.
In some remote areas people still don't have a luxury of having a fridge, and preserve their food in a dug out chamber in the ground filled with ice and snow from winter. The meat was cured and dried usually. Cow/ goat milk was available usually fresh for average peasants.
There are references for many villages before 12-13 centuries stating that people lived in communes and worked at shared fields and shared their food. So the nutrition was more or less uniform for everyone.

I think hygiene, haircare and nutrition differed a lot regionally before the globalization. Same as fashion was spread with larger wars, different customs were shared between regions.

There is an interesting short article about Western hair, doesn't look like peer reviewed.
http://library.thinkquest.org/26829/text-only_3-styles_e.htm

However, if comparing today's LHC members hair to looked after hair from any period or culture, I agree that LHC members have greater advantage of knowing the secrets of western haircare together with knowledge of Indian herbs and other cultures' methods, like coconut oil everywhere. :cheese:

Catia

January 18th, 2011, 03:55 PM

Concerning the discussion of lice and inability to rid themselves of it before RidX or lice-a-way or whatever is used now :silly:

Henna or Henna/fenugreek/cardamom has been around forever as well as the knowledge that it is a lice remedy.

Henna may be a moot point in a discussion of Eastern Europe but humans didn't just grow a brain in the last century. Also oil/lard will smother lice and at least keep them at bay if all the eggs aren't removed.

And pertaining to "no time to mess with long hair". It takes all of 1 minute to braid/put up long hair (even floor length hair) when you have been doing it your whole life. Combing is also not time consuming if your hair is kept restrained at all times.

I'm sure there are those then, just like now, that probably didn't give a rats hind end about their hair but I really don't think vanity is a new human condition.

ravenreed

January 18th, 2011, 04:49 PM

Without a good way to wash it out, most oils will go rancid after a while. Spices were extremely rare, extremely prized and extremely expensive. Even salt was a luxury until relatively recently.

ETA: It isn't that our ancestors were stupid, they just had more important things to worry about. Resources were scarce and life was much harder.

Concerning the discussion of lice and inability to rid themselves of it before RidX or lice-a-way or whatever is used now :silly:

Henna or Henna/fenugreek/cardamom has been around forever as well as the knowledge that it is a lice remedy.

Henna may be a moot point in a discussion of Eastern Europe but humans didn't just grow a brain in the last century. Also oil/lard will smother lice and at least keep them at bay if all the eggs aren't removed.

And pertaining to "no time to mess with long hair". It takes all of 1 minute to braid/put up long hair (even floor length hair) when you have been doing it your whole life. Combing is also not time consuming if your hair is kept restrained at all times.

I'm sure there are those then, just like now, that probably didn't give a rats hind end about their hair but I really don't think vanity is a new human condition.

Siava

January 18th, 2011, 05:50 PM

I've read about using lard in the hair. I don't know how true this is, but I read that coverings and "cages" were placed around elaborate hairdos (that contained lard) to keep rats from trying to eat them! I must research more on this, but I do recall reading that.

BlueMuse

January 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM

Yeah, I don't think our ancestors were stupid. I think they had the same mental capability and capacity that we do, just not all of the past to build upon (and some of them lived at times when humanity had taken a giant leap backward due to disease, war, etc).

I'm sure sometime farther down the road our great grandchildren's great great grandchildren will be raving about the stupid things we did that we thought were healthy at the time. For instance (and not even all that long ago) take some of the old feminine hygiene practices. I can guarantee you that coke and lysol was not meant to be internalized that way (and lysol--and some would debate cocacola--not at all).

I know some parts of the world did relatively well in regards to hygiene. The Vikings practiced regular hand and face washing (don't know about bathing) and brushing of the hair. And many of the cultures on the Asian continent were more advanced technologically and hygienically than the Western world for much of the planet's history.

rusika1

January 18th, 2011, 08:18 PM

Define 'good hair'. ;) First, remember that paintings lie.

The ancient Egyptians shaved their heads, and wore elaborate wigs.
The Romans used all sorts of concoctions to change their hair--lightening, or darkening, or trying to cover gray.
The Vikings and the Irish were quite hair-proud.
Women in the late Middle Ages plucked their hairlines to give themselves fashionably high foreheads.
In the late 15th/early 16th Century the Great Pox (syphilis) swept Europe. The traditional treatment for skin diseases (remember, syphilis starts with skin lesions) involved mercury, administered as pills, ointment or as fumes. One of the symptoms of mercury poisoning is loss of hair, this may have contributed to the fashion of wig wearing for the next 200 years or so.
And on that topic--more people in cities means more people close together, means more parasites--the main reason for shorn heads and wigs.

Just because food wasn't full of 'chemicals' doesn't mean it was particularly healthful. Unethical vendors have always adulterated foods, and they don't necessarily worry if the adulterant is dangerous or not. Here's a modern example--remember a few years ago when a manufacturer in China was adding melamine powder to infant formula? Quality control tests register melamine as protein, and it's much cheaper than dried milk.

Even if you could get food 'direct from the source' there's no guarantee it wouldn't make you sick. There are tons of things you can catch from milk and cheeses (probably the main protein source for most rural poor ), up to and including tuberculosis. And vitamins weren't even invented yet!:D

I think I prefer living in modern times, where lots of things are curable (or at least treatable), food is generally safe to eat (yes there are exceptions), and most of us almost never have to worry about body vermin. Not to mention that I would have had a devil of a time getting coconut oil 150 years ago.

joiekimochi

January 18th, 2011, 09:20 PM

Yes, they were Danes. And they used to say, "Let's go Viking (Wyking was how it was pronounced)"... I think that meant "Let's go for a ride in the longboat." :shrug: ?

That sounds like a dirty pick-up line!!!! :D

ravenreed

January 18th, 2011, 09:45 PM

Yes, the Celts were quite hair proud, but didn't part of that pride involve bleaching with lye? Pretty sure I read something that said they, the warriors at least, had dreadlocks and bleached hair to better astonish their enemies. Plus with the running into battle starkers except for blue markings, I would be scared! Of course this is all based on reports of their enemies who may have been a wee bit biased.

As for food safety, I don't remember if I posted this or not, but ancient Romans made a sweet syrup for food use by cooking down wine in lead containers which then leached lead into the thickened wine. Lead is sweet, which is why babies and pets will eat lead paint chips if given the opportunity. So they were deliberately adding lead to their food because they didn't understand it was dangerous. Up until VERY recently, within the last two generations, a lot of glazed ceramics contained lead, as did crystal goblets (lead crystal anyone?), and as did pewter. Some still do, but for the most part we as a society try to avoid these lead laden products.

Again, they were not stupid people, they just didn't have the tools yet to figure out what was dangerous long term and what wasn't. Of course, if you are only likely to live 30 or 40 years, you don't much worry about some disease that *might* kill you in your 60's.

Define 'good hair'. ;) First, remember that paintings lie.

The ancient Egyptians shaved their heads, and wore elaborate wigs.
The Romans used all sorts of concoctions to change their hair--lightening, or darkening, or trying to cover gray.
The Vikings and the Irish were quite hair-proud.
Women in the late Middle Ages plucked their hairlines to give themselves fashionably high foreheads.
In the late 15th/early 16th Century the Great Pox (syphilis) swept Europe. The traditional treatment for skin diseases (remember, syphilis starts with skin lesions) involved mercury, administered as pills, ointment or as fumes. One of the symptoms of mercury poisoning is loss of hair, this may have contributed to the fashion of wig wearing for the next 200 years or so.
And on that topic--more people in cities means more people close together, means more parasites--the main reason for shorn heads and wigs.

Just because food wasn't full of 'chemicals' doesn't mean it was particularly healthful. Unethical vendors have always adulterated foods, and they don't necessarily worry if the adulterant is dangerous or not. Here's a modern example--remember a few years ago when a manufacturer in China was adding melamine powder to infant formula? Quality control tests register melamine as protein, and it's much cheaper than dried milk.

Even if you could get food 'direct from the source' there's no guarantee it wouldn't make you sick. There are tons of things you can catch from milk and cheeses (probably the main protein source for most rural poor ), up to and including tuberculosis. And vitamins weren't even invented yet!:D

I think I prefer living in modern times, where lots of things are curable (or at least treatable), food is generally safe to eat (yes there are exceptions), and most of us almost never have to worry about body vermin. Not to mention that I would have had a devil of a time getting coconut oil 150 years ago.

Tia2010

January 18th, 2011, 10:43 PM

I think a lot would depend on your location , status , and wealth...but overall I can't imagine their hair was very nice.

I think they probably thought they had good hair. In some places they had nothing but each other to compare their hair too...So I think if it was semi clean , not full of lice , and still on their head ....they were happy and thought it was nice.

Karala

January 19th, 2011, 03:55 AM

So is it safe to conclude that we at LHC could possibly have .....the most beautiful , healthy hair in the history of the world" ?

Hehe, love that! ^^

Venefica

January 19th, 2011, 01:20 PM

Oops sorry double post.

Venefica

January 19th, 2011, 01:41 PM

I don't think 'fascinating' was the word the people of much of NE England would have used at the time...and given how many words in modern English are of Anglo Saxon origin then I'm sure we still use a lot of the words they probably used today - I suspect mainly while driving

Also remember that 'Viking' is not what you are, it's what you do. I believe the Anglo Saxon chronicle calls them Danes (hi Igor

Denmark where one of the nations which had the Viking culture, it was spread over Norway, Denmark and Sweden, Finland and to some degree Iceland. Today in Norway we call them Vikings, but at the time they would be Norsemen, men from the North and so on, Danes only apply if they happened to be from Denmark.

Also remember that while the Vikings did rob, plunder and was a general menace, they where also traders and often came in peace as well to trade their goods with other cultures.

I read one book about the Vikings. It said the women were remarkably beautiful and had exceptionally long hair that was very light blonde, but that it was fine and thin and tangled easily so they always wore it in ponytails or braids to keep it from tangling and catching on things... but it said nothing about any beauty regimens. The only other thing it said about them was that the women fought right alongside their men in battles and wars, etc. and everyone shared in raising the kids.

Most scholars today theorize that the hair of those we call Vikings (Yes they are named after a practice, going Viking, but it is still what they are referred to, just like we say Civil War society about one part of American history even if only a small percentage of the population actually fought in wars.) where mostly red, with some individuals having light brown and blond hair. Viking women generally did not fight along side the men, though it was possible for a woman to give up her social standing as a woman and become a warrior. For the most part women rules the home and took care of the children and men worked, did trade and a few where warriors. Viking women however had a far higher social standing that most women in the medieval middle ages, they had inheritance rights and much to say in society.

witess.writer

January 19th, 2011, 02:08 PM

I think the answer to this question depends on how you define 'good'. Do you mean healthy, well-maintained and/or clean.

I guess the maintenance and health of hair depends on where you were from and what kind of society one belonged to.

Some communities have been obsessed with beauty from the get-go. Like the Chinese and Arab communities have a history of nail art (I read somewhere that the Chinese created nail polish).

So I think hair would certainly come into the whole conventional idea of beauty. I have images of my grandmother (early 20th century) and great grandmother (late 19th century) and they had really stunning hair. My father told me that my grandmother used to wash her with coal ash, followed by amla oil. Her hair was below her waist and never greyed. My great grandmother (not sure what she did with her hair) had poker-straight silk like hair far below her waist.

Like 'ravenreed' posted, it comes down to the availability of resources and wealth. If you had wealth and came from an ecological environment that could provide for your hair -- all well and good. However, if you were poor and/or living in harsh climates, then the availability of resources becomes limited, even with trade.

charalito

May 18th, 2011, 02:43 PM

Resurrecting a thread

Found this early 20th century advice from the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F06E4DE113CE633A25753C2A9619C946296D6CF). Sounds like a LHC member :"The care of the hair is the care of the scalp", no heatstyling, oiling, etc

elbow chic

May 18th, 2011, 03:11 PM

I'm sure it depends on the particular time, place, social status... the "olden days" weren't a monolithic period where everyone was just the same.

I read not too long ago that the Victorian ladies *loved* curling irons and NEVER cut their hair, and so sometimes it would turn to felted wool, basically, and STINK, so they covered up the stench of their burned hair with thick perfume! ewww.

And then my great-grandmother came from a family where all the girls maxed out at under five feet, heightwise-- there were 13 siblings ill-fed on a Dust Bowl farm-- none of them had particularly long hair, but you can't imagine that kind of undernourishment was good for their hair.

kitschy

May 18th, 2011, 03:27 PM

Here is a picture taken right after the turn of the century 1900. I think their hair was as beautiful as ours.

http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/picture.php?albumid=6761&pictureid=103159

Mesmerise

May 18th, 2011, 03:39 PM

I think genetics would play a big role, as would the nutrition the people had while growing up, and continuing through their lives. Obviously those who were more affluent would have an easier time of it, but when fod was scarce, it was often scarce for everyone. Climate would have a lot to do with this! Those living in warmer areas would most likely have had less problems getting regular food (for example those in the tropics), but even then it wouldn't necessarily be assured (because there are tropical storms and suchlike which could wreak devastation).

I do think some people hit the genetic jackpot with hair and some don't. Just being here on LHC has shown me a huge difference. There are those who can grow their hair to their knees and beyond and it still looks thick and luxurious! Then there are those with relatively short hair that splits if you just look at it wrong. I think mine's somewhere in between... doesn't split much without damage, but does get a serious taper and doesn't grow that thickly to begin with. Fortunately I'm happier with much shorter hair than knee or I'd be very depressed!!

That being said, most people didn't use harsh chemicals on their hair (I say most because back in the middle ages they did used to use some weird stuff on their skin).

Others earlier in the thread mentioned women "losing a tooth per child"... well I know people today who lost teeth having children! I remember being told in my early 20s by my husband's uncle that if I had kids I'd lose all my teeth. I was like wtf? BUT my MIL had lost most of her front teeth by her mid 20s (and blamed having 3 kids in close succession), and I know others who also lost teeth after having kids :eek:.

On the other hand, I also have three kids...and guess what? All my teeth, and no cavities thank you!

happybear

May 18th, 2011, 03:58 PM

I read somewhere that people did not wash their hair (i think during the 18th century) because they believed that it helped ward off disease. Which is true, the more your natural body oil covers your skin, the harder it is for germs to penetrate. Our culture washes too much, and use too much anti bacterial stuff. I think it was also considered desirable to have super greasy hair, it was a sign of good health.

As for the Greeks, they seemed to "anoint themselves with oil" in all the ancient literature I have read. This is how they washed. I'm sure that includes hair.

Also, many peasants in the early Middle Ages would have largely chunky ale to eat. So imagine constantly drinking extremely boiled, fermented grain filled liquid that seconded as a food. And due to the serf/lord relationship, most of your crops would go to the lord of the area. There's a reason those guys ate better than most people.

That ale may have actually been a nutritional supplement akin to our multi-vitamins. the first evidence of beer production is from the ancient Egyptians (beer may actually have come before wine). this beer was also a like a thin fermented porridge that was mainly drunk by peasants as a nutritional supplement. It may have encouraged beautiful hair!

squiggyflop

May 18th, 2011, 04:12 PM

well, no i dont think they always had good hair.. i mean, there were times when it was a bragging point to say that you had only bathed 6 times in your life.. how good could hair be only bathing 6 times, not even a water rinse..

now, when they invented and popularized soap and bathing then yes. i think that they likely had good hair. hair needs a good rinse every now and then i think..

JuliaDancer

May 18th, 2011, 05:49 PM

haha the frizz was from throwing a few of these on the stove and frying the straight out of your hair.
Most people used them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/museumoflondon/3504816682/

Oh I wanted to clarify when I said ancient I meant antiquity. In antiquity ie ancient Greece, people had much better hygiene then in Europe middle ages, renaissance etc. They had frequent baths , waxing ,plentiful olive oil soap.

Actually, having studied Latin (incuding Roman history as well) and with a twin who was a classics major, the ancients did some equally awful things to themselves. The Romans also used lead to pale their skin (they even used it for their plumbing, hence the term "plumbing"). Some historians believe the insane emperor Nero suffered from lead poisoning. They also used curling irons heated by fire. You'll notice in ancient Roman images, they always show women with curled hair, but not all Italians have curly hair... If you look at images of the ancient or medieval people from their time (not romanticized images painted by Renaissance painters hundreds of years later), you usually see the hair styled in some way, or covered by hats or cloth, in various forms and designs. Think of the princess cone hats and veils! It's true, in Medieval times, people would not bathe, as it was feared. I think some women were blessed with beautiful hair, but it would not be the norm.

Alex Lou

May 18th, 2011, 07:00 PM

The women (girls really) of high social status were painted. So they had good nutrition, youth, people to groom them (100 strokes a day with BBB?), rarely washed their hair which preserved natural oils for hair health, and didn't heat or chemically process it.

Yes, their hair was healthier than the vast majority of women today.

Mesmerise

May 18th, 2011, 07:24 PM

Oh and with respect to lice... lice actually prefer clean hair to dirty hair, which is why you can keep your kids scrupulously clean and they're still little lice factories!!

I guess if people in the past didn't wash their hair often, and it was quite oily, they would be less likely to have lice infestations because the lice wouldn't find it a congenial place?!

wendy51

May 18th, 2011, 07:27 PM

I know that woman in ancient time had beautiful hair especielly Egyptian women (around 3000 years before jesus christ) and Indian women too, West african women use to use a lot of shea butter too.

sweetestpoison

May 18th, 2011, 11:13 PM

I know that woman in ancient time had beautiful hair especielly Egyptian women (around 3000 years before jesus christ) and Indian women too, West african women use to use a lot of shea butter too.

I don't know about Egyptians or West africans but i know that indian women treat their hair very well, wearing it in braids literally all the time and rinsing with conditioning and cleaning oils. Japanese women use rice bran rinses on their hair to keep it shiny and healthy.

terpentyna

May 19th, 2011, 01:27 AM

It greatly depends on the culture we speak of, as well as singular cases.

And oh, pregnancy does take quite a toll on the teeth and bones. ;)

Panth

May 19th, 2011, 03:15 AM

If you look at images of the ancient or medieval people from their time (not romanticized images painted by Renaissance painters hundreds of years later), you usually see the hair styled in some way, or covered by hats or cloth, in various forms and designs. Think of the princess cone hats and veils! It's true, in Medieval times, people would not bathe, as it was feared. I think some women were blessed with beautiful hair, but it would not be the norm.

:) That's not quite correct - medieval people did not fear bathing. In fact, many of the large towns and cities had bathhouses which men and women attended. Equally, by studying the records of deaths you can see that in the winter people died from scalding in baths (these were probably the rich or infants, as heating an adult-sized amount of bath water is incredibly costly) and in the summer people died from drowning whilst bathing in rivers/lakes.

The fear of bathing came in later, with the Tudors and their successors. The main reason was the plague - people began to fear all sorts of things suspected of passing it on. Bathhouses were condemned and went out of fashion before vanishing altogether - partly because of a fear of communal bathing, partly because they were often also brothels. The fear of bathing was because of a theory that illness could seep from the water through the skin. So, lots and lots of people purposely didn't bathe. Equally, the increase in population, particularly urban population, meant that the resources for bathing were less available than previously and rivers, etc. were more polluted than before.

...

Anywho, whether women "in the past" had good hair... well. Define "the past". Where? When? Also, are we talking the average woman? Poor women? Rich women? Royalty?

Also, define "good hair" ... because by LHC standards most women today don't have that illusive goal!

JuliaDancer

May 19th, 2011, 06:13 AM

:) That's not quite correct - medieval people did not fear bathing. In fact, many of the large towns and cities had bathhouses which men and women attended. Equally, by studying the records of deaths you can see that in the winter people died from scalding in baths (these were probably the rich or infants, as heating an adult-sized amount of bath water is incredibly costly) and in the summer people died from drowning whilst bathing in rivers/lakes.

The fear of bathing came in later, with the Tudors and their successors. The main reason was the plague - people began to fear all sorts of things suspected of passing it on. Bathhouses were condemned and went out of fashion before vanishing altogether - partly because of a fear of communal bathing, partly because they were often also brothels. The fear of bathing was because of a theory that illness could seep from the water through the skin. So, lots and lots of people purposely didn't bathe. Equally, the increase in population, particularly urban population, meant that the resources for bathing were less available than previously and rivers, etc. were more polluted than before.

...

Anywho, whether women "in the past" had good hair... well. Define "the past". Where? When? Also, are we talking the average woman? Poor women? Rich women? Royalty?

Also, define "good hair" ... because by LHC standards most women today don't have that illusive goal!

I guess I was misinformed? =P

Panth

May 19th, 2011, 12:15 PM

I guess I was misinformed? =P

Yeah. LOADS of people think that the medieval people also didn't bathe. I guess maybe it comes from muddling the Tudors/Stuarts and medievals up? Or maybe because they can't believe that society would actually regress from reasonably regular bathing to never bathing at all if possible...?

KatiSasha

May 19th, 2011, 12:57 PM

My grandmother had amazingly thick dark auburn hair down to her knees (braided!) when she lived on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, Russia. Her family wasn't wealthy, but they grew their own vegetables and had a reasonably healthy diet. She washed her hair in a local river with the cheapest soap she could find and didn't baby it too much other than keeping it in braides and buns. After she got married and moved with my grandpa to Stalindgrad, she cut her hair, but it kept thinning over the years. Now she tells me she started to notice the difference once she started dying it with harsh dyes and using local tap water (that city has a bunch of chemical factories and Russia wasn't concerned with chemical water pollution until recently.)

So do I think the hair used to be healthier in the past? Yes, definitely. Nowdays, even a darn apple has chemicals all over it (unless it's organic and worth its weight in gold :)), let alone smog and pollution in the air.

edit: Also, her and my grandpa still grow the majority of their own vegetables and they do it organically, but her hair is still a wreck. Which leads me to believe that what we put our hair through has more effect on it than our diet in the long run.

WittyWordsmith

May 19th, 2011, 03:31 PM

This thread has been more than enlightening! :) What a fantastically educated crowd this is. I've learned so much, it's all quite fascinating.

On topic, I think there should be a distinction between the natural hair of the past, and the wigs, extensions, etc. that we see in pictures but may not know are there.

Then, there is the matter of what crazy stuff is DONE to the hair, much of which has also been covered here. I remember studying the hair cones that the Egyptians used that were full of oil and perfume, they would just let them melt into their wigs and hair over time and then use more when they were gone. As a kid, when I didn't realize those were wigs, I thought all Egyptians at the time had hair like was shown in the hieroglyphics, and I couldn't imagine putting that kind of goop on my head.

Now, since joining LHC, I can totally relate to it, LOL.

It's odd how much those pictures skew our understanding, and how little is really taught to us about those things (unless we search for it ourselves.)

I'd like to say that overall, we have better health and hygiene that leads us to having better hair now than most of the hair in the past. However, I still think the majority of women abuse their hair on a scale similar to that which has always been done.

So the hair that is really healthy now is probably as prevalent as the hair that was really healthy then. I suppose I'm saying that truly healthy hair is, and has always been, a rarity.

Venya

May 19th, 2011, 04:23 PM

I'd hope so! My hair feels so weird when it's greasy, and I couldn't live easy, were it dirty all the time! I figure that farmers and nobles had good hair, since they would've had access to materials such as jojoba oil and the like!

Boudicca

May 19th, 2011, 05:25 PM

spigette

May 19th, 2011, 05:43 PM

I have a 1928 book - one of those 'household' books for women type things, which recommends greasy haired women should only wash once a fortnight!

Even watching Mad Men - as recently as the 60s - hair doesn't look too good to me. Back-combed, lacquered - not good. And I don't know how women put up with sleeping with all those little clips in their hair.

I am only 40, but I definitely remember women washing their hair a whole lot less than they do now.

I remember as a little girl in the 70's, my mum would wash my tailbone-length hair once a week on Saturday nights, then put it up in those pink sponge rollers overnight so I would have curls for church. It was like sleeping on little rocks tied all over your head. :doh:

WittyWordsmith

May 19th, 2011, 06:24 PM

I remember as a little girl in the 70's, my mum would wash my tailbone-length hair once a week on Saturday nights, then put it up in those pink sponge rollers overnight so I would have curls for church. It was like sleeping on little rocks tied all over your head. :doh:

When I was a little girl in the 80s my mom would do the same thing! Even when my hair wasn't tailbone length... more like shoulder length... which led to some tragic "Cathy" the cartoon-type styles.

I still have nightmares about wearing those dang pink rollers. And I swore I'd never do that to my daughters!

spigette

May 19th, 2011, 06:55 PM

I still have nightmares about wearing those dang pink rollers. And I swore I'd never do that to my daughters!

Do you know you can STILL buy those cursed things??? I hope no one is doing that to their kids as we speak!

I curl my hair with a sock, like Loepsie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FV-YO46E8Y) does :) (I am a HUGE fan of her videos!!)

Springlets

May 20th, 2011, 03:22 AM

I am only 40, but I definitely remember women washing their hair a whole lot less than they do now.

I remember as a little girl in the 70's, my mum would wash my tailbone-length hair once a week on Saturday nights, then put it up in those pink sponge rollers overnight so I would have curls for church. It was like sleeping on little rocks tied all over your head. :doh:

I believe this is where the excuse "I'm washing my hair that night" came from? Obviously it's not a daily thing if you can use it as an excuse to not go on a date with a guy. ;)

I think people in the old days probably placed more importance on hair than normal people do in today's times (so maybe on par with LHC members ;)). Women wore a lot more modest clothes so guys wouldn't be able to be distracted by their figures as much, and though I'm sure they had some kind of make up, women probably didn't wear as much as we do now (mascara, eye liner, eye shadow). If you wore too much you were considered a prostitute. But from what we see in paintings and stories women did have lots of different hair styles and hair ornaments, which leads me to believe that it was a great source of beauty for most women at the time. That doesn't mean that it was necessarily healthy, but I think it was more of a focal point for people back then than it is today (today women know they can wear a risque outfit and wear more make up to attract attention).

Also when I think of women who seem to have genetically thick lustrous hair that can grow as long as they want, I must attribute it to the health of their society. If Asian, Pacific Islander, and Middle Eastern women are all known for having amazingly healthy hair, its probably the result of their ancestors having had a healthy diet and care that would produce such hair. So I would assume that those cultures even in the past were healthy and therefore produced great hair.

As far as who was healthier- the past or today- I think both have positives and negatives. We do live in a world today where we have access to unlimited food and have techniques by which we can keep food at its most healthful and preserved, but for most people that is not the food we eat. Most of our intake is comprised of processed foods which don't give us the vitamins we need and put us over our caloric limits. Even when trying to eat whole foods these have been treated with pesticides or waxes, or simply grown (or injected, in the case of animals) with hormones. These were not present in food in the past but people did not have as much access to food in general, and certainly not to a variety of food. They obviously had a lot of plagues and sicknesses, but aren't our cancer and obesity rates skyrocketing as well? Our medicine may be better and more available to people but that doesn't mean we are without plagues ourselves. ;)

Armandein

May 20th, 2011, 04:35 AM

definitely a very good forum
the very best hair in all ages could be today, but only if they are aware of TLH community.
OTOH , Jojoba oil was used only by ancient people of SW of USA and N of Mexico. Till 70`s of last century it was a secret component.

Panth

May 20th, 2011, 06:49 AM

Also when I think of women who seem to have genetically thick lustrous hair that can grow as long as they want, I must attribute it to the health of their society. If Asian, Pacific Islander, and Middle Eastern women are all known for having amazingly healthy hair, its probably the result of their ancestors having had a healthy diet and care that would produce such hair. So I would assume that those cultures even in the past were healthy and therefore produced great hair.

:confused: I'd think it's far more likely to be the result of genetics. Think, what do Asian, Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern populations all have in common? Straight-to-wurly, coarse, thick hair. All of those characteristics mean it will be more resistant to damage. Asian populations, in particular, are also endowed with an above-average number of people who can grow their hair to floor-length or longer, i.e. have exceptionally long anagen phases and/or exceptionally fast growth rates.

Whether or not their ancestors ate healthily or cared for / abused their own hair is going to have little to no effect on the hair of the current generation. The only effect you will see is due to the continuation of the same eating habits and haircare habits which, with increasing globalisation, is less and less likely to occur.

littlenvy

May 20th, 2011, 07:25 AM

:confused: I'd think it's far more likely to be the result of genetics. Think, what do Asian, Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern populations all have in common? Straight-to-wurly, coarse, thick hair. All of those characteristics mean it will be more resistant to damage. Asian populations, in particular, are also endowed with an above-average number of people who can grow their hair to floor-length or longer, i.e. have exceptionally long anagen phases and/or exceptionally fast growth rates.

Whether or not their ancestors ate healthily or cared for / abused their own hair is going to have little to no effect on the hair of the current generation. The only effect you will see is due to the continuation of the same eating habits and haircare habits which, with increasing globalisation, is less and less likely to occur.
I agree. I know that we have always said here that a healthy diet leads to healthy hair, but I have seen very poor people with very very poor diets that have hair I would LOVE to have. Just beautiful.
While some people who eat very well and who's ancestors ate healthy too don't have as nice hair.
There are still a lot of things we don't know about hair and hair development in humans.

Tressie

May 20th, 2011, 07:28 AM

I haven't read all of the posts, but here are a couple of my thoughts:

The mature women wore their hair up, most of the time (braided for bed). This probably helped to protect the hair.

They didn't wash their hair as often as we do, because they didn't have the conveniences we do and it wasn't practical to do so. Probably leading to less mechanical damage.

I have seen early films showing women in their night dress with hair streaming, and it didn't look like a Pantene commerical. It looked fluffy and the ends were fairytaled and I'm sure that was considered normal!

Just my two-cents before coffee! :blossom:

Springlets

May 20th, 2011, 02:27 PM

:confused: I'd think it's far more likely to be the result of genetics. Think, what do Asian, Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern populations all have in common? Straight-to-wurly, coarse, thick hair. All of those characteristics mean it will be more resistant to damage. Asian populations, in particular, are also endowed with an above-average number of people who can grow their hair to floor-length or longer, i.e. have exceptionally long anagen phases and/or exceptionally fast growth rates.

Whether or not their ancestors ate healthily or cared for / abused their own hair is going to have little to no effect on the hair of the current generation. The only effect you will see is due to the continuation of the same eating habits and haircare habits which, with increasing globalisation, is less and less likely to occur.

My point is that their genetics is a result of the health of their culture. It's not that these people simply won the genetic lottery and arbitrarily all have genetics for growing long strong hair- it's a result of genes responding to their environment.

Yamainu

May 20th, 2011, 02:50 PM

I'm sure a lot of it had to do with nutrition as well - I doubt your hair is bouncy and shiny if you're struggling not to starve. So different times and places (and social classes) would have different hair quality.

ReadHeadGirl

May 23rd, 2011, 04:36 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/Nuranar/Vintage-General/LongHair/40slonghaircontestwinner.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7VXPqVX3d9M/TDYzqV2S-RI/AAAAAAAAALQ/vhgzlSlBz34/s1600/%C2%A9_the_Burns_Archive_hair_2.jpg

frizzinator

May 23rd, 2011, 05:58 AM

Three months from now, I will celebrate my fourth anniversary using the Sebum Only method. During those 4 years, I rinsed my hair only on one day, and that was because I had to remove a chemical spray that drifted onto my hair.

My experience indicates that it is possible for women in the past to have good hair. In fact, I think they may have had better hair than many folks nowdays.

My avatar photo was made less than a year ago, and the photos in my album were made from about the middle to near the end of the first year of my sebum only practice.

If you are interested in the sebum only method, you will find all the answers to your questions in this thread where the SO and NW (no water) methods are discussed:

http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=144

Toad Squalor

May 23rd, 2011, 05:33 PM

Private schools now still have headlice problems. Rich people can get lice too. If anything, headlice seem to prefer clean hair and the rich would have the cleanest hair around as the time!

Without the things we have now, like vacuum cleaners to help clean the room, washing machines with a boil wash and detergent and of course insecticides I can't imagine how anyone would keep on top of them.
When people did launder items, it generally was over a boiling pot with agitation tools (paddle, washboard, etc.) to assist in beating the dirt out of the fabric. I don't know about you, but I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore.

I didn't know that height was all about nutrition, I sort of assumed it was just an evolution thing. Very cool! So the Vikings were actually healthier/taller than a little before our time? Do you know what they did with their hair and such? The Vikings were such a fascinating people, though I must admit I know very little about them.

Thanks Panth for all those awesome links and images!! Great to compare art of the time with the Romanticized art. This is really so interesting. :)
According to Ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus (http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml) (a tribe from which those who became the Vikings descended and also the source of the place-name of Russia), they were quite a bit taller than he had encountered before. The description of bathing does sound pretty gross, but remember that Ibn Fadlan followed a much more rigorous bathing ritual than the Rus he encountered as part of Muslim tradition.

Woah. The average Dane in the millitary was 5' 6" tall. Considering that the average height for a male in most places is close to or taller then 6' then that is short.
Height varies pretty widely among populations during history, but 5'6" is about average. This doesn't mean that there aren't outliers like my great-grandfather, who was close to 6'5" in the late 1800s in Iceland.

Speaking of Iceland, I can speak a little of nutritional culture in the past: Iceland had similar levels of technology and agricultural availability between the 1300s and the early 1800s, and during that time was also a period known as a little ice age-- this meant that there was a cooling of 10-20 degrees (Fahrenheit) compared to before and after this time period. What does this mean for Iceland's crops? Well, a few things: 1) Not a ton of stuff grows well in Iceland, including grain. Icelanders could grow rye, but not much else in the way of grains. Potatoes grew reasonably well once the New World food had reached them. However, most folk would get a good deal of their vegetable nutrition from a soup of Iceland Moss cooked in milk. I kid you not (http://icecook.blogspot.com/2007/02/iceland-moss-soup-fjallagrasamjlk.html). 2) Most folk lived not terribly far from the seashore, and continue to live within a reasonable distance of the ocean to this day. As a preservative measure, Icelanders would dry a good deal of the fish that was caught, and would either soak it to remoisten it before cooking or eat it as if it were jerky (this last one is more of a modern thing, as it's more common to eat with butter, an extremely valuable commodity on an Icelandic farm in the "olden days"). Folks also consumed Greenland Shark, which has to be fermented before it is safe to eat. Seriously (http://icecook.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-prepare-hakarl-rotten-or-cured_17.html). 3) Sheep were farmed, but sheep require more tending, are more expensive to care for, and require preserving. However, all parts of the sheep were preserved for later consumption, and the wool was used for clothes. 4) For those who could afford to keep a cow, a variety of dairy products were eaten: whey, skýr (a thick yogurt-like substance), butter, cheese and milk. Traditional foods can still be found today, but Icelanders normally don't eat them outside of Þórri season.

Food definitely had a factor in the health of Icelanders, but its effects are seen more readily in the average height historically than hair quality/length. Like other Scandinavians, the most common hair texture is super fine like spider silk and comes in a wide variety of colors; in my family, we range from white-blonde to bright red to jet black with a lot of colors in between.

ReadHeadGirl

May 28th, 2011, 05:08 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/art/rapunzellonghair/rapunzellonghairarchive/stan17.htm

ReadHeadGirl

May 28th, 2011, 05:10 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/art/rapunzellonghair/rapunzellonghairarchive/stan17.htm

AMAZING HAIRSTYLE !!

http://www.angelfire.com/art/rapunzellonghair/rapunzellonghairarchive/stanpage2a.htm

Amber_Maiden

January 2nd, 2012, 10:48 AM

Hmmmm... Maybe it's a half and half thing. The women of the past didn't have chemical hair dye and chemical laden products and food, but they didn't have access to very good health care, or food...

heidi w.

January 2nd, 2012, 11:02 AM

It's my opinion that hair back then is much as it is today: most of it was not in the best shape, but there were a few stellar examples that people kind of looked up to. I happen to know something about hair care as far back as the 20s, and ingredients are a bit better now. Back then there was a lot of quackery going on, and running water wasn't what everyone had, either, so there were forms of powder for washing hair. And it showed in the hair's health. People would wash their hair and go a week or a bit longer before washing it again. They expected it to hold an entire week.

Back in the Egyptian times, a lot of that hair was actually wigs as lice was a huge problem. Even the kings and queens wore wigs, and they were sometimes fairly elaborate.

Hair history is kind of interesting. Lots has changed. We have better ingredients, and stuff is now patented, and they can't put in certain ingredients that they used to use commonly.

Right now, we know more about hair care than ever before, I'd say. So I'd say that for the most part, hair health reflects this.

heidi w.

heidi w.

January 2nd, 2012, 11:07 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/art/rapunzellonghair/rapunzellonghairarchive/stan17.htm

AMAZING HAIRSTYLE !!

http://www.angelfire.com/art/rapunzellonghair/rapunzellonghairarchive/stanpage2a.htm

The first image is a popular postcard image from either Europe or I think, actually, it's Eastern Europe. I've seen this image a number of times.

The second image is from a well-known long-haired photographer, Stan Shuttleworth. That was his interest, photographing long-haired women, and he has an amazing collection of historical photos.

heidi w.

jacqueline101

January 2nd, 2012, 11:44 AM

I don't know if it was healthier but it was a way of life. There was no hair dressers around and who has money to afford them. One point in our fashion history women wore bird cages on their heads. It couldn't be good for the hair having a bird peck your scalp.

Rybe

January 2nd, 2012, 12:19 PM

I know it has already been said, but the painter wasn't gonna pick the girl who's hair looked like it had been attacked by a badger and use it for the basis of the painting. It would be like some people in the future looking back at Taylor Swift and assuming we all had perfect hair. I'm sure some people rocked the minimal washing etc and DID have hair that beautiful. But I'm sure the wide spread malnutrition, the same unfortunate genetics, and other such things left plenty of women with less than desirable locks. And for pretty much as long as we've had hair we've been screwing around with it...so...I'm sure some medieval scholar around here could tell us what those ladies were doing to their hair...

Cloelia

January 2nd, 2012, 12:44 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the avatar paintings in question (The Lady of Shallott, etc.) were painted in the mid- to late-1800's by the Pre-Raphaelite movement artists. Their models had better access to medicine, health care, adequate nutrition, etc. than the ladies of the Middle Ages probably did. Already people were living longer healthier lives than they had in, say, 1300. Those paintings were meant to romanticize and idealize a time period, which they did very well.
Sorry if someone else has said this.

chickenetti

July 2nd, 2012, 12:44 PM

Well, the models for most of these paintings would have been from the elite of society, women who had nothing much else to do but to look pretty, who could afford maids to comb their hair, more expensive oils and such, milk baths, and whatever. And most of the models are also young, probably teens or 20's, who've been growing their hair out their whole lives because everybody had long hair. Kind of like celebrities and supermodels today who have perfect hair and skin because they spend more time and money than the rest of us ever could.

petali

July 2nd, 2012, 12:48 PM

catamonica

July 2nd, 2012, 06:21 PM

I have old photos from the internet Women from the 19th century. Bunned hair, and some with
their hair down. Their hair was long and beautiful. Because they wore their hair up most of the time. I think that's why it was in such good condition.

AutumnLocks

July 31st, 2012, 03:26 PM

Good healthy hair has a lot to do with what you eat and drink. So, I think women of years past probably had better hair than modern women do. Good hair also has a lot to do with how you treat it too. If you heat style, blowdry, bleach, color,and do all that stuff to your hair then you won't have as healthy hair as you might.

earthnut

July 31st, 2012, 03:40 PM

I'm not sure hair in general was healthier. Lifespan and general health, was in general, worse. So I imagine hair health was also, in general, worse.

Yes, they might have had fresher food without so many chemicals, particularly if they lived in the country. They certainly had a lot more exercise and sleep. But they also worked harder physically, had poorer nutrition, more disease, more risky childbirth.

There's no question that many modern hair treatments are harsh. And no question that some common hair care in the past is good for the hair: sebum only, infrequent washing, tying hair up and wearing head coverings. However, they also used things like mercury and lead and other heavy metals for beauty treatments. They didn't have shampoo, only soap, which has a lower pH and is harsher on the hair if not used properly.

So, it's hard to tell. But since their general health was lower back then, I suspect their hair health was lower. Many women had long hair simply because they never cut it. Even when I was treating my hair the worst, I still got to waist length simply because I never cut it.

To clarify: I'm mainly talking about the industrial revolution era, the last era when long hair was popular.

Elithia

July 31st, 2012, 04:29 PM

Okay, so historical generalizations are impossible, as has been pointed out in this thread a lot. But ....

Just wanted to add two quick things. Firstly, thanks to Atlantic for setting the record straight about medieval food. *hugs* There are far too many myths propagated about the medieval era and that is one of the most pervasive and irritating ones.

It is true that the average age of death in some parts of the European middle ages where as little as thirty years. This however do not mean that a 25 year old was middle aged or that a 30 year old would look like a 90 year old today. Yes most unless rich did not reach the ages we reach today, but it was far from that extreme. What pulls the average age down is the huge amount of child deaths, the huge amount of women who died in childbirth, people starving to death especially over the winter, all the wars and so on. A 25 year old woman would no longer be considered young, but she was not middle aged either.

Yeah. LOADS of people think that the medieval people also didn't bathe. I guess maybe it comes from muddling the Tudors/Stuarts and medievals up? Or maybe because they can't believe that society would actually regress from reasonably regular bathing to never bathing at all if possible...?

Let me just say, this medievalist is loving all the people defending the Middle Ages. :D In school roughly half my classes were medieval or ancient (my focus was 12th-13th century Wales but I did a lot of broader Medieval Europe study, and took Latin), and after the first year my policy was to sit in the back of the room biting my tongue while my patient professor fielded ignorant question after question about life "back in the day." :demon: Sorry in advance that I'm touchy. :D

Our ancestors were short. Very short. For my part of the world, we only recently caught up to the average height during Viking times, where people actually ate relatively healthy and the middle ages represented a huge dive in height.

I think someone else already pointed this out, but I am pretty sure that the Industrial Revolution represented the biggest dive in terms of height. Not the Middle Ages. Though I am sure it varies by location.

And the Black Death was bad, but its aftermath had some blessings in terms of easing Europe's overpopulation problem....

Also remember that while the Vikings did rob, plunder and was a general menace, they where also traders and often came in peace as well to trade their goods with other cultures.

*snip*

Yes they are named after a practice, going Viking,

IIRC, our current word "viking" is modern and has a convoluted etymology, but the Old English word wicing comes from the word for a trading town, and so wicing can be translated as either "trader" or "raider", which is appropriate, because in Britain at that time the vikings were both.

But this is dredging up information at the back of my brain so I could be wrong :)