111–120 of 254 posts
> From as early as 21:00 to 23:00, those fortunate enough to afford them would begin flopping onto mattresses...A couple of hours later, people would begin rousing from this initial slumber. The night-time wakefulness usually lasted from around 11:00 to about 01:00
The article does not mention it, but mothers with small children have to nurse babies every couple of hours, even at night. So given that in middle ages, families had "copious numbers of children" (quote from the article), it is for sure that mothers would need to get up to feed a baby. And then possibly the whole family would woke up too. And if multiple generations were living in the same house, then even more prob…
I find it frustrating that the explanation of the schedule switches from a 24-hour clock to apparently a 12-hour clock without AM or PM designation > From as early as 21:00 to 23:00, those fortunate enough to afford them would begin flopping onto mattresses...A couple of hours later, people would begin rousing from this initial slumber. The night-time wakefulness usually lasted from around 11:00 to about 01:00
I believe this theory is largely thought false nowadays, or phrased too strongly at least. I myself have weird sleep cycles. I prefer to stay up into the night and wake up around 12:00, but I vary my sleeping hours by up to 4 hours or so. I go to sleep when I feel like it, and don't feel much discomfort by falling asleep at different times. It leads to weird situations - especially in winter - where I might not see t…
>this theory is largely thought false nowadays, or phrased too strongly at least. What theory? The article doesn't really claim that this kind of sleep is better or more natural, just that it was incredibly common. Is the idea that it was common now thought to be false?
It does:
"the benefits of dividing up sleep"
"single periods of slumber might not be 'natural'."
THIS article soft-peddles such claims biphasic sleep is better and more natural ONLY because those theories have been largely discredited since it was first put forward. Try an older article:
"Ekirch believes many sleeping problems may have roots in the human body's natural preference for segmented sleep"
"a consolidated eight-hour sleep may be unnatural"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16964783
> Is the idea that it was common now thought to be false?
Yes, that part is likely false, too:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-many...
coincidentally, this was a fairly large plot element in the book i've just finished reading, colson whitehead's "harlem shuffle" (excellent book, recommended). the protagonist switched to a split sleep pattern to get some extra hours during the night to do things his day job didn't give him time for, and which would take away from his family if he did them in the evening.
Ekirch's theory has had many threads on HN over the years - some of them: Humans used to sleep in two shifts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27334769 - May 2021 (60 comments) The History of Sleep - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9501610 - May 2015 (11 comments) We used to sleep twice each night - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5542453 - April 2013 (107 comments) Rethinking Sleep - https://news.ycom…
"Polyphasic sleep" was a popular topic here for a while. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=polyphasic
The article does not mention it, but mothers with small children have to nurse babies every couple of hours, even at night. So given that in middle ages, families had "copious numbers of children" (quote from the article), it is for sure that mothers would need to get up to feed a baby. And then possibly the whole family would woke up too. And if multiple generations were living in the same house, then even more prob…
The mother would either sleep with the baby or have it easily retrievable without significantly stirring. Dozing while nursing would provide some compromise between rest for her and the household, and enjoying/enduring some thinking time.
> Dozing while nursing .... and enjoying/enduring some thinking time.
Nah, it is just brain fog from slee deprivation. It is not free thinking time, it is "Jeeez I want to sleep" time.
I blame it on alcohol. If I drink I’m always up for a few hours in the middle of the night. And I’m quite sure they were doing a lot of that back in that time.
Funny how they call it a nightcap, but ends up doing the complete opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mother would either sleep with the baby or have it easily retrievable without significantly stirring. Dozing while nursing would provide some compromise between rest for her and the household, and enjoying/enduring some thinking time.
This argument amounts to "cosleeping babies are not noisy" which is only partially true. They are less noisy, but they still do cry enough. > Dozing while nursing .... and enjoying/enduring some thinking time. Nah, it is just brain fog from slee deprivation. It is not free thinking time, it is "Jeeez I want to sleep" time.
The comment about contemplative dozing comes from my wife. I’ll pass on your feedback.