By the Gods!

Let's get Mythical.

85 notes

316 Plays
The British History Podcast
Edwin, exile of Deira

britishhistorypodcast:

We need to have a chat. 

I often get the question - sometimes in the form of an e-mail, sometimes in the form of a complaint on the Facebook community, and sometimes in the form of a bad review on iTunes - and it all essentially boils down to this: 

"Why aren’t you at 1066 yet?" 

And, I get it - most of us learn British history as a thing that STARTS at 1066. Everything before 1066 is boiled down to 1) Stonehenge/Druids, 2) ROMANS!!! and 3) Anglo-Saxons???

That’s the first chapter of all your history books as a kid, so I get that people get frustrated when they see the show as spending all this time on things that happened before the real show really starts at 1066 with the Norman conquest.  

The problem with that view is that it’s simply wrong. British history does not start at 1066, there were thousands of years of genuine history being made by real, fascinating peoples. It’s so deep and rich I could easily spend the rest of my life NOT getting to 1066. But, I also find 1066 and post-1066 Britain fascinating, so I’m definitely going to get there. 

But I am definitely going to give the over thousand years of rich, important history before that it’s due attention. Partly because it’s important - even 1066 doesn’t make ANY sense unless you know who these peoples were. You certainly won’t understand modern Britain today without understanding what was there before 1066. 


But the real reason why I cover pre-1066 in such detail is because. it’s. awesome. 

It rocks. Seriously. 

There are heroes and and villains that rival anything you’ve ever read in any fantasy book or any Marvel movie. People you’ve never even heard of, but whose lives built the legends from our favorite stories from Arthur to Game of Thrones. 

History is our story. I’m going to tell you as much of it as I can - Here’s the story of Edwin of Deira. 

812 notes

haitianhistory:

Today’s term/concept is: HISTORIOGRAPHY 

So, what does this word mean in the context of historical research? 

Historiography usually refers to all the work on a given historical topic and the study of how historians have dealt with historical subject matters.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians’ methods and practices. Moreover, “historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history?" (Source)
Trent University defines historiography as “a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic … It identifies the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.” (Source)

So, to put it plainly, historiography can be understood as the the body of historical writing on a topic and the history of how historians have approached a particular topic over time. 

⇒ For example, if you encounter in your readings: “The Historiography on the Haitian Revolution is very large” It usually means → ”Lots of stuff have been written about the Haitian Revolution.”
Historiography of course, does not only refer to the grouping of works on a topic, as we have seen already, it also focuses on the changes in historical methodology. 

So, historiography evolves over time? Why?

Historians can rarely escape their own time. This is not to say that the historical discipline is entirely subjective, rather, this is to suggest that historians do not write in vacuums. Historiographical essays are thus important because they help us see how the methodology in studying a particular topic has changed over time. 
⇒ For example, in the 1960s, most (but not all) historians favoured an approach that gave a significant importance to economy and were often interested in making Marxist and class-based analysis of History. This is not necessarily true today when many historians prefer an analysis which gives more space to culture (hence, you will often hear references to a "cultural" or "linguistic turn" in History). 
Now, this change in the way historians understand events rarely means they debate over the occurrence of those events (although, it does happen), — what it actually means is that historians find that some approches highlight factors that better explain historical events than others. Historians’ major task is not simply to narrate events, their work also involves looking at the relationship between various instances (that is, their causal relationship) in explaining historical events. (To make this text more digestible, I will save you a discussion on the problems historians face with narration and causality, just remember that the two have an influence on historiography.)
So, as just mentioned, historiography helps us see how historical writing changes, in part, because historians often take different approches with time.
⇒ For example, for a long time, the dominent historiography on the causes of World War I suggested that the Great War was fought between European powers for colonies (i.e. the surproduction of goods forced European capitalist to pressure their own government to support their adventures in foreign lands in search of the new markets). Other historians, who do not necessarily completely reject the previous explanation, argue however that nationalism is better in articulating the drive to go to war. Historiography also suggest that we should not neglect the importance of European alliance system before WWI (i.e. the “domino effect”). More importantly, most (but not all) historians who favoured the colonies and market explanation tended to be further towards the left (Marxist, Leninist and so on) in their analysis. (Notice “tended’ is in italics.)
At any rate, historiography is a complex term but it is necessary to understand it in order to comprehend some of the work historians do (and to grasp the real nature of most of their disputes). 
To recapitulate, in most instances, historiography is:
The body of work on a particular historical topic (i.e. : the historiography on the Haitian Revolution, the 20th century historiography on the French Revolution, the historiography on Thomas Jefferson…)
The “history of history” (the study how historians have dealt with particular topics, with a special importance given to the context in which their work was written. This usually emplies analyzing the approach(es) historians have favoured to write about History (i.e.: was this historian sensible to the Marxist turn in History, the Postmodern turn in History, the Cultural turn in History, the Subaltern and Postcolonial turn in History …?))
Warning: Before using a term, always make sure you are confortable with its meaning and that it won’t be placed in your text simply as an ornement. If unsure, consult an appropriate dictionary or a Professor. 

haitianhistory:

Today’s term/concept is: HISTORIOGRAPHY 

So, what does this word mean in the context of historical research? 

Historiography usually refers to all the work on a given historical topic and the study of how historians have dealt with historical subject matters.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians’ methods and practices. Moreover, “historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history?" (Source)

Trent University defines historiography as “a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic … It identifies the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.” (Source)

So, to put it plainly, historiography can be understood as the the body of historical writing on a topic and the history of how historians have approached a particular topic over time. 

⇒ For example, if you encounter in your readings: “The Historiography on the Haitian Revolution is very large” It usually means → ”Lots of stuff have been written about the Haitian Revolution.”

Historiography of course, does not only refer to the grouping of works on a topic, as we have seen already, it also focuses on the changes in historical methodology. 

So, historiography evolves over time? Why?

Historians can rarely escape their own time. This is not to say that the historical discipline is entirely subjective, rather, this is to suggest that historians do not write in vacuums. Historiographical essays are thus important because they help us see how the methodology in studying a particular topic has changed over time. 

⇒ For example, in the 1960s, most (but not all) historians favoured an approach that gave a significant importance to economy and were often interested in making Marxist and class-based analysis of History. This is not necessarily true today when many historians prefer an analysis which gives more space to culture (hence, you will often hear references to a "cultural" or "linguistic turn" in History). 

Now, this change in the way historians understand events rarely means they debate over the occurrence of those events (although, it does happen), — what it actually means is that historians find that some approches highlight factors that better explain historical events than others. Historians’ major task is not simply to narrate events, their work also involves looking at the relationship between various instances (that is, their causal relationship) in explaining historical events. (To make this text more digestible, I will save you a discussion on the problems historians face with narration and causality, just remember that the two have an influence on historiography.)

So, as just mentioned, historiography helps us see how historical writing changes, in part, because historians often take different approches with time.

⇒ For example, for a long time, the dominent historiography on the causes of World War I suggested that the Great War was fought between European powers for colonies (i.e. the surproduction of goods forced European capitalist to pressure their own government to support their adventures in foreign lands in search of the new markets). Other historians, who do not necessarily completely reject the previous explanation, argue however that nationalism is better in articulating the drive to go to war. Historiography also suggest that we should not neglect the importance of European alliance system before WWI (i.e. the “domino effect”). More importantly, most (but not all) historians who favoured the colonies and market explanation tended to be further towards the left (Marxist, Leninist and so on) in their analysis. (Notice “tended’ is in italics.)

At any rate, historiography is a complex term but it is necessary to understand it in order to comprehend some of the work historians do (and to grasp the real nature of most of their disputes). 

To recapitulate, in most instances, historiography is:

  • The body of work on a particular historical topic (i.e. : the historiography on the Haitian Revolution, the 20th century historiography on the French Revolution, the historiography on Thomas Jefferson…)
  • The “history of history” (the study how historians have dealt with particular topics, with a special importance given to the context in which their work was written. This usually emplies analyzing the approach(es) historians have favoured to write about History (i.e.: was this historian sensible to the Marxist turn in History, the Postmodern turn in History, the Cultural turn in History, the Subaltern and Postcolonial turn in History …?))

Warning: Before using a term, always make sure you are confortable with its meaning and that it won’t be placed in your text simply as an ornement. If unsure, consult an appropriate dictionary or a Professor. 

(via historicity-was-already-taken)

1,517 notes

art-of-swords:

Victorian Cinquedea Dagger 

  • Provenance: The William Ashby Collection

The Cinquedea (“five fingers”, in reference to the blade width) was a popular civilian sidearm originating in Northern Italy circa 1525-1550. This is a Victorian example measuring 22 3/4 inches overall, the blade is 17 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide across the base, with ten fullers on each side, arranged in four expanding rows from tip to base, the last two rows on each side are decorated with golden scroll and leafy vine patterns, extending 9 inches upward, surrounding a 2 inch wide scene of a Greco-Roman deity on each side.

One side features Jupiter/Zeus sitting in his chair, lightning clenched in his fist, while Aquila, the eagle responsible for carrying and guarding the bolts, looks on. The reverse shows Pluto/Hades seated on a throne with a scroll in his hand, while Cerberus, the 3-headed guard dog of the underworld, is seated beside him and a cypress tree in the background. The gold decoration continues on the guard and pommel, with a pair of smooth ivory grip panels fitted with cut-through metal disc accents. 

Source: Copyright © 2014 Rock Island Auctions

40 notes

sarahippen:

HELLO ALL!

I’m gonna get back on the horse, moving to vancouver really took a heckovalot out of me! 

Expect more pikmin to come. 

Follow Sarah’s art blog for Pikmins and perhaps other things

sarahippen:

HELLO ALL!

I’m gonna get back on the horse, moving to vancouver really took a heckovalot out of me! 

Expect more pikmin to come. 

Follow Sarah’s art blog for Pikmins and perhaps other things

294 notes

dsbeans:

Tigris and Euphrates is a pretty deep and simple game. Placing tiles, scoring points and resolving conflicts in ancient Mesopotamia has never been easier. 

Players place tiles, building the great civilizations of the ancient world, one piece at a time. While you can place anywhere you wish, it is the location of the leaders, those wooden discs, which determine who scores the points (or if anyone scores points) for placing the tile.

Conflict occurs when two leaders of the same colour are placed within a single kingdom or when two kingdoms are connected through the placement of a tile. These conflicts are quick and unforgiving, giving the potential to quickly change both a player’s position on the board and the makeup of the board itself.

The tiles and map itself are quaint and subtle in their design, owing largely to the fact that this a game that is going to be approaching its 20th anniversary in a few years. The wooden playing pieces - the monuments and the leaders are great and their tactile weight and texture give a lot of weight to the game itself; moving or placing a leader feels as heavy as the decision itself.

It’s a fun game to teach and a great game to play, with play usually starting off fairly simple and gradually building in complexity into a crescendo of tough turns. Knizia’s scoring methods also play an important role in turning this game into one filled with tension. 

(via allmesopotamia)