I'm having trouble finding primary and secondary sources on the matter. I'm doing a report on Atlanta Highways but almost all the websites are specifically for the interstates. Does anybody have any knowledge on highways in Atlanta before the interstate system?

It's my understanding that while the fullest extent of the Holocaust wasn't widespread knowledge until later on in the war, Nazi Germany's persecution of Jewish people would have been known to at least some degree by the time the war started. Did Jewish soldiers from America/Britain/Russia attempt to hide their ethnicity/religion while deployed in Europe? Were there any deployment policies designed to place Jewish soldiers in areas or positions where they would be less likely to be killed if captured?

I was looking up my family’s lineage and came across a family crest. The crest is for the Bullock family. Wiki says the family is English, but when you look up the family crest, you can find a Scottish and an English crest that have only two real differences. Why are the crests so similar? Did the family branch off to the two different countries, and just use the same crest? Any advice or knowledge is greatly appreciated. Thank you, so much.

In the (incredible) film, Hitler's architect/friend/confidant Albert Speer is seen confessing that he has been circumventing or outright disobeying orders for months which clearly shocks the Fuhrer. However, the film provides little details about the nature of the ignored orders and what impact Speer's refusal to carry them out had on Germany at the time. I'm wondering if someone here could provide a few examples or some context as to what types of orders were ignored and what ramifications this had on the Nazi state.

Relatedly, I'm also hoping someone might be able to provide a bit of context as to the Hitler/Speer relationship itself. I'd be interested to learn more about how their friendship (if that's even the right word for it) came to be and what influence Speer had given his unique position as architect while still being so high in Hitler's inner circle.

As always apologies if this has been answered before, but reddit's search tool was being no help.

My understanding is that only citizens of Athens could vote--and that a citizen had to be a landowning man. Is this correct? If not, what was required to gain the right to vote? If this is correct, how would one go about acquiring land? How were property rights enforced?

It is my understanding that the people of the steppe lived a very nomadic life and absolutely dominated pretty much everything. Being that they lived in mainly grasslands where did they get the material and how did they build weapons that could compete with the rest of the world?

I am very interested in learning about Indigenous/Aboriginal Australia before and during colonialism. If anyone is well read on this, I have some specific questions:

- What were the naming trends for Indigenous Australians before colonialism?

- Did Indigenous Australians have to change their names to European names during colonialism?

- Were Indigenous Australians enslaved or used as servants to colonist families?

- What did general European/Indigenous Australian relations look like during this time?

​

Many thanks in advance!! Any help at all or pointers welcome.

(I'm not a frequent reader of /r/askhistorians, if this is too specific a question please let me know!)

In Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o's Decolonising the Mind: the Politics of Language in African Literature (1981), chapter 3, "The Language of African Theatre," Thiong'o's first example of African drama is the "Ituĩka ceremony" of the Agĩkuyu people (apparently also "Kikuyu" or "Gikuyu"; a people associated with [primarily located in? exclusively located in?] Kenya).

I'm trying to figure out a timeframe for the origins of Ituĩka - the exact year of the first Ituĩka would be the dream, but surely impossible. It seems likely that there isn't a proper "first event," in which case I'm just trying to get a general sense of time range (the 300s? the 1400s? I have no idea).

--

This is for a drama/theatre timeline that I have slowly been building for myself; this timeline is, believe it or not, almost exclusively Western in its focus. I am trying to rectify that focus (although feel free to DM me historiography articles about the inherent epistemic problems of timelines, haha).

--

Possible useful sources (culled from Wikipedia) that I'm going to follow up on (it'll take me a few days; if I find anything like an answer I'll be sure to edit this post):

Kenyatta, Jomo. Facing Mount Kenya: The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu. London: Secker and Warburg, 1938.
Muriuki, Godfrey. A History of the Kikuyu, 1500-1900. Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Hobley, Charles William. Bantu Beliefs and Magic: With particular reference to the Kikuyu and Kamba tribes of Kenya colony; together with some reflections on East Africa after the war. London: H. F. & G. Witherby, 1922.

Title really says it all. Was here any real crime solving at all? What happened if I was caught as a citizen, a freedman or non citizen etc?

Or is that a wrong question? Did the Egyptians actively maintain the pyramids? Did they repair cracks, blemishes, weathering or problems with the facade? If so, when did they stop doing this and allow the pyramids to fall into disrepair?

In regards to the Crusades to the holy lands some of them seem to be skipped in the numbering system. For example Between the 3rd and 4th Crusades there was another Crusade in 1197 that is often called the emperors Crusade as it was led by the Holy Roman Empire. Why is this crusade skipped in the numbering system? Likewise why is the 4th Crusade included when it was more of a sacking of Constantinople than a legit campaign to retake the Holy lands? The 'Crusading army' was even excommunicated by the pope before they reached Constantinople for sacking the town of Zara.

Likewise the Barons crusade of 1239 is skipped between the 6th and 7th despite this crusade successfully reclaiming Jerusalem.

Why was the numbering system created like this in the first place and why hasn't it been updated by modern Historians?

I go out on mountains and trails a lot and I always drink water straight from springs and creeks without problem. Is it true that medieval and ancient people preferred to drink wine, ale or beer because water was unsafe?

[deleted]

If a primary text is to old to have a recording, how do historians deal with the known fact that non verbal communication is the majority of thought and expression of a person? If you read an old text, you're imposing your own sub vocalization on their words and we don't know what they gestured when they spoke or wrote their words.