I'm very interested in the rapidly changing and industrializing era at this point in Japanese history and what a slice of life would look like.

Corpus of symbols produced by the Indus alley Civilization between 3500 and 1900 BCE. Most inscriptions containing these symbols are extremely short, making it difficult to judge whether or not these symbols constituted a script used to record a language, or even symbolise a writing system. There is no known bilingual inscription to help decipher the script, nor does the script show any significant changes over time. (Yeah I just pasted wikipedia here, I have no clue otherwise) Can anyone shed some light here please?

So, we know quite a bit about what happened after his death i.e. in the AD timeline, where the dates and details of the events seem pretty consistent across sources. However, the history before his death seems very speculative and differs across the sources. My question is what is the main reason behind this ?

I ask this because I heard somewhere that the Kingdom of Italy was unified in 1861, although the timeline of unification seems to extend well before and after this point, which just so happens to be the year the American Civil war starts. I know both these events are less exact in the dates, but I was more curious what the world thought about the two of them happening in a relatively short span of time.

Did women always have a much higher likelihood of getting custody of their children during divorce settlements or was this different before the suffrage period?

[deleted]

I do realize that most of the population of Grand Duchy of Lithuania was actually Orthodox, but as I understand it, the ruling class of boyars were still pagan. Hundreds of years after the countries around them Christianized. How did they manage to maintain their statehood without the administrative benefits that adopting Christianity and Western ways of doing things along with it granted their neighbours?

It seems insane that I've never noticed it before, but I had to call emergency services this morning which resulted in me having to give a description of a lady that was disoriented and confused enough to run off into the darkness before I could get her calmed down enough to help her. She'd been assaulted, though that's the relevant point.

But the 911 operator asked me if the woman was "white, black, Latino or Asian". Laying here trying to sleep after a few hours of worrying about her, it struck me that Caucasians and African Americans both get lumped by color, but the others grouped by other criteria.

This may be more of a linguistics question, but there must be some precedent that would lead to official descriptions following that pattern. I'm hoping there may be some light to be shed on the subject from a historical perspective.

[deleted]

Or was it not considered normal, and looked down upon.

I only recently began to learn about the Taungoo Empire founded by Bayinnaung, and inspired by the magnificently cool looking golden statue on his wiki page I have been trying to learn as much about him and the regime he founded, but unfortunately there seem to be no good books that I can find with a simple google search. What solid academic work is there on these topics?

Odd backstory to this one: I'm making a character for a roleplaying game and I'm trying to figure out if electricians needed a licence in Portland, OR in 1925.

I thought this would be an easy thing to find: Usually when I look up the history of safety regulations there are a bunch of government, trade organization or union sites boasting about the history of the topic. However, all my searches for electrician licensing are drowned out by a bunch of websites on how to become a licensed electrician, or how to hire one. Adding in tags like "first year" or "history of" don't work either. I thought this might be related to union history, and there were unions for electricians by the turn of the century, so it is possible, but it is unclear when these organizations gained influence over legislation and licensing.

On the surface, the war seems to be based on racial differences and apartheid government, but in interviews with White Rhodesians, they seem to think of the conflict as Capitalism versus Communism. Additionally, the large presence of native black troops in the Rhodesian Armed Forces alludes to the idea of an ideological struggle separated from race. Thanks in advance.

How did so many people die?

Was it because of regional rivalry? Cold War jockeying? The failure to beat Israel? The very concept of the UAR, from its birth to its death, has always been very interesting to me. Could anyone with expertise in this field tell me a bit more?