I was recently at the Museum of Science Boston's exhibit on the Mayan culture, and while it was a very interesting exhibit full of new knowledge, for me the artifacts just didn't compare to ones I've seen from Ancient Greece or the Roman Republic, or even from ancient China and India. Why is this?

Many of the earliest Zionists who first came to Israel - and actually I think this practice is still going on - Hebraicized their name.

I wonder what exactly their reasons were - or where did they get the idea from? And how unusual is this practice in history generally? Obviously, there is also a culture of converts to Islam changing their names - Muhammed Ali had the whole thing with the "slave name" - and various other people have changed their names in history for different reasons, but I'm interested if and when anyone rationalized this practice?

The Demon in the Freezer deals with smallpox eradication and anthrax as a biological question outbreak. There are a few assertions in the book I'd like to double check.

Why after the eradication of smallpox were the vials of smallpox not destroyed?

What evidence of the Soviet Union or Russia in developing a heated smallpox virus. (A biological manipulated virus).

Has there any evidence of Russia, Iraq, or Iran in Developing a biological weapon. What has been other countries attempts at making biological weapons.

Why did WHO remove it's stockpile of smallpox vaccines.

Did Binghamton University really have an accidental smallpox outbreak?

I was just wondering if there was any interesting history to the phrase like where and when it originated from, or any other interesting facts about it.

It seems a bit weird they didn't get involved at the time. Why? I'm curious

There have been alot of news about the kurdish people fighting ISIS and i thought "Have the kurds every had there own country(with a kurdish leader) I google it and didn't really find any thing so now i'm here to ask reddit

I imagine that some presidents came from immigrant backgrounds. Were there any who spoke another language fluently or natively?

Stephen Van Evera's Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (1997):

P. 5:

Chapter 3 also reflects my view that political science should embrace the task of historical explanation among its missions. Historians should not be left alone with the assignment. Many historians are leery of generalizations, hence of the use of general theories; yet theories are essential to historical explanation. Many are averse to explicit explanation, instead preferring to "let the facts speak for themselves." Many are averse to writing evaluative history that judges policies and policymakers. Political science should step in to fill the explanatory and evaluative gaps that are left by these quirks in historian culture."

P. 93:

Moreover, scholarship of types 5 and 6 ("historical explanatory" and "historical evaluative") lacks a friendly home in other disciplines, which leaves this work to political scientists. Some historians are averse to explicit explanation, instead preferring to "let the facts speak for themselves." Others will elaborate a preferred explanation, but they rarely set contending explanations against one another, as one must to fully evaluate an explanation. Historians are also (with some exceptions)9 generally averse to writing evaluative history. However, without explanatory historical work history is never explained; and without evaluative historical work we learn little from the past about present and future problem-solving. Hence some field should accept these tasks. I nominate political science.

• Is this an accurate characterization of history (leery of general theories, averse to evaluation, preference for "letting the facts speak for themselves")?
• Why are historians wary about using general theories to explain and evaluative historical events?
• Why are they wary of evaluation?
• Why are they wary of clarification?
• Doesn't that leave significant gaps in history scholarship?
• Is there a debate in the field on this topic?

I was watching a show on American Hero's Channel, and an interviewee was talking about an Amtrak that was used to move the dead with 6" of water on the bottom. I couldn't find it through my searches.

In all the many years where swords were used in combat, were legendary swords actually a real thing?

I don't mean simply named swords, but swords that carried a reputation as being exceptionally well made or somehow powerful. I'd imagine given the beliefs of the time, they probably would have been seen to be magical.

If there were, was it well known who had them, and were they feared?

Why do some have 28 days, 30, or 31? When was this first introduced? By who? Why?

Im wondering if the persians vsing sparta had the bombs and chemical concoctions that was prevalent in the movie ? and if so could you provide a source? thank you very much ive always wondered this