I've just been told that I will be getting a full scholarship to start a PhD in September! Competition for funding has been ridiculously hard here in the UK this year (my current university, a place with a massive endowment, only offered funding to 15% of the offer-holders for example), so I am ridiculously happy right now. Still can't believe it really, last week I even started to look for real jobs out of desperation...

I was offered a spot in the Public History masters programme in Western University. Pretty excited!

Progress: Got my diss committee all officially on board. Now I'm playing the waiting game while they read and comment on my proposal. I'm glad I will have a balance between big-picture and detail-oriented people for my actual dissertation, but it's frustrating for the semi-fictional nature of the proposal.

Question: How do you pack for archival trips? I had to toss my long-suffering rolling suitcase when I returned from my research trip last summer, and now I'm looking for a new large piece of luggage. (I will also take my time-tested messenger bag as a carry-on and for schlepping my notes and camera to the archive each day.)

Some of my research is in the U.S. and Canada, but I am mostly working in U.K. archives (both urban and rural areas). My trips to the U.K. generally range from three to eight weeks, and I hit multiple locations on each trip.

I'm a small woman, so being able to roll my luggage certainly helps, but I'm also considering a pack or duffel that would be easier to drag ... heave ... carry up stairs and onto trains and ferries. I appreciate any recommendations of brands, sizes, styles, etc. I may also ask in a sub like /r/solotravel, but I figured I could start here because folks around these parts know the demands of research travel.

So on a bit of a whim I bought Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, and I've become a bit obsessed. In the first place, the book is awesome. In the second place, there's so much happening historically that I find myself making new connections every time I look at it. For example, it's obviously an incredible statement of romantic nationalism, as Scott is constructing an English national identity rooted in a quasi-racialized Saxon identity, and in which the Saxons are pious, hard-working, plain-spoken, loyal, selfless, chivalrous, and concerned most of all with the welfare of England and their personal freedom--which are of course one and the same for them. They are opposed by the oppressive Normans, French-speaking, grasping, ostentatious, effeminate, insulting, corrupt, and so on. On its face, this is a historical-fictional account of the late 12th century--but Scott published this in 1820, just five years after the defeat of Napoleonic France! So, in this way, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars provide a backdrop for the (re?)construction of English national identity, against their eternal Others, the French. But... Scott himself is Scottish, so it's not just "English" identity that's at stake here, but a wider "British" identity as well, although I don't believe the term is ever used.

Plus, to push it further, one of the central villains is Prince John, who in 1215 was forced to sign Magna Carta, a document that has long been described (rightly or wrongly) as a kind of original document of English liberty, a limit on the powers of the monarchy, in line with the Civil War of the 17th century and the Glorious Revolution. It's also arguably in line with English radicalism of the 18th century and the reform movements of the early 19th century, though the Tory Scott would disagree. Indeed, by placing his description of this formative moment of Englishness at such a point in time, he's suggesting that the English have always been inclined to freedom, but also possessing great respect for feudal hierarchy. In other words, the French can keep their Revolution, thanks, because the English have been both free and happy in their traditional hierarchy for centuries, as long as no corrupt foreigners show up.

It gets even better. The 1952 film Ivanhoe is an astonishing kind of reclamation project for national identity and pride. The characters have changed from the book, adopting much more abstract articulations of freedom as their goals; the Jews play a larger role in the film, and medieval Saxons were suddenly portrayed as early enemies of anti-Semitism, as though England had always been a welcome home to Jews. The Jews are important in the book, but not to the extent they are in the film.

It also has Elizabeth Taylor as Rebecca, the daughter of the wealthy Jewish merchant Isaac of York, and she is extraordinary. I had always known that she was one of the most famous actresses of her day, but to be honest I hadn't sat down and watched one of her films from her prime since at least childhood; I'm pretty sure Cleopatra and Ivanhoe were both regularly on Saturday afternoons when I was young, right alongside Ben Hur and Spartacus. I had no idea what I was watching. She really is that beautiful.

Finally (for today), Ivanhoe was remade as a television show in the later 1950s starring--wait for it--Roger Moore as Ivanhoe. This show is on Youtube, and it's incredible. Binge watch it now, thank me later. Here is episode one.

My wife has been at a conference in Kansas City, Kansas yesterday and today, so we stayed overnight and brought jstbaby with us. He and I went over to the good side (Missouri) yesterday and spent several hours at the Nelson-Atkins museum. Checked off baby's first Monet, Rembrandt and mummy. They also currently have a really nice traveling exhibit of American folk art, up through late summer. Today we'll probably go out to the national WWI museum, which is well worth a visit if you're ever in the area.

Oh, and barbecue of course. I would get so fat if I ever moved back to KC. We hit up Bryant's for lunch and had Jack Stack and Joe's KC (formerly Oklahoma Joe's) for dinners.

I've never had the opportunity to read about the American Revolution before and since my SO is from Boston, I thought I'd start reading up on my American history for my upcoming trip to Boston. I've been focusing on the causes and the first year of the war, mostly concerning Boston of course. Does anyone know of any must-reads? Among the books I've already read or will read are Richard Archer's As If an Enemy's Country: The British Occupation of Boston and the Origins of Revolution, David McCullough's 1776 as well as David Hackett Fischer's Paul Revere's Ride.

Been a productive couple of weeks recently. Just finished first year of my MA, and am handing in my proposal for my thesis on Monday, which looks like it should be approved. And also received confirmation that I will be given a bursary for some overseas travel and research/study in the fall. Going to do some intense language training and then go look in some archives for stuff. All told going to be gone about three months, and while the bursary won't cover all that, it should pay for my flights, provided I work the dates out properly.

If anyone has been missing my posts in the Wednesday threads I apologize. First we had April Fool's, than I was taking my comprehensive exams for my Master's, and now I am in San Francisco attending the annual conference for the Society of American Archaeology. I'll resume the posts next week. If you are curious as to what's been happening I suggest checking out what has been posted on /r/history, /r/archaeology, and even /r/anthropology.

I finished my undergraduate thesis today!

I've returned to reading a introductory book on the Jacobites I started a long time ago and put down, partially out of annoyance at the author's papering over of the Scottish experience ("What if there were no Jacobites? Nothing would have changed." What about Culloden? Dress Act?)

That aspect hasn't changed and I've twice been annoyed by things being put down to "clannish behaviours" and "poor planning" for things due to weather, but I'm really getting curious now about the use of "Crypto-Jacobites." The author is pretty obviously applying this term to what I'd call "political opportunists" and meaning it pejoratively. It's not the first time I've seen reference to Crypto-Jacobites and also Crypto-Catholics in this area (and Crypto-Jews in other, unrelated, reading), but never have I actually come across any description of what one of these Crypto's lives were really like. With the high degree of openness in clubs and drinking establishments that Jacobites were able to express their views, why would one go underground in such beliefs? It's making me wonder if "Crypto" is really a name for a phenomenon that existed and can be examined, or if it's applied purely in a pejorative sense or as a means of denigrating a less-favoured group.

What have your experiences with the "crypto" moniker been? As always, I'm self-taught and keenly aware I could be heading out into left field.

On a Lighter Note, Did you hear about the Half-Plant, Half-Animal they found in Russia? I heard it was a Moss Cow!

Not trying to troll really,

Ok something I have always wondered. Were there cave man dick drawings? It seems like drawing dicks happens across all cultures, but how far back does it go?

Copying my question from yesterday's /r/badhistory thread- Is there anyone who specialises in sequential art (comic books, manga etc) on AskHistorians or ArtHistory? I'm curious about where and how these things developed.

Since then, I asked someone at /r/comicbooks and was recced Mark Evanier and Rob Thomas for American comic book history.

This is probably going to fly under the radar, however, I have always been curious to find out if there was any record about the red prince of germany (im not sure the time period or which battles), in which he was rescued off the field of battle twice (may have been two seperate battles). The knight in question got an honors generally only given to royalty but because of the gravity of the situation they gave it to him to show their gratitude.

I cannot remember the name of my great great great and so on grandfather, and unfortunately its all anecdotal from me at this point, my mother had more information about him, or at least his name. I was just curious if anyone happened to know more about the time period in question.

(and according to the story, my great great great so on grandfather knocked up a serving wench, revoked his knighthood to settle down with the wench.)

I'm more interested in the actual documentation (if there is/was any) around the events of the red prince's rescue if available.

why don't we compile all "how accurate is this academic book" requests into one post that goes out weekly (like the friday free for all) considering those questions almost never get answered.

Is there a book like Edward gibbon's decline and fall of the roman empire or Henri Pirenne's charlemagne and Mohammed for your historical discipline. You know highly important, seminal , helped create your displine, complety or at least mostly wrong.

I came across a pretty vicious book review, which does not mince words in regards to this dated paper from the 1920s written by the late scholar C. R. Boxer. He gets right to it in the very first sentence: "Here's to make Good Old Boxer turn over inside his grave." And then he goes on to rip him to shreds.

I mean, wow, show some respect, man.

I was cleaning out my closet today when I found a family recipe for peanut butter cookies. I was making a copy of it when I noticed the card had "Senate Bill 1693" written on the back. What was this senate bill about? Is it a US Senate bill or a State Senate bill?

Some extra information: I live in Massachusetts. This recipe has been in my family longer than I've been alive, so SB 1693 is older than 25 years.

Anyone else taking the APUSH exam on May 8th?