Based off of murals and reconstructions as well as the survey map produced by Rene Millon and his team in the 1960s and 1970s, I've gone back to a pet project of mine that I've been wanting to do for ages. The intent has always been to use it as a way to engage with the public and bridge that gap with academia, but it's also just tons of fun to work on. And who wouldn't want to wander around a digital Teotihuacan in Minecraft?

http://i.imgur.com/fDYKn4D.png

http://i.imgur.com/UAF5wyx.png

http://i.imgur.com/hXOowNc.png

http://i.imgur.com/xVukRCI.png

http://i.imgur.com/mwo8MNw.png

http://i.imgur.com/gOpdE15.png

Past attempts from a few years ago

http://imgur.com/a/WayQO

http://imgur.com/a/Hf4GQ

I remain trapped on the South African highveld. I'm making some inroads on projects I can do here, because even after 22 months (and endless enquiries from my colleagues and hosts) Zimbabwe continues to sit on my application to conduct basic archival research. My clock has just about run out for making the trip (supposed to start in April), which does not please me and will not please my funders. I suspect I'll be writing a very big check to them when I get back, instead of using those funds to do my work and build some good collaborations.

The worst part, to me, is that it all assures this particular funding institution will never take a chance on Africa-focused research projects again (outside, possibly, of South Africa) unless an applicant already has clearance. But that's a catch-22: you can't get clearance unless you have funding and backing, as well as an in-country partner institution; permits are good for 12 months but when it can take two years or more to get the OK, you can't actually tell a funding agency when you intend to go. It's effectively destroyed a sabbatical year for me, although I am sure I'll make something out of the massive document captures I've done here.

Now I just have to figure out how to do a major, trans-African project without one of its most important pieces. This will be fun.

SO apparently the house we believed was James Monroe's home outside of Charlottesville VA (interestingly at the foot of the mountain Monticello sits on) is actually a guest house that James Monroe built. The original house apparently burned down a few decades after the property was sold. http://www.nbc29.com/story/31840163/home-long-thought-to-be-monroes-turns-out-to-be-guest-house I think it is pretty amazing we had no contemporary descriptions or photos of the house.

First, please excuses my inability to retell a funny story...

I remember reading a funny anecdote in some book (it was probably just a common joke of the time) about Hitler being informed that the Italians had entered the war, to which he responded that they should send 2 divisions. Then after thinking about it for a second asked, "wait, with us or against us?" When informed that they had entered the war as Germany's allies he replied, "Better send 4 divisions then."

The thing is, I've spent (admittedly) minimal time trying to find a reference to this, be it the joke or even a reference to whichever book I was reading, but I've come up empty handed. Anyone have any ideas where this came from?

I had another piece up at the New Yorker's website this week, for the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident: The Battles of Chernobyl. Goal was to take a fairly even-handed assessment of the accident's legacy, and talk a bit about why it is so politicized.

There's a feature of some history books I have noticed, which I've seen only in history books: something like an outline of a chapter or section after the section heading but preceding the prose. The outline consists of a sequence of terms separated by dashes, and correspond to the sequence of topics touched on in the prose that follows. I'm sure there must be a name for this, but I've been unable to find one. I'm hoping someone here might enlighten me. [1]

I've seen this in several locations, notably Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and in Winston Churchill's series The Second World War. Volume one of Will Durant's Story of Civilization has it too, though apparently not the subsequent volumes. [2]

Examples given below.

In Chapter XXXIV of the Gibbon (link goes to that page in Google Books):

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Conquests of Justinian in the West. - Character and first campaigns of Belisarius. - He invades and subdues the Vandal Kingdom of Africa. - His Triumph. - The Gothic War. - He recovers Sicily, Naples, and Rome. - Siege of Rome by the Goths. - Their Retreat and Losses. - Surrender of Ravenna. - Glory of Belisarius. - His domestic Shame and Misfortunes.

When Justinian ascended the throne ...

In Chapter 1 of Churchill's first volume (link goes to that page in Google Books):

CHAPTER I.

THE FOLLIES OF THE VICTORS

1919-1929

The War to End War - A Blood-drained France - The Rhine Frontier - The Economic Clauses of the Versailles Treaty - Ignorance about Reparations - Destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by the Treaties of St. Germain and of Trianon - The Weimar Republic - The Anglo-American Guarantee to France Repudiated by the United States - The Fall of Clemenceau - Poincaré Invades the Ruhr - The Collapse of the Mark - American Isolation - End of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance - Anglo-American Naval Disarmament - Fascism the Child of Communism - How Easy to Prevent a Second Armageddon - The One Solid Security for Peace - The Victors Forget - The Vanquished Remember - Moral Havoc of the Second World War - Failure to Keep Germany Disarmed the Cause

After the end of the World War of 1914 ...

[1] I asked this question over on /r/whatstheword a year ago and the best I got there was headnote, which seems to be a term specialized to use in legal paperwork. I'm sure there must be a different term for what I am looking for.

[2] I checked the preface and notes to volumes 1 and 2, to see whether Durant mentioned them as a feature being used or dropped, but there was nothing.

I'm becoming increasingly aware of a trend in medieval Irish scholarship where "the Normans did it" is used as a cop-out explanation for processes that can be seen as internally-driven social change. I think that this line of thought definitely arises from the assumption that indigenous Irish society was static and primeval, where outside intervention was the only possible vehicle for social and political change.

Hey historians, I've got a simple question. Do you know of a good, thorough book on the principles of structural integrity and the building materials and construction methods used by ancient and Medieval peoples, or at least one of those aspects in at least one relevant time period? Thanks!

If it is allowed by the mods, I would like to point out that I am working with /u/itsalrightwithme to do a sub focused on the early modern era. Here is a link. We are both focused on Early Modern Europe and hope to make it a place to not only discuss the history but the culture and legacy of the era. My first post involves one of my favorite paintings.

This might be out of place and a dumb question, but I figured I'd ask anyway. I'm asking as an amateur (I quit my day job and started taking history at an undergrad level last fall but we're still on 101-level courses).

What should I think about if I need to say that a primary source is outright wrong? The thing is the S-tank, the strv 103. Its inventor, Sven Berge, in his later years started to say that well you can't judge it as a tank because it was intended as a defensive vehicle, etc, and this has been the dominating view of it since then. He died in the 1990's. The problem is, I can't find anything in the archives (not even in documents written and signed by the man himself) or in field manuals or in any other accounts of people who actually worked on the tank that supports this view. He seems to have adopted it later in his life when it turned out maybe it wasn't the future of tanks like he had originally envisioned. Since the man is dead he can't argue, but he's definitely an authority on the subject.

Any thoughts?

How on Earth was justice ever meted out in the centuries before modern identification techniques, where a criminal could uproot themselves and start over somewhere else under a new name and identity? (Let's put a timeframe/geographic area on the question, so let's say starting from the Middle Ages, located in Europe.) How were suspects even identified without criminology? And given the fundamental problems inherent to eyewitness testimony, how accurate could the legal system of any given civilization be?

What I want to ask is what is the oldest word that we use in the English language. Meaning that what is the earliest that we can trace back a single word. Now I'm thinking of stating it can be derived from a word from a different language, or be a word flat out borrowed from it.