To what extent do historians here regard their own historical method as itself derived from the historical conditions of our moment? How objective do we presume ourselves to be? What's the attitude toward falsifiability? I'm reading Fredric Jameson's "postmodernism: the cultural logic of late capitalism" and it's given me pause to consider how "Postmodern" this subreddit might be.

Oxford University Press is offering a 30% discount on the Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe if you order through their website. The promotion code is AAFLYG6, because every good medieval women flies American Airlines, and works everywhere they'll ship to.

The discounted price would be around $35 or £21.

How would you define historical theory?

I'm studying languages just for the sake of it and I'm finding oddities of historical significance. For example...I was looking at an Indonesian Dictionary and noticed all the words ending in the -ak phonetic can be grouped together to form a narrative of historical significance in the form of a poem.

'A POEM' Father Mother Child Uncle Sibling Blood Relatives Hut Cattle Plough To Cultivate Radish Muddy Footprint Crow To Scream Pirate To Attack To Thrash To Threaten To Intimidate To March Waves Deck of Ship Closely Pressed To Defecate Musty Sound of Sleep Many Armpit Swolen Oxcart To drop off Bald Slave Defile To Pervert Pretend Movement To snare Opponent Rhinoceros To trample To evade To Spear To Tan Stained To Sieve To Stamp To Powder To Extract Mica Silver To Measure Radius Wedge To Crack To move To erect To Dam To incite Revolt To overthrow To pull down To destroy To laugh out loud Cheering To scatter A Poem

That 'poem' would indicate its a story of a family of farmers abducted from somewhere by pirates and sold as slaves somewhere else in south east asia to build a centre of civilization only to experience a slave revolt.

It makes linguistic archeology an inroad for significant historical discoveries that might yet need discovery.