Join us here for a great AMA on Monday 20th: Dr Wendy Matthews (expert in Near Eastern Archaeology and Co-Director of the Central Zagos Archaeological Project) and Professor Roger Matthews (Co-Director of the Central Zagos Archaeological Project and President of RASHID International) have co-directed archaeological projects in the Middle East for over 30 years, in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Roger and Wendy will be presenting a public lecture on the world’s first farmers in Iraq and Iran from their ongoing excavations at the World Heritage Tentative List site of Bestansur, which will be streamed live on the University of Reading's Facebook page.

I have a short piece in the December 2017 issue of Harper's Magazine that I am proud of. On the history/present of Civil Defense.

I will be on C-SPAN at 9:00AM ET this Sunday morning, talking about the history/present of Presidential control of nuclear weapons authority in the USA.

Trying to stay afloat on grading... not entirely successfully!

Hi everyone,

I wrote a lengthy post about Portuguese 16th century Caravel which should be the first part of three I intended to write in near future on Age of Discovery ships used specifically by Portuguese.

It's on another subreddit more suited for self posts (r/EarlyModernEurope) so I hope it is okay I link it here.

You can visit it here, and feel free to comment and ask questions or correct mistakes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyModernEurope/comments/7dct9p/portuguese_ships_of_discovery_part_i_caravel/

First review in on my book. I’m pleased with it. http://www.amps-armor.org/SiteReviews/ShowReview.aspx?id=4119&tf=4&sf=0&mf=-1&rf=-1&nf=&df=&p=1&s=-4

But it does beg the question, this was a send out to a known special interest group. How does one set about getting a book reviewed in general? Is there a clearinghouse or some such?

I am working on/finishing edits to my book chapter for an edited volume that will be published in the spring. The book chapter is a shortened and condensed version of my thesis, which I defended this past June.

Edit: If I had to make a map for publication, what is the best way I can go about making one?

I was trying to answer a few questions on here on the same topic, and, as it doesn't come up all that much checked the old ones. I came across this pretty cool one, on Polynesian 'princess' equivalents, and how hereditary authority was, but in the like two days that it took to get the book I wanted from the library the thread went and archived. As it's a weekend, I decided to write an answer anyway, and post it here, because why not? (edit: In the end this was left for a couple of weeks before I got around to finishing it.)

Briefly, the basic political unit of Māori society was the hapū. Hapū were reasonably small groups (often equivalent to villages) that traced common descent from a single ancestor. Māori also considered themselves to be part of larger groups, such as iwi, tracing descent from a more distant ancestor, and waka, that considered themselves to be descended from the occupants of a single canoe that arrived from Hawaiki: however these were probably not political units until some time after European contact. Within these ancestry groups the senior line of descent was considered very important. In the Māori language you refer to siblings of your own sex as 'tuakana' (for elder siblings) or teina (for younger). These terms could also be applied to any relative of the same generation based on the seniority of their line (the children of your teina would be the teina of your children regardless of their relative age). It was perfectly valid to address fifth or sixth cousins in this way, and technically you still could but not a lot of people have the encyclopediac knowledge of genealogy that would require. Unlike some societies that are purely patrilineal or matrilineal Māori drew descent through both lines depending on circumstances (though it was the male line that generally mattered) Mana (meaning something a little like 'prestige' though much more) was inherited, primarily through the senior line: and an ariki (sort of a courtesy title for highest-ranking chiefs, rather than a political position like Hawai'ian "ali'i") descended in senior lines from several famous ancestors would have enormous inherited mana and serve as what James Belich calls a 'living monument to collective identity'. Personal mana could be enhanced be successful leadership however, and a poor chief of very high birth could find himself sidelined in favour of a more competent individual with less impressive lineage.

All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that authority and mana were very much inherited in pre-colonial Māori society, and the well-born formed a class that mostly intermarried, but all free members of a tribe considered themselves to be related, could trace their own descent from the same ancestors as the chiefs (if by less prestigious lines) and the social hierarchy was seen partly as a family hierarchy. Several early ethnographers say that free Māori society is divided into two classes: the chiefly (rangatira) class and the commoners (tūtūā): but that no one has ever actually met a commoner. They were admittedly writing when many of the practices that distinguished the rangatira and made the position hard to keep up (war, polygamy, slavery) had ended, but the basic point remains: most free members of traditional Māori society had a very developed sense of their own mana, and traditional society was surprisingly egalitarian. Even slaves took part in this attitude: one missionary observer notes: 'at no instance… have I known a case where a slave has been afraid freely to enter into conversation with a chief, or to treat him with utmost freedom and unconcern' (which is not to minimise the hardships of slavery: slaves could be killed at any time, they just didn't act like it). Chiefs could have enormous inherited and personal mana, to that point that they were nearly a living god, and be so tapu (sacred) that it was impossible for lesser mortals to touch them, but that didn't actually mean you had to do anything they said (though of course their advice was respected).

Obviously, if early contact Māori society was aristocratic then women could themselves be of high birth, despite the generally patriarchal nature of society (James Belich says it was 'somewhat more sexist than Europe believed itself to be, and somewhat less sexist than Europe actually was'). Political power remained almost always the realm of men, but high-born women could take leadership roles or make decisions: as when Te Tahuri granted her younger sister (or cousin) and her husband's people (a group of Ngāti Pāoa) land to live on (if you know Auckland it was by the Tāmaki river, in the area of the modern Panmure Basin).

The institution that you're probably referring to was that of 'puhi'. Puhi were girls of rank that were set aside as ceremonial virgins until eventually a suitable marriage was arranged (there's a paper with interviews of modern puhi here that's quite interesting if you want to see how the role adapted). Puhi would perform a number of ritual functions, for instance they were often the ones to first walk on a newly constructed war canoe or meeting house, to rid it of its dangerous level of tapu (which if you think about it too much is bound up in rather misogynistic ideas of female pollution, but it was prestigious). The marriages of these girls (and other girls of rank that were not puhi) is where we can see parallels to European princesses most clearly. They were usually given to high-ranking boys of different tribes for largely political reasons: to create kin-ties that would be useful in the future (sometimes very useful, given what their tendency to pass what Best calls 'the most harmful information, which act the Maori scarcely seemed to think worthy of punishment), or as guarantees after a war. Women's role in peace-making was rather more central and active than that of their European counterparts however. Māori distinguished between a "men's peace" that was less trustworthy, and could merely be a ruse, and a "women's peace" that was considered more lasting or trustworthy. Māori women of rank would often travel on missions to make peace, sometimes on their own initiative. An example can be seen from the life of Te Rohu, who, some time in the 1820s, while an expedition of her father's was besieging a pa (fort) on an island that belonged to a chief called Pariehe. She called across the water to the pa, and was paddled over in a canoe across the lake on her own, where she was given gifts of cloaks and a greenstone mere (example they are weapons made from the hardest and most valuable material in the pre-contact Māori world, and retained considerable value to the present), and arranged for her father's forces to withdraw the next day. She went on to be involved in several other peace-making negotiations throughout her life (and faced down an enemy war party outside the palisades by herself apparently).

These embassies must have required considerable personal courage, as it was not unheard of for rejected envoys to be killed. According to one story, this is what happened to Marore, wife of the famous Te Rauparaha (author of the very well-known haka ka mate), though according to another version she was going to a funeral. Tradition also records a case where 40 women of rank, sent to make peace with Ngāti Kahunguna some time perhaps in the 17th or early 18th centuries, were invited into a hut that had been prepared for them and then killed.

edit changed some ås to ās

Hi everyone, new subscriber, just wondered if anyone could clear up something about my grandad's WW2 experience.

He died about 10 years ago now and never spoke to me about the war. All my dad will ever say, with some contempt, is that he was a purser on a cruise ship - like he considers it an easy gig. Now, I know cruise liners were all used as troop carriers and hospital ships, and I know that one of my grandad's great friends was killed during the war, and they named my dad after him....and that's the extent of it really.

Any info on what a British man would have experienced as a Purser on a cruise liner during WW2 would be absolutely fascinating, thanks in advance.

I've been wondering why did Nelson Mandela love Jacob Zuma so much? Pressuring the TRC to drop the case against Zuma having had two people tortured to death while in his care, letting him make the arms deal under his watch, protecting him from banks, coercing thabo mbeke to make Zuma deputy president even though he was in court for corruption, fraud, and rape? It seems strange that Mandela would fight for democracy and then violate the constitutional right of the sitting president to appoint his own deputy president, and for a criminal like Zuma at that. Mandela fought tooth and nail to get Zuma into power. Maybe Zuma knew something about Mandela and was strong-arming him? Zuma was head of intelligence after all, his job was to know about everything and everyone. Maybe he knew about something unforgivable Mandela did?

It doesn't seem right that Mandela would support a kleptocratic rapist who had people tortured to death under his care, just because of comradery.

Week 4

On November 14^th the Italian Parliament resumed session with Prime Minister V.E. Orlando introducing his new Ministries. Sidney Sonnino held Foreign Affairs, the Radical Ettore Sacchi took the Ministry of Justice, Finances went to Francesco Saverio Nitti, War to General Vittorio Alfieri; Leonida Bissolati took charge of the newly instituted Ministry for military assistance and war pensions. Orlando, who had kept for himself the Interior, also announced the institution of a general commission for aeronautics and an undersecretary office for food supplies and consumption.

He then moved to a summary of the situation and the purpose of his Ministry. The severe military situation was a consequence of the “superior forces” brought to the fight by the enemy: “the entirety of the Austrian Army” together with “the most valiant reserves of the German Army”, aided by “unforeseen and concurrent fortunate events”. At the same time the Italians had suffered “unfortunate events”, in “one of those adverse situations”, that had forced them to retreat despite the valor of the men and of the populations. In light of this, the Government was looking forward to a “wide and in depth discussion of the situation” but for the meantime, “as the enemy invasion was still looming and threatening, it mattered to act, not to discuss; even more, an [immediate] discussion, which could jeopardize action, had to be avoided”^1 .

Orlando then offered his thanks to the allies, French and Britain, that “had sent their valiant troops among the Italians to strike back against the common enemy”; and after inviting the Chamber to a round of applause, remembered the past times when Italy had fought together with the British (Crimea) and French (Second War of Independence) during the glorious Risorgimento years. Orlando refused any talks of “malicious, fabricated news of any unjustified or vexing conditions imposed by the allies”^2 ; rather he praised the decision to institute a Supreme political inter-allied Council and welcomed into it the United States.

He then moved back to the moral of the Nation, stating that “there weren't two Italies”^3 because, “in the face of enemy invasion” anyone “who put themselves outside of the national unity, betrayed their nature of Italian” and would become “less than a foreigner, an enemy”.

He reassured of the Italian people's resolve and “moral unity”; as the “unity of the Italian Nation had not been built on victories” but “in the anguish of the wake and […] sufferance and promise of resurgence”.

Orlando then concluded with the customary salute to the King^4 .

The vote of confidence to the Executive was promoted by former Prime Minister Boselli, who explained his order of business in a short speech.

The liberal Giovanni Giolitti followed, opening his speech with a lapidary statement: “this is not a time for speeches”. He was indeed rather short remarking that “the Government alone had complete knowledge of the military and diplomatic situation” and that “the Nation would follow its lead” but that “the severity of the moment allowed neither hesitation nor half measures”^5 .

Another former Prime Minister, Antonio Salandra, of the liberal interventionist fraction, spoke more passionately depicting the threat of the “eternal enemies of our people”: “Alamans, Hungars, Tatars again rushing over the contested lands where Rome once marked the imprint of the Latin civilization”; but also expressed his resolute hope in a future “peaceful coexistence of the Nations”.

It came then the turn of the Socialists, represented by honorable Camillo Prampolini, who, after expressing “solidarity to the victims of this atrocious scourge” made it clear that “the discussion of the responsibilities was only postponed”. He also “denounced as seditious and despicable any attempt of attacking the socialist party, blaming them for the events, that in their complexity required a much thorough investigation”. As for their aching tooth: the war [with an awkward turn of words], the socialists “did not deny the idea of territorial defense and people's independence”. But the key point of his intervention was again to refuse “the vile narrative, that blamed the socialist propaganda for the sad events of the previous days”.

Finally the Venetian Luigi Luzzatti reminded the Chamber of another glorious time of the Risorgimento when the Venetian Republic, in the time of utmost danger, resolved to “resist the Austrian demands at all costs”.

Confidence was then passed by acclamation. In the following votes were counted, with 345 favorable and 50 against (46 socialists and 4 of Giolitti's liberals).

But the session wasn't over as a group of representatives (among them Orazio Raimondo, Arturo Labriola and Vittorio Scialoja) had put forward a request for resuming the session “in secret committee”^6 that afternoon. Orlando though asked them to take back the request as any immediate discussion would have limited the action powers of the Ministry. A request to which hon. Raimondo complied, stating that the purpose of their request was only to remark that the confidence vote was not meant to exhaust the Chamber's prerogatives.

Session was then suspended, to be resumed through house calls – as soon as possible.

He had been taught, of course, that history, along with geography, was dead. That history in the older sense was an historical concept. History in the older sense was narrative, stories we told ourselves about where we'd come from and what it had been like, and those narratives were revised by each new generation, and indeed always had been. History was plastic, was a matter of interpretation. The digital had not so much changed that as made it too obvious to ignore. History was stored data, subject to manipulation and interpretation.

• William Gibson, All Tomorrow's Parties (1999) 165

Science fiction wouldn't be the same without history; while people tend to think of science fiction as looking towards the future, the genre itself has always been rooted very firmly in the past, and the narratives of the past. To speculate, to project, to model you need some data to base it on. f(0) = 1, that kind of thing. It is a rare science fiction writer that can consciously acknowledge this, much less understand the process and comment upon it, embed it into their work. It's the step beyond the historical method, into historiography. Looking at how we shape the narratives of our history, and how that changes. Anyway, this is something that's been stuck in the back of my brain all week, to chew and meditate on. A reminder to step back and rethink previous conceptions and assumptions.

If you don't get an answer here, feel free to post it as a new question in its own thread!

Coming from the askreddit thread about historical misconceptions. I need to write a paper and am wondering if the people here can help me verify a source. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/citytavern/

Is there any way I can find the actual menu/bill itself and not a transcript of it? Maybe a photo or proof that this is legititmate? Or would it being on this website be enough validity? I need to write about a primary source and am wondering if this would count. Thanks for any clarification!

Hello guys!

I own a website about military history in Brazil, and, my company has recently moved me to Germany. I visited some war veterans to get their book signed and collect content for my website, and, now I am looking for some website or link, source, whatever I can find information about the remaining vets that are still alive in west Germany.

I’ve heard that are some forums where people exchange that kind of info, but I had no success in finding them.

This is my website by the way www.historiamilitaronline.com.br

We have a Facebook page as well.

I'm not sure if this is thread-worthy but recently I've wondered how comparable the crusades are to the Japanese expansion in South-East Asia, especially motive-wise. If somebody could point me in the right direction, that would be great.

Should I switch my major to history? I'm currently an English major, and I have no idea what career I want to pursue. I asked a councillor but they gave me a vague answer. What kind of skills do you need as a history major, and what career options do I have? Thanks :)