Regarding economics, politics, government funding, skeletal analysis
There is a lot of sources out there that tells history in an actual cronological order - In year 1000 this happened, and in 1100 this happened etc etc.
However, I haven't been able to find a source that tells me how the knowledge of those things evolved - more specifically the history of South America (Prominently The Aztec Empire and the Mayans) and Africa (Generel cool tribes/empires).
Can you help me?
Archaeology seems like an interesting field for me but I don't really know much about the field in general and it seems like these fields of science are evident in the field at first glance and I'm really interested as to how archaeologists work their magic (for lack of a better term lmao)
Hi, I posted this in askphilosophy but didn't get a peep, so I'm optimistically posting here in case anyone here can point me too some texts.
Are their any writers or texts out there that apply the methodology developed in this work to a particular field of enquiry?
Thoughts are natural events that you do not possess, and whose meaning you only imperfectly recognize.
Jung writes that thoughts are out in the world, events that do not come from us, but happen to us (The Red Book). Foucault writes something similar when he says that utterances are events that don’t have any sociocultural or historical significance, but are simply materializations of the unconscious (The Archaeology of Knowledge). Wittgenstein says that it is language that attributes things—such as thoughts, emotions, and sensations—as belonging to one’s self: one identifies a sensation as one’s own once one learns the socially-defined term that denotes this sensation (Philosophical Investigations). In a different line, Deleuze and Guattari posit that the establishment of property rights simultaneously creates the “person” and gives others the right to appropriate parts of that “person” for themselves (this argument is used to show how women’s bodies were paradoxically designated as “their own” so that these same bodies could then belong to their husbands) (Anti-Oedipus). In this same book, D&G posit that every individual is actually a collective, in a similar vein as Leibniz’s monad: everything in the universe is encapsulated in every part of its molecules, meaning that every “individual” is rather a “motley” collective of everything, in varying proportions. Jung also alludes to this concept in both The Red Book and in Synchronicity: in the former, he claims that “[i]f you overpower and kill your fellow man who is contrary to you, then you also kill that person in yourself and have murdered a part of your life”, while in the latter, he comments on the “meaningful coincidences” between the inner and outer life and posits these coincidences as an integral function balanced opposite that of linear causality (paraphrased from Synchronicity).
So what is yours? Who are you? Is there a you or a me that is meaningful to talk about? Is the “I” an illusion created by “ownership”, by appropriating that which belongs to everything as “yours”? What are these memories that you constantly experience, store up, and have reference to? Are they really “you”—or have you just grabbed them and appropriated them as yours? Is there a meaningful difference between memory and dream?
What is yours? Are these hands yours? And eyes? Who’s looking out at these characters on this screen? Who is thinking these thoughts that you believe are yours?... keep reading on reddit ➡
Just as a way for people to get to know each other, and to start up a bit of a subreddit reading list, what's one of your favorite pieces on Homer?
I'll start with something that many people might not have heard about:
There are some really curious draft pages that were written by Foucault for the The Archaeology of Knowledge that are about Homer, although he didn't include them in the final text! The French title is Homère, les récits, l’éducation, les discours. Published here: https://vitrine.edenlivres.fr/resources/9782072673238
And I did! I set a goal for 1 book a week and managed to get through 18! It's been a long time since I read a lot or consistently and of course buy too many books despite not having read like even 10% of what I own. So I decided to get through as many as possible this summer. And I did it while taking a summer course that I had to do a ton of reading for. I read
The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui: This absolutely broke my heart. It is a beautiful and tragic memoir and I read the whole thing with my heart in my throat.
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman: Totally fascinating read, highly recommend to anyone interested in psychology, business, economics. It seriously changed the way I think.
Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace: This book made me fall in love with DFW's writing. It is funny, insightful, wickedly intelligent and brilliantly written. I think Up, Simba, the view from mrs thompson's window, and host were my favorite.
Childhood's end by Arthur C Clark: Solid Sci-Fi, cool idea that is well written and enthralling. Quick Short read that I really enoyed.
Ancillary Justice By Anne Leckie : Easily among the best fiction books I have ever read. Its an easy read, doesn't get to caught up in the minutia of everything, extremely well paced and absolutely fucking amazing. The only book in history to ever win all 5 major sci-fi awards and it absolutely deserved them.
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman: This is among my favorite non-fiction books of all time. Chomsky and herman do a brilliant job of explaining the systems by which capitalism is self-reinforcing through mass news media. Brilliant book highly recommend everyone reads it and then becomes deeply critical of news outlets.
Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnicek: Really interesting read on the nature of social media and other platforms under capitalism. Its a bit technical so if you don't know very much about economics and political theory, it might be a bit too technical at times.
Crisis Economics by Nouriel Rhoubini and Stephen Mihm: Also a little technical at times but its a fairly readable account of how big economic crises happen and how to prevent or control them. I also recommend the Big Short, Too Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin and Stress Test for further reading on 2008.
The Invisible Man by HG Wells: Some aspects of the writing in this are a little weird but overall solid and really enjoyable.
A Pedagogy for Liberation by Ira Shor and Paulo F... keep reading on reddit ➡
Just finished reading Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge. I really enjoyed it.
I want to read up further on archaeology and was keen on some book recommendations. Obvious first thing to do would be to read some of Foucault's other works in which he uses the archaeological method. And I will of course do this. I just wonder what the state of the literature is like on the archaeological method itself, and if anyone could point me to any interesting monographs or articles I should be aware of.
The title pretty much sums up my inquiry. I've read his debate with Chomsky, but I'll admit that I'm pretty new to his work. The Archaeology of Knowledge seems to be an interesting place to start, however, I'm concerned that I might be starting in the middle of his work and should start with something like Madness and Civilization, so as not to get thrown into the deep end with some of his language.
I have a question about Foucault's concept of the discursive formation as outlined in the Archaeology of Knowledge. For Foucault, the notion of discourse is developed in the context of hegemonic ways of talking about/knowing about/thinking about/enacting particular ideas. My question is: are discourses by definition always hegemonic?
In some of the social science literature (my discipline), authors will talk about competing discourses. For example, Foucault talks about medicine as a discursive formation; social scientists will talk about the dominant discourses of biomedicine and/or discourses of alternative/holistic/traditional/Chinese medicine (in the Western context). Even though contrasting "dominant discourses" with "alternative discourses" has become a common way of discussing competing epistemologies...does it actually make sense with regard to how Foucault defines the discursive formation? I.e. is it redundant to call a discursive formation dominant? Is discourse always hegemonic or can there be multiple, competing discourses, according to Foucault?
Fall 2013 Me (to my advisor): So, do you really think I can graduate in May (2014)? Advisor: (pause) Yes. It will be a real push, but it's possible. Me: OK, then. I'm going for it.
January 2014 After dissertating for 7-10 hours a day, one death in the family (2 weeks of no work), 4 weeks of VERY Evil Throat Illness (very little work), no email response from my advisor, I'm waving the white flag. I do not want to live this way. I have decided that I will not to file an intention to defend this spring.
I feel like the weight of the world is off my shoulders.
I'll defend in the fall and if my family says ANYTHING I swear, I will send them a copy of The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault) and tell them to call me when they're ready to chat about it.
Now I'm going to watch TV.
With my first year in a PhD program coming to an end, my advisor and I have determined that I need to do some major catching up on theory over the summer. She gave me a partial list of her favorites and what she thinks I should know, but I'm looking to fill in some of the blanks. I'm hoping you guys can help me out!
Here's my list so far:
In historiography I have:
I've checked the book lists for more historiography ones - these were the two most important my advisor recommended, but I'm open to suggestions of really important books.
I'm trying to figure out in which of Bourdeau's books he covers habitas. I found it at one point and can't seem to find it again. Does anyone know which that is?
I'd also like to read up on Wallerstein's version of world-system's theory, but if I'm only going to read one of his books, which one would be best? There are seven with "World Systems" in the title.
Thanks for your help!
Pardon the odd phrasing of the title, but the character limit kept me from saying it properly.
I did not study philosophy as an undergrad (I mean, I took PHIL 120, but that really doesn't count), but have been looking for an area to look into on my own time. I'm intrigued by the glimpses I find in Deleuzian thought and want to develop myself and get to such a point that I can read A Thousand Plateaus, and at least approach it on the same level that a grad student might. I'm willing to take years to get to such a point, but rarely have long blocks of time on my own.
Because I work 60+ hours per week, and have a family, I am trying to find a curriculum that doesn't demand a lot of investment of time in any one place. But, of course, most proper philosophy demands exactly that. The compromise I've made from the start is that instead of starting at the classics and working my way forward, I'm going to try to start with Spinoza's Ethics and work around that with the help of a few commentaries. And, of course, SEP is helpful, too.
However, I wanted to ask those with a background in academic philosophy if this approach is even going to work, and moreover, if there are any recommendations to the general curriculum. My plan is:
Spinoza - Ethics
Kant - find some commentaries and reader's digest explanations for the critique of pure reason (I hear the proper work is a doozy, but that I'm supposed to get the gist of it to understand Deleuze)
Hegel - I'm told Deleuze's writings on Hegel are sufficient
Marx - Capital was already on my reading list before this venture began.
Freud - I was hoping the SEP article on Freud was sufficient.
Nietzsche - I've read Nietzsche before, but am worried that he seems almost too understandable (I've heard he's difficult to really understand, and since he seems an easy read, I think I must be missing something important), and Deleuze's work on Nietzsche. (I also have Heidegger's book on Nietzsche, and am uncertain if it's useful to Deleuzian thought at all)
Foucault - The Archaeology of Knowledge, and Deleuze's stuff about Foucault.
And then I would start reading Deleuze's works.
The last question, then, is what sort of questions should I be asking myself as I read? I plan to seriously write essays after each work in the spirit of doing homework, but wanted to figure out what approach is most helpful, given my goals?
I'm principally interested in the field of Egyptology, as this question struck me while reading about recent claims regarding a hidden tomb within King Tut's tomb, but I figure that this is more a general question about conduct and methodology of archaeology as an overarching discipline.
Anyways, especially with Egyptology, it seems that the "hey-day" was ~100 years ago or so, and most of the great finds date to that period. Certainly the beginnings of 'scientific excavation' had made their way into the field by that point, but I can only imagine that, compared to what we are capable of now, there must be untold loss of knowledge from the shortcomings of even the best-intentioned excavators in that period. Am I correct in that assumption? In what ways was it applicable?
More importantly, are we at all able to estimate what has been lost in that way, or even reconstruct it?
Lastly, were archaeologists from the period aware that they might be ruining things for improved abilities of those in the future, and did they implement any attempts at safeguarding things with that potential in mind? Likewise, mindful are current standards of that potential, and in what ways to modern digs try to cater to the potential of the future?
Note: Aksum is also spelled Akshum or Axum. For clarity, I will refer to Aksum the Kingdom as Aksum and its capital, which is of the same name, as Axum. As usual, the flair. does. not. fit.
As always, understanding a kingdom is essential to understanding its potential causes of collapse. The Kingdom of Aksum (likely deriving from the words for water and official), also called the Aksumite Empire, was certainly a powerful kingdom. Centered in Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, this land had been occupied by agrarian tribes for centuries, and it began to condense into a united kingdom ruled by one king rather than a confederation of chiefdoms around 1st Century AD. This was likely because of its “rich agricultural lands, dependable summer monsoon rains, and control of regional trade,” including trade links with Egypt and Southern Arabian kingdoms.
Around 350 AD, Aksum began to expand its power. Soon, its tributaries included areas of Yemen, Somalia, and dozens of smaller tribes. By now, Aksum rulers referred to themselves as Negusa Negast meaning ‘king of kings.' After withstanding an attack from declining the Kingdom of Kush (located in modern-day Nubia), it solidified its hold over the surrounding regions, and from here, Aksum continued to expand. It must be noted that some of its extent, especially to the south, is unknown, but its authority covered much of modern-day Eritrea, most of the Tigray region, the Yemeni highlands, and possibly as far west as the Nile Valley, extending from the edges of the Sahara to the inner Arabian desert. But power came not from its expanse, which was not the largest of the time, but from the richness of its trade goods, which included gold and ivory, as well as salt, slaves, tortoiseshell, incense, rhino horns, emeralds, and more. There are also several references to the development of an extensive fleet.
Sometime around 450 AD—by which time the kingdom was often referred to as ‘Ethiopia—King Ezana I adopted Christianity, which had likely been brought by traders and missionaries. As inscriptions from this time show, a delicate balance between tribal religions and Christianity was struck. As far as other cultural aspects, however, things are more murky; Aksum imported most of its finer goods from the Mediterranean, and most local wares were simple. We might know more, but most of the tombs of the great Aksum kings were looted in antiquity.
*Timeline:... keep reading on reddit ➡
A recent set of reports caught the attention of some very online people: Professor Huang Heqing, Professor of Archaeology at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, claimed in a recent lecture that various historical constructions were not a product of ancient civilizations but rather forgeries of the 19th and 20th century European states insecure about their status relative to China’s history. Among these where claims that the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Parthenon were all forgeries, and supported the hypothesis advanced by various Chinese nationalist scholars like Dong Bisheng, Zhu Youzhi, and Du Gangjian that China was the source of all major inventions like agriculture, writing, history, democracy, and civilization in general.
The first bit here of interest is the claim that the Pyramids were a European forgery. This draws on the controversial research of Joseph Davidovits and Michel Barsoum, French and American researchers who separately argued that the limestone found in the Pyramids exhibits characteristics that are not natural to limestone rocks and thus must be a kind of concrete (Davidovits and subsequent adherents call it a “geopolymer”). Barsoum's 2006 paper was the more professional attempt, but has some basic historical inaccuracies: it claims, for example, that there is “no trace” of ramps at the construction sites, but Zawi Hawass found evidence of ramps at the Giza construction site and published such evidence in 1998, well before Barsoum’s writings. The bigger issue is that Davidovits and Barsoum are irreconcilable, despite some attempts: Davidovits hypothesized the use of an alkali substance to bind together the “geopolymer,” but Dipayan Jana’s 2007 rebuttal notes that Barsoum’s findings demonstrated no alkali enrichment in the limestone which would be present in the “geopolymer” method, and Barsoum finds that the interior stones and non-limestone blocks were carved, which would limit the “concrete” hypothesis to only the outer stones. And while there is some degree of plausibility that m... keep reading on reddit ➡
I read a news article today that summarized this archaeology paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-550X/4/1/7
Basically, the thesis is that humans were driven to become more intelligent because they drove the prey they had evolved to hunt (large fauna) to extinction, and were forced to adapt to hunt smaller prey which drove their increase in brain size. Then, as a result of their success, they again had to develop agriculture due to an insufficient supply of small prey. Neanderthals, on the other hand, were never able to adapt to the extinction of large fauna and bit it.
This inspired three crazy schizo ideas for me.
In the Biblical creation story, Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and in return they are kicked out of heaven, and forced to live on Earth in sin.
This story makes a lot of sense as a kind of allegorical, semi-literal understanding an early human might have for the origins of agricultural society. Humans should have gone extinct with their prey, if they were like any other animal, or the Neanderthals. But instead, they were forced to make a decision to get smarter, domesticate animals, build traps and weapons, and eventually develop agriculture itself. The price of this bargain is the burden of humanity; increased brain size yielded a kind of self-knowledge that no other organism on earth appeared to have.
This also has implications for our understanding of climate change. There’s a semi-popular notion that climate change is a result of modern human greed and hubris, and if we were only able to return to monke, then perhaps we could return to a kind of harmony with nature.
However, I think this theory refuted that idea completely. First, modern humans could never return to even a basic agricultural lifestyle, let alone a hunter gatherer life. But even if we somehow did, we would inevitably find ourselves in the same predicament. We are too good at killing shit. We would simply drive more species to extinction and be forced to adopt agriculture all over again. Humans never really existed in a long-term sustainable relationship with the rest of nature. We are extinction machines.
Furthermore, I think this theory also disrupts the idea that climate change is a Industrial-era mistake. If the origins of humanity are the result of our own legacy of extinction and control of t... keep reading on reddit ➡
This is a verbose timeline of the history of Overwatch, which should include all of the major story milestones from in-game events, cinematics, comics, and short stories released as of March 2021. This is my best guess at that order; without exact confirmation from Blizzard, it's impossible to deduce a precise order.
Pre-Crisis: Dr. Mina Liao is brought onto the staff of Omnica Corporation to aid in refining the artificial intelligence of the nascent omnics. While this does lead to improvements, it also causes some omnics to react erratically or violently, which (along with widespread corporate corruption) leads to Omnica's dismantlement and the shutdown of the omnium facilities worldwide.
The Omnic Crisis: Defunct omniums reactivate, spawning an endless army of AI-driven machines intent on destroying humanity for unknown reasons. Different nations respond in different ways to combat the omniums, but these efforts are unable to shut down the omniums permanently.
Rise of Overwatch: Overwatch forms, at first covertly and later openly, as a UN-backed special task force oriented around dismantling the command-and-control structure of the various omniums.
Morrison, Amari, Reyes, Reinhardt, Torbjorn and Liao were the central actors of this effort, all bringing with them their own expertise. This ultimately brings the Omnic Crisis to an end, causing Overwatch to transition into a worldwide peacekeeping operation.
“Is such a thing even possible? Yes it is!”
- Georgio Tsoukalos, bodybuilding promoter, discussing the ancient alien theory
“[T]he claim that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is ‘possible,’ although true, turns out to be relatively uninteresting from a scientific point of view.”
- Mary Vetterling-Braggin, Philosopher
Background: Philosophy of Science vs. The Pseudoarchaeologists
Ancient aliens theorists like to preface their speculations by asking, “Is it possible…?”
That’s usually the wrong question.
To understand why, we’ll have to take a stroll into the foothills of philosophy of science.
Philosophers of science have a surprisingly respectable history of attacking pseudo-archaeology. For example, you can go all the way back to the 1950s, and you’ll find Laurence Lafleur, a philosophy professor at Florida State, leading the charge against Immanuel Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision.” (Velikovsky was something of an ur-example of pseudoscience as well as pseudohistory; he remains exhibit A for the demarcation problem.)
So it’s no surprise that a few philosophers had a go at the ancient alien theory as soon as it poked its head up in the 1970s. Back then, the archaeological community was fighting the good fight against Erich “Aliens Did It” von Daniken. In the mid-1970s, an amateur with an undergraduate philosophy degree named Ronald Story wrote a book debunking von Daniken. The result was sometimes considered to be the best rebuttal out there.
(I should pause the narrative for just a moment to explain -- for those who haven't read other similar posts -- that the "ancient aliens" theory tries to explain all sorts of impressive monuments and achievements by ancient people as the work of aliens posing as gods. Many, like von Daniken's mentioned above, also claimed that aliens mated with and/or bio-engineered the first humans.)
Skip forward a few years, and Mary Vetterling-Braggin, an academic philosopher, tangled with the same theory in the 1980s. Since then, a couple other philosophers – Fred Wilson (who sometimes quoted Vetterling-Braggin word-for-word) and Robert Todd Carroll (of Skeptics Dictionary fame) have taken their own tilts at the alien gods.
Alien Word Games For Fun And Profit
But what exactly did the philosophers’ rebuttals do? And how did their responses differ from what the historians, theologians, engineers, archaeologists, anthropologists, physicists, chemists, geologists, and scholars of ancient languages had a... keep reading on reddit ➡
This is a cool historical mystery that I had never heard about prior to today. Write-up is original.
In 1886, an incredible cache of mummies was discovered in a small, unremarkable tomb in Deir el-Bahri. In all, more than 50 mummies of members of the Egyptian royalty were found, still in their elaborate sarcophaguses, literally stacked one on top of another in the crowded tomb. The mummies found there make up some of the most famous pharaohs: Seti, Ramesses III, Ahmenhotep, and more.
How did these revered people end up stuffed into this small, mostly hidden tomb? It is believed they were moved there around 1000 BC to protect the royal dead from graverobbers. During the decline of the Egyptian Empire, grave-robbery became a common occurrence. The ancient Egyptian religion held that one's body needed to be kept whole in order to exist in the after-life (hence the development of mummification). So the priests of ancient Egypt moved their most sacred dead to this unremarkable tomb, far away from the riches of their own tombs in the Valley of Kings, to keep them hidden and safe.
Out of all the mummies found in the Deir el-Bahri cache, one stands out as particularly unusual. Nicknamed "the screaming mummy," or Unknown Man E, this mummy is notable for its pretty creepy appearance, with its mouth open in what seems like an eternal scream. We know he was male, and that he died at around 20 years old. There is no evidence that he died violently.
When this mummy was first unwrapped in 1886, the examiners were shocked by what they saw. The mummy was covered in a thick, white paste, later determined to be a mix of natron and quicklime. Natron is a naturally-occurring salt which was used to dry out bodies in the early stages of mummification, but the quicklime was extraordinarily strange. In fact, quicklime has never been found on another Egyptian mummy.
In addition, the 1886 examiners determined that the mummy was still in possession of all of its internal organs (this was confirmed by a CT scan in 2012). This is also extraordinarily strange. The internal organs were always removed from soon-to-be mummies, both for religious reasons and because bodies rot from the inside out, so replacing bacteria-filled intestines with embalming material helps to preserve the mummy. But Unknown Man E... keep reading on reddit ➡
I see a lot of people saying "i only do 20/25" or that they don't to JoT at all. Which is a lot of missed out on XP. Even more if you use premier artifact to reset the aura. I threw together my route that i do twice a day and takes only 3 mins or so per run through, the 2nd is even quicker since you can skip the herb and summoning part as you have left over items from the last run. So.. here it is.
25 skills done in 3 mins. You need melee weapon, ranged weapon, 1 nature rune, 5 fire runes, wicked hood and archaeology journal.
· Tele to Archaeology guild - go north west, harvest wisp – Divination
· Surge + bladed dive east to the river, excavate spot – Archeology
· Teleport taverly Run east, Thieve from pompous merchant – Thieving
· Run north, Fish crayfish – Fishing
· Pick flax from west of fishing spot – Farming
· Chop 2 logs from trees – Woodcut
· Light fire – Firemaking
· Cook crayfish – Cooking
· Fletch log – Fletching
· Kill 2 cows, 1 with a bow, 1 with melee - Atk, def, str, Constitution, Ranged
· Bury bones from cow – Prayer
· Spin flax north of cows – Crafting
· Go into cave northwest of you, mine 1 coper 1 tin – Mining
· Smelt into bar outside mine – Smithng
· Disassemble the bar – invention
· Surge - bladed dive to hunter trainer to the east, claim free bird snare, catch bird – hunter
· High alch the bones – Magic
· Surge - bladed dive south to obelisk - Claim free summoning mats, make spirit wolf – Summoning
· Go south, claim free guam and clean it – herblore
· Teleport to burthorp and go to agility course, hop across log – Agility
· Wicked hood tele to any alter, withdraw essence and make runes - Runecrafting
(If you have no yet unlocked invention, you will be on 24/25, you can if you wish, just end by killing one of your slayer creatures or Teleporting to your house and making a furniture item)
I know this might be common knowledge to older players, but to new players its hard to track which skills you have done and this list should condense that and be easy to follow.
Prince Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York, were the only surviving sons of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville surviving at the time of his death. They were kept in the Tower of London by their paternal uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, supposedly in preparation for Edward V's coronation. However, before young Edward could be crowned king, he was declared illegitimate and Gloucester himself ascended the throne as Richard III. Since then, the boys' fate has been largely debated by historians as they disappeared from written history. What happened to the two young boys?
While I will be attempting to keep the story as straight as possible, a lot of the names in this story are either the same or change throughout the course of history. I will make a list here of everyone relevant to the story for the sake of clarity.
Edward V and Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York: 12-year-old and 9-year-old sons of Edward IV, disappeared followed being kept in the Tower of London.
King Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville - parents of Edward V and Richard of Shrewbury, Duke of York.
Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York: Father of Edward IV
Henry VI: King of England until 1471, overthrown by Richard, Duke of York
Richard, Duke of Gloucester = Richard III = Brother of Edward IV, uncle of Edward V and Richard of Shrewbury. I refer to him as "Gloucester" for clarity.
Lady Eleanor Butler: Edward IV's intended, before her death in 1468.
Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells: Bishop who had declared Edward IV's marriage null.
King Edward IV of England, the father of the Princes in the Tower, was a man with a long lineage of royalty, reaching back to 1154. His family belonged to the House of Plantagenet, which had been split into two opposing factions--the House of Lancaster, and the House of York.
The House of Lancaster (referred to as Lancastrians) had ruled since 1399. Following King Henry VI's weak rule and subsequent mental illness, Edward IV's father, Richard, Duke of York (a descendant to Edward III via the Yorkist branch) made a great effort to claim the throne in 1455.
Edward IV's f... keep reading on reddit ➡
Hello - I'm G and I'm an ice cream scientist! Yes it's a fun job title to have. Just some thoughts on my apprenticeship scheme that I'll soon be completing after 5 years which have gone by pretty fast!
Refreshment Research & Development Degree Apprenticeship
School leaver or Career Changer?
School leaver after completing my A Levels in chemistry, biology and geography. For my role the employer generally asks for 2 B's in science related A-levels but it's fairly flexible for example, if you've done a lower level apprenticeship or didn't quite reach your grade targets but are super enthusiastic about the job.
Fifth and final.
Why did you choose a degree apprenticeship?
I learn so much better by getting hands on and doing things. I love learning from people rather than text books and actually being useful and contributing towards projects! The financial side of it all has been a great choice as well.
Has your experience been positive or negative?
The apprenticeship scheme has involved rotating around different areas of research and development for ice cream and beverages. I've got experience as a product developer, packaging technologist and formulation scientist, mostly working on ice cream, but also a year working on tea! This has helped me build up a strong network of colleagues and learn many different skills. It's also been very hands on and I love being in the labs and making ice cream.
At my company, apprentices are mostly just treated like another employee in terms of the trust and responsibility you get from the get go, which means you quickly have to get the hang of things, but there's always help and support around to point you in the right direction, whether its your manager, buddy, mentor, fellow apprentice or friendly colleague.
The degree programme I'm on has been pretty good too. The uni isn't that well renowned, but I have few complaints with my course and most of the lecturers are great - they really want to help you succeed and are very friendly. I have 1 day a week day release to study chemistry, but some others apprentices do food science and have a week of uni every quarter or so (?) on block release. Going into university (before COVID-19) was a long day with the commute, but really worth it and enjoyable - with face to face lectures and labs and a nice lunch out in London!
What's the best and worst thing about your apprenticeship experience?... keep reading on reddit ➡
There are NO spoiler’s in this post so read freely :) Agatha Christie is definitely my favourite author and will probably be my favourite author for the rest of my life. There is something about her simple style of writing and her knowledge of human nature that just makes reading her books so interesting. I will now list my favourite 20 of her books.
AND THEN THERE WERE NONE- An absolute masterpiece, so entertaining, scary, clever and interesting. Great characters, great setting and a great all round mystery.
DEATH ON THE NILE- again, great characters, setting and mystery. I loved everything about this book and it will always be one of my favourite’s.
MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS- This one was amazing. It would definitely be very close to Death on the Nile in terms of quality and at a different time I would maybe rank this higher. I can’t say much more without spoilers.
THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD- Another amazing Poirot novel. A village murder with many suspects and plenty of side mysteries. Definitely an amazing representation of what AC can do.
CURTAIN: POIROT’S LAST CASE- An amazing, emotional end to the best series of books ever written. Everything fits in so well and as always it is an amazing mystery.
SLEEPING MURDER: MISS MARPLE’S LAST CASE- Not as great of an ending book, it could have been put in the middle of the series and it would have made sense. That being said, no matter where it is in the series it would still be the best Miss Marple, just missing out on a place in top 5. I love the creepy atmosphere of this book and the characters are great.
(Insert mistake here) I got to about number 13 and realized I had forgotten to mention Endless Night so here is where it would be. I loved the creepy atmosphere again and I read it in 2 days.
EVIL UNDER THE SUN- Definitely the most atmospheric AC and one of the most atmospheric books in general that I have read. Murder on a holiday island, with lots of swimming in the ocean and ‘Evil under the Sun.’
TOWARDS ZERO- Probably one of the most underrated AC books. It is one of Agatha Christie’s personal favourite’s but not many other people have mentioned as being as amazing as it is. Again, the characters are amazing and the setting is relatively similar to Evil Under the Sun. The mystery is one of the best, in my opinion.
THE ABC MURDERS- Probably the most action-packed Poirot book, it is so entertaining and I could not put it down.
FIVE LITTLE PIGS- Poirot looks
Visitors to the sub are always welcome, but please do remember which sub you’re in, and have the courtesy not to violate our rules while you’re here. Thanks!
I originally thought I was done with the archaeology section, but while I was going through my sources to figure out which ones I wanted to use this week, I came across a presentation by Neal Rappleye from a FAIR Conference a few years ago that I’d forgotten existed. Neal Rappleye, for those who don’t know, is one of the hard-working team members at Book of Mormon Central, and his presentation is entitled “Put Away Childish Things: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon Using Mature Historical Thought”. I felt very strongly impressed that I should highlight this presentation and discuss it with you guys before moving on to the next questions in the letter. I linked to both the video and the transcript of the presentation, so you can choose the medium that best suits your learning style.
This talk is all about grappling with and overcoming the more simplistic narratives you were taught as a child and learning to understand that history is messy and incomplete, and how new discoveries and understanding can shift your perspective if you allow it to. It’s something we all need to do as we grow older, or it can lead to problems down the line when our assumptions... keep reading on reddit ➡
I shared my retrospective of Percy Jackson and the Olympians here, and everyone really liked it. Just a reminder, it’s less of a formal review and more of a casual look back. Now, we move on to Riordan second series: The Kane Chronicles. We begin with a look back at book one of The Kane Chronicles, The Red Pyramid
Carter and Sadie Kane are brother and sister, but have hardly ever seen each other. Carter travels with their dad around the world on archaeological digs, while Sadie lives in London with their maternal grandparents. Carter and Mr. Kane are visiting Sadie for Christmas vacation, and the trio go on a trip to the British Museum...and Mr. Kane is imprisoned in a sarcophagus of golden light, after blowing up the Rosetta Stone.
Before long, the siblings discover a number of shocking revelations: the Egyptian gods are both real and active in the modern world, their parents are members of an ancient society of Egyptian magicians called The House of Life, and their dad is being held hostage by the god Set. Oh, and they've only got five days to make sure Set doesn't take over the world. Carter and Sadie are in for a whirlwind adventure of gods, monsters and magic.
I've been a fan of Egyptian Mythology for a long time. In fact, I was a fan of Egyptian Mythology even before I got into Classical Mythology. So, you can imagine that I was really excited back when The Kane Chronicles was first announced. Admittedly, I was a bit disappointed that Riordan mostly shied away from the animal-headedness of many of the Egyptian gods; that was one of the things always made them so cool to me. Still, I'm overall reasonably happy with how he portrayed the gods.
Well, if I'm being honest, it's a bit more complicated than that. Let me state up front, I don't thing Riordan necessarily did a bad job with the gods. As per usual, his knowledge of the myths is second to none. It's just...well, I've written stories of my own that involve Egyptian gods, so they're kind of like old friends to me. As such, sometimes it feels weird how Riordan interprets the gods in the modern world. For example, Thoth is an absent-minded professor. Nothing bad there in and of itself, just not how I would have written him. Thought, admittedly, Riordan's Thoth has started to grow on me over the years. Like I said, nothing inherently bad, just my ow... keep reading on reddit ➡
“… and those domed things outside there,” my assistant said excitedly, pointing to the surface, his eyes wide and trained on the guard he was trying to educate, “are what we have deemed ‘Solariums,’ because this civilization, from what we know, had a large emphasis on sun-worship.”
I shook my head, passing by their spot on the observation deck. He had always been a little too eager and a little too oblivious when it came to explaining our missions. On the deck, I found our pilot, Hathar, picking at a rubber band ball one of the other Tuulthans had made. The small species, a bipedal feline race, had taken a liking to the inventions of humanity, and were fond of messing with them.
“How are we looking?”
He sat up straight and turned to me, a guilty look on his furred features, “We’re about to reach our cruising altitude. ETA fifteen minutes until we touch down in the main ruins.”
“Sounds good. Keep me updated.”
“Will do, doctor.” He gave me a mock salute, something they’d adopted from the old movies we’d run in the break room over the past few weeks.
I nodded to him and made my way through the bridge to the loading station, where I found the head of the guard, Grant. He was a good soldier who didn’t have too many qualms about working with aliens. He’d been a commander during the last Interstellar conflict and he had a steady head on his broad, toned shoulders. He was the kind of man you wanted in charge of the guns.
“Are we packed and ready to go?” I asked. I entered the small bay cautiously; he was a good man, but he was jumpy. As if to demonstrate that trait, he whirled around, arms raised. When he saw me, he breathed a sigh of relief.
“Don’t sneak up on me like that, Karo.”
“Sorry,” I said with a smile.
“To answer your question, yes. I’ve packed up everything my team will need. We’re just taking three correct?” He asked. He turned back to the backpack he was stuffing with ammunition.
“Yes. I don’t suspect we’ll need much protection, as the scans say the planet is devoid of life at the moment. Thankfully, the atmosphere is stable, though.”
“So no suits?” He was trying to hide his disappointment, but I knew he liked how the suits looked.
“You’re welcome to wear them, but remember, the gravity isn’t lower than Earth’s. They’ll be heavy.”
He scowled, “Fine, no super suits.” He zipped the backpack up with finality. “How many of the furballs are coming?”
I didn’t like his nickname, but I let him and his crew have it. Living... keep reading on reddit ➡
Edit: The game is enjoyable regardless. But before people say "It's just a game, just shut up and smile" Ubisoft should know there are people out there who know. Who will call them out on historical quality standards.
The price is still $60. Same as Origins and Odyssey.
The quality of the geographical historical research done in AC: Valhalla surprised me. As compared to Origins and Odyssey it is less.
I can't review all of England and Norway, but I can review London (Lūndonjon / Lūndyn / Lunden).
Much of what would have stood there in 873 AD is missing. It looks like the Ubisoft historian may have used this map from Wikipedia as a reference:
But that map contains a small amount of the buildings in London at that time. At this level of historical research a general knowledge site like Wikipedia is insufficient.
If other historians want to chime in with details feel free.
-The game seems to ignore the Saxon social division of the city by the Walbrook, Britons were known to have lived to the east (Cornhill), while the Saxons toward Ludgate Hill to the West (Lundenwic).
-The bustling heart of the city was Lundenwic itself (as it still is today! ; Piccadilly Circus, Covent Garden, Strand), as the roman ruins of the East were largely uninhabited save for Bretons who lived on the outskirts. I feel like they got this kind of right in the game, but not clearly enough. 1 generic abbey in Lundenwic?
-The colossal aqueducts are a complete fantasy. Lunden never had elevated aqueducts. Let alone skyscraper high ones. It is right on a river so there is no need.
-London Bridge Fortifications at Ebgæt (Old Swan Lane / Oystergate), (east of Douegæt, Dour gate; modern Dowgate) are a fantasy. In all likelihood, the first wooden bridge across the Thames was built around 950 AD. The first stone bridge with fortifications was built in 1209 AD. The fortification (Great Stone Gate) was only on the Southwark side. The gate is 336 years too new and it's also missing the dozens of heads of traitors on pikes displayed on top.
-Why are there so many Persian rugs in every house in every village across Saxon England? Persian rug ≠ "must be old house"
-The Sulis Minerva temple is in Bath, not Lunden.
*-9th century Jorvik population is estimated at around 2000-3000, 9th century Lunden is estimated a... keep reading on reddit ➡
Dia dhoaibh. I have considered myself a part of Celtic Reconstructionism (more specifically Irish, but I will implement Gallic and British elements out of respect for those cultures if it fits at all) for some time now, but I haven't done much proper practicing mostly because I'm pretty ignorant of what gods do what. I've made the occassionall prayer and offering, but I'm not always sure I'm beseeching the right God, or in the right way. I'm also curious as to who I should dedicate myself to as my patron god(s). I suppose I should explain the kind of person I am and what I do and plan to do for a living.
My favorite things to do are in nature, and I especially enjoy hunting, fishing, and hiking. I prefer my meat and plants wild, but I will garden a fair bit as well. I'm currently working food lines at a university, but I am studying wildlife biology and plan to make a career out of it. In my relation to hunting, I greatly enjoy shooting sports, but especially archery, and more specifically traditional archery. Some of my favorite animals include otters (as you may have guessed, but I love mustelids on the whole), horses ( I wouldn't mind doing some equestrianism), deer (I especially like elk), salmon and trout, pike, foxes, and rabbits. Alongside that, I adore history and culture almost as much as the natural world, and considered archaeology for a time. I would generally describe myself as curious about the origins of everything, and I try to understand things, and help others understand, as much as possible.
I also greatly enjoy creative pursuits and am in the process of creating a series of fantasy novels, but I have many ideas for everything from video games, mods, tabletop games, and even tv shows.
My dream is to become a wildlife biologist and a writer on the side, and live on a relatively self sustainable homestead in a somewhat remote area (preferably a mountain town) with a lovely wife and children. I hope to use my wildlife biology career in pursuit of the restoration of extirpated species and education of wildlife coexistence, and use my writing to entertain and educate people on a myriad of cultures from around North America and Iron Age Europe.
I have mostly considered Brigid and Cernunnos as patrons from what I have learned. I've made primarily burnt offerings of aromatic plants before hunting (to Cernunnos and the spirits of the land), and also of alcohol whenever I get the chance as a general offering. My altar is out of sight on the to... keep reading on reddit ➡