Portraits By James Van Der Zee 

More dumb magic items for your D&D campaign:

A sword that inflicts emotional wounds

A hat that, when left alone with another hat, will mate and produce hybrid offspring

Negative gold pieces

A map that is the territory

Armour that becomes more effective the uglier the wearer

A living pocket-watch that never needs winding, but if you don’t feed it, it dies; it’s an obligate carnivore

Goggles that put censor bars over monsters of the Aberration type

An instructional tome in the secret language of ducks

A dagger that glows in the presence of one particular goblin

Angry shoes

a lot of you hate historians and archaeologists, and i think that’s a problem

look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.

but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.

historians being homophobic has become a whole meme, and it feels like people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…

(source… really? nobody?)

this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.

there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).

there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.

this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)

lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking

oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.

so why does this matter?

none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.

on a personal note, so many marginalized scholars are trying to survive the dumpster fire of academia because we care that much about making sure the stories that are too often unheard don’t get left out of history… and when that’s the entire focus of my life right now, it’s disheartening to see how many of my political allies are just going to assume the worst about the entire field

I am charming like an Ouran Highschool Host Club boy.

things you need to know when talking to me:

i talk really fast

i mumble

sometimes i talk really fast and mumble at the same time

sometimes the words from my head don’t transfer right to my mouth so i sometimes just speak nonsense and im the only one who gets what im saying

have fun trying to understand me

i repeat stories a lot bc nothing interesting happens to me but i want to be validated

((Messing around as England = punk England.))

This is controversial I know, but as someone who loves learning new things and hates feeling stupid, I always err on the side of simple when I’m teaching people about history, particularly when I’m working with niche equipment or antiquated terms.

When you’re so enmeshed in a subject, it can be all too easy to forget that your knowledge and vocabulary is now different from everyone else’s. I go to a lot of reenactments where the people there are passionate about history, but don’t know how to teach it, or deal with museums where the curator rather than the educational staff writes labels. Far too often I’ve had to step in and explain a concept or word because someone else thought it was obvious so it wasn’t.

Just in the 18th century alone I’ve had explain when people were confused by someone using period appropriate, but confusing words such as:

“Stays” rather than corset

“Chocolate” rather than “hot chocolate”

“Petticoat” rather than “skirt”

“Shrewsbury cake” rather than “cookie”

“But Beggars!” you say, “it’s wrong to use modern terms for things when we know what they were actually called! They’re not the same!” Not if you explain yourself. You and I both know that stays and corsets are differently shaped, but to 99% of the population, it’s a support garment, and that’s what they need to know. I will generally use the appropriate term and then explain using more colloquial language. “I’m wearing stays - what we would today call a corset, although they’re differently shaped.” Making the person guess what you’re talking about is putting more mental strain on them and causing them to lose track of the discussion.

As a professional who still looks like a child, I know how awkward it can be when someone assumes that you have a negative level of knowledge, but I am always going to err on that side and then beef up my interpretation later, rather than starting at a master’s degree level, making someone feel stupid, and then having to backtrack. A good interpreter will be able to glean someone’s general level of knowledge very quickly.

Athenic you guys need to calm down. Persephonly I enjoy them.

i hate when people make too many greek and roman mythology puns. it really starts to

get on minerva

I have a couple of Hanukkah questions:

When the Maccabees rededicated the temple they only had enough oil for one night.

1) Why didn’t they wait the seven days until they could make more pure oil first?

2) How long does the menorah or hanukkiah have to be lit to rededicate a temple? Is it indefinitely? Is it also for seven days, like being pure again for the Maccabees?

Hanukkah Sameach!

The tailors at Colonial Williamsburg made a suit for their cat

So I’m on sham and this happened.

I made arrows and a quiver for the con tomorrow. The cosplay is almost done! I'll post more pictures as I continue.