History Carnival 5

I’m grateful to host the fifth edition of the History Carnival, but also very nervous at the prospect of organizing one after so many great carnivals. I certainly have a renewed respect for all of the past carnival hosts. So, without further delay, on to the Carnival!

Primary sources. They’re the heart and soul of history. I’m fortunate to have had exposure to the study of primary sources in my high school and undergraduate education, but Melinama at Pratie Place observes that “in long-ago high school history classes, we weren’t exposed to primary sources. Did they think we couldn’t handle them? We didn’t read the entertainingly crabby letters written by Jefferson and Adams, we read bland textbook recaps.” Melinama lets us know why she loves primary sources, and why they’re should be an important part of history education, in Where Did This Come From? Part 2. Eb at Delayed Reaction reminds us that “the value of reading documents not just for what they (intentionally) say about a particular topic but also for what clues they (unintentionally) provide about the larger context of everyday life in which they were created.” Eb’s post American Languages looks at an advertisement for Uncle Tom’s Cabin and asks questions about the history of language.

While we’re on the theme of language and words, check out the great post at Chapati Mystery by Sepoy, Word of the Day: Termagant. You might also be interested in how a seventeenth-century bishop named John Wilkins tried “to provide a structured classification for every possible noun” in Bishop Wilkins’ Ark, a post by misteraitch at Giornale Nuovo. misteraitch has some great images of Bishop Wilkins’ Essay Towards a Reach Character, and Philosophical Language, published in 1688.

In Creation of Canadian Identity (Part 1), Pete at Before Dawn begins what promises to be a great mini-series on the historical development of Canadian identity.

John Emerson at Idiocentrism wrote The coming of the Age of Iron, a review of Wertime and Muhly, eds. The Coming of the Age of Iron (1980) and The End of the Bronze Age by Robert Drews.

At Brian’s Study Breaks, Brian Ulrich keeps us up-to-date about his research on the Second Ibadhi Imamate.

Several bloggers have been concerned with the problems and possibilities of what Jonathan Dresner has called “attempts to systematize that qualitative epistemology we call history.” Rana at Frogs and Ravens takes a look at Turner’s Frontier Thesis in The F-Word (and no, it’s not feudalism this time). Jonathan at Frog in a Well explores the use of historical analogy in a discussion of Renaissance Japan.

In a similar thread, Bede’s Journal discusses the idea that All History is Fiction. Hugo Holbling at Studi Galileiani responds to Bede’s post with Rhetoric and the Scientific Revolution.

While Another Damned Medievalist highlighted a few posts about womens history, a few more that wrapped up Women’s History Month deserve some attention. Yvonne DeVita at Blogcritics discusses Amelia Bloomer and women’s dress in Women in History: Seneca Falls. Sharon Howard at Early Modern Notes has posted on Alice Clark and her Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century (1919) in Alice Clark, Working Women’s Historian, and the what and why of women’s and gender history in Women’s History and Gender History: What and Why?.

Finally, lets take a look at the use of texts in history. Rhine River posts about using Tacitus in the classroom in a post entitled Tacitus. In Teaching Texts, Caleb McDaniel reminds us that at the same time historians must teach students about the context in which texts were produced, we should also be mindful of the importance of how texts work. Caleb’s post is a response to Little Professor’s post Questions Still Unanswered.

Have fun reading the posts, and look forward to the sixth History Carnival, which will be hosted by Jonathan Dresner at Cliopatria on April 15. Send submissions to dresner AT hawaii DOT edu.

Updates

I forgot to add another of Hugo Holbling’s posts. Galileo and the Bible discusses changes in the way the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible, who was allowed to “meaningfully interpret the Bible,” and the impact this would have on Galileo’s work. Hugo’s post is an excerpt of a larger article.