Four years ago my dream of finding the mythical city of Raphta on the East African coast was dashed upon reading the brochure from the University of Dar es Salaam. It basically said one needed a background of science in high school to be eligible to join their Bachelor of 'Arts' in Archaeology program, effectively dealing a crushing blow to me having a background of arts from high school in History, Geography and Language. So now i can ask how do History, Anthropology and Archaeology differ and why does one need a background in science to study Archaeology?

I'm doing an oral presentation on the early russian states of Kiev and Moscow. Looking for primary sources to immerse my audience in the time period. Anything from the cities' foundation, to the rise of the Czars. Any suggestions would be great! thanks guys! P.S. Mongols always make presentations more interesting!

To be clear, the distinction I want to draw is NOT between flair and not-yet-flaired. I'm interested in hearing from people who have no formal training in history or a closely-related field, at any level (including undergraduate or career-only, well, beyond required intro classes), and don't plan on it.

If you are interested in "history in general," I'd love to know what draws you to the past and especially to hang out in this sub.

Thanks!

More specifically, the Steller's Sea cow was discovered in the North Pacific, near Alaska.

EDIT: Also, what was European contact like, in the area, where the Steller's sea cow was discovered? (Discoveries, major events, settlements etc.)

EDIT: Wow! So many upvotes! Was surprised this question would have so many people interested in it. :D

Wealth? Physical Exertions? Living Conditions?

Is it Epirot or Epirote for someone from Epirus? I've seen it both ways but I'm not sure if one was more the 19th Century way of spelling things.

I understand that women weren't allowed to perform on the Elizabethan stage, but I have always wondered whether there were any instances of women participating in other areas such as costume design, financing or promotion.

One of my teachers told me a story of a European king or Lord or something who was blind. He would ride into battle, swinging his flail around blindly, while a squire would lead his horse forwards. The horse was trained to keep its head perfectly straight, otherwise the flail would hit it. He had multiple horses at ready at the edge of the battlefield incase his horse was taken out by the enemy, or if he took it out with his flail. At the end of the battle, the enemy King found his body, dead, surrounded by bodies he had killed. The King, with incredible respect towards the blind king/lord/guy, took his coat-of-arms as his own. This story sounds awesome, but a bit too amazing that I've never heard it from anywhere else. There's also a lot of stuff that seems, odd. For example, why did no archers shoot at him, being the general. Or how did he get back on a horse being blind and in a battlefield? The teacher is a member of HEMA and has a lot of experience under his belt (was a 'King' at one point), but is this story true?

Just from what I know from history Indonesia has not existed for very long as a unified state. As far as I know there was not any unified language or shared cultural identification until recently. The closest historical counterpart I know of would be the borders of Majapahit. Did the conception of modern unified Indonesia as one nation come from these Majapahit borders, or from some other source?

I'm under the general understanding that most colonists didn't treat their subjects very well, and by that I mean a huge disregard for human rights. In the sense that colonists are the reason there are so few aboriginal people in North America and Australia. Colonialism is also the reason why Japan has had a hard time dealing with its past until making recent diplomatic progress with South Korea last month on the subject of comfort women.

What about the British? I'm under the general understanding that it was much better to have been living in Hong Kong than in Mainland China at seemingly any time during the last 100 years, other than during wars of course.

So, did all colonialists treat their subjects badly? Did some simply "merely" take away a peoples rights to self-govern? I'm thinking mostly about the 1800-1940's period.

Without sounding like a conspiracy nut, I just want to ask the following question: is there any hard evidence to corroborate any of the many reports of what happened to Hitler or his remains?

Throughout his eight years as president, conservative detractors have accused Barack Obama of being a socialist due the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a staunchly private-sector piece of legislation that did not include any legitimately socialized healthcare.

Franklin Roosevelt's policies would be almost unthinkable today, especially his massive tax increases and major public works projects to stimulate the depressed economy. These policies are certainly much more "socialist" than any that Obama has seen through, and the decision to affirm the legitimacy of the Soviet government would also be quite radical today. Was FDR considered a "closet communist" by many 1930s conservatives?

How did Dalmatia, in particular the islands such as Hvar and Vis but Dalmatia broadly, experience the break up of Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars. Was there much conflict over borders, were the islands insulated from the conflict, was there much of a population mix outside the border regions..?

As far as I can tell, they are essentially the same case, set the same legal precedent, and were even decided on the same day. So why is one case cited while the other is not?

I have been reading Dan Jones' books about the Plantagenet kings and queens of England as well as watching various documentaries on Youtube since this is something I knew almost absolutely nothing about -- being an American from the public school system the extent of my knowledge was that William the Conqueror conquered England, King John signed the Magna Carta, Henry VIII killed all his wives, and Richard the Lionheart was a crusader.

Dan Jones and others cover the relationship between Henry II and his chief aide Thomas Beckett who was not from the nobility but who was basically made one of the most powerful men in the kingdom until he joined the church and the two had their big falling out.

Later, Jones covers Edward II. He suggests or implies that the problem Edward II faced was that Piers Gaveston was an outside made too powerful and too close to the king. The nobility grew to resent this relationship. (With the same being said for Despenser) However, it seemed to be a fairly similar relationship to Henry II and Beckett.

Jones addresses the possibility of their being some sexual dynamic to Edward II and Gaveston, but I am skeptical that this was the major cause for the strife during Edward II's reign. I understand that the allegations arose years later and were not contemporary, and it also seems strange that the greatest critics of the king did not have use his sexuality to attack him politically when had there been any substance to these claims.

TL;DR: What, if anything, was the major differences between Thomas Beckett, a commoner and favorite of the king with inordinate power compared to his class and Piers Gaveston?

I heard that the ottoman empire was the 'sick man of europe' since the early 19th century. Did they produce any of their own weapons for WW1? If not, did they purchase weapons? Or were they very unmodernized compared to other nations?