I am wrapping up my undergrad degree in anthropology and history (archaeology focus) and am looking into graduate school. My interests are artifact conservation, public outreach, historic homes/sites, and the use of digital imaging for artifacts.

Right now I am really looking into Denver University's Museum and Heritage Studies program with a focus on the heritage studies because I feel like it offers the most courses that I am specifically interested in (artifact conservation, historical archaeology, collections management, applied heritage management) but I can't help but wonder if a Public History will better prepare me for the type of jobs I will end up seeking. I have interned at a big-name historic home and absolutely loved it there and would be interested in working for a state/local historic society. However, many of the public history programs have been 50% pure history courses and 50% specialty electives, while the DU program is 85% electives.

Not sure if it's relevant but I am only interested in getting my masters in either of these fields and definitely want to keep the option open to get a purely academic PhD later down the road.

Thoughts?

Sorry if that is a poor way to phase the question. I am under the impression that before cars, people that attended the local church and were Baptist/Methodist/etc more by proximity than choice. Is this accurate?

I've seen documentaries dealing with life in a "typical" Roman city, when the Empire was at it's height, and enough about the Huns, Goths, Vandals etc to sink a battleship, but as an interested novice I know next to nothing about what living just before the fall of the empire in the west was actually like for ordinary people.

What was the standard of living like? How did people live, and what did their buildings look like? How was this all different from life hundreds of years earlier in the west, and to life in the Eastern Roman Empire?

Obviously the Nazis had an idea of a "master race", but did they still see the Japanese as inferior or were they some sort of exception?

even at the time the violence of the westward expansion was quite sensational, and in the years since its become more so. what was the reality of life like on the American frontier 1840-1900 in relation to violence?

I have recently read that St. Nikoloas (yes, that St. Nik), a staunch anti-Arian, was involved in some sort of physical confrontation with either Arius himself or another of Arian at the Council of Nicaea. Various retellings of this story further claim that the Bishop received some form of censure from Constantine II as a result.

What, if any, actual historical evidence for this exists?

It's a hilarious story.

I've used the search feature but I couldn't find any substantial answers to this question.

To explain further, I was reading recently about a memo sent by a Vietnamese general after the war saying something about 1,000+ American PoWs still in captivity. I know by now that many, if not all, of them are dead (starvation, disease, execution, etc.,) but what I want to know is whether or not historians have reached a general consensus on:

a. whether a significant number of prisoners of war were left after Vietnam, and

b. if so, did the U.S. government really try to conceal this, or was the evidence truly lacking?

Just wondering.

The Pilum was designed to bend on impact to prevent it from being thrown back and to force enemy soldiers to drop their shields if hit, but what would happen after a Successful battle to a used and bent pilum? Were they simply abandoned? Also how expensive was it for the Romans to produce a single Pilum?

I was thinking about The Witcher 2 earlier which has a character named Vernon Roche who's the leader of a special forces unit in the game and how cool it would be to play a video game as a secret unit set in that time. But then reality hit and I wasn't sure if anything like what I'm imagining ever existed and if it did, how similar it was. Thanks in advance, everyone.

In comparison to many other cities in the Greek world, Syracuse seemed more often than not to be under the rule of a single man. Do we have any idea why this was the case? What was so unique about Syracuse that allowed relatively absolute rule to flourish?

I just finished reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. In his extensive discussion of the lead up to the War, he talks of the pre-Civil War court as being one largely dominated by Southerners and conservatives. In cases such as Dread Scott (1857), they upheld the institution of slavery.

How quickly did the make-up of the Court change with the election of Lincoln and the Republicans? And how much, if any, resistance did the Court pose for Republicans and their political and war aims?

Stalingrad, the Pacific Island campaigns, to the Ally positions at the start of The Battle of France, it seems that the Allies were more willing to retreat, conduct strategic withdrawals and even surrender (Singapore) earlier in the war. The Russians, too, learned to conduct fighting retreats (just prior to Stalingrad). Especially in the latter half of the war, it seems the Axis were suicidal in holding on to land conquered (in some cases literally). Was this simply desperation? And were such surrenders as Singapore in part due to the knowledge that the Allies would be able to steamroll later, after a long buildup?

I have to write a research for my English course about the state of Israel, my research is concerned with the foundation of the state and what makes it different among all countries. So I'm looking for a book ( preferably short ) that I can base my research on and use citations from, and that presents an objective view on the country. Help is appreciated, thanks in advance :)

Before the US Civil War, the 11 southern states surely had representatives in Washington. Did they continue to serve in Congress through the war? Did they move to the Confederate congress in Virginia? Were they counted absent votes in the US Congress?