How do historians who work outside of areas traditionally considered "archaeological"(Egypt, the Ancient and Islamic Near East, Bronze Age China, the Andes, ad nauseam) make use of archaeological research and its associated theories and methods? I know a little bit about the archaeology of the colonial United States, but I'm curious to hear what all of you medievalists or scholars of Napoleonic France or late Ming China make use both of archaeological data and of the kinds of methods and theories articulated by archaeologists?

For users who have experience in both spheres -- what would you say are some of the major differences between working in academic history and working in museums? If one were hoping to take up a role at a museum, what should she or he know before starting? (I hope this question is appropriate! Let me know if not, mods.)

Jared Diamond ruffles a lot of feathers in a lot of ways--so much that it seems he's "twilighted" and many people in academia reject him without reading his works.

I'm not here to defend him, just to figure out why. One major complaint I've heard is that his writing doesn't take into account the actions of individuals. Is it an axiom of historical theory that history was shaped primarily by individual actions? Is history primarily a tale of agency, with environmental factors always considered to be factors that just get in the way?

So, I'm not exactly sure if this fits in this thread, but I've been reading about how there are a few main schools of thought regarding the outbreak of WWI. I'm having trouble finding agreement among sources, but it appears that one school believes that it was propagated by military and government forces in Europe, and another that the socioeconomic issues in the world were pushing towards it anyways.

Is there any school of thought that most historians regard as the main cause for war in WWI, and if not, why?