- This topic has 6 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
I wanted to kind of continue the previous discussion we were having in another thread because I was watching a video lecture series which brought up a good point. Early archaeology was essentially a discipline in the service of museums and art history; that is, archaeologists went out to make great finds so that they could then display them in museums. Modern archaeology is not concerned with this, but instead with stripping down layers for more modest evidence which suggests how people of the past lived.It may seem that modern archaeology is a great improvement upon older practices since we don't have people going to historic sites digging up everything but the kitchen sink in a quest for fame and fortune. But it also holds true that archaeologists become engaged in more inference, which I think has been the cause of concern with some on this forum. Archaeologists are the ones who dig up the pieces to the puzzle, and to a certain degree they try to fit them together. But the better practitioners of inference are those who are more able to do so – namely, the historian experts. Perhaps this push and pull about how much inference any particular expert can make has created thoughts of “invasion of one's turf”.
Lets clear this up. Here are a few definitions of Archeology1)The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery. The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright ? 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.2)the branch of anthropology that studies prehistoric people and their cultures WordNet? 3.0, ? 2006 by Princeton University. 3)The scientific study of past human life and culture by the examination of physical remains, such as graves, tools, and pottery. The American Heritage? Science DictionaryCopyright ? 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.Now here is anthropology:1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind. 2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals. 3. the science of humans and their works. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ? Random House, Inc. 2006. I think what is going on is that many archeologists are also anthropologists. Now when the A's start to get away from the daily life events they are studying and start to use that to create their own history, thats when whe have the problem being discussed here. Now that does not mean that Historians don't need A's. There is a lot of information that H's use to support their histories, and that's how it has to work. History is a record of past events. That record is supported by concrete evidence such as the artifacts unearthed by archeologists or by interpretation of previously documented records. I don't think A's take the other records into consideration some times. Good ones may.Now regarding modern archeology, There is so much more we can do with technology. They are discovering ancient building in the rainforests of central and South American using satelites. We can peer into the ground using radar. But there are still occasions where you need to dig, but it may not have to be on a massive scale. While I was in England, I learned that much of the archeology going on there is Rescue Archeology. Basically when they are putting in a road or a building and come across something, archeologists go in to catalog the site and remove artifacts before the site is destroyed and lost. A shame really.
I read something along these lines the differences between past and present archeology. The past, I don't know so much if it was for glory, although I assume a lot of it was, but they seemed more interested in preserving their finds in a museum, whereas the newer archeologists seem to have more of a “leave it where it is” attitude. As of right now, I'm not sure where I stand on this. After all, it is cool to see artifacts in museums, is it not? I do think conditions in museums are much better nowadays for preservation anyway. Sidenote: what's worse is how much history has been destroyed by the bombing of cities.Similar to this are the biologists vs. zookeepers. Are zoos bad? Some zoos have awful conditions, but where else, unless you go to Africa, can you take your kid to see a real live rhino?You cannot have history without archeology or anthropology. And I am really having difficulty grasping the differences probably because I don't think there should be any. Each historian/archeologist/anthropologist specializes in a field in anyway. If someone is to get a PhD in Irish History common sense tells me you aren't going to hire him as a professor of German history. If an archeologist's specialty is the Middle East, he isn't going to be too helpful in Medieval archeology. Is it only the archeologist who finds things and dates them and it's the historian who deciphers the evidence?
Is it only the archeologist who finds things and dates them and it's the historian who deciphers the evidence?
I thought that too, but after reading the definition of archeologist it may be more and I think thats where anthropologist come in. Both of them, I believe, try to determine how people acted on a day to day basis, based on the things they find. Historians deal with events. As specific as the date of a battle or as broad as the migrations of peoples.
This is what confuses me. Then who traces, say, the migration patterns in Europe? Historians or one of the A's? Like who would determine the name of a Vandal king and where he originally came from?
I guess the underlying argument is who is supposed to tell the story? Can archeologists tell the story or are the historians supposed to? Sorry to get off topic
This is what confuses me. Then who traces, say, the migration patterns in Europe? Historians or one of the A's? Like who would determine the name of a Vandal king and where he originally came from?
Demographers…who fall under the umbrella of Geography. (I happen to have a minor in this).
Demographers…who fall under the umbrella of Geography. (I happen to have a minor in this).
The fourth theme of geography; Movement, the interaction between and among places… though I teach history I'm a dyed-in-the-wool geographer 😉
The fourth theme of geography; Movement, the interaction between and among places… though I teach history I'm a dyed-in-the-wool geographer 😉
Funny, but I saw a show in which a geneticist was the one who traced migration patterns from Africa to other parts of the world.
Many disciplines overlap. A historian writing about the introduction of gunpowder has to have some knowledge of the chemistry involved to adequately explain its uses and effects. There are numerous other examples. We all have our specialties but a general base of knowledge is essential, hence the classical liberal arts education.
So could we say that a historian is more of a researchist? Obviously many focus on certain areas and after a certain amout of time develops an expansive amount of knowledge, but acquires that knowledge from any and all sources available. And perhaps the problem with other disciplines is when they tread into the world of the historian carrying only the sources from their discipline that they invite the wrath of other historians.Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
