- This topic has 6 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
Geography is a study of the space we occupy and how we use it; the themes are location (literally where it's at), place (what it's like there), interaction (between us and the environment… how we make our living there). [T]he aforementioned movement (interaction between and among places), and region (how an area is alike internally or different from the area(s) around it).History is the story of how we change through time... culture is what we are like based to a large degree (but not totally) on our relationship(s) with our geography.History, geography and culture, like the old saying (a sit-com song really)... "It's about time, it's about space, it's about the human race...". IMHO at least... 8)
Perhaps Plato was correct when he wrote The Republic where he suggested that we all remain in the same discipline we were born into and not trying to learn another's trade. But I digress…..:)
These are “archaeologists”. I imagine they are into the minutia of things….I don't think your average historian wears a hardhat in his office figuring out motives and historical trends.
LOL…those are probably grad students doing all the digging for their professor. But no, historians don't usually need a hard hat when they do their research.
This is my understanding, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In a broad sense, history is reporting. Historians should have a grasp on archeology/anthropology but history is quite different than those two fields. Perhaps the mistake I'm making is placing too much emphasis on the 'cultural' instead of the historical? However, I do think it is very important that historians know the culture. But where's the seperation (if any) between cultural anthropology and history?Again (generalizing here) should a historian know everything? (the A's, geography, etc) All I know is I have become a complete nerd ever since I started school and especially when I switched majors to history. ;D
MHO only… The geography of an area gives the inhabitants certain options (based on topography, climate and weather patterns, flora/fauna, proximity to other groups and a bundle of other considerations including their raison d'?tre or "reason to be"...); their culture is a result of how they play the cards they are dealt by Mother Nature and chance. History, then, is the record of how they change through time.Not to confuse me with the old time determinists... realize that nature offers possibilities that different groups at different levels of development will use differently but generally geograhy influences culture; that is, all the material that the society sees fit to pass on to the nextgeneration, either by way of formal educational processes or as societal standards (contemporarymorality). Culture is the result of our geography; we are like we are as a result of where we live and what is there to work with, as well as how we interact with other people and places around us. We must recognize that who and what we are as a society and culture impacts this interaction with other groups and therefore, our history.
Wally, OK you say history is the record. But are you implying history doesn't ask the “whys”, it just records as objectively as possible what happened? If so, then what field of study is deciphering the why?For example: Constantine legalized Christianity. So is the historian's job only reporting that fact and some other field is reponsible for telling the significance of that event?
Not at all; history without why is meaningless. Without an understanding of why they happened and why they mean something in the long term (matter to us today) historical facts or events or people are just Jeopardy answers. In the original Greek history means learning by inquiry.Sorry if my previopus post sent the wrong message. History has a hard time being objective as we are inclinde to judge what happened throught the filter of our own culture. When we judge any other time or culture by own values they will always come out on the short end.
Good. I didn't really think that's what you meant anyway. No need to apologize. From my example though, a real historian would know why because he'd also know the other facts that led to it. So, in a way, is it safe to say the facts are what tells you the whys?This culture prism, I have my own opinions about this, but I'll refrain for now.
Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
Maybe a little of both. It makes sense but couldn't historians fall into the same trap if they wander into another discipline?
Don't you research the other discipline's data to learn history?
Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
Maybe a little of both. It makes sense but couldn't historians fall into the same trap if they wander into another discipline?
Don't you research the other discipline's data to learn history?
Do research in another discipline? No, I think not. For if you are conducting research in another discipline then you are no longer an historian, you are an archaeologist, anthropoligist, etc. Historians can draw on the work from another discipline but I don't think they should conduct research in an area outside their expertise. I don't want my car mechanic taking out my appendix any more than I want an Historian telling me the principles of physics.
Historians can draw on the work from another discipline
That's what I meant actually. An example, in my Anthro class there is mention of a Roman attack on a Celtic fort. The archeological evidence (arrow tips, in this case) shows that they were attacked from the western side of the fort and then lays out the sequence of events. I'm a little confused here as to where to draw the line between what's history and what's archeology in this case.
