- This topic has 7 voices and 23 replies.
-
Posts
-
No I think historians can do the work of archaeologists, but I don't think archaeologists can do the work of historians. Sounds prudish I know, but I consider archaeology and anthropology as pseudo-sciences that belong under the umbrella of History.
No I think historians can do the work of archaeologists, but I don't think archaeologists can do the work of historians. Sounds prudish I know, but I consider archaeology and anthropology as pseudo-sciences that belong under the umbrella of History.
I agree with you about who can do what. I don't know that I would go so far as to call them pseudo-sciences. I would more describe archaeology and anthropology as crafts with scientific underpinnings. I will however let them dig in the dirt for the most part. I would rather wrap my mind around the thoughts of my predecessors as expressed in their writing.
I agree the A's should be a bigger part of the big picture of history. Cultural Anthropology is in no way a pseudo-science. JMO. And if I ever really want to get my hands dirty and learn ancient history, I better suck up to some good archeologists. 😀As much as I want to research documentation and records, I also want to get out there and dig and poke around and look at it and touch it and talk to the locals about it. Just thinking about this excites me. I would LOVE to go on an historical/archeological expedition of some Medieval castle or ancient city. I don't think I'm going to be one who would enjoy staying locked up in an ivory tower. Give me field work, people, and lots of plane tickets.
I agree the A's should be a bigger part of the big picture of history. Cultural Anthropology is in no way a pseudo-science. JMO. And if I ever really want to get my hands dirty and learn ancient history, I better suck up to some good archeologists. 😀As much as I want to research documentation and records, I also want to get out there and dig and poke around and look at it and touch it and talk to the locals about it. Just thinking about this excites me. I would LOVE to go on an historical/archeological expedition of some Medieval castle or ancient city. I don't think I'm going to be one who would enjoy staying locked up in an ivory tower. Give me field work, people, and lots of plane tickets.
That's what I'm trying to tell you guys. History professors go out and dig, poke, investigate, touch, smell, etc....in every way shape and form as archaeologists and anthropologists do, but they go beyond the science of it and tell the story too. I have never studied under a professor who didn't take a year long sabbatical at some point in his or her career to do field work...literal field work...that involved physical investigation of their subject matter. The Ivory Tower stereotype is not really the norm. Many historians think like me, they don't trust others to do their dirty work, so they go out and do it themselves as far as they are able. The science part limits many historians yes, but that only involves things like carbon dating, metallurgy, and engineering. Archaeologists and anthropologists have a greater background in the sciences and mathematics, so this is where I think they would be useful as a scientific department of the historical field. But they have absolutely no business in the art of historical method because it's not their M.O. History is both an art and a science. It's kinda like how police officers compare to lawyers. Both deal with the interpretation of law, but police officers aren't trained to present the law before a judge. Lawyers build the case, police officers supply the defendents. Archaeologists and anthropologists supply the historical figures or places, and historians present the story of their findings. So tell me now, why don't we have historiologists? Maybe somebody here can be the first. 🙂
That is why I spend so much time visiting battlefields. I am agreeing with you here, Donald. I just dont have as strong an opinion of Archeology and Anthropology as you do. There is nothing better than getting out of the library or office and literally walking in the footsteps of the past. It is the essence if being a historian. You can only spend so much time doing research.
I must admit though, I love digging through manuscripts and monographs. It's just not practical for me right now….hopefully I will get to finish up my thesis one day so I can move on to the grand prize. 🙂
I must admit though, I love digging through manuscripts and monographs. It's just not practical for me right now....hopefully I will get to finish up my thesis one day so I can move on to the grand prize. 🙂
I hear you and agree 100%. My current career seems like a roadblock to me doing what I really want, which is to read, research, and write history.
After reading this so far, I think most of us feel the same way. Though the two are separate, both would do better by engaging in the other's. I as a future historian (lets hope) have had the opportunity to engage in an archelolgical dig in eastern England. The timeframe stretched from stoneage to late Roman Britain. While we unearthed bones, pottery, tools, pot boilers it is very difficult NOT to attempt to figure out what was going on there. The only evidence of structures was darker soil. Though I was only able to work for a few weeks, the bonds I made with the archeologists were amazing (as I still speak them them on a weekly basis). I do belive that both disciplines need to understand each other as well as try their hand in the other. Me, I will keep my eyes open in either field looking for an opportunity to develope in both. But that is just me.
That's what I'm trying to tell you guys. History professors go out and dig, poke, investigate, touch, smell, etc….in every way shape and form as archaeologists and anthropologists do, but they go beyond the science of it and tell the story too. I have never studied under a professor who didn't take a year long sabbatical at some point in his or her career to do field work…literal field work…that involved physical investigation of their subject matter.
You know what's interesting? I just started watching a 36-lecture series on the classical archaeology of Greece and Rome which is taught by a professor at your school. In the first lecture he emphasized the distinction between archaeology, history, and anthropology. He also rejected the claim that archaeology is the "handmaiden" of history. I was wondering if you ever had this guy for a class.(sorry for reviving an old discussion! It just seemed pertinent to what we talked about)
