history vs archaelogy

[john]

open question here. for all the enquiring minds. what is the difference between "history" and "archaeology"?

i.e., what are the methodological differences? and are there any substantive differences between the results produced by the two?


john

[Minimalist]

Well, John, I waiting to see if anyone else would jump in and help you out but, guess not.

There is a great deal of overlap between the two in what they are trying to accomplish. The historian is more interested in written records while the archaeologist is more interested in the physical remains of a culture.
A history of a pre-literate people is of questionable value. Archaeologists, however, can and do find material remains of literate societies which help to put the written word into context.

Writers can and do lie. Artifacts are what they are.

[john]

i'll just leave this hanging out there.

there is no question that it is a loaded question, and i knew it when i asked it. more to the point is to create an arena for historians and archaelogists to find common ground, or not.

john

[Guest]

problem is both are subject to interpretation which may or may not lead to the truth.

[Minimalist]

That applies to ALL writing.

[Guest]

To my mind they're complimentary to a great extent. Archaeology deals with the remains of material culture, which is then interpreted in light of known history and extant records.
It's a bit like criminal investigations and forensic investigations; one deals in what people think happened; the other in what science says most likely did happen. One helps build a bigger picture of the other towards a common understanding of events.

[Minimalist]

Yes...for instance the historian, Titus Livy tells us that in the mid 8th century BC:

The people of Fidenae considered that a power was growing up too close to them, so to prevent the anticipations of its future greatness from being realised, they took the initiative in making war. Armed bands invaded and devastated the country lying between the City and Fidenae. Thence they turned to the left - the Tiber barred their advance on the right - and plundered and destroyed, to the great alarm of the country people. A sudden rush from the fields into the City was the first intimation of what was happening. A war so close to their gates admitted of no delay, and Romulus hurriedly led out his army and encamped about a mile from Fidenae.

Archaeologists remind us that at the time both Rome and Fidenae were little more than collections of mud huts who were having a riot....not a WAR

[stan]

This thread reminds me of a college president who, at his retirement party, stated that he planned to continue on at the college as a profesor, and was going to teach two courses:

1. The Psychology of Science
2. The Science of Psychology.



He didn't come back, though.
.....................

Remember that before we had archaeology, we had history. I'm not sure when archaeology can really be said to have begun, but let's say early 19th century, when the British empire was established and the imperialists started ransacking their new territory and bringing home the booty, some of it dug up. In fact most of the modern sciences got started in the late 18th century, with a huge explosion of knowledge and
acitivities about the same time...geology, anthropology, paleontology, psychology and so on. (I'm wingin' this, guys...so don't quote me.)

BUt history had been around since ancient times. IT was one of the arts...the Greeks had an attractive lady Muse of history, (whose name I can't remember...was it Melpemone.....or....sorry).

Those ancient historians have been quoted a lot and debunked some on this platform. But all the great thinkers and writers of Europe and America prior to the late 19th century, at least, read Plutarch, Livy, and so on.

But now, history and archeology are entertwined, and new archeological studies aid in the correction of historical shibboleths, just as research in all fields (including paleontological and geological, DNA, etc) aid the correction of scientific ones.
ones.

[Guest]

thoughwe shuld keep in mind that the similarities betwen the two lie with the person not the evidence. the statement ' history is inthe eye of the historian' , works just as well for archaeology and it does take time to sift through the junk to find a nugget of truth.

i think herodotus is a good example along with Os.

[Minimalist]

Napoleon said "history is a lie agreed upon.

[Guest]

Think it was actually "history is the lie most commonly agreed upon"...but let's not start a war over it.

[Minimalist]

There are several versions of that saying...all pretty much convey the same meaning.

My favorite Napoleonic quote is:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.


Reminds me of Bush.

[john]

flip side.

"archaeology is the lie most commonly agreed on".

this is why i said that the question was loaded frrom the git go.

for example, the book of psalms recently found in an irish bog.

is it history (i.e., the written record) or archaeology (the physical record)?

do we accept the book as a physical object, and/or do we accept the writing within the book as a means of communication?

do we accept the cave as a physical object, and/or do we accept the cave paintings as a means of communication?

or both?




john

[stan]

All the above. The separation of disciplines is somewhat arbitrary, due to their historical development. Dont forget anthropology, sociology, , political science.. They sometimes have their own buildings....
Some people call this problem "hardening of the categories."

Colleges these days are moving toward interdisciplinary studies, though.
You can major in things like "American Studies" and "Material Culture" which borrow from all the "disciplines."

I don't mean to dismiss your questions, but I think you have to look at them historically.
Plus many people would be interested n the finding of the gospel in the mud. Linguists, art historians, church historians.
This book was found (frm what I remember) by accident. It was only after it was found that "archeology" was brought into play to systematically dig the area to see if there were associated artifacts.
I think they found a leather case for it.

Just some random thoughts.

[Beagle]

The integration of systems makes all the sense in the world to me, but I wonder what sort of career is available to a "material culture" major right now.