Why do we have history and archaeology?

[Viggen]

In the light of our understanding of deep time Daniel Lord Smail argues that it is high time that the two disciplines (History and Archaeology) were reunited.

 

read the article Why do we have history and archeology?

 

...what you think?

 

cheers

viggen

[sonic]

When I went to Cardiff University I determined to focus on the Fall of the West and the Kingdom of England until c.1216 (the death of King John). However, at the time I had to press the Heads of History, Ancient History and Archaeology to allow me to study the different subjects from each department (Ancient History = Fall of the West; History = England from c.800 - 1216; Archaeology = Fall of the West, Anglo-Saxon England to c.1100). Once I pointed out to them what I wanted and how I needed to have the disciplines overlap, they bent over backwards to let me have my courses - as long as the timetables permitted it, since they hadn't been designed to overlap.

 

I took it as a compliment that from the following year they designed modules to allow anybody to do the same. So at least one Univeristy allows the 'joined' study of History and Archaeology.

 

On the other hand, I think History and Archaeology will always be separate due to the completely different basic techniques that need to be taught in the first year.

 

PS. I can't guarantee that Cardiff still have the same attitude: the lecturers have no doubt changed over the past 15 years.

 

PPS. 15 years??? Where did the time go!!

Edited April 26, 2009 by sonic

[sylla]

In the light of our understanding of deep time Daniel Lord Smail argues that it is high time that the two disciplines (History and Archaeology) were reunited.

 

read the article Why do we have history and archeology?

 

...what you think?

 

cheers

viggen

Archaeology without History is like sailing without a map.

History without Archaeology is little more than fairy tales.

[Ingsoc]

Certainly there is a strong connection between the two subjects: History could be used to explain certain Archaeological finds and Archeology could be used to confirm or refute History. however I think the methodology of the two subjects is just too much different and there are subjects were History could not help explain Archeology and vice versa.

[Melvadius]

In the light of our understanding of deep time Daniel Lord Smail argues that it is high time that the two disciplines (History and Archaeology) were reunited.

 

read the article Why do we have history and archeology?

 

...what you think?

 

cheers

viggen

 

I suspect part of the problem (not stated in the article) is historic and to an extent culturally based. In Britain when archaeology was in it's infancy and Departments of Archaeology were being established I understand that they were usually attached to (or developed) from existing Classics department so did have some loose affiliation to 'written' history. In contrast in America, I understadn that Archaeology departments were usually established as sub-divisions of Anthorpology Departments so probably had a much looser afiliation to 'historic' and 'Classical' written sources.

 

These loose associations/ affiliations, or possibly simply perceptions, to some extent have continued into the modern era often amongst those who should know better. In my experience, in Britain as a recent archaeology student, we are positively encouraged to operate in a multidisciplinary manner. Any site investigation should include elements of comparison and contrasting of sources across the spectrum such as historical and other records research, excavation, scientific analysis of finds and comparison with other sites. American trained archaeologists I have come across have speken of using similar multidisciplinary methods

 

I cannot speak for the situation in every history department across Britain or the US but have noticed in some of my more recent 'historical texts' references being made to specific archaeological site reports. Possibly this indicates that the 'new' multidisciplinariasim is further advanced than the History Today article would lead people to suspect?

 

Melvadius

Edited April 27, 2009 by Melvadius

[Beholder]

Ancient historians did not think about archeology -which is mostly digging up old relics- they just wanted the future generations to know the mistakes of their ancenstors

and learn from them.

 

That's why the first history ''books'' were narrating wars in ancient Greece.

 

War is bad therefore might as well write it down and someone someday will learn from it.

 

Archaeology is a ''new'' science

 

Romans did not dig up the pyramids , when they got there those were already ancient history for them

 

History also gave archaeology the information it needed to proceed and give those results.

 

But then again, without archaeology we wouldn't have found those ancient history texts would we now?

[Maty]

The two fields have a lot in common, but they are distinct. Essentially, archaeology does 'what' and ancient history does 'why'.

 

I can't imagine doing ancient history without input from archaeology, but ancient history also works with demographers, sociologists and numismatists to name a few. One of the joys of the subject is the other disciplines that you get involved with. And I haven't even mentioned classicists until now ...

[caldrail]

Or you could say that History is theoretical, archaeology is practical, or other comparisons. In fact, they are both branches of the same coin - study of the past. We human beings like to classify and label, so we do that with fields of study and it's no coincidence that our modern definitions of study emerge from the Victorian period.

[sylla]

The two fields have a lot in common, but they are distinct. Essentially, archaeology does 'what' and ancient history does 'why'.

 

I can't imagine doing ancient history without input from archaeology, but ancient history also works with demographers, sociologists and numismatists to name a few. One of the joys of the subject is the other disciplines that you get involved with. And I haven't even mentioned classicists until now ...

Archaeology also shares that joy; it works with those same few disciplines and more. Both can't be imagined without the input of each other and many more disciplines. Both do the "whats" and the "whys" of their respective areas.

 

Essentially, archaeology is more field survey than theoretical model, and history is the inverse. They overlap each other virtually 100%; all archeological findings have a history behind them, and the hard evidence of all histories is ultimately archeological..

[sylla]

Ancient historians did not think about archeology -which is mostly digging up old relics- they just wanted the future generations to know the mistakes of their ancenstors

and learn from them.

 

That's why the first history ''books'' were narrating wars in ancient Greece.

 

War is bad therefore might as well write it down and someone someday will learn from it.

 

Archaeology is a ''new'' science

 

Romans did not dig up the pyramids , when they got there those were already ancient history for them

 

History also gave archaeology the information it needed to proceed and give those results.

 

But then again, without archaeology we wouldn't have found those ancient history texts would we now?

As a pre-scientific discipline, archaeology goes back at least to Nabonidus (VI century BC).

 

Classical historians were well aware of the confirmatory value of physical evidence from the past; for example, Suetonius checked out the physical damage on Tiberius' sculptures and described Augustus' house in support of his biographical accounts; Seneca used Scipio's villa to describe the Africanus' personality; Plutarch physically depicted Sulla from his statues.

 

The Pyramids were dug (presumably by tomb robbers) long before the Roman era.

Edited May 29, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Most egyptian tombs (not all were pyramids) were rifled by robbers soon after they were sealed.

 

Regarding ancient historians - some were good, some weren't. Suetonius is often sneered at as recording gossip and rumour, but that in itself has value. What has to remembered is that these ancient historians were storytellers first and historians second. They wanted their work read so often enlivened the text.

 

Jordanes for instance wrote a history of the Goths, his own ancestors, in AD551. It's actually a summary of another larger work that no longer survives, and Jordanes had only three days to complete it. Whilst the latter half relied on stories existing in his time, the first half is somewhat fanciful. For an extreme example, check out Geoffery of Monmouths Historia Regum Britanniae. I challenge you to keep a straight face.

[Melvadius]

Or you could say that History is theoretical, archaeology is practical, or other comparisons. In fact, they are both branches of the same coin - study of the past. We human beings like to classify and label, so we do that with fields of study and it's no coincidence that our modern definitions of study emerge from the Victorian period.

 

You obviously haven't come across the 'Theoretical Roman Archaeological Conferences' (the latest of which was held in Southampton in April 2009). These are held annually (usually in conjunction with the Roman Archaeological Conference) where speakers get a chance to discuss their theories about more or less anything to do with the Roman period

 

THe next set of conference will be held together as Roman Archaeology Conference IX & Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference XX at the University of Oxford on 25 March to 28 March 2010:

 

http://rac2010.classics.ox.ac.uk/

 

Melvadius

[Northern Neil]

The two fields have a lot in common, but they are distinct. Essentially, archaeology does 'what' and ancient history does 'why'.

 

I can't imagine doing ancient history without input from archaeology, but ancient history also works with demographers, sociologists and numismatists to name a few. One of the joys of the subject is the other disciplines that you get involved with. And I haven't even mentioned classicists until now ...

 

I believe archaeologists could learn from historians in this respect, and as theirs is a practical science, maybe consult modern day practitioners to formulate their theories. I will give one example: It has become canon that Roman granaries were buttressed to strengthen against outward pressure from stored grain, as both Birley and La Bedoyere state in their respective books about Hadrian's Wall.

 

A friend of mine who is a builder states this is a preposterous idea, given that the granary walls are already 2 feet thick without the buttresses and that Victorian retaining walls considerably thinner secure high earthen bankings, sometimes topped by a railway. He further states that outward pressure from stored materials would only be an issue if the building was loaded from the top, with a crane! In the same discussion, another friend - a farmer - stated that the buttresses would be better employed supporting a heavy overhanging roof, to give weather protection to ventilation windows placed in between the buttresses. The food within could then be stored cool, but dry.

 

Maybe if the building and farming professions were given academic status Archaeologists would then consult them to assess the nature of excavated buildings, rather than developing unrealistic theories based on inadequate practical knowledge of the remains they uncover.

[sylla]

Jordanes for instance wrote a history of the Goths, his own ancestors, in AD551. It's actually a summary of another larger work that no longer survives, and Jordanes had only three days to complete it.

That's actually not what Jordanes stated:

 

"Still -- and let me lie not -- I have in times past read the books a second time by his steward's loan for a three days' reading".

[sylla]

I believe archaeologists could learn from historians in this respect, and as theirs is a practical science, maybe consult modern day practitioners to formulate their theories. I will give one example: It has become canon that Roman granaries were buttressed to strengthen against outward pressure from stored grain, as both Birley and La Bedoyere state in their respective books about Hadrian's Wall.

 

A friend of mine who is a builder states this is a preposterous idea, given that the granary walls are already 2 feet thick without the buttresses and that Victorian retaining walls considerably thinner secure high earthen bankings, sometimes topped by a railway. He further states that outward pressure from stored materials would only be an issue if the building was loaded from the top, with a crane! In the same discussion, another friend - a farmer - stated that the buttresses would be better employed supporting a heavy overhanging roof, to give weather protection to ventilation windows placed in between the buttresses. The food within could then be stored cool, but dry.

 

Maybe if the building and farming professions were given academic status Archaeologists would then consult them to assess the nature of excavated buildings, rather than developing unrealistic theories based on inadequate practical knowledge of the remains they uncover.

Why were then Roman granaries buttressed?