History or Archaeology ?

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,510
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#3
Personally I tend to see archaeology as a research doctrine on the field. So that sure it comes first about ancient Egyptian symbols. Anyway once those symbols have understood their study becomes history.
 
Jun 2015
117
Canada
#4
I consider it to be both. History provides the background knowledge and archaeology provides a physical understanding of the subject.
 
Jun 2015
5,496
UK
#5
I'm not sure if history is deemed part of anthropology. If not then, it should be, since obviously it studies humanity. History is more terms of theories, discussion and discourse, whilst anthrology focuses on physical digs and gaining evidence.

The two are inherently linked though.
 

jehosafats

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
2,088
...
#6
The difference between archaeology and history may come down to style. Archaeology has strict working styles, like isochrestic (arbitrary but consistent style adaptations) and socioletic (a dialect associtated with a specific social group). Archaeologists have analogy on the mind. Historians do as well, but in much looser terms.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,510
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#7
We could also remind that archaeology is a support activity for history which can be used in any context. For example when on WW I battlefields archaeologists excavate to find helmets, personal objects, little things ... to draw a portrait of the common soldier, that's proper archaeology [even if some children who saw those battles can be still alive, above 100 ...] sustaining history [supplying clues and evidences to build a historical reading of the military population of that period].
 
Nov 2010
2,088
...
#8
I very much agree with notgivenaway. Both archaeology and history are two sides of the same coin. Anthropology is where they come together, which may account for much of the ambiguity in the field. It was revealed in a New York Times article not too long ago. When the American Anthropological Society can't decide whether to puruse their field in the name of science, or for "public understanding," the materialist conceptions of archaeology and history, its very limitations, come into stark relief.
 
Last edited:

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
#9
archaeology tends to be the study of the physical traces of the past. Anthropology is the study of people & cultures (past and present). History puts the two together in "what is it we think happened and why".
 
Jan 2012
390
South Midlands in Britain
#10
As someone involved in heritage matters it is fair to say that archaeology and history are different, yet complementary sides of the same coin.
To this can be added topography, geography, geology, linguistics and so on.
Archaeologists incline increasingly towards scientific solutions. Advances in environmental analysis has opened up whole new swathes of knowledge about the human past.
Historians on the other hand are very tied to written records.
To get the two working together can be quite a delight when you know the written history of a site, you can actually see the physical evidence coming out of the ground.
Both historians and archaeologists can get very arrogant about their subjects. I have walked off digs because the lead archaeologist is a bit thick about history and I have walked away from history projects as the lead historian is pursuing their own agenda rather than letting the evidence take them where they need to go.
All human life is there.
 

Similar History Discussions