History or Archaeology ?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,307
Portugal
#11
Is understanding the meanings of Egyptian symbols as well as

ancient symbols

part of history or archaeology ?
As many here already stated: Both. And it’s a field of research of even more disciplines/sciences, some already stated here as Linguistics and Antropology...

The fields of study of the sciences are not hermetic, interdiscipliarity is one of the words of the moment, and that is even more true when to fields of research are so close, such the ones of history and archaeology.
 
Likes: bboomer
Feb 2013
4,243
Coastal Florida
#12
I see it a bit differently as these are all distinct disciplines.

History = study of all past events starting from the invention of writing
Anthropology = study of human interactions between themselves and their environment as well as their biology
Archaeology = study of human activity via material culture (often considered a branch of anthropology)

Strictly speaking, these all intersect and coincide for the period during which writing has coexisted with human activity. Otherwise, history doesn't exist (because it's explicitly associated with writing) and the others branch off on their own. Pre-History is the term used for the study of all past events before the invention of writing...but pre-history would intersect with Anthropology and Archaeology as well. Likewise, all other disciplines would follow the same pattern. For instance, linguistics is broader than history as a pure study of language but it would intersect with and coincide with history since the invention of writing.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,307
Portugal
#13
History = study of all past events starting from the invention of writing.
Allow me to disagree.

I know that this was the mainstream paradigm until the 19th century, so I am always surprised when today, on the 21st century people still say this, when history opened so much its field of study in the last 150 years.

The invention of writing doesn’t have a strict timeline, it was developed independently in several places, in several cultures, in different timelines. Cultures and civilizations with writing interacted with cultures and civilizations without writing, so the concept of Proto-history. Due to all this, and much more still to say, in the last century and half historians consider history, the study of the past of humankind, of the Man, the sources of history are not only the readable ones, are all, all the remains of the past can be considered relevant sources, and in many (most) of the areas of the study, there is interdisciplinary, there are no close and definitive borders between sciences/disciplines. Archaeology studies the material past of the man, both before and after the invention of the writing, so Archaeology has many touching points with History. Anthropology (and Sociology) study the present, not the past, that doesn’t mean that their methodologies and concepts can’t be applied to the past societies by History.
 
Feb 2013
4,243
Coastal Florida
#14
Allow me to disagree.

I know that this was the mainstream paradigm until the 19th century, so I am always surprised when today, on the 21st century people still say this, when history opened so much its field of study in the last 150 years.

The invention of writing doesn’t have a strict timeline, it was developed independently in several places, in several cultures, in different timelines. Cultures and civilizations with writing interacted with cultures and civilizations without writing, so the concept of Proto-history. Due to all this, and much more still to say, in the last century and half historians consider history, the study of the past of humankind, of the Man, the sources of history are not only the readable ones, are all, all the remains of the past can be considered relevant sources, and in many (most) of the areas of the study, there is interdisciplinary, there are no close and definitive borders between sciences/disciplines. Archaeology studies the material past of the man, both before and after the invention of the writing, so Archaeology has many touching points with History. Anthropology (and Sociology) study the present, not the past, that doesn’t mean that their methodologies and concepts can’t be applied to the past societies by History.
It depends on who you ask. I was giving the conventional meanings of these terms without adding a bunch of caveats. I know there is some variation in lexical meaning. However, dictionaries like Merriam-Webster still define the discipline as something that is "recorded". These terms may also vary regionally. For instance, it's interesting you say anthropology is confined to a study of the present. While I know anthropology can be a concern of the present, I've never heard of it being confined to it and that's definitely not the case here. At many universities you can specialize in archaeology but your degree will actually be for Anthropology because archaeology is often considered a subfield of anthropology and the program resides within their school of anthropology.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,307
Portugal
#15
It depends on who you ask. I was giving the conventional meanings of these terms without adding a bunch of caveats. I know there is some variation in lexical meaning. However, dictionaries like Merriam-Webster still define the discipline as something that is "recorded". These terms may also vary regionally. For instance, it's interesting you say anthropology is confined to a study of the present. While I know anthropology can be a concern of the present, I've never heard of it being confined to it and that's definitely not the case here. At many universities you can specialize in archaeology but your degree will actually be for Anthropology because archaeology is often considered a subfield of anthropology and the program resides within their school of anthropology.
I wasn’t talking about caveats, I was mentioning a restricted vision of history that is out of date for many (I can’t say most, since I never made a statistic about it) authors for probably more than a century, besides History as a science/discipline is a bit more than its lexical meaning interpreted by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, even so Merriam-Webster has a several definitions of the word that give us some clues, even for those that don’t have English as a mother language: Definition of HISTORY. But we can’t also forget that the meaning of the word and the science/discipline named with that word aren’t exactly the same thing.

As for the recorded part, there we could enter in caveats about the meaning of “recorded”. If it refers only to the written records or if we can consider any other type of record, and it is precisely here that I was pointing. To have history we need a source, a record, but not necessarily a written one.

As for Anthropology, is a bit out of my area, and I recognize that I was too strict about it in my last post, besides my choice of words was not the most fortunate, maybe to establish a clear distinction, since when Anthropology looks to the past (the field of Historical, including ethno-history and pre-historical Anthropology) it has common grounds with History (and Archaeology) and we are falling in the interdisciplinary that I mentioned previously and that is so essential in today’s research. When I studied it at an introductory level in my days as a student, I still recall its usual division in five fields as it was taught at the time, but I understand that the things are seen in a different way on the other side of the North Atlantic.
 

Similar History Discussions