What do archaeology, sociology and anthropology do against history?

Answer 1

If you are asking what is the difference between archeaology, sociology, and athropology as compared with history, I would say that there are three major differences.

1. Archaelogy, sociology, and anthropology are more specialized than history.
2. Sociology and anthropology (although obviously not archaeology) can and do imply a study of the past however they also study current societies. A historian for example would not study people´s plans to watch the 2006 world cup while a sociologist might.
3. Although there is debate amongst historians, history is traditionaly considered part of the humanities while the others are social sciences. This means that archaeology, sociology, and anthropology, to a greater or lesser extent, attempt to use the scientific method to create a hypothesis and test it, while a historian might suggest several possible explinations and provide supporting evidence, without trying to falsify the explination.

Answer 2

Archeology, and Anthropology are sciences. The facts presented by these sciences can be proven. Sociology and History are made up of stories about events. Mostly untrue and unproven stories. Example: President Kennedy's death. It occurred in front of thousands and was taped by several cameras, yet there is no consensus of what really happened. Now think about 1000 or 5000 year old stories and how many different ways they have been told.

Answer 3

History often tends to be limited to the use of primary written sources for reconstructing the past - though this is not always the case. Archaeology, sociology, and anthropology can provide additional information for historians in their reconstructions of the past and vice-versa or additional methods for evaluating their sources for accuracy or just for using those sources.

Answer 4

they keep proving it wrong

Answer 5

sometimes

Answer 6

They OBLITERATE it!