Are we ever going to recognise Archaeology and History should be one science?

Question

I want your thoughts, simplististic thinking to me is Archaeology needs Historical analysis to verify the results. History needs Archaeology to verify the analysis. =)

Archaeology needs History to interpret results may have been better. =)

So many are going on about labels given, expand your minds, please!! History is a science, it requires, evidence, test and evaluation

That's science in my opinion, *which i'm a good level in too!* open your minds. =)

That's a brilliant answer William Q!=) I'm an Archaeologist/Historian, think they're the same discipline, having studied both has increased my awareness and knowledge.

Once again, so many great answers, thanx. =)

I would say Archaeology is close kin to Forensic Science cutedervish and William Q, it uses various physical clues to create a picture. These physical clues are very capable of giving us a good idea of pre-history too.

Historical knowledge is useful for augmenting Archaeological deductions, History adds the flesh to Archaeology's bones. =)

Amazing answer Anarchy, you really understand what i'm saying!!! =)

You've offered a really good picture of how they relate to each other and more *pure* scientific disciplines.

I'm impressed. =)

Answer 1

In order to determine the history of such things or person. You do need science to verify. Not all history is found by witnesses or tales. Some things are left untold and we have to use science to uncover them, and determine the history of things.

For instance, if you found something that would belong to Duke Wellington or George Washington. Perhaps you want to use science to determine the authencity of such artifact.

Geologist can provide the history of a mountain by its research.

So I have to agree with Maenad to a degree.

Answer 2

why? they aren't the same thing at all. Very closely related, yeah, but not the same. Reliant on each other, but separate disciplines (I'm not sure History is a science--my degree is a BA in history)
History is what happened yesterday as much as what happened 500 years ago, or 2500 years ago. I can study original sources preserved in the archives of any library. Archaeology covers days long gone (more than 200 years) and has expanded history by finding lost civilizations that did have the written word that was eventually translated. I agree it also adds to the pre-historic (time before the written word) bank of knowledge.

Answer 3

Well, history is based on facts. And as we know, whomever writes something, monopolizes the historical point of view. We know a lot about Carthage, but from the Roman point of view, why? The Romans destroyed Carthage at the end of the third punic war, so any writings of carthagians writers were lost forever. When human beings invented a way to record their language, they started history. There is a written record of what actually happened. Witness accounts of events, biased often times, but recorded forever. Archaeology obviously validates history and viceversa whenever it is possible. In archaeology you must use conjectures many times. We have no idea of the "history" of any CroMagnon clan or Neandertal clan for example. We have to piece it together by the artifacts that they left behind. The paintings in caves for example, we think that they are religiously motivated, but there is no written record of the artist saying that. Not to diminish archaeology, but it is simply not equipped to answer those questions. Likewise, history cannot shed any light on that subject. When there are Archaeological records and historical records of an event, then the two complement each other, but humans only have around 6000 years of recorded history and there are many gaps in the historical record, still, they are both important and can survive independent of each other, thus, they are completely different disciplines that complement each other.

Answer 4

No - because they are not one science.

Most disciplines will rely on others - astronomy, for instance, relies heavily on mathematics, chemistry and physics and would not advance without them. It is nevertheless, a scientific discipline in its own right.

It is the same with history and archaeology. History can tell us where to dig and how to interpret the results. Archaeology can verify or disprove a historical theory.

Archaeology cannot provide analysis of all the other historical sources available to us (documents, buildings, photographs, etc) and history alone cannot provide us with hard evidence in the way that archaeology can (eg. what people ate, how they built their houses, etc).

They are inter-related but entirely separate disciplines.

Answer 5

Neither archaeology or history are scientific disciplines. Contary to what the archarologist may think, they are not scientists. They are people who use sceintific methods, but they themselves do not preform any science in the strict definitoin of the meaning of word sceince.

History is the study of what humans have accomplished over the last five thousand years.

You are correct in that these two fields need each other. An artifact without some cultural context of what or how it was used has no meaning. It becomes another paperweight.

Answer 6

History is not a science. Archaeology is a science based on evidence and does not need history for validation, although history can benefit from archaeology.

History can provide some context for archaeological finds that are not prehistoric - but it pays to remember that history is a narrative based on the perspective of the person or culture that's doing the writing.

Answer 7

Archaeology is a science, because it deals with artefacts, and the mechanics of getting them out of the ground, dating them etc. History is an art or humanity; it relies on the study of partisan texts and requires interpretation. History is WRITTEN (by the winners, usually). So no, we are never going to agree that black and white are the same thing.

Answer 8

Archeology is a science like History. Although its not like Statistics, but still it requires some solid expertise. An archeologist has to be a geograpther to know climate etc. A topographer to be able to plan. A chemist in order to deal with the chemical compounds necessary to check the newly found items. And finally a historian, if he wants to actually recognize the period etc. So ye, and archeologist has to be a well developed individual:)

Answer 9

Sorry, but it does NOT necessarily follow that because one is used to verify the other, that they must be the same. One can exist without the other as well. They are two separate entities. And since when has history been considered a science? I always thought it was a branch of the humanities.

Chow!!

Answer 10

For the recent 2,000 years, yes. However, History, by definition, is the study of the written story of Man. However, that began only 5,000 years ago. There's another 595,000 years of archeology before then. This is traditionally "Natural History", though it's almost closer to Zoology.