|
|
History and Archaeology Bulletin Board
|
2000
|
|
|
Re: History and Archaeology
Posted by jack elliott, mississippi department of archives and history on February 28, 2000 at 08:09:40:
In Reply to: History and Archaeology posted by Jim Brown on February 24, 2000 at 13:20:53:
it has become something of a cliche that history deals with only interpretations, whereas archaeology deals with the facts. i can rememember all the way back to my undergraduate years archaeologists contrasting themselves with historians. "poor historians, reduced to using written records which are all filled with biases and lies, whereas we deal with the facts, what really happened." as though buried artifacts spoke clearly and unambiguously! the naivete of this perspective is all to apparent now, although i suspect that many haven't yet realized it. all of reality has to be interpreted using a variety of symbolisms. to believe that you possess a methodology that gives a "clear and distinct" view of reality--simply "the facts" if you will--is to engage in self-deception.
regarding definitions of disciplines and disciplinary boundaries: we must always keep in mind that these are human constructs. in that we are enculturated into disciplines, where we not only learn methodologies and methods, but learn to identify with them, the notions of disciplines often tend to become reified, so that we overlook the often artificial nature of their existence. this is particularly apparent where disciplines and subdisciplines overlap in subject matter, e.g. archaeology, folklore, geography, history, and historical architecture. i have tried to avoid over-identification with any one discipline and simply use whatever data source or methodology is most applicable, realizing that the human mind and its constructs are the ultimate arbiter between reality and its interpretation. the more flexible we are in our thought then the more successful we are apt to be in our interpretations.
Follow Ups:
Back to Board
