So if the study of history is mostly done through analysis of documents, both primary and otherwise how does the actual physical record left behind by cultures factor into the way that study? Is there a lot of dialogue between these disparate fields or are they both working on different images of the same past?
There are nearly as many answers to this question as there are historians. I stand between fields with degrees in history and a BA in Anthropology, but with an emphasis in folklore. As a state historic preservation officer, I funded archaeological field schools for twenty years and I moved my share of dirt and worked with archaeologists in the lab and in the writing of reports, so I have had an opportunity to see the two fields and how practitioners view one another.
I wrote my 2012 book, Virginia City: Secrets of a Western Past, as a call to action for both historians and archaeologists to work more closely together. I am pleased to be the fourth in a series instituted by the Society of Historical Archaeology (and the U of Nebraska Press) and even more pleased to be the first non-archaeologist published in the series.
My epilogue delves into the question of how archaeologists and historians can benefit from one another's work. It goes without saying that many do in fact work together, but for every historians who does, there is another who does not. I don't have the final copy-edited version of my book as a word document, but this pre-edited excerpt gives you a hint of what I was after, and perhaps it will be of some use:
Many disciplines besides archaeologists deal with material culture, and each represents a chance to consider former times in a new light. Architectural historians, textile and furniture experts, and scholars who consider cemeteries also draw insight from various types of objects, but obstacles divide rather than unite. For the past century, the university system has promoted divisions between the disciplines that study humanity. The proliferation of publications makes the task of mastering the bibliography of just one discipline a lifelong journey. It is a daunting suggestion that those who study the past should be Renaissance scholars, traversing seldom-used bridges to master other methods. But such an approach is not impossible, and it is always rewarding.
Perhaps the greatest benefits and challenges exist in the collaboration between archaeologists and historians. Proponents of both disciplines are known to refer to those of the other camp as antiquarians, dismissing rival efforts as without meaningful conclusions. This sort of judgment is grounded in the two different methods used to present insights.
Traditionally, historians tackle the past without the scientific method. They immerse themselves in the sources and in what others have already written on the subject, until an image of the past emerges. All historians approach their subjects with preconceptions and many have axes to grind, but in general, they reserve interpretation until they have surveyed the written record with as much objectivity as possible. Without an initial set of questions, research can lack efficiency, but there is a difference between spending the time of one historian and that of an excavation team followed by a cadre of lab workers. Making the process cost effective is less of an issue when a single person deals with the written record.
Also, historians are trained to blend their interpretations into the telling of the story, and they are often slow to reveal their arguments in so many words. Historians build their cases much like journalists do. Most disguise the fact that they are advancing a position by leading with the information and cloaking the argument. Of course, all of this is based on generalizations that can be unfair when considering individuals. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that history is more closely bound to the humanities, and when it comes to the style of presentation, its practitioners lean toward literature more than scientific discourse. The historiographical conversation is folded into the pages. Fellow historians recognize the debate, cheering those in their camp or bristling against the stands of opponents. And all this goes on in a way that is usually invisible to the uninformed reader, who believes that a published history is merely a fair and balanced portrait of the past without a point of view. But when it comes to humanity, nothing is truly fair and balanced, and there is always a point of view.
Archaeologists, on the other hand, can use a ream of paper to describe a site and its artifacts, purposefully presenting the information in the most clinical of ways without any interpretation. The conclusion is a tidy section at the end. This is part of a scientific inheritance that historians do not share. Historians look at the extensive descriptions of artifacts and are surprised that there is no subtle interpretation woven into the text. Because it is possible to turn to a weighty summary of insights gained, learning from the archaeologist stresses efficiency, while gleaning from the historian requires a time-consuming digestion of the entire volume.
Both disciplines are trained to interpret. We call ourselves, depending on our home, humanists or social scientists, divided from the outset like two halves of the brain that fail to communicate. Still, there is more common ground than might be obvious at times. Neither of the proponents, as a group, is guilty of antiquarianism, the documentation of a lot of information without promoting a better understanding of the past. But because presentation styles are different, each looks at the work of the other and too often sees a great deal of description without any reflection on its meaning. Understanding this basic difference can go a long way toward building a bridge between the disciplines.
Great question.
I have to acknowledge my program is pretty unusual in this regard - the senior professor in medieval history here runs a program called "The Science of the Human Past." He's very much into archaeology, climatology, and paleo-DNA analysis as important sources for exploring the medieval past. I myself am the managing editor of one of his projects, the Digital Atlas of Roman and Medieval Civilization (DARMC), which works in close collaboration with archaeologists and climate scientists to produce and analyze spatial data.
Medieval historians are only just beginning to be aware of the necessity of utilizing archaeology in their work, and many still ignore it completely. It is, however, necessary. Often site excavations, climate science, etc. can completely overturn things we thought were incontrovertible from the written sources.
It also has to do with the academic tradition in which you were breed. For example, here in the United States archaeology is lumped with the greater endeavor of anthropology because of our boasian roots. By the time anthropology was institutionalized, history was well establish in Academia. However, in other places like Mexico, Archaeology and anthropology is lumped with history because of the specific agenda behind the institutionalization of the study of the past, which was under the vail of constructing a national agenda. Therefore, regardless of methodology, in Mexico history and archaeology are seen as having a "love affair" whereas this would be seen as questionable in the states just because of the developmental history of the institutionalization of the disciplines
I have to employ anthropological perspectives (including archaeological, which is grouped with that in the US) in my work. Africanists generally do. The result is that there is little discursive daylight between my friends in Anthropology or Sociology (or Folklore!) and I. In many ways I am closer to them than I am to other historians.
I work in an archive and have my master's in history, so I have had run ins with a few archeologists, anthropologists, and other various disciplines since the use of primary sources isn't strictly relegated to the field of history. I don't know much about those other fields, but I gather the difference between us and them is methodology; As social scientists they are interested in formulating and utilizing general models, which have a certain degree predictability. Historians are much more narrative and generally confine themselves to specific events or a periods of time. We aren't interested in predictive models.
hi! you'll find more responses in these threads
How do historians view archeologists, and vice versa?
Historians -- how do you use the work of anthropologists? Or do you?