anthropology vs. history
Tedd
tedd.
Trotter960
>opinions on archaeology as anthropology versus archaeology as history.
No thanks.
Inger E. Johansson
news:O5_Ba.2073$Qz6....@news.uswest.net
> opinions on archaeology as anthropology versus archaeology as history.
>
> tedd.
I know I am going to make some people mad,
can't help it....
here it goes -
Definition from OED:
Anthropology - Science of man; study of man as an animal(Physical ~) and
of human, esp. primitive, societies (social ~)
Archaeology - Study of ancient cultures throught their material remains;
industrial ~, study of machinery etc. formerly used in industry.
History - Continues methodical record, in order of time, of importan or
public events; study of formation and growth of communities and nations;
whole train of events connected with particular country, person, thing
etc; past events in general; course of human affairs; ancient ~, history
usu.reckoned as ending with fall of TRoman Empire AD 476; (joc.) thing
that is out of date or long past. 2. Systematic account of set of
natural phenomena(rare exc in natural ~)
That refered I don't think I have to remind an Archaeologist that he has
physical evidence to interpret and relate to other artifacts he know of,
or
to remind the Historian that he have to analyse, interpret,transcribe,
translate
and relate to other texts he know of.
Problem for Anthropologist is that many of them in the past have leaned
to much on other scholars assumptions, thesis,
conclusions from a mix of disciplines.
AXIOM:
Objectivity is an ideal impossible to reach.
An observer today can’t be assumed to have same norms and associations
as the person who wrote a script or created an item long ago. Any given
interpretation of a symbolic act or an artifact is always interpreted
from the observer’s own norms.
© IE Johansson The Greenlanders and North America manuscript 2002-03(to
be published during next year.)
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG