(b) What is the difference between an archaeologist and a historian?
Answers
The difference between these two disciplines derives from the source materials: historians use written sources while archaeologists concentrate on physical remains . Archaeology is challenging results made by the historical research.
Answer:
of both archaeology and history is the research of the human past. The difference between these two disciplines derives from the source materials: historians use written sources while archaeologists concentrate on physical remains. Historical sources are committed to dates while archaeological material is basically connected to spatial origin. This basic difference explains why historians and archaeologists have difficulties in understanding each other.
The number of archaeological findings has risen very fast. On the ground of this material it is possible to make convincing analyses of the past on different levels, not only of single finds or sites but on a regional or even global level too. Archaeology is challenging results made by the historical research.
By combining the sources and methods of these two disciplines historical archaeology can offer a much more holistic and thorough view, a deeper understanding of the past than either archaeology or history alone.
11.30-12.00 Liisa Seppänen, Turku: When Archaeology met History: some remarks of the practical and theoretical symbiois of the two disciplines in Finland
In 1984, the Provincial Museum of Turku published a series with the title Historical Archaeology in Finland. The publication was based on a symposium, which aimed to acknowledge the important role of urban archaeology both in the discipline of history as well as in archaeology. In the past twenty years, historical archaeology has established its role in many ways as a field of specialization both in universities and institutions conducting excavations in Finland.
The aim of this presentation is to discuss the role of historical archaeology especially in the studies of Finnish urban history. Having graduated and worked both in the fields of History and Archaeology I am presenting some practical experiences how history and archaeology are confronted and combined in both of these sectors. Some possibilities on a more balanced relationship between
Investigations of the Xiongnu steppe empire (209 BCE – 98 CE) have struggled with a so-called conundrum of its later period, when a supposed fragile polity declined steadily after conflict with the Chinese yet simultaneously burgeoned with far-reaching and flourishing economic networks and unprecedented monumental constructions. While archaeological remains have often been the proverbial handmaiden to augment historical narratives, they may also challenge notions of political developments dominated by outside historical perspectives. At the same time, historical knowledge of particular social components, constituents, and circumstances, may be used to critique reconstructions of polities based solely on material remains. In the case of the Xiongnu, an empirical integration of history and archaeology engender what Andrén called a ‘new context’ for understanding the past – a paradigm that may seem incongruous to narratives based on texts or materials alone but nonetheless provides an avenue for a more dynamic understanding of the steppe empire.
The proposed lecture shows how historic‐archaeological dialogues contribute to a broader understanding of the Roman private bath. Written sources and their contexts are important evidence when describing actual situations within archaeological space, and contribute to alternative interpretations both on the use of built environments and perceptions of space in past societies.
Bathing was an important cultural activity in the Roman Empire, and baths are potential sources of information on Roman social life and structures. Also in private settings baths played important sociological roles. These baths, as found in the Pompeian domus, are seen as sociological structures of Roman society, and the rituals performed within them are connected with the material remains of the baths. Rituals of bathing and empirical sources are seen together as they form a duality, each a precondition and a product of the other.
One of many different aspects of the contextual meeting of history and archaeology is the challenge of making history take place. History in archaeological research often seems to be a rather unproblematic task, delivering personalia and other sorts of trivia. At the same time, space is an un-developed aspect of most historical research.
Starting with a few case studies, i.e. the construction of artisan plots in early modern Jönköping and Kalmar; we would like to stress two points. The first one is the importance of making archaeological record able, by a firm chronology, to meet the written records on equal terms. The second one is the effects on historical interpretations; when information extracted from written sources meets the spatial realities on the ground it will change the way social and cultural history is told.
A further issue, just to be hinted in our paper, is the question however this is also a way of tracing the acts and doings of the individuals and thus better understand historical agency.