History deals with written records and events after writing is established. Archaeology deals with physical remnants and events before language is written. They deal with pictographs instead of alphabetized writing systems.
I wasn’t aware of that distinction, and I don’t think that’s exactly correct as a distinction. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Archeology just means the study of ancient-- things. Artifacts and features. This can, and does include ancient writings, some of which we are still trying to decipher.
Many ancient civilizations had complex writing systems-- the Mayan language, archeologists discovered among ancient ruins, but didn’t understand. Inside temples they found manuscripts inscribed with a collection of squared glyphs, or symbols. Over time we learned that a series of circles and lines represented numbers. By deciphering the script, archaeologists were able to trace the ancestry of Mayan kings and discover how Mayan culture functioned—how they were governed, how they traded with some neighbors and went to war with others, what they ate, and what gods they worshipped.
Similarly, archeologists studying ancient ruins in Egypt had to decipher hieroglyphics before they could make sense of some artifacts found in magnificent tombs. Archeologists in Rome study Latin manuscripts… and so on.
I don’t think there is any requirement that the physical remnants be from an era before written language.
It seems that you are negating the fact that some of those ancient artifacts that archeologists study, are written records-- physical evidence that include writings.
PICTOGRAPHS.
Every professional organizations for both occupations makes these distinctions. Distinctions are also made between archaeologists and paleontologists.
Think of history and archaeology as cousins. Not the same parents, but similar dna.
That doesn’t address the point I was making which refutes the distinction you are making.
To clarify— you indicated that the difference between archaeology and history is this>>>
History deals with written records and events after writing is established. Archaeology deals with physical remnants and events before language is written.
I’m simply asking if that’s a true statement, or if perhaps you misspoke?
History primarily relies on written records and documents to understand past events, beginning with the advent of written language. Archaeology, on the other hand, focuses on the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation and analysis of physical remains such as artifacts, buildings, and environments.This includes periods before the development of written language, where archaeologists rely on evidence like pictographs and other forms of visual communication to reconstruct past societies and events.
1 Like
Welcome to Crosswalk Fiass.
I get that there are differences, but often with very little distinction between these studies. Human history can be broadly included in anthropology, which can and does include archeology, and so on… We then analyze all of these factors in a scientific stew made up of many parts that we call “context” in the historical record.
It seems ludicrous to exclude archeology from history-- we find ancient (arche) ruins, but no written record. Whatever happened there, and whoever built it are certainly a part of human history-- despite there being no written record.
The pictographs you mention are a good example. We find cave drawings that are concrete records of human history-- so why make some sort of distinction and exclusion?
Archaeology is in the same area as sociology and anthropology. History is not.
I don’t make up these distinctions. Consult with the National Association of Historians or one of the other associations for either discipline.
Historians can “write” about people and events who lived before written records.
For example, you can write about artifacts, like the stone tools “pre-historic man” used for farming or making weapons. It’s part of history… our history.
What you seem to be hung up on should be considered pre-literary history.
History is history-- the past that exists with, or without written records. It’s simply the study of past events.
Hate how every century is condensed down to one major event.
Hi,
So are hieroglyphs history as they are a form of writing? Or are they archeology as they are physical remnants as they use pictures, rather than words, to communicate their message?
Hieroglyphs are cool. Some dude in ancient pre-writing history, thought the message he chiseled on the wall would be important to us in his future.
Just think of the time and effort he put into ttose glyphs. All done so we would know this very important information.
China develop a series of characters as their form of writing. They become standardized around 200-100 BC.
The Phonecciians are credited with the first complete working alphabet. ( I do not remember the date. )
So what’s my point?
Writing is that unique skill that crossed from archeology to History.
Blessings
They are pictographs, and belong to Archaeology, and it’s subspecialty, Egyptology.
A few sources from professionals:
Archaeology and history. Two different views of the past_META 2015
“The aim 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 the study of the ancient and recent human past through material remains. Archaeologists might study the million-year-old fossils of our earliest human ancestors in Africa. Or they might study 20th-century buildings in present-day New York City. Archaeology analyzes the physical remains of the past in pursuit of a broad and comprehensive understanding of human culture. "- Society for American Archaeology
"Professional historians—people with some advanced training in the discipline of history—bring a particular and often-misunderstood set of skills to the task of learning about the past. They gather and weigh different kinds of evidence, including primary sources (documents or recollections from the time period being studied), material artifacts, and previous scholarship (secondary sources). Using these sources, they work toward careful, often provisional interpretations of what was happening and why at a given time.
Above all, historians are trying to understand how and why things change over time. This isn’t a matter of simply pinpointing causes and outcomes, but of considering different contexts and time scales for interpreting the available facts."- National Council on Public History