my uncle was historian and professor of history who taught historic
methodology at university. If one of his students came to him to
propose Phd research on a prehistoric era, lets say the Battle Axe
People etc. he would refere him to the archaeological department. If a
historian starts studying grave goods, he would no doubt need
specialist archaeological knowledge. Numismatics, ie. the study of
coins is an auxiliary dicipline of history. There are always
multi-disciplinary approaches possible. Please remember this
discussion started as Bertil suggested that research by linguists is
of 'limited value' and that historians must take the first place in
the study of what are essentially pre-historic times. I say there is
no ranking of disciplines, multi-disciplinary approaches are possible
and you will find that a historian who wants to include pre-historic
sections in his research will more often than not have to rely on
archaeologists and linguists.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Philip Rusche" <ruschep@n...> wrote:
> > every discipline must have an object of research. Historians study
> > written documents. No documents - no history, nothing much to do
> > historian. Can, in your view, a historian research the history of
> > Neandertals? Let me answer that for you: No, he/she can't, not
> > it is so far back in time, but because there are no written
> > The same applies to any period which is 'pre-history'.
> This seems to me a fairly narrow definition of "historian."
> study many things besides written documents, e.g. coins, grave
> etc. I especially think excluding archaeology from the field of
> would find little favor with historians, whether the period is
> medieval, or before written documents are preserved. It doesn't
> aren't historians who study only written documents, but confining
> to them seems overly limiting.
> Philip Rusche
> (who isn't a historian either)
> > I have indeed never heard of the 'big-history' concept. Do feel
> > to enligthen us. Especially, historians may be interested to hear
> > about that.
> > As for my background, I am an academic with doctorate, so I am
> > familiar with scientific method, the discipline is not relevant
> > our dicussion. You have not given your background either, i.e.
> > university degree and discipline. Just 'writer' can mean anything.
> > Also, in the past you have tended to attack the competency of
> > scientists, (like calling Dahl's books of limited value
> > of their evidence, so I don't want to open myself to this line of
> > fire.
> > Dirk
> > --- In email@example.com, bertil <mvk575b@t...> wrote:
> > > Dirk,
> > >
> > > No, history deals with periods way
> > > behind the time when written records
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > The latest in this field is the so called
> > > "big history". It seems as if you are
> > > not quite abreast with the developments
> > > in this field which of course brings
> > > me back, even more curious, about your
> > > background. Let me at a future time return
> > > to the concept of "big history".
> > >
> > > Germanically
> > >
> > > Bertil
> > >
> > > > any student of history learns in his/her first lecture at
> > University
> > > > that the field of study of an historian is the historic era
> > > > humankind. And that the historic era starts whenever first
> > contemprary
> > > > written sources appear for that particular culture. Historian
> > > > historical sources to study, if there are no historical
> > > > study, they have to rely on evidence and interpretations
> > by
> > > > archaelogists, linguists and other disciplines. A historian
> > > > never try to write the history of pre-historic people. Perhaps
> > have
> > > > one or two historians on the list who could quickly confirm
> > You are a member of the Gothic-L list. To unsubscribe, send a
> to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
> > Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html