The combination of historical research from primary sources, a sophisticated for the time theoretical framework, and the bold statements of intent make it a vital starting point for the collection of papers, as well as a fascinating study in its own right — remarkable in particular given the dry political and legal subject matter. Murray convincingly ties the history of the Act to a variety of trends: the evolution of archaeological epistemology; and the links between this and other developments and the drive for heritage preservation p.
He argues that the passage of the Act highlights the acceptance of prehistoric archaeology into the intellectual mainstream as well as the impact of emerging ideas of race and nation. The study of the Act involves a theme that I have struggled with for some time: the roles of public understanding and assent in disciplinary knowledge claims; the degree to which we can study these attitudes retrospectively; and their place within intellectual histories.
Murray returns to these themes in Chapter 5 on archaeology and European identity, noting the problem faced by social scientists in questioning concepts such as race and ethnicity that are popularly regarded as natural rather than constructed.
Murray scolds archaeologists for underestimating the ontological and epistemological uniqueness of our subject. I would argue that the public have an instinctive if only partial grasp of this distinctiveness, and that it forms part of the basis of popular fascination with the human past and the archaeological process. However this underestimates the intellectual value of a collection whose contributors are almost as distinguished a group as its subjects a few such as Grahame Clark and Lewis Binford are both.
The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism.
The critical method in speech, like the critical method in any other dis- cipline, consists of making reasoned judgments based on certain standards of excellence. In our field the object of criticism has most commonly been a speech, play, or poem; a speaker, actor, or reader. The major types of biblical criticism are: 1 textual criticism, which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text, 2 philological criticism, which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period, 3 literary criticism.
Critique is a somewhat formal word that typically refers to a careful judgment in which someone gives an opinion about something. Review can refer to an essay analyzing a literary or artistic work, but can also sometimes imply a more casual or personal opinion.
The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. These archetypal features not only constitute the intelligibility of the text but also tap into a level of desires and anxieties of humankind. That may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events that the text describes.
The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel. Related to source criticism is redaction criticism which seeks to determine how and why the redactor editor put the sources together the way he did.
Unlike its parent discipline, form criticism, redaction criticism does not look at the various parts of a narrative to discover the original genre. Instead, it focuses on how the redactor shaped and moulded the narrative to express theological and ideological goals. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Historical evidence is derived from historical data by the process of criticism, which is of two types-external and internal. Similarly, the demand of Leopold von Ranke that historians should seek to establish 'wie es eigentlich gewesen war' through thorough and detailed archival research has a clear resonance with the ethos of antiquarian scholarship expressed by the 18th-century antiquarian, Richard Gough: 'The arrangement and the proper use of facts', he wrote, 'is history'.
In our post-modern age historians have less confidence in their ability to 'recover' the past with empirical certainty, but it is still possible to trace the influence of antiquarian thinking and methodology upon the historical discipline. They collect evidence methodically; they use comparative analysis; they often but not invariably believe that their data reflects the objective reality of the past; and like antiquarians of the past, they define their discipline as a 'science'.
In earlier periods, critics, poured scorn on antiquarians because they were interested in the most humdrum remains of the material past: a rusty stirrup, fragments of clothing, medical recipes or children's toys.
Such items, antiquarians believed, shed light on the 'manners and customs' of the past. Today we can recognise this early interest in the customs, habits and dress of 'ordinary' people as one of the foundation stones of social history. The legacy of antiquarianism also lives on in the field of family history. Genealogical studies were always a key element of antiquarian research and were crucial in establishing legal rights to property in cases of disputed inheritance or in demonstrating the antiquity of one's family lineage, at a time when social status was much more dependent on birth and ownership of land.
Family historians today owe a debt of gratitude to the researches of earlier antiquarians and share much of their methodology and their sources. But the family historian is not the modern equivalent of the 18th- or 19th-century antiquarian. Rather, they are generally motivated by the desire to discover something about where their family came from.
The need to establish the rights of inheritance to property or the antiquity of one's family has lost the pressing urgency which originally gave rise to this branch of study. Similarly, antiquarianism has always had strong links with the study of local history. Antiquarians is the mixture of archaeology and philology. The Antiquary is a homelier and more modest person. One will see him hunting old curiosity shops and old book stalls. Antiquarianism could not be called a science; it prepared the way for science.
It is a study, a recreation, an amusement or a hobby, but even thus it has its uses and pleasures. Antiquarians can be anyone who hold the knowledge of history, or have a library of old books, but they are not archaeologists.
Archeologist deals with the study of ancient times. It provides an insight into the ancient times by analyzing the remained materials belonging to that time. Archaeometry — Artifact analysis, remote sensing, and radiocarbon dating like techniques are used in this field. Antiquarians mainly focus on history.
Difference between Archaeologist and Antiquarian.
0コメント