History/Archaeology: Similarities And Differences?

Question

How is archaeology and history similar, how is it different?

Thus far, I've come up with the following:

Similar:

* Both are interested in and study the past

* Both assist with deciphering/recreating the past

Different:

* History studies the past via text and other documents, while Archaeology studies the past via excavations and artifacts

Anything else? Thanks for the help!

Answer 1

The difference you mention - history studies documents while archaeology studies excavations - is not so much true.  There is a field of archaeology called 'Historical Archaeology' in which documents are used to locate sites to begin with as well as to add context to preexisting excavations.  Any subdiscepline of anthropology is thoroughly muddled in any number of other disciplines.  

I prefer to believe that the distinguishing characteristic of archaeology is that it involves itself with reconstructing a culture, elements of a culture, or even just the everyday life of a group of people or an individual.  History, on the other hand, examines political and societal trends, the ruling elite and dates.  

An oversimplified way of looking at it is that history studies events while archaeology examines the people behind the events.

Answer 2

As an individual with degrees in both history and archaeology, I feel compelled to answer your question.

Yes, both disciplines deal with the past.  There are different kinds of archaeology.  As previously mentioned, there is prehistoric archaeology, classical archaeology, and historic archaeology.  All of these rely on the hard science of physical excavation, and the hard evidence of artifacts.  

Prehistoric archaeology covers the time of a given culture before written historic records existed.  For example, ancient Egypt developed a writing system about 3100 BC  Prehistoric archaeology would be the discipline when examining artifacts or sites from before that time.  However, in North America, one can conduct prehistoric archaeology with artifacts that are less than two hundred years old.  The line is blurred at times, but the methodologies of archaeology are essentially the same in each instance of excavation.

I have worked with both prehistoric and historic archaeology in the Midwest USA.

Archaeological interpretation is limited to what can be proved.  Archaeology is considered to be the "hardest science" of the social sciences, as it relies on evidence.

History is a little different, as history relies on not only historical records, but also on perspective.  History is not limited to facts alone.  Why an event happenned, what caused it, and what its effects were are a matter of diverse opinion, sometimes wide deviations.  For example, December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor.  Ask American historians and Japanese historians about that date.  They will both tell you that Japan attacked the US Naval Fleet at Pearl Harbor.  Why it happenned is a different matter entirely.

Sometimes both fields can compliment one another, or even correct one another.  The Battle of Little Big Horn, or Custer's Last Stand, June 25, 1876.  Archaeological investigations at the battlefield site have corrected the historical account of the battle.  The last American soldiers, according to the historical accounts, were killed on last stand hill.  Archaeological evidence, and the historical accounts recorded by cultural anthropologists from the native american participants of the battle, contradicted the accepted history of the battle.

I love archaeology and history, but I became disenchanted with the academics of history, because I discovered in my bachelor's degree senior thesis that one event can have as many as sixteen official, and totally different, versions of one historical event.  I did pursue a master's degree in archaeology, and have worked in that field for several years before going to Asia to teach English.

I will most likely return to archaeology in the future.