Does disciplinary history matter? An introduction (2001)

Does disciplinary history n1atter? An introduction"Studying the history of our discipline is a n1ce pastime for :1 retired scholar, but an unsuitable job, and quite fi-ankly a waste of time, for a young practitioner", a German archaeologist once stJtecl when conf!-ontecl with the PhD research of one of the contributors to this volume.And indeed, one may ask, why study the history of :my discipline or, as specifically concerns us here, that of archaeology and palaeoanthropology in particular' And what kind of history, if any, should one pursue?Even a cursory glance at the few :waibble histories of arch:wology shows that there arc v:1st ditl"erences in approach between such (archaeologist-)authors ;~s Clynn Daniel and Al::tin Schnapp, or Bruce Trigger and Wiktor Stoczkowski. 1 Not surprisingly, scholars have ditTercnt views on how to approach the history of their discipline; therefore, the :wai!Jble histories of Jrchaeology, :1s few as there are, display a striking diversity in :1ppro:1ch and content.In Till' Crorl'th 0{ Biologiral nwrv.;!Jt, Ernst Mayr, one of the most intluential biologists of the ?Oth century, proposed a classification of the v;Hious historical approaches, which in concrete studies are mostly combined, although one usu:dly dominates."Although this cbssification is nor exhaustive, it may be of some use when reading the historical exercises in the present volume.Lcxicoy,mphir histories display :1 strong emphasis on \X/lnt, When and \X/here questions, and generally yield very descriptive accounts of what: happened in the p:1st.Chrouolo,~ical his10rics consider time sequences -\vhar h:1ppencd ro biology in the 1 Hrh :1nd 19th centuries-whereas [Jioi,zraplliral his1orics aim to portr:1y the history of science through the lives of leading scientists.Cullllral aud soriolo,~;ical histories stress rhar science is a humJn endeavour and hence insep:1rable from contemporary v:1lues and instimtional milieus.They emphasize extern:d L1etors that influence the over:11l scientitlc <lcrivity in a period and bring about the popularity and demise of specific theories.Prohlcnwlic hi.ilorics, finally, study the development of sciences in terms of attempts to solve problems, :1nd origins of :md changes in key conceptu31 issues.Such :111 appro:1eh acknowledges the longevity of earlier concepts, and sees the study of the history of :1 discipline as one way of evaluating current conceptual structures and research practices and reformulating them productively.It is an approach that stresses the heuristic value of historical studies and that sGmds diamctriully opposite the :1pproach often more or less explicidy present in archaeology textbooks, where one encounters a showcase view of the past: the past is over and done with; it can be isobted and put 011 dispby in a showose, where it illustrates the long ;md ditTicult ro:1d that our ancestr:d colleagues had to roil along ro get us where we arc now -a road full of errors, fiT:1k opinions and bizarre' conCL'Ph finally discarded, curiosities that can be studied by histori-Jns, including sciemiflc sins that should be catalogued so th;1t they nuv be a\'oided in the future.According to the histori:1n Llibbe, showCJse views 'musealize' the ]Xl't, and the past serves to diHerenti;lte traditional, outdated archaeological practices fiom cwrem solid ones, and to legitimize current practices by giving them a respecubk ancestry.'D:micl 1 ')67; Schn:1pp 1'J'J(,; Trigger 1 '!X'!; Sroczkowski l'J')-1.!VLtyr I'JX2.'-'J.Ltihlw I 'J77.