|
 Study of history Indian Museum Articles
uncovered much information on historic societies that they have left behind some other form of
ancient evidence and also have written records.
Historical archaeology remains an essential method
of inquiry to supplement, support and at times
overturn documentary evidence. Historical archaeologists try to discover the fabric of everyday life in
the past and try to find the broader historical
progress of their own and other societies.
The most visible
branch of historical archaeology is Egyptology,
the study of history and archaeology of Egypt,
but other sub-disciplines recognized in their
own right for conventional archaeology and Assyriology,
which study the ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamia,
respectively. Industrial archaeology studies 18th
and 19th century buildings in Europe and the United
States, whilst there have also been archaeological studies of World War II defenses.
The problem is
that ancient records do not cover all topics equally.
Literacy was often preserves upper classes, such
as the clergy and aristocracy. The general population
made few records of there own, those made less
likely to be preserved. The literate classes were,
understandably, primarily concerned with recording
their own interests. Many topics of interest to
recent scholars such as economic history and religious
history were widely taken for granted and not
described in records.
Not all records
that were written in antique have been preserved.
Much of the knowledge of the Roman Empire was
vanished during the early on Middle Ages, before
Europe took a renewed interest in its ancestors.
In addition, many of the ancient records that
have survived are not primary sources. For example,
the works of Cristobel's, the historian who accompanied
Alexander the Great on his campaigns, were mostly
destroyed within a few centuries and supplanted
by the writings of later scholars who used him
as a source.
Finally, written
sources are not always truthful. Those who write
about history usually have some personal involvement
in that, and they may to bend the truth to cast
them in a more positive light. On the other hand,
it is practically impossible to systematically
distort the archaeological personal involvement
in that, and they may to distort the truth to
cast themselves in a more positive light. On the
other hand, it is practically impossible to systematically
distort the archaeological record so as to imply
events that never occurred. |
