Darwin-L Message Log 4:4 (December 1993)

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

This is one message from the Archives of Darwin-L (1993–1997), a professional discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.

Note: Additional publications on evolution and the historical sciences by the Darwin-L list owner are available on SSRN.

<4:4>From fisk@midway.uchicago.edu  Wed Dec  1 18:19:58 1993

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 18:23:22 CST
From: magnus fiskesjo <fisk@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: hist of archaeology

On Hobbes and Locke, and their view of the original condition of Men, I wish
to thank Messieurs Kenny and Richardson for their lucid comments. By the way,
I have also located an interesting (or so it seems) book entitled SOCIAL
SCIENCE AND THE IGNOBLE SAVAGE by a certain mr. Meek. It discusses precisely
these issues and was issued in 1975, I believe, by Cambridge University
Press - you may all wish to take a look at it. Any comments on that book? (I
have barely started it myself). - However this barely addresses my original
question, which was whether one might say that archaeology developed
differently at least in part due to the relative strength of enlightenment
thinking on unilinear evolution from bad to good, which appears COMMON to
both Locke and Hobbes, as well as to certain Frenchmen of the enlightened
era, as opposed to the Everyone-has-their-own-culture-and-it-is-equally-'good'
approach of Herder. I am still trying to find out just how Herderian Danes such
as Thomsen and Worsaae were when they invented what they invented of Danish and
European archaeology. Any comments?

Magnus Fiskesjo
Univ of Chicago

Your Amazon purchases help support this website. Thank you!

© RJO 1995–2022