Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:28:25.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Methods and Aims in Prehistory: Presidential Address for 1935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

V. Gordon Childe
V. Gordon Childe*
Affiliation:
Abercromby Professor of Prehistoric Archœology in the University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is the first Presidential Address to be delivered before our Society since it has become the Prehistoric Society without qualification. It seems therefore appropriate to choose in preference to any particular problem the general topic of the aims and methods of our science. The last ten years have witnessed an extraordinary increase in the data available to the prehistorian and a remarkable expansion in the field he must survey. For this very reason we have been led to a revaluation of the methods and concepts to be employed in the interpretation of our material. To arrange and classify data pouring in from every corner of the world parochial categories that worked well enough for local collections can no longer serve.

Prehistoric archaeology has twin roots and a dual function; it tries on the one hand to prolong written history backward beyond the oldest literary records, on the other to carry natural history forward from the point where geology and palaeontology would leave it. In practice prehistoric remains were first systematically studied with a view to supplementing the information about Celts, Druids, Britons, Picts and Germans provided by ancient authors. But it was the union with geology after the acceptance of Boucher de Perthe's discoveries that made prehistory a science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 1 , 1935 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 Musée préhist., 1881, revised 1902.

page 3 note 1 Studier öfver den yngre stenaldern.

page 3 note 2 Ant. J., II, p. 27 Google Scholar.

page 4 note 1 Cf. Menghin, , W.P.Z., xiv, p. 31 Google Scholar.

page 4 note 2 Appendix to the 3rd edition of Hoerncs' Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst.

page 5 note 1 L'Anthr., XXXIII–XXXIV. The idea of distinct cultures is however already implicit in his famous ‘Subdivisions.’ C.I.P., Geneva, 1912, p. 173 Google Scholar.

page 5 note 2 Man, XXVI, 6 Google Scholar.

page 5 note 3 Proc. P.S.E.A., V, p. 260 Google Scholar.

page 5 note 4 Archaeology of Cambridge Region, p. 18.

page 7 note 1 J.R.A.I., LVII, p. 22 Google Scholar; cf. de Pradenne, Vayson, Antiquity, IX, p. 309 Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1 Op. cit.

page 8 note 2 Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit, pp. 154, 270.

page 8 note 3 Man, XXXV, 89 Google Scholar.

page 9 note 1 J.R.A.I., LXII, p. 1 Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1 Antiquity, I, p. 280 Google Scholar; cf. Karslake, in Ant. J., XIII, p. 458 Google Scholar.

page 13 note 1 Ancient Egypt and the East, June, 1935.