As the title suggests, if a historian were to study in a particular scientific field to complement his history degree, which field of science would be best? The historian's study in this particular field can be either self-taught, or involve actually getting a second degree.
Branches of science that I would think would be very useful for historians include, in no particular order:
1) Biology, especially genetics. The field of genetics has advanced so rapidly over the past few decades that it is becoming an almost indispensable tool for historians. Genetics offers the most objective means of determining and mapping past migrations, and is capable of decisively settling such heated historical topics as the Indo-Aryan expansion into India, whether or not ancient Egyptians were "black" and/or were similar to modern Egyptians, and the degree to which the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain involved assimilation of pre-existing natives as opposed to physical settlement of Germanic people on lands previously occupied by Britons.
2) Linguistics. I am not sure if this considered a "science" or not, but nonetheless, languages can tell us so much about a society and its past that a basic knowledge of linguistics should be required for every historian. For example, we are able to reconstruct the material culture, religion, and marriage customs of Proto-Indo-European people simply on the basis of comparing and contrasting current and historic Indo-European languages. This is a remarkable feat considering that we aren't even sure where or when exactly the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived.
3) Anthropology, more specifically physical anthropology and the related field of comparative osteology. An examination of skeletons from a particular time period can yield a great deal of useful information, such as frequency of warfare and violence (if many skeletons are found with fractures associated with sword or axe wounds, for example), and the diet and general nutritional health of a population (which can be discerned from average height of skeletons, as well as from the condition of teeth and other bones).
4) Chemistry and metallurgical sciences. A working knowledge of nuclear chemistry is useful for any historian, especially an ancient historian, given that so much of ancient chronology is dependent on C-14 dating. A basic knowledge of metallurgy is useful due to the great importance that metals had for human societies since the end of the Neolithic, to the extent that technological states are named after the dominant metal used (Chalcolithic Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age).
These are just a few that immediately came to mind. Do you agree with this list? What other sciences would be useful for a historian to be familiar with?
Branches of science that I would think would be very useful for historians include, in no particular order:
1) Biology, especially genetics. The field of genetics has advanced so rapidly over the past few decades that it is becoming an almost indispensable tool for historians. Genetics offers the most objective means of determining and mapping past migrations, and is capable of decisively settling such heated historical topics as the Indo-Aryan expansion into India, whether or not ancient Egyptians were "black" and/or were similar to modern Egyptians, and the degree to which the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain involved assimilation of pre-existing natives as opposed to physical settlement of Germanic people on lands previously occupied by Britons.
2) Linguistics. I am not sure if this considered a "science" or not, but nonetheless, languages can tell us so much about a society and its past that a basic knowledge of linguistics should be required for every historian. For example, we are able to reconstruct the material culture, religion, and marriage customs of Proto-Indo-European people simply on the basis of comparing and contrasting current and historic Indo-European languages. This is a remarkable feat considering that we aren't even sure where or when exactly the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived.
3) Anthropology, more specifically physical anthropology and the related field of comparative osteology. An examination of skeletons from a particular time period can yield a great deal of useful information, such as frequency of warfare and violence (if many skeletons are found with fractures associated with sword or axe wounds, for example), and the diet and general nutritional health of a population (which can be discerned from average height of skeletons, as well as from the condition of teeth and other bones).
4) Chemistry and metallurgical sciences. A working knowledge of nuclear chemistry is useful for any historian, especially an ancient historian, given that so much of ancient chronology is dependent on C-14 dating. A basic knowledge of metallurgy is useful due to the great importance that metals had for human societies since the end of the Neolithic, to the extent that technological states are named after the dominant metal used (Chalcolithic Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age).
These are just a few that immediately came to mind. Do you agree with this list? What other sciences would be useful for a historian to be familiar with?
