Talk:Cultural history

Old talk
If merged, the entry should remain titled "Cultural History". This is a significant area of study, significant enough to have a page of its own. I am not familiar enough with archaeology to say if it should remain as its own page. Nimby 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - cultural history should have its own page - or at least be merged with History! Mjs110

Cultural history should NOT be merged with culture-history archaeology. In archaeology, culture history refers to a paradigm in the history of the discipline (late 19th-mid20th century, between Antiquarianism and Processual Archaeology). This meaning is completely unrelated to the other definition of cultural history. The name of the archaeology entry could be changed to "culture-historical archaeology" or "culture history", but combining it with "cultural history" makes no sense.

The name of the "culture-history archaeology" page would more accurately titled "cultural-historical archaeology". Cultural history should NOT be merged with cultural-historical archaeology. Cultural-historical archaeology is the term used to describe a theoretical approach that archaeologists from western culture traditions adopted in the late 19th - mid 20th centuries. In the United States the cultural-historical paradigm focused on the archaeological culture rather than on developmental stages of cultures, as the previous cultural evolution paradigm had. 168.103.165.246 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC) An American Archaeologist

the american archaeologist is absolutely right! culture-history archaeology should be re-named and both pages should most definitely not be merged. Cultural History is in History a reaction against the ways scientists like cultural- historical archaeologist thought.Bobenkate 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kulturgeschichte
I'm not sure why "RepublicanJacobite" can't grasp my point, but the assertion that cultural history is "(from the German term Kulturgeschichte)" is nonsense and should be deleted. 152.1.191.173 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion of material, with a very vague edit summary, is bad form. That is why we have this talk page, so that discussion can occur and a decision can be reached.  Your approach, though, is not constructive. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Seemed pretty constructive to me! 152.1.191.173 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How rock 'n roll started
. 85.185.58.88 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)