To determine the situation concerning the scientific paradigms in archaeology, a study of literature was undertaken. This was appropriate to establish the most suitable paradigm for historical-archaeological research, as the paradigms were mainly applied to prehistorical archaeology in the past and could not be simply applied to historical archaeology. Other aspects that were studied were the dimensions of science, heritage resources management, the definition and state of historical archaeology, historiography and methodology. These were studied to define historical archaeology and to place it within the framework of the dimensions of science and historical research. In this way research and heritage resources management requirements were established. From the investigation it appeared that five paradigms could be applied to historical archaeology, namely the Cultural historical, Cultural process, Structuralist, Contextual and Neo-Marxist. The last three is sometimes jointly called the Post-process paradigm. The Contextual paradigm proved to be the most suitable and was applied to five case studies of historical-archaeological research to test its suitability. The other paradigms were judged with regard to the result of this application. The case studies, from northern Gauteng, reflect aspects of the lifestyle of whites between approximately 1840 and 1940. These are the Lucas Bronkhorst ruin, Church Street water furrow, Melrose House's footpaths, Willem Prinsloo Agricultural Museum's 1913 house and Pioneer Museum's Edwardian house. It became clear from the application that the majority of the paradigms could be utilized to an extent. One of the paradigms had a larger applicability, namely the Contextual paradigm. It was however clear that this paradigm had to be extended to address the requirements of heritage resources management. This extended paradigm, known as the Heritage Resources Management paradigm, is explained. Consequently the conclusion of the study is that the Contextual paradigm is the most suitable paradigm for use in historical-archaeological research. The application thereof in historical archaeology should provide a fundamental theoretical substructure to give historical archaeology its rightful place in the science of archaeology. By extending it (the Heritage Resources Management paradigm) it is possible to address the requirements and aims of heritage resources management, historical archaeology and research requirements. AFRIKAANS : 'n Literatuurstudie met betrekking tot wetenskapsdimensies, erfenishulpbronbestuur, die definiering van historiese argeologiese, die stand van historiese argeologie, wetenskaplike paradigmas in die argeologie, historiografie en metodeleer is onderneem, ten einde die stand daarvan te bepaal en om vas te stel watter paradigma toepaslik vir histories-argeologiese navorsing is. Sodanige ondersoek is van belang geag, daar die paradigmas hoofsaaklik op prehistoriese argeologie gefokus is en nie sonder meer op histories-argeologiese navorsing toegepas kon word nie. Die bykomende aspekte wat nagevors is, is bestudeer sodat historiese argeologie gedefinieer en binne die raamwerk van wetenskapsdimensies en historiese navorsing geplaas kon word. Navorsings- en erfenishulpbronbestuursbehoeftes is ook op hierdie wyse vasgestel. Uit die ondersoek het dit geblyk dat daar vyf paradigmas is wat moontlik in die historiese argeologie aangewend kan word, naamlik die Kultuurhistoriese, Kultuurproses-, Strukturalistiese, Kontekstuele en Neo-Marxistiese. Laasgenoemde drie word soms ook gesamentlik die Post-proses-paradigma genoem. Hiervan het die Kontekstuele paradigma die mees toepaslike geblyk te wees. Hierdie paradigma is op vyf gevallestudies van histories-argeologiese navorsing aangewend ten einde die toepaslikheid daarvan te toets. Die ander paradigmas is aan die hand hiervan gemeet. Die vyf gevallestudies kom almal uit noordelike Gauteng en weerspieel verskillende aspekte van die lewenswyse van blankes tussen ongeveer 1840 en 1940 in die gebied. Die gevallestudies is die Lucas Bronkhorstruine, Kerkstraat-watervoor, Melrosehuis se voetpaadjies, Willem Prinsloo Landboumuseum se 1913-huis en die Pionier Museum se Edwardiaanse huis en eendedam. Uit die toepassing was dit duidelik dat die meerderheid van die paradigmas slegs in 'n geringe mate benut kon word. Slegs een paradigma het 'n groter toepassingswaarde gehad, naamlik die Kontekstuele paradigma. Dit was egter duidelik dat hierdie paradigma uitgebrei moes word ten einde ook die behoeftes van erfenishulpbronbestuur aan te spreek. Hierdie uitbreiding, bekend as die Erfenishulpbronbestuursparadigma, is ten slotte verduidelik. Gevolglik is die slotsom waartoe geraak word: die Kontekstuele paradigma, word beskou as die mees geskikste paradigma waarbinne navorsing in die historiese argeologie aangepak behoort te word. Die toepassing hiervan in die historiese argeologie sal daaraan 'n fundamentele teoretiese onderbou voorsien en sodoende die historiese argeologie sy regmatige plek in die vakwetenskap argeologie laat inneem. Deur dit uit te bou (die Erfenishulpbronbestuurparadigma), is dit moontlik om die behoeftes van erfenishulpbronbestuur, bo en behalwe die doelwitte van historiese argeologie en die navorsingsbehoeftes aan te spreek. / Thesis (DPhil)--University of Pretoria, 2000. / Anthropology and Archaeology / unrestricted
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:up/oai:repository.up.ac.za:2263/24502 |
| Date | 09 May 2011 |
| Creators | Van Vollenhoven, Anton Carl |
| Contributors | Meyer, Andrie, upetd@up.ac.za, Bergh, J.S. |
| Publisher | University of Pretoria |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Rights | © 2000 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria. |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds