Historia quimica

ISSN 1061-9348, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2009, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 859–867. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2009. Original Russian Text © V.I. Vershinin, Yu.A. Zolotov, 2009, published in Zhurnal Analiticheskoi Khimii, 2009, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 881–889.

HISTORY OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

Periodization of the History of Chemical Analysis and Analytical Chemistry as a Branch of Science
V.I. Vershinina and Yu. A. Zolotovb
b

State University, pr. Mira 55A, Omsk, 644077 Russia Department of Chemistry, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
Received September 4, 2008

a Omsk

Abstract—In the periodization of the history of chemical analysis, it seems advisable to take into account changes in the priority problems and objects and methods of analysis and in theperiodization of analytical chemistry as a science, changes in the substance matter and the level of scientific research, and also in the place of analytical chemistry in the system of sciences. Both periodizations are closely related, and the borders between the periods approximately coincide. This allows one to use a united periodization for educational purposes. DOI: 10.1134/S1061934809080152

Whenstudying any process, one should reveal its basic steps; this is particularly important in studies of historical processes. One has to choose appropriate periodization criteria for the history of each particular science, reveal differences between each particular period and other ones, and propose and substantiate the borders between the periods. Undoubtedly, any periodization is a matter ofconvention and is subjective to some extent, because the number of periods and borders between them depend on the choice of periodization criteria. Therefore, one should use the most typical distinguishing features for periodization, which are intrinsic to the studied process rather than external or arbitrarily selected ones [1]. This is also true for the history of analytical chemistry (AC). Thegenerally accepted periodization of the history of AC has not been proposed; however, it is necessary for the correct understanding of the methodological problems of our science, for predicting the prospects and lines of its development, and for the objective assessment of the role of individual researchers and scientific schools. Such periodization opens up historical and problemoriented approaches toteaching AC, which is important for training competent and thinking analysts. Considering the historical development of AC as a branch of science, one should take into account the adjacent (and even less studied!) history of chemical analysis as a professional activity. Note that ìthe duality of historyî is typical not only for our science. Thus, the history of pedagogics as a branch of science isclose but not identical to the history of school education, and the history of theoretical medicine is not identical to the history of applied medicine. This duality was also noticed by historians of chemistry; A.N. Shamin wrote that methods of analysis play the main role both for chemistry as a system of knowledge and for chemistry

as an area of professional work [2]. The two interrelatedprocesses, (a) the development of chemical analysis as a field of activity and (b) the development of analytical chemistry as a system of knowledge, should be considered jointly and simultaneously. However, chemical analysis has a much older history than the science analytical chemistry. Their periodization criteria can differ. Obviously, the number of periods and their chronological borders cannotcoincide for these processes. In a recently published monograph [3], we have proposed and used a certain generalized periodization of the development of analytical chemistry and chemical analysis (pp. 10–14). The aim of this work was to theoretically substantiate and refine this scheme. Possible approaches to periodization. Considering the history of AC, some authors use the periodization accepted...