Dan (and others),
 
Do you really think that the "science fiction" metaphor is a good one for what
historical archaeologists do?  While admittedly, the archaeological record is
often ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, thinking of our writing
as mere fiction implies that we can say just about anything we want about the
past.  Don't the data constrain our interpretations?  Seems to me that
comparing hist. arch. to sci-fi comes very close to the nihilism that many on
this list have accused Shanks and Tilley (1987) of. (Sorry Michael and
Christopher for using you as strawmen here.)
 
The irony (perhaps) is that I don't object to the story-telling metaphor and
have been accused (from time to time) of constructing just-so stories (I never
see to like that accusation for some reason).  Anyway, just some mid-morning
thoughts on a snowy day that's closed our place down.
 
What do ya say, Dan, in sunny(?) Virginia?
 
Michael Nassaney
WMU, Kalamazoo