Patrick,
Again, I suggest you read some/any of the works of Alison Wylie, Michael
Shanks, Christopher Tilley, or Ian Hodder (and numerous others). You
appear to be re-inventing a debate that has gone on for about 20 years.
Your description of how 'historians' approach the past (see quote)
actually describes current archaeological practice and thought on the
subject. For starters, you could try
        Wylie, Alison
        1986    Arguments for Scientific Realism: The Ascending Spiral.
        American Philosophical Quarterly 23(3):287-297.
 
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:13:24 -0400
From: Patrick O'Bannon
        "I also *never* said that that historians are "simply telling stories with
        no basis in objective reaility."  What I *did* say is that most
        historians have rejected the notion that history can present the
        "object ive truth" about the past.  The vagaries of our evidence, the
        emphasis we chose to place on certain pieces of that evidence, the
        interpretation we bring to fragmentary records, our choices about when to
        start and stop our "story," and our own cultural baggage all influence
        the way the history is written (or the story told).  That does *not* mean
        that historians do not strive to present as thorough, complete, and
        unbiased a picture of the past as we possibly can.  And it does not
        mean that there is no truth in our work.  It simply means that
        despite our best and most rigorous intentions the past is ultimately
        unknowable and foreign to us in the present.  It has always surprised me
        that archaeologists, who are forced by the limitations of *their*
        data to try and interpret the past through a fragmentary surviving record,
        seem to have such a difficult time accepting this position as, at least,
        intellectually valid."
 
 
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]