"HIstory books which contain no lies are extremely dull."  Anatole France
 
A most interesting discussion.  Clearly even our most "scientific" archaeologica
l
interpretations are just that.... interpretations.  So we weave tales of
 "the Anasazi Collapse", Custer's final moments, life in the trenches on
the Western Front, working in a 19th century rope factory, eating habits
of slaves in Virginia, etc.  Did the Anasazi really collapse?  Did any
of our carefully reconstructed interpretations happen?
 
When combined the "scientific" information and the  creativity of the
primate behind the interpretation can create most powerful images.  If
our goal is to somehow share the benefits of the scientific information
being generated then we should make better use of this kind of tool.  One
need only go to a rural grocery store (my favorite example is in Belle
Fourche, South Dakota... USA) and see what's on the book rack.  One store
in that town used to have almost an entire rack of prehistoric/historic
sex and adventure fables.  People are interested in the past but the current
market merely feeds them tales of gore, lust, mysticism, and how things
got invented.
 
Good stories weaving good science into them are few and far between.  However,
one good story will reach a wider audience then all of our journals combined.
   The science is important but so is what we choose to do with it.
 
These interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of my employers.
 
Walk in Beauty.  Terry