HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
geoff carver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:45:19 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Jay and Beth Stottman schrieb:
> Let's not analyze theory too much.  Basically, it is still what guides our
> research whether you prescribe to a particular one, draw from a variety of
> theories, or don't believe you have any.  We all have some type of
> theoretical basis that influences our research.
>
> Even though history truely is "bunk",

thought the old henry ford quote was that the bunk was in the way the history
was taught... if we're going to go debating stuff like this, shouldn't we at
least either establish/define how we're going to use our references: ned's quote
at face value without external references to henry ford, or understood as stated
by (ned's shorthand for) ford, or...?

humans still have an insatiable need
> to understand it, use it, relive it, change it, make it, etc.....
>
>
> M. Jay Stottman


geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2