Ned Heite schrieb:
> There is no such thing as objective truth.
>
no, but we do have to take some things for granted (my computer exists,
otherwise there would be no possibility of us e-mailing one another [or do you
not exist objectively?], otherwise...

> Moreover, no historical or artifactual source is totally reliable.
>
no, but much of historical/archaeological research deals with evaluating the
reliability of various sources of evidence

> And no researcher will ever derive objective truth from any body of evidence.
>
no one ever said they could, did they?

> Therefore, history is bunk.
>
not quite, since i don't agree 100% with your premises - i'll continue to use
all the relevent heuristic models until someone can prove my solipsist viewpoint
makes more sense...

> So neither history nor archaeology has Truth.
>
anyone ever said they did? or that quantum physics or chaos theory or algebra or
ts eliot or ronald mcdonald had "Truth"? think a lot of this pm relativistic
pseudo-intellectualism is just misplaced/misunderstood bits of stuff wrongly
applied in contexts where it has no sense interfering: sure the observer
interferes with subatomic processes, and i can see how you can bring your
subjective viewpoint to your analysis/understanding of a flint projectile point,
but if you're still stuck on problems of phenomenology then what are you doing
messing about with archaeology? you either take it for granted that
        1) your projectile point is made of a material comprising some variation
on SiO4 and which has been generally considered to fall within the
criteria which allow its classification as being "flint"
        2) your projectile point is a purpose-built tool, not a randomly
occuring product of nature
        3) your projectile point was made by human agency, not natural,
supernatural or unnatural processes;
        etc.
or, well, why not go make a fortune writing variants on "Chariots of the Gods"?
i.e. let's boogie!
>
> Seriously, recall the blind men examining the elephant. Now imagine the
> blind men on acid.
>
> That's anthropological theory.
>
not sure where you're coming from: archaeology-as-subdiscipline within
anthropology or something removed? the question then is: how is anthropological
theory really so different from other bodies of "scientific theory"? biologists
and geologists and physicists are also blind, or...?

> So let's boogie!


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