Geoff:

     Why, you pragmatist, you!

     To my mind, part of the problem with talking about
     differences/conflicts/similarities between history and archaeology is
     that you can't really speak of "history" as this monolithic block of
     method and "theory," whatever that word may mean for historians.
     Certainly great syntheses and overviews are laced or packed with bunk,
     but when you get down to the level where historical research gives you
     direct information on your site, and excavation finds what the
     research predicted, surely one would have to rank among the incurably
     cynical to say that those historical conclusions were bunk.

     Testability is the criterion.  You do research, you arrive at
     hypotheses, you test them in the field, and some hypotheses work.
     Within this range of documentary and field research, the bunk index
     drops down to about that of the bio sciences or astronomy, another
     purely observational science.

     Jake.

     You want to talk about subjectivity: when I printed out Geoff's
     message, my printer chose to do it in landscape, rather than portrait.
     Why?  Who knows?