One of the reasons that I prefer archaeology to cultural anthropology  
is that I can actually touch the material I am studying. Too much of  
cultural anthropology deals with emanations and penumbras. However,  
that does not mean that archaeology is TRUTH. Interpretation is  
everything and some archaeologists are quite willing to ignore what  
they find if it does not fit in with the world view they wish to  
promote.  And to a certain extent all of us see what we expect to  
see. No one is so pure that they are without bias. No matter how hard  
they try.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On Jul 13, 2006, at 3:28, geoff carver wrote:

> apologies; now i feel responsible for opening this particular can  
> of worms
> i only meant "facts" in the limited sense of something you can hold  
> in your hand; material culture
> "what is truth" being the oldest question in philosophy, i avoid  
> using the word "truth" as much as possible
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Thompson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: HISTARCH Digest - 10 Jul 2006 to 11 Jul 2006 (#2006-161)
>
>
>> Come now, 'facts'? take about three weeks and wade through the 30+  
>> years of agonizing about Hypothetico-deductive models and  
>> epistemology in Ameriican Archaeological Journals