Posted: May 07, 2015 1:25 pm
Clive Durdle wrote:Francis Prior in his book Home discusses how very careful archaeology enables a very real picture of what happened.
I'm sure it is very careful, but (at the risk of upsetting igorfrankensteen) doesn't archeology also involve a good deal of what might be termed 'assumptions' and 'subjective interpretation'? I'm thinking of things like dating techniques which require identification of particular pieces of pottery as being of a particular style, etc.
The problem is more that people like Herodotus, whilst discussing the motives of Helen of Troy and the actions of various gods seems to mix story with his story, possibly an attempt to create a lineage, a patina.
So I formally propose history is a science
I don't see how you can do experiments to test your historical hypotheses?
but it is badly befogged by for example gods, Arthurs and Allied views attempting to assert their truthinesses.
Ideas like orientalism have also caused huge damage to quite legitimate areas of work.
Agreed