3rd June 2010, 08:34 PM
troll Wrote:no-archaeology couldn`t prove that night follows day.You calling us all post-processualists? That's fighting talk where I come from. More seriously, given your point 2, you are contradicting yourself immediately in point 3. You need to decide which argument you wish to stand behind. C+ Could do better. :face-stir:
For the main question, it all depends what you mean by 'prove'. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Absolute proof? Archaeology can prove some things but others are a matter of interpretation. I think we can achieve reasonable consensus on certain aspects of the past based on the currently available evidence. If those consensuses stand the test of time then I suspect we have proven them to a certain extent.
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'