And even if you had a time machine and went to the
> "real" past, and asked people about the pot, you would probably get
> different answers depending who you asked.
see bob bonichsen's article on millie's camp
Of course, your meaning of the,
> so called pot, are not an objective interpretation, not even a subjective
> interpretation, it is an metaphysical illusion of a past that never existed
> in the first place!
pure functionalism? chemical/material analysis? why "of course"
if so, then why are you bothering to have anything to do with
such a metaphysically illusory waste of time like archaeology?
And behind that illusion resides nothing but emptiness.
pessimist (or just plain buddhist?): behind that illusion resides the dreamer
who created/thought of it - or haven't you read don quixote, or heard the old
joni mitchell line about "all those pretty lies" or...
> For example, if you take apart a wagon, what exist? The essence or soul of
> the wagon? Not likely.
parts of a wagon: whoever said a wagon (other than maybe a 57 caddy) had soul?
a wagon is a wagon is a wagon: it rolls, it carries stuff, it needed something
to pull it, it could carry a given load, took a given amount of time
and/or labour, material and skills to produce, and may already have been used
and abused and exposed to various elements...
And the same goes with prehistory. If you take apart
> your own meanings about it, nothing is left but emptiness. And the
> artefacts are nothing else but "materiality", in it self, and of itself.
> All meaning around this materiality are meanings that are articulated
> through the mode of narrativity, get the picture?
>
no, apparently not
geoff carver
http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|