clude perusing primary sources, viewing facts as sacred and digging into archives. Through this he argues ultimate truth and some form of meaning about the past can be discerned by the contemporary historian so long as the quest to know the past embraces a "return to scholarly humility" (Evans, p. 201). It is this kind of scholarly humility that can illustrate truth about the past that is both valid and legitimate and significantly more meaningful than postmodern critics would contend, who view mainstream history writing as incapable of revealing ultimate truth or meaning.
Evans' tone is fairly critical with respect to postmodern theorists like Foucault, Lyotard and Derrida. In these critiques Evans appears to be arguing that postmodern critiques of mainstream history are wrong in the sense that it can reveal meaning and truth of the past. One assumption is deeply held by Evans and it flavors his argument in favor of mainstream history writing and his attacks on postmodern criticism of it. As the author writes, it seems inc
...