The statement did not imply that we should not be critical of our theories.
It depends if your particular theoretical position allows for that.  If it
doesn't, I agree that is very dangerous.  The point of the statement was
meant to simplfy what theory really is before people bury it under the myrid
of theoretical dogma that exists out there.

M. Jay Stottman

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin M Bartoy <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: History versus archaeology


>Not to keep an obviously not-too-interesting-to-too-many-people thread
>going ... well ... I guess I am keeping it going.
>
>But ... I just thought that this seemed like a very dangerous postion for
>some folks to be in ...
>
>> Let's not analyze theory too much.  Basically, it is still what guides
our
>> research whether you prescribe to a particular one, draw from a variety
of
>> theories, or don't believe you have any.  We all have some type of
>> theoretical basis that influences our research.
>
>Shouldn't we be critical of the theoretical basis of our research? Even
>more so for those folks that seem to believe that they don't have and/or
>need theory.
>
>It is interesting how historical archaeology seems to lead the drive for
>social theory within archaeology (particularly marxist-inspired theory but
>also symbolic or interpretive theories as well) and then the HISTARCH
>listserv seems dominated by the 'let's get out and do our work' school of
>thought.
>
>While I admit that old questions of history v. anthropology are a bit
>dusty ... shouldn't we be as willing to discuss theoretical
>assumptions and epistemological issues as we are to discuss what this
>dirty little piece of glass is that I found this afternoon?
>
>Are we laspsing back into antiquarianism? Perhaps ...  we are just
>keeping up with culture history?
>
>Kevin.