Theory in archaeology is vitally important.  The big problem is that many teachers
(and archaologists) ignore theory they either do not understand or disagree with.  An
even worse problem is when researchers allow theory to become absolute.  I know
of cases where researchers are so trapped in theory that they ignore evidence that
disagrees or disproves what they "know."  Reseach should drive theory; theory
should not drive research.

Bill

> HI all.  Just because I used to fall asleep reading Marvin Harris'
> Theory of Anthro book doesn't mean theory's dumb.  Maybe it's the
> author/teacher/polemicist.  Without explicit theory, one is using
> implicit theoretical positions that may not even agree with what one
> thinks/believes.  One point I though achieved by post-modern efforts
> is that atheoretical stances in historical archeology often just
> support a culture's dominant set of explanations for why the past is
> important. Thus for so many years atheoretical historical
> archeologists spent all their time arguing through practice that only
> rich white males counted, and that modern industrial consumer culture
> is best, and that women or minorities or ordinary folks had no part in
> the past except as help-mates or workers or cannon fodder or the like.
>  Wait, that's what historians said, too, until social history came
> along.  Hmmm.
>          And, durn, you mean Mary Beaudry gets credit for this whole
> thread?  Does that count as a publication?
>
Bill Lockhart
New Mexico State University
Alamogordo, NM
(505) 439-3732