David Rotenstein wrote:
"Dr. Stuart really raises a serious point about archaeology and its
practitioners. One thing (among many) that troubles me about historical
archaeology is how quickly folks latch onto trendy theoretical movements
(e.g., Marxian, structuralism, etc.) that may be useful towards
developing
an understanding of the past but have little to offer in terms of
holistic
explanation. Take, for example, the now time-worn archaeological studies
of
"capitalism." Okay, which capitalism are we discussing? Is it
entrepreneurial or corporate capitalism? American, British, German,
French,
or Japanese capitalism?"

I'll probably regret this, but I think it is important -
First of all if we want to 'learn about the past', it is silly to 
deliberately close our eyes to any source of data about the past. It is 
silly to think we can understand or reconstruct various aspects of the past 
without examining evidence accumulated by other disciplines that have the 
same goal. To make a false dichotomy, neither "history" nor "archaeology" 
has a privileged place in this enterprise. Each offers different data sets 
worthy of consideration.

Second, as far as the obvious observation that documentary data sets are 
frought with bias (and archaeological sets are not? - reread 'Hotel of the 
Mysteries), historians have developed, over more than a century critical 
methods to reduce, but not eliminate, the effects of cultural and 
observational bias to reach a more reliable understanding of past events and 
their meaning, both to the participants, and to our contemporary 
understanding. These are not passing fancies.

Third, both structuralism and Marxism are not "trendy theoretical 
movements", but are highly evolved (intellectually) holistic analytical 
frameworks which are just as useful when applied to archaeological data as 
they are when used with the more "traditional" historical data sets which, 
when combined with archaeological data provide an even richer and more 
reliable interpretive picture of the past and it's meaning(s). My own 
preference is for Wallerstein, but it's not the only available option. The 
variations in the structures of various capitalisms are well-accounted for 
by the energetic scholars who labor in those historical vineyards. You may 
call these "time worn" if you like, but if you can't offer more satisfying 
alternatives, you haven't made your point, and probably haven't read the 
appropriate literature.

There's a lot more that could be said, but I'll leave at that for now, and 
hunker down for the inevitable counter-attacks.

Tim T.