I think the theory-and-SF coincidence is a real link. Ley (1989, in
Kobayshi and Mackenzie (eds) _Remaking Human Geography_, according to
Gregory (1994) _Geographical Imaginations_) argued that theory is
increasingly 'isolated from the empirical world', admired for its
internal consistency and beauty.

Now, what's that if not SF?  Isolated, but not unattached (and indeed,
there's a game of attachment often played between author and reader),
praised for its internal consistency (both have their own kind of
(alternate) reality check - there's a paper in me somewhere about the
Hermeneutics of the Magic Code).

On the other hand, SF and theory is always with us, so maybe it is just
a coincidence!

I have another recommendation for those of you who don't spend their
Christmas holidays trying to write a thesis: Calvino's _Invisible
Cities_ - indeed, I hardly know whether to describe this as theory or
speculative fiction.  But it is beautiful!

Best wishes to all

Pat

(who personally considers LeFebvre to be 'comparable to Tolkien at his
best')
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Is it mere coincidence that at the same time as Histarch is discussing
>science fiction and archaeology that the re-publication of Method and Theory
>in Historical Archaeology is announced or have I seen one too many reindeer?
>
>Dr Iain Stuart
>Principal, Archaeology and Heritage Management
>HLA-Envirosciences Pty. Ltd.
>P.O. Box 726
>Pymble, NSW 2073
>Australia
>
>Ph.  61 2 99884422
>Fax  61 2 99884441

--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
   "It might look a bit messy now, but just you come back in 500 years time"
   (T. Pratchett)