Dear colleagues,

Following the recent thread, if such it can be be described, between Josh and Susan,
made for a depressing way to begin my Monday.  I cannot help but suspect that if we
have poor and uninspiring teachers out there that we are already dealing with improperly
trained archaeologists.  A teacher who cannot instill in her students some sense of
excitement about the fact that archaeology/anthropology is to think as much as it is to do
(in other words, that whether we like it or not, we all operate on the basis of some sort of
theory, implicit or otherwise), should probably not be allowed anywhere near students,
ever.

I've just attended the Contemporary Historical Archaeology and Theory conference in
Bristol and found it most stimulating, though it was far from being mired in impenetrable
theory or anything like that as some might expect from the title.  The papers were about
new ways of looking at archaeological practice and interpretation.   To quote from John
and Joan Comaroff, historical anthropologists whose work I find both fascinating and
helpful, "practice is method informed by theory."  There really is no divide except the
artificial one that many  insist on constructing.

I do sense a bit of that all-too American tendency for some persons to be relieved at
having gotten done with a degree so that he/she doesn't have to bother to keep up with
contempiorary developments in the field.  I remember getting into historical archaeology
because it was not just about the history that I loved but because it was full of exciting
debates over ways of approaching that history through material evidence using
anthropological/social theory.  I have mourned the passing of our time of debate and
often heated interchanges.  Historical archaeology isn't a done deal.  The structure of our
conferences (SHA, that is) that permits little in the way of interchange and discussion and
that has people deserting a room to catch yet another paper should there be any danger
of discussion feeds into this tendency to take our field as something that is largely about
information gathering instead of thinking and interpreting and having fun while doing all
of the above.

I try to lurk but sometimes HISTARCH seems to be running parallel to the discipline as a
chat-list for artifact fetishists.  I am keen on artifacts myself, so am not trying to offend folks
by saying this.  I just think that people who say they don't do theory are kidding
themselves and that those who say they don't like it ought to think about ways of re-
engaging with the discipline in a holistic manner.  We don't all need to be theorists, but
we all need to be honest about the fact that theory of some sort informs what we do.

Opinionated in Bristol (and in Boston, too, when I get back),
Mary B.

Mary C. Beaudry, PhD, RPA
Department of Archaeology
Boston University
675 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215 USA
tel. 617-358-1650
email:  [log in to unmask]