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? Are we looking at the material remains of the first
or second industrial revolution? Is the site (or sites) a discrete locus or
is it a node/element in a larger network that should be understood to better
interpret the individual site and its features, artifacts, etc.? Does the
industrial site reflect vertical integration strategies? Rather than trying
out other disciplines' hand-me-downs in a haphazard manner, might not
archaeologists be better served leaving archaeology as a discipline behind
and taking up residence as historians, economists, geographers, etc., and
using archaeological methods to collect data and apply the theoretical tools
available within their chosen fields?

David Rotenstein