Not sure talking of opposites is really valid but surely a conservative 
approach would be not anti-change but explain it by emphasising the role 
of individuals rather than social forces. American evolutionary  
archaeology is perhaps about as far away from Marxist archaeology (or 
for that matter any archaeology heavily influenced by European 
sociological tradition) as one could get - but I would hesitate to use 
the word 'opposite' as both were influenced by Darwin but took very 
different readings of what was significant in his work.


paul courtney
Leicester


geoff carver wrote:
> Maybe; is there much work being done there? I was also thinking of egypt:
> thousands of years of not much happening, all the attention focused on a few
> spectacular tombs, really...
> Might ultimately be an absence of evidence type of thing: if a system works
> & perpetuates itself, then it doesn't really leave much in the
> archaeological record; you only start to look at how it was established in
> the first place or fell apart when something happens to disrupt the system.
> And "the peg in the hole" is probably what I'm trying to get at: is there a
> convenient label we could give this?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron May
> Sent: April 12, 2007 09:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opposite of Marxist archaeology
>
> But rather than define the opposite of Marxist as "status quo," why not
> explore the concept of central or hierarchical structuralism within
> societies as the opposite? A number of Greek city states would be good tests
> for this concept. Of course, the key is not to force the square peg in the
> round hole. 
>
>