I'll say no, but in truth it depends on the person doing the archaeology. I believe we've moved away from professional pigeon-holing and trait-list development. Why, I even use statistics! GIS! LiDAR! State-level survey data! Testable hypotheses! 

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of geoff carver
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Is archaeology still "anti-intellectual"?

When discussing the work of David Clarke, this is part of the explanation Andrew Sherrat offered for the reaction against processualism:
"Even as taught in many universities, it has had a strongly anti-intellectual streak, emphasizing expertise in excavation and typological finesse at the expense of sustained inquiry into the development of human culture and society."
Is this still true? Is there still "a strongly anti-intellectual streak" in archaeology?