Not to keep an obviously not-too-interesting-to-too-many-people thread
going ... well ... I guess I am keeping it going.

But ... I just thought that this seemed like a very dangerous postion for
some folks to be in ...

> Let's not analyze theory too much.  Basically, it is still what guides our
> research whether you prescribe to a particular one, draw from a variety of
> theories, or don't believe you have any.  We all have some type of
> theoretical basis that influences our research.

Shouldn't we be critical of the theoretical basis of our research? Even
more so for those folks that seem to believe that they don't have and/or
need theory.

It is interesting how historical archaeology seems to lead the drive for
social theory within archaeology (particularly marxist-inspired theory but
also symbolic or interpretive theories as well) and then the HISTARCH
listserv seems dominated by the 'let's get out and do our work' school of
thought.

While I admit that old questions of history v. anthropology are a bit
dusty ... shouldn't we be as willing to discuss theoretical
assumptions and epistemological issues as we are to discuss what this
dirty little piece of glass is that I found this afternoon?

Are we laspsing back into antiquarianism? Perhaps ...  we are just
keeping up with culture history?

Kevin.