The Death of Archaeological Theory? addresses the provocative subject of
whether it is time to discount the burden of somewhat dogmatic theory
and ideology that has defined archaeological debate and shaped
archaeology over the last 25 years. Seven chapters meet this
controversial subject head on, also assessing where archaeological
theory is now, and future directions.
John Bintliff questions what theory is and argues that archaeologists
should be freed from 'Ideopraxists', or those who preach that a single
approach or model is right to the exclusion of all others. Marc
Pluciennik again questions what we mean by archaeological theory and
argues that the role of intellectual fashion is underestimated. He
predicts pressure from outside archaeology to redirect our dominant
theories towards genetic and human impact theory. Kristian Kristiansen
argues that theory cannot die, but it can change direction and sees
signs of a retreat from the present postmodern and postprocessual cycle
towards a more science based, rationalistic cycle of revived modernity.
To Mark Pearce the most striking thing about the present state of
archaeological theory is that there is no emerging paradigm to be
discerned; he proposes that Theory is not dead, but has instead become
more eclectic and nuanced.
Two papers offer a different perspective from other areas of the world;
Alexander Gramsch examines the issue from the German tradition and shows
that in Central and Eastern Europe not only has Anglo-American Theory
had limited impact, but current discussions on the future of method and
theory offer a broader view of the discipline in which older traditions
are seen to form the foundation. Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus
demonstrate that American archaeologists do not foresee the death of a
genuinely archaeological theory (which they believe has never existed)
but fear the real catastrophe would be the death of anthropological
theory, because some anthropology today has become decidedly
antiscientific, rejecting not only the controlled comparison and
contrast of cultures, but also the use of generalization, both of which
are crucial to theories and models and without which the longue durée
will always be invisible.
