The death of archaeological theory? - J. L. Bintliff

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 post-modern and post-processual 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
anti-scientific, rejecting not only the controlled comparison and
contrast of cultures, but also the use of generalisation, both of
which are crucial to theories and models and without which the
longue dure will always be invisible.