Is archaeological theory generally applicable to all archaeology or do we expect certain theoretical approaches to be applicable to particular periods or areas of discipline? Also, if archaeological theory is supposed to be generalising, how are we to view the continuing period divisions which operate in contemporary archaeology? These points seem to represent more than a simple reflection of specialised knowledge which express differences in intellectual and working practices.
We view with dismay the ways in which prehistory and historic archaeology continue to appear as two distinct disciplines that utilise different theories, methodologies and idioms in producing narratives that are not complementary. The result is a fragmented archaeology. We believe it is time to expose such fragmentation and questions its necessity.
This session seeks to explore the gap between prehistoric and historical archaeology. There will be two speakers only. John Barrett is a prehistorian, Duncan Brown is a medievalist; each will speak about the other's period of interest. We are not sure what we are going to say or how we are going to say it but we will each speak for about fifteen minutes and leave plenty of time for discussion. Both speakers will be positive in bringing out points of comparison and areas of technique and thought which are of mutual benefit to students of the prehistoric and historic past. The aim is to re-discover a common purpose for archaeology through a shared understanding of the potential of the evidence and our attitudes towards it.
Prehistory as the home of theory
Looking at theory applicable to all periods