Paradigm Lost: What Is a Commitment to Theory in Contemporary Archaeology?

Abstract

A radical shift in orientation alongside the objects of archaeology has occasioned a reconsideration of what theory is in a very general sense. What function does it serve and how might we define it? In retrospect, these questions arise not in the context of paradigms and strong theories, which some consider to have run their course, but in their absence. Here, there is a danger that theory might be jettisoned altogether if its nature and purpose are not critically re-assessed. The modest goal of this paper is to join in on this conversation.

Acknowledgements

This paper has gone through several incarnations. In its different versions, it has benefitted immeasurably from the feedback of our peers; we would like to thank several anonymous reviewers for their perspectives, readings, and constructive remarks, all of which have helped to shape and improve our writing by showing us where we failed to be clear or forgot to mention the work of others.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Nopotential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Of course, one may question the degree to which archaeology’s past was coloured by a retrospective coherence that could be characterized by a species of innocence (Witmore and Shanks 2013, p. 384).

² Here this contrast between weak and strong theory resonates with what has been formulated as a qualitative contrast between good theory, which ‘cannot be applied’, and bad, which refuses to allow ‘our matters of concern to define themselves’ (Witmore 2012, p. 104, emphasis original).