ABSTRACT
Some questions of archaeology’s relationships to philology, to antiquarian interests, to history and to metanarratives and ideologies have been raised. Implicit in many of the points discussed are assumptions about the character of archaeological materials and what can and should be done with them. It was argued that Bernal’s reconstructions of social and historical change show little and superficial understanding of archaeological sources. It is appropriate to turn to consider the material remains of the past, archaeological sources, before considering social archaeology, the reconstruction of society through archaeological remains.
