ABSTRACT
Collectively, such changes have produced a Spain which is no longer the country of Hemingway, Gerald Brennan and Robert Graves (a point to which I shall return later). 'Modernization' also produces a challenge to both Spanish and Portuguese society: how can some kind of independent, distinctive identity be maintained within the context of participation within an intrusive and pervasive world system? A similar question is posed for the archaeology of the Iberian Peninsula (and here I make no distinction from prehistory, although this is normally the tradition within both countries). When it comes to archaeological theory and methodology, is it simply a matter of intellectual colonization from the Anglo-Saxon World, receiving the Holy Wisdom, adopting the latest trends and 'isms', following the agenda set in northwest Europe and the United States? Although the chapters in this volume were presented at a Euro!AG, with active participation of European archaeologists, the B i g Debate at the beginning of the conference still sent clear signals (whether intended or not) that the agenda was firmly in the hands of AngloSaxons (in this case, Lew Binford and Co l in Renfrew versus Chris Tilley and John Barrett). A similar message was conveyed by Ian Hodder's edited volume, Archaeological Theory in Europe (1991), in which regional European traditions were used to make critical points in a tired old debate between 'processual' and 'post-processual' archaeology. If open discussion and 'democratization' are the aims, then why could this not have been reflected in the editorial process? Are the other European authors there simply to provide ammunition for a battle which is not of their own making, or could they not be involved more actively in debate (e.g. making shorter contributions, based on a reading of all of the papers, at the end of the book)?
