ABSTRACT
Gamble (1999) has suggested that Palaeolithic archaeology is in more of a need for theory than it is for facts. While it is without question that our research paradigms are enhanced with the development of new theoretical frameworks, the benefits derived from such advancement may not be felt equally across all periods. Such new theoretical insights are inevitably framed, not only within the diversification and elaboration of new philosophical and sociological influences, but also within the increasing sophistication and computerisation of recording and recovery techniques, which have dramatically improved both the quantity and quality of our data and its interpretative possibility. An increasing body of work operating within the theoretical framework of social agency, especially studies of prehistoric technology, is beginning to occupy a prominent place in the recent archaeological and anthropological literature (Dobres 1999, 2000; Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Pfaffenberger 1992; Lemonnier (ed.) 1993). However, given both the advancement in archaeological field techniques and the development of new theoretical approaches to the archaeological record, should we expect the compatibility of theory and practice to be universal in scale despite the context? This chapter presents an attempt to answer just such a question, framed within the context of the archaeological record of the Middle Palaeolithic. I should like it to be remembered that the problem of applicability does not imply redundancy because what is of interest here is a question of scale and extent, rather than validity.
