ABSTRACT
Most archaeologists would probably agree that all archaeological classificationand any other form of archaeological activity-must, by definition, be based on some theoretical preconception or other (e.g., Hodder 1991b:7; Sherratt 1993: 123). At any other level of analysis, however, there would be little agreement about the relationship of archaeological theory to practice, nor even, perhaps, about what constitutes ‘archaeological theory’. In some cases, existing difficulties of mutual comprehension are due to disciplinary assumptions. Thus, Bernal (1994:119) has recently claimed that ‘It is widely believed that “classics” is the academic discipline furthest away from modern politics. It is not merely supposed to inhabit the ivory tower but to be in its topmost storey’ Whereas this correctly reflects the image that prehistorians in the United Kingdom have of their Classicist colleagues, in Brazil (Funari, Ch. 10, this volume) the opposite is true: the Classicist is-by virtue of a knowledge of foreign languages and travel overseas-assumed to be the most likely to ‘indulge in’ (subversive?) theorizing.
