ABSTRACT
Theory is central to the archaeological process. It helps us understand why we do what we do, and gives insight into the processes that shape human behaviors. Without theory, archaeology is not archaeology. Because of its centrality to the intellectual endeavor that is archaeology, however, the use and misuse of theory has been an area of heated debate (eg Binford 1968, 1989; Hodder 1989; Praetzellis 2000; Trigger 1995; Wylie 1982). While it may be tempting to dismiss this as politically motivated polemic, the space of contention such debate occupies has the potential to bring into focus many of our underlying assumptions about human behavior, and the ways in which archaeologists connect this with archaeological material. The debates between Binford and Bordes, for example, (see Binford 1973; Bordes 1973) over whether variations in Mousterian stone tool assemblages were due to ethnic differences or were simply a reflection of different activities not only engaged a contemporary audience, but are still thought-provoking 30 years later. Similarly, the debates between Binford (1988, 1989) and Hodder (1985, 1991) over the merits of processual versus postprocessual archaeology still provide exciting and pertinent grist for the archaeological mill. It is not only the issues themselves that are interesting, but also the different opinions that archaeologists bring to the material and how this affects their interpretations of past human behavior.
