Theory and CRM (Part 1): We don't need no steenking theory.

[This is the first of probably many (somewhat frustrated) posts on CRM and its relation to archaeological thought. They are an effort to capture dominant attitudes--a broad-brush "archaeologist-on- the-street" picture. As such, I am trying to make a coherent text out of attitudes that are unconscious and usually not coherent, and will almost certainly be refining my thoughts as I go.]

The bulk of archaeologists in CRM usually have little use for theory. We are, after all, too busy in the trenches, doing archaeology in the real world, to have time for abstract academic issues like theory. We regard theory at best as a luxury, at worst with outright mistrust. We can do archaeology without theory.

This is a delusional belief, yet I would say it is the dominant attitude in CRM, and CRM suffers for it. Theory is simply being open about one's assumptions--ideology made explicit. One is always operating theoretically (or, failing that, ideologically).

But how do we maintain the illusion of atheoreticism?

By its nature CRM is procedural. If, as I do, one sees CRM's ultimate purpose as establishing some sort of landscape of social memory, then one is resigned to the idea that CRM is irredeemably messy, noisy, and argumentative (or would be if anyone really cared). However we operate in in a regulatory setting, overseen by bureaucrats who are responsible to a variety of insititutional funding bodies (from agencies to developers), and our business depends on making sure clients' projects pass through regulatory digestive tract as smoothly as possible. In a situation like that, nobody wants messy, noisy, and argumentative. What is good is predictability and regularity, and final products of a certain consistency that land where they should, never to be seen again. I'm about to loose control of this metaphor, but my point is that CRM's emphasis on procedure and predictability is a major factor that make the illusion of atheoreticism possible.

A second and related factor is social isolation: routinized research conducted in a good old boy (or girl) echo-chamber is hardly conducive to introspection. With very few exceptions, the results of CRM projects are relevant only to other CRM projects--our reports disappear into the grey-literature morass, possibility to achieve some sort of use as citations in other grey-literature reports. The social "push" to argue a site's meaning or importance beyond the rote research questions of one's immediate circle of CRM cronies just isn't there. I don't know how many projects ever see any sort of publication or public dissemination--but not many. We sneer at isolated ivory-tower of academia, but I am not sure an isolated mushroom-encrusted basement is any better.