MIXED FEATURES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY IN BRAZIL

THEORETICAL ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP - SOUTHAMPTON 1922

Pedro Paulo A. FUNARI (Campinas University, S†o Paulo, Brazil)

INTRODUCTION

                        Is there archaeological theory in Brazil? The answer depends of course on the definition of the term "theory". Lester Embree (1989:37) considered that "historical archaeology in the broad signification includes metaarchaeology and substantive research and how substantive research includes methodologies of data collection and analysis as well as the theorising of explanatory models". The absence of explicit theoretical and/or methodological archaeological posts in Brazilians institutions (Faria 1989:35) would suggest that there is a lack of theory in Brazilian archaeology, as in archaeologies in other countries (Kotsakis 1991:69). Besides, it is still very common to dismiss interpretative papers as "too theoretical" (Mc Donald 1991:830). Theory is sometimes cosidered as "esoteric, subversive, anarchistic - something one should avoid as a matter of intellectual hygiene" (Harlan 1989:583). But, is it possible to carry out any archaeological field work without theory, or in other terms, is it possible to isolate action (poiesis) from theory (praxis)? (Croce n.d.:41). It is not difficult to conclude that there is no way of practicing a scholarly discipline like archaeology without analytical framewords.

                        Theory is nothing more than "viewing, contemplation", theoria meaning first  the actual visual observation (thea) and as a consequence "speculation", "set of ideas". If we consider that "histoy is not a set of facts about the past but, rather, a set of ideas about the past held in the preset" (Wright & Mazel 1991:59) then it is clear that there is no archaeological practice without a theoretical background. It is precisely in these terms that we can say that there is archaeological theory in Brazil, not as an open and explicit set of statements about the ontology of archaological knowledge but rather as an underlying hermeneutics backing both field work activities and reports and papers in general. Disentangling this theoretical outlook from archaeological activities and discourses is however a dauting task considering  the multiple mediations connecting empirical activities and their supporting conceptual frameworks. Moreover, as "generalizations about scholarly disciplines require audacity <considering that> abundant materials and findings of even small fields undermine, if not refute, generalizations" (Jacoby 1992:405), the best way of avoiding miinterpretations is to establish the criteria used to study the subject. This way it is possible to understand the proposed links between the explicit and the implicit in Brazilian archaeology.

You can read the entire text on: Mixed Features of Archaeological Theory in Brazil, in Peter J. Ucko (ed), Theory in Archaeology, a World perspective, Londres, Routledge, 236-250, 1995.