Archaeological Revolution(s)

I understand Kristian Kristiansen’s enthusiasm for the seemingly infinite offered by the collaboration between the natural sciences archaeology. Gone are the days when archaeometry was associated a narrow, functionalist agenda. We know now that we can recover habitus, memory or social identity through the application of “archaeological science”. (I hate the concept, though: is it not science when do not use a microscope?) I also agree with his plea for a return to production of grand narratives. In fact, I have always been a great of his masterful grand narrative: before History (Kristiansen 1998). The approach proposed in this article, however, does not re the small and the local. On the contrary, it tries to bridge the gap the micro and the macro, bypassing an unhelpful dichotomy. also find very revealing the historiographic analysis proposed by the . Nevertheless, I have some misgivings about his paradigmatic that I will try to flesh out in this comment.