The Rise (and Demise) of the State in the Near East: Week 7. Political Landscapes

Adam Smith nicely puts it: "historical record tends to swamp archaeological studies" (103). Between the textual record and the archaeological evidence (nevermind the fact that all textual evidence is part of the archaeological record as well and must be treated as such), textual record tends to establish an "authority" about the past (and in the past), and I would say overwhelmingly in favor of the state and its ideological discourses (as most of what we have tend to be products of the penseur fonctionnaire, i.e. the bureacratic thinkers (of the state) (Bourdieu), in control of the technologies of writing). Archaeological work however seems to me has a lot more potential to develop a critique of the state (as Smith implies). Thoughts? But what about the traditional archaeologies that tend to focus on monumental remains and visual representations? I would like to amend here Adam's comment by saying that hard core structuralist art-historicism tends to swamp archaeological studies.