I have notice a trend, which I am sure someone has formalized somewhere or other, that even the most esoteric flaky post-modern/post-structralist/whatever archaeology needs to have a good grounding in more solid, basic science before it really has a chance to play. It's still at heart a scientific, quantitative discipline. At this stage of the game, for me at least, there isn't enough ground work laid to start looking at the really interesting issues/questions (like identity) archaeologically in a more than superficial way. See my Sheffield Dissertation ;)

It *will* be a good basis for going further at the PhD level. That's the point. I just hope it works :)