Why do We Need a Typology (Classification) and a Political Anthropological Meta-Language for Describing Post-Neolithic Pre-Modern Polities

In the twenty-first century, historical science witnessed a rapid obsolescence of most conceptual models of history and meta-languages for describing societies of the past, especially the history of archaic, post-Neolithic pre-Modern, societies, i. e. the period of Ancient Times and the Middle Ages. Now historians-theorists in their majority steal bits of empirical data from practitioners (Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard [1961] wrote about this), not really understanding how they were obtained, while historians-practitioners often appropriate fragments of social theories from theorists without caring to understand the procedures of their elaboration and the axioms underlying them. Of course, the time of philosophers of history, who ignore descriptions of the reality of the past and present, has almost passed, but they have been replaced by compilers of various specialties who parasitize on the idiosyncrasy of researchers working with sources for broad generalizations. In contrast to the ‘narrow-minded’ empiricists who solemnly reject ‘new-fashioned theories’ and terminological systems developed within their frameworks, they continue to flourish, believing that in this way, they preserve their corporate identity. In fact, such a declarative rejection of any theory means that these ‘craftsmen’ simply use old theoretical schemes and zombie concepts developed in the century before last and outdated in the last century due to inertia. These guardians of empirical purity remain hostage to alien axiomatic assumptions and destructive memes, which emerged under conditions of strong ideologization of social sciences and humanities, with an obviously less factual basis