Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 23
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Nativ, Assaf 2016. No Compensation Needed: On Archaeology and the Archaeological. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,

    Babić, Staša 2015. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.

    Grill, Jan 2015. Struggles for the Folk. Politics of Culture in Czechoslovak Ethnography, 1940s–1950s. History and Anthropology, Vol. 26, Issue. 5, p. 619.

    Nigra, Benjamin T. Faull, Kym F. and Barnard, Hans 2015. Analytical Chemistry in Archaeological Research. Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 87, Issue. 1, p. 3.

    Seland, Eivind Heldaas and Bintley, Michael 2015. Writ in water, lines in sand: Ancient trade routes, models and comparative evidence. Cogent Arts & Humanities, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 1110272.

    Whyte, Nicola 2015. Senses of Place, Senses of Time: Landscape History from a British Perspective. Landscape Research, Vol. 40, Issue. 8, p. 925.

    Kassabaum, Megan C. 2014. WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE: DISCUSSING SOCIAL THEORY IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY. Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 269.

    Ljunge, Magnus 2013. Beyond ‘the Phenomenological Walk’: Perspectives on the Experience of Images. Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. 139.

    Edgeworth, Matt 2012. Reply to Comments from Åsa Berggren, Alfredo González-Ruibal, Tim Ingold, Gavin Lucas, Robin Skeates and Christopher Witmore. Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 45, Issue. 1, p. 106.

    Gillings, Mark 2012. Landscape Phenomenology, GIS and the Role of Affordance. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 601.

    Graves McEwan, Dorothy 2012. Qualitative Landscape Theories and Archaeological Predictive Modelling—A Journey Through No Man’s Land?. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 526.

    Johnson, Matthew H. 2012. Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology*. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 41, Issue. 1, p. 269.

    Mcclain, Aleksandra 2012. Theory, Disciplinary Perspectives and the Archaeology of Later Medieval England. Medieval Archaeology, Vol. 56, Issue. 1, p. 131.

    Rosenswig, Robert M. 2012. Materialism, Mode of Production, and a Millennium of Change in Southern Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Verhagen, Philip and Whitley, Thomas G. 2012. Integrating Archaeological Theory and Predictive Modeling: a Live Report from the Scene. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 49.

    JOHNSON, MATTHEW H. 2011. On the nature of empiricism in archaeology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 17, Issue. 4, p. 764.

    Sahlén, Daniel 2011. Introduction: Archaeological theory and Scottish archaeology in practice. Scottish Archaeological Journal, Vol. 33, Issue. 1-2, p. 1.

    DezhamKhooy, Maryam and Papoli Yazdi, Leila 2010. The archaeology of last night … what happened in Bam (Iran) on 25–6 December 2003. World Archaeology, Vol. 42, Issue. 3, p. 341.

    Harris, Oliver J.T. and Sørensen, Tim Flohr 2010. Talk about the passion. Archaeological Dialogues, Vol. 17, Issue. 02, p. 186.

    Jusseret, Simon 2010. Socializing geoarchaeology: Insights from Bourdieu's theory of practice applied to Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete. Geoarchaeology, Vol. 25, Issue. 6, p. 675.


On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory


In this paper I want to make some general comments on the state of archaeological theory today. I argue that a full answer to the question ‘does archaeological theory exist?’ must be simultaneously ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Yes, there is, demonstrably, a discourse called archaeological theory, with concrete structures such as individuals and schools of thought more or less substantively engaged with it; no, in that the claims for a distinctive way of thinking about the world in theoretical terms specific to archaeology, to which most or even the largest group of archaeologists would willingly or knowingly subscribe, are over-stated. In particular there is a lack of correspondence between theoretical backgrounds and affiliations that are overtly cited by archaeologists, on the one hand, and, on the other, the deeper underlying assumptions and traditions that structure their work and condition its acceptance. These underlying traditions stretch from field habits to underlying paradigms or discourses. I will explore this latter point with reference to the manner in which agency theory and phenomenology have been developed in archaeology. My conclusion suggests some elements of a way forward for archaeological theory; it is striking that many of these elements have been addressed in recent issues of Archaeological dialogues.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Archaeological Dialogues
  • ISSN: 1380-2038
  • EISSN: 1478-2294
  • URL: /core/journals/archaeological-dialogues
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *