On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory
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.
archaeological theory, theoretical archaeology, agency, phenomenology
117-132
Johnson, Matthew H.
fcccfae4-1d00-419b-9d29-c5e7444dc8f0
2006
Johnson, Matthew H.
fcccfae4-1d00-419b-9d29-c5e7444dc8f0
Johnson, Matthew H.
(2006)
On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory.
Archaeological Dialogues, 13 (2), .
(doi:10.1017/S138020380621208X).
Abstract
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.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2006
Keywords:
archaeological theory, theoretical archaeology, agency, phenomenology
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 43183
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/43183
ISSN: 1380-2038
PURE UUID: 4204d35f-d7d3-4eda-a331-46bf32d9e8dd
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 15 Jan 2007
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 08:52
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics