Abstract
What drives archaeology? Is it new empirical discoveries, new methods or new theory? These factors combined are the fuel of the discipline, is the obvious answer. However, debates and research articles frequently reveal how a perceived need for novelty, originality and impact tends to disentangle this triumvirate of archaeological virtues, giving precedence to one asset over others as the supposed driving force. Focusing on archaeological theory, this article taps into current discussions of the nature of archaeological change, reviewing debates on the formation of archaeological theory, its legitimisation and usefulness. Specifically, I address a recent claim that archaeological theory too readily undermines itself by adopting immature ideas and concepts from other disciplines in an uncritical pursuit of novelty. Finally, I discuss how archaeology may contribute more generally to the formation of theory in the humanities by returning so-called borrowed theory.
Highlights
When I was a PhD student, a senior colleague gave me a friendly warning
Despite the simplicity of the advice, and its seeming innocence, it led to a question that has lingered with me ever since: What makes archaeological theory useful? If theory on its own is barren, what does it take to make it worthwhile? I might be grossly generalising, but it seems to me that many archaeologists consider theory useful only when it allows for a better description, understanding or interpretation of the archaeological material under scrutiny, or if it leads to a more plausible explanation of the culture historical trajectories in the past
As Ribeiro asks, why is innovation considered indispensable for making good, relevant research, when archaeology is replete with objects, sites and monuments, and with topics and methods, in need of further exploration and development? Why have innovation and originality become unquestioned prerequisites for contributing to the state of the art in one’s field of research? By extension, it seems necessary to ask whether innovation and originality are essential in order to formulating relevant archaeological theory
Summary
When I was a PhD student, a senior colleague gave me a friendly warning. She stated that ‘theory, for the sake of theory, is barren’. I might be grossly generalising, but it seems to me that many archaeologists consider theory useful only when it allows for a better description, understanding or interpretation of the archaeological material under scrutiny, or if it leads to a more plausible explanation of the culture historical trajectories in the past.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
