Classification of artifacts has long marked a significant edge between theory and practice in archaeology. While considering classification to be a necessary methodological device, most practitioners also recognize that it carries with it built-in assumptions. This essay approaches the issue by way of a specific stone tool type from Old World sites: the burin. By asking "what is a burin?" the study shows the need to reconsider typologies to reflect changes in research questions and progress in dating methods, especially when working with museum collections and secondary data between regions and across national traditions, and the need to study whole collections from the perspective of technological choices.

Drawing on work in science studies, I argue for the importance of fieldwork and research practices when considering the relative significance of feminism within archaeology. Fieldwork, often presented as the unifying hallmark of all of anthropology, has a different resonance in archaeology at the level of material practice and specific techniques. In order to understand the relationship between archaeology and feminism we need to investigate methods, methodology, and interpretations of the material record simultaneously. Examining one practice, that of map making, I suggest venues amenable to feminist insights.

The last twenty years have witnessed animated debates in archaeology about the influence of context on the production of archaeological knowledge. This article argues that social and historical context affects archaeology not only at the level of interpretation but also at that of basic practice. I illustrate this claim about the historical nature of data through a comparison of two Palaeolithic central European sites, Willendorf and Dolní V stonice, examining the way in which particularities of each context affected the collection, analysis, and subsequent circulation of their lithic collections in regional reconstructions. Beyond a concern for more overt ideological forms of nationalism, I conclude that we need to pay greater attention to the local histories of archaeology, and their influence in transforming facts into data.

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.