Collingwood and Archaeological Theory

  • Stephen LeachEmail author
Part of the Philosophers in Depth book series (PID)


Leach asks, what would Collingwood have thought of archaeological theory, a sub-discipline of archaeology that has developed since the 1960s? He argues that Collingwood would have welcomed it for it has developed out of respect for the principle that in any investigation, in examining the evidence, one must always have some question in mind. Nonetheless, although Collingwood would have welcomed recent developments in archaeological theory, and would have urged metaphysicians to take notice of such developments, he is not himself an archaeological theorist: he is, primarily, a metaphysician.


  1. Bidwell, P. 2005. The System of Obstacles on Hadrian’s Wall: Their Extent, Date and Purpose. Arbeia Journal 8: 53–75.Google Scholar
  2. Bintliff, J., ed. 1988. Extracting Meaning from the Past. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  3. Bintliff, J., and M. Pearce, eds. 2011. The Death of Archaeological Theory. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  4. Collingwood, R.G. 1930. The Archaeology of Roman Britain. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1939. An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1946. The Idea of History. Ed. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1999. The Principles of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dray, W.H. 1958. Historical Understanding as Rethinking. University of Toronto Quarterly 27: 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 1963. Historical Explanation of Actions Reconsidered. In Philosophy and History, ed. S. Hook. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Flinders Petrie, W.M. 1904. Methods and Aims in Archaeology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Gardiner, P. 1952. The Nature of Historical Explanation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hodder, I. 1991. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1995. Of Mice and Men: Collingwood and Archaeological Thought. In Philosophy, History and Civiliation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on R.G. Collingwood, ed. D. Boucher, J. Connelly, and T. Modood. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  15. Leach, S. 2017. Leo S. Klejn and R.G. Collingwood on History, Archaeology and Detection. Journal of the Philosophy of History 11: 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Preucel, R.W., and S.A. Mrozowski, eds. 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Richmond, I.A. 1943. Appreciation of R.G. Collingwood as an Archaeologist. Proceedings of the British Academy 29: 476–485.Google Scholar
  20. Simpson, G. 1998. Collingwood’s Latest Archaeology Misinterpreted by Bersu and Richmond. Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 5: 109–119.Google Scholar
  21. Yoffee, N., and A. Sherratt. 1993. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Politics, IR and PhilosophyKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations