At the Round Table discussion in Zadar different understandings of what the phrase ‘a European archaeology/an archaeology of Europe’ stands for were brought to the table, so to speak. Several nuances may be discerned, and within these there were differences that could lead to substantially different claims. The proposition may thus refer to the question of whether a European archaeology as a distinct practice of interpretation (and presentation) exists – in essence this is an epistemological question: do we think and argue in a distinctly European way? The phrase was simultaneously used to refer to whether there is an archaeology of Europe solely based on it being a geographical region; Philip Kohl's response to the precirculated paper by Kristian Kristiansen was largely concerned with the legitimacy of this claim. Finally, another important point of departure was whether the claim was seen to refer to coherence in terms of prehistoric cultures, i.e. is the ‘European’ in our work a direct response to characteristics and qualities of the past that we study? Surely these understandings overlap and fuse but it is nonetheless important to appreciate that the proposition under debate may be understood to refer to different matters.

Kristian Kristiansen's paper as published here touches upon each of these ways of responding to the claim but with particular attention towards how the historical conditions for the practice of archaeology in Europe since the early 19th century have created the current tensions between different geopolitical scales of research. Here I would like to supplement this historiographic view, with its important emphasis upon ‘the word we have known’, with a bit more scrutiny of some of the contemporary influences and new constellations affecting our professions. In order to consider the effect of ‘Europe’ as the apparent context of our work and the question of whether ‘European’ is an accurate or indeed helpful prefix to ‘archaeology’, it seems particularly interesting to turn to the question of, on the one hand, epistemology, and, on the other hand, external sociopolitical factors that influence practice.

With regard to epistemology, most of us probably have a perception of a profession which in its core – its aims, methods and theory – is ‘sans frontières’. In practice, however, at the most fundamental level the basis of knowledge claims differs between the subdisciplines of the profession. Moreover, this is not only due to the type of evidence used but also a matter of ways of reasoning and of what kinds of inference are made: the archaeologist working with matters relating to the Palaeolithic routinely uses evidence in a different manner to that of the Roman archaeologist, and so on. Archaeology has become too specialized, too attuned to expert questioning of the past and to particular types of data, to share ways of thinking and reasoning in a simplistic way. This recognition of difference we are all familiar with, and while one may be regretting the loss of communality (or innocence, sic D. Clarke) of earlier generations, the gain in analytical depth is the obvious reward. What we may have discussed less openly, however, is whether the increasingly different agendas that archaeology is becoming involved with in different parts of the world also influence our epistemological basis. For example, may the investigations of burial evidence, both methodological and in terms of objectives, become distinctly different intellectual exercises depending upon the presence of empowered indigenous communities? Furthermore, how may not just our objectives but also the very nature of knowledge claims be influenced and shaped by the involvement (and the nature of that involvement) of other voices in the interpretation of the past? We are all familiar with the changes in the practising of archaeology at a global level over the last decades, but what awareness have we brought to the question of how this positions us (in this case Europe) in the global archaeology? It ought to be thought-provoking that so many of us now refer to, for instance, ‘indigenous’ (for example in ethical codes), as if it were a universal and uncomplicated concept, at the same time as its application for most of Europe is unclear and its use in Africa extremely problematic (S. Keitumetse, personal communication), to name just two areas. Such differences in what archaeology does should suggest to us that it has a complex epistemological basis that responds to variations in its data, in its traditions of explanation and in its changing roles with regard to society at large. Due to such influences, European archaeology may increasingly appear epistemological as a shared knowledge system, at some levels linked closely with other systems but at other levels also increasingly different. This is a matter that deserves more scrutiny and also courage in terms of willingness to contemplate differences in the modern world.

The ‘European-ness’ of European Archaeology is also being fuelled, in a manner that has no precedent in earlier times, by the very existence of pan-national political organizations which in different ways have put the nation state under attack; the contrast between the nature of these political organizations and the internationalist trends Kristian Kristiansen refers to should be noted here as it may represent a new dynamic rather than being reducible to long-terms trends. Whether one feels like it or not, living in an EU member state one's life is in many ways, small as well as significant, dictated by Europe, and this is a dictate that has increasingly become concerned with creating a shared European heritage (and identity). As archaeologists we are therefore involved with Europe through the ways that funding and research strategies guide us towards involvement in its cultural construction. Part of the political reality of living in Europe is that there is a new level of encouragement of collaborations between partners from different countries; our analytical lenses are being guided away from the national as new initiatives, criss-crossing Europe and stitching it together in new ways, are being encouraged. These influences (and here I think Kristian Kristiansen's model of oscillation between international and national may not be sufficiently dynamic to comprehend how complex the world is now), moreover, are strategies that undermine the national by simultaneously upgrading and prioritizing the regional and the European (not the international or global). We see these new influences in the production of new types of formalized cultural experience and in various forms of outreach including, for instance, the European cultural paths or cultural parks projects. So, yes, a European archaeology does exist, although it is neither the only archaeology we engage with nor is it static and fixed.