It is often claimed that one of the strengths of archaeology as a diseiplin1try oractice resides in its unique time depth. Indeed time is essential to archaeolo2y: it constitutes part of the reason for its existe11ce, One mlti:ht exoect that a discioline so deeply imolicated in and concerned with time to have a hic;rhly develooed theoretical understandinc;r of the nature of temporality and its relation to social totalities. Unfortunately, as in so many other areas, this is not the case . I In

more »

... i s paper we intend to oroblematise the nature of time and , in so doin'; , hope to dispel some of the 'innocence' involved in the treatment of temporality in contemporary archaeology. Abstract Time Time in archaeolo gy has been regarded as largely unproblematic, s omethin'; into which artifacts and sites may be slotted. It is simply considered and presented in terms of sequence and date , a dimension. To identify time as a dimension is to utilise a spatial metaphor. Time becomes location and distance, a framework in which the traces of the oast are locked uo and may be situated and ordered.