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.