‘Agency’, the concept, its connections to ontology and itsuses within archaeological theory, are discussed and criticized. In recentarchaeological theory, the term ‘agency’ has beenattributed to things, plants, animals and humans. In this paper it is arguedthat the term ‘agency’ is logically meaningless if appliedto everything that moves or has effects on its surroundings, and that we need anew, more precise terminology that discriminates between‘agency’, ‘effect’,‘actant’ and ‘effectant’. Thatpeople, of all cultures, perceive and experience things/objects as having agencyis explained as being due to projections of human characteristics, humanpsycho-neurological functioning, and the fact that all individuals and culturesare deeply involved with and dependent on things/objects. Connected to this,questions regarding different ontologies, animism, ethics and sciences arediscussed. The paper presents a critique of symmetrical archaeology andmateriality studies. Broader paradigmatic perspectives, more theoretical andmethodological inclusiveness, and more inter- and trans-disciplinary endeavoursare suggested to increase archaeology's‘agency’.