It doesn't mean a rejection of the theoretical, paradigmatical, texts of archaeology; on the contrary, considering it as such, would be a misunderstanding of  Hodder's text which I am referring to.

In a usage dictionary like the one I am presenting here, the question is not the searching of the place a term occupies in a conceptual system or in a theoretical construct, but, on the contrary, the question is the recovering of its usage without taking into account the theoretical view of its author, that is to say, no matter what definition has the term in a theory. The question is not the recovering of concepts that are coherent with specific theoretical views, but the recovering of the terms and its concrete relationships as they arise from the analysis of the texts in which they were used (defining them or mereley using them to define other terms). And the latter is related to the materiality of the data: my data are the utterances.