Since the 1980s, archaeology has been further embedded in a reinforced and accelerating capitalist ideology, namely neo-liberalism. Most archaeologists had no alternative but to adapt to it through concessions to the free-market economy and to the so-called mitigations taking place within development. However, it is now apparent that the ongoing global socio-ecological disaster we are facing cannot be reversed with compromises but rather with a radical engagement against the injunctions of competition and growth. I suggest that we must anticipate the necessary transformations of archaeology in the coming decades, before archaeology becomes a technical avatar of the neo-liberal dogma, or before its complete annihilation for being deemed ‘superfluous’ (Wurst 2019, 171) by the capitalist regime. In this paper, I will use the idea of ‘degrowth’ to propose a new paradigm for archaeology by applying the concepts of civil disobedience, voluntary simplicity, redistribution of means and the ethics of no-growth.

This paper critically evaluates how archaeologists define ‘grave goods’ in relation to the full spectrum of depositional contexts available to people in the past, including hoards, rivers and other ‘special’ deposits. Developing the argument that variations in artefact deposition over time and space can only be understood if different ‘types’ of find location are considered together holistically, we contend that it is also vital to look at the points where traditionally defined contexts of deposition become blurred into one another. In this paper, we investigate one particular such category – body-less object deposits at funerary sites – in later prehistoric Britain. This category of evidence has never previously been analysed collectively, let alone over the extended time period considered here. On the basis of a substantial body of evidence collected as part of a nationwide survey, we demonstrate that body-less object deposits were a significant component of funerary sites during later prehistory. Consequently, we go on to question whether human remains were actually always a necessary element of funerary deposits for prehistoric people, suggesting that the absence of human bone could be a positive attribute rather than simply a negative outcome of taphonomic processes. We also argue that modern, fixed depositional categories sometimes serve to mask a full understanding of the complex realities of past practice and ask whether it might be productive in some instances to move beyond interpretively confining terms such as ‘grave’, ‘hoard’ and ‘cenotaph’. Our research demonstrates that is it not only interesting in itself to scrutinize archaeological evidence that does not easily fit into traditional narratives, but that the process of doing so also sheds new light on the validity of our present-day categories, enabling deeper insights into how people in the past ordered their material and conceptual worlds. Whilst our main focus is later prehistoric Britain, the issues we consider are potentially relevant across all periods and regions.

The heritage sector all through Europe and beyond is historically linked to the task of providing nations with glorious myths of origin within a metaphysical framework of essentialism. This is now shifting. With ambitions to pluralize the past, archaeology and the heritage sector are transforming within the nation state. Heritage in present-day societies has increasingly come to serve citizens with a range of cultural identities to chose from. But what is actually new in the way archaeology and the heritage sector address issues of heritage and citizenship? This text discusses how the heritage sector tends to renegotiate the essentialism of the nation state in theory, but at the same time maintain essentialism as the driving force in professional practices and interpretative frameworks. I suggest a new way for archaeology to work within another framework than essentialism. This suggestion does not go beyond the nation state, but inspires archaeology to rethink its narratives on how heritage links to citizenship.

This article examines the politics of ritual space in the Jequetepeque Valley, Peru after the conquest of the region by the Chimú Empire (A.D. 1200–1450). Interpretations are based on detailed analysis of ceremonial architecture located in the rural hinterland of urban centres. Despite imperial incorporation, the proliferation of ceremonial sites in the Jequetepeque countryside indicates that ritual production remained the prerogative of local groups. Architectural archaism, syncretism and the emulation of Chimú space in Jequetepeque demonstrate that rural communities adopted diverse ideological strategies to defend indigenous political identities and manipulate imperial authorities. The analysis improves understanding of the effects of Chimú conquest on local populations and suggests that imperial administration relied on indirect rule. Local communities were not passive consumers of state ideology but actively participated in the propagation of both corporate and indigenous religious systems. Ultimately, the article intends to advance archaeological interpretation of the political significance of patterned variability in the construction and experience of ceremonial space.

Social institutions such as the water-powered grain mills of Ottoman Cyprus are elaborately interconnected with a wide range of human and non-human players, from millers and villagers to water, gradient, stone and climate. When participants recognize their mutual dependencies and operate according to social and environmental limits, then following Ivan Illich we can call these watermills convivial tools. The European-owned sugar plantations, mills and refineries of medieval Cyprus, by contrast, divided and alienated their workforce, and their demands for water, labour, soil and fuel surpassed what their landscape and society could provide. They are, then, unconvivial tools. Conviviality is always precarious: it needs continual negotiation, conflict and compromise, as well as an acceptance of the mutual dependence of all participants, non-human and human. This politics of conviviality is particularly urgent in times of social and ecological crisis.

In 1998 this journal (Archaeological dialogues 5(2)) published an editorial titled ‘What is wrong with gender archaeology?’. Responding to this rhetorical question, the editor affirmed that indeed nothing was wrong with it; to the contrary, gender archaeology was as healthy as could be, ‘one of the most thriving fields within the discipline’ (Archaeological dialogues 1998, 88). Nonetheless, the writer then proceeded to describe a pervasive, ongoing issue with the article review process. Any submission that addressed gender would elicit warm praise from a reviewer chosen for familiarity with or expertise in gender studies. At the same time, the article would meet with harsh criticism from a second reviewer, selected for area, time period or topical specialization. The result was a continuing dilemma of how best to choose a third reviewer (a dilemma likely familiar to anyone who has submitted an article on any less-conventional topic to many disciplinary journals, not only in archaeology). This polarized reception of gender archaeology, and an unwillingness to engage in a dialogue around it, were persistent and deeply troubling. Comparing claims of novelty in gender archaeology with similar statements made decades earlier by New Archaeology, the editor suggested that processual archaeology gained support only after it had proven its worth in specific case studies, only ‘when substantial work demonstrated that this was indeed rather different and promising’ (Archaeological dialogues 1998, 89). Such an expectation would appear most sensible for any empirically engaged discipline.

A new sub-field in the archaeology of race has been emerging among historical archaeologists based in the US and South Africa. A review of this literature, put into play with some thoughts from Ralph Ellison and Franz Fanon, provides several ‘object lessons’ about the state of archaeological theory and practice, and the difficulties inherent in framing a material study of race. The literature exemplifies how archaeology is fast becoming an anachronistic critique of modernity that may hinder our ability to see difference in the past. At the same time, a brave new project of comparison might position us to contribute a unique perspective on the spiral of history.

This article examines a small group of artefacts of the Viking Age that may have been perceived as animated objects. These specific weapons and pieces of jewellery appear in narratives in the Old Norse sources as named, as having a will of their own, as possessing personhood. In archaeological contexts the same types of artefact are handled categorically differently than the rest of the material culture. Further, the possible links between these perspectives and the role of animated objects in early medieval Christianity of the Carolingian Empire are examined through studies of the reopening of Reihengräber and the phenomenon of furta sacra. By linking studies of the social biographies of objects with studies of animism, the article aims to identify aspects of Viking Age ontology and its similarities to Carolingian Christianity.

It is proposed that assemblage theory offers the possibility of exploring archaeological evidence in innovative ways, in order to write alternative narratives of urban development. By combining historical and archaeological scholarship with work in contemporary urban geography, it is proposed that the concept of urban decline in the later Middle Ages is problematic and a more fruitful alternative approach would be to focus on the transformation of urban assemblages. These ideas are explored by drawing upon archaeological evidence from Southampton, UK.

Archaeological interest in pastoralism – i.e. the predominant reliance on herded animals such as sheep and cattle for the production of food and other items for domestic consumption and (market) exchange – is gradually growing in the Mediterranean region and elsewhere. Ethno-archaeological studies in particular have paid attention to recent historical and contemporary pastoral economies as a consequence of the difficulties in recognizing pastoral material culture in the archaeological evidence. This paper will present an ethno-archaeological case study of recent pastoral economies in a mountain region in Sardinia (Italy), which have been investigated from a landscape perspective. I argue that the archaeologically visible features of pastoral and rural landscapes generally should be considered the outcome of both spatially and temporally diverse rural practices on the local level and their interaction with wider economic and political structures.

As in most European countries and elsewhere, Spanish commercial archaeology is a business model based on the theoretical and technical principles of safeguarding heritage that thrived during the 1990s and 2000s. However, nearly half of the Spanish archaeological companies closed by 2014, stressing the drama associated with the redundancy of its workforce in a mere five-year period and the threat to heritage protection and management. The current context of global crisis has impacted this sector, which is on the brink of extinction. This emphasizes the need for a new paradigm of archaeological heritage management in the 21st century. This breakdown calls into question the extent to which archaeology can generate initiatives of sustainable heritage management. By analysing data derived from an empirical study of Spanish archaeological companies between 2009 and 2017, this paper explores the underlying factors behind the collapse of commercial archaeology. In doing so, it contributes to the current global debate about the future possibilities of heritage management in a post-industrial context.

This paper addresses the role of archaeologists in informing the public about a fundamental component of contemporary Romanian identity: the Dacian heritage. I start by exploring how the Dacians and Romanians came to be connected, a process that resulted from a combination of nationalistic zeal on behalf of archaeologists and the nationalist propaganda of the Ceauşescu regime during the 1970s and 1980s. I then move to the present-day situation, where I argue that archaeologists have reduced themselves to having a minor role in the public sphere, while discussions about the Dacians are dominated by two main players: pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. This state of affairs delegitimizes Romanian archaeology and places self-declared specialists and enthusiasts in the position of experts. Some of the Dacian narratives produced in this environment are infused with strong nationalist messages and have the potential to fuel extreme right-wing and even xenophobic movements. Consequently, in the final part of the paper, I recommend that Romanian archaeologists should challenge the representations and interpretations of pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. Moreover, academics should make it a priority to re-engage with the public and disseminate their work to a broad audience in a convincing manner.

The aim of this paper is to establish how visual narratives can be used in the social context of storytelling, enabling the remembrance of events and those who participated in them in prehistory around the White Sea in the northernmost part of Europe. One of the largest complexes of fisher-gatherer-hunter art is located here, dating from the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age (ca 6000–4000 B.P.). A number of methodological strands are brought together to aid in the interpretation of the art, combining Western art-historical and non-Western visual traditions that challenge our modern ways of seeing. The paper proposes an unconventional interpretation of this rock art, in which the prehistoric imagery is ‘translated’ via two short films creating the visual link between past and the present.

This paper is a plea for the rehabilitation of the concept of Romanisation in the discussion about socio-cultural change resulting from the confrontation of (proto-)historical peoples with Roman power and an often dominant Roman culture. In the theoretical introduction, first of all an attempt is made to identify the social mechanisms of Romanisation; this is followed by a discussion on a model of dimensional analysis attuned to the dynamics of specific processes of Romanisation.

The major part of the article is devoted to an outline of the Romanisation process in the northern frontier zone of the Roman Empire, the Lower Rhine region. It focuses on the political and cultural interaction between the Batavian tribe living here and the Romans in the period between the Gallic war and the 3rd century A.D. The paper attempts to explain the differences between the process of Romanisation in the central part of Gaul (‘Interior Gaul’ in Greg Woolf's terminology) which had already been ‘civilised’ early on and the military frontier, where tribal traditions still continued to play an important part, certainly until the Batavian revolt of 69/70 A.D.

Drawing on examples from the West (Flanders) and developing East (Siberia, Russia), this paper investigates the subtle and often overlooked entanglements between the nation state and archaeology. Drawing on careful ethnographic assessments mapping the impact of the state on archaeological practice in Russia and Flanders, this paper illustrates that we need to transcend our traditional focus on nationalism and also look at the impact of bureaucratic procedures and documents. These at first sight benign systems of government greatly enmesh archaeologists with the nation state and its myriad of agendas, ultimately impacting both heritage management and academic research.

Providing a younger woman's perspective, and born out of the 2006 Cambridge Personal Histories event on 1960s archaeology, this paper struggles to reconcile the panel's characterization of a ‘democratization’ of the field with an apparent absence of women, despite their relative visibility in 1920s–1940s archaeology. Focusing on Cambridge, as the birthplace of processualism, the paper tackles the question ‘where were the women?’ in 1950s–1960s archaeology. A sociohistorical perspective considers the impact of traditional societal views regarding the social role of women; the active gendering of science education; the slow increase of university places for young women; and the ‘marriage bars’ of post-war Britain, crucially restricting women's access to the professions in the era of professionalization, leading to decades of positive discrimination in favour of men. Pointing to the science of male and female archaeologists in 1920s–1930s Cambridge, it challenges ideas of scientific archaeology as a peculiarly post-war (and male) endeavour. The paper concludes that processual archaeology did not seek to democratize the field for women archaeologists.

The alleged professional misconduct of Cambridge prehistorian Miles Burkitt, over his guided archaeological trip to South Africa in 1927 and the single-authored publication that resulted, has been taken to epitomize colonial relations of expropriation. However, unexploited archival and printed resources show that the affair has far more interesting implications, and that in South Africa of the 1920s and 1930s prehistoric archaeology became something of a ‘national discipline’, bearing both on national prestige abroad and on national unity at home, in the stormy relations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking communities.

This article discusses the development of the research strategy of the South Netherlands project conducted by the Instituut voor Pre- en Protohistorische Archeologie (IPP) of the University of Amsterdam. Its general objective is the study of long-term transformations in landscape and culture between ca 1000 B.C. and 1200 A.D. in the flat sandy region of the southern Netherlands and the adjacent part of northern Belgium. This area of ca 100 by 140 km is roughly bordered by the rivers Meuse, Demer and Scheldt (= MDS-region; see figure 1). The project has a history which started in the early 1970s. It evolved out of the ‘Kempenproject’ of the IPP and the Archeologisch Instituut van de Vrije Universiteit (AIVU) at Amsterdam. At present it is a major research programme of the IPP, with each year several large excavations dispersed over the region, but with a concentration in the south-eastern half of the province of North-Brabant (figure 1).

These are interesting times for the exploration of the relationships between humans and other animals. The ‘animal turn’ is in full swing in a number of disciplines; anthropologists have started talking of the emergence of a multi-species ethnography (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010); and even archaeologists have, somehow hesitantly, started contributing to wider discussions within animal studies (e.g. see the recent – 2013 – special issue of the journal Society and animals devoted to archaeology; and Harris and Hamilakis, in press). Another indication that things are changing is the overwhelmingly positive response to our ‘manifesto’ by most commentators, who have offered many valuable thoughts which expand our reflections in many and interesting directions: we are grateful. Rather than trying to comment on every single point raised in this discussion, which in any case would have been impossible in the space provided, we have selected instead a couple of issues that, we hope, readers will find engaging and fruitful.