The European Association of Archaeologists has long fostered critical analysis of the relationship between archaeology and politics, particularly the politics of national, regional and supra-regional identities. Although the role of nationalism in the birth of archaeology as a discipline is well recognized, the events of the past few years – from the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, to the movement for secession in eastern Ukraine, and the rise of explicitly nationalist political movements across the continent – suggest that the (re)formulation of national identities is likely to continue to have major implications both for our interpretation of the past and for the practice of archaeology in the present. In light of this, the Archaeological dialogues editorial board organized a round table at the EAA meeting in Glasgow in September 2015 to explore the extent to which institutional, legislative and funding structures as well as political and cultural imperatives continue to bind our discipline into the construction of nationalist narratives, and this more or less in spite of long-standing critical debates within the discipline itself that for decades have problematized the relationship. Are we caught in a ‘can't-live-with-and-can't-live-without’ situation? While explicitly nationalist archaeologies have become almost obsolete in the European academies, we rarely contemplate the impact of nationalism on funding or the definition and protection of cultural heritage, for example. Several of the following papers suggest that without the nation state's involvement, the vicissitudes of global capitalism would result in a situation where it would be extremely difficult to adequately protect our ‘heritage’, however that is defined.

Contemporary archaeology seems to be marked by a questioning of the limits of interpretation, pushing for a radical change in the way we conceptualize our engagement with the past, the material and the world we live in: from archaeologies of affect, to new materialist approaches or calls to political engagement, practitioners seem to experiment with new questions and theoretical tools. As Artur Ribeiro points out in his contribution to the following collection of papers, ‘“new” has become the new normal’. But the question is, what are we trying to do with these experiments and what do we expect from archaeology in a world that is undergoing major changes and challenges?

Do archaeologists recover the material record of past processes or the residues of the material conditions that made the presence of a kind of humanness possible? This paper attempts to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between these two options and argues the case for, and briefly contemplates the practical implications of, an archaeology of the human presence.

This paper discusses state influences on archaeology in eastern Europe (as geographically defined by the United Nations Statistics Division). In this respect, the following issues are considered: the current situation of a nation state, the links between archaeology and nation states in eastern Europe and the factors influencing the future potential increase of nationalism in the discipline.

The rise of the nation state has had a major influence on the development of archaeology. Nation states today, however, differ from their 19th- and 20th-century equivalents, and they both impact upon and use archaeology in different ways. By looking outwards from an individual country within a collective nation state, I will explore the forms that this can take. From a Scotland-based perspective, I will look at how various borders and boundaries, and the aims and objectives of those responsible for them, affect archaeological work. As well as looking at institutional and administrative boundaries and their effect on archaeology, I will also explore how archaeological work, and the stories we produce, can either question or reinforce the nation state. Ultimately, archaeology can be used in a very different way now than in the 19th and 20th centuries: it is less about the specific stories and more about the process of uncovering them. Rather than telling a national story, archaeology can be used as an instrument to deliver on wider objectives.

In this statement, I argue that one way for archaeology to realize the potential of its materials to tell us something different about the past is to confront the question of alterity, understood as the ontological difference that lies at the roots of much archaeological material. If we accept alterity as a starting point of analysis then we stand a chance of challenging the strictures of interpretive frameworks that foreclose the possibility of encountering something new. Methodologically and theoretically I argue for risk-taking, especially taking on conceptual resources from indigenous thinkers and adopting a stance of wonder in the face of our materials which can open up unsuspected archaeological realities.

Many archaeologists are currently stuck in a mindset in which attention is paid exclusively to ideas that are ‘new’ and ‘revolutionary’. This fetishization of the ‘new’ leads us down a dangerous road as it promotes uncritical disdain of old ideas which remain valid and it advocates fads from neighbouring disciplines which are methodologically vapid and philosophically dubious. The objective of this paper is to question whether archaeology requires constant ‘paradigmatic change’ and my answer to this question is no. By constantly altering the status quo, archaeologists are promoting a culture in which theoretical ‘newness’ is given the spotlight and ideas are considered valid as long as they are original. Against this, I recommend a more critical view of new ideas and a revision of old ones – a culture which prioritizes the quality of archaeological theories regardless of whether they are new or old.

Academic developments, migration and other forces of globalization have ruptured the validity of traditional national and ethnic archaeology in the Scandinavian states. However, this does not mean that the relationship between nation states and archaeology has come to an end. In reference to Norway, this article contends that on a practical level there is no viable alternative to replace the nation state. In terms of archaeological narratives, it is more relevant to adapt archaeological narratives to the evolving state than to advocate abandoning the nation state altogether.

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 underlying notion for this article is that archaeology requires an amalgamation of humanities and science, and of narrative and scientific knowledge. The need for this fusion has arisen in a context in which contemporary society is experiencing major changes in epistemics, aesthetics and fashion; an increase in virtual experiences; and an economic crisis. I refer to this situation as the neo-baroque, a condition that is elusive and partially ambiguous. This social context (perhaps the final crisis of modernity), and the breakdown of this integration in pragmatic terms, call for a repoliticization of science.

This paper addresses the limits of the methods and questions asked by osteoarchaeologists when dealing with human remains. Osteoarchaeologists seem to take for granted that through the study of such remains they can say something relevant about a past individual's identity, something about the nature of their being. Since the early 1990s various voices have questioned these assumptions, also claiming that the study and display of human remains are unethical. It is my intention to rethink the topic of ethics in osteoarchaeology by shifting the focus to the research questions and methods we employ – what kind of evidence are we looking for and what kinds of relationship are we establishing with those earlier lives? By taking as a starting point the analysis of the remains of the Greek Catholic Bishop Vasile Aftenie, killed during the Communist regime, I explore the view practitioners take as the legitimate way of framing the relationship between past and present and the transformation of bones into scientific objects. In the end I propose that such a re-evaluation, alongside an opening of our discipline towards anthropology, can contribute to a recovery of humanity as part of the academic discourse, which should be the key element in any ethical discussion.

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.

Rather than being bashed around in view of its contents, the nation state – or at least the ‘state’ part of this compound term – needs to be cherished for the context it provides. Without the state, instilling regulations, procedures and common purpose, archaeology will not really thrive. This is confirmed through an exemplary case study, namely the seemingly measured and consensual retrenchment of the state occurring in England over the past 25 years. A brief presentation of the structure of English archaeology serves to highlight the situation of each of its main sectors, commercial contractors, curators at local levels and national bodies. Recent changes at the last level, involving English Heritage Trust and Historic England, highlight the risks posed by state disengagement, by funding withdrawal and by the enforced commercialization of public services.

This paper asks whether archaeologists might profitably re-engage with the pre-Enlightenment doctrines of elemental philosophy and humoral theory as paradigms more relevant for archaeological interpretation in certain contexts than much of current theoretical discourse. These ancient cosmologies are here reconceptualized to suggest ways in which archaeologists might provide fairer representations of past cultures, through the readoption of ideas that they understood rather than through the imposition of more recent and thus anachronistic frames of analytical reference. In four brief case studies, the paper seeks to show how the foregrounding of elemental and humoral theories might lead to new ways of thinking about the study and interpretation of the landscape, material culture, consumption and the senses. Through them, the paper looks to encourage reflection on whether elemental and humoral theories represent the intellectual paradigms that archaeologists have been striving to invent since the discipline's creation.

In this article I outline the analogies and the differences in number concept development in prehistoric Europe and in the Near East. Research on Near Eastern recording systems is far more advanced, and it provides us with a good theoretical approach. There are, however, more and more finds in Europe that deserve our attention when looking toward a theory of early number concepts, concepts of measure and mathematics. For archaeologists, there is an obvious requirement that such a theory has to be constructed on a material basis. Therefore in the second part of the text I describe some key finds from Europe that in my opinion allow us, on the one hand, to reference current theoretical approaches and, on the other, to connect theoretical considerations and their material basis.

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.

The philosophical movement known as speculative realism (SR) has much in common with archaeology. As well as a shared concern with objects and with time, both have orientations towards an external reality that exists (or existed) outside the domain of human knowledge. This paper explores overlaps and commonalities in these two very different types of investigation. Proceeding from an archaeological perspective, it critically assesses the relevance of some of the key ideas of SR for archaeology, while also looking at ways in which these can be challenged, honed, adapted and transformed through encounters with archaeological objects. It asks the question, what can archaeology usefully contribute to the SR project?

This paper is a charge against ethnoarchaeology. Deliberately provocative, it aims at highlighting the flaws and ideological pitfalls of a sub-discipline whose actual contribution to archaeology remains hardly decipherable. Beside a methodological deficiency and the frequent narrow-mindedness of the research agenda, ethnoarchaeology suffers from two major problems. First, it carries implicitly an old evolutionary – and racist – ideology that divides the world between modern Western societies (inappropriate for ethnoarchaeological research) and premodern exotic societies (well fitted for ethnoarchaeological research). Second, the quest for universal models of interpretation leads ethnoarchaeologists to play down historical contingency and cultural specificities, which not only deprive them of a good understanding of the ethnographical contexts, but also contribute to restricting ethnoarchaeological applications to a mere quest for similarities (or dissimilarities) in the material record. The problems are too profound to justify an umpteenth salvage of the sub-discipline. Rather, the proposition is to get rid of ethnoarchaeology once and for all, and join forces with other, more serious, disciplines.

Two contrasting arguments on the merits of symmetrical archaeology and an associated discussion of object agency appeared in a recent issue of Archaeological dialogues (Lindstrøm 2015; Olsen and Witmore 2015). While Torill Christine Lindstrøm extends a thorough, yet hardly new, criticism of the notion of object agency and of symmetrical archaeology, Bjørnar Olsen and Christopher Witmore provide a clarification in its defence (even though their article is oddly categorized by Archaeological dialogues as a ‘provocation’). In this reaction article, I take issue with a number of arguments by Lindstrøm and by Olsen and Witmore: first of all, I challenge Lindstrøm's representation of object agency, which I believe is in need of corrections. Second, I contend that Lindstrøm fails to identify a number of fundamental contributions within the framework of symmetrical archaeology, thus allowing her to caricature symmetrical archaeology as ‘old wine in new bags’. Third, even though Olsen and Witmore's defence offers helpful clarifications, I believe that their contribution invites us to discuss the vocabulary of symmetrical archaeology, scrutinizing why there is an apparent tendency to misunderstand its arguments and merits. Lastly, I take issue with Lindstrøm's dismissal of ‘different ontologies’ as a result of political correctness.

This paper commends some ideas that Torill Christine Lindstrøm presented in this journal on the subject of ‘object agency’ (2015) and contends, against Tim Flohr Sørensen's reaction paper (2016), that object agency subsists on philosophically questionable premises. I argue that Sørensen relies on a definition of ‘agency’ which is too labile and virtually indistinguishable from ‘cause’. Moreover, certain premises that Sørensen supports lead to some contradictions with regard to social responsibility. Finally, I argue that object agency is part of a larger intellectual trend which perceives agency as a dynamic global force – and that a return to a more constrained understanding of agency would be of more benefit to archaeology.