In his paper Peter Odermatt takes the local inhabitants and their right to (re)presentation and appropriation of the monumental heritage under protection against the hegemonistic pretension of the Authority – scientific, institutional, economical – that they are solely entitled to this right. The author rightly argues that, in the appropriation of cultural heritage, the Authority does not hold any greater rights than those who live in the vicinity of monuments or those who come from abroad to visit them. The examples he outlines are derived from a Sardinian context and illustrate how the ‘colonial’ pretensions of the heritage industry alienate the local residents from their monumental past and, as a consequence, how indifference led into oblivion.

There is nothing inherently new, of course, about the study of men in archaeology. For example, in his important history of the creation of modern European masculinity George Mosse (The Image of Man, Oxford, 1996) describes one objective of eighteenth-century archaeologists as entailing the rediscovery of ancient Greek sculpture. Among other things Mosse demonstrates how an ‘ideal of masculine beauty took its inspiration from Greece’ and from the Greek statues in which the male body is deified, to such an extent that ‘the noble soul of each youth manifests itself through the harmonious position of his naked body during gymnastic exercises, foreshadowing the important role that gymnastics will play in shaping modern manhood’.

Dawdy's keynote paper, rather than answering the question whether archaeology is useful, asks whether it should be useful. That is, she asks whether archaeology needs to be useful beyond archaeology for archaeology's sake. It is a valid question, because many people see archaeology as a non-essential option, of peripheral use if any. For others, archaeology's utility lies in its ability to provide the long-term view of human behaviour and humankind's reactions to situations of the past that, hopefully, we might use to help us deal with present and future events.

On 13 November 2017, Yannis Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas, and several other archaeologists at Brown University engaged in a conversation with Alain Schnapp about his life and career. Hamilakis and Rojas were interested in learning about how Schnapp’s early academic and political interests intersected with the history of Classics and classical archaeology in France, Europe and elsewhere in the world, and also about the origins and current aims of Schnapp’s work on the history of archaeology and antiquarianism and the cross-cultural history of ruins. Schnapp and his interlocutors began by discussing Schnapp’s formative years and the intersections between archaeology and politics in mid-20th-century France. Their conversation turns to the role of individual scholars, specifically classicists and archaeologists, in the momentous social events in Paris in 1968. The final part of the dialogue concerns Schnapp’s contributions to the history of archaeology and the possibilities of engaging in the comparison of antiquarian traditions.

We would like to thank all commentators for their engaging responses and their useful and constructive remarks. Their commentaries offer us a second chance to clarify some of the issues which, in the interest of brevity and due to the broad nature of our analysis, we were not able to develop in the paper. At the same time they point to some of the methodological, ethical, and political problems that this kind of analysis faces. Our article was deliberately broad ranging, both in terms of time-scale and categories of evidence. This breadth has allowed us to trace a phenomenon from its genesis to its subsequent development and persistence, despite variations, up to the present-day. It also allowed us to demonstrate that the phenomenon is encountered in both official and unofficial discourses. It is expressed in a number of media, from public rhetoric to archaeological discourse, the mass media, social practices, and political rituals involving antiquities. Furthermore, in our attempt to demonstrate the interrelationships of the phenomenon with a whole range of other parameters, we have touched upon a number of issues without further exploration. Some of these issues, which have been explored by others in length, were omitted from our analysis. This is the case for example with ‘disemia’ (Herzfeld 1987,95–122); the differentiation between the Greek self-presentation and the representation of Greek identity to (non-Greek) outsiders. This issue has been commented upon by some (Sutton, Alexandri) and, given its complexity, we would prefer not to discuss it within the limits of this commentary. We should note, however, that the phenomenon of the sacralisation of the past seems to be associated with both strategies. Given that the commentaries have largely focused on different issues, we have decided to treat them separately, making the links where appropriate.

Frans Theuws's paper reinforces and extends the developing critique of the early medieval economy as structured around gifts and commodities (for the ‘orthodoxy’, see Hodges 1982 and Hedeager 1993; for the critique, see Moreland 2000a and 2000b; Samson 1991; also Godelier 1999 (1996); and Thomas 1991). In the past, our assumptions about why certain objects were deemed valuable, and why they should have circulated as prestige gifts, have been influenced by notions of inherent worth (gold, silver and so on) or by the unthinking application of the laws of supply and demand (objects from afar are in short supply and must therefore be valuable). The proposition that value derives from the ‘imaginary world’ is one of the most significant in his paper and I will return to consider its implications in some detail.

Following its successful first international face-to-face debate at the 2006 meeting of the SAA in Puerto Rico, Archaeological dialogues has again organized a conference discussion. This time we chose the Old World to invite our readership and a wider audience, congregating at the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Zadar, Croatia. On 21 September 2007 we held a Round Table session, sponsored by Archaeological dialogues and Cambridge University Press, which asked, somewhat provocatively, ‘Does the “archaeology of Europe” exist?’ Kristian Kristiansen presented a position paper on the topic, followed by responses from Old World and New World commentators Predrag Novaković, Elisabeth Jerem and Phil Kohl. This issue now presents their thoughts on this question, together with a number of comments that arose from the very lively debate at the Round Table session.

The last decade has witnessed a significant increase in the number of comprehensive syntheses on Irish prehistory, both in terms of academic textbooks and popular accounts. The present review essay finds that these syntheses are highly convergent in terms of theme, scope, and theoretical underpinnings. Although large-scale migrations are rejected as explanations for culture change, Ireland is still perceived as the receptacle for foreign ideas and overseas inventions, whereby imports are not just introduced but also perfected in Ireland. We argue that a similar attitude can be noted in the perception of the history of Irish prehistory. This convergence and absence of overt polemics are explained by referring to the small size of the Irish archaeological community. The increase in syntheses is accounted for by a number of empirical preconditions, the theoretical climate of opinion, the institutional expansion of the discipline, the public impact of a rapidly changing natural and political landscape and the notion of an Irish identity.

My essay is intended as an archaeological dialogue on Romanization in the sense that it tries ‘to creatively discuss what we mean when we say “Rome”, across boundaries set by disciplines or scholarly traditions, fuelled by new developments in other fields, and especially in terms of material culture’ (p. 6). Therefore it is looking ahead on purpose, with the historiography of the field (only) serving as a means to an end and not so much as a point of discussion in its own right. Resuscitating, repairing or refitting the concept of Romanization itself is not at stake: on purpose I talked about ‘reinvigorating the Romanization debate’ while not discussing the feasibility of the concept in the present situation (‘When I use the term “reinvigorating” I explicitly do not mean to indicate that we should continue the debate as if Romanization were either good or bad, or to question whether or not we should use the term at all’) (p. 6). The essay, therefore, is not so much about Romanization 2.0 per se, but rather about triggering a debate to get us going again or, to paraphrase Woolf's conclusion, to get us out of the Romanization/‘Romanization’ comfort zone. The Romanization debate indeed seems to have brought us a new canon of reference works and key concerns, as Woolf rightly remarks. I argue that we should urgently try to refresh the canon by looking critically at what has become received wisdom and by simultaneously exploring what could become new key questions for our field. Canonization should be a dynamic and ongoing process.

For more than a decade, since the mid-80s, the context of archaeology has changed rapidly and profoundly all over Europe. We are still in the middle of this development and numerous recent publications show an increasing awareness of archaeologists about its causes and implications. This is what Gramsch in his paper calls the self-reflexive approach and I join him in his appeal for the development of an archaeological reflexive theory embedded in sociological theory and epistemology. Not only to help us to be better aware of the changing context of our work but also to provide us with the insights and the tools to cope with such change.

Professor Dawdy's keynote speech addresses some of the main challenges of the discipline in the 21st century. Archaeology should not be self-serving, and it can even become dangerous, a possible consequence of a quest for its usefulness. A possible solution would be to focus efforts on environmental archaeology. Looking for ancient sustainable agricultural practices, for example, in order to better inform contemporary human adaptations, would be a path to follow. According to Dawdy, this useful, futurist archaeology finds a public ready for such an endeavour.

The archaeologist's role in public life is not limited to only understanding, reflecting and informing on the past, but also should reveal who we are at present and help society in manoeuvring into the future. We are a major part of the public intellectuals who should intervene in public debate, not only in the media but also as a part of the decision-making process. We can contribute to making a difference in many aspects of human life, intellectually, socially, culturally and politically. This paper will aim to shed light on my involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group (IPAWG). I will focus on how a small group of archaeologists has contributed positively to one of the most complicated political conflicts in modern history. I will also address an example from Al-Jib to indicate the role of archaeologists as scientists, citizens and public figures.

Assaf Nativ has written an interesting and, I think, important paper. It raises critical issues around the ontological status of ‘the archaeological’ and indeed about the purpose and aims of archaeology as a discipline. These are clearly topics that require consideration and critical analysis. His arguments are provocative, in the best sense, in that they will lead us to reflect on some of the basic foundations of what we believe archaeology to be. Such consideration is certainly necessary to disciplinary health. That said, and after some hefty reflection of my own, I have concluded that I disagree with much of the paper's argument. In the space afforded to me I aim to set out why.

From Slofstra's interesting paper it would seem that, in its main essentials, Dutch archaeology has the characteristics of most European archaeological traditions. In particular, it is wedded to an historical perspective, in which attention is paid to specific sequences and contexts. This commitment to history is evident from the Cultural-Historical Research Tradition earlier this century, it is seen in the lukewarm reaction to the generalising claims of processual archaeology, and it resurfaces in the new historical-anthropological perspective. As Slofstra argues, this last move towards a theoretically informed historical approach is a logical evolution within the Dutch tradition even if, as I will suggest below, it is also part of wider trends.

There's an old Ry Cooder song – written by Bobby Miller – entitled ‘If walls could talk’ (not the Celine Dion song), whose refrain is ‘Ain't you glad that things don't talk’. Archaeologists clearly wish things could talk because we, more than most, appreciate the power of things and the close relationships that exist between humans and things and their shared histories. I was struck by this one day sitting reading a book in my bedroom. I glanced up, looked around me and realized that everything in that room would be there the day after I died – everything. In fact my things would clearly outlive me, and regardless of what attachment or lack of attachment I might have to any of those things, I would not be the ultimate arbiter of their fate. That would be left to others who for a whole host of reasons might not share the same relationship with these things that I had. Most would probably be discarded while others might be kept. Those choices are just one example of the kinds of emotions and calculations that surround human–thing (HT) and human–human (HH) relations.

This is an admirable, valuable piece of thinking and conceptualizing, but cramped – in my view – by the geographical boundaries which Kristiansen has set around his subject.