I have much sympathy for Shannon Dawdy's eloquent argument in favour of reorienting archaeology ‘away from reconstructions of the past and towards problems of the present’ (p. 140). The topic is timely, her argument sharp, and the discussion of the issues at hand benefits from them being put on the spot in rather dramatic fashion. I do not agree with those who might argue that such calls for more social relevance in a humanities subject are merely the symptom of an unhelpful but prevalent insecurity and demonstrate a lack of confidence in one's own academic abilities. At the same time, Dawdy's passionate and courageous argument would have benefited from additional analysis of the subject matter at hand. As it stands, I have two main reservations to her paper.

I want to thank the commentators for their thoughtful and diverse responses. I was originally worried that my intentionally provocative sally was going to either scratch a bundle of raw nerves or go over like a wet firecracker. Instead, the replies were all over a very interesting global map (with perhaps a few reactions at either extreme). To quote Mark Pluciennik, one could say of the total array of responses that ‘where archaeologies might fit among such a constellation of uses and abuses is of course highly contextual and dependent on one's position in time, and space, and sociocultural and political situation’ (p. 153). I will not be so bold as to try to contextualize each author according to their national original, institutional setting or academic training and research interests, since I think the intelligent reader can see these glinting through the responses. Instead, I will take this opportunity to contextualize myself. Despite my calls for honesty in the paper, I have not been entirely honest about the genealogy and context of my opinions. In the course of my confessional, I will also enunciate those places where I am humbled by the knowledge and activities of the responders and, of course, where I think I have been misunderstood.

With the growing impact of postprocessual orientations, archaeologists have become increasingly aware that the production of values resides in all aspects of archaeological research. This awareness has also paved the way for a more encompassing concept of archaeological heritage, which of course not only includes the management of material traces but also the transmission of values through archaeological practice, method and theory. Many archaeologists and heritage managers now propagate the belief that reflecting on value production will better equip archaeology for ethical concerns or that it will improve its engagement with society, and that adopting anthropological perspectives and key notions may help to achieve this goal. This contribution explores the opposite proposition: that an anthropologically informed reflexive attitude is important to understand present-day heritage practices, but in most cases it is desirable for archaeologists to tell stories about the past, not about themselves, in order to be really engaged with public and ethical issues. Arguments for this proposition can be derived from the discipline's specific articulation of discovery, difference and time depth (including the ‘long term’), which traditionally shape archaeological research and narrative to a high degree, not only within academic discourse but also in a wider social setting.