Research sample
A total of nine respondents participated in the interviews and six in the focus group discussion. Of this total, three people participated in both an interview and the discussion. Of those, seven were women and eight were men in various age categories. During the course of the research, the participants worked in the Czech Republic, Germany, Croatia, and Austria. In the table below, the respondents are divided according to their place of practice (Table 1). The observations of the international expedition in Croatia were undertaken by Stanislav, lasting 30 days, and those in Israel by Johana, lasting 8 days.
Table 1
I stands for interview, FG stands for focus group, R stands for respondent. The colour division emphasises the working environment of the archaeologists.
Field archaeologists | Museum archaeologists | Academia archaeologists | Archaeology students |
R1 (I + FG) | R3 (I + FG) | R7 (I + FG) | R13 (I) |
R2 (I) | R4 (I) | R8 (I) | R14 (I) |
| R5 (I) | R9 (I) | R15 (FG) |
| R6 (I) | R10 (I) | |
| | R11 (FG) | |
| | R12 (FG) | |
Overarching theme
From the analysis of all the data collected in our research, the theme of the future of archaeology clearly emerged as the one that overarches all other relevant themes. Given the original methodological focus and intent of the research, we can divide this overarching theme into two parts. Firstly, it is the future with respect to prejudice as an unreflected and not explicitly thematised phenomenon, and secondly, it is the future with respect to pre-understanding as the reflected and explicitly thematised conditions of the possibility of understanding. Both of these aspects can be positively identified, analysed and applied both at the level of archaeology as such, and at the level of the archaeological community and each individual archaeologist.
The discipline’s hypotheses, projections and plans, as well as personal ideas, fears, or wishes related to the future of archaeology, determine not only the current nature and form of archaeological research in general and research conducted by archaeologists, but also how archaeologists understand their own role in archaeology and how they understand the role of archaeology within other disciplines and in society. Our research has shown that a significant part of the problems faced by contemporary archaeology, the archaeological community, and individual archaeologists are largely due to the complete absence or insufficient and unsystematic thematisation of these phenomena.
The perspectives of individual researchers
The bibliographical situation of the identity of an archaeologist:
a sociologist’s perspective (GM)
During the data collection process, the question of what it is like to “be an archaeologist” was constructed. This question can be answered by reflecting on the personal motivations of why and, more importantly, how (in what way) individuals themselves interpret the identity of an archaeologist, as well as on what role past and current perspectives, as well as experiences, play in this context. This question is also tied to the future of the identity of an archaeologist, that is how it will be constructed as some of these perspectives and experiences change in the meantime. Here, we are working in a sociological context with the notions of identity in the interpretivist (constructivist and phenomenological) paradigm. Thus, in short, we could talk about identity as a set of meanings that define who someone is (Berger & Luckmann, 1991; Stets & Serpe, 2013).
In this sub-section, a hermeneutic interpretation of the biographical situation of an individual and his/her life trajectory is presented, as well as the respondents’ prediction of future perspectives and their influence on the construction the identity of an archaeologist. The phenomenological perspective outlined here is analogous to Alfred Schütz’s (1967) conception of (temporal) lifeworlds (Ger.: Vorvelt, Nachwelt) that existed before and will exist after an individual. More specifically, the theme of lifeworlds articulates certain socially defined practices that the individual can accept as shared experiences through interaction. Thus, we are talking about the collaborative characteristic of experience: how experiences are transferred and become part of personal experience. By conducting these specific practises (e.g., at the archaeological site), an individual may form what Goodwin (1994) presents as a “professional vision” or “professional speaking”.
First, different perspectives on the issue of the archaeological profession, in terms of professional practice, will be shown (Goodwin, 1994). The detailed process of how the individual learned the “rules” of archaeology is highlighted here as analogical to learning the rules of a game. As we can see, the rules of the “game” that an individual plays are embedded in their lived experiences and the process of socialisation at an early age (Mead, 2017):
“I'm led to do that [to be an archaeologist], from an early age, my surname probably gives you a little bit of a clue about my family [of historians]. So, you could say that this was pre-determined. There was a certain coquetry within what one was going to study, to keep it as a hobby, and go into some sort of more economically secure field.” (R1)
R5 shared a similar experience of the family background impacting her professional life trajectory and choice of profession:
“I come from eastern Bohemia, from Pardubice, from, let’s say, a middle-class family, but very intellectually oriented, I think. With a huge library and extremely well–read father, [...]. I grew up in, like, this inspiring environment.” (R5)
In the case of R8, we can observe the influence of toys and playing during early socialisation, in this case with LEGO toys, on future career choices:
“[...] uhm, yes, especially the first, first part when you asked me more questions about why I got interested in archaeology and how, I somehow, I did forget a lot about the Kinder Surprise eggs. This I think was a really, really crucial part in my, my life and Legos and so on. Because I mostly played with a pirate and Legos and Egyptian Legos and Knights Legos, everything that’s connected to history [...] So, somehow, I always, my personal biography became something that treated me to become an archaeologist, although it was influenced by a variety of different factors: my mom, uh, her careers, my upbringing, the toys I had, the comic books I read, the cartoons I watched, and so on and so on. Yes, that’s the part that you help me think about more, about how I, from the earliest childhood, was formed into the person I’m today.” (R8)
As we can see, it can be argued that that learning the rules of socialisation, provides an opportunity for orientation towards the role of the archaeologist. This establishes the interpretative frameworks of the discipline in which the group operates (Goodwin, 1994). Therefore, the presentation of these frameworks leads to an explanation of “how it is done” in the sense of “the professional vision”.
Regarding this issue, we can see that R8 is providing a deep reflection of identity grounded in experience, opening the theme of the reciprocal relationship identity and the subjective perception of the individual’s profession:
“To me? I must be honest; I cannot imagine myself being anything else. Because I have known that I want to be an archaeologist since I was 5 years old. I kept telling this to my mum. And when people asked me, what will you be when you grow up, I never had doubts, I never had any other options, for me, that was like a straight line since I was five. And my parents even tell me this, that I was so determined that I would be archaeologist that, for me there is nothing else and archaeology is not what it is to me, it is me, that is what I am, that’s how I define myself.” (R8)
Throughout the analysis we could also see an emphasis on structural issues (individuals in relation to social structure and its organisation) that were mentioned in relation to the identity of an archaeologist. R1 emphasizes the ways in which the profession/position of the archaeologist can be somehow liberating in contemporary society:
“I was led [to archaeology] by chance because I needed to make money in a fun way and I was drawn to the romance of fieldwork […] very vulgarly speaking, digging something interesting out of the ground, which I found romantic, holding something in my hand for the first time in 5000 years.” (R7)
On the other hand, we might find a similar sense of freedom achieved through romanticising archaeological fieldwork as an opportunity to explore something unique:
“For me, it represented a kind of escape into freedom, an escape to somewhere where you’re just not bound by the society around you and if you can’t travel beyond the hills, you can travel in time.” (R1)
On the basis of the above statements, it can be said that the position of an archaeologist in society should be seen in perspective, including its biographical background: by presenting the internal/subjective interpretation of the construction of an archaeologist’s identity and the description of the field by archaeologists themselves. This subchapter has offered some insight regarding the process of pre-understanding in identity formation This question approximates the understanding of the process of pre-understanding. However, the main issue of the position of an archaeologist and archaeology in society will be approached in more detail in the next subchapter.
The role of archaeology in contemporary society: an archaeologist’s perspective (JS)
Archaeology awakes various reactions among the general public, ranging from excitement to hate. Many papers dealing with public archaeology have already been written (Moshenska, 2017; Little, 2002), therefore, I will not dig deeper into this issue here. However, the meaning or the role of archaeology in contemporary society, and its usefulness to the general public could not have been avoided during our research.
Our respondents mentioned numerous thematical areas where archaeology can be beneficial and which they see as the role of archaeology in contemporary society. Many agreed on its ability to reveal and deepen our knowledge of the past (R2, R5, R6, R7, R9, R13, R14). Moreover, a few mentions of a natural curiosity about the past being rooted in us appeared (R10, R14). These were accompanied by arguments that the past is something which unites us or that it is a form of entertainment, that humans enjoy the stories from the past. Some (R1, R2, R4, R6, R7, R9, R10) also referred to different topics which are discussed in archaeology, and which can be connected to the present, potentially enriching it by an increased knowledge of everyday life, the development of diseases, ethnicity, migration, environment, or gender. A few (R8, R9, R14) brought up the topic of a connection to politics, cultural identity, and the importance of archaeology during the creation of national identities, as well as the construction of past as something which connects the nation, which also leads to the political misuse of archaeology—topics already discussed by many scholars and connected to the debate concerning colonialism (for example Arnold, 1990; Lydon & Rizvi, 2010; Thomas, 2004; Trouillot, 2015; Turek 2018). Finally, the topic of entertainment or tourism, but mainly the influence which archaeology can have in the area of reginal development and for local communities, has been mentioned (R2, R3, R8).
Some archaeologists, while answering this question, touched upon the need to justify archaeology to property developers or other people that they come in contact with (R2, R3). One respondent (R3) even hinted at the fact that she feels tired of never–ending justifications of the role of archaeology in society. Moreover, some respondents (R2, R13) mentioned that they had already been asking this question on their own, as archaeology consumes most of their time and it is the way they make their living. All this leads them to feel an urge to justify it. This might be connected to the feeling that archaeology is a part of the humanities, often perceived as “redundant” in society, which will be discussed later in this paper. Diversity of opinions was registered among respondents while answering the question “In what way is archaeology beneficial for society?”.
I think that the question itself is not helpful. I believe that everyone has a very intuitive interest in the past, in what was around us, what was before us. Only rarely I have a feeling that I need to justify why we are doing this. Everyone is interested at least on the lowest level. If I would get a Euro for everyone who tells me that he wanted to become an archaeologist, I would not have to apply for grants. Of course, there are aspect as how people dealt with resource management, how they lived, what they ate, if the society was hierarchic or not, we can learn from it for the future, but in essence, even if this was not the case, I think that the interest for archaeology, where we came from, has always been here and always will. The basic human interest, curiosity [...] When you see how many people comes to see exhibitions, how well magazines such as National Geographic are selling, which are focused on history. So, the interest is there. Everyone knows History Channel and some documentaries, they might be romanticized, but the interest in what was in the past [is there], you dig something, find something, tell something about it, where it is from and what was that. That is some basic interest and I do not think that this is going to change.” (R10)
The following excerpt shows a different opinion.
“I think if we don’t start changing, we’ll disappear. Nobody will care, we’ll become completely irrelevant, you will be able to study it in two or three places in the world, as or it would be done by few enthusiasts – usually rich people and then we’ll reach the rock bottom. Maybe we will, we will re-emerge at certain point in history and in the future, when it's going to be relevant for the contemporary society. But the problem is, like, archaeology is still relevant, just we as archaeologists are losing the battle to make it understandable to people, that's still relevant and important. And at some point, if you lose the battle, then I think we’ll lose a little piece of humanity, what we are. Because it was always relevant, our world in which we live now, is based on the archaeological interpretations, I mean, we created Europe based on archaeology.” (R8)
Both respondents come from different national environments, which might have influenced their viewpoints. It is important to say that R10 is actively participating in presentation of archaeology to the general public, especially in the form of open days at the excavated site or for the local community, however, it could be inferred that she does not perceive it as a “battle” in the sense in which it was referred to by R8. A similar opinion to that of R8, dealing with the future of archaeology, was recorded also among the answers of R9:
“I do think we are somehow in the next […], right now and the next five or ten years, at a turning point, so I think what we need to do is make more clear what our role in society is, that we have a relevance and maybe use for of this, how to say, trendy or up to date topics like provenance research, uhm, society, community, uhm gender, uhm race, ethnicity, so all these, questioning these concepts that used to be, and developing and, yeah, using our field to, I think, I hope that we will do, we will develop in this direction, but that’s just, you know, a hope. Uhm, because otherwise, I think we will be more and more, even more than now, considered as not important, not bringing money, not bringing tourists.” (R9)
R13 believes that the emphasis in the future will be laid on public archaeology in order to justify the amount of money archaeology is consuming, and to prevent a lack of understanding of its benefits among the general public. Furthermore, R8 suggested, while answering the question “What does contemporary archaeology reflect insufficiently?”, that archaeologists should open the discipline more to public and make archaeology less marginalised in the curricula of primary and secondary schools.
“Hmm, open it more to the public to be honest, but open the theoretical and important discussions to the public. Get archaeology more space in curricula in terms of, for example, what people are taught about about, in history courses, history lectures in primary and high school. We [Croatians] spent, uh, one year learning about – I would say, let’s say – 4000 years of written history, and then for the next three years we deal with 1600. [...] And I think that archaeological periods can also tell us a lot about the people. I think we’re just so obsessed about our national states, creation of national states, our wars between the national states, that we simply miss to see a bigger picture about how dealing with archaeology and other cultural formations from, formations from the past, let’s call it like that, can help us enrich our our world. [...] Because historians are writing the history books, because the the subject in primary school, high schools is called history, it’s not called history and archaeology, it’s not called past. It’s not, it’s not called history in a broad sense, like knowing about the past. It’s simply history, and we deal only with written sources.” (R8)
Well, are archaeologists at a turning point (R9) and will they “fight” (R8)? Is archaeology going to become an “extinct” discipline (R8), or will the next generations of archaeologist keep hearing from people they encounter that they also used to want to become an archaeologist (R10) and feel a natural interest in human past among the general public?
Archaeology between humanities and science: an archaeologist’s perspective (SH)
One of the respondents offers his answer to the question of where to place archaeology:
“Something different for everyone. Because we lack, maybe, the exact definition, so everybody perceives it a little bit differently, by law, based on their experience, uh, and it’s already been slightly mentioned here, that it’s something on the border between the sciences and the humanities, but actually also the social sciences. In some countries, archaeology is more of a social science than one of the humanities, or it’s on that border, and now it’s moving more and more in that triangle towards the sciences, and each of us is somewhere a little bit different in that triangle, right. I don't think anybody’s quite in the middle. Uh, so I guess, like, that’s where the diversity of our internal definitions of how we define that for ourselves comes from.” (R12)
With its modern origins, archaeology is a field that lies between poles. It operates, for instance, between crafts and sciences (R1), but also between academic and non-academic disciplines (R8). Each respondent moves within these poles in different ways, with some valuing the freedom it provides: “That’s actually what’s so colorful about it, that the field doesn’t have to, like, uh, even though it sometimes does it, enclose itself in like, purely archaeology [...]” (R2). It is due to its modern origins that we can speak of an archaeology built on the dual relationship between the humanities and the sciences. This point can be illustrated in the next passage, in which positivism - meaning physical evidence - is the basis for thought.
“What we really need as a scientists in any scientific discipline, no matter how theoretic it was, no matter how theoretic it was, you always start with the minimum of positivism. In epistemology, I think that the minimum of positivism is must have. That you can later on on that positivism build up or interpolate your thoughts, your ideas, your extra knowledge in it and get close to what epistemology tries to get close to - that’s truth, or holy truth if you wanna make it that poetic or pathetic.” (R4)
Field archaeology, with its interest in materiality and its corresponding emphasis on the sciences, proves to be the basis for a theoretical extension of interpretation, which is closer in character to the humanities. Field research is also frequently the first association with which respondents associate the discipline (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R13). The material evidence of fieldwork could be put in conjunction with the modern idea of the physical body, to which the immaterial soul (Thomas, 2004) has yet to be attached - i.e., an interpretation in archaeology’s case. And since it is only in this extension where there is room for the humanities’ component of archaeology, it is also only here that the real space for interpretation is found (R1). The interest in publishing field data as objectively as possible is then understandable (R1, R3). However, it should be noted that some consider interpretation to be already an inseparable part of fieldwork (R4, R8, R11).
The idea of the primacy of matter over thought reflects a certain socially rooted modern worldview. Here, it is the natural sciences, with their emphasis on physical evidence gathered through experiment, that provide the preferred way of understanding the world. One such example is a respondent’s reflection on the nature of human thought, which is fundamentally determined by electrical impulses in the brain.
“[...] even thinking has some kind of exact rules. It’s like, we think that we, or, we tend to think that we have some thoughts going on in our head, but they, like, they already know today that it’s some electrical impulses between something and that we have areas there that are responsible for this and this and this, yeah, so I think we’re, like, we’re getting back to, like, like you said, not having to dig one day and just having some sort of X-ray to show us what’s under the ground, right.” (R7)
Archaeology, as part of the humanities, can be perceived by the public as a redundant discipline: “[...] we are considered, as many humanities, as luxury subject that is nice to have but not really necessary [...]” (R9). In contrast to the great social demand for archaeology in the 19th century, when it helped to construct national identities, nowadays the discipline is struggling with its own identity. One solution to this seems to be a greater inclination towards the natural sciences (see Sørensen, 2017). However, pressures for a natural-science orientation are not merely coming from the society. Archaeologists are leaning towards the sciences, for example, purely out of personal interest (R6), in order to achieve a certain disciplinary prestige (R2), but also as a result of a greater ability to succeed in funding applications (R11). The sciences emphasise the successful and functional application of their results. Related to this is the demand for increased utility of the field, which some respondents repeatedly encounter when communicating with the public.
“It’s about some information, some context, and I’m tired of explaining it, over and over again. It’s, like, over and over again, not to defend, but to aah. Over and over again, uh, articulating the role of archaeology tires me out.” (R3)
Following the insecure path of being seen as one of the humanities, archaeology attempts to rely on the alleged fact-certainty of the sciences. Research underpinned by a scientific examination of the material’s predominantly metrical qualities guarantees methodological rigour in archaeology, the reproducibility of procedures, and a degree of predictability. It also guarantees a certain “scientific” quality to the field and a better status in society (R10). Yet, this is often accompanied by the adoption of the modern worldview with its dualism of matter and superimposed ideas.
When asked about the future of archaeology, respondents often associated it with field research and the further development of natural scientific research methods which should increase the quantity and quality of collected data (R1, R3, R5, R7, R12, R14). Significantly less was mentioned about possible new metaphysical frameworks for the field or about transforming the interpretative dimension - i.e., the humanities’ side of the field - in relation to the future (R11). This reflects a certain modern confidence in the progress dependent on the technological development.
“That is the lower destructiveness of the discipline, that is, there will be maximal efforts to get as much information as possible without destroying the archaeological or any other context. And what’s probably already common in this country [Czech Republic], that salvage excavations dominate here, is far from common in the world, and in a lot of places in the world there are still these huge excavations that, where by no means all the methods that are available now are used, not to mention those that are yet to come.” (R12)
Some respondents experience a deficit in the humanities’ side of archaeology (R7). Despite the contemporary-science orientation of the field, respondents understand the need for its humanities pole. Hard data needs to be given a meaning (R12). For one respondent, an archaeology that places an emphasis on its humanities’ side even has the potential to disrupt the dominant modern vision of the world. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for a change?
“[...] for example, in recent years, I feel a lot of pressure from this social atmosphere and from those technical, let’s say science-oriented ways of thinking about the world, which are perhaps part of some kind of modernist vision of how the world works, how it should be, how we should study it, and this is certainly not specific to archaeology. But I think archaeology is one of the disciplines that, like, actually, has the potential to disrupt that and, like, I think that’s important. And, like, it’s important to cultivate a way of, like, understanding and investigating the world in the academic world, but of course even beyond, with outreach to the world, that’s not just built on quantifying something, reconfiguring it, testing whether it’s significant or not, and in that way, yeah, it’s, kind of, this mechanistic-machinery understanding. The fact that archaeology very often works with the past, there’s a level of uncertainty, I think that’s a good thing. That it, sort of, actually, has a, sort of, like, subversive potential. But I would say that in the last, I don't know, 20 years, with the certain inclination towards the idea that it’s sexy to have all these genetics and 3D models and so on, that archaeology is actually losing its interpretative potency, its patience and its qualitative, historicising, humanistic tradition and it’s selling out unnecessarily. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, I don’t want to say that it doesn’t do anything, but I want to say that it matters, because it has some overlap, because it gives some alternative to the dominant ways of seeing the world.” (R11)
The dualism of matter and thought still exists in archaeology, manifesting itself also in the binary constitution of the field as a science and one of the humanities. According to archaeologists concerned with the so-called ontological turn, archaeology should question its modern origins (Alberti, 2016). We argue that the dualistic character of archaeology should not be eliminated, since the field is enabled by dualism in the first place (see Lucas, 2004; Thomas, 2004). Thus, an actual drive into the future is not caused by an accumulation of more knowledge, but rather by the process of disclosing one’s own origins - both on a disciplinary level and on the level of personal self-reflection.
Archaeology and objective truth: a philosopher’s perspective (FT)
Archaeology’s efforts to come to terms with its almost contradictory origins as an auxiliary historical science also illustrate very well the diverse, even contradictory, attitudes towards objectivity. Several respondents see objectivity as a neutral, methodologically focused, and necessary requirement (R10) that we must meet in order to get to the so-called “pure” objects. Objectivity in this case means looking at the subject without prejudice:
“Objectivity for me is looking at something, at an archaeological object without any preconceptions in mind, or without already applying any existing ideas to it but just having the pure objects speaking. So, basically, just looking at a characteristic of the objects and then drawing observations only based on these characteristics, that would be ideally, I would, how it should work.” (R9)
However, this non-judgmental, “pure”, and disinterested view is also meant to be a view that is not yet theoretical, since theory is something that has yet to follow the basic objective documentation of the material that is carried out by field archaeology:
“I do think it lacks theory but I also think that is right because, for me, this is the objective part that just needs to document and that’s […] and afterwards, for me, comes the theory because I think if you go to fieldwork with a theoretical approach already in mind, it may be the wrong way to study the material, yeah.” (R9)
These objective observations are to be based on the judgements of the so-called common sense (R9), to which archaeological experience is gradually contributing (R9).
On the contrary, many respondents are sceptical about objectivity as such:
“Objectivity? It is rationalism. It is total and complete rationalism. They are synonymous. Completely objective, completely rational, or maybe it’s a utopia, hm, I do not know. What’s objectivity? What is opposing the subjectivity. Objectivity. Excluding personality. I do not know what objectivity is, it does, it is not a positive term in my ears. In my ears, somehow, this objectivity, hm, hm, who can be fully objective about what? Maybe utopia.” (R4)
And its role in archaeology:
“I don’t, actually, I mean, I don’t believe in objectivity. I don’t think there is such a thing. Uhm, I do strongly believe that there are less and more supported opinions, in terms of… you can give better arguments for certain opinion, and this is something that can be evaluated by a larger group of people, but there is always something which is largely subjective in your opinions, in your personal attitudes, stories. […] We might never know what truth is, so there is no objective truth in these terms, but still, one, is, can prevail, but in general when we are talking about, discussions in archaeology, I don’t believe there is objectivity, as I said at the beginning, there is only interests groups, different narratives, which are supported by different scholars and they emerge from different theoretical backgrounds and different […] their own personal biography of these people, where they were born, where they were educated, who their PhD supervisor was, who they worked with for years. So, there is always, like, battle of narratives in archaeology between people of different […] which belong to different interest groups within the field.” (R8)
However, many respondents admitted that they had not really given much thought to objectivity as such, nor had they explicitly thematised it in the archaeological community.
“I don’t know, I never talked about them, eh, never talked with them about it. I never talked with them about it, so I’m not sure, how they’re seeing objectivity, or what’s their definition of objectivity. Really, trust me, I never had a talk on objectivity in science with my colleagues.” (R4)
This is, despite the fact that, according to all respondents, objectivity plays a key role in archaeological research:
“I think it’s like the role of God, in terms of, it’s an ideal, that we all want to follow, and we like to think that we follow it, but it’s not something that´s actually reachable to us. So, it is something we find necessary to be there for us, to remind us that we must strive towards objectivity, but it´s not something that can ever be reached. It’s like, I do not know [...]” (R8).
For many respondents, objectivity means starting from facts as much as possible and they consider it an ideal without which research cannot develop (R5). Objectivity is the necessary minimum level of positivism assumed by any epistemological discipline and subsequent interpretation (R4). To describe something in an objective way is “to stick to the facts” (R5). Some respondents identify the description of an objective reality with archaeology as a craft that deals with the basic processing and classification of material; archaeology as a science comes into play only when it is necessary to interpret a given artefact or situation, as Stanislav suggests. Therefore, objectivity is achieved when we all agree on what we see (R5). While most respondents agree that an objective fact is what we are all able to say about an artefact or situation, they recognise that objective content is created by the terms used to refer to that fact, and that these terms can also be vague or misleading because they are only meaningful in a particular context (R5). It appears that the distinction between archaeology as a craft and archaeology as a science, so often mentioned in the interviews, can be understood from the distinction between what is already strictly defined and definable in some way terminologically (R1), such as the number of sherds; and what cannot be so unambiguously defined without further clarification, such as the colour of the sherds or the degree of surface fineness (R2). With this in mind, some respondents believe that we do not actually understand artefacts, but archaeology does not seem to suffer from this (R5).
In terms of objectivity, understood as a regulatory idea or a methodological paradigm, and in line with the current jargon, several respondents view archaeology as something non-objective because it is political (R8, R9). From the analysis of the interviews, however, we can assume that this theoretical and terminological inconsistency regarding objectivity within archaeological methodology and the archaeological community probably stems from an insufficiently reflected attitude towards what truth means and what role it plays, or should play, in archaeological research.
One respondent understands truth as something more philosophical, the conceptual opposite of which is a lie, and understands objectivity as a way of approaching what one does. At the same time, however, he claims that objective truth can only be achieved by exact science, e.g., in the statement that “the earth is round.” In contrast, the archaeologist’s claim that “the Celts were Germanic” is just a hypothesis, which is outside the truth/falsity distinction (R13).
Many respondents understood truth as the opposite of objectivity and synonymous with subjectivity:
“I think there’s never one truth because truth for everyone can mean something different, so I think truth always changes according to perspective, whereas objectivity, from my point of view, would be something that is truly independent of any personal or individual perspective, yeah.” (R9)
They disagree, however, on whether this subjective attitude is something desirable or, on the contrary, something to be suffered in archaeology. Different conceptions of truth are also closely related to the future direction of archaeology (R1).
According to many respondents, the actual progress of archaeology rests on the ability to discern prejudices and paradigms, to distinguish between objective reality and mere subjective interpretations (R1). For one respondent, on the other hand, individual subjective perspectives are an explicit personal research goal and what archaeology, as a whole, should be about:
“So, I’m not looking for objectivity, I am looking for different subjectivities, which then make me requestion over and over again my own subjectivity.” (R8)
This subject-object dualism demonstrates very convincingly the extent to which the current theoretical and methodological foundations of archaeology are still oriented by the methodological prejudice of historicism, which made objectivity dependent on the abolition of the interpreting subject (Cf. Gadamer, 1975). This dualism, based on a highly specialized and rigid theory of truth as the certainty of knowledge, is not, of course, a theoretically innocent speculation, but also projects itself into archaeologists’ fears, expectations, and desires for the future of archaeology.
Accordingly, archaeologists should acknowledge to the public that what they report are not objective truths, but the various narratives of researchers that can only be considered true in a certain context and from a certain perspective (R8). Others, on the other hand, see the future of archaeology in ever closer collaboration with the sciences, such as genetics (R7), or in the development of more applicable and cheaper technological tools for the analysis of collected data (R5).