Archaeology and the Future

  • Cornelius Holtorf
  • Anders Högberg
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2792-1

The Future as a Research Subject in Archaeology

The future has seldom been an object of archaeological study even though there are some very profound and deep-reaching links between past, present, and future (Holtorf and Högberg 2015; Högberg et al. 2017). In particular, archaeologists and others dealing with the archaeological past are negotiating the future in two ways. On the one hand, they are studying long-term change. Patrick V. Kirch, for example, suggested once that an archaeology of prehistoric global change investigating the effects of uncontrolled human population growth on environmental degradation ultimately leading to sociopolitical crises can make a contribution “to the future of this planet” (Kirch 2004: 23). The historian Daniel Lord Smail used a long-term perspective of prehistoric human evolution to discuss the deep history of the human brain and its past, present, and future in order to discern what is fundamentally human today and how this understanding might be...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barthel-Bouchier, D. 2013. Culture heritage and the challenge of sustainability. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buser, M. 2013. A literature survey on markers and memory preservation for deep geological repositories (Preservation of records, knowledge and memory across generations (RK&M). Report NEA/RWM/R 2013,5). Issy-les-Moulineaux: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  3. Dunne, A., and F. Raby. 2013. Speculative everything. Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Högberg, A., C. Holtorf, S. May, and G. Wollentz. (2017) No future in archaeological heritage management? _World Archaeology_ 49 (5), available in open access at  https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1406398.
  5. Holtorf, C. 1998. The life-history of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeology 30: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holtorf, C. 2012. The heritage of heritage. Heritage & Society 5 (2): 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holtorf, C. 2015. Averting loss aversion in cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21 (4): 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holtorf, C., and A. Högberg. 2014a. Nuclear waste as cultural heritage of the future. In WM2014 conference proceedings, www.xcdsystem.com/wmsym/member/2014_proceedings.cfm.
  9. Holtorf, C., and A. Högberg. 2014b. Communicating with future generations: What are the benefits of preserving for future generations? Nuclear power and beyond. European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies 4: 315–330.Google Scholar
  10. Holtorf, C., and A. Högberg. 2014c. Zukunftsbilder in Erhaltungsstrategien. In Diachrone Zugänglichkeit als Prozess. Kulturelle Überlieferung in systematischer Sicht, ed. M. Hollmann and A. Schüller-Zwierlein, 197–214. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Holtorf, C., and A. Högberg. 2015. Contemporary heritage and the future. In The Palgrave handbook of contemporary heritage research, ed. E. Waterton and S. Watson, 509–523. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirch, P.V. 2004. Oceanic Islands: Microcosms of “global change”. In The archaeology of global change, ed. C.L. Redman, S.R. James, P.R. Fish, and J.D. Rogers, 13–27. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar
  13. Logen, A.L. 2016. Why can’t people feed themselves?: Archaeology as alternative archive of food security in Banda, Ghana. American Anthropologist. Early view available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/aman.12603/full. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  14. Miller, R. 2011. Opinion: Futures literacy – Embracing complexity and using the future. Ethos 10: 23–38 Available at: https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/knowledge/ethos/issue%2010%20oct%202011/pages/Opinion%20Futures%20Literacy.aspx. Accessed 18 Aug 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, R., R. Poli, and P. Rossel. 2013. The discipline of anticipation: Exploring key issues. Scoping global/local anticipatory capacities, working paper #1. Unesco Foresight. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3523348/The_Discipline_of_Anticipation_Miller_Poli_Rossel_-_DRAFT. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.
  16. Mizoguchi, K. 2015. A future of archaeology. Antiquity 89: 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morris, I. 2010. Why the west rules – For now. The patterns of history and what they reveal about the future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. Pikirayi, I. 2015. The future of archaeology in Africa. Antiquity 89: 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poli, R. 2015. The implicit future orientation of the capability approach. Futures 71: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quoidbach, J.G., T. Daniel, and T.D. Wilson. 2013. The end of history illusion. Science 339: 96–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F.S. Chapin, E.F. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C.A. de Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P.K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R.W. Corell, V.J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J.A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rüsen, J. 2001. What is historical consciousness? A theoretical approach to empirical evidence. In Paper presented at Canadian historical consciousness in an international context: Theoretical frameworks. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  23. Smail, L.D. 2008. On deep history and the brain. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Spennemann, D.H.R. 2007a. The futurist stance of historical societies: An analysis of position statements. International Journal of Arts Management 9 (2): 4–15.Google Scholar
  25. Spennemann, D.H.R. 2007b. Futurist rhetoric in US historic preservation: A review of current practice. International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing 4 (1/2): 91–99.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and modernity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Tonnquist, B. 2012. Project management. A guide to the theory and practice of project, program and portfolio management and organization change. Stockholm: Sanoma Utbildning.Google Scholar
  28. Trauth, K.M., S.C. Hora, and R.V. Guzowski. 1993. Expert judgement on markers to deter inadvertent human intrusion into the waste isolation pilot plant. Sandia report SAND92–1282, UC-721. New Mexico: Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wahlgren, K.H., and F. Svanberg. 2008. Public archaeology as renewer of the historical museum. Public Archaeology 7 (4): 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Cultural SciencesLinnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Paul Mullins
    • 1
  • John Schofield
    • 2
  1. 1.Anthropology DepartmentIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK