For a third time, Archaeological dialogues has organized a face-to-face dialogue at an international conference around a current and provocative question. At the annual meeting for the Society of American Archaeologists in Atlanta, USA, in April 2009, Archaeological dialogues invited a panel of leading scholars to participate in a discussion forum entitled ‘Is archaeology useful?’. The discussion sought to address a number of interrelated questions: how important is the criterion of ‘usefulness’ in establishing the value of our discipline? To whom do we need to justify ourselves? In what ways can or should archaeology be useful to society? Must archaeologists distinguish between critique and action, and balance knowledge production and public consumption of our work? Does it really matter what we do and for whom? Shannon Dawdy presented her thoughts in a keynote address which was followed by comments from Carol McDavid, Peggy Nelson, Mark Pluciennik, Jeremy Sabloff, Joe Watkins and Rita Wright. The keynote address, along with the comments that arose from the forum, are published in this issue as a discussion article. The written version of this dialogue also includes comments by Pedro Funari with Aline Vieira de Carvalho, Cornelius Holtorf and Ulrike Sommer, who were invited to share their views on the topic and broaden the scope of the debate.

For archaeologists, stratification is an important character of archaeological deposits. Through it, layering is discerned and cultural and evolutionary interpretations are proposed. Archaeologists possess much implicit knowledge about the social practices that produce stratigraphic sequence and the specific, contextualized manner in which layers were built upon or cut into previous deposits. The aim of this paper is to gather together and formalize this knowledge so as to codify conceptual ‘tools to think by’ when recording and interpreting stratigraphy. Relevant literature is widely dispersed and here can only be sampled; authors consider stratigraphy in terms of (1) techniques of terraforming, (2) processes enacted and (3) meaning and interpretation. Techniques and processes are discussed within larger social interpretations such as memory, history-building, forgetting, renewing, cleansing and destroying. Examples are drawn from the Turkish Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük and the ancestral Maya site of K'axob in Belize, Central America, to illustrate the applicability of an approach that here is called ‘social stratigraphy’. A practice-based history of stratigraphy – the recording and interpretation of strata – within archaeology is problematized in reference to codependence with geology, the deployment of labour and centralized authority within the emergent 19th- to early 20th-century field of archaeology. The contributions of and conflicts between British and American stratigraphic schools are considered in light of a potential rapprochement. Contested issues of cultural heritage – such as preservation of selected strata – suggest that thinking about stratigraphic sequence in social terms is more than an academic exercise.

This discussion article responds to a forum question posed by the editors of Archaeological dialogues: ‘is archaeology useful?’ My response initially moves backward from the question, considering whether archaeology ought to be useful, how it has been useful in the past, and the millennial overtones of the question in our present climate of crisis. I critique the primary way in which archaeology attempts to be useful, as a dowsing rod for heritage through ‘public archaeology’. While European archaeology has long been aware of the dangers of nationalism, in the Americas this danger is cloaked by a focus on indigenous and minority histories. I then move forward through the question and urge colleagues to embrace an archaeological agenda geared towards the future rather than the past. My hope is that transatlantic dialogue will be politically useful in reorienting archaeological research towards supranational problems such as climate change, hunger and population stress.

Not all archaeological remains cause discussions concerning stratigraphy. In Sweden, for example, intense stratigraphy discussions have taken place among archaeologists working mainly with urban sites (see e.g. Larsson 2004), and many of the illustrative examples in the text by McAnany and Hodder are rather well-preserved remains with complex stratigraphic sequences. This is, of course, due to the fact that different remains are stratified to different extents and are thus valued differently regarding this issue. Poorly preserved, sketchy remains scattered in the ground may lack complex stratigraphic relations and are regarded as less relevant for this discussion. However, all archaeological remains have some stratigraphical relation and – as McAnany and Hodder mention – interpretation of stratigraphic sequences is a part of archaeological identity. A greater interest in how stratigraphic sequences are formed in social terms should be relevant for all archaeologists. I believe that archaeologists working with complex stratigraphic sequences, and those who work with less stratified remains, have something to gain from this discussion, but in different ways. McAnany and Hodder state that stratigraphy may be both overdescribed and undertheorized. The problem of overdescription concerns complex stratigraphies, while I think less stratified remains are suffering from a lack of discussion concerning stratigraphy all together.

Shannon Dawdy has presented us with a provocative dialogue on the question ‘is archaeology useful?’ In it, she forecasts a rather bleak future for our field, raising doubts about whether archaeology should be useful and whether it is ‘threatened with its own end-time’. Woven throughout her paper are major concerns about the use of archaeology for nationalistic ends and heritage projects which she deems fulfil the needs of archaeologists rather than those of the public they serve. In the final section of her paper, when she asks, ‘can archaeology save the world?’, Dawdy recommends that we reorient our research ‘away from reconstructions of the past and towards problems of the present’ (p. 140). In my contribution to this dialogue, I introduce an issue that reflects on cultural heritage, antiquities and artefact preservation, which, though they may seem antithetical, are closely aligned with Dawdy's concerns. As a prehistorian with a focus on the third millennium B.C. in the Near East and South Asia, I consider these issues to be the ‘big stories’ that have emerged in the early years of this third millennium, and those that speak directly to the usefulness of archaeology. Of course, it is not the only thing we do, but it is ‘useful’.

New thoughts about the use of archaeological stratigraphies! Is this so? The discussion article by Patricia A. McAnany and Ian Hodder aims at the construction of a theoretical framework to expound and discuss the problems of archaeological stratigraphy. Such a theoretical framework is urgently needed, they feel, and has been largely neglected until now. Reading and interpreting an archaeological stratigraphic record, if carried out according to the guidelines they try to establish, may reveal much more information about past social processes that led to the formation of the specific stratigraphy. In the authors' own words, ‘thinking about stratigraphic sequence in social terms is more than an academic exercise’ (quoted from abstract). As the record left behind by ancient communities, archaeological stratigraphies, in their view, take a middle place on a scale from micro-records endowed with meaning (artefacts) to macro-records of contextual meaning preserved in archaeological landscapes. The in-between, the immediate residues of meaningful past human behaviour encapsulated in archaeological sites, remain, in their view, undertheorized.

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.

Steve Roskams (2001, 267–70) has challenged archaeologists to theorize excavation practices and Patricia McAnany and Ian Hodder have responded in a cogent manner. They draw the most fundamental of archaeology's field methods – stratigraphy – into the light of social theory. The product is ‘social stratigraphy’ and the authors offer an array of interpretive schemes and processes through which social stratigraphic approaches might be considered and developed. McAnany and Hodder want us to think beyond the geological facets of stratigraphy, including our section drawings, photographs, matrices, phase designations, chronologies, thin sections and artefacts. They suggest we strive to do more: to discern and interpret social meanings, patterns and practices in every deposit, cut, pit, erasure, concealment, return and episodic rebuilding. The great bulk of their discussion focuses on the study of past contexts, though in closing they address how strata and stratigraphy can be altered or used to influence present-day social and political contexts. It is here – that is, in their concluding comments – that their emphasis on memory (and forgetting), repeated like an incantation throughout the paper, comes full circle.

In this fin de siècle moment – or is it closer to a mood of Depression? – the Keynesian idea of expanded government spending is much in vogue. We have been here before. As Shannon Lee Dawdy notes, part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the USA was the famous Civilian Conservation Corps, who performed much archaeology and related work (Maher 2008; Paige 1985). It seems particularly appropriate, then, to repeat a famous quote of Keynes: after all, archaeology comes surprisingly close to that much-derided Keynesian remedy. It was in his General theory of employment, interest and money that he wrote, ‘“To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services’ (Keynes 1936, 220). What is less often quoted, though, is the subsequent comment: ‘It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations’.

Archaeologists often take stratigraphy for granted, using it for building chronologies, recognizing various natural and cultural formation processes, and understanding relations between features and settlements. But for the last few decades there has been a subtle shift in the way that we approach stratigraphy – in terms of both the kinds of techniques that can be applied (residue analyses, micromorphology, Harris matrices and so on) and the interpretive frameworks that can be employed. Perhaps it is not stratigraphy that we are talking about per se, but rather depositional practices – the many ways in which people make and alter archaeological deposits – in addition to the different interpretive frameworks that we apply to these physical accumulations.

We thank the four commentators – Åsa Berggren, Barbara Helwing, Barbara Mills, and Allan Maca – for their thoughtfully critical comments and cannot help but feel encouraged by the passion displayed in their comments. To an extent underrealized in our initial formulation, the recording and interpretation of stratigraphy forms the jugular vein of archaeological practice. Although accused by some of the commentators of not offering anything new, creating a straw man, or ignoring artefacts, we note that our discussion of social stratigraphy encouraged reflexivity about archaeological practice in all four commentaries. Our initial pulling together of social practices that might be expressed in patterns of depositing and cutting also sparked extremely productive and creative dialogue regarding the documentation and interpretation of stratigraphy, a virtual (and highly successful) simulation that employed our proposed ‘toolkit’, and worrisome questions regarding the lack of fit between social theory and archaeological technique within the Americanist tradition. We address these topics, particularly in light of commentators' demonstration of the importance of reflexive practices within archaeology.

Is archaeology useful? Shannon Dawdy suggests that in the application of our knowledge to contemporary issues we find the utility in archaeological work. While I believe there are many ways archaeology is ‘useful’ beyond this application, I will pull that thread, illustrating the applications of archaeology to contemporary issues at the interface of society and environment. I then examine a few of Dawdy's concerns about the failings of archaeology.

This article examines the role of social memory and the treatment of the corpse within the reconfiguration of personhood in the Roman world. Exploring the significance of ‘remembering and forgetting’, it emphasizes the importance of memory and the body as a context for the manipulation of post-mortem personhood and identity. An extraordinarily rich collection of archaeological and epigraphic evidence associated with the Augustan-period senator Marcus Nonius Balbus provides an almost unparalleled context in which to explore the significance of these observations. This particular example from Herculaneum demonstrates that the realignment of relationships during mortuary activities could produce a new sense of personhood for both the deceased and mourners that was constructed in the context of communal remembrance. Subsequent commemorative activities, focused on the material manifestation of these relationships and the ‘dividuality’ of the dead within the urban fabric, may consequently have acted to promote a new civic ancestor for the community of Herculaneum.

First I will offer a view of public archaeology which differs from Dawdy's perspective. Then I will respond briefly to one of her specific questions. Finally, I will comment on her suggestion for a futurist archaeology.

This paper explores the phenomenon of Iron Age bog bodies which are currently the subject of competing claims over the respectful treatment of the ancient dead. It reviews the problems associated with their discovery, identifies why they attract such attention, and critiques both traditional interpretations of bog bodies and methods of display. The paper defends their archaeological analysis, arguing that this process can radically transform our understanding of past communities: their lifeways and world views. Using British and Irish examples, it discusses how intimate emotions and social bonds are constructed between bog bodies, on the one hand, and, on the other, the professionals and public who engage with them. It contends that a more reflexive approach which foregrounds these complex relationships might help address concerns about the public display of human remains in general. It concludes by advocating broad processes of consultation as well as a contextual approach to the interpretation and display of future bog bodies.

I would like to focus my brief remarks on Shannon Dawdy's very important third question, ‘can archaeology save the world?’ But to show my biases up front, I would rephrase it to read, ‘how can archaeologists usefully contribute to public policy considerations on the future of this planet?’, or perhaps just modify her question to say, ‘how can archaeologists help save the world?’ As one looks at recent books such as Newman, Beatley and Boyer's Resilient cities. Responding to peak oil and climate change (2009), Richard Heinberg's The party's over. Oil, war and the fate of industrial societies (2005), or Howard and Elisabeth Odum's A prosperous way down (2001) or key articles such as ‘Ecology in times of scarcity’ by John Day et al. (2009) or ‘Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy’ by Mathis Wackernagel et al. (2002), it seems clear to me that archaeologists could readily amplify the important arguments mounted by these authors and play a useful role in helping planners confront looming global cultural–ecological issues. It is not that these writers are unaware of archaeology and its potential contributions – Heinberg (2005, 34–38), for example, looks quite favorably on the work of Joseph Tainter – but that archaeological research could be more thoroughly and productively utilized.

When I was asked to comment on Shannon Dawdy's position paper entitled ‘Millennial archaeology. Locating the discipline in the age of insecurity’ I must admit that I was, even with the give-away ‘millennium’ of the title, thinking of the current economic crisis, the ‘credit crunch’ as it is known in Britain. Shannon Dawdy seems to describe a much more specific American crisis – the realization that the United States are not somehow outside history, that they can be hit on their home ground and that their political and military hegemony is contested (and if you detect a certain European smugness there, you are probably right).

The histories of post-mortem intervention in 18th- and 19th-century Britain illustrate how the relationships within which the dead were located affected their post-mortem treatment and were reproduced through it. This paper explores how traditions of marking social distinctions among the dead have been incorporated into archaeological practice, tracing some of the ways in which relationships between the dead and the living define the nature and tone of post-mortem interventions. This history suggests that the conditions within which people are produced as dead bodies through archaeological practice are at present poorly understood, and, as such, I contribute some notes towards a relational understanding of this production.

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.