Archaeology as we know it hasn’t always existed—or everywhere. Systematic excavations aimed at uncovering how our ancestors lived only appeared in the West as late as the 18th century.
All human societies honor the past and engage with the texts of their forebears. Far fewer, however, take the trouble to methodically analyze ancient objects and ruins in order to understand the civilizations that produced them. As Ben Landau-Taylor writes in Palladium, modern archaeology—as an organized science dedicated to systematically studying the material culture of the past—is far from self-evident. On the contrary, it is an exception. And likely, a fleeting one.
The article emphasizes that archaeology, in the form we know today—a coherent field with a unified methodology and scientific purpose—emerged in Western Europe in the 18th century.
Prior to that, there were only rare precedents: the Babylonians of the 6th century BCE who excavated temples from millennia earlier, and the Confucian scholars of China’s Song dynasty, who studied ritual vessels in hopes of reviving ancestral sacred customs. In both cases, these traditions vanished with the civilizations that had birthed them.
Why Archaeology’s Survival Isn’t Guaranteed
For Landau-Taylor, archaeology’s continued existence is not a given—nor is it assured by wealth or technological advancement. As he argues, societies do not necessarily devote resources to what is technically possible but rather to what they regard as ideologically and culturally significant. Archaeology, he emphasizes, is more a spiritual endeavor than a material necessity. We don’t study the Antikythera mechanism in order to rebuild it—we study it to understand who we are.
This ideological dimension makes archaeology highly vulnerable to political and cultural shifts. Landau-Taylor notes that archaeology flourishes only when supported—or at least tolerated—by the state.
Conversely, in environments where it clashes with dominant narratives—such as under ISIS or in regions of the Americas where research challenges ethnic identities or land claims—archaeology is suppressed, defunded, or simply withers.
What the Future Might Hold
Even in liberal democracies, archaeology’s fortunes are often tied to political agendas. As Landau-Taylor points out, the British Museum once served as a symbol of imperial authority, while today Turkey promotes Göbekli Tepe to bolster tourism. Hence, his skepticism that archaeology as a discipline will survive unaltered over centuries.
History shows that despite its seemingly simple principles, archaeology demands specialized knowledge, technical skills, and intergenerational continuity. If it ceases to be practiced, it is difficult to reestablish. As Landau-Taylor concludes, future civilizations might someday rediscover the idea of archaeology—just as it was rediscovered after 2,500 years. But by then, most traces of our society will likely be gone. And if such a tradition of studying the ancient returns, it will likely bear no resemblance to what we know today.
