In our debate piece, we pose a basic philosophical question about sustainable archaeology (Hutchings & La Salle Reference Hutchings and Salle2019). Our point is that the addition of the adjective ‘sustainable’ to archaeology does not change what archaeology is. Rather, it has the net effect of covering up and legitimising the harm inflicted by archaeology. We suggest that sustainable archaeology serves to ease disciplinary and institutional anxieties around an unethical past and an increasingly uncertain future. Archaeology's threats are existential insofar as people today are not only questioning whether archaeology should exist in the future (Wurst Reference Wurst2019), but also are actively “taking archaeology out of heritage” (Smith & Waterton Reference Smith and Waterton2009a: 3).

We learn from the responses to our debate piece that archaeologists still struggle to discuss critically and self-reflexively archaeology's dark side (Clarke Reference Clarke1973; Hutchings Reference Hutchings, Wells and Stiefel2019). To understand better the socio-politics of some of these tensions, we note this key passage from Carman's (Reference Carman2016: 145) article ‘Educating for sustainability in archaeology’:

Sustainable archaeology represents such a democratic project and the archaeologists involved, feeling threatened, have set out to protect their interests. What exactly those interests are, however, is not always clear.

Guttmann-Bond (Reference Guttmann-Bond2019a: 1667) labels our inquiry “anti-intellectual”. Given that archaeology is her “love” (Reference Guttmann-Bond2019b: viii), it is understandable that she rejects our argument. Instead, she is selling the idea that “archaeology can save the planet” (Reference Guttmann-Bond2010, Reference Guttmann-Bond2019b), a notion that critics have decried as ‘fanciful’, ‘romantic’, ‘pie in the sky’, ‘impractical’ and ‘doomed to failure’. One practical reason that Guttmann-Bond's plan seems doomed is because she is trying to resolve large-, industrial- or modern-scale problems (Giddens Reference Giddens1990) with strategies designed for medium- and small-scale societies (Smith & Wishnie Reference Smith and Wishnie2000; Lertzman Reference Lertzman2009), strategies that she notes herself were made obsolete by the pressures of industrialisation. Additionally, most of her case studies are derived from ethnographic and ecological research, not archaeology. In fact, Guttmann-Bond has chosen to focus in her response on “ways in which people in the past lived sustainably”, and thus does not address our central thesis: that the new definition of sustainable archaeology is greenwashing.

Nonetheless, it is significant that Guttmann-Bond's reaction to our thesis is to argue for the relevance of archaeology to the current climate crisis. This is because her views (Reference Guttmann-Bond2010, Reference Guttmann-Bond2019a & Reference Guttmann-Bondb) constitute what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls ‘sustained optimism’. This is defined as:

Guttmann-Bond (Reference Guttmann-Bond2019a: 1666) critiques our work because we “argue that archaeology is self-interested and exploitative” and because we “do not discuss the things that archaeology can teach us about conservation and sustainable living”. Yet it has long been recognised that archaeology is self-interested and exploitative (Clarke Reference Clarke1973; Shanks & Tilley Reference Shanks and Tilley1987; Smith Reference Smith2004; Smith & Waterton Reference Smith and Waterton2009a & b). Guttmann-Bond's approach belies an aversion to politics and an unbridled faith in science. Her solution is more archaeology, not more philosophy, a position that we feel is inherently limited.

Pikirayi (Reference Pikirayi2019: 1669) also steers the conversation away from archaeology's harms and towards “conventional, research-driven archaeology” aimed at “understanding how past societies lived sustainably”. Thus, like Guttmann-Bond, Pikirayi does not engage with our central thesis concerning the new use of the term ‘sustainable archaeology’.

While Högberg and Holtorf (Reference Högberg and Holtorf2019: 1661) agree with our central thesis, they stay true to their title, ‘The valuable contributions of archaeology’, steering the conversation away from the fundamental problems with the discipline by advocating for its “gradual transformation and improvement”. Given the current speed of global ecological breakdown and long history of inaction by archaeologists, we do not understand what they mean by ‘gradual’. We are also surprised by their lack of attention to (the politics of) colonialism, and dispute their argument against Indigenous and local control over heritage (cf. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (United Nations 2007)). While Högberg and Holtorf (Reference Högberg and Holtorf2019: 1661) suggest that the future of “archaeology as we know it” should not be presumed, they ultimately advocate sustaining it. Prioritising archaeology, they conclude that criticism such as ours risks “undermining opportunities” for archaeologists (Högberg & Holtorf Reference Högberg and Holtorf2019: 1662).

Perhaps because Gnecco (Reference Gnecco2019) studies archaeological resource management in a global, capitalist context, he is the only respondent who engages fully with our core argument. Gnecco's views on the global nature of capitalist exploitation are significant, as both Guttmann-Bond and Högberg and Holtorf challenge the geographic relevance of our argument. The former suggests that ours are only “ethical issues within North American archaeology” (Guttmann-Bond Reference Guttmann-Bond2019a: 1666); the latter claim that our arguments are not persuasive “based on [their] experiences in Europe” (Högberg & Holtorf Reference Högberg and Holtorf2019: 1662). These can be seen as attempts by European scholars to externalise the damage caused by resource extraction and archaeology. Yet, the global trade and consumption of these resources and the well-documented effects of their extraction on ecosystems and communities around the world are irrefutable.