Contemporary archaeology seems to be marked by a questioning of the limits of interpretation, pushing for a radical change in the way we conceptualize our engagement with the past, the material and the world we live in: from archaeologies of affect, to new materialist approaches or calls to political engagement, practitioners seem to experiment with new questions and theoretical tools. As Artur Ribeiro points out in his contribution to the following collection of papers, ‘“new” has become the new normal’. But the question is, what are we trying to do with these experiments and what do we expect from archaeology in a world that is undergoing major changes and challenges?

Archaeology is widely defined by its methodological procedures such that techniques, and their development, are taken to determine what archaeology can and will achieve. In this way the existing archaeological paradigm is maintained and, indeed, policed by reference to what is currently deemed to be methodologically acceptable. One outcome is the emphasis in Europe upon the preservation rather than the investigation of archaeological deposits, given the assumption that tomorrow's techniques will always be an improvement upon those that are available today. And yet, if we do not explore possibilities driven by our desire to know, by our hopes of what archaeology might achieve, and by our preparedness to take risks in both our analysis and our communications, then there is the possibility that the subject will sink into the atrophy of normal practice rather than follow the trajectory of a dynamic and challenging development.

Given these concerns, we felt the need to organize a round-table debate as part of the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, where a number of points of view as to where our discipline might be heading were offered. The aim of the session was to discuss the extent to which current archaeological procedures might structure what we can know, or what we believe that we can know, about the past. If current procedures prevent us from undertaking the kinds of research that we desire, then to what extent are we prepared to accept the current dogma as to how we should do archaeology? In other words, are there inherent limits to what can be known in the mechanisms of archaeological procedures and in the development of archaeological theory, and if that is the case then what determines those limits? To explore these issues in as open a way as possible, the round table covered a wide range of topics and theoretical perspectives, from the relationship between past agencies and their interpretation to points of view focused on knowledge production.

What follows is a collection of papers that provide five short and hopefully provocative statements that outline the contributors’ motivations and hopes for the future of archaeology, along with their reflections on what needs to change if those hopes are to be realized and what might inhibit such developments. By questioning the limits of what might be possible and by considering afresh the objectives of archaeological analysis, these contributions chart the extent to which either the nature of the material evidence or the imaginative use of that evidence is likely to determine the shape of future archaeologies. John Barrett's text is a plea for returning humanity to archaeological theory, by revisiting the fundamental question ‘why do we do archaeology?’ Benjamin Alberti takes the discussion further by exploring what drives us in our engagement with the past, advocating an archaeology of risk and wonder. Artur Ribeiro and Felipe Criado-Boado explore the methodologies of understanding. Felipe Criado-Boado imagines an archaeology at the crossroad of narrative and scientific knowledge and Artur Ribeiro evaluates the impact of theoretical concepts and ends up by claiming that what archaeology really needs is modesty. Finally, Alexandra Ion links ethics and osteoarchaeology, claiming that we need to rethink research questions and methods when we confront the material existence of another human being in order to explicitly address the link between our ontological assumptions and the kind of evidence we are looking for.

Ultimately, our contention is that archaeology is a discipline dealing as much with the present and the future as with the past, and that reflecting on ‘what kind of archaeology’ we want is more important than ever. How do we choose to interpret the traces of past ways of being in the world, why do we think our research matters and for whom? The way in which one answers these questions will shape the way in which archaeology imagines the relationship between past and present, and the way in which it places itself in relation to the challenges of the contemporary world. Our ‘world is on fire’, as Sada Mire stressed (personal communication), challenged by globalization; by war and migration; and by political, economical, social and environmental issues, and the question is, what role should archaeology play in this context? We argue that we need an ‘archaeology that enlightens and is not afraid to be enlightened’ (Sada Mire, personal communication).