This article is an attempt to understand the ongoing processes of global archaeology during the last two decades. The aim of this article is to identify the most talked-about concepts of the recent period. The article is intended as a retrospective, subjective reflection from the viewpoint of Latvian archaeologist on the latest period of global historiography, seeking to answer the following question: What key concepts are trending in the global archaeological thought, and do they resonate in Latvian archaeology? The author offers a critical view suggesting that the contemporary archaeological thought differs from the previous periods with pluralism, deep specialization and diversity of ideas as well as pronounced discursive radicalization in the form of unexpected criticism of capitalism in the Western intellectual world. The attempts to politicize the discipline is problematized. In the end, it is concluded that the theoretical framework of Latvian archaeology is more conservative than contemporary global archaeology. Even if some new ideas are adapted, it is still not possible to talk about Latvian archaeologist as a public figure, a social or political activist.

The construction of the Daugava River Hydropower Plants (HPPs) and cor- responding impact on archaeological monuments directly showed the importance of landscape. It is a manifest example how identity of whole nation relies on sym- bols. It needs to be asked what is left when the landscape – formed, shaped and developed through hundreds and thousands of years – has been brutally destroyed. During the 1960s archaeologists worked mostly in two regions – Pļaviņas and Riga HPP submerging zones [Loze, Cimermanis 1969: 2–3]. That was really huge and planned research. For archaeologists it was clear that the collected material would keep the story of the life in ancient villages, hillforts and castles as well as peoples living, who had lived there, alive, when all of it would be under the water. Besides the negative aspects, research that went on for many years has shaped and formed archaeological science as well as the development of archaeological thought. The goal of this paper is to examine what pros and cons these works have left and how to evaluate them in today’s context.

The correlation between art and archaeology in Latvia can be traced in vari- ous ways. First, despite all technical innovations there are still professional artists that work on field with archaeologists and are directly involved in the recording of archaeological evidence. Furthermore, art-related work is being done in reconstruc- tions, book illustrations and museum exhibitions. In addition to those who devote their artistic skills to scientific and educational purposes under the supervision of archaeologists, we can see quite a lot of artwork that represents something archaeo- logical while being the free fruits of artistic imagination. Archaeological science is of the opinion that inaccurate stylisations of archaeological costumes in movies or arbitrary depictions of some archaeological period in literary or any other work of art can very easily lead to false impressions and misunderstandings that endure for decades. On the other hand, scientists have no right to restrain the public from interpreting its own past as it deems fit. The aim of this paper is to discuss the relations and crossroads between art and archaeology by examining how they historically have developed, coexisted and influenced one another in the territory of Latvia from the 19th century till nowadays.

Today there is a revival of groups who claim to practice ancient Latvian religion. They often accuse archaeologists of lying and concealing the evidence of Latvian past superiority. On the one hand, this might be considered a misuse of archaeological data in order to support religious or nationalistic beliefs. On the other hand, hypothetical reconstructions of prehistoric religious beliefs are related to public archaeology and the relationship between science and the wider society. The aim of this paper is to investigate attempts to reconstruct ancient Latvian prehistoric religion through the lens of the archaeology of religion, and at the same time to broaden the discussion into the problematic relationship between nationalism and public archaeology.

This article examines the history of archaeology in Latvia during the Soviet occupation (1940–1941; 1944–1991), trying to understand the consequences brought in the field of archaeology by the single-party led experiment of communism. The research is based on archival studies and uses the historical method, source criticism and historiography. Author explains the nature of the prescribed theoretical and methodological guidelines as well as actual implications of the ‘communist way’ in archaeology. The article challenges the common belief that archaeology and prehistory were ideologically freer than other branches of history during the Soviet era.