ABSTRACT
More than 20 years ago, Bruce Trigger fundamentally changed the direction of inquiries into the origins and development of archaeology—which he broadly saw as bringing the past back to life by understanding its material remains. He was acutely aware that the theory and practice of archaeology varied in important ways from one country to another and that this variation was not random. He suggested that “the nature of archaeological research is shaped to a significant degree by the roles that particular nation-states play, economically, politically, and culturally, as interdependent parts of the modern world-system” (Trigger 2003 [1984]: 68). He proceeded to describe the differences among three alternative archaeologies that were rooted in nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist projects, respectively.
