Reply to comments

International audienceI greatly appreciate that four colleagues agreed to contribute to a constructive discussion of the degrowth movement and its potential implications for archaeology. The comments proposed by the reviewers are overall rather encouraging, notwithstanding the identification of some blind spots which will need to be developed and discussed further. The discussion also brought new ideas, and in so doing, despite some disagreements on the use of terminology, highlighted the difficulty of representing ourselves clearly, and projecting that representation into capitalist organizations, collapsing capitalist societies, or a post-capitalist world. Degrowth is axiomatically defined by this progressive transition until the advent of a post-growth society. As such, it is not a dogma defining a path but a range of possibilities that make it impossible to 'contemplate what archaeology may look like' (p. 28) in the future. As I am offered this last window for answering comments, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify and extend some of the views presented in my original article. First, a note should be added concerning the circumstances of this publication: a turning point in my relation to archaeological fieldwork occurred in the United Kingdom in 2015, following m