Archaeology at war: Russia and its hybrid heritage politics
Archaeology, both as a discipline and as a set of material references to the past, has been an important weapon of war, and it remains so as the rules of conventional warfare are rewritten. The instrumentalisation of archaeological work and heritage in conflict has been addressed within and beyond the discipline, and over the past decade a broader research agenda has developed around the topic (Pollock, 2016). As conditions on and outside the battlefield have dramatically evolved in recent years, research into the intersection of archaeology and conflict has moved further to the forefront, prompting more interdisciplinary reflections that take 21st-century realities of conflict seriously (Meskell, 2026). This paper contributes to a better understanding of archaeology at war in the 21st century by examining archaeology’s role in Russia’s hybrid warfare. By highlighting how state and non-state actors strategically mobilise excavations and other heritage work in Russia’s current conflicts, this paper also spotlights individual archaeologists’ agency in advancing propaganda and geopolitical leverage.
In both academic reflections and Western military reports, the Russian Federation is often named as a prime agent rewriting the rules of conflict and mastering what is popularly called hybrid warfare (Hoffman, 2007; Weissmann et al., 2021; Wither, 2016). Hybrid warfare is commonly used in academia and beyond to describe contemporary warfare characterised by new kinetic and non-kinetic techniques and technologies, employed by a blend of state and non-state actors to advance geopolitical goals and achieve territorial outcomes. Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and especially following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, cyberattacks, disinformation and propaganda at home and (near) abroad have visibly become part of the military toolkit of the Kremlin. As a concept, hybrid warfare is criticised for being too broad and not entirely ‘new’ (Johnson, 2018). Warfare has never been fought purely in conventional ways on the battlefield. This is certainly the case for Russia, which, including its predecessors, is an experienced master of strategic messaging and the use of proxies to challenge adversaries and achieve operational goals (Renz, 2016). However imperfect the concept may be, it has forced policymakers and the public to explore warfare beyond tanks, ships, and planes. And, more importantly, the concept of hybridity has encouraged non-conflict-study disciplines to explore how their topics can become caught up in conflict.
Read the full article (open access) by Gertjan Plets, Utrecht University, in the Journal of Social Archaeology.
