Before I begin, I would like to thank Cornelius Holtorf for a timely and thought-provoking article and the kind opportunity offered me to provide a response to it. I agree with Holtorf that the ‘flesh and blood’ rhetoric in Sweden is truly unsettling given the dark historical parallels and agree that there is a need for a heritage to deprioritise nationalistic rhetoric and work to promote a ‘culture of peace’. However, while Holtorf is suited to talk about the context of Sweden, I found myself at odds with his understand-ing of the major backdrop to his argument – Russia’s1 ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the role heritage has played in justifying and resisting Russia’s genocidal violence.2 I lay out my disagreement in three parts: first, I situate myself, as I think positionality is key for understanding some of the disagreements that might arise with relation to Russia; second, I return to some of the shared and unshared heritage that has been used by Russia and Ukraine in the war – which, should be stated, already started back in 2014 with Crimea and Donbas; and third, I touch upon “the minds of humans” who, in Holtorf’s words (2026: 30), are there to bring peace. After addressing these in turn, I bring the discussion closer to my current home and the work that I do at the Svalbard Museum in Longyearbyen, Norway. I argue that instead of being preoccupied with the future values of heritage, we, as archaeologists and heritage practitioners, should return to the past – that traditional strength of our discipline that can denaturalize the harmful narratives that threaten peace, democracy, and the sanctity of human life.
Anatolijs Venovcevs (2026) studied this question.