The abundance of the references to the past in the present causes some theoretical problems. In other words, usually analysing different manifestations of the past in e.g. computers games, Hollywood films and so on to much attention is paid only on content (what is presented). Formal aspects of each film, computer game and so on are omitted. I want to explore this problem a little bit in this short text by taking as an example a historical re-enactment movement of the Viking Age.

Definitely, it was not a good day for Theodor Adorno (2005: 25), otherwise great German philosopher, when he honestly admitted in Minima Moralia: ‘Every visit to the cinema leaves me, against all my vigilance, stupider and worse’. What Adorno despised was not only Hollywood movies, but generally, popular culture per se that was part of culture industry. However, it can be said that today there are many interesting things taking place in cinema that can inspire archaeologists. One of them concerns heritage; the subject that is very close to our hearts.

One of the many examples of material culture where materiality and memory are deeply interwoven is a certain tram cemetery in Wrocław (Poland). That is why I will shortly describe the history of the site, to focus later on interesting problems which confront us, such as heritage sites as tram and/or car cemeteries. I refer also to cinema, where issues often discussed by archaeologists, like ruins, material culture, heritage in becoming, etc. are staged in such a way that is worthy of closer attention

Archaeology has been for many years identified with its own method, that of excavation. It isthe way the public sees archaeology and many archaeologists think of themselves too (e.g.Holtorf 2007). However, Rodney Harrison recently pointed out the crucial role of the surfacein archaeological thinking (Harrison 2011, in press).

Archaeology as practiced by anthropologists is no longer only about prehistoric societies. As the world becomes increasingly preoccupied with preserving cultural heritage for future generations, archaeologists are increasingly shifting their attention from mummies and pottery to contemporary phenomena. Cultural heritage that is worth preserving could be almost anything: from Stonehenge, through to the pyramids in Egypt, to places where Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings were filmed. Even such places as the ruins of Nazi factories or Soviet war infrastructure are fragments of our history and can say something significant about our past. In fact, blockbuster films can be just as valid a topic for anthropological investigation.

There is always something to learn from Sherlock Holmes. It is a good sign that an archaeologist has been often identified with the private detective.

Contemporary archaeologies are complex and diverse. It is easier to find things that differentiateprehistoric archaeology, for example, (e.g. Childe 1929) from the archaeology of the contemporary past(Buchli and Lucas 2001) than to identify what both share. The same claim applies to a history ofarchaeology as such. To simplify, to indicate the differences between culture-historical archaeology,processual archaeology and post-processual archaeologies does not cause many problems (Trigger 2006).However, in this article I claim that these archaeologies use in a very same way the ideas of what ‘new’ and‘critique’ in archaeology are about. The thesis of this text is: there is usually not so much truly new in theideas that are described as new and innovative (Žižek 2008).

We live in a world–or so we’re told–in which we’re obsessed with the new. Shopping malls, glossy magazines, and catwalk parades encourage us to buy more new, shiny stuff. But the famous song line, “Hey, Macklemore! Can we go thrift shopping?” by American rapper Ben Haggerty (a.k.a. Macklemore) suggests that fashion on a different trajectory. To put it simply, Macklemore’s song suggest that what’s old is new again. It is only by wearing kitschy material culture from the ’80s and ’90s found in a thrift shop that one can be considered fashionable and–as it is often said–cool. What ten years ago would have been discernible as a sign of a lack of good taste is today an ultimate example of being fashionable. In short, non-fashion is its own fashion today. The only new things are from the past.