The interest that a ragpicker takes in rubbish and detritus, as described by Baudelaire and further developed by Benjamin (1999: 350), is not dissimilar to the archaeologist's concern with the remnants, the things left behind, abandoned. When filling the silences of the colonial archive, the archaeologist collects and catalogues everything that has been cast off, everything broken and discarded. Going through these jumbled leftovers, both archaeologists and ragpickers experience a deep intimacy with the objects they encounter: glass beads from a woven bracelet, a shell celt, textile remains of a hat, a ceramic cooking pot, a flint sceptre, an ivory brush handle, a wooden spoon, a bone needle, an iron sword, a rattle. In this way, archaeologists and ragpickers gather and collect other people's experience of textures, shapes, sounds, fear, traumas, joy, sadness and hopes.

Jade has been long recognized by archaeologists as an important trade item among ancient Mesoamerican cultures, particularly for ancient Olmec and Maya cultures. Unfortunately, the precocious development of Olmec society led many early archaeologists to overemphasize Olmec influence on the Maya during the Formative period (ca. 1000–400 BC). This is particularly noteworthy in the attribution of tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants to the Olmec despite the lack of archaeological evidence. Using a recently discovered tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendant from the site of Ka'kabish, Belize, and dated to the Middle Formative period (ca. 800–600 BC), this article argues that such pieces should not be unquestionably attributed to the Olmec. This argument is supported by correlation with similar objects from other secure archaeological contexts at Maya sites dating to the Middle Formative period. This article contends that using the ethnonym Olmec to describe these objects creates an a priori assumption that these objects originated in the Olmec region and were merely repurposed by the Maya and argues for a reinterpretation of the origin and meaning for these objects.

Il volume di Elisabetta Bianchi (B.) e Roberto Meneghini (M.), Il Foro di Traiano nell'Antichità. I risultati degli scavi 1991–2007, esamina i risultati degli scavi condotti, tra il 1998 e il 2007, dalla Sovrintendenza ai Beni Culturali del Comune di Roma (attuale Roma Capitale) nel Foro di Traiano, focalizzando principalmente l'attenzione sulle strutture murarie dell'immenso complesso, scoperte ex novo o riesaminate alla luce dei nuovi rinvenimenti, e sulle loro originarie decorazioni. L'opera si propone, come sottolineato nella Premessa, come prosecuzione e completamento di una prima monografia, ad opera del solo M., pubblicata nel 2021 nella stessa collana, incentrata sulla storia del complesso traianeo nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento, delineata sulla base dei sopracitati scavi 1998–2007.1

Who created literary texts in ancient Mesopotamia, and did the Mesopotamians have a concept of “literature” (→ 1)? A core witness is the song Innana B / nin me šara (NMS → 2). New translations and an inductive analysis of references to text, addressee, and speaker reveals NMS to be created by a priestess for a war ritual (→ 3). Instead of staking a claim to authorship, however, the song stresses a claim for priesthood (→ 4). New evidence shows why: the creators of ritual songs are gods, and En-ḫedu-ana is only allowed to create such a song when she herself acts as a priestess embodying a deity (→ 5 and 6). The last section will offer proof that NMS belongs to the category of literature, from both ancient and modern perspectives, and explain why it is also to be regarded as both a mythic and ritual text (→ 7).The analysis demonstrates the birth of literature through the goddess Nin-gal, embodied in En-ḫedu-ana.

This paper publishes the editio princeps of an Early Dynastic IIIb tablet from Nippur, which contains a unique yet fragmentary Sumerian narrative about the storm god Iškur’s captivity in the netherworld, from which he appears to be rescued by Fox. While the incomplete state of preservation prevents a reconstruction of the plot, individual motifs can be traced across the entire cuneiform corpus, allowing for a preliminary case study of continuity and change over more than two millennia of Mesopotamian mythological literature.

Frieman (2024) observes in her own, highly metaphorical language that one can offer an unbounded number of interpretations to explain the distribution of archaeological remains in time and space. These interpretations offer different perspectives that can inform action—in Frieman's case an explicitly feminist understanding of the past informing the present. She provides two brief examples from the literature, suggesting that each embodies present-day biases: the distribution of Bronze Age swords relative to the provenance of ornamentation sets in Denmark and Germany, and the ‘Egtved Girl’, a Bronze Age burial of a young person of undetermined sex clad in a bronze-decorated tunic, associated with jewellery and the cremated remains of a child. Interpretations previously advanced for the first example include a patrilocal residence system wherein male warriors brought to their natal homes women ornamented with objects from their own homelands; from this interpretation we hypothesise the presence of patriarchal chiefdoms. The second example, the Egtved individual, has been characterised as a foreign bride, isotope analyses suggesting an itinerant life in the months prior to death. As each interpretation lingers in the literature, it becomes a certitude on which researchers build. Alternative interpretations go unimagined. But Frieman argues for the need for multiple, culturally complex interpretations that emerge from the gaps in the evidence, or the ‘unproofs’.

L'organisation spatiale des maisons pompéiennes et les effets produits par les décors qui en ornaient les murs restent des champs d'investigation très dynamiques après des décennies de synthèses produites à leur sujet. Et le regain d'activité archéologique à Pompéi ces dernières années – assorti désormais d'une communication très abondante et efficace sur l'actualité des fouilles1 – ne fera sans doute qu'amplifier le phénomène dans les années à venir.

For almost a century, caches have been regular discoveries at most Preclassic and Classic Maya sites (ca. 800 BC–AD 950). As early as the 1960s, William Coe noticed a number of recurring patterns (Tikal Report No. 27A). Fifty years after the end of the Tikal Project's excavations, it was nonetheless necessary to review the data from all the successive projects to identify new deposits and reanalyze contexts deemed problematic. As a result, 343 caches are now identified at Tikal, of which 97% can be assigned to a recurrent Ritual Cache Complex on the basis of a combination of etic criteria including content, context of discovery, and chronology. Their study confirms a link between architectural and depositional sequences but also probable functions as gift offerings and agentive tools used by the whole population for ceremonies closely related to the type of structure in which they were performed. Finally, the repetition of cases provides a cautious basis for emic interpretations, thanks to the support of ethnographic comparisons. This organization of rituals into recurring patterns goes beyond Tikal and even the Maya area. This article is thus a first step toward a future larger-scale study.

The Mesolithic has been characterised as temporally homogeneous: a period of stagnation or degeneration with hunter-gatherers focused on routine economic practices in an endlessly repeating seasonal round. Characterisation of the Mesolithic as timeless and unchanging derives in part from our current poor internal chronological resolution, which appears even more acute given the recent ground-breaking advances for chronological precision in adjacent time periods. However, these tendencies are exacerbated by a focus in Mesolithic studies on an outdated and simplified bipartite typological framework for the period, linked to a small number of well-preserved sites that come to stand for human lifeways across millennia. These approaches produce a peculiar temporal model within Mesolithic studies. We argue that we need both more accurate and precise chronologies, and narrative approaches that write stories of these people in their own emergent and uncertain times. To begin to do so, this paper presents a new chronological framework for British Mesolithic assemblages, based on collation, audit, and Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon measurements associated with particular microlith forms. With this new approach, we outline different understandings of temporality and inhabitation for the period c. 9800–3600 cal bc.

Farming developed in Britain during the Neolithic period but across much of England the earliest good archaeological evidence for fields and enclosures in which crops were grown and livestock kept dates from the Middle Bronze Age, c. 1600/1500 bc. While these Bronze Age sub-divided agricultural landscapes are widespread across southern and eastern England, Suffolk and Norfolk were, until recently, essentially a ‘blank’ in their distribution. Over the last 15 years an increasing number of such field systems have been excavated, particularly in Norfolk, and some have started to appear in print. This article adds to this developing picture by briefly describing parts of seven additional Bronze Age – and probable Bronze Age – field systems that have been investigated through recent development-led excavation in south-east Suffolk. Currently published and unpublished evidence from elsewhere in the county is also considered, with the aims of identifying how widespread such land divisions were and establishing the current state of knowledge regarding the location, date, development, layout, and agricultural function of Bronze Age fields in the county. Some of the implications are of wider interest for understanding Bronze Age landscape organisation and land use in lowland England.

Excavations carried out between 2016 and 2022 on the main mound (Mound A) of Tell Zurghul/Nigin, in Areas D and E, have revealed a long occupational sequence of the site during a large part of the third millennium B.C.E. The identification of three main phases of use of the area, which are in turn divided into five Architectural Phases, shows that the mound was utilized in different ways between the late Early Dynastic I period and the end of the third millennium B.C.E. The sequence allows the various phases of use to be associated with specific periods in the life of the settlement, coinciding with the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash and Gudea’s works on the site. The chrono-typological analysis of the pottery repertoire from Areas D and E has established dating for the materials recovered and provides additional information useful for a general reassessment of the ceramic chronology of third millennium B.C.E. Mesopotamia. Materials from Architectural Phases I and II are assigned at the ceramic level to the late Akkadian/post-Akkadian/early Ur III horizon. Pottery from Architectural Phases III and IV are assigned, respectively, to the ED IIIB/early Akkadian and the ED IIIA–B horizons, while materials from Architectural Phase V are assigned to a late ED I/transitional ED I–ED IIIA horizon.

In her debate article, Frieman's (2024) reflections on the idea of unproof are a welcome and elegant addition to current debate on the nature of archaeological evidence, how we construct the stories we tell about the past, and the role of archaeology in the contemporary world. Frieman draws on both feminist and anarchist theory to argue that the value of archaeology is the way it allows us to grasp worlds different from our own and suggests that this can allow us to pre-figure better future worlds. This chimes closely with other recent work on the subject (e.g. Barton 2021; Cipolla et al. 2024; Schofield 2024)—clearly, archaeologists are considering the radical potential of our own discipline to change the world.