This paper discusses gilded wreaths from the Greek world, which were sometimes buried in graves in the period between the fourth century BC and Roman times. It is based upon a study undertaken by the author for her doctoral thesis. A categorisation into seven types is proposed, based on first-hand study of some 170 wreaths. Some of the wreaths studied are presented here and a detailed description of one representative example of each type with contextual information is set out in the Appendix. It is not clear whether gilded wreaths were worn in life, but their main use seems to have been funerary. Most were intended for the head, and some ideas as to how the various types may have been worn are proposed. Suggestions as to the probable origin of each of the various types are made, with caveats. The author was able to analyse many wreaths, enabling her to draw some conclusions as to the materials used; the results most relevant to the seven specimens described in the Appendix are set out in the two tables. There follows a discussion of the gilding technique used, which in most cases involved an application of a clay coating and adhesive beneath the gold. Some items with similarities to gilded wreaths are then discussed to set them in context: gold wreaths, terracotta jewellery and single leaves. The paper reviews the four main uses with which wreaths are associated in ancient Greece, all connected (religious purposes; on death; at the symposium and banquets; and to honour victorious athletes and other outstanding persons) before offering some explanations as to why gilded wreaths may have been buried in graves.

This article presents 6637 radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in southernmost Sweden, from 9000 cal bc to the present. Based on summed probability distributions (SPDs) of the calibrated radiocarbon dates, the authors consider long-term trends in settlement and human population. Most dates are from the fertile and densely populated plains of south-western Scania, but coastal lowlands and forested uplands are also represented, allowing for a discussion of the relationship between central and peripheral areas. The authors distinguish between different types of archaeological contexts and features and between different types of dated material, so as to better understand the processes behind population and settlement change. They highlight three periods and phenomena revealed by the SPDs: a strong population increase at the onset of the Neolithic (4000–3700 cal bc), followed by a sharp decline; a steady and long-lasting expansion from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Iron Age (1500 cal bc–cal ad 200); and a decrease in the Nordic Late Iron Age (seventh century ad), particularly in recently colonized upland areas. The SPDs presented provide a new framework for archaeology in southern Sweden and offer an empirical basis for discussion of long-term trends in settlement and population development.

Much needed within scholarship related to archaeology, the construction of nations, and the politics of epistemic practice, the two books under review—Bureaucratic archaeology and Archaeology, nation, and race—are certainly welcome additions. The first, by Ashish Avikunthak, is a deep and engaged ethnographic study of the ways by which the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) produces archaeology, and links it to religiosity, at the excavation site. Through this study, Avikunthak lays open “this social, cultural, and scientific universe of postcolonial archaeologies and demonstrate the impact of bureaucratic ontologies on epistemological practices” (p. xix). The second volume, co-authored by Raphael Greenberg and Yannis Hamilakis, can be considered autoethnographic, fashioned around conversations during a seminar at Brown University. In a series of fascinating chapter-conversations, they provide nuance to otherwise very difficult, slippery and easily conflated arguments that bring together and reflect upon the histories of archaeological imaginaries and contemporary politics of Greece and Israel/occupied Palestine. Both texts are grounded in an ethnographic modality that allows for clarity of their epistemic critiques of the nation. It is remarkable how much political work both texts are doing by carefully holding and contextualising history and contemporary politics, while also providing critical insights into the ways in which archaeology is used to further the politics of the nation.