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 However, these tendencies are exacerbated by a focus in Mesolithic studies on an outdated and simplified bipartite typological framework for the period, linked to a small number of well-preserved sites that come to stand for human lifeways across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.

Cultural heritage preservation and protection are increasingly tethered to an international security agenda constituted across multilateral agencies. UNESCO and other organizations have securitized heritage, engaging in military training and peacekeeping, international law and prosecution, and cultural property protection. Following the events in Iraq and Syria, UN Security Council resolutions have instantiated norms of heritage violence, risk, and threat, while the Global War on Terror also interpolated looting, trafficking, and terror financing into a heritage-protection agenda. We compare these developments with our large-scale public opinion survey of Mosul and Aleppo residents’ experiences of heritage violence and the implications for security and reconstruction. While our results display potential overlaps with UNSC concerns, we suggest that site destruction and broader security concerns are understood differently on the ground, shaped by political and economic factors. We argue for a more humanitarian focus if any relationship between heritage, security, and, indeed, peacebuilding is to be forged.

Ever since Alexander Thom visited Calanais in the Outer Hebrides, groups of Neolithic monuments in western Scotland have been studied in relation to the land and the sky. Less attention has been paid to their close relationship with the sea. These places were secluded and could be difficult or dangerous to reach, yet details of their architecture suggest that there were close links between them. How important were long distance connections between 3000 and 2000 bc? Were some ceremonial centres visited by boat? And was the journey itself treated as a rite of passage? The case extends to structures in Orkney and Ireland.