The expansion of large-scale excavation in Britain and parts of Continental Europe, funded by major development projects, has generated extensive new datasets. But what might we be losing when surfaces are routinely stripped by machines? Investigation by hand of ploughsoils and buried soils in the Fenlands of eastern England reveals high densities of artefacts and features that would often be destroyed or overlooked. These investigations throw new light on the concept of site sequences where features cut into underlying ground may give only a limited and misleading indication of the pattern and timing of prehistoric occupation. The consequential loss of data has a particular impact on estimates of settlement density and population numbers, which may have been much higher than many current estimates envisage.

The social complexities underlying imperial control are manifest in the material culture of everyday life encountered at archaeological sites. The Yavi-Chicha pottery style of the south-central Andes illustrates how local identities continued to be expressed in practices of pottery manufacture during the process of Inka expansion. The Yavi-Chicha style itself masks a number of distinct production processes that can be traced through petrographic analysis and that relate to the different communities by whom it was produced and consumed. The dispersion of pottery fabric types in this region may partly be attributable to the Inka practice of mitmaqkuna, the displacement and relocation of entire subject populations.

Geophysical techniques now available to archaeology have the potential to provide large-scale survey data that can map the buried structures of extensive and complex sites. Recent work at two Late Bronze Age hilltop fortresses in the mountainous volcanic terrain of Armenia provides an excellent illustration of their potential. Magnetometry revealed an unknown residential complex at Tsaghkahovit. Across the plain at Gegharot, where magnetometry was less successful, ground-penetrating radar identified terracing extending down the western slope of the hill below the fortress, greatly increasing the size of the occupied area. Combined with targeted excavations, these geophysical approaches are providing novel insights into the unusual political relations between fortress-based sovereigns and mobile subjects in central Armenia.

New methods of visualisation offer the potential for a more detailed record of archaeological objects and the ability to create virtual 3D models that can be made widely available online. Here, two different techniques are applied to the impressive Easter Island statue on display in the Wellcome Gallery at the British Museum. Of particular importance are the details revealed of the petroglyphs that decorate its surface.

Concrete fortifications have long served as battle-scarred memorials of the Second World War. The forests of north-west Europe, meanwhile, have concealed a preserved landscape of earthwork field fortifications, military support structures and bomb- and shell-craters that promise to enhance our understanding of the conflict landscapes of the 1944 Normandy Campaign and the subsequent battles in the Ardennes and Hürtgenwald forests. Recent survey has revealed that the archaeology surviving in wooded landscapes can significantly enhance our understanding of ground combat in areas covered by forest. In particular, this evidence sheds new light on the logistical support of field armies and the impact of Allied bombing on German installations.

In the course of research currently being carried out at Santimamine (Bizkaia, Spain) (Gonz’alez S’ainz & Idarraga 2010) and Altxerri (Gipuzkoa, Spain) a series of zoomorphic figures have been identified (four in total between the two sites) that represent creatures that do not exist in nature (Figure 1). They are examples of the so-called ‘imaginary creatures’, unreal or fantastic beings that appear in Palaeolithic art ensembles. Despite their rarity—fewer than 50 are known in Palaeolithic parietal art—they have been the subject of debate and controversy since the first of them were discovered.

The mechanisms by which agriculture spread across Europe in the Neolithic, and the speed at which it happened, have long been debated. Attempts to quantify the process by constructing spatio-temporal models have given a diversity of results. In this paper, a new approach to the problem of modelling is advanced. Data from over 300 Neolithic sites from Asia Minor and Europe are used to produce a global picture of the emergence of farming across Europe which also allows for variable local conditions. Particular attention is paid to coastal enhancement: the more rapid advance of the Neolithic along coasts and rivers, as compared with inland or terrestrial domains. The key outcome of this model is hence to confirm the importance of waterways and coastal mobilities in the spread of farming in the early Neolithic, and to establish the extent to which this importance varied regionally.

The recent proposal that North America was first settled by Upper Palaeolithic people from Europe who crossed the Atlantic along the edge of the Arctic ice sheet has generated considerable controversy. Here Michael O'Brien and colleagues challenge the evidence that has been presented in support of that hypothesis. There follows a response by Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, and a closing reply from O'Brien et al.

The date of the volcanic eruption of Santorini that caused extensive damage to Minoan Crete has been controversial since the 1980s. Some have placed the event in the late seventeenth century BC. Others have made the case for a younger date of around 1500 BC. A recent contribution to that controversy has been the dating of an olive tree branch preserved within the volcanic ash fall on Santorini. In this debate feature Paolo Cherubini and colleagues argue that the olive tree dating (which supports the older chronology) is unreliable on a number of grounds. There follows a response from the authors of that dating, and comments from other specialists, with a closing reply from Cherubini and his team.

Across Atlantic ice: the origin of America's Clovis culture (Stanford & Bradley 2012) is the latest iteration of a controversial proposal that North America was first colonised by people from Europe rather than from East Asia, as most researchers accept. The authors, Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley, argue that Solutrean groups from southern France and the Iberian Peninsula used watercraft to make their way across the North Atlantic and into North America during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). According to Stanford and Bradley, this 6000km journey was facilitated by a continuous ice shelf that provided fresh water and a food supply. Across Atlantic ice has received a number of positive reviews. Shea (2012: 294), for example, suggests that it is “an excellent example of hypothesis-building in the best tradition of processual archaeology. It challenges American archaeology in a way that will require serious research by its opponents”. Runnels (2012) is equally enthusiastic.

The date of the volcanic eruption of Santorini that caused extensive damage toMinoan Crete has been controversial since the 1980s. Some have placed the event in the late seventeenth century BC. Others have made the case for a younger date of around 1500 BC. A recent contribution to that controversy has been the dating of an olive tree branch preserved within the volcanic ash fall on Santorini. In this debate feature Paolo Cherubini and colleagues argue that the olive tree dating (which supports the older chronology) is unreliable on a number of grounds. There follows a response from the authors of that dating, and comments from other specialists, with a closing reply from Cherubini and his team.

The subdivision of the Chinese Palaeolithic is a controversial topic. A recent article in Antiquity (Yee 2012) critiqued Gao’s two-stage model that distinguished only an Early and a Late Palaeolithic. Yee argued that the two-stage model should be abandoned, and that a distinct Middle Palaeolithic phase can be identified. Responding to Yee, Feng Li argues that there is no solid evidence of distinctive and widespread technological changes before the Late Palaeolithic, and that it is hence premature to abandon Gao’s two-stage model at present.

Across Atlantic ice (AAI) sets out specifically to propose an alternative hypothesis of early human entry into the Americas and to stimulate research (Stanford & Bradley 2012: 16). O'Brien et al.'s response (above) primarily contains an unsupported dismissal of the evidence and these ideas. Unfortunately, to date, no work equivalent to AAI has been presented for any other Clovis origin hypothesis; this would be most welcome, especially from those who critique and reject the Solutrean hypothesis with unsupported assertions.

For convenience we respond to each of O'Brien et al.'s critiques in the order in which they appear.

Cherubini et al. (above) question the reliability of identifying annual growth increments in olive trees, and therefore voice caution against the result of the wiggle-match of the four sections of a branch of an olive tree to the 14C calibration curve. Friedrich et al. (2006) were well aware of the problematic density structure of olive trees, and therefore assigned rather wide error margins of up to 50 per cent to the ring count. This still resulted in a late seventeenth century BC youngest date for the modelled age range of the outermost section of wood (95.4% probability). One can even remove any constraint from ring counting altogether and model the four radial sections as a simple ordered sequence, in which only the relative position is used as prior information, in other words that outer sections are younger than inner ones in a radial section.