In a recent article published in this journal, Langgut et al. (2016: 973) proposed five Late Chalcolithic (c. 4300–4000 BC) wooden shafts to be “the earliest Near Eastern wooden spinning implements”. Here we discuss these unique finds in light of their cultural and technological contexts, and suggest an alternative interpretation according to which these wooden shafts, one with a lead macehead lodged on its upper end, were components of the cultic practices of the southern Levantine Ghassulian culture.

We are grateful to Ben-Yosef et al. (above) for their thorough critical evaluation of our recent paper. We identified a group of modified wooden shafts originating in two large complex caves with Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) burials in the Negev Desert (Israel) as the earliest Levantine wooden spinning implements (Langgut et al. 2016). Their detailed assessment culminated in the alternative hypothesis that the wooden objects functioned as sticks that carried metal maceheads during rituals. This raises several issues that merit serious consideration. Our response to Ben-Yosef et al.'s suggestions is divided into two sections, each concentrating on one of the two main technologies under discussion: spinning and metallurgy.

Post-colonial thought affects the heart of Western science. Although there is comparatively little engagement with post-colonial theory in the fields traditionally concerned with human origins or human evolution, it should be of critical importance to Palaeolithic archaeology and human evolutionary studies. Examination of recent literature dealing with so-called modern human origins highlights key neglected aspects of this discourse, namely the status of nature and rationality, and demonstrates how these aspects are entangled with ongoing political and colonial influences on the production of knowledge.

This article responds directly to Brughmans and Poblome's (2016a) recent application of agent-based modelling to explore the relative integration of the Roman economy. The response will not only be of relevance to debates about the Roman economy, for it also asks critical questions about the use of formal modelling to interpret archaeological data. In posing open-ended questions rather than presenting definitive answers, it seeks to broaden and fuel discussion in a spirit of constructive critique.

To what extent is there spatial and temporal patterning in the spread of our genus around the planet, and what environmental and behavioural factors specify this patterning? The prevailing model of Pleistocene dispersals of Homo holds that this process was essentially terrestrial, with oceans and seas inhibiting and directing the movement of hominins out of Africa (e.g. Mellars 2006; Dennell & Petraglia 2012; Gamble 2013), although some scholars propose short-range maritime hops at both the Strait of Gibraltar and Bab-el-Mandeb (Lambeck et al.2011; Rolland 2013). The relatively recent discovery of stone tools with apparently Lower and Middle Palaeolithic characteristics on islands in the eastern Mediterranean and in Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) has, however, been used by some scholars to challenge this terrestrial model.

We appreciate the emerging discussion on the identification of the recently discovered Chalcolithic artefacts from the Judean Desert, and the careful attention to detail by Langgut et al. (above) that helps to further clarify our current understanding of spinning and metallurgical technologies in this period. Yet while we agree that by its nature archaeology is full of surprises and exceptional discoveries, we argue, however, that especially in such cases as this, the supporting evidence should be robust. This is clearly not the situation here; regardless of Langgut et al.’s nuanced argumentation (above) on specific contextual observations, our interpretation of the lead artefact as a metallic macehead that happened to be found with its wooden shaft still attached (a rare find but paralleled in the hoard from the Cave of the Treasure) remains much simpler and more straightforward than the interpretation that this extremely rare metal was used as part of a mundane spinning implement (which has no parallels anywhere). As the limitation on space does not allow us to address each of the points raised by Langgut et al., we leave it to the reader to assess the accuracy and relevance of their claims. In any case, their detailed response is only tangential to the essential line of our argument, which is related to weighing the available data and contextual information properly. The conclusion remains that while the observations that ostensibly connect the newly discovered artefacts to textile production are feeble and can be simply related to Ghassulian prestige metal objects (e.g. the use of wooden shafts and textiles in their carrying and maintenance), other observations make this connection difficult (as admitted also by Langgut et al. regarding the weight of the lead ‘whorl’), if not impossible.

Several burials excavated during 1960 at Ingombe Ilede in southern Africa were accompanied by exceptional quantities of gold and glass beads, bronze trade wire and bangles. The burials were indirectly dated to the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries AD, prior to the arrival of the Portuguese on the East Coast of Africa. New AMS dates on cotton fabric from two of the burials now relocate them in the sixteenth century. This was a dynamic period when the Portuguese were establishing market settlements along the Zambezi, generating new demands for trade products from the interior, and establishing trade networks with the Mwene Mutapa confederacy. These new dates invite a reconsideration of Ingombe Ilede's relationship to Swahili and Portuguese trade in the middle Zambezi. This article is followed by four responses and a final comment by the authors.

In a recent article, Parcak et al. (2016) presented the results of a study in which they used satellite imagery to evaluate looting and other damage at over one thousand heritage sites in Egypt. Assessing imagery dating between 2002 and 2013, their results indicated an increase in visible damage to sites during this period caused by looting and encroachment, which by Parcak et al.’s definition “includes building development, cemetery growth, agricultural expansion and intentional damage through targeted destruction” (2016: 190). Their findings support the work of previous authors who have documented an increase in looting and other damage to archaeological sites connected with increasing nationwide economic and political instability (e.g. Ikram 2013; Ikram & Hanna 2013).

Is archaeology a social science? Most archaeologists would probably agree that the goal of our discipline is to learn about the people, societies and cultures of the past. Thus there should be little objection to labelling archaeology a ‘social’ field of study. We study both people and society, but what about the ‘science’ part? This label is more controversial. Many archaeologists reject the notion that archaeology is, can be or should be a science. Others assume that archaeology is indeed a science and get on with their work, not worrying much about epistemology or definitions of science. Still others pursue decidedly non-scientific goals yet borrow scientific techniques from other disciplines and call it ‘archaeological science’.

2014, at last, revealed the wreck of HMS Erebus off Canada's Arctic mainland. Two years later, her companion, HMS Terror, was found 40 miles away, off King William Island. The government was already confident enough about their whereabouts in 1992 to declare the entire area a National Historic Site and, among other responses to the retreating ice and increasing shipping, Parks Canada began searching for the wrecks in 2008. Previous investigators had concentrated on tracing and recording the crews: among others, Owen Beattie in the 1980s (Notman et al. 1987), F.L. McClintock in 1857–1859, and four naval expeditions before that. HMS Investigator was lost in the 1853 search, and her wreck discovered off Banks Island in 2011. Ranging very widely, all of the investigators, and many others, were trying to find out what befell Sir John Franklin's attempt to complete the Northwest Passage between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific in 1845–1848. Erebus and Terror were his ships.

Connectivity in the ancient world has become a subject of such consuming interest in recent years that new publications on various aspects of the issue, pertaining to some area or period, appear with great regularity. Just in later European prehistory we have Continental connections: exploring cross-channel relationships (Anderson-Whymark et al.2015), Exchange networks and local transformations (Alberti & Sabatini 2013) and Enclosed space—open society (Jaeger et al.2012), to name but a few. One can hardly believe otherwise than that every part of the later prehistoric world was intimately involved, not only with its immediate neighbours but also with other areas near and far. Allied to this is the matter of colonialism and ‘post-colonial’ archaeology, with questions of hybridity, importation, local imitation and acculturation or adaptation; all these are things that loom large in these volumes and many others (e.g. Stockhammer 2012). The question of ‘-isations’, such as ‘Romanisation’, has been a concern of archaeologists for many years; here it is ‘-isations’ of the prehistoric Aegean world that are the focus of attention.