Explore the vast range of titles available.

The fragmentation of the archaeological record presents methodological challenges: as researchers analyse and construct models, they do not (and in most cases cannot and will not) know what is missing. Here, the author argues that these gaps are one of the field's greatest strengths; they force practitioners to be reflective in their understanding of, and approach to, studying the material traces of past people's lives and to make space for ways of being foreign to present reality. The uncertainty of a past in ruins is a place of possibility that empowers us all to imagine and to work towards a better future.

In this essay, we interrogate how aDNA analyses have been blended with the study of migrations in European prehistory. Genetic research into ancient populations has given archaeologists and geneticists a new and rich data-set that sparks media coverage and public fascination. Yet far right wing and racist political activists also report on and repeat the results of archaeogenetic studies because it bolsters their image of 'Fortress Europe' under threat from biologically distinct non-Europeans. We worry about the lack of action, even discussion, we perceive among archaeologists and archaeogeneticists faced with this ugly appropriation of their research. In order to address these concerns, we have taken a deliberately provocative style. Even as we realise that the politically questionable interpretive implications of aDNA research are most likely unintended, we strongly believe that we must acknowledge their power before we can ameliorate our approach.

I want to preface this response by noting that, while I think Bentley, O'Brien and I fundamentally differ in how we approach the archaeological record (2024), I am also convinced that the more perspectives on the past we can cultivate, the richer our interpretative garden will be. Moreover, the more narratives of past worlds we develop, the more nuanced and complex our image of the past will become and, hence, the messier and more human (Frieman in press). I therefore write in the hopes that we can disagree with care, so that all of our scholarship is enriched.

To start: I thank the responding authors for their generosity and thoughtfulness in engaging in this debate about ‘Attending to unproof: an archaeology of possibilities’ (Frieman 2024) and also the journal's editors for facilitating this discussion.

Brück (2021) provides an eloquent and necessary critique of an overreliance on scientific tools to understand social relationships. I enjoyed reading this debate piece and found myself agreeing enthusiastically with most of it. Rather than pulling at the details of Brück's argument, here, I would like to sharpen its edges. In particular, Brück challenges us to expand our interpretative imaginaries as we reconstruct the past using biomolecular data. I suggest, however, that we should also think more critically about these very data and how contemporary models of kinship by blood relatedness affect not just the interpretations we develop, but also the questions that we ask and the methods that we apply in answering them. In a recent article, Wolf-Meyer (2020) argues that technology is entangled in kin relations: technology, when conceived of as inextricably enmeshed in complex networks of people, things and relationships, can be kin; but it can also form a conduit that creates connections between people, making kin out of them. Salient to archaeogenetic research, Wolf-Meyer (2020: 237) points to genetic ancestry tests as one example of how technology creates kinship by “rendering bodies like one another” and creates a sense of shared identity through biological substance. Indeed, he expands this to encompass the kinship chart—a graphic technology that, he argues, “composes a connection between bodies, across space and time” (Wolf-Meyer 2020: 242). Hence, archaeogenetics does not reveal innate kin relations, but creates them. This does not mean they are not real, but that they encompass only one element of the kinship experienced by past people, and represent it in terms that are more relevant to us, as contemporary scholars, than to those past people we study. Thus, genetic kinship relations in prehistory—like prehistory in general—are invented, constructed and woven together from incomplete and biased data. Scientific studies of biological relatedness do not reveal natural relations, but create them in both a language and form that is familiar to us, rather than revelatory about the past.

Scholars of the past frame the ‘origins’ or evolution of inequality, usually using archaeological or anthropological evidence as a basis for their arguments, as an intentional, inevitable, important step towards the development of states, implicitly framed as the pinnacle of human political and economic achievement. Anarchist archaeologies reject the idea of hierarchy as a positive or inevitable evolutionary outcome underlying the path to civilization. We argue instead for a radical reorientation towards archaeologies of equality. We propose a prefigurative archaeology that celebrates the myriad ways that human beings have actively undermined and resisted hierarchical social arrangements. We aim to reorient archaeology's focus towards societies that purposefully prevented or constrained the emergence of inequality. To demonstrate the potential of archaeologies of equality we present case examples from Oceania, Britain, West Asia and the American Southwest. Highlighting the accomplishments of societies of equals in the past demonstrates the contingency and problematic nature of present forms of inequality. It allows us to explore a different set of pasts and thus enact different presents as we imagine different futures.

Over the past 30 years, Britain’s large archaeological museums and collections have shifted their focus away from academic visitors exploring their stores and collections and toward the dynamic presentation of permanent and temporary displays. These are arranged to emphasize compelling and relevant interpretative narratives over the presentation of large numbers of objects. The shift to digitization and the online presentation of collections is a major feature of public engagement activities at many museums but also might open older and less accessible collections up to research. In this article, we consider what role digital platforms may have in the future of British museum-based archaeology, with special reference to initiatives at the British Museum. We suggest that online collections have the potential to mediate between engaging the public and allowing professional archaeologists to develop sophisticated research programs, since these platforms can present multiple narratives aimed at different audiences.

Flint daggers are a well-known and closely studied category of artefact found throughout western Europe during the final centuries of the Neolithic and the earliest phases of metal use. They are widely linked to the adoption of metal objects and metallurgy – in many cases being described as copies of metal daggers. In Britain, several hundred flint daggers have been recovered from a variety of contexts, among the best known of which are a handful of rich Beaker single inhumation burials. The British flint daggers were of great interest to early archaeologists, and were the subject of several publications in the early 20th century, most notably the seminal 1931 typochronology and catalogue by W.F. Grimes. However, despite 80 years of evolution in our understanding of the British Early Bronze Age, Beaker burials, European flint daggers, and lithic technology in general, little further attention has been accorded to the British flint daggers. This paper returns to the flint daggers deposited in British contexts. It proposes a new classification for British daggers, distinguishing between those probably produced in Britain and those brought in from elsewhere on the continent. It further examines the chaîne opératoire for these daggers based on their final form as no production locales are yet known and examines in detail the choices made in their deposition, not just in funerary contexts but on dry land and, most importantly, in wet contexts. Finally, it proposes a sequence of development for British flint daggers which links them technologically and morphologically to lanceolate Scandinavian daggers in circulation in the Netherlands. It is suggested that people in south-east Britain knowingly played up this Dutch connection in order to highlight a specific ancestral identity linking them directly to communities across the Channel. Lames à double tranchant: nouvelle visite des poignards en silex britanniques (et irlandais), de Catherine J. Frieman Les poignards en silex sont une catégorie d’artefacts bien connue et minutieusement étudiée que l’on trouvait à travers toute l’Europe occidentale au cours des derniers siècles du néolithique et des premières phases de l’usage des métaux. Ils sont très liés à l’adoption des objets en métal et de la métallurgie; ils sont dans bien des cas décrits comme des copies de poignards en métal. En Grande-Bretagne, on a recouvré plusieurs centaines de poignards en silex d’une variété de contextes, parmi lesquels les plus connus sont une poignée de riches inhumations individuelles Beaker. Les poignards en silex britanniques suscitèrent un grand intérêt chez les premiers archéologues et furent l’objet de plusieurs publications au début du XXe siècle, plus notamment en 1931 avec la typochronologie et le catalogue de W.F. Grimes qui ont fait école. Cependant, malgré les 80 ans d’évolution de notre compréhension de l’âge du bronze britannique ancien, des inhumations Beaker, des poignards européens en silex et de la technologie lithique en général, on n’a accordé que peu d’attention supplémentaire aux poignards en silex britanniques. Cet article propose une nouvelle classification des poignards britanniques, faisant la distinction entre ceux probablement produits en Grande-Bretagne et ceux rapportés d’ailleurs sur le continent. On y examine de plus près la chaine opératoire de ces poignards en s’appuyant sur leur forme définitive car aucun lieu de production n’est connu à ce jour et on examine en détail les choix faits dans leur déposition, non seulement dans des contextes funéraires mais sur la terre ferme et, encore plus important, dans des contextes humides. Finalement, on propose une séquence de développement des poignards en silex britanniques qui les relie technologiquement et morphologiquement aux poignards scandinaves lancéolés qui circulaient aux Pays-Bas. On suggère que les peuples du sud-est de la Grande-Bretagne jouaient sciemment de ce lien néerlandais afin de souligner une identité ancestrale spécifique les rattachant directement aux communautés de l’autre côté de la Manche. Zweischneidige Klingen: Neue Überlegungen zu britischen (und irischen) Feuersteindolchen, von Catherine J. Frieman Feuersteindolche sind eine gut bekannte und detailliert untersuchte Artefaktgruppe, die in Westeuropa in den letzten Jahrhunderten des Neolithikums und in der frühesten Phase der Metallnutzung in Gebrauch war. Sie sind im weitesten Sinne mit der Übernahme der Metallurgie und von Metallobjekten verknüpft und werden oft als Kopien von Metalldolchen angesprochen. Mehrere hundert Dolche aus Feuerstein wurden in Großbritannien aus einer Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Kontexte geborgen, wovon einige der bekanntesten aus einer Handvoll reich ausgestatteter Einzelgräber der Becherkultur stammen. Die britischen Flintdolche weckten stark das Interesse früher Archäologen und waren Gegenstand mehrerer Publikationen im frühen 20. Jahrhundert, worunter vor allem die bahnbrechende Typochronologie mit Katalog von W. F. Grimes von 1931 zu erwähnen ist. Jedoch wurde, trotz der Fortentwicklung unseres Verständnisses der britischen Frühbronzezeit, der Bestattungen der Becherkultur, der europäischen Flintdolche und der lithischen Technologie im allgemeinen, den britischen Flintdolchen wenig weitere Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dieser Beitrag schlägt eine neue Klassifikation der britischen Dolche vor, wobei unterschieden wird zwischen jenen, die wahrscheinlich in Großbritannien selbst hergestellt wurden, und solchen, die aus anderen Regionen Europas eingeführt wurden. Er untersucht zudem die chaîne opératoire dieser Dolche auf der Basis ihrer endgültigen Form, da bislang keine Produktionsstätten bekannt sind, und er untersucht im Detail, welche Entscheidungen getroffen wurden bei der Wahl der Niederlegungsorte, nicht nur in Grabkontexten, sondern auch in trockenen Böden und insbesondere in Feuchtböden oder Gewässern. Schließlich schlägt dieser Beitrag eine Sequenz für die Entwicklung der britischen Flintdolche vor, die sie technologisch und morphologisch mit lanzenspitzenförmigen Dolchen aus Skandinavien verbindet, die in den Niederlanden in Umlauf waren. Es wird die Schlussfolgerung gezogen, dass Bewohner Südostbritanniens wissentlich diese niederländische Verbindung hochspielten um eine spezifische Herkunftsidentität zu betonen, die sie mit Gemeinschaften auf der anderen Seite des Ärmelkanals direkt verknüpfen sollte. Cuchillos de doble filo: revisando los puñales de sílex británicos (e irlandeses), por Catherine J. Frieman Los puñales de sílex son una categoría de artefactos bien conocida y estudiada con detalle, propia de la Europa occidental de finales del Neolítico hasta los primeros usos del metal. Están ampliamente relacionados con la adopción de los objetos de metal y la metalurgia –en muchos casos se describen como copias de los cuchillos de metal. En Gran Bretaña, se han recuperado varios cientos de puñales de sílex en una gran variedad de contextos, entre los cuales las mejor conocidas son un puñado de ricas inhumaciones campaniformes individuales. Los puñales de sílex británicos fueron un tema de gran interés para los primeros arqueológos y han sido objeto de numerosas publicaciones desde principios del siglo XX, destacando la influyente tipocronología y catalogación de W.F. Grimes en 1931. Sin embargo, aún transcurridos 80 años de evolución de nuestro conocimiento sobre el Bronce Inicial británico, los enterramientos campaniformes, los puñales de sílex europeos, y la tecnología lítica en general, apenas se ha vuelto a prestar atención a los puñales de sílex británicos. Este artículo propone una nueva clasificación de los puñales británicos, distinguiendo entre aquéllos que probablemente fueron producidos en Gran Bretaña y los traídos desde el continente. Se analiza la chaîne opératoire de estos puñales basándose en su forma final ya que no se conocen sus áreas de producción y se examinan con detalle las decisiones tomadas para su depósito, no sólo en contextos funerarios, sino también en otros de tierra firme y, sobre todo, en contextos húmedos. Por último, se propone una secuencia de desarrollo para los puñales de sílex británicos que los vincula tecnológica y morfológicamente a los puñales lanceolados escandinavos que circulan en los Países Bajos. Esto sugiere que los grupos del sureste de Inglaterra intencionadamente resaltaron esta conexión holandesa con la finalidad de fortalecer una identidad ancestral específica que les vinculaba directamente con estas comunidades a través del Canal.