The criticism of the date of the olive tree branch from Thera offered by Cherubini et al. (above) has to be fully supported. The attribution of the branch in question to the late part of the seventeenth century BC is by itself not unexpected, as most of the other radiocarbon dates of short-lived samples from the site of Akrotiri fall into the second half of that century. The attempt to produce a wiggle-match drawn from a succession of non-existent tree-rings in this branch, and to fit such a result into the general calibration curve to give the illusion of precision, however, does not pass the scientific test. Olive trees do not develop annual tree-rings. Furthermore, no proof could be produced that this branch was alive during the eruption. The olive leaves found in an underlying horizon had no connection to the branch and could have been preserved in dry ground like this for ages before the eruption occurred. The remains of the branch were not found in a tight-fitting context but in a much larger cavity and it seems that the outer part of the branch, including the bark edge (waney edge)—contrary to the assertions of Friedrich et al. (2006)—are missing. The other issue in this scientific discussion is that dating the Thera eruption by 14C is much more problematic than is acknowledged by scientists, since it clashes distinctly with historical and archaeological dating.

The comments of Stanford and Bradley (above) do not address our criticisms and obfuscate the topic at hand with irrelevant data (e.g. the south-to-north movement of fluted points through the Ice Free Corridor), nonexistent data (e.g. ‘under the water’ or ‘destroyed sites’), and questionable data (e.g. Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are by no means widely accepted, nor are Stanford and Bradley's ‘eight LGM sites’ in the mid-Atlantic region). Before touching on some of these points, we direct the reader to several recent articles (e.g. Morrow 2014; Raff & Bolnick 2014) that provide new evidence or arguments inconsistent with a trans-Atlantic migration, including the fact that DNA from the Clovis Anzick child (Montana) shows no European ancestry (Rasmussen et al. 2014). Although Stanford and Bradley describe their Solutrean ‘solution’ (Stanford & Bradley 1999) to the Pleistocene colonisation of North America as ‘testable’, their position is that the idea is correct until falsified. They propose that their colleagues have yet to provide sufficient ‘critiques’ or ‘challenges’ to discount it (see also Collins 2012; Collins et al. 2013). Yet they are the ones proposing a hypothesis inconsistent with overwhelming multidisciplinary evidence, and they ignore results of tests that do not support their claims.

An olive branch is traditionally a symbol of peace, but not necessarily in the context of chronological problems in the Eastern Mediterranean region and the Near East during the second millennium BC. Cherubini et al. (above) strongly attack the radiocarbon dating by Friedrich et al. (2006) of an ancient olive branch, buried by volcanic tephra during the Minoan Santorini eruption. The criticism stems from their investigation of growth rings in modern olive trees on Santorini. The authors attempt with additional arguments, beyond their botanical investigation, to defend the traditional low chronology of the Santorini eruption of around 1500 BC. However, they ignore other crucial publications with radiocarbon dates concerning the Santorini eruption. In this response, we evaluate and negate their main arguments, and present our own conclusions.

The date of the first settlement of the Americas remains a contentious subject. Previous claims for very early occupation at Pedra Furada in Brazil were not universally accepted (see Meltzer et al. 1994). New work at the rockshelter of Boqueirão da Pedra Furada and at the nearby open-air site of Vale da Pedra Furada have however produced new evidence for human occupation extending back more than 20 000 years. The argument is supported by a series of 14C and OSL dates, and by technical analysis of the stone tool assemblage. The authors conclude that the currently accepted narrative of human settlement in South America will have to be re-thought. The article is followed by a series of comments, rounded off by a reply from the authors.

Determination of the provenance of material culture by means of chemical analysis has a long and distinguished history in archaeology. The chemical analysis of archaeological objects started in the intellectual ferment of late-eighteenth-century Europe (Caley 1948, 1949, 1967; Pollard 2013), almost as soon as systematic (gravimetric) means of chemical analysis had been devised (Pollard in prep.). Many of the leading scientists of the day, such as Vauquelin, Klaproth, Davy, Faraday and Berzelius, carried out analyses of archaeological objects as part of their interests in the contents of the ‘cabinets of curiosities’ of the day (Pollard&Heron 2008). The subject moved frommere curiosity to systematic and problemorientated study with the work of G¨obel (1842),Wocel (1854), Damour (1865) and Helm (1886), who essentially formulated the idea of ‘provenance studies’—that some chemical characteristic of the geological rawmaterial(s) provides a ‘fingerprint’ which can bemeasured in the finished object, and that if an object from a remote source is identified at a particular place, then it is evidence of some sort of direct or indirect contact and ‘trade’ between the two places.

It was Antiquity (Daniel 1980) that revealed details of the death of “the greatest prehistorian in Britain, and probably in the world” (Piggott 1958: 312), the Australian Vere Gordon Childe (1892–1957). Antiquity would later note what is still the over-modest marker of his final resting place (Barton 2000). And it was Antiquity that published Childe's ‘Retrospect’ in which he summarised his archaeological career, noting that it began at Oxford, and started again in 1922 “after a sentimental excursion into Australian politics” (Childe 1958: 69). In this article it is suggested that this was far more than an excursion; that through force of circumstance he abandoned a potentially high-flying archaeological trajectory and embarked on an equally high-flying replacement career in politics; only further force of circumstances brought him back to archaeology.

Olive wood is difficult to date for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that one cannot tell visually what is an annual growth increment (usually referred to as a ‘ring’) and what is a sub-annual growth flush of which there may be any number in one growing season. (I have been able to count a dozen or more flushes in olive wood where the end of the growing season was somewhat more clearly marked than usual.) If one cannot determine the ring boundaries with certainty, one cannot do tree-ring dating, period. For Egyptologists reading this note, acacia is just as bad, and for the same reason. For 25 years I had a couple of sections of olive wood in my dendrochronology lab. Every term I would challenge students to tell me how many rings there were on them. No two students ever came up with the same answer and neither could I. An inspection of two different radii on the same piece also yielded widely varying results. (A side issue, not relevant here, is that the size of the ring in an olive tree does not necessarily reflect climatic conditions but rather the energies of the farmer or gardener who brings water to it. Thus olive is useless for purely dendrochronological cross-dating purposes.

As an American archaeologist who has worked in Syria, living in a rural village in Raqqa Province off and on for decades, I am frequently asked: did you see it coming? Were there early signs of the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war? The answer is both yes and no. In retrospect, the signs were there, but foreign archaeologists did not always identify them. More often we simply chose to ignore them. Regardless, we have come to many important realisations. Foremost, Near Eastern archaeology has reached a major turning point, which raises a more pressing question: what now? Our answers will profoundly shape the future of our field. As archetypal students of history, we must learn from the lessons of the past and act. Playing the part of the metaphorical ostrich and burying our heads in the sand would be far easier, perhaps even customary, but this cannot be our course. A strong and engaged field is needed now more than ever—my primary intent here is to dissect what this means.

Paolo Cherubini and colleagues have demonstrated convincingly that the identification of olive wood tree-rings from Santorini is ‘practically impossible’. Thus, the single piece of evidence that might have persuaded some archaeologists to support the ‘high’ 1613±13 BC date for the Theran eruption is hors de combat. The Theran olive-tree branch has gone the way of the Greenland Ice Core results of similar date and which enjoyed a similar devoted following until shown to be from a different eruption. Taken with Malcolm Wiener's explicit exposé of the myriad shortcomings of 14C dating, especially for this time period and event, these results take us back to where we were before the ‘radiocarbon revolution‘, when the largest Holocene eruption in the ancient world happened as Minoan Crete enjoyed wideranging influence, perhaps even control, over the Aegean, when Late Minoan IA pottery styles proliferated, and Egypt was in the early stages of its New Kingdom period (Wiener 2012, 2013).

Provision for visiting Stonehenge was radically reorganised in 2013. Why was it so difficult to achieve? Will the new scheme work? Here we present a multi-part review of the new arrangements. Christopher Chippindale is a former editor of Antiquity and author of Stonehenge complete, which recounts the changing fortunes of the monument down the ages. Mike Pitts has excavated at Stonehenge and written about the site in Hengeworld. Chris Gosden, Professor of European Archaeology at Oxford, approaches the issues from a World Heritage Site perspective. The section is co-ordinated by N. James who reviews the effectiveness of a visitor centre several minutes by land train from the stones.

We are glad to see that our paper has stimulated a lively debate, and we acknowledge the appreciation of our work by Bietak, Kuniholm and MacGillivray as well as that of those who oppose our hypothesis (Bruins & van der Plicht, Friedrich et al., all above). The enigma of the dating of the Santorini eruption is a long-lasting one, and because of its bearing on the dating of several eastern Mediterranean civilisations, has attracted significant attention. The potentially great importance of the Santorini olive branch used by Friedrich et al. (2006) was that it came from the site itself, and possibly belonged to the destruction layer. As such, the sincere and serious attempt to date it made by Friedrich et al. (2006) should be appreciated. Unfortunately, large olive branches may exist as dead limbs for a very long time and thus represent earlier periods.