This paper presents a brief overview of Amazonian archaeology in Brazil in the last two decades, a fitting span since 1997 marked the 20th anniversary of the PRONAPABA — Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueológicas nu Bacia Amazônica — created by Clifford Evans, Betty Meggers and Mário Simões with the co-operation of several Brazilian archaeologists.

In contemporary archaeology of the Brazilian Amazon, rapidly increased knowledge about the early pre-ceramic and ceramic occupation has not been matched by an understanding of the socio-political dynamics of native Amazonian societies during the last two millennia, notably immediately before the 15th century AD.

Nicholas James reports on a conference in South Korea in September 1997, which offers a useful insight into heritage presentation in eastern Asia.

The 1998 excavations at the Maya city of La Milpa have revealed important structures of the ruling élite, including several throne rooms, but also evidence for a sudden cessation of élite activity when the occupation was at its height. Extensive mapping suggests a population of some 46,000 over a short period in the 8th and 9th centuries AD.

Research on six late Mesolithic shell middens on the small Hebridean island of Oronsay address questions of permanent and seasonal occupation. Stable isotope analysis of human bones shows marine resources providing the majority of protein, supporting year-round occupation of Oronsay. One individual, however, demonstrated a mixed diet of marine and terrestrial protein, suggesting seasonal visits and different patterns of site occupation.

The Shapwick Project has pioneered and tested a variety of new methods in field survey. Here heavy metal soil analysis is tested in the search for aceramic sites.

Urban archaeological survey in Africa is rarely undertaken, and relatively little is known about many important cities and their development. Here Tim Insoll describes the results of a preliminary season at Timbuktu.

Agricultural productivity and Amazonian settlement

The nature of Pre-Columbian agricultural systems in Amazonia has stimulated considerable debate, specifically: can one or another cultigen — maize or manioc — provide a stable agricultural base for sedentism and population growth (eg. Carneiro 1961; 1986; Gross 1975; Meggers 1996; Roosevelt 1980)? Certain ecological factors are generally seen to limit production and intensification of those subsistence resources that can support sedentary or densely distributed populations. Low agricultural productivity, characteristic of many Amazonian soils, and the generally low density and patchy distribution of terrestrial game are commonly cited as limiting factors (Gross 1975; 1983; Johnson 1982; Meggers 1954; 1996; Ross 1978; Sponsel 1989). It has become accepted that the highly restricted váirzea regions, primarily the floodplain settings of the major ‘white-water’ rivers (the Amazon and its Andean-derived tributaries), did not impose these environmental constraints on demographic or economic growth due to their fertile soils and higher concentrations of rich aquatic resources (e.g. Brochado 1984; 1989; Carneiro 1986; 1995; Denevan 1996; Lathrap 1968; 1970; 1987; Lathrap et al. 1985; Meggers 1996; Moran 1993; Roosevelt 1980; 1989; 1994).

Large Mesolithic and Neolithic cemeteries that span the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition are scarce in Europe. As such, understanding the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is rarely easy when using the direct evidence from carbon-dating of human remains. A new dating programme for the Ukrainian cemeteries of the Dnieper Rapids region throws up considerable discrepancies between typological seriation as a means to assign burials to the Mesolithic or to the Neolithic and the carbon evidence.

Interest in explaining scientifically the enormous territorial expansion of the Tupi has been an issue since 1838, now with a consensus: a common centre of origin existed, from which the Tupi fanned out, differentiating through distinct historic and cultural processes whilst keeping several common cultural features. But there is no consensus as to where the centre was located and where passed the routes of expansion.

Scholars have often asserted this hypothesis, but contributed very little scientific proof. Since 1960, archaeological (site location, radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating) and linguistic data (glottochronology, relationships among languages) have been brought to the scene.

Views of the Late Roman period in England have changed considerably in the past few years, with a tendency towards acceptance of a survival or resurgence of economic and political organization despite earlier decline. Traditional evidence provides some insights into the differential nature of these changes. Here it is argued that ‘environmental’ (in this case biological) evidence can provide unique insights into economic systems, and that bones and insects from late 4th-century AD Lincoln indicate continuity of complex systems into this period.

The fenland peats of eastern England have produced some 36 prehistoric burials, whose distinctive associations place them into the early Bronze Age–just sufficient for pattern to be evident in their placing and character.

In June ANTIQUITY published a novel contribution by Mike Parker Pearson and his Madagascan colleague Ramilisonina, which addressed the question of the significance of stone at Stonehenge(ANTIQUITY 72: 308–76). They argued that stone symbolized death and the dead, and provided examples from ethnographic studies to support this notion. The paper has stimulated two replies–from John Barrett & Kathryn Fewster, and from Alasdair Whittle. We are pleased to publish these here, as part of the continuing debate on analogy in archaeology, and on Stonehenge.

Bororo and cultural continuity

Cultural continuity and discontinuity is a fascinating issue in archaeological investigation, especially in regions where native populations are still present, as in the case of southeastern Mato Grosso. Since there is no necessary correlation between archaeological cultures and self-conscious ethnic groups (Hodder 1978; 1982; Jones 1997), research in areas where a link between ethnographically andlor ethnohistorically known groups and the archaeological record can be established presents a significant challenge for the study of processes involved in cultural continuities, ruptures, and the maintenance or abandonment of stylistic boundaries. This is especially true in a context of colonial impact on native populations, as in the case of the Bororo society.

Further remarks on the age of the Foz Côa rock-engravings, Portugal, in the light of studies by absolute-science methods in the March 1997 ANTIQUITY.

The richly textured paper on Stonehenge by Mike Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina (1998) develops exciting new ways of looking at Stonehenge and other stone monuments, drawing on analogies from Madagascar and elsewhere to elaborate the importance of ancestors in kinship-based societies. The presentation of practices and beliefs related to ancestors in parts of Madagascar is particularly powerful. Their Neolithic model gains extra credence by being applied not only to Stonehenge but also to the Avebury complex. In the latter case, I find their suggestion of a parallelism in layout between Avebury and the West Kennet Avenue on the one hand and West Kennet palisade enclosure 2 and Outer Radial Ditch 1 plus Structure 4 on the other, very convincing. That relationship may just have been reinforced by the recognition this year by RCHME on aerial photographs (Bob Bewley pers. comm.) of another outer radial ditch leading from Palisade Enclosure 2 to another circular external structure, on more or less the same alignment as the first set. The recognition of a social setting for these monument complexes and traditions different to that envisaged in chiefdom models is also very welcome.

We have identified a structuring principle of hardening in the passage from life to ancestorhood which can be found in contemporary Madagascar, Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain and, for that matter, contemporary Britain. The use of analogy that we have preferred is not the formal ethnographic parallel, nor is it crosscultural generalization, but a relational analogy; we did not intend to apply it as a ‘universal’ but as a ‘What if … 7’ scenario — unfortunately we inadvertently gave Barrett & Fewster, and perhaps other readers, the wrong end of the stick. What is important is not the analogy per se — it ultimately tells us only that such things are possible rather than universal — but whether the archaeological evidence in question can be adequately explained in this way through detailed contextual study. The analogy merely provides the comparison; its suitability is decided by the degree of corroboration and goodness of fit with the evidence of the archaeological case-study.

Ruth & Vincent Megaw questioned the motivation behind the current critique of the use of the term ‘Celtic’ for the La Tène Iron Age in ANTIQUITY (1996: 175–81). They explained it is a nationalist reaction derived from insecurity about modern English identity. Here we have a reply to their paper, which rejects these interpretations.