Poverty in ancient Egypt remains a rarely-studied subject. For decades Egyptologists have focused their attention mainly on the so-called ‘elite’, while the poor, their housing, their possessions, their diet, or their cultural values, remain largely in the shadows. Although they are much less visible archaeologically, they were much more numerous than the wealthy. Despite these circumstances, ancient Egypt provides a good starting point for discussing how to approach poverty during antiquity, as there are archaeological and textual records that can shed light on this complex issue. This article aims to stimulate reflection on the issue of poverty in the Nile valley and how it can be explored. It seeks also to add nuance to the idea of a strict dichotomy opposing the poor to the elite. In so doing, this paper will present discussion of the definition of poverty.

Tubular pottery comprises certain peculiar artifacts that were produced by late Holocene complex hunter-gatherer societies in southeastern South America for unknown purposes. Some authors have related them to mortuary behaviour which has also been suggested by historical sources, while others have considered domestic use. In this paper, the technical, compositional and functional properties of these artifacts are explored in order to contrast both hypotheses, given an example of how technical analysis allows the identification of special pottery within archeological contexts. This analysis includes a study of the fabrics involved using low and high magnification, thin sections, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy, Mössbauer Spectroscopy, Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy and fatty acid profiles. The results show that these tubular artifacts are not fit structurally for utilitarian purposes and show no evidence of domestic use. Based on these results and on historical data, it can be postulated that they were used as part of mortuary rituals, thus becoming part of the select global group of pottery manufactured exclusively for mortuary purposes.

The Early Bronze Age (EBA) of the southern Levant was the first period in which many sites became fortified. This process reached its climax during the latter part of the period (namely Early Bronze III). Until recently, most scholars saw this phenomenon as an indication that the period was characterized by a high level of organized conflict. The following article analyses the fortifications of eight EBA sites, as well as other markers of warfare, and argues that the period's fortifications were not as tactically efficient as they seem. Furthermore, other markers of war are generally missing. It seems that the period's fortifications were built mainly to demonstrate a town's might and power while deterring potential attackers. Taking into account the rise of social complexity during the period, they were also used to consolidate the society through the construction process and possibly to control movement and serve as a boundary marker. Incipient leaders, who planned and coordinated the construction, used possible threats and the construction process to aggrandize themselves as being the ‘protectors’ of the settlement.

This paper examines how monuments with ‘local’ idiosyncrasies are key in processes of place-making and how, through persistence, such places can engage in supra-local and even ‘global’ dynamics. Departing from a detailed revision of its context, materiality and iconography, we show how a remarkable Iberian ‘warrior’ stela brings together the geo-strategic potential of a unique site, located literally between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic worlds, the century-long dialogue between shared and local identities and the power of connectivity of inexorable global processes. Previous approaches to Iberian late prehistoric stelae have had problems in developing bottom-up, theoretically informed and empirically sound approaches to their simultaneously local and supra-local character. The remarkable site of Almargen provides the opportunity to explore this issue. Located in Lands of Antequera (Málaga), a region with a strong tradition of landscape-making through monuments going back to the Late Neolithic, the Almargen ‘warrior’ stela serves us to explore the notion of ‘glocalization’, which embodies persistent local engagements with material culture, sites and landscapes on the one hand, and their connections with wider regional and even ‘global’ worlds on the other.

The Trypillia megasites of the Ukrainian forest steppe formed the largest fourth-millennium bc sites in Eurasia and possibly the world. Discovered in the 1960s, the megasites have so far resisted all attempts at an understanding of their social structure and dynamics. Multi-disciplinary investigations of the Nebelivka megasite by an Anglo-Ukrainian research project brought a focus on three research questions: (1) what was the essence of megasite lifeways? (2) can we call the megasites early cities? and (3) what were their origins? The first question is approached through a summary of Project findings on Nebelivka and the subsequent modelling of three different scenarios for what transpired to be a different kind of site from our expectations. The second question uses a relational approach to urbanism to show that megasites were so different from other coeval settlements that they could justifiably be termed ‘cities'. The third question turns to the origins of sites that were indeed larger and earlier than the supposed first cities of Mesopotamia and whose development indicates that there were at least two pathways to early urbanism in Eurasia.

Miniature human figurines have inspired many theoretical advances in archaeological literature, centred around universal human reactions to the material affect of their form. However, confirmation that ancient audiences had such reactions to figurines can be difficult to access in the archaeological record. Egyptian shabtis, a type of funerary figurine, allow such reactions to be accessed by the archaeologist due to their widespread use throughout a long period of Egyptian history and their continuing popularity in other cultures since ancient times: evidence consists of a broad range of textual, artistic and archaeological data from many different cultures over a period of roughly 4000 years. This evidence confirms not only that ancient Egyptian craftsmen responded to and sought to maximize the material affect of the shabtis, but that a significant part of the human response to miniature human figurines is indeed conditioned by their material qualities, independent of the figurines’ original religious function and the cultural background of the viewer.

Archaeologists evince a strong tendency to impute significance to the material traces they study, a propensity that has been especially marked since the post-processual emphasis on meaning and that has taken on renewed vigour with the turn to materiality. But are there not situations in which things are rather incidental or insignificant? This set of essays emerged from a workshop held in Berlin in April 2018, in which a group of scholars was invited to discuss the place of the incidental in social life in general and in archaeology in particular. Rather than lengthy formal papers, we offer an introduction that presents a general set of reflections on the issue of the incidentalness of things, followed by essays that pursue particular directions raised by that introduction as well as our discussions in Berlin. It is our hope that these brief forays into a complex topic will stimulate further work on this subject.

In their introduction to the discussion of Beiläufigkeit in archaeology, Pollock, Bernbeck, Appel, Loy and Schreiber build pleasingly on the theme of what Daniel Miller refers to as the ‘humility’ of physical things (2010, 50). By this he means that objects do not determine or prescribe the actions of human beings, but mutely establish the circumstances under which we operate, conditioning our expectations of how to proceed. Things are often not conspicuously meaningful, but unobtrusive or ‘hiding in plain sight’ and bringing about unacknowledged effects (Alvis 2017, 212). This state of affairs has been recognized by both the phenomenological tradition and the more recent ‘new materialisms’, but what I want to suggest in this contribution is that these perspectives implicitly indicate that things can be ‘incidental’ in a variety of subtly different ways.

There are some obvious differences between an archaeological and a historiographical approach to things. Put crudely, archaeologists study material ‘things’ while historians study texts. If historians are confronted with things, it is usually through descriptions of them (texts)—thus through the medium of the written word. In the introduction to this issue, the authors propose that the concept of Beiläufigkeit can help us ‘to discuss the conditions and processes that are responsible for the variable status of things in a world of objects’. They also propose that a way of approaching the subject is by studying things ‘that were made to be incidental’. One way of applying this to historical scholarship is to look at the way things appear—and disappear—in the historiographical narrative. If Beiläufigkeit is a fundamental phenomenon of socialization, as they suggest, then it is also a consequence of historical learning: we are taught when things are historically relevant and when they are not. It seems important to question this, especially if we think of historiography as part of a larger discourse that stabilizes and perpetuates hegemonic narratives—such as the narrative of the emergence of the modern West.

One of my favourite photos of my son is him as an over-tired, dishevelled and very disgruntled five-year-old. He stands, holding out two globs of unidentifiable rusted metal, and looks at the camera (at me), with an accusing, penetrating glare (Fig. 1). As a distracted, overextended parent trying to run an archaeological field project (the Rising Sun Hotel in New Orleans), I had sent him to play in the dirt—the back dirt of our discard pile. I thought that's where he couldn't get into any trouble. I didn't imagine that it would get me into trouble. He was mad because we had overlooked these obvious artefacts (he had already grasped the subtle nature/culture distinction of the archaeological sorting process). We had disregarded them. We had attempted to make them unworthy of notice. What my son, in his innocence, was enunciating is the intentionality of ignoring something—and with intentionality, there is always a potential politics. That is what I would like to focus on here: how can we approach Beiläufigkeit—the incidental and taken-for-granted—as indexical of politics?

The post-processual archaeology that dominated the scholarship of Anglo-American academics in the 1980s and 1990s now lies moribund, done in by an ‘ontological turn’ in the study of anthropology that began some 15 or 20 years ago. Anthropos is no longer the sole focal point; human beings no longer occupy the central place in our understanding of cultures and societies. As contemporary anthropologists have noted, human actions and ideas are not the lone contributors to the creation of a civilization's structures and objects or the development of societal forms. Other kinds of ‘life’, a variety of other non-human organisms contribute to their creation as well. They most notably include places and what we generally refer to as things: objects, constructions and materials. In effect, they include all the organic and non-organic components of the world about us. These are the ‘beings’, both animate and inanimate, that ‘make’ the world. Moreover, ‘things’ are no longer regarded as pure inert ‘objects’, only created or transformed by the will of humans or the force of their technology. The present transformations of the Anthropocene, which is producing climatic changes at a global scale, are pushing us to consider that ‘natural’ events—such as floods or hurricanes—may be the direct result of human actions and material ‘things’—such as the earth and the oceans—may be active agents of change. In other words, they are also the subjects of history.

To begin with, I would like to express my gratitude to Susan, Reinhard, Lena, Anna and Stefan for inviting me to participate in their workshop around the puzzling theme of Beiläufigkeit in archaeology. Having worked lately with assemblages of objects that, though very much in the spotlight of media, have hitherto fallen into the blind spot of archaeology, I immediately found it inviting to think in terms of Beiläufigkeit, the incidental and the by-passed. And, to no surprise—also given the concept's reluctance to give in fully to either translation or definition—the seminar and discussions in Berlin in April 2018 turned out extremely stimulating, leaving many glitches for further speculation.

The essays in this theme section demonstrate clearly the diversity and complexity of a topic that seems negligible in practice but emerges as important upon further reflection—the incidentalness of things. In this brief afterword, we highlight three of the themes addressed by all or most of the contributions, which we suggest are of particular relevance when considering the place of the incidental in our archaeological engagements.