This article considers the role of anthropomorphic imagery in the constitution of subjects in Neolithic Thessaly, Greece. To accomplish that, material culture is seen as discourse, i.e. an articulating practice, which through its reiteration empowers certain positions rather than others. The objective of the study is to identify some aspects of the forms that specific anthropomorphic figures encourage or oblige those positions to take. These aspects pertain mainly to the human body. One conclusion is that there is a shift from an emphasis on the image of movement to an emphasis on the static image of the body and a concomitant interest in the head.

Australia was colonized by at least 40,000 bp and scientists agree that the continent was only ever occupied by anatomically and behaviourally modern humans. Australia thus offers an alternative early record for the archaeological expression of behavioural modernity. This review finds that the pattern of change in the Australian archaeological sequence bears remarkable similarity to the pattern from the Lower to Upper Palaeolithic in the Old World, a finding that is inconsistent with the ‘symbolic revolution’ model of the origin of modern behaviour. This highlights the need for archaeologists to rethink the implications of the various criteria and scales of analysis used to identify modern human behaviour.

The principal factors influencing the location of the Old Kingdom pyramids in Egypt are reconsidered. The decisive factors influencing their distribution over an area of c. eighty kilometres were essentially of economic, geomorphologic, socio-political and unavoidably also of religious nature. Primary importance is to be attributed to the existence of the Old Kingdom capital of Egypt, Memphis, which was a central place with regard to the Old Kingdom pyramid fields. Its economic potential and primacy in the largely redistribution-driven state economy sustained construction of the vast majority of the pyramid complexes in its vicinity. The location of the remaining number of the Old Kingdom pyramids, including many of the largest ever built, is explained using primarily archaeological evidence. It is claimed that the major factors influencing their location lie in the sphere of general trends governing ancient Egyptian society of the period.

This article presents the initial results from the S2AGES data base of calibrated radiocarbon estimates from western Europe in the period 25,000–10,000 years ago. Our aim is to present a population history of this sub-continental region by providing a chronologically-secure framework for the interpretation of data from genetics and archaeology. In particular, we define five population events in this period, using dates-as-data, and examine the implications for the archaeology of Late Glacial colonization. We contrast this detailed regional approach to the larger project which we call the cognitive origins synthesis that includes historical linguistics in the reconstruction of population history. We conclude that only archaeology can currently provide the framework for population history and the evaluation of genetic data. Finally, if progress is to be made in the new interdisciplinary field of population history then both disciplines need to refrain from inappropriate agricultural thinking that fosters distorting models of European prehistory, and they should also pay less, if any, attention to historical linguistics.

With comments from L.G. Straus, J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, P.A. Underhill & R. Housley and followed by a reply from the author.

A series of Formative Period causeways (sacbeob) at the Maya site of Yaxuná, Yucatán, Mexico, constituted elements of an early geomantic plan that was renegotiated by the inhabitants of this centre for 1500–2000 years. This plan embodied a series of sacred metaphors including the World Tree and Milky Way. After its initial construction, this widely recognized sacred landscape was reinterpreted using the language of causeways and buildings by people with competing interests. A consideration of how the geomantic plan was differentially modified sheds light on important social transitions throughout the history of the site, as well as the role of landscape and shared memory among the ancient Yucatec Maya of Yaxuná.

For more than a century, archaeologists have frequently been drawn to understand the human past in broadly evolutionary terms, applying Darwinian thinking to the development of human societies. The unilinear models of human development that often result typically regard the state as the culmination of human progress, the end-point of a journey through intervening stages of bands, tribes and chiefdoms. Neo-evolutionary thinking was especially prevalent from the 1940s onwards, in the work of Julian Steward and others writing on the origins of the state. In the volume reviewed, Norman Yoffee challenges the former dominance of the neo-evolutionary approach, arguing that over the past half century it has stifled rather than stimulated our understanding of early state development.

Yoffee contests the idea that states develop through a series of programmatic stages from less complex kinds of society. Instead, he stresses the diversity of the archaic state, drawing heavily on his specialist knowledge (drawn from texts as well as archaeology) of early Mesopotamia. Here we see city-state societies in which heterarchies play a role alongside hierarchies, and in which the varieties of lived experience varied considerably from place to place, even though all may at some level be considered to have been part of a shared Mesopotamian civilization.

Yoffee's book is not, however, concerned solely with Mesopotamia; far from it, he draws comparative evidence from Egypt, South and East Asia and Central and South America to demonstrate the diversity and fluidity of the entities he is describing. Few of them conform to models that might be drawn from ethnography, and each state may in many ways be considered unique. Yet in a broader perspective, all states arise through a widespread pattern of change that has taken place in human society since the end of the Pleistocene in which individuals and groups have competed for control of resources.

Yoffee concludes that ‘The central myth about the study of the earliest states ... is that there was something that could be called the archaic state, and that all of the earliest states were simply variations on this model’. The methodological alternative is to consider each society (of whatever type) as individual and unique, and constantly in a state of flux. In this review feature we invite a series of archaeologists specializing in the study of early states to address this and other issues raised by this important book. We begin, however, with an opening statement from the author himself.