In this contribution to our periodic ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Lindsay M. Montgomery and Tiffany C. Fryer reflect on the reshaping of archaeological praxis in the Americas through recent developments in collaborative community-engaged research. Over the past 20 years, new theoretical and methodological approaches informed by decolonisation and Black feminism have shifted power dynamics within

These two handsome volumes stem from the landmark exhibition ‘Idolos: Miradas Milenarias/Ídolos: Olhares Milenares’ (Idols: Millenary Gazes), which assembled an impressive collection of figurines and decorated artefacts from Neolithic and Copper Age Iberia. A total of 270 archaeological artefacts from 27 museums (plus one private collector) were displayed together for the first time, with the aim of

The claim that the illicit trade in antiquities is the third largest, second only to arms and narcotics, is widely repeated. But where does this claim originate and what is the evidence for its veracity? The authors present a ‘stratigraphic excavation’ of the claim by systematically searching through academic articles, popular press and policy literature to reveal the factoid's use and reuse over the

The north-western Negev is an under-researched ecotonal region. We excavated two late Middle Palaeolithic open-air sites and recovered rich lithic industries that could be refitted, as well as remains of fauna, and charcoal. Palaeoenvironmental information and dates indicate interesting inter-site differences.

The absence of archaeological narratives in Australian museums reflects a complex post-colonial history of research and museology. In this context, Connections across the Coral Sea at the Queensland Museum (December 2021 to 9 July 2023), Brisbane, is a welcome contribution to the important mission of sharing the ancient Australian past with the public. This object-rich exhibition illuminates the lives

The wider case presented by Hanscam and Buchanan (2023), as I understand it, is for archaeologists to consider directly the relation of the past in shaping social and political narratives in the present. I agree that this should happen; I contend it is productively happening already. It is a stretch to argue that the misinterpretation of Hadrian's Wall has been a substantive tool for political justification

For archaeology to survive in the present and for critical discourse on the past to thrive, archaeologists must advocate for the discipline's continued relevancy. In this Debate article, the authors illustrate the potential and challenges of such advocacy by examining contemporary perceptions of the Roman period Hadrian's Wall and how it relates to modern border landscapes—namely the US/Mexico border

Hanscam and Buchanan (2023) have written a timely and important contribution to the evolving discussion about the politicisation of archaeology, and the prominent role that intersections with Border Studies might play in future debates. I concur with many of their substantive points. Focusing on boundaries and bordering processes is a natural extension of the work on identities that has been a dominant

Archaeologists should always have their say in the interpretation of the archaeological record. Moreover, they should not allow those interpretations to be misappropriated by others, whether politicians, journalists or specialists of other disciplines. By contending that borders are a timely topic for archaeological attention, Emily Hanscam and Brian Buchanan (2023) make a decisive epistemological

Hanscam and Buchanan (2023) give us an insightful comparative analysis of Hadrian's Wall and the US/Mexico border wall. Their analysis shows how critically to study and use these long walls in an explicitly political archaeology. I have engaged in archaeology as political action (McGuire 2008), and have researched the materiality of the US/Mexico border while doing humanitarian work along that border

We are grateful for the participation of the respondents and heartened at the general agreement on the importance of a politically proactive archaeology. Inevitably, the authors offer differing perspectives on how best to achieve this goal, including the degree to which political engagement may foster the strength and relevance of the discipline (McGuire 2023), the limitations of landscape or assemblage

Uivar “Gomilă”, a long-awaited and overdue first volume (of a planned set of three), presents, in seven chapters, a comprehensive account of the results of archaeological research on the site of Uivar, Romania. It reports on 10 seasons of investigation into the north-eastern periphery of the Vinča Culture phenomenon and the occurrence of tell settlements in the second half of the sixth millennium BC

Debates about archaeological interpretation are always healthy and welcome, and when, as here, arguments are not killed off, they inevitably become stronger. Importantly, the comments by Magli and Belmonte (2023) serve as a reminder that reconciling conflicting theoretical perspectives is never easy when times are changing. Grounded in positivism, their critique draws upon assumptions that become justificatory

Digital heritage and archaeology in practice comprises two companion volumes: Presentation, teaching, and engagement (from here on, PTE) and Data, ethics, and professionalism (DEP). The chapters present some of the outputs of the Institute for Digital Archaeology Method and Practice, based at Michigan State University and funded by the National Endowment for Humanities Institutes for Advanced Topics