Both Antiquity and archaeology have changed immeasurably since O.G.S. Crawford penned this journal's first editorial in 1927. The discipline has grown in size and sophistication, and has achieved professional status and public recognition. What was novel at that time, such as aerial photography and the use of ethnographic parallels, both flagged in that first editorial, have now long been integral to archaeological theory and practice. Antiquity has documented—and often driven—these developments, itself evolving along the way. Nine decades after its foundation, Antiquity publishes more content, on more varied periods and places, and authored by an ever-more international cast of contributors. It has also changed in terms of its audience. Part of Crawford's original vision was to communicate archaeology more effectively to the general public, not least with the intention of debunking the misleading, sensationalist and downright incorrect fare peddled in the bestsellers and newspapers of the day. The content of Antiquity today is aimed at a more professional readership, what one previous editor, Martin Carver, called “the extended archaeological family” of academics and field archaeologists, and the many associated specialists in cognate disciplines with whom we work. All these developments notwithstanding, it is striking that many of Crawford's concerns and interests still continue to resonate. The disciplinary imperative to communicate with the public is stronger than ever, finding new opportunities in social media, blogs and TV programmes, and under pressure from funding bodies to demonstrate public benefit or ‘impact’. The analytical, and aesthetic, importance of aerial photography that Crawford worked hard to promote has too taken on a new lease of life through satellite imagery, LiDAR and, most recently, photography using drones or unmanned aerial vehicles (see Frontispiece 1).

In a recent Antiquity article, Darvill (2022) proposed that the mid third-millennium BC Stage 2 sarsen settings of Stonehenge (comprising the Trilithon Horseshoe, Sarsen Circle and the Station Stone Rectangle) were conceived in order to represent a calendar year of 365.25 days—that is, a calendar identical in duration to the Julian calendar. In the present article, the authors argue that this proposal is unsubstantiated, being based as it is on a combination of numerology, astronomical error and unsupported analogy.

The modern study of ancient landscapes is showing how the landscape and the monuments within it may have been perceived by those alive at the time. The author here broadens the discussion, distinguishing the perceptions of those who built the monuments from those who viewed them. In this example from the area comprising eastern India and Bangladesh where settlements were regularly washed away, the monuments acted as icons of permanence, and continue to impress today. However, they may not have been so appreciated by the riverside dwellers …

When John F. Kennedy described Washington, D.C. as a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm, it was presumably not intended as a compliment. Nonetheless, like all good quotes, it captures a wider truth—a capital city as the pivot of a vast and diverse nation, a symbolic and political, if not geographic, centre. In this sense, the choice of Washington, D.C. to host the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), 11–15 April 2018, was more than coincidence. With a still relatively new administration in the White House making policy changes with significant implications for the nation's cultural heritage, the gathering of more than 5000 archaeologists from the USA and beyond offered the opportunity to lobby politicians and policymakers on their home turf. Delegates were accordingly encouraged to contact their elected representatives, and the SAA Government Affairs Program pursued meetings on Capitol Hill to press the case for the protection and promotion of cultural heritage. The theme was reinforced through the SAA Presidential Sponsored Forum, entitled ‘Bears Ears, the Antiquities Act, and the Status of our National Monuments’, where the panel reflected on the effectiveness of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (now safeguarding over one million square kilometres of US territory) and the emerging threats to the protection it provides. In particular, the unprecedented proposal by the new administration to reduce significantly the size of one of the most recent additions to the list, the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah (as well as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument), has led to concerns—and lawsuits—over political interference and the weakening of the protection that the Act provides for sites and landscapes across the USA.

This brief review assesses a dynamic virtual exhibition that has been curated by the University of Malta and Heritage Malta, with the support of the Malta Tourist Authority and the backing of the Ministry of Tourism and Consumer Protection, Malta. The exhibition, Underwater Malta (https://underwatermalta.org/map/), aims, through a virtual platform, to explore 17 wrecks ranging in date from a 2700-year-old Phoenician shipwreck found off Gozo to a submarine and numerous ships that sank in the Second World War, and a Victorian gun (cannon) site. The most numerous wreck type is aircraft, with nine that were active in the Second World War (Figure 1). While the wrecks are unified by their underwater resting place, the material, their chronologies and the depths at which they are located on the seabed vary considerably, the deepest being the Phoenician shipwreck that lies beneath 110m of water.

In essence, Pargeter et al. argue that claims for the antiquity of modern San ‘cultures’ involve a misuse of analogical reasoning. In general, I agree. But, let me take issue with a few of the specifics they discuss, and argue instead that things may be more complicated than they seem.

In contrast to the Acheulian and Middle Palaeolithic, the Late Palaeolithic archaeological record of the south-east coast of India is poorly understood (Pappu 2001; Petraglia et al. 2010; Pappu et al. 2011). Considerable uncertainty surrounds the definition of the blade-based microlithic or non-Levallois, flake-based assemblages, largely as a result of the lack of chronometric dates from excavated sites and due to the paucity of lithic studies (Pappu 2001). The Late Palaeolithic is a crucial period in relation to questions about the dispersals of anatomically modern humans across India and Sri Lanka (Petraglia et al. 2010; Mellars et al. 2013; Roberts et al. 2015) and regional evolutionary trajectories of blade technologies. Here, we present an overview of the site complex of Kunjaram (KJ) in the Kortallaiyar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, south-east India. This represents one of the 43 Late Palaeolithic sites documented in this region (Pappu et al. 2010). While analysis of the lithics from other sites continues, we focus here on the lithic assemblage from KJ-3 because of its good preservation and potential to yield information on all stages of the reduction sequence, as well as its geographic proximity to the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic site of Attirampakkam, which would enable the construction of regional cultural sequences.

The timing and nature of Southeast Asia's Neolithic and Bronze Ages have been the source of global archaeological intrigue, scepticism (on occasion) and even notoriety for some five decades (e.g. Muhly 1981). Being asked to review an account of what has been an emotive topic provoked a personal response, which I hope may contribute to highlighting the impact of Charles Higham's work and that of his many colleagues.

The notion of ancient Maya ritual combat, beyond the well-known rubber-ball game played across Mesoamerica, was proposed 40 years ago on the basis of a polychrome vase from southern Belize and a series of Late Classic (AD 700–850) pottery figurines depicting similarly accoutred individuals, found at the site of Lubaantun (Hammond 1976: figs 4–6).