Price and Jaffe (2023) develop a compelling argument that archaeologists have under-theorised the role of failure in past human societies. The authors contend that we must adopt a flexible approach to failure and recognise that power asymmetries, distributed agency and the temporalities of outcomes all play a critical, if variable, role in the success or breakdown of a technology, cultural practice, or institution.

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 step forward within the field, also opening up the potential of the discipline's specialised knowledge for wider dissemination and impact. They advance from a straightforward position: the argument that re-bordering in the contemporary world, notably through the increasing fencing of borders (Bissonnette & Vallet 2020), often originates in a normative and normalising discourse on the past. The best example, according to the authors, is Hadrian's Wall, which appears as a common justification for the building of contemporary walls on a growing number of international borders. Their text unfolds a comparison between the archaeological findings about that one short segment of the Roman limes in northern Britain and the supposed properties of the contemporary infrastructure on the US/Mexico border, which successive US presidents have sought to reinforce—chief among them Donald Trump.

Price and Jaffe (2023) argue that acknowledging failure humanises the past. It can also serve as a lens through which to reflect on archaeological reasoning. Here, we turn to the Roman world, and the frontier of northern Britain in particular, to consider how intentionality, distributed agency and moral judgement intersect with the recognition of failure in the past—and with the failures of archaeologists themselves.

We thank the respondents for their thoughtful replies to our debate article (Price & Jaffe 2023). Our main objective was to start a dialogue on failure and, in that, we have happily succeeded. The comments and critiques highlight the need for more discussion and thinking if we are to place failure in the archaeological interpretive toolbox. That said, the range of definitions, analytical perspectives, and unanswered questions will, we hope, provide a bulwark against turning ‘failure’ into yet another archaeological buzzword.

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 perspectives for analysing these issues (Gardner 2023; Szary 2023), and whether or not such a call is even necessary because many archaeologists are already engaged with this type of research (Soto 2023). We appreciate the opportunity that these comments provide to us for critical reflection on our arguments; here, we briefly engage with the major themes raised as part of the ongoing dialogue.

It was a pleasure to review these two books by renowned authorities on the importance of bird remains, both for interpreting archaeological sites and for understanding how human interaction with wild birds has evolved in Western Europe. Wild birds are very important in helping to interpret many archaeological sites and, when I am directing excavations, I always keep to hand Alan Cohen and Dale Serjeantson's manual for identifying bird bones (Cohen & Serjeantson 1996) and I recommend it to the students who participate. For over 60 years Anne Eastham's tireless dedication to Quaternary avifauna and her assiduous preparation, by meticulously dissecting birds to build a comprehensive skeletal reference collection, have furthered the archaeological interpretation of many Western European Palaeolithic sites.

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 of coastal peoples, as understood through the ‘Coral Sea Cultural Interaction Sphere’ hypothesis—that is, the idea that during the late Holocene, this was a region of substantial maritime-based exchange between mainland Aboriginal Australians inhabiting Cape York and the peoples of the south coast of Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait Islands (see McNiven et al. 2004; Figure 1). The key archaeological content on display includes evidence from excavations on Lizard Island (Jiigurru) off the east coast of Cape York, short films on the Cultural Interaction Sphere hypothesis and how it has been investigated, and a 3D-printed stratigraphic section accompanied by an impressive interactive virtual stratigraphic section (Figure 2). Proponents of the Coral Sea Cultural Interaction Sphere hypothesis argue that, although groups shared ideas, they continued to maintain their individual identities, in many cases choosing not to adopt technologies used in other areas (e.g. the continued use of spear throwers in Australia versus bows and arrows in the Torres Strait Islands and Papua New Guinea).