Until recently the UK was notorious for its illicit market in unlawfully removed art and antiquities from around the globe. Today the UK marketplace is operating in a very different climate. The UK has recently become a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and is now introducing a package of measures designed to strengthen its treaty obligations, central to which is the creation of a new criminal offence of dishonestly dealing in cultural objects unlawfully removed anywhere in the world. These also include the development of effective tools to aid enforcement and due-diligence. Recent events in Iraq have also forced the UK Government to announce its intention to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention.

Thus the sum of things is ever being renewed, and mortals live dependent one upon another…and in a short space the generations of living creatures are changed and like runners hand on the torch of life.

The repatriation of human remains (Editorial Antiquity 78: 5) is a matter in which two viewpoints, both equally valid, are confronted. Human skeletal remains are part of the record of our past. They tell about our shared past – about the story of human adaptive radiation and dispersion. Recent research using modern and ancient DNA evidence is adding considerably to this understanding, and puts our diversity into context by the finding that we share something like 99 per cent of our genetic makeup with all other human beings. Research on human skeletal remains tells us also about how our predecessors lived and died, and has considerable potential to contribute to medical research. Medieval skeletons from a deserted medieval village in Yorkshire, for instance, have showed that osteoporosis was just as common among medieval women as it is now, giving fresh insight into the causes of osteoporosis and calling into question ideas that blame our modern lifestyle. The techniques used in this study were not available when the remains were first excavated; this illustrates the value of long-term retention of skeletal material, which allows application of new techniques so that new information can be obtained from old collections.

In volume 295 of Antiquity M. Gkiasta et al. (2003) discussed the results of two sets of analysis carried out on a “new” database of radiocarbon dates: one for the whole of Europe examining the spread of the Neolithic, and one regional approach looking at the relation between Mesolithic and Neolithic dates. Although we are convinced of the potential of both approaches, we do have some major comments on the methodology.

First of all the analyses were conducted on a highly incomplete database. As the authors state on their p. 48, the analysed database currently includes over 2600 samples. Many of them, however, had already been collated in Gob’s Atlas of 14C dates (1990). Although the authors have included new dates, we do not believe that this has been done very systematically. For the Belgian territory, for example, virtually all the dates used in the article were those published by Gob – 16 Mesolithic dates and 30 Neolithic dates. The authors justify this by referring to the bad state of publication and public availability of radiocarbon dates in Europe. This certainly does not hold for the Belgian territory. In the last decade over a hundred new Mesolithic and Neolithic dates have been produced, the majority published in journals available world-wide such as Radiocarbon (Van Strydonck et al. 1995; 2001a), Antiquity (Crombé et al. 2002), Archaeometry (Cauwe et al. 2002) proceedings of the international congresses such as 14C and archaeology (Crombé et al. 1999) and The Mesolithic in Europe (Crombé 1999), and the IRPA- datelists (Van Strydonck et al. 2001b; Van Strydonck et al. 2002). The authors assert that these “shortcomings” to the database probably do not affect their conclusions. This is a rash and provocative statement, which minimises all recent progress in absolute dating of the European Mesolithic and Neolithic. We believe that for the Belgian situation a hundred new dates can make a difference. In recent years, for example, these new dates have allowed a thorough revision of Mesolithic chronology (Crombé 1999; Van Strydonck et al. 2001a) and a refinement of the (early) Neolithic chronology (Jadin & Cahen 2003). This will certainly also be the case for the other study-areas in Europe.

Treasure seems to be a popular subject in Britain at the moment. The BBC was first out with the television series Hidden Treasure, controversially focussing on the monetary value of archaeological finds, to the predictable and appropriate dismay of archaeologists. The programme is supported by an accompanying book (Faulkner 2003) and website (www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/treasure) that fortunately both take a more balanced view. A professional offering on the same subject appeared almost simultaneously, in the shape of a conference at the British Museum and what the same institution has described as the first major exhibition of national archaeology for fifteen years.

Part of the enormous importance of the Spirit Cave pottery lies in the early date (7500BP) implied by radiocarbon dates from charcoal associated with some of the sherds. This was challenged by Lampert et al. who directly dated one Spirit Cave sherd from its resin to 3000 BP (Antiquity 77: 126–133). But here Joyce White argues that the stratigraphic context and typology of the dated sherd do not provide a valid basis to support a revision of dating for the earliest sherds. A response from Lampert et al. follows.

Philip Rahtz, one of Britain’s finest excavators and first Professor of Archaeology at the University of York, offers his perception of the development of theory, practice – and, especially, of medieval archaeology.

We thank Crombé and Van Strydonck for their comments on our earlier paper (Gkiasta et al. 2003). They kindly draw attention to recent surveys of radiocarbon data from Belgium, most of which were published subsequent to our own work, which was carried out in 1999. Even at the time we were under no illusion that our compilation was complete: “It became clear in the course of the project that, despite the large sums of money which have been spent over the years on radiocarbon dating in Europe, the state of public availability of the dates, their context and associations and details which enable users to judge the reliability of dates is in general very poor. Thus, no claim is made that the database is in any sense complete” (Gkiasta et al. 2003: 48). It would probably also be as well to correct the impression that the dates we used were mainly derived from Gob (1990). Over half those finally included were extracted from the University of Lyon Banadora database; the remainder came from a wide range of other sources. The new dates from Belgium may well shed new light on the chronology of the transition in that region. New discoveries frequently do cause old interpretations to be modified or revised; we look forward to their analysis and demonstration of the implications of the new data to which they refer.