This article deals with the ritual burial of cultic objects in the Near East during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. These items are not grave goods associated with human burials but objects buried on their own because of their ritual significance. A systematic survey of the depositional context of anthropomorphic statues, plastered skulls and other cultic objects from a large number of sites indicates clearly that the earliest evidence for this concept can be traced to the early agricultural communities of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period of the seventh millennium bc. The custom was a ritual institution for the disposal of worn-out and unwanted cultic items. A further analysis of twelve other symbols and artistic components emphasizes the importance of the seventh millennium bc as a formative era for the cult and mythology of the ancient Near East.

Research has recently resumed at Aksum, capital of a major state which flourished in what is now northern Ethiopia and Eritrea during the early centuries ad. A wide-ranging investigation is planned into many aspects of Aksumite civilization. This paper summarizes results from the first season's work on the setting and symbolic meaning of the monumental stelae for which the site is justly famous, as well as on the technology which they illustrate. It is argued that the stelae were grave markers and that the tradition which they represent was substantially modified following the adoption of Christianity at Aksum in the fourth century.

Depictions of battle scenes, skirmishes and hand-to-hand combat are rare in hunter-gatherer art and when they do occur most often result from contact with agriculturalist or industrialized invaders. In the Arnhem Land region of the Northern Territory of Australia we have been documenting rare depictions of fighting and are able to show that there has been a long tradition of warrior art. At least three phases have been identified and in each of them groups of hunter-gatherers are shown in combat. The oldest are at least 10,000 years old, and constitute the most ancient depictions of fighting from anywhere in the world, while the newest were produced as recently as early this century. Significantly, a pronounced change in the arrangement of figures began with the second, middle phase — beginning perhaps about 6000 years ago. This appears to be associated with increased social complexity and the development of the highly complicated kinship relationships that persist in Arnhem Land today. Evidence from physical anthropological, archaeological and linguistic studies supports the idea of the early development of a highly organized society of the type more commonly associated with agriculturalists or horticulturalists.

There can be few more contentious subjects in the study of archaeology than the proper contribution of aesthetics. Many early excavators were little more than art historians who saw the recovery of works of art as their main objective. But much has changed since Alcubierre's treasure-hunting at Herculaneum or Layard's tunnelling for Assyrian reliefs at Nineveh. Professional archaeology in the twentieth century has largely eschewed its treasure-hunting origins and now seeks to understand the material of the past in terms of the societies who created it rather than through any preconceived notions of taste and value.

The dilemma, however, remains. Few people gazing at the ceiling of Altamira, or at the death-mask of Tutankhamun, can fail to feel some emotion or sense of awe. Yet we cannot enter the minds of the original creators, and in most cases we cannot know why (or even if) they found the product pleasing or beautiful. Should archaeologists therefore ignore aesthetics, as a subject too difficult to handle? Or should they endeavour to understand the aesthetic component and integrate it more effectively, by development of a more rigorous approach, into an understanding of the early human past?

In this Viewpoint, five specialists concerned with the study of art in early or nonwestern societies have been asked to consider just how they approach the aesthetic dilemma. Two of them (Smith and Vickers) write about Classical art, perhaps the leading area where artistic appreciation and aesthetics have been used in an archaeological context. Two more (Renfrew and Taylor) focus on the still more intractable problem of prehistoric art, where even textual information about ancient ideas and attitudes is unavailable. Finally, no discussion of archaeological approaches to art and aesthetics can ignore the parallel concern of anthropology (Morphy). No single solution emerges; such could hardly have been expected; but the question cannot be avoided, and remains at the heart of our concern to understand how former societies thought about themselves and their world.