Knowing the source of the red deer in the Mesolithic shell middens on Oronsay is necessary for a reconstruction of the early post-glacial settlement patterns in the southern Hebrides. If they came from Colonsay, then it is conceivable that the combined resources of Colonsay and Oronsay could have supported a population on these small islands for extended periods of time — as the seasonally data from the middens suggests when taken at face value. If there were no red deer on Colonsay, it is more likely that the Oronsay middens result from many short intermittent visits to the island. Since early post-glacial faunal assemblages are unknown from Colonsay, and unlikely to be found, this paper discusses the relevance of lithic assemblages for inferring the hunting of red deer. It describes recent fieldwork on Colonsay and the discovery of the first Mesolithic sites, notably that of Staosnaig. It concludes that the microlithic elements within the assemblages are too small to indicate red deer hunting. If Mesolithic foragers went to Colonsay to hunt red deer, they probably left rather quickly and empty-handed.

In a recent discussion of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, Julian Thomas decribed the Mesolithic as a ‘cybernetic wasteland’ (1988, 64). By this he was presumably referring to the picture we gain of Mesolithic society when ‘human behaviour [is seen] in terms of adaptive responses to environmental pressures’ (ibid., 59), which Thomas states as the basis of Mesolithic research. Is he justified in the use of this damning phrase? When archaeologists see human behaviour in an ecological framework do they deny people their humanity by turning them into robots, helpless ‘victims of externally-imposed circumstances’ (ibid., 61).

This article constitutes a reply to a piece by Steven Mithen, in which an earlier contribution in this journal (Thomas 1988) is criticized as misrepresenting the character of Mesolithic archaeology. Mithen contends that the ‘processual’ archaeology which dominates that period can be humanized by introducing a consideration of emotion into the adaptive process. In this contribution it is suggested that the emphasis on emotion and rationality betrays a misunderstanding of the character of ‘post-processual’ archaeology, while the attempt to encompass emotion in an evolutionary ecological framework does no more than extend the remit of an inherently reductionist perspective. Emphasis is laid upon the notions of history and contextualized social action, and it is recognized that these concepts cannot be accommodated unless we allow that the fundamental characteristics of humanity are not fixed, but are themselves contingent and historically situated.

A shelter in the Tassili shows many rock-pictures which are all executed in the same style, the style of the Iheren-Tahilahi group. It is therefore possible to confirm the characteristic features of this very distinct and lively group, which is mainly distributed throughout the central and the northern Tassili. The physical type of the figures it represents is exclusively europoid. The distribution area, the age of the group and its position on the general climatic oscillation curve are specified.

Explaining the evolution of prehistoric trade systems dominates archaeological research in the Papuan Lowlands of New Guinea. However, important evidence in the form of ground stone axes, which had to be imported into this region, is largely ignored. This paper provides a summary of relevant ethnographic accounts of axe exchange systems, describes the archaeological finds from a restricted area near Kikori Station using sourcing and morphological analyses and interprets the meaning and significance of results. As this is a radical departure from traditional studies, we take this opportunity to sketch some major research questions which may aid future investigations.

The site of Le Pinacle, Jersey, is an important multi-phase site with horizons dating to the Early Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Gallo-Roman periods. Recent reassessment of the material from the site suggests the existence of a stone axe production centre at Le Pinacle during the Early Neolithic period. Petrological studies have resulted in the identification of a group of dolerite axes, for which Le Pinacle is the probable source. Axes belonging to this group have been identified in assemblages from Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark.

Wayland's Smithy, on the north scarp of the downs above the Vale of the White Horse, is a two-phase Neolithic tomb. It has been a recognized feature of the historic landscape since at least the 10th century AD. It was recorded by Aubrey and later antiquaries, and continued to be of interest in the 19th century. It was amongst the first monuments to be protected by scheduling from 1882. The first excavations in 1919–20 were haphazardly organized and poorly recorded, but served to confirm, as suggested by Akerman and Thurnam, that the stone terminal chamber was transepted, to show that it had held burials, and to indicate the likely existence of an earlier structural phase.

Further excavations took place in 1962–63 to explore the monument more and restore it for better presentation. The excavations revealed a two-phase monument. Wayland's Smithy I is a small oval barrow, defined by flanking ditches, an oval kerb, and a low chalk and sarsen barrow. It contains a mortuary structure defined by large pits which held posts of split trunks, a pavement, and opposed linear cairns of sarsen. This has been seen as the remains of a pitched and ridged mortuary tent, in the manner proposed also for the structure under the Fussell's Lodge long barrow, but in the light of ensuing debate and of subsequent discoveries elsewhere, it can also be seen as an embanked, box-like structure, perhaps with a flat wooden roof. This structure contained the remains of at least fourteen human skeletons, in varying states of completeness. The burial rite may have included primary burial or exposure elsewhere, but some at least of the bodies could have been deposited directly into the mortuary structure, and subsequent circulation or removal of bones cannot be discounted. Little silt accumulated in the ditches of phase I before the construction of phase II, and a charcoal sample from this interval gave a date of 3700–3390 BC.

Wayland's Smithy II consists of a low sarsen-kerbed trapezoidal barrow, with flanking ditches, which follows the north–south alignment of phase I. At the south end there was a façade of larger sarsen stones, from which ran back a short passage leading to a transepted chamber, roofed with substantial capstones. This could have risen above the surrounding barrow. The excavations of 1919–20 revealed the presence of incomplete human burials in the west transept; the chamber had probably already been disturbed. The excavations of 1962–63 revealed further structural detail of the surrounds of the chamber, including a sarsen cairn piled in front and around it; deposits of calcium carbonate well up the walls of the chamber could be taken to suggest the former existence of chalk rubble blocking, in the manner of the West Kennet long barrow.

The monuments were built over a thin chalk soil which had been a little disturbed. The molluscan evidence shows open surroundings. Molluscan samples from the ditch of Wayland's Smithy II show subsequent regeneration of woodland.

Later activity on the site took the form of field ditches and lynchets, part of locally extensive field systems in the Iron Age and Romano-British period. Molluscan samples show again open country. There is evidence for disturbance of the tomb in late prehistoric and Roman times, and the denudation of the barrow had probably largely been effected by the end of the Roman era.

Wayland's Smithy provides important evidence for the sequence and development of Neolithic mortuary structures and burials. It is possible to suggest a gradual development for the structures ofWayland's Smithy I, in which opposed pits and substantial posts were incorporated into a box-like, linear mortuary structure, which in turn was incorporated into a small barrow. The subsequent construction of Wayland's Smithy II has become a classic example of the succession from small to large, and fits the late date of tombs with transepted chambers suggested by recent study of other sites. The nature of the circumstances surrounding this transformation remains unclear. The burials of phase I suggest the necessity of revising current notions about the ubiquity of secondary disposal in mortuary structures and tombs. In situ transformations suggest a very active concern with the dead, and offset the non-monumental character of the primary mortuary structure. In the relative absence of other detailed local evidence it is hard to relate the site to its local context, though comparisons can be drawn with the sequences of the neighbouring upper Thames valley and the upper Kennet valley and surrounding downland.

Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain is one of the most impressive British prehistoric (c. 3000–1500 BC) monuments. It is dominated by large upright sarsen stones, some of which are joined by lintels. While these stones are of relatively local derivation, some of the stone settings, termed bluestones, are composed of igneous and minor sedimentary rocks which are foreign to the solid geology of Salisbury Plain and must have been transported to their present location. Following the proposal of an origin in south-west Wales, debate has focused on hypotheses of natural transport by glacial processes, or transport by human agency. This paper reports the results of a programme of sampling and chemical analysis of Stonehenge bluestones and proposed source outcrops in Wales.

Analysis by X-ray-fluorescence of fifteen monolith samples and twenty-two excavated fragments from Stonehenge indicate that the dolerites originated at three sources in a small area in the eastern Preseli Hills, and that the rhyolite monoliths derive from four sources including northern Preseli and other (unidentified) locations in Pembrokeshire, perhaps on the north Pembrokeshire coast. Rhyolite fragments derive from four outcrops (including only one of the monolith sources) over a distance of at least 10 km within Preseli. The Altar Stone and a sandstone fragment (excavated at Stonehenge) are from two sources within the Palaeozoic of south-west Wales. This variety of source suggests that the monoliths were taken from a glacially-mixed deposit, not carefully selected from an in situ source. We then consider whether prehistoric man collected the bluestones from such a deposit in south Wales or whether glacial action could have transported bluestone boulders onto Salisbury Plain. Glacial erratics deposited in south Dyfed (dolerites chemically identical to Stonehenge dolerite monoliths), near Cardiff, on Flatholm and near Bristol indicate glacial action at least as far as the Avon area. There is an apparent absence of erratics east of here, with the possible exception of the Boles Barrow boulder, which may predate the Stonehenge bluestones by as much as 1000 years, and which derived from the same Preseli source as two of the Stonehenge monoliths. However, 18th-century geological accounts describe intensive agricultural clearance of glacial boulders, including igneous rocks, on Salisbury Plain, and contemporary practice was of burial of such boulders in pits. Such erratics could have been transported as ‘free boulders’ from ‘nunataks’ on the top of an extensive, perhaps Anglian or earlier, glacier some 400,000 years ago or more, leaving no trace of fine glacial material in present river gravels. Erratics may be deposited at the margins of ice-sheets in small groups at irregular intervals and with gaps of several kilometres between individual boulders.

‘Bluestone’ fragments are frequently reported on and near Salisbury Plain in archaeological literature, and include a wide range of rock types from monuments of widely differing types and dates, and pieces not directly associated with archaeological structures. Examination of prehistoric stone monuments in south Wales shows no preference for bluestones in this area. The monoliths at Stonehenge include some structurally poor rock types, now completely eroded above ground. We conclude that the builders of the bluestone structures at Stonehenge utilized a heterogeneous deposit of glacial boulders readily available on Salisbury Plain. Remaining erratics are now seen as small fragments sometimes incorporated in a variety of archaeological sites, while others were destroyed and removed in the 18th century. The bluestones were transported to Salisbury Plain from varied sources in south Wales by a glacier rather than human activity.

The results of an area-intensive surface collection survey are described and evidence for a coarse-grained response to the distribution of resources is presented. Surface collection surveys have occurred over many areas of southern England with attention focused especially on the neolithic landscape of the monument zone. The results of such surveys provide an indication of the social landscape within which monument building occurred. However, to fully appreciate human behaviour in an active and emergent landscape, the results of similar investigations from what appear passive landscapes must be available as well as evidence for human exploitation in earlier and later periods. The upper Meon valley survey represents one of only few attempts to redress that imbalance and to assess objectively the nature of occupation away from the monument zone throughout the prehistoric period. The results demonstrate an intensity of occupation equal to that in other parts of Wessex but confined, predominantly, to the mesolithic and earlier neolithic periods. The survey also provides a case-study in interpretation. The emphasis is less on places than on the space in which they occurred.

During the course of archaeological investigations in advance of a business and residential development, an unusual structure was discovered. The site is located on a silty clay-capped terrace of the River Kennet immediately to the north-west of Hungerford, Berks, (SU 334692).

The structure, initially thought to be a round house, comprised a ring of seven equally spaced pits in a 6 m diameter circle. At its centre was an area of fire-reddened clay over 1 m in extent. Two shallow scoops cut this burnt area (fig. 1). The pits were generally bowl shaped, 60–80 cm across and 15–30 cm deep. Some of the pits had clear evidence for the presence of small posts. These posts had been burnt and replaced on more than one occasion. There was no evidence for an encircling ditch or a covering mound. A single 14C date of 3360 ± 40 BP (BM–2737) was obtained on oak charcoal from pit 5008, which is consistent with the Early Bronze Age date of the pottery.

The traditional definition of a Fürstensitz, outlined in 1969 by W. Kimmig, is in need of modification. Greater precision is needed in the interpretation of imported and imitated Mediterranean pottery and élite burials. From our discussion, it becomes clear that both rich settlements and burials underwent crucial changes within the late Hallstatt period: the élite burial rite was becoming increasingly exclusive, and imported or imitated Mediterranean pottery generally appeared on hillforts only after the end of Hallstatt D1. Clearly, a model for the West Hallstatt culture should take account of its dynamic nature. Some important trends are described: (1) the spread of élite burial practices, (2) the foundation of the Fürstensitze, and (3) the ‘concentration of power’ in the late Hallstatt culture north-west of the Alps.

The emergence of an élite during the Hallstatt period had an internal logic which did not necessarily require a Mediterranean instigator. The foundation of Massalia in 600 BC has traditionally been seen as providing the impulse for the emergence of the ‘princely’ culture of Hallstatt D. But neither the internal developments of the Hallstatt culture, nor the degree of contact with the Greek colonies in Hallstatt D1, can support this view.

Previous emphasis on influence from the Greek colonies in the South of France has obscured the effects of contacts and trade with Italy, although it is certain that the increasing acquaintance with the civilized neighbours across the Alps led to events of historic importance: the Celtic invasion of Italy and the start of the Celtic diaspora. This process of acquaintance must be assigned to the late Hallstatt period (Hallstatt D2/3), when Italic imports became frequent north of the Alps. In fact, the transalpine areas which in the late Hallstatt period had especially close trading relations with Italy (particularly east central France) seem to have been the origin of most of the important contingents of Celtic invaders. The imported or imitated Italic objects in Hallstatt D2/3 and La Tène A reflect the changed political situation before and after the Celtic invasion. Whereas in both phases the Celts imported luxurious feasting equipment, only in the Early La Tène period is Italic influence apparent in Celtic weaponry.

This report describes the total excavation of a small, rectangular ditched enclosure measuring 23.5 m by 15 m. It was shown to have been a cemetery enclosure (probably that of a small family group), belonging to the second half of the 1st century BC. Three vessels containing cremation burials were found in pits within the enclosed area, along with nine other funerary bowls, urns and jars. Whilst cremation burials of this date are fairly common, this is the first published example of such a cemetery enclosure from Essex.