What was the effect on Late Minoan civilisation of the catastrophic destruction of Akrotiri on Thera (Santorini) by volcanic eruption? Not much, according to the evidence for continuing prosperity on Crete. But the authors mobilise their ingenious mathematical model (published in Antiquity 82: 1009–1024), this time to show that the effects of removing a major port of call could have impacted after an interval, as increased costs of transport gradually led to ever fewer routes and eventual economic collapse.

Microstratigraphy — the sequencing of detailed biological signals on site — is an important new approach being developed in the Çatalhöyük project. Here the authors show how microscopic recording of the strata and content of widespread middens on the tell are revealing daily activities and the selective employment of plants in houses and as fuel. Here we continue to witness a major advance in the practice of archaeological investigation.

Archaeology claims a long tradition, going back to the middle of the nineteenth century, of undertaking both palaeoclimate research and studies on the impact of past climate change on human communities (Trigger 1996: 130–38). Such research ought to be making a significant contribution to modern climate change debates, such as those led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); but in practice this rarely happens (e.g. McIntosh et al. 2000). This paper will attempt to conceptualise a ‘climate change archaeology’, which is defined here as the contribution of archaeological research to modern climate change debates (cf. Mitchell 2008). Irrespective of whether climate change poses the greatest challenge in the twenty-first century or whether it is just one of many challenges facing humanity (cf. Rowland 2010), the absence of an archaeological voice diminishes the relevance and impact of the debate as a whole.

On the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of China's Institute of Archaeology, the author looks back to its origins, and recalls a short period, now almost forgotten, of dynamic and fruitful collaboration with the archaeologists of Soviet Russia. Soviet intellectual aims in the 1950s had a profound and lasting influence on the development of Chinese archaeology, including the design of its institutions, its theoretical basis, its research agenda and its field methods. The new emphasis on ancient life beyond the elite and the study of social and economic process seems to pre-echo some of the themes of Anglo-American processual archaeology that was to follow a decade later.

Archaeology aims at imagining past societies, using physical data together with, if available, historical documentation. But this imaginative process is bound by factors widely discussed in social epistemology, including unequal social relations among researchers. Such unequal geopolitics in knowledge has been explored by the present author and others (Goonatilake 1982, 1984, 1999, 2001; Clough 2001). The present exercise aims to investigate and question the social and intellectual context in which Anuradhapura, the first capital in Sri Lanka, has been interpreted as belonging to a ‘theocracy’ (Coningham et al. 2007). Prehistoric archaeology has dated the site to around the ninth century BC at which time it was one of the largest cities in South Asia. A continuous set of chronicles, authenticated by physical remains, document the continuation of the city from at least the fourth/third century BC up to the eleventh century AD, when it was sacked by south Indian invaders. The written evidence includes Sinhalese chronicles (written in Pali), descriptions of the city by foreign travellers and a large number of inscriptions dating back to the third century BC.

What should professional archaeologists do about objects discovered by amateurs? The best known cases involve metal-detectorists who, under the English 'Treasure Act (1996), are permitted to make agreements with land-owners to search for antiquities and keep them, although the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS; set up to complement the Act's provisions) encourages them to have their finds registered by an archaeologist. There is no doubt that this has greatly increased knowledge of artefacts discovered in England where, in the past decade, the annual number of 'portable antiquities formally reported has risen steeply (Bland 2008: 71). The British Museum is now promoting a code of practice (Bland 2008: 81–2); and, at pains to avoid counterposing professional archaeologists and amateurs, it is encouraging the opportunities for outreach and 'community archaeology' (British Museum n.d.: 16–18). Thus Bland (2008: 80) welcomes collective knowledge . . . founded on public . . . participation' rather than . . . research . . . conceived and executed by professionals'. Yet there are now fresh anxieties about preservation at detectorists' sites (Pestell & Ulmschneider 2003: 9–10; Wilson 2009; Plouviez 2010).