Introduction

This paper is concerned with the Iron Age of Atlantic Scotland, a period running from approximately 600 BC until the onset of Viking colonization and influence around AD 800. The definition of Atlantic Scotland for the purposes of this paper is taken to include the north and west of Scotland and its coastline and archipelagos including Shetland, Orkney and the Inner and Outer Hebrides. This area is also defined by the distribution of a particular kind of drystone monumental architecture, variously termed brochs, duns or more recently Atlantic roundhouses (Armit & Ralston 1997: 183–7). These structures are often well preserved, in the case of some standing as towers 10 m in height, and are thus highly visible in the landscape. In Orkney and Shetland brochs and other Iron Age houses often form only one part of a large and complex settlement mound, with both earlier and later settlement and activity dating over millennia on the same site, as at Howe and Pool (Uallin Smith 1994; Hunter et al. 1993).

Zooarchaeology, once largely confined to questions of subsistence and production strategies, has recently devoted much more attention to the social roles of animals in the past. Responding (belatedly) to trends in archaeological theory, on the one hand, and the growth of interdisciplinary animal studies, on the other, zooarchaeologists are now using animal remains to address a broader range of questions that are of interest to archaeologists and others (e.g. Gifford-Gonzalez 2007; Oma 2010; Hill 2013). The three books here exemplify this development, all using zooarchaeological data to explore the varied roles of animals in (mainly) complex societies. Each ranges widely and demonstrates the centrality of animals in the human world, and, therefore, their great potential to illuminate the workings of ancient societies. Each also integrates zooarchaeological data with many other sources of information to create a whole much greater than any of the parts. There is a little overlap in authorship, with a chapter by Sykes in Animals and inequality in the ancient world and contributions by Michael MacKinnon in both edited volumes. These common threads aside, they are quite different books, with different goals and audiences.

The connexion between Maps and Archaeology is of a very obvious and straightforward nature. All distributional problems must, for instance, be studied on maps. If we want to find out about the distribution of the beaker folk, we must plot on a map the finds of the beakers; or if we desire to learn the area covered by examples of the ‘lanternes des morts’, a map of France is essential; the same applies to the study of long barrows and to a very great variety of archaeological studies. Moreover, in a more restricted sense, maps of sites are of the essence of the study of antiquity; we cannot understand the strength of the defences of the ancient Jebusite city unless we pore over the map of the excavations on the spur of Ophel. The excavations of every site are unintelligible without an accompanying map. In a still more restricted sense, each ‘find’ requires to have its position stated by the three co-ordinates of map-making: namely, its distance north or south, east or west, from—and above or below—some datum point in the excavations. Further, the maps themselves may furnish the only record left of some relicof antiquity. And,lastly ,ancient maps—and our present-day maps will one day be ancient—are valuable records of the past, of the culture of the age they represent, of population, human distribution and settlement, and, to some extent, of the science and art of the times. It is much to be regretted that so little mapmaking was done in ancient days. We should give a good deal for accurate contemporary plans of Rome of the time of Nero or of the battle of Hastings. And how much more for a contemporary map of Jerusalem and its surrounding country, before the destruction of the Holy City by Titus !

Prior to the recent description of stone-lined ovens in Hawaii (Hendren, 1975, 133, 139), such ovens had not been reported elsewhere in Polynesia, and as a result some attention has been placed on the origin of the urnu pae. An undocumented claim has been made for the probable Peruvian source of the Easter Island stone-lined oven (Heyerdahl, 1968, 1g5), but in fact cultural origin is still in question because local innovation by the undeniably Polynesian substratum of the indigenous population has not been ruled out. Regardless of their origin, urnu pae are a class of cultural remains that assume major importance in Easter Island settlement-pattern studies by virtue of their easy identification and common occurrence with other structures on extended family residential sites. The exposed rims of umu pae eliminate the need for excavation to locate cook houses, which means that the layout of habitation sites and relationship of major household activity areas often can be determined on the basis of surface survey alone. Umu pae function independently to fix the location on flat terrain of open-site habitations that may otherwise be hard to see owing to the absence of structural remains or earthen terraces.

Whatever the journalist’s definition of eastern Europe might be (cf. S. Milisauskas in ANTIQUITY 64: 283], let us state, as introduction to this Special Section, that Czechoslovakia (FIGURE 1) is a country in Central, not Eastern, Europe. It is somewhat controversial to speak about its ‘return to Europe’, as some politicians would have it, as it has been there all the time. After the period of limited contacts of Czechoslovak archaeologists with their colleagues ‘in the West’ it is felt that now, in the changed (post-November-1989) situation, information on the current state of research, and especially on the approaches applied recently to the study of Czech and Slovak archaeological material (and perhaps on Czechoslovakia's geographical position as well?) may be of use for an interested English-speaking reader. The following – rather random – selection of articles is the result.

How different are the intellectual traditions of Continental and of Anglo-American archaeology, and how is each changing? Counting papers in the standard journals which address aspects of hunter-gatherer archaeology may show.