In his response, Colin Renfrew retreats to a formalistic argument – Indo-European can only mean a language family. It has nothing to do whatsoever with institutions or religion. This statement simply writes off a whole academic discourse of Indo-European studies. Consequently Renfrew does not accept an argument that links the spread of an institution to a concomitant spread of its language or its terminology. In opposition to this I consider Indo-European languages to have a history linked to social and economic processes of change that we still know too little about. However, it implies a relationship between them, as Colin Renfrew cogently argues in his book (Renfrew 1987: chapter 6). Institutions which appear to have their origin in the Proto-Indo-European period, and which are still preserved – like language diversified – in later Indo-European religious mythology or sagas, are consequently termed Indo-European in this specific research context, as they share a common history. Often they also share a common terminology that can be demonstrated to have a Proto-Indo-European origin. In that they are interlinked in one way or another with language. It is therefore a worthy research task to consider if processes of language spread and the spread of institutions are interlinked, given that their terminology share a common origin.

From this follows that we must either abolish the term Indo-European completely, or accept that it embodies a number of social and religious traditions and institutions whose history cannot be totally separated from that of language, as their meaning is expressed in a specific Indo-European terminology. The danger of political misuse does not originate from research into this relationship; it originates from simplistic theoretical and methodological conflations of such categories with racist and chauvinistic historical constructions. The relationship between language and DNA, which Colin Renfrew has propagated, is no less subject to such manipulation. The only weapon against this is a developed theoretical and methodological strategy.

Recent excavations at Mala Pećina Cave in Croatia have provided new evidence for social and cultural interaction between mobile groups during the Balkan Early Neolithic.

This magnificently produced volume is in itself a tribute to the devoted and rewarding work which Claude Schaeffer, aided by many skilful collaborators, began at Ras Shamra-Ugarit 36 years ago. The frontispiece illustrates a 5000-pound Syrian banknote, engraved with designs of Ugaritic ivories, a mark of honour in addition to that which was bestowed when the author was made a ‘Freeman’ of the city of Latakia. His many friends and admirers in this country will rejoice that he is held in esteem and affection in the East no less than in the West.

The account here presented describes the discoveries made in the 18th and 19th campaigns of 1954-5, and includes a full-scale map of the ‘Grand Palais’ and the ‘Petit Palais’ which, besides being buildings of great architectural interest, have yielded historical and archaeological treasures in abundance. Associated with the former building we have the remains of a royal garden, a parterre which, with its surrounding paths, is an ancient forerunner of Louis XIV's achievement at Versailles, but 31 centuries older, and in another court we find an ornamental pond bordered with a low stone parapet. Not far away was a furnace for the baking of cuneiform texts; some of them had never been removed from the ashes.

Many scientific journals throughout the world have marked these anniversaries with papers on various aspects of Marxism and its significance, written from various viewpoints. The journal ANTIQUITY, showing itself, as usual, more active and alert than the others, commissioned an article in 1965 from M. W. Thompson on ‘Marxism and Culture’ (1965, 108–116). However, Dr Thompson’s review of the significance of Marxism for archaeology is quite contrary to my own and amounts, in fact, to a completely negative appraisal. I feel, therefore, that it would be appropriate to answer Dr Thompson’s article in celebration of the anniversaries not only because my basically positive appraisal is more suited to the jubilee mood (1 well understand that this anniversary is interpreted in different ways in various circles), but also to clear up certain misunderstandings, and to help readers to form a more objective opinion of Thompson’s article by listening to the other side.