This article, a revised version of the 13th McDonald Lecture given on 21 November 2001, sets the recent and partial transformation in the content and practice of Classical archaeological against the background of Kuhn's well-known work, first published in 1962, on paradigm and revolution in the scientific disciplines. Perhaps the most important question in this context — how would we know when a change in paradigm had taken place? — is harder to answer for a humanities discipline than for a science. But the attempt is made, first to set out a traditional paradigm for the subject; then to give examples of new approaches which seem to satisfy many of Kuhn's criteria for the introduction of a new paradigm; and, more briefly, to show that other approaches, innovatory though they may be, by their nature cannot bring about such a change. Whether a true paradigm shift has been set in motion, the future alone will show.

Neuropsychological and developmental studies suggest human musical ability has a deep evolutionary history; but we do not find evidence of the manufacture and use of instruments, with which musical behaviours have often been assumed to be equated, until 70,000 years after the advent of Homo sapiens. This anomaly is addressed by examining the evidence from the fossil record for the evolution of the physiology and neurology required for musical behaviours, with the aim of identifying the development of the physiological and neurological capacity to produce and process melody and/or rhythm. Aural and vocal sophistication appear to have developed in tandem, beginning with full bipedalism around 1.75 million years ago, until a vocal apparatus similar to the modern was present in Homo heidelbergensis 400,000–300,000 years ago. Prosodic and structural aspects of both speech and music production and processing are lateralized in the brain in similar ways suggesting evolutionarily-shared foundations for these mechanisms.

Aegean prehistory still has to deal with the legacy of ‘Homeric archaeology’. One of these legacies is the ‘warrior grave’, or practice of burying individuals (men?) with weapons which we find both in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in the Aegean. This article suggests that the differences between the ‘weapon burial rituals’ in these two periods can tell us much about the kind of social and cultural changes that took place across the Bronze Age/Iron Age ‘divide’ of c. 1100 BC. In neither period, however, can items deposited in ‘warrior graves’ be seen as straightforward biographical facts that tell us what the individual did and suffered in life. Rather, the pattern of grave goods should be seen as a metaphor for a particular kind of identity and ideal. It is only in the Early Iron Age that this identity begins to correspond to the concept of the ‘hero’ as described in the Iliad. One means towards our better understanding of this new identity is to follow up work in anthropology on the biography of objects. It is argued that the ‘life cycle’ of ‘entangled objects’, a cycle which ends in deposition in a grave, provides us with indispensable clues about the nature of new social identities in Early Iron Age Greece.

The study of ritual is an important and indeed essential part of prehistoric archaeology, and is reported at several early Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia. In this study, the evidence for ritual at five Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites (‘Ain Ghazal, Kfar HaHoresh, Nevali Çori, Çayönü and Göbekli Tepe) is compared. This comparison serves as the basis for an interpretation which focuses on the ideology of PPNB ritual rather than on its social function. It is argued that there are four basic structuring principles in PPNB ritual and ideology: communality, dominant symbolism, vitality (including the notions of domestication, fecundity and life-force), and human–animal linkage. These concepts are related in an attempt to delineate the PPNB ritual system and the place of these specific sites therein.