Since the mid-1980s, debates between competing schools of archaeological interpretation have become more theoretical and abstruse, moving away from confrontations over specific methods of analyzing our data. This article reopens arguments over one of the more controversial propositions of the New Archaeology - Saxe's claim that the emergence of formal cemeteries corresponds to the appearance of agnatic lineages monopolizing vital resources through inheritance. The hypothesis is examined in three ways: through a generalized ethnological model; through specific ethnographic data from Taiwan and Kenya; and through a historical comparison of Athens from 500 to 100 BC and Rome from 200 BC to AD 200. It is argued that all three methods lead to a similar conclusion, that many societies do indeed talk about the dead in the way the Saxe/Goldstein hypothesis maintains, but that in any specific instance the cemetery/property message may well be subverted by other arguments which the buriers are making.

Archaeological discoveries of dead individuals, usually in the form of burials, have frequently captured the imaginations of public and professional audiences alike. In addition to the allure of exotic artefacts and seemingly bizarre funeral rites, burials offer rich possibilities for investigating myriad aspects of past social, cultural and even individual life. This discussion focuses on one of the more renowned archaeological excavations of an ancient cemetery, the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Consideration of who was and who was not buried in the cemetery suggests that cemetery burial was the prerogative of those people who were closely attached to ‘public’ institutions. This leads to a number of observations on Sumerian treatment of the dead and attitudes toward death, as these can be approached from archaeological and textual sources.

Use of archaeological evidence in discussions of the origin and evolution of grammar has proved unconvincing largely because of undeveloped theoretical assumptions about the cognitive connection between language and tool behaviour. This paper examines the cognitive basis of tool use and tool making and concludes that there is no sound theoretical basis for inferring grammatical abilities from prehistoric stone tools. Our knowledge concerning the cognitive basis of tool behaviour can, however, be used to document evolutionary developments in hominid cognition. Analysis of early biface culture, for example, reveals a cognitive complexity greater than that demonstrable for the earlier Oldowan or for modern apes.

Of the diverse approaches to understanding patterns and processes in human evolution, a focus on the biology of behaviour using principles derived from the non-human primates may have some utility for archaeologists. This article seeks to outline some biologically-based areas that could prove fruitful in exploring the origins of human behaviour within the archaeological record. It attempts to initiate a dialogue between biologists, even with their limited understanding of the problems facing those working with human origins, and archaeologists, in the hope that this dialogue will move beyond a simple reductionist approach towards the goal of integrating behaviour into a more sophisticated biological perspective.