The Dorchester Aqueduct, located to the north-west of Dorchester (Durnovaria) in Dorset, is arguably the most famous and well-examined Roman watercourse in Britain. The aqueduct has been intermittently investigated over the course of the last 100 years, but most extensively during the 1990s. The upper stretches of the aqueduct and its source have, however, eluded archaeologists, with multiple routes and water sources being suggested. A new programme of geophysical and topographic survey, combined with targeted investigation together with a reappraisal of the excavations from the 1990s, has provided additional evidence for the route of the aqueduct, extending its course for a further two kilometres to Notton on the River Frome.

We present the excavation results from a Middle Neolithic site associated with the Funnel Beaker Culture. Within two overlying house phases, a recessed area was recorded, which had been constructed using different sized pebbles. The arrangement and form of the feature clearly indicated anthropogenic origin and is understood as belonging to one of the house phases. Consequently, it is interpreted as a cellar. Several pits and post holes are additional features that were recorded at the site and indicate the presence of a fence structure with up to seven parallel courses. In this paper, we present radiocarbon dates from the features and an age model for the construction and use of the cellar as well as the fences. Moreover, the site Nygårdsvej 3 will be placed in its regional archaeological landscape.

This paper outlines the ways in which the project is addressing the colonial legacy of Henry Wellcome as well as presenting the data from the first three field seasons at Jebel Moya, south-central Sudan. These data have substantially revised our chronological and socio-economic understanding of the site. Our excavations, initiated in 2017 and continued in 2019 and 2022, show a longer, more continuous occupation of the site than has been previously recognised. The faunal and botanical remains have implications for the spread of early domesticates in the eastern Sahel and for climate changes, and raise issues of resilience. There is confirmed human burial activity from at least the third millennium BC onwards, while the pottery continues to yield information about the variety of decoration and, for the final Assemblage 3, data on its usage. Overall, the continued importance of the site for the eastern Sahel is re-emphasised.

The discovery of a major archaeological complex at Faughan Hill, County Meath, was first reported on in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society in 2015. Comprising a series of large hilltop enclosures, probable burial sites, and associated features, the character and scale of the complex marked this out as an important focal centre in a region populated with some of Ireland’s largest and most spectacular monument ensembles, not least at the Hill of Tara, 15 km to the south-east. A more complete picture of the site has since been revealed through further geophysical survey followed by test excavations by the Discovery Programme’s Tara Research Project. Two trenches excavated across the hilltop enclosures in 2017 yielded evidence of four discrete phases of activity spanning some 3000 years, from the mid-4th to mid-1st millennia bc. During the Middle Neolithic the hilltop was encircled by a fenced enclosure (3635–3380 cal bc) possibly associated with the production of stone tools. At 250 m in projected diameter it is one of the largest enclosures of the 4th millennium known in Ireland. This was superseded in the Late Bronze Age by a far more substantial, 400 m diameter multivallate enclosure (1280–920 cal bc) representing the only excavated hillfort of its type in Meath. The hill was the focus of renewed activity during the Early Iron Age (800–520 cal bc) and later became central to the political ambitions of aspiring, early Uí Néill kings of Tara, achieving particular reknown as the burial place of their eponymous ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages. Developments at Faughan are illuminated further by a wealth of prehistoric settlement and ritual sites in the surrounding area, as well as early documentary sources, and, collectively, speak to a regional centre and gathering place with long-lived social, symbolic, and political significance.

Daily data collection during archaeological fieldwork forms the basis for later interpretation and analysis. Across the world, we observe a wide variety of digital data collection methods and tools employed during fieldwork. Here, we detail the daily practices at four recent survey and excavation projects in the South Caucasian country of Armenia. As archaeology continues to become ever more digital, it is useful to consider these day-to-day recording processes at a typical field project. We provide details on both the types of data collected and the ways they are collected so as to foreground these topics. Finally, we reflect on how our work is currently impacted by digital changes and how it may continue to change in the future.

Investigations of the Proyecto Arqueológico Tlajinga Teotihuacan (PATT) in 2019 focused on the southern neighborhood center of this cluster of non-elite residences in the southern periphery of the ancient Mexican metropolis. Our objective was to better understand the social infrastructure of public space within the district and how it tied its inhabitants together. Our methods included excavations at two large architectural complexes, geophysical prospection of these and adjacent structures and plazas, and chemical residue analysis of floors and sediments. They revealed architecturally elaborate complexes decorated with mural painting that appear to have been the loci of civic-ceremonial activities. Materials from the excavated portions of the complexes are inconsistent with residential uses, although it is possible that local elites lived elsewhere in the complexes or in others located nearby. The investigations therefore demonstrate that the semipublic spaces of neighborhood centers were distributed as distantly as this periphery of Teotihuacan and could be as elaborate as those in the urban epicenter, underscoring the city's more muted social inequality.

A new stratigraphic survey of the pyroclastic deposits blanketing Pompeii ruins shows departures from prior reconstruction of the events that occurred inside the town during the two main phases (pumice fallout and pyroclastic density currents) of the ad 79 Vesuvius eruption. We document the depth and distribution of subaerial erosion surfaces in the upper part of the pyroclastic sequence, formed during two short-lived breaks occurring in the course of the second phase of the eruption. These pauses could explain why 50% of the victims were found in the streets during the pyroclastic density currents phase.

In this paper, a control approach called Artificial Neural Tissue (ANT) is applied to multirobot excavation for lunar base preparation tasks including clearing landing pads and burying of habitat modules. We show for the first time, a team of autonomous robots excavating a terrain to match a given three-dimensional (3D) blueprint. Constructing mounds around landing pads will provide physical shielding from debris during launch/landing. Burying a human habitat modules under 0.5 m of lunar regolith is expected to provide both radiation shielding and maintain temperatures of −25 °C. This minimizes base life-support complexity and reduces launch mass. ANT is compelling for a lunar mission because it does not require a team of astronauts for excavation and it requires minimal supervision. The robot teams are shown to autonomously interpret blueprints, excavate and prepare sites for a lunar base. Because little pre-programmed knowledge is provided, the controllers discover creative techniques. ANT evolves techniques such as slot-dozing that would otherwise require excavation experts. This is critical in making an excavation mission feasible when it is prohibitively expensive to send astronauts. The controllers evolve elaborate negotiation behaviors to work in close quarters. These and other techniques such as concurrent evolution of the controller and team size are shown to tackle problem of antagonism, when too many robots interfere reducing the overall efficiency or worse, resulting in gridlock. Although many challenges remain with this technology, our work shows a compelling pathway for field testing this approach.

Archaeologists’ excavation practices vary significantly from country to country and site to site. But variation in the most fundamental, ‘common-sense’ excavation practices is ‘black-boxed’ - it is not discussed outside casual, informal contexts, and is treated as having no effect on higher-level interpretation. These practices can, however, be a source of conflict when archaeologists from different communities of practice work together. In this paper, I explore what variation in excavation methodology reveals about the nature of archaeological knowledge itself. By comparing methodologies and the organization of labour on British and Andean excavations, I argue that archaeologists in different communities of practice have divergent understandings of what the object of archaeological investigation is, and of how it can be known, and by whom. This results in contrasting understandings of the nature of material/archaeological objects, as well as contrasting conceptualizations of excavation as an ‘expert’ practice – one requiring skills, knowledge and bodily practices that are specific to trained archaeologists. Situating these concerns in historical and ethnographic context, this paper suggests that archaeological excavation is, in fact, a far more complex, nuanced and variable practice than the lack of attention paid to it implies.

This paper investigates the rationale for excavation against the background of a new trend in archaeology: the renewed interest in the values of experience and empiricism in both archaeological practice and interpretation. It is argued that we should seriously reconsider the principles of archaeological heritage management as it has developed from the 1970s onwards. Reasons for excavating are discussed by referring to three examples: (1) the reconstruction of cultural evolution in the time period roughly between 40,000 and 30,000 B.P., when anatomically modern humans entered Europe but Neanderthals were still there; (2) recent excavations in 20th-century terrorscapes; and (3) public activities, like geocaching, that evoke a kind of ‘archaeological experience’. It is concluded that the time is ripe for a broad empirical and experiential attitude, based on new intellectual orientations like the new empiricism, to return to the archaeological agenda. Excavation may fulfil a vital role in this project.

We have no choice: we must excavate, first because whole continents are still barely known from an archaeological point of view, and second because thousands of archaeological sites disappear every day as a result of economic development. Rescue or preventive archaeology is thus an ethical duty. Nevertheless, there is a serious risk of a split between academic archaeology, with its wealth of thinking but poverty of funding, and commercial archaeology, where the situation is the opposite and the goal is, above all, financial profit. So the question is not just to know why one excavates, but also how.

In trying to understand why archaeology is so strongly associated with the method of excavation, this paper examines different relationships between excavation, archaeology, archaeologists and modern society.

The interpretation of Star Carr is central to the interpretation of the European Mesolithic, and has attracted functional, ecological, economic and ideological readings. Is each of these always possible? In a disquisition of wide relevance, the author argues that any evocation of ancient activity at Star Carr – and its motives – must begin with a detailed reading of the excavated data. Pictures desired by theory may not be supported by facts.

The Greater Cursus – 3km long and just north of Stonehenge – had been dated by a red deer antler found in its ditch in the 1940s to 2890-2460 BC. New excavations by the authors found another antler in a much tighter context, and dating a millennium earlier. It appears that the colossal cursus had already marked out the landscape before Stonehenge was erected. At that time or soon after, its lines were re-emphasised, perhaps with a row of posts in pits. So grows the subtlety of the discourse of monuments in this world heritage site.