The later career of British prehistorian Peggy Piggott, latterly Guido, is evaluated in this article, in a bid to further develop our understanding of women's participation in twentieth-century British archaeology. After WWII, when her husband Stuart Piggott was appointed to the Abercromby Chair in Edinburgh, she worked to assist his role. By the early 1950s, she had co-directed and published eight hillfort excavations, advancing our understanding of prehistoric architecture before the advent of radiocarbon dating. The authors consider Peggy Piggott's contribution as a fieldworker, promoting open-area excavation and influencing the next generation. We also consider her thinking, as an early advocate for continuity and Childe's diffusionism, in contrast to the invasionist views of Christopher Hawkes and Stuart Piggott. The authors reflect on the role her marriage played in enabling and restricting her career, her work in 1960s Italy, her expertise in ancient glass beads, and her activity in retirement.

This article concerns the development of archaeology and museology, in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, and Greece, through the life and career of Théodore Macridy. Macridy participated in knowledge transfer in more than one discipline and more than one country. Through his links with Western academic circles in archaeology and museology, he made a significant contribution to their development in the Ottoman Empire, Turkey, and Greece. Living between the Ottoman and Greek epistemic communities as an Ottoman citizen of Greek origin, he excavated numerous sites of the Ottoman Empire, worked at the Ottoman Imperial Museum, and contributed to the foundation of the Benaki Museum in Athens at the end of his career. This makes him a good example of an Ottoman Greek scholar whose liminal identity led to his relative neglect in both Greek and Turkish archaeology and museology.

As an academic discipline, archaeology is deeply rooted in the cultural, social, and political practices of Western Europe of the nineteenth century. The emergence of local scholarly communities in other parts of the continent tends to be described as a process that saw the even spread of ideas and concepts in their original form. This further implies a uniform, unilinear sequence of paradigms (culture-historical, processual, postprocessual), each with their own internal logic. However, more often than not, these transfers of disciplinary knowledge from one academic community to the other have introduced distortions of the original concepts, designed to meet the demands of the different cultural and intellectual traditions and research agendas. In this article, we explore the foundation of academic archaeology in Serbia and of the pivotal figure in this process – Miloje M. Vasić, educated at German universities and considered to be the first academically trained archaeologist in the country. His adaptations of the German tradition of Classical scholarship applied to the study of the Balkan past have marked the theory and practice of archaeology in the country up to the present. This example indicates that we should seek to explore the ways in which the concepts we apply in our study of the past are articulated in particular local settings if we are to achieve a better understanding among various academic and professional communities of archaeologists across Europe.

This article examines the location and context of archaeological investigations in England between 1938 and 1945. The analysis of sources, including national inventories and contemporary journals, dispels any notion that archaeological practice was suspended during World War II, despite the absence of some leading practitioners, and reveals that a surprising amount of salvage and research fieldwork took place. Fieldwork was primarily in the south of the country; it reflects pre-war investigative trends, contemporary knowledge, opinion of the archaeological resource, and the increased threat of war-related construction work, but also the impact of immediate post-war concerns such as housing and infrastructure. Although primarily undertaken by established excavators employed by the Ministry of Works, a substantial amount of rescue work was carried out by small groups, local societies, and individuals often outside State funding, which reflects an independent culture of fieldwork that continues to the present day.

John Evans was a key actor in the establishment of high human antiquity in 1859, and his pioneering role in launching the study of ancient stone implements is still celebrated today. However, scholars have overlooked the fact that Evans actually forged this contribution by shifting practices and preoccupations from coins to flint, from one well-established antiquarian domain in which he excelled, to another, new and as yet untested, domain. While providing relevant information on Evans' numismatics, this article shows how these transfers bear successively on the documentation of stone implements (terminology, descriptions, illustrations), their authentication (with regards to frauds and experimentation) and indeed their interpretation (the identification and explanation of their formal variability). Besides serving as an instructive historical case in ‘trans-disciplinarity’, the recognition of this initial numismatic imprint on the study of stone tools also has several consequences for current practices and interpretations in Palaeolithic archaeology.

In this article Childe's commitment to internationalism and, in particular, to the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (CISPP) is analysed. Personal correspondence between Childe and Myres and, to a lesser extent, other archaeologists, is used as the basis to consider the different stages in Childe's involvement in the CISPP. After an overview of the emergence of international congresses, the article looks at the formation of an interest group that resulted in the creation of the CISPP. The challenges brought by Nazi Germany to the international scene, and to Childe's positioning in it, are also explored. The article then examines his role in the revival of the international congress during and after the Second World War and his lesser commitment from the third conference in 1950. Finally, some comments are made on the value of archives for the history of archaeology, on the lack of connection between Childe's internationalism and Marxism, and on the need to further investigate the relationship between Childe and Myres.

Childe withdrew from revolutionary politics after his post-university years in Australia in favour of a career in prehistoric archaeology in Britain. Though remaining a Marxist, his application of Marxist principles to prehistory developed only slowly as his interpretations became more sophisticated. He became increasingly interested in knowledge about prehistory from studying results of the interactions between material remains and their interpretation (in Marxist terms, the relationships between practice and theory). In his paper ‘Retrospect’, Childe (1958b:73) charted the development in his thinking to where he rejected ‘transcendental laws determining history and mechanical causes … automatically shaping its course’ with an understanding that a prehistoric society's knowledge of itself was ‘known or knowable … with its then existing material and conceptual equipment’. Thus the prehistory of Europe could be seen not as a product of Oriental civilization, but as an independent entity. Childe could then write a prehistory of Europe ‘that should be both historical and scientific’ (1958b:74). This book, The Prehistory of European Society (1958a), also demonstrated his use of the epistemology of knowledge to understand prehistory as a sociological phenomenon.

Childe's time as a student in Oxford has received little critical attention, partly because of an apparent lack of evidence. His reasons for going to Oxford are explored, and attention is drawn to two factors: the role of one of his tutors in Sydney, W.J. Woodhouse; and the state of prehistoric European studies in England at the time, dominated by Oxford and the figures of Arthur Evans and John Myres. Childe's study visit to Greece in 1915 is discussed and it is suggested that he had already embarked on his major research project before it was interrupted by the unexpected duration of the First World War. He left Oxford in 1917 to return to Australia, and though he may have feared conscription, the impossibility of pursuing his archaeological research was also a critical factor. In 1921 Childe returned to England and soon resumed the project he had started and suspended.

The context of Childe's decade as Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Professor of Prehistoric European Archaeology in the University of London is described. Particular attention is given to the circumstances leading to his appointment; his participation in a conference on ‘The Future of Archaeology’ held at the Institute in 1943; his inaugural lecture, ‘Archaeology as a Social Science’, delivered in 1946; his and Frederick Zeuner's involvement in the beginnings of radiocarbon dating; and his contrasted contributions as administrator, excavator, and teacher during his 10 years at the Institute.