This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates the issues that are common-place to the study of the transition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.

The emergence of cave art in Europe about 30,000 years ago is widely believed to be evidence that by this time human beings had developed sophisticated capacities for symbolization and communication. However, comparison of the cave art with the drawings made by a young autistic girl, Nadia, reveals surprising similarities in content and style. Nadia, despite her graphic skills, was mentally defective and had virtually no language. I argue in the light of this comparison that the existence of the cave art cannot be the proof which it is usually assumed to be that the humans of the Upper Palaeolithic had essentially ‘modern’ minds.

This article discusses the establishment of the Neolithic in western Europe, and presents two models which integrate aspects of the Neolithic funerary structures of western France. One model presents a cyclical evolution of tombs in France, in which there is a transformation of the funerary space around the corpse (the grave itself). This includes the modification of the anatomical order of the skeleton which becomes dependent on this transformation of the enclosing space, delimited by architectural forms such as allées couvertes.

The second model places emphasis on relationships which were observed in north-west Spain between the visual references inherent in any natural environment, and the location of the earliest monumental funerary structures. This model also emphasizes the location of these monuments in space, a location which seems to depend on human movement through the landscape.

When applied to such a region as the Morbihan débartement of Brittany (famous for sites such as Carnac and Locmariaquer), the two models converge. Together, they contribute to a better understanding of the succession of cultural complexes through time; but above all they suggest a radical process of transformation which is without doubt connected to the emergence of the Neolithic.

Dancing is depicted in the earliest art of the ancient Near East. It appears in many variations from the ninth to the sixth millennium BP over a vast geographical range. This article discusses the dancing performance, the social context of the dance and cognitive aspects of the dancing scenes. Ethnographic observations are used in order to gain a wider view of dancing and dancing scenes in pre-state societies. A correlation can be observed between art, symbolism, religion and social organization.

The question of the supposedly pre-Greek language or languages of the Aegean, in its wider historical and cultural context, has not been systematically addressed since the decipherment of the Linear B script, other than in the philological studies of DA. Hester. Here it is argued that the time is ripe for a new synthesis between the linguistic and the cultural evidence. The language of the Minoan Linear A script, that is (it is here assumed) the Minoan language of the palaces, is here identified as making the principal contribution to the so-called ‘pre-Greek’ vocabulary of the Greek language, thus constituting not a linguistic substratum of earlier date but an adstratum, which developed during their co-existence in the Aegean during the Bronze Age. This may be seen as the linguistic component in the ‘Versailles effect’ of Minoan palatial influence within the Aegean, which reached its apogee in the Late Bronze 1 period, a view anticipated in some respects in the work of some earlier writers notably G. Glotz.

Such an approach focuses attention more clearly on the intellectual and ideological contributions of Minoan culture to the emerging Mycenaean civilization, rather than on the piecemeal acquisition of material items, without however assigning a secondary or subordinate role to the mainland communities in their own transition towards state society. One important consequence of the argument is to diminish (or even eliminate) the case for a significant chronologically pre-Greek element in the Greek language. One principal argument against the very early, probably Neolithic arrival of proto-Greek (or proto-Indo-European) speakers into mainland Greece is thereby removed. The resulting simplification in the linguistic picture of the Bronze Age Aegean proposed here carries implications also for that of western Anatolia and for the great antiquity there of the Luwian language. It opens questions also about the affinities of the presumed Anatolianancestor of the Minoan (or proto-Minoan) language.

How should archaeologists approach ethnicity? This concept, which has such wide currency in social and anthropological studies, remains elusive when we seek to apply it to the archaeological past. The importance of ethnicity in our late twentieth-century world can easily lead us to believe that it must long have been a key element in human relations and awareness. The practice of defining oneself and one's group by contrast and opposition to other individuals and other groups, from the family level upwards, appears a basic feature of human behaviour. Ethnicity is a part of this social logic, though ethnic groups, and ethnicity itself, are notoriously difficult to define.

Can we identify and distinguish ethnic groupings in the archaeological record? Had one posed that question earlier this century the answer would have no doubt have made immediate reference to the ‘culture-people hypothesis’; the idea that archaeological assemblages may be combined into ‘cultures’ defined by recurring features, be they metalwork, ceramic forms and decoration, or lithic technology. Each culture so defined might be equated (hypothetically at least) with a former people. Ethnographic studies, however, have long shown that these equations are overly simplistic. Phenomena such as the ‘Beaker culture’ are no longer assumed to be the material expression of a single ethnic group.

Where historical evidence is available, it may be able to overcome some of the difficulties and examine just how a historical ethnic group — as perceived and defined by its own members — relates to a body of archaeological material. Jonathan Hall's study of ethnic identity in ancient Greece provides an excellent example of just such an approach. It also raises broader issues concerning the definition of ethnicity and its recognition in the archaeological record. Hall himself takes the view that ethnicity depends on what people say, not what they do; hence material culture alone, without supporting literary evidence, is an insufficient basis for the investigation of ethnic identity in past societies. To accept that view is to rule out the study of ethnicity for the greater part of the human past; we may suspect that ethnic groups played a part, but be unable to identify any surviving cultural parameters. Against such a pessimistic assessment, however, there is the contrary argument, that ethnicity may be expressed as well in material culture as in words. Should that be the case, archaeology may indeed be well equipped to open a window on past ethnicity, whether or not there are relevant contemporary texts.

We begin this review feature in our usual way, with a summary by Jonathan Hall of the arguments set out in his book. Five commentators then take up the theme, raising comments and criticisms to which Hall responds in a closing reply.