Direct or indirect evidence of ropemaking are scarce in European prehistory. Only a few references to Middle or Upper Palaeolithic remains are known to us, with more examples towards the Holocene. The archaeological contexts of ropes offer little information about possible uses, as the activities they are used for are often archaeologically invisible. However, some rock-art traditions shed some light on potential uses, worth exploring. In Spain, Levantine rock art offers the best graphic examples across Europe showing various uses of ropes, including climbing. Starting from the recently discovered climbing scene of Barranco Gómez site (Teruel, Spain), including the best preserved and more complex use of ropes seen so far in Levantine art, this paper analyses representations of ropes in this art, as well as their varieties and diverse uses. Our study suggests that different rope-making techniques were used by Levantine societies, which we believe are indicative of a complex rope-making technology, requiring a considerable investment of time and efforts. It also shows a certain variety of rope climbing techniques and rope climbing gear, illustrating that both were mastered by Levantine societies. Moreover, a preferential use of ropes in honey-hunting scenes is observed.

Thus far, most researchers have focused on the cognition of fire use, but few have explored the cognition of firemaking. With this contribution we analyse aspects of the two main hunter-gatherer firemaking techniques—the strike-a-light and the manual fire-drill—in terms of causal, social and prospective reasoning. Based on geographic distribution, archaeological and ethnographic information, as well as our cognitive interpretation of strike-a-light firemaking, we suggest that this technique may well have been invented by Neanderthal populations in Eurasia. Fire-drills, on the other hand, represent a rudimentary form of a symbiotic technology, which requires more elaborate prospective and causal reasoning skills. This firemaking technology may have been invented by different Homo sapiens groups roaming the African savanna before populating the rest of the globe, where fire-drills remain the most-used hunter-gatherer firemaking technique.

This article proposes an interpretive framework of paradox and wonder as a new approach to understanding the affective properties and social consequences of miniature objects in the archaeological record. Building upon current scholarly theories of miniatures as inherently intimate, this approach accounts for how small-scale artworks were also designed and deliberately manufactured to elude user attempts at full sensory access and immersive escapism. This desire-provoking tension between intimacy and distance—which lures viewers into small-scale encounters only to insist upon the object's life-size existence—is wonder, and it is what gives miniature objects their social relevance and ability not only to reflect, but also to influence, the real world. The benefits and applicability of this approach to miniaturization are illustrated through analysis of case studies of miniature objects (figurines, coins, seals and seal impressions, and jewellery) from Hellenistic Babylonia (Seleucid and Parthian periods in southern Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, 323 bce–ce 224).

Social exclusion has been faced in modern societies as a phenomenon to be prevented in terms of equality. However, it can also be explored in past societies, where some individuals could confront situations of marginalization and exclusion. Previous scholars have accepted or rejected the existence of social exclusion in Ancient Egypt, although none of them has employed a theoretical framework to study it. This paper shows social exclusion as a phenomenon present in Ancient Egypt, analyses the available Egyptian evidence from a theoretical basis inherent to the social sciences, especially Sociology, and applies it to two case studies.

Macrolithic tools are linked to daily activities and, fundamentally, to settlements, hence their importance for the study of Late Prehistoric societies. However, these objects are also associated with funerary contexts, but have not often been analysed holistically. This paper studies an assemblage of macrolithic elements from three collective tombs from the third millennium cal. bc at the site of La Orden-Seminario (Huelva, Spain), from a theoretical and methodological perspective based on the biography of the object. Our analysis focuses on typology, raw materials, technology, function and burial context. The results show that the tools can be linked to domestic activities such as the grinding of cereals and the processing of plant materials, as well as for the production and maintenance of the elements used in these activities. The analysed objects display long biographies of use and, in some cases, we have documented intentional breakage for their deposition in the tombs. The patterns of deposition in the funerary contexts reflect social practices related to the ritual and symbolic behaviours surrounding death and the relationship with everyday objects.

Gender is under focus in prehistoric archaeology, with traditional binary models being questioned and alternatives formulated. Quantification, however, is generally lacking, and alternative models are rarely tested against the archaeological evidence. In this article, we test the binary hypothesis of gender for prehistoric Central Europe based on a selection of seven published burial sites dating from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Results show that the binary model holds for the majority of individuals, but also supports the existence of non-binary variants. We address such variants as ‘minorities’ rather than ‘exceptions’, as only the former can be integrated in interpretive models. However, we also find that quantification is undermined by several sources of error and systematic bias.

In this article we put forward an alternative account of the famous wristguards, or bracers, of the European Early Bronze Age. Combining new materialism with empirical microwear analysis, we study 15 examples from Britain in detail and suggest a different way of conceptualizing these objects. Rather than demanding they have a singular function, we treat these objects as ‘multiplicities’ and as always in process. This, in turn, has significant implications for the important archaeological concepts of typology and object biography and our understandings of material culture more widely.