It was during the Gulf War that I discovered the gas mask to be an object. As it became increasingly credible and imminent, the unfathomable menace was crucially rescaled to the toxic potency and dispersal pattern of law-abiding molecules. So it went with the gas mask: the Gulf War transformed it from a vaguely morbid mental image into a facial object of survival. But to be drafted on the nation-wide defensive maelstrom as a life-saving object (and not, as it happened, a life-taking one) the real effectiveness of the gas mask was by no means sufficient - it had also to be effectively realized, and this in turn necessitated that confidence in its claimed capacities had to be gained, and competence in its appropriate performance mastered.

‘European archaeology’ is an ambiguous and contested rubric. Rooted in the political histories of European archaeology, it potentially unites an academic field and provides a basis for international collaboration and inclusion, but also creates essentialized identities and exclusionary discourses. This discussion article presents a range of views on what European archaeology is, where it comes from, and what it could be.

The public will not allow us to deal exclusively with things that are facile, amusing, curious, bizarre, passé, things that present no danger, because they concern societies which are either extinct or remote from our own. The public wants studies with conclusions relevant for the present [. . .] let us not be weary of bringing [scientific] facts into the debate. And if our practical conclusions will turn out to be meagre and hardly topical? All the more reason for us to propagate them liberally and energetically. (Marcel Mauss 1927, cited in Schlanger 2006: 15)

Rather than being bashed around in view of its contents, the nation state – or at least the ‘state’ part of this compound term – needs to be cherished for the context it provides. Without the state, instilling regulations, procedures and common purpose, archaeology will not really thrive. This is confirmed through an exemplary case study, namely the seemingly measured and consensual retrenchment of the state occurring in England over the past 25 years. A brief presentation of the structure of English archaeology serves to highlight the situation of each of its main sectors, commercial contractors, curators at local levels and national bodies. Recent changes at the last level, involving English Heritage Trust and Historic England, highlight the risks posed by state disengagement, by funding withdrawal and by the enforced commercialization of public services.

The triple disaster that hit eastern Japan on 11 March 2011—earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown—was a momentous event with long-term implications for archaeology and heritage. The sheer scale of the damage experienced generated a form of ‘disaster-led’ preventive archaeology, in line with the reconstruction efforts. As radioactive contamination continues to affect cultural assets including museums and monuments in the exclusion zone, the massive decontamination efforts under way bring about further heritage complications. Alongside its immediate applications, archaeology also has a wider critical role to play: with its mastery of materiality and temporality, it can help envisage the ‘contemporary future’ at Fukushima, a defining landmark of the feats and failures of late modernity.

Following some comments on the notion of ‘public’ intellectuals (can they be otherwise?), this brief paper focuses on the intellectual roles that could be played by archaeologists today. Exposure to the media, usually following some spectacular discovery, serves to confirm the romantico-empirical image of the discipline, but should also lead to an engagement with key public debates. Three such debates are indicated: the idea that ‘African man has yet to enter history’ as expressed by the former French president; the creation of a Maison de l'histoire de France under the tutelage of the Ministry of National Identity; and, across the Channel, the Localism Bill, which pushes decision making to an untenably low level while promoting a historically and archaeologically questionable view of local communities.

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.

The alleged professional misconduct of Cambridge prehistorian Miles Burkitt, over his guided archaeological trip to South Africa in 1927 and the single-authored publication that resulted, has been taken to epitomize colonial relations of expropriation. However, unexploited archival and printed resources show that the affair has far more interesting implications, and that in South Africa of the 1920s and 1930s prehistoric archaeology became something of a ‘national discipline’, bearing both on national prestige abroad and on national unity at home, in the stormy relations between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking communities.

Together with the welcome insights they have brought to the matters at hand, the archaeological dialogues here engaged have certainly made me appreciate where my claims could be modified and my arguments amplified. Since I have already been taxed with a questionable insistence on setting the record straight, and with a penchant for academically coup de poing-ing my way through the archaeological establishment and its established historiography, I may as well persevere and thank the commentators for helping me grasp the following key point: what has been motivating a substantial part of my investigations, I can now better specify, is a growing unease with the well-established paradigm of ‘colonial vindication’. This is not, let me hasten to add, a reference to the genuine injustice done to those indigenous populations whose pasts have been expropriated and denigrated by the colonizing powers (i.e. Trigger's sense of ‘colonial archaeology’). Likewise, there is obviously no denying that the globalization of archaeology in the colonial and post-colonial eras has entailed considerable intellectual and institutional struggles, alongside innumerable power games, financial calculations and scientific compromises – and here Shepherd is surely right to give as example the ‘cradle of humanity’, a shifting zone whose ideological, diplomatic and economic potential Smuts had already fully sized in the 1930s (cf. Schlanger 2002b, 205–6). Rather, what I wish here to open to scrutiny is this apparently long-standing notion that South African archaeology has been systematically ‘done down’, ‘passed over’ and ‘badly used’ (Shepherd's terms) by the metropole – making it quite evident that its history, if not its ethos, should be primarily geared towards securing due recognition and redress.

Introduction: turns and returns

When politicians engage in archaeology, it is convenient for all concerned to say that they ‘turn’ to it: for both parties, this move confirms that the discipline itself is essentially neutral and independent from extrinsic considerations. Already subject to much suspicion, this comforting conception can be further undermined with the case of Field-Marshal Jan Christiaan Smuts (1870-1950), for half a century South Africa's leading soldier, statesman and intellectual, as well as a driving force behind the setting up of the Commonwealth and the LJnited Nations (FIGURE 1).

Several menus designed as invitations/souvenirs for the de Mortillet dinners from 1898 onwards are presented here as an iconographic dossier to illustrate aspects of prehistoric archaeology. These menus are briefly discussed below, and ten of them are reproduced at appropriate locations throughout this special section (with reference to the present text).

Historiographic revelations

Back from his famous visit to Boucher de Perthes in the spring of 1859, John Evans hastened to invite some antiquarians friends in London to examine his finds. The flint implements he had collected with Joseph Prestwich in the undisturbed gravel beds of the Somme valley were indeed. or so ho believed, altogether new in appearance and totally unlike anything known in this country [Evans 1869: 93-4):

The Levallois technique has attracted much ‘cognitive’ attention in the past decades. Many archaeologists argue that both the products and the procedure of this Palaeolithic technique have been clearly predetermined by the prehistoric flintknappers. Attempts have recently been made to challenge this notion of predetermination by reference to raw material and ‘technological’ constraints. The aim of this article is to assess the grounds on which these claims have been advanced, and then work towards a better establishment of the cognitive implications of Levallois manufacture. Latest developments in the technological understanding of Levallois are presented in their context, and then put to work through a detailed case study: the analysis, in quantitative and qualitative terms, of a comprehensively refitted Levallois core from the 250,000 year-old site of Maastricht Belvédère, in the Netherlands. By reconstructing and following the sequence of work on this highly productive core, it can be shown that its knapping did not simply entail the execution of a pre-set program, nor did it respond in an adventitious manner to external constraints. Rather, it is argued that the course of action was a structured and goal-oriented one, a generative interplay between the mental and material activities of the ancient flintknapper.