On the basis of recent archaeological evidence it seems that humans first entered the Australian continent about 60,000 years ago. These first ocean-going mariners had a high level of technological and economic skill, and had spread right across Australia into a wide variety of environments by about 35,000 years ago. Pigment showing clear signs of use occurs in almost all Australia's oldest known occupation sites, and evidence of self-awareness such as necklaces and beads has been found in several Pleistocene rock shelters. Rituals were carried out in connection with disposal of the dead, for at Lake Mungo there is a 25,000-year-old cremation, and ochre was scattered onto the corpse in a 30,000-year-old inhumation. Complex symbolic behaviour is attested at least 40,000 years ago by petroglyphs in the Olary district, and other evidence suggests a similar antiquity for rock paintings. The special focus of this article is cognitive archaeology, the study of past ways of thought as derived from material remains, particularly the development of early Australian artistic systems.

This article examines the significance of the passage in Irish passage-tombs. An association between passages and concentric motifs in the engraved parietal art is analyzed, and interpreted in terms of the ‘tunnel experience’ often associated with altered states of consciousness as a means of access between ‘real’ and supernatural worlds. In addition, the implications of the coincidence of tunnel experiences and visions of the dead are considered.

The island of Sri Lanka, situated off the tip of southern India, is often perceived as the recipient of material culture diffused from more northerly regions. This article counters this model by suggesting that Sri Lanka may have played a pivotal role in the development of Brahmi, South Asia's earliest readable script. Sherds inscribed with this script, recently found at Anuradhapura, with dates of the beginning of the fourth century BC, now represent its earliest dated examples anywhere in the subcontinent. By analyzing the sherds' archaeological and scriptural context it presents a tentative mechanism for Brahmi's development and spread through South Asia and concludes by discussing the dynamic relationships between scripts, langtiage, material culture and ethnic division within Sri Lanka.

In the last issue of the Cambridge Archaeological Journal (Vol. 5:2, October 1995) Francesco d'Errico presented a new analysis of the La Marche antler, one of the most intriguing examples of Palaeolithic ‘notation’. That article has stimulated the following response from Alexander Marshack, who for many years has been a leading researcher in this field. On p. 111 below, Francesco d'Errico replies to Marshack's critique.

Space and gender have been two of the ‘buzz words’ in archaeology over the last few years; and quite rightly so, since they identify two of the most crucial aspects of human experience. As we move around buildings today, we are all well aware of norms and restrictions — public spaces and doors marked ‘private’, lounges and bedrooms, stairways and corridors. We negotiate and respect these according to customs and habits learned mainly in childhood. What is true of our own society is true of every other society, past and present, and one of the challenges — not to say obligations — facing archaeologists is to gain some understanding of these spatial mores, even when presented with little more than a ground plan.

In Gilchrist's case-study of medieval English nunneries, the evidence is rather more substantial. Not only has some of the fabric survived — both of churches and their associated buildings — but there is a rich body of textual information about the nunneries, the nuns who inhabited them, and the Christian symbolism and belief which underlay the whole institution.

What better place to study gender and its material expression than in such a uniquely female institution as the medieval nunnery? Fezv would deny that archaeology can play a powerful role in helping us to understand these religious communities — enabling us to see beyond the confines of written records. The application of particular theoretical approaches, however, is somewhat more contentious. Just how well do they fit such a body of evidence? And on a subject where we already have a great deal of textual evidence, can study of the material remains — in layout of buildings, evidence of their use, and iconography — truly reveal new levels of meaning? In sum, how successful is this new analysis?

These are among the key issues which are discussed in the following pages. As usual, we begin this Review Feature with an introduction by the author herself, Roberta Gilchrist. Then follow four contrasting reactions, from archaeologists and historians, rounded off by Gilchrist's reply. Whatever our assessment, the interplay of gender and space has profound and far-reaching significance, and raises issues that no serious historical archaeologist — or indeed prehistorian — can afford to ignore.