{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030851063829787233, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002127659574468085, 'mean_word_length': 5.249169435215947, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Early and Middle Bronze Age Spearheads of Britain

political-economic landscape. The migrants did not hybridize with the Mycenaeans (and Canaanites, Egyptians, Cypriots, etc.); Mycenaean culture disappeared. They fought them when necessary, but otherwise appropriated their land and trade partners, on their own terms. Thus, instead of talking about ‘hyper-cultural’ change, as do Heinz and Linke (Chapter 15), in the case of the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition (not transformation), we should rather talk about ‘hyper-structural’ change. In many parts of the eastern Mediterranean, by the Iron Age all that was left of the Late Bronze Age were fleeting ‘cultural memories’, of the kind described by Feldman (Chapter 17). What is especially exciting about Materiality and Social Practice is that in its chapters we can see various theoretical tensions and conflicts being worked out, in real time, using excellent archaeological data. In this review I have taken these same data and turned them on their head, arguing that the Mediterranean Bronze Age was not characterized by appropriation and hybridity leading to transformational change and the construction of new identities. Rather, it was a period of relative stability, during which packages of foreign goods were used to prop up entrenched political-economic structures. And while I have critiqued Maran and Stockhammer’s theoretical stance, this is not meant to diminish the importance of their book. The chapters in Materiality and Social Practice, many of which were written by junior scholars, signal an opportunity. Over the next few years, as archaeological theory continues to grow and develop, maybe we can work together to avert another precipitous swing back in the generalizing, evolutionary, processual theoretical direction. We should seize the day, before archaeological history repeats itself.