This paper focusses on a set of anthropomorphic figurines. It suggests that realistic human proportion and canonical body posture were pursued in the carving of these objects as a means of expressing ideology, in a context of diversified forms of manipulation of bodies in funerary practices. It is argued that, against a background of predominantly schematic art, the more realistic and canonical anthropomorphic representation of the human body was used to communicate a set of ideological statements in a more controlled and immediate way, in a period of ontological and cosmological transition.

This article reviews discussions and debates about effective communication within North American archaeology. The development of cultural resource management and the expansion of Native American control over archaeology have both influenced the practice and communication of archaeology. The concept of diverse stakeholders derives from discussions about ethics in archaeology, but is relevant to understanding the complexities of archaeological communication. Rather than focus on criticisms of archaeological communication, various examples of effective communication are provided.

Significance evaluation plays a central role in archaeological heritage management. In this paper, a practical approach is presented based on experiences and recent discussions in the Netherlands. A restricted number of values (perception, physical quality and intrinsic quality) are operationalized as criteria in order to evaluate archaeological phenomena. In this manner, a more transparent framework is created to help determine if a monument is worth preserving. In the process of selection, monuments worth preserving are scrutinized from the viewpoints of policy considerations and priorities in archaeological heritage management in order to select monuments deserving of sustained preservation. The form of this system of significance evaluation is such that it can be used by all government levels, that the process is understandable for non-archaeologists, and that its results remain relevant from a research perspective.

This article is devoted to the understanding of the importance of seasonal use of grasslands in the occupation of the Eurasian steppe during the Bronze Age. The pilot section of the research is Kalmykia – a steppe situated between the lower Volga and the Don rivers. We have to look at specific strategies of using local environments, river valleys, upland plateaux, and open steppe lands. During the third millennium BC, pastoralists of the Yamnaya and Catacomb cultures began to exploit the Eurasian steppe grasslands and they had to take advantage of the seasonal variation in steppe vegetation to create a sustainable economy. Seasonal use of grasslands became the main feature of the definition of pastoralism. This is the first time that early steppe materials have been analysed for seasonal data. On the basis of a combination of the seasonal data, settlement data and recent chronological information, a preliminary reconstruction is presented of two contrasting periods of land use for the third millennium BC.

The current consensus is outlined about the application of lead isotope analyses to metal provenance studies and to the unravelling of the Mediterranean Bronze Age copper trade, with special reference to copper oxhide ingots. Various misconceptions, especially some of those contained in Knapp (1999, 2000), are corrected. It is shown that there is no need to fall back on hypotheses based upon the Mediterranean-wide mixing/recycling of copper metals to explain the lead isotope characteristics of post-1250 BC copper oxhide ingots, since there is a good isotopic coincidence between these ingots and the Apliki region ore deposits in Cyprus. Weaknesses are exposed in the hypotheses of direct or indirect pooling of Cypriot ores, and of the proposed widespread recycling of metals in a Mediterranean-wide koine, particularly since there is no evidence for a homogeneity of lead isotope composition in artefacts and no tin in the oxhide ingots.

The aim of this paper is to investigate body-related beliefs and practices in relation to society in Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (central Romania between c. 1900 and 1450 BC), known as the area of the Wietenberg Culture. The low number of human remains and their treatment (through cremation and fragmentation of inhumed bodies) has been interpreted by some authors as a willingness to do away with the physical body. In contrast to this opinion, I try here to show that quite the opposite was the case. The body not only stood at the centre of a variety of rituals (funerary and otherwise), but it also constituted a powerful means for maintaining social order, providing people with an understanding of their place in the world, as well as renegotiating positions and meanings.

Excavations of stratified peat sites, carried out by the author on the Upper Volga during recent years, yielded a large number of varied bone projectile heads. Among these, arrowheads are most numerous. Half-finished artifacts of this group were also found together with lithic tools used for boneworking. Traceological studies enabled the author to identify various features left by lithic tools on the surface of the bone artifacts. A programme of experiments helped in the understanding of the operational chain during their manufacture, and what tools were used for each stage.

Long tubular bones were used to make the majority of the arrowheads. They were either broken into long pieces with a hammerstone or use was made of the ‘groove and splinter’ technique. Direct percussion with hammerstones was used for other bones. Secondary treatment included more accurate flaking and retouch, cutting, planing, scraping, sawing with the help of stone tools, usually flint burins, knives, scrapers and saws. Abrasive slabs were used for grinding, while fine polishing was achieved with the help of leather, sometimes, with fine dust-like abrasive agents.

The operational chain for the manufacture of arrowheads was the following: (1) obtaining a splinter of bone; (2) removal of unnecessary mass of bone with the help of burin and scraper to create a pre-form; (3) cutting of slots for inserts (for composite arrowheads); (4) planing of the surface with a knife, carving of details and, engraving of ornamentation. Many arrowheads were then polished, except for their bases. Specific variants of secondary treatment were observed on some arrowheads. The study showed a high degree of development of boneworking, with standardization of designs and technological operations, especially during Boreal times. Later, many arrowheads were crudely made, though wear traces and resin at their bases indicate that these are finished tools which were used.

The Iron Age Iberian Culture, centred on the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula, is closely connected with other Mediterranean areas. The use of monumental sculpture is one of the parallels we can find with other places, like Greece or Etruria. This has led to the study of Iberian sculptures within the framework of a comparative and diffusionist model. This paper aims to study the Córdoban Pre-Roman sculptures, interpreting them as symbols of power and a reflection of the territorial organization which emerged in this part of Andalusia in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BC. It also suggests that, during this period, sculpture was not used purely for funerary purposes, as it had been in the past, but that it was also beginning to acquire a certain public character, although it continued to be associated with the aristocracy.

Academic discourse has its own norms related to the national culture, but also to the academic community concerned. In a linguistic classification, discourse communities are being formed with their own conventions and their own academic languages, rhetoric and intellectual styles, sharing paradigms, goals and methods. A positive aspect of discourse communities is that they spread across different national languages and across different – mainstream and minor – communities (using the language of the leading group of researchers). Can this be seen in present-day archaeology, and can it bridge the gap in communication between mainstreams and minorities?