The mining complex of Braçal and Malhada was the chief lead exploration site in Portugal in Roman times. This article outlines the type of mining conducted on site and discusses the associated findings, which point to a date in the mid-first century AD. Some aspects of the findings offer a new perspective on the relationship between mining sites and places of entertainment, in other words, the likelihood of temporary amphitheatres for gladiator games. This relationship may also apply to other locations in northern Portugal where gold was mined.

Excavations at the small Chalcolithic site of Politiko-Kokkinorotsos in central Cyprus show that it was occupied around 2880–2670 cal BC. Fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) form the major component of the substantial faunal assemblage. The structure of the animal population suggests a seasonal hunting site, an interpretation consistent with the lack of formal architecture and the range of stone tools. In this study, independent odontochronological analyses of deer and caprine are used to test and confirm the model of seasonal culling in spring and summer based on more general indicators. The results suggest a pattern of varied, specialized site-types and activities in different parts of the island and in different ecological zones, and add considerably to our understanding of cultural systems on the island in the early third millennium BC.

This article concerns the study of power and space within the Archbishop's Palace in Trondheim and, in particular, how the structure and organization of the precinct in the late medieval period formed a medium through which the archbishop's powers were exercised. Its aim is to explore the ways in which the spatial patterning of occupation, as revealed by the recent excavations in the palace, can cast light on the articulation of the archbishop's wealth, status and authority during the turbulent period prior to the Reformation.

The theoretical starting point is a reformulation of Michael Mann's theory of social power and Anthony Giddens's concept of ‘locale’ within a Marxist framework. It is suggested that, in the historical context of the crisis of Scandinavian feudalism, the palace at Trondheim became the focus for overlapping networks of ideological, economic, military and political power. These developments were expressed through the reorganization of the architectural space and the construction of a series of workshop complexes within the walled precinct between c. AD 1500 and 1537. By analysing the archaeological evidence for craft production, in particular minting, this paper considers how the palace formed a locale for the interaction of a specific set of social relations. It consequently examines some of the processes underpinning the expansion of the archbishop's power during the late medieval period, and discusses the social dynamics behind the conflict between the Church and the centralizing, Protestant-leaning forces of the Danish-Norwegian state.

Boosted by a proliferation in metal-detected finds, categories of personal adornment now constitute a vital archaeological source for interpreting Viking-age cultural interaction in the North Sea region. Previous research in England has explored the potential of this metalwork in relation to the formation of ‘Anglo-Scandinavian’ identity, but without due consideration of a wider spectrum of cultural influences. This article redresses the balance by shifting attention to twenty-eight belt fittings derived from richly embellished baldrics, equestrian equipment, and waist belts manufactured on the Frankish continent during the period of Carolingian hegemony in the later eighth and ninth centuries AD. The metalwork is classified and then contextualized in order to track import mechanisms and to assess the impact of Carolingian culture on the northern peripheries of the Frankish empire. The main conclusion is that the adoption, adaptation, and strategic manipulation of Carolingian/northern Frankish identity formed an embedded component of cultural dynamics in Viking-age England, scrutiny of which sheds new light on patterns of interconnectivity linking peoples of the North Sea world.

Ornaments, jewellery, personal equipment and weapons in graves can be defined as relicts of ancient costumes and weapon assemblages which are connected to the social identities of the buried persons. At several late Bronze Age and early Iron Age sites in the north Caucasus (Koban culture) large numbers of richly furnished graves allow the reconstruction of specific costume and armour groups. These can be related to factors which structured these communities into a ranked society. This article is based on the investigation of two cemeteries in Chechenia (north-eastern Caucasus) which demonstrate the change in social differentiation during the developed Iron Age. The article also includes a general discussion about the concepts of costumes and their potential for reconstructing social identities.

Lithic armatures have been widely noted as key evidence for interpreting the role of indigenous Mesolithic traditions in the spread of the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture, and therefore early agriculture, across temperate Europe. Their role as evidence for the continuity of Mesolithic ‘identities’ has been emphasized without the use of a unified, systematic recording methodology of armatures from both Late–Final Mesolithic (LM–FM) and LBK sites that places armatures in their broader context as part of projectile technologies of late hunter-gatherers and early farmers. In this paper, we present the results of recent research in the southern North Sea basin that utilized a systematic and unified recording methodology to analyse armature assemblages from LM–FM and LBK sites on an inter-regional scale. We report that there is much more inter-regional variability in armature assemblages during the LM than traditionally considered in efforts to interpret similarities and possible cultural transmission processes between Mesolithic and LBK populations. This paper calls for a reassessment of inter-regional LM variability in the construction of Mesolithic-LBK contact models and a focus that places armatures in their broader social and technological contexts.

What do archaeologists do when approached by groups or individuals with unorthodox, or even simply inappropriate, approaches to, and ideas about the past? What should they do? While much guidance and literature points to education and engagement, in some of the more sensitive or difficult cases it is often more appealing, and simpler, to ignore the issue, in the hopes that it will simply go away. Similarly, on occasions when archaeologists step forward to criticize alternative approaches to archaeological heritage, this does not always meet with positive or desired results. In this paper, in light of recent personal experience with a controversial piece of television programming, I discuss different approaches to responding to challenges to the expertise (and authority) of archaeologists by problematic encounters with concepts of the past. I suggest that while there are arguments in support of (and against) all three of the approaches that I identify (collaboration, condemnation, or ignoring), none provide an absolute solution. In order to discuss these approaches, I draw upon key cases from the literature, as well as personal reflection.