The possibility of exploring ethnic identities in past societies constitutes one of the most controversial fields of archaeological research. However, the reassessment of the conceptualization of ethnicity in the human sciences and the increasing transference of these theories to archaeological research is helping to develop new analytical frameworks for the study of this problematic subject. From this perspective, the aim of this paper is to attempt a theoretical and methodological approach to the complex relationships between ethnic identity and material remains from the standpoint of Iron Age studies, showing both the possibilities and difficulties of archaeological research on ethnicity. For this period, the incipient availability of written evidence allows the development of new interdisciplinary research strategies. Finally, an introduction to practical work in this field is presented, specifically focusing on two case studies: Ruiz Zapatero and Álvarez-Sanchís' approach to the identity of the Vettones of the central Iberian Peninsula, and the author's own work on the Late Iron Age sanctuaries of the Middle Rhine-Moselle region.

The objective of this article is to study cloth and appearance in the Bronze Age based on the evidence from a previously overlooked oak-log coffin find, the Nybøl burial. The textiles have been investigated and our results compared with cloth from four well-known oak-log coffins: Muldbjerg, Trindhøj, and Borum Eshøj graves A and B. Our analysis demonstrates that this burial contained the coarsest cloth on record to date from the Scandinavian Bronze Age, and that it included some cloth items that are not previously known from the above-mentioned graves. The items of clothing the different textiles may have derived from are discussed, as well as the appearance of the deceased in relation to Bronze Age society. We conclude that this burial contained a previously unknown costume type, but that it is a variation of the others rather than an entirely new category.

A re-evaluation of how ethnicity is currently understood in archaeology is necessary in view of recent developments in the archaeology of identity. In this article, it will be argued that nationalism has led to an understanding of ethnicity as monolithic, denying in this way its heterogeneous nature. Since the 1920s, archaeologists working under the culture-historical umbrella have explicitly defined ethnicity on the basis of material culture, maintaining endless, and perhaps fruitless, debates. However, as anthropologists have been discussing since the 1970s, ethnicity is perhaps not about material culture, or not necessarily about material culture, but about perception. Archaeologists should consider ethnic identities as fluid and polymorphous, for multiple ethnic affiliations can coexist and overlap in the same individual. Ethnic identification(s) displayed by each individual will change depending on the circumstances, the interlocutor and the situation. In addition, archaeologists cannot study ethnic identity in isolation from other types of identifications – gender, religion, status, etc. – as all of them will be at play, ready to act (or to be hidden), on each particular occasion. These issues will be discussed in this article in relation to Iron Age Iberians.

Archaeologists often seem either sceptical of science-based archaeology or baffled by its results. The underpinnings of science-based archaeology may conflict with social or behavioural factors unsuited to quantification and grouping procedures. Thus, the interaction between archaeologists and their science-based colleagues has been less profitable than it might have been. The main point I consider in this study, and exemplify by considering metals provenance studies in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, is the relevance and application of the stated aims of science-based archaeology to the contemporary discipline of archaeology. Whereas most practitioners today recognize that science-based archaeology has the potential to contribute positively to the resolution of problems stemming from our field's inadequate and incomplete data resource, I contend that science and scientific analyses alone cannot adjudicate between cultural possibilities. Rather they provide analytical data which are likely to be open-ended, subject to multiple social interpretations, and in need of evaluation by collaborating archaeologists using social theory.

Medieval Italian city-states with access to the sea, most notably the Venetian and Genoese, were in need of safe ‘stopovers’ that would allow their inhabitants to travel to distant places across the territories in which they conducted commerce. As the most important ‘stopover’ and centre of consumption, Constantinople became a point of attraction for Italian merchant colonies, particularly after the eleventh century. Among these, the most powerful one with the largest settlement was the Venetian colony. Following a decree dated 1082 (Chrysoboullos) that granted them certain privileges, the Venetians settled across the southern shores of the Golden Horn. In terms of administration, it appears that, until the Latin period (1204–1261), no formal officers were appointed to the Venetian Merchant Colony. ‘The bailo’ was first instituted in Constantinople only after the treaty of 18 June 1265. The mention of a house owned by the bailo dates as late as 1277. Documents on the residence of the bailo remain silent until the early fifteenth century. It is unclear if the palace of the bailo mentioned in fifteenth-century documents and the house allocated to the bailo in 1277 are the same building. Despite the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Venetians, albeit with interruptions, continued to live on the historic peninsula. However, it is no longer possible to speak of a Venetian settlement similar to the one that had existed in Byzantine times. Per the agreement signed on 16 August 1454, the Venetians were granted a house and a church that ‘once’ belonged to Anconitans. The possible location and architectural features of the residences of the bailo, which have left behind no archaeological data, are discussed here through written sources including Ottoman documents.

Traditionally, research on late Iron Age societies of Central Europe has to some degree focused on large fortified settlements or oppida, presumably ranking at the top of the Celtic settlement hierarchy. The oppidum of Manching in Upper Bavaria has in the past been seen as a paradigmatic example of pre-Roman transalpine urbanization, in both chronological and functional terms. However, both its dating and its topographical position in a shallow flood plain of the Danube justify a distinction from contemporaneous or successive fortified ‘towns'. Recent studies have identified another particular type of settlement – large unfortified centres of crafts and trade – as a major feature of prehistoric urbanization. Again, Manching and its pre-fortified stages of urban development reveal a characteristic scheme of eastern Celtic settlement evolution that eventually breaks with a standard development when a massive rampart is constructed. Based on recent research at Manching and its hinterland, and taking into account the dynamic character of urbanization, a flexible model of urban evolution is developed here. This model allows for a comparative and quantifiable notion of variable degrees of local and supra-regional urban status.

This article explores the use of context in relation to the articulation and understanding of gender. Context can be regarded as gendered practice. Focusing on mortuary settings in the early Bronze Age of the Upper Thames Valley, it examines ways that people took gender into account in complex decisions involved in burial and the construction of difference. Here, men and women were conceptualized in distinct ways that were not necessarily equivalent. Difference was expressed in terms of degrees of complexity of intersections between sex and other social categories. Beaker burial contexts were active and engendered material media for social relations.

A cremation and subsequent burial can be analysed as a set of technological, social and ritual transformations. It consists of three parts: first, the place where the body was burnt or cremated; secondly, the intermediary period in time and space, where the cleaned bones are often transported somewhere else; this interval increases the room for manoeuvre in those aspects which are concerned with the renewal, reorganization and re-legitimization of relations between the living; and, finally, the place where the ashes or the bones were deposited or buried, which may be the same place where the body was cremated, but normally it is not. Thus the urn represents the place where the deceased died, the cremated bones are from the rite of cremation, whereas the burial of the urn and the deposition of undamaged artefacts are from the final burial site, where other rituals were performed by the descendants, relatives and others. The distribution of urns may illuminate the notion that distance has hardly been a barrier and that people from, the ‘northern margins’ have travelled all over Europe from the late Bronze Age to the Viking period. This approach attacks the dual cultural hypothesis and some elements of core–periphery models.