The Hittite state was founded c. 1650 BC and developed thereafter. The Hittites were able to establish their rule in Anatolia's hostile landscape and overcome the difficulties it presented to create an empire—an objective that they achieved with the aid of their remarkable organizational skills. Despite the frequent occurrence of geographical names in the state archives, only a small number of them can be safely localized and, although Hittitology is a 100-year-old field, the regional names have only recently been determined. This article serves as a general introduction to the Hittites as well as a review of the problem of geographical names, revealing the complexity it presents.

We describe the Bronze Age ceramic economy of the Benta Valley in Hungary. In the Bronze Age, long-distance trade in metals, metal objects, and other specialty items became central to expansive prestige goods exchange through Europe. Was that exchange in wealth, however, linked to broader developments of an integrated market system? The beginnings of market systems in prehistory are poorly understood. We suggest a means to investigate marketing by studying the changing ceramic economy of a region, rather than at a single site. Analysis of the ceramic inventory collected as part of the Benta Valley Project strongly suggests that, although ceramic production was quite sophisticated and probably specialized, exchange was highly localized (mostly within 10 km) and conducted through personalized community networks. Our ceramic study used three progressively finer-scaled analyses: inventorying ceramic forms and decoration to evaluate consumption patterns, petrographic analysis to describe manufacturing sequences, and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to describe exchange. We conclude that, based on present evidence, market systems had not developed in Hungary during the Bronze Age.

It is usually assumed by historians of archaeology that the ‘concept of prehistory’ and the terms ‘prehistoric’ and ‘prehistorian’ first appeared in Britain and/or France in the mid-nineteenth century. This contribution demonstrates that the Scandinavian equivalent terms forhistorisk and förhistorisk were in use substantially earlier, appearing in print first in 1834. Initial usage by Molbech differed slightly from that of the present day, but within three years the modern usage had been developed. The concept of prehistory was first developed at the same time by C.J. Thomsen, though he did not use the word. It was used more frequently in the nationalism debates of the 1840s, particularly by J.J.A. Worsaae. One of the other protagonists, the Norwegian Peter Andreas Munch, was probably responsible for introducing the concept to Daniel Wilson in 1849, and suggesting that an English equivalent to forhistorisk was required.

A new procedure is described in which combined lead and strontium isotope analysis of archaeological human dental tissues can be used to comment on the lifetime movements of individuals. A case study is presented of four Neolithic burials – an adult female and three juveniles – from a shared burial pit excavated at Monkton-up-Wimbourne, Dorset. It is demonstrated that the adult's place of origin was at least 80km to the north-west in the area of the Mendips. It is also shown that all three juveniles moved over significant distances during their lives.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the neglected role of archaeological archives in Cultural Resource Management in particular and in the discipline of archaeology in general. Through reference to a major recent survey of the size, condition, usage and future prospects of archaeological archives in England, it is argued that the neglect of archives leads to fundamental questions regarding the purpose of archaeology in general. Why are archaeological archives generated and kept ‘for posterity’? If they are worthy of retention, how can they be better used and integrated into the discipline? It is argued that there is a need to recognize the ‘ex situ’ archaeological resource as a concept and that archaeology should recognize that the study of this resource should be a major area of activity alongside the generation of new information through fieldwork.

Using cross-cultural ethnographic and archaeological analogy, this paper offers a new interpretation for a specific societal attribute represented on the Iron Age stelae of Daunia, arguing that the designs on the forearms of the female stelae do not represent gloves but are instead tattoos. By questioning a single, long-held, belief about the stelae, it is hoped to highlight a very important principle of method: the need to identify and investigate the socio-cultural context of an image or artefact. For too long the Daunian stelae have been looked at through Hellenized eyes. Unlike other Italic societies of this period, the Daunians appear to have remained reasonably unaffected by Greek and wider Mediterranean influence, suggesting the Iron Age inhabitants of the region retained a strong ethnic identity. With limited evidence of their social and religious life deriving from other sources, any hope of understanding these people properly relies on a correct reading of their stelae, which can only be achieved by firmly placing these monuments within an Adriatic milieu.