Archaeologists often enjoy the role of giving the people what the people want, at least, so long as that is information about the past. But besides the ambition to enlighten people about the past, there are at least two alternative approaches concerning the way archaeology communicates with its publics in society. One considers archaeology a business and sees people as potential customers who need to be persuaded to buy the products of archaeology. Another approach advocates democratic participation of people in archaeology and wishes to accommodate people's own preferences regarding archaeological studies. The point of this article is not to choose between these different models of communication but to ensure that future debates about the relations between archaeology and society will be informed by a better understanding of some fundamentally different approaches concerning the aims and character of archaeology's communication with various public audiences. Hopefully this discussion will also benefit very specific, future projects in public archaeology and thus ultimately serve both the archaeologists and their publics.

Studies in submerged prehistoric archaeology have gained momentum in recent years with particular focus on the inundated landscapes of the European continental shelf. Although this renewed interest lies primarily in modern coasts and seas, there are a variety of differences between the submerged prehistoric archaeologies of inland and marine environments, ranging from questions of scientific research to heritage management to practical field methods. Some of these differences are the result of location, function, and period. Despite this, there exist similarities that, if ignored, risk increased marginalization of the archaeology of submerged landscapes from the greater field of prehistoric archaeology. A holistic evaluation of prehistoric archaeological landscapes must include inland waters and coastal zones and their relationships. Aquatic environments, viewed both as individual locations as well as continuous and connecting waterways, are introduced for their differences and similarities, and simplified examples of material and legislation are introduced in order to contextualize submarine sites and practices within the greater fields of prehistory and underwater archaeology.

Mortuary practice can be interpreted as a system of rituals based on people's perceptions of life and death. There is a great deal to suggest the prehistoric find sites we usually call cemeteries also had an important function as ritual sites. Several types of structure occurring at cemeteries from the late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age in southern Scandinavia favour a broader interpretation of these sites. This article is based on the results of the excavated ritual and burial site at Ringeby in Kvillinge parish, Östergötland, an excavation which was undertaken with the express purpose of studying the archaeology of religion. The article also includes a general discussion of the concept of ‘grave’ and different types of structure which can be interpreted as places for cults.

Recent archaeological discoveries and reinterpretations of written sources supported by the concepts of historical anthropology allow the creation of a new picture about the Goths. Most of the archaeologists studying the cultural situation in northern Poland during the Roman period admit today that the roots of the Wielbark culture commonly identified with the early Goths are to be sought in local traditions. The results of that process, which can be explained in terms of change in symbolic consciousness rather than by a demographic expansion, became archaeologically visible in the mid-first century AD. The decision to leave the Baltic zone could have been taken by a Gothic social elite endangered by tensions resulting from unstable trade relations with the Roman Empire and climatic deterioration. However, a substantial part of the agricultural Wielbark population stayed behind, preferring well-known circumstances than risks of an unpredictable fate in distant lands. Among those people, after some time, the hierarchization process was repeated, leading to the emergence of a new elite, which decided to follow their predecessors by migrating to the south east. They are identified by the sources as the Gepids. There are strong archaeological indications that some part of the Wielbark population must have again stayed behind in Poland maintaining close contacts with their southern ‘cousins’. Archaeologists today suggest that some ‘Gothic’ groups from the Pontic steppes returned to the Baltic. The merging of Germanic and Baltic traditions resulted in a new cultural formation. In the ninth century AD, its material culture became more and more Prussian but there is evidence for lively contacts with western Europe, Scandinavia and the Abbassid Khalifate. A specific tradition recorded in the oldest Polish chronicles and in the twelfth century epitaph of the first Polish king Boleslav the Brave raises the serious possibility that some memory of the presence of Goths east of the Vistula somehow survived over centuries and it was used for construction of the Piasts' dynastic tradition.

Houses and burials recorded in the settlements of Lepenski Vir I and II and burials previously ascribed to Lepenski Vir III are here discussed in view of the recent analyses of archaeological material and re-analyses of the field burial record from this site. Evidence of pottery in situ in houses of Lepenski Vir I, together with the evidence for important dietary change in the Lepenski Vir community in the course of the second half of the seventh millennium cal BC, reinforces the assumption, made by a number of scholars over several previous decades, of intensive contacts between early Neolithic groups and local hunter-gatherers. Burial practice throughout the seventh and sixth millennia cal BC at Lepenski Vir is thus reanalyzed in this new light. Apart from burials unrelated to architectural remains, five ‘types’ of burial deposition are noted in relation to houses of Lepenski Vir I–II, all but one having a distinct chronological and spatial patterning. The inhabitants' choice of mode of deposition of the deceased is always associated with a certain location in the settlement, sometimes used over several centuries. In the course of their history, these locations were often used for building a particular house or group of houses. The content of such houses is also discussed wherever it was possible. Duality in settlement organization could also be recognized in the burial practices related to settlement architecture. The attribution of the majority of burial remains to early Neolithic Lepenski Vir III is here also questioned in the light of new data and reinterpreted settlement sequences.

The breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age (NBA) c. 1600 BC as a koiné within Bronze Age Europe can be historically linked to the Carpathian Basin. Nordic distinctiveness entailed an entanglement of cosmology and warriorhood, albeit represented through different media in the hotspot zone (bronze) and in the northern zone (rock). In a Carpathian crossroad between the Eurasian Steppes, the Aegean world and temperate Europe during this time, a transcultural assemblage coalesced, fusing both tangible and intangible innovations from various different places. Superior warriorhood was coupled to beliefs in a tripartite cosmology, including a watery access to the netherworld while also exhibiting new fighting technologies and modes of social conduct. This transculture became creatively translated in a range of hot societies at the onset of the Middle Bronze Age. In southern Scandinavia, weaponry radiated momentous creativity that drew upon Carpathian originals, contacts and a pool of Carpathian ideas, but ultimately drawing on emergent Mycenaean hegemonies in the Aegean. This provided the incentive for a cosmology-rooted resource from which the NBA could take its starting point.

Childe's time as a student in Oxford has received little critical attention, partly because of an apparent lack of evidence. His reasons for going to Oxford are explored, and attention is drawn to two factors: the role of one of his tutors in Sydney, W.J. Woodhouse; and the state of prehistoric European studies in England at the time, dominated by Oxford and the figures of Arthur Evans and John Myres. Childe's study visit to Greece in 1915 is discussed and it is suggested that he had already embarked on his major research project before it was interrupted by the unexpected duration of the First World War. He left Oxford in 1917 to return to Australia, and though he may have feared conscription, the impossibility of pursuing his archaeological research was also a critical factor. In 1921 Childe returned to England and soon resumed the project he had started and suspended.

This paper focuses on how the human body, and the dead body in particular, was used to create social categories and identities in prehistoric Cyprus. Specifically, it explores how a particular condition, such as death, was integrated into social processes, and how the treatment of dead bodies both created and reinforced social categories and identities. The material the paper focuses on is the mortuary evidence from Chalcolithic Cyprus (3800–2300 BC). In particular, it argues that the extensive, intentional manipulation of dead bodies and human remains visible in Cypriot Chalcolithic cemeteries was aimed at integrating the individual to communal, collective wholes on the occasion of death and during the time period that followed.

Middle Bronze Age Hungary provides an opportunity to investigate prehistoric ‘landscapes of the body’, as perceptions and attitudes to the body affect burial practices and other body practices, including the wearing of dress and the use of pottery. This article explores the cultural diversity expressed by the roughly contemporary and neighbouring groups of the Encrusted Ware, Vatya, and Füzesabony Cultures. Amongst others, differences between the three groups are articulated through their burials (scattered cremations, urn burials as well as crouched inhumations) and the diverse use of material culture. At the same time, despite formal differences in the burials, the analysis shows that cremations and inhumations in this area share a number of characteristics, and it is the other practices through which the dead body is manipulated that are the primary means of expressing regional differences. Simultaneously, whilst being a means of formulating understandings of the deceased body, burial practices are also tied into subtle differences in lifestyles, daily routines and regional subsistence strategies, as the landscapes of the living provide metaphors, know-how and practical understanding.