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.

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.

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.

This paper explores one aspect of the way in which cult-iconography of the later Iron Age and Roman periods in non-Classical Europe broke the rules of mimetic (life-copying) representation, with, reference to a particular motif: the triple horn. The presence of three-horned images within the iconographic repertoire of western Europe during this period clearly illustrates two aspects of such rule-breaking. On the one hand, the image of the triple-horned bull – well-known in the archaeological record, particularly of Roman Gaul – exemplifies a recurrent Gallo-Roman and Romano-British tradition in which realism was suppressed in favour of emphasis to the power of three. On the other hand, the triple-horned emblem is not confined to the adornment of bulls but may, on occasion, be transferred to ‘inappropriate’ images, both of animals which are naturally hornless and of humans. Such emblematic transference, with its consequence of dissonance and contradiction in the visual message, on the one hand, and the presence of symbolism associated with boundaries and transition, on the other, suggests the manipulation of motifs in order to endow certain images with a particular symbolic energy, born of paradox, the deliberate introduction of disorder or chaos and the expression of liminality. The precise meaning conveyed by such iconographic ‘anarchy’ is impossible to grasp fully but – at the least – appears to convey an expression of ‘otherness’ in which order imposed by empirical observation of earthly ‘reality’ is deemed irrelevant to other states of being and to the supernatural world.

For four years (1940–1944) after its defeat by the Third Reich, France was ruled by an anti-republican government whose active collaboration with the Nazis made a major contribution to the persecution and extermination of the Jews. Through the ‘National Revolution’, the Vichy regime developed an ideology opposed to democracy and republican roots and sought to re-invent its national origins as a justification for Pétainism. Thus, the Gallic past and archaeology in general played an important role in this new ideology by assimilating the defeat of the Gauls by Caesar to that of the French by the Nazis and by then comparing the successful incorporation of Gaul into the Roman Empire with that of France into a ‘new Europe’ dominated by Nazi Germany. At the same time, the Vichy regime provided French archaeology with its first legal and administrative structure, which allowed the development of the discipline. This legislative and administrative framework was preserved intact not only until the liberation but right up to the present day. It is the permanence of this structure which creates the problem of the relationship between current French archaeology and the Vichy regime.