In this article I address the relationship between European archaeologists and the European Union and argue that the dominant attitude of non-involvement that archaeologists have embraced over the past decades cannot be justified given recent political developments. The European project finds itself in a state of deep crisis, under siege from populist and far-right leaders within and around Europe. We cannot afford to watch from the sidelines when the future of hundreds of millions of people is at stake. As archaeologists we can make a positive contribution by harnessing the political dimension of our work, which we need to stop seeing in a negative light. We should deploy the past to help tackle the challenges of our society. European archaeologists should particularly focus on developing grand narratives of a shared past in Europe, to act as a foundation for a European identity.

‘European archaeology’ is an ambiguous and contested rubric. Rooted in the political histories of European archaeology, it potentially unites an academic field and provides a basis for international collaboration and inclusion, but also creates essentialized identities and exclusionary discourses. This discussion article presents a range of views on what European archaeology is, where it comes from, and what it could be.

“Diversity” is the focus of a wide-ranging corpus of normative discourses, institutional structures, policies and practices in business, public sector agencies, the military, universities and professions. Here, a brief account of the rise and diffusion of the term is provided. It now addresses a wide variety of social differences, while at least six distinct facets or goals of diversity policy can be discerned. Ambiguity, multivocality and banality are key characteristics of diversity discourse, but these function to strengthen, rather than weaken, the spread and acceptance of the notion. In many settings the commitment to diversity is mainstreamed, expected, and even taken-for-granted. Diversity discourse is related to ongoing processes of social diversification, but its diffusion is not driven by these processes. Overall, despite its many imprecisions, the impacts of the diversity corpus entail a transformation, or at least refinement, of the social imaginary.

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.

Too little is known about the effects of archaeology policy, which makes it difficult to evaluate and adjust the policy on the basis of rational arguments. We simply do not have enough hard evidence. As a result, policy development depends largely on subjective factors such as instinct, vision and expert judgment. A well-balanced assessment of policy – something both politicians and the public would very much like to see – is therefore impossible. To help fill the gap, targeted research is now being conducted into the effects of policy. This article outlines the findings of the report Archaeology in the Netherlands 2002: the national archaeological review and outlook, which was presented to the government of the Netherlands.