Under-Representation in Contemporary Archaeology
many forms: it can relate to gender and ethnic diversity, but it can also refer to different types of archaeology, such as academic versus contract, general versus specialist, or to types of research theme, such as ‘big issues’ versus more detailed studies. Issues of under-representation, in various guises, have taxed me through my career in archaeology. That career began as a female, prehistoric ceramics specialist working in UK Contract Archaeology, followed by various university teaching and/or research posts. With a knowledge of both commercial and academic archaeological employment contexts and traditions of enquiry, it seems to me that UK frameworks of archaeological employment, study and research remain retrograde in failing to evenly support the working lives of all archaeologists in equal ways. The spectrums of expertise and research frameworks that archaeology can potentially encompass are not all equally facilitated. Quite simply some approaches, styles of archaeology and skills tend to be more highly valued than others. Dominant modes of research and interpretative frameworks, be they choices of individuals, or relating to projects or institutional traditions, have some role in influencing what is traditionally supported by academic, grant-giving and professional structures. It is important to assess the extent to which such structures have differentially privileged specific forms of research and career trajectories. There has been a tendency to create binary oppositions such as between what might be characterised as focused, ‘big issue’ research that speedily accretes a clear trajectory and perhaps a career of diverse, albeit possibly complimentary pathways, which moves at a more patchy pace. Differing approaches should not be in competition with each other. Questioning prevailing assumptions and maintaining multiple perspectives should both sustain more diverse and nuanced career trajectories and be more accommodating of personal circumstances, diversity of skills, and different ways of ‘doing things’. Likewise, the co-existence of multiple interpretative strands and work traditions maximises the skills and situations of all contributors to archaeology and leads to a richer understanding of the human pasts that they are engaged in understanding. I would hope that these statements are self-evident, but such an ethos necessitates more than just ‘letting things be’. It requires alertness to what and who is underrepresented in the working structures, foci and interpretative frameworks of contemporary archaeology. It aims for a greater richness and diversity in practicing archaeology and in accommodating what archaeology can do. This is the basis of what is briefly touched upon below using only some selected areas of concern. I Forum
Smooth and cool or warm and soft, investigating the properties of cloth in prehistory
‘Studies of materiality cannot simply focus upon the characteristics of objects but must engage in the dialectic of people and things’ (Meskell 2005,4). 
 
A number of researchers have looked at the significance of the properties of cloth to understand their suitability to environment and function. This research is a good basis and has potential to be developed further. In this paper I investigate the physical, chemical and aesthetic properties of linen, wool and lime bast fibres and knotless netting, woven textiles and twining as fibres and cloth structures that were used to make cloth from the Neolithic to Bronze Age in the Alpine region of Europe. Through these results I look at examples of how these cloth types may have been used and valued in these societies.
Same Same But Different - also in Europe! A New Methodological Approach in Cross-Country Analysis of Communication Structuresapplied to five EU member states
The EU still lacks a truly European public sphere. On this level, there is still a clear lack of integration between individual member states. This means that national public spheres and cultures are still of great importance for European communication and media professionals. Comparative research into the similarities and differences between different nations is therefore valuable for cross-border PR communication activities. This paper lays out the methodological foundation for such research, discussing possible approaches and difficulties associated with comparative research. The author then introduces a potential heuristic framework for comparative analysis: the International Corporate Communication Compass. This framework is applied to five case-study EU countries (Denmark, Germany, France, Poland and the UK), showing the differences and similarities in a range of different contexts that affect public communication in all its forms. The conclusion examines how the results of such studies could be used in order to compare communication identities of different countries. This can potentially help in the development of a European public identity on the long run and in a first step can led towards a better, more adapted communication structure about European citizenship. Ultimately, communication structures within the EU might become more Europeanized than they