Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:32:58.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dutch perspectives on contemporary archaeology

An editorial statement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Jos Bazelmans ,
Peter van Dommelen ,
Jan Kolen  and
Jan Slofstra
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 2 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1994

References

Barker, G., 1985: Landscape archaeology in Italy, in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeology IV. Part I: the human landscape, Oxford (British Archaeological Reports. International Series 243), 1–19.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1968: Archaeological perspectives, in Binford, L.(ed.) 1972, An archaeological perspective, New York, 78–104.Google Scholar
Champion, T., 1991: Theoretical archaeology in Britain, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades, London, 129–160.Google Scholar
Cleuziou, S., Coudart, A., Demoule, J.-P. and Schnapp, A., 1991: The use of theory in French archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades, London, 91–128.Google Scholar
Diaz-Andreu, M., 1993: Theory and ideology in archaeology. Spanish archaeology under the Franco régime, Antiquity 67, 74–82.Google Scholar
Friedman, J., 1992: The past in the future: history and the politics of identity, American Anthropologist 94, 837–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds), 1981: Società romana e produzione schiavista, Rome.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.), 1991a: Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1991b: Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades, London, 1–24.Google Scholar
Hodges, R., 1990: Glyn Daniel, the Great Divide and the British contribution to Italian archaeology, The Accordia research papers 1, 83–93.Google Scholar
Miraj, L. and Zeqo, M., 1993: Conceptual changes in Albanian archaeology, Antiquity 67, 123–125.Google Scholar
Myhre, B., 1991: Theory in Scandinavian archaeology since 1960: a view from Norway, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades, London, 161–186.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1980: The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: archaeology as anthropology?, American Journal of Archaeology 84, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roymans, N. and Theuws, F. (eds), 1990: The Pionier project ‘Power and Elite’: an introduction, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987: Social theory and archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Trigger, B., 1989: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. and Glover, I. (eds), 1981: Regional traditions of archaeological research, World Archaeology 13, 133–393.Google Scholar
Vašiček, J. and Malina, Z., 1990: Archaeology yesterday and today. The development of archaeology in the sciences and humanities, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1992: The colours of European theory, Antiquity 66, 553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, W.J.H., 1986: Romans and Batavians. A regional study in the Dutch Eastern River Area, Amersfoort.Google Scholar