n.a. (1994). Discussion article on the development of Dutch archaeology in the twentieth century. Archaeol Dialogues 1 (1). Vol 1(1), pp. 9-33.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Discussion article on the development of Dutch archaeology in the twentieth century | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
Archaeol Dialogues 1 (1) | ||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Archaeological Dialogues | ||
Volume Volume number and part |
1 (1) | ||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
9 - 33 | ||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions. | ||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
Comprises a main paper, `Recent developments in Dutch archaeology: a scientific-historical outline' by Jan Slofstra (9-33), followed by four essays drawing on certain issues raised. Slofstra's paper is an account of the history of Dutch archaeology considered in four phases: the cultural-historical tradition (1915-69); the New Archaeology (1968-80); the post-processual era (1980-89); and the recent years (1989-94). The dominant influence of the work of Gordon Childe is noted for the first phase, while the adoption of post-processual theory in Britain in the 1980s is shown to have had little impact in the Netherlands. The first essay `Stereotypes and Big Brothers. An Anglo-German perspective on Dutch archaeology', by Heinrich Härke (34-6) puts across the view that, as well as drawing inspiration from Britain, Dutch archaeology has also been influenced by the strong empirical tradition of Germany. Ian Hodder (36-8) then considers `The Dutch experience experienced from Britain'. Although Dutch archaeology is seen to follow most European archaeological traditions, it is shown to have a distinctive predisposition towards large scale, multidisciplinary projects, and also to have a strong tradition in the natural sciences. Dutch theoretical archaeology is considered against this background, and is compared in passing to that in Britain. Leendert P Louwe Kooijmans (38-45) gives `Another participant's view on Dutch archaeology in post-war times', asserting that the period before 1940 should be considered as a separate phase in the development of Dutch archaeology. Identifying `functionalism' as an alternative to the cultural-historical approach, the influence of British functionalist archaeologists such as Gordon Childe and Grahame Clark is shown to have been most active in the post-war period. The New Archaeology is consequently seen to have been less of a novelty. `The history of European archaeology as evidence for a philosophy of science?', by Herman C D G de Regt (46-55), examines Slofstra's paper in relation to Ian Hodder's syntheses of the development of European archaeological theory (Archaeological theory in Europe: the last three decades, 1991, and Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions, 1991). | ||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
1994 | ||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British Archaeological Bibliography (BAB))
|
||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
20 Jan 2002 |
