Two stereotype views exist with respect to recent developments in Dutch archaeology. The first holds that the confrontation with New Archaeology in 1968/69 signalled the beginning of an entirely new period in Dutch archaeology. At that point, Dutch archaeologists were first involved in international theoretical discussions, which they have more or less followed ever since. This resulted in the emergence of counterparts in Dutch archaeology of New (or processual) Archaeology, and later of post-processual approaches.

Dutch archaeology has been a strange omission in the recent bout of introspection of various national traditions of archaeology in Europe. Jan Slofstra's paper is, therefore, a welcome and important addition to the critical self-reflection of our subject. Writing the social history of one's own discipline in one's own lifetime implies comments, and perhaps even judgements, on the work of one's colleagues, teachers and students, most of whom are still alive. By necessity, it also puts one's own work in the context of a still existing, scholarly community. In other words: Slofstra has been an active participant in the processes which he analyzes. Such an analysis would normally call for an observer's perspective, but under the circumstances such a detachment is hard to achieve, and perhaps impossible.

From Slofstra's interesting paper it would seem that, in its main essentials, Dutch archaeology has the characteristics of most European archaeological traditions. In particular, it is wedded to an historical perspective, in which attention is paid to specific sequences and contexts. This commitment to history is evident from the Cultural-Historical Research Tradition earlier this century, it is seen in the lukewarm reaction to the generalising claims of processual archaeology, and it resurfaces in the new historical-anthropological perspective. As Slofstra argues, this last move towards a theoretically informed historical approach is a logical evolution within the Dutch tradition even if, as I will suggest below, it is also part of wider trends.

In my opinion, Slofstra's description of the recent developments in Dutch archaeology can be characterized as a rather subjective narratio of a small episode in the history of science by a participant observer. It is only in the last sentence of his paper that he – rather obligatorily – acknowledges his position. Primarily, the article is a compilation of personal experiences, memories and convictions based on a thorough study of the literature, but lacking interviews with the principal characters. It is very much a private account, even to such an extent that it would not be difficult for anyone involved in Dutch archaeology to point out the author. The paper tells us as much about Slofstra as about the history of archaeology and presents a very personal view on the development of our discipline: the disqualification of the cultural-historical approach persisting into the eighties, the myth of the deliverance by the ‘Historical-Anthropological Approach’, together with the uncritical reiteration of the greatness of Van Giffen, and the ‘conspiracy scenario’ towards the ‘academic establishment’ which can retard everything except demographical processes.

A further vindication of Hodder's theory on european archaeology Jan Slofstra's article on the twentieth century history of Dutch Archaeology should be included in the next edition of Hodder's Archaeological Theory in Europe (1991a). When we consider Hodder's own contribution to the collection of essays on the history of European archaeology (Hodder 1991b) we find that the history of Dutch archaeology nicely illustrates most of the themes which are uncovered by the many detailed historical studies of European archaeology. (Throughout my commentary I will assume that Slofstra's reconstruction of the history of Dutch archaeology is correct, though (perhaps) incomplete).