further development is visible in the Amsterdam Kempen Pioneer project, which began in the 1980s from an evolutionary and systems theoretical systems background but has evolved toward a historical anthropological framework. In other quarters, a history of science stance is evident. One of the research goals of the Leiden Pioneer project is the critical examination and analysis of the archaeological image of the Paleolithic period. Likewise, classical (now called Mediterranean) archaeology at Groningen is more fieldwork and less philological in its orientation, as are smaller, individual research undertakings at the major institutes throughout the country.

Archaeologists of provincial Rome are a possible exception, for their work has been less provincial than their name suggests. Early students (Reuvens, Holwerda) were well aware that the Netherlands was only a corner of the Roman Empire and that developments in that area should be related to more central regions. Of late, several studies connect the Roman colonization of the Low Countries to wider concerns of Roman home politics. For instance, Johan Bloemers, Willems, and Nico Roymans work on the interaction of the native population with the foreign occupation, has been informed by the world systems, dependency, and frontier theory ideas of Friedman, Galtung, and Wallerstein. The latter’s work belongs to the post-1970 period and should be seen in that light (e.g., Brandt and Slofstra 1983; Roymans 1990).

There are some isolated examples of attempts at a larger problematic. Holwerda (1910, 1925) challenged the evolutionism of his day as well as “the typological method” along lines similar to those Hans Eggers was to develop later (Eggers 1958). He was ignored, and there were no arguments. A few years later, when immigration as a cause for the appearance of a new type of pot in medieval Frisia was questioned by a historian, Dutch archaeologists, including Van Giffen and Holwerda, closed ranks, thus stifling a potentially informative discussion (Heidinga and Verhoeven 1992). In classical archaeology, Snijder (1934) did notable work on the origins of artistry. In Middle Eastern studies, H.J. Franken opened up a new approach to pottery research by employing artisan potters on his staff as a critique of traditional typology development.

Apart from these abstract and almost ignored problems, the theoretical discussion of Dutch archaeological practice has been mainly concerned with observational theories (Hodder 1994). Reuvens sought better observation by the introduction of geodetic methods in the registration and description of field monuments. Holwerda introduced Schuchardt’s ideas on soil traces and attempted to come to grips with settlement-sized archaeological sites, but his technical means were insufficient. Van Giffen transported plant anatomical methods of sectioning to archaeological fieldwork and invented the so-called quadrant method in order to obtain better insights into the structure of three-dimensional archaeological objects like barrows and even terps. The discussion about Holwerda’s ill-fated dome barrows redirected the interpretation of traces of tree coffins in burial mounds. With the gradual rise to dominance of Van Giffen, theoretical interests shifted toward typochronology and ecological context, with vague but frequent references to cultural developments elsewhere, which were introduced by migrations and diffusion of traits.

The project of Beyen and his successors involving the meticulous analysis of Roman wall painting resulted in a typochronological scheme that contributed to the foundation and operation of a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Groningen. Modderman’s pioneering large-scale settlement excavations utilizing massive mechanical soil removal solved some of Holwerda’s observational problems, but did not eventuate in the questioning of cultural historical assumptions. Similarly, excavations in the delta peat district—first by Modderman, then by Glasbergen, and later by Modderman’s pupil Louwe Kooijmans—were aimed at sidestepping the effects of postdepositional erosion of archaeological vestiges common to regular, dry sites. Waterbolk’s version of Van Giffen’s culture area diagram (a kind of longue durée, Braudel’s long-time scale, history of an area of a few square miles; Van Giffen 1947) originated as a method to wed time to change in the artifactual