At a superficial level we could argue that app lication of concepts of the French .. Annate s" School of Histury to archaeology merely amounts to yet another semantic game, new fad. old wine in new skins. Some of the studies of this slim collection do see m a bit contrived. consisting of attempts to fit particular evidence (mainly from class ical archaeology) into one or more of Braudel's three categories or temporal constructs: 6y6nemeuts. conjoUCtuTes and structures � ImlD � Does archaeology

more »

... dvance in its unending search for some new truth by merely borro wing and applying terms that have common in Continental history for at least a half century? At a more significant level however, Bintliff s boo k strikes another small blow in the Anglophone world at the misleading and ultimately pernicious separation of archaeology from history. In America at least, we have grown accustomed to accep ting a false dichotomy between science and history-because history has been 100 narro wly and parochially defined as particularistic (i.e .•