This article is based on the results of a project on social change in the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the north-eastern Netherlands, which ended in 1991. Although the project originally focused on the possible development of social stratification, here, the emphasis will be on the relationship between burial ritual and social change in general. Before embarking on the main argument, it should be understood that the link between burial ritual and social change by no means implies the view that burial ritual reflects all social changes which take place within a society, nor that the changes observed in the burial ritual are essential to an understanding of the society concerned. The burial ritual offers us no more than an opportunity to study past social changes. The resulting interpretations should be supported and tested by other expressions of material culture, such as those concerning economy and settlement patterns.

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.

Lohof's paper represents a brave attempt to relate burial ritual of the Late Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age in the north-eastern Netherlands to social change in general. Being the first study of its kind for this area, it certainly deserves our attention.

Lohof's paper provides a good opportunity for reflecting upon current theoretical approaches to burial rituals and death in the archaeological past. The paper contains many constructive ideas, and its general social perspective means that the interpretations are of relevance for many regions of north-western Europe. It is particularly noteworthy how this kind of approach can bring out details rather than merging them into general trends. Through such attention the mortuary practices of the period appear as far more fluctuating and varied than usually appreciated; a characteristic that lends support to the idea of mortuary contexts constituting a discursive practice rather than a simple reflection of society. It makes one wonder about the potential variability behind the uniform ‘stories’ created for so many areas for this period. As an example, the ‘coming and going’ of cremation during this time is an important observation, that should be emphasised and more fully integrated in our explanations of the use of cremation in the Late Bronze Age.

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.

Lohof's paper represents an interesting and important attempt to analyse and interpret Late Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age burial practices in the Netherlands. His suggestions are of wide relevance, not least because the phenomena he discusses were widely distributed over much of Europe. In what follows I wish to raise a number of issues which I think need clarifying, in order to elicit his response.

Eric Lohof's study of funerary practices in the later Neolithic and Bronze Age of the north-eastern Netherlands provides a welcome reassessment of this material. Its broad scope and its grounding in a theoretical consideration of mortuary ritual are to be applauded. Any criticisms which I have to raise here should therefore be seen as caveats to a more general agreement with its objectives and conclusions.

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).

‘We live in the dark, we do what we can, the rest is the madness of art.’ (Truman Capote, Music for Chameleons)

‘We must again become a people making our own history. To be able to make our own history is to be able to mould our own future, to build our society that preserves the best of our past and our traditions, while enabling us to grow and develop as a whole people.’ (Robert Andre)