The French archaeological revolution:
a British perspective

As I reach the end of my archaeological career, I find myself increasingly encouraged to record my experiences in the development of archaeology that I have witnessed in my lifetime. In part it is because versions of what happened are largely written by the younger generation reacting against what they envisage my generation was doing, just as my generation reacted against our predecessors and teachers. The younger generation’s perspectives, however, are those of observers rather than participants, and often their reconstructions are more a caricature than an accurate account or they do not know what happened and so can be simply wrong. In part it is also because I believe that understanding the historiography of our subject is essential in order for us to interpret archaeological data. When I started dealing with the problem of the Celts the assumption was that they could be defined as people who spoke a Celtic language, but why were Celtic languages called Celtic? It was something which could only be answered by looking at the history of Celtic Studies, and it took me back to the original classical texts to find that all was not as we had assumed, and that the maps showing the origin and spread of the Celts were based on linguistic models rather than anything historical, and that the interpretation of the archaeological evidence had been twisted to fit this interpretation¹. The impact of such studies not only affects our interpretation but also the methodologies we use, such as how we construct chronologies². It also affects how we carry out our fieldwork, excavate and study the data and objects we discover.

In this paper I wish to comment on my personal experiences in French archaeology from the 1970s onwards. I have no intention to write a history of French archaeology (that can only be done by my French colleagues), but I hope the following remarks will contain some useful reflections which can contribute when a more comprehensive overview comes to be written.

The background

In a recent paper (Toulouse, November 2010) Laurent Olivier suggested that in the nineteenth century the excavation of burials in Champagne was initially mainly in the hands of peasant farmers who sold the finds they unearthed to museums, private collectors and dealers, though this may not be entirely typical of all archaeology of that period in France (e.g. Jacques-Gabriel Bulliot at Mont Beuvray). In contrast in Britain in that century the development of excavation techniques was led by rich landowners such as Sir Richard Colt Hoare, Thomas Bateman and General Pitt Rivers, or middle class businessmen and clerics such as William Cunnington, John Mortimer and Canon Greenwell. The middle class archaeologists in the first half of the twentieth century who developed the profession of archaeology in England, notably Sir Mortimer Wheeler, saw themselves as the direct descendants of these pioneers and these links lay behind new developments in excavation techniques, such as stratigraphy, detailed drawings of plans and sections, and the grid or box method of excavation which was to dominate in Britain into the 1960s, and is still to be found in countries such as Greece and India³. In France, contrastingly, except in Palaeolithic and to a lesser extent in Neolithic archaeology, there was no such tradition on which to build, and Protohistoric and Gallo-Roman archaeology entered into what Christian Goudineau has described as a ‘désastre’ from which it did not start to escape until the 1970s⁴.

A similar phenomenon is visible in the development of new theoretical approaches to archaeology. In the later 19^th century it is undoubtedly Scandinavia which played the dominant role not only in the study of material objects, from Thomsen’s concept of the Three Age System, through Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae and Hans Hildebrand, to Oscar Montelius with typology, closed finds and cross dating⁵, but also in economic and environmental approaches such as those put forward by Japetus Steenstrup in his debate with Worsaae on the interpretation of shell middens and their relationship (chronological or seasonal?) with megalithic tombs⁶. The other major development in archaeology during this period came from German linguistics with Gustaf Kossinna’s concept of ‘Culture Groups’ which could be defined in terms of material culture, settlement types and burial rites and these could then be equated with linguistic and ‘racial’ groups such as Germans and Celts⁷.

In Britain these developments in Scandinavian and German archaeology had a major impact in the years between the wars. It was Gordon Childe who from 1929 developed the culture concepts of Kossinna⁸ culminating in his final overview of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Europe, The Dawn of European Civilisation⁹, though this was cast within a Marxist framework (diffusion, the Neolithic and urban revolutions, etc.) rather than the more nationalistic interpretations of Kossinna and his followers. In Iron Age studies it was the invasionist interpretations of Christopher Hawkes which epitomised this ‘culture-historical’ approach in what has been termed the ‘Oxford School’. The Scandinavian environmental and economic approaches were taken up by the ‘Cambridge School’ led by Grahame Clark whose papers on economic interpretations were brought together in his seminal book Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis¹⁰, though interestingly the first major excavation of a British Iron Age site in which a predominantly economic interpretation was advanced was by a German, Gerhard Bersu, who was invited by Clark and the Prehistoric Society to excavate the farming settlement at Little Woodbury in southern England following his arrival in Britain as a refugee from fascism¹¹.

In this period between 1920 and 1970 following the death of Déchelette, it is difficult to name any French protohistorians who were contributing at a European scale in the fields of excavation, theory, chronology or finds analysis. In Palaeolithic archaeology there were notable advances like André Leroi-Gourhan’s excavations at Pincevent, the development of the concept of the chaîne opératoire, and the debate about the variability of Mousterian assemblages between François Bordes and Lewis Binford. In the Neolithic the advent of radiocarbon dating especially in its application to megalithic tombs caused major changes in dating but without provoking any change in paradigm. In Iron Age studies there were spectacular finds like the Vix burial, but there was no development in excavation method or theory, and Alain Duval has talked of ‘dizaines d’années de stagnation voire regression de l’âge du Fer français’¹². In contrast, on the foundations built by Childe, Clark and Wheeler, in the late 1950s and 1960s British Archaeology underwent major revolutions in excavation techniques (including urban and open area archaeology) and in environmental and economic archaeology leading up to the change in paradigm to the ‘New Archaeology’ led by a younger generation of prehistorians such as David Clarke¹³ and Colin Renfrew, though I have argued that the changes in field techniques which started in medieval archaeology were not directly linked to the new theoretical approaches which were mainly advanced by prehistorians¹⁴.

So why was there such a major contrast between France and Britain (or indeed between France and Germany)? Above I have concentrated on the leading individuals who initiated and led major developments – the agents of change. But it is not as simple as that. In the nineteenth century the innovators such as Pitt Rivers had the means to do what they wanted – including to finance their own excavations on their own property and set up their own museums for their collections¹⁵. But from the late 19^th century when the urban middle classes began to control archaeology, there was a need for institutional structures within which to work such as museums, universities, government ministries and learned societies which could finance research, curate the finds and publish the results. It is in the ways these organisations functioned in different states that the national differences must lie. We should also not assume that it was just the ‘big men’ who dynamised archaeology both in Germany and Britain –they were only the tips of pyramids which supported them; in Britain we should not forget Sir Cyril Fox, O.G.S. Crawford, the Curwens (father and son) or teachers like Stuart Piggott. In Germany alongside the eminent international scholars like Gero von Merhart, Gerhard Bersu, Paul Jacobsthal, Werner Krämer, Wolfgang Kimmig and Wolfgang Dehn there was a host of local competent local excavators and museum conservators. The same was true of some smaller countries like Czechoslovakia, Denmark and the Netherlands.

So, why did protohistoric archaeology in France not develop as it did in many of its neighbours, large and small? Was it the lack of the ‘big men’ who could push the agenda forward as had happened in the late 19^th and early 20^th century, an era which closed symbolically with the death of Joseph Déchelette in 1914? Or was it a failure in the structure of French universities where, as in Spain, control by the centre hindered archaeology teaching and subsequently archaeology departments from developing? It is only recently that archaeologists have been represented on the central committee that in France vetted candidates for archaeology posts in universities and which had long been controlled by historians and art historians (Olivier Buchsenschutz and I discussed the resulting problems with the then chairman of the committee after the ill-informed rejection of archaeological candidates in the 1990s and persuaded him to get archaeological representation). Or was it the fragmented nature of the CNRS which creamed off the best academics from the universities, but set up no equivalents of the archaeological institutes which acted as the focus for research in central and eastern European countries such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary whose Academies of Science were originally based on the French model? Or was it the nature of the French political system, which, while still seeking to maintain state control over its history (nos ancêtres les Gaulois) was neither willing to leave the presentation of the national past to non-state organisations as happened in Britain, nor to take direct control and invest in the dissemination of ideas of the past as happened in the centralised states such as fascist Nazi Germany or in communist countries? Certainly when I first started work with Robert Périchon in the 1970s he did not dare to add my name to the request for a permit to excavate because of the anti-foreign attitudes of the administration, perhaps an inheritance from Vichy France¹⁶. This bleak picture I have drawn of French Protohistory over much of the 20^th century I know is shared by many of my French colleagues, but it makes the changes that happened in the last quarter of the century all the more remarkable. Whereas in Germany and Britain changes were gradual, working for the most part within old institutions like the universities and government ministries, though with new ones appearing in the UK like the Council of British Archaeology (1948) and the Institute of Field Archaeologists and Rescue (from the 1980s), in France there was latterly a veritable revolution with new major institutions appearing like Afan, Inrap and the AFEAF and this happened outside the old institutions.

While in the next two sections I shall be emphasising external, indeed foreign, influences, there had to be an internal process within France which could allow these changes to come about. While archaeology in universities was not taught in a cohesive way as in Britain and Germany, with at most small departments, but more commonly isolated archaeologists working within departments of History or Art History, what I have called the ‘fragmented’ system¹⁷, nonetheless certain teachers were trying to innovate: Pierre-Roland Giot at Rennes who, for instance, introduced scientific approaches using a more English approach; or Jacques-Pierre Millotte at Besançon who took his studies in a geographical and environmental direction, though his more natural affiliations were with the German typological school¹⁸. But that all was not well in France was recognised at a national level, and, following recommendations of a committee chaired by Jacques Soustelle, funds became available for newly graduated scholars to visit neighbouring countries –the Netherlands, Britain and Germany– both to pick up new ideas and generally to make international contacts. This was the generation of my contemporaries which launched the revolution, and the late 1970s and 1980s saw, for instance, the foundation of the AFEAF¹⁹, and the research centre at Bibracte. These developments I leave to my French colleagues to describe, and I only wish to comment on a couple of developments in field archaeology with which I was personally involved.

Open area excavation

I will start by making a distinction between ‘rural’ and ’urban’ open area excavation. In the former there are usually no stratified deposits above the natural bedrock, so a mechanical excavator can be used to strip the surface to reveal features cut into the bedrock such as pits, ditches and post holes. In contrast on urban sites there are usually stratified deposits perhaps covering many hundreds of years which need systematic stripping off by hand, and this requires a very different methodology. Before I came to France I had directed my own excavations on both categories of site, indeed on the farming settlement of Owslebury (Hampshire) from 1966 I had been one of the pioneers in Britain in stripping large surfaces²⁰. Open area excavation of unstratified and stratified sites had started on medieval settlements like the Anglian palace at Yeavering in Northumberland in the early 1950s²¹ and on the deserted village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire²² but was especially developed in the mid 1960s on the urban sites of Wroxeter by Philip Barker²³ and by Martin Biddle at Winchester²⁴. In three of these cases, Yeavering, Wharram Percy and Winchester there was an explicitly Danish influence, especially derived from the methods of Gudmund Hatt. In 1971 I controversially introduced it to the Roman and medieval city of Exeter, a decision which was vindicated in the identification of the ephemeral traces of Roman timber barrack blocks dating to the foundation of the Roman fortress in the 1^st century AD²⁵.

I personally did not carry out a rural style excavation in France until the late 1980s on the site of Le Pâtural²⁶, and even here there were thin deposits of terre noire overlying the bedrock which required hand excavation. I have always assumed that is was Bohumil Soudský who introduced open area excavation to France in the late 1960s in the Aisne Valley project using the techniques he had developed on the Linienbandkeramik site of Bylany in Bohemia which I had visited as a student in 1967²⁷. But on Neolithic sites area stripping had already appeared on Dutch sites such as Sittard and Geleen or even in pre-war Germany at Köln-Lindental. It was the advent of the mechanical excavator that made this a viable technique. By 1973-1974 Olivier was already carrying out area excavation on Les Arènes, inspired, I assume, by the work in the Aisne valley.

When I first arrived in France in 1973 to excavate at Aulnat (La Grande Borne) I was fortunate in that Robert Périchon gave me an area to excavate in my own way²⁸. At the time he was using a technique developed in Palaeolithic cave archaeology excavating two metre squares in spits with detailed plans of each surface but no system for numbering deposits, and it has subsequently proved difficult if not impossible to reconstruct closed groups of finds. I used the techniques I had developed at Exeter excavating stratigraphically where I could, with a numbered sequence of deposits, and clearing out features such as pits as soon as they could be identified, but dividing the area up into a grid of two-metre squares. All finds could be marked with their square and context number. Where no stratigraphy was visible in the terre noire which was nearly two metres in depth, I dug in spits. As Robert admitted to his students (Franck Perrin, pers. comm.), he could not understand why I was digging holes! But I felt very constrained by the three week seasons usual at that time, and it was not until my final year at Aulnat in 1981 that I was able to spend three months digging which is what I was used to. Thus I was only able to excavate an area of 12×22 m which meant that little could be learnt of the plan of the site.

I am not sure what impact British archaeologists such as myself, Ian Ralston and Jason Wood had on the development of excavation techniques in France (though Olivier visited Robert and myself at Aulnat). But for the development of open area excavation on urban sites with deep stratigraphy I have always assumed that the major influence was Henri Galinié, and I had a chance to talk to him at the AFEAF conference at Bourges in 2008 where he was lecturing on medieval urban archaeology. In the 1960s he had gone to Winchester as he had a girl friend there, but as she was working much of the day he took a friend with him, but this friend one night fell off a fence they were climbing (Henri, perhaps wisely, did not explain the circumstances) and had to return to France with a broken leg. With nothing to do Henri volunteered to work on the archaeological excavations and was sent to talk to the supervisor of the Cathedral Green excavation, Birthe Kjølbye-Biddle, a pipe-smoking Danish lady married to the project director Martin Biddle, and he decided this was the life for him. He was sent to the ‘French-speaking’ excavation on the bishop’s place at Wolvesey Castle. When he obtained a post in the university at Tours he saw this as an opportunity to start a major project on the history of the city using archaeology, written records and topography as Biddle had done; for his excavation method he used ‘la méthode Winchester’ with open area excavation. From Tours the approach spread to Chartres and Orléans and finally St. Denis²⁹. Thus are ideas transmitted from one place to another ! More formally the problem of urban excavation was recognised in a conference held in Tours in 1980 organised under the aegis of Afan with Galinié playing a major role and inviting foreign speakers such as Martin Biddle; the proceedings were published in 1982 along with overviews of a number of the major historical urban centres of France³⁰, and this symbolically marks the watershed to modern approaches to urban archaeology in France. At sites such as Chartres and Orléans urban excavations demonstrated the presence of Iron Age deposits underlying the Roman occupation, a matter which was discussed at the AFEAF conference in Bourges in 2008, instigated by Olivier under the title ‘Les Gaulois sont dans la ville’³¹. The other major innovation taken over from Winchester was the ‘Harris matrix’ for analysing stratigraphical sequences³², though I do not know how it appeared in France or how widely it has been accepted.

Systematic field walking

My doctoral thesis on oppida started in 1967 was framed primarily in the ‘New Archaeology’ paradigm, developing ideas from Geography, Economics (e.g. the development of a market economy) and Social Anthropology^33[33], a revised form of which I later published³⁴. One of the major questions was the relationship of the oppida with other sorts of settlement such as with the pre-existing settlement pattern (e.g. the origin of the population who moved to the oppidum) and the nature of the relationship with the hinterland and the supply of raw materials and agricultural produce to the urban sites, problems which were to interest Olivier a decade later. The problem I encountered was that much of the data available had been gathered under ‘historical’ and ‘culture-historical’ paradigms so archaeological research had concentrated on the oppida themselves, and there had been limited interest in open settlements and especially the smaller farming settlements on which there was minimal information available. Only in a small number of regions had there been much aerial photography (Roger Agache’s work in northern France was a rare continental example). In Britain there was extensive aerial coverage but even here the sites had been collected ‘like postage stamps’ with no clear questions which could be used as a basis for interpretation outside a traditional historical framework (e.g. the reconstruction of Roman military campaigns based on the identification of forts and marching camps). There was at that time no national collection of aerial photographs, though I was able to build my own collection for Hampshire from the archives of the Cambridge Committee for Aerial Photography and from the work of private fliers financed by the Salisbury office of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, directed by Collin Bowen. It was difficult to know how biased the distribution maps were as no-one recorded their flight patterns (there were clear differences depending on where individual fliers were doing their photography or which airfield they were using to take off). Were the blank areas genuinely blank or simply unresearched? Another problem was that southern England was peripheral to the main distribution of oppida in the 1^st century BC.

When I came to Aulnat my hope was not only to excavate part of a settlement pre-dating the oppida, but also to look at the more general settlement pattern. Initially there was little opportunity as all my time was spent on the excavation, though my colleague David Briggs, a geomorphologist interested in the formation of the terre noire, did report the digging of drainage channels, one of which, at Lussat, we were able to record in detail³⁵. At the time there was little opportunity for aerial photography, and systematic field walking seemed to promise the best potential. It had become popular in lowland Britain in the early 1970s, not merely as a tool for gauging the threat from road construction as on the M3 motorway³⁶, but also to look at wider settlement patterns in Britain, like the East Hants survey³⁷; it was also employed in Greece³⁸ and Italy³⁹. One of our Sheffield students, Nigel Mills, had just completed a doctoral thesis on the Neolithic of southern France which had included some field walking and he also speaks fluent French. So he was an ideal person to direct a field walking project in the Auvergne, but to obtain comparative data he also approached Olivier and a parallel survey was set up around Levroux.

Though generally we had good results, the Late Iron Age was one of the less productive periods. In addition, at that time we still did not have a good chronology for the pottery we were picking up. Following these initial surveys Nigel walked part of the planned route of the A71 in the Auvergne north of Clermont-Ferrand, and field walking prior to construction is nowadays a standard technique in road and rail building in France. The Auvergne is now one of the most intensively field-walked areas in Europe⁴⁰ with subsequent work on the Grande Limagne by Vincent Guichard and Christine Jouannet, by Alain Ferdière, Philippe Bet and George Rogers around Lezoux, Claire Watson around Issoire, and Frédéric Trément in the Sarliève Basin, though we have yet to fully exploit these data. To launch the technique at a national level a conference was organised in Paris in 1982⁴¹ and it is now a standard method not only in rescue archaeology but also in research projects such as that at Mont Beuvray.

However, the origins and purpose of field-walking are rarely discussed in France, and I will give here briefly my own perspective. I see three main inputs into its development. The first was purely a pragmatic approach caused by the threat of modern agriculture, especially deep ploughing. It was initiated by John Ward Perkins while he was director of the British School at Rome in the 1950s when he regularly visited and recorded sites in southern Tuscany revealed by deep ploughing. His records became the foundation of analyses by later scholars such as Tim Potter looking at the development of the Etruscan and Roman civilisations⁴². At the time Ward Perkins was making his observations there was little interest among Italian archaeologists whose paradigm then was mainly art historical. Nor was his recording systematic, but as the potential of this approach was recognised and the need to obtain better controlled samples became evident, Italy became one of the major areas in which systematic field walking developed, with Italian, British and American teams all contributing.

The second input was primarily American and originates in major projects looking at the origins of agriculture in the 1950s and the development of settlement patterns in early urban societies. Innovators include Robert Braidwood and Robert Adams in the Near East with a search for the settlements which preceded the earliest Neolithic villages and towns⁴³, and studies of the Mesopotamian countryside⁴⁴, but the approach was further developed in Richard MacNeish’s survey and excavations in central Mexico looking for the origin of maize agriculture, but also investigating the development of site hierarchies and urbanisation⁴⁵. It was through a similar survey of Natufian sites in the Levant by Eric Higgs that I became aware of this work, where the concept of ‘site catchment analysis’ was also developed⁴⁶.

The third input was an outcome of the impact on the ‘New Archaeology’ of the ‘New Geography’ with its heavy emphasis on the analysis of settlement patterns and settlement hierarchies (e.g. Central Place Theory) and the use of ‘models’ to explain and describe complex data⁴⁷. One important feature of this approach was the statistical sampling and analysis of the data. Generally geographers could derive their modern data from visible populations; archaeologists have the additional problem that their data are invisible and unknown until they go out and find it, and so statistical techniques and methodologies were necessary for collecting the data⁴⁸, including the use of grids and transects to decide where to walk, and the ‘stratification’ of the terrain to ensure a representative sample was being collected, which might use criteria like the underlying geology, the height above sea level, or the closeness to an urban site following the patterns of land use predicted by models such as those of von Thünen’s ‘die Isolierte Stadt’. These are matters which were extensively discussed in the British and American literature in the 1970s and 1980s⁴⁹, but I am not aware of comparable discussion in the French literature. Both in Britain and in France there is a new generation for whom field walking is now a standard technique, but which does not generally understand the theoretical and methodological basis behind it, and there is a danger that it could degenerate into the ‘collecting of postage stamps’ that David Clarke condemned⁵⁰.

Conclusions

In this article I have tried to emphasize the ways in which development in archaeological theory and techniques is dependent on institutions and organisations which are capable of supporting change and innovation, but also how individuals are needed to create a climate in which those institutions can develop and innovate. At different times in the history of archaeology over the last 150 years different countries have played leading roles in innovation: Denmark and Sweden in the late 19^th century; Germany and Britain in the first half of the 20^th century; and Britain and America in the second half of the century. But innovation is not confined to those main areas, and one thinks, for instance, of the large scale projects initiated on the oppida in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s and 1960s. France, having been largely left out of these developments for much of the 20^th century, has caught up rapidly in the last quarter of the century, and launched a number of innovations like the AFEAF and the research centres at Lattes and Bibracte which have had a European impact. For Iron Age studies Germany with its annual meetings of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Eisenzeit des West- und Süddeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung, and Austria with its biennial Linz symposia have followed the French model of regular period-based conferences for the discussion of new ideas, whereas Britain relies on the more generalised multi-period annual meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group, with period-based conferences, at least for the Iron Age, held at more irregular intervals.

The important point is that we need mechanisms to communicate with one another both at a national and an international level, though these can take various forms connected with the history of archaeology in a particular country. For me one of the main changes that happened in the 1970s especially in France, though more generally across Europe, was a greater internationalism, turning away from the inward-looking nationalistic agendas of the 1930s which still for a long time in the post-war period had a major influence, for instance in the conflict between the western capitalist countries and communist eastern Europe. It was the generation of the 1970s which brought about this change; amongst those involved in France, Olivier Buchsenschutz was one of the major players.

References

• Adams, R. M. (1972): The Uruk Countryside: the natural setting of urban societies, Chicago.
• Afan (1982): Archéologie Urbaine, Actes du Colloque international, Tours, 17-20 novembre 1980, Paris.
• Barker, G. (1995): A Mediterranean Valley: landscape archaeology and Annales history in the Biferno Valley, Leicester.
• Barker, P. (1969): “Some aspects of the excavation of timber buildings”, World Archaeology I-2, 220-235.
• Barker, P. (1977): Techniques of Archaeological Excavation, Londres.
• Beresford, M. and J. G. Hurst (1990): Wharram Percy: deserted medieval village, Londres.
• Bersu, G. (1940): “Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Part I: the settlement revealed by excavation”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29, 206-213.
• Biddle, M. and B. Kjølbye-Biddle (1969): “Metres, areas and robbing”, World Archaeology 1-2, 208-219.
• Bowden, M. (1991): Pitt Rivers: the life and archaeological work of Lieutenant Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, DCL, FRS, FSA, Cambridge.
• Braidwood, R. J. (1960): “The agricultural revolution”, Scientific American 203,130-141.
• Braidwood, R. J. and B. Howe (1960): Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 31, Chicago.
• Buchsenschutz, O., M.-B. Chardenoux, S. Krausz, et M. Vaginay, dir. (2009): L’âge du Fer dans la boucle de la Loire. Les Gaulois sont dans la ville, Actes de XXXII^e Colloque de l’AFEAF, Bourges 1^er– 4^e mai 2008, RACF Suppl. 35, Tours.
• Byers, D. S. (1967): The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol.1: Environment and Subsistence, Austin.
• Carver, G., dir. (2004): Digging in the Dirt: excavation in a new millennium, BAR Int. Series 1256, Oxford.
• Cherry, J. F., J. L. Davis and E. Mantzourani (1991): Landscape archaeology as long-term history: northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from earliest settlement until modern times, Monumenta archaeological 16, Los Angeles.
• Chol, I., dir. (2006): La Mémoire des Lieux: hommage à Robert Périchon, Collection ERGA, Clermont-Ferrand.
• Childe, V. G. (1929): The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford.
• Childe, V. G. (1957): The Dawn of European Prehistory, Londres.
• Clark, J. G. D. (1952): Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis, Londres.
• Clarke, D. L. (1968): Analytical Archaeology, Londres.
• Clarke, D. L. (1973): “Archeology: the loss of innocence”, Antiquity 47, 6-18.
• Collis, J. R. (1968): “Excavations at Owslebury, Hants: an interim report”, Antiquaries Journal 48, 18-31.
• Collis, J. R. (1970): “Excavations at Owslebury, Hants: a second interim report”, Antiquaries Journal, 50, 246-261.
• Collis, J. R. (1972): Exeter Excavations: the Guildhall Site, Exeter.
• Collis, J. R. (1975): Oppida: the Beginnings of Urbanisation in Temperate Europe, Doctoral thesis, Cambridge University.
• Collis, J. R. (1984): Oppida: earliest towns north of the Alps, Sheffield.
• Collis, J. R. (1995): “Celts, Power and Politics: Whither Czech Archaeology?”, in: Kuna & Venclová, dir. 1995, 82-92.
• Collis, J. R. (2001): Digging up the Past, Stroud.
• Collis, J. R. (2002): “L’avenir de la recherche archéologique française sur l’âge du Fer”, in: Maranski & Guichard, dir. 2002, 353–363.
• Collis, J. R. (2003): The Celts: Origins, myths and inventions, Stroud.
• Collis, J. R. (2004): “Paradigms and excavation”, in: Carver, dir. 2004, 32-43.
• Collis, J. R. (2006): “Robert Périchon: une vision personnelle” , in: Chol, dir. 2006, 31-49.
• Collis, J. R. (2009): “Die Konstruktion von Chronologien”, in: Karl & Leskovar, dir., 2009, 373-421.
• Collis, J. R. (2011a): “The urban revolution: Martin Biddle’s excavations in Winchester, 1961-1971”, in: Schofield, dir. 2011, 74-86.
• Collis, J. R. (2011b): “The Rural Revolution: Excavation of the Iron Age and Roman Farming Settlement at Owslebury, Hants, 1961–1972”, in: Schofield, dir. 2011, 87-103.
• Collis, J. R., B. Hartley, B. Dickinson, M. Maltby, C. Mills, C. Wells and D. Webley (1990): “ Incinération gallo-romaine à Lussat et fouilles de sauvetage en Grande Limagne (Puy-de-Dôme) en 1976”, RACF, 29-1, 5-17.
• Deberge, Y., J. Collis and J. Dunkley (2007): Clermont-Ferrand – Le Pâtural (Puy-de-Dôme). Evolution d’un établissement agricole gaulois (III^e-II^e s. avant J.-C.) en Limagne d’Auvergne, Lyon.
• Duval, A. (2009): “ Jacques-Pierre Millotte, acteur et témoin des grandes mutations intervenues dans les études sur l’âge du Fer en France á la fin du XX^e siècle”, in: Richard et al., dir. 2009, 31-34.
• Ferdière, A. and E. Zadora-Rio, dir. (1986): La Prospection Archéologique: paysage et peuplement, Actes de la table ronde de Paris, 14 et 15 mai 1982, DAF 3, Paris.
• Fischer, A. et K. Kristiensen (2002): The Neolithisation of Denmark – 150 years of debate, Sheffield.
• Fowler, P. (1974): “Motorways and archaeology”, in: Rahtz, dir. 1974, 111-129.
• Haselgrove, C., M. Millett and I. Smith, dir. (1985): Archaeology from the Ploughsoil: studies in collection and interpretation of field survey data, Sheffield.
• Goudineau, C. (1998): Regard sur la Gaule, Paris.
• Gräslund, B. (1987): The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: dating methods and dating systems in nineteenth-century Scandinavian archaeology, Cambridge.
• Haggett, P. (1965): Locational Analysis in Human Geography, Londres.
• Harris, E. C. (1979): Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, Academic Press, deuxième édition revue et 1989, Londres.
• Hope-Taylor, B. (1977): Yeavering: an Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria, Archaeological Report, 7, Londres.
• Karl, R. and J. Leskovar, dir. (2009): Interpretierte Eisenzeiten: Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie. Tagungsbericht der 3. Linzer Gespräche zur interpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie, Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 22.
• Kossinna, G. (1911): “ Zur Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie”, Mannus–Bibliothek, 6.
• Kuna, M. and N. Venclová, dir. (1995): Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný, Prague.
• MacNeish, R. S. (1967): “ Introduction”, in: Byers 1967.
• Macready, S. and F. H. Thompson, dir. (1985): Archaeological Fieldwork in Britain and Abroad, Londres.
• Malrain, F. (2007): AFEAF: 30 ans de rencontres et de recherche, Compiègne.
• Maranski, D. and V. Guichard, dir. (2002): Les Âges du Fer en Nivernais, Bourbonnais et Berry oriental. Regards Européens sur les Âges du Fer en France, Actes du XVII^e Colloque de l’AFEAF, Nevers – mai 1993, Bibracte, 6, Glux-en-Glenne.
• Mennessier-Jouannet, C. and Y. Deberge, dir. (2007): L’Archéologie de l’Âge du Fer en Auvergne. Actes du XXVII^e Colloque de l’AFEAF (Thème régional), Lattes.
• Mills, N. (1985): “Iron Age settlement and society in Europe: contributions from field surveys in central France”, in: Macready & Thompson 1985, 74-100.
• Mills, N. (1986): “Recherches sur l’habitat et la société au cours de l’âge du Fer en Auvergne (France)”, in: Ferdière & Zadora–Rio, dir. 1986, 121-128.
• Olivier, L. (2010): “Pratiques de l’archéologie de terrain aux origines de la recherche protohistorique française (1860-1910)”, Journées du PCR Archives et correspondance de Joseph Déchelette, Toulouse.
• Potter, T. W. (1979): The Changing Landscape of South Etruria, Londres.
• Rahtz, P., dir. (1974): Rescue Archaeology, Harmondsworth.
• Redman, C. L. (1974): Archaeological Sampling Strategies, Anthropology n°55, Addison.
• Richard, A., P. Barral, A. Daubigney, G. Kaenel, C. Mordant and J.-F. Piningre, dir. (2009): L’isthme europeén Rhin-Saône-Rhône dans la Protohistoire: approches nouvelles. En hommage à Jacques-Pierre Millotte, Actes du colloque de Besançon, 16–18 octobre 2006, Besançon.
• Schofield, J., dir. (2011): Great Excavations  shaping the archaeological profession, Oxford.
• Shennan, S. (1985): Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: the East Hampshire Survey, Sheffield.
• Soudský, B. (1966): Bylany: osada nejstarších zemědělců z mladší kamenné (Bylany: a settlement of the earliest agriculturists from the late stone age), Prague.
• Vita-Finzi, C. and E. S. Higgs (1970): “ Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis”, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1-37.
• Wheeler, R. E. M. (1954): Archaeology from the Earth, Harmondsworth.

Footnotes

1. Collis 2003.
2. Collis 2009.
3. Wheeler 1954; Collis 2001.
4. Goudineau 1998, 32.
5. Gräslund 1987.
6. Fischer & Kristiansen 2002.
7. Kossinna 1911.
8. Childe 1929.
9. Childe 1957.
10. Clark 1952.
11. Bersu 1940.
12. Duval 2009, 37.
13. e.g. Clarke 1968.
14. Collis 2001; Collis 2004.
15. Bowden 1991.
16. Collis 2006.
17. Collis 1995, 2002.
18. Richard et al. 2009.
19. Malrain 2007.
20. Collis 1968; Collis 1970; Collis 2011b.
21. Hope-Taylor 1977.
22. Beresford & Hurst 1990.
23. Barker 1969; Barker 1977.
24. Biddle & Kjølbye-Biddle 1969; Collis 2011a.
25. Collis 1972.
26. Deberge et al. 2007.
27. Soudský 1966.
28. Collis 2006.
29. Collis 2011a.
30. Afan 1982.
31. Buchsenschutz et al. 2009.
32. Harris 1979; Harris 1989.
33. Collis 1975.
34. Collis 1984.
35. Collis et al. 1990.
36. Fowler 1974.
37. Shennan 1985.
38. e.g. Cherry et al. 1991.
39. e.g. Barker 1995.
40. e.g. papers in Mennessier-Jouannet & Deberge 2007.
41. Ferdière & Zadora-Rio 1984.
42. Potter 1979.
43. Braidwood 1960; Braidwood & Howe 1960.
44. Adams 1972.
45. MacNeish 1967.
46. Vita-Finzi & Higgs 1970.
47. Haggett 1965.
48. Redman 1974.
49. Redman 1974; Macready & Thompson 1985; Haselgrove et al. 1985.
50. Clarke 1973.