The editors present this issue as a contribution to more informed discussion of regional differences in the kinds of questions archaeologists ask and the answers they are predisposed to seek. Each contributor sets out the current position in his own country, emphasizing the factors thought most influential. On Anglo-American archaeology, Trigger believes that changing trends reflect the rise and decline of the middle-class faith in progress, so that a more negative view has by now replaced the cultural-historical approach. K. C. Chang identifies three phases of historical development in Chinese archaeology from AD 1092. In France, F. Audouze and A. Leroi-Gourhan see the dominance of Palaeolithic typological studies lessening as interest moves to the excavation of settlement floors and a new focus on ecology, technology, and socio-economic questions. J. L. Lorenzo deals with Mexican archaeology, primarily a state monopoly justified by the needs of education, economy, and national culture. The Scandinavian public, according to C-A Moberg, tends to regard archaeologists as guardians of the sacred paraphernalia of the past; the perpetual marketability of the Vikings has had its effects. The Near East is taken by A. H. Masry. H. T. Waterbolk finds an important element in Dutch archaeology to be the ever-present threat of catastrophic flooding, which has providedboth impetus to research and a preoccupation with humans in relation to their aquatic environment -- hence delta archaeology. Finally, in Australia and New Guinea, T. Murray and J. P. White can find no clearly defined regional tradition as yet, though the last twenty years have been dominated by Cambridge-trained archaeologists. -- AATA