At a superficial level we could argue that application of concepts of the French "Annales"  School of History 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 seem a bit contrived, consisting of attempts to fit particular evidence (mainly from classical archaeology) into one or more of Braudel's three categories or temporal constructs: evenements, conjunctures  and structures de longue duree. Does archaeology advance in its unending search for some new truth by merely borrowing and applying terms that have common in Continental history for at least a half century?