Old Boundaries and New Frontiers Reflections on the Identity of Archaeology '

In this paper I demonstrate some major changes within the traditional disciplinary boundaries of archaeology during the last 25-30 years, and the subsequent formation of new frontiers of theory and practice. They are the result of the expansion and diversification of the discipline in modern society. In that process archaeology has lost its former hegemonic identity which is replaced by pluralism and overlapping functions and identities. This has resulted in institutional and organisational discrepances. My analysis serves as a platform for forrnulating a strategy for cooperation between these new sectors, especially the heritage sector and the universities, leading to the formation of a more coordinated archaeological research practice.

While archaeology has achieved rather strong popular recognition among the gene- ral public in recent decades, archaeologists themselves seem to have been struck by an identity crisis.The symptoms are many: they range from theoretical oppositions to the na- ture of archaeological practice.There has evolved a gulf between different archaeo- logical sectors: administrators and professio- nal excavators, museum curators, monument managers and university lecturers -the latter being the absolute minority group, yet still defining the theoretical and methodological agenda.Museum curators and heritage ma- nagers have come to play the role of the si- lent majority -or have simply developed their own identity -with regard to education, books and journals, ignoring the so-called research environment.
Why has this gap appeared between the popular perception of the past on the one hand and the internal identity crisis of arch- aeology on the other, leading a former homo- geneous discipline to fragment into various new and disparate sectors?I shall propose that the two phenomena are closely inter- linkedwhat happened to archaeology during the last 25 years can only be characterised as a revolution.Not since the formative days in the mid to late 19th century has the discipline undergone such major changes -in- volving all aspects, from theory and method to the practice and role of the discipline in societyas it did during the last 25 -30 years'.The reasons are precisely to be found in the expansion and popularity of the discipline.
Today archaeology occupies a solid and respectable position in the modern welfare society as the authorized producer and reproducer of the national heritage.This position is in most countries safeguarded by legislation that secures the preservation, excavation and presentation of the archaeo- logical heritage of the nation.Much of this new legislation, especially that concerning Carrent Svvedish Arehneologv, Voh 4, 1996 rescue excavations, was introduced during the 1960s leading to the largest economic boom in the history of archaeology.In the process archaeological practice diversified to occupy these various new roles in society, and most archaeologists are today working within the so-called heritage sector.In my opinion the consequences of these changes have not been fully realized, especially not at the universities and in education, until quite recently.The next 10 years will see an adaptation of the research environment and of education to these new functions of archaeological practice, if they want to maintain their monopoly over education.
This will put great demands on universities and it may lead to a reorganisation of educa- tion, one reason among others being the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology.
More than any other historical discipline, archaeology is shaped by its place at the interface between different research traditions and different social and economic functions -between prehistory and history, between natural science and the humanities, between heritage administration and research, between the production of knowledge and the production of ideology, between the in- terests of the past and the present.To adapt successfully to the future one needs to ana- Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 4, l996 Old Boundaries and New Fronti ers l 05 lyze and critically evaluate the relationship between these components, which define the academic and institutional boundaries of the discipline.
In the following I shall therefore discuss some of the more recent historical changes in the disciplinary boundaries of archaeo- logy, which have led to the formation of new frontiers of archaeological theory and prac- tice.As a consequence archaeology has lost its former hegemonic identity as a discipline, which has been replaced by a conglomerate of different, sometimes separate, some- times overlapping functions and identities.
Finally I shall evaluate the consequences of these changes in theory and practice for the future orientations of archaeology.

BETWEEN PREHISTORY AND HISTORY
Although archaeology, since the founding days of Thomsen, was explicitly defined by its source material -the silent material evi- dence of the past -there has nonetheless developed a dominant identification between archaeology and prehistory, that is history before the appearance of written sources.
Historians, then, defined away archaeology from their realm, the history based upon written sources, relegating prehistory and archaeology to a position at the margin of civilization.This borderline reflects the old dichotomy between "civilization" and "barbarism", culturally determined preferences and value judgements which may deprive historians the ability to understand and recognize significant features of both civilized and barbarian societies.This is exactly what has happened, as the concept of civilization defines the relationship between prehistory and history through the occurrence of script and the survival of written evidence.In this way prehistory is pushed before the expanding frontier of civilization, defining arbitrary borderlines of historical research and explanation (Fig. 1).
In the Mediterranean history begins with the the Greeks and the Roman Empire, in central Europe with the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman Em- pire, and in northern Europe first after the Vikings.The overlapping periods of the ear- liest script have been described by some as protohistory, indicating them as a field of both historical and archaeological research.
The same is true of classical civilizations with their classical archaeology, which has gradually freed itself from art history and developed into a modern archaeological discipline.
This picture was valid until 25 years ago, and still is in some countries.Since then, however, major changes in disciplinary bor- derlines have occurred, especially in North America and in England, and from there they are spreading to the rest of the world, being recontextualized according to existing tradi- tions (Trigger 1989; Hodder 1991).
First of all we must recognize the two basically different traditions or contexts of archaeology: in America archaeology orig- inates from and is still considered part of anthropology, while in Europe archaeology at an early stage was linked to history and natural science, especially to geology.This has to some extent determined the expansion of archaeological practice that took place during the last 25 years.During this period traditional archaeology freed itself from the constraining temporal boundaries and began to include first medieval then later historical epochs, culminating with the archaeology of our own time (Fig. 2).
There were several reasons for this development: the growing heritage sector protected increasingly historical archaeological monuments, and in the new national agencies there developed an interdiscip- linary management environment, where archaeologists, historians and architects worked together in excavating, recording and restoring historical sites and monuments.
Also the protection of historical landscapes was increasingly linked to archaeological Current Sseedish Archaeology, Voh 4, l996 North America "Archaeology as anthropology" Europe "Archaeology as history" surveying.Academically there developed at the most innovative university departments a theoretical need to carry out archaeological research under historical control (ethno- archaeology, historical archaeology) which gradually evolved into a new research para- digm (Binford 1983; Hodder 1982a, 1982b), and final ly there developed in North America a strong interest in colonial archaeology -the living conditions of Indians and settlers and the formation of American culture, which was only sporadically covered by historical sources (Deetz 1977; Leone 1984).This was followed by a more sociologically inspired concern with the function and role of modern material culture (Rathje & Schiffer 1980:  380ff.; Rathje 1979), which also gained some foothold in Europe (Shanks & Tilley 1987: Ch. 8).In Europe urban expansion at the same time led to an expansion of medieval and later historical (rescue) archaeology, which gradually evolved into other forms, such as industrial archaeology, the archaeology of capitalism and the archaeology of indigenous peoples (Gledhill, Bender & Lar- sen 1988; Miller, Rowlands & Tilley 1989;  Layton 1989).
These developments are summarized in Fig. 2. for North America and Europe, res- pectively.They have created a whole new disciplinary frontier between archaeology, ethnology, the history of technology, and so- cial anthropology, to mention the most im- portant.Ethnoarchaeology quite naturally grew out of the anthropological tradition in America, but today it occupies a position as a recognized archaeological practice also at several European universities.Likewise ur- ban and industrial archaeology grew out of a European tradition, just as landscape history has increasingly become a new field of interdisciplinary research and conservation, constituted by human geography, landscape history and archaeology (Hyenstrand 1983; Carrent Ssaedi sh Archaeology, Vol. 4, l996 Berglund 1991;Hodges 1991) .
It is still too early to evaluate the future impact of these new frontiers on archaeo- logical theory and practice, but I shall make an attempt in my concluding statement.We can, however, observe that historical archaeology is gaining foothold in England and Sweden especially.Stig Welinder has carried out important case studies (1992 and 1995), just as the Central Board of National Antiqui- ties has a whole department dealing with landscape history and conservation.It links up well with the Swedish tradition of human geography, as exemplified by the journal Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift (Journal of Settlement History).The same is true in Eng- land with its tradition of landscape archaeology and settlement history (Fowler 1972;

HUMANITIES
The natural sciences -geology and zoology especiallywere important contributors to the formation of archaeology as a scientific discipline.Principles of geology, and the zoological determination of stratigraphically layered bones and shell middens, formed the basis of the first recognition of an early Stone Age of hunters and fishers in Europe.
This breakthrough took place in Denmark (Fischer & Kristiansen in press) and in France (Grayson 1983) during the 1850s.It helped to free archaeology from the at that time rather unhappy status as an auxiliary discipline to history, illuminating historical myths.This was most clearly realised by Worsaae, who used the new results cleverly to establish Fig. 3. Graphs shosving the prevailing explana- tions of t/te Bro&i-e-/ron Age trattsitition in Scan- dinavia according to their relia»ce on natural science or culture-historical factors (after Sören- sen /9841.archaeology as a discipline in its own right, contributing to the emerging acceptance of the evolution of Mankind which had been launched by Darwin during the same period.It further laid the foundation for a permanent cooperation, if not integration, between arch- aeology and the natural sciences, which has grown in scale and in subjects ever since.Today archaeology would be unthinkable without the assistance of environmental sci- ences, zoology, the natural sciences of age determination, and technological and medi- cal/physical sciences.
Also indirectly the impact of a position between science and the humanities has been strong.This is reflected in the basic methods of classification, which in archaeology are much more rigid and scientific than in most other humanistic disciplines, perhaps with the exception of linguistics.The naturlisation "taken for granted" in these highly scientific methods of excavation, recording and clas- sification has been criticized in recent years, most strongly by Shanks and Tilley, who ar- gue that it homogenises the archaeological data and thereby also their interpretation, leaving too little scope for discussion, reflec- archaeology's position between science and the humanities, and it suggests that the boundaries between them are not static, but subject to change.
This has been demonstrated in a work by Marie Louise Stig Sörensen (1984).In an historiographical analysis of the Bronze-Iron   Age transition she classified the prevailing explanations according to their reliance on natural science or culture-historical factors.
It revealed a cyclical change in the domi- nance of one or the other over time (Fig. 3).
If we then compare this with a more subjec- tive diagram of cyclical changes over time between the dominance of general evolutio- nary explanations versus culture-historical explanations in archaeology, they follow on the whole the same pattern (Fig. 4).It sug- gests a wider world-historical regularity lin- ked to civilizational cycles of hegemony and cultural identity, as discussed by Friedman   (1989).
Turning to more recent changes in the relationship between science and the humani- ties, we note that the rise of New Archaeo- logy or processual archaeology was heavily inspired by the terminology of science, both in basic classification methods (beginning already during the 1950s) and in theory and testing procedures (from the 1960s onwards).
The theoretical shift during the last decade towards a post-processual, culture-historical and contextual archaeology has been accompanied by a retreat from former quantitative Current Swedish Archaeologv, Vttl.4, 1996 methods of analysis and been replaced by a return to historical interpretations and hermeneutics (Hodder 1986).This shift towards the humanities and culture, however, has also introduced or reintroduced a critical concern with the use of the past in the present, by employing critical theory, a most welcome and much needed approach for the heritage sector whose work is so closely interwoven with the ideological fabric of historical identities (Pinsky & Wylie 1989; Baker & Thomas 1990).Also the contextual concern with the particular, including the individual monuments, suits the heritage well, and one may observe an increasing theoretical and interpretative concern with such problema- tics in recent writings, from Richard Bradley's monument narratives in Altering the Earth (1993) to Michael Shank's much de- bated book Experiencing the Past (1992)among other things a polemic against the traditional presentation and use of archaeo- logical monuments.Post-processual and contextual archaeology, however, has also been criticized for being out of touch with the practice and experiences of heritage arch- aeology (Smith 1994).
Today archaeology finds itself in a middle position between science and history, a productive pluralism which may hopefully continue for some time yet.According to the historical regularity of the cycle, this will not last.In that case, the historical disciplines can look forward not only to further popu- larity and expansion, but also to systematic attempts at political manipulation and mis- use, as is already the case in several parts of Europe.This rather gloomy perspective leads to a discussion of knowledge and interest.

BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND INTEREST
The title of this section is a slightly modi- fied translation of a classical work by Jurgen Habermas, Erkenntnis «nd Interesse, which appeared more than 25 years ago (in 1968, reprinted 1973) and at that time opened up a still ongoing debate about the relationship between the production of knowledge and the use of that knowledge in society.The debate reached archaeology first in the late 1970s and early 1980s -symptomatically, and in accordance with Habermas theory, at a time when the full impact of archaeology's enrollment in the political -administrative system of the modern welfare society became apparent.
From 1965 onwards, resources and new jobs at museums and in the heritage sector expanded as rapidly as the increasing num- bers of students and graduates from the universities (Fig. 5).At the time, that is during the late 1960s and 1970s, this was seen as an unproblematic, good thing.Archaeology was considered to serve the historical needs of society in a rather straightforward way.The biggest problems were considered to be in- ternalthe lack of a theoretical and methodological framework enabling archaeologists to analyze and explain the past in more scientific ways, and in ways more relevant to society.Social organisation, economy and ecology became key factors.The decay and the transformation of the archaeological re- cord from the past to the present were rigorously analyzed in order to eliminate distortion (Schiffer 1987).However, distor- tion arising from the present, the use of the past in the present, was only gradually acknowledged as worthy of serious conside- ration.
During the last 10-15years research on the social and ideological functions of archaeo- logy, in tandem with the realities of archaeo- logical practice under increasing pressure from different interests in society, has made the relationship between the past and the present increasingly clear (Keller 1978   analysis and interpretations are caried out." (Hodder 1991:19).I would add two more words: "and used".It is the use of the past for the purposes of the present which is so characteristic of archaeology.One of the most important functions of the past is as creator of national/ethnic iden- tity and unity.This is probably the main reason for the existence of archaeology, museums, and preservation laws, and for the im- portance attached to history as a school sub- ject, on par with arithmetic and mathematics.The past is one of the cornerstones of the images we have of the world we live in, as developmental history, from the Stone Age to the Industrial Age, and as national and ethnic history.This has been demonstrated in many recent studies (Lowenthal 1985: Hedeager & Schousboe 1989).But in that historical process archaeology has been em- ployed by different social classes in their rise to political dominance, as demonstrated Carrent Srredish Archaeologv, Vs&t.4, l996 in the case of Denmark (Kristiansen 1981 and  1993).Today nationalism is once again mar- ching forward and employing archaeology and history to invent new myths of origin (Slapsak 1993, Kohl 1993).In fig. 6I have arranged a whole array of conflicting and competing interests which use the past.Tour- ism and the revival of national heritage has turned out to be a most efficient cocktail (Boniface & Fowler 1993; Prentice 1993).Tourists are the pilgrims of our time, visiting well-presented historical shrines on their fixed routes and carrying souvenirs back home instead of relics (Horne 1984)'.
Archaeology has always served both the past and the present, and the question to be asked, therefore, is whether the future will see a changed balance between the interests of the present and what effect that may have on archaeological practice (Gillberg & Karls- son 1994; Riksantikvarieämbetet   1993).I have already mentioned the two dominant interestsnationalism and ethnicity on the one hand (Shennan 1990; Kontaktstencil XXXV), and tourism on the other (Prentice  1993).The increasing interest in the histori- cal heritage will probably reinforce the contradictory aspects of historical change -the social aspects of early industrial society, the archaeology of war, and following in the wake of that probably the archaeology of emigrants.Opposing that will be demands for reinforcing national historical myths and histories in some countries, as is already apparent, some times openly but mostly in subtle ways.
What is new, is probably a growing consciousness in the archaeological community Fig. 7. Male-female representation in Nonvegian arclzeteology in 1985. 1) undergraduate students, 2) Ph.D. students, 3) employed in archaeological positions, 4) professorsldirectors.The tretzd is symptomatic for tnost European countries (after Nass 1991).
Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 4, 1996 that not only archaeological results -books, monument presentations etc. , -are subject to use and misuse.The social context of arch- aeology is also linked with these problems (Baudou 1991;Nordbladh 1991;Näss 1991).Questions of gender also originate in the so- cial organisation of archaeology itself, women being increasingly under-represented, from students to professors and museum directors (Fig. 7).The fact that many, per- haps most, archaeologists today are working within the administrative framework of the public sector, and that many museums are dependent upon commercial success for their survival, also contributes to sharpen the understanding of the politics of the present in the archaeological environments (Welin- der 1995).
Thus the implications of the relation be- tween past and present, between interest and knowledge, should be an ever-present ingre- dient in archaeological theory and practice, both in education and when discussing the future direction of the heritage sector.

BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
Archaeology prior to 1965 was basically a museum-and research-based discipline carried out at the larger museums and in a few university departments.Archaeological practice was on the whole without administra- tive obligations, except those mainly internal ones linked to museum work and small-scale excavations and conservation.There remai- ned room for a rather large degree of free- dom to choose excavation and conservation projects, and exhibitions were rarely re- newed more than once in a lifetime.Between 1965 and 1990, that is within 25 years, peace disappeared as new legislation all over Europe and the Western world enrolled the cultural heritage, including archaeology, in the administrative system of the welfare state, leading to the formation of new national agencies (English Heritage, State Antiquaries in the Nordic countries), and county and mu- nicipal administrations dealing with the historical heritage of monuments, sites, build- ings and historical landscapes.This deve- lopment changed the whole organisational profile of archaeology, the role of research and the decision-making structure of exca- vation and conservation.Today basic research plays only a modest role in comparsion with resources allocated for rescue-excavation, registration and conservation.
As it has been a gradual development, the more basic problems concerning the overall direction of and responsibility for archaeo- logical research have not been fully realised.Archaeology has on the whole maintained its old research structure, although the produc- tion of new evidence has increased probably by a factor 10'.This discrepancy is now be- ginning to cause severe problems.In the past, concerns have been mostly with the backlog of unpublished excavation reports rather than with the overall structure of archaeo- logical research (but see Renfrew 1983; Baudou 1991;Tilley 1989)".Today, however, the overriding problem is that existing research environments and research funds were never geared to the present output of rescue archaeology (Thomas 1991).It means, quite simply, that the research environment does not have the capacity to transform the volume of archaeological data being pro- duced, into historical knowledge.To over- come this dilemma demands a rethinking of the whole framework for rescue and research, leading to new forms of cooperation between heritage management, museums and university departments.
Thus the heritage sector is today respon- sible for producing most of the archaeologi- cal knowledge available for future research.In the process there has developed a new field of academic/bureaucratic skills and of applied research, giving status and merits to its practitioners.This is to be welcomed, and it may serve as a basis for a more balanced cooperation with the traditional research environment at universities and museums (Fig. g).
The basic research problem facing the archaeological environment in creating this new balance between rescue and research, however, is that there exists a divide between universities and the heritage sector in many countries.Although various types of advisory boards assist in making priorities, no one feels responsible for developing the enormous and continuous accumulation of new evidence into meaningful research pro- jects at a national level.This is not to deny that important excavations and registrations are published, but there exists no overall research strategy and no money to make sense of the majority of the evidence: it is dead capital.This locked situation is the result of overlapping responsibilities, leaving comparative research above the level of the individual site as an ill-defined responsibility.The only way out is to define this re- sponsibility.It implies that rescue archaeo- logy assumes full responsibility -not only for documenting the archaeological past before destruction, but also for developing and financing integrated research programs in col-laboration with universities and museums'.
Such an integration may be supported by recent developments within the heritage sector itself.Here the boundary between legis- lation/administration and its practical imple- mentation in the form of restoration, exca- vation, registration, etc. , is now increasingly subject to change.It has become common- place to separate administration and applied research, especially within the larger en- vironmental sector.New sector research in- stitutions are established to secure a degree of independence on the one hand, and a pro- per research environment on the other.An opposing tendency is to privatise some of the work, especially excavations, which rather represents a fragmentation of the research environment.
So we can observe three tendencies for the future development of research and heri- tage administration: the autonomy model (or the centralized model), which maintains most of the re- search within the heritage sector itself, even- tually in special sector research institutions, by allocating existing laboratories, excava-Fig.8. Generali ed model of the Heri(age House, svith its four pillars of basic activities, w:hich itt later years has been roofed bv ttn etrpandittg superstructure of applied research.Tltis developtnettt has given the heritage sector a central position in the developtnent of' nerv research strategies and toplcs. Current Swedish Archaeologs; Vol. 4, l 996 tion and restoration units.The Royal Commission in England represents a good example of such an institution, and so does the new Norwegian Organisation NIKU (Norwegian Institute of Cultural Heritage Re- search), or the Swedish and Dutch models of a national organisation of rescue archaeology, although regionally divided.
the integrated model (or decentralization model), distributing the work to museums or research institutions/universities or to both.This may also include post-education, postexcavation and publication.The museum model is dominant within Danish archaeology, as one of the few countries that maintained and modernized the museum structure to include rescue archaeology.In most other countries universities and regional rescue units of various kinds has taken over.This model have in several cases led to an inte- gration with the final model.the privatisation model, where part of the work is privatised according to principles of cheapest and most qualified bids.This is the American model, which unfortunately is spreading to Europe, although mostly in a watered-down version, avoiding the worst pitfalls of the American experience, e.g. , by developing specialist services or by stressing regional competence.
All of these trends, which tend to break up or lead to a reorganisation of existing structures", speak in favour of developing closer ties between the heritage sector and the universities in order to maintain both a critical debate and the development of rele- vant (critical) and more unified skills of both theory and practice.It is important to stress that, regardless of the variety of organisa- tional solutions adopted in different countries, some level of coherence and continuity must be maintained -from planning to publication, from "on the ground priorities" to regional and national research programs.This is a prerequisite for productive research, leading to a final discussion about the role of education in the changing archaeological en- vironment of the 1990s.

BETWEEN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
In the preceding sections I have delineated some developments in archaeological theory and practice that have radically transformed the discipline and created new disciplinary boundaries and frontiers.In the final section I shall discuss which of the frontiers will develop into more stable boundaries of archaeological practice and which will re- main open to further development.And finally: how can and should the universities interact with and transform some of these new practices into relevant research and education?
I have identified three major fields or frontiers of new archaeological practice: historical archaeology/landscape history, integrating archaeology with human geography and ethnology conservation and heritage management, integrating archaeology with architectural history, planning, law and politics.
culture and environment, integrating archaeology with ecology, history and ethno- logy.
To this I would add the role of archaeo- logy and of archaeological heritage in mo- dern society as a fourth frontier of archaeo- logical research and practice.
Each of these new frontiers challenges the identity of former autonomous discip- lines, such as ethnology, human geography and architectural history, just as it challenges the prevailing identity of archaeology.
If we next consider the present organisa- tion of learning and research at the universi- ties, and the organisation of museums and heritage agencies (Fig. 9), the discrepancy especially between universities and the heritage sector is apparent.Education and research is still organised according to rather traditional and narrow specialist subjects, separated either by period or object.This structure originated in the late 19th century, Fig. 9. Organisational models of the prevailing institutional and disciplinard boundaries at univer- sities, in the heritage sector and at museums.
Currettt Swedish Archaeology, Voh 4, l996 as did museums, which explains their or- ganisational similarities.The heritage sector, on the other hand, is generally much more interdisciplinary in its subject matter and consequently also in its organisation.Besides, there has developed a whole new sector of applied research which cross-cuts the tra- ditional boundaries.At the more innovative universities these developments and needs of society are reflected in the formation of interdisciplinary research centres, just as many smaller disciplines are lumped together in larger departments, though often without any real integration of research and educa- tion.
We are thus experiencing a period of major transformation of society, demanding new forms of knowledge in addition to the traditional forms.Archaeology is no exception from this pattern; on the contrary, it faces bigger organisational problems because of its interdisciplinary nature.How should the universities respond to this challenge?
This question touches upon some basic principles of university ideology, as it raises questions about the demarcation line between autonomy versus dependency, critical research versus applied research.Responses have ranged from rejection to the formation of new departments of applied research and teaching.I shall briefly discuss three possible approaches and their implications.
The first I shall call the "hands off" ap- proach, stressing the critical autonomy of university education and research.The philosophy is to wait and see which of the new needs will come to occupy relevant and definable areas of new knowledge and re- search.If the university always adapts to the immediate needs of society in the short term one may lose the necessary critical distance and lose sight of important long-term trends.
Secondly we have the "hands on" ap- proach.It is chararcterized by a conscious critical cooperation, based on the philosophy that it is possible and necessary to incor- Model A -functional integration Model B -tempora!integration Model C -integration of applied and basic archaeological research Fig. 10 Three alternative models fi&r a more integrated structure of research and education within the culture-historical disciplines.
Current Swedish Archaeologi; Vol. 4, 1996 porate new areas of research and education into a reciprocal process of learning.In other words the universities have to keep in touch to stay alive, but without selling their soul.
Finally there is the "hands in" approach.It is based upon the philosophy that if you don't adapt to the needs of the market you won't survive, because that's where the money is.Or put more academically -univer- sities serve the needs of society, and should actively engage in taking up new fields of applied research and education, otherwise they will become too esoteric and lose their monopoly over education in the long run.This is already happening in some countries.
My own approach is closer to the second: I believe universities should engage in a critical dialogue and a closer cooperation with those who employ the students, especially in periods of changing needs, when new forms of knowledge are being created.In fig. 10 I have illustrated three models for integrat- ing the new archaeological frontiers into a future organisation of research and learning, which will gradually transform them into new disciplinary boundaries.Model A is based upon functional integration and it takes ma- terial culture as its principal point of departure, creating an integration between archaeo- logy, ethnology, museology and heritage management.Model B is based upon temporal in- tegration and takes the major historical time periods as its point of departure.It integrates early history, prehistory, medieval studies, classical archaeology and philology.Finally Model C represents an extended functional version of Model A and Model B, dividing them into a department of applied research and education, dealing with heritage mana- gement, conservation and laboratories and a department dealing with basic research and education.
Only by taking up the challenge and attempting to integrate new and old sectors of archaeological practice will it be possible to maintain a dialogue between the different archaeological sectors in the future.Archaeology has become a multi-functional, theo- retically diversified discipline.Despite such diversification and pluralism, it is necessary for any discipline to maintain some common theoretical and methodological ground to maintain credibility as a discipline and to be able to resist political manipulation.Dialogue and cooperation are the means to en- sure that.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this paper I have demonstrated some major changes within the traditional discip- linary boundaries of archaeology and the for- mation of new frontiers of theory and practice.They are the result of the expansion and diversification of the discipline in modern society.In the process archaeology has lost its former hegemonic identity, which is re- placed by pluralism and overlapping func- tions and identities.This has resulted in institutional and organisational discrepancies.My analysis served as a platform for formulating a strategy for cooperation between these new sectors, especially the heri- tage sector and the universities, leading to the formation of a more coordinated archaeo- logical research practice.This is not a return to a hegemonic pastarchaeology has forever lost its closed aca- demic character -it is rather a realisation that archaeological practice is today so diversi- fied and extensive, that new organisational structures and means of communication are needed to secure an efficient use of the avail- able resources and the available archaeological evidence for research and education.
English revised by Laura Wrang.
Current Swedish Archaeology, Voh 4, 1996 ' This article was originally delivered as a lec- ture (provföreläsning) in April 1994 in Gothen- burg in connection with the competition for the professor chair of archaeology.I have added some recent li terature. 7 It resulted i&z a need to take stock of the changes and their implications, from archaeological his- tory (Hodder 1991; Meltzer et al 1986, Trigger   1989) to monuments and museum collections (Hyenstrand 1984; Kristiansen1985; Jensen 1992).
These historical analyses served also as a plat- form for reformulati ng research and conservation strategies (summarized in Hyenstrand 1995).
Politically there is at the European level an increasing understandi&zg of the idea of historical landscapes, following upon a period dominated by the conservation of bui ldings and archi tecture.
It is reflected in the work of the Council of Eu- rope, presenti&zg a new charter on the conserva- tion of historical landscapes.In the Scandina- vian countries the concept of the cultural environment has been e&nployed by the national heritage agencies to forward a more unified stra- teg y of la&zdscape conservation and presentation.
I am not dealing with how people, the visitors and consumers of the past, perceive it.This is a  In England it has been estimated that the last 20 years have seen more excavations than were un- dertaken during the preceding 130years (Thomas unpubli shed).
Several conferences in both Europe and North America have in recent years been dealing with at least some of these problems, namely those linked to rescue archaeology, which lies closer to the heart ofmast archaeologists than conservation or landscape archaeology (e.g.Trotzig & Valhne   1989). 7 In Sweden and England such a development is already under way -reflected in seminars and debates about research priorities and forms of cooperation (Thomas unpublished; Riksantikva-  rieämbetet 1995; Meta 93:2; Kyhlberg 1991&1995).
This is reflected in frequent reorganisations of the heritage sector i&z most countries.Denmark, Norway and Sweden have been through the process recently, leading to constructive (although also sometimes painful) debates about aims and means (e.g.Handlingsplan 1992; Norges forsk- ningsrådd 1994;Ams 91:6from Norway).Also the tendency towards privatisation has led to much recent debate (Seminar report from Baden- Wurtenberg: Archäeologische Denkmalpflege und Grabungsfir&nen).

Fig
Fig. l.Centre-periphery structure reflecting the disciplinary boundaries between archaeology and hi story.

Fig
Fig. 2. Major trends in the expattsion of archaeological practice in North America rtnd Europe du ri n g the last 25 years.
Hodges 1991).The combination of nature conservation and historical conservation at a national and European level will then eventually provoke the further development of historical archaeology and landscape archaeology in Europe (Macinnes & Wick- ham-Jones 1992; Bender 1993; Roymans 1995)'the cultural environment being the new integrating concept (Welinder 1993; Kristiansen in press).
Fig. 4. Graph suggesting the prevailing interpretative frameworks in European archaeology during 150 years.

Fi
and 1991;Mahler el al 1983;Myhre 1994; Pinsky & Wylie 1989).Or as formulated recently by Ian Hodder: " It is difficult to be a Euro- pean archaeologist and remain unaware of the ways in which historical and social conditions have shaped the way excavations,