Borderlands: Rethinking Archaeological Research Frameworks Paul Belford Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, Welshpool, UK ABSTRACT Research frameworks for archaeology in the UK have a long history. Since the 1990s research frameworks have been developed in for- mal programmes initially driven by state heritage bodies. These were intended to facilitate better decision-making in development- driven archaeological projects, and to provide an interface between archaeologists. However the effectiveness of such frameworks is limited by a number of constraints. These include ‘internal’ bound- aries created by historic environment professionals: chronological borders; professional borders; disciplinary borders; and borders limiting access and regulating control. There are also boundaries created by others, which include institutional and resourcing con- straints as well as the geographical limits of modern administrative boundaries. This paper discusses these issues through the prism of the border region between England and Wales, a borderland zone with long histories of conflict and co-operation. Some suggestions are offered for future changes. KEYWORDS Research frameworks; heritage management; borders; archaeology; England; wales Introduction Archaeology and ‘the historic environment’ in the United Kingdom (UK) became embedded in the policy and practice of spatial planning in the early 1990s. This was a politically-driven change, which to some extent reflected broader international trends in applying so-called ‘polluter pays’ principles to archaeology and cultural heritage. The merits of both the process and the ways in which it was delivered have been discussed extensively elsewhere. 1 There were variations within the UK in the adoption of this kind of developer- funded planning-based archaeology; variations which owed something to pre-existing arrangements for dealing with cultural heritage in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. The consequence was that the 1990s saw two simultaneous and related trends: first an acceleration in the quantity of archaeology being undertaken; second an increased diversity in the archaeology and historic environment disciplines. This diversity brought welcome opportunities for some, and fearful fragmentation for others. By the mid-1990 s it had become clear that the volume of work, together with the increasing separation of different strands of professional practice, had the potential to create silos. This in turn reduced the accessibility of data through ignorance or misunderstanding, and so reduced the potential for public benefit to be derived from the system. CONTACT Paul Belford paul.belford@cpat.org.uk THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1737777 © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group