65 Historical or Textual Archaeology An Archaeology of Critical Rereading Frands Herschend Based on a discussion of the relationship between history and archaeo- logy, the author proposes a critical analysis of both written and material sources. All sources are considered textual and should be analysed (rereadl on three levels: the conceptual, the intentional and the struc- tural. In an example - an analysis of the meaning of the concept 'land'- the value of the analysi» is shown to be the formation of a discursive and meaningful concept in an evolutionary and additive production of knowledge. Rereading ought to be the methodological approach of textual archaeology. Frands Herschend, Department of Archaeology, Uppsala Universit&; SE-753 10 Uppsala, Sweden. Living in a time when research within the humanities is likely in part to reflect those whom we love, it is not surprising that some may feel secure enough to state that archaeo- logy is a craft or a legitimate academic disci- pline. Such activities may, however, be linked to research by means of a reasonable metho- dological foundation, and as such the in- sights into our minds which may present themselves to the reader will not be embar- rassing. Today's situation is the consequence of the theoretical discussion around 1990, in which those who participated exhausted themselves by trying to alter the foundations of research. Today traditional common and uncommon sense archaeology is reorganis- ing (cf. Callmer 1995) and striking back. In rare cases it is fiercely dispatching itself into an inter-war state (cf. Rundkvist 1995). This situation calls for a methodological discus- sion. History and archaeology are often located at different departments, and the terms 'his- torical archaeology' and 'archaeological his- tory' may be said to be contradictions in themselves. The will to keep the subjects apart seems, however, to reflect two research traditions within academia rather than two fundamentally different ways of studying the past. Nonetheless, when asked to define a dif- ference between history and archaeology the educated interview person will start by point- ing out the differences in time — archaeology studying the more remote past — and proceed with the source material, drawing attention to the difference between material and written records. Archaeology, however, has no end as long as material culture exists. And since the distinction, when it comes to meaning, be- tween material sources and language, regard- less whether language is made up by oral or written material, does not guide us other than occasionally in the present, there is no reason to believe that people in the past were troubled by the distinctions, despite the fact that writing is a young and specific technique (cf. Andrén 1988). This means that most people, like Orser and Fagan (1995:4ff. ), would consider histo- rical archaeology to be the archaeology of the recent past, that is, 'the archaeological study Carrent Sn edistt Arcttaeotogn Vot. 5. 1997