with the natural science, with the university, and with amateur archaeologists. Efforts were directed toward two goals: elucidating Old Stone Age cultures and the problem of settlements in general and establishing renewed chronological studies in order to improve the older systems. The following two decades were among the most productive in the history of Danish archaeology. One major publication came after another, and to present many of the new results to an international public, Acta Archaeologica was founded in 1930. From 1938 to 1940 Brøndsted summarized the results in his impressive outline entitled Danmarks Oldtid (Denmark in Olden Times). The book covered no new theoretical ground, but it did present the picture of Danish prehistory with more detail and subtlety than ever before. This book was followed by a steadily increasing flow of popular books and pamphlets.

Brøndsted’s students have left their mark on developments up to the present day—in positions at the National Museum, in institutes of archaeology, and in a few provincial museums. Yet a kind of dividing line appeared toward the year 1950. In 1949 P. V. Glob became a professor in Århus, as did C. J. Becker in Copenhagen in 1952. Glob devoted himself to great practical tasks—at first in the newly founded Jydsk Arkaeologisk Selskab (Archaeological Society of Jutland), as founder of the Prehistoric Museum of Moesgård, and on expeditions to the Persian Gulf and then later as keeper of national antiquities, in which capacity he no doubt was more successful than anybody else in giving archaeology a popular image. By contrast, Becker carried on the scientific traditions of the discipline in Copenhagen with special emphasis on chronological research and later settlement excavations. In subsequent decades he trained most of the younger generation of archaeologists. In this way and as editor of the chief publications, Becker helped to influence scientific developments during this period more effectively than anyone else.

There is, however, a kind of interaction between Århus and Copenhagen. In Århus an enterprising, outgoing archaeological environment was created around the Jydsk Arkaeologisk Selskab and the new journal Kuml, first appearing in 1961, and the atmosphere was intensified by the professor Ole Klindt-Jensen. In Copenhagan, however, a more restrictive research community developed, based on research conducted within the framework laid down by Becker. This was furthered by the publication of the new monograph series “Arkaeologiske Studier,” which first came out in 1973. As a result of these opposing tendencies in Århus and Copenhagen, the period has not been characterized by fundamental methodological progress, although there has been more precise methodological formulation (by, e.g., Mogens Orsnes and Olfert Voss) and an increasing use of statistical methods. In terms of social and cultural history it has been a period of stagnation: Brøndsted and Glob have had their work reprinted, but new publications in the field have failed to produce fresh insights or information.

Since 1975 a special Danish version of the “New Archaeology” has developed—something that is less theoretical and more anchored in the archaeological material, trying to combine the English and the German traditions. This becomes apparent when looking through the major journals: Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed (Copenhagen), Kuml (Århus), Journal of Danish Archaeology, and Acta Archaeologica. One reason for the direction of Danish archaeology is that the major proponents of the New Archaeology have chosen to publish internationally. After an expansive period of new theoretical developments during the 1970s and early 1980s, some stagnation (or perhaps consolidation) has taken over. Danish archaeology has tended to become more regional than international, a development that might be linked to the lack of university departments (only two small departments exist) and the dominance of museums. During the 1980s a national research project titled “From Tribe to State” inspired a series of conferences and books on the formation of Iron Age chiefdoms and states, another example of regional perspectives dominating.

Among the new research trends since the mid-1980s the most profilic has been underwater or maritime archaeology. National surveys and large-scale rescue operations, in combination