The numerousWndings unearthed in the various campaigns of Pergamon—
theWrst oneWnished in 1886 but then continued in 1901–15 and from 1933
(Marchand 1996a: 95)—would also create in Germany the need for a large
museum similar to the British Museum and the Louvre. The Pergamon
Museum, planned in 1907, would eventually open in 1930 (Bernbeck 2000:
100). The excavation of Pergamon was also important on another level. In
1881 Alexander Conze became the head of the German Archaeological Insti-
tute. The campaign at Pergamon had taught him several lessons, not least that
the institute had to be formed by salaried experts, following the directives of
the main oYce of the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin (Marchand
1996a: 100). Under his direction, the German Archaeological Institute became
theWrst fully professionalized foreign institute.
Finally, the German excavations were very inXuential in several European
countries. 5 The successor to Conze’s Austrian chair from 1877 was Otto
Benndorf (1838–1907). 6 After teaching in Zurich (Switzerland), Munich
(Germany), and Prague (Czechia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Em-
pire), he was appointed in Vienna, founding the archaeology and epigraphy
department. In 1881–2 he excavated the Heroon of Go ̈lbasi-Trysa, in Lycia (a
region located on the southern coast of Turkey), sending reliefs, the entrance
tower, a sarcophagus, and more than one hundred boxes to the Kunsthistor-
isches Museum (Museum of Art History) in Vienna in 1882. He helped Carl
Humann with his excavation in Pergamon and later in the century, in 1898, he
founded the O ̈sterreichische Archa ̈ologische Institut (Austrian Archaeological
Institute) and was itsWrst director until his death.
The study of the past in the Hamidian period did not only diVer from the
previous years in the greater control exerted by the Ottoman government
regarding classical antiquities. It also contrasted with the Tanzimat era in
theWrm integration of Islamic history as part of Turkey’s past. This coincided
with a renewed impulse given to national history (Shaw 2002: chs. 7–9).
Although the best-known national history of Turkey, Necib Asim’sHistory of
the Turks, was only published in 1900, publications similar to those produced
by the European nations existed from the 1860s, such as that published by
a converted Polish exile, Celaleddin Pasha, in 1869,Ancient and Modern
Turks(Smith 1999: 76–7). These histories assisted in the formation of a
new, modern identity for the Ottoman Empire. In them, the Islamic past5 For American archaeologists in Turkey see Gates (1996).
6 There are many more German and Austrian scholars working on the Greek world whose
scholarship was extremely inXuential in the development of the philological and art-historical
approach in the last decades of the nineteenth century. To name a few, one can mention Franz
WickhoV(Art History), Robert Ritter von Schneider (Greek Archaeology), Wolfgang Reichel
(Homeric Archaeology), and Eugen Bormann (Ancient History and Epigraphy) (see also others
in Marchand 1996a).
116 Archaeology of Informal Imperialism