others subsequently—was supposedly to reveal either the past Golden Ages
of these degenerated territories or to uncover the barbaric past which
explained the present. As the nineteenth century wore on, the diVerence
between core Europeans and the Others—including the countries of Medi-
terranean Europe—became rationalized in racial terms, theWrst being seen
as containing a superior, all-white, dolichocephalic, Aryan race (Chapter 12).
In the imperial powers, the importance of the continuing re-elaboration of
the mythical past for a nation resulted in increasing institutionalization. The
initial individual ventures and isolated state projects were gradually substi-
tuted by larger archaeological expeditions directed by the major centres of
archaeological power, some already in place—the great museums, the uni-
versities—and other new ones—the foreign schools. A growing number of
scholars dedicated to the decipherment and organization of archaeological
remains were recruited to the proliferating university and museum depart-
ments specializing in the study of classical antiquity. The exploration of the
past was legitimized as a search that would support the advancement of
science. But this aspiration was only understood in national terms. This is
clear from the competition between archaeological expeditions from diVerent
countries for the acquisition of works of art for their own national museum.
There was, however, a major diVerence between Britain (and later also the US)
and the other great powers’ archaeology—in particular that of France and
Prussia/Germany—mainly before the 1880s: there was a lack of a conscious
government policy regarding foreign excavations. In Chapter 1 a distinction
was made between the Continental or State-interventionist model and the
Utilitarian model of Britain and the US. In the former, expeditions were
organized by the mother country and received government backing from
the start. In Britain and the US, however, private initiatives continued to
predominate until the last decades of the nineteenth century. In many cases,
however, entrepreneurs were supported by their government in securing
permissions to excavate and transport archaeological objects and monuments
back home. Some even eventually obtainedWnancial backing from the Trust-
ees of the British Museum or, especially in the case of America, private
foundations. The diVerences between both models became more diluted
during the period of greater impact of imperialism, especially from the
1880s, when Britain, and to a certain extent the US, inaugurated a state policy
of actively encouraging foreign excavations and opened theirWrst foreign
schools.
It is important to note that the interest of the imperial powers in the
antiquities of the countries analysed in this chapter was selective: it focused
on the classical period and disregarded, to begin with, both prehistory and the
Islamic past. A similar pattern will be analysed in the colonial world in
128 Archaeology of Informal Imperialism