colonized’s opposition to the discourse of the past connected to the creation
of a scientiWc narrative of origins in contrast with a mythical one. Opposition
to hegemonic views may also be conWgured as theories formulated within the
archaeological framework that oppose the rhetoric of inferiority utilized by
colonizers. This implies the acceptance of nationalism, and, more generally,
Western political thought, as politically valid (cf. Fanon 1967: 17). In these
types of cases, as Spivak (Spivak 1994 (1985)) warns, it is impossible to
disentangle the voice of the subaltern, the voice of resistance, from the
colonial discourse.
THE PERSPECTIVE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOKStructuring a book like this one was not an easy enterprise. I considered many
possibilities. From early on I became aware of the allure exerted by the
archaeology of the Great Civilizations in Europe and the Near East, which
put them on a higher plane than anything else which went on in the discip-
line. Although this distinction is vital for my argument, the volume has been
structured along other lines, integrating the discussion of this question
throughout the book. The second option I contemplated was to amalgamate
Parts I and IV, giving priority to the developments in European archaeology,
and then explaining either the emergence of or the growing interest in
archaeology throughout the world in the context of contemporary historical
events. I rejected this option because such a structure would have hidden,
Wrst, the struggle national archaeology had to undergo in Europe to become
accepted as a valid account of the past, and secondly, the inXuence that the
imperial experience exerted on the remodelling of the vision of the past on a
global scale. In the end I decided to explore the development of nineteenth-
century archaeology along the lines of the possible inXuence that nationalism
and imperialism might have had on it.
The discussion of nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism is not new in
archaeology. When dealing with these issues the key reference every author
refers to is Bruce Trigger’s celebrated article ‘Alternative archaeologies: na-
tionalist, colonialist, imperialist’ (Trigger 1984). This work performed a much
needed role in raising consciousness regarding the inXuence of politics in
archaeology, but this book diVers from it in one fundamental respect. Despite
his admitting that ‘most archaeological traditions are probably nationalistic
in orientation’ (1984: 358), Trigger implied the existence of a ‘normal’
archaeological tradition, which rejected the three categories enumerated
above. In contrast to this perspective, the account of the development of
10 Archaeology in the Nineteenth Century