Nevertheless, this diversity was much more marked in North Africa than in
the Russian colonies. In the latter, excavations were overwhelmingly under-
taken by Russian individuals either working in the army or belonging to the
aristocracy (two overlapping categories for some cases). This duality seems to
echo the diVerences in the nature of nationalism in France and Russia.
Whereas in theWrst case the popular base was emphasized and its origins in
a revolution led by the middle classes was integrated into its rhetoric, in
Russia nationalism was created from above without much stress being put on
the middle classes and with an almost absolute disregard towards the poor.
Accordingly, the degree of participation of the middle classes in the institu-
tionalization and professionalization of the discipline of archaeology was not
as important in Russia as it was in France or, to a varied degree, in the other
main political players in Western Europe.
The analysis of the protagonists of the archaeology of these countries’
colonial areas also reveals further diVerences. The presence of scholars from
every other European power in the Russian colonies clearly contrasts with the
practical non-existence of scholars other than Frenchmen in North Africa.
This disparity seems to mirror the weakness of Russian imperialism in
comparison to Western Europe. The inXuence of Russia as an imperial
power extended over its neighbours in Eastern Europe and over much of
Asia (map 4), but she had practically no inXuence beyond these territories. It
was almost a domestic business run close to home over an incredibly large
area. The delay in Russian industrialization led—most probably to the ad-
vantage of the colonized—to a lesser utilization of the economic potential of
the colonies. These deWciencies in Russian imperialism were exploited by the
other powers to dispute its authority. Whereas it seems that the dominion of
France over North Africa was beyond dispute, the same could not be said
about the Russian colonies, which French, British and German explorers and
archaeologists also endeavoured culturally to colonize. Cultural interest was,
at least in some cases, not the only purpose; assisting their fellows and
protectors back home to plan the economic and political dominance of the
area may also have been on their agenda. The weakness in Russian in contrast
to French imperialism again becomes clear when a comparison between the
degree of institutionalization in each colonial area is undertaken. In contrast
to the high number of institutions created by France, these are fewer in
number in the Russian colonies, with the exception of the area now belonging
to the Ukraine.
The examples of the Russian colonies and French North Africa show that
colonial archaeology cannot be isolated from the processes occurring in the
metropolis. Both Russia and France not only inXuenced their colonies but
were also inXuenced by them. Both poles of the colonial world fed oVeach
246 Colonial Archaeology