of Archaeology, together with several monograph series (Patterson 1995b:
47). The link between archaeology, anthropology, and natural sciences was
not completely erased, however, as shown by the promulgation of a single law
to protect Indian sites and defend places of natural beauty in 1906
(McGuire 1992: 823).
In the rest of America—Mexico and Peru, excluded for their special cases,
have been discussed in Chapter 7 1 —most of the institutions dealing with
archaeology were created from the 1870s in a period coined ‘the Rise of
National Archaeologies’ (Politis 1995: 198–201). One of the key institutions
was the museum, usually connected with the local university. Museums were
institutions with educational and research purposes and became so popular
that it has been calculated that around 5 to 10 per cent of the local (urban?)
population visited them (Pyenson & Sheets-Pyenson 1999: 143–4). In Latin
American countries such as Colombia it seems that the early impetus towards
the institutionalization of archaeology came to a halt later on. There, despite
legislation introduced in the 1860s to prevent the export of antiquities and to
ensure their protection, this measure was not immediately followed by further
institutionalization. It was only in 1902 that the Academia Colombiana de
Historia (Colombian Academy of History) was set up. It published aBoletı ́n
de Historia y Antigu ̈edades, which contributed signiWcantly to the diVusion
and awareness of the pre-Columbian past (Jaramillo & Oyuela-Caycedo 1994:
52–3). Yet, systematic archaeological research only started in 1913 with the
German Konrad Theodor Preuss (1869–1938), who worked for the Museum
fu ̈rVo ̈lkerkunde in Berlin and excavated in San Agustı ́n (Politis 1995: 200).
Colombia’s case seems to be similar to Venezuela’s, where institutions dealing
with archaeology would only be organized at the turn of the century. Then,
the Museum of Natural Sciences in Caracas became the principal institution
dealing with archaeology (Gasso ́n & Wagner 1994: 130).
In other Latin American countries such as Chile, Argentina, and Brazil,
however, the developments of the 1870s would have a longer lasting eVect. In
the development of archaeology at this time it is possible to see the eVect of
mass immigration from Europe, for many active archaeologists in these
countries in the last third of the nineteenth century were scholars born and
sometimes even trained in Europe. They established themselves in this part of
the New World, sometimes forming closed communities. In Chile the Arch-
aeological Society of Santiago was formed in 1878 by a group of naturalists,
historians, writers, and politicians. This was followed by the German Scien-
tiWc Society in 1885 and the French Society of Chile in 1891. It was within this
1 ThearchaeologyofMexicoandPerualsoincludesremainsofnon-statesocieties,buttheliterature
about the history of institutionalization in these countries does not analyse how the interest in
monuments may have aVected the development of research of other types of archaeology.
Archaeology of the Primitive 287