earlier periods. The treatment given to the archaeology of developed civiliza-
tions was markedly diVerent to that accorded to theWnds associated with
groups considered much simpler as regards their social organization. Prehis-
toric antiquities failed to raise the same interest as those of later dates. Only
occasionally did the scholars dealing with monumental archaeology pay
attention to material of earlier periods. Consequently, in practice, archaeolo-
gists became divided into two major groups: the prehistorians and those
dealing with historical archaeology. This situation was not unlike that of
Europe, where there was a dichotomy between anthropologists/natural
scientists/prehistoric archaeologists and philologists/historians of law and
religion/historical archaeologists (Chapters 11 to 13). In Asia, whereas the
latter group were able to convince the state of their value and became
institutionalized to some degree before the First World War (Chapters 7 to
9), this only happened to most studies of prehistoric archaeology from the
turn of the century, particularly from the 1920s, as will be explained below.
Exceptions to this were India and Japan. In India, the interest in the Aryan
past awakened a certain curiosity towards prehistoric antiquities (Chapter 8).
In Japan the process of Westernization led to a greater appreciation of
prehistoric archaeology which had a nineteenth-century development within
theWelds of geology and anthropology (Chapter 7).
In the case of colonial archaeology, enquiry marched along imperial lines.
Hence, the Russians and the British were the protagonists of the investigations
taking place in Eastern Asia and India respectively, whereas the French and
the Dutch were dominant in Indochina and in Indonesia (Chapter 8, map 3).
In Russia reports on the existence of rock art in the Amur region (map 2) had
already appeared at the time of theWrst explorations, but their proper study
would only take place in the 1930s (Okladnikov 1981: 12–13). Generally,
however, the prehistoric remains in the Asian territories occupied during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries went largely undetected in contrast to the
emphasis on excavations and studies on the Scythian, Persian, and Sassanian
sites as well as those located on the ancient Silk Road (Norman 1997: 89)
(Chapter 9). In Indochina, for instance, some of the studies were undertaken
by French anthropologists and prehistoric archaeologists based in France such
as E ́mile Cartailhac (in 1877 and 1890, while he was editor of the journal
L’Anthropologie). Others were Ernest Hamy (in 1897 while Professor of
Anthropology at the Museum of Natural History of Paris), and Rene ́Verneau
(in 1904 while working in the Museum of Natural History and as a
Professor of Anthropology from 1909) (Saurin 1969). Most of those who
published, however, lived in the area and worked in professions such as
marine pharmacy or teaching (ibid.). The creation of the Service
ge ́ologique de l’Indochine (Indochina Geological Service) in 1899 provided
294 Colonial Archaeology