an institutional framework for prehistoric studies that was separate from that
of monumental archaeology, undertaken in the E ́cole Franc ̧aise d’Extreˆme
Orient. Interest in the Neolithic mound Somrong Sen led to an excavation by
the palaeontologist Henri Mansuy in 1902, in which an archaeological se-
quence was created on the basis of the 4.5 m. stratigraphy (Higham 1989: 21;
Mansuy 1925: 6; Saurin 1969). In Indonesia, the Archaeological Service only
declared research on prehistoric archaeology under its domain from 1920.
Before then studies were undertaken by interested individuals from many
quarters. Some carried out their studies from Holland, such as the director of
the Museum of Antiquities of Leiden, Conrade Leemans, who in 1852 would
be one of theWrst to classify stone adzes. Other studies centred on bronze
drums, other bronzeWnds, megalithic remains, and ancient beads (Soejono
1969; Tanudirjo 1995).
It was only in the case of weak colonial powers, like Spain in the Philip-
pines, that scholars from other countries took the lead. Thus, despite the
interest taken in the anthropology of the Philippines by Spanish researchers
(Romero de Tejada 1995; Sa ́nchez Go ́mez 1987; 2003), the most important
investigations into prehistoric archaeology were led by the French explorer
Alfred Marche (1844–98), who stayed in the Philippines (map 3) for several
years in the late 1870s and during the 1880s. In 1881 Marche explored two of
the Philippine islands and collected a great range of material, mainly from
burial caves. Thus pottery, glazed burial jars, semi-stoneware, human skel-
etons, and burial ornaments were sent to the Muse ́e d’Ethnographie du
Trocade ́ro in Paris, though some material ended up in Madrid (Evangelista
1969: 98–9). Marche’s work coincided with the less systematic work led by
learned native scholars, such as Joseph Montano (b. 1844) and the doctor
Paul Rey from 1878–81, and the Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal (1861–96),
in 1894 (Evangelista 1969: 99).
In those British colonies where ancient monuments were absent, archaeo-
logical research slowly made an appearance around the 1870s. In New Zea-
land, for example, earlier enquiries had been based on language and
ethnography, and at the start of the nineteenth century there was some debate
about whether the Maori were of either Semitic or Indian origin. This debate
continued in later decades in the context of the New Zealand Institute created
in 1867 (Ballantyne 2002: ch. 2). More important for the development of
prehistoric archaeology is the fact that by 1877 there wereWve towns which
had museums with natural history collections in them—Nelson, Christ-
church, Wellington, Auckland, and Dunedin, though they were generally
less well funded and staVed than those in Europe. The Canterbury Museum
in Christchurch, New Zealand, for example, received less funding than the
average provincial museum in Britain (Pyenson & Sheets-Pyenson 1999: 139,
Archaeology of the Primitive 295