colonial archaeologists and anthropologists was merely unfounded conven-
tion, but rather that the understanding so created was mediated by the
political and social milieu in which the practice of archaeology took place.
A study of the latter reveals that the practice of archaeology within colonial-
ism was not the result of a single stimulus, but rather of diVerent impulses at
two, albeit interrelated, levels: that of the individual and that of the state. The
distinction between both was not clear-cut, however. The state and the
individual did not represent separate spheres. Hidden behind a concept as
abstract as the ‘state’, there were individuals, powerful people within the
political structure of the state or colony, who made possible the funding of
institutions. Both groups—that of the powerful and that of antiquarians—
were not necessarily exclusive. Some individuals belonged to both, and others
were directly inXuenced by members of the other through friendship or
family links. Wishful thinking and ideology, however, were not enough. For
the institutions to materialize and, more importantly, to endure, the eco-
nomic health of the colony or the state had to be founded on aWrm basis. This
explains the diVerence in the number of stable institutions in an economically
healthy state such as the United States of America and, at the opposite
extreme, in most of the colonies in Africa even in theWrst year after decol-
onization, to choose the most contrasting examples.
At the level of the individual the aspirations and personal ambitions of
antiquarians are an important factor to consider. These were not unconnected
with nationalism and colonialism. Once the basic tenets of nationalism had
become accepted in the Western world, individuals engaged with it in many
ways: from daily practices to their working activities. Claims about the
advantages for the nation of both scientiWc research and the formation of
collections became integrated in personal strategies. In theWrst case, the blind
allegiance expected from individuals towards their nation-state meant that
their claim of their scientiWc enquiries as a patriotic duty and that their results
would beneWt the glory of the nation pulled the right strings. This was the
tactic followed by Dubois to obtain funding for his investigation. It is not
implied here, however, that Dubois did not believe that his enquiry was
advantageous for the future prestige of his nation. To a great extent the
power of his plea was precisely that he, as well as those to whom he appealed,
fully believed in it. It had become part of their practical consciousness
(cf. Giddens 1979; 1984), or their habitus (cf. Bourdieu 1977).
The formation of collections can also be understood at the level of the
social strategies followed by individuals in their search for social recognition.
Collections of ancient objects conferred prestige. The inclusion in them of
objects produced by prehistoric societies allowed a wider social base of
collectors in the community than that possible in previous times, when
308 Colonial Archaeology