Chapter 8, one of the most interesting aspects of the comparison between the
French and the Russian empires is the diversity in the rhythm of exploration
and institutionalization, a disparity that has been linked to contrasts between
the nature of nationalism in France—much more democratic—and Russia—
a nationalism directed from above. Also, the weakness of Russian imperialism
can be seen in the involvement in the area of explorers and archaeologists
from other European powers—mainly from France, Britain and Germany, as
well as in the lesser institutionalization of the study of antiquities in the
Russian Empire.
Non-monumental archaeology beyond Europe is the focus of Chapter 10.
The dominance of the classical model explains why such a huge subject is
dealt with in a few pages: the archaeology of the ‘primitive’ was not one of the
priorities of nineteenth-century archaeology despite it being found in every
continent: America, Asia, Australia, the PaciWc and Africa. Nineteenth-
century scholars assumed that there was no point in studying the past of
uncivilized peoples, for they were just survivals, living fossils of by-gone
societies which were about to disappear because of their inferiority. Part of
the information contained in this chapter is linked to a type of colonialism
not considered earlier in the book: internal colonialism. This term refers to
the Europeans’ settling in territories, already dwelt in by non-state societies,
which they considered unpopulated. This happened in areas of Australia not
previously occupied by Europeans and in territories which had already been
included in existing state boundaries, as in many areas of America. This
chapter also contains some information about monumental archaeology.
Monumental remains were actually found by Europeans in areas far away
from any other civilization, such as in sub-Saharan Africa in Great Zimbabwe,
Benin and Ife. There was no question of considering the ancestors of the
populations living in the area as their builders. In a process of disengagement,
as peoples from the black race were perceived to be at the bottom of the
hierarchy of civilization, white authorship was assumed. The chapterWnishes
with some thoughts about how racism aVected archaeology, and how archae-
ologists and other scientists’ opinions on peoples living in small-scale soci-
eties supported and reinforced their discrimination, the dispossession of their
lands and even their annihilation.
Nationalism in Europe is the focus of Part IV of the book. In order to
understand developments in Europe, one needs to be aware of the informa-
tion provided in theWrst chapters of the book: the archaeology that conferred
prestige at the start of the nineteenth century was that of the classical
civilizations. This, therefore, considered as of little value most archaeology
in the European lands. The contrast with the situation at the end of the
century is clear: parallel to the archaeology of the Great Civilizations weWnd a
An Alternative Account 19