decades of the nineteenth century). It also encouraged intellectuals to give
preference to the study of the medieval period, for it was then, after the failure
of the Roman Empire, that most nationalists considered that the roots of the
nation were to be found. The interest in the medieval led to more searches and
discoveries, novel classiWcations and a wider knowledge about the Middle
Ages, but it also came together with a fresh evaluation of old buildings,
many of those in need of repair. Restorations of old churches were undertaken
while new buildings purposely looking old were built. This emphasis on the
medieval period does not mean that Roman archaeology in Europe was left
behind: it was not. This is apparent in the number ofWnds written about in the
learned journals. It also becomes clear from the high number of classical
themes in historical paintings. Yet, there are many issues for future investiga-
tion, including how archaeologists studying the Roman period justiWed their
endeavours in the era of race and language and whether the absence of societies
speciWcally dealing with Roman remains found beyond Italy is signiWcant. The
latter, I suspect, will only be known when an analysis of the endeavours of the
long-established societies is undertaken. The impression is that the way in
which Roman antiquities were perceived indicates the versatility with which
archaeological evidence is treated: RomanWnds were associated with ideas of
civilization and superiority, aspects every nation also wanted to be linked with,
but also with notions of national defeat and foreign domination.
In spite of the emphasis on the medieval and, to a lesser extent, the Roman
periods, those investigating prehistoric remains seem not to have found the
Roman presence a major problem. Prehistorians had no doubts that the roots
of the nation could be observed at least in theWrst millenniumbce, during the
protohistoric period. Yet, there were diYculties in the creation of a coherent
discourse about this period, and these were mainly due to lack of data and the
insuYcient development of archaeological method. This resulted, import-
antly, in pre-Roman times being generally ignored in national histories. As we
will see in Chapter 13, this would change to a large extent in the following
decades. As the previous pages show, part of the reason for this was that the
scarcity of data, instead of discouraging scholars, may in fact have served as an
encouragement, for feelings of patriotism led many to deal with those periods
in which knowledge was slim and many more data needed.
Some imbalances have been observed in this chapter regarding the geo-
graphical development in the discipline in Europe. There are issues that were
discussed earlier in some countries than in others. A clear example of this is
the debate on human origins, which took place in Britain and France in the
1850s and was only later received elsewhere in Europe. This impression is also
obtained regarding the discussions related to phrenology and craniology.
It can be argued that the reason for this was colonialism. The imperial
366 National Archaeology in Europe