In 1865 Worsaae, from his post as director of the Danish National Museum,
launched a systematicWeld survey of all visible monuments in the landscape
(Kristiansen 1984: 22). Regarding legislation, in the second half of the nine-
teenth century much lobbying took place with the result of new laws put into
eVect especially from the 1880s. It is interesting to note that not everybody
was happy about this move: some archaeologists had initially rejected legis-
lation, as was the case of the Swiss, Edouard Desor (1811–82), in the early
1860s (Kaeser 2004: 327). However, in most cases this initial reluctance soon
diminished in view of the beneWts provided the systematic study and collec-
tion of antiquities. The Ancient Monuments Act was passed in Britain in
- Similarly, in 1887 a law protecting historical monuments was issued in
France and the organization of archaeology into inspectorates was established
in Italy (Breeze 1996; Choay 2001: 98; d’Agostino 1984). In other countries
such as Spain, catalogues and legislation would have to wait until the early
years of the following century (Dı ́az-Andreu 2004b: section IV). Finally, it is
interesting to note the promptness with which newly independent European
countries created academic chairs in archaeology. An example of this is
Romania, where in the very year of the country’s independence, 1877 (al-
though it was only internationally recognized in 1878), a chair of Archaeology
and Antiquity was created at the University of Bucharest for Alexandru
Odobescu (1834–95) (Babes 2006: 237).
Another issue worth commenting on with respect to the relationship of
evolutionism and nationalism is a practical one. One of the knowledge-
making practices of archaeology, which helped in the visualization of the
nation through archaeology, was that of drawing maps. Maps were originally
produced to register the distribution of particular types of objects, but in
practice they helped to make the territorial perspective observable, allowing
scholars to visualize the physical dispersal of objects. Although this trend may
have originated in Germany inWelds such as geography, anthropology, and
philology (see discussion on biblical topography in Chapter 6, see also Chapter
10), maps were promptly adopted by other scholars. Together with the use of
names to identify typological series which showed speciWc geographical dis-
tributions, maps paved the way for the theoretical shift which occurred at the
turn of the century: the introduction of culture history in archaeology. Thus,
terms which seemed to have already been in use at the end of the nineteenth
century, such as the Lausatian culture and the U ́netice culture, and the
understanding of Hallstatt and La Te`ne periods as cultural entities, were
further reinforced with the typological series established by the German
archaeologist Otto Tischler (Sklena ́r 1983: 110–11). The issue of maps
and the coordination of the symbols used in them made possible the com-
parison of diVerent areas. This issue was discussed at congresses as early as the
Evolutionism and Positivism 379