geology, and biology. 6 Sklena ́r (1983: 105–8) has also pointed out that one of
the main characteristics of archaeology at this time was to produce an
anthropological approach, and he provides many examples of the conver-
gence between archaeologists and anthropologists in Germany and other
parts of Central and Eastern Europe, many of those mentioned in previous
sections.
Yet, while centripetal forces were bringing the four disciplines—natural
sciences, geography, anthropology, and prehistoric archaeology—together,
increasing specialization would pull them apart. Fractures began to emerge
from the mid nineteenth century, especially in the relationship between the
natural sciences and the other disciplines. This can be illustrated in the change
of name of the chair obtained in the mid 1850s by the French scholar (and
sensu strictuanti-evolutionist) Jean-Louis-Armand de Quatrefages (1810–92)
(Laming-Emperaire 1964: 180), from ‘Natural History of Man’ to ‘Anthro-
pology’ (Fonton 1993: 70). 7 This initial detachment, between the natural
sciences on the one hand and anthropology and prehistoric archaeology on
the other, became more apparent in museums. The diverse nature of the
collections also meant that museum curators decided their display either in
separate museums or at least diVerent sections within a single museum. Thus,
the Prehistoric Collection of the Viennese Society of Anthropology, created in
1878 under the direction of Ferdinand Ritter von Hochstetter (1829–84), was
later moved to the Austrian Imperial Museum of Natural History founded
in 1889, where it remained curated by the Department of Anthropology and
Ethnography (Urban 2006: 266). The division of various archaeology and
anthropology collections was also the case when the Pitt Rivers Museum was
founded in 1884 (Ovenell 1986).
In contrast to the incipient rupture with the natural sciences, the human
base of both anthropology and prehistoric archaeology kept them together for
much longer. Rather than a separate discipline, prehistoric archaeology was
initially seen as a sub-Weld of anthropology. The vocabulary used at the time
reXects this subordination well. In 1872, for example, an anonymous reviewer,
probably the famous French archaeologist E ́mile Cartailhac (1845–1921),
explained that ‘Italians and Spanish use the word ‘‘prehistoric’’. In adopting
the term prehistorians, we are just translating... but perhaps it would be
better to employ a periphrasis or just keep the name anthropologists’ (1872 in
Clermont & Smith 1990: 97). ‘Palaeoethnology’ was also employed as an
6 Although not often an option, in some cases, such as at Cambridge University, philology
and prehistoric archaeology were also combined (Fagan 2001: 17).
7 Although other sources explain that Quatrefages had replaced Etienne Serres in the chair of
Human Anatomy in 1856, a chair which later changed its name to that of ‘Natural History
of Man’ and subsequently to ‘Chair of Anthropology’ (Fonton 1993: 70).
388 National Archaeology in Europe