alternative term to Prehistory (Richard 1992: 195), and its use is still popular
in Italy. In Romania the teaching of Professor Odobescu included geography,
language, ethnography, and religion to introduce the set of lectures on the
Iron Age (Babes 2006: 238). In fact, as the content of journals shows, in
countries such as France and Germany the disciplinary separation between
anthropology and prehistoric archaeology only began from the early twentieth
century (Richard 1992: 195). In England, as late as 1903, a document calling
for the study of anthropology at Cambridge still viewed archaeology as a
branch of anthropology (in addition to ethnology, and physical and mental
anthropology) (P. J. Smith, pers. comm.).
In the last third of the nineteenth century the marriage of anthropology and
prehistoric archaeology was not only apparent in institutions such as societies,
conferences, university teaching, and museums, but it could also be seen in the
personal biographies of many of the protagonists at the time. 8 Most prehistoric
archaeologists and colonial anthropologists belonged to the same learned
societies and some individuals acted as experts in bothWelds. A summary
review of two key archaeologists, representing Britain and France, the two
major pre-1870 imperial powers, illustrates this. The Englishman, John Lub-
bock (later Lord Avebury) (1834–1913), was considered one of the leading
Wgures in both prehistoric and anthropological studies. The regard in which his
work was held by anthropologists led to his election as theWrst president of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, founded in 1871. InPre-historic
times, as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern
savages(1865) he included information about prehistoric archaeology and
about modern tribal societies, despite the fact that the link was almost entirely
based on his belief that the latter could shed light on the understanding of the
former (Trigger 1989: 115). He also amassed both prehistoric and anthropo-
logical items, although the latter only accounted for about a tenth of his whole
collection. The overlap between archaeology and anthropology can also be
seen in the case of the Frenchman, Gabriel de Mortillet (1821–98). As one of
the founding fathers of French prehistory and a combatant evolutionist
(Hammond 1980), Mortillet was behind the establishment, in 1866, of one
of the international fori where both archaeology and anthropology were jointly
debated—the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Arch-
aeology (Richard in Murray 1999b: 105). He was also a very active member of
the Society of Anthropology and he taught Prehistory at the Parisian School of
Anthropology (E ́cole d’anthropologie) founded in 1875 and which he had
helped to create (Gran-Aymerich 2001: 475; Richard 2002: 178).
8 Many of them had also an interest in folklore. An example of this is the Irish archaeologist
William Gregory Wood-Martin (1847–1917) (Waddell 2005: 143).
Evolutionism and Positivism 389