after the First World War, was essential for the acceptance of human antiquity
in Europe (Grayson 1983; Van Riper 1993). Stratigraphy was also key to
conWrm the established typological sequences. The antiquarian pursuit of
study collections started to give way to the retrieval of data through excavation.
Early examples in which stratigraphy was considered were in theWrst and
second Kitchen Midden Commissions (1849–69 and 1885–1900) (Kristiansen
2002). During this period stratigraphy was included in publications such as the
handbook written by A. Voss in 1888 issued by the Prussian Ministry of
Education on the excavation and protection of antiquities (Sklena ́r 1983:
114). Stratigraphy was also used by Wilamowitz in his excavations in Italy
(Ceserani forthcoming) and the collaboration between Romanists and the
natural sciences has been mentioned for the case of Hungary (Nagy 2003:
15). Yet, most classical and medieval archaeologists used the practice of
searching for walls and, once found, excavating the contents of rooms usually
without any stratigraphic control and often in an unsystematic way. In
contrast, the excavations by the English General Pitt Rivers between 1890
and 1900 are among the best examples of how thorough the work of the
Weld archaeologist was becoming. 9 Importantly, he followed his method
regardless of the established chronology of the site. Examples of his excava-
tions extend from the prehistoric (Cranborne Chase), Roman (Rushmore
Park) and also medieval (Caesar’s Camp in Kent) periods (Lucas 2001: ch.
2.1). In this respect, Pitt Rivers was ahead of his time. Most archaeologists
were less systematic than he was and the impact of the techniques being
developed in prehistoric archaeology on the latter periods would only be
visible later, in the twentieth century.
In typology, the lead was taken by French prehistorians and by Scandin-
avians. The system proposed by Gabriel de Mortillet for the Palaeolithic in
1869, for example, was based on technical progress: from Acheulean, to
Mousterian, Solutrean, Magdalenian, and Robenhausian and other periods
later added. This single evolutionary scheme would soon be contested in its
details, but not in its substance, by scholars from other nations as well as other
French regions. Another scientiWc method adopted by evolutionists was
typological seriation. Montelius would state in this respect:
The type for the prehistoric archaeologist is the same thing as the species is for the
scientist... Concerning the product of nature—it has long been known—one form
9 In the early twentieth century Pitt Rivers’ excavation techniques would be followed by
others, laying the groundwork for the excavations by Mortimer Wheeler and Alexander Keiller
(Fagan 2001; Lucas 2001; MacGregor 2000; Murray 1999a; Stone 1994), and with other
archaeologists important later in the century: Stuart Piggott and Grahame Clark (Fagan 2001:
10–11).
392 National Archaeology in Europe