the nation’s origins back in time to include evidence from the most remote
past, although the allure of the medieval period remained dominant in the
national historical discourse. The growth in the amount of professionals and
amateurs took place in the context not only of an expansion throughout the
world of the imperial powers (see Part III of this book), but also of an increase
in the number of powerful nations in Europe: some of the new countries
such as Italy and Germany resulted from the uniWcation of previously divi-
ded states, whereas others such as Serbia and Romania were formed when
their territories gained political independence from their old masters. New
philosophies—mainly positivism and evolutionism—replaced the Romantic
approach that had dominated the early decades of the nineteenth century.
Evolutionism, the belief of things changing through time from the simple
to the complex, was not new, but in this period became the backbone of the
organization of historical discourse. Importantly, scholars now insisted in
following scientiWc methods, which also meant being rational and imper-
sonal. However, this should not deceive those not familiar with archaeological
practice at this time: positivism came together with an ample acceptance of an
essential division of humanity into races which were not of equal value and
whose diVerence could be measured by increasingly sophisticated techniques
such as craniology. Evolutionism also agreed with universalism, as there was
general conformity about a series of stages all humans, i.e. each nation, went
through throughout time. This concept was made visual in exhibitions at all
scales: local, regional, national, and international. It was also made apparent
in the distribution maps that scholars started to include in their publications.
Scholars looked for these stages within the frontiers of their nations, a practice
that led to circular argumentations: the geographical extent of the nation was
taken as given but also became part of the conclusion. This practice was
mainly voluntary but became increasingly crystallized through funding—only
projects that conformed to the sponsor, either the state or a private source,
received subsidies—and legislation, which obviously conformed to the na-
tional boundaries.
The wide diversity of material culture dealt with by archaeologists led to a
parallel variety in the way it was institutionalized. The situation described at
the start of this book as the ‘sheer lack of homogeneity’ of what archaeology is
today, of its multivocality, has roots mainly in this period, although
it has much earlier precedents that go back to the early modern period. Two
major divisions became established: monumental and non-monumental
archaeology. The latter mainly referred to prehistoric material, and was institu-
tionalized within the natural sciences, geography and/or anthropology.
Monumental archaeology was shared by philologists, historians of art,
classicists, and others specializing more narrowly in epigraphy and numismatics.
396 National Archaeology in Europe