many analyses undertaken on the social provenance of archaeologists (for
example Kristiansen 1981; Levine 1986; Mitchell 1998) show that a number
hailed from the social elite and, importantly, that the great majority were
from the middle classes. They, therefore, belonged to the strata in society
leading the nineteenth-century revolutions. These were not enforced from
above, but, quite the reverse, were voluntarily directed by the intelligentsia—
the educated strata in the society mainly drawn from the middle classes—
in their search for space in the political sphere. They even, to a large extent,
played a crucial part in supporting ‘oYcial nationalisms’—those to be found
in some Eastern European countries like Russia, as well as perhaps other states
beyond Europe, like Persia, in which nationalism was imposed by the mon-
archy on its subjects (Anderson 1991: 86). The middle classes’Wght for
political recognition would eventually meet with success. This was the context
in which the appeal of antiquities led scholars to put their work at the service
of the state. They did so willingly, and their enthusiasm would be key to the
evolution of archaeology into an academic discipline. Institutionalization did
not comeWrst. Before institutionalization—and after it had started—there
were individuals whose concern for antiquities was driven by the belief that
their research assisted the advancement of their nation. In contrast to today’s
practice, for most nineteenth-century archaeologists the association between
their nationalist feelings and their interest in the past was unproblematic.
Archaeologists were moved, among other motives, by patriotic zeal and by a
sense of pride in their nation. The considerable personal sacriWce often
required to undertake their work was oVset by their sense of achievement.
They were proud of the result and talked and wrote about it freely. Such
comments did not usually appear in the main text of academic publications,
although there are exceptions. Rather, most commonly they were made in
speeches and papers, in newspapers, in book introductions and the like. This
openness regarding their perceived role as discoverers of the roots of the
nation is also found among the minority who managed toWnd jobs related to
archaeology. If anything, their frankness was reinforced by their conWdence in
having acquired a responsibility towards the building of the nation because of
their professional standing.
Archaeology thus grew out of a political context in which the nation was
the major element which provided legitimacy to the state. This happened in
Europe as in all the other parts of the independent world, including the Near
East, Latin America, China, and Japan. The very nature of the nation,
however, was an arena of negotiation in which archaeologists had a voice.
To start with, it was necessary to demonstrate that the nation indeed existed,
and for this the construction of its life history was crucial. Knowledge of the
past and an understanding of the events that had led to the speciWc make-up
Conclusion 399