for other ideologies, such as socialism, as well as by the operation of other
identities, like gender, class, and academic status. Scholars’ identities were
constructed through interaction with other individuals, and choice and
agency were part of the process by which they gained and maintained their
identities. Also, proposing that nationalism had a role in archaeology and that
individuals actively engaged in nation-building does not deny that archae-
ologists had a bona-Wde individual scholarly interest, indeed fascination,
towards the past. The analysis undertaken in this book has not refuted this,
but indicated how this allure was put to the service of the idea of the nation,
and revealed how this inXuenced the professionalization of the discipline.
Moreover, nineteenth-century scholars’ understanding of the world and
how they identiWed with it was a process in continuousXux. How they dealt
with the past was, therefore, also in motion, subject to transformation over
their lives. Changes of opinion throughout the scholars’ biographies were—
and are—the norm. Thus, the way in which archaeology adapted and con-
tributed to the shift of nationalism from a progressive to a conservative
ideology around the mid nineteenth century did not require new actors.
Those already active responded to the new fashions and strategically contrib-
uted to them, showing in this way their loyalty to the cause and their group
belonging. Some disagreed, but even opposition can be linked to the same
social processes: individuals who rejected new trends did so implying that
they were not conducive to the national good. The wide range of forms by
which such swings can occur shows that the revisions archaeologists continu-
ously made of their own interpretations were not at all mechanistic, but a
matter of social interaction, negotiation, and contestation. It was through
archaeologists’ actions that new archaeological practices related to the shift in
nationalism and its new emphasis on language and race were successful. These
practices, for example, encompassed a novel emphasis on the thorough study
of skulls found in excavations, and archaeologists’ approval of a talk on race,
as shown by their attendance at it and also by applauding at its end. Mem-
bership of new societies, in which the fusion of archaeology and philology, or
of archaeology and physical anthropology, was promoted, was another pos-
sibility. Many others could be mentioned.
In the introduction internationalism was alluded to, and reference was
made not only to interdependencies but also to rivalries. In connection to
the latter it is important to realize that nationalism—and competition among
empires—also aVected the selection that learned individuals made regarding
whose ideas to follow. This could be seen in an unwillingness to welcome
ideas formulated in another country. Scholars’ nationhood was deWned as
against the nationality of other peoples. On occasion national rivalries led
to a reluctance to accept theories coming from abroad, even leading to the
Conclusion 401