marginalization of those scholars too sympathetic to them (see an example of
this in Massin 2001: 305–9). Yet, rivalries were not the exclusive province of
nationalism, for they also existed among each country’s archaeologists, and
even among those working in the same institution. Despite this, it is import-
ant to stress archaeology’s—like other social sciences’—contribution to the
intensiWcation of international rivalries in that it forged a set of images of the
nation. Archaeologists distanced themselves from those of other nations, by
giving ‘scientiWc’ legitimacy to essentializing hypotheses on their national
origin and its distinctiveness from any other.
Agency and the building of colonial archaeologyImperialism and colonialism became connected to nationalism from its
inception, as Napoleonic expansionism clearly showed in the early years of
the emergence of nationalism as a political ideology. Throughout the nine-
teenth century this association became tighter, reaching a peak in the 1870s,
when the possession of an empire became an essential element to be con-
sidered a successful nation. Imperialism and colonialism were crucial for the
development of archaeology beyond Europe, especially in areas under the
direct control of the imperial powers. An inversion of the formula, however,
does not hold. Antiquities were only one of the assets used to legitimize
imperialism. Sometimes the historical account that explained the roots of a
colony’s inferiority was assumed rather than based on data. This was espe-
cially the case when no monumental antiquities existed in the area. When
they did, archaeologists played a role from the early days of the colony. The
importance given to the presence of monuments can partly be explained
because of the strength of the classical model—the consideration of the
ideas expressed by the Graeco-Roman authors and the arts produced by
its artists as the canon from which to measure wisdom, knowledge and
civilization. Following its rules, only remains of a monumental character were
thought worth studying to start with, for they were automatically considered
the work of an ancient Great Civilization. Accounts of them were not impar-
tial, however. The yardstick against which information about antiquities was
retrieved, analysed and publicized was that of the archaeologists’ perceived
own Great Civilization, which for most of the nineteenth century, and
especially for itsWrst half, meant Greece and Rome. Unsurprisingly, in
comparison, most ancient monuments around the world were viewed as
abnormal. The greater distance archaeologists travelled, the more anomalous
things looked, the more exotic the monuments became and the more
alien material culture was perceived. The discourses about monumental
402 Conclusion