the deWnition of the colonized. These feelings should not be mistaken for
archaeologists’ lacking a material ambition. Some individuals made all the
issues listed above compatible with the sale of antiquities from which to earn
some capital in addition to social status.
The power of colonial archaeologists’ discourse was related to their own
national might. Archaeologists from non-imperial countries in Europe may
have also wanted to participate in imperial archaeology, but they did not have
either the means nor the audience to do so and so had to re-orientate their
careers to other subjects for which subsidies were at hand. This was the case,
for example, of the Spanish archaeologist, Jose ́Ramo ́nMe ́lida (1856–1933),
whose fascination with Egyptology as a young man had to be substituted, later
in his life, for subjects closer to home, like the Iberians, the Celtiberian site of
Numantia, and the Roman town of Merida (Dı ́az-Andreu 2004b). Thus, the
greater involvement of archaeologists of the imperial powers in colonial
archaeology was related not to their intellectual superiority, as they believed,
but to the economic strength of their nation, which allowed their rich
governments—or their rich sponsors—to support their studies. Both ama-
teurs and professionals beneWted from the state’s interest in their research. In
the case of the latter the reasons are straightforward: they were paid to work in
museums in the colony or in the metropolis and in other institutions, such as
universities or other teaching schools, most of them located in Europe.
Importantly, amateurs and private collectors also proWted from the economic
prosperity of their nation. They had an audience and a readership for their
discoveries and purchases, both in the colony and in the metropolis. They
were frequent collaborators in academic journals and regularly met and/or
exchanged correspondence with the professionals. The prosperity of imperial
archaeology does not mean that everybody or any project was funded in the
centres of imperial power, for only those useful for the state were endorsed.
Concerning the latter it is illustrative to observe that, in the case of Southeast
Asia, for example, not many French archaeologists were found in India nor
British archaeologists in Indochina. The pattern of distribution of the archae-
ologists from the imperial powers clearly shows that, with a few exceptions,
they worked in areas where their nations had a political interest.
Institutionalization in the colonies was based on the same three types of
institutions as in the metropolis—the museum, the university and the gov-
ernment oYce dealing with antiquities. To this, one should add the learned
society, which was not necessarily related to professionalization, for it pre-
ceded it and later, to an extent, was one of its supporters, giving precedence to
the professionals’ opinions and, on many occasions, allowing them to become
its leaders. As is clear from the examples provided in the book, with the
exception of the learned society, which was usually theWrst to be set up, no
404 Conclusion