ruleWts the order of appearance of each of these three institutions in the
colonies. Diversity andXuency were the hallmarks of the ways the discipline
developed institutionally in diVerent parts of the world. In order to explain
this, it may be worth looking at how individuals related to the past. In the
previous section it was mentioned that there were as many nations as indi-
viduals. This also applied to the colonies, where the diVerent political ideolo-
gies and other identities also aVected the way individuals constructed their
past. Moreover, the diVerent strategies followed by individuals also depended
very much on a series of circumstances that were beyond their control—the
personality and tastes of whoever was in charge as governor and had the power
to fund one institution or another, the orders coming from the metropolis,
the ambitions of other colleagues living in the colony and the like. As in
the case of the archaeologists working on the national past, changes in
archaeologists’ interpretations and practice throughout their lives were the
norm and one does not necessarily have to expect the arrival of new scholars
to explain the way in which archaeology developed in one particular area of
the world.
The discourse about the past created by the imperial powers in Europe
became hegemonic throughout the world. Their strong economy allowed the
growth of the middle classes in them, the strata of society from which more
archaeologists came. The Powers’ need for cohesion, to have a solid basis for
their national existence and their right to maintain and expand their empire,
coupled with the wealth partly derived from the exploitation of the colonies
and the manipulation of other independent but weaker states, led to the
creation of bodies of professionals who were larger in size than in non-
imperial countries. This lured youngsters from elsewhere in the world to
the imperial institutions, where they learned the new creeds that they then
publicized back home. The allure of the ideas created in the imperial centres
also came from the power that the means of communication gave to their
experts, for as well as institutions, the imperial states funded publications and
journals with no parallel in non-imperial countries. The eVorts of imperial
archaeologists were disseminated both at home and beyond, for journals
could be bought, funds allowing, in any corner of the world with a minimum
number of archaeologists eager to know—and emulate—the latest trends in
the discipline.
Despite becoming hegemonic, the narration created by imperial archae-
ologists did not remain uncontested. In informal empires, as indicated when
discussing nationalism in the previous section, national histories were also
constructed. Yet, it is important to note that this elaboration had to count
with the opinions expressed by archaeologists coming from the imperial
centres. In some countries within informal empires, the study of antiquity
Conclusion 405