could, they amassed collections of objects that were displayed in the museums
and private collections of the imperial cities. In addition, neither archaeolo-
gists of informal nor of formal colonies were able to reach celebrity at a world
level for the reasons explained above. Yet, the similarities should not hide
important diVerences. In independent countries, local academic communities
had the potential to develop, and in most cases they managed to do so before
the First World War, though to a variable extent depending on the country. For
example, this occurred to a greater extent in Latin America than in Japan, and
much more in Japan than in China. This development was very much curtailed
in the colonies, where membership of scholarly communities was mainly, with
a few exceptions, formed by individuals from the metropolis. If locals were
accepted, they were always kept in inferior positions in the institutions.
Independent countries were able to pass legislation to control their heritage
and hinder the imperial powers’ desire for their antiquities. Importantly, in
non-colonized countries, archaeology had a potential to be used as a source of
empowerment. In opposition to the often negative connotations provided by
the imperial powers’ account, some archaeologists proposed alternative nar-
rations that allowed archaeological remains to be used as symbols of national
pride. This, as will be seen in the following Part III, would not be the case in the
archaeology of the colonized.
Latin America, China, and Japan 205