becoming director of the Archaeological Museum of Barcelona or the creation of the Museum of the Americas in 1941 (which was provisionally placed in the National Archaeological Museum), the ideological content of an institution changed to serve the new political order (Cabello 1989, 49–50; Dupre and Rafels 1991, 175). The internal situation and the international context led some foreign researchers to leave the country, but strong ties with German research were maintained (Diaz Andreu 1993, 75).

New institutions were established immediately, proof of the new regime’s interest in controlling culture. The earlier Board for the Expansion of Study was replaced by the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Higher Council for Scientific Research), and the Comisaría General de Excavaciones Arqueológicas (General Commissariat for Archaeological Excavations) replaced the Higher Board for Excavations and assumed state direction of archaeological policy through a new network of provincial, insular, and local commissions. The series Informes y Memorias (1942–1956) and Noticiario Arqueológico Hispanico (1953– 1988) published the results of their commissioned work. At the same time, some provinces continued or founded their own services for prehistoric research.

The first volume of the Historia de España (1947), edited by Ramon Menendez Pidal, demonstrates the level of the new archaeological regime. Except for Martin Almagro Basch and Juan Maluquer de Motes, the work’s authors had professional reputations that were established in the previous period (Eduardo Hernandez Pacheco, Luis de Hoyos Sainz, Alberto del Castillo, Juan de la Mata Carriazo, Antonio Garcia Bellido, Blas Taracena, and Julio Caro Baroja).

There was, however, an essential continuity in method and theory in archaeology before and after the Civil War. The goal was a system of classification that would permit the identification of ethnic-cultural entities and the reconstruction of their historical trajectories (Vicent 1994, 216–217). The French tradition was predominant in Paleolithic studies while the German tradition was paradigmatic in later prehistoric (ethnic interpretation) and classical archaeology (art-history perspective). Beginning in the 1950s, a new technocratic policy led to the opening up of the country toward the world and toward economic expansion (Spain-U.S. treaty in 1953; a stabilization program in 1959; tourism and emigration); and more interest was shown in archaeology, conservation, and restoration in Spain and abroad.

In 1947, Spain’s only permanent research center abroad, the Spanish School for History and Archaeology in Rome, was established for a second time. It was attached to the Higher Council for Scientific Research and renewed its work in 1951 (Arce and Barrondo 1994, 5). In 1954, the Spanish section of the Instituto Arqueológico Alemán (German Archaeological Institute) in Madrid was established on a permanent basis (Grunhagen 1979, 143). Its excavations at later prehistoric, proto-historic, classical, and early Christian sites involved Spanish students and would prove to be fundamental in the modernization of archaeological field techniques. The international and multidisciplinary collaboration that was traditional in Paleolithic research was renewed in Cantabria and in Mediterranean Spain, with participation from the United States in the latter area (Maluquer de Motes 1958).

Archaeology was to be carried out by universities and the new centers of research. Throughout the country new professorships were founded in archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, and prehistory, and the inclusion of prehistory as a required course in degree programs in philosophy and letters (1955) was a key step in the process. The publication of journals by university departments contributed to the consolidation.

In another direction, thanks to the reorganization of the academic world, prehistory occupied a position in the human sciences similar to that of other historical stages (Moure 1993, 216). In contrast, medieval archaeology was only a marginal part of university history programs that neglected Arabist studies and material culture and continued only because of the work of museum curators (Rosello-Bordoy 1986, 9–10).

The Higher Council for Scientific Research came to incorporate the Instituto Español de