development. On the other hand, potential indicators of nationalist (regionalist) sentiments, such as the areas and periods studied in the various autonomous communities, do not exhibit clear patterns, are isolated, and/or are contradictory. Thus, the denounced historical biases (Gonzalez 1992, 25) or straightforward nationalist (regionalist) interpretations presented to the public (via temporary exhibits, museum posters, and popularizing publications) disappear or are diluted in academic presentations (Altuna 1990a, 1990b).

One must bear in mind that archaeology in Spain has become a regional science in two ways. It involves, of course, fundamentally descriptive and classificatory historical investigations, and its practice (excavations, surveys, study of museum collections) requires permission from the appropriate cultural authorities. Such permits, accompanied or not by public financing, are granted by each autonomous community (exceptions are the Basque country and the Balearic and Canary Islands). At the same time, practically all academic institutions have their base in the autonomous communities, and their archaeological research has tended to adjust itself to these divisions in order to simplify bureaucratic transactions, since almost all research funding is granted by the communities’ cultural “ministries.” In addition, the sponsorship of archaeological activity by the autonomous governments tends to favor the selection of projects presented by local centers and researchers. Throughout Spain these factors promote a regionalization that is only sometimes counterbalanced by the traditional involvement of teams from other regions of the country or from abroad (Gonzalez 1992). The adoption of the present administrative boundaries for the study of the past is a feature as characteristic of Spanish archaeology (Ruiz Zapatero 1988) as the endogamy of its institutions (Ruiz Zapatero 1991, 6).

The fact that these features are strongly marked throughout Spain suggests that they are not best explained as the result of regionalist nationalism. Even in those autonomous communities in which nationalist (regionalist) parties have a predominant political influence (the Basque country and Catalonia) heritage issues have not been the object of a systematic program. Even where such goals have been formulated, they have been quickly forgotten when they came into conflict with strong economic interests or the particular objectives of administrative bodies (Salvatierra 1994, 9). The cultural efforts of the regional nationalist parties have been directed more to the promotion of bilingualism and the reinterpretation of recent history than to a search for pre-Roman origins.

In short, the strong regionalization of archaeological activity in Spain is not the product of strong nationalist pressure (Gonzalez 1992; Vicent 1994, 221), as the political and administrative decentralization of the Spanish state has made it unnecessary for minority nationalities to archaeologically legitimatize their aspirations for self-government. Regional governments develop heritage policies as a function of political and administrative, not ideological, concerns. It is precisely for this reason that there is conflict between regional governments and academic bodies.

In spite of the varied policies developed in the seventeen autonomous communities, certain clear general tendencies are discernible. Regionalization is improving the conditions of archaeological research by sponsoring the creation of an infrastructure that sometimes includes research laboratories. Similarly, the professionalism and technical expertise of archaeologists have increased. At the same time, however, the uncertain publication of the results of archaeological work (Gonzalez 1992, 24) and the strong compartmentalization of Spanish archaeology constitute obstacles to the communication that is essential for scientific progress. Only a few of the autonomous communities have begun computerizing their data bases (Hernandez and Castella 1993), and these are not linked or standardized. The participation of academic centers in these efforts is also very uneven (Fernandez and Fernandez 1991).

In spite of these negative features, the future is heartening. The substitution of an authoritarian, centralized regime by one that is democratic and almost federalist has caused maladjustment, but in two decades the autonomous