world during this period stored the material culture and frequently the physical remains of subject peoples at the margins of empire, again as scientific and historical resources.

At the turn of the twentieth century few voices questioned the wisdom of such collection practices. But out in the field things were beginning to change. Certainly, after Greece gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century, there was a clear policy that the government of Greece should manage the archaeological heritage of the country for the benefit of its citizens. The drafting of a nation’s archaeological past as an important element in the definition of the identity of the contemporary population of that country was a phenomenon occurring in other parts of Europe, too, achieving its most notable expression in the nationalist archaeologies propounded by practitioners such as gustaf kossinna and jens jacob worsaae (among many others). One practical consequence of this more overt politicization of archaeology was the potential for conflict between western archaeologists and the governments of the traditional source areas for museum collections, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. howard carter’s long-running feud with the Egyptian government over the disposition of the objects recovered from tutankhamun’s tomb is a case in point. But there was also a significant potential for archaeologists to use their work for the edification of the people in whose countries they worked, and notwithstanding continuing debate about the effect of his efforts at site stabilization at knossos, there is no doubt that sir arthur evans sought to do just that in Crete and Greece.

The gradual recognition that archaeological knowledge was not socially, culturally, or (especially) politically neutral aptly reflected the reality of the situation. Within the boundaries of Europe the perception that archaeology (no matter how scientifically conducted) had political consequences was well understood by the 1880s. This was particularly true in the context of the passage of legislation to protect the “ancient monuments” of countries such as the United Kingdom. In Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Middle East—especially after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire—the activities of archaeologists became subject to increasing regulation. However, little if any recognition of the rights or interests of the indigenous peoples of Africa, the Americas, or Australasia was accorded either by governments or archaeologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these places excavation and collection continued unfettered.

During the twentieth century much of the innocence (either real or feigned) that characterized the previous century disappeared. In Europe the deeply political nature of archaeology was explicitly revealed by vere gordon childe (particularly in his great works Man Makes Himself and What Happened in History) during the course of his resistance to the distortion of European archaeology by Nazi ideologists prior to World War II. Similarly, the constraints on interpretation placed on Russian archaeologists by Joseph Stalin prompted sharp reactions from scholars such as grahame clark. Since 1950, but especially since the 1980s, European archaeologists have continued to explore the cultural, social, and political dimensions of the production (and consumption) of archaeological knowledge. For some this has meant confronting the role of science and objective knowledge in archaeology. For others it has involved a contemplation of the impact of European archaeology on peoples outside Europe. And for all practitioners it has entailed searching for an understanding of the role archaeological information plays in the creation and destruction of nations and ethnic identities within the borders of Europe. Part of this exploration has been devoted to the discussion of the ownership and retention of cultural properties removed to European museums. The most celebrated example of this is, of course, the controversy over lord elgin’s marbles, but equally significant have been the requests by indigenous peoples from former European colonies for the repatriation of human skeletal remains for reburial in their home territories. A great deal more work needs to be done on all of these matters, but there is little doubt that most practicing archaeologists in Europe are now well aware that their actions (and those of their