the National Museum, promptly published his finds, which enabled his opponents to use them to discredit his arguments. Although he tried to work independently in creating a nonformal and more or less romantic paradigm of his own, Niederle (then already a professor of prehistoric archaeology at Charles University in Prague) was well aware of the parallel work being done elsewhere in Europe, which, however, he and Buchtela did not accept unconditionally. With the exception of some supposedly romantic points primarily concerning several assumed migrations, their paradigm was formal, that is, based on shape, decoration, and similar characteristics, as observed on individual artifacts. červinka, working in Moravia and closely following Niederle and Buchtela, based his views on the collections of a number of local archaeologists, and Palliardi built on excavations of his own.

In spite of the fact that there were romantic elements in the works published around the turn of the twentieth century, such works were basically not nationalist, for their main problems were connected not with the “nations” known in central Europe at the beginning of written history but with the formal aspects of the archaeological record.

These achievements, however, were not isolated in Europe, and they were not the first of their kind. By the 1870s many archaeologists in other parts of Europe (oscar montelius in Sweden was the most prominent representative of the current) began to look for finer divisions of the archaeological record, inspired, directly or indirectly, by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories (which, however, explained the variability of nature). Their work was unusually successful, leading to detailed chronological schemes, one part of which (for the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age) is still used. The studies were undertaken mainly in Scandinavia and later in Germany in the period from 1890 through 1910. They are generally known under the name typology, as the chronological schemes were constructed on the basis of the “evolution” of archaeological types (usually a parallel evolution of several types for each period).

The contribution of Czech lands to these schemes has already been mentioned. Czech archaeologists not only created typological sequences for their own regions but also supplied important parts of the evidence on which other specialists could build. An important Czech contribution to the typological endeavor, which deserves to be mentioned in more detail, was achieved by the Moravian archaeologist Jaroslav Palliardi, who proposed a detailed chronology (with twelve phases) of the Moravian Neolithic and Eneolithic periods. The conclusions he arrived at by the end of the nineteenth century are still valid; they were, in fact, so much ahead of their time that they were not developed further until the late 1950s. This was partly caused by the fact that their final form only appeared when the views of gustaf kossinna, a prominent German professor of philology, started to occupy the minds of official archaeologists. Although Palliardi demonstrated that the individual Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures represented consecutive chronological phases, Kossinna’s adherents considered them to be more or less contemporaneous groups covering different ethnic wholes. However, it clearly followed from Palliardi’s chronology that “Nordic elements,” such as the funnel beakers, appeared very late in the Moravian sequence and therefore could not be considered responsible for the appearance of civilization throughout Europe, as maintained by Kossinna. Palliardi’s findings contradicted Kossinna (and even his nonradical followers) to such a degree that almost no archaeologist had the courage to mention them.

The First Half of the Twentieth Century

The three-age system and the recognition of the “diluvial” age of humans that followed had one great nonformal consequence: it became clear that humankind was of great antiquity, and it was to be expected that the “nations” known at the beginning of written history could not account for everything in the past; after all, much history was not mentioned in any written documents. This idea was taken up by a number of archaeologists, first of all by Kossinna, who began to look for ancient Indo-Europeans and their origins in the archaeological record. Formal archaeology was so successful in drawing