formal differences among chronologically and spatially distinct finds that it seemed logical to use these differences to answer some of the old romantic questions. This current was openly nationalistic and often even racist, which also accounted for its aggressiveness. As happened many other times during the development of archaeology, these ideas combined with ideology, this time mainly with the German nationalism that was gradually developing into Nazi ideology based on racism. This deviation of the human mind ended with the close of World War II, leaving a theoretical vacuum not only in Germany but also in many countries of central and southeastern Europe. It became impossible to hold old nationalist views (whether in the authentic German form or reversed to meet the criteria of other kinds of nationalism [possibly anti-German]), but there was no alternative at hand. In some countries this tendency is still perceptible.

Another influential current in central European archaeology of this period was the diffusion theory of the Vienna ethnological school, a form of which became a constituent part of vere gordon childe’s writings. The theory originally assumed that culture had spread throughout the world from a limited number of Kulturkreislehre, but this idea was later dropped in favor of “pure” diffusion. The diffusion concept has by and large spread into archaeology in the form of a hunt for influences, whether from the north or from the southeast.

The reason why this entry addresses the central European intellectual environment at such length in connection with Czech archaeology is because Czech archaeology was largely professionalized in the twentieth century, and professional people are always much more aware of theory than are their amateur colleagues. In central Europe, however, theory was traditionally supplied by literature written in German, the best-known second language of most educated people in the Czech countries during the times of the Austrian monarchy. Thus, the influence of literature written in German was strong in Czech archaeology, as it was in Hungary and Poland. It is therefore rather surprising that Czech archaeology as a whole was conspicuously resistant to the Kossinna form of nationalism, which appeared in only a very few papers after the war. The resistance of mainstream Czech archaeology to such views may have been related to the fact that there was no local fascist tradition that would make it ideologically acceptable to reverse Kossinna, transforming his teaching into another sort of nationalism.

Taking the preceding paragraphs into account, it is easier to understand the achievements of Czech archaeology between the two world wars. The results of the preceding generations were largely fortified, and a solid basis for further development was created. The formal typological approach found expression in the earlier part of the period in the works of Albín Stocký and Josef Schránil. Theoretically and methodologically they represent more or less a prolongation of the first decade of the century, bringing the views of Niederle, Buchtela, and others to perfection. “Influences” became a standard concept, and many migrations were described.

The same background can be observed with regard to Stocký’s and Schránil’s pupils. Jaroslav Böhm, however, produced, in addition to a few typological studies, at least two books for the general public containing unconventional ideas. Jan Filip created mostly arid typology, and Jiří Neustupný was more orientated toward cultural history. But in the interwar period there were still many nonprofessional archaeologists working in various fields of the discipline, some of whom achieved better results than their professional colleagues, mainly by not being so strongly determined by the ruling, official paradigms of their time. This observation applies especially to Jan Axamit, Bedřich Dubský, Karel Zˇebera, Ladislav Hájek, František Vildomec, and Vilém Hrubý. Some of the amateur archaeologists of this period later became professionals, employed by new archaeological institutions.

In addition to the theoretical achievements within the framework of formal archaeology, the period between the two world wars brought an important consolidation of archaeological institutions. The university now regularly produced professional archaeologists, the National Museum got a modern system of collections