on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: Macmillan.

———. 1948a. Ancient Egyptian Religion: An Interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.

———. 1948b. Kingship and the Gods: a Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1954. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

French Archaeology in the Americas

As might be expected, French archaeological research in the New World began only at the start of the nineteenth century, when the independence of the United States put an end to Spanish colonial rule. The same is, of course, mostly true for other European countries, if one does not take into account the early years of archaeological investigation in the United States and the Moundbuilders controversy. In their History of American Archaeology (1974), gordon willey and Jeremy Sabloff called the period from discovery until 1840 the time of witnesses and armchair historians. ignacio bernal garcia, in his History of Mexican Archaeology (1980) differed somewhat, considering the discovery of the Calendar Stone in mexico in 1792 and its study by Alzate and Leon y Gama as the starting point for the next period of early study. In fact, the first four decades of the nineteenth century were a period of intense activity—but mainly due to local, French, or English investigators. The publication of john stephens and frederick catherwood’s Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatán in 1840 was the culmination of this early interest.

From 1840 to 1914 the explorations and descriptions of archaeological sites in the Americas were intensive, but by the end of the nineteenth century there was more of a tendency toward institutional and scientific research. During this period French explorers were quite active, but 1914 marked the end of an era, and this date has a deep significance for the whole of Americanist research. Specific events, such as the Mexican Revolution and its consequences and World War I in Europe, generated a rare strain of European field research that was to last for several decades and, therefore, an Americanization of archaeological investigation that would continue until the end of World War II. The year 1914 also brought strong changes in archaeological theories and methods. The development of new techniques, such as the stratigraphic revolution, and the establishment of new institutions in Mexico and the United States, such as the Carnegie Institution, accompanied a complete transformation in the ideological background of archaeology, under American anthropologist Franz Boas’s influence.

The aftermath of World War I resulted in a nearly total absence of French investigators the Americas for many years. French anthropological research fared slightly better in the 1930s, but the political situation prevented the acceleration of this trend, and it is not possible to discern French involvement in the Americanization process until the 1950s. By the time French investigators and archaeologists once again became active in this field, American archaeology had undergone a complete and autonomous growth, to which the Europeans had to adapt themselves. In the 1950s those working in the field of archaeology experienced turmoil and dissatisfaction, partly because of their own results but also because of the introduction of new techniques (aerial photography, radiocarbon dating). This occasioned a change in theoretical approaches toward functional and contextual preoccupations, which in turn paved the way for the “New Archaeology.” Many Latin American countries began to organize archaeological research on an institutional basis and to promote the legal protection of sites and their national patrimony. Renewed French archaeological research had to adapt to these many changes: ultimately, it took several years to put together the scientific and institutional basis that gave birth to the new French Americanism, which is still very active today.

Thus, the history of French Americanism does not fit within either Willey and Sabloff’s or Bernal’s proposed chronological frameworks, as exemplified in the accompanying table (see page 536). If 1492 is taken as a starting point, the first period—the period of discovery and history—would last until 1824–1834, ending