In Search of Lost Time : From Localism and Regionalism to Nationalism , in the Work of Estácio Da Veiga

— 1990. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Murray, T. 1990. The History, Philosophy and Sociology of Archaeology: the Case of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act (1882). In V. Pinsky and A. Wylie (eds) Critical Directions in Contemporary Archaeology, pp. 55–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, T. and C. Evans. In press. Reader in the History of Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piggott, S. 1976. Ruins in a Landscape. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schnapp, A. 1997. The Discovery of the Past. London: British Museum Press. Sweet, R. 2004. Antiquaries: the Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth Century Britain. London: Hambledon and London.


Introduction
S. F. M. Estácio da Veiga (1828Veiga ( -1891) ) was born in the Algarve region of Portugal, into a wealthy and aristocratic family.While he dedicated his life to the multidisciplinary study of the Algarve, it is his particular interest in the region's archaeology that is the subject of the following paper.
Although his work can be regarded as pioneering for Portugal, it was the result of many practices in archaeology that Veiga himself often condemned and sought to transcend.The very title of his greatest historical reference work Antiguidades Monumentais do Algarve (Monumental Antiquities of the Algarve) reflects the concerns of work published by European historical societies since the Renaissance that focused on the study of forgotten or overlooked remains of the past.Its purpose in Portugal was also similar to these, that is to create awareness amongst the growing public of the importance of such remains.
Despite the title of this book, it was no outdated look at the past.On the contrary, Veiga, from the beginning worked at a national level, and he recognised the work of other scholarly societies, even though the latter's methodology was sometimes unsystematic and created some difficulties in his pursuit of a methodical scientific outcome.This was the case with regard to the Real Associacao dos Archietos Civis e Archeologos Portugueses (the RAPCAA or Royal Association of Portuguese Civil Architects and Archaeologists) who did not understand -22 - or acknowledge the necessity of employing the techniques of the natural sciences to establish the academic bona fides of the discipline of archaeology.In fact the work of the RAPCAA, became one of the primary obstacles to the success of Veiga's research work, that of identifying and characterising communities through the excavation of material on the Iberian Peninsula, and mapping their journeys from hypothetical places of origin.Veiga's fieldwork was the result of his scholarly training in mining engineering at the Polytechnic School in Lisbon, a specialisation that became common to many other great names working in Portuguese prehistory.
Veiga's erudite education qualified him to criticise incorrect approaches: …the ignorance of certain individuals is so great that they imagine the creation of great museums with undifferentiated acquisition of objects that are more or less ancient, acquired anywhere and in any manner, demonstrating a lack of knowledge between what distinguishes what is, strictly speaking, an archaeological museum from a museum of mixed antiquities, or even what is essentially a museum of art.Until present, everything remains confused, mixed up, wrongly placed, without subjection to a fundamental thought, lacking the least systematic or methodological organization.(Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 350, my emphasis).

The Archaeological Map of the Algarve: Regional and National Views
For unknown reasons during the nineteenth century there had been no previous antiquarian interest in the Algarve before Veiga completed his archaeological map of the region.This exclusion may have been due to the lack of safe and reliable transportation infrastructure in the region at this time.
However it was the government of Portugal who commissioned Veiga to research and publish his archaeological map of the Algarve, as Antiguidades monumentaes do Algarve in five or more volumes.For Veiga such a map was only relevant if the artifacts it had identified, excavated, illustrated and reconstructed were also scientifically available to the public in museums.He believed that in this way archaeology could contribute to the Portugal's cultural development, attaining a central position similar to that in countries where science dedicated to elucidating the human past was recognized and significant enough to be featured in many institutions, including universities.Veiga planned that the methodology he employed in the Algarve, with the backing of the government, would serve as the model for all of the other regions of Portugal.He also believed that both the map and the archaeological museum established: …the fundamental basis and the system to be followed so that in time one may be able to present the archaeological map of Portugal and, hopefully, the most perfect and the richest archaeological museum, exhibiting the prehistoric and historic antiquities of continental Portugal… (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 351).
However a project of this scope could not be the work of an individual.Through his work as an intermediary or receiver of artifacts that were to be displayed in the museum that he envisaged being built in Faro, Veiga developed a network of informants, and built up indispensable economic, social and cultural connections.The majority of the artifacts were either acquired by Veiga, or donated to him, and many excavations were carried out on private property, a situation that always required special sensitivity.After difficulties with establishing the museum, Veiga knew the landscape so well, and understood the sensibility of the local people, especially (perhaps most importantly) the feelings of the inhabitants of the Algarve towards the centralization of power based in Lisbon, that he decided to move the site of the Archaeological Institute of the Algarve to Faro, the capital of the region."…when the museum is completed I will demonstrate to the country how men who work for the honour and progress of science are treated…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 362).In setting the museum up in Faro he was attempting to unite the people of the region by involving them in a project designed to educate them about the past of their own region and their own local and specific part in it.
The Algarve was very different to the rest of Portugal -and in accomplishing this project Veiga tapped into the region's particularities and elicited the support of many important people who lived there.This may be the reason why he referred, not to prehistoric or historic archaeology, but all together to Paleoethnology (which was synonymous with ethnology in those times), as the primeval source of an ethnicity that he considered unique and coeval, and as such it was different to other "…monuments and numerous objects that are characteristic of various historic nationalities…" (Veiga 2006, 1: XII).
In this way Veiga distanced himself from the proceedings of the RAPCAA, in that he was a generalist or took a nationalist position, in comparison with someone such as Francisco Martins Sarmento (1833-1899) whose research was centered on the northwestern Portuguese region of Mingo (Martins 2007).In addition it is important to note that one of Veiga's first (1863) publications was Gibraltar e Livens.Apontametos para a historia da usurpacao destas suas pracas (Gibraltar and Olivenca.Notes on the history of usurpation of two settlements), a title of nationalist overtones, and at a time when interest, among Portuguese intellectuals, in the "Iberian Question" was rekindled.So it comes as a bit of a surprise that Veiga argued for a united Iberian effort to complete an archaeological map of the peninsula, using his methodology, and emphasizing the lack of a similar approach in Spanish scientific circles.He also considered the possibility that the Luso-Iberian Peninsula produced an autochthony of its own (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 52), establishing "…a methodological system of research, to indicate in the chorographic chart of Portugal, the famous antiquities of this kingdom, and through it stimulate at the same time the distinguished archaeologists of the neighbouring nations to follow the same course of thought…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 371).
However, Veiga's intentions reached beyond mere knowledge of the national past, and with government support he mobilized all the material and human resources essential for the creation of a National Museum.This would ensure the public utility of the gathering of "…valuable monuments, of diverse types, in order that, systematically co-ordinate and placed according to periods, in rigorous geographical order, they may with their classification and scientific description… show before competent writers, national and foreign, the main archaeological work taking place and in this country…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 343, my emphasis).
It is therefore understandable that Veiga's work ended, in general terms, on the eve of the opening of the Ninth Session of the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology (ICAAP) held in Lisbon in 1880.It was the ideal moment to present such work to an international scientific community and public.It was proof that the Portuguese had one of the main cultural lacunae covered, and that they were similar and up to date with many other European nations who already had archaeological museums.Veiga wrote that the ICAAP was "…a remarkable scientific gathering, that will place the Portuguese nation on a par with the more developed civilizations…" Therefore the primordial stage of the knowledge about the past resided in the creation of archaeological maps, subdivided in their turn by paleoethnological, historic and monographic information, so that: "…one might determine, the places of prehistoric settlement that continued to be occupied until the diverse historic territories that preceded the formation of the Portuguese Nation…" (Veiga 2006, 1: XV).For this Veiga had to organize a succession of human groups linked to the territory of the Algarve at different times, dividing them into periods and epochs, a method that was specifically influenced by the typological system of French archaeologist Gabriel de Mortillet (1821-1898).Using this system Veiga attempted to determine the specifics of the material culture identified in each archaeological site (or group of sites) that belonged to different ethnicities, presaging similar concepts employed by German archaeologist Gustav Kossina (1858Kossina ( -1931)).
In order to be able to emphasize the particular ethnic groups from the Algarve, through the identification and interpretation of their hypothetically corresponding material culture, Veiga needed to determine the presence and the traits of exogenous influence, derived from a diffusion or migration of people, in such a way as to provided evidence for the 'races' that comprised the 'fatherland'.In this way he reinforced the importance of the Algarve region to this formation, and by anchoring it in prehistoric times, long before medieval politics, Veiga was making a statement about modern Portugal as well: …as long as there is not in this capital a museum of anthropology… a fundamental basis (on which) to judge the origins of the diverse groups that constitute our actual Portuguese society… will always be lacking… and this country will be permanently unable to contribute to the solution of the great problem of ethnogenesis… (Veiga 2006: 8).
However and above all, Veiga needed to devise a rigorous investigative methodology, accurately registering the location of artifacts recovered from each stratigraphic unit, in such a way so as not to lose their scientific value.Veiga believed that by employing such rigour it would be possible to determine the existence of autochthonous or exogenous populations and their respective geographic provenance.He was reluctant to agree with the popular premise of ex oriente lux: "…it matters little to know now if it was Asia that sent to Europe the first grinding stone, or if it was Europe, independently from Asia that established the privilege of power arising from this most useful industrial item…" (Veiga 2006, 2: 466).In this way he refuted this ultra-diffusionist model that was frequently used as a way of legitimizing geopolitics and proclaiming some modern people as the legitimate heirs and guardians of European culture: "…it is not scientifically demonstrated that the genus Homo evolved in only one place on the earth…" (Veiga 2006, 2: 466).To the contrary Veiga wrote with some sympathy about occidental theories that looked for the specific characteristics of the people of each nation as a way of creating and/or consolidating nationalism.Veiga wanted: …to reach possible conclusions in such a manner that each monument would serve as a documentary evidence… of that important south-western area of Europe, of all perhaps the most disputed by man of the great invasions that were successful in holding territory in the Peninsula… (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 343).
In reanalyzing the European contribution to the general process of cultural development, Veiga preferred the idea of polygenism to that of monogenism: "…occupied by a people of the same ethnic origin… limited by the right banks of the Guadiana…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 289).Such issues, he believed, would be solved only with the aid of a critical archaeology (Veiga 2007: 34) that without the incorporation of occidentals, it would be almost impossible to "…strictly distinguish what is indigenous, from what may be considered touched by an exotic mixture…" (Veiga 2007: 55).Veiga believed that archaeological evidence found in the Algarve confirmed that it had been inhabited for most of remote antiquity, and much earlier than any migrations with origins from the east: "…they belonged… to an old race… that still did not produce an index of brachycephalic mixture that is said to have invaded Europe in the last Stone Age, immigrating form Asia Minor Armenia and the Caucasus…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 290).
In addition the epigraphic evidence he collected allowed him to emphasize that "…not only in Portugal but also in Spain, for whom it was necessary to denounce a linguistic group radically European in this western region, in all ways independent from a foreign mixture…" (Veiga 2006: 290).Perhaps influenced by a certain anti-Semitism that began to infiltrate the minds of some European academic circles, Veiga considered that "…the writing system which was fundamentally Iberian, is the same one which has been falsely attributed as the invention of the Phoenicians, one finds implanted in all of the Mediterranean with the exception of the hieroglyphic ideographs of the Egyptians…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 290).He even defended the epigraphic elements found on the Peninsula as "…enough to betray a European linguistic group in this remote area of the West, in everything independent of foreign admixture…" (Veiga 2006: 61), in order to argue that the Iberians of Asia were "…a distinct branch of the great region of western Iberus…" (Veiga 2006: 63), thus contradicting the Orientalist thesis on this subject.His conclusion in relation to the idea of material evolution, which would undermine his strong religious convictions because it refuted the concept of human progress, was that: "…with reference to human beings, I do not see the law of evolution, and even less so the law of transformation, exemplified in those facts that even today are suggested by the law of science…" (Veiga 2006, 2: 484).
To the contrary Veiga imposed the force of reason onto the uncritical power of religious belief, since "…the human species arose, established by Providence to enjoy all the advantages of its magnificence and suffer all the hardships of destiny…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2006: 371).
If by chance in some way field investigations contradicted the scriptures of the Bible then: "…to those who safeguard the integrity of the most respected scriptures, falls the duty to harmonise their doctrine with the facts that constitute the sciences of modern times in all the nations of advanced wisdom…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2006: 44, my emphasis).This stance did not prevent him from sharing a positivists' interest in the study of human development, by illustrating this millennial path with examples of knowledge and technology encapsulated by different artifacts, following in the traditions developed by C. J. Thomsen (1788-1865), as presented in the 1867 World Exhibition in Paris.The ethnological archetypes displayed in the "Galérie du travail" at the exhibition used material culture to demonstrate the different racial characteristics of indigenous or migrant groups: …the different races that developed, or came by land and maritime migrations to inhabit Western Europe, the points of origin of those migrations, their course and the state of their civilization, are reflected in their industries.When Portugal and Spain, can attest, in an irrefutable way, the existence of such scientific evidence, the scholars of Europe will be able to write the history of mankind along with the history of labour… (Veiga, in Cardoso 2006: 446).
Veiga used Classical texts, in the same way as many other scholars of the ancient past, to help him with his epigraphic transcriptions (1962), and with his publication Povos Balsenses (The People of Balsa), where his "…special proposition is to only interpret the accessible facts using observation based on the established rules…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 4).However, in relation to "…subjects concerning prehistoric times, I do without the Classics, since my main purpose is only to interpret the facts accessible to observation in accordance with the established rules…" (Veiga 2006: 44).
There is no doubt that Veiga emphasized the significance of the people of the Algarve in prehistory, placing their development at the same levels as those observed elsewhere in Europe.This was the reason he encouraged the systematic study of national history though archaeological sites "…there is a lack of knowledge of the points that connect the prehistoric sites of this soil with those of adjacent territories, therefore ignoring the march of progress, if there was one…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 50, my emphasis).
Veiga's Archaeological Map of the Algarve was in reality the catalogue of archaeological patrimony essential for the emergence of a heritage consciousness, "…preserving the 'memories', at the same time as it was the first stage of an eventual classification, an ultimate juridical (as in legal and administrative) figure of it preservation…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 2).Many other European counties considered such maps as an important thing to do, although France fought against the production of regional maps, in order to facilitate more comparative studies, for example, of megalithic monuments.But many similar maps lacked a way of signifying or providing agreed symbols for different and diverse types of archaeological sites and monuments, the necessity of which was reiterated by other European investigators.
Judging by the list of symbols first conceived by Veiga for his map, it seems that he was unaware of the ongoing debates in the rest of Europe regarding mapping symbol standardization.The urgency and importance of the subject was such that at the ICAAP in Bologna (1871) a commission was set up to investigate.At the ICAAP in Stockholm (1974) this commission recommended the adoption of the mapping symbols developed by French archaeologist Ernest Chantre .A long debate by the commission published in Matériaux pour l'histoire primitive et naturelle de l'homme followed, the title stressing the positivist model being used to study the past.Agreement on international conventions, their adoption and effect, occurred at the ICAAP in Budapest (1876), on the advice of the French prehistorian, Emille Cartailhac (1845Cartailhac ( -1921)).
Even though apparently ignorant of these particular concerns, Veiga's work was chronologically connected to other ongoing work outside of Portugal.His Archaeological Map of the Algarve, the basis for all subsequent investigation, was completed in 1878, at precisely the same time as the display of eighteen other archaeological maps at the Paris World Exhibition.They included maps of different parts of Finland, Bulgaria, Minorca and France, and it was their appearance that prompted the ongoing debates in ICAAP about mapping standardization, terminology and symbols.
Veiga had in fact conceived the idea of a national Portuguese archaeological programme in 1867, when he moved to Mafra in the Lisbon region.He used this region to rehearse the survey and considered that the Academia Real das Ciêncas de Lisboa or ARCL (Lisbon Royal Academy of Sciences) was the only institution capable of carrying out the project at a national level, and by demonstrating the importance of regional studies he was exploring the realities of a given geographic area.It was a belief he reiterated a decade later in 1876 when archaeological remains on the margins of the Guadiana River, in south-eastern Portugal, were uncovered due to heavy winter rains, a project not decontexualized by the nationalist scene.To the contrary there was a growing interest in the remains of the past and their preservation it from intellectuals, as illustrated by the report published by the Academia Real de Belas-artes de Lisboa, or ARBAL (the Lisbon Academy of Fine Arts) on the teaching of arts, the organization of museums, and the significance of historic and archaeological monuments.In 1877 Veiga used archaeological questionnaires sent to various local authorities, in this case in the Algarve, to try to get a better idea of the reality on the ground.These obtained information about the characteristics of different kinds of sites and popular terms for some artifacts such as pedras de raio ('thunderstones') for polished axe heads.

Archaeological Heritage
It appears that Veiga could have had access to several international publications, primarily though the RAPCAA, although its members probably did not follow the archaeological and museological information in them.This corroborates the belief that Veiga was definitely working outside of the RAPCAA even before his preparatory work for the 1880 ICAAP congress in Lisbon, where his Archaeological Map of the Algarve was first presented to the public (it was published in 1882).This presentation was not mentioned in the proceedings of the congress, a deliberate exclusion, according to Veiga (Veiga, 2007: 348).During this congress, and from Cartailhac, Veiga was made aware of the archaeological mapping system adopted by the ICAAP, and he quickly incorporated them into his map.
Meanwhile the RAPCAA aggravated Veiga by trying to take over the Algarve Museum project by incorporation into their museum.He was dedicated to its foundation, and most of the museum's collections were known only to Veiga, were in storage away from public view, and were the result of his long term and wide ranging hard work.He wrote: …in all other countries one doesn't demand the closure of museums; one desires them to be open and to promote their progress.Those who demand their closure, take the path of retrogression… (Veiga 2006, 1: 16, my emphasis) …their negligence is such that they ignore the fact that this is the only museum in Portugal that was methodically organized to represent, by distinct epochs and in geographic order, the antiquity of anentire provices… (Veiga 2006, 1: 11, my emphasis) …in some lower cases of the academy of fine arts and in an infected and dark patio, which was the cemetery of the exconvent of San Francisco, where he also remained buried… (Veiga 2006 1: 11, my emphasis).
Veiga's criticisms of the RAPCAA increased particularly after the creation of the Commissão dos Monumentos Nacionaes CMN (Commission of National Monuments).During the ICAAP Congress in Lisbon in 1880, fundamental questions about the conservation of archaeological and historical monuments were debated.After the congress finished the Ministry of Public Works ordered the RAPCAA to compile a list of buildings they regarded as national monuments.Veiga noted that "…promises that began and ended generally with the naming of a commission that in large measure comprised individuals, who although well-intentioned but with proven incompetencies, as is being attested by the works that were made their responsibility…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 49-50).
The CMN comprised seven commissioners from various associations or societies, and other individuals, who although not members of the RAPCAA, had some knowledge to make contributions to such a priority list of national monuments.Six months later the names of the commissioners and their president, and the list of monuments were published in the Diário do Governo (government journal).The ministry then sent all of the details, including the necessary instructions for urgent compliance, and requisitions from the RAPCAA to provincial town halls via civil governors.This was the first time such a state supported project had been attempted in Portugal, and it was also remarkable because local conditions and the short time period allotted, prevented the location and identification of many future national monuments.For the latter reason, and despite the work of RAPCAA's supporters, the results were disappointing.For Veiga who through his own work knew all of the inherent problems of such a project involving government finance and administration, it was the expected outcome: "…public service subordinated to deadlines, which are all evil and absurd, with which a bureau head calculates the material time which scientific exploration should take…" (Veiga 2006, 1: 54).He suggested that the government create an organization entirely dedicated to the conservation and preservation of national monuments, and to education about their significance.This organization would be established and financed autonomously and have powers to realize its tasks.While he admitted that much had been achieved he also considered many of the results to be scant, incomplete and ludicrous.
Veiga was particularly critical of the members of the commission's incompetence regarding prehistoric remains.He requested that more attention be paid to studying megaliths, especially those in the southern part of the country, which he considered to be: "…the first region of Portugal to receive and to expand the dolmen element, as I hope to demonstrate…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 371, my emphasis).However he noted that the destruction by careless co-workers of osteological human remains exhumed from these monuments "…did not allow him to identify the race who constructed these monuments and consequently did not allow him to know the provenance of their migration…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 387).
Veiga treated those who believed that mankind originated in Asia ironically.This was especially evident among the scientific community in France, and he wrote that when explorations are undertaken in faraway places and "…don't occur in levels so close to the Upper Pliocene as those from the geological site of San Isidro, near Madrid…" (Veiga 2006: 45), they have not "…scientifically shown that the genus Homo developed only in a single place on earth…" (Veiga 2006: 48).Contrary to what was assumed by a number of national researchers, Veiga wrote that: …on pourrait juger qu'une migration de l'Asie, ayant trouvé déjà occupies par l'élèment pélasgique la Sicile, la Sardaigne, les Baleares et la côte oriental de l'Espagne, a pu selulement s'emparer due port de Lamaga et de tout le reste de la côte ibèriene jusqu'au Detroit de Gibraltar, et dirigeant sa marche vers L'occident…" (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 389-390).
Veiga continued to criticise the personalities and organizations that assumed control over the patrimony of the state (although it was not designated as such at that time).He continued to insist that they did not pay enough attention to archaeological remains as national monuments.
In addition Veiga violently rejected the content of the first elementary course in archaeology in Portugal, developed by the RAPCAA.He continued to argue for the creation of a national centralized government archaeological organization, to be based in Madrid, which is surprising given his opposition to a centralized museum.Nevertheless in his own way he believed that centralization was the precursor to decentralization, and the ministry of education and not the ministry of public works was the best way to contribute to the development of Portugal.He also believed that archaeology was quite separate to fine arts.Many of Veiga's criticisms of the RAPCAA and at the CMN resulted from his lack of understanding of the backstage debates than from faulty analyses of historical and archaeological material that were transmitted to the public.This conflict however only confirmed the perception of complete breakdown in communications between Veiga and the RAPCAA and a significant part of the national literary and scientific community.Veiga wrote: …in a few years when men have to substitute the belittlers of today, they will have to lament the retardation in which their ancestors left them, for not having know how to prepare them for taking on the role shared by more privileged nations, because of their archaeological richness… when public instruction begins to be a national reality… .

Conclusion
All of these differences and conflicts caused many problems for Veiga, undermining his proposed work on an archaeological map of the whole of Portugal, and the foundation of a National Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Veiga 2006: 54).While his incompatibility with the RAPCAA dates to as early as 1875 with his resignation from membership, his criticism of the RAPCAA's lack of museological expertise and planning in the management and development of their museum in central Lisbon was ongoing (Martins 2005;Idem 2003).
Many Portuguese intellectuals supported the idea of a central museum in Lisbon, and the government received many requests to create a large general museum with a national collection that would illustrate the history of the kingdom via its collections of artistic and archaeological artifacts and monuments.RAPCAA's museum already had a section called "History and Antiquities".Veiga lobbied for the creation of two central museums dedicated to the study of the past: one artistic and the other archaeological.He believed that combined collections would undermine the scientific nature of a museum devoted only to archaeology.In 1877 a number of recent archaeological finds were sent to the RAPCAA's museum in an attempt to begin a National Archaeological Museum.Veiga wrote: …Archaeological museums, although in one or another field of their complex collections are very useful mainly in the study of ancient art, cannot be organized only with an artistic purpose in mind, because other thousands of services demand solutions to important problems that only modern science can solve… (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 441).
In 1881 the Archaeological Museum of the Algarve was closed, along with this went its photographic workshop, conservation service and object reproduction services.Veiga vigorously protested this move and he never recovered from what he considered a slight fed by personal detractors, to whom urged to create, not a National Museum of Archaeology, but a "Museum of Ancient Art and Archaeology".This happened in 1884, after the exhibition of decorative arts opened (1883) to the public.After his death in 1891 Veiga's collections were transferred to the Museu Ethnographico Portuguez (the Portuguese Ethnographic Museum) founded in Lisbon in 1893.
Possibly for the first time in Portugal, the mere recognition of past remains in the field, with the objective of public display, the glorification of discoverers and the prestige of the few museological spaces, was set aside.What happened instead was a concern with the archaeology the entire territory of continental Portugal, with the objective of identifying past cultures and their areas of provenance.Nonetheless a plan that had all the elements for maximum success, ended up evaporating, regardless of the efforts of Veiga, who was profoundly aware of the importance of the responsibility placed in his hands.However Portugal was not adequately prepared for the task that demanded such material support.Above all manpower was lacking.In fact, besides Veiga and some of the members of the "Geological Commission", few realized a project of such scope, demanding knowledge and competencies unusually found in an individual.Furthermore, it was too ambitious a plan for a state that was deficient in a truly centralized public administration, the only one able to control both regional interests and individuals, especially with regard to the principle of "private property".
It also seems that the central powers whether consciously or unconsciously, invalidated their own decisions, maybe to silence criticisms increasingly addressed at the apparent need for action.This may have also been because of the influence of the great landowners, particularly that of the more recently titled.Otherwise, how is one to understand the almost permanent lack (the exception being a draftsman appointed by the Director of Public Works of the Faro district) of specialized technicians from the Ministry of Public Works, which was responsible for the archaeological survey of the country?And this even when those responsible maintained good relations with Veiga.
Veiga enjoyed services denied to other Portuguese intellectuals, who were willing to describe the then so-called "artistic and archaeological wealth" of the country.No other person devised a scheme for scientific intervention with such solid skills as he possessed, to be tested in a geographical area of his knowledge, with the objective in mind to future expansion.However, it was all so completely and unjustly forgotten.For reasons not entirely understood, he was denied the chance to undertake some aspects of the study that he included in the initial project, e. g. "...in relation to the majestic caves that cover that territory...I propose to conduct this study, but due to the time and expenditure demanded, the government didn't authorize it."(Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 371), so that "...the government, fearing the delay and expenses that may incur in a work identical to that conducted in Belgium by Schmerling and Dupont…" (Veiga, quoted in Cardoso 2007: 507).Awareness considered essential to: …forcing a systematic research, that will one day allow the recognition of the course taken by that people, where they came from, which country they traversed before arriving at this last stop in the West and, arriving at this country, what was the geographic order of their stops; if it left everywhere the same criteria of race and industry… (Veiga, in Cardoso 2007: 372).