This paper explores the contributions of Theodore Macridy (1872-1940) to the development of archaeology in the late Ottoman Empire. Macridy served for the Ottoman Imperial Museum, and its successor, Istanbul Archaeological Museums, for 38 years. Combining the roles of a museum curator, archaeologist, collector, connoisseur, and scholar, he presented a self-image of a scientist who persistently sought for opportunities to share his expertise on an international level and to carve a niche for himself in the scholarly scene. Despite being a self-taught archaeologist, like many of his contemporaries, he had a substantial knowledge about classical antiquity along with a good grasp of the literature on the subjects of his expertise. He participated in numerous excavations across the empire first as a commissar to monitor the foreign excavations, and subsequently, as a director undertaking archaeological investigations on behalf of the museum. However, despite being the most active and prolific archaeologist of the empire, his role in the formation of archaeology has been overlooked in mainstream historiographies while his legacy yet remains to be acknowledged. Drawing from historical and archival sources, including Macridy’s field reports and letters, the paper offers a microhistory of this prominent archaeologist to bring to light his imprint on the history of Ottoman archaeology. These documents are valuable resources for they reveal his notions and narratives of patrimony, self-identity, and belonging, in that, they help us establish Macridy’s position within a common scientific milieu shared by international scholars and institutions. Thus, the paper argues that his mindset closely reflects the cultural transformations of his era while offering hints about the intellectual legacy of the late Ottoman period. In this respect, this discussion stretches beyond the history of archaeology in its effort to display the strong commitment of the Ottoman intellectuals to be a part of the universal production of knowledge during the late Ottoman period. Their biographies, social networks, and somewhat unconventional positions in between the Western and Ottoman circles gives us a new perspective to unfold the complex processes involved in the making of archaeology around the turn of the twentieth century. In addition, departing from the case of Macridy, this paper unpacks the interaction between European scholars and Ottoman archaeologists, where negotiations over the legitimacy of interests present a useful framework for contextualizing the development of archaeological discourse and practice in Turkey both in the past and at present.