245

CHI LDE, MARXI SM, AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Nicholas Thomas
The history of an area of knowledge can
never be seen as something which is fixed and
given in an unproblematic way. These histories
have more in common with the genealogies of
Hawaiian kings: they are manipulated and re-
constructed as orthodoxies and lineages are
developed and displaced. Sometimes a body of
work will be anxious to stress its connections
with earlier texts; at other times it will claim a
revolutionary distance from them. Sometimes
a particular body of past work is seen to belong
to one school, at other times to another. These
sentences are not meant to imply a simple rela-
tivistic conception of knowledge history, since
real issues are involved and some positions are
demonstrably more adequate than others. The
issues can be quite crucial, since history is used
to legitimate present strategies - strategies
which are not merely modes of explanation
but which can have real social and political con-
sequences (as is most evident from debates
within the anthropology of development). It
is, however, crucial to recognize the ext ent to
Nicholas Thomas is Assistant Professor in the Depart ment of
Prehistory and Ant hropol ogy, Facul t y of Arts, Australian
National University.
which conceptions of the history of a discipline
are circumscribed and specified by the prob-
lematics which generate those conceptions.
Marxists are familiar with these principles
through various theoretical struggles over their
own history, but archaeologists are not, and
this is not because archaeological anthropology
has not been interpreted in ways commensurate
with particular orthodoxies but because these
interpretations and reinterpretations have been
implicit and non-theorised.
Here I am concerned with the place of the
work of V. Gordon Childe in archaeology.
While Childe ( 1892-1957) has generally been
recognised as a major figure, this recognition
has involved a restricted view of his work,
equating it entirely with the development of
the culture-historical framework. Other crucial
areas, in particular a socio-historical interpre-
tation of prehistory and philosophical work on
the place of knowledge in society, have been
almost entirely ignored. This neglect has facili-
tated an uncritical attitude toward certain
facets of contemporary archaeological ortho-
doxy, which, as anyone who has dipped into
the literature will observe, is overwhelmingly
positivist and reductively cultural (not, of
0304- 4092/ 82/ 0000- 0000/ $02. 75 1982 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
246
course, historical) materialist. This ort hodoxy
validates itself as a discourse partly through
reference to the history of the discipline, or
rather to a particular construct of that history
which makes the current problematic appear
as a progressive development of earlier work.
But I will show that the orthodox version of
archaeological history (at least with respect
to Childe) is extremely selective and can be
said to misrepresent the development of the
discipline. In recent years, particularly in
Britain, there has begun to develop a Marxist
perspective in archaeological anthropology.
This emergence has been marked by theoreti-
cal conflict; indeed the history of the discipline
is at stake in this debate. Accordingly, I shall
indicate some of the lines of conflict that
arise when the critique of the environmental
determinist ort hodoxy is extended into the
terrain of the history of the discipline.
I cannot at t empt to deal with all areas of
Childe's work in a short paper; nor are all as-
pects relevant to contemporary developments
in archaeology. I am concerned with three
areas of Childe's work. The first is the culture-
historical system which he developed early in
his career and continued to use in a scarcely
modified form until his death. The second is
his application to prehistory of a social perspec-
tive strongly influenced by historical material-
ism. This concern is present in his work in a
very limited way from 1926 but is much more
developed in his last synthetic works of the
1950s. The third area of concern is that of
Childe's epistemological work. There is a
theory of knowledge implicit in any text, but
I am mainly concerned with Childe's explicitly
philosophical studies, all of which were
published after the second world war.
FROM CULTURE HISTORY TO HISTORICAL
MATERIALISM
The basic elements of the culture-historical
approach are present in Childe's earliest work,
and are made explicit and elaborated upon in
the Preface to The Danube in Prehistory:
We f i nd c e r t a i n t y p e s o f r e ma i n s - pot s , i mp l e me n t s ,
o r n a me n t s , bur i al r i t es, h o u s e f o r ms - c o n s t a n t l y r e c ur r i ng
t oge t he r . Suc h a c o mp l e x o f r egul ar l y a s s oc i a t e d t r ai t s we
shal l t e r m a ' c ul t ur a l g r o u p ' or j u s t a ' c ul t ur e ' . We a s s u me
t h a t s uc h a c o mp l e x i s t i l e ma t e r i a l e x p r e s s i o n o f wh a t
wo u l d t o- da y be cal l ed a ' p e o p l e ' [ 1 ] .
The last sentence is crucial, because it makes a
step from an archaeological category to a his-
torical unit, the ethnic group. This fitted into
a diffusionist framework:
Th e s a me c o mp l e x ma y be f o u n d wi t h r el at i vel y negl i gi bl e
d i mi n u t i o n s or a d d i t i o n s over a wi de ar ea. I n s u c h cas es o f
t he t ot a l a n d bodi l y t r a ns f e r e nc e o f a c o mp l e t e c ul t ur e
f r o m one pl ace t o a n o t h e r we t h i n k our s e l ve s j us t i f i e d i n
a s s u mi n g a ' mo v e me n t o f p e o p l e ' [ 2] .
There were various other concepts of synchro-
nicity, association, influence, and so on. In
Childe's early work this system was not simply
a means of classifying sites and assemblages but
provided the whole system of interpretation:
the first editions of The Dawn of European
Civilization (1925) and The Aryans (1926)
consist essentially of descriptions of various
cultures and attributions of the relationships
between them.
Childe's definition of a culture remained al-
most the same throughout his work [3], but
the structures of the interpretations into which
it was incorporated changed very significantly.
This change was gradual; there was no sharply
defined theoretical break, but rather a definite
tendency toward greater and deeper considera-
tion of the role of internal social forces. The
diffusionist element became less and less signi-
ficant at the level of interpretation and ex-
planation as Childe at t empt ed in a more and
more serious way to use the concepts of histo-
rical materialism in prehistory.
There is, of course, some interest in social
relations and social structure in texts as early
as The Aryans and The Danube in Prehistory:
in the latter we find, for instance, inferences
247
of a chi eft ai nshi p f r om mor t uar y pract i ces [ 4] .
In The Bronze Age ( 1930) t here is some i nt erest
in t rade as a soci oeconomi c phe nome non as
opposed t o merel y a mechani sm of di ffusi on [5].
In Prehistoric communities of the British Isles
t here is consi derabl e di scussi on of t he evi dence
for chi ef doms at various stages, again based
mai nl y on burial st r uct ur es but also involving
a consi der at i on of s et t l ement pat t er n evi dence
[ 6] . Ther e are also in t hi s book references t o
t he role of surpl us weal t h and its mani f est at i ons
in t he archaeol ogi cal record, a t heme t hat
figures pr omi nent l y in Chi l de' s later work.
In Scotland Before the Scots (1946), Childe
expl i ci t l y appl i ed t he version of Marxism t hen
cur r ent in archaeol ogy and ant hr opol ogy in t he
Soviet Uni on, whi ch he had visited in t he early
thirties. Thi s model (l at er labelled Marrism aft er
its maj or t heor et i ci an, N.Y. Marr) was economi -
cally and t echnol ogi cal l y r educt i oni st and also
st rongl y ant i -di ffusi oni st . While t he book em-
phasi zed t echnol ogi cal devel opment s, Childe
di d not al t oget her negat e t he i nfl uence of ex-
ternal fact ors such as mi grat i ons and trade.
Scotland before the Scots is essentially an over-
view of Scot t i sh pr ehi st or y focussi ng on t he
t r end t owar ds great er t echnol ogi cal sophistica-
t i on and t he social consequences of this devel-
opment . Childe t raced t he emer gence of chief-
doms f r om ' pri mi t i ve c ommuni s m' and t he
gradual devel opment of great er st rat i fi cat i on
and great er speci al i zat i on in t he division of
l abour.
Chi l de det ached hi msel f f r om t he rigidities
of t he Soviet appr oach and went on t o devel op
t hese concer ns mor e fully and wi t h wi der refer-
ence t o t he pr ehi st or y of Eur ope and t he Near
East in vari ous t ext s: Social Evolution, t he
si xt h edi t i on of The Dawn of European Civil-
ization, The Prehistory of European Society,
and vari ous ot hers.
It is not necessary t o go i nt o t he details of
t he i nt er pr et at i ons Chi l de cons t r uct ed in t hese
works in or der t o make t he poi nt I wish t o
draw - namel y, t hat Chi l de opened up pre-
hi st or y as an area in whi ch t he concept s of
historical mat eri al i sm coul d be appl i ed. The
societies r epr esent ed archaeologically had divi-
sions of l abour, social hierarchies, const rai nt s
i mposed by t echnol ogi cal factors, and in-
equalities - in short , t he el ement s and pro-
cesses of whi ch Marxism has so far pr ovi ded
t he most pr of ound and dynami c analysis.
Chi l de i ndi cat ed t he possibility of ext endi ng
this analysis i nt o pr ehi st or y and made initial
at t empt s whi ch were however i nhi bi t ed by
various l i mi t at i ons of his mode of analysis and
also f r ust r at ed by t he undevel oped nat ur e of
archaeological t echnol ogy. Some of t he prob-
lems, part i cul arl y t hose associated wi t h dat i ng,
have been largely t ranscended.
The poi nt t hat t here can be a social, ant hro-
pol ogi cal l y-ori ent ed, Marxi st -i nformed pre-
hi st ory woul d be banal if it were not for t he
near t ot al failure of archaeol ogi st s since Childe
t o concer n t hemsel ves wi t h t he social. To
emphasi ze t hat Chi l de opened up this area
woul d be similarly banal were it not for t he
mi sr epr esent at i ons of Chi l de' s wor k and t he
mi sconst r uct i on of his place in t he hi st ory of
t he discipline.
Thi s mi sreadi ng consists essentially in neglect-
ing or rej ect i ng t he social, Marxist perspect i ve
in Chi l de' s wor k and seeing his cont r i but i on
ent i rel y in t erms of t he devel opment of t he
cul t ure-hi st ori cal f r amewor k [ 7] .
In a review of t he last edi t i on of The Dawn
of European Civilization, Piggot not ed, in
passing, Chi l de' s concer n wi t h social and eco-
nomi c rel at i ons [ 8] , but in his i nfl uent i al
obi t uar y equat ed Chi l de' s achi evement wi t h
his earlier, essentially pre-Marxist work:
It was h e wh o l' trst d e mo n s t r a t e d t o u s wh a t ar e n o w
f ami l i ar c o n c e p t s i n t h e i nt e r pr e t a t i on o f p r e h i s t o r y -
c ul t ur e s , a s s oc i a t i ons , s y n c h r o n i s ms , a n d c hr onol ogi e s .
We owe mo r e t h a n we r eal i ze t o f o u r pa ge s i n t h e pr e f a c e
t o The Danube in Prehistory, wh e r e i n 1929 h e s et o u t
t he bas i c pr i nci pl es o n wh i c h we ha ve all wor ke d s i nce
[9l.
Gl yn Daniel, in his hi st ory of pr ehi st or y, One
Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology, re-
248
fers to Childe quite frequently in culture-
historical contexts, but only once refers to
other aspects of his work, and only then to
describe Scot l and Bef ore t he Scot s as "a
piece of anti-establishment whimsey" [ 10].
The only inference to be drawn here is that
Daniel - and more significantly the world-
view of traditional British archaeology within
which he was working - had no real understand-
ing of what Childe was attempting to accom-
plish. It may well be the case that Childe pro-
duced the book partially in a spirit of radical
mischief, but this is quite irrelevant to any
evaluation of its theoretical significance.
The most revealing of the discussions of
Childe's work is that by Grahame Clark. He
explicitly states that Childe's contribution is
to be seen entirely in terms of the culture-
historical approach. Like Piggot, Clark re-
ferred to the Preface to The Danube in Pre-
hi st ory in which Childe elaborated the culture-
historical perspective and stated that "this
was his essential contribution to prehistoric
archaeology" [ 11 ], and further that "He had
achieved what he was going to achieve in this
genre essentially by 1930" [ 12]. This is a
dismissive statement, since about ninety per-
cent of Childe's work appeared after that date.
But the later work was spoilt for Clark by the
influence of "the antiquated folk-lore of Karl
Marx" [ 13 ]. The overall tone of Clark's article
is worth indicating in a longer quote:
Mar xi sm e xe r t e d a ser i ousl y i nhi bi t i ng e f f e c t on his mi ddl e
years. I t hel ps to expl ai n why af t er 1930 or so Chi l de' s
cr eat i ve pe r i od was essent i al l y over and why at t he e nd o f
hi s l i fe he r eal i sed t hat hi s p r o p h e t had pl ayed hi m fal se.
Wher eas in 1946 he coul d still argue ( 1946b: 251) t hat
t her e was a ' pr os pe c t o f r eachi ng gener al l aws i ndi cat i ve
o f t he di r ect i on o f hi s t or i c pr ogr es s ' in hi s ' Va l e di c t i on'
he ha d t o a dmi t t ha t whi l e Mar xi sm ha d onc e s e e me d t o
make i nt el l i gi bl e t he d e v e l o p me n t o f each cul t ur e i t
' c ompl e t e l y fai l ed t o expl ai n t he di f f er ences b e t we e n one
cul t ur e and a n o t h e r and i nde e d obl i t er at ed or di smi ssed
t he di f f e r e nc e s obs e r ve d' ( 1958: 6) [ 14] .
As Matthew Spriggs has pointed out, Clark
here was simply misquoting Childe, who was
referring to Marrism (the mechanistic Soviet
doctrine) and not to Marxism:
t her e is l i t t l e evi dence c ont a i ne d in Cl ar k' s ar t i cl e o f any
c onc r e t e unde r s t a ndi ng ei t her o f Chi l de or t he Mar xi st
t heor i es he was a t t e mp t i n g t o t est ar chaeol ogi cal l y [ 15] .
Clark also attempted to put down Childe's
work by observing that he was "the most bour-
geois person in the world" [ 16] while Piggot
suggested that there was a relationship between
Childe's interest in Marxism and the alleged
fact that
He was ver y ugl y, a nd he was an Aust r al i an. Thes e t wo
f act or s, c oupl e d wi t h t he r es ul t ant awkwar dnes s and shy-
ness a mong all but a ver y f ew f r i ends a nd f or ver y s hor t
i nt er val s, s eem t o have deci si vel y a f f e c t e d hi s i nt el l ect ual
s t a ndpoi nt . He was an Out s i der , wi t h a f ami l i ar l ove- hat e
r el at i ons hi p t o his pos i t i on, r es ent i ng and di sl i ki ng i t , but
at t he same t i me exagger at i ng hi s oddne s s by such means
as wear i ng eccent r i c br oa d- br i mme d hat s a nd del i ber at el y
maki ng hi ms e l f an i nt el l ect ual sol i t ar y [ 17 t .
Further:
He may wel l , as a s hy, i deal i st i c, a wkwa r d young ma n,
have s een in hi s ver si on o f Co mmu n i s m a s t r uc t ur e o f
soci et y in whi ch h o n o u r e d r e c ogni t i on f or t he i nt el l ect ual
engaged in soci al l y j us t i f i ed wor k woul d be mor e possi bl e
t han i n t he Engl a nd o f t he 1920' s: t he Out s i der woul d be
mor e easi l y a d mi t t e d t o pri vi l ege in such a hypot he t i c a l
s oci et y [ 18] .
This crude psychological reductionism is hard
to take seriously, but it did have consequences
for the development of the discipline, most ex-
plicitly stated in Clark's article.
Having dismissed what Childe did after 1930,
Clark goes on to discuss prehistory since Childe.
He shows that the logical step from Childe's
culture-historical system is the ecological ap-
proach, influenced by functionalist anthro-
pology, involving "t he concept of human so-
cieties operating as systems, in which every
component contributed to the functioning of
the whole" [ 19]. Clark claimed that the "eco-
logical approach was not only free from, but
was a denial of the dreary determinism of some
249
of t he earlier geographi cal appr oaches to archae-
ology. The rel at i onshi ps bet ween t he several
di mensi ons of huma n life and di f f er ent facet s
of t he nat ural envi r onment were seen not as
one-way but as t wo- way" [ 20] . But despi t e
lip-service being paid to some ki nd of facile
causal i nt eract i oni sm, t he ' ecological appr oach'
as it has devel oped has been, in bot h British
and Ameri can archaeol ogy, increasingly re-
duct i ve and det ermi ni st .
Bot h t he ' pal aeoeconomy' school and
Ameri can cul t ural mat eri al i sm have t reat ed
social rel at i ons as essentially epi phenomenal
t o t he ecosyst em or mor e generally to environ-
ment al const rai nt s. Social fact ors have always
been made secondary to t he i nexorabl e ratio-
nal i t y of ' adapt at i ons' and t he t el eol ogy of t he
homeos t at i c syst em. Vul gar mat eri al i sm as an
appr oach has always been ext r emel y vul nerabl e
t o criticism from non-reduct i ve approaches,
and has al most always been argued for, not as
a concept ual l y mor e vi gourous alternative t o
some ki nd of social archaeol ogy, but si mpl y
t hr ough j uxt aposi t i on t o previ ous archaeol ogy,
whi ch is represent ed as having been purel y
descriptive and purel y classificatory. In
"Archaeol ogi cal Perspect i ves, " a cent ral t ext
for t he cul t ural materialist "New Ar chaeol ogy, "
Bi nford count er posed a process-ori ent ed eco-
syst emi c appr oach t o t he di ffusi oni st , tradi-
t i onal cul t ure-hi st ori cal appr oach [21 ]. The
envi r onment al det er mi ni st appr oach does pro-
vide concept s and expl anat i ons of a crude
funct i onal i st sort, and can t hus be r epr esent ed
as a progressive move forward f r om a classifi-
cat or y f r amewor k whi ch offers no explana-
t i ons at all, but onl y if t he pot ent i al alternative
- t he social perspect i ve opened up by Childe -
has been erased. Thi s closure is essentially t he
f unct i on Clark, Piggot and Daniel per f or med
in rej ect i ng Chi l de' s later wor k as unseri ous
and uni mpor t ant . Thi s dismissal made it easy
for many quest i ons of t he ecological appr oach
t o r emai n unasked.
More recent l y, t he nar r ow envi r onment al l y
det er mi ni st appr oach has been ext ensi vel y
criticised [ 22] , and archaeological wor k has
appeared whi ch has t aken i nt o consi derat i on
social rel at i ons in a mor e serious way [ 23] .
Childe' s work has t oo many flaws t o be de-
pl oyed as a poi nt of reference or as a signifi-
cant st i mul us for this cur r ent work. Many of
t he Marxist not i ons he used, such as t he
Morgan schema of social evol ut i on and t he
' false consci ousness' view of i deol ogy, no
l onger seem as heuri st i c, or at least no l onger
seem t enabl e in an unmodi f i ed form. Yet
Chi l de' s work remai ns exempl ar y in t wo im-
por t ant respects. First, Childe consi st ent l y
at t empt ed to present his insights in a f or m
accessible and i nt erest i ng bot h t o t hose out -
side his discipline and to t hose out si de aca-
demi c i nst i t ut i ons. At present , when academi c
knowl edge is increasingly bei ng professional-
ized, specialized and marginalized, this task
is mor e urgent t han ever. Int el l ect ual s wi t h a
critical consci ousness in academi c i nst i t ut i ons
shoul d not merel y pr oduce critically rigorous
discourse: it is vital t hat t hey also at t ack t he
pr oduct i on and r epr oduct i on of present divi-
sions of knowl edge, whi ch frust rat e real under-
st andi ng and fetishize disciplinary boundari es.
Secondl y, Childe di d not negl ect t he epi st emo-
logical f oundat i ons and i mpl i cat i ons of what
he was doing. It is t o t he significance of his
phi l osophi cal work and phi l osophy in cont em-
porary archaeol ogy t hat I now t urn.
EMPI RI CI SM AND I DEOLOGY I N ARCHAEOLOGY
The cur r ent archaeological or t hodoxy still
involves a crude positivism [ 24] . This, along
wi t h t radi t i onal empi ri ci st epi st emol ogy in
general, has t wo basic deficiencies. First, it
fails t o appreci at e t he significance of t heor y in
t he knowl edge-process, and secondl y it is de-
void of any not i on of i deol ogy.
Childe wrot e little relating t o t he first prob-
l em f r om t he poi nt of view of archaeological
epi st emol ogy, but he clearly recogni zed t hat
knowl edge was a const r uct , const i t ut ed of
concept s and t heor y [ 25] . I f adequat e explana-
250
t i ons involving social consi derat i ons are t o be
generat ed, we must break away f r om t he
l i mi t ed posi t i vi st not i on t hat ' t heor y bui l di ng'
is si mpl y s omet hi ng whi ch precedes testing.
Kristiansen has made t he poi nt well:
One crucial problem is concerned with the relationship
between observed regularities in the archaeological record
and their underlying structural properties. Here most ex-
planations fail to transcend a purely empirical level, which
reflects a widely held positivistic belief that there exists a
testable one-to-one relationship between empirical observa-
tions and the structural properties of prehistoric societies.
However, a mode of production, or an economic system,
is not constituted by the structure of the empirical evi-
dence alone. It has to be reconstructed through an intel-
lectual process, using the formal system of theory as a
helping tool [ 26 I.
Childe' s mai n concer n was wi t h t he social
nat ur e of knowl edge. He adopt ed t he Kant i an
not i on of cat egori es but i ncor por at ed it i nt o
a Marxist perspect i ve by emphasi zi ng t hei r
social origin:
Space as a category is not that in which things are per-
ceived, but that in which members of a society co-operate
and act together on things [27].
It is owing to their social nature that categories appear
a priori, necessary and eternal. In this sense they are in
truth anterior to private experience. They are neither dis-
covered nor invented by individuals, but imposed by
society [28].
Chi l de ext ended this concept i on of knowl edge
i nt o vari ous areas. For i nst ance, he discussed
t he role of science, knowl edge and religion in
t he devel opment of soci et y [ 29] . I am con-
cerned onl y wi t h t he way in whi ch this perspec-
tive i nf or med some c omme nt s Chi l de made on
t he place of archaeol ogy in soci et y. Chi l de
recogni sed t hat hi st or y, as a f or m of knowl edge,
was an i deol ogi cal const r uct i on. The hi st ori an' s
sel ect i on of event s
is determined to a very small extent by his personal idio-
syncracies, but on the whole by tradition and social inter-
ests. Indeed... the standard of the memorable is a social
one, dictated by interests shared by the whole community,
or more precisely by the ruling class in each community.
Again, in so far as an historian imports judgements
into his narrative, the standard of value will be determined
socially. It is just no good demanding that history shall be
unbiased. The writer cannot help being influenced by the
interests and prejudices of the society to which he belongs
- his class, his nation, his church [30].
The general poi nt also rel at ed t o archaeol ogy,
and Chi l de was part i cul arl y concer ned by t he
use of racial di ffusi oni st t heor i es of t he Aryans
in Nazi i deol ogy:
In 1933 it can hardly be alleged that Prehistory is a useless
study, wholely remote from and irrelevant to practical life...
No one who has read Mein Kampf , or even the extracts
therefrom in The Tinzes, can fail to appreciate the profound
effect which theories of tile racial superiority of ' Aryans'
have exercised on contemporary Germany [31 ].
Archaeol ogi cal t heori es can f unct i on in mor e
or less t he same way as soci obi ol ogy has demon-
st rabl y done in l egi t i mat i ng racial and ot her
f or ms of oppressi on. Archaeol ogi st s have at
pr esent no not i on of i deol ogy, whi ch means
t hat t he discipline cannot be critically self-
consci ous, it cannot be aware of t he ways in
whi ch t heori es and st r uct ur es of i nt er pr et at i on
can f unct i on in ways uni nt ended and unseen
by t hei r pr oducer s. Some f or ms o f cont empo-
rary cul t ural materialist i nt erpret at i on have a
great deal in c ommon wi t h soci obi ol ogy and
provi de extra support f or its premises.
Ar chaeol ogy now is i ncreasi ngl y art i cul at ed
i nt o wi der social activities t hr ough t he devel-
opme nt of so-called ' publ i c ar chaeol ogy' and
t hr ough t he i nst i t ut i onal i zat i on of vari ous
archaeol ogi cal pract i ces in gover nment depart -
ment s and affi l i at ed organi zat i ons. Work in this
area ent ai l s many pr obl ems compar abl e t o
t hose whi ch have arisen in ' appl i ed' ant hr o-
pol ogy: what is t he significance of key t er ms
dr awn not f r om t heoret i cal wor k but f r om
vari ous ot her di scourses such as ' nat i onal
heri t age' and ' cul t ural resources' ? Archaeol ogi -
cal salvage wor k may become mer el y palliative,
f unct i oni ng essentially t o l egi t i mat e develop-
me nt and t he dest r uct i on of sites ( wi t h whi ch
an i ndi genous gr oup may i dent i f y) . The cur-
r ent f r amewor k for t he consi der at i on of t hese
251
issues is ent i rel y i nadequat e; t hey are con-
ceived as i ndi vi dual i st i c ' et hi cal ' choi ces r at her
t han as pol i t i cal quest i ons wi t h practical conse-
quences.
Hence, a paper in one of t he maj or collec-
t i ons on "cul t ur e resource ma na ge me nt " urged
archaeol ogi st s t o sell t he discipline t o t he publ i c
and t o gover nment , while pr esent i ng det ai l ed,
eval uat ed strategies for effi ci ent mar ket i ng [ 32] .
Is this really t he ki nd of r het or i c t hat archae-
ologists shoul d part i ci pat e in or endorse?
Archaeol ogi st s have of t en t aken part i san
posi t i ons regardi ng conservat i on issues [33 ].
Here we see t he cent ral error of t he ecological
appr oach in pr ehi st or y and ant hr opol ogy re-
pr oduced in t he cont empor ar y pol i t i cal con-
t ext . The most crucial i nadequacy of t he
various ecological appr oaches ties in t he failure
to appreci at e t he role of social rel at i ons in
domi nat i ng, i ndeed creating, pat t er ns of re-
source expl oi t at i on and subsi st ence strategies.
As Enzenberger has argued in a det ai l ed cri-
t i que of t he ecological move me nt in cont em-
porary politics [ 34] , envi r onment al issues can-
not be i sol at ed f r om social rel at i ons and eco-
nomi c syst ems. Where archaeol ogi st s are in-
volved in quest i ons of publ i c pol i cy, t hey
must recogni ze t he domi nance of cert ai n inter-
ests, and t he const rai nt s this domi nance im-
poses upon t he possibility of i nf or med deci-
sion maki ng. If archaeol ogi st s are to act in an
adequat el y subversive but const ruct i ve way
in t he publ i c sphere, conf r ont i ng devel opers,
t hen t hei r pract i ce must be i nf or med by a
critical social t heor y whi ch situates devel opers
and publ i c archaeologists, capital, and t he
st at e relative t o each ot her , put t i ng archae-
ological knowl edge where it belongs - in t he
service of i ndi genous peopl es. A new coher ence
is necessary bet ween a t hor oughgoi ng social
archaeol ogy and a critical social perspect i ve on
t he role of archaeol ogy as a form of knowl edge
wi t h specific i nst i t ut i onal cont ext s, causes and
consequences in pol i cy and politics.
Chi l de' s wor k opened up t he t erri t ori es of
social archaeol ogy and t he social l ocat i on of
archaeol ogy. His posi t i ons have been obscured,
dismissed and misread, but f r om wi t hi n t he
perspect i ve of t hese t erri t ori es as t hey have
devel oped, we can recogni ze not onl y his
pi oneeri ng role, but also t he logic of its dis-
missal and misreading.
NOTES
1 V. Gordon Childe, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1929), pp. v- vi . The approach is
implicit in various earlier works: "On the date and origin
of Minyan ware, " Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 35
(1915), pp. 196- 207; the first edition of The Dawn of
European Civilization (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner and Co., 1925); TheAryans (London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner and Co., 1926).
2 The Danube in Prehistory, p. vi.
3 Definitions similar to that quot ed appear in: The Bronze
Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930), pp.
4 1 - 4 2 ; "Changing methods and aims in Prehistory, " Pro-
ceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 1 (1935), p. 3;
Scotland Before the Scots (London: Methuen, 1946), p. 2;
Prehistoric Migrations in Europe (Osto: Aschehoug and
Co., 1950), pp. 2 - 3 ; A Short Introduction to Archaeology,
(New York: Collier, 1956), pp. 15-16;Piecing Together
the Past (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956), p. 16;
The Prehistory of European Society (London: Cassell,
1958), p. 10.
4 The Aryans, p. 81 ; The Danube in Prehistory, p. 297,
p. 348.
5 The Bronze Age, pp. 128--30, p. 199.
6 Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles (London:
Chambers and Co., 1940), p. 99, p. 128.
7 T. Murray has developed a similar argument, although
from a rather different point of view. See T. Murray,
Patterns in Prehistory: Gordon Childe Reconsidered
(University of Sydney, BA (Honours) thesis, 1978).
8 S. Piggot, "The Dawn: and an Epilogue, " Antiquity, vol.
32 (1958), p. 77.
9 S. Piggot, "Vere Gordon Childe: 1892- 1957, " Proceed-
ings of the British Academy, vol. 44 (1958), p. 312. This
text was described by Clark as ' a key source' on Childe.
G. Clark, "Prehistory since Childe, " Institute of Archae-
ology Bulletin, vol. 13 (1976), p. 2.
10 Glyn Daniel, One Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology,
(London: Duckworth, 1975), p. 375.
11 Clark, op. cit., 1976, p. 5.
12 ibid., p. 4.
13 Ibid., p. 18.
14 Ibid., p. 3.
15 M. Spriggs, "I nt r oduct i on, " in M. Spriggs (ed. )Archaeol ogy
and Anthropology: Areas of Mutual lnterest (Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports, 1977), p. 5.
16 Clark, op. cit., 1976, p. 3.
17 Piggot, "Vere Gordon Childe, " op. cit., 1958, p. 310.
252
18 Ibid., p. 311.
19 Clark, op. cit., 1976, p. 7.
20 Ibid., p. 9.
21 L. Binford, "Archaeological Perspectives," In S.R. Binford
and L.R. Binford (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology
(Chicago: Aldine, 1968).
22 For example, J. Friedman, "Marxism, structuralism and
vulgar materialism, " Man, vol. 9 (1974), pp. 444- 469;
P. Burnham, "The explanatory value of the concept of
adaptation in studies of culture change," in C. Renfrew
(ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change, (London: Duck-
worth, 1973).
23 For example, P. Kohl, "The Archaeology of Trade, "
DialecticalAnthropology, vol. 1 (1975), pp. 4 3 - 5 0 ;
M. Rowlands and J. Friedman (eds.), The Evolution of
Social Systems (London: Duckworth, 1978); M. Rowlands,
"Kinship, alliance and exchange in the European Bronze
Age, " in J. Barrett and R. Bradley (eds.), Settlement and
Society in the British later Bronze Age (Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, 1980). It has also been possible
for more perceptive work on Childe to be carried out :
B. Trigger, Gordon Childe: Revolutions in Archaeology
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1980); B. McNairn, The
Method and Theory of V. Gordon Childe (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1980). The former in particular,
however, retains many of the misconceptions of earlier work
on Childe.
24 A. Spaulding, "Expl anat i on in Archaeol ogy, " in S.R. Binford
and L.R. Binford (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology
(Chicago: Aldine, 1968). This position was recently restated
by L. Binford in the "I nt r oduct i on, " in L.R. Binford (ed.),
For Theory Building in Archaeology (New York: Academic
Press, 1977).
25 Childe, Society and Knowledge (London: Allen and Unwin,
t 956).
26 K. Kristiansen, "Economi c models for Bronze Age Scandi-
navia," in A. Sheridan and G. Barley (eds.), Economic Archae-
ology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Ap-
proaches (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1981).
27 Society and Knowledge, p. 74.
28 Ibid., p. 83.
29 Piecing Together the Past, p. 171-172;Magic, Craftsman-
ship and Science (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
1940).
30 Childe, History, (London: Cobbet, 1947), p. 22.
31 "Is prehistory practical?",Antiquity, vol. 7 (1933), pp.
410- 418. Childe repeated this position in History, pp.
52- 54. He was probably rather embarrassed by his own
use of the Aryan theory before it became a political issue.
Cf. TheAryans, especially pp. 207- 212.
32 D.G. Macleod, "Peddle or perish: Archaeological market-
ing from concept to product delivery, " in M.B. Schiffer
and G.J. Gumerman (eds.), Conservation Archaeology: A
Guide for Culture Resource Management Studies (New
York: Academic Press, 1977).
33 See, for example, the "I nt r oduct i on" to Schiffer and
Gumerman, op. cir.
34 H.M. Enzenberger, "A critique of political ecology: in
Raids and Reconstructions: Essays in Politics, Crime and
Culture (London: Pluto Press, 1976).
Dialectical Anthropology 6 (1982) 245- 252
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands