Marxist Archaeologies Final

7/28/2019 Marxist Archaeologies Final

1/9

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social

Archaeology Perspectives

Copyright Year 2013

Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media New York

Corresponding Author Family Name Tantalen

Particle

Given Name Henry

Suffix

Division/Department French Institute of Andean Studies

Organization/University Superior National University of San Marcos

City Lima

Country Peru

Email [email protected]


2/9

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGADate:29/5/13 Time:06:31:44 Page Number: 1

1

M

2 Marxian Archaeologies3 Development: Peruvian, Latin4 American, and Social Archaeology5 Perspectives

6 Henry Tantalean

7 French Institute of Andean Studies, Superior

8 National University of San Marcos, Lima, Peru

9 Introduction

10 Marxist archaeological approaches are now con-

11 sidered important in the history of world archae-

12 ological thought (Hodder & Hutson 2003;

13 Trigger 2006; Preucel & Meskell 2007). Such

14 approaches have significantly impacted archaeo-

15 logical theories since their early exposition in the

16 twentieth century. Marxist archaeologies have

17 been employed in many different national con-

18 texts in Latin America and have particularly

19 influenced the different levels and structural

20 forms of archaeology in those countries. Addi-

21 tionally, though no less importantly, its practice

22

in the contemporary world is significant, as it23 proposes an objective knowledge of the past

24 in the sense that it originated from the study of

25 social materiality but, at the same time, it dif-

26 fers from other theoretical tendencies by

27 suggesting a critique of this world with the aim

28 of creatively transforming it.

29 The entire development of Marxist archaeol-

30 ogies cannot be comprehensively covered in an

31 entry of this length, and as such we recommend

32the following texts to the reader: McGuire (1992,

332008), Vargas and Sanoja (1999), Patterson34(2003, 2007), Navarrete (2006), and Trigger

35(2006). Rather, in this entry, we will focus our

36attention on a set of Marxist archaeologies from

37Western Europe and the Americas. In particular,

38we will assess three traditions from these regions

39which have resulted from the direct inspiration of

40the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels:

41Marxist archaeology in the United States of

42America, Marxist archaeology in Spain, and

43Latin American Social Archaeology.

44Our aim is to present a succinct but meaning-

45ful panorama of the archaeological traditions

46closest to the classical Marxists and which have

47had implications for research about the past and

48for archaeology in theory and practice (also refer

49to Patterson 2003). Further, we argue that for

50many of the Marxist archaeologists discussed in

51this entry, the work of prehistorian Vere Gordon

52Childe has been of great importance, in particular

53his publications subsequent to 1936 (Trigger

541984; Politis 1999: 6).

55There are also other important Marxist archae-

56

ologies, less well known in English and Spanish57archaeological literature, such as the Marxist

58archaeological traditions developed in the USSR

59and China (Trigger 2006); however, there are

60problems in accessing such research due to lan-

61guage barriers. Interestingly, both perspectives

62may be viewed as dogmatic approaches due to

63the official policies of those countries. As such,

64even if this research was more accessible, we can

65assume that these projects would not have had

C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2,

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013


3/9


66 a significant impact in Europe and America

67 (although see the Cuban case in Dacal & Watters

68 2005). So, even though the labels we use turn out

69 to be reductionist, as they do not encompass the70 different nuances of the Marxist theoretical posi-

71 tion, they do assist us to see the main tendencies

72 present in America and Western Europe, which

73 remained interrelated due to the sharing of texts,

74 ideas, and communal aspirations.

75 Key Issues/Current Debates

76 Marxist Archaeology in the United States of

77 America

78 Archaeology in the USA is located within the79 anthropological tradition and as such is often

80 located within anthropology departments at edu-

81 cational institutions. It can be argued that the

82 development of Marxist archaeological

83 approaches has been marginalized in the USA,

84 and as a result, their development in the twentieth

85 century was quite late. Indeed, rather than groups

86 or schools of thought, the USA has seen such

87 approaches practiced by isolated individuals (in

88 many cases self-taught). Hakken and Lessinger

89 (1987: 4-5) indicate that the absence of Marxist

90 development in North American anthropology is

91 because in the United States the interaction

92 between an intolerant liberal politics and

93 a deeply rooted anti- communism in great part

94 prevented this from happening. For Maurice

95 Bloch (1987), the late inclusion of Marxism into

96 North American academic circles can also be

97 explained by the enduring evolutionary thinking

98 of Lewis H. Morgan. Morgans emphasis on

99 social change as being technologically driven

100 was influential in non-Marxist neo-evolutionary

101

thought in the USA after 1940s, particularly in102 the work of Leslie White and Julian Steward.

103 In this way, among the first groups of anthro-

104 pologists to approach Marxism in the 1940s were

105 members of the so-called Mundial Upheaval

106 Society which included individuals such as

107 Morton Fried, Elman Service, Eric Wolf, Robert

108 Manners, Daniel McCall, Sidney Mintz, Stanley

109 Diamond, Rufus Mathewson, and John V. Murra.

110 Although many of these practitioners later

111abandoned Marxist approaches and moved to

112form part of the emerging New or Processual

113Archaeology, which from the 1960s would be

114the most important archaeological theory in the115USA. Despite this move away from Marxism,

116one can still perceive in their writings the influ-

117ence of Marxist thinking in their research.

118Another early Marxist influence in the USA

119can be observed, for example, in the book Out-

120lines of Anthropology, by Melville Jacobs and

121Bernhard Stern, published in 1947. However,

122this and other primary attempts to develop

123a Marxist archaeology in the USA would be rad-

124ically cut short in 1950 by the commencement of

125the persecution of party members and communist

126sympathizers by the Committee of Anti-127American Activities led by Senator John McCar-

128thy. This persecution, in which many intellectuals

129with leftist ideas found themselves involved,

130forced some teachers to abandon their academic

131posts (McGuire 1992: 39).

132With this intense repression, research and

133archaeological interpretations that were explic-

134itly Marxist were removed from North American

135anthropological thought and isolated from the

136theoretical and methodological developments

137that were occurring principally in Europe.

138In this anti-Marxist environment, many archaeol-

139ogists avoided quoting the writings of Marx or

140Engels; instead, they referenced the works of

141Lewis Morgan which, as we know, had already

142been taken account of by Engels at the time and

143now were found more acceptable. Interestingly,

144the 1950s was a decade when neo-evolutionism

145began to emerge in the hands of researchers like

146Leslie White and Julian Steward.

147Despite this, in the 1960s, with the appearance

148of many different political movements, espe-

149

cially those critical of the Vietnam War, racism,150and the formation of the feminist movement,

151there was a resurgence of Marxist thought.

152Anthropology was not far from these movements,

153and already by 1971, at the meetings of the New

154York American Anthropological Association,

155symposia with explicitly Marxist topics began

156to appear (Lewis 2009: 215). In the same way,

157in 1972, Dell Hymes published an anthology of

158texts, Reinventing Anthropology, in which many

M 2 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives


4/9


159 entries shared a critical spirit inspired by Marx-

160 ism, as was also seen in the founding of the

161 journal Dialectical Anthropology.

162 In this new atmosphere, which was more open163 and tolerant of Marxist discourse, some archae-

164 ologists were able to develop Marxist

165 approaches. In spite of this, it also has to be

166 mentioned that there existed archaeologists who

167 used theories and concepts clearly derived from

168 Marxism but who carried out their research with-

169 out declaring the original source of their ideas

170 (Spriggs 1984: 7). For example, Matthew Spriggs

171 (1984: 2) discerned up to seven Marxist views of

172 materialism used by some North American

173 archaeologists.

174 All of the aforementioned history makes it175 clear that in this political scene, Marxist theoret-

176 ical positions were undermined by the self-same

177 State and interfered with its sustained develop-

178 ment. In truth, what can be noted is that the few

179 archaeologists following Marxist approaches had

180 to do so in a form that was not organic and in

181 many cases autodidactic.

182 An example could be the case of Thomas

183 Patterson who, while conducting fieldwork in

184 Peru in the beginning of the 1960s, met Peruvian

185 Marxist archaeologists. This contact, together

186 with the understanding of the economic and polit-

187 ical Peruvian milieux, and Marxist readings saw

188 him develop a Marxist perspective (McGuire

189 1992: 74). Patterson is one of the most developed

190 North American archaeologists in the historical

191 materialist perspective as regards important

192 themes in Central Andean archaeology, develop-

193 ing, above all, an explanation based on the dia-

194 lectic between the social classes originating

195 there. Likewise, in the last few years, he has

196 taken it upon himself to spread the presence of

197

Marxist thinking in global archaeology198 (Patterson 2003, 2009). One of Pattersons col-

199 laborators is Christine Gailey who, in turn, was

200 a student of Stanley Diamond. Based on her

201 research on the Tongan islands of Polynesia

202 (Gailey 1987), she focused her research on the

203 hidden exploitation of men over women and

204 the ways such a gender hierarchy was

205 a platform for the formation of the State.

206Another researcher to be noted here is Randall

207McGuire, currently a lecturer at Binghamton

208University, the State University of New York,

209who primarily investigates pre-Hispanic societies210in the southeast of the United States and Mexico.

211As a result of his research, McGuire has been

212exposed to Marxist theoretical developments in

213Latin America and in the Iberian Peninsula and,

214in fact, has maintained a dynamic interchange

215with archaeology research groups such as those

216of the Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona and

217students of Latin America. As well as his impor-

218tant synthesis of world Marxist archaeology

219(McGuire 1992), his 2008 book, Archaeology as

220Political Action, marks a milestone in North

221American Marxist archaeology, making clear222the political commitment that should be involved

223in its praxis.

224For his part, Phillip Kohl carried out archaeo-

225logical research, especially in Asia, and devel-

226oped his interpretations from a Marxist

227perspective (Kohl 1987). Also important are his

228critique of the use and abuse in archaeology of

229the theory of the world system of Immanuel

230Wallerstein and his critical analysis of the rela-

231tionship between nationalism and archaeology

232(Kohl & Fawcett 1995).

233Also deserving of mention is Glenn Perusek,

234who aligned himself with the materialism of

235Marx (Perusek 1994: 193) as a counterpart to

236the different materialisms existing in our time.

237Among these materialisms, we find the influential

238(in North America) structuralist Marxism and the

239diverse strands of neo-Marxism, which borrow

240only some Marxist elements. Perusek analyzed

241the so-called factional competition which has its

242Marxist correlation in class struggle as the engine

243of change in societies (for a broader treatment of

244

this question, consult the edited anthology by245Brumfiel & Fox [1994]).

246As can be seen through these representative

247cases, Marxist archaeology still prevails in the

248USA, and the first generations of Marxist archae-

249ologists of the 1960s and 1970s have now been

250joined by younger researchers who continue to

251develop and promote this perspective (McGuire

2522008: 85), proposing different topics and places

Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives 3 M


5/9


253 to research, always looking to Latin America and,

254 above all, to Europe where Marxism began.

255 Marxist Archaeology in Spain256 From 1960, as occurred in other Western Euro-

257 pean countries, Spain saw renovation and growth

258 in the discipline of archaeology, although it was

259 not until 1975 that historical materialism would

260 be admitted into academia. This was the case

261 because of Francos dictatorship (19391975)

262 during which time a traditional school of archae-

263 ology was maintained and routine research

264 rather than technological innovation, epistemo-

265 logical analysis and creative methodology

266 (Vazquez & Risch 1991: 25) was the order of

267 the day.268 It is also worth noting that the development of

269 Marxist archaeological approaches in the 1980s

270 was closer in Spain to the discipline of history

271 (and hence archaeology was focused on prehis-

272 tory) than to the social disciplines such as anthro-

273 pology, whose frameworks and discussions had

274 less influence on archaeology. On the other hand,

275 Spains close proximity to France facilitated the

276 introduction of theory and methodology to the

277 country, particularly within Paleolithic archaeol-

278 ogy and fine-grained excavation techniques.

279 Likewise, German archaeological research pro-

280 jects in Spain also exerted an influence, princi-

281 pally methodological, on the training of many of

282 its archaeologists; such an influence can be seen

283 in large-scale excavations, the gathering of large

284 collections of archaeological objects, detailed

285 recording of sites and artifacts, the development

286 of typologies, and quantitative analysis.

287 In this way, it was not until the beginning of

288 the 1980s that new interpretations appeared in

289 Spanish archaeology. These developed as

290

a consequence of the changed political climate,291 given the lefts return to power. Thus, in 1983,

292 Vicente Lull published his doctoral thesis,

293 defended in 1980, about the society of El

294 Argar (22501500 BCE) in which a materialist

295 historical perspective was used for the first time

296 in an explicit way (Vazquez & Risch 1991: 32).

297 As can be expected, such a publication was not

298 free from the criticisms of the established aca-

299 demics, who were still very conservative.

300In the same vein, an important space for the

301discussion of Marxist perspectives was opened in

302Barcelonas 1986 Congreso de Arqueologa

303Teorica (Congress of Theoretical Archaeology)304in which the majority of the papers centered on

305the use of Marxism in archaeology. During those

306years, the original Barcelona Marxist group

307was formally constituted, and its appearance in

308the academic arena at the Coloquio de

309Arqueologa de Soria (1981) (Seminar of Sorian

310Archaeology) confirmed the materialist historical

311course that would be followed later. Equally,

312in the same decade, they carried out the first

313field investigations that had materialist theoreti-

314cal frameworks, in which they included

315colleagues from other nationalities and theoreti-316cal positions, who would later take their theoret-

317ical substance from Marxism, as in the case of

318Robert Chapman (2003).

319In this way, the Marxist archaeological group

320of Barcelona is a significant source of theoretical

321and methodological production for Marxist

322archaeology, as much in Spain as elsewhere. Its

323publications included many areas relating to pre-

324history and have been used as references in

325different academic spaces. In this sense, Vicente

326Lull, the lead investigator of this group, acknowl-

327edged from the first that dialectic has to exist

328between theory and material evidence, in this

329case that of archaeology.

330In this way, Lull distanced himself from the

331many mechanistic Marxist discussions that had

332gone on previously. During the 1990s, with his

333team, he developed a series of theories and social

334explanations from archaeological investigations

335based on historical materialism. In almost all of

336these publications, one of the main objectives

337was to make clear that society comes about

338

through praxis, distancing themselves completely339from abstract and normative classifications that

340had become popular in mechanistic Marxist

341studies.

342Lull and his associates went on to develop

343quite an active practice, holding conferences in

344different parts of Spain, Europe, and America as

345well as bringing to light the synthesis of theories

346about the origins of the State, written conjointly

347with Rafael Mico (Lull & Mico 2007) and a long



6/9


348 essay by Lull (2007) on his method of viewing

349 archaeological objects from a historical material-

350 ist perspective.

351 It should also be mentioned that at the same352 Pre-history Department at the Barcelona

353 Universitat Autonoma was another Marxist

354 group led by Jordi Estevez and Asumcio Vila.

355 This research group complemented the point of

356 view of the Iberian Peninsula Pre-history Unit

357 with a focus on studying pre-classist societies,

358 specifically from the Paleolithic to ethnographic

359 hunters and gatherers.

360 Furthermore, this group carried out archaeo-

361 logical investigations in America, particularly in

362 Tierra del Fuego, closely allied with their Argen-

363 tine colleagues (Estevez & Vila 1999). A similar364 collaboration with Peruvian colleagues was

365 undertaken by the team led by Pedro Castro-Mar-

366 tnez, which focused their studies on the southern

367 coast of Peru, carrying out various digs there,

368 with results that were beginning to be published

369 in America and Europe.

370 Finally, we also wish to mention that the Pre-

371 history Department of Barcelonas Universitat

372 Autonoma initiated and promoted a Marxist fem-

373 inist approach, particularly by Mara Encarna

374 Sanahuja (who has recently passed away) that

375 has influenced other European and Latin Ameri-

376 can Marxists as in the case of the Venezuelan

377 Iraida Vargas.

378 Apart from the Barcelona group, another

379 Marxist group arose in the Humanities Faculty

380 of Jaen University, the principal representatives

381 being Arturo Ruiz and Manuel Molinos. Impor-

382 tant studies in this regard include those by

383 Francisco Nocete (1988) about pre-Historic

384 State formation in Guadalquivir and his scathing

385 criticism of the sociopolitical leadership cate-

386

gory; also the studies of Oswaldo Arteaga and387 his Seville team as well as Jose Ramos and asso-

388 ciates in Cadiz deserve a mention here.

389 As a consequence of the structure of these

390 Marxist archaeological groups in southern

391 Spain, one of the seminal publications, the

392 Revista Atlantica-Mediterranea de Prehistoria

393 y Arqueologa Social (RAMPAS) (the Atlantic-

394 Mediterranean Journal of Pre-historic and

395 Social Archaeology), has echoed their point of

396view and, of course, has an international follow-

397ing in which Latin American archaeologists have

398featured, given that the group from southern

399Spain has been quite influential theoretically in400Latin American Social Archaeology, especially

401through the work of Luis Felipe Bate who

402obtained his doctorate from Seville University.

403Latin American Social Archaeology (ASL)

404After gaining independence at the beginning of

405the twentieth century, particularly from Spain,

406the majority of Latin American countries

407followed socioeconomic and sociopolitical pro-

408cesses which sought to generate identification

409with their precolonial, or criollo, legacy. Such

410identities originated in the colonial era and from411the higher classes who, once political indepen-

412dence was achieved, eventually lead the new

413nations and re-created their history.

414In this strengthening process, they tried to

415form national identities by seeking out their

416ancestors, which later gave rise to the national-

417isms that were established through archaeologi-

418cal studies (Kohl & Fawcett 1995). However,

419scientific archaeology as such did not arise in

420these countries until the latter decades of the

421nineteenth century (Politis 1999: 198-199)

422although, paradoxically, they were initiated by

423foreign investigators, principally from Western

424Europe and the United States. With these

425researchers, cultural evolutionist theory was

426incorporated into the interpretation of pre-

427Hispanic societies. In addition, the influence of

428the USA became more noticeable at the start of

429the twentieth century, as its political power and

430economic interests grew.

431In the years when diffusionism and cultural

432historicism were acquiring importance in the

433

USA, countries such as Peru and Mexico were434developing a social and political movement

435called Indigenismo (Indigenism) which was

436particularly influential in the 1920s. Indigenism,

437which began as a social vindication movement,

438later transformed into a type of nationalism that

439sought to strengthen the structure of the State by

440way of re-creating the pre-Hispanic past (Inca

441and Aztec, respectively) at the same time with

442the objective of rejecting colonialism, even



7/9


443 though there were different expressions and inter-

444 ests in each country.

445 During the twentieth century, each Latin

446 American country had a particular political tra-447 jectory, including a form that moved from leftist

448 governments to elite US-patronized administra-

449 tions to rightist military dictatorships.

450 In this way, owing to political situations in

451 which power was taken by military dictatorships

452 with nationalistic policies (e.g., in Peru at the end

453 of the 1960s), leftist parties (e.g., in Mexico),

454 communist governments, as in Cuba following

455 their 1959 Revolution, or a mix of military dicta-

456 torship and left-wing parties (as in Venezuela),

457 a Marxist archaeology was able to establish itself

458 and develop.459 In the case of Cuba, after its successful revo-

460 lution, and with communist policy already

461 installed, it was not long before Marxism was

462 a fundamental part of archaeological interpreta-

463 tion. In this process, Cuban archaeologist Ernesto

464 Tabo published his Prehistoria de Cuba (1966) -

465 (Prehistory of Cuba), a book through which

466 Cuban archaeology was introduced to the soviet

467 archaeological framework of analysis and

468 through which many Latin American students

469 assimilated this version of historical materialism

470 (Navarrete 2006: 24). It is interesting to note here

471 that before the Cuban Revolution, Ernesto Tabo

472 had carried out important archaeological investi-

473 gations on the central coast of Peru.

474 The usual interpretations by archaeologists

475 foreign to Latin American countries (and their

476 local students and followers) were countered

477 later, in 1974, with works such as Arqueologa

478 como Ciencia Social (Archaeology as a Social

479 Science) by the Peruvian archaeologist Luis G.

480 Lumbreras and Antiguas Formaciones y Modos

481

de Produccion Venezolanos (Ancient Formations482 and Venezuelan Methods of Production) by

483 Mario Sanoja and Iraida Vargas.

484 As a consequence of these initial proposals,

485 a series of meetings were held which invigorated

486 the development of the so-called Arqueologa

487 Social Latinoamericana (Latin American

488 Social Archaeology). The first of these, driven

489 by Lumbreras, occurred at the symposium enti-

490 tled Formaciones aborgenes en America

491(Aboriginal Formations in America) which was

492included in the XXXIX Congreso Internacional

493de Americanistas (39th International Congress of

494Americanists) celebrated in Lima in 1970. Later495in Mexico, there was the Reunion de Teotihuacan

496(Meeting of Teotihuacan) in 1975, organized by

497Jose Luis Lorenzo. At each of these gatherings,

498they tried to establish general lines of action

499according to the perspective of historical materi-

500alism, which each of the participants went on to

501develop in their respective countries. After these

502early attempts, and dissatisfied with the previous

503work group, they formed the so-called Grupo de

504Oaxtepec (Oaxtepec Group) in 1983, among

505them Luis G. Lumbreras, Manuel Gandara,

506Mario Sanoja, Marcio Veloz, Iraida Vargas, and507Felipe Bate.

508For Peru, Luis Guillermo Lumbreras is the

509principal representative of this school of thought

510and has left us valuable insights into pre-Hispanic

511societies, which he endorsed through his empiri-

512cal research in various zones of the Andes, for

513example, the Chavn de Huantar site (see the

514Lumbreras entry in this encyclopedia). Although

515his works have not been free from criticism, it is

516undoubtedly his fieldwork, extensive biblio-

517graphic production, his panoramic view of social

518processes, and his political stance that have nota-

519bly influenced archaeology in Peru and in other

520parts of the world.

521In the 1980s, Lumbreras, together with other

522researchers, was part of the Instituto Andino de

523Estudios Arqueologicos (INDEA) (Andean Insti-

524tute of Archaeological Studies) which provided

525a space for the practice and reflection of archae-

526ology from the Marxism point of view. For

527various reasons, a solid group of Marxist archae-

528ologists was never formed, which is made obvi-

529

ous by the few publications in this line. One530explanation for this, in part, is that in the 1990s,

531during the government of Alberto Fujimori, intol-

532erance and persecution of left-wing thought in

533general made it impossible to explain and prac-

534tice a Marxist-inspired archaeology.

535In the case of Mexico, following the founda-

536tions laid by Jose Luis Lorenzo and other intel-

537lectuals who emigrated from Spain due to

538Francos dictatorship, the work of Luis Felipe



8/9


539 Bate should be noted here. After his exile from

540 Chile, as a consequence of the Pinochet dictator-

541 ship, Bate took it upon himself to form a nucleus

542 of Marxist archaeologists with the Escuela543 Nacional de Antropologa e Historia (ENAH)

544 (National School of Anthropology and History)

545 within which Manuel Gandara stands out, gener-

546 ating an important and meaningful production of

547 archaeology which has impacted Latin America

548 and Spain in particular (see Bate 1998). Likewise,

549 thanks to the participation of Luis Felipe Bate and

550 associates in the publication of Boletn de

551 Antropolog a Americana (Bulletin of American

552 Anthropology), an academic space was enabled

553 for the diffusion and discussion of themes that

554 were mostly related to Marxism.555 In order not to overwhelm the reader with

556 more individual cases, we simply wish to dem-

557 onstrate that Latin American Social Archaeology

558 still prevails, principally in such countries as

559 Mexico, Venezuela, and Peru, although it has

560 begun to form an autocratic viewpoint relative

561 to its founders, though always keeping the same

562 link between theory and praxis as its founders

563 instituted (see Tantalean & Aguilar2012). Like-

564 wise, in Chile, there has been a resurgence of this

565 type of archaeology, which had been persecuted

566 and practically disappeared from academic and

567 political circles during the military government

568 of Augusto Pinochet (19731990).

569 After Pinochets dictatorship, this kind of

570 archaeology began to accept Marxism in both

571 its theoretical and political implications. Studies

572 in this line include those of Patricio Nunez,

573 Mauricio Uribe, Francisco Gallardo, and new

574 generations of young archaeologists such as Ben-

575 jamn Ballester, Jairo Sepulveda, Alex San

576 Francisco, and Miguel Fuentes.

577

This resurgence of Marxist archaeology in578 Chile makes it clear that Marxism has always

579 had an important political position in this country

580 and that its left-wing intellectuals have been

581 closely linked with the Peruvians, despite

582 attempts to impose nationalisms and the political

583 persecution of the left, particularly in the south.

584Future Directions

585Final Remarks

586As we have been able to briefly outline, Marxist587archaeology has had a presence in archaeological

588thought throughout the twentieth century, with

589significant influence in the first decade of the

590twenty-first century. Further, as we have demon-

591strated, the historical substratum, the academic

592training, and the academic and political context

593in which Marxist archaeologists practiced were

594dominated by other ways of doing archaeology,

595e.g., historical-cultural and neo-evolutionary

596approaches.

597For this reason, despite taking on much of

598historical materialism, some Marxist archaeolo-599gists unconsciously reproduced assumptions and

600epistemologies they believed they had overcome.

601Furthermore, national contexts and, above all,

602official policies slowed down or halted their nat-

603ural development. The intricate and diverse polit-

604ical and academic trajectories of the twentieth

605century can, at least in part, explain the often

606contradictory history of Marxism in archaeology.

607While Marxist archaeological approaches are

608not dominant, they have influenced the world of

609archaeological thought. Marxist archaeology has

610also found ways to generate discussions and con-

611tributions which have transcended national bor-

612ders and maintained a dynamic dialogue between

613colleagues. Thus, despite the fact that Marxist

614archaeologies are not always well received by

615the discipline, they have been well connected

616with other forms and approaches of practicing

617archaeology.

618As Patterson (2003) would say, many archae-

619ologists have had conversations with the Ghost

620of Marx. Archaeology has, therefore, been

621

enriched by these often unacknowledged and622unconscious conversations. We anticipate an

623ongoing development of Marxist archaeology,

624based on its fluent dialogues among archaeolo-

625gists from diverse countries and regions of the

626world and with non-Marxist archaeologists as

627well. We also think that Marxist archaeologies

628need to keep some distance from dogmatisms and

629rhetorics that often limit their creativity, in order



9/9


630 to develop objective and socially meaningful

631 methodologies and historical data.

632 Cross-References

633 Archaeology and Politics

634 Childe, Vere Gordon (Political and Social

635 Archaeology)

636 Childe, Vere Gordon (Theory)

637 Lumbreras, Luis Guillermo

638 Marx, Karl

639 Patterson, Thomas Carl

640 References

641 BATE, L.F. 1998. El proceso de investigacion en642 arqueologa. Barcelona: Crtica.643 BLOCH, M. 1987. Marxism and anthropology. Oxford:644 Oxford University Press.

645 BRUMFIEL, E. & J. FOX. (ed.) 1994. Factional competition646 and political development in the New World. Cam-647 bridge: Cambridge University Press.

648 CHAPMAN, R. 2003. Archaeologies of complexity. London:649 Routledge.

650 DACAL, R . & D . WATTERS. 2005. Three stages in thehistory

651 of Cuban archaeology, in L. Curet, A. Shannon, L.

652 Dawdy & G. La Rosa (ed.) Dialogues in Cuban

653 archaeology: 29-40. Tuscaloosa: The University of654 Alabama Press.

655 ESTEVEZ, J. & A. VILA. (coord.). 1999. Encuentros en los

656 conchales fueguinos. Bellaterra: UAB-C.S.I.C.657 GAILEY, C. 1987. Kinship to kingship. Gender hierarchy658 and state formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin:659 University of Texas Press.

660 HAKKEN, D. & H. LESSINGER. 1987. Perspectives in U.S.661 Marxist anthropology. Boulder: Westview Press.662 HODDER, I. & S. HUTSON. 2003. Reading the past. Current663 approaches to interpretation in archaeology, 3rd edn.664 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

665 KOHL, P. 1987. Theuse and abuse of world systems theory:

666 the case of the pristine West Asian state, in

667 M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in archaeological method

668 and theory: 1-35. San Diego: Academic Press.669 KOHL, P. & C. FAWCETT. (ed.) 1995. Nationalism, politics,

670 and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-671 bridge University Press.

672 LEWIS, H. 2009. The radical transformation of anthropol-

673 ogy history seen through the annual meetings of the

674American Anthropological Association, 19552005.

675Histories of Anthropology Annual 5: 200-228.676LULL, V. 2007. Los objetos distinguidos. La arqueologa

677como excusa. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

678LULL, V. & R. MICO. 2007. Arqueologa del origen del679estado. Las teoras. Barcelona: Bellaterra.680MCGUIRE, R. 1992. A Marxist archaeology. San Diego:681Academic Press.

682- 2008. Marxism, in A. Bentley, H. Maschner & C.

683Chippindale (ed.) Handbook of archaeological theo-

684ries: 73-93. Lanham: Altamira Press.685NAVARRETTE, R. 2006. La arqueologa social686latinoamericana: Una meta, multiples perspectivas.687Caracas: Coordinacion de Extension de la FaCES,

688Universidad Central de Venezuela.

689NOCETE, F. 1988. El espacio de la coercio n: la transicio n

690al Estado en las campinas del Alto Guadalquivir691(Espana), 3000-1500 a.C. Oxford: British Archaeo-692logical Reports.

693PATTERSON, T. 2003. Marxs ghost. Conversations with694archaeologists. Oxford: Berg.695- 2007. Social archaeology and Marxist social thought, in

696L. Meskell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social

697archaeology: 66-81. Malden: Blackwell.698- 2009. Karl Marx. Anthropologist. Oxford: Berg.699PERUSEK, G. 1994. Factional competition and historical

700materialism, in E. Brumfiel & J. Fox (ed.) Factional701competition and political development in the

702New World: 191-198. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-703sity Press.

704POLITIS, G. 1999. Introduction. Latin American archaeol-

705ogy: an inside view, in G. Politis & B. Alberti (ed.)

706Archaeology in Latin America: 1-13. London:707

Routledge.708PREUCEL, R . & L . MESKELL. 2007. Knowledges, in L.

709Meskell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social710archaeology: 3-22. Malden: Blackwell.711SPRIGGS, M. (ed.) 1984. Marxist perspectives in archaeol-

712ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.713TANTALEAN, H. & M. AGUILAR. (ed.) 2012. La Arqueologa

714social latinoamericana. De la teora a la praxis.715Bogota: CESO. Universidad de los Andes.

716TRIGGER, B. 1984. Childe and Soviet archaeology.

717Australian Archaeology 18: 1-16.718- 2006. A history of archaeological thought, 2nd edn.719Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

720VARGAS, I. & M. SANOJA. 1999. Archaeology as a social

721science: its expression in Latin America, in G. Politis

722& B. Alberti (ed.) Archaeology in Latin America:72357-73. London: Routledge.

724VAZQUEZ, J. & R. RISCH. 1991. Theory in Spanish archae-

725ology since 1960, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological726theory in Europe. The last three decades: 25-51. Lon-727don: Routledge.

http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/

Marxist Archaeologies Final

Documents

Transcript of Marxist Archaeologies Final