You are on page 1of 9

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title Copyright Year Copyright Holder Corresponding Author Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York Family Name Particle Given Name Suffix Division/Department Organization/University City Country Email French Institute of Andean Studies Superior National University of San Marcos Lima Peru Henry Tantalen

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

2 3 4 5

Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives
n Henry Tantalea French Institute of Andean Studies, Superior National University of San Marcos, Lima, Peru

6 7 8

Marxist archaeological approaches are now considered important in the history of world archaeological thought (Hodder & Hutson 2003; Trigger 2006; Preucel & Meskell 2007). Such approaches have signicantly impacted archaeological theories since their early exposition in the twentieth century. Marxist archaeologies have been employed in many different national contexts in Latin America and have particularly inuenced the different levels and structural forms of archaeology in those countries. Additionally, though no less importantly, its practice in the contemporary world is signicant, as it proposes an objective knowledge of the past in the sense that it originated from the study of social materiality but, at the same time, it differs from other theoretical tendencies by suggesting a critique of this world with the aim of creatively transforming it. The entire development of Marxist archaeologies cannot be comprehensively covered in an entry of this length, and as such we recommend

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

the following texts to the reader: McGuire (1992, 2008), Vargas and Sanoja (1999), Patterson (2003, 2007), Navarrete (2006), and Trigger (2006). Rather, in this entry, we will focus our attention on a set of Marxist archaeologies from Western Europe and the Americas. In particular, we will assess three traditions from these regions which have resulted from the direct inspiration of the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Marxist archaeology in the United States of America, Marxist archaeology in Spain, and Latin American Social Archaeology. Our aim is to present a succinct but meaningful panorama of the archaeological traditions closest to the classical Marxists and which have had implications for research about the past and for archaeology in theory and practice (also refer to Patterson 2003). Further, we argue that for many of the Marxist archaeologists discussed in this entry, the work of prehistorian Vere Gordon Childe has been of great importance, in particular his publications subsequent to 1936 (Trigger 1984; Politis 1999: 6). There are also other important Marxist archaeologies, less well known in English and Spanish archaeological literature, such as the Marxist archaeological traditions developed in the USSR and China (Trigger 2006); however, there are problems in accessing such research due to language barriers. Interestingly, both perspectives may be viewed as dogmatic approaches due to the ofcial policies of those countries. As such, even if this research was more accessible, we can assume that these projects would not have had

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2, # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:44 Page Number: 2

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

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

a signicant impact in Europe and America (although see the Cuban case in Dacal & Watters 2005). So, even though the labels we use turn out to be reductionist, as they do not encompass the different nuances of the Marxist theoretical position, they do assist us to see the main tendencies present in America and Western Europe, which remained interrelated due to the sharing of texts, ideas, and communal aspirations.


Key Issues/Current Debates

Marxist Archaeology in the United States of America Archaeology in the USA is located within the anthropological tradition and as such is often located within anthropology departments at educational institutions. It can be argued that the development of Marxist archaeological approaches has been marginalized in the USA, and as a result, their development in the twentieth century was quite late. Indeed, rather than groups or schools of thought, the USA has seen such approaches practiced by isolated individuals (in many cases self-taught). Hakken and Lessinger (1987: 4-5) indicate that the absence of Marxist development in North American anthropology is because in the United States the interaction between an intolerant liberal politics and a deeply rooted anti- communism in great part prevented this from happening. For Maurice Bloch (1987), the late inclusion of Marxism into North American academic circles can also be explained by the enduring evolutionary thinking of Lewis H. Morgan. Morgans emphasis on social change as being technologically driven was inuential in non-Marxist neo-evolutionary thought in the USA after 1940s, particularly in the work of Leslie White and Julian Steward. In this way, among the rst groups of anthropologists to approach Marxism in the 1940s were members of the so-called Mundial Upheaval Society which included individuals such as Morton Fried, Elman Service, Eric Wolf, Robert Manners, Daniel McCall, Sidney Mintz, Stanley Diamond, Rufus Mathewson, and John V. Murra. Although many of these practitioners later

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

abandoned Marxist approaches and moved to form part of the emerging New or Processual Archaeology, which from the 1960s would be the most important archaeological theory in the USA. Despite this move away from Marxism, one can still perceive in their writings the inuence of Marxist thinking in their research. Another early Marxist inuence in the USA can be observed, for example, in the book Outlines of Anthropology, by Melville Jacobs and Bernhard Stern, published in 1947. However, this and other primary attempts to develop a Marxist archaeology in the USA would be radically cut short in 1950 by the commencement of the persecution of party members and communist sympathizers by the Committee of AntiAmerican Activities led by Senator John McCarthy. This persecution, in which many intellectuals with leftist ideas found themselves involved, forced some teachers to abandon their academic posts (McGuire 1992: 39). With this intense repression, research and archaeological interpretations that were explicitly Marxist were removed from North American anthropological thought and isolated from the theoretical and methodological developments that were occurring principally in Europe. In this anti-Marxist environment, many archaeologists avoided quoting the writings of Marx or Engels; instead, they referenced the works of Lewis Morgan which, as we know, had already been taken account of by Engels at the time and now were found more acceptable. Interestingly, the 1950s was a decade when neo-evolutionism began to emerge in the hands of researchers like Leslie White and Julian Steward. Despite this, in the 1960s, with the appearance of many different political movements, especially those critical of the Vietnam War, racism, and the formation of the feminist movement, there was a resurgence of Marxist thought. Anthropology was not far from these movements, and already by 1971, at the meetings of the New York American Anthropological Association, symposia with explicitly Marxist topics began to appear (Lewis 2009: 215). In the same way, in 1972, Dell Hymes published an anthology of texts, Reinventing Anthropology, in which many

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:44 Page Number: 3

Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives 3
159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

entries shared a critical spirit inspired by Marxism, as was also seen in the founding of the journal Dialectical Anthropology. In this new atmosphere, which was more open and tolerant of Marxist discourse, some archaeologists were able to develop Marxist approaches. In spite of this, it also has to be mentioned that there existed archaeologists who used theories and concepts clearly derived from Marxism but who carried out their research without declaring the original source of their ideas (Spriggs 1984: 7). For example, Matthew Spriggs (1984: 2) discerned up to seven Marxist views of materialism used by some North American archaeologists. All of the aforementioned history makes it clear that in this political scene, Marxist theoretical positions were undermined by the self-same State and interfered with its sustained development. In truth, what can be noted is that the few archaeologists following Marxist approaches had to do so in a form that was not organic and in many cases autodidactic. An example could be the case of Thomas Patterson who, while conducting eldwork in Peru in the beginning of the 1960s, met Peruvian Marxist archaeologists. This contact, together with the understanding of the economic and political Peruvian milieux, and Marxist readings saw him develop a Marxist perspective (McGuire 1992: 74). Patterson is one of the most developed North American archaeologists in the historical materialist perspective as regards important themes in Central Andean archaeology, developing, above all, an explanation based on the dialectic between the social classes originating there. Likewise, in the last few years, he has taken it upon himself to spread the presence of Marxist thinking in global archaeology (Patterson 2003, 2009). One of Pattersons collaborators is Christine Gailey who, in turn, was a student of Stanley Diamond. Based on her research on the Tongan islands of Polynesia (Gailey 1987), she focused her research on the hidden exploitation of men over women and the ways such a gender hierarchy was a platform for the formation of the State.

Another researcher to be noted here is Randall McGuire, currently a lecturer at Binghamton University, the State University of New York, who primarily investigates pre-Hispanic societies in the southeast of the United States and Mexico. As a result of his research, McGuire has been exposed to Marxist theoretical developments in Latin America and in the Iberian Peninsula and, in fact, has maintained a dynamic interchange with archaeology research groups such as those ` noma of Barcelona and of the Universitat Auto students of Latin America. As well as his important synthesis of world Marxist archaeology (McGuire 1992), his 2008 book, Archaeology as Political Action, marks a milestone in North American Marxist archaeology, making clear the political commitment that should be involved in its praxis. For his part, Phillip Kohl carried out archaeological research, especially in Asia, and developed his interpretations from a Marxist perspective (Kohl 1987). Also important are his critique of the use and abuse in archaeology of the theory of the world system of Immanuel Wallerstein and his critical analysis of the relationship between nationalism and archaeology (Kohl & Fawcett 1995). Also deserving of mention is Glenn Perusek, who aligned himself with the materialism of Marx (Perusek 1994: 193) as a counterpart to the different materialisms existing in our time. Among these materialisms, we nd the inuential (in North America) structuralist Marxism and the diverse strands of neo-Marxism, which borrow only some Marxist elements. Perusek analyzed the so-called factional competition which has its Marxist correlation in class struggle as the engine of change in societies (for a broader treatment of this question, consult the edited anthology by Brumel & Fox [1994]). As can be seen through these representative cases, Marxist archaeology still prevails in the USA, and the rst generations of Marxist archaeologists of the 1960s and 1970s have now been joined by younger researchers who continue to develop and promote this perspective (McGuire 2008: 85), proposing different topics and places

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:44 Page Number: 4

253 254

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

to research, always looking to Latin America and, above all, to Europe where Marxism began. Marxist Archaeology in Spain From 1960, as occurred in other Western European countries, Spain saw renovation and growth in the discipline of archaeology, although it was not until 1975 that historical materialism would be admitted into academia. This was the case because of Francos dictatorship (19391975) during which time a traditional school of archaeology was maintained and routine research rather than technological innovation, epistemological analysis and creative methodology zquez & Risch 1991: 25) was the order of (Va the day. It is also worth noting that the development of Marxist archaeological approaches in the 1980s was closer in Spain to the discipline of history (and hence archaeology was focused on prehistory) than to the social disciplines such as anthropology, whose frameworks and discussions had less inuence on archaeology. On the other hand, Spains close proximity to France facilitated the introduction of theory and methodology to the country, particularly within Paleolithic archaeology and ne-grained excavation techniques. Likewise, German archaeological research projects in Spain also exerted an inuence, principally methodological, on the training of many of its archaeologists; such an inuence can be seen in large-scale excavations, the gathering of large collections of archaeological objects, detailed recording of sites and artifacts, the development of typologies, and quantitative analysis. In this way, it was not until the beginning of the 1980s that new interpretations appeared in Spanish archaeology. These developed as a consequence of the changed political climate, given the lefts return to power. Thus, in 1983, Vicente Lull published his doctoral thesis, defended in 1980, about the society of El Argar (22501500 BCE) in which a materialist historical perspective was used for the rst time zquez & Risch 1991: 32). in an explicit way (Va As can be expected, such a publication was not free from the criticisms of the established academics, who were still very conservative.

255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299

In the same vein, an important space for the discussion of Marxist perspectives was opened in a Barcelonas 1986 Congreso de Arqueolog rica (Congress of Theoretical Archaeology) Teo in which the majority of the papers centered on the use of Marxism in archaeology. During those years, the original Barcelona Marxist group was formally constituted, and its appearance in the academic arena at the Coloquio de a de Soria (1981) (Seminar of Sorian Arqueolog Archaeology) conrmed the materialist historical course that would be followed later. Equally, in the same decade, they carried out the rst eld investigations that had materialist theoretical frameworks, in which they included colleagues from other nationalities and theoretical positions, who would later take their theoretical substance from Marxism, as in the case of Robert Chapman (2003). In this way, the Marxist archaeological group of Barcelona is a signicant source of theoretical and methodological production for Marxist archaeology, as much in Spain as elsewhere. Its publications included many areas relating to prehistory and have been used as references in different academic spaces. In this sense, Vicente Lull, the lead investigator of this group, acknowledged from the rst that dialectic has to exist between theory and material evidence, in this case that of archaeology. In this way, Lull distanced himself from the many mechanistic Marxist discussions that had gone on previously. During the 1990s, with his team, he developed a series of theories and social explanations from archaeological investigations based on historical materialism. In almost all of these publications, one of the main objectives was to make clear that society comes about through praxis, distancing themselves completely from abstract and normative classications that had become popular in mechanistic Marxist studies. Lull and his associates went on to develop quite an active practice, holding conferences in different parts of Spain, Europe, and America as well as bringing to light the synthesis of theories about the origins of the State, written conjointly (Lull & Mico 2007) and a long with Rafael Mico

300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347

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

Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives 5
348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395

396 397 398 399 400 401 402

essay by Lull (2007) on his method of viewing archaeological objects from a historical materialist perspective. It should also be mentioned that at the same Pre-history Department at the Barcelona ` noma was another Marxist Universitat Auto vez and Asumcio Vila. group led by Jordi Este This research group complemented the point of view of the Iberian Peninsula Pre-history Unit with a focus on studying pre-classist societies, specically from the Paleolithic to ethnographic hunters and gatherers. Furthermore, this group carried out archaeological investigations in America, particularly in Tierra del Fuego, closely allied with their Argen vez & Vila 1999). A similar tine colleagues (Este collaboration with Peruvian colleagues was undertaken by the team led by Pedro Castro-Marnez, which focused their studies on the southern t , carrying out various digs there, coast of Peru with results that were beginning to be published in America and Europe. Finally, we also wish to mention that the Prehistory Department of Barcelonas Universitat ` noma initiated and promoted a Marxist femAuto a Encarna inist approach, particularly by Mar Sanahuja (who has recently passed away) that has inuenced other European and Latin American Marxists as in the case of the Venezuelan Iraida Vargas. Apart from the Barcelona group, another Marxist group arose in the Humanities Faculty n University, the principal representatives of Jae being Arturo Ruiz and Manuel Molinos. Important studies in this regard include those by Francisco Nocete (1988) about pre-Historic State formation in Guadalquivir and his scathing criticism of the sociopolitical leadership category; also the studies of Oswaldo Arteaga and Ramos and assohis Seville team as well as Jose diz deserve a mention here. ciates in Ca As a consequence of the structure of these Marxist archaeological groups in southern Spain, one of the seminal publications, the Revista Atla ntica-Mediterra nea de Prehistoria y Arqueolog a Social (RAMPAS) (the AtlanticMediterranean Journal of Pre-historic and Social Archaeology), has echoed their point of

view and, of course, has an international following in which Latin American archaeologists have featured, given that the group from southern Spain has been quite inuential theoretically in Latin American Social Archaeology, especially through the work of Luis Felipe Bate who obtained his doctorate from Seville University. Latin American Social Archaeology (ASL) After gaining independence at the beginning of the twentieth century, particularly from Spain, the majority of Latin American countries followed socioeconomic and sociopolitical processes which sought to generate identication with their precolonial, or criollo, legacy. Such identities originated in the colonial era and from the higher classes who, once political independence was achieved, eventually lead the new nations and re-created their history. In this strengthening process, they tried to form national identities by seeking out their ancestors, which later gave rise to the nationalisms that were established through archaeological studies (Kohl & Fawcett 1995). However, scientic archaeology as such did not arise in these countries until the latter decades of the nineteenth century (Politis 1999: 198-199) although, paradoxically, they were initiated by foreign investigators, principally from Western Europe and the United States. With these researchers, cultural evolutionist theory was incorporated into the interpretation of preHispanic societies. In addition, the inuence of the USA became more noticeable at the start of the twentieth century, as its political power and economic interests grew. In the years when diffusionism and cultural historicism were acquiring importance in the USA, countries such as Peru and Mexico were developing a social and political movement called Indigenismo (Indigenism) which was particularly inuential in the 1920s. Indigenism, which began as a social vindication movement, later transformed into a type of nationalism that sought to strengthen the structure of the State by way of re-creating the pre-Hispanic past (Inca and Aztec, respectively) at the same time with the objective of rejecting colonialism, even

403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:45 Page Number: 6

443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490

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

though there were different expressions and interests in each country. During the twentieth century, each Latin American country had a particular political trajectory, including a form that moved from leftist governments to elite US-patronized administrations to rightist military dictatorships. In this way, owing to political situations in which power was taken by military dictatorships with nationalistic policies (e.g., in Peru at the end of the 1960s), leftist parties (e.g., in Mexico), communist governments, as in Cuba following their 1959 Revolution, or a mix of military dictatorship and left-wing parties (as in Venezuela), a Marxist archaeology was able to establish itself and develop. In the case of Cuba, after its successful revolution, and with communist policy already installed, it was not long before Marxism was a fundamental part of archaeological interpretation. In this process, Cuban archaeologist Ernesto o published his Prehistoria de Cuba (1966) Tab (Prehistory of Cuba), a book through which Cuban archaeology was introduced to the soviet archaeological framework of analysis and through which many Latin American students assimilated this version of historical materialism (Navarrete 2006: 24). It is interesting to note here o that before the Cuban Revolution, Ernesto Tab had carried out important archaeological investigations on the central coast of Peru. The usual interpretations by archaeologists foreign to Latin American countries (and their local students and followers) were countered later, in 1974, with works such as Arqueolog a como Ciencia Social (Archaeology as a Social Science) by the Peruvian archaeologist Luis G. Lumbreras and Antiguas Formaciones y Modos n Venezolanos (Ancient Formations de Produccio and Venezuelan Methods of Production) by Mario Sanoja and Iraida Vargas. As a consequence of these initial proposals, a series of meetings were held which invigorated a the development of the so-called Arqueolog Social Latinoamericana (Latin American Social Archaeology). The rst of these, driven by Lumbreras, occurred at the symposium entigenes en Ame rica tled Formaciones abor

(Aboriginal Formations in America) which was included in the XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (39th International Congress of Americanists) celebrated in Lima in 1970. Later n de Teotihuaca n in Mexico, there was the Reunio n) in 1975, organized by (Meeting of Teotihuaca Luis Lorenzo. At each of these gatherings, Jose they tried to establish general lines of action according to the perspective of historical materialism, which each of the participants went on to develop in their respective countries. After these early attempts, and dissatised with the previous work group, they formed the so-called Grupo de Oaxtepec (Oaxtepec Group) in 1983, among ndara, them Luis G. Lumbreras, Manuel Ga Mario Sanoja, Marcio Veloz, Iraida Vargas, and Felipe Bate. , Luis Guillermo Lumbreras is the For Peru principal representative of this school of thought and has left us valuable insights into pre-Hispanic societies, which he endorsed through his empirical research in various zones of the Andes, for n de Hua ntar site (see the example, the Chav Lumbreras entry in this encyclopedia). Although his works have not been free from criticism, it is undoubtedly his eldwork, extensive bibliographic production, his panoramic view of social processes, and his political stance that have notably inuenced archaeology in Peru and in other parts of the world. In the 1980s, Lumbreras, together with other researchers, was part of the Instituto Andino de gicos (INDEA) (Andean InstiEstudios Arqueolo tute of Archaeological Studies) which provided a space for the practice and reection of archaeology from the Marxism point of view. For various reasons, a solid group of Marxist archaeologists was never formed, which is made obvious by the few publications in this line. One explanation for this, in part, is that in the 1990s, during the government of Alberto Fujimori, intolerance and persecution of left-wing thought in general made it impossible to explain and practice a Marxist-inspired archaeology. In the case of Mexico, following the founda Luis Lorenzo and other inteltions laid by Jose lectuals who emigrated from Spain due to Francos dictatorship, the work of Luis Felipe

491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:45 Page Number: 7

Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives 7
539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583

584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629

Bate should be noted here. After his exile from Chile, as a consequence of the Pinochet dictatorship, Bate took it upon himself to form a nucleus of Marxist archaeologists with the Escuela a e Historia (ENAH) Nacional de Antropolog (National School of Anthropology and History) ndara stands out, generwithin which Manuel Ga ating an important and meaningful production of archaeology which has impacted Latin America and Spain in particular (see Bate 1998). Likewise, thanks to the participation of Luis Felipe Bate and associates in the publication of Bolet n de Antropolog a Americana (Bulletin of American Anthropology), an academic space was enabled for the diffusion and discussion of themes that were mostly related to Marxism. In order not to overwhelm the reader with more individual cases, we simply wish to demonstrate that Latin American Social Archaeology still prevails, principally in such countries as Mexico, Venezuela, and Peru, although it has begun to form an autocratic viewpoint relative to its founders, though always keeping the same link between theory and praxis as its founders n & Aguilar 2012). Likeinstituted (see Tantalea wise, in Chile, there has been a resurgence of this type of archaeology, which had been persecuted and practically disappeared from academic and political circles during the military government of Augusto Pinochet (19731990). After Pinochets dictatorship, this kind of archaeology began to accept Marxism in both its theoretical and political implications. Studies n ez, in this line include those of Patricio Nu Mauricio Uribe, Francisco Gallardo, and new generations of young archaeologists such as Benn Ballester, Jairo Sepu lveda, Alex San jam Francisco, and Miguel Fuentes. This resurgence of Marxist archaeology in Chile makes it clear that Marxism has always had an important political position in this country and that its left-wing intellectuals have been closely linked with the Peruvians, despite attempts to impose nationalisms and the political persecution of the left, particularly in the south.

Future Directions
Final Remarks As we have been able to briey outline, Marxist archaeology has had a presence in archaeological thought throughout the twentieth century, with signicant inuence in the rst decade of the twenty-rst century. Further, as we have demonstrated, the historical substratum, the academic training, and the academic and political context in which Marxist archaeologists practiced were dominated by other ways of doing archaeology, e.g., historical-cultural and neo-evolutionary approaches. For this reason, despite taking on much of historical materialism, some Marxist archaeologists unconsciously reproduced assumptions and epistemologies they believed they had overcome. Furthermore, national contexts and, above all, ofcial policies slowed down or halted their natural development. The intricate and diverse political and academic trajectories of the twentieth century can, at least in part, explain the often contradictory history of Marxism in archaeology. While Marxist archaeological approaches are not dominant, they have inuenced the world of archaeological thought. Marxist archaeology has also found ways to generate discussions and contributions which have transcended national borders and maintained a dynamic dialogue between colleagues. Thus, despite the fact that Marxist archaeologies are not always well received by the discipline, they have been well connected with other forms and approaches of practicing archaeology. As Patterson (2003) would say, many archaeologists have had conversations with the Ghost of Marx. Archaeology has, therefore, been enriched by these often unacknowledged and unconscious conversations. We anticipate an ongoing development of Marxist archaeology, based on its uent dialogues among archaeologists from diverse countries and regions of the world and with non-Marxist archaeologists as well. We also think that Marxist archaeologies need to keep some distance from dogmatisms and rhetorics that often limit their creativity, in order

Comp. by: Prabu Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1022 Title Name: EGA Date:29/5/13 Time:06:31:46 Page Number: 8

630 631

8 Marxian Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives American Anthropological Association, 19552005. Histories of Anthropology Annual 5: 200-228. LULL, V. 2007. Los objetos distinguidos. La arqueolog a como excusa. Barcelona: Bellaterra. . 2007. Arqueolog LULL, V. & R. MICO a del origen del estado. Las teor as. Barcelona: Bellaterra. MCGUIRE, R. 1992. A Marxist archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press. - 2008. Marxism, in A. Bentley, H. Maschner & C. Chippindale (ed.) Handbook of archaeological theories: 73-93. Lanham: Altamira Press. NAVARRETTE, R. 2006. La arqueolog a social latinoamericana: Una meta, mu ltiples perspectivas. n de Extensio n de la FaCES, Caracas: Coordinacio Universidad Central de Venezuela. n: la transicio n NOCETE, F. 1988. El espacio de la coercio al Estado en las campin as del Alto Guadalquivir (Espan a), 3000-1500 a.C. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. PATTERSON, T. 2003. Marxs ghost. Conversations with archaeologists. Oxford: Berg. - 2007. Social archaeology and Marxist social thought, in L. Meskell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social archaeology: 66-81. Malden: Blackwell. - 2009. Karl Marx. Anthropologist. Oxford: Berg. PERUSEK, G. 1994. Factional competition and historical materialism, in E. Brumel & J. Fox (ed.) Factional competition and political development in the New World: 191-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. POLITIS, G. 1999. Introduction. Latin American archaeology: an inside view, in G. Politis & B. Alberti (ed.) Archaeology in Latin America: 1-13. London: Routledge. PREUCEL, R. & L. MESKELL. 2007. Knowledges, in L. Meskell & R. Preucel (ed.) A companion of social archaeology: 3-22. Malden: Blackwell. SPRIGGS, M. (ed.) 1984. Marxist perspectives in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. N, H. & M. AGUILAR. (ed.) 2012. La Arqueolog TANTALEA a social latinoamericana. De la teor a a la praxis. : CESO. Universidad de los Andes. Bogota TRIGGER, B. 1984. Childe and Soviet archaeology. Australian Archaeology 18: 1-16. - 2006. A history of archaeological thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VARGAS, I. & M. SANOJA. 1999. Archaeology as a social science: its expression in Latin America, in G. Politis & B. Alberti (ed.) Archaeology in Latin America: 57-73. London: Routledge. ZQUEZ, J. & R. RISCH. 1991. Theory in Spanish archaeVA ology since 1960, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological theory in Europe. The last three decades: 25-51. London: Routledge.
674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727

to develop objective and socially meaningful methodologies and historical data.


Archaeology and Politics Childe, Vere Gordon (Political and Social Archaeology) Childe, Vere Gordon (Theory) Lumbreras, Luis Guillermo Marx, Karl Patterson, Thomas Carl

633 634 635 636 637 638 639

640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673

n en BATE, L.F. 1998. El proceso de investigacio tica. arqueolog a. Barcelona: Cr BLOCH, M. 1987. Marxism and anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BRUMFIEL, E. & J. FOX. (ed.) 1994. Factional competition and political development in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CHAPMAN, R. 2003. Archaeologies of complexity. London: Routledge. DACAL, R. & D. WATTERS. 2005. Three stages in the history of Cuban archaeology, in L. Curet, A. Shannon, L. Dawdy & G. La Rosa (ed.) Dialogues in Cuban archaeology: 29-40. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. VEZ, J. & A. VILA. (coord.). 1999. Encuentros en los ESTE conchales fueguinos. Bellaterra: UAB-C.S.I.C. GAILEY, C. 1987. Kinship to kingship. Gender hierarchy and state formation in the Tongan Islands. Austin: University of Texas Press. HAKKEN, D. & H. LESSINGER. 1987. Perspectives in U.S. Marxist anthropology. Boulder: Westview Press. HODDER, I. & S. HUTSON. 2003. Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KOHL, P. 1987. The use and abuse of world systems theory: the case of the pristine West Asian state, in M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory: 1-35. San Diego: Academic Press. KOHL, P. & C. FAWCETT. (ed.) 1995. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LEWIS, H. 2009. The radical transformation of anthropology history seen through the annual meetings of the