Theory and ideology in archaeology:

Spanish archaeology under the Franco

rhgime
MARGARITAD~AZ-ANDREU"
Archaeology is notoriously vulnerable to the ideological pressures of authoritarian
regimes. This paper charts the political influences that shaped archaeology in Spain for
some 40 years. Following the Civil War Spanish archaeologists were isolated from mainstream theoretical evolution, a situation that was exacerbated by the exile of some leading
figures. The centralizing authoritarianism of the Franco r6gime stifled regional autonomy
in administration and research, and k e y archaeological appointments went to committed
supporters of the rkgime.
The cur-rent debate on the theoretical and
methodological situation in Spanish archaeology (e.g. Alcina Franch 1975; Various authors
1984, 1985; Lull 1991, Martinez Navarrete
1989; VBzquez Varela & Risch 1991) stresses
the broad predominance of the culture-historical method, the slow and incomplete acceptance of new techniques in field work, in data
analysis (palaeobotany, radiocarbon, statistical analysis, etc) and a broad ignorance of the
more up-and-coming trends in international
archaeology. This situation, in addition to
more recent problems (Vicent 1991), shows,
since the 1980s, some positive changes
(Chapa 1988). Some authors have even said,
perhaps with excessive optimism, that
Spanish archaeology has overtaken that of
other continental European countries - except
Scandinavia and the Netherlands - in abandoning the traditional perspective and adopting the functionalist [processual and marxist)
approach in research (Gilman 1991).
However, in spite of the present transformation of Spanish archaeology and its lesser scientific innocence, and in contrast to other
countries such as Great Britain (Shanks &
Tilley 1987: chapter 7 ) , the debate on the
political role of archaeology has only just
begun. Nonetheless the subject has recently
been mentioned in more than one article in
the Congreso de Historiogrufia de la

Arqueologia y d e l a Historia Antigua en

Espafia edited by Arce & Olmos in 1991.

This paper deals with theory and ideology

after the Spanish Civil War (1936-9). It is
argued that the causes which have motivated
present over-use of a 19th-century theoretical
perspective [broadly abandoned in the AngloSaxon world since the 1950s, and partly in
other countries), were caused by the organization of archaeology after the Civil War. On the
other hand this period is analysed as an example of archaeology's lack of political innocence. This is shown in research aims and
interpretations made at this time, and in the
way they were progressively abandoned parallel to the changes in Spanish politics.
Major changes took place in the Spanish
academic world at the end of the Civil War.
These were reflected in the exile of a large
number of intellectuals that had dominated
the cultural scene since the beginning of the
century. The availability of their posts to
researchers who were very young allowed the
organization formed at this time to continue
[with only minor changes) until the 1980s,
when most of these people retired. In archaeology this breach was marked by the exile or
substitution of BarandiarBn, Bosch Gimpera
and Obermaier, and by institutional reorganization. However, it was accompanied by continuity at a theoretical level, because of the

* Departamento de Prehistoria, IJniversidad Complutense, 28010 Madrid, Spain

ANTIQ~JITY
67 (1993): 74-82

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FRANC0 REGIME

enduring influence of the German School.

This theoretical stagnation can be attributed
to a number of factors, the principal one being
that the new organizers of Spanish archaeology had been the disciples of their predecessors, and also because in most cases both old
and young had been awarded scholarships to
spend some time in Germany or Austria.
The isolation of Spanish science also
played a role, although not during the years
immediately following the Civil War.
International collaboration with the Franco
regime was evident, for example, in the interchange between the French government of
Vichy and Spain, in which archaeological
objects such as the Iberian sculpture of the
Lady of Elche and the Visigothic crowns of
Guarrazar were returned to Spain. Another
example can be seen in the involvement of
Austrians, Argentinians, Belgians, Yugoslavs
(Slovenians), Germans, Italians
and
Portuguese in a book dedicated to the martyrs
of the Civil War, edited by Martinez SantaOlalla in 1941. This period of collaboration
came to an e n d when it was clear that the
allies were going to win the Second World
War and after the final victory over the
German troops.
Since World War 11, both external circumstances [the international boycott) and those
within (the difficulty of studying outside
Spain) have resulted in the effective isolation
of Spanish science. However, other European
countries with greater possibilities for external communication showed a similar static
tendency with regard to theory which continues to be more evident at the present moment
(Shennan 1987: 365) than in Spain. The
exception in Europe is British archaeology
because of its changes in the 1960s. It has to
be seen within the context of North American
cultural influence, yet revolutionary personalities in its archaeology, such as Childe, were
not recognized in their time. It can therefore
be asserted that, although the Franco regime
signified a n ideological control over all
branches of science, on the other hand the
reaction to the Franco regime stimulated
reflexion and led to a progressive stance by
the younger generation who are now the ones
carrying out the renovation of Spanish archaeology.
Archaeology was not an important feature
in the creation of national myths during the

75

Franco period. On the contrary to Nazi

Germany, prehistory was scarcely used
outside the confines of academic circles to
validate nationalistic aims. Francoist Spain
legitimized its authoritarianism by reference
to the Union of Faith, fought for in the Middle
Ages and achieved after the expulsion of
Muslims and Jews, to the (theoretical) union
of Spain under the Catholic Kings in the 15th
century, and to the imperial past of Spain.
Francoist Spain took the concept of nationhood from the Falange, the Spanish version of
fascism created by Jose Antonio Primo de
Rivera. In the early 1930s he defined a nation
as not a geographical, ethnic or linguistic
reality, [but], essentially, a historical unit . . .
[which had] a single destiny in its history
(Primo de Rivera in Textos de doctrina politica, quoted in Ploncard 1971: 223). This concept led to the condemnation of ethno-nations
and regions as threatening to the unity of the
country. (A distinction is made between
Catalan, Basque and Galician ethno-nations,
a n d state-nations, in this case Spain.) The
concept of a Spain, as the slogan said, one,
great and free was underlined. Spanish prehistory, a set of different regional cultures,
was thus outside the sphere of propaganda of
the union of the nation. The Imperial Roman
past of Spain was the most ancient reference
to be found in a school history book published in the first years after the Civil War. In
a preliminary chapter explaining the concept
of Empire, a section was entitled Spains
attempts to be an Empire in Roman times.
The text went as follows (Cerceda 1942):
There are some people born with a God-given predestination to certain actions. Our people [meaning
Spain] felt quite soon, when Rome yoked Spain to
its cart, the imperial vocation of its destiny . . . This
great Roman mission annulled our innate tendency
to disintegrate, and it created, at least among the
noble and ruling classes, an aware, united and organized people to carry out the task of an Empire.
When penetrated and dominated by Christianity,
its religious character will endure forever in its universal actions.

In spite of official indifference to prehistory

in particular, and to archaeology in general,
some archaeologists did their best to justify
the Spanish union in prehistoric times. As
early as 1938, during the Civil War, Julio
Martinez Santa-Olalla unified the whole

76

MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREIJ

Iberian peninsula in the Bronze Age under the

Argarian culture, although it had been confined to a much smaller area in the southeast
of Spain (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1941; 1946).
This idea was followed by other archaeologists, such as J. de la Mata Carriazo, who used
it in the first volume of the Historia d e
Espaiia edited by Menendez Pidal in 1947. In
this same work the archaeologist Albert0 del
Castillo characterized the Beaker complex as
the first Hispanic culture, which later expanded beyond the territory of the Iberian peninsula. This assertion opened the way for
others, such as T. Ortego, to speak about the
first Spaiiish Empire. But, in spite of attempts
made by aiililspologists, and perhaps because
of his liberal ideology, Menendez Pidal rooted
the Spanish nation in medieval times.
Archaeologists after the Civil War did not
often openly express their political opinions,
perhaps because of the lack of interest in
archaeology by the regime, and also in part
because some of them had to keep a low profile because of their previous political affiliations (although some underwent a genuine
political transformation and become supporters of Francos regime). As a consequence
there were very few references to the relationship of archaeology to conteniporary conditions. However, in the first issues of journals
after the war, one finds an almost obligatory
reference to Francos triumph together with
his portrait, and sometimes references to
archaeologists who died in the war. Opinions
such as those of a young archaeologist, Carlos
Alonso del Real, of pro-German falangist ideology - it is important to distinguish between
a pro-Italian and a pro-German faction in the
Spanish Falange - were not usual. He argued
that among the social functions of archaeology
a distinction had to be made between religious propaganda, that of politics and that of
tourism (Alonso del Real 1946). This apparent
neutrality and the continuity on a theoretical
level are factors Gilman (1991) has stressed to
assert that post-war Spanish archaeology was
similar to the previous one, apart from the
change in its leaders, and that a normative
archaeology continued to be practised.
However, this type of theory continued to be
used until the late 1950s in the whole western
academic world, and is still in operation in
almost all continental Europe today. On the
contrary, Spanish archaeology did show

changes which affected it profoundly, because

it was at this moment that a new system of
archaeological organization was generated. It
only came to an end after the successive openings of the regime, its end, the change of the
political system and the retirement of its more
influential protagonists. This breach has been
specially marked since the 1980s.
After the Civil War, Spanish archaeology
reorganized to adapt itself to the new authoritarian regime. It was characterized by its centralization directed from the capital, Madrid,
and as a consequence by the disappearance of
all the non-state ethno-national institutions.
These had appeared at the beginning of the
century in regions with an ethno-national
identity: Catalonia, the Basque country,
Galicia and Valencia. In archaeology these
institutions were in Catalonia the Servei
d Investigacions A r q u eologiqu e s ; in the
Basque country the Centro de Investigaciones
Prehistdricas de Alava; in Galicia sections of
Prehistory and Archaeology and History of
Art in the Seminnrio de Estudios Galegos; and
in Valencia the Servei d e Investigacio
Prehistdrica. Each one had organized its own
ethno-national archaeological research. Only
the last-named survived after the war, precisely in the region with the lowest level of ethnonational identity. This institution was then
rechristened Servicio d e Investigaciones
Prehistdricas, the Spanish translation of its
former Valencian name.
In fact the Spanish archaeological reorganization was similar to that in France or Italy. It
had a hierarchical system with regard to the
territory it administered: all Spain, with its
seat in the capital of the state, Madrid;
provinces or islands; a n d local areas. This
centralist policy was characterized not only
by the dominance of Madrid over the rest of
the Spanish territory, but also by the concentration of power in the hands of a few people
loyal to the regime, principally Julio Martinez
Santa-Olalla, Joaquin Maria de Navascues y
de Juan, Martin Almagro Basch and Isidro
Ballester Tormo; and others accepted by it,
scch as Blas Taracena Aguirre and Antonio
Garcia Bellido.
Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla, a pro-German
falangist and son of a high-ranking military official who had fought for Franco, was put in
charge of the organization of the administration
of Spanish archaeology through the Cornisaria

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FRANC0 REGIME

Gen era1 d e Excavaciones Arqu eol dgicas

(Martinez Santa-Olalla 1946). The Cornisaria
General d e Excavaciones Arqueologicas
replaced the Seccidn d e Excavaciones d e la
Junta Superior del Tesoro Artistic0 (1933-9),
which in turn had replaced the Junta Superior
de Excavaciones y Antiguedades (1912-33). It
was a poorly functioning state institution supported by provincial and local branches. The
task was patchily carried out because the means
to achieve its aims - to take care of new finds,
protect them and inspect the work of professional archaeologists -were not defined. For all
these objectives the system relied almost entirely on personal initiative, virtually without official economic support. This system encouraged
unqualified people, who could combine their
paid professions with their more-or-less official
unpaid posts in archaeology. In addition to this
populist policy, Martinez Santa-Olalla used to
ignore other academics (del Castillo 1949) who
were in general less enthusiastic about
Francoism. Criticisms were soon forthcoming
(Sanchez Jimenez 1946; Velasco Rodriguez
1946; and del Castillo 1949). Martinez SantaOlalla was also the director of the Sociedad
Espaiiola d e Antropologia, Etnografia y
Prehistoria (S.E.A.E.P.).
Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla also occupied
the chair of Ethnology and Prehistory in the
University of Madrid, which replaced that of
Primitive History previously occupied by
Obermaier from 1922 to 1936. Obermaier, a
German priest, fled to Germany a n d
Switzerland during the Civil War, because he
was not an example of German bravery (Caro
Baroja 1978: 318). His non-involvement in the
Civil War was the main factor that stopped
him from taking u p his chair again (Caro
Baroja 1978: 318 and pers. comm.), although
he had always believed, during the Civil War,
that he would be able to return to Spain. In a
letter sent on 1 April 1938 to the philosopher
Ortega y Gasset, Obermaier explained that
Pedro Sainz, Minister of National Education,
expected him to return and work again in
Spain when the universities re-opened. This
letter could be understood as a manoeuvre to
prevent Obermaier from returning to Spain
because of his previous refusal to return during the Civil War. But it is also important to
bear in mind that Pedro SBinz fled after the
Civil War to join Don Juan, the heir to the
Royal Crown.

77

As the leader of all these institutions, Julio

Martinez Santa-Olalla controlled a large number of publications (Informes y Memorias de
la Comisaria General d e Excavaciones, the
main publication in Spain on site reports
between 1942 and 1956; Acta Arqueoldgica
Hispdnica; Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva
(published since 1946); and Atlantis: Actas y
Memorias d e l a Sociedad Espaiiola d e
Antropologia, Etnografia y Prehistoria (published in its new series after the Civil War
since 1940).)
The ideology of Martinez Santa-Olalla was
expressed in the foreword to the first issue of
Atlantis (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1940):
After the Victory, and because of the revolutionary
obligation w e have, the sciences to which this society [the S.E.A.E.P.] dedicates itself have to reach a
high level of development. It is essential to know
the Spanish people in depth, all which is really traditional among them, to discover the components
of our lineage, as is done i n Anthropology. It is
essential to search for our deepest roots in time,
going back through millennia to broaden our historical perspective, as Prehistory does. It is essential,
after clarifying elements of Europeanness a n d
Africanness in Spain, to expose our dual EuroAfrican destiny [all that remained of the Spanish
Empire at that moment were t h e colonies of
Spanish Guinea, and Spanish Morocco. It is also
important to note t h e imperialist ambitions of
Franco in Morocco, which were not supported by
Hitler (Preston 1990: 67-8).] Finally it will be
Ethnography which permits us to see the grandeur
of a Spanish Empire, with n o historical parallel,
and the possibilities of a future one.

The pro-German inclinations of Martinez

Santa-Olalla, who lectured in Bonn from 1927
to 1931, were evident in his studies on the
Visigoths and in the involvement of German
archaeologists in his excavations, the finds of
some of which went to Das Ahnenerbe (see
Arnold (1990: 469) in Berlin (Werner 1946:
50). Although it may appear to be inconsistent,
a close academic friendship between Martinez
Santa-Olalla and Childe must be noted. While
this friendship between the falangist and the
marxist was long-lasting, it was Martinez SantaOlallas commitment to a deeply conservative
view of Spain which conflicted with his proGerman sentiments. They led him to a radical
change in his point of view and the rejection of
his former ideology (Martinez Santa-Olalla
1946). The fact that this took place in 1946,

78

MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

after the end of the World War 11, may also have
played a part in this change.
Joaquin Maria de Navascues y de Juan was
put in charge of the reorganization of museums, which also adopted a territorial hierarchization: state, province or island, local and
monographic. Like Martinez Santa-Olalla, he
asked for a commitment from the public,
which included private economic subsidies.
He appealed to peoples patriotic sentiments
for contributions (de Navascues 1946). This
system led to the beginning of the states lack
of interest in providing reasonable economic
support for museums.
A new name appeared in archaeology in
Barcelona: Martin Almagro Basch, a nonCatalan who took over the posts left by the
exiled Pere Bosch Gimpera. He was appointed
to the chair at the University of Barcelona. He
became director of the Museum of
Archaeology, which was opened again in
1 9 4 0 , and began to publish the journal
A m p u r i a s . Almagro Basch was also put in
charge of the Ampurias excavation (Ampurias
is the Spanish translation of the Catalan
EmpuriGs or the Latin Emporion., had been
one of the pillars of Catalan ethno-nationalism
since the beginning of the century.), and from
1947 organized international courses collahorating with the Instituto Internazionale di
S t u d i Liguri, and the former Italian fascist
Lamboglia. Almagro Baschs task was not a
simple one. He had to transform Catalan
archaeology, characterized until the Civil War
by a deep ethno-national basis, into an archaeology which was at the service of the state.
His objectives were defined in the editorial of
the first issue of Ampurias:
This is t h e birth of Ampurias, a review of
Archaeology, Prehistory and Ethnography, following the triumph of our National Movement [The
Movimiento Nacional was the sole party created by
Franco from a cluster of former parties s u c h as
Falange, the Carlists, etc.] (. . .). It owes its existence to the efforts of the Diputaci6n de Barcelona,
which has been supporting this kind of research for
some years now (. . .) through its Servicio dc
Investigaciones Arqueolbgicas.

The aim of the first paragraph was unequivocal; to make clear his commitment to the
Franco regime and to restrict Catalan archaeology to that of Barcelona. To achieve this end
he reduced the pre-war area covered by the

former Servei dInvestigacionsArqueologiques,

now known by its Spanish name as Servicio
de Investigaciones Arqueoldgicas, from all of
Catalonia to Barcelona alone. In this way
Almagro Basch was able to appropriate the
whole previous infrastructure (the best in
Spain), transforming its contents and extracting all its implications of Catalan ethnonationalism. The text continued:
The Museo Arqueologico through its Servicio de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas has cleaned u p and
begun to reinforce the ruins of Ampurias. They
were abandoned and savagely mutilated by the Red
Separatists. Without any respect, they installed
coastal artillery, destroying houses and walls to
make broad corridors without any archaeological
surveillance. All this was undertaken more in the
cause of barbarism than for any military logic.

In this paragraph there is deliberate omission

of the bombing of Roses carried out by the
Nationals in which two bombs were dropped
on Ampurias (Ruiz de Arhulo 1991: 169). He
explained the choice of the name of the review:
Ampurias was the most western Greek city of the
Mediterranean. It is here that the Romans disembarked for the first time [in Hispania] . . . After the
Roman conquest, Spain was never again a land of
tribes, but an imperial territory.

In this way the roots of Imperial Spain were

sought in Roman times, and even in Greek preRoman times. It coincides with the order in
which the interests of the review were displayed, in which (classical) archaeology took
precedence over prehistory [see first and final
paragraph).
In his final paragraph Almagro Basch
expressed the idea of a united Spanish people, in this way rejecting yet again the identity
of the Catalan Nation.
Ampurias will publish research articles o n
Archaeology, Prehistory and Ethnography, which
focus mainly on Spain, on the history of the formation of our People and the study of the classic and
Mediterranean foundations of our culture.

In Valencia, Isidro Ballester Tormo, director

of the Servei de Investigacio Prehistorica of
Valencia since its beginnings in the 1920s and
deputy during the Second Republic for a conservative party, continued after the war as
director of S.I.P. and its museum, and was

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FRANC0 REGIME

79

leader of the provincial branch of the post-war issue of Archivo Espafiol d e

Comisaria d e Excavaciones Arqueoldgicas Arqueologia the Marquis of Lozoya summa(Primitivo Gdmez 1945: 41). From 1941 he rized the spirit of the Velazquez Institute of
was a member of the Archaologischen Znstitut the C.S.I.C. in a very significant way: at no
Deutschen Reiches of Berlin.
time is Franco referred to in person, and there
Ballester Tormo was one of the first to take are numerous positive references to the past
dissident action in the face of state archaeo- (MarquBs de Lozoya 1940-41):
logy. He dared to publish a whole issue of the
Serie de Treballs S o h (the fifth) of the Servei The most urgent task for the Spaniards at this
dZnvestigaci6 Prehistorica in Valencian moment is to repair the damages of the war, to
(renamed after the Civil War Serie de Trabajos return to interrupted work and infuse it with the
Varios a n d Servicio d e Znvestigacidn high aspirations which are the essence of Francos
Prehistorica respectively) in the first years of Spain. The study of our art [The Institute undertook
the Franco regime. He achieved this by chang- research in history and art, and the Marquis of
ing the year in which it had been published, Lozoya in art], the singular value of Hispanic culmaking it 1937, when in reality it was pub- ture, through which our Fatherland never lost its
status as a leading power, was one of the tasks on
lished after the war. Some necessary explana- which our intellectuals worked with enthusiasm
tions were given in Spanish on the first page and progress before 1936. It is necessary to continof the issue. It was stated that to translate the ue this work, which was interrupted by the great
whole text into Spanish would have been too events of the last few years, with the optimism and
costly. Ballester Tormo (1949) also supported joyfulness of all areas of Spanish life after the
the hypothesis of the Catalan Tarradell (1947; Victory . . . These are the main lines of the plan
1950) against that of a united Spain under which our Institute initiates with the help of God
Bronze Age Argarian culture. Tarradell divid- and to the good and glory of Spain.
ed the Iberian Peninsula into different areas,
The task carried out by Blas Taracena
as was done before the Civil War. But, despite
this dissention, the Valencian country did not Aguirre in the Basque country can be interplay a particularly aggressive role. These preted as a way, first, to keep away from
minor freedoms were only allowed thanks to Madrid in difficult times, and secondly, to do
the conservative ideology of its leader, and to something especially pleasing to the regime to
a low level of ethno-nationalist sentiment in cleanse his past. Since the beginning of the
century, and particularly since 1917, the leadValencia.
Blas Taracena Aguirre had been a republi- ers of Basque archaeology had been Aranzadi,
can but, horrified by the excesses of the Eguren and Barandiaran. It is no coincidence
Republicans in the Civil War (Blas Taracena that the first two were physical anthropolodel Piiial pers. comm.), he fled to France, but gists. Since Sabino Arana, the father of Basque
afterwards he returned to National Spain in ethno-nationalism, the superiority of the
the middle of the War. He was appointed as Basque race had been assumed because of its
director of the Museo Arqueologico Nacional, purity and antiquity, the latter based on its
and in 1 9 4 0 , together with Antonio Garcia linguistic uniqueness (Basque is not an IndoBellido (Professor of (Classical) Archaeology European language). Up to the time of the
in the University of Madrid), organized the Civil War, archaeology in the Basque country
Department of Classical Archaeology in the aimed at documenting the prehistoric origins
Institute Diego Vel6zquez of the newly created of the Basque people, and to those ends a
Consejo Superior d e Znvestigaciones large number of dolmens and other prehisCientificas (C.S.I.C.). Prehistory did not toric sites were excavated. The retirement of
Aranzadi (1931),the illness of Eguren (1922),
appear in this institution until the 1950s.
The reason why Blas Taracena Aguirre was the death of both (1945 and 1944 respectively)
not politically prosecuted because of his ideas and the exile of Barandiaran left a gap in
had probably, as in the case of other archaeological research. It was initially filled
Castilians, to do with the influence of the only to a certain extent by Blas Taracena
Marquis of Lozoya, the Director-General of Aguirre together with Fernandez de AvilBs. In
Fine Arts (Director General de Bellas Artes) this case the main aim of the research was to
from 1939 to 1951. In the editorial of the first document the presence of Celtic-lndo-

80

MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

European invasions in the Basque country, in

particular at a site just 9 km from Guernica
(Taracena Aguirre & F e r n h d e z de Avil6s
1945). Celtic remains of a possible invasion
dated to the 6th century BC equated Basque
protohistory with the rest of northern Spain,
the opposite of the claims of Barandiarhs
and Bosch Gimperas thesis.
Therefore, in the first decade of the Franco
regime, Spanish archaeology was transformed
from a discipline which was developing progressively to a secondary activity that was
poorly subsidized, strongly controlled and
centralized from Madrid by a new group of
archaeologists. These were younger and loyal
to the regime, to a certain extent isolated from
the international scene and anxious to rehabilitate the past importance of archaeology,
carrying out new interpretations of history
which matched the new political situation.
However, it would be wrong to consider
Spanish archaeology from 1939 to 1975 (the
year in which Franco died, and, with him, the
dictatorship) as something uniform and without any changes.
Despite the fact that the institutional base of
the whole Francoist period was established in
the first decade of the regime, the new international order after World War I1 provoked
important internal transformations in
Francoist policy, and as a consequence in
Spanish archaeology. These changes were
reflected in the fight between the different factions that supported Franco, and at this time
the Falange was displaced by the Opus Dei.
1953 and 1954 were key years for Spanish
archaeology. At this time the oposicion of the
chair that Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla unofficially occupied was announced, and it was
awarded to Martin Almagro Basch. (Martinez
Santa-Olalla occupied Obermaiers chair. As
by that time Obermaier had died, they were
able to offer the chair to the winner of a competitive examination called oposicibn. In
Spain this is the system by which such posts
are filled.) This was the beginning of the
decline of the importance of Martinez SantaOlalla. The arrival of Almagro Basch in
Madrid led to the creation of the Department
of Prehistory in the C.S.I.C., and his departure
from Barcelona led to Catalan archaeology
being run once again by Catalans. Almagro
Basch was replaced by Pericot, a former disciple of Bosch Gimpera. The latter, although he

could not return to Spain, was allowed to

publish there again (for example in 1954 and
1 9 5 6 ) . B a r a n d i a r h returned from exile i n
1953, and took u p his position as leader of
Basque archaeology. In spite of all these
changes, Spanish archaeology continued in a
state of isolation, still retaining pre-war theoretical schemes with a progressive loss of content. Fifteen years had to pass before a new
change came about.
The expansion of the Spanish universities
in the 1970s allowed a new generation access
to academic posts at the lower end of the
scale. Most of them d i d not support the
Francoist regime, but more liberal ideologies
were still politically censored. Despite that,
there was a disjunction between their (more
or less) political activities and the archaeology
practised. This can be explained by various
factors: first, by the system of access and promotion to the academic posts, which depended on the older generation; secondly by their
own academic training, received exclusively
from their superiors; and finally by the isolation of Spanish archaeology. The younger generations possibilities for communication with
other countries were severely limited, because
of the lack of grants and the high cost of living
in western European countries and in the
USA in relation to Spain. In addition, the
effect of confining archaeology exclusively to
Spanish territory produced a lack of interest
in international archaeology. As a result of
these factors few changes had taken place by
the end of the 1970s.
The institutional transformation of Spanish
archaeology during the 1980s to fit the new
territorial distribution of the State into 1 7
autonomous regions had been accompanied
by a lesser one at a theoretical level. The latter
was made possible by the above-mentioned
younger generation,who entered as university
staff in the 1970s. They were promoted with
unusual rapidity, in part due to the retirement
of the great protagonists of Francoist archaeology, and in part due to the expansion of universities in the 1970s and 1980s. Although
new perspectives have begun to be introduced
slowly but firmly, we still have to wait for
Spanish archaeology to show an effective
change in the theoretical field.
Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Manuel
Ierriandez-Miranda, Mike Rowlands, Vicente Cacho,

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FKANCO RBGIME

RI

Ricardo Olmos, Juan Zozaya and many others too numerous to mention tor their comments on this work; Carlos
Alonso del Real, Julio Caro Baroja and Blas Taracena del
Pifial for their numerous contributions helping me to discover that which had never before been written: and to

Rosemary McShane for the correction of the English version of the paper, which was written during my post-doctoral stay in the Department of Anthropology, Iiniversity
College London, thanks to a Fleming grant from the British

References
ALCINA FKANCH, J. 1975. La arqueologia
antropologica e n Espafia: situacion actual y
perspectivas, Primera reunion de antropologos
espaiioles, Seville 1973: 47-62. Seville.
ALMAGRO BASCH,M. 1939. Without title, Ampurias
1.
ALONSO DEL REAL, C. 1946. Funcion social del
arqueologo, Boletin Arqueologico del Sudeste
Espaiiol4-7: 33-43.
ARCE, J. & R. OLMOS (ed.). 1991. Historiografia de
l a Arqueologia y d e la Historia A n t i g u a en
Espaiia (siglos XVllI-XX). Madrid: Ministerio
de Cultura.
ARNOLD, B. 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Gemany. Antiquity 64:
464-78.
BOSCH GIMPERA,P.1954. La Edad del Bronce en la
Peninsula IbBrica, A r c h i v o Espafiol d e
Arqueologiu 27: 45-92.
1956. (Ed.). Las razas humanas. Su vida, sus cost u m b r e s , s u historia, s u arte. 4th edition.
Barcelona: Instituto Gallach de libreria y ediciones.
CAR0 BAROJA, J. 1979. Los Baroja. Madrid: Ed.
Taurus. Reprinted 1986.
DEL CASTlLI.0, A. 1928. La cultura del vaso campaniforme. S u origen y extension e n Europa.
Barcelona: [Jniversidad de Barcelona.
1949. El sistema actual d e excavaciones y su
reforma, IV Congreso Arqueologico dsl Sudeste
Espaiiol, Elche 1 9 4 8 : 72-9. Cartagena:
Publicaciones d e la Junta Municipal de
Arqueologia y del Museo d e Cartagena.
CERCEDA, F. 1942. Historia del imperio espafiol y
d e la h i s p a n i d a d . 2nd edition. Madrid: Ed.
Raz6n y fe.
CIIAPA, T. 1988. Perspectivas actuales de la arqueologia espaiiola, Revista d e O c c i d e n t e 81:
135-42.
DIJPRE, X., J. ORIOL GRANADOS,
E. J U N Y E N T , X.
NIETO, N. RAFEL & F. TARRATS. Larqueologia
catalana-11. De la postguerra als anys setanta,
L A ~ e n 91:
c 64-71.
GILMAN, A. 1991. Politics and paradigm shifts in
S p a n i s h archaeology. Chicago: American
Anthropological Association.
LUCASPELLICER,
R. 1991. La arqueologia no profesional: antecedentes y panorama actual, in Arce
& Ohnos (ed.): 237-42.
LULL, V. 1991. La prehistoria de la teoria arqueologica e n el Estado espafiol, i n Vila (ed.),

Arqueologia: 231-50. Madrid: Consejo Superior

de lnvestigaciones Cientificas.
MARQUES DE LOZOYA. 1940-41. Without title,
Archivo Espaiiol de Arqueologia 14: 3-4.
MARTINEZ NAVARREIE, M.I. 1989. lina revisi6n
critica d e la prehistoria espaiiola: la Edad del
Bronce como paradigma. Madrid: Ed. Siglo
XXI.
1990. La prehistoria espafiola en 10s ultirnos ciricuenta afios: teoria y prgctica, Hispania LIZ,
175: 439-57.
MARTINEZ SANTA-OLALLA, J. 1940. Without title,
A t l a n t i s : A c t a s y Memorias de la Sociedad
Espafiola d e Antropologici, Etnografia y
Prehistorin 1: 7-9.
1941. Corona d e Estudios que In Sociedad
Espafiola d e Antropologia, Etnografia y
Prehistoria dedica a s u s martires. Madrid:
Consejo
Superior
de
Investigaciones
Cientificas.
1946. Esquenia paletnologico d e la Peninsula
Hispunica . Madrid : Pu blicacion es d el
Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.
1946. La Comisaria General d e Excavaciones
Arqueologicas. Balance de la labor realizada, I1
Congreso Arqueologico del Sureste Espaiiol:

Coiinc:il.

53-9.

MENENDEZ PIDAL, R. 1947. Historia de Espafin.

Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
DE NAVASCUES, J.M. 1942. Instrucciones para l a
redaccidn del inventario general, catdlogos y
registros en 10s znuseos servidos por el cusrpo
f a c u l t a t i v o d e archiveros, Oibliotecarios y
arque6logos. Madrid: Ministerio de Education
Nacional.
1946. La funcidn del museo provincial y del
museo local, Boletin Arqueologico del Sudeste
E~pafioI4-7: 371-83.
PLONCARD, J . 1971. Doctrinas del n a c i o n d i s m o
Barcelona: Ed. Acervo.
PRESTON, P. 1990. The politics of revenge. F O S C ~ S I I ~
and t h e m i l i t a r y in 2 0 t h c e n t u r y Spain.
London: IJnwin Hyman.
1RIMlTIVO GOMEZ, N . 1945. Discurso contestacihn
dc D.N. Primitivo Gbrnez, in Discursos lsidos
en la sesidn inaugural del curso y de recepcion
de D. Isidro Ballester Tormo: 33-43. Valencia:
Centro de Cultura Valenciana.
R U I Z DE ARBIJLO, J. 1991. Excavaciones e n
Ampurias, 1908-1936, i n Arce & Olmos:
167-72.
SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, J. 1946. Campafias misioneras

82

MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

arqueolbgicas, Boletin Arqueoldgico del

Sudeste EspaAol4-7: 29-32.
SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987. Social theory and
archaeology. Albuquerque (NM): University of
New Mexico Press.
SHENNAN, S. 1987. Trends i n the study of later
European prehistory, A n n u a l Review of
Anthropology 16: 165-82.
TARACENA AGUIRRE, B. & A. FERNANDEZ DE
AVILES.1945. Memorias sobre las excavaciones
en el Castro de Navcirniz (Vizcaya). Vizcaya:
Junta d e Cultura d e la Exma. D i p u t a c i h d e
Vizcaya.
TARRADELL,
M. 1947. Sobre la delimitacibn geogrhfica d e la Cultura d e l Argar, Boletin
Arqueoldgico del Sudeste Espafiol4-7: 139-45.
1950. La Peninsula IbBrica en la epoca del Argar,
V Congreso Arqueoldgico del Sureste Espafiol y
I Congreso Nacional Arqueoldgico: 72-85.
Cartagena: Publicaciones de la Junta Municipal
de Arqueologia y del Museo de Cartagena.

VAZQUEZVARELA,J.M. & R. RISCH. 1991. Theory in

Spanish archaeology since 1960, in I. Hodder
(ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe: the last
three decades: 25-51, London: Routledge.
VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, V. 1946. Prestigio d e
Comisario Provincial d e Excavaciones
Arqueolbgicas, Boletin Arqueoldgico del
Sudeste Espafiol4-7: 28-9.
VICENT, J. 1991. Arqueologia y filosofia: la teoria
critica, Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 29-36.
VARIOUS AUTHORS.1984. Primeras jornadas de
metodologia de la investigacidn prehistorica,
Soria 1983. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.
1985. Acfas de las I1 Jornadas de metodologia y
de didrictica de la historia, prehisforia y arqueologia, Caceres 1981.
WERNER, J. 1946. Las excavaciones del Seminario
de Historia Prirnitiva del Hombre en 1941, en el
cementerio visigodo d e Castiltierra (Segovia).
Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva I(1): 46-50.