Editing V. Gordon Childe (section)

===Marxist archaeology===

{{Quote box|width=25em|align=right|quote="To me Marxism means effectively a way of approach to and a methodological device for the interpretation of historical and archaeological material and I accept it because and in so far as it ''works''. To the average communist and anti-communist alike{{nbs}}... Marxism means a set of dogmas—the words of the master from which as among mediaeval schoolmen, one must deduce truths which the scientist hopes to infer from experiment and observation."|salign = right|source=— Gordon Childe, in letter to [[Rajani Palme Dutt]], 1938.{{sfn|Gathercole|1995|p=97}}}}

Childe has typically been seen as a [[Marxist archaeologist]], being the first archaeologist in the West to use Marxist theory in his work.{{sfn|McGuire|1992|p=69}} Marxist archaeology emerged in the Soviet Union in 1929, when the archaeologist [[Vladislav Ravdonikas|Vladislav I. Ravdonikas]] published a report titled "For a Soviet History of Material Culture". Criticising the archaeological discipline as inherently [[bourgeois]] and therefore anti-socialist, Ravdonikas's report called for a pro-socialist, Marxist approach to archaeology as part of the academic reforms instituted under [[Joseph Stalin]]'s rule.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|pp=326–340}} It was during the mid-1930s, around the time of his first visit to the Soviet Union, that Childe began to make explicit reference to Marxism in his work.{{sfn|Gathercole|2009|p=183}}

Many archaeologists have been profoundly influenced by Marxism's socio-political ideas.{{sfn|Johnson|2010|p=95}} As a [[Historical materialism|materialist]] philosophy, Marxism emphasises the idea that material things are more important than ideas, and that the social conditions of a given period are the result of the existing material conditions, or [[mode of production]].{{sfnm|1a1=Trigger|1y=2007|1p=332|2a1=Johnson|2y=2010|2p=95}} Thus, a Marxist interpretation foregrounds the social context of any technological development or change.{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=332}} Marxist ideas also emphasise the biased nature of scholarship, each scholar having their own entrenched beliefs and class loyalties;{{sfn|Trigger|2007|p=334}} Marxism thus argues that intellectuals cannot divorce their scholarly thinking from political action.{{sfn|Johnson|2010|p=96}} Green said that Childe accepted "Marxist views on a model of the past" because they offer "a structural analysis of culture in terms of economy, sociology and ideology, and a principle for cultural change through economy".{{sfn|Green|1981|p=79}} McNairn noted that Marxism was "a major intellectual force in Childe's thought",{{sfn|McNairn|1980|p=150}} while Trigger said Childe identified with Marx's theories "both emotionally and intellectually".{{sfn|Trigger|1980|p=169}}

Childe said he used Marxist ideas when interpreting the past "because and in so far as it ''works''"; he criticised many fellow Marxists for treating the socio-political theory as a set of dogmas.{{sfn|Gathercole|1995|p=97}} Childe's Marxism often differed from the Marxism of his contemporaries, both because he made reference to the original texts of Hegel, Marx, and Engels rather than later interpretations and because he was selective in using their writings.{{sfn|Green|1981|p=79}} McNairn considered Childe's Marxism "an individual interpretation" that differed from "popular or orthodox" Marxism;{{sfn|McNairn|1980|p=66}} Trigger called him a "a creative Marxist thinker";{{sfn|Trigger|1984|p=11}} Gathercole thought that while Childe's "debt to Marx was quite evident", his "attitude to Marxism was at times ambivalent".{{sfn|Gathercole|1971|p=230}} The Marxist historian [[Eric Hobsbawm]] later described Childe as "the most original English Marxist writer from the days of my youth".{{sfn|Hobsbawm|2008}} Aware that in the context of the [[Cold War]] his affiliation with Marxism could prove dangerous for him, Childe sought to make his Marxist ideas more palatable to his readership.{{sfn|Pearce|1988|p=421}} In his archaeological writings, he sparingly made direct reference to Marx.{{sfn|Gathercole|2009|p=183}} There is a distinction in his published works from the latter part of his life between those that are explicitly Marxist and those in which Marxist ideas and influences are less obvious.{{sfn|Pearce|1988|p=421}} Many of Childe's fellow British archaeologists did not take his adherence to Marxism seriously, regarding it as something which he did for shock value.{{sfn|Trigger|1984|p=1}}
{{Quote box|width=25em|align=left|quote="The Marxist view of history and prehistory is admittedly material determinist and materialist. But its determinism does not mean mechanism. The Marxist account is in fact termed '[[dialectical materialism]]'. It is deterministic in as much as it assumes that the historical process is not a mere succession of inexplicable or miraculous happenings, but that all the constituent events are interrelated and form an intelligible pattern."|salign = right|source=— Gordon Childe, 1979 [1949].{{sfn|Childe|1979|p=93}}}}

Childe was influenced by Soviet archaeology but remained critical of it, disapproving of how the Soviet government encouraged the country's archaeologists to assume their conclusions before analysing their data.{{sfnm|1a1=Trigger|1y=1980|1p=177|2a1=Trigger|2y=1984|2p=6|3a1=Trigger|3y=1994|3p=18|4a1=Gathercole|4y=2009|4p=185}} He was also critical of what he saw as the sloppy approach to [[Typology (archaeology)|typology]] in Soviet archaeology.{{sfn|Trigger|1984|p=7}} As a moderate diffusionist, Childe was heavily critical of the "Marrist" trend in Soviet archaeology, based on the theories of the Georgian philologist [[Nicholas Marr]], which rejected diffusionism in favour of unilinear evolutionism.{{sfnm|1a1=McNairn|1y=1980|1pp=157, 166|2a1=Trigger|2y=1984|2p=7|3a1=Trigger|3y=1994|3p=18}} In his view, it "cannot be un-Marxian" to understand the spread of domesticated plants, animals, and ideas through diffusionism.{{sfn|Trigger|1984|p=7}} Childe did not publicly air these criticisms of his Soviet colleagues, perhaps so as not to offend communist friends or to provide ammunition for right-wing archaeologists.{{sfnm|1a1=Trigger|1y=1984|1p=9|2a1=Trigger|2y=1994|2pp=19, 31–32}} Instead, he publicly praised the Soviet system of archaeology and heritage management, contrasting it favourably with Britain's because it encouraged collaboration rather than competition between archaeologists.{{sfn|McNairn|1980|p=164}} After first visiting the country in 1935, he returned in 1945, 1953, and 1956, befriending many Soviet archaeologists, but shortly before his suicide sent a letter to the Soviet archaeological community saying he was "extremely disappointed" they had methodologically fallen behind Western Europe and North America.{{sfn|Klein|1994|pp=76, 80–87}}

Other Marxists—such as [[George Derwent Thomson]]{{sfn|Thomson|1949}} and [[Neil Faulkner (archaeologist)|Neil Faulkner]]{{sfn|Faulkner|2007|pp=97–101}}—argued that Childe's archaeological work was not truly Marxist because he failed to take into account [[class struggle]] as an instrument of social change, a core tenet of Marxist thought.{{sfnm|1a1=Allen|1y=1967|1p=58|2a1=Trigger|2y=1980|2p=175}} While class struggle was not a factor Childe considered in his archaeological work, he accepted that historians and archaeologists typically interpreted the past through their own class interests, arguing that most of his contemporaries produced studies with an innate bourgeois agenda.{{sfn|McNairn|1980|p=160}} Childe further diverged from orthodox Marxism by not employing [[dialectics]] in his methodology.{{sfn|McNairn|1980|p=134}} He also denied Marxism's ability to predict the future development of human society, and—unlike many other Marxists—did not consider humanity's [[Progress (history)|progress]] into [[Communist society|pure communism]] inevitable, instead opining that society could fossilise or become extinct.{{sfnm|1a1=McNairn|1y=1980|1pp=127, 159|2a1=Trigger|2y=1984|2p=10|3a1=Trigger|3y=1994|3p=21}}