Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

Reading and Misreading V.

Gordon Childe in North America


By Randall H. McGuire Binghamton University Binghamton, New York US !u"lished in #atalan as$ McGuire, Randall H. %&&' (legint ) Malinter*retant +. Gordon #hilde a l, merica del Nord. Cota Zero: Revista D'arqueologia I Cincia %%$-%./-. )n North merica, as in the rest o0 the world, +. Gordon #hilde is one o0 the "est.known and most cited archaeologists o0 the %&th century. #hilde had a long and signi0icant association with North merican anthro*ology and archaeologyi 1!eace 23445. Many o0 his ideas had a *ro0ound in0luence on North merican scholarshi* that continues until today. North merican archaeologists, however, never 6uite knew what to make o0 #hilde and his theory. 7hroughout most o0 the second hal0 o0 the century they consistently misread #hilde, la"eling him 0irst a di00usionist, then as a neo.evolutionist. 8n the one hand, they correlated his concerns with history, di00usion, and archaeological cultures with a normative culture history. 8n the other hand, he seemed a neo.evolutionary materialist who took a systemic view o0 society, studied evolutionary change and searched 0or *atterning in the archaeological record. Yet his ideas never 0it easily into the *igeonholes o0 culture history or cultural evolution, and 0ew North merican archaeologists studied his writings on society and knowledge. )t was only at the end o0 the %&th century, when a hand0ul o0 nglo*hone archaeologists "ecame serious a"out reading Mar9, that scholars in North merica "egan to study, understand and em*loy the totality o0 #hilde,s thought 1!atterson %&&-5. #hilde in the United States t the end o0 the great de*ression, on the eve o0 the Second :orld :ar, North merican intellectuals had a momentary yet intense interest in radical visions o0 the world. 7he ideas o0 Sigmund ;reud took hold in the universities and in *arlor room conversations. Museums, universities and even leading industrialists such as Nelson Rocke0eller invited le0tist Me9ican muralists <iego Rivera and =os> #lemente 8ro?co to decorate merican walls with their art. s ;leeing Hitler, the Mar9ist ;rank0urt )nstitute relocated to #olum"ia University in New York #ity. 7he Mar9ist *laywright Bertolt Brecht soon 0ollowed setting his *lays on Broadway stages and writing the screen*lay 0or a Hollywood movie. )n this milieu, several *rominent merican universities invited +. Gordon #hilde to the United States and honored him as an eminent scholar. #hilde visited the United States three times during the 23-&,s 17rigger 234&$ !eace 23445. )n 23-@, he traveled to Boston 0or a con0erence, and Harvard University awarded him the degree o0 Honorary <octor o0 (etters. )n 23-', the University o0 !ennsylvania honored #hilde with the degree o0 Honorary <octor o0 Science. )n 23-3, he taught as at the University o0

#ali0ornia at Berkeley as a visiting *ro0essor during the summer session. 8n these tri*s he crisscrossed the United States "y train. His travels took him to Boston, New York, !hiladel*hia, 7ucson, nn r"or, Berkeley and #hicago. 7he honors e9tended to #hilde during these visits indicate that merican scholars already knew o0 his work on Auro*ean *rehistory and the relationshi* o0 that history to the Near Aast. #hilde would have his greatest im*act on North merican archaeology, however, through the collegial connections that he made on his visits to the United States. 8nce #hilde returned to Angland, he engaged in regular corres*ondence with *rominent North merican anthro*ologists and archaeologists 1!eace 23445. mong these scholars were . (. Broe"er, (eslie :hite, A. . Hooton, #arleton #oon, )rving Rouse, Ro"ert Red0ield and Ro"ert Braidwood. His interactions with Ro"ert Braidwood o0 the University o0 #hicago would "e im*ortant and 0ar reaching. s a result o0 this corres*ondence he would have his greatest im*act on North merican scholarshi* in the years 0ollowing the Second :orld :ar. ;ollowing the war, the 0aculty o0 anthro*ology at the University o0 #hicago *re*ared a sel0.guided course in anthro*ology called Human Origins 0or returning veterans and Braidwood solicited e9tensive writings 0rom #hilde to include in the course 17rigger 234&$2%@.2%'5. 7he ethnogra*her Ro"ert Red0ield o0 the University o0 #hicago was one o0 the 0irst North merican scholars to seriously engage in a criti6ue o0 #hilde,s theories. Red0ield 123C-$ %/5 6uestioned #hilde,s theory o0 revolutions in *rehistory and argued instead that the "eginnings o0 agriculture and the rise o0 cities had "een gradual trans0ormations. Braidwood 123'/5 went to =armo in )ra6 to test #hilde,s oasis theory 0or the agricultural revolution. )n *ostwar #hicago, Braidwood trained a generation o0 archaeology students in #hilde,s work. 7he most im*ortant o0 these would "e Richard McNeish 123'/5 and Ro"ert Mc#ormick dams 1Yo00ee 233'5. McNeish 123'/5 studied #hilde at #hicago and took the search 0or the agricultural revolution to central M>9ico. dams 1Yo00ee 233'5 accom*anied his *ro0essor to =armo and then esta"lished himsel0 as a *rominent scholar o0 the *rehistoric Near Aast. )n 23C@, the year "e0ore #hilde,s death, dams traveled to (ondon to meet the man himsel0. dams, 123@@5 seminal work, Evolution of Urban Societ ! sought to e9*lain #hilde,s ur"an revolution through a com*arison o0 historical develo*ments in the Near Aast and Mesoamerica. )n 23C3, =ose*h #aldwell 123C35 wrote in the Dournal Science that merican archaeology had taken a 0undamentally new direction 0ollowing :orld :ar )), and he credited #hilde as a maDor 0orce driving that change. Aven as #hilde,s in0luence on North merican archaeology rose his *olitical 0avor with the United States government 0ell. (ike many other radicals who had "een welcomed to the U.S. in the 23-&s, including Bertolt Brecht and <iego Rivera, #hilde 0ound himsel0 "arred 0rom *ost. war merica. 7he U.S. government,s attem*t to control and e9*el aliens who held le0tist *olitical views "egan with the lien Registration ct o0 23/& that re6uired all aliens residing in the United States to register and state their *olitical views. 7his 0ear o0 le0tist ideas and communism grew a0ter the war, and active *ersecution o0 "oth 0oreign and domestic le0tists continued until the late 23C&s. <uring this *eriod o0 Mc#arthyism, the 0ederal government censured the merican media, the academy, the *ress, and li"raries, and routinely denied 0oreigners entry into the country "ased on their *olitical views. 0ter the war, (eslie :hite and Ro"ert Braidwood tried to get #hilde "ack to the United States as a visiting scholar, and Harvard University considered o00ering him an academic *osition. <es*ite this interest #hilde never again visited North merica 1!eace 23445. **arently the United States State <e*artment %

declared #hilde "ersona non grata in 23/C "ecause he had re*resented Great Britain at the %%&th anniversary cele"ration o0 the Soviet cademy o0 Sciences held in Moscow and (eningrad 1Rouse 23C4$4-5. #hilde Dested with his graduate students in (ondon that it would "e easier 0or him to get into heaven than into the United States 1!eace 2344$/235. 7he historical in0luence o0 Mar9ist thought, on merican archaeology including that o0 #hilde, is o0ten hidden, "lurred and 0ragmentary 1McGuire 233%$C-.435. Mc#arthyism insulated U.S. archaeologists 0rom Mar9ist ideas, "ut the "arrier was never im*ermea"le 1!atterson %&&-$@-5. ;or ideas to *ass the "arrier they usually had to "e encry*ted, disguised, or e9*ressed as eu*hemisms. 7he e00ects o0 Mc#arthyism lingered in the United States long a0ter the witch. hunts o0 that e*och had "een discredited, and it was only in the later hal0 o0 the 23@&s that scholars could o*enly advocate Mar9ist *ositions. )t should not sur*rise us, there0ore, that much o0 #hilde,s in0luence on North merican archaeology 0ollowed indirect and clandestine *aths. )n !eru, the avocational archaeologist (arco Hoyel read #hilde and 0ormulated his own theory o0 cultural evolution. =ulian Steward derived his ideas on cultural evolution 0rom Hoyel and *assed them along to his students, including Gordon :illey 1!atterson %&&-$C45. t #olum"ia, a grou* o0 radical anthro*ology students including Aric :ol0, =ohn Murra, Aleanor (eacock, Sidney Mint?, Morton ;ried, and Alman Service 0ormed a covert study grou* called E7he Mundial U*heaval Society,F and one o0 the maDor scholars they read was #hilde 1!eace 2344$/%%5. )n the 23'&s, these radical students would de0ine an merican anthro*ological *olitical economy. )n M>9ico, a grou* o0 Re*u"lican S*anish #ivil :ar veterans that included !edro rmillas, ngel !alarm and !edro #arrasco "ecame *rominent in Me9ican anthro*ology and archaeology. 7hey read #hilde, and one o0 their 0oremost students =ose (uis (oren?o traveled to (ondon to study with #hilde. 8n the seminal +alley o0 M>9ico !roDect o0 the 23C& and 23@&s, these His*anic anthro*ologists worked with and in0luenced U.S. scholars, including the ethnogra*her Aric :ol0 and the archaeologist Ren> Millon 1McGuire 233%$@CG !atterson %&&-$@25. #hilde had his greatest in0luence on North merican archaeology during the #old :ar, when most U.S. scholars 0ound Mar9ism *ro"lematic and dangerous. t the time o0 his death, even #hilde,s 0riends sought to sideste* or disavow #hilde,s Mar9ism. )n an o"ituary 0or #hilde, Braidwood 123C4$'-5 6uoted Mortimer :heeler saying, E#hilde,s Mar9ism colored rather than sha*ed his inter*retations.F s a result o0 this disdain 0or Mar9ism, an entire generation o0 archaeologists read #hilde without an understanding o0 the dialectical thinking and Mar9ist theory on which he "ased his ideas. 7hese archaeologists have carried this misreading to generations o0 North merican students u* to today. 7he 234&s witnessed a 0lowering o0 alternative archaeologies in nglo*hone scholarshi*, including 0eminist, *ost.*rocessualist, and Mar9ist 1;ernHnde?, %&&@5. ;or the 0irst time, some North merican archaeologists ado*ted an e9*licitly Mar9ist theory o0 archaeology 1McGuire 233%G !atterson %&&-5. 7hese archaeologists read #hilde to gain an understanding o0 dialectical thinking and Mar9ist theory. 7he #anadian Bruce 7rigger 1234&5 wrote a "iogra*hy entitled #or$on C%il$e: Revolutions in &rc%aeolog that used a Mar9ist light to illuminate North mericans, misreading o0 #hilde. 7rigger,s "iogra*hy Doined numerous British works in an early 234&,s Elet.us.know.#hilde."etter movementF 1McNairn 234&G Green 2342G Gathercole 234-G 7ringham 234-$4'5. t the "eginning o0 the %2st century, the U.S. archaeologist 7homas !atterson 1%&&-5 wrote a "ook e9*loring the in0luences o0 Mar9ism on archaeology. !atterson credits #hilde 0or initiating and de0ining archaeology,s conversation with Mar9. Mar9ism -

remains a small and somewhat dis*araged theoretical current in North merican archaeology and 0or this reason the #old :ar misreadings o0 #hilde continue. 7he Elet.us.know.#hilde."etter movementF generally divided #hilde,s scholarshi* into three tem*oral and to*ical units 1McNairn 234&G Green 2342G Gathercole 234-G 7ringham 234-$4'5. 7hey "egin with #hilde,s earliest work on the *rehistory o0 Auro*e and his de0inition o0 the culture com*le9 and use o0 di00usion. )n the 23-&,s, #hilde shi0ted his em*hasis to issues o0 cultural evolution and "road synthesis o0 develo*ments in Auro*e and the Near Aast. ;inally, in the *ost.war *eriod, #hilde turned to more *hiloso*hical issues related to knowledge and society. 7he most 0undamental North merican misreading o0 #hilde treats each o0 these units as distinct and as in con0lict with each other. #ulture and <i00usion #hilde,s 123%C, 23%@, 23%4, 23%3, 23-&5 earliest research 0ocused on the *rehistory o0 Auro*e, the de0inition o0 archaeological cultures, and the di00usion o0 ideas. *ersistent Aurocentrism would guide #hilde,s interests and ideas throughout his li0e. 7his Aurocentrism was readily a**arent in #hilde,s knowledge and o*inions o0 the culture history o0 the mericas 1;lannery 233C5. He a**arently read very little a"out the *rehistory o0 north, south or central merica 17rigger 234&$2%@5. Glynn <aniels 123'-$-/-5 once o"served that #hilde 0ound the *rehistory o0 the mericas E"i?arre, un*alata"le and irrelevant.F )n the 0irst hal0 o0 the %&th century, 0ew North merican archaeologists read Auro*ean *rehistory, and virtually none worked in Auro*e 1only slightly more do today5. <es*ite these regionalisms, #hilde did enter into a s*irited and *roductive interaction with North merican ethnogra*hers and archaeologists a"out the conce*t o0 culture. #hilde derived his initial conce*t o0 an archaeological culture 0rom the German archaeologist, Gusta0 Bossina who had "uilt his notions on the work o0 late 23th century German geogra*hers, es*ecially ;riedrich Rat?el 1Stocking 23345. lso derived 0rom German geogra*hy was the idea that these cultures changed over time due to the invention o0 new ideas, the di00usion o0 these ideas to new cultures, and the migration o0 cultural grou*s. )n his "ook '%e Danube in (re%istor , #hilde de0ined an archaeological culture as a com*le9 o0 ty*es o0 remains including arti0acts, house 0orms, and "urial 0orms that consistently reoccurred together 1#hilde 23%3$v.vi5. Bossina e6uated archaeological cultures with races, and he sought to trace the migration o0 the German race over the ma* o0 Auro*e. #hilde tried to counter this racist notion "y demonstrating that archaeological cultures *rimarily changed due to di00usion and thus did not di00er in terms o0 creativity, intelligence, or accom*lishments. t the "eginning o0 the %&th century, North merican ethnogra*hers and archaeologists shared a very similar idea o0 culture with *arallel German roots, "ut they did not derive this idea 0rom either Bossina or #hilde. ;ran? Boas introduced German notions o0 culture and o0 invention, di00usion and migration to merican anthro*ology at the end o0 the 23th century. (ike #hilde, Boas reDected Rat?el,s and Bossina,s em*hasis on migration that led to a racist ranking o0 cultures as in0erior or su*erior 1Stocking 23345. He stressed the 0luidity o0 cultural change and the inherent worth o0 each culture. By the time #hilde "egan his work on Auro*ean *rehistory in the mid.23%&s, this more li"eral German view o0 culture and cultural change already dominated North merican ethnogra*hy and archaeology. Boas introduced these ideas a 0our.0ield anthro*ology. merican anthro*ology was 0ounded in the study o0 merican )ndians to include "iological anthro*ology, ethnogra*hy, linguistics, and archaeology. 7his 0our.0ield /

a**roach 0it with #hilde,s theory, "ecause he saw archaeology and ethnology as com*lementary and interde*endent "ranches o0 a uni0ied science 17rigger 234&$2%35. #hilde came to the United States in the 23-&s in *art, to connect with merican anthro*ology 1!eace 23445. Because o0 the *arallels in theory, #hilde 0ound it easy to enter into a dialogue with leading North merican ethnogra*hers, and "iological anthro*ologists such as Boas, Broe"er and Hooton, and to Doin into North merican theoretical de"ates a"out the nature o0 culture. #hilde and Boas "oth saw their research as *olitical. 7hey shared the conviction that anthro*ologicalIarchaeological research should challenge intolerance, enhance cross.cultural understanding and com"at racism 1!eace 2344$/%35. Both men used their le0t reading German culture theory to actively con0ront ;ascism and 6uestion "aseless *reDudice. Aach man also su00ered derision and criticism 0or their e9*licit linking o0 research to *olitical goals. 8ne *roduct o0 a Boasian view o0 culture in North merican archaeology was the McBern #lassi0ication System. 7his system classi0ied archaeological remains ty*ologically into a hierarchy o0 levels "ased on reoccurring com*le9es o0 ty*es. )t "ecame the dominant system o0 classi0ication 0or archaeological remains in eastern North merica. #hilde 123-C$-5 o"Dected to the McBern system "ecause his em*hasis on the dynamics o0 culture led him to reDect the idea o0 cultures as dead organisms. )nstead he stressed 0unction and the internal workings o0 culture over ty*ological classi0ication 1!eace 2344$/%-5. 7hrough the 23-&s #hilde 0urther re0ined his notion o0 culture to "e more dynamic and "ased in human e9*erience 1!atterson %&&-$/-.//5. By the mid.23-&s he de0ined culture as the whole li0e o0 a community and later he gendered his de0inition when he de0ined society as men and women with a common culture. t the end o0 his li0e he had develo*ed a very contem*orary view o0 culture as the arena in which *eo*le live and e9*erience daily li0e 1#hilde 23/@$%/-.%C&5. )n this ultimate 0ormulation, #hilde de0ined culture in terms o0 la"or and 0ound the motor o0 social change in contradictions "etween *roduction, society, culture and ideology 1!atterson %&&-$//./C5. #hilde,s 0ully develo*ed conce*t o0 culture, with its em*hasis on lived e9*erience, is one that would "e acce*ted "y many contem*orary North merican archaeologists, including Mar9ists and numerous others. #hilde,s theory o0 culture had very little im*act on North merican archaeologists in the 0irst hal0 o0 the %&th century, "ecause his ideas su"stantially overla**ed e9isting ideas o0 culture in merican archaeology. ;ollowing the Second :orld :ar, the New rchaeologists em"raced #hilde as one o0 the 0ounding 0athers o0 Neo.Avolutionism 1Bin0ord 23'%$'3.4&G 7rigger 234&$225. 7hey either did not read, or misread, his evolving theory o0 culture. 7hey thus dismissed his ideas on culture as di00usionist and relics o0 an older traditional culture history 1Bin0ord 234-$-, -335. 7hey saw an ine9ora"le "reak "etween #hilde the di00usionist and #hilde the neo.evolutionist. )n the 234&s, North merican archaeologists develo*ing an alternative archaeology to the *rocessual archaeology read #hilde,s evolving ideas on culture and 0ound that he had 0orged a *ath "e0ore them. #ultural Avolution )n the 0irst hal0 o0 the %& century, many North merican anthro*ologists e6uated cultural evolution with Mar9ism and communism in the Soviet Union. 7he *rominent merican ethnogra*her Ro"ert (owie 123-'5 0ramed a caricature o0 Mar9ism as a theory o0 economic determinism and unilineal evolution that endured in North merican anthro*ology nearly to the end o0 the century. )n the early 23C&s, =ulian Steward wrongly characteri?ed #hilde as a modern day unilineal evolutionist and chastised him 0or only s*eaking o0 culture as a whole and 0or not
th

dealing with individual cultures. He e6uated #hilde,s a**roach to cultural evolution with that o0 (ewis Henry Morgan and (eslie :hite 1!eace 2344$/%&5. 7his criti6ue distanced Steward,s own theory 0rom unilineal ideas and the taint o0 Mar9ism. 8ther critics re*eated Steward,s criti6ue without a care0ul reading o0 #hilde 1!eace 2344$/%&5. Soon only :hite 123C3$22&.22C5 seemed to recogni?e that #hilde,s theory di00ered 0rom :hite,s own una"ashed unilineal evolution. North merican advocates o0 cultural evolution also sought to distance them 0rom the e9*licit *olitical, activist content o0 #hilde,s work. s !atterson 1%&&-$@25 has *ointed out, none o0 them discussed e9*loitation, class struggle or the o**ressive character o0 class relations and state 0ormation. 7hey tended to see these things as a natural or necessary outcome o0 the rise o0 civili?ation. )n the late 23-&s, #hilde 0ormulated his a**roach to cultural evolution 17rigger 234&$2%4.2-C5. #hilde 123-/5 0irst discussed agricultural and ur"an revolutions in his "ook )e* +ig%t on t%e ,ost &ncient East. )n all o0 his e00orts, he discussed cultural evolution in su"stantive terms to account 0or historical develo*ments in the Near Aast and Auro*e. He did not engage in the kind o0 *olemic that characteri?ed :hite,s writings on the to*ic nor did he develo* a theory a**lica"le to all conte9ts. )ndeed, one o0 the reasons he did not read a"out the archaeology o0 the mericas was "ecause he did not "elieve his ideas a"out cultural evolution worked there 1!eace 2344$/%45. #hilde 123/-a5 argued that archaeology should "e a historical, human science. He recogni?ed that archaeologists could learn a great deal 0rom the natural sciences, "ut he reDected the idea that the methods or conce*ts o0 the natural sciences could "e a**lied without modi0ication to the study o0 *rehistory 1!atterson %&&-$ /-5. He stressed the need 0or generali?ations and 0or the develo*ment o0 evolutionary laws. But, 0or #hilde such laws did not transcend time and s*ace. Universal laws or truths could only e9ist i0 human nature andIor society were 0i9ed and immuta"le. 7he Mar9ist dialectic that #hilde em"raced "egan with the *rinci*le that "oth human nature and society are constantly changing 17rigger 234&$2-2.2-%G !atterson %&&-$/C5. Since generali?ation was *ossi"le "ut the laws o0 cultural evolution could not transcend em*irical cases, history 0or #hilde was genuinely creative and un*redicta"le. #hilde 123/@$%/45 summari?ed his *osition "y saying evolution was what ha**ened in history. 7hus, #hilde regarded archaeology as *re.eminently a 0ont o0 history rather than a search 0or universal laws. ;rom a dialectical *ers*ective he saw no dichotomy "etween history and evolution, and he linked di00usion and evolution in his su"stantive studies 17rigger 234&$2-C, 2'-5. s :hite attem*ted to engage #hilde in *olemical de"ate, archaeologists at #hicago sought to su"stantively evaluate his ideas 1!eace 23445. Braidwood 123'/5 went to 7urkey and MacNeish 123'/5 went to M>9ico to evaluate #hilde,s notion o0 an agricultural revolution. Both 0ound *rocesses that they regarded as more evolutionary than revolutionary. 7heir work ins*ired North merican archaeologists to undertake a host o0 research around the world looking 0or agricultural origins. dams, 123@@5 com*arative study o0 the rise o0 ur"anism in the Near Aast and Mesoamerica re*resented the most so*histicated and insight0ul *ostwar North merican consideration o0 #hilde,s revolutions. (ike #hilde, dams treated evolution as what ha**ened in history and did not seek universal laws or *rocesses. He, however, derived his method o0 controlled historical com*arison 0rom Steward and it di00ered 0rom #hilde,s historical a**roach. His "ook also introduced North merican archaeologists to #hilde,s list o0 2& criteria to identi0y a civili?ation 1Yo00ee 233'5. ;rom the 23@&s until near the end o0 the century, the search 0or the @

origins o0 agriculture and the origins o0 civili?ation 1or the state5 were the two "ig 6uestions 0or North merican archaeology. 7he New rchaeologists o0 the 23@&s sought to revolutioni?e archaeology, and they identi0ied #hilde as a comrade in arms. (ewis Bin0ord 123'%$ C%, '2, '35 cited #hilde to give *recedent to Bin0ord,s *ositions that archaeology is a science, that reasoning 0rom ethnogra*hic analogy is 0aulty, and that archaeologists should study *rocesses o0 cultural change. Bin0ord 123'%$@25 read #hilde,s 123/-"5 article on archaeology in the USSR and noted #hilde,s descri*tion o0 the work o0 the Soviet archaeologist 7retyakov. 7retyakov *ro*osed the notion that i0 women were the *otters in a society, and that i0 the society was matrilocal, then archaeologists should 0ind less 0ormal variation in ceramic design within communities than they would i0 the society was *atrilocal. Bin0ord,s students :illiam (ongacre 123'&5 and =ames Hill 123'&5 ado*ted this assum*tion to do their seminal studies on ancestral *ue"lo social organi?ation. 7hese studies initiated the a**roach that would come to "e known as *rocessual archaeology. By and large, however, the New rchaeologists misread #hilde. 7hey tended to conclude that #hilde was a unilineal evolutionist whose views corres*onded in large *art with those o0 :hite. 7hey had "een educated during the era o0 Mc#arthyism, and 0ew o0 them had read or understood Mar9. 7hey did not a**reciate the dialectical thinking o0 #hilde and instead 0ramed their theory in terms o0 categorical o**ositions, mentalism vs materialism, history vs evolution, humanism vs science and e9*lanation vs descri*tion. 7hey e6uated culture history with *rocesses o0 invention, di00usion, and migration and reDected this as a valid way to understand *rehistory. 7hey advocated instead a 0unctionalism where"y environmental ada*tation determined cultural change and variation. 7hey em"raced a *ositivist e*istemology that sought universal laws o0 cultural evolution, and they argued that the methods and conce*ts o0 the natural sciences could "e a**lied directly to the study o0 culture. 7hey tended to view human nature as 0i9ed and immuta"le, assuming, 0or e9am*le, that *eo*le would always seek to minimi?e e00ort and to ma9imi?e gain, or that human *o*ulations would inherently grow. Because they did not reali?e how 0undamentally #hilde,s theory and e*istemology di00ered 0rom theirs, they could not reconcile #hilde the *rehistorian with #hilde the evolutionist, or #hilde the humanist with #hilde the scientist, or *erha*s most im*ortantly, #hilde the Mar9ist with #hilde the scholar. +irtually every archaeological te9t"ook *u"lished in the United States 0rom Braidwood,s 123/45 (re%istoric ,en to the do?en or more used in today,s classrooms discuss #hilde as a neo. evolutionist. )n the vast maDority o0 these, he a**ears twice. 7he "ooks introduce the "ig 6uestion o0 the origins o0 agriculture "y 0irst discussing #hilde,s oasis theory 0or the origin o0 agriculture in the Near Aast. 7hey initiate the second "ig 6uestion o0 the origin o0 civili?ation and the state "y invoking #hilde,s 2& archaeological criteria 0or a civili?ation. 7oday in the United States, this "rie0 and o0ten misleading *resentation o0 #hilde in introductory te9t"ooks is the main or only e9*osure that most archaeology students have to +. Gordon #hilde. Bnowledge and Society )n the 23/&s, #hilde "egan to write a"out the nature o0 knowledge and its relationshi* to society 17rigger 234&$2-@5. #hilde turned his attention to the nature o0 knowledge claims a0ter :orld :ar )), when the 0ailings o0 the Bolshevism o0 the Soviet state "ecame a**arent to scholars in the :est 1McGuire 233%$%C.-%5. #hilde 12343$2C.2'5 would later call Stalinism, Ethe '

Mar9ist *erversion o0 Mar9ismF. :ith this criti6ue, #hilde "ecame very concerned a"out the nature o0 knowledge and how we as scholars create it. He reDected notions o0 laws that determined social change. He saw knowledge as com*le9ly created and always su"Dect to revision. His discussion o0 the nature o0 knowledge *resaged current de"ates in nglo*hone archaeology "y a generation. )n '%e Sociolog of -no*le$ge, #hilde 123/35 argued that the 0unction, structure and content o0 knowledge is social and relates to action. 7he 0unction o0 knowledge is social since it *rovides rules 0or co.o*erative social action. 7he content o0 knowledge is also social, since it *rovides a working model o0 the Ereal worldF that must "e accurate enough 0or a society to act. But, a societyJs knowledge is not always *rogressive, and criti6ue is necessary to reveal this. ;or #hilde, the convergence "etween knowledge as a model o0 the Ereal worldF and that societyJs means o0 *roduction *rovide the measure o0 a societyJs 0itness to survive. )ndividual delusions or social illusions could ham*er a societyJs knowledge, or a"ility to act and *rogress 1#hilde 23C@$22C5. Such delusions may serve the *articular interests o0 classes or s*eci0ic grou*s, and at the same time "e a "uttress to the authority o0 the ruling class 1#hilde 23/3$-&45. 7hese delusions trans0orm knowledge and science into ideology, and this ideology "ecomes a "rake u*on the *rogress o0 knowledge 1#hilde 23/3$-&35. #hilde saw the develo*ment o0 knowledge as a dialectic in which *eo*le achieved understanding through the negation o0 error 17rigger 234&a$2/25. He 1#hilde 23/'$ 3-5 argued that all scienti0ic knowledge is *ractical and must 0urnish rules 0or action. ;or #hilde 123/'$4-5, the ultimate goal o0 scienti0ic history, or the accumulation o0 *ractical knowledge o0 the *ast, is to Eena"le the so"er citi?en to discern the *attern the *rocess has "een weaving in the *ast and 0rom there to estimate how it may "e continued in the immediate 0uture.F )n the 234&s, #hilde,s ideas once again came to the attention o0 North merican scholars via a twisted and somewhat covert *ath. )n the mani0esto o0 the British *ost.*rocessual archaeology, S mbolic an$ Structural &rc%aeolog 1Hodder 234%5, the authors advocated a reactionary view that harkened "ack to the humanism o0 #hilde and his recognition that scholars construct knowledge. 7he U.S. archaeologist Mark (eone 1234%5, in his commentary on the volume, called the *ost.*rocessualists E#hilde,s 800s*ringF. However, like the neo.evolutionists o0 a generation "e0ore, the *ost.*rocessualists *icked and chose 0rom #hilde,s thought, this time selecting the humanistic and critical "its o0 #hilde,s ideas while discarding the scienti0ic and materialist as*ects. Most North merican archaeologists read the *ost.*rocessualists gleanings without 0ully understanding their origins. ;or others in North merica, the totality o0 #hildeJs work "ecame the starting *oint 0or integrating #lassical Mar9ism into archaeology 17rigger 234/, 234C, 233-G Muller 233'G !atterson %&&-5. 7hese archaeologists reDected the "asic tenets o0 the New rchaeology. Bruce 7rigger 123'45 0ound in the works o0 +. Gordon #hilde critical dialectics "etween history and evolution, theory and data, and mentalism and materialism that he thought lacking in the New rchaeology. )n the early 23@&s, 7homas !atterson 123'-, 2343, %&&-5 came in contact with Mar9ist *olitical thought in !eru. He increasingly saw it as a use0ul theoretical *ers*ective 0or archaeology. By the 23'&s, Mar9ism had attracted the interest o0 a hand0ul U.S. archaeologists. mong these was !hil Bohl who, in the 23'&s, turned to Mar9 as an alternative to *rocessual archaeological a**roaches to e9change and *roduction 1Bohl 23'C, 234C5. 8ther North merican archaeologists read #hilde in his totality "ut ado*ted Mar9ist a**roaches that em*hasi?ed criti6ue more than #hilde had, or em"raced a more humanistic 4

notion o0 Mar9ism than #hilde,s. Mark (eone and his students 1234@, 233C, %&&CG !alus et al %&&@5 develo*ed a critical archaeology derived 0rom an understanding o0 ;rench structural Mar9ism and the ;rank0urt School. #ritical archaeology stresses criti6ue and consciousness raising as the way to action, as o**osed to #hilde,s idea that knowledge *rovides rules 0or action. 7he #olum"ia University students who had read #hilde and other radical thinkers in the Mundial U*heaval Society o0 the late 23/&s went on to esta"lish an merican anthro*ological *olitical economy 1(eacock 23'%G :ol0 23C3, 234%G Mint? 234@G Nash 233-5. 7hey ins*ired a third cohort o0 North merican archaeologists 1#rumley and Mar6uardt 234'G Mar6uardt 233%G McGuire 233%, %&&4G !aynter 2333G :urst %&&@G Saitta %&&'5 to develo* a more humanistic a**roach to archaeology. 7hese archaeologists also do not see knowledge as *roviding rules 0or action "ut rather see knowledge as resulting 0rom the interaction o0 criti6ue, o"servations o0 the real world and action in the world. 7he #anadian archaeologist Bruce 7rigger has e9*licitly carried 0orward the work o0 #hilde 1McGuire %&&@5. )t is clear that #hilde had a seminal in0luence on his thought. )n e6ual measure, however, 7rigger has "een the scholar most res*onsi"le 0or 0ormulating a coherent, contem*orary understanding o0 #hilde 0or archaeology. 7rigger 1234&$ 235 *lum"ed the de*th o0 #hilde,s thinking to reveal the ways in which E#hilde,s thought continues to constitute and im*ortant challenge to archaeologyF. ;or 7rigger and #hilde, the ultimate goal o0 anthro*ological scholarshi* is to trans0orm the social world. 7rigger urges us to work towards a society that is technologically advanced, culturally diverse, egalitarian in "oth its economy and *olitics, and in which all *eo*le share in "oth the rewards and res*onsi"ilities o0 living on this earth. He 0inds the means to this goal in a critical awareness o0 the social and *olitical conte9t o0 archaeological scholarshi* and in a search 0or knowledge. )n the last decade, 7rigger 1%&&-a5 has made the *olitical im*lications o0 his research more overt. t the "eginning o0 the %2st century, the *o*ularity o0 cultural evolution has declined in North merican archaeology. 7rigger 12334$9i5 e6uates the reDection o0 sociocultural evolution with the e9treme relativism o0 the *ost.*rocessual rchaeology. )n his "ook Sociocultural Evolution! 7rigger 123345 *rovides a critical historical analysis. He e9amines the conce*t "oth in terms o0 the social and *olitical conte9ts o0 its 0ormulation and use, and in terms o0 its relationshi* to the accumulation o0 knowledge a"out the *ast. (ike #hilde he reDects unilineal idea o0 cultural evolution and instead *ro*oses a conte9tuali?ed idea o0 cultural evolution as what ha**ened in history. He recogni?es that varied *olitical and social agendas have used sociocultural evolution and that the conce*t has carried heavy "aggage o0 ethnocentrism 17rigger 2334$ %%C5. He notes, however, that these *ro"lems s*ring 0rom the *olitical uses o0 the conce*t, and that they do not address the 6uestion o0 whether or not there is sha*e and direction to human history. He did not see racism and ethnocentrism as "eing inherent in sociocultural evolution. 7rigger argues 0or sociocultural evolution to "e an essential conce*t 0or understanding human history, ideas o0 determinism, inevita"le directions o0 change, and value Dudgments must "e discarded. 8nce archaeologists have done this, they can study sociocultural evolution within the historical conte9ts o0 real human li0e. He also maintains that the reality o0 sociocultural evolution demonstrates the 0alseness o0 the #onservative assertion that we are living at the Eend o0 history,F and that only 0ree enter*rise awaits our 0uture 17rigger 2334$23%.23-, %C@5. 3

7rigger,s last 2& years o0 research, culminating in Un$erstan$ing Earl Civili.ations 17rigger %&&-"5, involves "oth a criti6ue o0 the assum*tions o0 neo.li"eralism and o0 Mar9ist treatments o0 human nature. 7his "ook *arallels #hilde,s 123-@5 ,an ,a/es Himself in its goals, in its sco*e and in its signi0icance 0or the modern world. 7rigger 6uestions the Anlightenment assum*tion that humans are inherently altruistic. He argues that egalitarian relations in small.scale societies must "e maintained "y ridicule, gossi*, and 0ear o0 witchcra0t. 7hus, hunter.gatherer societies do not *rovide a model 0or the 0uture, "ut they do demonstrate that social and *olitical egalitarianism is *ossi"le in human societies. His cross.cultural study o0 early civili?ations indicates that these mechanisms 0ail with an increase in social com*le9ity. He argues that the inevita"le result o0 evolutionary changes in societies is institutionali?ed *olitical, social and economic ine6uality. He recogni?es that high.level decision.making is re6uired in com*le9 *olitical systems, "ut that this does not e9*lain why managerial elites a**ro*riate to*. heavy sur*luses 0or their own use. He takes this as evidence that altruism is not inherent in the human condition, and that we cannot create more Dust societies sim*ly "y removing the corru*ting in0luences o0 #a*italism. Rather we have to imagine and design control mechanisms that will work in technologically advanced large.scale societies in a manner analogous to the role o0 ridicule, gossi* and 0ear o0 witchcra0t in small.scale societies. 7he ;uture o0 #hilde in North merica 7he reading and misreading o0 +. Gordon #hilde continues in North merica. 7he vast maDority o0 North merican archaeologists know him only 0or the "rie0 caricatures in te9t"ooks o0 his revolutions in *rehistory, his 8asis theory, and his ten archaeological criteria 0or civili?ations. #hilde is 0re6uently 6uoted in North merican archaeology, "ut he is rarely read. #hilde,s scholarshi* ins*ired and *resaged the maDor concerns o0 archaeological theory in the %&th century. t the dawn o0 the %2st century, North merican archaeologists are struggling with the relevance o0 archaeology to modern issues and with how to "uild archaeologies to meet the interests o0 di00erent communities 1:atkins %&&&G Bern"eck %&&-G !ollock %&&-G Meskill and !els %&&CG !y"urn %&&CG Hamilakas and <uke %&&'G McGuire %&&45. Yet again, #hilde has *receded us in these considerations. )n the 23-&s, he recogni?ed the role o0 *rehistory in su**orting the rise o0 ;ascism in Germany. He asked and answered the 6uestion E)s !rehistory !racticalF 1#hilde 23--5 to con0ront ;ascism. 0ter the Second :orld :ar, he con0ronted the Soviet *erversion o0 Mar9ism, and sought to "uild an a**roach to knowledge to contest it. Ho*e0ully, my colleagues will transcend the misreadings and caricatures o0 #hilde and read him once again as we con0ront these issues.

2&

Reading and Misreading +. Gordon #hilde in North merica Re0erences #ited dams, Ro"ert Mc#ormick 23@@ Evolution of Urban Societ 0 ldine, #hicago. Bern"eck, Reinhard %&&- :ar.7ime cademic !ro0essionalism. (ublic &rc%aeolog 0 -$22%.22@. Bin0ord, (ewis 23'% &n &rc%aeological (ers"ective0 Seminar !ress, New York. 234- 1or/ing at &rc%aeolog . cademic !ress, New York. Braidwood, Ro"ert =. 23/4 (re%istoric ,en0 Scott ;oresman and #om*any, Glenview, )(. 23C4 +ere Gordon #hilde 243%.23C'. &merican &nt%ro"ologist @&1/5$'--.'-@. 23'/ 7he )ra6 =armo !roDect. )n &rc%aeological Researc% in Retros"ect0 Ad. By Gordon R. :illey, **. @/.'4,:inthro* !u"lishers )nc., #am"ridge, Massachusetts. #aldwell, =ose*h R. 23C3 7he New merican rchaeology. Science 2%3$-&-.-&'. #hilde, +. Gordon 23%C '%e Da*n of Euro"ean Civili.ation0 Beagan !aul, 7rench, 7rue"an, and #o. (ondon. 23%@ '%e &r ans: & Stu$ of In$o2Euro"ean Origins0 Beagan !aul, 7rench, 7rue"an, and #o. (ondon. 23%4 '%e ,ost &ncient East: '%e Oriental (relu$e to Euro"ean (re%istor 0 Beagan !aul, 7rench, 7rue"an, and #o. (ondon. 23%3 '%e Danube in (re%istor 0 #laredon !ress, (ondon. 23-& '%e 3ron.e &ge0 #am"ridge University !ress, #am"ridge. 23-- )s !rehistory !racticalK &ntiquit '$/2&./24. 23-/ )e* +ig%t on t%e ,ost &ncient East: '%e Oriental (relu$e to Euro"ean (re%istor 0 Beagan !aul, 7rench, 7rue"an, and #o. (ondon. 23-C #hanging Methods and ims in !rehistory. (rocee$ings of t%e (re%istoric Societ 0 2$2.2C. 22

23-@ ,an ,a/es Himself0 7he New merican (i"rary, New York. 23/-a 23/-" 23/@ rchaeology as a Science. )ature 2C%$%%.%-. rchaeology in the USSR. ,an /-$/.3. rchaeology and nthro*ology. Sout%*est 4ournal of &nt%ro"olog %125$%/-.%C2.

23/'. Histor . #o""ett !ress, (ondon. 23/3. 7he Sociology o0 Bnowledge. '%e ,o$ern 5uarterl NS1)+5$-&%.-&3. 23C@. Societ an$ -no*le$ge. Har*er and Brothers, New York. 2343 Retros*ective. )n '%e (astmasters: Eleven ,o$ern (ioneers of &rc%aeolog 0 ed "y G. <aniels and #. #hi**endale, **. 2&.23, 7hames and Hudson, (ondon. #rumley, #arol and :illiam Mar6uart 234' Regional D namics: 3urgun$ian +an$sca"es in Historical (ers"ective0 cademic !ress, 8rlando. <aniels, Glynn 23'C & Hun$re$ an$ 6ift 7ears of &rc%aeolog 0 <uckworth, (ondon. ;ernHnde?, +ictor M. %&&@ Una &rqueolog8a Cr8tica: Ciencia! 9tica (ol8tica en la Construcci:n (asa$o0 #rLtica, Barcelona. ;lannery, Bent 233C #hilde the Avolutionist$ !ers*ective ;rom Nuclear merica. )n &rc%aeolog of ;0 #or$on C%il$e: Contem"orar (ers"ectives0 Ad "y <avid Harris, **. 2&2.2%&, University o0 #hicago !ress, #hicago. Gathercole, !eter 234- Gordon #hilde, Man or MythK &ntiquit . C@$23C.234. Green, Sally 2342 (re%istorian: & 3iogra"% of ;0 #or$on C%il$e0 Moonraker !ress, :iltshire. Hamilakis, Yannis and !hil <uke 1editors5 %&&@ &rc%aeolog an$ Ca"italism0 (e0t #oast !ress, :alnut #reek, #ali0ornia. Hill, =ames 23'& Broken B !ue"lo$ !rehistoric Social 8rgani?ation in the merican Southwest. &nt%ro"olog (a"ers of t%e Universit of &ri.ona <=0 7ucson. 2%

Hodder, )an 1Aditor5 234% S mbolic an$ Structural &rc%aeolog . #am"ridge University !ress, #am"ridge. Bohl, !hil 23'C 7he rchaeology o0 7rade. Dialectical &nt%ro"olog 2125$/-.C&. 234C Sym"olic and #ognitive rchaeology$ &nt%ro"olog 3$2&C.22'. New (oss o0 )nnocence. Dialectical

(eacock, Aleanor B. 23'% )ntroduction. )n Origin of (rivate (ro"ert an$ t%e State. By ;rederick Angles, **. '.@', )nternational !u"lishers, New York. (eone, Mark 234% #hilde,s 800s*ring. )n S mbolic an$ Structural &rc%aeolog . Ad "y ). Hodder, **. 2'3. 24/, #am"ridge University !ress, #am"ridge. 234@ Sym"olic, Structural, and #ritical rchaeology. )n &merican &rc%aeolog (ast an$ 6uture, ed. <. Melt?er, <. ;owler, and =. Sa"lo00, /2C./-4. Smithsoian )nstitution !ress, :ashington. 233C Historical rchaeology o0 #a*italism. &merican &nt%ro"ologist, 3'1%5$%C2.%@4.

%&&C '%e &rc%aeolog of +ibert in an &merican Ca"ital : E>cavations in &nna"olis University o0 #ali0ornia !ress, Berkeley. (ongacre, :illiam 23'& rchaeology as nthro*ology$ &ri.ona <?0 7ucson. #ase Study. &nt%ro"olog (a"ers of t%e Universit of

(owie, Ro"ert 23-' '%e Histor of Et%nological '%eor 0 Holt, Rinehart and :inston, New York. MacNeish, Richard S. 23'/ Re0lections on My Search 0or the Beginnings o0 griculture in Me9ico. )n &rc%aeological Researc% in Retros"ect0 Ad. By Gordon R. :illey, **. %&4.%2/,:inthro* !u"lishers )nc., #am"ridge, Massachusetts. Mar6uardt, :illiam H. 233% <ialectical rchaeology. &rc%aeological ,et%o$ an$ '%eor /$2&2.2/&. McGuire, Randall H. 233% & ,ar>ist &rc%aeolog . cademic !ress, 8rlando, ;lorida. 2-

%&&@ Mar9, #hilde, and 7rigger, in '%e 1or/s of 3ruce #0 'rigger: Consi$ering t%e Conte>ts of His Influences, ed "y Ron :illiamson, **. @2.'3, McGill University !ress, Montreal. %&&4 &rc%aeolog as (olitical &ction0 University o0 #ali0ornia !ress, Berkeley. McNairn, Bar"ara 234& ,et%o$ an$ '%eor of v0 #or$on C%il$e0 Adin"urgh University !ress, Adin"urgh. Meskell, (ynn and !eter !els 1editors5 %&&C Embe$$e$ Et%ics0 Berg, 890ord. Mint?, Sidney 234@ S*eetness an$ (o*er0 !enguin, New York. Muller, =ohn 233' ,ississi""ian (olitical Econom 0 !lenum, New York. Nash, =une 233- 1e Eat t%e ,ines an$ '%e Eat Us0 #olum"ia University !ress, New York. !alus, Matthew M., Mark !. (eone, and Matthew <. #ochran %&&@ #ritical rchaeology$ !olitics !ast and !resent. )n Historical &rc%aeolog . ed. "y M. Hall and S.:. Silliman, **. 4/.2&@, Blackwell !u"lishing, 890ord. !atterson, 7homas #. 23'- &merica's (ast: & )e* 1orl$ &rc%aeolog . Scott.;oresman and #o., (ondon. 2343 !olitical Aconomy and a <iscourse #alled M!eruvian rchaeologyM. Culture an$ Histor . /$-C.@/. %&&- ,ar>@s #%ost: Conversations 1it% &rc%aeologists0 Berg, 890ord. !aynter, Ro"ert 2333 7he rchaeology o0 A6uality and )ne6uality. &nnual Revie* of &nt%ro"olog 24$-@3.-33. !eace, :illiam =. 2344 +ere Gordon #hilde and merican nthro*ology. 4ournal of &nt%ro"ological Researc% //1/5$/2'./--. !ollock, Susan %&&- 7he (ooting o0 the )ra6 Museum$ 7houghts on rchaeology in a 7ime o0 #risis. (ublic &rc%aeolog -$22'.2%/. !y"urn, nne B. %&&C !ast !edagogy. &rc%aeologies: 4ournal of t%e 1orl$ &rc%aeological Congress0 21%5$2.@. 2/

Red0ield, Ro"ert 23C- '%e (rimitive 1orl$ an$ Its 'ransformation0 #ornell University !ress, )thaca. Rouse, )rving 23C4 +ere Gordon #hilde 243%.23C'. &merican &ntiquit %/125$4%.4/. Saitta, <ean %&&' '%e &rc%aeolog of Collective &ction, University !ress o0 ;lorida, 7allahassee. Stocking, George :., =r., ed. 2334 ;ol/sgeist as ,et%o$ an$ Et%ic: Essa s on 3oasian Et%nogra"% an$ t%e #erman &nt%ro"ological 'ra$ition. University o0 :isconsin !ress, Madison. 7rigger, Bruce G. 23'4 'ime an$ 'ra$itions: Essa s in &rc%aeological Inter"retation. #olum"ia University !ress, New York. 234& #or$on C%il$e: Revolutions in &rc%aeolog . #olum"ia University !ress, New York. 234/ Mar9ism and rchaeology. )n On ,ar>ian (ers"ectives in &nt%ro"olog : Essa s in Honor of Harr HoiAer <B=<0 "y S. Mint?, M. Godelier, and B. 7rigger, **. C3.3', Undena !u"lications, Mali"u, # . 234C Mar9ism in rchaeology$ Real or S*urious. Revie*s in &nt%ro"olog 02%$22/.2%-.

233- Mar9ism in #ontem*orary :estern rchaeology. &rc%aeological ,et%o$ an$ '%eor C$2C3.%&&. 2334 Sociocultural Evolution. Blackwell !u"lishers, 890ord. %&&-a &rtifacts an$ I$eas0 7ransaction !u"lishers, New Brunswick, N=. %&&-" Un$erstan$ing Earl Civili.ations: & Com"arative Stu$ . #am"ridge University !ress, #am"ridge. 7ringham, Ruth nn 234- +. Gordon #hilde, %C Years 0ter$ His Relevance 0or rchaeology in the Aighties. 4ournal of 6iel$ &rc%aeolog 2&$4C.2&&. :atkins, =oe %&&& In$igenous &rc%aeolog : &merican In$ian ;alues an$ Scientific (ractice0 ltaMira !ress, :alnut #reek, # . :hite, (eslie 2C

23C3 7he #once*t o0 Avolution in #ultural nthro*ology. )n Evolution an$ &nt%ro"olog : & Centennial &""raisal0 Ad "y B. Meggers, **. 2&@.2%C, 7he nthro*ological Society o0 :ashington, :ashington. :ol0, Aric 23C3 Sons of t%e S%a/ing Eart%0 University o0 #hicago !ress, #hicago. 234% Euro"e an$ t%e (eo"le 1it%out Histor 0 University o0 #ali0ornia !ress, Berkeley. :urst, (ou nn %&&@ #lass ll )ts 8wn$ A9*lorations o0 #lass ;ormation and #on0lict. )n Historical &rc%aeolog . ed. "y M. Hall and S.:. Silliman, **. 23&.%&4, Blackwell !u"lishing, 890ord. Yo00ee, Norman 233' Ro"ert Mc#ormick dams$ n rchaeological Biogra*hy. &merican &ntiquit @%1-5$-33. /2-.

2@

)n most o0 the mericas 1North merica, #entral merica, and South merica5, *rehistoric archaeology is not a se*arate disci*line or a "ranch o0 history. )t is *art o0 a 0our.0ield disci*line o0 anthro*ology that includes "iological anthro*ology, ethnogra*hy, linguistics, and archaeology.

Potrebbero piacerti anche