Critically evaluate the role of Vere Gordon Childe’s contribution to archaeology PDF

Preview

Summary

Critical evaluative essay on famous archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe ...

Description

Oliver Ruffles - Critically evaluate the role of Vere Gordon Childe’s contribution to archaeology. In what ways did he change archaeological practice and thought?

The role of an individual on an entire discipline which has stood for millennia is naturally disadvantaged as it takes a huge period time for ones’ theories, practices, values and agendas to be accepted, adopted, integrated and entrenched into the study, commonly long after the thinker’s death or in Vere Gordon Childe’s case, cut short by his death in 1957. However, his impact of archaeological theory on the disciple was monumental. He is now recognised as one of the most influential figures of the 20th century archaeology as he questioned why things happened in the past, not just to establish chronologies. Childe was not without his critics but he was defiantly a pioneering scholar. The most significant contributions and changes they had on archaeological thought and practice include culture history, his analysis of evolution of human society and Marxist archaeology. Therefore, these occurred in a transitional period for archaeology as an academic study in the 19th -20th century where Evolutionism, Culture history and eventually new archaeology in the 1960s all dramatically affected the way in which we practice and think about archaeology today.

In the history of archaeological thought, Vere Gordon Childe (1892-1957) (BBC History, 2014) (Figure 1) is a major figure in the development of archaeological thought and practice along with the likes of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Flinders Petrie etc who were famed for their contribution to fieldwork. Whereas Childe contributed to the theoretical side of archaeology as he believed archaeology was a social science. He was enthused by Marxist ideology reflected in his literature. Childe was the president of the Prehistoric Society in 1934 then post-WW2 Childe became director of archaeology at the institute in London until 1956. Childe was also involved with the first real public portrayal of archaeology on Animal, Vegetable, Mineral. The most significant contribution Vere Gordon Childe made to archaeology was his input of ‘culture history’ emerging in the 1900s which sought to define historical societies into distinct ethnic and cultural groupings according to their material culture. This was very much a pioneering movement in the age of the theoretical archaeologists which Grahame Clark later commenting that it was his finest contribution which he had done by the 1930s. (Thomas, 1982) Although, Kossina also contributed to this movement Childe was influential in his book ‘The Danube in Prehistory’ 1929 by recognising and defining ‘culture’ as “a constantly recurring assemblage of artefacts” [in a society or ethic group] recognised by phenomenology as the material equipment of a culture and dated via cross-reference. For example, he characteristically defined Linearbandkeramik Culture (5500 BC -4900 BC) and Corded Ware Culture (3200 BC – 2300 BC) by the standardized pottery type (Harris, 2016). Therefore, this culture system had a deep and positive impact on archaeology long-term. However,

1

although Childe published many books, much of our significant understanding of his thought and opinions come from letters he wrote which were never intended to be his final pieces. This changed archaeological practice and thought positively by making archaeology no longer just the mundane practice of establishing chronologies and collecting archaeological material. However, due to the time in which Childe was working many of the established radio-carbon dates relating to these given cultures have been proven to have discrepancies and are inaccurate by advances in the dating technology.

Therefore, in judgement this contribution was individually the most significant of Childe’s entire career. Although hard for an individual to leave his mark dramatically on the disciple, Childe’s contribution of defining culture history was monumental as it set the foundations in archaeology for a more scientific and hypothesis based scrutiny.

It was not just Childe’s development of the culture-historical framework which made Vere Gordon Childe’s role and contribution to archaeology significant. He was the first to apply social-models to archaeological data onto the evolution of human society. For example, the normative culture model was central to this theory of cultural evolution. Previously the Midwestern taxonomic system was designed to order material for dating (Renfrew, 2015). Therefore, Childe should be lauded for this development of cultural evolution and socio-historical materialism interpretation as he made sense out of the chaos later in his career in the 1950s. Renfrew said his books on the Neolithic and Urban revolutions were the first coherent analysis of the process of change in the prehistoric. This supported by Childe’s analysis of the Neolithic revolution. The Neolithic method’s ergonomic qualities of the of sustainability - farming theoretically does free time, increase population and explains the increased investment in monuments, public ceremonial buildings and specialist roles produced. (Ravetz, 1959). Although put in simplistic fashion, and not based on scientific fact it is logically sound and widely accepted. Childe said archaeology shows ‘the means of production ', but not ‘the mode of production ' (Trigger, 1989). Therefore, we must interpret the evidence with social theories to determine more information into the domestics of that given society. However, is limited because of the

complexities of the archaeological data in the time which he was formulating his culture historical frameworks because of the less advanced methodologies and lack archaeological material collected. Childe did at least lay the foundations for a more coherent framework to be established.

This changed archaeological practice and thought by focusing on using material remains to chart the progressive evolution of human societies over time. Childe only sought to update Taylor’s four stages of human evolution but did so much more for archaeological thought long-term. For example, instead

2

of the Darwinian theory of evolution which states survival of the fittest applied to human societies and material culture or Malthus theory 1798 of innovation or failure archaeology now focused on sought an evolutionary model on what Childe had first formulated. It sought to define human origins and ask why class societies developed. However, he failed in supplying a sufficient account of the complexities of why transitions occur usually because they are down to multiple factors which are untraceable in the archaeological record. For example, in Man makes himself (1936) he asked why civilisation had arisen in the Near East and put it down to the put take of agriculture.

Therefore, in judgement the contribution of application of social-models onto archaeology was one of long-term impact which changed our understanding of cultural evolution and archaeology fundamentally. This massively contributed to Childe’s overall contribution to archaeology. This was due to fortuitous timing as never had so much archaeological material been collected and so was readily available to make interpretations on. This due to recent technological innovations in the field such as the RAF aerial photos in the 1900s.

Another significant contribution Vere Gordon Childe’s role made to archaeology was his philosophical approach to archaeology with the development of development of ‘Marxist archaeology’ (having a materialist basis) focusing on economic factors to analyse social relations. It is extremely relevant in archaeology as any level of social development is entrenched political hierarchies. Analysis in accord with Marxist principles is explored in Social Evolution and Prehistory of European Society shortly after the Russian Revolution in 1917. (Faulkner, 2007). Heavily influenced by the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Childe began challenging theories on this basis. For example, he dismissed Christian Jurgenson Thomsen’s ‘three age system’ of “savagery”, “barbarism”, “civilisation” supposing a materialist model of societal change because he saw it too simplistic and didn’t look at the economic and social complexities of societal development. (Trigger, 1989). He also challenged diffusionism in the spread of farming with his proposal of moderate diffusionism which modified the 19th century Montelius’s diffusionism to a less extreme approach that Europe had undergone some indigenous development while still accepting influence of external factors. This changed archaeological practice and thought from a purely epistemological positivist standpoint to allowing theories and concepts to be developed and deployed on to archaeological data. It placed emphasis on economic factors as the cause of social change which ties into his ideas of cultural evolution in accord with Marxist principles. For example, a relevant case study which he interpreted in the 1920s excavations of Skara Brae, Orkney, a Neolithic village. Survival of the archaeology was due to the constructors building in ‘dry stone walling’. The complex array of houses and drainage

3

system led Childe to interpret it as a ‘primitive communism’ through his evaluation of the size and organisation. However, this approach didn’t have much of an impact because of the subjectivity of archaeological interpretation from a different standpoint. (Derricourt, 2014). The impact was also skin deep and short-termed until it would later be developed with the advent of Processulaism. On the other hand, it could be argued this theoretical approach had a positive impact on his contribution to archaeology because for the first-time archaeology wasn’t just accepting things as ‘fact’ rather it was now asking ‘why’. However, not to the degree seen in the upsurge in theoretical discussion with new archaeology and further reawakening in Marxist ideas by French anthropologists in 60s/70s. (Trigger, 1989). Yet, Childe should be credited for this as he was thinking far beyond his time in the 1930s and leaving his permanent mark on the discipline. However, many have seen this approach as too radical. For instance, Clark once again comments this contribution in the later stages of his career and life was “the antiquated folk-lore of Karl Marx” (Trigger, 1989, 248). However, this attack is only at a personal level more than a theoretical one due to Childe’s background and politically left bias. Never the less, this had a negative impact on archaeology as Childe undermined the role of class conflict in social evolution. Therefore, in judgement the extent and relative value of the contribution of Marxist archaeology was not initially significant because of the its controversial nature. Mainly because of the background of Vere Gordon Childe being a member of the British Communist party but also because its early stages which laid the foundations for future development to build upon the thinking.

In conclusion, when considering Vere Gordon Childe Childe’s contribution to archaeology it must adjudicated collectively. His work before the 1930s has more relative value than his later work which brings the overall value of his work down. However, this is partly due to his later work is not yet being evaluated, or even widely known. Therefore, the most fundamental role of Vere Gordon Childe’s contribution to archaeology came in the early stages of his career. This is the point in which his impact of archaeological theory on the disciple was monumental. However, as with any radical new thinker he was a controversial scholar of his time, and he remains so. Resulting in some of his new ways of interpreting archaeology being accepted in the case of the application of ‘culture history’ and social-models being adopted and others being looked over such as Marxist archaeology. However, the way in which he went about the masses of material he had to reevaluate was revolutionary for the time if not complexly accurate. Therefore, Vere Gordon Childe made huge changes occur to archaeological practice and thought both positively and negatively, short and long term but his contribution of the nature of cultures and the role of cultural history was revolutionary although this thoughts on cultural evolution and Marxist interpretations of archaeology were important in constructing his overall contribution.

4

Bibliography 

Childe, V.G. (1950). The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 21, No. 1. Liverpool University Press. pp. 3-17



Childe, V.G. (1956). Man Makes Himself. (1936)



BBC History (2014). Vere Gordon Childe (1892 – 1957). [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/childe_gordon.shtml [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



Derricourt, R. (2014). The making of a radical archaeologist: The early years of Vere Gordon Childe. Available at: http://www.standrewscollege.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/College-Gordon-Childe-Derricourt.pdf [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



Faulkner, N. (2007). Gordon Childe and Marxist archaeology. Available at: http://isj.org.uk/gordon-childe-and-marxist-archaeology/ [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



Harris. B, (2016). Institute of Archaeology, UCL, Blog Who was Vere Gordon Childe?[Online]. Available at: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioa-ucl-blog/2016/05/06/whowas-vere-gordon-childe/ [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



Ravetz, A. (1959). Notes on the Work of V. Gordon Childe. Available at: http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/nr/10_56.pdf [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



Renfrew, Barn, (2016). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, 7th edition, London, Thames and Hudson. pp. 485



Smith. M, (2009). V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: a historical perspective on a revolution in urban studies. [Online]. Available at: http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1CompleteSet/MES-09-Childe-TPR.pdf [Accessed at: 03/02/18]



TanrıOver, M. (2010). THE ARCHAEOLOGIES OF V. GORDON CHILDE. Available at: https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/principles2010/files/13675 170.pdf [Accessed at: 03/02/18]

5



Trigger, B, (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd edn. New York, Cambridge University Press. pp. 344, 241



Thomas, N. (1982). Childe, Marxism, and Archaeology, Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02070527.pdf, [Accessed at: 03/02/18]

Figure 1 - (2014). Vere Gordon Childe (1892 – 1957). BBC History [Online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/childe_gordon.shtml [Accessed at: 03/02/18]

Figure 2 –Skara Brae: Vere Gordon Childe in

the dry-stone walled hut 8.

Day of

Archaeology.

Available at:

http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/tag/v-gordon-childe/ [Accessed at: 05/02/18]

6...