Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:36:02.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology in Britain: a Marxist View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

L. S. Klejn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many scientific journals throughout the world have marked these anniversaries with papers on various aspects of Marxism and its significance, written from various viewpoints. The journal ANTIQUITY, showing itself, as usual, more active and alert than the others, commissioned an article in 1965 from M. W. Thompson on ‘Marxism and Culture’ (1965, 108–116). However, Dr Thompson’s review of the significance of Marxism for archaeology is quite contrary to my own and amounts, in fact, to a completely negative appraisal. I feel, therefore, that it would be appropriate to answer Dr Thompson’s article in celebration of the anniversaries not only because my basically positive appraisal is more suited to the jubilee mood (1 well understand that this anniversary is interpreted in different ways in various circles), but also to clear up certain misunderstandings, and to help readers to form a more objective opinion of Thompson’s article by listening to the other side.

Type
Articles
Information
Antiquity , Volume 44 , Issue 176 , December 1970 , pp. 296 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (Editorial). 1959. F. Engels and Problems of Contemporary Ethnography, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, no. 6, 3–15.Google Scholar
Bibikov, S. N. 1953. Ranneye Tripolskoye poseleniye Luka-Vrublevetskaya na Dnestre. (Early Tri-polye Settlement at Luka Vrublevetskaya on the Dniester), MIA, 38 (Moscow-Leningrad), 277–81.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. 1946. Scotland before the Scots (London).Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1964. The Personality of Wales in (ed.) Foster, I. LI. and Alcock, L., Culture and Environment: Essays in Honour of Sir Cyril Fox, 7–23 (London).Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1962. The Idea of Prehistory (London).Google Scholar
Efimenko, P. P. 1956 K voprosu o kharaktere istori-českovo protsessa v posdnyem paleolite Vostočnoi Evropi (o pamyatnikakh tak nazivayemogo seletskogo i grimaldiiskogo tipa). (The Problem of the Character of the Historical Process in the Late Palaeolithic in East Europe: concerning the Sites of the so-called Szeletian and Grimaldian type) Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, XXVI, 28–53 (Moscow).Google Scholar
Grigoriev, G. P. 1968. Selet i kostenkovsko-strelit- skaya kultura. (The Szeletzian and Kostenki-Strelitski Culture), Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, no. 1, 3–22.Google Scholar
Gumilev, L. N. 1966. Istoki ritma kočevoi kulturi Sredinoi Azii. (The Origins of Rhythm of the Nomad Culture of Central Asia), Narodi Azii i Afriki, no. 4, 85–94.Google Scholar
Klejn, L. S. 1963. A Brief Validation of the Migration Hypothesis with respect to the Origin of the Catacomb Culture, Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology, 1, no. 4, 27–36 (New York).Google Scholar
Klejn, L. S. 1968. Voprosi pervobitnoi arkheologii v proizve-deniyakh Marksa i Engelsa. (Problems of Prehistoric Archaeology in the Works of Marx and Engels), Vestnik Leningradskovo Universiteta, no. 8, 38–43.Google Scholar
Klejn, L. S. 1970. Generatori narodov (The Generators of Nations), Drevnosti Sibiri, V, in press (Novosibirsk).Google Scholar
Lenin, V. I. 1959. Collected Works, vol. 5. (5th ed.), Moscow.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964. Les Réligions de la Pré-histoire (Paléolithique). (Paris).Google Scholar
Levin, M. G., and Cheboksarov, N. N.. 1955. Khozay-stvenno-kulturniye tipy i istoriko-etnografičeskiye oblasti (Economic—cultural types and Historical–ethnographical Regions), Sovetskaya Etnografiya, no. 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. Various dates. Collected Works (2nd ed.), Moscow.Google Scholar
Mongait, A. L. 1963. Arkheologiya i sovremennost (Archaeology and Today) (Moscow).Google Scholar
Mongait, A. L. 1967. Arkheologicheskie kultury i etnicheskie oeshchnosti (Archaeological Cultures and Ethnic Communities), Narodi Azii i Afriki, no. 1, 53–76.Google Scholar
Passek, T. S. 1958. Noviye otkritiya na territorii SSSR i voprosi posdnye-neolitičeskikh kultur Dunai-sko-Dnestrovskogo meždurečya. (New Discoveries in the USSR and the Problem of the Neolithic Cultures in the Danube-Dniester Interfluve), Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, no. 1, 28–46.Google Scholar
Ravdonikas, V. I. 1939. Istoriya pervobitnogo obScestva (The History of Prehistoric Society), (Leningrad).Google Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1957. Pervobytnaya Tekhnika (Prehistoric Technology), MIA 54, Moscow-Leningrad. Translated into English by Thompson, M. W. (London 1964).Google Scholar
Semenov, YU. I. 1959. ‘Pi oiskhoshdeniye semyi častnoi sobstvennosti i gosudarstva’, F. Engelsa i sovremenniye danniye etnografii. (‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ of F. Engels and the Contemporary Evidence of Ethnography), Voprosi filosofii, no. 7, 137–47.Google Scholar
Semenov, YU. I. 1964. Učeniye Morgana, marksism, i sovremen- naya etnografiya. (The Teaching of Morgan, Marxism, and Contemporary Ethnography), Sovetskaya Etnografiya, no. 4, 170.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. W. 1965. Marxism and Culture, Antiquity, XXXIX, 108–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamyatnin, S. N. 1951. O Vozniknovenii lokalnikh različii v kulture paleolitičeskovo perioda. (On the Origin of Local Variations in the Cultures of the Palaeolithic Age). Trudy Instituta Etnografii, XVI, 89–152 (Moscow).Google Scholar