Journal of Social Archaeology ARTICLE

Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 7(1): 29–48 DOI: 10.1177/1469605307073161

Internationalism in the invisible college

Political ideologies and friendships in archaeology
MARGARITA DÍAZ-ANDREU
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, UK

ABSTRACT
This article analyses the effect that ideology may have in the relation-
ships established between archaeologists of opposing political per-
suasions. It is argued that modern historiographers’ assumption that
archaeologists holding different ideologies could not possibly support
each other needs urgent revision. It is proposed that, for the decades
immediately before and after World War II, the disregard of the politi-
cal aspect when dealing with colleagues can partly be explained by
the widely held belief in the absolute value of science, especially at a
time when, in the case of prehistoric archaeology, the discipline was
being professionalized. In this article the links established between
prehistoric archaeologists of opposing political ideologies is framed
within the discussion of invisible colleges, the professional networks
which form unofficial power bases within academia. It is suggested not
only that they seem to be more interested in the control of academic
resources than in political convictions, but that invisible colleges also
operate at an international level. Thus, invisible colleges in each
country may be linked with others elsewhere, even when their
members live under completely different political regimes. As the
basis for the discussion this article uses the correspondence between

29

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

30 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

three prehistoric archaeologists: the Marxist Gordon Childe

(1892–1957), the Francoist Lluís Pericot (1899–1978) and, to a lesser
extent, the Falangist (i.e. Spanish Fascist) Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla
(1905–72).

KEY WORDS
British archaeology ● V.G. Childe ● dictatorship ● historiography ●
Marxism ● L. Pericot ● Spanish archaeology

■ INTRODUCTION

The relationship between archaeology and political ideology became a

popular field of study in the 1990s. The role of nationalism for the develop-
ment of archaeology attracted many authors (Atkinson et al., 1996;
Díaz-Andreu and Champion, 1996; Kohl and Fawcett, 1995). Others
discussed colonialism and imperialism, highlighting how these practices and
ideologies were crucial for the archaeology of the imperial powers in
Europe (Britain and France, to start with, later many others), and in other
countries within and beyond Europe (Lyons and Papadopoulos, 2002;
Meskell, 1998). A third group of researchers also proposed that inter-
nationalism was a further aspect to consider in the early years of
professional archaeology, either as the main force of change (Kaeser, 2000,
2001, 2002) or in combination with nationalism and imperialism (Coye and
Provenzano, 1996; Richard, in Murray, 1999: 93–107; Wiell, 1999). In this
article I examine another way in which politics may influence archaeology.
On the one hand, I look at how political events at an international and
national level are perceived by archaeologists, and try to answer whether
these perceptions have an influence on how these archaeologists relate to
other colleagues of opposing ideology. On the other hand, the effect of
‘small politics’, that is politics within academia, is also analysed as a way to
examine the extent to which archaeological interpretations are a product
of contingent processes of negotiation between scholars. In my discussion
I use the concept of the invisible college or community of interest, a concept
that implies the existence of unofficial professional networks formed by
individuals who support each other professionally (Price, 1965; Zuccala,
2006). I show how invisible colleges operate not only within the national
context, but also at an international level. This is an issue which has not
been properly examined in the field of archaeology.
The data for this article come from the correspondence between three
archaeologists whose short biographies are provided in the following
section: Vere Gordon Childe, Lluís Pericot Garcia and Julio Martínez

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 31

Santa-Olalla. As Childe destroyed all his personal letters in 1956 (Gather-

cole, pers. comm.), this article uses the correspondence filed under his name
in two different locations: the Pericot Archive of the Library of Catalonia
(Barcelona) and the Santa-Olalla Archive of the Museo de San Isidro
(Madrid). In the Pericot Archive there are 40 letters from Childe to Pericot
and a draft of a letter from Pericot to Childe. The letters are dated between
1931 and 1956, although most of them were written during the last ten years
of this period. There are two peaks in the frequency of letters exchanged
between the two professors: the first related to Childe’s visit to Spain in
1947, and the second to Pericot’s early involvement in the International
Congress of Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences or CISPP (Congrès inter-
national des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques) between 1949 and
1951.1 I was provided with a similar number of letters (43) when I asked
about correspondence related to Childe in the Santa-Olalla Archive. There
are 22 letters sent by Childe to Santa-Olalla (one of them, in fact, addressed
to Julian de la Villa as president to the SEAEP, Sociedad Española de
Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria), ten from Santa-Olalla to Childe
(one by his secretary on his absence), one letter from Eoin MacWhite and
nine referring to a packet of Eastern and Cyprus pottery sent by Childe to
Santa-Olalla in 1949. In addition, there is a note from Childe about a
homage to Santa-Olalla and a translation of a talk given in 1954 at the
inauguration of an exhibition organized on the occasion of the CISPP
conference in Madrid. The correspondence in the Santa-Olalla Archive is
dated from 1942 to 1952, with a peak in 1946 when 15 letters were
exchanged at the time of a proposed visit of Childe to Spain.
The research for this article forms part of a project looking at archival
material to test the results of an earlier investigation, developed exclusively
on the base of published sources, on the impact Gordon Childe had in
Spain, and the personal contacts he established with Spanish archaeologists
(Díaz-Andreu, 1998). In my 1998 article I remarked that, despite histori-
ographers’ silence about this, Gordon Childe had been in Spain several
times – 1928, 1947 and, as I now know, 1954. He had established contacts
with university professors both in Barcelona (Lluís Pericot Garcia) and
Madrid (Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla), and even recommended a young
Irishman, Eoin MacWhite, to do his PhD in Madrid under the supervision
of Santa-Olalla.2 In 2002 I became aware of the existence of two archives
that were being classified at that time: the Martínez Santa-Olalla Archive
and the Pericot Archive. I realized that this material could provide some
answers to questions on the processes that had led an overtly Marxist
archaeologist – Gordon Childe – to correspond with two right-wing archae-
ologists, one a Falangist – Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla – and the other –
Lluís Pericot – a Francoist backed up by his friends in the Opus Dei section
of the Francoist regime. A first study of the letters sent to Pericot by Childe
related to the visits Childe made to Spain and Pericot to Britain, and the

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

32 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

publications, ideas and gifts they exchanged. Issues related to Childe’s and
Pericot’s involvement in the International Congress of Pre- and Proto-
historic Sciences will be dealt with elsewhere. In this article I focus on
the information provided by the letters concerning academic politics
and the international situation, using as a framework the concept of in-
visible colleges.

■ CHILDE, PERICOT AND MARTÍNEZ SANTA-OLALLA

The three archaeologists this article deals with are well known in specialist
circles, with Gordon Childe the best known of the three, especially outside
Spain. In the last 15 years, information about Childe has been enhanced by
a series of biographical studies (Bradley, 2004; Gathercole, 1982, 1994,
2004–6; Green, 1981; Harris, 1994; McNairn, 1980; Mulvaney, 1994; Murray,
1995; Sherratt, 1997; Trigger, 1980). Briefly, he was born in North Sydney,
Australia, in 1892. He gained a first-class degree in Classics from the
University of Sydney in 1913, moving to Oxford in 1914. After a difficult
period he became the first professor of prehistoric archaeology at Edin-
burgh University (1927–46), subsequently obtaining the chair of European
archaeology at the University of London (1946–56). Throughout his career
he published works which attained widespread influence because of his
ability to provide syntheses which ranged across large geographical areas
including the Near East and Europe. His major works in this respect were
The Dawn of European Civilisation (1925), The Most Ancient East (1928)
and The Danube in Prehistory (1929), together with his later volumes, Man
Makes Himself (1936), What Happened in History (1942), Progress and
Archaeology (1944), Social Evolution (1951), and The Prehistory of
European Society (1958). He retired in 1956 and shortly after left Britain.
He fell to his death in the mountains of New South Wales on 19 October
1957, committing suicide (Daniel, 1980: 1–3).
Pericot and Martínez Santa-Olalla were key protagonists in the history
of Spanish prehistoric archaeology, especially following the power shift that
took place after the Spanish Civil War (1936–9). The success of the dictator
Francisco Franco meant the exile of the major protagonists in prehistoric
studies before the war: Pere Bosch Gimpera (Barcelona, 1891 – Mexico
City, 1974) and Hugo Obermaier (Regensburg, Germany, 1877 – Fribourg,
Switzerland, 1946) (Díaz-Andreu and Cortadella, 2006). They were substi-
tuted by their students, who were not in all cases of the same academic
standards as their masters (Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez Sánchez, 2004). Lluís
Pericot Garcia3 (Barcelona, 1899–1978) was one of the first students of
Pere Bosch Gimpera, the new, young professor of Archaeology and
Ancient History at the University of Barcelona. They became friends and

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 33

life-long collaborators, as the correspondence between them of more than

57 years has amply demonstrated (Gracia et al., 2002). Pericot lived most
of his life in Barcelona, with the exception of less than two years which he
spent as a professor in Santiago de Compostela (Galicia) between 1925 and
1927 (Armada Pita, 2004), and the six years he had a chair in Valencia
(1927–33) (Fullola i Pericot, 2002). From 1933 his administrative roles in
academia increased in importance, although after the Civil War he had to
go through a difficult period until October 1940, when the regime cleared
him of any suspicion of supporting the Republic through a process called
the depuración (purge) (Vilanova i Vila-Abadal, 2002: 69–70). At the
university he was secretary of the Faculty of Humanities (1934–52), vice-
dean (1952–4) and dean (1954–7). In the 1960s he became the vice-president
of the powerful Higher Council for Scientific Research (the Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, the Spanish version of the CNRS),
then dominated by the Opus Dei, an ultra-Catholic power group within the
Francoist regime. The correspondence in the Pericot Archive shows how
Pericot was an occasional contributor to the Opus Dei journal Arbor. Within
the archaeological profession, he came to be seen as a meaningful contribu-
tor in Africanist, Americanist and Europeanist fora. In his early years as a
researcher he was identified with his magnificent work in the Palaeolithic
cave of Parpalló (Pericot, 1942). (See the comments by Childe on this in
Pericot’s 1950 book La España Primitiva [Primitive Spain].) From the 1940s,
the correspondence kept in the archive shows the tremendous work he
undertook, enabling others to carry out their projects. Indeed, much of the
archaeology of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands is indebted to Pericot’s
work, and the initiatives he supported. The debt to him goes beyond the
Catalan-speaking areas, for it was because of his work (and his friendship
with the minister of culture, Ruiz Giménez, 1951–6), that the teaching of
prehistory became a core topic in the History degree4 throughout Spain
(Fullola Pericot, pers. comm., 3.7.2002), leading to a significant increase in
the number of lecturers in universities (Díaz-Andreu, 2003: Table 3).
Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla (Burgos, 1905 – Madrid, 1972) was a student
in Barcelona with Prof. Bosch Gimpera and later in Madrid with Prof. Hugo
Obermaier. He lived in Germany between 1927 and 1931, lecturing in
Spanish culture in Bonn University, where he became acquainted with
National Socialism. He became a member of the Falange from its early days
(he was an ‘old shirt’ – camisa vieja – i.e. one of the early members of the
Falange). He gained the chair at the University of Santiago de Compostela
in March 1936, but it does not seem that he ever lectured there, as the Civil
War started in July of that year. In 1938 he wrote an overview of the pre-
history of the Iberian Peninsula, his Esquema paletnológico de la Península
Hispánica, later also published as a booklet (Martínez Santa-Olalla, 1941,
1946), which served as a basis for discussions about the interpretation of
Spanish prehistory and their contextualization in the European sequence

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

34 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

both in Spain and elsewhere (Meredos, 2003). His ideology, however, seems
to have become more extreme during the Civil War, during which he spent
some time in a French concentration camp and had one brother executed
by a Republican firing squad (Martínez Santa-Olalla, 1946: 1; Quero, in
Díaz-Andreu et al., forthcoming). His father, General Martínez Herrera,
was a high ranking military official in the close circle of Franco (Castelo
Ruano et al., 1995: 15). From 1939 he was made the head of the General
Commissariat for Archaeological Excavations (CGEA, Comisaría General
de Excavaciones Arqueológicas), the body that organized permits and
funds for excavations (Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez Sánchez, 2004). He also
taught in the University of Madrid in the so-called Chair of Primitive
History of Man left vacant by Hugo Obermaier, who was away when the
war started and did not come back, dying in Switzerland in 1946. Santa-
Olalla was also the director of the Spanish Society of Anthropology,
Ethnography and Prehistory (SEAEP, Sociedad Española de Antropología,
Etnografía y Prehistoria). In 1940 he tried to join the Higher Council for
Scientific Research (CSIC – Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científi-
cas) but he was not welcome and his connection to the organization was
short lived. Throughout these years he managed to antagonize most of his
colleagues. He became an outsider of the most powerful invisible college
of the time, led by Almagro and Pericot. When examinations for his chair
were held in 1954, Martín Almagro Basch (1911–84) succeeded in getting
it, moving from his chair in Barcelona to the chair in Madrid. This move
would obviously benefit Pericot, who was left as the major player in the
Catalan capital. In 1955 Santa-Olalla went to a chair in Zaragoza and in
1957 he obtained a chair in Valencia, where his disciple, Julián San Valero,
had been professor from 1950. He would only return to Madrid in 1965
(Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez Sánchez, 2004).

■ BIG AND SMALL POLITICS

Daily practice: Politics with a big P and academia

As explained, from Childe’s death in 1957 until 1998, no account of the
relationship between Childe and his Spanish colleagues was published in the
literature. In fact, the possibility of such a relationship was denied by some
(Alcina Franch, 1987: 10–11). Historiographers’ silence probably derived
from the assumption that someone as politically committed as Childe could
not possibly have had regular contact with colleagues living under a right-
wing dictatorship, let alone if they had relatively important posts in the
regime, such as Pericot and Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla. This same precon-
ception can be seen with respect to Spanish archaeologists’ indifference
towards Childe’s work, especially given that Childe had visited the Soviet

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 35

Union three times – in 1935, 1945 and 1953 (Green, 1981: 76–7, 101, 123–4)
– a country demonized in Franco’s Spain both directly and indirectly through
persecution of communists in Spain (Preston, 1993: 523–9, 567–9).
In contrast to these perceptions, the letters reveal that the archaeologists
did not avoid politics altogether, as one may have assumed given their
opposing political views. Pericot knew about Childe’s publications about
the USSR as one of his reviews shows (Pericot, 1944b).5 Childe did not hide
from Pericot his interest in the Soviet Union and was explicit about some
of his visits. In 1946 he exclaimed: ‘My dear Friend, That you will be coming
to visit Britain in April . . . is the best news I’ve had since June (when I was
invited to the U.S.S.R.)’ (20.1.1946).6 He also commented that, ‘the inter-
national situation is not yet quite stable. After all a revolution does gener-
ally take some time!’ (8.2.1949). Childe also included other references to
politics in his letters. A few months after the Soviet Union had tested an
atomic bomb in September 1949, and the president of the US, Truman, had
ordered the development of a hydrogen bomb in January 1950, Childe
commented, ‘we shall meet anyhow in Madrid in 1954 if no war intervenes’
(29.8.1950). Childe, therefore, made comments, perhaps to provoke, but in
daily practice separated off politics and academia. This has also been high-
lighted by one of his former students in Edinburgh, Howard Kilbrige-Jones,
when pointing out that ‘Childe refrained from discussing politics with his
students. The opportunity was there to create a “cell” but never taken’
(Thomas et al., 1994: 137).
It seems that the disentanglement between politics and academia could
also be seen in Pericot’s case. Thus, Pericot queried Childe about a work
dealing with Spanish archaeology published by a Soviet archaeologist, a
certain Michulin (or Mishulin as recently transcribed by Prof. Guliaev)
(Mishulin, 1950). Childe, however, admitted that he had not seen it
. . . when I was in Russia in 1953, but perhaps I did not look close enough.
While I have a channel by which a somewhat erratic exchange of periodicals
has been arranged, I do not know any means for exchanging individual
books, but there is a Russian book shop in London, and sometimes if you
order a book from it, it comes. I have ordered Michulin, and if it turns up I
shall send it to you, but I can give no guarantee. (3.3.1955)

Two months later he explained: ‘The Russian bookshop in London has

now had a reply from their suppliers in the U.S.S.R., and inform [sic] me
that Antichnaie Ispania is unobtainable. I am sorry we cannot get this for
you, though I doubt whether it would be very valuable’ (6.5.1955).
Pericot was not ignorant of Childe’s political views. In his review of
What Happened in History, he stated that it could be referred to as a book
written under war conditions, which has ‘an acute sense of the social
issues and points of view, which we shall restrain ourselves from judging’7
(Pericot, 1944a).8 Years later he acknowledged that in some of his works,

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

36 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

‘Professor Childe subscribed to points of view which we could not accept’,

which he mentioned in his obituary, and added:
[h]is friends commented that his materialist interpretations made him appear
as an extremist. Yet they gave little importance to this in comparison with his
goodness and scientific honesty. What should really be emphasized in Childe
was his sincerity, the wide range of sources he used, his synthetic vision of
prehistoric problems and the importance he gave to their cultural and
economic aspects. In this respect his work is first class and has built up a
following. (Pericot, 1957: 298–9)

Internal politics in British and Spanish archaeology

In his correspondence to Pericot, Childe did not gossip but his letters
provide us with insights regarding internal politics and his views of British
and Spanish archaeology. The conference on the Future of Archaeology,
6–8 August 1943 in London, is mentioned, perhaps in an ironic tone, when
he says:
I had immediately thereafter to go to London where I gave your greetings to
Hawkes,9 Dorothy Garrod10 and others who send their cordial greetings in
return. All are well and though mostly engaged on ‘work of national
importance[’] found time to assemble at a congress in Burlington House to
discuss the future of archaeological research in the British Isles. (8.5.1943)
This conference, Evans has argued, was an exercise of introspection at a
time when the horrors of National Socialism were starting to be known and
it seemed likely that World War II was going to be won by the Allies (Evans,
1995: 314). During the conference, the involvement of the state in the
organization of archaeology was discussed. Clark11 seemed to be against
much state control: in archaeology Britain was ‘years behind [Germany],
but where has it led Germany, and where would it lead us?’ (in Evans, 1995:
315). Yet, Jacquetta Hawkes thought that, ‘we must arrive at some proper
relation between research and the treasury. What is the State except
ourselves’ (Evans, 1995: 315).
Childe’s close circle of colleagues can be gathered from the names
mentioned in his letters and the number of times these come up in the
correspondence (number given in parentheses). The names were those of
Christopher (6) and Jacquetta Hawkes12 (2), Tom Kendrick13 (5), Dorothy
Garrod (3), Grahame Clark (1), Miles Burkitt14 (1) and John Myres15 (1).
It may be worth noting from this group that amongst these most frequently
mentioned are Christopher Hawkes and Tom Kendrick who had studied,
like him, in Oxford. This could be taken as a measure of friendship, although
of course Pericot’s interest in some people may have had an effect on who
Childe mentioned in his letters (Pericot corresponded with Kendrick and

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 37

Burkitt from 1925 to 1927). The only complaint from Childe about another
British archaeologist in his letters refers to the editor of the Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,16 although his name is not mentioned
directly. Childe wrote regarding his publication of the archaeological site
of Rinyo (Childe and Grant, 1947): ‘it was ready two years ago, but, since
I left the editorship of P.S.A.S. that publication has been scandalously slow.
They will now at last produce a double-volume’ (5.2.1949).
The correspondence kept in the Santa-Olalla Archive makes clear that
Childe was well aware of the tensions in Spanish archaeology. In 1945
Santa-Olalla had proposed that Childe organize a student exchange between
Britain (although he said England in his letter, despite Childe being in
Scotland) and Spain. In order to do this he invited Childe to come to Spain
and give a talk in the name of the Spanish Society of Anthropology,
Ethnography and Prehistory, the SEAEP (ASO/31–63, 5.12.1945). Childe
answered him the following month thanking him for the invitation and for
having accepted a young Irishman, Eoin MacWhite, who had just graduated
in Dublin and obtained a grant to study in another country as a PhD student
(for MacWhite see Díaz-Andreu, 1998: 56–9; and O’Sullivan, 1998). It was
not possible for Childe to organize his visit in 1946, for plane tickets were
very restricted and he did not get one (ASO/25–180, 16.3.1946). Santa-
Olalla then told Childe about his project to organize a Congress of
Palaeoethnology of the Iberian Peninsula to be celebrated in Madrid, and
Childe mentioned this project to Hawkes and Burkitt (information in a
letter by Childe dated 20.7.1946, ASO/25–175). However, on 4 October he
wrote in his peculiar French to inform his Spanish colleague that he had
stopped organizing this as ‘A’vrai dire on a entendu parler de certains
divisions entre les collègues españols, et personne ne veut s’embrouiller
dans les telles affaires’ (ASO/25–174, 4.10.1946).
In the months before his trip to Spain, Childe became increasingly
unhappy about the SEAEP not answering his letters with details of the
finances of his trip. The situation was finally saved by Blas Taracena17 and
Pericot, who managed to obtain funding for it. Childe must have asked
MacWhite for some inside information. In March MacWhite sent Childe a
letter clarifying why he had not received a reply to his letters: it was because
the SEAEP president, the Duke of Alba, was absent from Madrid. Yet he
should not worry about not having his fare and fee paid. He further
explained, no doubt influenced by Santa-Olalla’s comments to him, that his
visit to Spain had raised tensions between the CSIC and the SEAEP.
Hostility had also come from the Minister of Education, Ibáñez Marín.
Both the CSIC and the minister had tried to stop Childe’s visit, denounc-
ing Santa-Olalla ‘for the importation of dangerous communists’. However,
once they had realized that they could not do this, they had ‘decided to steal
as much of the show as possible’ (ASO/24–471, dated 1.3.[1947]). MacWhite

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

38 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

also told Childe about his own difficulties in Madrid as Santa-Olalla’s

student, for it had led to others obstructing his research: the director of the
National Archaeological Museum, for example, had denied him access to
the collections.
The correspondence in the Pericot Archive does not inform us much
about the internal politics of Spanish archaeology, probably a consequence
of the absence of the letters written by Pericot. In a draft letter, however,
he explained ‘We are preparing the summer campaign [in the Solutrian
level of the cave of Mallaetas] in spite of the difficulties you now know,
due to our interine questions’ (18.6.1947). With this Pericot was most
probably referring to his problems with Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla, the
person in charge of permits and funds for archaeological excavations
(Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez Sánchez, 2004). No record of Pericot having
applied for permission to excavate Mallaetas was found during my
research in the General Archive of the Administration (AGA Culture,
boxes 217–219) and this seems to indicate that Pericot may have excavated
without the necessary permission and without any funding from the
Spanish state. Yet we should not be surprised that he was able to do things
his way: Pericot was excellently placed in Spanish cultural life (he was in
constant contact with key ministers and civil servants) and this allowed
him to ignore the difficult Martínez Santa-Olalla. This was easy in 1947,
for Santa-Olalla’s allegiance to the Falange faction, now in decline in
Spanish politics, made him politically tainted (Díaz-Andreu, 1993: 80). As
Childe himself had experienced problems with Santa-Olalla at the time of
his visit of 1947, Pericot may have considered that he could hint to the
London professor of his own problems with Santa-Olalla.
Commenting on Taracena’s death in 1951, Childe mentioned: ‘besides
admiring his archaeological work, I liked him personally very much indeed.
It is a great loss to Spanish archaeology and I expect will be the occasion
for a lot of nasty intrigue in respect of his national functions’ (23.2.1951).
And also, in a PS, he congratulated Pericot ‘on getting Santa Olalla into
your Committee’ (23.2.1951). When in an official competition in 1954
Martínez Santa-Olalla lost his position at the University of Madrid in
competition with Martín Almagro (Díaz-Andreu, 1993: 80), Childe
commented, ‘I imagine Almagro’s appointment will cause quite a rumpus,
and be a bitter blow to our other mutual friend’ (3.3.1955). It seems clear
that Childe was, again, being ironic, talking about friendship in relation to
Santa-Olalla, especially after the events of 1952. Later on that year Santa-
Olalla had complained about Almagro’s election to the Permanent Council
of the CISPP instead of him. Childe had explained to Santa-Olalla that he,
Hawkes and Keller-Tarnuzzer18 had voted for him instead of Almagro, not
because they did not like Almagro, but because they did not think that it
was right that the three members from Spain should come from Catalonia.
Yet he added that:

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 39

. . . on the other hand one must say that you are not known personally to the
other members; as far as I know you have never taken part in a Congress
session nor have you read any paper. Even science men are predisposed in
favour of those who they have seen or heard! Naturally, after Madrid
everything will be put right. (ASO/28–78, 30.4.1952, French original,
my translation)
A few months later he wrote to Santa-Olalla thanking him for the honour
of having been sent a diploma as a member honoris causa of the Seminar
of Primitive History of Man at the University of Madrid. However, he added
at the top: ‘Please would you please take note of . . . the order, established
sixty years ago, of my names’ (ASO/28–77, 6.7.1952). He was polite but,
again, ironic.

■ CONCLUSION: POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL

INVISIBLE COLLEGES

This article has examined the impact that politics both with a big and a small
‘p’ has in archaeology. It has done so by analysing one case study, that of the
correspondence between Childe and two of his Spanish colleagues, Lluís
Pericot Garcia and Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla. Regarding Politics, this work
has highlighted that one of its effects can be seen in disciplinary memory.
Childe biographers have tended to emphasize his Marxism, but this stress
has stopped them from assessing whether this had an effect on his relation-
ships with his colleagues of different political persuasion and indirectly in
his writings. The impression given is that in some cases it did (see George
Macdonald’s, Clark’s and Piggott’s comment in Gathercole, 1994: 30 and 44),
but it did not in many other cases for, as one of his contemporaries said years
after his death, ‘few of us took his political ideas seriously’ (Mallowan, 1977:
234, in Gathercole, 1994). Yet one could contend that it has been precisely
his Marxism that has attracted so many scholars to Childe’s work. I would
also like to propose here that precisely because of this, Childe’s links with
archaeologists in countries under right-wing dictatorial regimes have
remained unmentioned. Silence, however, has the effect of erasing memory,
and such links are practically unknown by most. I have pointed out that, in
fact, the generation that started to practise in Spain about a decade after
Childe’s death was also unaware of them. Because of their age, they had not
met Childe personally and, given the political situation and Childe’s ideas,
they assumed that the Australian-born archaeologist could not possibly have
had any links with their country during his life-time. Nevertheless, the
analysis of publications (Díaz-Andreu, 1998) and of the correspondence
makes clear that Childe was indeed in contact with his Spanish colleagues
and even had a cordial relationship with some of them.19

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

40 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

The existence of contacts between archaeologists holding opposing

ideological views does not imply that political ideology was irrelevant for
them. An analysis of pre- and post-World War II archaeologists’ actions and
their writings invariably comes up with links between their ideals and their
practices and interpretations. In Childe’s case, for example, Richard
Bradley has recently pointed out how some of his excavations in Scotland
may have been politically motivated – they were organized in areas rela-
tively unimportant from an archaeological point of view, but where people
desperately needed work (Bradley, 2004: 7). The connection between
Childe’s political convictions and his publications is also well known
(Gathercole, 1994, 2000; Green, 1981; McNairn, 1980; Trigger, 1980).
Pericot’s comments in publications until the 1950s clearly reflect his con-
servatism. A couple of years before the Spanish Civil War he argued that
Spanish prehistory had been a time when all the races of the Iberian Penin-
sula had been intermingled and Spain had flourished as a centre of
European civilization, as shown by the cave art of Altamira and the creation
of the Beaker culture in the Iberian Peninsula during the Copper Age. The
Roman presence had been fundamental to Spanish history since it was at
this time that Christianity arrived in Spain (Pericot, 1934: 14, 18). A few
years later, in his 1945 prologue to the translation of Adolf Schulten’s
Geschichte von Numantia (History of Numantia), he stated that ‘few
subjects could be so pleasing to the Spaniard as that of Numantia’. This was
a politically charged comment, for Numantia, a pre-Roman city whose
population had committed suicide rather than surrender to the Romans,
had been converted into a symbol of the most right-wing conceptualization
of Spain. ‘This is so evident’, he continued, that it was unnecessary ‘to justify
the fact that a work of history published in Spain begins with a volume dedi-
cated to Numantia above all else’ (Pericot, 1945: vii–viii). In the 1950s,
however, it seems that Pericot evolved towards a more liberal Catalanism
(the vision of Catalonia as a nation, or at least a ‘special’ region within
Spain). Both Childe’s and Pericot’s attempts to understand the prehistoric
past and what they wrote were, therefore, informed by their political views.
Despite his Marxism, therefore, Childe maintained a cordial relationship
with a colleague maintaining opposing political views. This is not a unique
example, neither in the case of Childe (see examples above), nor in that of
his Spanish colleagues, as the analysis of the other correspondents of Pericot
and Santa-Olalla would show: these include a wide range of other British
and American prehistorians. Of all of them perhaps Childe’s example is the
one that best highlights the lack of impact of politics on academic friend-
ships, mainly because, as his biographies have indicated, Childe found
several means to make his ideology explicit. I would like to propose that
the disregard of the political aspect when dealing with colleagues has to be
understood in its chronological and philosophical framework: it may be

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 41

explained by pre- and post-World War II archaeologists’ belief in the

absolute value of science. Following a trend whose roots lie in early modern
humanism, and especially in the period in which science as a discipline was
founded in the seventeenth century, science was conceived as ‘value
neutral’. Archaeology was not an exception, and prehistoric archaeology, at
that time engaged in a struggle to become properly professionalized, less
so. As early as 1927 O.G.S. Crawford had been explicit about the scientific
character of (prehistoric) archaeology when he had stated that: ‘Archae-
ology is a branch of science which achieves its results by means of
excavation, fieldwork and comparative studies: it is founded upon the
observation of facts’ (Crawford, 1927: 1). As ‘scientists’, therefore, Childe
and Pericot perceived their archaeological practice as impartial, undertaken
in a neutral context, with the aim of establishing objective knowledge.
Despite their belief in ‘science’ and their reluctance to admit any influence
of politics in archaeology, some acknowledgements of this link were also
occasionally made by them. These type of comments were (and are)
generally extremely rare in scientific publications, but can be found in
obituaries and reviews about other archaeologists’ work. An example of
this has been mentioned earlier in the article, when Pericot talked about
Childe’s political views in a review of What Happened in History, and in his
obituary, distancing himself from Childe’s political and social motivations
(Pericot, 1944a, 1957: 298–9). Yet he further explained in the obituary that
Childe’s scientific honesty, his scientific value, overcame all possible biases
in his work. No mention was, however, made about the other type of politics
this article has dealt with, politics with a small p or academic politics.
Comments about this are extremely rare in publications but can be found
in correspondence (‘Even science men are predisposed in favour of those
who they have seen or heard!’ had said Childe to Santa-Olalla in 1955).
Importantly, academic politics are one of the favourite topics of con-
versation in daily interaction between academics. The scientific community,
therefore, is not a neutral place where science is produced.
In Britain, academic politics before World War II was dominated by the
efforts of a few prehistorians, who formed a power group, to establish the
authority of their discipline as a profession. A university education became
the main basis of professional archaeologists’ credentials. This group
included Childe. His circle, as gathered from the names mentioned in the
letters, was formed of the first lecturers in prehistory in British universities:
John Myres and Christopher Hawkes (Oxford), Grahame Clark, Dorothy
Garrod and Miles Burkitt (Cambridge) and Mortimer Wheeler20 (London).
The only criticism made by Childe is of a Scottish archaeologist, perhaps a
reflection of how he was treated while in Scotland, at least in his early years
there (Green, 1981: Chapter 5; and comment in Gathercole, 1994: 30).
Going back to Childe’s group, it is interesting to see how they established

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

42 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

contact with a similar group formed by the first university professors in

Spain (Pericot and others not mentioned in this article), which also
excluded some colleagues (Santa-Olalla).
As demonstrated above and in other publications, academic politics in
Spain clearly affected archaeology in its practice: who was given permits
and funds to excavate (Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez Sánchez, 2004) and who
was allowed to see what collections (see MacWhite’s comments on the diffi-
culties he had with the director of the National Archaeological Museum,
who did not want to allow him access to collections because he was Santa-
Olalla’s student). It may have also influenced the selection of regions and
sites archaeologists worked on: Pericot’s research in the Balearic Islands
seems to be linked to his avoidance of Santa-Olalla who never worked
there. Academic politics also had an effect on the conferences organized.
Conferences are used to strengthen networks of contacts in process of
formation and then serve, through publications, as nodes of knowledge for
future reference. Who is invited to them and who attends them are clues as
to the processes of knowledge-formation that help to explain why certain
ideas and practices become entrenched in academia. This takes place not
only in the local, regional and national arena, but also in the international
one, an aspect which has been briefly mentioned in this work – Santa-
Olalla’s failed attempt to organize an international palaeoethnology con-
ference in Madrid – and will be further analysed in a future work. In the
correspondence between Childe and Pericot most of the data about this
relate to the CISPP in letters exchanged between the years 1949 and 1954.
From the start of the twentieth century, prehistoric archaeologists
created a discourse ruled by university training, which became the dominant
way of understanding the most remote past. However, this discourse was
not uniform. Practices and interpretations in archaeology were, as they are
nowadays, influenced by external events archaeologists experienced. This
article has analysed a group of those, mainly international and national
politics as well as academic politics. It has shown that, even if archaeolo-
gists were influenced by their own political ideologies in their interpretation
and practice, this did not impede a good relationship between colleagues of
opposing ideologies. I would like to propose that this was partly related to
the power of academic politics in archaeology. Despite the belief then
widely held of science as value neutral, in practice alliances and enmities
play a large role in the development of prehistoric archaeology. These have
been studied under the term of ‘invisible colleges’: groups of peers, who
may hold different viewpoints, but show solidarity to each other by
establishing informal networks of communication and perhaps even extend
to formal collaboration (Becher, 2001; Crane, 1972; Price, 1965; Zuccala,
2006). The power of these networks derives from their members’ practices:
they cite each other’s works, vote for one another for committees, and
suggest their names for important posts. Yet these associations are not

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 43

immutable, but go through processes of continuous renewal of membership

and therefore are in incessant flux (Díaz-Andreu, forthcoming a). Invisible
colleges, in fact, may have different levels, for academics who have estab-
lished alliances – an invisible college – in their own country, for example
that between Pericot and Taracena, are then linked with other groups else-
where – in our case study, that formed in Britain between Childe, Myres,
Hawkes, Clark, Garrod and Burkitt. These allegiances seem to be related
more to networks of power within academia and control of its resources
than to political convictions, despite the latter’s effect on the practice of
each individual academic.

Acknowledgements
Research in Barcelona and Madrid in July 2005 was funded by a Dr M. Aylwyn
Cotton Foundation award. Further work has formed part of the AREA (Archives
of European Archaeology) IV Culture 2000 project funded by the EU. I would like
to thank Anna Gudayol and her team at the Biblioteca de Catalunya (including
Alicia Morant, Anna Nicolau and Montse Molina), as well as Marga Ruiz Gelabert
and Núria Altarriba for their help with different aspects of the Pericot Archive, and
Salvador Quero Castro for his help in the Santa-Olalla Archive. Some information
for this article has been provided by José María Fullola Pericot, Peter Gathercole,
Francisco Gracia Alonso, Valery Ivanovich Guliaev and M. Isabel Martínez Navar-
rete. Karen Exell and Angel Smith helped with English editing.

Notes
1 Although there are years with no correspondence, none of the letters hints at
evidence of others that may have gone missing. However, given that the
archive’s classification was not fully complete at the time of my research in
July 2005, there is a small chance that new letters will be discovered.
2 Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla was popularly known as Santa-Olalla, following
the Spanish custom of colloquially calling someone by their second surname
and ignoring this first one when this first surname is very common.
3 In this article I have decided to use the Catalan version of his name, Lluís
Pericot Garcia, instead of the Spanish version he had to use during the
Francoist regime, Luis Pericot García. Pere is the Catalan.
4 In Spain archaeology in its many forms (prehistoric, classical and so on) is still
generally taught as part of the History degree.
5 Pericot’s review of the archaeology of the USSR is intriguing. Perhaps it could
be understood in the framework of the political efforts undertaken by Spanish
politicians at the end of World War II to reinvent the political alliances of the
regime (Preston, 1993: 523–9).
6 All dates in parentheses correspond to letters kept in the Pericot Archive.
References of letters written by Childe do not specify author. Letters from the
Santa-Olalla Archive are identified by the inclusion of ‘ASO’ in the reference.
7 All translations from Spanish are the author’s.

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

44 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

8 This review should not be seen as an indication that Pericot may have been
sympathetic to the Allied cause during World War II. Pericot’s sympathies are
not clear either from his correspondence or from any of the published
correspondence by Bosch Gimpera (Gracia et al., 2002; Vilanova
i Vila-Abadal, 1998). On the production of What Happened . . . see Gathercole
(2000).
9 Christopher Hawkes (1905–92), assistant keeper at the British Museum (from
1928) and later Chair of European Archaeology at Oxford (1946–72).
10 Dorothy Garrod (1892–1968), Disney Chair of Archaeology at Cambridge
(1939–52).
11 Grahame Clark (1907–95), Disney Chair of Archaeology at Cambridge
(1952–74).
12 Jacquetta Hawkes (1910–96), archaeologist and one of the principal
popularizers of archaeology of her time, married to Christopher Hawkes
between 1933 and 1953.
13 Thomas Downing Kendrick (1895–1979), assistant (1922), assistant keeper
(1928), keeper (1938) and Director of the British Museum (1950–9).
14 Miles Burkitt (1890–1971), first lecturer of prehistoric archaeology in
Cambridge from 1919.
15 John Linton Myres (1869–1954), Wykeham Professor of Ancient History at
Oxford (1910–39).
16 The volumes for 1947–48, 1948–49 and 1949–50 all name Henry M. Paton MA
as Editor.
17 Blas Taracena Aguirre (1895–1951), director of the Numantine Museum
(1915–36), Archaeological Museum in Cordoba (1936–9), and director of the
National Archaeological Museum in Madrid (1939–1951).
18 Karl Keller-Tarnuzzer (1891–1973), curator of the Thurqauisches Kantonales
Museum Frauenfeld in Switzerland (Filip, 1966: 586).
19 One can only wonder whether he maintained contacts with other
archaeologists in countries such as National Socialist Germany apart from
Gerhard Bersu from 1932 (Uta Halle, pers. comm., and Evans, 1989). Childe
apparently also gave money to print a Festschift for Gustaf Kossinna’s 70th
birthday (Grünert, 2002: 323), but left Kossinna’s Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Vorgeschichtsforschung (German Society for Prehistoric Research) in 1933
(Grünert, 2002: 336), perhaps in connection to Hitler’s success in the general
election in 1933. However, Childe’s position as one of the secretaries of what
had been the Organisation Committee of the CISPP meeting in London in
1932, where many German archaeologists were present (Myres, 1932), seems
to imply that Childe may have had more contacts with his German colleagues
throughout the 1930s, but no research on this has been undertaken (Uta Halle,
pers. comm., 7.6.2006).
20 Mortimer Wheeler (1890–1976), Keeper and Director at the National Museum
of Wales in Cardiff (1920), founder of the London Institute of Archaeology
(1937), organizer of the Archaeological Survey of India (1944), secretary of the
British Academy (1949) and, in his last years, a TV personality.

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 45

References
Alcina Franch, J. (1987) ‘Dossier Autobiografía intelectual’, Anthropos 68: 6–28.
Armada Pita, X.L. (2004) ‘Pericot e a arqueoloxía galega: ensaio de aproximación’,
Gallaecia 23: 251–71.
Atkinson, J.A., I. Banks and J. O’Sullivan, eds (1996) Nationalism and Archaeology.
Glasgow: Cruithne Press.
Becher, T. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the
Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Bradley, R. (2004) ‘Stuart Piggott, Ancient Europe and the Prehistory of Northern
Britain’, in G. Shepherd and G.J. Barclay (eds) Scotland in Ancient Europe: The
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Scotland in their European Context, pp. 3–11.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Castelo Ruano, R., L. Cardito Rollán, I. Panizo Arias and I. Rodríguez Casanova
(1995) Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla: crónicas de la cultura arqueológica española.
Madrid: Published by the authors.
Childe, V.G. and W. Grant (1947) ‘A Stone Age Settlement at the Braes of Rinyo,
Rousay, Orkney (second report)’, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland 81: 16–42.
Coye, N. and N. Provenzano (1996) ‘Un Octobre Émilien: Palethnologie et senti-
ment national au lendemain de l’unification italienne’, Préhistoire Anthropologie
Mediterranées 5: 5–16.
Crane, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Crawford, O.G.S. (1927) ‘Editorial’, Antiquity 1: 1–3.
Daniel, G. (1980) ‘Editorial’, Antiquity 54: 1–6.
Díaz-Andreu, M. (1993) ‘Theory and Ideology in Archaeology: Spanish Archaeol-
ogy under the Franco Regime’, Antiquity 67: 74–82.
Díaz-Andreu, M. (1998) ‘Gordon Childe and Iberian Archaeology’, in S.O. Jorge
(ed.) Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico?, pp. 52–64. Trabalhos de Arque-
ologia 10. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia.
Díaz-Andreu, M. (2003) ‘Arqueología y dictaduras: Italia, Alemania y España’, in
F. Wulff and M. Alvarez Martí-Aguilar (eds) Antigüedad y franquismo
(1936–1975), pp. 33–74. Málaga: Diputación Provincial de Málaga.
Díaz-Andreu, M. (forthcoming) ‘Revisiting the “Invisible College”: José Ramón
Mélida as a Case Study’, in N. Schlanger and A. Schnapp (eds) Histories of
Archaeology. Oxford, New York: Berghahn.
Díaz-Andreu, M. and T. Champion, eds (1996) Nationalism and Archaeology in
Europe. London: UCL Press.
Díaz-Andreu, M. and J. Cortadella (2006) ‘Success and Failure: Alternatives in the
Institutionalisation of Pre- and Proto-history in Spain (Hernández-Pacheco,
Obermaier, Bosch Gimpera)’, in J. Callmer, M. Meyer, R. Struwe and C. Theune-
Vogt (eds) The Beginnings of Academic Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology
(1830–1930) in a European Perspective, pp. 295–305. Berliner Archäologische
Forschungen. Berlin: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Díaz-Andreu, M. and M. Ramírez Sánchez (2004) ‘Archaeological Resource
Management under Franco’s Spain: the Comisaría General de Excavaciones

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

46 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

Arqueológicas’, in M. Galaty and C. Watkinson (eds) Archaeology under

Dictatorship, pp. 109–30. Hingham, MA: Kluwer/Plenum.
Díaz-Andreu, M., G. Mora and J. Cortadella, eds (forthcoming) Diccionario
Histórico de la Arqueología en España. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Evans, C. (1989) ‘Archaeology and Modern Times: Bersu’s Woodbury 1938 & 1939’,
Antiquity 63: 436–50.
Evans, C. (1995) ‘Archaeology Against the State: Roots of Internationalism’, in
P.J. Ucko (ed.) Theory in Archaeology. A World Perspective, pp. 312–26. London:
Routledge.
Filip, J. (1966) Enzyklopädisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Europas.
Volume I [a-k]. Prag: Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Fullola i Pericot, J.M. (2002) ‘Lluís Pericot: records d’un quart de segle de con-
vivència’, in F. Gracia, J.M. Fullola Pericot and F. Vilanova (eds) 58 anys i 7 dies.
Correspondència de Pere Bosch Gimpera a Lluís Pericot (1919–1974), pp. 45–60.
Barcelona: Universidat de Barcelona.
Gathercole, P. (1982) ‘Gordon Childe: Man or Myth?’, Antiquity 56: 195–8.
Gathercole, P. (1994) ‘Childe in History’, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 31: 25–52.
Gathercole, P. (2000) ‘Childe Among the Penguins’, Australian Archaeology 50:
7–11.
Gathercole, P. (2004–6) ‘Childe, (Vere) Gordon (1892–1957)’, Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gracia, F., J.M. Fullola Pericot and F. Vilanova (2002) 58 anys i 7 dies. Cor-
respondència de Pere Bosch Gimpera a Lluís Pericot (1919–1974). Barcelona:
Universidat de Barcelona.
Green, S. (1981) Prehistorian. A Biography of V. Gordon Childe. Bradford-on-
Avon: Moonraker Press.
Grünert, H. (2002) Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931): vom Germanisten zum
Prähistoriker: ein Wissenschaftler im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik.
Vorgeschichtliche Forshungen 22. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Harris, D.R., ed. (1994) The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. London: UCL Press.
Kaeser, M.-A. (2000) ‘Nationalisme et archéologie: quelle histoire?’, Revue
d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines 2: 155–62.
Kaeser, M.-A. (2001) ‘L’internationalisation de la préhistoire, une manoeuvre
tactique? Les conséquences épistémologiques de la fondation des congrès in-
ternationaux d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques’, in C. Blanckaert
(ed.) Les politiques de l’anthropologie. Discours et practiques en France
(1860–1940) (Histoire des Sciences Humaines), pp. 201–30. Paris, Montréal,
Budapest, Torino: L’Harmattan.
Kaeser, M.-A. (2002) ‘On the international Roots of Prehistory’, Antiquity (special
section: ‘Ancestral Archives. Explorations in the History of Archaeology’) 76:
170–7.
Kohl, P.L. and C. Fawcett, eds (1995) Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, C.L. and J.K. Papadopoulos, eds (2002) The Archaeology of Colonialism.
Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute.
McNairn, B. (1980) The Method and Theory of V. Gordon Childe. Economic, Social
and Cultural Interpretations of Prehistory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

 Díaz-Andreu The invisible college 47

Mallowan, M. (1977) Mallowan’s Memoirs. London: Collins.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1941) ‘Esquema Paletnológico de la Península Hispánica’,
in J. Martínez Santa-Olalla (ed.) Corona de Estudios que la Sociedad Española
de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria dedica a sus mártires, pp. 141–66.
Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1946) Esquema Paletnológico de la Península Hispánica,
2nd edn. Madrid: Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.
Mederas, A. (2003) ‘Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla y la interpretacíón aria de la Pre-
historia de España (1939–1945)’, Boletín del Seminario de Arte y Arqueología
69: 13–56.
Meskell, L., ed. (1998) Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage
in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge.
Mishulin, A.V. (1950) Ancient Spain [in Russian]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences.
Mulvaney, J. (1994) ‘“Another University Man Gone Wrong”: V. Gordon Childe
1892–1922’, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe, pp. 55–74.
London: UCL Press.
Murray, T. (1995) ‘Gordon Childe, Archaeological Records, and Rethinking the
Archaeologist’s Project’, in P. Gathercole, T.H. Irving and G. Melleuish (eds)
Childe and Australia: Archaeology, Politics and Ideas, pp. 199–211. St Lucia, QD:
University of Queensland Press.
Murray, T., ed. (1999) Encyclopedia of Archaeology. The Great Archaeologists.
2 vols. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Myres, J.L. (1932) ‘International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archae-
ology’, Man 22: 201–19.
O’Sullivan, M. (1998) ‘Eoin MacWhite: Archaeologist, Scholar, Diplomat
(1923–1972)’, Journal of Iberian Archaeology 0: 133–42.
Pericot, L. (1934) Historia de España. Geografía histórica general de los pueblos
hispanos. Tomo I. Epocas primitiva y romana. Barcelona: Instituto Gallach.
Pericot, L. (1942) La Cueva del Parpalló (Gandía). Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Diego Velázquez.
Pericot, L. (1944a) ‘[Review of] V. Gordon Childe. What Happened in History.
Pelican Books, Londres, 1942, 252 págs.’, Ampurias 6: 355.
Pericot, L. (1944b) ‘[Review of] V. Gordon Childe. Prehistory in the USSR. I.
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (Man, XLII, núms. 58–71, septiembre–octubre, 1942,
páginas 98–103). II. The Copper Age in South Russia (Ibidem, noviembre–
diciembre, 1942, núms. 72–97, págs. 130–1)’, Ampurias 6: 356–9.
Pericot, L. (1945) ‘Prólogo’, in A. Schulten (ed.) Historia de Numancia. Colección
Histórica Laye 1, pp. i–x. Barcelona: Ed. Laye.
Pericot, L. (1950) La España Primitiva. Colección Histórica Laye VI. Barcelona:
Barna.
Pericot, L. (1957) ‘V. Gordon Childe, 1892–1957’, Zephyrus 8: 298–9.
Preston, P. (1993) Franco. A Biography. London: HarperCollins.
Price, D.d.S. (1965) Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Quero, S. (forthcoming) ‘Martínez Santa-Olalla, Julio’, in M. Díaz-Andreu (in
collaboration with G. Mora and J. Cortadera) (eds) Diccionario Histórico de la
Arqueología en España (siqios xv–xx). Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Sherratt, A. (1997) ‘V. Gordon Childe: Archaeology and Intellectual History’, in

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016

48 Journal of Social Archaeology 7(1)

A. Sherratt (ed.) Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: Changing Per-

spectives, pp. 38–70. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thomas, C., F. Mitchell and H. Kilbridge-Jones (1994) ‘Postscript: Three Recol-
lections of Childe the Man’, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The Archaeology of V. Gordon
Childe, pp. 134–40. London: UCL Press.
Trigger, B.G. (1980) Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Vilanova i Vila-Abadal, F., ed. (1998) Viure el primer exili. Cartes britàniques de Pere
Bosch i Gimpera 1939–1940. Quaderns de l’Arxiu Pi i Sunyer, núm. 2. Barcelona:
Fundació Carles Pi i Sunyer d’Estudis Autonòmics i Locals.
Vilanova i Vila-Abadal, F. (2002) ‘Guerra i mort de l’Escola de Barcelona (i de la
Universitat Autònoma). Una aproximació’, in F. Gracia, J.M. Fullola Pericot and
F. Vilanova (eds) 58 anys i 7 dies. Correspondència de Pere Bosch Gimpera a
Lluís Pericot (1919–1974), pp. 61–88. Barcelona: Universidat de Barcelona.
Wiell, S. (1999) ‘The Congress of Anthropology and Archaeology in Copenhagen
1869 – Behind the Stage’, Antiquity 73(279): 136–42.
Zuccala, A. (2006) ‘Modeling the Invisible College’, Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology 57(2): 152–68.

MARGARITA DÍAZ-ANDREU is a Senior Lecturer in the Department

of Archaeology, Durham University. She has authored and edited books
on Spanish archaeology (1994, 1997, 1998), nationalism and archaeology
(1996, 2001), history of women in archaeology (1998) and the archae-
ology of identity (2005). Her next book will be A World History of
Nineteenth-Century Archaeology (OUP, 2007).
[email: M.Diaz-Andreu@durham.ac.uk]

Downloaded from jsa.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on October 5, 2016