Theory and Ideology in Archaeology - Spanish Archaeology Under the Franco Regime - Diaz-Andreu

Theory and ideology in archaeology: Spanish archaeology under the Franco

rhgime

MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU"

Archaeology is notoriously vulnerable to the ideological pressures of authoritarian regimes. This paper charts the political influences that shaped archaeology in Spain for some 40 years. Following the Civil War Spanish archaeologists were isolated from main-

stream theoretical evolution, a situation that was exacerbated by the exile of some leading figures. The centralizing authoritarianism of the Franco r6gime stifled regional autonomy in administration and research, and key archaeological appointments went to committed

supporters of the rkgime.

The cur-rent debate on the theoretical and methodological situation in Spanish archaeology (e.g. Alcina Franch 1975; Various authors 1984, 1985; Lull 1991, Martinez Navarrete 1989; VBzquez Varela & Risch 1991) stresses the broad predominance of the culture-historical method, the slow and incomplete accep- tance of new techniques in field work, in data analysis (palaeobotany, radiocarbon, statisti- cal analysis, etc) and a broad ignorance of the more up-and-coming trends in international archaeology. This situation, in addition to more recent problems (Vicent 1991), shows, since the 1980s, some positive changes (Chapa 1988). Some authors have even said, perhaps with excessive optimism, that Spanish archaeology has overtaken that of other continental European countries - except Scandinavia and the Netherlands - in aban- doning the traditional perspective and adopt- ing the functionalist [processual and marxist) approach in research (Gilman 1991). However, in spite of the present transformation of Spanish archaeology and its lesser sci- entific innocence, and in contrast to other countries such as Great Britain (Shanks & Tilley 1987: chapter 7 ) , the debate on the political role of archaeology has only just begun. Nonetheless the subject has recently been mentioned in more than one article in the Congreso de Historiogrufia de la

Arqueologia y de l a Historia Antigua en Espafia edited by Arce & Olmos in 1991.

This paper deals with theory and ideology after the Spanish Civil War (1936-9). It is argued that the causes which have motivated present over-use of a 19th-century theoretical perspective [broadly abandoned in the Anglo- Saxon world since the 1950s, and partly in other countries), were caused by the organization of archaeology after the Civil War. On the other hand this period is analysed as an example of archaeology's lack of political innocence. This is shown in research aims and interpretations made at this time, and in the way they were progressively abandoned parallel to the changes in Spanish politics.

Major changes took place in the Spanish academic world at the end of the Civil War. These were reflected in the exile of a large number of intellectuals that had dominated the cultural scene since the beginning of the century. The availability of their posts to researchers who were very young allowed the organization formed at this time to continue [with only minor changes) until the 1980s, when most of these people retired. In archaeology this breach was marked by the exile or substitution of BarandiarBn, Bosch Gimpera and Obermaier, and by institutional reorganization. However, it was accompanied by continuity at a theoretical level, because of the

* Departamento de Prehistoria, IJniversidad Complutense, 28010 Madrid, Spain

ANTIQ~JITY 67 (1993): 74-82

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FRANC0 REGIME 75

enduring influence of the German School. This theoretical stagnation can be attributed to a number of factors, the principal one being that the new organizers of Spanish archaeology had been the disciples of their predeces- sors, and also because in most cases both old and young had been awarded scholarships to spend some time in Germany or Austria.

The isolation of Spanish science also played a role, although not during the years immediately following the Civil War. International collaboration with the Franco regime was evident, for example, in the inter- change between the French government of Vichy and Spain, in which archaeological objects such as the Iberian sculpture of the Lady of Elche and the Visigothic crowns of Guarrazar were returned to Spain. Another example can be seen in the involvement of Austrians, Argentinians, Belgians, Yugoslavs (Slovenians), Germans, Italians and Portuguese in a book dedicated to the martyrs of the Civil War, edited by Martinez Santa- Olalla in 1941. This period of collaboration came to an end when it was clear that the allies were going to win the Second World War and after the final victory over the German troops.

Since World War 11, both external circum- stances [the international boycott) and those within (the difficulty of studying outside Spain) have resulted in the effective isolation of Spanish science. However, other European countries with greater possibilities for external communication showed a similar static tendency with regard to theory which contin- ues to be more evident at the present moment (Shennan 1987: 365) than in Spain. The exception in Europe is British archaeology because of its changes in the 1960s. It has to be seen within the context of North American cultural influence, yet revolutionary personal- ities in its archaeology, such as Childe, were not recognized in their time. It can therefore be asserted that, although the Franco regime signified an ideological control over all branches of science, on the other hand the reaction to the Franco regime stimulated reflexion and led to a progressive stance by the younger generation who are now the ones carrying out the renovation of Spanish archae-

Archaeology was not an important feature in the creation of national myths during the

ology.

Franco period. On the contrary to Nazi Germany, prehistory was scarcely used outside the confines of academic circles to validate nationalistic aims. Francoist Spain legitimized its authoritarianism by reference to the Union of Faith, fought for in the Middle Ages and achieved after the expulsion of Muslims and Jews, to the (theoretical) union of Spain under the Catholic Kings in the 15th century, and to the imperial past of Spain. Francoist Spain took the concept of nation- hood from the Falange, the Spanish version of fascism created by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. In the early 1930s he defined a nation as not ‘a geographical, ethnic or linguistic reality, [but], essentially, a historical unit . . . [which had] a single destiny in its history’ (Primo de Rivera in Textos de doctrina politi- ca, quoted in Ploncard 1971: 223). This concept led to the condemnation of ethno-nations and regions as threatening to the unity of the country. (A distinction is made between Catalan, Basque and Galician ethno-nations, and state-nations, in this case Spain.) The concept of a Spain, as the slogan said, ‘one, great and free’ was underlined. Spanish prehistory, a set of different regional ’cultures’, was thus outside the sphere of propaganda of the union of the nation. The Imperial Roman past of Spain was the most ancient reference to be found in a school history book published in the first years after the Civil War. In a preliminary chapter explaining the concept of Empire, a section was entitled ‘Spain’s attempts to be an Empire in Roman times’. The text went as follows (Cerceda 1942):

There are some people born with a God-given pre- destination to certain actions. Our people [meaning Spain] felt quite soon, when Rome yoked Spain to its cart, the imperial vocation of its destiny . . . This great Roman mission annulled our innate tendency to disintegrate, and it created, at least among the noble and ruling classes, an aware, united and organized people to carry out the task of an Empire. When penetrated and dominated by Christianity, its religious character will endure forever in its uni- versal actions.

In spite of official indifference to prehistory in particular, and to archaeology in general, some archaeologists did their best to justify the Spanish union in prehistoric times. As early as 1938, during the Civil War, Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla unified the whole

7 6 MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREIJ

Iberian peninsula in the Bronze Age under the Argarian culture, although it had been con- fined to a much smaller area in the southeast of Spain (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1941; 1946). This idea was followed by other archaeologists, such as J. de la Mata Carriazo, who used it in the first volume of the Historia d e Espaiia edited by Menendez Pidal in 1947. In this same work the archaeologist Albert0 del Castillo characterized the Beaker complex as the first Hispanic culture, which later expand- ed beyond the territory of the Iberian peninsula. This assertion opened the way for others, such as T. Ortego, to speak about the first Spaiiish Empire. But, in spite of attempts made by aiililspologists, and perhaps because of his liberal ideology, Menendez Pidal rooted the Spanish nation in medieval times.

Archaeologists after the Civil War did not often openly express their political opinions, perhaps because of the lack of interest in archaeology by the regime, and also in part because some of them had to keep a low pro- file because of their previous political affilia- tions (although some underwent a genuine political transformation and become supporters of Franco’s regime). As a consequence there were very few references to the relation- ship of archaeology to conteniporary condi- tions. However, in the first issues of journals after the war, one finds an almost obligatory reference to Franco’s triumph together with his portrait, and sometimes references to archaeologists who died in the war. Opinions such as those of a young archaeologist, Carlos Alonso del Real, of pro-German falangist ideology - it is important to distinguish between a pro-Italian and a pro-German faction in the Spanish Falange - were not usual. He argued that among the social functions of archaeology a distinction had to be made between religious propaganda, that of politics and that of tourism (Alonso del Real 1946). This apparent neutrality and the continuity on a theoretical level are factors Gilman (1991) has stressed to assert that post-war Spanish archaeology was similar to the previous one, apart from the change in its leaders, and that a normative archaeology continued to be practised. However, this type of theory continued to be used until the late 1950s in the whole western academic world, and is still in operation in almost all continental Europe today. On the contrary, Spanish archaeology did show

changes which affected it profoundly, because it was at this moment that a new system of archaeological organization was generated. It only came to an end after the successive open- ings of the regime, its end, the change of the political system and the retirement of its more influential protagonists. This breach has been specially marked since the 1980s.

After the Civil War, Spanish archaeology reorganized to adapt itself to the new authoritarian regime. It was characterized by its cen- tralization directed from the capital, Madrid, and as a consequence by the disappearance of all the non-state ethno-national institutions. These had appeared at the beginning of the century in regions with an ethno-national identity: Catalonia, the Basque country, Galicia and Valencia. In archaeology these institutions were in Catalonia the Servei d ’In vestigacions Arqu eologiqu e s ; in the Basque country the Centro de Investigaciones Prehistdricas de Alava; in Galicia sections of Prehistory and Archaeology and History of Art in the Seminnrio de Estudios Galegos; and in Valencia the Servei d e Investigacio Prehistdrica. Each one had organized its own ethno-national archaeological research. Only the last-named survived after the war, precise- ly in the region with the lowest level of ethno- national identity. This institution was then rechristened Servicio d e Investigaciones Prehistdricas, the Spanish translation of its former Valencian name.

In fact the Spanish archaeological reorganization was similar to that in France or Italy. It had a hierarchical system with regard to the territory it administered: all Spain, with its seat in the capital of the state, Madrid; provinces or islands; and local areas. This centralist policy was characterized not only by the dominance of Madrid over the rest of the Spanish territory, but also by the concen- tration of power in the hands of a few people loyal to the regime, principally Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla, Joaquin Maria de Navascues y de Juan, Martin Almagro Basch and Isidro Ballester Tormo; and others accepted by it, scch as Blas Taracena Aguirre and Antonio Garcia Bellido.

Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla, a pro-German falangist and son of a high-ranking military official who had fought for Franco, was put in charge of the organization of the administration of Spanish archaeology through the Cornisaria


Gen era1 d e Excavaciones Arqu eol dgicas (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1946). The Cornisaria General d e Excavaciones Arqueologicas replaced the Seccidn d e Excavaciones d e la Junta Superior del Tesoro Artistic0 (1933-9), which in turn had replaced the Junta Superior de Excavaciones y Antiguedades (1912-33). It was a poorly functioning state institution supported by provincial and local branches. The task was patchily carried out because the means to achieve its aims - to take care of new finds, protect them and inspect the work of profes- sional archaeologists -were not defined. For all these objectives the system relied almost entire- ly on personal initiative, virtually without official economic support. This system encouraged unqualified people, who could combine their paid professions with their more-or-less official unpaid posts in archaeology. In addition to this populist policy, Martinez Santa-Olalla used to ignore other academics (del Castillo 1949) who were in general less enthusiastic about Francoism. Criticisms were soon forthcoming (Sanchez Jimenez 1946; Velasco Rodriguez 1946; and del Castillo 1949). Martinez Santa- Olalla was also the director of the Sociedad Espaiiola d e Antropologia, Etnografia y Prehistoria (S.E.A.E.P.).

Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla also occupied the chair of Ethnology and Prehistory in the University of Madrid, which replaced that of Primitive History previously occupied by Obermaier from 1922 to 1936. Obermaier, a German priest, fled to Germany and Switzerland during the Civil War, because ‘he was not an example of German bravery’ (Caro Baroja 1978: 318). His non-involvement in the Civil War was the main factor that stopped him from taking up his chair again (Caro Baroja 1978: 318 and pers. comm.), although he had always believed, during the Civil War, that he would be able to return to Spain. In a letter sent on 1 April 1938 to the philosopher Ortega y Gasset, Obermaier explained that Pedro Sainz, Minister of National Education, expected him to return and work again in Spain when the universities re-opened. This letter could be understood as a manoeuvre to prevent Obermaier from returning to Spain because of his previous refusal to return during the Civil War. But it is also important to bear in mind that Pedro SBinz fled after the Civil War to join Don Juan, the heir to the Royal Crown.

As the leader of all these institutions, Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla controlled a large number of publications (Informes y Memorias de la Comisaria General d e Excavaciones, the main publication in Spain on site reports between 1942 and 1956; Acta Arqueoldgica Hispdnica; Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva (published since 1946); and Atlantis: Actas y Memorias d e la Sociedad Espaiiola d e Antropologia, Etnografia y Prehistoria (published in its new series after the Civil War since 1940).)

The ideology of Martinez Santa-Olalla was expressed in the foreword to the first issue of Atlantis (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1940):

After the Victory, and because of the revolutionary obligation we have, the sciences to which this soci- ety [the S.E.A.E.P.] dedicates itself have to reach a high level of development. It is essential to know the Spanish people in depth, all which is really traditional among them, to discover the components of our lineage, as is done i n Anthropology. It is essential to search for our deepest roots in time, going back through millennia to broaden our historical perspective, as Prehistory does. It is essential, after clarifying elements of Europeanness and Africanness in Spain, to expose our dual Euro- African destiny [all that remained of the Spanish Empire at that moment were the colonies of Spanish Guinea, and Spanish Morocco. It is also important to note the imperialist ambit ions of Franco in Morocco, which were not supported by Hitler (Preston 1990: 67-8).] Finally it wi l l be Ethnography which permits us to see the grandeur of a Spanish Empire, with n o historical parallel, and the possibilities of a future one.

The pro-German inclinations of Martinez Santa-Olalla, who lectured in Bonn from 1927 to 1931, were evident in his studies on the Visigoths and in the involvement of German archaeologists in his excavations, the finds of some of which went to Das Ahnenerbe (see Arnold (1990: 469) in Berlin (Werner 1946: 50). Although it may appear to be inconsistent, a close academic friendship between Martinez Santa-Olalla and Childe must be noted. While this friendship between the falangist and the marxist was long-lasting, it was Martinez Santa- Olalla’s commitment to a deeply conservative view of Spain which conflicted with his pro- German sentiments. They led him to a radical change in his point of view and the rejection of his former ideology (Martinez Santa-Olalla 1946). The fact that this took place in 1946,

78 MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

after the end of the World War 11, may also have played a part in this change.

Joaquin Maria de Navascues y de Juan was put in charge of the reorganization of museums, which also adopted a territorial hierar- chization: state, province or island, local and monographic. Like Martinez Santa-Olalla, he asked for a commitment from the public, which included private economic subsidies. He appealed to people’s patriotic sentiments for contributions (de Navascues 1946). This system led to the beginning of the state’s lack of interest in providing reasonable economic support for museums.

A new name appeared in archaeology in Barcelona: Martin Almagro Basch, a non- Catalan who took over the posts left by the exiled Pere Bosch Gimpera. He was appointed to the chair at the University of Barcelona. He became director of the Museum of Archaeology, which was opened again in 1940, and began to publish the journal Ampur ias . Almagro Basch was also put in charge of the Ampurias excavation (Ampurias is the Spanish translation of the Catalan EmpuriGs or the Latin Emporion., had been one of the pillars of Catalan ethno-nationalism since the beginning of the century.), and from 1947 organized international courses collahor- ating with the Inst i tuto Internazionale di S tud i Liguri, and the former Italian fascist Lamboglia. Almagro Basch’s task was not a simple one. He had to transform Catalan archaeology, characterized until the Civil War by a deep ethno-national basis, into an archaeology which was at the service of the state. His objectives were defined in the editorial of the first issue of Ampurias:

This is the birth of Ampurias , a review of Archaeology, Prehistory and Ethnography, following the triumph of our National Movement [The Movimiento Nacional was the sole party created by Franco from a cluster of former parties such as Falange, the Carlists, etc.] (. . .). It owes its exis- tence to the efforts of the Diputaci6n de Barcelona, which has been supporting this kind of research for some years now (. . .) through its Servicio dc Investigaciones Arqueolbgicas.

The aim of the first paragraph was unequiv- ocal; to make clear his commitment to the Franco regime and to restrict Catalan archaeology to that of Barcelona. To achieve this end he reduced the pre-war area covered by the

former Servei d’InvestigacionsArqueologiques, now known by its Spanish name as Servicio de Investigaciones Arqueoldgicas, from all of Catalonia to Barcelona alone. In this way Almagro Basch was able to appropriate the whole previous infrastructure (the best in Spain), transforming its contents and extract- ing all its implications of Catalan ethno- nationalism. The text continued:

The Museo Arqueologico through its Servicio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas has cleaned up and begun to reinforce the ruins of Ampurias. They were abandoned and savagely mutilated by the Red Separatists. Without any respect, they installed coastal artillery, destroying houses and walls to make broad corridors without any archaeological surveillance. All this was undertaken more in the cause of barbarism than for any military logic.

In this paragraph there is deliberate omission of the bombing of Roses carried out by the ‘Nationals’ in which two bombs were dropped on Ampurias (Ruiz de Arhulo 1991: 169). He explained the choice of the name of the review:

Ampurias was the most western Greek city of the Mediterranean. It is here that the Romans disem- barked for the first time [in Hispania] . . . After the Roman conquest, Spain was never again a land of tribes, but an imperial territory.

In this way the roots of Imperial Spain were sought in Roman times, and even in Greek pre- Roman times. It coincides with the order in which the interests of the review were dis- played, in which (classical) archaeology took precedence over prehistory [see first and final paragraph).

In his final paragraph Almagro Basch expressed the idea of a united Spanish people, in this way rejecting yet again the identity of the Catalan Nation.

Ampurias wil l publ ish research articles on Archaeology, Prehistory and Ethnography, which focus mainly on Spain, on the history of the forma- tion of our People and the study of the classic and Mediterranean foundations of our culture.

In Valencia, Isidro Ballester Tormo, director of the Servei de Investigacio Prehistorica of Valencia since its beginnings in the 1920s and deputy during the Second Republic for a conservative party, continued after the war as director of S.I.P. and its museum, and was


leader of the provincial branch of the Comisaria d e Excavaciones Arqueoldgicas (Primitivo Gdmez 1945: 41). From 1941 he was a member of the Archaologischen Znstitut Deutschen Reiches of Berlin.

Ballester Tormo was one of the first to take dissident action in the face of state archaeology. He dared to publish a whole issue of the Serie de Treballs S o h (the fifth) of the Servei d’Znvestigaci6 Prehistorica in Valencian (renamed after the Civil War Serie de Trabajos Varios and Servicio d e Znvestigacidn Prehistorica respectively) in the first years of the Franco regime. He achieved this by chang- ing the year in which it had been published, making it 1937, when in reality it was published after the war. Some ‘necessary explana- tions’ were given in Spanish on the first page of the issue. It was stated that to translate the whole text into Spanish would have been too costly. Ballester Tormo (1949) also supported the hypothesis of the Catalan Tarradell (1947; 1950) against that of a united Spain under Bronze Age Argarian culture. Tarradell divid- ed the Iberian Peninsula into different areas, as was done before the Civil War. But, despite this dissention, the Valencian country did not play a particularly aggressive role. These minor ‘freedoms’ were only allowed thanks to the conservative ideology of its leader, and to a low level of ethno-nationalist sentiment in Valencia.

Blas Taracena Aguirre had been a republi- can but, horrified by the excesses of the Republicans in the Civil War (Blas Taracena del Piiial pers. comm.), he fled to France, but afterwards he returned to National Spain in the middle of the War. He was appointed as director of the Museo Arqueologico Nacional, and in 1940, together with Antonio Garcia Bellido (Professor of (Classical) Archaeology in the University of Madrid), organized the Department of Classical Archaeology in the Institute Diego Vel6zquez of the newly created Consejo Superior d e Znvestigaciones Cientificas (C.S.I.C.). Prehistory did not appear in this institution until the 1950s.

The reason why Blas Taracena Aguirre was not politically prosecuted because of his ideas had probably, as in the case of other Castilians, to do with the influence of the Marquis of Lozoya, the Director-General of Fine Arts (Director General de Bellas Artes) from 1939 to 1951. In the editorial of the first

post-war issue of Archivo Espafiol d e Arqueologia the Marquis of Lozoya summa- rized the spirit of the Velazquez Institute of the C.S.I.C. in a very significant way: at no time is Franco referred to in person, and there are numerous positive references to the past (MarquBs de Lozoya 1940-41):

The most urgent task for the Spaniards at this moment is to repair the damages of the war, to return to interrupted work and infuse it with the high aspirations which are the essence of Franco’s Spain. The study of our art [The Institute undertook research in history and art, and the Marquis of Lozoya in art], the singular value of Hispanic culture, through which our Fatherland never lost its status as a leading power, was one of the tasks on which our intellectuals worked with enthusiasm and progress before 1936. It is necessary to continue this work, which was interrupted by the great events of the last few years, with the optimism and joyfulness of all areas of Spanish life after the Victory . . . These are the main lines of the plan which our Institute initiates with the help of God and to the good and glory of Spain.

The task carried out by Blas Taracena Aguirre in the Basque country can be inter- preted as a way, first, to keep away from Madrid in difficult times, and secondly, to do something especially pleasing to the regime to ‘cleanse’ his past. Since the beginning of the century, and particularly since 1917, the leaders of Basque archaeology had been Aranzadi, Eguren and Barandiaran. It is no coincidence that the first two were physical anthropolo- gists. Since Sabino Arana, the father of Basque ethno-nationalism, the superiority of the Basque race had been assumed because of its purity and antiquity, the latter based on its linguistic uniqueness (Basque is not an Indo- European language). Up to the time of the Civil War, archaeology in the Basque country aimed at documenting the prehistoric origins of the Basque people, and to those ends a large number of dolmens and other prehistoric sites were excavated. The retirement of Aranzadi (1931), the illness of Eguren (1922), the death of both (1945 and 1944 respectively) and the exile of Barandiaran left a gap in archaeological research. It was initially filled only to a certain extent by Blas Taracena Aguirre together with Fernandez de AvilBs. In this case the main aim of the research was to document the presence of Celtic-lndo-

80 MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

European invasions in the Basque country, in particular at a site just 9 km from Guernica (Taracena Aguirre & F e r n h d e z de Avil6s 1945). Celtic remains of a possible invasion dated to the 6th century BC equated Basque protohistory with the rest of northern Spain, the opposite of the claims of Barandiarh’s and Bosch Gimpera’s thesis.

Therefore, in the first decade of the Franco regime, Spanish archaeology was transformed from a discipline which was developing progressively to a secondary activity that was poorly subsidized, strongly controlled and centralized from Madrid by a new group of archaeologists. These were younger and loyal to the regime, to a certain extent isolated from the international scene and anxious to reha- bilitate the past importance of archaeology, carrying out new interpretations of history which matched the new political situation. However, it would be wrong to consider Spanish archaeology from 1939 to 1975 (the year in which Franco died, and, with him, the dictatorship) as something uniform and without any changes.

Despite the fact that the institutional base of the whole Francoist period was established in the first decade of the regime, the new international order after World War I1 provoked important internal transformations in Francoist policy, and as a consequence in Spanish archaeology. These changes were reflected in the fight between the different fac- tions that supported Franco, and at this time the Falange was displaced by the Opus Dei. 1953 and 1954 were key years for Spanish archaeology. At this time the oposicion of the chair that Julio Martinez Santa-Olalla unoffi- cially occupied was announced, and it was awarded to Martin Almagro Basch. (Martinez Santa-Olalla occupied Obermaier’s chair. As by that time Obermaier had died, they were able to offer the chair to the winner of a com- petitive examination called oposicibn. In Spain this is the system by which such posts are filled.) This was the beginning of the decline of the importance of Martinez Santa- Olalla. The arrival of Almagro Basch in Madrid led to the creation of the Department of Prehistory in the C.S.I.C., and his departure from Barcelona led to Catalan archaeology being run once again by Catalans. Almagro Basch was replaced by Pericot, a former disci- ple of Bosch Gimpera. The latter, although he

could not return to Spain, was allowed to publish there again (for example in 1954 and 1956) . Ba rand ia rh returned from exile in 1953, and took up his position as leader of Basque archaeology. In spite of all these changes, Spanish archaeology continued in a state of isolation, still retaining pre-war theoretical schemes with a progressive loss of con- tent. Fifteen years had to pass before a new change came about.

The expansion of the Spanish universities in the 1970s allowed a new generation access to academic posts at the lower end of the scale. Most of them did not support the Francoist regime, but more liberal ideologies were still politically censored. Despite that, there was a disjunction between their (more or less) political activities and the archaeology practised. This can be explained by various factors: first, by the system of access and pro- motion to the academic posts, which depend- ed on the older generation; secondly by their own academic training, received exclusively from their superiors; and finally by the isolation of Spanish archaeology. The younger generation’s possibilities for communication with other countries were severely limited, because of the lack of grants and the high cost of living in western European countries and in the USA in relation to Spain. In addition, the effect of confining archaeology exclusively to Spanish territory produced a lack of interest in international archaeology. As a result of these factors few changes had taken place by the end of the 1970s.

The institutional transformation of Spanish archaeology during the 1980s to fit the new territorial distribution of the State into 1 7 autonomous regions had been accompanied by a lesser one at a theoretical level. The latter was made possible by the above-mentioned younger generation,who entered as university staff in the 1970s. They were promoted with unusual rapidity, in part due to the retirement of the great protagonists of Francoist archaeology, and in part due to the expansion of universities in the 1970s and 1980s. Although new perspectives have begun to be introduced slowly but firmly, we still have to wait for Spanish archaeology to show an effective change in the theoretical field.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Manuel I’erriandez-Miranda, Mike Rowlands, Vicente Cacho,

THEORY AND IDEOLOGY IN ARCHAEOLOGY: SPANISH ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER THE FKANCO RBGIME RI

Ricardo Olmos, Juan Zozaya and many others too numerous to mention tor their comments on this work; Carlos Alonso del Real, Julio Caro Baroja and Blas Taracena del Pifial for their numerous contributions helping me to discover that which had never before been written: and to

References ALCINA FKANCH, J. 1975. La arqueologia

antropologica e n Espafia: situacion actual y perspectivas, Primera reunion de antropologos espaiioles, Seville 1973: 47-62. Seville.

ALMAGRO BASCH, M. 1939. Without title, Ampurias 1.

ALONSO DEL REAL, C. 1946. Funcion social del arqueologo, Boletin Arqueologico del Sudeste Espaiiol4-7: 33-43.

ARCE, J. & R. OLMOS (ed.). 1991. Historiografia de la Arqueologia y d e la Historia An t igua en Espaiia (siglos XVllI-XX). Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.

ARNOLD, B. 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitar- ian archaeology in Nazi Gemany. Antiquity 64: 464-78.

BOSCH GIMPERA, P. 1954. La Edad del Bronce en la Peninsula IbBrica, A r c h i v o Espaf iol de Arqueologiu 27: 45-92.

1956. (Ed.). Las razas humanas. Su vida, sus cos- tumbres , su his toria, su arte. 4th edition. Barcelona: Instituto Gallach de libreria y edi- ciones.

CAR0 BAROJA, J. 1979. Los Baroja. Madrid: Ed. Taurus. Reprinted 1986.

DEL CASTlLI.0, A. 1928. La cultura del vaso cam- paniforme. Su origen y extension e n Europa. Barcelona: [Jniversidad de Barcelona.

1949. El sistema actual de excavaciones y su reforma, IV Congreso Arqueologico dsl Sudeste Espai iol , Elche 1948: 72-9. Cartagena: Publicaciones de la Junta Municipal de Arqueologia y del Museo de Cartagena.

CERCEDA, F. 1942. Historia del imperio espafiol y d e la h i s p a n i d a d . 2nd edition. Madrid: Ed. Raz6n y fe.

CIIAPA, T. 1988. Perspectivas actuales de la arqueologia espaiiola, Revista d e Occ iden te 81:

DIJPRE, X. , J . ORIOL GRANADOS, E. J U N Y E N T , X. NIETO, N. RAFEL & F. TARRATS. L’arqueologia catalana-11. De la postguerra als anys setanta,

GILMAN, A. 1991. Politics and paradigm shifts in S p a n i s h archaeology. Chicago: American Anthropological Association.

LUCAS PELLICER, R. 1991. La arqueologia no profe- sional: antecedentes y panorama actual, in Arce & Ohnos (ed.): 237-42.

LULL, V. 1991. La prehistoria de la teoria arqueolog- ica e n el Estado espafiol, i n Vila (ed.),

135-42.

L‘A~enc 91: 64-71.

Rosemary McShane for the correction of the English version of the paper, which was written during my post-doc- toral stay in the Department of Anthropology, Iiniversity College London, thanks to a Fleming grant from the British Coiinc:il.

Arqueologia: 231-50. Madrid: Consejo Superior de lnvestigaciones Cientificas.

MARQUES DE LOZOYA. 1940-41. Without title, Archivo Espaiiol de Arqueologia 14: 3-4.

MARTINEZ NAVARRE’I’E, M.I. 1989. lina revisi6n critica d e la prehistoria espaiiola: la Edad del Bronce como paradigma. Madrid: Ed. Siglo XXI.

1990. La prehistoria espafiola en 10s ultirnos ciri- cuenta afios: teoria y prgctica, Hispania LIZ,

MARTINEZ SANTA-OLALLA, J. 1940. Without title, At lan t i s : A c t a s y Memorias de la Sociedad Espaf iola d e Antropologici, Etnografia y Prehistorin 1: 7-9.

1941. Corona d e Estudios que In Sociedad Espafiola d e Antropologia, Etnografia y Prehistoria dedica a s u s martires. Madrid: Consejo Superior d e Investigaciones Cientificas.

1946. Esquenia paletnologico d e la Peninsula Hispunica . Madrid : Pu blicacion es d el Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.

1946. La Comisaria General de Excavaciones Arqueologicas. Balance de la labor realizada, I1 Congreso Arqueologico del Sureste Espaiiol: 5 3-9.

MENENDEZ PIDAL, R. 1947. Historia de Espafin. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

DE NAVASCUES, J.M. 1942. Instrucciones para l a redaccidn del inventario general, catdlogos y registros en 10s znuseos servidos por el cusrpo facu l ta t i vo d e archiveros, Oibliotecarios y arque6logos. Madrid: Ministerio de Education Nacional.

1946. La funcidn del museo provincial y del museo local, Boletin Arqueologico del Sudeste

PLONCARD, J . 1971. Doctrinas del n a c i o n d i s m o Barcelona: Ed. Acervo.

PRESTON, P. 1990. The politics of revenge. F O S C ~ S I I ~ and t h e mi l i t a ry in 20 th cen tury Spain. London: IJnwin Hyman.

1’RIMlTIVO GOMEZ, N. 1945. Discurso contestacihn dc D.N. Primitivo Gbrnez, in Discursos lsidos en la sesidn inaugural del curso y de recepcion de D. Isidro Ballester Tormo: 33-43. Valencia: Centro de Cultura Valenciana.

RUIZ DE ARBIJLO, J . 1991. Excavaciones en Ampurias , 1908-1936, i n Arce & Olmos:

SANCHEZ JIMENEZ, J. 1946. Campafias misioneras

175: 439-57.

E~pafioI 4-7: 371-83.

167-72.

8 2 MARGARITA D~AZ-ANDREU

arqueolbgicas, Boletin Arqueoldgico del Sudeste EspaAol4-7: 29-32.

SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1987. Social theory and archaeology. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.

SHENNAN, S. 1987. Trends i n the s tudy of later European prehistory, Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 165-82.

TARACENA AGUIRRE, B. & A. FERNANDEZ DE AVILES. 1945. Memorias sobre las excavaciones en el Castro de Navcirniz (Vizcaya). Vizcaya: Junta de Cultura de la Exma. D i p u t a c i h de Vizcaya.

TARRADELL, M. 1947. Sobre la delimitacibn geogrh- fica d e la Cultura de l Argar, Boletin Arqueoldgico del Sudeste Espafiol4-7: 139-45.

1950. La Peninsula IbBrica en la epoca del Argar, V Congreso Arqueoldgico del Sureste Espafiol y I Congreso Nacional Arqueoldgico: 72-85. Cartagena: Publicaciones de la Junta Municipal de Arqueologia y del Museo de Cartagena.

VAZQUEZ VARELA, J.M. & R. RISCH. 1991. Theory in Spanish archaeology since 1960, in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory in Europe: the last three decades: 25-51, London: Routledge.

VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, V. 1946. Prestigio d e Comisario Provincial de Excavaciones Arqueolbgicas, Boletin Arqueoldgico del Sudeste Espafiol4-7: 28-9.

VICENT, J. 1991. Arqueologia y filosofia: la teoria critica, Trabajos de Prehistoria 48: 29-36.

VARIOUS AUTHORS. 1984. Primeras jornadas de metodologia de la investigacidn prehistorica, Soria 1983. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.

1985. Acfas de las I1 Jornadas de metodologia y de didrictica de la historia, prehisforia y arqueologia, Caceres 1981.

WERNER, J. 1946. Las excavaciones del Seminario de Historia Prirnitiva del Hombre en 1941, en el cementerio visigodo de Castiltierra (Segovia). Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva I(1): 46-50.

Documents

Theory and Ideology in Archaeology - Spanish Archaeology Under the Franco Regime - Diaz-Andreu