{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020858895705521473, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.0344827586206895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Contesting Culture Histories in Archaeology and Their Engagement with Marx

The discipline of archaeology, as the study of the vast history of human life on the planet, continually confronts the problems of writing about this past. Theorists differentiate themselves by arguing about the relative importance of understanding the sweep of history, the mechanics of culture, and the complexity of the material record. Callinicos's recent thinking on what constitutes a satisfying historical understanding from a Marxist perspective, and a consideration of competing histories developed from Deerfield, Massachusetts, provide the springboard for arguing that all three dimensions—history, theory, and complex data, without privileging one over the other—are necessary for a successful, politically engaged archaeology.