CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Anthropological Studies and InsightsPolitical Economy and MarxismHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Dialoguing with the Ghost of Marx: Mode of Production in Archaeological Theory

Saitta, Dean J.·2005·Critique of Anthropology
DOI 10.1177/0308275x05048611
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Eric Wolf’s ‘Modes of Production’ chapter in Europe and the People without History is a masterful reconceptualization of a key interpretive and tactical concept in the Marxian storehouse of ideas. The concepts of kin-ordered, tributary and capitalist mode of production capture important differences in the ways that human groups produce and distribute social surplus across space and time. Wolf’s formulation thus sends an important message about the specific kinds of social processes that are of analytical interest. It also supports the more activist goal of clarifying exactly how the present is different from the past so as to stimulate critical reflection and debate. This article considers how Wolf’s work has been engaged by archaeologists and how we might more fully redeem and extend his insights for an explanatory and emancipatory archaeology.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Saitta reviews how archaeologists took up Eric Wolf's reconceptualization of mode of production in *Europe and the People without History*, arguing that the field's rush to theorize power has crowded out Marx's concept of class. He proposes preserving the distinction between class and class division (and domination vs. exploitation) to build a more explanatory and emancipatory archaeology.

Key findings

  • Wolf's typology of kin-ordered, tributary and capitalist modes of production gave archaeologists a labor-theoretic alternative to classifying societies by levels of social integration or subsistence form, and made kinship a source of conflict rather than only a mechanism of containment.
  • Saitta argues that in *EPWH* and subsequent archaeological theorizing "there is often a conflation of power and class," treating class relations of surplus flow as a straightforward reflection of structural power; this reifies class and limits theorizing about multiple identities and change.
  • He contends that all societies are class societies in the specific sense that all require social production and appropriation of surplus labor, so the analytical challenge is not the origins of class but the origins of class division.
  • In his own studies of Cahokia (American Bottom) and Chaco Canyon (San Juan Basin), kin-communal class relations were secured by structural power based on political hierarchy and perhaps hereditary inequality; efforts to mobilize surplus through tributary rather than communal means were "truncated by factional conflict and popular resistance," producing reorganized kin-communalism.

Methods

  • Conceptual/theoretical essay and commentary honoring Wolf's *EPWH*; no new primary data are presented.
  • Draws on the author's prior archaeological analyses of pre-Columbian social change at Cahokia and Chaco Canyon (Saitta 1994b, 1997) as illustrative cases.
  • Argument proceeds by critique of archaeological uses of Wolf and of power-centric theory, and by proposing reworked Marxian categories (class, class division, primitive communal/kin-communal mode).

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations. Evident from the text: it is a theoretical commentary rather than an empirical study, and the Cahokia and Chaco claims are asserted by reference to the author's earlier publications rather than demonstrated here.
  • The argument that power/class conflation "potentially limits" archaeological understanding is framed as a possibility rather than tested against a body of cases.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0308275x05048611

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 2 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Interpretationnone given
    § Conclusion · p. 7

    A long-standing tendency within both the Marxist and non-Marxist archaeologies to insist on a distinction between 'class' and 'non-class' societies unnecessarily hamstrings explanatory theory.

    “A long-standing tendency within both the Marxist and non-Marxist archaeologies to insist on a distinction between 'class' and 'non-class' societies (e.g. Spriggs, 1984) - a distinction that Wolf also endorsed - unnecessarily hamstrings explanatory theory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spriggs, 1984

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Interpretationreasoning
    § Archaeology and EPWH · p. 3

    The conflation of power and class in archaeological theory potentially limits our understanding of the character and variety of the social distinctions and identities created by different political economies.

    “The point here is that the conflation of power and class in archaeological theory potentially limits our understanding of the character and variety of the social distinctions and identities created by different political economies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 3

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Archaeology and EPWH · p. 3

    In EPWH and subsequent archaeological theorizing there is often a conflation of power and class; that is, class relations of surplus flow are seen to be a relatively straightforward reflection of structural power; power is a proxy for class.

    “In EPWH and subsequent archaeological theorizing there is often a conflation of power and class; that is, class relations of surplus flow are seen to be a relatively straightforward reflection of structural power; power is a proxy for class.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Dean J. Saitta · p. 1

    The concepts of kin-ordered, tributary and capitalist mode of production capture important differences in the ways that human groups produce and distribute social surplus across space and time.

    “The concepts of kinordered, tributary and capitalist mode of production capture important differences in the ways that human groups produce and distribute social surplus across space and time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wolf, 1982

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Archaeology and EPWH · p. 4

    On this alternative view all societies are class societies in the specific sense that they all require the social production and appropriation of surplus labor.

    “On this alternative view all societies are class societies in the specific sense that they all require the social production and appropriation of surplus labor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Archaeology and EPWH · p. 4

    On an alternative Marxist view, it is not class but the class division - a circumstance in which the extractors of surplus are no longer the producers, and in which class and power relations are reconfigured to produce exploitation of some people by others - that has historical origins.

    “On an alternative Marxist view, it is not class but the class division - a circumstance in which the extractors of surplus are no longer the producers, and in which class and power relations are reconfigured to produce exploitation of some people by others - that has historical origins.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
4 of 4

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The present is different from the past in ways that can be clarified by archaeological categories.

    “clarifying exactly how the present is different from the past”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A knowable world exists.

    “a realist epistemology that stipulated a knowable world”
2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Durrenberger, Paul, 2001, Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter, 12, 4
  2. Leone, Mark, 1992, Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future, 115
  3. Resnick, Stephen, 1987, Knowledge and Class
  4. Saitta, Dean, 1994, The Ancient Southwestern Community, 25
  5. Schneider, Jane, 1999, Current Anthropology, 101, 395
  6. Thomas, Julian, 2000, Social Theory in Archaeology, 143
  7. Zeitlin, Robert, 1996, Current Anthropology, 37, 64

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Saitta, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Saitta, Dean J.
Venue
Critique of Anthropology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-03
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
27-35
ISSN
  • 0308-275X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3721
DOI
10.1177/0308275x05048611
OpenAlex
W1976501915
Cited by
3
References
35
Citations by year
2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Critique of Anthropology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Keywords
Eric Wolf, modes of production, capitalist mode of production, Marxist theory, social surplus, contemporary archaeology, Marxist archaeology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review