It was Antiquity (Daniel 1980) that revealed details of the death of “the greatest prehistorian in Britain, and probably in the world” (Piggott 1958: 312), the Australian Vere Gordon Childe (1892–1957). Antiquity would later note what is still the over-modest marker of his final resting place (Barton 2000). And it was Antiquity that published Childe's ‘Retrospect’ in which he summarised his archaeological career, noting that it began at Oxford, and started again in 1922 “after a sentimental excursion into Australian politics” (Childe 1958: 69). In this article it is suggested that this was far more than an excursion; that through force of circumstance he abandoned a potentially high-flying archaeological trajectory and embarked on an equally high-flying replacement career in politics; only further force of circumstances brought him back to archaeology.

In this article Childe's commitment to internationalism and, in particular, to the International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (CISPP) is analysed. Personal correspondence between Childe and Myres and, to a lesser extent, other archaeologists, is used as the basis to consider the different stages in Childe's involvement in the CISPP. After an overview of the emergence of international congresses, the article looks at the formation of an interest group that resulted in the creation of the CISPP. The challenges brought by Nazi Germany to the international scene, and to Childe's positioning in it, are also explored. The article then examines his role in the revival of the international congress during and after the Second World War and his lesser commitment from the third conference in 1950. Finally, some comments are made on the value of archives for the history of archaeology, on the lack of connection between Childe's internationalism and Marxism, and on the need to further investigate the relationship between Childe and Myres.

Childe withdrew from revolutionary politics after his post-university years in Australia in favour of a career in prehistoric archaeology in Britain. Though remaining a Marxist, his application of Marxist principles to prehistory developed only slowly as his interpretations became more sophisticated. He became increasingly interested in knowledge about prehistory from studying results of the interactions between material remains and their interpretation (in Marxist terms, the relationships between practice and theory). In his paper ‘Retrospect’, Childe (1958b:73) charted the development in his thinking to where he rejected ‘transcendental laws determining history and mechanical causes … automatically shaping its course’ with an understanding that a prehistoric society's knowledge of itself was ‘known or knowable … with its then existing material and conceptual equipment’. Thus the prehistory of Europe could be seen not as a product of Oriental civilization, but as an independent entity. Childe could then write a prehistory of Europe ‘that should be both historical and scientific’ (1958b:74). This book, The Prehistory of European Society (1958a), also demonstrated his use of the epistemology of knowledge to understand prehistory as a sociological phenomenon.

One of the Indus Civilization's most striking features is its cultural uniformity evidenced by a common script, artefact forms and motifs, weights and measures, and the presence of proscribed urban plans. Early excavators and commentators utilized ideas of diffusion, and concepts of kingship and slavery remained prevalent within interpretations of the Indus. Whilst Childe questioned ideas of diffusion and hereditary rule he still identified a system of economic exploitation in which the vast majority of the population was subordinated. More recently scholars have begun to argue that small sections of the Indus population may have willingly subordinated themselves in order to secure positions of power. This article explores the dichotomy between traditional Eurocentric normative models of social organization and those derived from south Asian cultural traditions.

In the last chapter of What Happened in History, Childe touched on the problematic of Late Antiquity. His pessimistic view of that period was a variation on the theme of decadence. This theme had existed in the Roman Republic and under the Empire, long before there was any Late Antiquity to be decadent. It then persisted throughout the Middle Ages and found monumental expression in Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Childe, however, took it to excessive lengths in his denunciation of the politics, economy, and culture of the Late Roman Empire. Childe based his arguments largely on the work of Rostovtzeff and Heichelheim. Both these eminent historians were exiles: Rostovtzeff from the Russia of the October Revolution and Heichelheim from National Socialist Germany. It is no belittlement to say that their work was influenced by the insights of their political experiences. Childe, however, did not appreciate this and adopted their thinking somewhat uncritically. He further added parallels between the Roman Period and his own time, which resulted in an unduly dark vision of the last phase of the Roman Empire.

Childe was a considerable influence on my archaeology, when I was an undergraduate at the Institute of Archaeology (London). His personality was enigmatic, as were parts of his publications. In this contribution some critical comments are made of his work, together with discussions on his Marxism, the Neolithic Revolution, what is meant by progress, and his all too brief consideration of the range of archaeological science. It will be argued that his inability to make close friendships, and other aspects of his personality, would suggest that he had Asperger's syndrome.

Although commentators have discussed myriad themes presented in the rich and extensive oeuvre of Childe, one of the topics that has been, in my view, seriously neglected is the topic of settlement types. In this article, I seek to make good this omission, starting from a consideration of The Danube in Prehistory. The basis of Childe's ideas on settlement types in the Neolithic and Copper Age of eastern Europe was a binary classification into ‘tells’ and ‘flat sites’ that, in turn, reflected a division between permanent and shifting cultivation and greater and lesser cultural complexity. However, the introduction into this debate of questions of trade, surplus production, and Neolithic ‘self-sufficiency’, as well as metallurgy and ritual, meant that the initial binary classification left a series of contradictions that Childe struggled to transcend in the last decade of his life.

This article considers Childe's career in Scotland, where he was Abercromby Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Edinburgh University 1927–1946, and assesses his impact on Scottish archaeology and the Scottish archaeological community. Matters discussed include his development of teaching programmes and resources within the university, and his association with the Edinburgh League of Prehistorians. His excavation and fieldwork at Skara Brae and elsewhere, and his publications during this span, are considered. Childe's collaborations with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland and the National Museum, especially during the Second World War, are reviewed. The archaeological achievements of some of his Edinburgh students are briefly summarized.

This article presents six original letters from V. Gordon Childe and the draft replies by the archaeologist Ferenc László, written between 1923 and 1925. László worked at the Szekler (Székely) National Museum of Sf. Gheorghe and was known for his methodical excavations of the late Neolithic (Chalcolithic) painted pottery settlement of Ariuşd (Erősd). The correspondence provides new data on Childe's interest in the archaeology of Transylvania, especially as regards the existence in the area of prehistoric cultures with painted pottery, on which limited published information was available to him. In this article it will be shown that correspondence was one of the main methods Childe used to gather documentation for his book The Dawn of European Civilization.

Childe's time as a student in Oxford has received little critical attention, partly because of an apparent lack of evidence. His reasons for going to Oxford are explored, and attention is drawn to two factors: the role of one of his tutors in Sydney, W.J. Woodhouse; and the state of prehistoric European studies in England at the time, dominated by Oxford and the figures of Arthur Evans and John Myres. Childe's study visit to Greece in 1915 is discussed and it is suggested that he had already embarked on his major research project before it was interrupted by the unexpected duration of the First World War. He left Oxford in 1917 to return to Australia, and though he may have feared conscription, the impossibility of pursuing his archaeological research was also a critical factor. In 1921 Childe returned to England and soon resumed the project he had started and suspended.

The context of Childe's decade as Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Professor of Prehistoric European Archaeology in the University of London is described. Particular attention is given to the circumstances leading to his appointment; his participation in a conference on ‘The Future of Archaeology’ held at the Institute in 1943; his inaugural lecture, ‘Archaeology as a Social Science’, delivered in 1946; his and Frederick Zeuner's involvement in the beginnings of radiocarbon dating; and his contrasted contributions as administrator, excavator, and teacher during his 10 years at the Institute.