Of course they are - but you quite categorically claimed that class did not enter into the work of pre-historians full stop. I named one in which it did enter their field of vision - and pretty bloody prominently at that. So some pre-historians do, in fact, operate in terms of class.
If you do have any evidence, since there's one book of his that I haven't read yet, that Childe as a prehistorian operated in terms of class (your words), then I'd be glad to see that evidence. Ball's in your court, butchersapron. If you have proof, please do share it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work of Vere Gordon Childe, despite it's historical importance and also for Childe's then unique ability to synthesise prehistoric archaeological data with archaeological interpretation, is severely dated. There seems little point in bringing him up today, apart from out of historical curiosity. For all the greatness of his work in his own time, no prehistorian today is blind to his deficiencies, and it's worth pointing out that interpretation has moved on in leaps and bounds since his heyday.
For example, no-one talks about savages or primitives anymore. Childe misunderstood the nature of the pre-capitalist prehistoric world and the relationships created by trade in 'display' goods (body adornments, highly polished tools which never saw use). His interepretation of the Neolithic isn't worth mentioning except from a history of archaeological thought point of view. He had a serious blindspot where religion/ritual and gender were concerned, and neglected its social importance. One of my favourite examples of his gender blindspot is his interpretation of the Neolithic houses with stone furniture at Skara Brae, in Orkney: Childe designates the large bed to the man, and the small bed to the woman - a common sleeping arrangement in his day amongst his class. He failed to imagine men and women sleeping in a bed together or any children in the smaller bed.
Childe made many theoretical models, but none of them actually work until the very late Bronze Age/early Iron Age (c. 800BCE onwards). Childe couldn't be classed as marxist purist either. Childe disagreed strongly with the marxist archaeologists of the Soviet Union and they with him. He used the term 'revolution' in a technological, rather than a 'class' sense. I've read all but one of his books, and in the books I've read, class and class struggle don't get a mention.
Childe was an archaeologist first and foremost. Whilst his political views did affect his writings, it would be difficult to claim that he was affected to the extent that his work could be seen to have an overtly marxist bias. Seriously, if it's marxist archaeology you want, then read the Soviet archaeologists. They're the only ones who've practiced what could be termed 'marxist archaeology'.
And whilst there have been moments of neo-marxist theory applied to archeological interpretation, there are few (if any) archaeologists living today who rely on only one theoretical viewpoint to assess and interpret archaeological data.
