Results 17 – 32 of 38 by Bruce G Trigger; Hiroyuki Kawanishi Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico by James F.P. Pendergast and Bruce G. Trigger. Buy Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico by Bruce G. Trigger (ISBN: ) from Amazon’s Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on. Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico: Bruce G. Trigger: Books –

Author: Arakora Kak
Country: Pacific Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 12 November 2016
Pages: 414
PDF File Size: 12.73 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.38 Mb
ISBN: 592-6-98810-364-4
Downloads: 7564
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zulkilrajas

Funari, Pedro Paulo A. What is the refutation logic they propose and exercise? From our point of view, the archaeological study of material expressions of concrete societies in their historical development with a materialistic perspective is still valid [sic].

Does this bring us near to the Hegelian notion of the end of philosophy and history? If this is so, then the theoretical answer should be one and true and, although they brufe not dare saying it, the consequence would be a unique methodology. Services on Demand Journal. It appears rather recurrently in the field of the analytic and the post-modern philosophy, especially in the French one, which doubts it.

Does this exist in its idea of dialectical rationality? Perhaps we can, but from other conceptions of the world and other logics. There is an ineludible practical need to confront what is deduced from a theory or from general theory, with the concrete archaeological data, which reflects what could be called sociological information that concerns the characteristics of the ways of life of societies that existed in the past.

The first one is not equivalent to the second. In an enlightening footnote, we read: But its idea is being verificationist inwards and falsificationalist outwards. However, social archaeology is not a time and space monolithic block, because there have been at least three generations of archaeologists who come from various countries and this is shown, as we will see along this text, in different forms of conceiving the integration of Marxism to the practice of archaeology.

The form category refers to the time and space organization of the elements that constitute the content. Apparently, the so-called concrete historical development is nothing but a translation into Marxist terminology of cultural history based on the periodizations and on the definition of areas, because the phases of development can be analogous to the stipulation of phases, periods and horizons, whereas the notion of way of life has a connotation of structural and territorial stability similar to that of the cultural areas.


BiogeographicaParis, v. Os tupis eram beligerantes. Identify the different theoretical trends that influenced the formation of archaeological knowledge. Understand the history and evolution of archaeological knowledge. Nocete Calvo, Francisco y Luis F. This is, when we plan on how to research certain aspects of reality-and what characterizes science is the systematized planning of the research procedures- we must start from some ideas more or less clear about how this reality is.

Perhaps these are more of the minor differences; however, they acquire relevance because they are located in the ontological area, in the theory about the object of study and this, according to his own statements, has a direct impact on the methodology.

The arguments they wield in their own self-examination and in the disqualification of the other theories distance them from the rationality they claim, to mark out their archaeological science from the promises of theoretical construction of the non-sciences and approach them to their postmodern adversaries: The exposed idea gains strength: It is not clear if they used this procedure to identify the essential conditions of the primitive, cacical and initial class communist social formations.

With these words, the perfect hinge is highlighted: Among the distinctions we can make, it is interesting to consider: Paradoxically, in the year of the original publication of this book, it was linked with the neo-positivism of American processual archaeology.

Bruce Mendenhal | Documents

Nevertheless, there is a wide range of possible variability in the secondary aspects of the form, at different levels, but which multiply at the level of the particular forms. Latin American AntiquityWashington, v.

This methodological complication has been one of its limitations:. The doubts I express emerge from the claim of internal consistency demanded by other theories, which seems to be a substantive characteristic of social archaeology: The study of the Paleolithic in France and England 1.


The modification of the points of view was so important that they decided to review old postures, 31 as well as to create and redefine categories under the lights of historical materialism.

Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico : Bruce G Trigger :

Less known authors also came to dialectically separate themselves from the capitalistic fickleness. I hold that there are other aspects, properly extra-theoretical, extra-philosophical beyond the rationality they so pensamkentoextra-academic and foreign to the political praxis which make them appear as a united and integrated group, which make them associate, identify themselves, create their links and reveal themselves as a theoretical position.

It is not necessary to historiw that not all Marxist archaeologists are seen as social archaeologists.

As datum of social content, it will mean: A bad deal, but a free choice. Mode of Delivery Face-to-face. Even though a colleague affirms that social archaeology is also a form of historical particularism, the pretension of alterability of its members is endorsed by a diffusion and a militancy that spreads through Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula, which makes it important, even when in Mexico there is not a single significant project.

Bruce G. McCarthy The Pipeline

Such a model resembles psychic predictions in California: Up to what point is that of little importance to be still considered part of one and the same theoretical position?

A light view makes me suspect that there are few changes in his central propositions and in his critical style.

It is a shame there are not many research cases of concrete history. Elera y Lidio M. Which one is the good one, dialectic or formal?