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: Kimuro Douktilar
Country: Georgia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 15 April 2007
Pages: 120
PDF File Size: 9.99 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.5 Mb
ISBN: 172-4-99302-724-2
Downloads: 73049
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arashigis

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

Archaeological Theory – Course Unit – University of Coimbra

From the fact that p is given we can infer q was given and from the fact that q was given we can formally infer p was given. If they are not acknowledged as such or if the alternative views histoeia not try to define themselves as such, it is also impossible. It is not clear if they used this procedure to identify the essential conditions of the primitive, cacical and initial class communist social formations.

The widest contributions come from Venezuela, Peru, Dominican Republic and Mexico, from which the current has gotten adepts in the rest of Latin America, especially in the places where archaeologists look for a theory that offers support to a more political than academic position:.

Lorenzo in Mexico and L. It should be that way, given the methodological monism of Marxism, which privileges dialectical materialism as a philosophy, logic and method: From our point of view, hkstoria archaeological study of material expressions of concrete societies in their historical development with a materialistic perspective is still valid [sic]. Ir al contenido secundario. Based on the thesis of postprocessualism and postmodernism, they propose the need to cast aside pensamiennto causal relations and the determinations on which Marxist analysis is based, orienting themselves towards explicative models of a relativistic and transhistorical character.

Was that its arqueologkco cultural meaning? With the result that the methodological steps stated pensamuento more than twenty years have been so by means of inferences:.

The conformation of the editorial counsel coordinated by Luis F. It seems their answer is affirmative, but there is ambiguity and ambivalence: In fact, the inference proposed by social archaeologists is inductive by reconstruction: Anonymous were those designated with rhetoric full of qualifiers:. Latin American AntiquityWashington, v. In their texts, there bruve no reflection to orientate the reader regarding arqueologifo possible reformulation of the concept and regarding the role it would play to achieve the explicational goal.


Bibliography Bate, Luis F. They themselves recognize the lack of praxis. Hruce 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.

World Archaeological BulletinSouthampton, v.

Rather, they try to identify ways of life, variants of structural stability to which they give adjectives without proposing statements of the law type.

One might wonder if with these theoretical tools, the capacity and the need to predict the future by the part of social archaeology is comparable to that of the psychics in California; if these words support the requirements of congruity, coherence, precision, or those of simplicity and elegance.

From it post-positivism is displayed. One might keep on asking for congruity, for the consistency they demand, without finding it within their declaration of principles, profoundly ambiguous and contradictory.

Do they intend the construction of a different, tacit methodology, where the previous passage of explanation is interpretation and, therefore, explanation is the purged application of interpretation? Less known authors also came to dialectically separate themselves from the capitalistic fickleness.

Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico : Bruce G Trigger :

In fact, it is difficult to establish what their future as a theoretical position would be, since the conditions that originated it have changed, not only as to the reflection on the pensamidnto and social thought, but also as to the political moment. The New Archaeology and the procedural Archaeology 4. Viviam, portanto, em pequenas aldeias. Is it tolerance towards other methodologies as long as the dialectic is superior? American AntiquityWashington, hitsoria.

Historia del Pensamiento Arqueologico

In fact, it might seem that …Latin American archaeology is pretty strongly oriented towards social archaeology. Then not h or not h1 or not h2 or not h3 or not h4 until not hn Which is the rejected hypothesis?

Are the statements directly observable and audible? I do not know if everybody agrees with this; in other aspects they have divergences and, to save the problem, he used the classic resource of elevating the level of inclusion: Um olhar sobre o pensaamiento It is surprising that this is the ontology they have defended to prove that their theoretical position is the best, lakatosianly speaking, although it is not evident which the arqueologuco and necessary conditions are for the definitions of social formation, way of life and culture, from the Hempelian model, which drl also defend.


With the things in this state and showing consistency around the priority of ontology over methodology, they had to clarify that in order to know reality from the archaeological perspective, they had to …adequately solve the problem of the relationship between theory and method, understanding the epistemic priority of ontology regarding logic, under a materialistic and dialectical position before the theory of knowledge.

Is French Marxism now compatible to them, when they offered resistance to it in the beginning? The hiztoria of social archaeology and the reading of alternative philosophical points of view during the eighties led the reflection I present today, which reveals a set pensamuento key triger for which I have not found an answer by reading the available texts.

Evidently, the issue pensamient in establishing clearly to which level of particularity we refer, and which the criteria we use to access the manifestation of particular processes are. I want to note that certain Marxist positions and the neopositivistic one are not, deep down, so far away from the perspective of the philosophy of science, because they share a good deal of basis, such as determinism, methodological monism, the rigid criterion of demarcation and scientific rationality, the founding of knowledge in the true-false bivalence, among others.

Social archaeology was only developed in a temporal context where the political model of the State sympathized with a Marxist ideology. Dialectical materialism is at the same time ontology, epistemology and logic methodology, logic of the real.