Especial NAyA Volumen 2
ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTH AMERICA
Pedro Paulo A. Funari [1]
(Complete mailing address: Av. São Remo, 463, apt.61A, São Paulo, SP, 05360-150, tel: 011-8692310; fax: 019-2393327; e-mail: funari@turing.unicamp.br)
Running head: Historical Archaeology in South America
Abstract:
This paper discusses the relationship between history and archaeology in general, their common concerns and links with historical archaeology. It deals with the development of historical archaeology in three South American related countries, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, and pays attention to recent trends in the theory and practice of the discipline in the area.
Key words:
Historical archaeology; South America; History and Archaeology; Anthropology and the Humanities.
INTRODUCTION: ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY
There is a long-standing tradition, in both archaeology and history, to consider the former as a source-studying, a branch of the latter (Meneses, 1965, p. 22; Zimmerman and Dasovich, 1990, p. 1; Klein, 1993, p. 729). European archaeology sprang out of philology (Champion, 1990, p. 89) through history and its rôle as a “handmaiden to history” was a result of a very specific definition of history as an interpretive discipline which uses different sources, studied by technicians (like palaeographists, in charge of manuscripts), and archaeologists, collecting artifacts (Austin, 1990) and art objects (Bandinelli, 1984, p. 157; 1994). American archaeology followed a different development, being always considered as part of anthropology (Deetz, 1967, p.3; Trigger, 1989b, p. 19; Smith, 1992, p. 24; Renfrew, 1993, p. 73), even though it has also often been interpreted as a discipline bound to collect data to be interpreted by a the true social scientist the anthropologist.
Most recent students of the discipline would, however, agree that “archaeology is a social science in the sense that it tries to explain what has happened to specific groups of human beings in the past and to generalize about processes of cultural change” (Trigger, 1990, p. 19). It is considered an independent discipline closely related to history and other social sciences (Otto, 1975, p.11; Patterson, 1990, p.5). Archaeology becomes increasingly historical in orientation (Trigger, 1984, p. 295) and in practice history and anthropology converge (Sherratt, 1992, p. 139), as archaeologists and anthropologists express the need for a more historically based human science, and historians realize that anthropological and archaeological enquiry has become crucial for history (Knapp, 1992, p.3). The renewed interest in Benjamin, a pioneer in the use of material culture and excavations as metaphors in historical analysis, is felt not only in post-processual archaeology but also in the other related human and social sciences (Härke and Wolfram, 1993, p.184; Funari, 1996a, pp. 52-53).
A dialogue between archaeology and history is thus a must (Moreland, 1992, p. 126). In some quarters, particularly in the Americas, an opposition between history and theory has been claimed by some archaeologists (Hodder, 1991, p. 10) but this misguided approach has been courteracted by pleas for an interdisciplinary colaboration, as emphasized the Uruguayan archaeologist José María López (n.d., p.62). Some archaeologists would go up to the point of defining archaeology as an historical discipline (Fonseca, 1990; Newell, 1991), a special kind of social history (Cerdà, 1991, p. 420). There is an acknowledgment that history is a vital element in archaeological intepretation (Little, 1988, p. 264; Little and Schackel, 1992, p. 4) and that archaeologists must rely on both written and material evidence (Orser, 1987, p. 131).
HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND RELATED SCIENCES: COMMON CONCERNS
Braudel’s longue durée, or long term trends, is a concept which would enable a closer relationship between historians and social scientists, including archaeologists (Braudel, 1969, p. 103; Carandini, 1979, pp. 66-69). Traditional factual history focused its attention in microscopic political developments of difficult access to the archaeologist, but Alltagsgeschichte proposed to study repetition, something well-known by archaeologists under the name of typology (Lüdtke, 1989). Interdisciplinary cooperation has been also advocated by different specialists as a fundamental critique of divisions of knowledge (Kern, 1985, p. 10; 1988, p. 185; 1994, p. 78; Epperson, 1990, p. 36).
The breaking down of current disciplinary boundaries and the production of a unified science dealing with society (Spriggs, 1983, p. 3) means that apparently unrelated disciplines, like philosophy and archaeology (Salmon, 1982), have much to gain with dialogue (Miller and Tilley, 1996). Political science, social philosophy, economics are good tools to surmount specialization (Hale, 1995, pp. 215-216) and Pierre Bourdieu’s (1988, p. 779) call to avoid the profoundly harmful opposition between disciplines has been heard in different quarters. Argentine political historiography is a case in point (Sábato, 1993, pp. 87-88) and it is very symptomatic that Jones (1976, p. 295) stated in the British Journal of Sociology that “there is no distinction in principle between history and any of the other ‘social sciences’”.
Recently, Paynter (1995, p. 95) would remind us that the use of poetry by archaeologists is a result of the discipline’s position on the cusp between the humanities and the sciences. Poetry is another common feature of different disciplines which were influenced by linguistics and semiotics. As mentioned above, all modern human sciences were the result of language studies, from the Enlightenment onwards (Reill, 1994, p. 365; for criticism, see Bernal, 1991), but modern discourse analysis would bring new insights since the 1960s. There is a growing body of agreement as to the semiotic foundations of science (Grzybek, 1994, p. 344), and the analysis of discourse is now as ordinary in archaeology (Shanks and Tilley, 1987; Tilley, 1990, pp. 151-152) as in history (Carrard, 1986; Funari, 1994b). Semiotics may contribute to the project of dialogized pluri-lingualism where different universes of discourse, like archaeology and history for instance, can interact dialogically, interpreting one another reciprocally and critically (Petrilli, 1993, p. 360).
The nature of the evidence, for historians and archaeologists alike, has often been discussed in recent years and the word “evidence” has been regarded as a trope or figure of speech (Somekawa and Smith, 1988, p. 152). It is not fortuitous that it was an archaeologist, who acted also as philosopher and historian, Collinwood (1970), who formulated the concept of subjectivity in interpretation (Debbins, 1965; Vann, 1988; Ucko, 1989, p. xii). Even though subjective, evidences are often interpreted as clues in a law court and archaeologists and historians are compared to detectives (Honório Rodrigues, 1969, p. 20; Couse, 1990), accepting that die Geschichte ist ein Kriminalgericht. The search for new data was thus in no contradiction to the subjective character of the evidence (Ankersmit, 1986, pp. 1-11). However, historians (e.g. Bevir, 1994, p. 343) and archaeologits (e.g. Trigger, 1989a; Murray, 1995, p. 291) discuss how to avoid extreme relativism and objectivism and how to find a middle ground between them (Shanks and Hodder, 1995, p. 11).
ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND SOCIETY
There has been a growing realization by historians and archaeologists that both disciplines cannot be separated from their basis in the social and intellectual realities and conflicts of their time, and these disciplines must be viewed critically within the broader context of the history of the modern world (Iggers, 1984, p. 204). The scholar is no neutral observer who stands above and beyond classes and conflicts in society (Olsen, 1986, p. 37), and academic disciplines are not free of social and political ties (Champion, 1991, p. 144). Our views of the past are continually reshaped by changing cultural biases (Blakey, 1990, p. 38). The post-processual movement in archaeology has observed that archaeologists’ present social and political contexts do shape their interpretations of archaeological remains (Wood and Powell, 1993, p. 407), echoing historians’ claims that they are embedded in their own historical traditions (Burguière, 1982, p. 437; Harlan, 1989, p. 587; Calhoun, 1993, p. 91). Changing scientific standards (Burckhardt, 1958, p. xi) depend on present-day, social understandings (França, 1951, p. 266; Goldmann, 1975, p. 40).
The impossibility of disentagling research and the interests of society was also acknowledged by anthropologists and social scientists (Rowlands, 1983, p. 109; Nassaney, 1989, p. 90; Veit, 1989, p. 50) and the connections between present and past are common, specific, and direct (Wilk, 1985, p. 311; Pinsky, 1989, p. 91; McCullagh, 1993, p. 37), as scholars are a product of culture and their intepretations of the past are influenced by their cultural milieu (Burley, 1995, p. 75). A critical approach has been thus put forward by social scientists and even though archaeologists lagged behind in developing a critical awareness (Mazel, 1989, p.11), Norbladh (1989, p. 28) was in no doubt to state that the main goal of archaeologists is “to promote a constant reflection on human and societal conditions and bring this to present-day social criticism”. He kritiké tékhne, “the power of discerning, separating, judging” (Aristotle, De Anima, 432a 16) means a critical method of enquiry and exposition (Marquardt, 1992, p. 103), exploring the social and political contexts of knowledge (Leone, Potter, and Shackel, 1987, p. 285; Handsman and Leone, 1989, pp. 119-134; Potter, 1992). The same kind of vocabulary is used by historians when they refer to history as critique, as a way of exposing ideological presuppositions, as a means of criticizing common sense (Wood, 1994, p. 9). The development of self-consciousness is a common concern among linguists (Fairclough, 1990, p. 167) and historians (La Capra, 1992, p. 439).
Mommsen’s contention that die Historiker einer nationalen Kulturgemeischaft angehören (Mommsen, 1984, p. 57) could now be extended to all other social thinkers and, if it is true that the historian or the archaeologist carries in his or her mind the present (Wright and Mazel, 1991, p. 59), the focus of their attention should move to everyday life and ordinary people. Archaeology democratizes the past, providing insights into everyday lives of common people (Deetz, 1991, p. 6; Hall, 1991, p. 78), overcoming the one-sidedness of learned evidences (Paynter and MacGuire, 1991; Johnson, 1992, p. 54). “Invisible” subjects in written history are accessible thanks to material remains (Brown and Cooper, 1990, p. 19), and the dynamic interactions between elites and non-elites, between vernacular and high-style, are common archaeological subjects (Paynter, 1988, p. 409; Pendery, 1992, p. 58). “History from below”, “popular culture history” are recent developments within historiography (Thompson, 1966; Fletcher, 1988; Walinski-Kiehl, 1989; Sharpe, 1991) but archaeologists are mostly aware that “history is written by the winners” (Paynter, 1990, p. 59), and that subordinate groups can use the archaeological past to empower their knowledge claims in the present, writing the history of domination and resistance (Leone, 1986, p. 431; Hodder, 1991, p. 10).
When we talk about society and scholarhip we talk about ethics. Peter Ucko’s strong words on the subject are worth quoting at length (Ucko, 1990, p. xx):
“The problem confronting archaeology today is an acutely moral one ... archaeologists can no longer afford to remain unaware of at least two forces competing for their services - the rulers and the ruled”.
Historians face the same dilemmas, when they aim at upsetting the ideological hegemony of the powerful (Ortiz, 1993, p. 65) or at unmasking the blunt fabrication of historical facts, like the denial of the possibility of proving the Holocaust (Tucker, 1993, p. 656). Historians’ and archaeologists’ responsibilities are quite similar ( Florescano, 1994, p. 51; Maier, 1994, p. 42), as they share common subjects: society, in the past and in the present, its characteristics and dynamics (García, 1991, p. 38).
HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTH AMERICA
The formation of history and archaeology as scientific disciplines in South America has been quite different in each country (Politis, 1995, p. 197) so that this paper deals with three countries which, despite their differences, can be studied at the same time: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (Funari, 1994a; Funari 1996b). Archaeology developed much later than history and from the start archaeology was equated with prehistory. It is thus fair to say that the study of historical material culture has been carried out for a long time up to the 1980s mostly by non-archaeologists, first and foremost architects and art historians. The three countries were affected by military rule from the 1960s up to the early 1980s. While historians and other scholars were sometimes able to avoid persecution because their academic work could be carried out on their own wages, archaeologists could not afford to pay for their field work. As a result, it was very difficult to oppose the official military line (Funari, 1992).
Archaeology suffered particularly under military rule in Argentina, and historical archaeology was quite naturally the area most directly affected and it did not develop before the restoration of democratic rule in 1984 (cf. an unpublished overview on the research on the colonial period in Senatore and Zarankin, n.d.). The architect Daniel Schávelzon has been very active in the field from that period, acting with other fieldworkers, and studying building in Buenos Aires (Schávelzon, 1986a; 1987e; 1988b; 1988c), Córdoba (1987a), and elsewhere (1987b), and producing monographs on pottery (1987d; 1988a) and other artifacts (1987c). The “Urban Archaeology Program Publications” published from 1987 to 1989 more than a dozen monographs, most of them by Schávelzon and his associates. Davey (1989) published a monograph on clay pipes and Schávelzon and Ramos (1989-1991; 1991) also published archaeological reports on excavations at Calderón de Rosas, at Palermo. From 1991, Schávelzon has been publishing a series entitled “Historical Archaeology at Buenos Aires”, with volumes on the material culture of the eigtheenth and nineteenth centuries (Schávelzon, 1991a; 1991b), on underground buildings (Schávelzon, 1992), on the excavations at the Imprenta Coni (Schávelzon, 1993), and on the excavations at San Telmo.
José Roberto Bárcena was trained as prehistorian but has been excavating historic sites in Mendoza, particularly the down-town area (n.d.a; n.d.b; n.d.c). Bárcena (1993a) has also been active in the historical heritage protection and management, in the capital and elsewhere in the same province (Bárcena, 1993 b). Ruth Adela Poujade has been studying the prehistoric and historic settlements in the Jesuitic missions in Misiones Province, in the northeast of Argentina. Poujade (1980; 1985/6; 1986/7) surveyed the whole area and published an analytic papen on the settlement pattern (Poujade, 1992). Andrés Zarankin (1995) has published a monograph on Santa Fe la Vieja, a site occupied for ninety years, from 1573 to 1660, and María Ximena Senatore (1995) studied colonial pottery. Irina Podgorny (1991) has been studying the use of material culture, particularly images, in Argentinian text books, and the way national and community identities are established. The establishment of the “Argentinian team of forensic anthropology” to deal with “missing people” mass graves is a very important development. The team has been working for at least seven years on this task of rescuing the material remains of the people killed by death squads. Cristina Bellelli and Jeffrey Tobin (1996, p. 6) explained recently the important social repercussions of this historical archaeology research with these words:
“In Argentina there are approximately 30,000 desaparecidos: people who were kinapped by paramilitary squads, were held and tortured in clandestine concentration camps, were murdered, and were disposed of in unmarked graves or in the murky waters of the Río de la Plata. The bones that <Clyde> Snow <a North American forensic anthropologist> presented to the court were desinterred with modern archaeological techniques from mass burial sites in which the state-sponsored assassins had hidden them. The meticolous gathering of this tragic archaeological ‘evidence’ and its subsequent forensic anthropological analysis made it possible to reverse some of the process of disappearance by confirming who some of the individual victims were and how they died”.
In Brazil, some professional archaeologists have been excavating historical sites with a merely descriptive approach. A lot of field seasons produce no written report, and some others result in unpublished descriptive reports. The more active field workers are Marcos Albuquerque (1971;1980;1982) and Ulysses Pernambucano de Mello (1975; 1976; 1983) at the northeast, Margarida Davina Andreatta (1981/2; 1986) in São Paulo, Maria da Conceição Beltrão (Neme, Beltrão and Niemeyer, 1992) at Bahia and Rio de Janeiro.Young graduate students are also active, like Paulo Tadeu de Souza Albuquerque (1991) at Vila Flor, in the northeast, Miriam Cazzetta (1991) and Paulo Eduardo Zanettini (1986;1990) elsewhere. Archaeologists dealing with heritage management have also been publishing papers on urban archaeology (Vogel and Mello, 1984; Vianna, 1992). The scholarly study of marrons (Guimarães, 1992; Funari, 1995b; Funari, 1996c), Jesuit Missions (Kern, 1984;1985;1987;1988;1989;1991), and classical archaeology subjects (Funari, 1995a, p. 244) are isolated examples of the use of written documents and material culture, establishing a dialogue of historians and archaeologists dealing with these subjects.
Uruguay also witnessed a late development of historical archaeology. López (1988) studied the rôle of archaeology in the construction of national identity and pleaded for an anthropological approach to material culture which could overcome collectionist ideology (López, 1990, p.4). Leonel Cabrera (1989, p. 28) emphasizes the need to surpass the merely descriptive listing of historical artifacts and is keen to demonstrate that heritage management should be carried out taking into account the “forgotten past”, that is, the prehistoric past (Cabrera, 1989; Cabrera and Curbello, 1992, p. 54; López, 1992, p. 174). The archaeological study of Colonia del Sacramento, in the southwest of the country, is the showcase of historical archaeology in Uruguay. The city, founded in 1680 by Portugal, has been the subject of a number of architectural studies and recently Nelsys Fusco (1990; n.d.) has for the first time begun a systematic archaeological research (Schávelzon, 1991; Fusco and López, 1992). The same as their counterparts in Argentina and Brazil, the Uruguayan scholars have been using written documents and material evidences for a better understanding of the colonial society and its changes.
There are some common features in the three countries, particularly in relation to the links between history and archaeology. There has been a long-standing and traditional lack of communication between historians and archaeologists, and this is due not only to the fact that archaeologists usually deal with prehistory. People dealing with historic sites and artifacts were at best architects, art historians, and other scientists or, at worst, antiquarians and market-oriented fieldworkers. In the last decade the growing activities in historical archaeology have changed this picture, but interpretive papers and monographs are still rare. There is, as yet, no overall intersciplinary approach to historic sites and Paul Shackel’s study of discipline and material culture in Annapolis, USA, which synthesizes Eric Wolf’s anthropology, Fernand Braudel’s history and Michel Foucault’s philosophy, and critical archaeology has no paralallel in Latin America (Shackel, 1993).
This does not diminish the achievements of historical archaeology in South America, given that its practice began only recently. The point is that while in the United States Shackel’s book cannot be ignored by historians and other scholars, as his discoursive field is the same as theirs, historiography in South America pays little attention to archaeological studies which seem to speak another language. However, there are common concerns of historians and archaeologists which could and should promote co-operation between different experts dealing with the post-prehistoric past, such as the study of evereday resistance (Hall, n.d., p. 384; Rubertone, 1989, p. 32), acculturation (Orser, 1988, p. 11), reading of meanings into a text, not out of it (Austin and Thomas, 1990,. p. 45), and an international perspective (D’Agostino, 1995, p.104).
Some recent developments however are quite encouraging. The publication of the first introductory guide to historical archaeology in a local language by Orser (1992), which packs a large amount of information about the discipline and is aimed at a university audience (Esarey, 1995, p. 131), has enabled ordinary archaeologists to be in touch with what is going on in the discipline internationally. Orser’s innovative book on Historical Archaeology deals extensively with South America, particularly with the large seventeenth century maroon known as “Palmares”, and again this contributed to the popularity in Latin America of this up to date introduction to the discipline (Orser, 1996, pp. 41-56; 123-130 et passim), fostering the spread of current debates. The University of South Carolina has published in the years 1994-1996 a series entitled “Historical Archaeology in Latin America”, edited by Professor Stanley South. It has published papers and monographs in English, Spanish and Portuguese and the volumes were distributed to the main research institutions in the Americas. The publication of the “Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia” since 1994, by the University of Campinas, Brazil, has contributed to the colaboration between archaeologists and other scholars (e.g. Lagopoulos, 1996; Slenes, 1996; Tchernov, 1996) and an international consultant committe, including Peter Ucko and Michael Rowlands, among others, guarantees its scientific rôle in South America.
Perhaps the main advances in historical archaeology in the three countries relate to an overall focus on ordinary people, an approach shared by historians (e.g. Castro, 1996; Mello e Souza, 1996). Heritage management, long time left to architects concerned only with elite buindings, is now subjected to criticism by archaeologists and historians alike (e.g. Tamanini, 1995). Ethnicity and national identity are also at the heart of different monographs on Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Colonia del Sacramento, Jesuit Missions, maroons. As we live in the periphery of the western world, we are used to mixed outlooks which, elsewhere, are kept separate. Patterson (1989, p. 556) proposed that it would be possible to distinguish three different post-processual archaeologies: 1. a strand which claims Collinwood as an ancestor and which cites Barthes, Bourdieu, Geertz, Giddens and Ricoeur; 2. a current emerging from Marx and Foucault; 3. a line concerned with communication and ideology and deriving its inspiration from Althusser, Habermas, Leone, and Wylie. Others, like Härke (1989, p. 409) would oppose the Anglo-American theoretical archaeology to the German tradition which puts heavy emphasis on the exhaustive and learned study of detail. However, it should not surprise us the fact that Argentine, Brazilian, and Uruguayan scholars are used to stressing both the study of detail and theory, and quote at the same time Bourdieu, Foucault, and Althusser! That is not to say that they are eclectic but this means that they do not ignore the existence of different outlooks (Funari, 1989, p. 64).
Dictatorship in South America, as in Europe (Baker, 1991, pp. 58-60; Fontes, 1992, p. 219), inhibited for some time the spreading of new ideas but freedom very quickly fostered scientific contacts, including creating a dialogue between historians and archaeologists. A plurality of views in an open society means that different disciplines can provide different insights which, nonetheless, cannot afford to ignore the existance of a variety of standpoints. Historians and archaeologists live by and large in different scientific environments, and this is the result of very specific circumstances. As mentioned above, while historians are historians, archaeologists are anthropologists, architects, biologists, natural historians, geologists, geographers, and sometimes historians. The scholarly status of archaeology is not precisely defined and this makes difficult the dialogue between historians and archaeologists. This dialogue depends most of the time on the efforts of specific archaeologists who are personally in a fringe field. A case in point is Gabriela Martin’s rôle in the development of both disciplines in the northeast of Brazil: Martín was trained as a classical archaeologist in her native Spain, being in charge of the study and publication of important Roman pottery wares in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Martín, 1968; 1969;1970;1971;1972;1974;1975;1978;1979;1981;1983;1988); Martín decided to live and study the archaeology of Brazil, produced a comprehensive study of the prehistory of northeasten Brazil (Martin, 1996), supervised historical archaeology studies by her students, and acted as a leading consultant on graduate course in history for the whole country.
History and archaeology are thus just beginning to interact but the peripheral outlook of South America supports the supposition that both disciplines are bound to live together in the same general social and human sciences research field. This is particularly important in this region, so much affected by authoritarian rule in the past. Latin American archaeologists have much to learn from historians and vice-versa. Even though the dialogue is just beginning, its fruits indicate that further exchanges will be vital to the creative development of scholarship.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A draft of this paper was read by different colleagues, and I also benefited from comments by colleagues of the Department of Archaeology, Southampton, where I lectured on the subject in 1996. I owe thus thanks to the following scholars who forwarded papers (sometimes unpublished ones), exchanged ideas, and helped me in different ways: José Roberto Bárcena, Leonel Cabrera, Edgar de Decca, Lúis Fernando de Oliveira Fontes, Nelsys Fusco, Martin Hall, Sîan Jones, Arno Álvares Kern, Alexandros Phaidon Lagopoulos, Mark P. Leone, Barbara Little, José María López, Gabriela Martín, Aron Mazel, Jarl Nordbadh, Parker Potter, Charles E. Orser, Jr., Irina Podgorny, Gustavo Politis, Ruth Poujade, Michael Rowlands, Daniel Schávelzon, Paul A. Shackel, Michael Shanks, Elizabete Tamanini, Serguei Tchernov, Bruce G. Trigger, Peter Ucko, Hélio Vianna, Paulo Eduardo Zanettini, and Larry Zimmerman. The ideas presented here are my own, for which I am therefore solely responsible.
REFERENCES
Albuquerque, P.T.S. (1991). A Faiança Portuguesa dos séculos XVI ao XIX em Vila Flor, Rio Grande do Norte, unpublished master’s thesis, Recife.
Albuquerque, M. (1971). O Sítio Arqueológico PE 16 Cp, UFPE, Recife.
Albuquerque, M. (1980). Escavações arqueológicas realizadas na Igreja quinhentista de Nossa Senhora da Divina Graça, em Olinda. Clio 3: 89-90.
Albuquerque, M. (1991). Perspectivas da Arqueologia Histórica no Brasil. Resumos da VI Reunião da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, SAB, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 32-33.
Andreatta, M.D. (1981/2). Arqueologia Histórica no município de São Paulo. Revista do Museu Paulista 28: 174-177.
Andreatta, M.D. (1986). A Casa do Grito, Ipiranga. Revista do Arquivo Municipal 197: 151-172.
Ankersmit, F.R. (1986). The dilemma of contemporary Anglo-Saxon philosophy of history. History and Theory 25: 1-27.
Austin, D. and Thomas, J. (1990). The ‘proper study’of medieval archaeology: a case study. In Austin, D. and Alcock, L. (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 44-78.
Austin, D. (1990). The ‘proper study’of medieval archaeology. In Austin, D. and Alcock, L. (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 9-42.
Baker, F. (1991). Archaeology, Habermas, and the pathologies of modernity. In Baker, F. and Thomans, J. (eds.), Writing the Past in the Present, University Press, Lampeter, pp. 54-62.
Bandinelli, R.B. (1984). L’arte classica. Arte greca. Ritratto, Riuniti, Rome.
Bandinelli, R.B. (1994). A História da Arte como interpretação histórica da forma. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 1: 227-240.
Bárcena, J.R. (1993a). Investigación, rescate y valorización del patrimonio arqueológico e histórico en el área fundacional de Mendoza. Bolsa de Comercio de Mendoza 353: 3-8.
Bárcena, J.R. (1993b). Las investigaciones arqueológicas e históricas y las posibilidades económicas del rescate y valorización del patrimonio cultural. Boletín de la Bolsa de Comercio de Mendoza 351: 3-4.
Bárcena, J.R. (n.d. a). Rescate Arqueológico en el Área fundacional de Mendoza, Municipalidad de Mendoza, Mendoza.
Bárcena, J.R. (n.d. b). Rescate Arqueológico en Área fundacional de Mendoza. Plaza del Castillo, La Pila o fuente del siglo XIX, Municipalidad de Mendoza, Mendoza.
Bárcena, J.R. (n.d. c). Protección de Sitios Arqueológicos en el Área de Montaña Mendocina, Ministerio de Cultura, Mendoza.
Bellelli, C. and Tobin, J. (1996). Archaeology of the desaparecidos. SAA Bulletin 14: 6-7.
Bernal, M. (1991). Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vintage, London.
Bevir, M. (1994). Objectivity in history. History and Theory 33: 328-344.
Blakey, M.L. (1990). American nationality and ethnicity in the depicted past. In Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 38-48.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social sciences. Theory and Society 17: 773-787.
Braudel, F. (1969). Écrits sur l’Histoire, Flammarion, Paris.
Brown, K.L. and Cooper, D.C. (1990). Structural continuity in an African-American slave and tenant community. Historical Archaeology 24: 7-19.
Burckhardt, J. (1958). On History and Historians, Harper and Row, New York.
Burguière, A. (1982). The fate of history of mentalités in the Annales. Comparative Studies in Society and History 24: 424-437.
Burley, D.V. (1995). Contexts of meaning: beer bottles and cans in contemporary burial practices in the Polynesian kingdom of Tonga. Historical Archaeology 29: 75-83.
Cabrera, L. and Curbelo, M.C. (1992). Patrimonio y Arqueología en el Uruguay: hacia el reconocimiento de un pasado olvidado. In Politis, G. (ed.), Arqueología en América Latina Hoy, Banco Popular, Bogotá, pp. 45-56.
Cabrera, L. (1989). El pasado que negamos...Anales del VI Encuentro Nacional y IV Regional de Historia 1: 115-117.
Calhoun, C. (1993). Postmodernism and pseudohistory. Theory, Culture, and Society 10: 75-96.
Carandini, A. (1979). Archeologia e Cultura Materiale. Dai ‘lavori senza gloria’ nell’antichità a una politica dei beni culturali, De Donato, Bari.
Carrard, P. (1986). Récit historique et fonction testimoniale, les archives de la Grande Guerre. Poétique 65: 47-61.
Castro, M.M. (1996). Ex-votos mineiros - As tábuas votivas no Ciclo do Ouro, Expressão e Cultura, Rio de Janeiro.
Cazzetta, M. (1991). Arqueologia e planejamento urbano. I Congresso Latino-Americano sobre Cultura Arquitetônica e Urbanística, Porto Alegre, unpublished typescript.
Cerdà, M. (1991). Industrial archaeology and the working class. In Cerdà, M. and Torró, J. (eds.), Arqueología Industrial, Diputació de Valencia, Valencia, pp. 403-422.
Champion, T. C. (1990). Medieval archaeology and the tyranny of the historical record. In Austin, D. and Alcock, L. (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 79-95.
Champion, T.C. (1991). Theoretical archaeology in Britain. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe, Routledge, London, pp. 129-160.
Collinwood, R.G. (1970). An Autobiography, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Couse, G.S. (1990). Collinwood’s detective image of the historian and the study of Hadrian’s Wall. History and Theory 29: 57-77.
D’Agostino, M.E. (1995). Review. Historical Archaeology 29: 103-104.
Debbins, W. (1965). Essays in the Philosophy of History, by R.G. Collinwood, MacGraw Hill, New York.
Deetz, J. (1967). Invitation to archaeology, Natural History Press, New York.
Deetz, J. (1991). Archaeological evidence of sixteenth and seventeenth century encounters. In Falk, L. (ed.), Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 1-10.
Epperson, T.W. (1990). Race and the disciplines of the plantation. Historical Archaeology 24: 29-36.
Esarey, M.E. (1995). Review. Historical Archaeology 29: 131-132.
Fairclough, N. (1990). Language and Power, Longman, London.
Fletcher, R. (1988). History from below comes to Germany: the new history movement in the Federal Republic of Germany. Journal of Modern History 60: 557-568.
Florescano, E. (1994). La fonction sociale de l’histoire. Diogène 168: 43-51.
Fonseca, O.M. (1990). A Arqueologia como História. Dédalo 28: 39-62.
Fontes, L.F.O. (1992). O norte de Portugal no período suevo-visigótico. Elementos para seu estudo. XXXIX Corso di Cultura sull’arte Ravennate e Bizantina, USR, Bologna, pp. 217-248.
França, E.O. (1951). Considerações sobre a função cultural da História. Revista de História 8: 253-270.
Funari, P.P.A. (1989). Brazilian archaeology and world archaeology: some remarks. World Archaeological Bulletin 3: 60-68.
Funari, P.P.A. (1994a). South American historical archaeology. Latin American Historical Archaeology 3: 1-14.
Funari, P.P.A. (1994b). Objetividad y subjectividad en la historiografía. Biblos 6: 69-78.
Funari, P.P.A. (1995a). Mixed features of archaeological theory in Brazil. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 236-250.
Funari, P.P.A. (1995b). The archaeology of Palmares and its contribution to the understanding of the history og African-American culture. Historical Archaeology in Latin America 7: 1-41.
Funari, P.P.A. (1996a). Considerações em torno das “Teses sobre Filosofia da História”, de Walter Benjamin. Crítica Marxista 3: 45-53.
Funari, P.P.A. (1996b). Historical Archaeology in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. World Archaeological Bulletin 7: 51-62.
Funari, P.P.A. (1996c). A Arqueologia de Palmares - Sua contribuição para o conhecimento da História da cultura afro-americana. In Reis, J.J. and Gomes, F.S. (eds.), Liberdade por um fio, História dos quilombos no Brasil, Companhia das Letras, São Paulo, pp. 26-51.
Fusco, N. and López, J.M. (1992). La Arqueología de los episodios coloniales del Río de la Plata. Patrimonio Cultural 1: 7-16.
Fusco, N. (1990). Colonia del Sacramento, un relevamiento sistemático en la zona urbana. Boletín de Arqueología 2: 31-41.
Fusco, N. (n.d.). Relevamiento arqueológico en el marco de la arquitectura pública urbana de la Colonia del Sacramento. Montevideo: unpublished typescript.
García, M.A. (1991). Reforma e revolução, reforma ou revolucão, discussão de um paradigma. Revista Brasileira de História 10: 9-38.
Goldmann, L. (1975). Dialectical materialism and literary history. New Left Review 92: 39-51.
Grzybek, P. (1994). Semiotics of history - historical cultural semiotics. Semiotica 98: 341-356.
Guimarães, C.M. (1992). Esclavage, quilombos et archéologie. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie 169: 67.
Hale, C.A. (1995). Frank Tannenbaum and the Mexican revolution. Hispanic American Historical Review 2: 215-250.
Hall, M. (n.d.) Small things and the mobile, conflictual fusion of power, fear, and desire. In Yentsch, A.E. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, University Press, Boston, pp. 373-398.
Hall, M. (1991). Fish and fishermen, archaeology, and art: Cape Town seen by Boyler, D’Oyly, and De Meillon. S.-Afr. Tydskr. Kuns-Argit-Gest 2: 78-88.
Handsman, R.G. and Leone, M.P. (1989). Living history and critical archaeology in the reconstruction of the past. Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117-135.
Härke, H. (1989). The Unkerl symposia: the beginnings of a debate in West German archaeology? Current Anthropology 30: 406-410.
Härke, H. and Wolfram, S. (1993). The power of the past. Current Anthropology 34: 181-184.
Harlan, D. (1989). Intellectual history and the return of literature. American Historical Review 94: 581-688.
Hodder, I. (1991). Interpretive archaeology and its rôle. American Antiquity 56: 7-18.
Hodder, I. (1991). Archaeological theory in contemporary European societies: the emergence of competing traditions. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe, Routledge, London, pp. 1-24.
Honório Rodrigues, J. (1969). Teoria da História do Brasil (Introdução Metodológica), Companhia Editora Nacional, São Paulo.
Howson, J.E. (1990). Social relations and material culture: a critique of the archaeology of plantation society. Historical Archaeology 24: 78-91.
Iggers, G.G. (1984). New Directions in European Archaeology, Wesleyan University Press, Middleton.
Johnson, M.H. (1992). Meanings of polite architecture in sixteenth century England. Historical Archaeology 26: 45-56.
Jones, G.S. (1976). From historical sociology to theoretical history. British Journal of Sociology 27: 295-305.
Kern, A.A. (1984). O processo histórico platino no século XVII: da aldeia guarani ao povoado missioneiro. Folia Histórica del Nordeste 6: 11-31.
Kern, A.A. (1985). A importância da pesquisa arqueológica na universidade. Revista do CEPA 12: 5-11.
Kern, A.A. (1987). Problemas teórico-metodológicos relativos à análise do processo histórico missioneiro. Anais da VI Reunião da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Histórica: 5-11.
Kern, A.A. (1988). Arqueologia histórica missioneira. Anais do Simpósio Nacional de Estudos Missioneiros 7: 184-194.
Kern, A.A. (1989). Escavações arqueológicas na Missão jesuítica-guarani de São Lourenço, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Estudos Ibero-Americanos 15: 111-133.
Kern, A.A. (1991). Sociedade barroca e missões guaranis: do confronto à complementaridade. Actas do Primeiro Congresso Internacional do Barroco, Universidade do Porto, Oporto, pp. 445-465.
Kern, A.A. (1994). A Arqueologia e o sítio-escola internacional do Pós-Graduação em História da PUC-RS. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Histórica 9: 77-81.
Klein, L. (1993). Conversations with Leo Klein. Current Anthropology 34: 723-735.
Knapp, A.B. (1992). Archaeology and Annales: time, space, and change. In Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-21.
La Capra, D. (1992). Intellectual history and its ways. American Historical Review 97: 425-439.
Lagopoulos, A.P. (1996). Semiotics and Archaeology: the symbolic meaning of art and space in Imperial Rome. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 9-18.
Leone, M.P. (1986). Symbolic, structural, and critical archaeology. In Fowler, D.D. and Sabloff, J.A. (eds.), American Archaeology, past and future, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 415-438.
Leone, M.P., Potter, P.B. and Shackel, P.A. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology. Current Anthropology 28: 283-302.
Little, B. (1988). Craft and culture change in the eighteenth century Chesapeake. In Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. (eds.), The Recovery Meaning, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 263-292.
Little, B. and Shackel, P.A. (1992). Introduction. In Little, B.J. and Shackel, P. (eds.), Meanings and Uses of Material Culture, The Society for Historical Archaeology, Ann Arbor, pp. 1-4.
López, J.M. (1988). Approche historique et culturelle à la formation sociale et à l’identité Uruguayenne, University of Paris III, Paris, unpublished typescript.
López, J.M. (1990). La Arqueología uruguaya, una Arqueología antropológica. Boletín de Arqueología 2: 3-6.
López, J.M. (1992). La reconstrucción del pasado, la identidad nacional y la labor arqueológica: el caso uruguayo. In Politis, G. (ed.), Arqueología en América Latina Hoy, Banco Popular, Bogotá, pp. 167-175.
López, J.M. (n.d.). La Arqueología, disciplina concurrente de la historia uruguaya. Hoy es Historia 6: 60-62.
Lüdtke, A. (1989). Alltagsgeschichte: zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweise, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
Maier, C. (1994). Science et responsabilité de l’historien. Diogène 168: 27-42.
Marquardt, W.H. (1992). Dialectic archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 101-140.
Martín, G. (1968). Comercio y producción de cerámicas finas en época imperial. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia 5: 1-31.
Martín, G. (1969). Consideraciones sobre la terra sigillata hispánica, mauritana y la sigillata chiara en Marruecos. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia 6: 151-175.
Martín, G. (1970). Las pesquerías romanas de la costa de Alicante. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia 10: 139-153.
Martín, G. (1971). El problema de las lagunas de Almenara. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Sottomarina, Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera, pp. 91-99.
Martín, G. (1972). A economia da Península Ibérica na Antigüidade. Cadernos do Departamento de Histórica da UCPE 5: 3-34.
Martín, G. (1974). Cerámica campaniense de Valentia, Pollentia y Albintimilium. VI Symposium de Prehistoria, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 321-358.
Martín, G. (1975) . Un vaso de sagillata clara en el Museo de Alicante. Revista del Instituto de Estudios Alicantinos 15: 109-126.
Martín, G. (1978). Terra sigillata clara ‘d’, estampada de Pollentia. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 15: 293-310.
Martín, G. (1979). Problemas de metodología, cronología y difusión de algunos tipos de sigillata clara y su localización en la provincia de Alicante. Revista de Estudios Alicantinos 28: 7-76.
Martín, G. (1981). Garum e salsamentum. Técnicas de salga de peixe na Antigüidade. Clio 4: 49-60.
Martín, G. (1983). Terra sigillata clara de Pollentia. Pollentia, Estudios de los Materiales I: 169-240.
Martín, G. (1988). A verdade arqueológica sobre a colônia grega de Hemeroskopeion no Mediterrâneo ocidental. Dédalo 26: 149-163.
Martín, G. (1996). Pré-História do Nordeste do Brasil, Editora da UFPE, Recife.
Mazel, A.D. People making history: the last ten thousand years of hunter-gatherer communities in the Thukela Basin. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 1: 1-168.
McCullagh, C.B. (1993). Metaphor and truth in history. Clio 23: 23-49.
Mello, U.P. (1975). Arqueologia histórica, pesquisa histórica e restauração de monumentos. Revista Pernambucana de Desenvolvimento 2: 13-17.
Mello, U.P. (1976). O galeão Sacramento (1668), um naufrágio do século XVII e os resultados de uma pesquisa arqueológica submarina na Bahia. Navigator 13.
Mello, U.P. (1983). O Forte das Cinco Pontas, FCCR, Recife.
Mello e Souza, L. (1996). A devoção e os milagres da vida cotidiana. Folha de São Paulo, 13/11/96, 6, p. 11.
Meneses, U.T.B. (1965). Sentido e função de um Museu de Arqueologia. Dédalo 1: 19-26.
Miller, D. and Tilley, C. (1996). Editorial. Journal of Material Culture 1: 5-14.
Mommsen, W.J. (1984). Die Sprache des Historikers. Historische Zeitschrift 238: 57-81.
Moreland, J.F. (1992). Restoring the dialectic: settlement patterns and documents in medieval central Italy. In Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 112-129.
Murray, T. (1995). On Klejn’s agenda for theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology 36: 290-292.
Nassaney, M. (1989). An epistemological enquiry into some archaeological and historical interpretations of seventeenth century Native American-European relations. In Shenan, S.J. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identities, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 76-93.
Neme, S., Beltrão, M.C. and Niemeyer, H. (1992). Historical Archaeology Features of Project Central, Rio de Janeiro, unpublished typescript.
Newell, D. (1991). Industrial archaeology: will it ever be an historical science? Arqueología Industrial, Diputació de Valencia, Valencia, pp. 362-376.
Nordbladh, J. (1989). Comments on archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 24-28.
Olsen, B. (1986). Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre)history: or how to create a myth of a uniform past. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 25-42.
Orser, C.E. (1987). Plantation status and consumer choice: a materialist framework for historical archaeology. In Spencer-Wood, S.M. (ed.), Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum, New York, pp. 121-137.
Orser, C.E. (1988). The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation. Historical archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont, University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Orser, C.E. (1992). Introdução à Arqueologia Histórica, translated by P.P.A. Funari, Oficina de Livros, Belo Horizonte.
Orser, C.E. (1996). A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, Plenum, New York.
Ortiz, R.D. (1993). The responsibility of historians. Mothly Review 46: 60-65.
Otto, K.-H. (1975). Modern Archäologie. In Otto, K.-H. and Brachman, H.-J. (eds.), Moderne Probleme der Archäologie, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11-27.
Patterson, T.C. (1989). History and the post-processual archaeologies. Man 24: 555-566.
Patterson, T.C. (1990). Algunas tendencias teóricas de la pos-guerra en la Arqueología estadunidense. Boletín de Antropología Americana 21: 5-23.
Paynter, R. (1988). Steps to an archaeology of capitalism. Material change and class analysis. In Leone, M.P. and Potter, P.B. (eds.), The Recovery of Meaning, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 407-433.
Paynter, R. (1990). Afro-Americans in the Massachusetts historical landscape. In Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 49-62.
Paynter, R. and McGuire, R.H. (1991). The archaeology of inequality: material culture, domination, and resistance. In Paynter, R. and McGuire, R.H. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-27.
Paynter, R. (1995). Review. Historical Archaeology 29: 94-96.
Pendery, S.R. (1992). Consumer behaviour in colonial Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1630-1760. Historical Archaeology 26: 57-72.
Petrilli, S. (1993). Thomas A. Sebeok and semiotics in the United States in the panorama of recent developments in Italian semiotics. Semiotica 97: 337-372.
Pinsky, V. (1989). Commentary: a critical rôle for the history of archaeology. In Pinsky, V. and Vylie, A. (eds.), Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 88-91.
Podgorny, I. (1991). Historia, minorías y control del pasado. Boletín del Centro, Publicación del Centro de Registro del Patrimonio Arqueológico y Paleontológico 2: 154-159.
Politis, G. (1995). The socio-politics of the development of archaeology in Hispanic South America. In Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology, a world perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 197-235.
Potter, P.P. (1992). Critical archaeology: in the ground and on the street. Historical Archaeology 26: 117-129.
Poujade, R.A. (1980). Relevamiento arqueológico generalizado de la Provincia de Misiones, Posadas, unpublished typescritp.
Poujade, R.A. (1985/6). Proyecto integral para la recuperación del patrimonio cultural prehistorico de las zonas a inundarse en el municipio de Posadas, Misiones, Argentina, Posadas, unpublished typescript.
Poujade, R.A. (1986/7). Programa de relevamiento, rescate e investigación cultural y natural en zonas afectadas por E.B.Y. en Misiones, Posadas, unpublished typescript.
Poujade, R.A. (1992). Poblamiento prehistórico y colonial de Misiones. Estudos Ibero-Americanos 18: 29-69.
Reill, P.H. (1994). Science and the construction of the cultural sciences in late Enlightenment Germany: the case of W. von Humboldt. History and Theory 33: 345-366.
Renfrew, C. (1993). An interview with Colin Renfrew. Current Anthropology 34: 71-82.
Rowlands, M. (1983). Objectivity and subjectivity in archaeology. In Spriggs, M. (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 108-113.
Rubertone, P.E. (1989). Archaeology, colonialism, and seventeenth century Native-America: towards an alternative interpretation. In Layton, R. (ed.), Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 32-45.
Sábato, H. (1993). Participación política y ciudadana en la historiografía política argentina, anos 90. Revista do Curso de Pós em História da UFRGS 1: 85-102.
Salmon, M.H. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
Schávelzon, D. (1986a). Construcciones históricas bajo la cota zero de Buenos Aires, Summa, Colección Temática1 19: 58-61.
Schávelzon, D. (1986b). Analysis y descripción de los objetos recobrados en el Caserón de Rosas, Conicet, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1987a). Arqueología e Historia de la Capilla de Tanti, Córdoba, 1840-1848, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1987b). Arqueología e Historia de la Usina eléctrica de Palermo: informe preliminar, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1987c). Tipología, clavos y bulones: notas sobre su cronología histórica, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1987d). Tipología de recipientes de gres cerámico para la Arqueología Histórica de Buenos Aires, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1987e). El Polvorín de Cueli en el Jardín Botánico: informe preliminar, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1988a). Tipología de la Loza arqueológica de Buenos Aires (1780-1900), Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1988b). La excavación de un Aljibe en San Telmo: transformación edilicia y cronología arqueológica (1865-1895), Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1988c). Excavaciones en Defensa 1648, Buenos Aires, Primer Informe, Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1991a). Arqueología de Superficie en Colonia del Sacramento, IAAIE, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1991b). Arqueología Histórica de Buenos Aires, vol. 1, la cultura material porteña de los siglos XVIII y XIX, Corregido, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1992). Arqueología Histórica de Buenos Aires, vol.2, túneles y construcciones subterráneas, Corregidos, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. (1993). Arqueología Histórica de Buenos Aires, vol.3, excavaciones de la Imprenta Coni, Corregidor, Buenos Aires.
Schávelzon, D. and Ramos, J. (1989/91). Historia y Arqueología de Palermo de San Benito, aspectos de su planeamiento ambiental, Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano 27/28: 74-92.
Schávelzon, D. and Ramos, J. (1991). Excavaciones arqueológicas en el Caserón de Rosas en Palermo: informe de la segunda temporada. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas 26: 71-92.
Senatore, M.X. (1995). Tecnologías nativas y estrategias de ocupación española en la región del Río de la Plata, The University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Senatore, M.X. and Zarankin, A. (n.d.). Reseña crítica sobre Arqueología Colonial en Argentina. Páginas Sobre Hispanoamérica Colonial 3 (forthcoming).
Shackel, P. (1993). Personal Discipline and Material Culture: an Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870, University of Tennesee Press, Knoxville.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. (1987). Re-constructing archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shanks, M. and Hodder, I. (1995). Processual, post-processual and interpretive archaeologies. In Hodder, I. , Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Lucas, G. (eds.), Interpreting Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-29.
Sharp, J. (1991). History from below. In Burke, P. (ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Writing, Polity, Oxford, pp. 24-41.
Sherratt, A. (1992). What can archaeologists learn from Annalistes? In Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135-142.
Slenes, R. (1996a). As provações de um Abraão africano: a nascente nação brasileira na Viagem Alegórica de Johan Moritz Rugendas. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 271-294.
Slenes, R. (1996b). The trials of an African Abraham: the Brazilian nation aborning in the Allegorical Travels of Johan Moritz Rugendas. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 519-536.
Smith, M.E. (1992). Braudel’s temporal rhytmuses and chronology theory in archaeology. In Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23-34.
Somekawa, W. and Smith, E.A. (1988). Theorizing the writing of history or, “I can’t think why is should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention”. Journal of Social History 22: 149-161.
Spencer-Wood, S. (1995). Review. Historical Archaeology 29: 100-102.
Spriggs, M. (1983). Another way of telling: Marxist perspectives in archaeology. In Spriggs, M. (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-9.
Tamanini, E. (1995). Museu Arqueológico de Sambaqui: um olhar necessário, Campinas, unpublished master’s dissertation.
Tchernov, S. (1996). Os macaquinhos da bodega de Moscou. Revista de História da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 83-90.
Thompson, E.P. (1966). History from below. The Times Literary Supplement, 7th April, pp. 279-280.
Tilley, C. (1990). On modernity and archaeological discourse. In Bapty, I. and Yates, T. (eds.), Archaeology after Structuralism. Post-structuralism and the practice of archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 128-152.
Trigger, B.G. (1984). Archaeology at the crossroads: what’s new? Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 275-300.
Trigger, B.G. (1989a). Hyperrelativism, responsibility, and the social sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26: 776-797.
Trigger, B.G. (1989b). History and contemporary American archaeology: a critical analysis. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19-34.
Trigger, B.G. (1990). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tucker, A. (1993). A theory of historiography as a pre-science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24: 633-667.
Ucko, P. (1989). Foreword. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. ix-xx.
Ucko, P. (1990). Foreword. In Gathercole, P. and Lowenthal, D. (eds.), The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. ix-xxi.
Vann, R.T. (1988). Historians’s words and things. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18: 465-470.
Veit, U. (1989). Ethnic concepts in German prehistory: a case study on the relationship between cultural identity and archaeological objectivity. In Shennan, S. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 35-56.
Vianna, H. (1992). Arqueologia e patrimônio municipal: repensando funções e possibilidades. Cadernos do Patrimônio Cultural 2: 57-64.
Vogel, A. and Mello, M.A.S. (1984). Sistemas construídos e memória social: uma Arqueologia urbana? Revista de Arqueologia 2: 46-50.
Walinski-Kiehl, R.S. (1989). Review. The Journal of Peasant Studies 17: 141-143.
Wilk, R.R. (1985). The ancient Maya and the political present. Journal of Anthropological Research 41: 307-326.
Wood, E.M. (1994). E.P. Thompson: historian and socialist. Monthly Review 45: 8-14.
Wood, J.J. and Powell, S. (1993). An ethos for archaeological practice. Human Organization 52: 405-413.
Wright, J. and Mazel, A. (1991). Controlling the past in the Museums of Natal and KwaZulu. Critical Arts 5: 59-77.
Zanettini, P.E. (1986). Pequeno roteiro para classificação de louças em pesquisas arqueológicas de sítios históricos. Arqueologia 5: 117-130.
Zanettini, P.E. (1990). Calçada do Lorena: o primeiro caminho para o mar. Memória 9: 30-35.
Zarankin, A. (1995). Arqueología Histórica Urbana en Santa Fe la Vieja: el final del principio, The University of South Carolina, Columbia.
[1] Departamento de História, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Caixa Postal 6110, Campinas, 13081-970, São Paulo, Brazil.
Buscar en esta seccion :