1

FUNARI, P.P.A. Archaeology, History, and Historical Archaeology in South America.

International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 1,3: 189-206, 1997.

ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN

SOUTH AMERICA
Pedro Paulo A. Funari 1
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 rle 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

Departamento de Histria, Instituto de Filosofia e Cincias Humanas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas,

Caixa Postal 6110, Campinas, 13081-970, So Paulo, Brazil.

historical analysis, is felt not only in post-processual archaeology but also in the other related
human and social sciences (Hrke 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 Jos Mara Lpez (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 (Cerd, 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

Braudels longue dure, 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 (Ldtke, 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 Bourdieus (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 (Sbato, 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 disciplines 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 (Honrio 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 postprocessual 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 (Burguire, 1982, p. 437; Harlan, 1989, p. 587; Calhoun, 1993, p. 91). Changing
scientific standards (Burckhardt, 1958, p. xi) depend on present-day, social understandings
(Frana, 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 kritik tkhne, 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).
Mommsens contention that die Historiker einer nationalen Kulturgemeischaft angehren
(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 Uckos 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 (Garca, 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 Schvelzon has been very active
in the field from that period, acting with other fieldworkers, and studying building in Buenos
Aires (Schvelzon, 1986a; 1987e; 1988b; 1988c), Crdoba (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 Schvelzon and his associates. Davey (1989) published a
monograph on clay pipes and Schvelzon and Ramos (1989-1991; 1991) also published
archaeological reports on excavations at Caldern de Rosas, at Palermo. From 1991,
Schvelzon has been publishing a series entitled Historical Archaeology at Buenos Aires,
with volumes on the material culture of the eigtheenth and nineteenth centuries (Schvelzon,
1991a; 1991b), on underground buildings (Schvelzon, 1992), on the excavations at the
Imprenta Coni (Schvelzon, 1993), and on the excavations at San Telmo.
Jos Roberto Brcena 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). Brcena (1993a) has also been
active in the historical heritage protection and management, in the capital and elsewhere in
the same province (Brcena, 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). Andrs Zarankin (1995) has published a
monograph on Santa Fe la Vieja, a site occupied for ninety years, from 1573 to 1660, and
Mara 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 Ro 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 So Paulo, Maria da Conceio
Beltro (Neme, Beltro 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
(Guimares, 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. Lpez (1988) studied
the rle of archaeology in the construction of national identity and pleaded for an
anthropological approach to material culture which could overcome collectionist ideology
(Lpez, 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; Lpez, 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 (Schvelzon, 1991; Fusco and Lpez, 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 Shackels study
of discipline and material culture in Annapolis, USA, which synthesizes Eric Wolfs
anthropology, Fernand Braudels history and Michel Foucaults 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 Shackels
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
(DAgostino, 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. Orsers 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 Histria 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 rle 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 postprocessual 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 Hrke (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 Martins rle in the development of both
disciplines in the northeast of Brazil: Martn 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 (Martn, 1968; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1972; 1974; 1975; 1978;
1979; 1981; 1983; 1988); Martn 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: Jos Roberto Brcena,
Leonel Cabrera, Edgar de Decca, Lis Fernando de Oliveira Fontes, Nelsys Fusco, Martin
Hall, San Jones, Arno lvares Kern, Alexandros Phaidon Lagopoulos, Mark P. Leone,
Barbara Little, Jos Mara Lpez, Gabriela Martn, Aron Mazel, Jarl Nordbadh, Parker Potter,
Charles E. Orser, Jr., Irina Podgorny, Gustavo Politis, Ruth Poujade, Michael Rowlands,
Daniel Schvelzon, Paul A. Shackel, Michael Shanks, Elizabete Tamanini, Serguei Tchernov,
Bruce G. Trigger, Peter Ucko, Hlio 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 Faiana Portuguesa dos sculos XVI ao XIX em Vila Flor, Rio
Grande do Norte, unpublished masters thesis, Recife.
Albuquerque, M. (1971). O Stio Arqueolgico PE 16 Cp, UFPE, Recife.
Albuquerque, M. (1980). Escavaes arqueolgicas realizadas na Igreja quinhentista de Nossa
Senhora da Divina Graa, em Olinda. Clio 3: 89-90.
Albuquerque, M. (1991). Perspectivas da Arqueologia Histrica no Brasil. Resumos da VI
Reunio da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, SAB, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 32-33.
Andreatta, M.D. (1981/2). Arqueologia Histrica no municpio de So Paulo. Revista do
Museu Paulista 28: 174-177.
Andreatta, M.D. (1986). A Casa do Grito, Ipiranga. Revista do Arquivo Municipal 197:151172.
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 studyof 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 studyof 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). Larte classica. Arte greca. Ritratto, Riuniti, Rome.
Bandinelli, R.B. (1994). A Histria da Arte como interpretao histrica da forma. Revista de
Histria da Arte e Arqueologia 1: 227-240.
Brcena, J.R. (1993a). Investigacin, rescate y valorizacin del patrimonio arqueolgico e
histrico en el rea fundacional de Mendoza. Bolsa de Comercio de Mendoza 353: 3-8.

Brcena, J.R. (1993b). Las investigaciones arqueolgicas e histricas y las posibilidades

econmicas del rescate y valorizacin del patrimonio cultural. Boletn de la Bolsa de
Comercio de Mendoza 351: 3-4.
Brcena, J.R. (n.d. a). Rescate Arqueolgico en el rea fundacional de Mendoza,
Municipalidad de Mendoza, Mendoza.
Brcena, J.R. (n.d. b). Rescate Arqueolgico en rea fundacional de Mendoza. Plaza del
Castillo, La Pila o fuente del siglo XIX, Municipalidad de Mendoza, Mendoza.
Brcena, J.R. (n.d. c). Proteccin de Sitios Arqueolgicos en el rea de Montaa 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). crits sur lHistoire, 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.
Burguire, A. (1982). The fate of history of mentalits 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 Arqueologa en el Uruguay: hacia el
reconocimiento de un pasado olvidado. In Politis, G. (ed.), Arqueologa en Amrica Latina
Hoy, Banco Popular, Bogot, 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: 7596.
Carandini, A. (1979). Archeologia e Cultura Materiale. Dai lavori senza gloria
nellantichit a una politica dei beni culturali, De Donato, Bari.
Carrard, P. (1986). Rcit historique et fonction testimoniale, les archives de la Grande Guerre.
Potique 65: 47-61.
Castro, M.M. (1996). Ex-votos mineiros - As tbuas votivas no Ciclo do Ouro, Expresso e
Cultura, Rio de Janeiro.
Cazzetta, M. (1991). Arqueologia e planejamento urbano. I Congresso Latino-Americano
sobre Cultura Arquitetnica e Urbanstica, Porto Alegre, unpublished typescript.
Cerd, M. (1991). Industrial archaeology and the working class. In Cerd, M. and Torr, J.
(eds.), Arqueologa Industrial, Diputaci 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). Collinwoods detective image of the historian and the study of Hadrians
Wall. History and Theory 29: 57-77.

1
0

DAgostino, 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 lhistoire. Diogne 168: 43-51.
Fonseca, O.M. (1990). A Arqueologia como Histria. Ddalo 28: 39-62.
Fontes, L.F.O. (1992). O norte de Portugal no perodo suevo-visigtico. Elementos para seu
estudo. XXXIX Corso di Cultura sullarte Ravennate e Bizantina, USR, Bologna, pp. 217-248.
Frana, E.O. (1951). Consideraes sobre a funo cultural da Histria. Revista de Histria 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 historiografa. 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). Consideraes em torno das Teses sobre Filosofia da Histria, de
Walter Benjamin. Crtica 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 contribuio para o conhecimento
da Histria da cultura afro-americana. In Reis, J.J. and Gomes, F.S. (eds.), Liberdade por um
fio, Histria dos quilombos no Brasil, Companhia das Letras, So Paulo, pp. 26-51.
Fusco, N. and Lpez, J.M. (1992). La Arqueologa de los episodios coloniales del Ro de la
Plata. Patrimonio Cultural 1: 7-16.
Fusco, N. (1990). Colonia del Sacramento, un relevamiento sistemtico en la zona urbana.
Boletn de Arqueologa 2: 31-41.
Fusco, N. (n.d.). Relevamiento arqueolgico en el marco de la arquitectura pblica urbana
de la Colonia del Sacramento. Montevideo: unpublished typescript.
Garca, M.A. (1991). Reforma e revoluo, reforma ou revoluco, discusso de um
paradigma. Revista Brasileira de Histria 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: 341356.
Guimares, C.M. (1992). Esclavage, quilombos et archologie. Les Dossiers dArchologie
169: 67.
Hale, C.A. (1995). Frank Tannenbaum and the Mexican revolution. Hispanic American
Historical Review 2: 215-250.

1
1

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,
DOyly, 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.
Hrke, H. (1989). The Unkerl symposia: the beginnings of a debate in West German
archaeology? Current Anthropology 30: 406-410.
Hrke, 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 rle. 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.
Honrio Rodrigues, J. (1969). Teoria da Histria do Brasil (Introduo Metodolgica),
Companhia Editora Nacional, So 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 histrico platino no sculo XVII: da aldeia guarani ao povoado
missioneiro. Folia Histrica del Nordeste 6: 11-31.
Kern, A.A. (1985). A importncia da pesquisa arqueolgica na universidade. Revista do
CEPA 12: 5-11.
Kern, A.A. (1987). Problemas terico-metodolgicos relativos anlise do processo histrico
missioneiro. Anais da VI Reunio da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Histrica: 5-11.
Kern, A.A. (1988). Arqueologia histrica missioneira. Anais do Simpsio Nacional de
Estudos Missioneiros 7: 184-194.
Kern, A.A. (1989). Escavaes arqueolgicas na Misso jesutica-guarani de So Loureno,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Estudos Ibero-Americanos 15: 111-133.
Kern, A.A. (1991). Sociedade barroca e misses guaranis: do confronto complementaridade.
Actas do Primeiro Congresso Internacional do Barroco, Universidade do Porto, Oporto, pp.
445-465.
Kern, A.A. (1994). A Arqueologia e o stio-escola internacional do Ps-Graduao em
Histria da PUC-RS. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Histrica 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: 425439.
Lagopoulos, A.P. (1996). Semiotics and Archaeology: the symbolic meaning of art and space
in Imperial Rome. Revista de Histria da Arte e Arqueologia 2: 9-18.

1
2

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.
Lpez, J.M. (1988). Approche historique et culturelle la formation sociale et lidentit
Uruguayenne, University of Paris III, Paris, unpublished typescript.
Lpez, J.M. (1990). La Arqueologa uruguaya, una Arqueologa antropolgica. Boletn de
Arqueologa 2: 3-6.
Lpez, J.M. (1992). La reconstruccin del pasado, la identidad nacional y la labor
arqueolgica: el caso uruguayo. In Politis, G. (ed.), Arqueologa en Amrica Latina Hoy,
Banco Popular, Bogot, pp. 167-175.
Lpez, J.M. (n.d.). La Arqueologa, disciplina concurrente de la historia uruguaya. Hoy es
Historia 6: 60-62.
Ldtke, A. (1989). Alltagsgeschichte: zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und
Lebensweise, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt.
Maier, C. (1994). Science et responsabilit de lhistorien. Diogne 168: 27-42.
Marquardt, W.H. (1992). Dialectic archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 101140.
Martn, G. (1968). Comercio y produccin de cermicas finas en poca imperial. Papeles del
Laboratorio de Arqueologa de Valencia 5: 1-31.
Martn, G. (1969). Consideraciones sobre la terra sigillata hispnica, mauritana y la sigillata
chiara en Marruecos. Papeles del Laboratorio de Arqueologa de Valencia 6: 151-175.
Martn, G. (1970). Las pesqueras romanas de la costa de Alicante. Papeles del Laboratorio
de Arqueologa de Valencia 10: 139-153.
Martn, 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.
Martn, G. (1972). A economia da Pennsula Ibrica na Antigidade. Cadernos do
Departamento de Histrica da UCPE 5: 3-34.
Martn, G. (1974). Cermica campaniense de Valentia, Pollentia y Albintimilium. VI
Symposium de Prehistoria, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 321-358.
Martn, G. (1975) . Un vaso de sagillata clara en el Museo de Alicante. Revista del Instituto
de Estudios Alicantinos 15: 109-126.
Martn, G. (1978). Terra sigillata clara d, estampada de Pollentia. Archivo de Prehistoria
Levantina 15: 293-310.
Martn, G. (1979). Problemas de metodologa, cronologa y difusin de algunos tipos de
sigillata clara y su localizacin en la provincia de Alicante. Revista de Estudios Alicantinos
28: 7-76.
Martn, G. (1981). Garum e salsamentum. Tcnicas de salga de peixe na Antigidade. Clio 4:
49-60.
Martn, G. (1983). Terra sigillata clara de Pollentia. Pollentia, Estudios de los Materiales I:
169-240.

1
3

Martn, G. (1988). A verdade arqueolgica sobre a colnia grega de Hemeroskopeion no

Mediterrneo ocidental. Ddalo 26: 149-163.
Martn, G. (1996). Pr-Histria 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 histrica, pesquisa histrica e restaurao de monumentos.
Revista Pernambucana de Desenvolvimento 2: 13-17.
Mello, U.P. (1976). O galeo Sacramento (1668), um naufrgio do sculo XVII e os
resultados de uma pesquisa arqueolgica submarina na Bahia. Navigator 13.
Mello, U.P. (1983). O Forte das Cinco Pontas, FCCR, Recife.
Mello e Souza, L. (1996). A devoo e os milagres da vida cotidiana. Folha de So Paulo,
13/11/96, 6, p. 11.
Meneses, U.T.B. (1965). Sentido e funo de um Museu de Arqueologia. Ddalo 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 Klejns 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., Beltro, 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? Arqueologa
Industrial, Diputaci 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). Introduo Arqueologia Histrica, 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 Archologie. In Otto, K.-H. and Brachman, H.-J. (eds.), Moderne
Probleme der Archologie, 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 tericas de la pos-guerra en la Arqueologa
estadunidense. Boletn de Antropologa 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.

1
4

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, 16301760. 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 rle 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, minoras y control del pasado. Boletn del Centro, Publicacin
del Centro de Registro del Patrimonio Arqueolgico y Paleontolgico 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 arqueolgico generalizado de la Provincia de Misiones,
Posadas, unpublished typescritp.
Poujade, R.A. (1985/6). Proyecto integral para la recuperacin 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 investigacin cultural y natural
en zonas afectadas por E.B.Y. en Misiones, Posadas, unpublished typescript.
Poujade, R.A. (1992). Poblamiento prehistrico y colonial de Misiones. Estudos IberoAmericanos 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.
Sbato, H. (1993). Participacin poltica y ciudadana en la historiografa poltica argentina,
anos 90. Revista do Curso de Ps em Histria da UFRGS 1: 85-102.
Salmon, M.H. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
Schvelzon, D. (1986a). Construcciones histricas bajo la cota zero de Buenos Aires, Summa,
Coleccin Temtica1 19: 58-61.
Schvelzon, D. (1986b). Analysis y descripcin de los objetos recobrados en el Casern de
Rosas, Conicet, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1987a). Arqueologa e Historia de la Capilla de Tanti, Crdoba, 1840-1848,
Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1987b). Arqueologa e Historia de la Usina elctrica de Palermo: informe
preliminar, Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1987c). Tipologa, clavos y bulones: notas sobre su cronologa histrica,
Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.

1
5

Schvelzon, D. (1987d). Tipologa de recipientes de gres cermico para la Arqueologa

Histrica de Buenos Aires, Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1987e). El Polvorn de Cueli en el Jardn Botnico: informe preliminar,
Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1988a). Tipologa de la Loza arqueolgica de Buenos Aires (1780-1900),
Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1988b). La excavacin de un Aljibe en San Telmo: transformacin edilicia y
cronologa arqueolgica (1865-1895), Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1988c). Excavaciones en Defensa 1648, Buenos Aires, Primer Informe,
Programa de Arqueologa Urbana, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1991a). Arqueologa de Superficie en Colonia del Sacramento, IAAIE,
Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1991b). Arqueologa Histrica de Buenos Aires, vol. 1, la cultura material
portea de los siglos XVIII y XIX, Corregido, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1992). Arqueologa Histrica de Buenos Aires, vol.2, tneles y
construcciones subterrneas, Corregidos, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. (1993). Arqueologa Histrica de Buenos Aires, vol.3, excavaciones de la
Imprenta Coni, Corregidor, Buenos Aires.
Schvelzon, D. and Ramos, J. (1989/91). Historia y Arqueologa de Palermo de San Benito,
aspectos de su planeamiento ambiental, Anales del Instituto de Arte Americano 27/28: 74-92.
Schvelzon, D. and Ramos, J. (1991). Excavaciones arqueolgicas en el Casern de Rosas en
Palermo: informe de la segunda temporada. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas
26: 71-92.
Senatore, M.X. (1995). Tecnologas nativas y estrategias de ocupacin espaola en la regin
del Ro de la Plata, The University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Senatore, M.X. and Zarankin, A. (n.d.). Resea crtica sobre Arqueologa Colonial en
Argentina. Pginas Sobre Hispanoamrica 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. 135142.
Slenes, R. (1996a). As provaes de um Abrao africano: a nascente nao brasileira na
Viagem Alegrica de Johan Moritz Rugendas. Revista de Histria 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 Histria da Arte e Arqueologia 2:
519-536.
Smith, M.E. (1992). Braudels temporal rhytmuses and chronology theory in archaeology. In
Knapp, A.B. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 23-34.

1
6

Somekawa, W. and Smith, E.A. (1988). Theorizing the writing of history or, I cant 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 Arqueolgico de Sambaqui: um olhar necessrio, Campinas,
unpublished masters dissertation.
Tchernov, S. (1996). Os macaquinhos da bodega de Moscou. Revista de Histria 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: whats 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). Historianss 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 patrimnio municipal: repensando funes e possibilidades.
Cadernos do Patrimnio Cultural 2: 57-64.
Vogel, A. and Mello, M.A.S. (1984). Sistemas construdos e memria 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 classificao de louas em pesquisas
arqueolgicas de stios histricos. Arqueologia 5: 117-130.

1
7

Zanettini, P.E. (1990). Calada do Lorena: o primeiro caminho para o mar. Memria 9: 30-35.
Zarankin, A. (1995). Arqueologa Histrica Urbana en Santa Fe la Vieja: el final del
principio, The University of South Carolina, Columbia.