As contradições do modelo dedutivo em Arqueologia e Antropologia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24885/sab.v3i1.49Palavras-chave:
Modelo dedutivo, Teoria Arqueológica, TeoriaResumo
Em antropología pré-histórica, ou arqueologia antropológica, Binford (1962, 1965, 1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1972, etc) aparece como o representante mais famoso do método dedutivo ou dedutivo-nomotético. Não se ignora a importância de outras publicações com idéias semelhantes e afins (Fritz & Plog, 1970; Martin, 1971; Plog, 1975; Watson et a\.11972, etc) mas, se se atém ao noticiário das revistas especializadas e ao testemunho virtualmente unânime de todos que têm escrito e falado sobre o assunto, é da cídidamente ao primeiro que cabe atribuir a liderança em propor e defender o paradigma da dedução em arqueologia.
Downloads
Referências
ABERLE, D 1960 —The influence of linguistics on early culture and personality theory; em essays in the Science of Culture. In: WHITE, A. ; DOLE, G.; CARNEIRO, E., ed. Honor of Leslie. New York; Crowell. p. 1-49.
BARNES, H. 1960 —Foreword; em Essays in the Science of Culture. In: White, A.; DOLE, G.; CARNEIRO, R., ed. Honor of Leslie New York, Crowell. p. xl-xlvi.
BENEDICT, R. 1934 — Patterns of Culture. New York, Houghton and Mifflin.
BINFORD, L. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. Am. Antiq . , Menasha, '28: 225
—Archaeological systematics and the study of culture processes. Ame Antiq., Menasha, 31 : 203- 210.
—Comment on K.C. Chang's "Major aspects of the interrelationship of Archaeology and Ethnology". Curr. Anthrop., Chicago, 8 : 234 - 235.
a - Archaelogy perspectives; em New perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago, Aldine. p. 5-32
b -- Some comments on historical versus processual Archaeology East. J. Anthrop , Santa Fé, 24 : 267-275
An Archaeological perspective. New York, Seminar Press
CHANG, 1967 —Rethinking Archaeology. New York, Random House.
—Toward a science of prehistoric society, em Settlement Archaeo!ogy. Palo Alto, National Press Books. p. 1 -9.
COPLESTON, F 1950 —A Histoty of Philosophy. New York,Image Books
EDWARDS, P. 1967 — The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy New York, Macmillan. p. 169.
FRITZ, J. & PLOG, F. 1970 — The Nature of Archaeological explanation. Am. Antiq., Menasha, 35: 305 - 412.
HEMPEL, C.1962 — Deductive-Nomological versus Statistical eaplanation, em Minnesota studies in Phi. Zosophy of science Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. v. 3, p. 98- 169.
KLUCKHOHN, C.1944 — Navaho Witchcraft. Boston, Beacon Pres.
LEVIN, M,1973 On explanation in Archaeology, a Rebuttal to Fritz and Plog. Am. Antiq., Menasha, 38: 387 - 395.
MARITAIN, J. 1946 — Les Degrés du savoir. 5. ed. Paris, Desclée.
NLARTIN, P 1971 — The Revolution in Archaeology. Am. Antiq., Menasha. 36: 1-8.
MORWOOD, M. 1975 — Analogy and the acceptance of theory in Archaeology. Am. Antiq. Menasha, 40 : 111 - 116.
PLOG, F.1975—Systems theory in archaeological research. An. Rev. Anthrop. , Palo Alto, 4: 207 - 224.
POPPER, K 1959—The Logic of scientific discovery. London. Hutchinson.
RAULET, H.1968 —Comment in book Review of Marvin Harris's. The rise of Anthropological theory. Curr Anthrop. , Chicago, 9: 519 • 533.
TAYLOR, E 1919 —Aristotle. New York, Dover.
WATSON, P.; LE BLANC, S.; REDMAN, C. 1972 —Explanation in Archaeology; an ecplicitW scientific approach. New York, Columbia University Press.
WHITE, L 1946 —Kroeber's configurations of culture growth. Am. Anthrop., Lancaster, 48: 78-93.
—The Science of Culture. New York, Grove Press.
Review of Kroeber's "The Nature of Culture". Am. Anthrop. Lancaster, 56: 461468.
—The Concept of Culture. In: A. Montagu ed. Culture and the evolution of man. New York, Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Roberto M. C. Motta
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
