Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Arqueología etnohistórica||Contributor(s):||Davidson, Iain (author)||Publication Date:||2006||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2289||Abstract:||In this paper I explore the contrast between the approaches of Binford and Hodder to the use of ethnoarchaeology as a mean of interpreting the evidence of past behaviour. Using a semiotic approach. I identify that Binford was concerned with the discoveryof signs of behaviour which would serve as indices for the interpretation of archaeological evidence, Hodder. on the other hand, became preoccupied with the pervasiveness of symbols in the lives of his informants in Africa. Recognising that symbols are related to their referents both arbitrarily and through the cultural conventions of their creators. I argue that it is impossible to obtain indices of the significance of symbols such that we caninterpret those from the past. Using examples from my own work in Spain and in Australia, I show that it is. nevertheless possible to create historical accounts of the past. but that they will not necessarily be like historical accounts based on written texts.||Publication Type:||Conference Publication||Conference Name:||Simposio Internacional Etnoarqueología de la Prehistoria, 2004, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, September 2004||Source of Publication:||Etnoarqueología De La Prehistoria: Más allá de la Analogía, p. 257-271||Publisher:||Impreso en Espana||Place of Publication:||CSIC, Madrid||Field of Research (FOR):||160104 Social and Cultural Anthropology||Peer Reviewed:||Yes||HERDC Category Description:||E1 Refereed Scholarly Conference Publication||Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 55
|Appears in Collections:||Conference Publication|
Files in This Item:
checked on Feb 8, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.