L to Theory and stained with 2 relieve aspects: one as part of a building, which is articulated with other elements that are harmonious and aesthetically and configured macro level, but turn in the case of stained glass has the ability to display color or objects actually have been the other side of this. This helps us understand how is that reality can be perceived in various ways.
If we apply purely to archeology, we see how the theory is able to articulate with it, with Science, and Prehistory, impacting the dynamics of the four and the adequacy of each alone. This is how the theory by components of culture, material culture, the archaeological record and context has been established different shades, which have represented throughout the development of archaeological practice the construction of the past. This setting will be systematized to prehistory.
That said, one wonders how he is able to do so, and can present as follows: The theory is able to build data and associations from the archaeological record, but to do so purely because or do not fall into a mere Description and inventory of objects and facts, but seeks first delimit a more abstract level This in turn will be influenced by sociocultural theory, it is the nexus of Hispanic culture and society, which is what ultimately aims to reconstruct and the sociopolitical context of research which itself is coupled through critical theory, archaeological socio-historical context. All this to be finally and finally prehistoric archaeological knowledge. We have then that the archaeological record influenced by the physical theory is dateado from the notion of material culture and culture that are defined within the Sociocultural theory with which to work to solve research problems, but do not forget that if the investigator is chosen because it is something of the sociopolitical context to which the investigator and is linked to critical theory help with this with the construction of archaeological socio-historical context.
Within the history of the development of the discipline are some examples of how these concepts have been designed so that they have built a prehistory. One can cite the example of the Prehistory of Northern Chile where first end of the nineteenth century and the early Century, when Chile is on the verge of the centenary of independence in addition to the recent war in the Pacific that earned him the incorporation of new territories such as the current regions of northern Chile and that led to the task of exploring those to take cognizance of its past, which was hired foreign intellectuals so they could carry out this task to make known what was there and that one day there. Of course it before under the current theories of the Old World as the evolution and broadcasting that impacted on that culture is basically considered within the parameters of simplicity and complexity as groups ordered the wild or simple or complex and civilized barbarians, if all the groups had to go through these stages in a progressive manner no matter where in the world to which they belonged. As diffusionists influences the ideas that we all made it look more foreign influence comes both through immigration and contacts. This was seen in the consideration of material culture from the perspective of the simplicity or complexity of material culture and possible indications of complexity were considered outsiders or migration, for example, groups coming from the highlands or Peru. This helped to shape cultural sequences leaving with names such as aboriginal or primal man Arica and culminating in the arrival or the invasion of the Incas or Tiwanaku as the elements of civilization.
So far we have presented a scheme that has tried to be clear and fluid, in order to illustrate in a brief relationship between theory and production of prehistory, however, is a fanciful aspiration trying to take for granted the prehistoric trying to systematize knowledge integrating the various colors that can combine in a stained glass or even to wait indefinitely to systematize the information that is relieved and can be integrated? Perhaps the question should still be bounded to the referenced to whether they can integrate these different views and form a picture or a whole like a stained glass window?
The answer is still uncertain, since most of the researchers almost always advocated keeping the theoretical and methodological point of view without giving signs of an approach towards an integration of other data that could fill some gaps theories that are left blank and later criticized by their colleagues. In addition and referring to this same point, we can say that all is not consciously a barrier of the researchers, since the context in which they have been trained and they have operated also creates certain biases and prejudices about others, which results mainly in contempt and disqualification on the work of others and rather than trying to unify the knowledge we tend to divide, giving a segmented panorama that lacks the will and the critical efforts to overcome self-interest to the discipline. I think this has an exception that is personified in Gordon Childe, who was able to combine theoretical and methodological aspects of different schools, that were subsequently enhanced their strongholds. A part of this I mention that this has also suffered the scorn of colleagues, such as by being transparent and consistent with his political position.
precisely the latter, the political commitment and values \u200b\u200bof each author if you can play against in the sense that the scientific community may underestimate prejudicially the researcher for this, too can be a plus to bring archeology beyond the academy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment