The concept of Prehistory

Jorge Kulemeyer

Prehistory and Archaeology: concept and relationships between them and with other disciplines

For many, the most obvious attraction of archaeology is the pleasure of

discovery, unearthing the lost treasures of the past. The adventure of
making new discoveries in distant lands is one of these pleasures. But
this is only the beginning and, as Binford clearly shows in this
work is not the most important or the most interesting part of the company. The
the task of archaeology is not simply to 'reassemble the past' as if
the fragments and the pieces - the material data - could be fitted together without
difficulty already at the moment of its extraction, thus achieving an image
coherent; the task is, on the contrary, a challenge and a struggle, a struggle
continue to seek interpretations that can be related to the
findings in a coherent and justifiable manner. The intellectual excitement -and the
exasperation from the practice of archaeology comes from the existing tension
between the abundance of evidence, on one hand, and the genuine difficulties
that arise when formulating certain conclusions, on the other hand. It is an adventure
intellectually more rewarding than merely achieving new discoveries
through continued excavation. (C. Renfrew in the prologue to the work of L.
Binford, 1983. In Search of the Past

The contents of this subject could not be more ambitious: something like
99% of the time elapsed in the history of humanity, all of this in a
framework of great variety of landscapes, climates, availabilities, and levels of
cultural development.

The differences may seem basically semantic, but they generate

divergences in orientation and practices that are highly significant in the
development of archaeology. The reading of different bibliographic sources to
those who will have access will confront them many times with these different ones
perspectives. In our country, the universities of Tucumán and Catamarca
they grant their graduates in the specialty the title of Bachelor in
Archaeology (degree programs created in the second half of the '80s) inasmuch as
that the remaining ones offer to Archaeology as a specialization within
the Anthropology degree. Since 1997 it has been organized for the first time
an Association of Argentine Archaeologists.

In England and Europe, archaeology has been called 'prehistory' (Trigger,

1982: 232). Archaeology is called the study of classical cultures ... and the
professionals practicing these disciplines do not have professional contact
among them.
For America, prehistoric science is rarely discussed, rather it is about science
archaeological.

In Europe, the term 'Archaeology' is commonly applied to prehistoric studies.

in certain contexts. This is the case when one speaks, for example, when
use the ancient concept 'Archaeology of the Ice Age'. As we will see
In this subject, during prehistoric times there were both important
advances of glaciers (glaciers and stadials) as retreat of the
glaciers (interglacial and interstadial) so talking about 'Archaeology
"Ice Age" is not very accurate.

Dice Daniel (1977: 12-13): The prehistorian must constantly be a

archaeologist. The phrase "prehistoric archaeology" is often used as
synonym of Prehistory. There is an essential difference between prehistory and
Archaeology. An archaeologist is the person who studies material remains.
from the past in order to wrest the facts of history from them; it can work
in any period that goes from the caves of the Upper Paleolithic to the
Gothic cathedrals of the High Middle Ages and the archaeology of railways
in disuse from the late part of the 19th century.

Prehistoric archaeology emerged as a new perspective on the past of

man, as an expansion backwards into ancient history and, towards
forward, of geology...(Daniel, 1977 : 99).

Prehistory is the initial chapter of the history of man and has a

extension of more than 2 MA. It is a relatively recent creation term.
The first to use it was Wilson in 1851 (Daniel, 1977: 9).

Laming Emperaire (1968) points out that the term Prehistory is in itself
conflictive as it designates at the same time a stage in the development of the
humanity, prior to the advent of writing, and the science responsible for its
study.

According to Leroi-Gourhan (1964), prehistory is a vague term that refers to

block everything that transpired from the first being with a vertical posture until
the moment when writing casts an indefinite glow over the
thought (a fact for the last Indians of the Amazon jungles
it just happened in the 20th century).

Prehistory is the period when man began to exist and learned.

a:

to talk

to manufacture artifacts (tools) with the raw materials that it

offered its natural environment: stone, bone, ivory, wood, shells,
leather, etc.

make fire
 protecting oneself from inclement weather (even to the point of surviving
to the different glaciations) and of animals

hunt, gather, and fish

build your house

sew your clothes

to live in society

make exchanges

domesticate animals

cultivar

to make ceramics

metallurgy

to navigate

He knew his natural environment (vegetal, animal, mineral) like the best.

History: Begins with the rudiments of writing in the Middle East in the
3000 BC (Jemdet Naar), in the Indus Valley 2400 BC (Harappa) and in China
1850 BC (Shang).

In the north of Mesopotamia, in Tell Brocky at the V-IV levels of Uruk,

the first written texts appear in the form of pictographic tablets that
they were used for commercial tablets around 5,250 BP. By this time, throughout
Western Europe was developing at the end of the Neolithic.

The boundaries between prehistoric archaeology and disciplines such as the

Egyptology or Sinology cannot be sharply delineated.
Early Dynastic Egypt has very few written documents that do not
they can be considered determinants for a historical culture. Agreed
to this concept, there are aborigines in Brazil who have just entered the
historical period in the 20th century and even some that have not done so yet.
Are Native Americans peoples without history until the arrival of the
Spanish writing? Or does it only have it because we recognize it as
what?

The concept of prehistoric archaeology is based on cultural sources.

used and not as a synonym of Paleolithic archaeology, Paleoindian or
preceramic (Nuñez Regueiro, 1972: 12).
Classical archaeology whose study focuses on classical antiquity, with
the traditional examples of Greek and Roman civilization. This orientation,
that also addresses other cultures from the area of influence of
Mediterranean has a clear relationship with what are called the Fine Arts.
Trigger (1982) uses the term "prehistoric archaeology" or "prehistory" to
distinguish scientific-oriented archaeology from that which in some
countries are referred to as 'classical archaeology' and are linked to the history of art
and the Humanities.

Prehistory would be the first major chapter of Universal History. With the
prehistory, Archaeology takes on the rank of a science, at least of great
proximity to natural science (Bárcena, 1995: 10).

Archaeology:

Archaeology has a temporal extension that includes both the times of

Prehistory like that of History. Prehistory would not be a science but
a stage in the becoming of humanity that encompasses from the emergence of the
man until the emergence of writing.

Dunnell points out that the objective of Archaeology is to explain the record
archaeological.

Clark had a broader vision of archaeology and considered it the

potential core of a general science of material culture, past and
present, that would complement social and cognitive Anthropology.

Schiffer has argued similarly that 'the subject of archaeology

They are the relationships between human behavior and material culture in all.
the times and places.

Daniels argues that restricting the discipline to the study of material remains
It would be to cultivate a new type of antiquarianism focused on artifacts. The
most archaeologists continue to view archaeology as
a way to study human behavior and cultural change in the
past.

Archaeology is a scientific discipline that has as its field of study the

material, natural and artificial remains, support or product of the actions
humans, past signs, socio-cultural in a broad sense. Archaeology
it is the science that studies the remnants of the activity of socio-organizations
cultural of prehistoric and historic peoples (Bárcena, 1995 : 8). The
The main goal of archaeology is to understand human past.
Archaeologists study prehistory primarily through the remains.
materials, their interests are not narrowly confined to the
explanation of material culture. Since the earliest times, they have
been trying to reconstruct all possible aspects of culture and discuss them
social, political, economic, and ideological aspects as well as the aspects
materials of change. The search for explanations about behavior
Humans do not distinguish prehistoric archaeology from the rest of the sciences.
social, since all of them try, in their own way, to achieve the same thing.

The residual materiality of the results of behaviors and conduct

humans, of the structures, relationships and social interrelations, of the
production and economic development, of the ecosystem interaction, in short, the
residual socio-cultural materiality, from a diachronic perspective and
taking into account the spatial relationships, the associations, the
contexts and the transformations of the deposits are the subject of the
Archaeology. Bárcena agrees with an anthropological Archaeology,
necessarily oriented towards the social in the southern countries, while
specifically proposes to establish in the concrete work of the units of
analysis of archaeology as archaeology.

Archaeology and Anthropology

The Renaissance classic archaeology will have a counterpart, American,

anthropological, always. In its beginnings, archaeological studies
In Europe, emphasis was placed on the reconstruction of the history of culture.
as a fundamental objective of the discipline. This implies the study of the
events of the past in order to be placed chronologically and spatially.

In the United States of America, Archaeology is the science responsible for

studying the past of man and it is considered as a branch of the
Anthropological Sciences, therefore social science. PhillipPhillips (1955) one
One of the first references of this position says, has said: 'Archaeology is
anthropology is nothing, paraphrasing a phrase from Maitland (1911) who
"archeology that is not history is less than nothing" (quoted by Nuñez
Regueiro s/f). Anthropology would be the most comprehensive of the sciences that
They study man. Anthropological Sciences aim to study the
total range of variability of human behavior in time and space.
The archaeological record becomes a gigantic temporary laboratory and
spatial for the social sciences and especially for Anthropology whose purpose
The last is to study human behavior synchronically and diachronically.

According to Trigger (1993: 345), there is no reason for archaeologists

they have to extract all their knowledge of human behavior almost
exclusively of Anthropology.

Of course, the Humanities/Natural Sciences collision appears here according to

different theoretical-methodological perspectives. At the basis of the statement
functionalism is the consideration of Anthropology as science,
recurrence and regularity of events, and not history and that deals with
society and culture. The experimental science nature of has been highlighted.
Anthropology, formulating hypotheses and models to be contrasted, based on the
quantification of the archaeological record and the better specification of the
artifacts, tending towards generalization in typological terms according to models of
behavior.
Social science and cultural history contradict each other in these statements, as
just like the vision of archaeology oriented towards its role in the study of
history of humanity, of social development, in the face of conception
processualist of history as Anthropology, that is to say of knowledge and
explanation of human behavior, based on the material remains of the
past of human societies.

Traditionally, the relationship between Archaeology and history has been much
narrower at those moments when the archaeologists were studying it
that they believed were the documents of their own ancestors or civilizations to
the ones for which a lot of written documentation was available. However, it
it was getting closer to anthropology when the subject of study was the Paleolithic,
or more recent cultures but less technologically advanced with
those that normally did not have historical links (Trigger, 1993: 345). A
our understanding of working closely or in association with another discipline
it does not necessarily mean that one is part of the other. For example, it is
it is customary in France for Prehistory studies to be conducted in units
academic institutions called 'Institute of Quaternary Geology' and even
They confer degrees in that specialty to their graduates. There is really a
close collaboration between Prehistory and Quaternary Geology. But no one
think that Prehistory is part of the Geology of the Quaternary. It is the
same case with the Doctorates in Natural Sciences or in Sciences
Philosophical.

Archaeology, social science.

In general, there is consensus on understanding Archaeology as a science.

Social. Archaeology is a social science that studies or aims to study
scientifically the socio-cultural systems and the cultural processes of
past. Archaeology is framed within the set of the so-called
social sciences or sciences of man.

There is no way to understand the archaeological record or the culture.

modern material without relating them to human behavior. And
It is through the study of human behavior that Archaeology
relates to the other social sciences (Trigger, 1993: 344-345).

Archaeology is a social science just like anthropology and history.

Trigger says there is no obvious reason why prehistory or archaeology
cannot be considered as a distinct discipline, at least to the extent
limited in that other disciplines in social science are independent of one another
another.

Archaeology and History:

For Nuñez Regueirola, the history of man is one and Prehistory is part of it.
about her, but it is a 'process', not a science. The first stage of History
It is Prehistory that is studied by Archaeology. Archaeology is the
science that allows us to know the unwritten part of history
towns. The object of study in Archaeology is social processes and
cultural remnants of the past, through their material remains. Therefore, it is science.
factual and social. It aims to formulate, compare and verify laws of
human behavior in the past. According to Nuñez Regueirola's perspective
"anthropological" of archaeology by emphasizing the concept of culture and dismissing
to history from a positivist perspective "for which History is not
a science because it deals with singular facts, and science deals with
of recurring events, of the establishment of laws” the perspective
Anthropological work has contributed to the visibility of the peoples of America.
pre-Hispanic as peoples that have only had customs and no history.

Lorenzo (1986: 16, also cited by Nuñez Regueiro) points out that if in
relationship to archaeology, "as some believe, we must choose between history or
anthropology, there is no possible mistake, we must stick with the first one.

Trigger (1993: 346) points out that the discussion about whether archaeology is more
closely related to history or anthropology derives from a false
dichotomy between science and history introduced in North American archaeology
by Kluckhohn and Stewart, and reinforced by the adoption of neoevolutionism.
This last one prompted prehistoric archaeologists to believe that the
human behavior and cultural change had strong regularities
that could be explained according to evolutionary generalizations, and that this
It constituted a scientific explanation. This left history as a residue.
humanistic that was to explain 'the particular cases, unique, exotic and not'
"recurrences" of cultural change. A topic that the neo-evolutionists judged as
very little scientific importance, if it had any at all. As a general rule,
that meant that science dealt with ecological adaptations and the
history studied the stylistic aspects of culture. These dichotomies between
ecology and style and between science and history are unconvincing.

From the perspective of the features that the object offers to the
possibilities of scientific knowledge there is a big difference between the
Archaeology, Anthropology, and History at the level of testimonies:

The social anthropologist has the opportunity to conduct direct observation.

of the phenomena it studies, of any kind they may be: social,
cultural, climatic, geographical, economic, etc.

the historian has written documents, through which he can

to know, through references left by men of other times, how they were the
towns of the past, what environment they had as a setting, when it happened
the facts;

the archaeologist to reconstruct the environment, understand the system of

nutrition, diseases, does not have the possibility to interrogate in form
direct (whether through observation or verbal or written communication) to
its protagonists, but it must reconstruct it with the increasingly active participation
frequent in the physical-chemical sciences and the other natural sciences.
Ethnography, Ethnohistory (Historical Anthropology) or Protohistory

Ethnology studies the current non-written peoples. According to Leroi-Gourhan, the

Archaeology is the ethnology of the past.

Bárcena (1995: 5) believes that Prehistoric Science has as its pillars the
Prehistoric Archaeology and Paleoanthropology, which essentially deal with a
Paleoethnology.

In the basis of our definitions, particularly in the delimitations of

our object of study is underpinned by theoretical positions whose load
involves contradictions.

Historical archaeology, urban archaeology that can be archaeology

historical or prehistoric archaeology. Many times in a place where there is
remains from historical times or urban settlements, there are also.
prehistoric times that cannot be discarded, Industrial archaeology,
Experimental archaeology.

The relationships with other disciplines: the confluence of methods and

interests

Scientific prehistoric studies are possible due to the confluence of

methods and interests, where Archaeology, Geology, and Paleontology, among
others will help to unveil a stage, ways of life, and environments of the
humanity in certain places on the planet, according to a perspective that
it is at the base of multi and interdisciplinary.
Archaeology encompasses a set of techniques for recovery and
processing information about human history that is useful to various
academic disciplines.

Post-World War II archaeology is very different from

pre-war, in knowledge and possibilities and with new needs. There are
a topographical, technological, and scientific revolution. Perhaps the year 1948 with the
development by Libby of the Carbon 14 Method can be taken
as a milestone indicator of this profound transformation. Archaeology has
had to resort more frequently to ideal (or formal) sciences and to
the physicochemical y natural, y without belittling its necessity
anthropological complementarity, its existence has been redefined as a
eminently historical science.

Archaeology must respond to works for energy purposes (dams,

pipelines, gas pipelines, extractive industries), urban growth, expansion
of agricultural areas, road construction, quarries, etc. that bring as
consequence the destruction of archaeological sites.
Interdisciplinary work:

It is the study in association or collaboration with other disciplines that gives it

It allows Archaeology to definitively separate from antiquarianism.

Evans (1978) uses the term Environmental Archaeology to refer to

general use of the methods of Natural Sciences in the interpretation of
archaeological sites and their environments. D'Antonio speaks of Archeoecology.

The terms Paleoethnobotany and Archaeobotany are biased towards the

analysis of plant macrofossils (seeds, cuticles, etc.) at the sites
archaeological.

Both in France and in Spain the terms Archaeological Palynology

Paleoarchaeology is used to refer to the studies
palynological in relation to Archaeology.

Archaeozoology, Paleontology: Determination of species, age, sex and

quantity of individuals and the group. Habitat characterization (landscape,
climate, season of the year) of the species and of the sample as a whole.
Characterization of the relationships of each animal species with man.
Domestication, characteristics of domesticated animals (fat, milk,
eggs, meat, quantity and size, offspring, fur, feeding, etc.). The
palynological studies can be conducted from sediments, coprolites and
allow obtaining information about seasonality, human and animal diet,
economic-use vegetables and other wild ones.

The antlers of the deer:

They help to characterize the time of year when it may have taken place.
settlement and also to draw conclusions about the lifestyle of the
hunters. In the Old World:

From May to mid-August: antlers emerge, which are called

velvet that are probably not susceptible to being preserved since the
Pleistocene to the present;

From mid-August to the end of September: the antlers are clean and
they do not have the hardness to be used in ritual combats;

From October until the end of March: it is the time when they have antlers.
really susceptible to fossilization. They are the antlers of hard horn;

April: they lack antlers.

If this is known, it can also be understood why in some deposits

the antlers are missing while other remains of the deer such as
teeth.
Malacology: The exploitation of shellfish and other small fauna and flora in
the areas affected by tides seems to play a role in the systems of
marine subsistence plays a role comparable to that of animal exploitation
small terrestrial animals and wild plant foods: these would be resources of
high security and low prestige. Mammal hunting provides a return
less secure energy but confers greater prestige to the hunter. Osborn
(1977) calculates that an adult should eat 494 mussels (Mytilus) per day.
edulis) to meet a minimum requirement of 40 grams of protein.
daily. But the collection of shellfish is not always so unproductive. A
a deer weighing 54 kilograms contains more calories than a ton of
seafood. The exploitation of seafood is laborious and requires too much
man-hours to produce the same amount of calories as with others
products. Generally, seafood constitutes no more than 5% of the
diet. The hunting of marine mammals requires good cooperation between
the hunters. The collection of shellfish requires less expenditure of
energy, the cost in technology is low and the resources to obtain are
predictable. It can be developed by children, women, the elderly. It is not so
risky.

Knowing the size of some specimens of mollusks (Patella vulgata,

for example) the annual growth and the reproduction date, one can set the
moment when they were collected. In the cave of Tito Bustillo, the mollusks.
represented are exclusively gastropods (Patella, Littorina) whereas
In other sites of the same era (Santimamiñe), shellfish predominates.
bivalves that are more appealing in taste and digestibility. The
Tito Bustillo species are intertidal, which means that it was practiced the
rock harvesting, and very little sand harvesting. The depletion of the resource
allowed for horizontal movement in the area based on nearby caves.
Shellfishing can be done on an individual level, unlike hunting which is...
It is done in groups and requires skill, knowledge, and a lot of energy expenditure.
superior. Shellfish gathering does not require technical specialization and only depends on
climate and the tides. This may have led to a division of labor. The
The transport of mollusks has the drawback of requiring the handling of the
shells that in only a few cases were utilized and represented a burden and a
disproportionate dead volume. There are perforated shells to be
threaded, that is to say, used as decorative elements and some have
ochre remains inside. Littorina littorea is an edible species that
it needs to be cooked in order to extract its body from the shell (it’s not that
hard as the barnacle.

Ichthyology, ornithology, micromammals (rodents) large mammals. Analysis

of paleotemperatures based on mollusks, fish, etc. Freshwater fauna,
marina, of stagnant waters, lagoons, etc. Ornaments, exchanges.

Paleobotany, palynology, climate and landscape reconstruction, diet,

seasonality, rope making, basketry

Food availability, the dietary diet

Geoarchaeology: It consists of the application of methods and techniques of
the Earth Sciences or Geosciences, with the aim of solving a problem
archaeological. Geosciences encompass a wide spectrum of disciplines
which deal with geology, geography, climatology, geophysics, geochemistry,
hydrology, sedimentology, petrology, soil science. In this way the
geoarchaeology collaborates with the reconstruction of the climate, the landscape,
employment by man of natural resources, is carried out
considerations on the potential role that man has played as
landscape modifying agent.

Aerial photographs, satellite images,

Ethology: paths of animals to hunt; interpretation of rock art

Biological anthropology y paleoanthropology, Paleopathology, Nutrition

Radiology, genetics.

Linguistics: in evolutionary problems, from ancient writings (paleography)

Ethnohistory Theology Sociology Anthropology Demography

Museology

Ethnology is a more fertile source of interpretive analogies than

any other social science.

Ethnoarchaeology is the study of contemporary society from a

archaeological perspective; particularly analyzes the processes through which
the archaeological record is generated. In this case, to know the formation of
Archaeological record implies establishing relationships between behaviors
and its material consequences. Binford proposed that Ethnoarchaeology was
a bridge to establish a link between the archaeological record that
it is static and the dynamics of social systems of the past. Cribb suggests,
because the study of the dynamics of the past is not confined to
ethnographic domain (Yacobaccio, 1994: 203).

Física(métodos de datación),Química,Estadística.

Computer Science: The greatest singular change that has occurred in Archaeology
during the last ten years, especially in field Archaeology, has
the widespread use of computers. Ten years ago, these machines
they were mainly research tools, used in the
university departments by theorists interested in approaches
Quantitative methods are now an integral part of field archaeology. To
Except in Great Britain, there are few excavation teams that do not have
or have access to a computer, with a variety of objectives: text processing,
storage y data recovery, analysis of the same,
financial management, etc. (Orton, 1987: 13)
Archaeology is not a perfect machine for reconstructing the past.
We see the past through the distorted glass of our
ideas.

A. P. Elkin observes among current hunter-gatherers a lack of

depth regarding historical knowledge: only the present exists and the
mythical past. Elkind says that this is a consequence of living conditions:
the hunter lives to the rhythm of the seasons, he has a cyclical conception of the
life that depends on maintaining the status quo. This is ensured by the
myth. As a consequence of this situation, the territorial base of the myth among the
hunters are often independent of the economic space

This is in contrast to what happens among the farmers. These

they are in strong competition for the land and need to justify their insertion
territorial through a story composed of events. The competition for
the land between horticulturists (tuber growers) and farmers
(cereal growers) exists among different groups when the density of
the population is high. This competition is practically null among the
low-density and still mobile groups like South American indigenous peoples
they practiced slash-and-burn agriculture (pink). C. Meillassoux demonstrated that
Agricultural work links successive generations through time.

The initials of the dates:

MA: means 1 million years.

Normally, radiocarbon ages are presented along with the margin of

measurement error (el±) with the BPoBC specification.

BC means before Christ;

BP stands for before present, that is, from 1950;
If nothing is said, it is interpreted as before the present.

It is proposed that,

bc (lowercase) corresponds to the date without calibration and

Calibrated closed BPal.

Lord of the years

Origins of archaeology. The first findings:

80,000 years ago, the Neanderthal was gathering artifacts that had
they were worked by their ancestors and resized. This is confirmed by
the remains of patina. In some places (case Gönnersdorf of the Magdalenian period)
From Germany) the prehistoric man carried bones to his place of residence.
of extinct animals.
Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon (555-538 BC) made excavations to
gather old objects that had belonged to their ancestors and collected them in
a 'museum'.

Probably Xenophanes in the 5th century before our era was the first
in recognizing the importance of changes in fossil faunas, which according to
said author reflected the existence of variations in the conditions
geological. A century later, Herodotus assumed that the sediments
deposited in the Nile were a measure of the duration of times
prehistoric.

The Epicurean Lucretius Carus wrote in the second half of the 1st century BC.
Christ, based on findings, among other things of hand axes and a little
of intuition, a poem From Rerum Natura ("On the Nature of Things")
in which it speaks of a stone age, followed by an iron age and another of
bronze. Additionally, there were natural circumstances that led to the emergence
of the man. The free translation of his verses is as follows (according to Pericot-
Maluquer, 1969):

The ancient weapons were hands, nails, and teeth.

and the stones and the branches of the trees.
Upon discovering fire,
after iron and copper.
But copper was used before iron.

To the discoveries we will mention below,

he opposed the literal interpretation of the Bible according to which man could not
to have an antiquity of over 5,000 years.

In 1700, the skull of Cannstatt (Germany) is excavated by order of the

Duke Eberardo Ludovico of Württemberg in a place where once there
a Roman city was being raised. Next to the skull, numerous were found.
mammoth bones. The skull was described by Quatrefages and Hamy in the
Ethnic Crania (1882). The first comments proposed for this
finding the name of Homo primigenius and later it was associated with Homo
Aurignacian

1717 Publication of the observations made more than a century earlier by

Miguel Mercati (1541-1593) superintendent of the botanical gardens of
Vatican who had recognized as artifacts carved stones;

1779 John Frere finds in clay deposits on the shores of an ancient

lake in Hoxne, a locality in Suffolk county, not far from Ipswich, bones
of animals, extinct that appeared together with lithic artifacts
(bifacesachelenses). Research is still ongoing to this day.
in the place, especially due to the presence of glacial moraine deposits.
Frere published a page and a half article in the magazine 'Archaeologia' in
1800 where it describes hand axes and the bones of the elephant of the
forests (Elephas antiquus) that demonstrated the existence of man during
theDeluge.

1822 J.-F. Champollion deciphers the Rosetta Stone;

1823 William Buckland published the succession:

Alluvium (Holocene of today)

Quaternary
Dilluvium (Pleistocene of today)
----------------
Tertiary

in which the geological framework for human history is established for the first time.
In the same year Buckland excavated in the Paviland Cave (Wales,
(England) a skeleton of a woman covered in red ochre and associated with
lithic artifacts. Buckland could not provide the dating of the geological layer.
this skeleton known as the "Red Lady" would belong to the penultimate
glaciation.

* especially fruitful were the excavations of the doctor Phillip

Schmerling (1791-1836) in the vicinity of Liège (Belgium). He began
his investigations at the end of 1829 and excavated more than 40 caves although not
he always made discoveries. In the Engis cave, 13 kilometers to the southwest of
Liege found remains of three human individuals, and in the Engihoul cave,
located in front of the first, discovered bones. The human remains were
surrounded by bones of cave bears and mammoths and stone tools. In
1833 Schmerling wrote his famous work Research on Fossils
fossils discovered in the caves of the Province of Liège. But them
concepts did not suffice to successfully confront the prejudices of the
specialists, in particular the outright rejection stance taken by Cuvier.

The work of the Frenchman Jacques Boucher was of decisive importance.

Perthes Crèvecoeur (1788-1868). He was not a naturalist but a customs agent.
but all the interest and meaning of his life were concentrated on the question
if indeed the historical man had lived together with the
large extinct animals of the earth. He worked in the vicinity of his
house, in Abbeville, on the banks of the Somme (France) near Moulin Quignon and
Menchecourt. In 1836, he published the book that made him definitively famous: From
Creation. Essay on the origin and progression of beings. In the year 1838
found alongside fossil bones of elephants and rhinoceroses, numerous axes
from flint. Boucher de Perthes also collected some objects that were not
artifacts. He presented his findings before the Abbeville Scientific Society and
before the Academy of Sciences of Paris. His discoveries only stumbled
with indifference and disbelief. In the year 1846 the first volume appeared of
Celtic and antediluvian antiquities. It contained around 1000
reproductions of objects found by Boucher de Perthes in his
excavations. This book is still an important source of information today for
the study of prehistory and it is the first scientific work that reproduced axes
from the Paleolithic. The Academy of Sciences of Paris appointed a
commission of prominent scientists to examine the work that was rejected for
unanimity. A group of scientists from the Geological Society of London
(Henri Falconer, J. Prestwich, John Evans) traveled in 1860 to Abbeville
checking that the layers where the findings had been made were
intact and that actually contained tools. An English teacher
(Ramsay) was the first to declare that the stone axes of Amiens and
Abbeville was certainly the result of human activity. Then Sir
Charles Lyell, president of the Geological Society of London and until
then a fierce opponent of the idea of the existence of prehistoric man,
he decided to move to the Somme valley, where he found out that he had been
wrong. His pronouncement in favor of the new doctrine at an assembly
held in Aberdeen, on September 15, 1853, caused a great
sensation in the scientific world of the time.

1836C. Thomsen realizes, as curator of the museum of Copenhagen

(Denmark) a classification of the pieces according to three ages: stone, bronze
and iron;

1838 Rawlins sends a first transcription of the ancient Persian alphabet;

In the years 1842 and 1847, they were found in the cave of Kent.
England: fragments of flint tools and human bone remnants under a
thick layer of stalagmites;

In 1844, Lund published the results of his observations in 800 caves of the
Brazil. In Lagoa Santa, located on the shores of Lake Semiduro, found the
skeletons of around 30 human individuals that were scattered and
in association with animal bones.

In 1848, a Neanderthal skull is found in Devil’s Tower cave.

(Gibraltar);

In 1857, Neanderthal caves (near Düsseldorf) were discovered.

the remains of the famous skull. Dr. Fuhlrott (1803-1877) pronounced that year
a conference about these findings at a congress of naturalists in
Bonn, and stated that an ancient man had been discovered.
prediluvial that represented a typically primordial form of the genre
human. There was no one who matched Fuhlrott. The complete text of the
the conference was published in 1859 in the Proceedings of
Natural History Society of the Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia with the
clarification of the wording (in a marginal note) that I could not share
the expressed opinions;

1859 Prestwich and Evans argue in favor of the association of artifacts

humans with bones of extinct fauna;

1859 Publication of the book The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

1860G. Fiorelli works in Pompeii;

1865 Lubbock classifies prehistoric materials into a series of stages.
the first of which is defined as Paleolithic (Old Stone Age);

1865 Dupont finds the second jawbone of a man in La Naulette

the Neanderthal whose authenticity was never questioned;

From 1869 to 1889, H. Schliemann works on excavations in Troy-Hissarlik;

Origins of prehistoric research:

It is probably Edouard Lartet (1801-1871) the founder of the

glacial era research within Prehistory. Lartet was a lawyer of
profession but dedicated all his efforts to archaeology. In 1836 he began
to excavate in the vicinity of San San where an ancestor of the gibbon was found
actual to which he called Pliopithecus. Starting from 1850, he worked at the Paris Museum,
where in 1856 he described the lower jaw of an early form of monkey,
baptizing this Dryopithecus. On March 19, 1860, he presented the
Academy of Sciences a report titled On Antiquity
geological of the human species in Western Europe published in the
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. This work aims to
based on the excavations that Larteten will carry out in the cave of Aurignac. In
In 1863, he began his excavations in the cave of La Madeleine. There he found a
mammoth tusk where prehistoric man had carved the figure of a
mammoth. This discovery became the cornerstone of the investigations
prehistoric. It was the end of the doubts about the existence of man
prehistoric y of their coexistence with large mammals. The
discovery was made in the presence of Falconer. It was about a
very successful drawing where the anatomical details of the animal, the appearance of the
curved fangs, the chest, were made with rigor and precision thus
like the limbs extended by the effort and the raised tail of the animal that
attack (Breuil, 1910). Lartett had the luck to find in the person of
Christyun, a patron who financed all his research.
This is how in August 1863 he began his research in Les Eyzies.
capital of Prehistory), doing it primarily in the Gorge d'Enfer.
He also excavated in Le Moustier, La Madeleine, Laugerie Bassey Laugerie
Haute (in these two deposits worked after Vibraye, Massénat,
Girod, Rivière, Breuil, and above all Peyrony). Lartety Christy published
Figures of animals engraved or sculpted (Anthropological Review, 1864: 256)
and the most notable work, Reliquiae Aquitanicae (1875/76). Lartet tried in
his article appeared in 1858 in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of
London makes a division of Prehistory according to the findings.
carried out. The basis of their division is given by the animal remains. As
the deepest stratum found a warm climate fauna, which it called
era of the elephants and the rhinoceros with Elephas antiquus, Rhinoceros
merckii, Hippopotamus maior. Above this layer is located a fauna
of cold climate that named the cave bear era made up of
mammoth
cave bear
Cervus elaphus (giant deer). On the upper layer there is a layer
of cold and dry climate corresponding to the season of the reindeer. This stands out here the
reindeer
musk ox, the snow hare and the wolverine.

1843-1844: excavations by Oskar Fraasen Hohlenstein (Lone River valley)

in Germany). He did not realize that he was finding remains
archaeological. In the same years, Wagnery Castendyck completed
excavations in Balver Cave (Germany) and they also did not realize that
They were excavating an important site.

These works were mainly dedicated to geology and paleontology.

There were many similar ones for a long time across Europe. At most they
it pointed to the human presence demonstrated through bones and artifacts.
Many were satisfied to demonstrate the contemporaneity of man and the
extinct fauna (mammoth) and an attempt was not made to carry out a periodization of the material.
The ensemble was seen as a whole.

1851, based on a work done in L'Infernet (a few kilometers from

Toulouse, France), Noulet tests the contemporaneity of man with the
extinct animal species;

In 1861, Edouard Lartet proposed the first attempt at classifying the Paleolithic.
Clearly distinguish the Magdalenians from the Aurignacians based on their
excavations at the site of Massat (Ariège, France) and Aurignac (Haute-
Garonne)

In 1865, the first exhibition gallery of prehistoric objects was organized.

world in the Natural History Museum in Toulouse (France);

1869 Gabriel de Mortillet (1821-1898), curator of the Museum of the

Antiquity of Saint Germain-en-Laye offers a subdivision of the material.
Paleolithic following typological criteria. The periods are named following the
name of a site type (such as Geology):

4.- La Madeleine Period

3.- Aurignacian Period
2.- Solutré Period
1.- Le Moustier Period

Also, Larteten in 1961 had distinguished the Le Moustier Period for

to name an industry that includes almond-shaped bifaces and
tools worked unifacially, especially scrapers and points.

1881 Mortillet divides the Le Moustier Period into two independent cultures:

4.- Magdalene Reindeer season

3.-Solutrense Era of the reindeer and the mammoth
2.-Musteriense Mammoth era
Chelense Era of the cave bear and of E. antiquus
The Chelense would be characterized by the presence of bifaces that would in turn be
the only utensils of El Chelense. All would belong to El Chelense
industries with bifaces, with the bifaces worked in a rougher manner being the
the oldest and the best crafted, the most recent.

1889 G.d'Ault du Mesnil introduces the Achelense:

3.-Musterian Unifacially Worked Artifacts Elephas primigenius

2.- Achelense Regularly worked bifaces Mammoth and E.
Ancient
1.-Chelense Coarsely worked bifaces Ancient Elephant

A warm climate fauna (E. Antiquus) is ordered in the Achelense.

a transitional fauna (E. antiquus and E. primigenus) and a musterian one
cold climate fauna (E. primigenius and Rhinoceros tichorhinus). This responds to
the proposal in the works of M. Boule (1888). This arrangement
Geochronological with a single pass from warm to cold climate was of great importance.
posterior.

1900 Mortillet accepted the existence of the Acheulian. The Chelense is assimilated.
Lower Paleolithic. The Mousterian corresponds to a worsening
climatic (cold and humid), with great development of glaciers and represents the
Middle Paleolithic.

Contrary to what F. Ameghino (1887) and G. d'Ault du Mesnil claimed

(1889), Mortillet insisted that in the Chelense there were only bifaces and that
There were missing tools on flakes. According to Mortillet, there were only tools on
splinters in the Achelense, a culture that was then considered as belonging to
transition, of little importance and of short duration. Given that constantly
utensils appeared on flakes associated with bifaces, E.d'Azyy A.Laville
they believed that elmusterienseno could be separated from thechelense and then
they create the term Cheleo-Mousterian.

1901 Discovery of the sites with rock art of Font de

Gaumey The Combarelles in Les Eyzies.

1903 A. Penck proposes the following relationship between glaciations and remains
archaeological

Würm glaciation Upper Paleolithic

Riss-Würm Interglacial Customer site warm fauna
Rissian Glaciation Frosty fauna of the customers
Mindel-Riss Interglacial Chelense

1908 H. Obermaier talks about a Prechelense, earlier than the Chelense, based on
the study of the profile of Saint Acheul carried out by V. Commont. The
Prechelense would be related to 'warm' fauna (Elephas
ancient
Of special importance within Obermaier's scheme is the subdivision
of the Achelense in an Achelense inferior in an Achelense superior. The Achelense
the lower level is characterized by the presence of oval bifaces and the upper level by
sharp, elongated, and relatively flat bifaces. In the Acheulean
Inferiorya has a thriving industry on flakes that is increasing in the
superior. In the superior Achelense, the 'musterian' types develop, it is
to say, unifacially worked objects, with numerous blades, flakes
Levallois. According to Obermaier, the findings from the upper layer of the site.
Micoque, where small bifaces of lanceolate shape appear and
pointed, small ovate and triangular bifaces, would form the Period of
La Micoque as a local face within the Upper Acheulean.

Obermaier also talks about a Premusterian that would correspond to the

The lower layers of La Micoquey would be characterized by the absence of bifaces.
The Premusterian has little to do with the Musterian since the
typological point of view. It happens that at that time a scheme was followed
unilineal evolution.

The works of Breuil

Breuilllama alChelense Abbevillense assuming that the level with bifaces

Toscas de Abbeville is more important than that of Chelles. Simultaneously
he says that the name change is a tribute to Boucher of
Perthesque had worked in Abbeville. Breuildice says that the industries
About chips (Musterienseen in a broad sense) are not exclusive to cold climates.
but there are places where it appears, accompanied by this industry, fauna of
warm climate like in Ehringsdorf, Villefranche and in the Grimaldi caves.
Breuiles the first to indicate that there were several changes from warm fauna to
cold fauna and vice versa. Cultural development begins with the Abbevillian.
(Chelense) in the Günz-Mindel Interglacial. In the next interglacial.
the Achelense prevailed in the last interglacial (Riss-Würm) the
Micoquiense. According to Breuil, it is about developmental stages of a
biface culture that always corresponds to interstadials. The Acheulean is
subdivided by Breuilen 7 stadiums of which the first 5 belong
In the Mindel-Riss interglacial period, the last two (the Micoquiense) correspond to the
interglacial Riss-Würm. It determined that besides the existence of
biface cultures existed, cultures with industries based on flake forms.
parallel. The oldest would be the Clactonian, a culture proposed in 1929/30
characterized by the presence of short and wide flakes, generally
thick, with a smooth striking surface, striking point very
marked and an oblique angle between the striking surface and the face
separated between nucleus and flake (ventral side of the flake). The Clactonian
subdivide into two phases:

Clactonian, at the end of the Günz-Mindel interglacial (Clacton-on-Sea)

Clactonian II, at the beginning of the Mindel-Riss interglacial belonging to this
phase the lower layer of the site La Micoque. This type of flakes clactoniennes
They also appear in Central Europe (Hundisburg), Spain (Castile)
Manzanares), North Africa, Egypt, South Africa. In places such as High
Lodgey The Quina appear elements clactonian with others well
worked.

Another industry on flakes determined by Breuil is the Levalloisian.

the characteristics of the flakes are wide, relatively thin obtained from
of prepared cores. The dorsal side of these flakes presents, due to
General, negatives of previous flakes and the percussion surface of the flake
(remaining striking surface if referring to the original core) is
generally faceted. Levalloisians industries appear in the Interglacial
Mindel-Riss (Levalloisian I/II) and the Riss-Würm Interglacial (Levalloisian III)
The Levalloisian is located at the end of the last interglacial with bifaces
wide triangular and heart-shaped. At the beginning of the last
glaciation appears the Levalloisian VI, with small bifaces and in a
Interstices posterior, with numerous typomusterian shapes, is located the
Levalloisian VII.

The Tayacian would be the consequence of a mixture between a Clactonian II and

early Levalloisian (Levalloisian I/II). For example, the levels
intermediates of the Micoquedonde where the lower layer of its middle level would be
the Mindel/Riss Interglacial period would represent Tayacian I.
Tayaciense II would have developed during the Riss-Würm period.
represented by the upper levels of La Micoque. The Tayacian would be the
main root of the Musterian which, in turn, would have had impulses from the
Achelense VI-VII (Micoquiense).

Breuil (1932: 129-130) summarizes his view on how they occurred.

the various industries: In general, it seems that the change from cold faunas and
hot weather resulted in a change of population groups
related to different types of utensils. The ice from the north and of
they displaced men and animals from these territories and forced them to
to seek their life in the south. These people brought with them their cultures of
flakes there. The people of the bifaces, on the other hand, related to faunas
of warm climate, they continued migrating south. During the interglacials
the opposite process takes place but with an appreciable delay.

The Breuil scheme stayed in effect for a long time. Generally, it

they found mixtures of cultures that were composed of elements from cultures
of flakes and bifaces. The Tayacian became a synonym of
cultures that could not be classified accurately, a kind of
Preachelense, Premusteriense, etc., according to the cases.

Oswald Menghin: The works of this Austrian author on periodization

they were based on the Obermaiery and the Breuil. The highlight of the
Menghines proposal, which separated in its classification the aspects
cultural aspects of the temporaries. Menghin worked starting in the 1950s in
Argentina, greatly influencing many local archaeologists today
They are renowned. It grouped the findings of the Lower Paleolithic and the Upper Paleolithic.
halfway through the Protolithic. Inside the Protolithic, it distinguishes sheet cultures,
of bifaces, bone cultures. Protolithic cultures of sheets would be the
Prechelense,Premusteriense,Clactoniense,Levalloisiensey elMusteriense
that would also be very developed throughout the Eurasian continent.
Protolithic bone cultures: they would be found especially in the north of
Eurasia. They would be underrepresented in Central Europe and completely absent.
in Western Europe. Protolithic cultures of bifaces: in Europe there would be
represented mainly by the Chelense (Abbevillense), Achelense
Micoquiense. They have a large geographic dispersal and appear in Europe.
central and western, all of Africa and in South Asia. The Proto-Lithic occurs the
Miolithic corresponds to the Upper Paleolithic. The proposals of Menghin
they were not incorporated into the European scientific environment of the time nor in the
current affairs.

1949 The C14 dating method is discovered, thus beginning to

to be equipped with absolute datings;

1950 F. Bordeses who points out that the Levalloisienseno is a culture

independent and who, in 1953, proposes the subdivision of the Musteriensee in a
a certain number of industrial groups.

History of teaching:

1882 Emile Cartailhac created the first teaching course on Prehistory in

the Faculty of Sciences in Toulouse which becomes the Faculty of Arts in 1990.
ACartailhacle happens to Count Béguën (the one from Trois Frères, The Cave of)
Enlène; The Tuc d'Audoubert) and then continues Louis Merocquien who creates a
"Master of Conference in Prehistory" in 1949 is the first of its kind.
in France. At first it was directed by Nougier (the one from Niaux);

In 1919, the first chair was created at Lund University (Sweden).

Scandinavia named 'Prehistoric and Medieval Archaeology' that was at
Otto Rydbeck's position.

Gordon Childe, Australian prehistorian, worked on the correlation of the

numerous data from existing local studies in the studies
Prehistory in a pan-European scheme and the synthesis of all this
Information sought a coherent exhibition. It presented the foundations for
future studies in books like The Dawn of European Civilization (1925) and
The Danube in Prehistory (1929). Childe uses the term culture according to the
which is a human groupo prehistoric village was identified
archaeologically by the characteristic instruments that he made.

The theoretical currents:

Theoretical studies have gained momentum in recent decades.

greater influence, especially with the involvement of academics of Anglo-Saxon origin. They
It is about a highly interesting and enriching knowledge.
The reading of theoretical studies helps us understand thought.
scientific and in the implementation of our own scientific activity. They are
part of our scientific training.

The new archaeology:

Material culture constitutes the main component of the archaeological record

but it is not comparable to the same. Archaeologists study this record with
the purpose of understanding behavior (and natural processes) that
They produced it. With the help of ethnoarchaeology, they try to understand the ties.
existing between behavior, material culture, and the formation of the record
archaeological. Without knowing these ties, we cannot pretend to have understood
the record (Chapman, 1991 : 27).

Culture encompasses symbols and meanings that give coherence to society.

as long as the basis of the ideology is the ability of a group of individuals
to use cultural symbols for certain intentionally planned purposes.

It is evident that the unintentional consequences of human behavior

they must feature extensively in any explanation about evolution
cultural and biological.

It is necessary to distinguish,

Functionalist explanations are those that assume that each cultural trait
contributes to maintaining the balance of the entire system and

functional explanations which are those that examine the functions of

certain traits without assuming that all of them work to maintain the
system.

Post-process Currents:

Shanks and Tilley (1987a and 1987b)

Empiricism, positivism, and functionalism in archaeology. They wish to study the

past to question the present and in doing so they affirm that: the
archaeological discourse is a form of power and at the same time the study of
to be able

The objective of archaeology is not simply to interpret the past,

without changing the way the past is interpreted in service of the
social reconstruction of the present. It is impossible to choose between the past
alternatives from positions that are not essentially political. The
Archaeologists live in a contemporary world, with values and beliefs.
contemporaries and construct the past they wish to contemplate. The
different pasts are, in reality, different presents. In this way, the
the internal world of archaeology acquires a total dependence on the context
external social and political, which constitutes a new form of determinism.
Such a viewpoint entails a mutilation of archaeology. It is also
anti-scientific.

It doesn't matter that the foundations of science are uncertain, that its hypotheses
can never be completely confirmed, that their theories are seen
constantly replaced: scientific knowledge continues to grow.
This mitigated skepticism - an always skeptical attitude, a constant will to
doubt, contrast, review, replace - is a basic principle of science
modern. Shanks and Tilley, on the other hand, promote dogmatic skepticism
that tries to demonstrate that, because all concepts are loaded
of theory and that all meanings come from human beings, the
real knowledge does not exist, only "truths" that fluctuate with respect to
opposite schemes of categories, and there is also no objective world
(Watson, 1990 : 678).

Although it is possible that the archaeological record may offer more than one
solution to the problem of reconstruction and explanation, the research
archaeological corroborates, as a whole, the operational and realistic premise that the
data are sufficiently independent of the interpretation given to them
superimpose to be able to modify it and force to review and even reject the
theoretical constructs designed to explain it (Wylie, 1982: 44).

Currently, in the archaeological debate in England, there appear according to

Chapman (1990: 24) presents two positions that polarize the debate:

Positivism versus post-positivism

Generalization versus particularism
Science versus history
Procedural explanation versus contextual explanation
Group behavior versus individual action
Culture versus ideology
Local systems versus world systems
Adaptation versus social reproduction

In the 'first' column, Chapman himself is inscribed as much as Hodder is.

an archaeologist who would be a more well-known example of the 'second column of
levels of generality (or assumptions). Hodder accuses the New
Functionalist archaeology, excessively generalizing, unable to
to understand material culture, ignoring symbolism and ideology, and of
considering human beings as passive subjects. Hodder develops
part of his arguments in the book Symbols in Action (1982) in relation to
data from African ethnoarchaeology. It argues that human cultures exist
and they are developed within unique historical sequences and the individual acts
as an active component in social change, due to the interests of
individuals are disparate and the interaction of their diverse objectives and
fines have as a consequence the acceptance, reinterpretation, or reform of the
social rules (Hodder, 1982: 11). Instead of dealing with material culture
as fossilized action as it is done according to New Archaeology, Hodder
it maintains that material objects have symbolic meanings that vary
according to its context and that we cannot understand material culture unless
we understand their meanings. It is no longer recommended as it was in its time
Braidwood made, study the Indian that hides behind the artifact if not
that we are urged to study the artifact that is hidden behind the
hidden Indian behind the artifact! (Chapman, 1991: 25). The artifacts are
symbols in action and play an active role in training and in the
meaning of social behavior.

Whittle (follower of Hodder's line of thought) adheres to the

idea of being cautious when using archaeological evidence of
treatment of the death of the burials to infer a possible
social differentiation, since burial sites can be used in various ways
ways to mask, distort or invert social reality.

Archaeologies

Archaeology of action
Behavioral archaeology
Cognitive archaeology
Demographic archaeology
Ecological archaeology

Bibliography:

Bárcena, J., 1995. From historical archaeology to Archaeology as

Archaeology. In: Comechigonia, Journal of Archaeology, no. 8: 5-29, Córdoba.

Binford, L., 1963. Perspectivas arqueológicas.

typed by L. Orquera, 27 pages. Originally published in New
Perspectives in Archaeology (compilation by L. and S. Binford): 5-32, Chicago.

Daniel, G., 1977. The Concept of Prehistory. New Labor Collection, 164
pages, Barcelona.

Dillehay, T., 1988. An essay on methodological reductionism and the 'Law

of the Instrument in North American archaeology. In: ETNIA : 3-17, Olavarría,
Province of Buenos Aires.

Hodder, I., 1988. New generations of spatial analysis in Archaeology.

ETHNICITY: 19-32, Olavarría, Province of Buenos Aires.

Lorenzo, J., 1986. Archaeology south of the Rio Grande. In: Anthropology,
New era, no. 8, supplement, Mexico.

Marcellino, A., 1994. Scope and limitations in the contributions of Anthropology

biological to Archaeology. In: Archaeology and Interdisciplinary Workshops.
PREP, CONICET: 45-66, Buenos Aires.
Nuñez Regueiro, V., 1972. Theoretical concepts that have hindered the
development of archaeology in South America. In: Archaeology Studies 1 :
11-35, Cachi (Salta).

Nuñez Regueiro, sf. (1987?). The training of human resources in

Archaeology. Working document for Commission 'C', Human Resources,
Meeting in Horco Molle (Tucumán). Manuscript.

Orton, C. 1988. Mathematics for Archaeologists. Alianza Editorial, 257

pages, Madrid.

Prieto, A., 1994. Archaeopalynology. In: Archaeology Conferences and

Interdisciplinaries. PREP, CONICET: 9-20, Buenos Aires.

Pucciarelli, H., 1994. Conceptual relationships between Biological Anthropology and

archaeology. In: In: Archaeology and Interdisciplinary Conferences. PREP,
CONICET: 95-101, Buenos Aires.

Rapalini, A., 1994. Paleomagnetic techniques applied to Archaeology. In:

Archaeology and Interdisciplinary Journeys. PREP, CONICET: 9-20, Buenos
Aires.

Trigger, B., 1982. Archaeology as a Historical Science. In: Bulletin of

American Anthropology, Vol. 4 : 231-265.

Trigger, B., 1993. Archaeology and its social context. In: History of
archaeological thought, Chap. 10 Editorial Crítica-Grijalbo. 343-376.

Yacobaccio, H., 1994. Ethnoarchaeology of Southern Andean Pastoralists: a

tool to know the archaeological record. In: Conferences of
Archaeology and Interdisciplinaries. PREP, CONICET: 203-225, Buenos Aires.

Zárate, M., 1004. Geoarchaeology. In: Archaeology Conferences and

Interdisciplinaries. PREP, CONICET: 21-33, Buenos Aires.

Some bibliographic examples of relationships with other disciplines in

Prehistoric research:

Bachmann, H., 1982. The identification of Slags from Archaeological Sites. In:
Institute of Archaeology, University of London, Occasional Publication No. 6, 36
pages and plates. London.

Bienkowski, P, 1991. The wall of Joshua: a puzzle for archaeologists. In:

The World of the Bible, Archaeology & History 69: 22-25, Paris.

Débard, E., 1988. The Quaternary of Lower Vivarais based on the study of
fillings of shafts, cave porches, and rock shelters. Dynamic
sedimentary, paleoclimatology and chronology. Laboratory documents of
Geology Lyon No. 103, 317 pages, Lyon (France).
d’Errico, F., 1991. Microscopic and Statistical criteria for the Identification of
Prehistoric Systems of Notation. In: Rock Art Research, Volume 8, Number 2,
83-93, Australia.

Flannery, K., 1965. The Ecology of Early Food Production in Mesopotamia. In:
Science, Vol. 147: 1247-56, USA.

Gasche, H.; Tunca, Ö., 1983. Guide to Archaeostratigraphy Classification and

Terminology: Definitions and Principles. En: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol.
10, No. 3.

Graddock, P., n.d. When archaeologists analyze phosphates. In: World

scientific, vol. 3 : 567-568, Madrid.

Harris, E., 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London Academic

Press. Translation of an Extract into Spanish by M. Tarragó (1983). School
of Archaeology. Manuscript.

Horai, S.; Kondo, R.; Sonoda, S.; Tajima, K., 1996. The first Americans:
different waves of migration to the New World inferred from mitochondrial DNA
sequence polymorphisms. In: Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, Chap. 18: 270-
283, edited by T. Akazawa and E. Szathmáry, Oxford University Press.

Horowitz, A., 1989. Prehistoric cultures of Israel: correlation with the oxygen
isotope scale. En: Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory. Prehistory of
South Levant. Edited by O. Bar Yosef and B. Vandermeersch. BAR International
Series 497: 5-17, Great Britain.

Madariaga de la Campa, B., 1975. Study of the marine fauna of the Cave of
Tito Bustillo. In: Excavations in the Cave of 'Tito Bustillo' by J. Moure
Romanillo: 88-108, Institute of Asturian Studies, Oviedo (Spain).

Orton, C.; Tyers, P., 1993. User’s guide to Pie-slice computer package. Institute
of Archaeology, University College of London.

Parcero Oubiña, C., 1995. Elements for the study of castreño landscapes
from the northwestern peninsula. In: Prehistoric Works 52 no. 1: 127-144, Madrid.

Renault-Miskovsky J. Study Paleobotany Paleoclimatic and

Paleoethnographic study of the Neolithic site of Khirokitia in Cyprus: contribution of the
Palynology. In: Recent excavations at Khirokitia (Cyprus), 1983-1986, Editions
Research on Civilizations, Memory No. 81: 251-268, Paris.

Stiber, J., 1968. Paleofloristic study. In: The Middle Paleolithic Station
of Hungary: 39-56, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of
Hungary, Budapest (Hungary).