Neo-processual archaeology‘Alive and kicking’. Some thoughts from the Palaeolithic field

Referencias bibliográficas

• ABERLE, D.F. (1968): Comments. New perspectives in Archaeology(S.R. Binford y L.R. Binford, eds.), Chicago: Aldi-ne: 353-358.
• ALDENDERFER, M. (1991): The analytical engine: computer simulation and archaeological research. ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, 3: 195-247.
• ARONSON, J.L., HARRE, R.; CORNELLWAY, E. (1995): Realism rescued. How scientific progress is possible. Open Court,Londres.
• BHASKAR, R. (1993): Filosofía y Realismo Científico. Cuadernos de Crítica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
• BHASKAR, R. (1998): The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences(Critical Realism-Interventions).Routledge, Nueva York.
• BHASKAR, R. (2002): From Science to Emancipation. Alienation and the actuality of enlightenment.Sage Publications,London.
• BHASKAR, R. (2007): A realist theory of science.Radical Thinkers, New York.
• BINFORD, L.R. (1962): Archgaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity, 28: 217-225.
• BINFORD, L.R. (1978): Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
• BINFORD, L.R. (1981): Bones: Ancient Men, Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York
• BINFORD, L.R. (2001): Constructing Frames of Reference. An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory BuildingUsing Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California Press, California.
• BINFORD, S.R.; BINFORD, L.R. (1968): New perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine.
• BOYD, R. (1983): On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism. Erkenntnis, 19: 45-90.
• BUNGE, M. (1973): On Method in the Philosophy of Science. Scientific Realism. Selected essays of Mario Bunge (M.Mahner, ed.), Prometheus Books, Nueva York: 121-141.
• BUNGE, M. (1982): The revival of causality. Scientific Realism. Selected essays of Mario Bunge (M. Mahner, ed.), Pro-metheus Books, Nueva York: 57-74.
• BUNGE, M. (1998): Philosophy of Science.Transaction Publishers, Londres.
• BUNGE, M. (2006): A la caza de la realidad. La controversia sobre el realismo. Gedisa Editorial, Barcelona.
• BYERLY, R.; LAZARA, C. (1973): Realist Foundations of Measurement. Philosophy of Science(40): 10-28.
• CLARKE, D. (1968): Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, Londres.CLARKE, D. (1972): Models in Archaeology. Methuen, Londres.
• DEETZ, J.F. (1970): Archaeology as a social science: current directions in Anthropology. American AnthropologicalAssociation Bulletin, 33:115-125.
• DOMÍNGUEZ-RODRIGO, M.; BARBA, R.; EGELAND, C.P. (2007): Deconstructing Olduvai. Springer, New York.
• DORAN, J.E.; HODSON, F.R. (1975): Mathematics and computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgo.
• ESTÉVEZ, J.; VILA, A. (1999): Piedra a piedra : historia de la construcción del Paleolítico en la Península Ibérica.Archaeopress, Oxford.
• FLANNERY, K.V. (1973): Archaeology with a capital S. Research and Theory in Current Archaeology (C.L. Redman,ed.), Wiley, Nueva York: 47-58.
• GAMBLE, C. (1999): The Palaeolithic societies of Europe.Cambrige University Press, Cambridge.
• GOULD, R.A. (1978): The anthropology of human residues. American Anthropologist, 86: 815-835.
• GOULD, R.A. (1980.): Living Archaeology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• KUHN, T.S. (1962): The structure of scientific revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• LAKATOS, I. (1978): The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• LIPTON, P. (1993): Is the Best Good Enough? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93/2: 89-104.
• MILLER, R. (1987): Fact and Method. Princeton University Press, Princeton.´
• MORO, O. (2007): Filosofía de la ciencia y arqueología: el caso de la arqueología anglosajona. Complutum,18: 9-25.
• NIINILUOTO, I. (1987): Thruthlikeness. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
• NIINILUOTO, I. (2002): Critical scientific realism.Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• POPPER, K. (1956): Realism and the aim of science.Bartley III, London.
• POPPER, K. (1965): Conjectures and refutations, the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Londres.
• POPPER, K. (1972): Objective knowledge.Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• PSILLOS, S. (1999): Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth.Routledge, New York and London.
• PUTNAM, H. (1972): Explanation and Reference. Conceptual Change(G. Pearce y P. Maynard, eds.), Dordrecht, Rei-del: 175-189.
• PUTNAM, H. (1975): The Meaning of ‘Meaning’. Mind, Language and Reality(H. Putnam, ed.), Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.
• READ, D.W.; LEBLANC, S.A. (1978): Descriptive statements, covering laws and theories in Archaeology. Current An-thropology, 19: 307-335.
• SCHIFFER, M.B. (1975): Archaeology as behavioural science. American Anthropologist, 77: 836-848.
• TOUMELA, R. (1973): Theoretical concepts.Springer, Nueva York.
• TURNER, D. (2007): Making prehistory. Historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.
• WATSON, P.J.; LEBLANC, S.A.; REDMAN, C.L. (1971): Explanation in Archaeology: an explicitly scientific approach.Columbia University Press, Nueva York.
• WYLIE, A. (2002): Thinking from things. Essays in the philosophy of Archaeology. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
• ZEITLIN, R.N. (1990): Documenting the Argument for a Scientific Approach to Archaeological Inference. Current An-thropology, 31 (4) : 472-474.