REKONTEMPLASI PERIODISASI PRASEJARAH DI INDONESIA
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper is written to provide material for reflections on the prehistoric periodization system in Indonesia. Some of the main questions that become material for reflection are: whether the basis used to create the periodization system is in accordance with the objectives to be achieved; whether the periodization system is able to provide alternative solutions to various prehistoric phenomena in Indonesia; whether the periodization system can identify the process of cultural change; and finally, whether the current periodization system is still relevant with the rapid development of archaeological methods and theories. These kinds of questions are urgent for further study
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Binford, Lewis. 1989. Debating Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Bokonyi, Sandor. 1989. Definitions of Animal Domestication. Dalam J. Glutton-Brock. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Partoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman, 22-27.
Glutton-Brock, J. 1989. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Partoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman.
Collins, Michael B. 1979. Sources of Bias in Processual Data: An Appraisal. Dalam James W. Mueller (ed.). Sampling in Archaeology. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, 26-32.
Daniels, S.G.H. 1972. Research Design Models. Dalam David L. Clarke. Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 201-229.
Ducos, Pierre. 1989. Defining Domestication: A Clarification. Dalam J. Glutton-Brock. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Partoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman, 28-30.
Faizaliskandiar, Mindra. 1989. Variabilitas Tipe Artefak Sebagai lndikator Strategi Subsistensi: Kajian Atas Strategi Perburuan Paleolitik Asia Tenggara. Dalam PIA V. Jakarta: IAAI, 131-150.
Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, lan. 1986. Reading the Past. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Layton, R. Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London:The Academic Division of Unwin Hyman.
Melas, E.M. 1991. Etics, Emics and Empathy in Archaeological Theory. Dalam Ian Hodder. The Meanings of Things; Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. Cambridge: Harper Collins Academic, 137-155.
Miksic, John N. 1986. Etnoarkeologi dan Faktorfaktor Musiman dalam Pengembangan Pola Pemukiman. Seminar Metode Pengkajian Perubahan Masyarakat. Yogyakarta: Keluarga Mahasiswa Antropologi FS UGM.
Simanjuntak, Truman. 1992. Neolitik di Indonesia: Neraca dan Perspektif Penelitian. Dalam JAI No.1/ Juli 1992. Jakarta: IAAI, 117-130
Soejono, R.P., 1976. Tinjauan tentang Pengkerangkaan Prasejarah Indonesia. Aspek-aspek Arkeologi di Indonesia No. 5 Jakarta: Puslitarkenas.
Soejono, R.P., 1984. Sejarah Nasional Indonesia I. Jakarta: PN Balai Pustaka.
Spaulding, Albert C. 1960.Archaeological Dimension. Dalam Gertrude E. Dole dan Robert L. Carneiro (ed.). Essays in the Science of Culture: In Honor of Leslie A. White. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Sudjiman,Panuti dan Aart Van Zoest, 1992.Serba-serbi Semiotika. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Tanudirjo, Daud Aris. 1992. Retrospeksi Penelitian Arkeologi di Indonesia. Dalam PIA VI. Malang: IAAI.
Taryadi, Alfons. 1991. Epistemologi Pemecahan Masalah Menurut Karl L. Popper. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
