ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
ARQUEOLOGÍA CON LA CIUDAD
DOI:
Artículo de Reexión
https://doi.org/10.37135/chk.002.17.15
Recibido: (30/09/2021)
Aceptado: (24/02/2022)
Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Arqueología e
Etnologia, São Paulo, Brasil.
pierotessaro@usp.br
Piero Alessandro Bohn Tessaro
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244)
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244) 236
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
ARQUEOLOGÍA CON LA CIUDAD
This paper reex on the development of the concept of an Archaeology with the City,
expanding the concepts of Archaeology in the City, of the City and for the City. Such
new concept was developed within the scope Urban archeology projects in the City of
São Paulo, in dialaogue with proposals from Sociomuseology, since most researches
aimed at musealization of Archeology. Despite archaeology with the city being born from
encounters between Urban archaeology and Sociomuseology, this path also brought up
closer dialogues with Public and Collaborative archaeology, safeguarding the specicities
of considering the city an Archaeological Site, as usual among archaeologists working
with urban contexts. Thus, new challenges are posed to the practice of Archaeology with
the City.
KEYWORDS: Archaeology with the city; urban archaeology; resignication; public
archaeology.
Este trabajo reexiona sobre el desarrollo del concepto de una Arqueología con la Ciudad,
ampliando los conceptos de Arqueología en la Ciudad, de la Ciudad y para la Ciudad. Este
nuevo concepto fue desarrollado en el ámbito de los Proyectos de Arqueología Urbana en
la Ciudad de São Paulo, en diálogo con las propuestas de la Sociomuseología, ya que la
mayoría de las investigaciones apuntaron a la musealización de la Arqueología. A pesar
de que la arqueología con la ciudad nació de encuentros entre la arqueología urbana y la
sociomuseología, este camino también trajo diálogos más estrechos con la arqueología
pública y colaborativa, salvaguardando las especicidades de considerar la ciudad como
un sitio arqueológico, como es habitual entre los arqueólogos que trabajan con contextos
urbanos. Así, se plantean nuevos desafíos a la práctica de la Arqueología con la Ciudad.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Arqueología con la ciudad, arqueología urbana, resignicación,
arqueología pública
ABSTRACT
RESUMEN
Piero Alessandro Bohn Tessaro
CHAKIÑAN. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades / ISSN 2550 - 6722 237
INTRODUCTION
Archaeology is rapidly increasing its action
range when it approaches other historical
moments linked to modern and contemporary
societies, becoming much more accustomed to
processes closer to current societies – the case
of the Archaeology of the Present, for example.
Cities became a great source of archaeological
sites. It became what is refereed to as Urban
Archaeology. As Funari (2005) points out,
the equation Historical Archaeology = Urban
Archaeology does not apply to the complexity
of urban space formation.
According to Zanettini (2004), urban
archaeologists also study cultures who existed
before to the formation of cities. In many
respects Historical and Urban Archaeology are
mistaken as the same specicity of a broader
eld, Archaeological Science. Although it came
from Historical Archaeology (Staski 2008), and
indeed most of researches in cities deal with
historical archaeological sites, it is necessary to
highlight the potential existence of prehistoric
or pre-colonial contexts, under the city’s urban
fabric. As an example, the Sítio Arqueológico
Morumbi, in São Paulo city, a lithic workshop
in this case existed within what was once a
concrete jungle. Similar case happenes in New
York, close to the Hudson River, and in many
other megalopolis (Salwen 1978).
The presence of prehistoric or pre-colonial
contexts in an urban environment underlines the
importance to considering the city itself as part
of the formation process of an archaeological
context. If, as Schier (1995) proposed, the
natural processes, n-Transforms and the cultural
processes, c-Transforms, are deeply considered
by archaeologists, the development of the city
will be part of the the cultural formation process
of the archaeological record.
Transformations are modeled through the
use of two sets of archaeological laws.
The rst set, “c-transforms”, describes
the cultural formation processes of the
archaeological record. These laws relate
variables pertaining to the behavioral and
organizational properties of sociocultural
system to variables describing aspects
of the archaeological outputs of that
system. The laws of noncultural formation
processes are termed “n-transforms”.
(Schier 1995:48)
As obvious as it could be, archaeologists must
consider both natural and cultural processes
of record alteration, post abandonment, when
working in urban archaeological contexts.
However, in the city, the archaeological
context was highly altered by cultural process
related to urban development. Therefore,
urban development itself expands the
preimposed restrictions used for delimitating an
archaeological site.
This new perspective does not exclude the rst
one, coming from historical archaeology (the
archaeological site in the city), but expands its
understanding, allowing to glimpse cities as a
living organism, in interaction and connected.
As widely known, an important topic of research
among urban archaeologists is urbanization, the
general process related to the emergence and
development of cities (Staski 2008:07).
As Staski (2008) pointed out, the process of
urbanization should be understood in the context
of the investigation of an archaeological site,
in line with the idea of the formation of the
archaeological context, as proposed by Schier
(1995). This Urban Archaeological postulate
questions the own concept of archaeological
site as spatial limit, suggesting that the city, the
urban mesh, must be treated as a locus, a unique
archaeological site.
These two premises, one looking at the
archaeological site as independent of the
context of urbanization, and the other, looking
at the city as a whole, originated the concepts
used by Salwen (1978) and Staski (1982) of an
archaeology in the city and an Archaeology of
the City. While urban archaeologists profess
archaeologies in the city, we have not, with few
notable exceptions, begun to explore the inherent
possibilities in the more rewarding concepts of
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244) 238
archaeology of the city (Salwen 1978: 453) and:
Advances in methodology, or archaeology
in the city (Slawen 1973; Staski 1982),
seem to have been given most attention.
[...] Urban archaeology seems to have
advanced less far, however, in matters of
theory and substantive historical research
regarding urban phenomena themselves.
Although a number of scholars have
attempted such archaeology of the city,
and in spite of a number of pioneering
statements promoting such research (e.g.,
Salwen 1973) [...]. (Staski 1982:9)
Considering the conceptual division established
by both beforementiond authors, an archaeology
in the city would be linked to perspectives
looking at archaeological sites despite their
placement contexts of urbanization; on another
hand, an archeology of the city begings from
accepting that the urbanization process is an
integral part of analysing the research object.
In this aspect, however, the idea that concepts
mutually exclude each other is not valid, and one
could start from both perspectives.
At the beginning of the 21st century, Staski
revisited his publication Living in Cities (1982),
following-up with Living in Cities Today (2008),
reformulating its proposition. In this sense,
the second document presents a dierentiated
statement, one in which both perspectives
– of an archaeology in and of the city - are
complementary.
In addition, Staski renew its arguments, now
permeated by post-processualist postures,
highlithing that Urban Archaeology may serve
a city aid its urban planners. This new stance
was understood as an Archaeology for the City,
despite the use of the previous term, Archaeology
of the City (Staski, 2008). These concepts are
here used together, upon Staski’s approach and
perspective.
METHODOLOGY
The intersection between Archaeology and
Museology, more specically between Urban
Archaeology and Sociomuseology, falls under
the scope of the so-called “musealization of
archaeology” (Bruno 1995; Wichers 2011;
Tessaro 2014). In short, musealization of
archaeology is a research methodology and a
contemplation on archaeology and socializing
knowledge based on what García Canclini
(2011) denes as “nomadic social sciences”.
Such encounter, which already stems from
multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary sciences at
its core, demands for methodologies that allow
to move along these diverse paths.
Despite this intersection, specicities of each one
of these elds must be taken into consideration,
so that no losses occur in relation to the object
of research, the archaeological context, and the
process of socialization of knowledge. Since this
paper targets formulating a concept engrained
in nomadic aspects, it is important to present
the perspectives that led to its proposal. As this
process is in no ways nite, it enable further
discussions about the own science where it
originated, archeology.
For this exercise, considering the landscape
as cultural is of paramount importance and it
opens space to the possibility of each person
or communit having it particular meanings
about it. Also, rescuing proposals from Staski
(1982; 1999; 2008) and Salwen (1978), in which
urban archaeology should treat the city as an
archaeological locus in which an archaeology
of, in and for the city, is plays a key role. The
current redirectioning of Urban Archaeology
and the proposal of an archaeology with the
city concept came to light due to the inuence
of Sociomuseology as part of a research on
musealization of archaeology by Tessaro (2014),
developed under the scope of a master’s degree.
This thoughts, however, do not exclude the
above considerations; on the opposite, it
Piero Alessandro Bohn Tessaro
CHAKIÑAN. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades / ISSN 2550 - 6722 239
includes those of Salwen (1978) and Staski
(1982; 1999; 2008) for urban contexts, towards
a most comprehensive archaeological discipline,
where interaction and communication are
integral parts of the archaeological research.
“En último lugar, una arqueología totalmente
crítica y responsable ha de ser capaz de usar
la objetividad y la realidad de la experiencia de
sus datos, con el n de dar forma y transformar
la experiencia del mundo” (Hodder & Hudson
2003:189).
According to Hodder & Hudson (2003),
to transform the experience of the world,
archaeological data should be related to society:
“Existe una relación dialéctica entre el pasado
y el presente: se interpreta el pasado en función
del presente, pero puede también utilizarse el
pasado para criticar y desaar al presente”
(Hodder & Hudson 2003:189-190).
Zanettini (2004:152) states: “o arqueólogo
urbano não tem necessariamente que restringir
suas análises aos locais que escava”. And
since Archeology is a Science based on
multidisciplinarity, it should also be so in contexts
of Urban archeology. Adding perspectives of
Sociomuseology only expands the reexive
possibilities, as well as the inclusion of insights
provided by other Sciences.
Geography is a eld of possibilities and concepts
like “roughness” (Santos 2008), elements
from the past that remain in the landscape, do
have added value. Many other proposals also
add to a better urban archaeology, such as
including perspectives from urbanism, urban
anthropology, among others. Hence, this paper
think about problems that aect the city’s daily
life (Zanettini 2004) merging with Staski’s
proposal: urbanization is an important topic of
research among urban archaeologists (Staski
2008:07).
When dealing with the city, its fragments can
be observed, its pieces of the urban fabric,
connected through the media communication
(García Canclini 2008).
In this respect, museological perspectives that
interact with the communicational environment
can and should be used when researching
about archaeological contexts: “(...) considerar
o museu como ponte entre tempos, espaços,
indivíduos, grupos sociais e culturas diferentes;
ponte que se constrói em imagens e que tem
no imaginário um lugar de destaque” (Chagas
2005:18).
Chaga’s perspective combining with Staskis,
Salwen, Zanettini and Garcia Canclini, it
becomes clear, as proposed by Ferreira (2008),
that social relations involve artifacts: “cultura
material que poderíamos entender aquele
segmento do meio físico que é socialmente
apropriado pelo homem” (Meneses 1983:112).
Discourse (Foucault 2007) can be understood as
a form, a modus operandi. Doing something in
a certain way, such as the simple act of walking,
is itself a discourse, a culture that is created,
thought out, modied, assimilated, signied and
re-signied by individuals.
History’s stratigraphic piling (Certeau 2008)
opposed to a history that is divided from the
present, also supports the need for broadening
concepts related to researching the city from
archaeological and museological perspetives:
(...) a historiograa separa seu presente de
um passado. Porém, repete sempre o gesto
de dividir. Assim sendo, sua cronologia se
compões de “períodos” (...) entre os quais
se indica sempre a decisão de ser outro ou
de não ser mais o que havia sido até então
(...). Por sua vez, cada tempo “novo”
deu lugar a um discurso que considera
“morto” aquilo que o precedeu (...).
Muito longe de ser genérica está
construção é uma singularidade ocidental.
Na Índia, por exemplo, “as novas formas
não expulsaram as antigas”. O que existe é
o “empilhamento estratigráco”. (Certeau
2008:15–16)
The above allows us to understand the present of
the city must be understood as an archaeological
context and a systemic context (Schier 1972).
The city indeed must be treated as a locus, in
which present meanings and discourses are part
of the interpretation of the past. The landscape,
in this aspect, becomes an important object in
the understanding of what the city is, not only
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244) 240
its signicant places (Zedeño & Bowser 2008),
but the discursive and political actions that take
place there.
Schier’s (1972) concepts of archaeological
context and systemic context serve to reect upon
the city: systemic context labels the condition of
an element participating of a behavioral system.
Archaeological context describes materials that
have passed through a cultural system, now the
objects of investigation of archaeologists.
RESULTS AND DICUSSIONS
Cities, therefore, are archaeological and
systemic contexts in coexistence and interaction,
which makes the systemic context part of the
archaeological work, in opposition to the idea
that the archaeologist only reects on the former.
It is in this aspect that the city must be thought
of as a locus, as we are dealing with living
artifacts that shape the landscape, buildings that
are reused and unabated landlls that are still
functional.
Below, I present the table that synthesizes the
ideas of this reection, using as a basis gures
presented by Schier (1972).
We are dealing with the manipulation of artifacts
from an archaeological context, returning to a
new systemic context, and therefore assigning
new functions through re-signication. An
archeology that is unconcerned with this
recycling/re-signication, of exhumed objects
placing them in a technical reserve without
a new functionality, is practically relocating
them again in an archaeological context, as we
would be dealing with abandonment again, or
as Bruno (1995) pointed out a stratigraphy of
abandonment.
Source: Schier (1972:158-162)
Figure 1: Based on Figures 1 and 3 of Schier, about process in Systemic and Archaeological
Context; red parts inserted, about process of resignication in archaeological research or
maintenance
Piero Alessandro Bohn Tessaro
CHAKIÑAN. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades / ISSN 2550 - 6722 241
This relationship with post-research abandonment
becomes more evident at the end of the 20th
century and beginning of the 21st century with
the increase of work in preventive archeology
and is explicit in the historical development of
Brazilian archeology and museums as stated by
Wichers (2011).
The process of this thought and reection was
linked to the armation of Urban archeology as
a eld of research, since professional colleagues
constantly stated that this was not Archeology.
It was in this defense process that the
approximation with aspects of Sociomuseology
and the musealization of Archeology occurred,
something even often overlooked by these
colleagues, who practice their research and
profession by the logic of the stratigraphy of
abandonment (Bruno 1995).
Recovering the concepts of systemic context and
archaeological context (Schier 1972), serves as
an armation to combat these two issues: urban
archeology being disregarded by colleagues
as an invalid eld; and the abandonment
process extravasated by ignoring a process of
resignication and communication.
In short, these two areas, one of Archeology
and the other of Museology, in the process of
musealization of Archeology, have in the urban
context a rich theoretical reexive potential to
discuss current issues in Archeology. They serve
as a rich laboratory for experimentation.
This reection led to the exacerbation and
reconguration of a concept of Urban archeology,
archeology with the City (Tessaro & Souza,
2011; Tessaro, 2014), which is currently directed
towards understanding the existing approach to
Public archeology.
This approach occurs mainly in the process of
resignication, already expressed earlier. But
it is worth highlighting it as: a representation
of the past in the present, supported in the
cultural materiality, but only in the process of
resignication, is that they become history
(Machado 2017). More than history which is
something that is in the present, the resignication
allows new functions to be assigned to this
material culture. “Essa construção baseia-se
tanto no seu passado, na sua tradição cultural,
quanto no seu presente, nas suas demandas
cotidianas e políticas, apresentando-se como
perspectiva de futuro” (Machado 2017:97).
This process of re-signication, which takes place
in the present, also contains the past and also the
future, thought in the process of socialization/
musealization is what generates approximation
with aspects of Public Archaeology, or even
Collaborative Archaeology. However, to exercise
these approaches considering the context of an
entire city, we need to perform a democratic, non-
exclusive look, or even as some archaeologists
call in their research, a cosmopolitan (Meskell
2009), or citizen (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2019)
thinking.
Matsuda (2016) indicates in the brief history
made in his article, that Public archeology is
divided into four approaches: Educational,
Public relations, Pluralistic and Critical.
The educational approach aims to
facilitate and promote people’s learning
of the past on the basis of archaeological
thinking and methods; the importance of
protecting and conserving archaeological
remains can also be a subject of learning
in this approach. The public relations
approach aims to increase the recognition,
popularity, and support of archaeology in
contemporary society by establishing a
close relationship between archaeology
and various individuals and social groups.
The pluralist approach aims to understand
the diversity of interactions between
material remains and dierent members of
the public; it treats archaeology as one way
of making sense of the past and considers
how it can meaningfully engage with
various other ways of interacting with the
past. Finally, the critical approach engages
with the politics of the past (Gathercole
& Lowenthal, 1990), typically by seeking
to unsettle the interpretation of the past
by socially dominant groups, in particular
ethnocentric and elitist groups, or to help
socially subjugated groups achieve due
socio-political recognition by promoting
their views of the past. (2-3)
In a way, the path of Sociomuseology, inserted
in the context of Urban archeology, promotes
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244) 242
a greater or lesser approximation with the
four approaches at a time when archeological
methods and practices become instruments for
education/reection of the city; when it proposes
the establishment of socialization, even if only
through an exhibition, it is making knowledge/
resignication accessible to the population.
When this process of resignication is centered
on present urban issues, it turns to the pluralist,
or even diversied, aspect of society; and nally,
when they propose to reect on these issues,
critical thinking about the past is inserted.
However, these divisions are not rigid, but
permeable and interchangeable with each other.
In this respect, the idea that Archeology is
serving the city is overcome, but rather, that it
starts to compose the urban social context in
which it is inserted, discussing the city in its
urban issues through Archeology. And that’s
why the reconceptualization of an archeology
with the City. However, this concept inserted
in the perspective of Public archeology, faces
dierent problems in its theory and practice,
depending on the city.
In a city of large proportions, millions of
inhabitants, the task of choosing one social group
would automatically generate the exclusion of
another; seeking to remedy, perhaps this anti-
democratic attitude, the use of urban problems,
even though at dierent levels, is something
that impacts the city as a whole; as an example,
we could mention the issue of mobility. It is up
to the archaeologist to know how this could be
discussed through archaeological contexts.
As a brief practical example, which will not
be discussed in depth here, since the proposal
was restricted to theoretical and methodological
reection, one can cite the research developed
on the archaeological site Quadra 090, a block
in the historic center of the city of São Paulo
(Tessaro 2014). This is a diversied context of
the transition from the 19th and 20th centuries,
where there were domestic units and a productive
unit. A period in which the city of São Paulo was
going through its rst intense process of growth
and urbanization (1870-1930).
Considering all the issues of cultural
transformations that this site went through,
leaving persistent marks, three aspects were
related to urban problems of the city in the
present and could be used to inuence a critical
thinking in society: the practices regarding trash;
the stratigraphic conguration; and the social
identication. In addition, the site was located
in the place in the city known as Cracolândia,
where crack users occupied the streets.
The practices in relation to garbage, establish
parameters to address the concept of hygiene in
development in urban society, represented by
the presence of garbage cans built in masonry,
in the archaeological context. It was possible to
think about the development of hygiene and how
it extrapolated the material and domestic aspect,
directing itself from society to society, giving
rise to Cracolândia. This would be a place of
social hygiene, or disposal of “human waste”
(Bauman 2005:47).
Later, what was approached was related to the
stratigraphy of the archaeological site, in which
successive layers of asphalt and concrete were
found superimposed. This aspect, looking at the
stratigraphy as an artifact, makes it possible to
think about two present issues in the city: soil
sealing and urban mobility that prioritizes cars.
During the research period, 2013, there were
several protests in the city related to the issue
of urban mobility and price increases in public
transport.
And nally, these two themes and the physical
and representative aspect of the material
culture of the archaeological site itself lead to a
discussion about identity in the city, the feeling
of belonging or not. Where society dismisses
people from itself, where the mobility hindered
by the accumulation of streets and by the ooding
generated by the sealing of the soil generates
the discomfort and the feeling of not belonging.
Which in turn inuences the feeling of identity.
This brief example is further explored in
the master’s dissertation “Pedaços de uma
Paulicéia Espalhados pela Urbe: musealizando
uma Arqueologia com a Cidade” (Tessaro
2014) and which is now being deepened in the
context of the doctorate. With the inclusion of
Piero Alessandro Bohn Tessaro
CHAKIÑAN. Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades / ISSN 2550 - 6722 243
other contexts, including a lithic workshop, Sítio
Arqueológico Morumbi, which is located within
the City of São Paulo.
CONCLUSIONS
An archeology with the City must be aware
of considering the city as a locus, as it deals
with living (systemic) and abandoned context
(archaeological), which have direct relation with
the city’s landscape. These contexts, even if not
visible, are in the city’s daily life, present in its
development. When dealing with the systemic
context, archaeologists deal also with the social
relations present in a place, not only within the
artifacts. At the same time, it also deals with the
cultural context inserted in the daily life of the
imagination, perception and resignication of
the individuals who use this space.
In this paper, I aimed at reecting upon an
Archeology committed to the city, following
Hodder & Hudson (2003) proposal of an
Archeology that thinks, discusses, and criticizes
the present, one that is part of the future, to whom
communication and extroversion contribute to
the construction of this same future. Exercising
a more humane and Democratic archeology, not
along the same lines as an Ethno-archaeology or
a Public/Participatory archeology - because in a
big city, we would be selective, by prioritizing
one group over another; but transforming the
systemic context, whether part of resignifying
practices or not, through the analysis of social
and urban problems, urban archaeologists will
be initiators of discussions about the city. In
short, an archeology with the City.
DECLARACIÓN DE CONFLICTOS DE
INTERESES: El autor declara que no tiene
conictos de interés.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Bauman, Z. (2005). Identidade. Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil: Jorge Zahar Editora.
Bruno, M. C. O. (1995). Musealização da
Arqueologia: um estudo de modelos
para o Projeto Paranapanema (Tesis de
Doctorado Inédita). Universidade de São
Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Chagas, M. (2005). Museus: antropofagia da
memória e do patrimônio. Revista do
Patrimônio, IPHAN, 31, 15-25.
Certeau de, M. (2008). A Escrita da História. Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil: Forense Universitaria.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C. (2009) The
Archaeologist as a World Citizen.
En L. Meskell (Ed.), Comopolitan
Archeologies. Durhan, United States:
Duke University Press.
Ferreira, L. M. (2008). Sob Fogo Cruzado:
Arqueologia Comunitária e Patrimônio
Cultural. Revista de Arqueologia
Pública, 3(1), 81-92.
Foucault, M. (2007). A Arqueologia do Saber. Rio
de Janeiro, Brasil: Forense Universitária.
Funari, P. P. A. (2005) Comparative method in
archaeology and the study of Spanish
and Portuguese South American
material culture. En P. P. A., Funari, A.,
Zarankin & E., Stovel (Eds.), Global
Archaeological Theory (pp. 97-106).
Boston, United States: Springer. DOI
10.1007/0-306-48652-0_8
García Canclini, N. (2008). Imaginários
Culturais da Cidade: conhecimento
/ espetáculo / desconhecimento. En
Coelho, T (eds). A Cultura Pela Cidade
(pp 15-31). São Paulo, Brasil: Iluminuras,
Itaú Cultural.
García Canclini, N. (2011). Culturas Híbridas.
São Paulo, Brasil: EDUSP.
Hodder, I. & Hudson, S. (2003). Intepretación
em Arqueología. Barcelona, España:
ARCHAEOLOGY WITH THE CITY
Número 17 / AGOSTO, 2022 (235-244) 244
Crítica.
Machado, J. S. (2017). Arqueologias Indígenas,
os Laklãnõ Xokleng e os Objetos do
Pensar. Revista de Arqueologia, 30(1),
89-119. DOI: 10.24885/sab.v30i1.504
Matsuda, A. (2016). A consideration of
Public Archaeology Theories. Public
Archaeology, 15(1), 40-49, DOI:
10.1080/14655187.2016.1209377
Meskell, L. (2009). Introduction. En Meskell,
L. (Eds). Comopolitan Archeologies.
Durhan, United States: Duke University
Press.
Meneses, U. B. A. (1983). Cultura material no
estudo das sociedades antigas. Revista de
História, 115, 103-117.
Salwen, B. (1978). Archaeology in Megalopolis:
Updated Assessment. Journal of Field
Archaeology, 5(4), 453-459.
Santos, M. (2008). A natureza do espaço. São
Paulo, Brasil: Edusp.
Schier, M. B. (1972) Archaeological context
and systemic context. American
Antiquity, 37(2), 156-165.
Schier, M. B. (1995). Behavioral Archaeology:
rst pricinples. Foundations of
Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City,
United States: University of Utah Press.
Staski, E. (1982). Advances in Urban Archaeology.
Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, 5, 97-149.
Staski, E. (1999). Living in cities: an
introduction. Historical Archaeology,
special publication, 5, 9-11
Staski, E. (2008). Living in cities today.
Historical Archaeology, 42(1), 5-10.
Tessaro, P. A. B. & Souza, R. A. (2011).
Arqueologia com a Cidade de São
Paulo. En A. G. M. Araujo (Presidencia).
Encontro de Arqueologia, Patrimônio e
Turismo. Conferencía llevada a cabo en
el Encontro de Arqueologia, Patrimônio
e Turismo. Rio Claro, Brasil.
Tessaro, P. A. B. (2014). Pedaços de uma
Paulicéia Espalhados pela Urbe:
Musealizando uma Arqueologia com
a Cidade (Tesis de Maestria Inédita).
Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo,
Brasil.
Wichers, C. M. (2011). Museus e Antropofagia
do Patrimônio Arqueológico: (des)
caminhos da prática brasileira (Tesis
de Doctorado Inédita). Departamento de
Museologia – ULHT, Lisboa, Portugal.
Zanettini, P. E. (2004). O arqueólogo na cidade.
En J. G. C. Magnani, (Eds.). Expedição
São Paulo 450 anos: uma viagem por
dentro da metrópole (pp. 151-154). São
Paulo, Brasil: Secretaria Municipal de
Cultura, Instituto Florestan Fernandes.
Zedeño, M. I. & Bowser, B. J. (2008). The
Archaeology of Meaningful Places. Salt
Lake City, United States: The University
of Utah Press.
