Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology

In pseudo-archaeological writings, both the ones originating from marginal sources, but as well from the grey zone inside the discipline itself, a tendency can be identified to invoke various analyses and methods from the realm of natural sciences, aimed at justifying authors’ ideas. The aim of thi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Monika Milosavljević, Aleksandar Palavestra
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR SR
Publicado:	University of Belgrade 2017
Materias:	archaeology pseudo-archaeology natural sciences archaeological epistemology archaeo-metallurgy archaeo-genetics Anthropology GN1-890
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/1f16356ebee04ff3b5a87a0c133f6762
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:1f16356ebee04ff3b5a87a0c133f6762
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:1f16356ebee04ff3b5a87a0c133f67622021-12-04T19:23:10ZAbuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology10.21301/EAP.V12I3.80353-15892334-8801https://doaj.org/article/1f16356ebee04ff3b5a87a0c133f67622017-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/288https://doaj.org/toc/0353-1589https://doaj.org/toc/2334-8801 In pseudo-archaeological writings, both the ones originating from marginal sources, but as well from the grey zone inside the discipline itself, a tendency can be identified to invoke various analyses and methods from the realm of natural sciences, aimed at justifying authors’ ideas. The aim of this strategy is dislocation of argumentation from the field of archaeology and verifiable archaeological data into the more slippery field of false complexity and presumed interdisciplinarity. Archaeological epistemology presupposes that every interpretation of the past requires a clear and explicit theoretical framework and verifiable data, as well as their dynamic relationship of reciprocity through research design. On the other hand, as a rule pseudo-scientific claims do not comply to any theoretical or methodological framework, and the very data base used spans from simple forgeries to random interpretations of authentic artefacts. In order to compensate for weak or even non-existent archaeological grounds of these interpretations, argumentation is transferred into the area supposed to be less accessible to archaeological public, so that false and unsubstantiated claims can be made. Monika MilosavljevićAleksandar PalavestraUniversity of Belgradearticlearchaeologypseudo-archaeologynatural sciencesarchaeological epistemologyarchaeo-metallurgyarchaeo-geneticsAnthropologyGN1-890ENFRSREtnoantropološki Problemi, Vol 12, Iss 3 (2017)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR SR
topic	archaeology pseudo-archaeology natural sciences archaeological epistemology archaeo-metallurgy archaeo-genetics Anthropology GN1-890
spellingShingle	archaeology pseudo-archaeology natural sciences archaeological epistemology archaeo-metallurgy archaeo-genetics Anthropology GN1-890 Monika Milosavljević Aleksandar Palavestra Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
description	In pseudo-archaeological writings, both the ones originating from marginal sources, but as well from the grey zone inside the discipline itself, a tendency can be identified to invoke various analyses and methods from the realm of natural sciences, aimed at justifying authors’ ideas. The aim of this strategy is dislocation of argumentation from the field of archaeology and verifiable archaeological data into the more slippery field of false complexity and presumed interdisciplinarity. Archaeological epistemology presupposes that every interpretation of the past requires a clear and explicit theoretical framework and verifiable data, as well as their dynamic relationship of reciprocity through research design. On the other hand, as a rule pseudo-scientific claims do not comply to any theoretical or methodological framework, and the very data base used spans from simple forgeries to random interpretations of authentic artefacts. In order to compensate for weak or even non-existent archaeological grounds of these interpretations, argumentation is transferred into the area supposed to be less accessible to archaeological public, so that false and unsubstantiated claims can be made.
format	article
author	Monika Milosavljević Aleksandar Palavestra
author_facet	Monika Milosavljević Aleksandar Palavestra
author_sort	Monika Milosavljević
title	Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
title_short	Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
title_full	Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
title_fullStr	Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
title_full_unstemmed	Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology
title_sort	abuse of natural sciences in (pseudo)archaeology
publisher	University of Belgrade
publishDate	2017
url	https://doaj.org/article/1f16356ebee04ff3b5a87a0c133f6762
work_keys_str_mv	AT monikamilosavljevic abuseofnaturalsciencesinpseudoarchaeology AT aleksandarpalavestra abuseofnaturalsciencesinpseudoarchaeology
_version_	1718372661287976960

Abuse of Natural Sciences in (Pseudo)Archaeology

Ejemplares similares