On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić

The paper is the reaction to the contribution by Marko Porčić in this volume of Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, presenting his views on the epistemological character and status of excavation in the archaeological process of knowledge acquisition. Here it is argued that the analysis of Porčić...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Predrag Novaković
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR SR
Publicado:	University of Belgrade 2019
Materias:	archaeological fieldwork archaeology epistemology archaeological knowledge critique archaeological practice Anthropology GN1-890
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/36be650a119549788929c35970f821bd
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:36be650a119549788929c35970f821bd
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:36be650a119549788929c35970f821bd2021-12-02T11:23:13ZOn Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić10.21301/eap.v14.i3.20353-15892334-8801https://doaj.org/article/36be650a119549788929c35970f821bd2019-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/988https://doaj.org/toc/0353-1589https://doaj.org/toc/2334-8801 The paper is the reaction to the contribution by Marko Porčić in this volume of Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, presenting his views on the epistemological character and status of excavation in the archaeological process of knowledge acquisition. Here it is argued that the analysis of Porčić is simplified, non-consequential and founded upon the outdated concepts of epistemological analysis of science, which takes into account only the internal disciplinary epistemology and sharply divides theory from practice, thus considerably lowering the potential for research of archaeological epistemology. Discussing a research field, especially a humanistic one such as archaeology, exclusively in the light of its own categories and concepts and ways of thinking inevitably leads to massive reduction in understanding of knowledge production. If the ideal of so-called hard sciences, followed by Porčić, was a severe detachment of objects from subjects, supposedly leading to guaranteed neutrality (objectivity) of knowledge – the first half of the 20th century ideal, today abandoned in many respects even in hard sciences themselves – the constitutive element in humanistic disciplines is (auto)reflexivity and interactivity of researchers in respect to “other people and their work”, and therefore a completely different role of “subject” and their surroundings. Following his internalist approach, Porčić attempts to approach the epistemic structure of archaeology and its modes of knowledge building from the point of view of the so-called (by the author himself) general epistemological model, according to which a research starts by shaping a previous statement (hypothesis), followed by testing and final verification of a new knowledge. Attempting to preserve the “neutrality” of epistemological analysis, Porčić does not take into account the fact that every knowledge, including the scientific one, is historically and culturally conditioned; this fact, which is the foundation of every consideration of knowledge and ways of its production, particularly apparent in humanistic disciplines, is also present in the epistemology of hard sciences, to which Porčić refers. His perseverance to remain strictly in the domain of “theory” and complete neglect of the role of practice in the process of knowledge acquisition is expressed in a string of completely false statements, such as e.g. (theoretical) redundancy of archaeological excavations, or finitude (limitedness) of archaeological inquiry, reached upon by simple syllogistic exercises, often starting by erroneous or tautological premises. Perhaps the most eloquent illustration of the inadequacy of the so-called general epistemological model for archaeology is the neglect of preventive archaeology – today amounting to more than 90% of all archaeological fieldwork in Europe. However, Porčić practically denies all epistemological value to this work, persevering in the extremely reductive view of archaeology, and at the same time neglecting important epistemological perspectives of the discipline. Predrag NovakovićUniversity of Belgradearticlearchaeological fieldworkarchaeologyepistemologyarchaeological knowledgecritiquearchaeological practiceAnthropologyGN1-890ENFRSREtnoantropološki Problemi, Vol 14, Iss 3 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR SR
topic	archaeological fieldwork archaeology epistemology archaeological knowledge critique archaeological practice Anthropology GN1-890
spellingShingle	archaeological fieldwork archaeology epistemology archaeological knowledge critique archaeological practice Anthropology GN1-890 Predrag Novaković On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
description	The paper is the reaction to the contribution by Marko Porčić in this volume of Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology, presenting his views on the epistemological character and status of excavation in the archaeological process of knowledge acquisition. Here it is argued that the analysis of Porčić is simplified, non-consequential and founded upon the outdated concepts of epistemological analysis of science, which takes into account only the internal disciplinary epistemology and sharply divides theory from practice, thus considerably lowering the potential for research of archaeological epistemology. Discussing a research field, especially a humanistic one such as archaeology, exclusively in the light of its own categories and concepts and ways of thinking inevitably leads to massive reduction in understanding of knowledge production. If the ideal of so-called hard sciences, followed by Porčić, was a severe detachment of objects from subjects, supposedly leading to guaranteed neutrality (objectivity) of knowledge – the first half of the 20th century ideal, today abandoned in many respects even in hard sciences themselves – the constitutive element in humanistic disciplines is (auto)reflexivity and interactivity of researchers in respect to “other people and their work”, and therefore a completely different role of “subject” and their surroundings. Following his internalist approach, Porčić attempts to approach the epistemic structure of archaeology and its modes of knowledge building from the point of view of the so-called (by the author himself) general epistemological model, according to which a research starts by shaping a previous statement (hypothesis), followed by testing and final verification of a new knowledge. Attempting to preserve the “neutrality” of epistemological analysis, Porčić does not take into account the fact that every knowledge, including the scientific one, is historically and culturally conditioned; this fact, which is the foundation of every consideration of knowledge and ways of its production, particularly apparent in humanistic disciplines, is also present in the epistemology of hard sciences, to which Porčić refers. His perseverance to remain strictly in the domain of “theory” and complete neglect of the role of practice in the process of knowledge acquisition is expressed in a string of completely false statements, such as e.g. (theoretical) redundancy of archaeological excavations, or finitude (limitedness) of archaeological inquiry, reached upon by simple syllogistic exercises, often starting by erroneous or tautological premises. Perhaps the most eloquent illustration of the inadequacy of the so-called general epistemological model for archaeology is the neglect of preventive archaeology – today amounting to more than 90% of all archaeological fieldwork in Europe. However, Porčić practically denies all epistemological value to this work, persevering in the extremely reductive view of archaeology, and at the same time neglecting important epistemological perspectives of the discipline.
format	article
author	Predrag Novaković
author_facet	Predrag Novaković
author_sort	Predrag Novaković
title	On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
title_short	On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
title_full	On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
title_fullStr	On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
title_full_unstemmed	On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić
title_sort	on epistemology in archaeology: critique of the text “archaeological excavation from epistemological perspective” by marko porčić
publisher	University of Belgrade
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/36be650a119549788929c35970f821bd
work_keys_str_mv	AT predragnovakovic onepistemologyinarchaeologycritiqueofthetextarchaeologicalexcavationfromepistemologicalperspectivebymarkoporcic
_version_	1718395931704950784

On Epistemology in Archaeology: Critique of the Text “Archaeological Excavation from Epistemological Perspective” by Marko Porčić

Ejemplares similares