Zloupotreba prirodnih nauka u (pseudo)arheologiji

• Published in: ISSUES IN ETHNOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
• Main Authors: Monika Milosavljević, Aleksandar Palavestra
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English; French; srp
• Published: University of Belgrade 2017
• Subjects: arheologija; pseudoarheolgija; prirodne nauke; arheološka epistemologija; arheometalurgija; arheogenetika; archeo; sami
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v12i3.8; https://doaj.org/article/e5b6ecb1442440ce8582c562f809a2eb

U pseudoarheološkim tekstovima, bilo da oni dolaze iz sasvim marginalnih izvora, ili iz sive zone bliske pseudonauci unutar same discipline, primećuje se navada pozivanja na različite analize i metode iz domena prirodnih nauka, koje bi trebalo da osnaže autorove stavove. Suština ove pseudonaučne strategije je izmeštanje težišta sa polja arheološke argumentacije i proverljivih arheoloških podataka, na klizaviji teren lažne kompleksnosti i tobožnje multidisciplinarnosti. Arheološka epistemologija podrazumeva da svaka interpretacija prošlosti zahteva jasan i ekspliciran teorijski okvir i proverljive podatke, kao i njihov dinamičan, recipročan odnos osmišljavanja i provere. Pseudonaučne tvrdnje po pravilu nemaju teorijski i metodološki okvir, a sami podaci kreću se od najobičnijih falsifikata, pa do proizvoljnih interpretacija autentičnih artefakata. Kako bi se prikrila slaba, ili nikakva, arheološka zasnovanost takvih interpretacija pribegava se izmeštanju argumentacije u oblast, za koju se podrazumeva da j Pseudoarchaeological texts, whether they come from wholly marginal sources, or from a grey area close to pseudonaues within the discipline itself, insert the premise of referring to different analyses and methods from the natural learning domains, which should strengthen the author’s views. The essence of this pseudo-nautical strategy is the removal of the centre of gravity from the field of archaeological reasoning and deflective archaeological data, on the sliding of the terrain of false complexity and the tolerance of multidisciplinarity. Archaeological epistemology makes sense that any interpretation of the past requires a clear and explicit theoretical framework and intrusive data, as well as its dynamic, reciprocal design-delivery relationship. As a general rule, Pseudonaural claims do not have a theoretical and methodological framework, and the data themselves range from the most common falsifications to arbitrary interpretations of authentic artefacts. In order to obscure the weak, or no, ...