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 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

Archaeology · Argumentation theory · Epistemology · Field (mathematics) · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Natural (archaeology) · Natural science · Realm · Sociology · Verifiable secret sharing · 3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage · Archaeological Research and Protection · Computer Science · History · Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction · Mathematics · Philosophy