ابطال‌گرایی پیچیده؛ راهکاری برای برون‌رفت از بحران شناخت‌شناسی باستان‌شناسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینای همدان، دانشکده هنر و معماری، گروه باستان‌شناسی.

2 دکترای باستانشناسی

چکیده

در مقاله‌ی حاضر، اشکلات نقدهای ایراد‌شده توسط فرا فرایندگرایان از رویکرد مکتب فرایندگرایی برشمرده و به این نکته اشاره شده که جایگزین پیشنهادی آن‌ها با وام‌گیری مستقیم مفاهیم بنیادینش از علوم اجتماعی که دارای طبیعت نظری متفاوتی هستند، به آشفتگی حاضر در حوزه‌ی نظری باستان‌شناسی دامن‌زده است. در کنار اشاره به مشکلات نگرش اثبات‌گرایانه‌ی فرایندگرایی، بحث شده که پس‌زدن یکایک ایده‌های این نگرش و پذیرش فرا فرایندگرایی نیز راه‌حل مناسبی نیست. باستان‌شناسی فرا فرایندی در پی تبدیل پژوهش باستان‌شناختی به‌عنوان عملی علمی به‌گونه‌ای از داستان‌سرایی با قابلیتی بالا برای برداشت‌های شخصی است که می‌توان نمونه‌اش را در فرهنگ‌گرایی افراطی دیدگاه پدیدارشناسانه به باستان‌شناسی چشم‌انداز سراغ گرفت. باستان‌شناسان دسترسی به مفاهیم پشت اشیاء و ارزش‌های ذهنی و ساختارهای اجتماعی افرادی که آن‌ها را ساخته‌اند، ندارند. پیش‌نیاز هدف‌گذاری، شناسایی محدودیت‌هاست. فرا فرایندگرایان مطابق با اصولی کمال‌گرایانه و هنجاری، نگرشی ایدیولوژیک در مطالعه‌ی فرهنگ‌ها را اختیار کرده‌اند و علم را به‌عنوان بنیانی قابل‌اتکا رد می‌کنند. شگفت آن‌که جایگزین پیشنهادی آن‌ها نگرشی سراسر ارزش‌گذاری‌شده، برگرفته از علوم‌انسانی همراه با تفسیرهای جانبدارانه بوده و در این راه، تنها تعهد آنان نسبت به اصول اخلاقی معاصر است. بر این اساس، در بخش دوم این نوشته، تلاش شده که با طرح زمینه‌ی نظری جدید که فارغ از مشکلات اثبات‌گرایانه‌ی بینش فرایندگرایانه است، پیشرفت به‌سوی تفسیر بهتر داده‌های باستان‌شناختی تضمین شود. در این راه، مطابق با نسخه‌ای سازگار‌شده از ابطال‌گرایی پیچیده‌ی پوپر در فلسفه‌ی علم، بستری نظری با قلمروهای منسجم شناخت‌شناختی و روش‌شناختی برای باستان‌شناسی پیشنهاد شده است. بر این اساس، با توجه به این‌ نکته که مواد باستان‌شناختی سازگار با روش‌شناسی که پیش‌تر توسط فرایندگرایان مورد استفاده قرار گرفته، هستند؛ این روش‌ها در بستری غیر اثبات‌گرایانه، مطابق با شناخت‌شناسی پیشنهاد‌شده و در جهت ابطال نظریه‌های تازه پیاده می‌شوند. در نتیجه‌ی این رویکرد، بنیان نظری پژوهش‌ها می‌تواند به‌شکلی عملی، به دور از نسبی‌گرایی پست‌مدرن و مطلق‌گرایی اثبات‌گرایانه شکل گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Sophisticated Falsificationism; A Solution to Issue from the Epistemological Problems in Archaeology

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yaqub Mohammadifar 1
  • Hossein Habibi 2
1 Professor, Dep. of Archaelogy, Art and Architecture Faculty, Bu-Ali Sina University of Hamedan.
2 Ph.D. Candidate
چکیده [English]

In the present article, we have discussed the objections of critics raised by post-processualists from processual school and mentioned this point that their alternative, borrowing its basic ideas from the social sciences which have different theoretical nature, caused the present chaotic situation in the theoretical fields of archaeology. In spite of mentioning the problems of positively attitude of Processual Archaeology, it is argued that one by one refusal of this attitude’s ideas and acceptance of Post-Processual is not good solution. Post-processualist archaeology is seeking to change the archaeological research as a scientific practice to any type of a literature, story-telling with high-level potentiality of individual interpretation that one of its samples is shown at extremist culturalism of phenomenological viewpoint to the landscape archaeology. Archaeologists have access to neither the concepts behind the objects nor the mental values and social structures of the individuals created by them. To set our goals, the precondition is to recognize limitations. According to adopt normative and ideally principles, Post-processualists choose an ideological (anti-realistic) approach to study cultures and due to self-contradictory expression of this meta-induction that all scientific theories are individual and wrong, refuse the science as a reliable foundation for researches. It’s amazing that their alternative is a severely value-laden approach that is derived from human sciences along with biased interpretations and in this way, they are under an only obligation of contemporaneous ethical principles. The important problem of these notions is that they have no concern about the concept of progress in our knowledge of the past and they have nothing to do with new knowledge. Therefore, in the second part, it has been tried to design a new theoretical background beyond the positively difficulties of the processual approach that guarantees the progress towards the better interpretation of archaeological data. Based on the Popper’s account of science in philosophy of science, we took a compatible version of sophisticated falsificationism which suggested a new theoretical foundation with cohesive epistemological and methodological territories for Archaeology. According to this account of science, each new theory should be as a challenge for the earlier one by showing its flaws, trying to dismiss it, and at the same time having the ability to reach to its achievements. This new approach with adopting the principles of bold and novel hypotheses and predictions, testable and falsifiable propositions, deductive logics, clearly stated and precise theories and rejecting the ad hoc modifications in them have a high capability of providing an excellent framework for archaeologists. This statement is just practical and compatible with the scientific approach of this discipline and its limitation to the material world. Archaeological finds have some typical specifications like materiality, partiality, and being static. Consequently, the methods of extraction should be matchable to them. Given that the nature of archaeological materials is adaptable to the methodology which has been used later by processualists, but according to the suggested epistemology these methods would be used in a non-positivistic setting, and in the direction of falsifying the new theories. As a result, the schemes of researches can practically be shaped away from post-modern relativism and positivistic absolutism. Furthermore, this standpoint does not assume theories as the eternal laws of absolute single truth as positivistic approach does. Rather by considering the inventory character of the hypotheses against the background knowledge of its time, it attaches the significance of the confirmation broadly to the historical setting of the theories. Therefore, it presents a plural and far more moderate insight of science with a huge concern for the concept of progress in knowledge.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Epistemology
  • Processualism
  • Post-Processualism
  • Positivism
  • Popper
  • Sophisticated Falsification

مراجع

- ابن‌سینا، ۱۳۷۰، قانون در طب، ترجمه‌ی عبدالرحمان شرفکندی (هه‌ژار)، ۵ جلد، تهران: سروش.
- ابن‌سینا،۱۳۷۳، برهان شفا، ترجمه‌ی مهدی قوام صفری، تهران: فکر روز.
- کریستن‌سن، آرتور، ۱۳۹۳، ایران در زمان ساسانیان، ترجمه‌ی رشید یاسمی، تهران: صدای معاصر.
- نوریس، کریستوفر، 1379، شناخت‌شناسی؛ مفاهیم کلیدی در فلسفه، ترجمه‌ی ناصرالدین علی تقویان، تهران: پژوهشکده‌ی مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
 
- Adams, R. McC., 1965, Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Adams, R. McC., 1981, Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Adams, R. McC., & H. J. Nissen, 1972, The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Ashmore, W., 2008, “Visions of the Cosmos: Ceremonial Landscapes and Civic Plans,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology (World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology). Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.). pp. 167-75. California: Left Coast Press.
- Alizadeh, A. & F. L. Gremliza, 1992, Prehistoric settlement patterns and culture in Susiana, southwestern Iran: the analysis of the F.G.L. Gremliza survey collection. Volume 24 of Technical reports - Museum of Anthropology. Michigan: University of Michigan.
- Anschuetz, K., F. Richard, H. Wilshusen, & Cherie L. S., 2001, “An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions,” Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (2): 157-211.
- Banning, E. B., 2002, Archaeological Survey, Manuals in Archaeological Methods, Theory, and Technique Series. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
- Barrett, J. & Kathryn J. F., 2000, “Intimacy and Structural Transformation: Giddens and Archaeology, An Introduction,” In: Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the First 21st Century. Cornelios Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (eds.). pp. 25-38, Götenberg: Bricolieur Press.
- Binford, L. R., 1964, “A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design”. American Antiquity 29: 425-441.
- Binford, L. R., 1977, “General Introduction,” In: Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, and Systematic Modelling. Lewis R, Binford (ed.). pp. 1-13. New York: Academic Press.
- Binford, L. R., 1981, Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths, New York: Academic Press.
- Binford, L. R., 1989, Debating Archaeology. California: Academic Press.
- Binford, L. R., 2001, Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter Gatherer Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets. USA, England: University of California Press.
- Binford, L. R., (With William L. Rathje and Michael Shanks), 2013, “Lewis Binford,” In: Archaeology in the Making: Conversations through a Discipline. William M. Rathje, Michael Shanks, Christopher Wittmore (eds.). pp. 7-24. USA and Canada: Routledge.
- Bonde, S. & Stephen H. 2013. “Re-presenting Archaeology,” In: Re-presenting the Past: Archaeology Through Text and Image. Sh. Bonde and S. Houston (eds.). pp. 1-8. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
- Bintliff, J., 2000, “Archaeology and the Philosophy of Wittgenstein,” In: Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the First 21st Century. Cornelios Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (eds.). pp. 153-172, Götenberg: Bricolieur Press.
- Bintliff, J., 2004, “Time, Structure, and Agency: The Annales, Emergent Complexity, and Archaeology,” In: A Companion to Archaeology. John Bintliff (ed.). pp. 174-194. US, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
- Bourdieu, P., 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Bourdieu, P., 1979, “Les trois du Capital Culturel”, Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 30 (1): 3-6.
- Bourdieu, P., 1987, “The Forms of Capital,” In: Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Research Education. John G. Richardson (ed.). pp. 241-58. New York: Greenwood Press.
- Bourdieu, P., & Jean-Claude P., 1977, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. translated by Richard Nice. California: Sage Publications.
- Bonnie, J. C. & L. L. Scheiber, 2008, “A Sloping Land: An Introduction to Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains,” In: Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains, Laura L. Scheiber and Bonnie J. Clark (eds.). pp. 1-16. USA: The University Press of Colorado.
- Chalmers, A. F., 1999, What Is This Thing Called Science?. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
- Christensen, A., & W. Ensslin, 1939, “Sassanid Persia,” In: The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. XII, The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, AD 193-324, S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth and N.H. Baynes (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Daryaee, T., 2009, Sasanian Persia; The Rise and Fall of an Empire. London and Naw York: I.B. Tauris.
- Fletcher, R., 1986, “Settlement Archaeology: World-Wide Comparisons,” World Archaeology (18): 1. Perspectives in World Archaeology. pp. 59-83.
- Funerai, P. P. A., 1999 “Historical Archaeology from a World Perspective,” In: Historical Archaeology, Back from the Edge. P.P.A. Funari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds.). pp. 37-66. London: Routledge.
- Giddens, A., 1976, New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.
- Giddens, A., 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.
- Giddens, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Giddens, A., 1993, New Rules of Sociological Methods: a Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies, Stanford: Stanford University Publication.
- Gignoux, P., 2014, “GREECE xvi. Greek Ideas and Sciences in Sasanian Iran”, Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition. available at http: //www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-16-ideas-sciences-sasanian (accessed on 11 November 2014).
- Hassan, F. A., 2004. “Ecology in Archeology: from Cognition to Action,” In: A Companion to Archaeology, John Bintliff (ed.), pp. 311-333, US, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
- Heilen, M. P., M.B. Schiffer, & J. J. Reid, 2008, “Landscape Formation Processes,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.), World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology, pp. 601-608, California: Left Coast Press.
- Hempel, C. G., 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
- Hole, F., 1978, “Pastoral Nomadism in Western Iran,” In: Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, Richard A. Gould (ed.), pp. 127-167, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
- Hole, F., 1979, “Rediscovering the Past in the Present: Ethnoarchaeology in Luristan, Iran,” In: Ethnoarchaeology; Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. Carol Cramer (ed.).  pp. 192-218. New York: Colombia University Press.
- Holtorf, C. & H. Karlsson, 2000m “Changing Configuration of Archaeolohical Theory: An Introduction,” In: Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the First 21st Century. Cornelios Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (eds.). pp. 1-12. Götenberg: Bricolieur Press.
- Hopper, K. & T. J. Wilkinson, 2013, “Population and Settlement Trends in South-west Iran and Neighbouring Areas,” In: Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium B.C. Cameron A. Petrie (ed.). pp. 35-49. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
- Johnson, M., 1999, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. UK and USA: Blackwell publishers.
- Johnson, M., 2007, Ideas of Landscape, USA, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
- Kuhn, T. S., 2012, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univerrsity of Chicago Press.
- Kowalewski, S. A., 2008, “Regional settlement pattern studies,” J. Archaeol. Res. 16: 225–285.
- Livio, D., 2009, “New and Old Paradigms: The Question of Space,” In: Landscape in Mind: Dialogue on Space Between Anthropology and Archaeology, BAR International Series 2003, George Dimtriadis (ed.), pp. 5-8.
- Magnusson S. B., 2000, “Hannah Arendt and Torsten Häerstand: Converging Tendencies in Contemporary Archaeological Theory?”,” In: Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the First 21st Century, Cornelios Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (eds.), pp. 135-152, Götenberg: Bricolieur Press.
- Maschner, H. D. G. & B. C. Marler, 2008, “Evolutionary Psychology and Archaeological Landscapes,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.). World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology. pp. 109-19. California: Left Coast Press.
- McFadyn, L., 2008, “Building and Architecture as Landscape Practice,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.), World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology. pp. 307-14. California: Left Coast Press.
- Martin, A. M., 2013, Archaeology Beyond Postmodernity: A Science of the Social, UK: AltaMira Press.
- Martinón-Torres, M., & D. Killick, 2015, “Archaeological Theories and Archaeological Sciences,” In: Oxford Handbooks Online, The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (Forthcoming), Andrew Gardner, Mark Lake and Ulrike Sommer (eds.), Online Publication Date: Feb. 2015.
- Mizoguchi, K., 2000, “Anthony Giddens and Niklas Luhmann,” In: Philosophy and Archaeological Practice: Perspectives for the First 21st Century, Cornelios Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (eds.), pp. 13-24, Götenberg: Bricolieur Press.
- Pollard, A. M., 2004, “Putting Infinity up to trial: A Consideration of the Role of Scientific Thinking in Future Archaeologies,” In: A Companion to Archaeology, John Bintliff (ed.), pp. 380-396, US, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
- Popper, K. R., 1994, The Myth of the Framework: in Defence of Science and Rationality, M.A. Notturno (ed.), London and New York: Routledge.
- Popper, K. R., 2002a, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London and New York: Routledge Classics.
- Popper, K. R., 2002b, The Poverty of Historicism, London and New York: Routledge Classics.
- Popper, K. R., 2002c, Conjectures and Refutations; the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge Classics.
- Popper, K., A. Ryan, & E. H. Gombrich, 2013, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
- Potts, D. T., 2016, The Archaeology of Elam; Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Renfrew, C., 2001, “Symbol Before Concept: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society,” In: Archaeological Theory Today. Ian Hodder (ed.). pp. 122-140. UK and USA: Polity Press and Blackwell.
- Renfrew, C., 2006, “Becoming Human: The Archaeological Challenge,” Proceedings of the British Academy 139: 217-238.
- Richards, Th., 2008, “Survey Strategies in Landscape Archaeology,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.). World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology, pp. 551-61, California: Left Coast Press.
- Shanks, M., 2007, “Symmetrical Archaeology,” World Archaeology 39 (4): 589-596.
- Shennan, S., 2004, “Analytical Archaeology,” In: A Companion to Archaeology. John Bintliff (ed.). pp. 3-20. US, UK, Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
- Smith, A. T., 2003, The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Societies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Strang, V., 2008, “Uncommon Ground: Landscape as Social Geography,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.). World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology. pp. 51-59. California: Left Coast Press.
- Tartaron, Th. F., 2003, “The Archaeological Survey: Sampling Strategies and Field Methods,” In: Landscape archaeology in southern Epirus, Greece I, The American School of Classical Studies at Athen. James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos (eds.). pp. 23-46, The Netherlands: Hisperia Supplement 32.
- Tilley, Ch., 2008, “Phenomenological Approach to Landscape Archaeology,” In: Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Bruno David and Julian Thomas (eds.). World Archaeological Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology. pp. 271-76, California: Left Coast Press.
- Trigger, B. G., 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Turner, J. H., 2006. “American sociology in chaos: Differentiation without integration,” The American Sociologist 37 (2): 15-29.
- Webmoor, T., 2007, “What about 'One More Turn after the Social' in Archaeological Reasoning? Taking Things Seriously,” World Archaeology 39 (4): 563-578.
- Weinberg, S., 1998, “The revolution that didn't happen (Thomas Kuhn's view of scientific progress),” New York Review of Books 45 (15): 48-52.
- Wettersen, J. R., 1992, The Roots of Critical Rationalism, Amsdterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
- Wilkinson, T. J., 1982, “The definition of Ancient Manured Zones by means of Extensive Sherd-Sampling Techniques,” Journal of Field Archaeology. No. 9. pp. 323-333.
- Wilkinson, T. J., 1989. “Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use Intensity: Some Recent Results,” Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (1): 31-46.
- Wilkinson, T. J., 2000, “Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology: The Contribution of Archaeological Surveys,” Journal of Archaeological Research 8 (3): 219-267.
- Wittgenstein, L., & B. Russel, 1922, Tractus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by C.K. Ogden. London and New York: Kegan Paul, and Harcourt.
- Witmore, C. L., 2007, “Symmetrical Archaeology: Excerpts of a Manifesto,” World Archaeology 39 (4): 546-562.
- Wolf, E., 1964, Anthropology: Humanistic Scholarship in America, The Princeton Studies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار