{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017288444040036398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5476190476190474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Archaeology and criminology--Strengths and weaknesses of interdisciplinary cooperation].

Interdisciplinary cooperation of archaeology and criminology is often focussed on the scientific methods applied in both fields of knowledge. In combination with the humanistic methods traditionally used in archaeology, the finding of facts can be enormously increased and the subsequent hermeneutic deduction of human behaviour in the past can take place on a more solid basis. Thus, interdisciplinary cooperation offers direct and indirect advantages. But it can also cause epistemological problems, if the weaknesses and limits of one method are to be corrected by applying methods used in other disciplines. This may result in the application of methods unsuitable for the problem to be investigated so that, in a way, the methodological and epistemological weaknesses of two disciplines potentiate each other. An example of this effect is the quantification of qualia. These epistemological reflections are compared with the interdisciplinary approach using the concrete case of the "Eulau Crime Scene".