Ontologies (original) (raw)

Archaeology and the New Metaphysical Dogmas: Comments on Ontologies and Reality

Forum Kritische Archäologie, 2019

One of the most popular approaches in archaeological theory today is the New Materialisms. Unlike previous trends, such as processual and postprocessual archaeology, which established themselves as empirically based and to some extent accurate representations of the past, the New Materialisms have put forward arguments in the form of ontology, that is to say, as accurate representations of “reality” in itself. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that metaphysical speculation and the discussion of ontology holds little value for archaeology, since this type of research does not concern the empirical record on which archaeological explanations tend to be based. Furthermore, the problem with metaphysics is that it upholds dogmas concerning what counts as “true ontology” or “reality”. The paper ends with the suggestion that an ontology, in the philosophical sense, is not actually necessary in archaeology and that “reality” and “real” should be understood in their more conventional sense.

Self-reflexive turn to ontological debates in archaeology

Archaeological Theory at the Edge(s), eds. S. Babić and M. Milosavljević, Faculty of Philosophy - University of Belgrade, 2022

The paper provides a short overview of the archaeological approaches closely related to the so-called “ontological turn.” It is argued that the alleged reorientation of archaeological theory from epistemology to ontology, broadly referred to as the “ontological turn” strikingly mirrors the political, technological, and environmental issues and context of the contemporary world, and for that reason, its relevance in archaeological research of the past must be deeply, selfreflexively reconsidered.

Ontology matters in archaeology and anthropology. People, things and posthumanism

These “Thin Partitions”: Bridging the Growing Divide between Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology, 2017

The relations between archaeology and anthropology have been debated from time to time over the years. There has been both antagonism and repeated calls for collaboration and theoretical exchange between the two brothers in arms. From an outside point of view, the sometimes heated debate might seem curious since both fields share a similar goal: to understand human diversity and the ways in which people live and interact in different worlds. Yarrow (2010) and lucas (2010) have recently argued that the perception of fields of anthropology and archaeology has always centered on a lack in archaeology—the absent subject—which has created an asymmetry that is diffcult to bridge. indeed, working only with things and traces of action (archaeology) is not the same as working with things and people (anthropology). However, this distinction is based upon an ontology in which people and the material world are perceived as belonging to separate spheres (culture and nature). In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of neomaterialism in the humanist and social sciences, which suggests a redistribution of action from the realm of the human to the material world. It is, however, not simply a question of associating agency with things and objects, but also a displacement of the human as a logical point of departure (anthropocentrism) to perceive the human and the nonhuman as ontologically inseparable. A question that arises is whether such a nonanthropocentric perspective that focuses more on the material world might marginalize the importance of interviews and observing social practice typical of traditional anthropological eldwork. Archaeology is also affected by such a turn of perspective because it includes a different view of the material as not only a product of culture but rather as a co-creator of culture. indeed, such a displacement of the human as a natural and given point of departure certainly has ramifications for both anthropology and archaeology. The question is, how far-reaching will the consequences of such a shift be? Will it bring anthropology and archaeology closer together, perhaps even conflating them, or will the two disciplines diverge even further? in either case, it will affect the way we study human societies, whether they are contemporary or in the past. In this chapter I explore this varied and heterogeneous body of material-oriented research and point out certain areas where the relations between archaeology and anthropology may be affected.

The Nature of Archaeological Knowledge and Its Ontological Turns

Norwegian Archaeological Review, 2017

This is a commentary to a discussion paper by Tim Flohr Sørensen: 'The Two Cultures and a World Apart: Archaeology and Science at a new Crossroads' on the perceived dangers of the science turn in archaeology. I argue that the history of archaeology has witnessed several such debates about the nature of archaeological knowledge, and that archaeology is situated between humanities and science. Over time archaeology has progressed in a constant dialectic between humanities and science, but in the process relative knowledge has been transformed into absolute knowledge (C14 dating, aDNA), and thus allowed a better foundation for interpretation To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2017.1372802

Experiencing the past: interpretive archaeology and a turn to ontology

This is an edited version of a discussion with Jos Bazelmans, Peter van Dommelen, and Jan Kolen that took place in Leiden in the National Museum of Antiquities on Friday 12th 1993, following a three-day seminar I presented at Leiden University on technology, innovation and design, under the title Archaeological Realities. Another version appeared in Archaeological Dialogues 1: 56-76 (1994). While I sketch the main elements of an interpretive archaeology (a term preferable to “post-processual”), this is the first introduction to archaeology of a materialist position, what some have called an ontological turn, associated with a focus upon embodied experience and engagement with materials, sources, remains of the past in creative production — how people relate to materialities. Since this discussion various archaeological standpoints, theories, frames, have been fleshed out — Symmetry, Entanglement, Object Oriented Ontology, and derivatives of Actor Network Theory. See Bjornar Olsen, Shanks, Tim Webmoor, Chris Witmore 2012 Archaeology: the Discipline of Things (University of California 2012), Ian Hodder Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Wiley Blackwell 2012) and, for a brief overview of these topics in 2015 — Julian Thomas “The Future of Archaeological Theory” Antiquity 89: 1277-86 (2015).

“Worlds Otherwise”: Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference

Current Anthropology, 2011

The debate concerning ontology is heating up in the social sciences. How is this impacting anthropology and archaeology? What contributions can these disciplines make? Following a session at the 2010 Theoretical Archaeology Group conference at Brown University (“‘Worlds Otherwise’: Archaeology, Theory, and Ontological Difference,” convened by Ben Alberti and Yvonne Marshall), a group of archaeologists and anthropologists have continued to discuss the merits, possibilities, and problems of an ontologically oriented approach. The current paper is a portion of this larger conversation—a format we maintain here because, among other things, it permits a welcome level of candor and simplicity. In this forum we present two questions (written by Alberti and Witmore, along with the concluding comments) and the responses of five of the Theoretical Archaeology Group session participants. The first question asks why we think an ontological approach is important to our respective fields; the second, building upon the first set of responses, asks authors to consider the difference that pluralizing ontology might make and whether such a move is desirable given the aims of archaeology and anthropology. While several angles on ontology come through in the conversation, all share an interest in more immanent understandings that arise within specific situations and that are perhaps best described as thoroughly entangled rather than transcendent and/ or oppositional in any straightforward sense.