Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:09:36.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A taphonomy of a dark Anthropocene. A response to Þóra Pétursdóttir's OOO-inspired ‘Archaeology and Anthropocene’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2018

Alexandra Ion
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Þóra Pétursdóttir raises the point that archaeology is limited regarding what it can achieve, including the challenges posed by the Anthropocene, by a series of theoretical assumptions. She challenges the ‘traditional’ archaeological ‘key tropes’ in matters of this new epoch, namely the concepts of culture history, deep time/distant pasts, and the nature–culture divide. Instead, she proposes a number of new guiding points to orient archaeological inquiries, framed as part of the object-oriented ontological (OOO) philosophies. In reply, I claim that the use of OOO theories is rather unhelpful for addressing the topic of the Anthropocene, given that they lead to important ethical and political consequences: a fetishization of things, an abandoning of responsibility and an alienation of humans. They are also based on the confusion that analytical distinctions are in some way the ones responsible for the existence of inequalities, ecological destruction, racism or discrimination. Paradoxically, precisely through their annihilation, there is no room left for acknowledging the alterity of the past.

Keywords

ruinAnthropoceneobject-oriented ontologyGraham Harmanagencyhumanity
Type
Reactions
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 191 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, J., 2017: Comment on ‘The symmetries and asymmetries of human–thing relations. A dialogue’, Archaeological dialogues 24 (2), 137–38.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2016: The new antiquarianism?, Antiquity 90 (354), 1681–86.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2012: Systems and things. A response to Graham Harman and Timothy Morton, New literary history 43 (2), 225–33.Google Scholar
Blake, T., 2012: The problem of change in Harman's OOO. How can a withdrawn object ‘de-withdraw’?, at https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/the-problem-of-change-in-harmans-ooo-how-can-a-withdrawn-object-de-withdraw, accesed 5 January 2018.Google Scholar
Boym, S., 2011: Ruinophilia. Appreciation of ruins, at http://monumenttotransformation.org/atlas-of-transformation/html/r/ruinophilia/ruinophilia-appreciation-of-ruins-svetlana-boym.html, accesed 5 January 2018.Google Scholar
Crutzen, P.J., and Stoermer, E.F., 2000: The Anthropocene, Global change newsletter 41, 17–18.Google Scholar
Currie, A., 2017: Try and say things that have a reasonable chance of being true ..., at www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2017/8/7/try-and-say-things-that-have-a-reasonable-chance-of-being-true, accesed 20 December 2017.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2017 (2006): A new philosophy of society. Assemblage theory and social complexity, London.Google Scholar
Dibley, B., 2012: The shape of things to come. Seven theses on the Anthropocene and attachment, Australian humanities review 52, 139–53, available at http://press.anu.edu.au//wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ben-dibley.pdf.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E., 1951 (1897): Suicide. A study in sociology, Glencoe.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2014a: Introduction. Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (1), 73–77.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2014b: The relationship between archaeological stratigraphy and artificial ground and its significance in the Anthropocene, Geological Society, London, special publications 395 (1), 91–108.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, E., Benjamin, J., Clarke, B., Crossland, Z., Domanska, E., Gorman, A.C., Graves-Brown, P., Harris, E.C., Hudson, M.J., Kelly, J.M., Paz, V.J., Salerno, M.A., Witmore, C. and Zarankin, A., 2014: Archaeology of the Anthropocene, Journal of contemporary archaeology, 1 (1), 73–132.Google Scholar
Erlandson, J.M., and Braje, T.J., 2013: Archeology and the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 4, 1–7.Google Scholar
Galloway, A. 2012: A response to Graham Harman's ‘Marginalia on Radical Thinking’, at https://itself.blog/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking, accessed 10 January 2018.Google Scholar
Gómez Moya, C., 2011: Ruins, at http://monumenttotransformation.org/atlas-of-transformation/html/r/ruins/ruins-cristian-gomez-moya.html, accessed 15 January 2018.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2016: Immaterialism, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Heywood, P., 2012: Anthropology and what there is. Reflections on ‘ontology’, Cambridge journal of anthropology 30 (1), 143–51.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012: Human–thing entanglement. Towards an integrated archaeological perspective, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (NS) 17, 154–77.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A., 2017a: Artifacts have consequences, not agency. Toward a critical theory of global environmental history, European journal of social theory 20 (1), 95–110.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A., 2017b: Dithering while the planet burns. Anthropologists’ approaches to the Anthropocene, Reviews in anthropology 46 (2–3), 61–77.Google Scholar
Kluiving, S.J., and Hamel, A., 2016: How can archaeology help us unravel the Anthropocene?, in Ertsen, M.W., Mauch, C. and Russell, E. (eds), Molding the planet. Human niche construction at work, Munich (RCC Perspectives. Transformations in Environment and Society 5), 55–62.Google Scholar
Lillywhite, A., 2017: Relational matters. A critique of speculative realism and a defense of non-reductive materialism, Chiasma. A site for thought 4 (1), 13–39.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015: Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency, Archaeological dialogues 22, 207–38.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., and Hreiðarsdóttir, E., 2012: The archaeology of capitalism in Iceland. The view from Viðey, International journal of historical archaeology 16 (3), 604–21.Google Scholar
Morton, T., 2011: Zero landscapes in the time of hyperobjects, Graz architectural magazine 7, 79–87.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds), 2014. Ruin memories. Materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, London and New York.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2017: Climate change? Archaeology and Anthropocene, Archaeological dialogues 24 (2), 175–205.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., and Olsen, B., 2017: Theory adrift. The matter of archaeological theorizing, Journal of social archaeology 18 (1), 97–117.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016: Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sørensen's ‘Hammers and nails’, Archaeological dialogues 23 (2), 229–35.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2018: Death of the passive subject. Intentional action and narrative explanation in archaeological studies, History of the human sciences 31 (3), 105–21.Google Scholar
Solli, B., Burström, M., Domanska, E., Edgeworth, M., González-Ruibal, A., Holtorf, C., Lucas, G., Oestigaard, T., Smith, L. and Witmore, C., 2011: Some reflections on heritage and archaeology in the Anthropocene, Norwegian archaeological review 44 (1), 40–88.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T., 2013. We have never been Latourian. Archaeological ethics and the posthuman condition, Norwegian archaeological review 46 (1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T. 2016: Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and to Olsen and Witmore, Archaeological dialogues 23 (1), 115–27.Google Scholar
Van de Noort, R., 2011: Conceptualising climate change archaeology, Antiquity 85, 1039–48.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2015: Practising materiality, Chicago.Google Scholar
Wark, M., 2015: Molecular red. Theory for the Anthropocene, London.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D., 2017: Is there such a thing as animism? Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85 (2), 289–311.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the New Materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 203–24.Google Scholar
Wolfendale, P., 2014: Object-oriented philosophy. The noumenon's new clothes. Falmouth.Google Scholar