Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:31:54.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-critical archaeology. Speculative realism and symmetrical archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2022

Eloise Govier
Eloise Govier*
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Wales
*
Email: studio@eloisegovier.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of Symmetrical Archaeology has subtly recast archaeology as the study of things and not the study of the past or past peoples. This new description of the archaeological endeavour is often met with criticism. This paper continues in the critical vein but embraces a different strategy of engagement. Here, second-wave Symmetrical Archaeology is brought to the fore: its historical development explored, its methodology outlined, its current theoretical basis assessed. Part critique, part defence, I consider the logical underpinning of the second-wave, focusing on ontology and agency. Utilizing Levi Bryant’s ontic principle, I attend to these two issues and frame this style of archaeology as Pre-critical Archaeology. A caveat seems necessary: whilst I spend time with Symmetrical Archaeology in this paper, that does not mean I am a convert. Rather, my ambition here is to see things from the point of view of a Symmetrical archaeologist.

Keywords

Symmetrical archaeologySpeculative realismThingsOntic principleObject agencyPre-critical archaeology
Type
Articles
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , December 2022 , pp. 188 - 199
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Alberti, B., and Bray, T.L., 2009: Special section animating archaeology: of subjects, objects and alternative ontologies. Introduction, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3), 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreassen, E., Bjerck, H.B., and Olsen, B., 2010: Persistent Memories: Pyramiden - A Soviet Mining Town in the High Arctic, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Arwill-Nordbladh, E., 2012: Knocking at futures door. Response to B. Olsen, after interpretation: remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 20(1), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2003: Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007: Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2014: The material constitution of humanness, Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2021: Archaeology and its discontents. Why archaeology matters, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L., 2018: Material Time. Larval Subjects. [blog] 25.8.18. https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/material-time/#more-9149. Accessed 9 April 2021.Google Scholar
Bryant, L., 2020. Wild Things, in Olsen, B., DeSilvey, C., Burström, M., and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), After discourse. Things, affects, ethics, Abingdon, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., and Harman, G., 2011: Towards a speculative philosophy, in Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., and Harman, G. (eds.), The speculative turn: continental materialism and realism, Melbourne, 1–18.Google Scholar
Bryant, L.R., 2011: The ontic principle: outline of an object-oriented ontology, in Bryant, L.R., Srnicek, N., and Harman, G. (eds.), The speculative turn: continental materialism and realism. Melbourne, 261–278.Google Scholar
Bryant, L.R., 2014: Onto-Cartography. An ontology of machines and media, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burström, M., 2012: If we are quiet, will things cry out? Response to B. Olsen, After Interpretation: Remembering Archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 20(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
Classen, C., 1997: Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. International Social Science Journal 49(153), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2016: Grounded objects: archaeology and speculative realism, Archaeological Dialogues 23(1), 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016: The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies), Journal of Material Culture 21(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell, A., 1998: Art and agency: an anthropological theory, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 2013: Technologies of routine and enchantment, in Chua, L. and Elliott, M. (eds.), Distributed objects. Meaning and mattering after Alfred Gell, New York, 39–57.Google Scholar
Govier, E., 2019: Do you follow? Rethinking causality in archaeology, Archaeological Dialogues 26(1), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govier, E., and Steel, L., 2021: Beyond the thingification of worlds: archaeology and new materialisms, Journal of Material Culture 26(3), 298–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2012: From ontology to ontogeny: a new undisciplined discipline, Current Swedish Archaeology 20(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G., 2019: The coldness of forgetting: OOO in philosophy, archaeology and history, Open Philosophy 2, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Cipolla, C., 2017: Archaeological theory in the new millennium: introducing current perspectives, Abingdon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heft, P., 2017: Taking Things Seriously Again: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Ontology, https://www.academia.edu/32612377/Taking_Things_Seriously_Again_An_Introduction_to_Object_Oriented_Ontology?email_work_card=title. Accessed 29 March 2021.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2014: The asymmetries of symmetrical archaeology. Response to: C. Witmore, archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 228–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2012: No farewell to interpretation. Response to B. Olsen, after interpretation: remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 57–60.Google Scholar
Howes, D., and Classen, C., 1991: Sounding sensory profiles, in Howes, D. (ed.), The varieties of sensory experience, Toronto, 257–288.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2013: Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, Oxon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2014: Is there life amidst the ruins? Response to: C. Witmore, archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 203–246.Google Scholar
Ion, A., 2018: A taphonomy of a dark Anthropocene. A response to Þóra Pétursdóttir’s OOO-inspired ‘Archaeology and Anthropocene’, Archaeological Dialogues 25(2), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., and Boivin, N., 2010: The malice of inanimate objects: material agency’, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies, Oxford, 333–351.Google Scholar
Knappett, C., 2008: The neglected networks of material agency: artefact, pictures, and text, in Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds.), Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric perspective, New York, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L. (eds.), 2008: Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric perspective, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, translated by Porter, C., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lemke, T., 2017: Materialism without matter: the recurrence of subjectivism in object-oriented ontology, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 18(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1962: The savage mind, translated by George Weidenfield and Nicholson Ltd., Chicago.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2008: Is it ‘me’ or is it ‘mine’? The Mycenaean sword as a body-part, in Robb, J. and Boric, D. (eds.), Past bodies, Oxford, 115–124.Google Scholar
Malafouris, L., Gosden, C., and Bogaard, A., 2021: Process archaeology, World Archaeology, 53(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R.H., 2021: A relational Marxist critique of posthumanism in archaeology, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31(3), 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003: Material culture after text: remembering things, Norwegian Archaeological Review 3(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Plymouth.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012a: After interpretation: remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 20(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2012b: Archaeological theory, Christmas pork and red herrings. Reply to comments, Current Swedish Archaeology 20(1), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2013: Memory, in Graves-Brown, P., Harrison, R., and Piccini, A. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the contemporary world, Oxford, 205–219.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), 2014a: Ruin Memories: Materialities, Aesthetics and the Archaeology of the Recent Past, Abingdon, 335–364.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), 2014b: Sarnes internat: archaeological aesthetics, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., and Witmore, C., 2012: Archaeology the discipline of things, Los Angeles; London.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2015: Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things. A response to critics, Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2021: When defense is not enough: on things, archaeology, and the politics of misrepresentation. Forum Kritische Archäologie 10, 67–88.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., and Witmore, C., 2014: Sværholt: Recovered memories from a POW camp in the far north, in Olsen, B.J. and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), Ruin memories: materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Abingdon, 162–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2013: Concrete matters: ruins of modernity and the things called heritage, Journal of Social Archaeology 13(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2014: Things out-of-hand: the aesthetics of abandonment, in Olsen, B.J. and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), Ruin memories: materialities, aesthetics and the archaeology of the recent past, Abingdon, 335–364.Google Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2017: Climate change? Archaeology and the Anthropocene, Archaeological Dialogues 24(2), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ., 2018: Lyrics for a duskier enlightenment. In response to Alexandra Ion, Archaeological Dialogues 25(2), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ. and Olsen, B., 2018: Theory adrift: the matter of archaeological theorizing, Journal of Social Archaeology 18(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R. W., 2016: Pragmatic Archaeology and Semiotic Mediation, Semiotic Review 4: Im/materialities. https://semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/11. Accessed 1 March 2021.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2019: Archaeology and the new metaphysical dogmas: comments on ontologies and reality, Forum Kritische Archäologie 8, 25–38.Google Scholar
Rice, T., 2013: Hearing the hospital: sound, listening, knowledge and experience, Canon Pyon.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology, World Archaeology 39(4), 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillar, B., 2009: The social agency of things? Animism and materiality in the Andes, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solli, B., 2012: In defence of theory and the patience of things. Response to B. Olsen, After interpretation: remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 67–81.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T., 2013: We have never been Latourian: archaeological ethics and the posthuman condition, Norwegian Archaeological Review 46(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, T., 2016: Hammers and nails. A response to Lindstrøm and to Olsen and Witmore, Archaeological Dialogues 23(1), 115–127.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T., 2018: Agency (again). A response to Lindstrøm and Ribeiro, Archaeological Dialogues 25(1), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, T., 2021: The triviality of the new. Innovation and impact in archaeology and beyond, Current Swedish Archaeology 26, 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 2006: Phenomenology and material culture, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M., and Spyer, P. (eds.), Handbook of material culture, London, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 2012: A British perspective on Bjørnar Olsen’s ‘After Interpretation’. Response to B. Olsen, after interpretation: remembering archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 2, 83–88.Google Scholar
Tung, T.A., 2014: Agency, ‘Til death do us part? Inquiring about the agency of dead bodies from the ancient Andes, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24(3), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unwin, J., 2018: Random Object Generator, Science Museum Group Digital Lab. https://lab.sciencemuseum.org.uk/science-museum-random-object-generator-7b4c960ace9. Accessed 23 June 2021.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2013: Phenomenology in archaeology, in Smith, C. (ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology, New York, 5909–5917.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, R.M., 2021: Ethics, not objects, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31(3), 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 2014: Cannibal metaphysics. For a post-structuralist anthropology, Translated and edited by Skafish, P., Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Webmoor, T., 2007: What about ‘one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously, World Archaeology 39(4), 563–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C., 2008: Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review. 41(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2017: Things are the grounds of all archaeology, in Blaising, J.M., Driessen, J., Legendre, J.P., and Olivier, L. (eds.), Clashes of times: The contemporary past as a challenge for archaeology, Louvain, 231–246.Google Scholar
Witmore, C., 2018: For the objects, archaeology and the archaeological, Archaeological Dialogues 25(01), 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2020: Symmetrical archaeology, in Smith, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329439481_Symmetrical_Archaeology. Accessed 12 April 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2021a: Finding symmetry? Archaeology, objects, and posthumanism, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31(3), 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2021b: Will the real materialisms please step forward? Journal of Material Culture, 26(3), 318–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., and Francisco, C.L., 2020: Through then Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine, in Olsen, B., DeSilvey, C., Burström, M., and Pétursdóttir, Þ. (eds.), After discourse. Things, affects, ethics, Abingdon, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar