If archaeology is the examination of historical conditions with reference to a surviving material residue, then one way in which these conditions might be characterized is as the different ways they had enabled the development of different forms of humanness. The historical construction of this diversity is discussed here as the ways that the relationships between humans and things had been performed. This means that the practice of archaeology must question the recent desire to adopt a flat ontology that defines archaeology as the ‘discipline of things’. It is argued that it was by means of the performances established between humans and their various objects of concern that different forms of human life were able to define themselves. The implications of this argument for the practice of archaeology are explored.

This paper surveys the emergence of the category humanness in the 3rd person singular personal pronoun in Alemannic (southwest German) dialects. The first part shows that some Alemannic dialects have developed a human/nonhuman distinction in the 3rd person singular neuter personal pronoun: a marked form encoding the human direct object has emerged. The emergence of this form can be explained by the differential object marking hypothesis. The second part reports on a pilot study of the 3rd person singular personal pronoun in Sense Alemannic on the basis of new data. In this dialect, humanness is distinguished not only in the neuter but also in the masculine and feminine. Additionally, some instances are observed that violate the differential object marking principle. Thus, both principles (humanness marking and the differential object marking) form part of the grammar, but the latter one may be violated.*

The notion of human commonness was a key interest of the nineteenth-century theologian-statesman Abraham Kuyper. As an orthodox Calvinist, Kuyper accepted the division of humankind into the categories of ‘elect’ and ‘non-elect’, but he was also convinced that this way of classifying human beings failed to account for the positive contributions of non-Christians. As a political leader, Kuyper was also concerned to enlist his fellow Calvinists in the quest for justice in the larger society and specifically focused on the ways in which Christian worship can nurture a sense of shared humanness that extends beyond the walls of the church. In our contemporary setting, where our loss of an emphasis on a shared humanness is becoming widespread, Kuyper's effort to ground human solidarity in the practices of worship has much to commend it.

This contribution responds to recent calls to establish a ‘symmetrical archaeology’ that will assign agency both to humans and to things. My case is that living and non-living things should be distinguished, and for archaeology to be particularly concerned with the ways different qualities of humanness have been constituted in the symbiotic relationships between Homo sapiens and other living and non-living things.