Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue

Over the last decades, some archaeologists have adopted the approaches from philosophy and anthropology that may loosely be denoted by the term new materialism. The key assumptions are that archaeological investigation, regardless of the theoretical stance applied, has always been burdened by the m...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Staša Babić
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Belgrade 2019-11-01
Series:Etnoantropološki Problemi
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/990
id doaj-011f6fdd2bc5498ea9e6b6485aa832c4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-011f6fdd2bc5498ea9e6b6485aa832c42020-11-25T01:36:06ZengUniversity of BelgradeEtnoantropološki Problemi 0353-15892334-88012019-11-0114310.21301/eap.v14i3.4Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary DialogueStaša Babić0Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade Over the last decades, some archaeologists have adopted the approaches from philosophy and anthropology that may loosely be denoted by the term new materialism. The key assumptions are that archaeological investigation, regardless of the theoretical stance applied, has always been burdened by the modern mode of thinking and dichotomies such as nature/culture or subject/object, wherefrom stems the anthropocentric approach to the study of objects, primarily in respect to humans. It is suggested that the reality consists of a plethora of diverse elements, all deserving equal attention and all their existences being of equal relevance. Objects, animals, plants, all have the potential to act in a network of equal actors. A researcher must therefore respect the flat ontology, where none of the actors has primacy. The paper problematizes some of the (un)intentional implications of the ontological turn for the theory and practice of archaeology. First of all, the proposed flattening destabilizes the key disciplinary distinction – study of the human past through its material remains. The downplaying of the importance of human actions in the formation of networks of mutually equal actors at the same time downplays the human responsibility. In this way, various forms of inequality among humans as research priorities and the potential of social engagement of archaeology are neglected. Similar critique of new materialism is raised in the fields of philosophy and anthropology as well. This brings about the issue of interdisciplinary transfers of thin descriptions – selective adoption of concepts whose full implications remain neglected. https://eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/990new materialismontological turnstratigraphyarchaeological record
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Staša Babić
spellingShingle Staša Babić
Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
Etnoantropološki Problemi
new materialism
ontological turn
stratigraphy
archaeological record
author_facet Staša Babić
author_sort Staša Babić
title Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
title_short Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
title_full Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
title_fullStr Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
title_full_unstemmed Archaeological Stratigraphy, Flat Ontology and Thin Description. A Note on (Inter)disciplinary Dialogue
title_sort archaeological stratigraphy, flat ontology and thin description. a note on (inter)disciplinary dialogue
publisher University of Belgrade
series Etnoantropološki Problemi
issn 0353-1589
2334-8801
publishDate 2019-11-01
description Over the last decades, some archaeologists have adopted the approaches from philosophy and anthropology that may loosely be denoted by the term new materialism. The key assumptions are that archaeological investigation, regardless of the theoretical stance applied, has always been burdened by the modern mode of thinking and dichotomies such as nature/culture or subject/object, wherefrom stems the anthropocentric approach to the study of objects, primarily in respect to humans. It is suggested that the reality consists of a plethora of diverse elements, all deserving equal attention and all their existences being of equal relevance. Objects, animals, plants, all have the potential to act in a network of equal actors. A researcher must therefore respect the flat ontology, where none of the actors has primacy. The paper problematizes some of the (un)intentional implications of the ontological turn for the theory and practice of archaeology. First of all, the proposed flattening destabilizes the key disciplinary distinction – study of the human past through its material remains. The downplaying of the importance of human actions in the formation of networks of mutually equal actors at the same time downplays the human responsibility. In this way, various forms of inequality among humans as research priorities and the potential of social engagement of archaeology are neglected. Similar critique of new materialism is raised in the fields of philosophy and anthropology as well. This brings about the issue of interdisciplinary transfers of thin descriptions – selective adoption of concepts whose full implications remain neglected.
topic new materialism
ontological turn
stratigraphy
archaeological record
url https://eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/990
work_keys_str_mv AT stasababic archaeologicalstratigraphyflatontologyandthindescriptionanoteoninterdisciplinarydialogue
_version_ 1725064150986522624