Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:59:22.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Posthumanism in Archaeology: An Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

Manuel Fernández-Götz Open the ORCID record for Manuel Fernández-Götz [Opens in a new window] ,
Andrew Gardner Open the ORCID record for Andrew Gardner [Opens in a new window] ,
Guillermo Díaz de Liaño Open the ORCID record for Guillermo Díaz de Liaño [Opens in a new window]  and
Oliver J.T. Harris
Manuel Fernández-Götz
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh William Robertson Wing Old Medical School Teviot Place EdinburghEH8 9AGUK Email: M.Fernandez-Gotz@ed.ac.uk
Andrew Gardner
Affiliation:
University College London Institute of Archaeology 31–34 Gordon Square LondonWC1H 0PYUK Email: andrew.gardner@ucl.ac.uk
Guillermo Díaz de Liaño
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology University of Edinburgh William Robertson Wing Old Medical School Teviot Place EdinburghEH8 9AGUK Email: guillermodiazliano@gmail.com
Oliver J.T. Harris
Affiliation:
Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester University Road LeicesterLE1 7RHUK Email: ojth1@leicester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Posthumanism is a growing field of interdisciplinary study that has emerged, principally in the last 20 years, as a broad church which seeks to reconceptualize human beings’ relationships with the world. At its heart, Posthumanism seeks to destabilize and question the category of ‘human’, which it sees as having previously been treated as transcendent and ahistorical. In its place, the figure of the posthuman aims to capture the complex and situated nature of our species’ existence, outside traditional dichotomies like culture and nature, mind and body, person and environment, and so on. From animal studies (e.g. Despret 2016; Wolfe 2009), via a rekindled attention to the material world (Coole & Frost 2010) to the cutting edge of quantum physics (Barad 2007), Posthumanism draws on a diverse range of inspiration (Ferrando 2019). This diversity also covers a significant internal dissonance and difference, with some posthumanists taking relational approaches, others arguing for the essential qualities of things, some focusing primarily on material things without humans and others calling for explicitly feminist investigations.

Type
Special Section: Debating Posthumanism in Archaeology
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , August 2021 , pp. 455 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

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., 2016. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45, 163–79.10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K., 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.10.2307/j.ctv12101zqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2016. The new antiquarianism? Antiquity 90, 1681–6.10.15184/aqy.2016.216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010. Vibrant Matter: A political ecology of things. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2013. The Posthuman. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Carter, B. & Harris, O.J.T., 2020. The end of normal politics: assemblages, nonhumans and international relations, in Non-Human Nature in World Politics, eds Castro Pereira, J. & Saramago, A.. New York (NY): Springer, 13–31.Google Scholar
Cipolla, C.N, 2018. Earth flows and lively stone. What differences does ‘vibrant’ matter make? Archaeological Dialogues 25(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., 2019. Taming the ontological wolves: learning from Iroquoian effigy objects. American Anthropologist 12(3), 613–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coole, D. & Frost, S. (eds), 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, agency, politics. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Crellin, R.J. 2020. Change and Archaeology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crellin, R.J., Cipolla, C.N., Montgomery, L.M.M., Harris, O.J.T. & Moore, S.V., 2021. Archaeological Theory in Dialogue: Situating relationality, ontology, posthumanism and indigenous paradigms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeLanda, M., 2002. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., 2004. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Despret, V., 2016. What Would Animals Say if We Asked the Right Questions? Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2016. Grounded objects: archaeology and speculative realism. Archaeological Dialogues 23(1), 93–113.10.1017/S138020381600012XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., Maschek, D. & Roymans, N., 2020. The dark side of the empire: Roman expansionism between object agency and predatory regime. Antiquity 94, 1630–39.10.15184/aqy.2020.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, F., 2019. Philosophical Posthumanism. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350059511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. & Harris, O.J.T., 2015. Enduring relations: exploring a paradox of new materialism. Journal of Material Culture 20, 127–48.10.1177/1359183515577176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowles, S., 2016. The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies). Journal of Material Culture 21, 9–27.10.1177/1359183515623818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, S., 2016. Biocultural Creatures: Towards a new theory of the human. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2011. Action and structure in interpretive archaeologies, in Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies: A dialogue, eds Gardner, A. & Cochrane, E.E.. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press, 63–82.Google Scholar
Harman, G., 2018. Object-Oriented Ontology. A new theory of everything. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haughton, M. & Kay, D.K. (eds), 2019. ‘Beyond the Human: Applying Posthumanist Thinking to Archaeology’ (thematic issue). Archaeological Review from Cambridge 34(2).Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2014. The asymmetries of symmetrical archaeology. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 228–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2014. Is there life amidst the ruins? (reply to Witmore). Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 231–5.10.1558/jca.v1i2.26675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2015. Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency. Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 207–38.10.1017/S1380203815000264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Y. & Alberti, B., 2014. A matter of difference: Karen Barad, ontology and archaeological bodies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2003. Material culture after text: remembering things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. & Witmore, C., 2012. Archaeology: The discipline of things. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. & Witmore, C., 2015. Archaeology, symmetry and the ontology of things: a response to the critics. Archaeological Dialogues 22(2), 187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2016. Against object agency. A counterreaction to Sørensen's ‘Hammers and nails’. Archaeological Dialogues 23(2), 229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, A., 2019. Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen. Archaeological Dialogues 26(1), 39–44.10.1017/S1380203819000011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selsvold, I. & Webb, L. (eds), 2020. Beyond the Romans: Posthuman perspectives in Roman archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Todd, Z., 2016. An indigenous feminist's take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology 29, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle 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., 2007. Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology 39(4), 546–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C., 2014. Archaeology and the new materialisms. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 1(2), 203–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C., 2009. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar