Lyrics for a duskier Enlightenment. In response to Alexandra Ion

Abstract

In her article ‘A taphonomy of a dark Anthropocene’, Alexandra Ion responds to and criticizes my discussion around the topic of archaeology and the Anthropocene recently published in this journal. She takes issue with most of my central arguments and especially with my leaning towards object-oriented ontology, speculative realism and the like, describing my perspective as one that is literally dark and depressing and which may lead nowhere but to a dead end. While I make it clear that I will neither answer for nor shield myself behind other peoples’ articulations of OOO, I will in what follows react to Ion's rather harsh critique and use the opportunity to sharpen my arguments further by focusing on three central themes: first, OOO and the archaeological object; second, darkness, dead ends and knowledge of things; and third, ethics, politics and responsibility.

Reflections on Posthuman Ethics. Grievability and the More-than-human Worlds of Iron and Viking Age Scandinavia

“…By placing all entities on a flat ontological plane, the responsibility of intentional harm and abuse towards others is diffused (Hodder 2014;Ion 2018;Thomas 2015;Van Dyke 2015). While the posthuman feminist authors considered here cannot be credibly accused of eliding power relations (Crellin 2021;Fredengren 2021;Pétursdóttir 2018), in our view there remains an unresolved tension in philosophies claiming that posthuman (or any) ontological exploration can redeem historical and contemporary systems of oppression. Many archaeologists do work with worlds that were not structured around Western modernist categories, but were deeply oppressive nonetheless.…”

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

“…They and other scholars support an alternative narrative of global ecological history, which would emphasize that human actions, such as forest clearing, have always contributed to global environmental processes and would take into account the onset of large‐scale agriculture and industrialization in Europe and North America (e.g., a “Capitalocene”) that played a leading role in reorienting Earth systems (e.g., Bauer and Ellis ; Moore, , ). Other archaeologists contend that the major problem with the Anthropocene designation is that it obscures how the current planetary environment consists of monstrous entanglements of people and things—“hyperobjects” such as the Great Pacific garbage patch that are beyond human design or control (Pétursdóttir ; see also Haraway ; Morton ; cf. Ion ).…”

“…Though archaeologists who adopt such theories draw from different philosophical sources (often DeLanda , ; Deleuze and Guattari ), the concept “assemblage” remains center stage, typically referring to the set of things, people, and organisms that make up a social context (e.g., Skousen ; Swenson ; Van Dyke ). To concentrate on assemblages is to trace situated interactions and flows of action while also recognizing that some things come to act and form assemblages in ways that exceed human intentions (e.g., Pétursdóttir and Olsen ; see also Pétursdóttir ). Such accounts of assemblages in the ancient world, however, might require more critical thought, especially with regard to aforementioned indigenous archaeologies.…”