Prologue: Archaeology, Animism and Non-Human Agents

Abstract

This special issue explores the archaeology of "animism" with attention placed on the material correlates of interactions with potent non-human agents. The topic of animisman ontology in which objects and other non-human beings possess souls, life-force and qualities of personhood (Tylor 1958(Tylor [1871)-has reemerged in the social sciences with the blurring of formerly taken-for-granted boundaries separating subject/object, self/ world, and person/thing (e.g., Bird-Davis 1999;Gell 1998;Latour 1993; Ingold 2006;Viveiros de Castro 2004). Animate objects and non-human beings are active members of many societies today, and presumably were so in the past. Who are these social actors? What do they do? How might we recognize them in an archaeological context? The contributors to this issue explore these questions.Why should archaeologists take animistic religious practices seriously? First, over 150 years of ethnographic literature documents the significance of animated material objects cross-culturally. Yet archaeologists have not developed methods and theories that embrace these perspectives. Recognizing that objects can and do possess purposeful agency for many peoples can move us closer to developing social models that reflect the primacy others placed on interactions with these important community members. Second, serious consideration of animism and non-human agency challenges inherited cultural categories that limit the questions and interpretations we bring to our research. Western intellectual tradition constructs a series of dualisms that slice apart animistic, relational, and indigenous perspectives, and, in the process, devalues peoples' lived experiences. In using terms such as "ascribed," "beliefs," or "symbolic

Familiar and Strange: Gender, Sex, and Love in the Uncanny Valley

“…Kirsten Dautenhahn [62] similarly notes that the future of human robot interactions may involve socialization where robots are "personalized" through a training process similar to that undergone by our canine companions. Anthropologists and archaeologists, however, draw attention to the fact that animistic traditions were most likely pervasive in the human evolutionary past, and included belief systems that attributed personality, power, and motivation to inanimate objects of all types [63,64].…”

Ritual Use of Obsidian from Maya Caves in Belize: A Functional and Symbolic Analysis

“…In a like-minded manner, others have rallied around "animism" as an entry point for investigating how many non-western ontologies accept the beingness of non-human entities who have spirits or other essences that confer degrees of personhood (Alberti and Bray 2009;Brown and Walker 2008;Mills and Ferguson 2008;VanPool and Newsome 2012). Animism is a welldocumented feature of Mesoamerican religious belief today (Brown and Emery 2008;Monaghan 1995:98-105, this volume) and has deep roots in prehispanic times as well (Darras, this volume;Houston, Stuart, and Taube 2006:98-101;Marcus and Flannery 1994:57-60).…”

Relacionalidad, prácticas, ontologías y arte rupestre en el centro norte de Chile (2000 A.C. A 1.540 D.C.)

“…Si bien Alberti y Marshall (2009), han apelado a la necesidad de explorar y descubrir otros sistemas ontológicos, sus propuestas las generan explícitamente a partir de la combinación de teorías relacionales, propuestas sobre materialidad y animismo. La relevancia del animismo no es de extrañar dada la asociación que se establece entre tal sistema ontológico, la agencia de los no humanos y la constitución de comunidades a partir de las relaciones establecidas entre estos agentes y las personas (ALBERTI & MARSHALL, 2009;HABER, 2009;BROWN & WALKER, 2008;PORR & BELL, 2012;SILLAR, 2009;WALLIS, 2009WALLIS, , 2013.…”

“…En otras palabras, se ha girado desde un enfoque representacional y uno pragmático centrado en lo social, a uno ontológico que se pregunta sobre cómo se constituyen estos mundos, las comunidades, así como la relación entre humanos y no humanos, siendo el animismo una de las propuestas básicas para abordar esta discusión (p.e. BROWN & WALKER, 2008;ALBERTI & MARSHALL, 2009;HABER, 2009;WALLIS, 2009WALLIS, , 2013SILLAR, 2009;MOORE & THOMPSON, 2012).…”