skip to main content
Idioma:
Tipo de recurso Mostra resultados com: Mostra resultados com: Índice

Worlds Otherwise: Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference

Alberti, Benjamin ; Fowles, Severin ; Holbraad, Martin ; Marshall, Yvonne ; Witmore, Christopher

Current anthropology, 2011-12, Vol.52 (6), p.896-912 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Worlds Otherwise: Archaeology, Anthropology, and Ontological Difference
  • Autor: Alberti, Benjamin ; Fowles, Severin ; Holbraad, Martin ; Marshall, Yvonne ; Witmore, Christopher
  • Assuntos: Alterity ; Anthropological methods ; Anthropologists ; Anthropology ; Archaeological paradigms ; Archaeology ; CA Forum on Theory in Anthropology ; Concept of being ; Cultural anthropology ; Human paleontology ; Metaphysics ; Methodology and general studies ; Ontological pluralism ; Ontology ; Philosophical object ; Prehistory and protohistory ; Social sciences ; Universities
  • É parte de: Current anthropology, 2011-12, Vol.52 (6), p.896-912
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    ObjectType-Article-2
    ObjectType-Feature-1
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: The debate concerning ontology is heating up in the social sciences. How is this impacting anthropology and archaeology? What contributions can these disciplines make? Following a session at the 2010 Theoretical Archaeology Group conference at Brown University (“‘Worlds Otherwise’: Archaeology, Theory, and Ontological Difference,” convened by Ben Alberti and Yvonne Marshall), a group of archaeologists and anthropologists have continued to discuss the merits, possibilities, and problems of an ontologically oriented approach. The current paper is a portion of this larger conversation—a format we maintain here because, among other things, it permits a welcome level of candor and simplicity. In this forum we present two questions (written by Alberti and Witmore, along with the concluding comments) and the responses of five of the Theoretical Archaeology Group session participants. The first question asks why we think an ontological approach is important to our respective fields; the second, building upon the first set of responses, asks authors to consider the difference that pluralizing ontology might make and whether such a move is desirable given the aims of archaeology and anthropology. While several angles on ontology come through in the conversation, all share an interest in more immanent understandings that arise within specific situations and that are perhaps best described as thoroughly entangled rather than transcendent and/or oppositional in any straightforward sense.
  • Editor: Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
  • Idioma: Inglês
Links
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.