Some archaeologists posit that objects are imbued with agency, or at least an ability to evoke some sort of change or response in individual humans or in an entire society, by the very humans who create them. Explain what the theory is and how it is different from “animism”

Object Agency Theory in Archaeology Outline

The philosophical background of agency in general.
Define the term agency

Questions of agency/self-determination from philosophers including Aristotle, Rousseau, Hume, Locke, Marx.

Agency theory’s introduction to archaeology (history of agency theory in archaeology).
How agency has been a trend in the recent past across social sciences.
Durkheim’s normativism and Parsons ‘functionalist and formalist theories in sociological discussions of agency’.
Structuralist/functionalist theories.
Agency Theory’s introduction in to archaeology
How agency theory branched off and is used in archaeology.
Bourdieu’s practice and doxa theories
Giddens’ structuration theory
Foucault (briefly).

Object Agency Theory
Some archaeologists posit that objects are imbued with agency, or at least an ability to evoke some sort of change or response in individual humans or in an entire society, by the very humans who create them.
Explain what the theory is.And how it is different from “animism”

How is the theory used in the current literature
(example) Ian Hodder, in “The ‘Social’ in Archaeological Theory: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective,”
(example) Christopher Tilley, in “Ethnography and Material Culture,” states that the meaning of an object is born when that object is used towards a purpose by a group.
(Focus) Chris Gosden’s “What do Objects Want”. Object-centered approach to agency
“Domino effect of agency” – once an object exists it will influence all the subsequent objects of its type.

The theoretical benefits of Object Agency Theory
Non-human centric
Sidesteps the criticisms of old archaeology (cultural-historical archaeology) being old rich white men projecting their beliefs about the world on to the archaeology.
Particularly, there’s lots of baggage around old theories of “social evolution” where history is a ladder of progress, and ideas of the “noble savages”.
Focusing on the objects means biases against women/lgbt+/ethnic minorities/racially stigmatized groups of the past aren’t influencing modern opinions.
It presents a way of analysing the objects of the past that doesn’t rely on economics or ecology like processualism does.
It provides a vastly different way of looking at archaeology to the traditional view and more viewpoints is always a good thing because it allows for new study and wider points of views to be included.

Where could Object Agency Theory go in the future?
It could change how typologies are used
Computers might be able to use it in some way? Through algorithms analysing the finds in ways humans couldn’t, maybe?

Conclusion

Key article:
Gosden, C., 2005. What do objects want?. Journal of archaeological method and theory, 12(3), pp.193-211.
Useful works:
Barrett, J.C., 2014. A thesis on agency. In Agency in archaeology (pp. 77-84). Routledge.
Dobres, M.A. and Robb, J.E. eds., 2000. Agency in archaeology. Psychology Press.
Dornan, J.L., 2002. Agency and archaeology: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of archaeological method and theory, 9(4), pp.303-329.
Hodder, I., 2012. Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things.
Hodder, Ian; 2003. “The “social” in Archaeological Theory: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective,” in A Companion to Social Archaeology. Lynn Meskell and Robert Pruecel. Malden MA: Blackwell, 23-42.

Last Completed Projects