Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Jackson, Sarah E. 2016. Envisioning Artifacts: a Classic Maya View of the Archaeological Record. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,

    Welton, Andrew J. 2016. Encounters with Iron: An Archaeometallurgical Reassessment of Early Anglo-Saxon Spearheads and Knives. Archaeological Journal, Vol. 173, Issue. 2, p. 206.

    Marshall, Yvonne 2014. A Companion to Gender Prehistory.

    Flohr Sørensen, Tim 2012. Original copies: seriality, similarity and the simulacrum in the Early Bronze Age. Danish Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, p. 45.

    Harris, Oliver J. T. and Robb, John 2012. Multiple Ontologies and the Problem of the Body in History. American Anthropologist, Vol. 114, Issue. 4, p. 668.

    Harrison-Buck, Eleanor 2012. Architecture as Animate Landscape: Circular Shrines in the Ancient Maya Lowlands. American Anthropologist, Vol. 114, Issue. 1, p. 64.

    Swenson, Edward Reuben and Warner, John P. 2012. Crucibles of power: Forging copper and forging subjects at the Moche Ceremonial Center of Huaca Colorada, Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 31, Issue. 3, p. 314.

    VanPool, Christine and Newsome, Elizabeth 2012. The Spirit in the Material: A Case Study of Animism in the American Southwest. American Antiquity, Vol. 77, Issue. 2, p. 243.

    Alberti, Benjamin Fowles, Severin Holbraad, Martin Marshall, Yvonne and Witmore, Christopher 2011. “Worlds Otherwise”. Current Anthropology, Vol. 52, Issue. 6, p. 896.


Ontology, Ethnography, Archaeology: an Afterword on the Ontography of Things

  • Martin Holbraad (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 October 2009

In commenting on the preceding articles of the Special Section, this afterword elaborates on the methodological and analytical implications for archaeology of the ontological alterity of animist phenomena. If such phenomena are challenging because they transgress the conceptual coordinates of archaeologists' habitual interpretive repertoires (mind vs matter, materiality vs culture, etc.), then what might archaeology's response to such challenges be, what might be distinctively archaeological about it, and how might it compare to related concerns among socio-cultural anthropologists and philosophers?

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal
  • ISSN: 0959-7743
  • EISSN: 1474-0540
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *