That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology. / Sørensen, Tim Flohr.

In: Open Philosophy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, p. 1-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Sørensen, TF 2021, 'That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology', Open Philosophy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0151

APA

Sørensen, T. F. (2021). That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology. Open Philosophy, 4(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0151

Vancouver

Sørensen TF. That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology. Open Philosophy. 2021;4(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0151

Author

Sørensen, Tim Flohr. / That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology. In: Open Philosophy. 2021 ; Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 1-19.

Bibtex

@article{49ce99834c0a463996c9878a63182ad4,
title = "That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology",
abstract = "This is a comment to Graham Harman{\textquoteright}s 2019 response to an article by {\TH}{\'o}ra P{\'e}tursd{\'o}ttir and Bj{\o}rnar Olsen (2018) in which they propose that a materially grounded, archaeological perspective might complement Harman{\textquoteright}s historical approach in Immaterialism (2016). Harman responds that his book is indeed already more archaeological than historical, stipulating that history is the study of media with a high density of information, whereas archaeology studies media with a low density of information. History, Harman holds, ends up in too much detail, while archaeology has the advantage of lending itself to the imagination. Hence, his reading of history had the aim of tempering the historical information overload, in effect making the book a work of archaeology. In this comment, I want to do three things: (1) critique the idea that archaeological and historical media are inherently different with regard to their densities of information, (2) discuss how archaeology and history approach their media, and (3) reflect on conceptualisations of “archaeology” outside the discipline itself.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Archaeology, Object-Oriented Ontology, Epistemology, Uncertainty, Media, Philosophy, Ark{\ae}ologi, Filosofi, Historie, Objekt-orienteret ontologi, Metafor, M{\o}rkt stof",
author = "S{\o}rensen, {Tim Flohr}",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1515/opphil-2020-0151",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "1--19",
journal = "Open Philosophy",
issn = "2543-8875",
publisher = "De Gruyter",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman's recasting of archaeology

AU - Sørensen, Tim Flohr

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - This is a comment to Graham Harman’s 2019 response to an article by Þóra Pétursdóttir and Bjørnar Olsen (2018) in which they propose that a materially grounded, archaeological perspective might complement Harman’s historical approach in Immaterialism (2016). Harman responds that his book is indeed already more archaeological than historical, stipulating that history is the study of media with a high density of information, whereas archaeology studies media with a low density of information. History, Harman holds, ends up in too much detail, while archaeology has the advantage of lending itself to the imagination. Hence, his reading of history had the aim of tempering the historical information overload, in effect making the book a work of archaeology. In this comment, I want to do three things: (1) critique the idea that archaeological and historical media are inherently different with regard to their densities of information, (2) discuss how archaeology and history approach their media, and (3) reflect on conceptualisations of “archaeology” outside the discipline itself.

AB - This is a comment to Graham Harman’s 2019 response to an article by Þóra Pétursdóttir and Bjørnar Olsen (2018) in which they propose that a materially grounded, archaeological perspective might complement Harman’s historical approach in Immaterialism (2016). Harman responds that his book is indeed already more archaeological than historical, stipulating that history is the study of media with a high density of information, whereas archaeology studies media with a low density of information. History, Harman holds, ends up in too much detail, while archaeology has the advantage of lending itself to the imagination. Hence, his reading of history had the aim of tempering the historical information overload, in effect making the book a work of archaeology. In this comment, I want to do three things: (1) critique the idea that archaeological and historical media are inherently different with regard to their densities of information, (2) discuss how archaeology and history approach their media, and (3) reflect on conceptualisations of “archaeology” outside the discipline itself.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Archaeology

KW - Object-Oriented Ontology

KW - Epistemology

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Media

KW - Philosophy

KW - Arkæologi

KW - Filosofi

KW - Historie

KW - Objekt-orienteret ontologi

KW - Metafor

KW - Mørkt stof

U2 - 10.1515/opphil-2020-0151

DO - 10.1515/opphil-2020-0151

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Open Philosophy

JF - Open Philosophy

SN - 2543-8875

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 255786624