Abstract
AbstractArchaeology is currently bound to a series of metaphysical principles, one of which claims that reality is composed of a series of discrete objects. These discrete objects are fundamental metaphysical entities in archaeological science and posthumanist/New Materialist approaches and can be posited, assembled, counted, and consequently included in quantitative models (e.g. Big Data, Bayesian models) or network models (e.g. Actor-Network Theory). The work by Sørensen and Marila shows that archaeological reality is not that discrete, that some objects cannot be easily identified, and that perhaps reality is not always necessarily composed of discrete objects. The aim of this article is to take Sørensen and Marila’s arguments to their ultimate logical consequences: most archaeological theory today operates underthe illusion of a general metaphysics. This illusion dictates not only that all of reality is composed of discrete objects, but that since reality manifests in a certain way, there has to be a methodology that accurately represents that reality. A brief discussion on the notion of “conjecture,” as conceived in certain historical theories, is also presented.
Highlights
One of the key topics of interest in archaeological theory today is metaphysics, sometimes expressed as ontology
The term “ontology” has a varied number of meanings in archaeology, from just designating the material world to designating the alterity of past informants;[1] what this article addresses is ontology in terms of metaphysics, that is to say, the deeper noumenal reality that is common to us all. This idea of a deeper reality has always been a part of the relationship between philosophy and the sciences; for science to be possible, it is assumed that reality must exist in a certain way, a way that is not immediately obvious to experience and it is through science that a deeper reality is exposed and explained
The neopositivists did not believe metaphysical statements were of any importance to science – metaphysical statements were logically coherent, but they were not empirically relevant.[2]
Summary
One of the key topics of interest in archaeological theory today is metaphysics, sometimes expressed as ontology.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
