So... if I understand this right... basically you've come to realize that the standard scientific process of classification (including Linnean taxonomies, typologies, Newton's colours, etc.) all needs to be questioned? Like... Francis Bacon suggested, when calling for awareness of various "idols" and iconoclasm? Like... people like Foucault argued, when discussing the problem(s) of reification?
Is this new focus on ontology relate in any way to the increased use of ("relational") databases, and the sharing ("dissemination") of data mapped in, for example, the CIDOC-CRM? So... a consequence of technological advance? Or a failure to understand the history of the disciplines involved and/or things like the history and/or philosophy of science?

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rui Gomes Coelho


Recently, anthropologists have been trying to challenge Western practices of knowledge production and understandings of existence. The theoretical oppositions at the core of Western thinking gave way to relational and new materialist endeavors.

The so-called “ontological turn” has opened doors to investigate the ways social scientists perform, produce, and disseminate their research. For instance, many archaeologists saw this process as an opportunity to go back to things and rethink archaeology as an ontological practice in itself, in which the reassembling of objects defines forms of being and becoming.
However, very little has been discussed about its political implications and what seems to be a fethishization of the word “ontology”. These recent debates encourage scholars working with the materialities of the recent past to think about their responsibilities in the quest for alternative forms of being.