Two contrasting arguments on the merits of symmetrical archaeology and an associated discussion of object agency appeared in a recent issue ofArchaeological dialogues(Lindstrøm 2015; Olsen and Witmore 2015). While Torill Christine Lindstrøm extends a thorough, yet hardly new, criticism of the notion of object agency and of symmetrical archaeology, Bjørnar Olsen and Christopher Witmore provide a clarification in its defence (even though their article is oddly categorized byArchaeological dialoguesas a ‘provocation’). In this reaction article, I take issue with a number of arguments by Lindstrøm and by Olsen and Witmore: first of all, I challenge Lindstrøm's representation of object agency, which I believe is in need of corrections. Second, I contend that Lindstrøm fails to identify a number of fundamental contributions within the framework of symmetrical archaeology, thus allowing her to caricature symmetrical archaeology as ‘old wine in new bags’. Third, even though Olsen and Witmore's defence offers helpful clarifications, I believe that their contribution invites us to discuss the vocabulary of symmetrical archaeology, scrutinizing why there is an apparent tendency to misunderstand its arguments and merits. Lastly, I take issue with Lindstrøm's dismissal of ‘different ontologies’ as a result of political correctness.

中文翻译：

---

锤子和钉子。对 Lindstrøm 和 Olsen 和 Witmore 的回应

关于对称考古学的优点的两个对比鲜明的论点以及对对象代理的相关讨论出现在最近一期的考古对话（林斯特罗姆 2015 年；奥尔森和威特莫尔 2015 年）。虽然 Torill Christine Lindstrøm 对物体代理和对称考古学的概念进行了彻底但几乎不是新的批评，但 Bjørnar Olsen 和 Christopher Witmore 为其辩护提供了澄清（尽管他们的文章奇怪地归类为考古对话作为“挑衅”）。在这篇反应文章中，我对 Lindstrøm 以及 Olsen 和 Witmore 的一些论点提出异议：首先，我质疑 Lindstrøm 对客体代理的表述，我认为它需要更正。其次，我认为 Lindstrøm 未能在对称考古学的框架内发现一些基本贡献，因此她将对称考古学讽刺为“新袋装旧酒”。第三，尽管奥尔森和威特莫尔的辩护提供了有益的澄清，但我相信他们的贡献邀请我们讨论对称考古学的词汇，仔细研究为什么存在明显倾向于误解其论点和优点的原因。最后，我对 Lindstrøm 以政治正确为由驳回“不同本体论”提出异议。