Emelianov continues his bashing of what he calls the church of OOO (object-oriented ontology). This time it is the “church’s” lack of engagement with empirical data that he attacks by calling it “armchair philosophy.” He makes a crucial point that also is valid for archaeology and anthropology. Back in the early days of anthropology Tylor and Frazier mainly worked with data collected by missionaries, traders and explorers. Since they did not work with their own collected data they were given the nick name armchair anthropologists. I suspect few armchair anthropologists exist today as most enter the field, at least in the early phases of their careers.
Archaeologists working along metaphysical trends in philosophy have also tended to downplay the empirical part of research. It is not impossible to write a dissertation thesis or an article solely based on others’ texts and material. This is of course also empirical data and part of the research process, but in my view an archaeological researcher must be able to operationalize the metaphysical construct with some archaeological data. I have tried to operationalize Deleuze, DeLanda and Bergson in archaeological case studies. The only problem is that I needed to spend too much time and space explaining their ideas for an archaeological audience.