Objects as Agents (Some Comments on O.L. Gubarev’s Response)

This article builds on the earlier discussion about the actor traits associated with North Germanic weapons. The historical theories and evidence used by O.L. Gubarev to support his approach are analyzed. It is argued that he seems to echo the historiographical tradition relying on oversimplified a priori assertions, rather than a comprehensive analysis of the concept of “living” things in certain cultures. In his polemical response, he misinterpreted some historical sources and the views of other researchers, while also presenting his own controversial ideas as undeniable facts. In conclusion, it is suggested that the beliefs in the ability of inanimate things to have person-like qualities and play an actual social role, the distinction between living and non-living nature, as well as the practice of attributing souls to non-living entities, should be regarded as separate problems that are not clearly related in all cultures.