Advertisement

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 354–378 | Cite as

Historicising Material Agency: from Relations to Relational Constellations

  • Astrid Van OyenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Relational approaches have gradually been changing the face of archaeology over the last decade: analytically, through formal network analysis, and interpretively, with various frameworks of human-thing relations. Their popularity has been such, however, that it threatens to undermine their relevance. If everyone agrees that we should understand past worlds by tracing relations, then ‘finding relations’ in the past becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Focusing primarily on the interpretive approaches of material culture studies, this article proposes to counter the threat of irrelevance by not just tracing human-thing relations but characterising how sets of relations were ordered. Such ordered sets are termed ‘relational constellations’. The article describes three relational constellations and their consequences based on practices of ceramic fine ware production in the Western Roman provinces (first century BC–third century AD): the fluid, the categorical and the rooted constellation. Specifying relational constellations allows reconnecting material culture to specific historical trajectories and offers scope for meaningful cross-cultural comparisons. As such, a small theoretical addition based on the existing toolbox of practice-based approaches and relational thought can impact on historical narratives and can save relational frameworks from the danger of triviality.

Keywords

Relations Material agency Ceramic production Practice Trajectories 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Carl Knappett for reading and commenting on a previous draft of this article and for continued encouragement and inspiration in all matters relational. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who pointed out crucial lacunae in the argument and made this a better paper. Research for this article was funded by a Junior Research Fellowship at Homerton College, University of Cambridge. Michel Passelac and Richard Delage kindly provided images, and Çoise Verbruggen helped with the formatting of the figures.

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 1–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baber, Z. (1991). Beyond the structure/agency dualism: an evaluation of Giddens’ theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry, 61, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabási, A.–. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási, A.–. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization. The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bet, P., & Delor, A.(2000). La typologie de la sigillée lisse de Lezoux et de la Gaule centrale du Haut-Empire: Révision décennale. SFECAG Actes du congrès de Libourne, 461–484.Google Scholar
  8. Bet, P., Delage, R., & Vernhet, A. (1994). Lezoux et Millau: Confrontation d’idées et de données. SFECAG Actes du congrès de Millau, 43–61.Google Scholar
  9. Bocquet, A. (1999). La production et la distribution des céramiques fines engobées et métallescentes dans le nord de la Gaule: Approche minéralogique et géochimique. In R. Brulet, R. P. Symonds, & F. Vilvorder (Eds.), Céramiques engobées et métallescentes gallo-romaines. Actes du colloque organisé à Louvain-la-Neuve le 18 mars 1995 (Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta Supplementum8) (pp. 129–286). Oxford: RCRF.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1977).Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16) (trans: Nice, R.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  12. Brück, J. (2001). Monuments, power and personhood in the British Neolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brughmans, T. (2013). Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(4), 623–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brulet, R., Symonds, R. P., & Vilvorder, F. (Eds.). (1999). Céramiques engobées et métallescentes gallo-romaines. Actes du colloque organisé à Louvain-la-Neuve le 18 mars 1995 (Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta Supplementum8). Oxford: RCRF.Google Scholar
  16. Brulet, R., Vilvorder, F., & Delage, R. (Eds.). (2010). La céramique romaine en Gaule du Nord. Dictionnaire des céramiques. La vaisselle à large diffusion. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
  17. Butts, C. T. (2009). Revisiting the foundations of network analysis. Science, 325, 414–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collar, A. C. F. (2007). Network theory and religious innovation. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Costin, C. L. (1991). Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organisation of production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 3(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
  20. Costin, C. L., & Hagstrum, M. (1995). Standardisation, labor investment, skill, and the organization of ceramic production in late pre-Hispanic highland Peru. American Antiquity, 60(4), 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
  22. de Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delage, R. (1998). Première approche de la diffusion des céramiques sigillées du centre de la Gaule en occident romain. SFECAG Actes du congrès d’Istres, 271–313.Google Scholar
  24. Delage, R. (2004). L’écrit en “représentation”: les marques de grand format au sein des décors sur sigillée du Centre de la Gaule. Gallia, 61, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dietler, M. (2010). Archaeologies of colonialism. Consumption, entanglement, and violence in ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and social agency. Outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Dobres, M.-A., & Hoffman, C. R. (1994). Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1(3), 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. E. (2000). Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or platitude? In M.-A. Dobres & J. E. Robb (Eds.), Agency in archaeology (pp. 3–17). London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. E. (2005). “Doing” agency: introductory remarks on methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dornan, J. L. (2002). Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9(4), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and the chaîne opératoire. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
  32. Felski, R. (1999). The invention of everyday life. New Formations, 39, 15–31.Google Scholar
  33. Foster, R. J. (2006). Tracking globalization: Commodities and value in motion. In C. Tilley et al. (Eds.), Handbook of material culture (pp. 285–302). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et Punir. Naissance de la Prison. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  35. Fowler, C. (2004). The archaeology of personhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Fowler, C. (2010). From identity and material culture to personhood and materiality. In D. Hicks & M. C. Beaudry (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies (pp. 352–385). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency. An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  39. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  40. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. González-Ruibal, A. (Ed.). (2013). Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Gosden, C. (2005). What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goudineau, C. (1978). La Gaule transalpine. In C. Nicolet (Ed.), Rome et la conquête du monde méditerranéen. Vol. 2: Genèse d’un empire (pp. 679–699). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  45. Graham, S. (2006). Ex Figlinis. The network dynamics of the Tiber valley brick industry in the Hinterland of Rome (BAR International Series 1486). Oxford: John & Erica Hedges Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Harris, E. (1986). Words and meanings. ACCIPE ET VTERE FELIX. In M. Henig & A. King (Eds.), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 8) (pp. 105–111). Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.Google Scholar
  47. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hitchner, R. B. (2008). Globalization avant la lettre: globalization and the history of the Roman empire. New Global Studies, 2, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17, 154–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hodos, T. (2010). Globalization and colonization: a view from Iron Age Sicily. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 23, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hutson, S. R. (2010). Dwelling, identity, and the maya. Relational archaeology at Chunchucmil. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment. Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Jennings, J. (2011). Globalizations and the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Knappett, C. (2005). Thinking through material culture. An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  57. Knappett, C. (2008). The neglected networks of material agency: Artefacts, pictures and texts. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 139–156). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction. Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Knappett, C. (2012). Meaning in miniature: Semiotic networks in material culture. In M. Jessen, N. Johannsen, & H. J. Jensen (Eds.), Excavating the mind (pp. 87–109). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Knappett, C. (Ed.). (2013). Network analysis in archaeology. New approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.). (2008). Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as a process. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Krier, J. (1981). Die Treverer außerhalb ihrer Civitas. Mobilität und Aufstieg (Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 5). Trier: Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier.Google Scholar
  65. Künzl, S. (1997). Die Trierer Spruchbecherkeramik. Dekorierte Schwarzfirniskeramik des 3. und 4. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 21). Trier: Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier.Google Scholar
  66. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Law, J. (1986). On the methods of long distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (Sociological Review Monograph 32) (pp. 234–263). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  70. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19, 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Luik, M. (2001). Römische Wirtschaftsmetropole Trier. Trierer Zeitschrift, 64, 245–282.Google Scholar
  73. Martin, T. (2005). Présigillées languedociennes de Narbonne et de Bram à Bordeaux: L’apport des fouilles récentes. SFECAG Actes du congrès de Blois, 427–446.Google Scholar
  74. Mills, B. J., et al. (2013). Transformations of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5785–5790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mintz, S. (1985). Sweetness and power. The place of sugar in modern history. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  76. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mol, A. (2014). The connected Caribbean. A socio-material network approach to patterns of homogeneity and diversity in the pre-colonial period. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
  78. Mol, A., & Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24, 641–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Monteil, G. (2012). The sizes of samian vessels and dining: Evidence from Roman London. In D. Bird (Ed.), Dating and intepreting the past in the Western Roman Empire. Essays in Honour of Brenda Dickinson (pp. 330–345). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  80. Naerebout, F. G. (2006–7). Global Romans? Is globalisation a concept that is going to help us understand the Roman empire?.Talanta, 38–9, 149–70.Google Scholar
  81. Norman, D. A. (1998). The design of everyday things. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Oelmann, F. (1914). Die Keramik des Kastells Niederbieber (Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 1). Frankfurt-am-Main: J. Baer.Google Scholar
  83. Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  84. Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. (2012). Archaeology. The discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  85. Passelac, M. (1986). Bram. In C. Bémont & J.-P. Jacob (Eds.), La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. Lieux de production du Haut-Empire. Implantations, produits, relations (Documents d’Archéologie Française 6) (pp. 48–51). Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
  86. Passelac, M. (1992). Formes et techniques italiques dans les productions céramiques augustéennes du bassin de l’Aude: Mise en évidence d’un groupe d’ateliers. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, 31–2, 207–229.Google Scholar
  87. Passelac, M. (1996). Céramiques communes gallo-romaines en Languedoc occidental: Exemples de production et de consommation (fin Ier s. av. notre ère-IIe s. de notre ère). In M. Bats (Ed.), Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de Narbonnaise (Ier s. av. J.-C.-IIe s. ap. J.-C.). La vaisselle de cuisine et de table. Actes des journées d’étude organisées par le Centre Jean Bérard et la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Province di Napoli e Caserta, Naples, 27-28 mai 1994 (Collection Jean Bérard 14) (pp. 361–387). Naples: Centre Jean Bérard.Google Scholar
  88. Passelac, M. (2001). Deux fours de potiers augustéens du Vicus Eburomagus (Bram, Aude). In F. Laubenheimer (Ed.), 20 Ans de recherches à Sallèles d’Aude (pp. 143–162). Paris: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises.Google Scholar
  89. Picon, M. (1973). Introduction à l’étude technique des céramiques sigillées de Lezoux (Université de Dijon. Faculté des sciences humaines, Centre des recherches sur techniques gréco-romaines 2). Lyon: Presses de l’imprimerie universitaire.Google Scholar
  90. Picon, M. (2002). Les modes de cuisson, les pâtes et les vernis de la Graufesenque: Une mise au point. In M. Genin & A. Vernhet (Eds.), Céramiques de la Graufesenque et autres productions d’époque romaine. Nouvelles recherches. Hommages à Bettina Hoffmann (Archéologie et Histoire romaine 7) (pp. 139–163). Montagnac: Monique Mergoil.Google Scholar
  91. Pitts, M., & Versluys, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Globalisation and the Roman World. World history, connectivity and material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Pollard, R. J. (1988). The Roman Pottery of Kent. Maidstone: Kent Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
  93. Preucel, R. W. (2006). Archaeological semiotics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schinkel, W. (2007). Sociological discourse of the relational: the case of Bourdieu & Latour. The Sociological Review, 55(4), 707–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schlanger, N. (1994). Mindful technology: Unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind. In C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 143–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sindbaek, S. M. (2007). Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Skibo, J. M., & Schiffer, M. B. (2008). People and things. A behavioral approach to material culture. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, A. T. (2001). The limitations of doxa: agency and subjectivity from an archaeological point of view. Journal of Social Archaeology, 1, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Strathern, M. (1988). The gender of the gift. Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia (Studies in Melanesian Anthropology 6). Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Symonds, R. P. (1992). Rhenish wares. Fine dark coloured pottery from Gaul and Germany (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology 23). Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.Google Scholar
  101. Thomas, N. (1991). Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Throop, C. J., & Murphy, K. M. (2002). Bourdieu and phenomenology: a critical assessment. Anthropological Theory, 2, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Turner, B. R. G. (1999). Excavations of an Iron Age settlement and Roman religious complex at Ivy Chimneys, Witham, Essex, 1978-1983. Chelmsford: Essex County Council.Google Scholar
  104. Van Oyen, A. (2013a). Towards a postcolonial artefact analysis. Archaeological Dialogues, 20(1), 79–105.Google Scholar
  105. Van Oyen, A. (2013b). Rethinking Terra Sigillata. An archaeological application of actor-network theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  106. Van Oyen, A. (2014). Les acteurs-réseaux en archéologie: Etat de la question et perspectives futures. Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Van Oyen, A. (2015). Actor-Network Theory’s take on archaeological types: becoming, material agency, and historical explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Van Oyen, A. (forthcoming). Networks or work-nets? Actor-Network Theory and multiple social topologies in the production of Roman terra sigillata. In T. Brughmans, A. Collar, & F. Coward (Eds.), The connected past. Networks in archaeology and history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Vilvorder, F. (1999). Les productions de céramiques engobées et métallescentes dans l’Est de la France, la Rhénanie et la rive droite du Rhin. In R. Brulet, R. P. Symonds, & F. Vilvorder (Eds.), Céramiques engobées et métallescentes gallo-romaines. Actes du colloque organisé à Louvain-la-Neuve le 18 mars 1995 (Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta Supplementum 8) (pp. 69–122). Oxford: RCRF.Google Scholar
  110. Watts, D., & Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. L. (2008). Things are us! A commentary on human/things relations under the banner of a ‘social’ archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 41(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wightman, E. M. (1970). Roman Trier and the Treveri. London: Hart–Davis.Google Scholar
  113. Willis, S. (2005). Samian pottery, a resource for the study of Roman Britain and beyond. The results of the English heritage funded Samian project. An E-Monograph. Internet archaeology: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/1/toc.html.
  114. Witmore, C. L. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4), 546–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wylie, A. (1993). A proliferation of new archaeologies: “Beyond objectivism and relativism”. In N. Yoffee & A. Sherratt (Eds.), Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda? (pp. 20–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Homerton CollegeUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations