Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Historicising Material Agency: from Relations to Relational Constellations

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baber, Z. (1991). Beyond the structure/agency dualism: an evaluation of Giddens’ theory of structuration. Sociological Inquiry, 61, 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.–. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.–. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization. The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bet, P., Delage, R., & Vernhet, A. (1994). Lezoux et Millau: Confrontation d’idées et de données. SFECAG Actes du congrès de Millau, 43–61.

  • 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 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977).Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16) (trans: Nice, R.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brück, J. (2001). Monuments, power and personhood in the British Neolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7, 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brughmans, T. (2010). Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 29(3), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brughmans, T. (2013). Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(4), 623–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Butts, C. T. (2009). Revisiting the foundations of network analysis. Science, 325, 414–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collar, A. C. F. (2007). Network theory and religious innovation. Mediterranean Historical Review, 22(1), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30(2), 225–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietler, M. (2010). Archaeologies of colonialism. Consumption, entanglement, and violence in ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and social agency. Outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dobres, M.-A., & Robb, J. E. (2005). “Doing” agency: introductory remarks on methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornan, J. L. (2002). Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 9(4), 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, M. (1990). Description, understanding and the chaîne opératoire. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felski, R. (1999). The invention of everyday life. New Formations, 39, 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et Punir. Naissance de la Prison. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C. (2004). The archaeology of personhood. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency. An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Ruibal, A. (Ed.). (2013). Reclaiming archaeology. Beyond the tropes of modernity. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosden, C. (2005). What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(2), 213–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchner, R. B. (2008). Globalization avant la lettre: globalization and the history of the Roman empire. New Global Studies, 2, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (2011). Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17, 154–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodos, T. (2010). Globalization and colonization: a view from Iron Age Sicily. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 23, 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, S. R. (2010). Dwelling, identity, and the maya. Relational archaeology at Chunchucmil. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment. Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

  • Jennings, J. (2011). Globalizations and the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knappett, C. (2005). Thinking through material culture. An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knappett, C. (2011). An archaeology of interaction. Network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Knappett, C. (Ed.). (2013). Network analysis in archaeology. New approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (Eds.). (2008). Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krier, J. (1981). Die Treverer außerhalb ihrer Civitas. Mobilität und Aufstieg (Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 5). Trier: Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19, 609–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luik, M. (2001). Römische Wirtschaftsmetropole Trier. Trierer Zeitschrift, 64, 245–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S. (1985). Sweetness and power. The place of sugar in modern history. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mol, A., & Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24, 641–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Norman, D. A. (1998). The design of everyday things. London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oelmann, F. (1914). Die Keramik des Kastells Niederbieber (Materialien zur römisch-germanischen Keramik 1). Frankfurt-am-Main: J. Baer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. (2012). Archaeology. The discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pitts, M., & Versluys, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Globalisation and the Roman World. World history, connectivity and material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, R. J. (1988). The Roman Pottery of Kent. Maidstone: Kent Archaeological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preucel, R. W. (2006). Archaeological semiotics. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, W. (2007). Sociological discourse of the relational: the case of Bourdieu & Latour. The Sociological Review, 55(4), 707–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sindbaek, S. M. (2007). Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia. Antiquity, 81, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skibo, J. M., & Schiffer, M. B. (2008). People and things. A behavioral approach to material culture. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. T. (2001). The limitations of doxa: agency and subjectivity from an archaeological point of view. Journal of Social Archaeology, 1, 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thomas, N. (1991). Entangled objects. Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throop, C. J., & Murphy, K. M. (2002). Bourdieu and phenomenology: a critical assessment. Anthropological Theory, 2, 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van Oyen, A. (2013a). Towards a postcolonial artefact analysis. Archaeological Dialogues, 20(1), 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oyen, A. (2013b). Rethinking Terra Sigillata. An archaeological application of actor-network theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Cambridge.

  • Van Oyen, A. (2014). Les acteurs-réseaux en archéologie: Etat de la question et perspectives futures. Les Nouvelles de l’archéologie, 135, 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oyen, A. (2015). Actor-Network Theory’s take on archaeological types: becoming, material agency, and historical explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Watts, D., & Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wightman, E. M. (1970). Roman Trier and the Treveri. London: Hart–Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Witmore, C. L. (2007). Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39(4), 546–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Homerton College, University of Cambridge, Hills Road, CB2 8PH, Cambridge, UK

    Astrid Van Oyen

Authors
  1. Astrid Van Oyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Van Oyen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Oyen, A. Historicising Material Agency: from Relations to Relational Constellations. J Archaeol Method Theory 23, 354–378 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9244-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9244-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation