In this paper the notion of assemblage, as derived from the work of Gilles Deleuze, is explored in order to consider change in prehistory. An assemblage-based The study of change is arguably one of the most important things that archaeology has to offer the humanities: changes in materials, communities, identities, environments and ideas can be studied over the very long term by archaeologists. Yet we rarely explicitly theorize the study of change. Too often we seek to characterize large blocks of time (whether that is the Neolithic, the Late Neolithic or 3000-2600 BC) as having a certain set of characteristics that differ drastically from what came before and that which comes after. We draw boxes around these blocks of stasis and label them periods, representing what happens within them as relatively static and what happens at the end of them as more dynamic. This has two consequences: firstly, I believe that we create a false picture of radically opposed periods of time and ways of life. Secondly, and as a result, when we study 'big changes' in the archaeological record, I suggest, we often seek some external 'cause' for change. Often that cause is singular and located in one moment in time in the 'transition' between periods (but see Robb 2013 for an excellent, different approach). Discussing periods of stasis interrupted by transitions of radical change is a very satisfying way to think about the past; we can easily and quickly talk about large periods of time and contrast them with other periods and go on to point our finger at that thing which causes the world to alter radically. In spite of this, I argue that we need a more complex understanding of change, one which more accurately captures the complex and messy nature of the world. The ideas proposed suggest that change is constant in all materials and as a result that the many heterogeneous assemblages that make up our world are always in motion. This theoretical approach does not deny that change happens at different scales and speeds, nor does it seek to create an undifferentiated past, but instead offers us a new way to map and understand change.

No abstract

In this paper we explore ancient DNA (aDNA) as a powerful new technique for archaeologists. We argue that for aDNA to reach its full potential we need to carefully consider its theoretical underpinnings. We suggest that at present much aDNA research rests upon two problematic theoretical assumptions: first, that nature and culture exist in binary opposition and that DNA is a part of nature; second, that cultures form distinct and bounded identities. The nature–culture binary, which underpins much aDNA research, not only is a misunderstanding of our world but also results in placing archaeology and material culture in a secondary and subservient position to science and aDNA. Viewing cultures as distinct and bounded creates exclusionary, simplistic and singular identities for past populations. This stands in contrast to the work of social scientists, which has revealed identity to be complex, multiple, changing and contradictory. We offer a new way forward drawing upon assemblage thinking and post-humanism. This allows us to consider the messy and complex nature of our world and of human identities, and demands that we expect equally messy and complex results to emerge when we bring aDNA into conversation with other forms of archaeological evidence.

No abstract

In this paper we argue that to understand the difference Posthumanism makes to the relationship between archaeology, agency and ontology, several misconceptions need to be corrected. First, we emphasize that Posthumanism is multiple, with different elements, meaning any critique needs to be carefully targeted. The approach we advocate is a specifically Deleuzian and explicitly feminist approach to Posthumanism. Second, we examine the status of agency within Posthumanism and suggest that we may be better off thinking about affect. Third, we explore how the approach we advocate treats difference in new ways, not as a question of lack, or as difference ‘from’, but rather as a productive force in the world. Finally, we explore how Posthumanism allows us to re-position the role of the human in archaeology,