Relational Typologies, Assemblage Theory and Early Bronze Age Burials

Abstract

This article argues that artefact types and typologies are kinds of assemblages, presenting an explicitly relational interpretation of typology grounded in a more-than-representational assemblage theory. In the process it evaluates recent approaches to typology, and the interpretations these typologies have supported, and compares these with approaches which emphasize materiality and experience. It then illustrates the benefit of drawing these two angles of analysis closer together within an approach grounded in a more-than-representational assemblage theory. Throughout, the discussion revolves around British Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age burials and types of artefacts commonly found within them. The core argument is that, if used appropriately, typologies are not constraints to the appreciation of distinctiveness, difference and relationality in the past, but can rather form an important tool in detecting those relations and making sense of different past ways of becoming.

Cuerpos de madera. Diversidad y relacionalidad en objetos antropo/zoomorfos de Rapa Nui obtenidos entre los siglos XVIII y XX

“…Considerando estas posturas críticas al uso de categorías modernas a priori, creo que una de las formas de superar este problema es utilizar un enfoque relacional, el que considere las posibilidades de marcos ontológicos no occidentales (Webmoor & Witmore 2008, Knappett 2011, Alberti et al 2013, Zedeño 2013, Fowler 2017, Hamilakis 2017, Harris 2017), e incluso la diversidad ontológica dentro de una misma sociedad (Harris & Robb 2012). Una aproximación de este tipo asume que distintos elementos (personas y objetos, o sociedad y material), se pueden relacionar entre sí no de manera jerárquica, o incluso dialéctica, sino desde una "paridad ontológica" (Marshall & Alberti 2014:20).…”

“…), lo cual limita las posibilidades interpretativas. De esta manera, sugiero que un enfoque material, que considere las características de los objetos y asuma una mirada más-que-representacional (Fowler 2017), puede ofrecer una discusión más matizada respecto del rol jugado por estos objetos.…”

Recalibrating grave-good chronologies: new AMS radiocarbon dates from Late Bronze Age burials in Lika, Croatia

“…Reinecke (1902) and Müller-Karpe (1959) in Central Europe; Montelius (1885) in Scandinavia), and researchers continue to use these frameworks to build regional sequences. Although useful, these relative chronologies are susceptible to many of the critiques levelled at typologies in general, including: 1) the definition and acceptable range of variation within a type (Chapman 2003); 2) the ability to perceive or predict changes in type over time accurately (Plog & Hantman 1990;Buck et al 1996;Fowler 2017); 3) whether typologies can actually be representative of a culture or time period (Feinman & Neitzel 1984;Fowler 2017); and 4) the ability of current theory to deal with these issues (Sørensen 2015). Furthermore, burials represent the culmination of many different social, political and economic processes at any single moment in time.…”

Vagueness and Archaeological Interpretation: A Sensuous Approach to Archaeological Knowledge Formation through Finds Analysis

“…Therefore, finds analysis requires not only relational but also multidimensional knowledge. Through this multidimensional knowledge, it is possible to identify, for example, typological changes in the material as historically or sequentially meaningful and significant (Fowler 2017). In other words, artefact or material analysis should commence with the idea that detected differences between artefacts really do reflect past change, connections, continuity, etc., but that those differences are as much constituted by our understanding of past realities at large as knowledge of that reality is constituted by our understanding of its constituents.…”