What can a theory of entanglement and reflexive methodologies contribute to archaeological interpretations in British Prehistory?

Samantha Brummage 12732544 words: 5,294

What can a theory of entanglement and reflexive

methodologies contribute to archaeological interpretations

in British Prehistory?

Introduction

Post culture-historical, post processual and what could now

almost be considered post post-processual archaeology has

arrived at a broad multi and interdisciplinary approach

combining concepts and methodologies from other disciplines

as well as its own. This has led towards broader conceptual

frameworks and techniques for excavation incorporating

anthropological and social theories, for instance (Sauer,

2004 & Renfrew, 1980). For example, Tarde’s concept of

aggregation through repetition and imitation has informed

Lucas’s idea that past places or practices acquired their

significance through repeated connections that stabilise

actions or places in collective memory (2012). Qualitative

research methods in the social sciences have also

contributed towards new ways of interpreting the past,

particularly the self-reflexive techniques for excavation

that will be discussed in this essay (Blaikie, 2007).

However, according to archaeologists such as Lucas (2012)

and Chadwick (1997) there is now some fragmentation within

archaeological theory causing a gap between philosophical

starting points, evidence and interpretation. Current

1


practice has been criticised for a lack of cohesion in

applying post-processual theory to post-excavation analysis

using information collected and recorded within a time-

limited, cost-inhibited, quantifiable framework of single-

context recording (Chadwick, 1997).

This is because it has been difficult to marry the material

aspects and practical considerations of archaeological

excavation with the abstract social concepts of diverse

theoretical debate (Lucas, 2012). Trying to understand the

random nature of the archaeological record from different

theoretical stances means that explanations of human life in

prehistory include many interpretations and approaches. For

example Renfrew has proposed cognitive ‘trajectories of

cultural development’ to explain spatial or temporal

differences (Hodder, 2012: 137). Tilley (2008), Cummings

(2002) and Thomas (2008) have taken phenomenological or

experiential approaches to the impact of landscape and

cosmology on developments in the human social world, and

materiality studies have looked at the role of objects in

the construction of the subjective social world (Knappett,

2012, Olsen, 2003). This diversity of theoretical approaches

juxtaposed with the prevailing standardised excavation

procedures employed in most contract work particularly, has

resulted in concern for a cohesive professional discipline

(Chadwick, 1997) as well as criticism of an overemphasis on

2


theory at the expense of field initiated interpretation

(Edgeworth, 2011).

However, while recognising potential problems associated

with this ‘conflict between objective recording & subjective

interpretation’ (Chadwick, 1997: 7), the multifarious

discourse from within and without archaeology has also been

instrumental in promoting more integrative ideas for

archaeological thought and practice (Hodder, 2012).

Fragmentation within the archaeological body and the

difficulty of applying theory to method as well as

interpretation, have suggested the potential for

deconstructionist approaches to the whole theory-method-

practice trichotomy (Hodder, 2012). The popularity of

quantifiable, neutral and objective approaches has waned in

recent years and self-reflexive critiques have been

advocated as a way of acknowledging the subjective nature of

archaeology (Fleming, 2012), within the context of

increasingly developer-led excavation.

This essay aims to analyse Ian Hodder’s theory of

entanglement and reflexive methodologies as examples of

deconstructionist approaches in archaeology, with the

potential for harmonisation between the various elements of

the archaeological process. Reflexive methodology aims to

make explicit processes and concepts that are implicitly

3


incorporated into archaeological methodology (Hodder, 2000).

For example, representation, constructed entities and

‘contrasting notions of time are more or less implicit in

archaeological thinking’ (Hodder, 2000, & Bailey, 1983:

165). Notions of time can take on implicit meaning and

short-term or small-scale events of the past can become

invisible in the scalarity of long-term processes and

patterns (Bailey, 1983). Integrating a model of

entanglement with reflexive approaches would combine

deconstructive thinking with deconstructive practice and

potentially expose entanglements between elements of the

practice as well as the interpretation.

While these ideas can provide a flexible approach to

understanding the quirks and random nature of the human

social past as well as attempting to identify broader

patterns, no universal, all encompassing theory or

methodology will be appropriate for archaeology in practice

(Bailey, 1983). This is not only to do with the scalarity

of generalisations but also because of the diversity of

context for individual excavations. Archaeological

interpretation is influenced not only by the small-scale

context of individual elements as represented in the

stratigraphic matrix, but also include the large-scale

framework of the excavation as a whole. This means that the

specifics of practice suiting a well-funded research

4


excavation in rural Turkey, for instance, may not be equally

practicable for the majority of development-led urban

excavations in the UK (Chadwick, 1997). However, it would

be interesting to consider the potential for a conceptually

linked framework within British prehistoric archaeology

generally, with attention to specifically appropriate

contexts of application.

With this in mind, the concepts behind Hodder’s theory of

entanglement as well as a reflexive approach to

archaeological practice will be discussed in relation to the

experimental excavation at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, as well as

a specific prehistoric context within the UK that has

attempted to provide cohesion between post-processual

theory, on-site interpretation and developer-led practice.

The excavations at Çatalhöyük in the 1990’s and the

excavations at Perry Oaks prior to the building of Heathrow

Terminal 5 will be examined as examples of entanglement

theory and reflexive archaeology in practice, and discussed

in relation to a broader deconstructionist approach for

understanding human social life in Prehistoric Britain.

Entanglement as theory

Interpretation in archaeology is inherent within the

conceptual and methodological framework; how information is

5


collected and what information is collected means that the

process of analysis begins before the excavation has started

(Hodder, 2000). This means that dependencies and

entanglements within the processes of excavation as well as

the archaeological material need to be deconstructed to be

made explicit. A model of entanglement starts by doing this

to the artificial distinctions between elements of the human

world. At Çatalhöyük the landscape and built environment as

well as the human social world are exposed as

interdependent, with for example, elements used in

construction of houses entangled within various other

relationships (Figure 1). White plaster used to coat

surfaces of the houses throughout periods of reuse and

reconstruction was made from the pigment of groundstone,

taken from the landscape and incorporated into burials,

paintings and activities involving the use of ovens (Martin

& Russell, 2000). The interesting aspect of the connections

exposed by the model is that almost all dependent relations

made explicit at Çatalhöyük would have required the

mediation of human agency (Hodder, 2012).

Figure 1 Entanglement theme (after Hodder, 2012)

6


QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

This theory also gives a spatial and temporal dimension to

the landscape, architecture, artefacts, burials etc.

(Hodder, 2012). For example, locations of particular

artefacts and burials suggest spatial as well as temporal

entanglements between households at Çatalhöyük (Figure 2).

Large burials were located in particular houses and memories

contained specifically within these locations over time.

Lack of general storage space suggests small-scale shared

subsistence dependencies and the distribution of artefacts

including leopard reliefs and splayed figures suggest some

social connection between the houses (Figure 2). These

entanglements may reflect how households evolved social

dependencies as well as historical memory connections with

other specific households enabling small-scale sufficiency

within a larger network (Hodder, 2012).

7


Figure 2 Spatial distribution of entanglements at Çatalhöyük

(after Hodder, 2012)



This model not only suggests evolving social dependencies

but also provides a model for the likelihood of changing or

maintaining social practice (Hodder, 2012). By examining

entanglements, particularly through sequences of occupation

at Çatalhöyük, it becomes evident that the more complex the

entanglement the more investment required to change any of

the elements (Hodder, 2012).

8


Entanglement as practice Çatalhöyük

Çatalhöyük is a large, mainly Neolithic area of mudbrick

dwellings dating to around 6,400 BC - 5,600 BC for the East

mound and later for the west mound in the Konya region of

central Turkey (Hodder, 2000). James Mellaart undertook the

first excavation at Çatalhöyük between 1961 and 1965, and

his reports include both plan and section drawings, allowing

some consideration of the spatial and temporal dynamics

(Mellaart, 1967). The two mounds individually suggest

fairly short-term habitation periods of around 700 years

each, but together show a dependent pattern of use,

renovation and reconstruction, abandonment, use of new

location, renovation and eventual abandonment (Mellaart,

1967). The Neolithic deposits reached a depth of around 19m

and twelve consecutive building levels were identified

(Mellaart, 1967). Of these levels, each building showed

evidence of successive re-plastering inside and out with

some levels incorporating up to 120 re-plastering episodes

and all surfaces including the walls, floor, ceiling and

built in structures were coated in white clay (Mellaart,

1967). The buildings were frequently modified and

maintained and when they eventually became worn out would be

deliberately demolished or become a midden area (Mellaart,

1967).

9


Members of Hodder’s Çatalhöyük team continued on from the

earlier excavations, incorporating the northern area,

particularly building 1, and extending southwards from the

earlier boundaries (Martin & Russell, 2000). Building 1 was

identified as having seen several phases of use with a

substantial period of non habitation followed by further

dwelling (Martin & Russell, 2000). Human burials were found

under the floor and under the platforms used for seating

(Mellaart, 1967, & Martin & Russell, 2000). Ovens and

hearths were found but do not appear to be representative of

particular activities. For example, white plaster probably

from the swept inside surfaces of the house were found in

deposits from one of the ovens together with bone and

obsidian but lacking any evidence of cooking or firing

represented by clay balls or pottery (Martin & Russell,

2000). However, in an earlier phase of building 1 a fire

installation had a collection of clay balls and pot sherds

in a space next to it as well as a figurine fragment, broken

beads and charred plant remains (Martin & Russell, 2000).

This relationship between building and materials was

reversed in the mudbrick of the structure as well as the

space between walls in house 1 (Martin & Russell, 2000). In

the wall space on the east side of the building deposits of

animal bone were excavated along with unworked stone, three

10


broken figurines, obsidian, tools and digested food remains

(Martin & Russell, 2000). The mudbrick itself also

contained bone, plant remains and digested materials (Martin

& Russell, 2000). These relationships illustrate the

importance of considering entanglements for practical

purposes of excavation including sampling and conservation

methods. For example, if micro-level sampling techniques

were not used plant remains and digested materials would not

have been identified or included as part of the fluid nature

of boundaries and distinctions between, for example, house

structure and house living at Çatalhöyük. Hearths and ovens

were not only found to be an inside house feature at

Çatalhöyük but also excavated in open outside areas of

levels IV and V identified by Mellaart as ‘courtyards’

(Mellaart, 1967, & Martin & Russell, 2000). The suggestion

is that at times both food preparation and stone tool

production could have been undertaken in an outside communal

area and at other times within the individual houses

(Mellaart, 1967, & Martin & Russell, 2000). For example,

building 1 was found with a grindstone set into the floor,

obsidian blades beneath the grindstone and a worked cattle

shoulder blade on top of the hearth, suggesting that food

preparation was part of the activity in this house for at

least one instance of its occupation and pointing towards

the lack of a ‘simple inside-outside dichotomy’ (Martin &

Russell, 2000: 64).

11


The theme of fluid boundaries and entanglements of discard

and practice is continued when considering the idea of

refuse more specifically in the southern area of excavation

(Martin & Russell, 2000). In this area the changing uses

and concepts of space, building and materials are

represented by large areas of open midden collected on top

of earlier houses, and then built over with new structures

(Martin & Russell, 2000). However, this process also

exhibits quirks and refuses to be categorised. Several

units (or contexts) exhibit variations on this and represent

intervals in building as well as changes in practice (Martin

& Russell, 2000).

Mixed use of space for cooking, waste disposal etc. and the

connectivity of building with daily existence highlights the

importance of a reflexive approach and model of entanglement

for breaking down concepts such as refuse, house, shrine

etc. which do not necessarily reflect Neolithic experiences

of living. Reflexivity allows fluidity of interpretation and

re-interpretation necessary for understanding entanglements.

The use of space was exposed as flexible and temporally

dynamic; living space included burials etc. and funerary as

well as domestic practice was included in the architectural

(Hodder, 2012). Cooking, waste products, tools of

production etc. all exhibit relationships mediated by human

12


agency, and through the legacy and complexity of

entanglements the interrelationships between the material

house and the social house are exposed (Hodder, 2012).

During the Mellaart phase of excavation buildings, plaster

reliefs and wall paintings were uncovered but noticed to

deteriorate quickly on exposure (Matero, 2000). Some of the

reliefs and paintings were removed for conservation but

structures and murals were left in situ (Matero, 2000).

This could potentially have impacted on further

understanding of relationships between houses, but records

from the earlier excavation have allowed the reliefs and

artefacts to be subsequently interpreted using the

entanglement model, including the example of house to house

social dependencies suggested through spatial distribution

of leopard reliefs (Hodder, 2012).

Another contextual consideration for the excavation was the

scalarity of previous interpretation, as well as how new

information was presented (Conolly, 2000). The various

constituent dimensions of Çatalhöyük needed diverse scales

of investigation, for example; soil morphology, artefacts,

landscape or temporality (Conolly, 2000). Although they are

entangled and interdependent they have been difficult to

interpret as a contextual whole because of separation into

bounded objects such as lithics, bones, pottery etc.

13


(Conolly, 2000) or imposed categorisations (e.g. what

constituted a painting or relief for removal and what was

considered part of the structure and left in situ). These

distinctions between object, landscape, midden, structure

etc. can also have the effect of delimiting information or

creating invisibilities (Conolly, 2000). For example, by

using entanglement to inform practice the reliefs and

paintings that were interpreted as independent entities to

be conserved, analysed and archived by a specialist would

have been considered contextually as part of the structure

of the building (Matero, 2000). The scale of investigation

also impacts on the interpretation of the finds, both for

earlier and for current excavations. For example, the

plaster floors of buildings in both the north and south

areas have in some contexts produced no inclusions collected

by hand or dry sieving and therefore suggested that the

surfaces were regularly cleared (Martin & Russell, 2000).

However, by using flotation techniques low densities of

animal bone fragments, mollusc shells, obsidian chips and

plant remains were identified giving a totally different

meaning to the floor space at a micro-level (Martin &

Russell, 2000).

One of the key principles of the approach at Çatalhöyük was

to attempt multivocality in terms of interpretation and

representation of the excavation material (Hodder, 2000).

14


This has been implemented on the one hand by having

laboratory staff on site during the excavation, so that

interpretation was part of a feedback loop between field

staff with access to contextual information and those with

specialist knowledge (Hodder, 2000). This process was an

attempt to produce ongoing feedback so that interpretation

could be dynamically constructed (and made explicit as

construction) while excavation was in the process rather

than post-activity (Hodder, 2000). Multivocality in

representation was attempted through the use of diary

entries, video, website database etc. (Hodder, 2000).

Narratives and representations were incorporated into the

interpretation feedback loop by the same processes of public

dialogue and an attempt to make explicit the contextual

elements of the methodology (Hodder, 2000).

A reflexive practice and theory of entanglement helps to

make explicit the social arena of material culture

contextually within the surroundings. Through a process of

deconstruction it can ask more directly what objects say

about past activities and how they connect together as a

network of productivity in the creation of a landscape of

practice (Ingold, 1993). At Çatalhöyük an examination of

material culture entanglements of practice represented by

reliefs, middens etc. identify the use of space as complex

15


and varied with imposed categorisations ultimately unable to

represent a diverse and fluid version of the human past.

Reflexivity as theory

Since interpretation is entangled within the whole context

of the archaeological process, a reflexive methodology such

as the Çatalhöyük model attempts to acknowledge and make

explicit those elements of interconnectivity (Hodder, 2000).

Reflexivity as a theory also attempts to contest neutrality

and non-representational archaeology through acknowledgement

that ‘the process of observation changes that which is being

observed’ (Hodder, 2000: 91). It takes the viewpoint that

reality is multidimensional and dynamic and that post-

excavation representation of past human life can potentially

come across as static instances on linear trajectories

rather than short, medium and long-term material culture

behaviours and socially negotiated interconnectivity

(Hodder, 2000).

Although at Perry Oaks the methodology used was not

explicitly labelled as reflexive, the approach adopted was

of a similar philosophical stance to that used at

Çatalhöyük. Reflexive methodology takes a theoretical

position that ‘everything depends on everything else within

a hermeneutic whole’ (Hodder, 2012: 9). At Perry Oaks like

16


Çatalhöyük, the acknowledgement that interpretations of

artefactual or structural detail and context are

interdependent informed the primary consideration for

interpretation on site rather than post excavation (Andrews,

Barrett and Lewis, 2000). Similar to the Çatalhöyük

database, diary and video, at Perry Oaks a digital archive

for ongoing recording and narrative allowed analysis to be

placed back in the hands of the excavators, and created the

opportunity for a feedback loop to inform the narrative

(Brown, Lewis and Smith, 2006) and address Edgeworth’s

criticism of deferred interpretation (2011).

Reflexivity as practice Perry Oaks

The Perry Oaks project was carried out by Framework

archaeology, headed by John Barrett, Gill Andrews and John

Lewis (2011). Whereas early excavations of Çatalhöyük, as

well as those undertaken for Ian Hodder’s project were

research driven, the preliminary investigations of the area

around Perry Oaks was undertaken prior to gravel extraction

and other developmental plans and considerations, including

the potential development of Terminal 5 (Brown et al, 2006).

However, although the context of this excavation was in some

ways different from Çatalhöyük it was still considered to be

a project ‘academically driven but undertaken within a

17


commercial environment’ (Framework Archaeology, 2011, doi:

10.5284/1011888). As well as incorporating the

interpretative process into the excavation, the aim of the

project was to present a form of historical narrative

considering ‘how people inhabited past landscapes’

(Framework Archaeology, 2011,doi: 10.5284/1011888) rather

than a catalogue of artefactual or stratigraphic detail

(Brown et al, 2006).

Perry Oaks was one of the largest open air excavations ever

to be undertaken in Britain, and was prompted by the pending

development of the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow airport as

well as concerns over damage to archaeological materials by

the sludgeworks (Brown et al, 2006). The initial

excavations were carried out in 1999 and 2000 at the Perry

Oaks sludgeworks with further excavations from 2000 to 2007

(Brown et al, 2006). The area around Perry Oaks had

previously been excavated by MoLAS and their predecessors

between the 1960’s and 1980’s (Robertson-Mckay, 1987, &

O’Connell, 1990), and some preliminary trenches were dug in

the mid 1990’s (Brown et al, 2006). Yeoveny Lodge Neolithic

Causewayed Enclosure, situated slightly to the southwest of

Perry Oaks was partially excavated in the early 1960’s

(Robertson-Mckay, 1987) and the Surrey Archaeological Unit

excavated a section of the Stanwell Cursus in the early

1980’s (O’Connell, 1990).

18


Although both the Çatalhöyük and Perry Oaks excavations

considered themselves experimental in methodological

approaches, at Perry Oaks the ultimate aim was the creation

of a historical narrative with reference to the interaction

of the human social and material worlds and their

construction (Andrews et al, 2000). At Çatalhöyük the focus

on reflexive practice meant that the methodology itself

constituted almost as much of a narrative as the

archaeological evidence (Hodder, 2000).

Artefactual detail from Perry Oaks was recorded and

interpreted in the context of the temporal span and

structural detail of the larger landscape, while at the same

time considering the impact of existing material worlds on

those being created (Andrews et al, 2000). The

methodological approach gave opportunity to consider how

human activity in the past could be guided by existing

materiality as well as creating it (Olsen, 2003, & Andrews

et al, 2000). For example although there are few lithic

testimonies to the presence of people in this spot during

the Palaeolithic, and those that are represented do not

appear to conform to type (Andrews et al, 2000) long-blade

technologies of the Upper Palaeolithic are represented in

the nearby Church Lammas and Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge

(Lewis & Rackham, 2011). This could have provided what

19


Andrews et al describe as a link in terms of movement around

the landscape, with earlier activities and material

production determining a framework for the Neolithic by

acting as markers of reference (2000) or contained memories

(Lucas, 2012).

The greatest concentration of Mesolithic material consisted

of burnt flint, stone and some worked flint found in a

cluster of pits TL dated to between the 8th and 6th

millennium BC, located within the bank area of the later C1

Cursus (Figure 3). There were also a substantial number of

pits dug along the east and west ditches of the cursus,

although these contained a smaller accumulation of flint

work, including a burin from the western ditch (Brown et al,

2006). Although Mesolithic activity in the area appears to

be small-scale, the narrative suggests that level of use in

this area could be under-represented because of the close

similarity of flintwork between the Mesolithic and early

Neolithic period (Brown et al, 2006). Earlier tools could

be archaeologically invisible because they were incorporated

into use by later people, and material objects from the past

could have acted as ‘mechanisms of transformation’ for the

Neolithic (Andrews et al, 2000: 528).

Figure 3 Burnt flint distribution and density in Mesolithic

pits and C1 Stanwell Cursus (after Brown et al, 2006)

20




From the early Neolithic onwards periods of activity in the

Perry Oaks area have been interpreted through analysis of

the types of ceramics excavated, lithic findspots and

evidence of building within the landscape (Brown et al,

2006). Undecorated plain bowl ware makes up the majority of

the assemblage dating to the early Neolithic period and the

largest proportions of excavated sherds (541 out of 787)

were located in a single context (Figure 4). Another 31

sherds were found within the eastern ditch of the C2 Cursus,

80 more in another ditch, again on the eastern side of the

C2 Cursus and the remainder were scattered variously across

21


the excavated area (Brown et al, 2006). Only 2 sherds were

found in the western ditch of Stanwell C1 Cursus and nothing

at all west of it (Figure 5). Spatial distribution of the

pottery suggests an eastern orientation and potential legacy

of reference to specific areas of contained memories. Very

few pieces of decorated pottery were excavated at Perry Oaks

and although they have been compared to pieces known from

the wider area of the Thames Valley, the fact that it is

largely undecorated extends the spatial dimensions to

similar assemblages found in the East Berkshire area (Brown

et al, 2006).

Figure 4 Neolithic pottery concentrations (after Brown et

al, 2006)

22




Figure 5 Distribution of early Neolithic pottery (after

Brown et al, 2006)

23




Rather than looking for chronological reasons for

differences in pottery styles or distribution, the model for

reflexive interpretation was able to consider these

artefactual details in terms of transformative mechanisms

(Andrews et al, 2000). Although Peterborough Ware was not

found in the excavations at Perry Oaks, they were later

found elsewhere at Heathrow during the Terminal 5

excavations (Brown et al, 2006). 62 sherds of Grooved Ware

were mostly excavated from a single feature excavated

separately from the main project (GAI99). The local area

24


has also produced 500 sherds of Durrington Walls sub-style

Grooved Ware pottery, contextually associated with

Peterborough Ware (Brown et al, 2006). Only one Beaker

sherd was recovered, as well as a few Collared Urns,

although contemporary lithic assemblages of barbed and

tanged arrowheads and thumbnail scrapers were excavated

(Brown et al, 2006).

Lithic groupings as well as styles of pottery were not

necessarily contained within distinct and static periods of

time or representative of a closed geographical area. The

spatial and typological inconsistencies at Perry Oaks

reflect the idea that these assemblages can be considered

contextually as part of the landscape and structural detail.

The Perry Oaks excavation considered the landscape

(including the built and artefactual) as framing ongoing

human activity at the same time as linking areas through

activity and memory (Andrews et al, 2000). New practices

were developed within the context of what was already there,

as well as creating new meanings from new uses (Andrews et

al, 2000). It would be interesting to apply a similar model

to that used at Catalhoyuk in order to untangle the

dependencies that produced undecorated rather than decorated

ware for example, or the lack of Beaker style ceramics. It

would also be interesting to use this idea to explore the

potential social or historical entanglements suggested by

spatial distributions of artefactual evidence.

25


Although there appears little human activity in terms of

environment modification prior to 3,600, the presence of

worked flint at Perry Oaks contests to an occupied

landscape. This landscape suggests intermittent bursts of

activity with causewayed and circular enclosures and cursus

monuments erected within a few hundred years (3,600 –

3,400), followed by nothing until much later, but

interpretation can still ‘link these discrete places and

temporalities into coherent narrative sequences’ (Brown et

al, 2006: 42). For example, pits, postholes and flints

suggest the area continued to be occupied, although not

necessarily in a way that produced new construction.

Similarly, at Avebury the earlier Neolithic saw a burst of

construction followed by continued occupation but with less

building (Pollard & Reynolds, 2002). However, the continued

artefactual presence again suggested a landscape of practice

that utilised the earlier built world.

The methodology employed at Perry Oaks meant that rather

than excavating as stratigraphically discrete (and

temporally rigid) sections, the project was able to

interpret a more encompassing world of British prehistory

(Andrews et al, 2000). For example, the Bronze Age field

systems were also interpreted in the context of the later

Iron Age landscape, rather than being recorded as separate

26


events to be later analysed as distinct entities in time

(Andrews et al, 2000). The excavation team were able to

consider a durational context for the artefactual,

structural and practiced landscape and interpret the

prehistoric worlds of Perry Oaks as palimpsests of other

presents in a similar way to that untangled at Çatalhöyük

(Olivier, 2001).

Discussion

Entanglement theory and reflexive practice can deconstruct

conceptual as well as practical boundaries and incorporate a

broad but also context specific approach for archaeological

practice. For interpretations within British prehistory,

which span vast dimensions of calendar time this allows

concepts such as temporality to be made explicit as dynamic

and multirepresentational. Not only can long time spans be

understood as multicontextual, but a process of thinking and

practicing reflexively around entanglements allows British

prehistory to be understood more clearly in terms of

‘ongoing practice’ and ‘unintended consequences’ (Bailey &

McFadyen, 2010). For example, the artefactual assemblages

and evidence of practice at both Çatalhöyük and Perry Oaks

can be considered to be a ‘relative continuum’ (Brown et al,

2006: 38) as landscapes and life within them were

continually being reworked and made use of according to

27


interdependent relationships and memories already

established, along with emerging new requirements and

individual adaptations. In this context a Çatalhöyük fire

installation showing no evidence of cooking or tool

production (Martin & Russell, 2000), or the absence of

expected ceramic typologies at Perry Oaks (Brown et al,

2006) can be incorporated within a network of productivity

framework, rather than viewed as stand alone

inconsistencies.

Entanglement models and reflexive practice are suited to

work in coordination with one another. Both are methods of

deconstruction and can make visible those processes or

assumptions which may be implicit in the practice of

archaeology (Hodder, 2000).

Entanglement models break down distinctions created by

modern thinking between elements of the human world, which

may have had a lot less relevance for the past that

archaeology studies. For example, the landscape and

architecture are usually considered as distinct entities;

one a natural given phenomenon, the other a planned and

orchestrated invention of human purpose (Ingold, 1993).

However, entanglement models show the interconnectivity of

elements of the landscape and architecture and expose the

dependencies inherent for the existence of either concept,

along with the reciprocal effects of human agency (Hodder,

28


2012). The landscape is what it is at Catalhoyuk because it

was utilised in a particular way, i.e. trees were chopped

down by axes made of groundstone, wood was used for fires to

temper clay and cook etc. (Hodder, 2012, fig. 9.2: 181).

The built world existed because of the elements in the

landscape that were utilised by human agency, and the

landscape existed as such because of the selection of

specific elements for utilisation. The dependencies between

humans and things cannot easily go in a reverse direction

and provide a model for understanding the dynamics of

maintaining existing practice or establishing new ones

(Hodder, 2012).

Reflexive methodology too is able to make temporal and

spatial processes explicit. The scalarity of the

investigation and potential invisibility of elements of

human life in the past may be considered by practices that

incorporate ideas of dependencies and entanglements within

self-reflexive critique. The advantages of being able to

recognise and consider small-scale or short-term events as

well as more universal long-term processes is that with

reference to a model of entanglement, patterns of continuity

can be considered alongside patterns or instances of change

(Bailey, 1983). An explicit theoretical foundation was

stressed at both Catalhoyuk and Perry Oaks, and provided the

context with which to employ a reflexive methodology. At

29


Catalhoyuk this laid the foundation for later development of

entanglement theories (Hodder, 2012) and at Perry Oaks

allowed a durational narrative to unfold (Brown et al,

2000).

These approaches to excavation have been given different

labels; entanglement and reflexive practice at Catalhoyuk,

and a narrative driven interpretive approach at Perry Oaks.

However, they both allow themselves to be deconstructed and

made explicit and by doing this it is possible that they are

two sides of the same coin. The methodological similarities

have been discussed, but the interpretative considerations

are also part of the same ‘entanglement’ (Hodder, 2012).

The durational narrative at Perry Oaks was exposed only

through untangling the dependencies between material,

temporal and spatial aspects of prehistoric worlds and the

impact these entanglements might have for change or

maintenance of social life. Specifically linking

entanglement theory to practice, however, would increase the

potential for excavation techniques to be more cognisant and

incorporative of the dependencies within the archaeological

record.

Although there are advantages in these approaches to the

human past, it is still impossible to remove archaeological

practice from the context of its historical and contemporary

30


background (Bailey, 1983). Different ways of understanding

the archaeological past have all been preferred at various

times according to what has gone before, political climates

and contemporary expectations and constraints on

archaeological practice (Bailey, 1983, and Lucas, 2001).

Entanglement theory and reflexive practice are no different.

The type of prehistoric archaeology being pursued in Britain

today has evolved from the context of diverse approaches in

its historical background and the academic world more

generally, as well as contemporary political considerations

such as the impact of PPG16 and contract archaeology

(Chadwick, 1997, & Edgeworth, 2012). A deconstruction of

concept and context as well as temporal and spatial

dimensions is significant for making more of the human world

in the vast depths of the prehistory, but the theories and

methods used are still ‘an interplay between processes, our

conceptual representations of those processes, and that

interplay is itself a process which forms part of the

continuum of events’ (Bailey, 1983: 170).

References

Andrews, G., Barrett, J. C. & Lewis, S. C. (2000) Interpretation not record: the practice of archaeology. Antiquity. 74 (285) 525-30

31


Bailey, G. N. (1983) Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 165-192

Bailey, D. and McFadyen, L. (2010) Built Objects. In M. C. Beaudry and D. Hicks (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Blaikie, N. (2007) Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press

Brown, L., Lewis, J. & Smith, A. (2006) Landscape Evolution in theMiddle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations Volume 1, Perry Oaks. BAA, Oxford Archaeology & Wessex Archaeology: Framework Archaeology Monograph No. 1

Chadwick, A. (1997) Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage 3 (www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3chad.htm)

Conolly, J. (2000) Catalhoyuk and the Archaeological ‘Object’. In I. Hodder Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research BFIAA Monograph No. 28

Cummings, V. (2002) Experiencing Texture and Transformation in the British Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21 (3) 249-261

Edgeworth, M. (2011) Excavation as a ground of archaeological knowledge. Archaeological Dialogues. 18 (1) 44-46

Edgeworth, M. (2012) Follow the Cut, Follow the Rhythm, Follow the Material. Norwegian Archaeological Review. 45 (1) 76-92

Fleming, A. (2012) Landscape Archaeology and British Prehistory: questions of heuristic value. In A. M. Jones, J.Pollard, J. Gardiner and M. J. Allen (eds.) Image, Memory and

32

http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3chad.htm


Monumentality: Archaeological Engagements with the Material World. Oxford: Oxbow

Framework Archaeology (2011) Framework Archaeology Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavation Archive. York: Archaeology Data Service

Hodder, I. (2012) Contemporary Theoretical Debate in Archaeology. In I. Hodder (eds.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press

Hodder, I. (2012) Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Hodder, I. (2000) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research BFIAA Monograph No. 28

Ingold, T. (1993) The Temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25: 152-174

Knappett, C. (2012) Materiality. In I. Hodder (eds.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press

Lewis, J. S. C. and Rackham, J. (2011) Three Ways Wharf: A Late Glacial & Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Site in the Colne Valley. MOLA Monograph 51

Lucas, G. (2001) Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge

Lucas, G. (2012) Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Martin, L. and Russell, N. (2000) Trashing Rubbish. In I. Hodder Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research BFIAA Monograph No. 28

33


Matero, F. (2000) The Conservation of an Excavated Past. In I. Hodder Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research BFIAA Monograph No. 28

Mellaart, J. (1967) Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London & Southampton: Thames and Hudson

O’Connell, M. (1990) Excavations during 1979-1985 of a multi-period site at Stanwell, with a contribution on Moor Lane, Harmondsworth, by Jonathan Cotton. Surrey Archaeol. Col. 80: 1-62

Olivier, L. C. (2001) Duration, Memory, and the Nature of the Archaeological Record. In H. Karlsson (eds.) It’s About Time. The Concept of Time in Archaeology. Göteborg: Bricoleur Press

Renfrew, C. (1980) The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology. American Journal of Archaeology 84: 287-298

Renfrew, C. (2012) Towards a Cognitive Archaeology: MaterialEngagement and the Early Development of Society. In I. Hodder (eds.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press

Robertson-Mckay, R. (1987) The Neolithic causewayed enclosure at Staines, Surrey: Excavations 1961-63. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 53: 23-128

Sauer, E. W. (2004) Archaeology and Ancient History, Breaking Down the Boundaries. London: Routledge

Thomas, J. (2008) Archaeology, Landscape and Dwelling. In B.David and J. Thomas (eds.) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. London: Left Coast Press

34


Tilley, C. (2008) Phenomenological Approaches to Landscape Archaeology. In B. David and J. Thomas (eds.) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. London: Left Coast Press

35

What can a theory of entanglement and reflexive methodologies contribute to archaeological interpretations in British Prehistory?

Documents