Framing the micro scale

From the previous sections, it should have become clear that, throughout its development, social network analysis has had a profound interest in agency. It was more the nature of the data than a lack of awareness that caused archaeologists not to pick up on the social dimension of networks. The major challenge has always been the availability of a proper heuristic tool. The Braudelian innovation of‘scales’ clearly is one way forward, but comes with its own set of problems. Most crucially, if we accept the existence of a macro and meso scale, it is unclear what the micro scale should exactly be.

The existence of three scales of interaction is not even commonly acknowledged. Dobres and Robb (2000a) distinguish between a macro and micro scale, yet they are unsure as to where we should locate agency exactly. They question whether we should equate the micro scale necessarily with individuals, as some could imagine also groups exercising agency (Dobres and Robb 2000, 11). Knappett (2011, 95) identifies the micro scale as ‘the everyday, a world of face-to-face interactions, of repeated movements in certain spaces in the company of a familiar set of objects’. To him, the meso scale then ‘requires a shift away from proximate interactions’ (Knappett 2011, 100). The meso scale addresses interaction between households within a community and between communities within a region (Knappett 2011, 98). Lock and Molineaux start their scalar construction with a single artefact (2006a) and scholars interested in materiality would no doubt start with the raw material, before the artefact would even be made (e.g. contributions in Hicks and Beaudry 2010; Ingold 2011; Olsen et al. 2012; Hodder 2012; Van Oyen 2018).

Also other issues remain: if we operate with spatio-temporal scales, how do we deal with the notion that objects are able to shrink time and space, as contemporary globalisation theory suggests (contributions in Hodos 2016, Nederveen Pieterse 2016)? Objects, or in a broader sense, technology, allows people to transcend the limits that the immediate environment poses on them. Through communication technology, constraints of space and time shrink (Van Dijck 1991, Appadurai 1996, Castells 1996, Barabasi 2002). How exactly objects and technologies can assume this kind of power has not been sufficiently addressed in archaeological network analysis. More generally speaking, archaeological network analysis has largely overlooked the theoretical advances made in critical cultural theory and materiality (Knappett 2011; Van Oyen 2016, 2017; Hodder 2012; Mills 2017), and the way scales interact has not been addressed sufficiently.

However, the challenge is not just one of pairing different bodies of theory - i.e. network analysis and materiality and other critical culture theories - although this is urgently needed (cf. Mills 2017, 390). The problem resides at a much deeper, ontological level. As Carl Knappett explains in the second chapter, following recent contributions in material culture theory, objects relate to other objects and people in very different ways. Objects can be exchanged, get entangled with human bodies or link with other objects and materials. Current archaeological network analysis is simply unable to capture the social dimension of interaction and the complexity of objects embodying interaction. Whether an archaeologist seeks to address what would be conceived as a micro scale of local space and communities or a macro scale of a site or region, there has to be a valid link between the transformation or manipulation of the physical world and the fluidity of inter-acting actors.

That such is not entirely impossible is argued by the various chapters in this volume. Departing from the knowledge that network analysis in archaeology should encompass the social dimension of interaction and the way it transforms the physical world at large, the authors explore concepts, methods and challenges on the use of network analysis for studying social interaction archaeologically. Both Aline Deicke and Owain Morris elaborate on ‘Strathernograms’ - a concept stemming from an attempt by Alfred Gell (1999) to visualise the exchange of pigs in Melanesia, originally described by Marilyn Strathern (1988). In reality, Strathern herself had attempted to visualise the exchange and attachments it created but she never proceeded with publishing them. Even though different from the toolbox of formal network analysis, Aline Deicke argues that there are possibilities for including Strathernian-type of ties in several ways. She explores these possibilities in Hallstatt burial rites, a context in which complex links between objects and meanings are formed. Formal graph representations, informed by Strathern’s understanding of exchange and the construction of meaning, can help to dissect the construction of notions of funerary identity.

The challenges posed by a Strathernian reading of exchange are also picked up by Owain Morris. Strathern’s work is part of a long tradition, as Morris outlines, of studies on exchange in Melanesia. These studies stand at the basis of our economic anthropological theories on gift-giving. Morris argues that using Strathern’s concepts and Strathernograms allows us to construct a more complex picture of feasting practices in Iron Age Italy. Morris sees how within the network the organiser of a feast distributes his personhood, thus increasing status and power. Even though Morris acknowledges that there are limits to the analysis due to the nature of the archaeological record, he is able to trace effectively how the links forged through material encompass actors in a continuous transformation.

The visibility of handling and manipulating material culture has been instrumental in enforcing elite status and power. Simon Barker, Simona Perna and Courtney Ward analyse the use of imported marble in domestic contexts in Pompeii. A formal network analysis allows them to study the spreading of the phenomenon in a selected group of case studies. Based on the patterns the analysis reveals, they propose that the appearance of the phenomenon can be linked to high-profile houses with high visibility. Space and the material world were thus instrumental in mediating social interaction. The complex interaction between space, the material world and human agents cannot be fully framed with graphs, but as Barker, Perna and Ward argue, the formal analysis and graph visualisation are highly useful analytical instruments.

In her chapter, Lieve Donnellan points out that formal network analysis is helpful in studying social interaction and the mediating role objects play in it. Value, she argues, is precisely embedded in the relational nature of objects and interaction. By looking at these relations, we can start analyzing possible meanings. Paired with object ontologies, her analysis of consumption patterns traces practices and attitudes that might have surrounded specific objects. Rather than classifying objects as passive, it is concluded that the analysed ceramic material (drinking cups, oinochoai and oil containers) was attributed very different values and must have structured interactions very differently.

The idea that archaeological networks must necessarily involve spatial analysis or even include nodes representing human actors is overturned by Soren Sinbaek. In his chapter he turns to the wealth of information gathered in a collection of material. Beads, found in large quantities in the Viking world, testify through their appearance and raw material to interactions. But rather than mapping find locations, Sindbsek traces the material characteristics of the beads. The analysis testifies to links the objects mediate; they incorporate, at the same time, long-distance trade or influence, local values and the interaction between them. Thus, the objects themselves link scales and become entangled with human actors and places in very complex ways.

The malleability and complexity of physical space is also explored in the contribution by Mark Hill, Kevin Nolan and Mark Seemann. Certain cultural phenomena in the past are attested on a regional scale. What archaeological network analysts have found challenging was identifying an appropriate tool to analyse the actual social interaction underlying the phenomenon, rather than just trace the exact spatial distribution. Hill, Noland and Seemann underline that one needs to look at the household level to explain mound-building phenomena. As in Sindbaeks’ chapter, they add that certain materials, here obsidian and flint, operate at a different scale and seem to be able to transcend space-time patterns of day-to-day interactions.

Another transformative regional phenomenon is studied in the chapter by Francesca Fulminante. She studies the appearance of dense, urbanised settlements in Central Italy. Formative in their transformation has been the consolidation of transportation - bringing us right back to the advent of network concepts in archaeology. Fulminante stresses, however, that it is not just merely the tracing of spatial links that constitute the analysis, but looking at how they were maintained from a material perspective and what effect they had on society. Roads were expensive to build and had to be maintained. They created all kinds of side-effects that came with intercity connectivity. Again it is the complex interlinking between materials-manipulation-interaction in a virtually perpetual loop that creates units such as cities.

Throughout these highly diverse cultural and chronological environments, there are conclusions to draw regarding archaeological networks and social interaction. The first one is that through their contributions, the authors have clearly demonstrated the power of formal network analysis as a heuristic tool. Moreover, whereas some current materiality approaches tend to focus on materiality only and are highly a-social, the relational methodology has proven to be invaluable to detect the complexity of objects’ lives. Materiality alone is not able to take into account the multiple meanings and uses of objects that could be attributed to it in social interaction. The power of objects, but especially raw materials, to transcend scales has figured in several of the contributions. Future research should pay more attention to the specific power of different materials in scalar terms. Why do some materials transcend scales and others not?

On the other hand, scales are generally acknowledged as a useful analytical tool, but they also constitute a self-imposed boundary. Like physical space, scale should not be treated as an absolute value in analysis but as a malleable one that is transformed through interaction. Generally, the idea of malleability is important. By acknowledging malleability, the relationality of objects in social interaction can be understood. This is what we should eventually aim to record. Diagrams, Strathernograms, sociograms are all attempts to capture the fluidity of interaction and the malleability of objects. When taken as absolute value, all will inevitably fail.

14 Lieve Donnellan