Archaeologists are very familiar with assemblages; it is a key term and framework for our work. Assemblages are usually defined in two ways in archaeology: a) a collection of objects found together in the same context or b) a group of objects sharing common features, e.g. a lithic assemblage (Lucas 2012: 193-194). This well-worn definition has served generations of archaeologists in the field and in the library but is not without its problems.
In recent years, such definitions have received even more critical scrutiny as a result of the increasing popularity of assemblage as a theoretical concept inspired by the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (for some recent work on assemblage theory in archaeology see Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2017, vol. 27(1) special section on ‘Archaeology and Assemblage’; also, Jervis 2019, Assemblage Thought and Archaeology, London & New York, Routledge ). What is the attraction of assemblage and more importantly, are we simply dealing with variations on a theme (Lucas, 2017) that may already be too familiar to many archaeologists?
Deleuze & Guattari’s work is notoriously ambiguous about the nature and operation of assemblages (and there is the whole debate about the unsuitability of the English translation of their key term ‘agencement’ – see Philips 2006; Nail 2017).
Archaeology has had a tricky relationship with process. The debates between processual and post-processual approaches that dominated the 1990s reiterated the conundrum: on the one hand, the task was to find ways to explore dynamic phenomena without succumbing to deterministic systemic approaches where agency had no place; on the other hand, if there was to be credible explanation of large-scale, long-term change, analysis needed to move beyond the micro-scale of individual agency. Assemblage theory has been a particularly fruitful way of addressing questions about social phenomena that focus on process, becoming, instability, and move beyond the fixity of structures, the staticness of essence. As Venn explains (2006: 107): “assemblage can be seen as a relay concept, linking the problematic of structure with that of change and far-from-equilibrium systems.” Assemblages focus on processes, but because their components are not part of a unity, but rather exist as “an arrangement of heterogeneous elements” (Nail 2017: 22), they highlight fluidity and the dynamic character of inter-relations between things.
This kind of thinking opens up exciting avenues for research and it deserves the attention it has received. To be able to focus on the connections between things without placing everything within a hierarchical plane of existence is liberating. And it allows the aims of projects like the House Poetics to have a credible place in current research: to move beyond static categories, to focus on dynamic exchanges at the interstices of fields, to concern ourselves with how and why things, people, and non-human agents come together. But as the continuous critical engagement with assemblage theory continues, it becomes more and more pertinent to flesh out the empirical, materialist aspect of the theory. Gavin Lucas asked the question that should be at the core of our endeavours: assemblage theory has opened the door to flexibility, malleability and freedom from restricting structure, but one thing we have not been able to capture is “the question of how assemblages stabilize or dissipate?” (Lucas 2017: 190).
I tried to put this question at the core of the first presentation of the project at the Aegis Research Group workshop on December 2017. Speaking about theory is very hard, as you need to clearly impart abstract concepts to your audience so that they can follow your thinking and, more importantly, appreciate the innovation and the need for these different approaches. As I found out, it is always better to show people how this works in practice, rather than just telling them. I think I managed to convinced a few.
References
Lucas, G. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucas, G. 2017 Variations on a theme: assemblage archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27:1: 187-190.
Nail, T. 2017. What is an Assemblage? Substance 46(1): 21-37.
Phillips, J. 2006. Agencement/Assemblage. Theory, Culture, Society, 23(2-3): 108-109.
Venn, C. 2006. A note on Assemblage. Theory, Culture, Society, 23(2-3): 107-108.