Enchaining arguments and fragmenting assumptions: reconsidering the fragmentation debate in archaeology

Abstract

In this paper we examine the recent popularity of notions of fragmentation and enchainment in archaeology and aim to further the debate of these important approaches. Although we applaud the aims, and recognize the seductive power of these concepts, we suggest that there are a number of problems with the terms as they are currently used. By unpacking these expressions, we suggest these issues can be addressed and the vocabulary can continue to develop as a powerful tool for understanding materiality, exchange and personhood in the past.

Keywords:

• Fragmentation
• enchainment
• personhood

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Pwyll ap Stiffen and Sarah Tarlow for permission to cite unpublished work. In addition Dušan Borić allowed us to read his interview with Marilyn Strathern prior to publication and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury kindly provided access to her edited volume whilst still in press. The paper has benefited from the thoughtful and insightful comments of Chris Fowler and two anonymous referees, as well as the kind support and encouragement of Elizabeth DeMarrais. Final thanks go to the University of Manchester undergraduate whose question on the difference between Neolithic and Bronze Age fragmentation during a ‘Prehistoric Europe’ lecture started us thinking on the issues explored here. Errors of fact and interpretation remain entirely our own.

Marcus Brittain

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

[email protected]

Oliver Harris

Newcastle University