Christopher Witmore (2014: 215)
recently observed that “things go on perturbing one another when humans
cease to be part of the picture. A former house may be transformed through
relations with bacteria, hedgehogs, water, compaction”; and if the materials
that archaeologists confront are material memories (cf. Olivier 2011) from which a past is to be
recalled in the future, then
The kind of memory that things hold often tells us little of
whether materials strewn across an abandonment level resulted from
the reuse of a structure as a sheepfold, a series of exceptional
snow storms, the collapse of a roof made of olive wood after many
years of exposure to the weather (rapports between microbes, fungi,
water and wood), the cumulative labors of generations of badgers,
children playing a game in a ruin, or the probing roots of oak
trees (Witmore 2014: 215).
In other words, the things that archaeologists confront bear
the memories of their own formation without the necessity of a human
presence, and the traditional and often exclusive priority given to a human
agency in the making of those things and in giving them meaning is simply
misplaced. Things get on “just fine” without the benefit of human
intervention and interpretation (Witmore
2014: 217). Should archaeology therefore allow that it is not a
discipline concerned with excavating the indications of the various past
human labours that once acted upon things, and should it eschew the demand
to “look beyond the pot, the awl or a stone enclosure for explanations
concerning the reasons for their existence” (Witmore
2014: 204)? Consequently, is archaeology now a matter
of following the things themselves to wherever they might lead—what Witmore
characterises as the New Materialisms—and if so, are we now to practise
archaeology “not as the study of the human past through its material
remains, but as the discipline of things” (Witmore
2014: 203)?