Objects as contexts

The narrow declaration that objects must have had rich and varied biographies has emerged in part from a failure to examine some of the ways in which an object's history may be recognised from the physical evidence itself, let alone a consideration of how these object lives may have been connected to the personal histories of people. In many situations the material nature of the object is in fact deemed insignificant, or plays little role in the biographical narrative. More often, it is the relative position an object takes in a web of exchange that is seen as the critical issue, rather than reference to its material form or condition. Most object histories are based on movement in social contexts and between members of societies. Figure 3.1. sets out this situation. In terms of applying these ideas to Bronze Age metalwork

therefore, one is left with what seems a sizeable problem of applicability. As I have already outlined in Chapter 1, the contextual information available for most metal items is extremely limited. Most metal objects have been recovered in non

archaeological conditions and even the relatively rudimentary information such as location has been lost. Virtually no information is available regarding the spatial contexts in which these objects ultimately ended up, or where they resided and operated during their lifetimes.

Rather than focussing on a movement between spatial contexts therefore, an alternative stance is to consider the object itself as a context in its own right, as a physical record of its lifetime. Objects themselves are physical manifestations of their compound lives and affect the way in which they are perceived, valued and treated. As such, “the life of an artefact is accompanied by physical changes and processes. An artefact wears in its use and consumption. Marks upon it attest to events it has witnessed, things that have happened to it. It can deteriorate. The artefact ages” (Shanks 1998:17). The approach adopted here is to consider these features from the physical evidence itself and then to relate them to the social

contexts in which these object existed. In some cases it is the physical appearance of the object that conditions our relationship to it. As an example, Shanks (ibid.) uses

the example of moon rock and the way it is treated to show how our perception to the fact it comes from another celestial body is completely different if we are then told that the rock is in fact from the earth for example.

Figure 3.1 Objects as contexts

In this case there is an ‘aura’ that surrounds the object, a concept put forward by Walter Benjamin (1969) . Although Benjamin forwarded his concept idea in relation to 19th century artworks and the subsequent advent of photography, it is equally applicable to material culture in a wider sense. The conceptual basis of his

As people and objects move through time, space and varying social settings, they accumulate ‘histories’ of different meanings, understandings and consequence relevant to the

SOCIAL CONTEXTS in which they have existed.

PRODUCTION USE DEPOSITION

(Birth) (Life) (Death)

OBJECT

Use Wear Damage Fragmentation

Durability

Patination Freshness

OBJECT AS CONTEXT

suggestion is that there is something elusive about an object that affects the way it is conceived, but that something is forever beyond our reach in a physical sense. This could merely be a history or story accompanying an object that leads us into a particular relationship with it. However, my argument here is that there are in fact many constituent parts that make up an ‘aura’, and an associated place of origin (in the case of moon rock) is just one facet. In this example, it is unlikely that the physicality of the moon rock was recognisable to most people. Another constituent part of an object’s aura is its physical condition and appearance. For example, think of how we may relate to and treat something which we perceive to be old due to the wear it displays, such as a dusty old book in a library, or an illuminated manuscript in a museum. This physicality also extends to people. We relate to a person with a wrinkled face and grey hair in a completely different way to that which we may interact with someone which displaying the physical attributes of youth. As another facet of an aura, an object or person history is therefore tied up in their physical appearance. In the case of Bronze Age metal, I believe that this is presents a way to bridge the spatial and temporal contextual void. This approach can more closely relate the physical objects themselves and the narratives that we construct for them. It would be possible to imagine virtually any narrative within the theoretical limits of the biography concept outlined previously. Contrastingly in my opinion, it is crucial to pin a biography down and relate it to the objects themselves and in so doing construct a narrative that is more firmly grounded in the material itself. In this way, my intention is to release some of the hidden details contained within and attached to what are familiar objects to us. The blue connecting arrow in 3.1 represents this approach in that the physical attributes of the objects themselves are prioritised and related back into the more traditional approach the construction of an object

biography.