221 edited by Penny Jones

Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Re v i e w f r o m C a mb r i d g e | 2 8 . 2 | 2 0 1 3 | 1 9 5 225
Mundane Objects: Materiality and Non-verbal
Communication
By Pierre Lemonnier
2012. Walnut Creek: Lef Coast Press
Hbk. 203pp. 589 B/w illus.
ISBN: 978-1-61132-056-5
Reviewed by Lucy Shipley
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.
F
ollowing the seminal work of Kopytof (1986) and Gell (1998),
archaeologists have become increasingly familiar with approaches
to material culture which are focused on the social role of seemingly
everyday objects. Archaeological expressions of this interest in quotidian
material culture have ranged from biographical approaches (Gosden and
Marshall 1999) to the use of actor network theory (Knappett 2005) and
indigenous cosmologies (Alberti and Marshall 2009), and are central to
the developing new pragmatism in archaeological theory (Preucel and
Mrozowski 2010). Trough these diverse methodologies, archaeologists are
increasingly recognizing that humans and objects are relentlessly entangled
in one another in complex and variable ways.
Mundane Objects: Materiality and Non-verbal Communication shares
the concern of these archaeological approaches to everyday objects, and will
be of great interest to those working in material culture studies as well as
archaeologists interested in agency. Lemonnier frames this anthropological
work in light of his own appreciation of approaches to objects developed
from the same foundational texts cited above. Yet he is simultaneously
frustrated by the results of such analytical approaches, arguing that they
minimize the physical materiality of objects and distract from their specifc,
non-verbal relationship with the body. Lemonnier suggests that, in contrast,
traditional ethnographic analysis can look into the black box of agency
(page 20) and explore how seemingly mundane objects physically intervene
in and shape human lives. With this aim in mind, he presents fve case
studies using this approach, which each consider a single type of object and
its particular relationship with the humans who make and use it.
Each case study is the subject of a single chapter. Four are drawn
from feldwork undertaken with Anga communities in Papua New Guinea,
222 Book reviews
Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Re v i e w f r o m Ca mb r i d g e | 2 8 . 2 | 20 1 3 | 1 9 5 225
while one is developed from the authors experiences of Frenchmen of his
own generation. Tese diverse contexts allow Lemonnier to draw out at
length the similar manifestation of agency for everyday objects in contrasting
communities, yet it could be argued that this particular ratio of case studies
slightly unbalances the structure of the worka further example from
a French context would have been welcome. However, the biographical
organisation of the workbeginning with Lemonniers observations on
his frst experience of anthropological feldwork, and ending with his most
recent work on his own cultureforms an efective spine to the book. Tis
structure, when combined with Lemonniers candid admissions of his
earlier, now altered convictions, results in the reader becoming a witness to
the authors personal development.
Once the journey through the fve case studies is completed,
Lemonnier uses the results of his analyses in two further chapters. Tese aim
to refashion object agency around his central concept of resonance, which
is then applied to a variety of material culture. Te fnal chapter considers
the impact of globalisation on relationships with objects in Melanesia, and
in this, Lemonnier hypothesises the continuing relevance of seemingly
mundane objects to human experience.
Te frst case study, discussed in Chapter One, focuses on perhaps
the most ordinary of the fve objects, the Baruya garden fence. Lemonnier
observes that such fences are far larger and more substantial than required
for their role of protecting gardens from marauding pigs. He uses his original
analysis of the process of building these fences to develop what he terms
new fndings for old data (page 36). Tese new fndings present his current
view of the fence as a physical manifestation of Baruya values, particularly
co-operative communal labour, which is organized through structured
kinship relations.
Te issue of relationships between men and women comes to the
fore in the second case study, which focuses on Ankave eel traps (Chapter
Two). Tese traps, used to catch eels which are then distributed as funerary
gifs to mourners, are explicitly connected to mythologies of masculinity
and the origins of the penis. Lemonnier argues that these myths are made
visible during the rituals which prepare and test the traps, to ensure that their
spring mechanisms are functioning. Te physical form of the trap demands
the contribution of both men and women to its physical and spiritual
creation to ensure its success. Without the combination of functional and
mythological efcacy, the trap will fail to produce eels: Lemonnier thus
argues that this seemingly simple object is intensely bound up in complex
223 edited by Penny Jones
Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Re v i e w f r o m C a mb r i d g e | 2 8 . 2 | 2 0 1 3 | 1 9 5 225
stories and layers of meaning.
Chapter Tree further develops this argument about the entangled
nature of misleadingly mundane artefacts (page 63) through the analysis
of Ankave drums. While the drums themselves appear simple, they are
specifcally formed to refect Ankave world-views and to negotiate the
transition of the dead during secondary funerals. Te hourglass shape draws
in spirits, which are then expelled through the opposite end of the drum. Te
contours of the instrument are thus not only designed to produce sound, but
also to maintain particular relationships between humans and spirits.
In Chapter Four, an even more explicitly ritual examplethat of
sacred Angka ritual pouchesis used to make much the same argument.
Tese bundles and their contents are used to focus and concentrate memories
of the Angka past that are central to male initiation rituals. Te magical
pouches form connections with ancestral powers, but more importantly
form a cluster of thoughts, memories and meanings which are used to
focus participants on their ceremonial duties (page 88).
Te two objects described in Chapters Tree and Four, drum and
ritual pouch, are forceful reminders of the potential of seemingly everyday
artefacts to serve as important foci for ritual activity. However, their obvious
role as part of ritual events suggests that both drum and pouch are not
actually mundane objects at all. An analysis of more everyday thingspots,
cooking implements or toolswould have been a better ft with the stated
aims and ideals of the book.
Te fnal case study, presented in Chapter Five, falls somewhat into
the same trap, yet forms an intriguing comparison with the increasingly
ceremonial objects of the previous chapters. Lemonnier uses the example
of model cars from the mid-twentieth century to explore their use as sites
of memory and mythology for (predominantly male) collectors in France.
Te sentimental power which such model cars have for collectors results
in the cars prompting the recall of specifc races and drivers, enshrining
them as sites of memory and nostalgia. However, as with the ritual objects
from Lemonniers work in Melanesia, I would argue that the model cars are
perhaps not as mundane as he suggests. Rather, the cars are objects which
were used once only in the context of play, and which have become ritual,
fetishised things in their second incarnation as collectible items.
From these fve case studies, Lemonnier builds his argument that all
objects have the potential to act as what he terms perissological resonators
224 Book reviews
Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Re v i e w f r o m Ca mb r i d g e | 2 8 . 2 | 20 1 3 | 1 9 5 225
(page 133), materials imbued with layers of meaning. Tis term is used to
incorporate both parts of his underlying analysis of the role and power of
objects as non-verbal communicators. As resonators, Lemonnier argues
that objects form hubs of countless variations of memories, mythologies
and meanings, which they then express outwards to impact upon those who
encounter them. Tese variable messages are bounded in the physicality of
the object itself, and are also protected by their multiplicity, which ensures
that the role of such objects is resistant to change.
Tis point about the physicality of objects preserving the
resonances they carry is particularly relevant to the archaeologist in terms
of thinking about changes in the form and design of artefacts. Specifcally,
the terminology of resonance provides a new way of characterising the
multiple layers of human relationships which are incorporated into material
culture. In the same way that the concept of palimpsest allows for the analysis
of a series of past human actions inscribed on a landscape, Lemonniers
resonance provides an opportunity to explore objects as multi-faceted sites
imbued with layers of meaning and power. Te range and variety of possible
impacts and audiences associated with the resonance of the garden fence
and eel trap act as a spur to the archaeologist, reminding the reader that
such functional, everyday things may be as meaningful as highly ritualized
objects, acting as sites of personal and communal memories.
Tese arguments explain Lemonniers choice of case studies, all of
which involve objects which are obvious sites for such complex relationships
between humans and things. Drums, pouches and toy cars are all imbued
with resonating agency for the individuals who encounter them. However,
I suggest that this is also the case for other objects encountered on a daily
basis which are not explicitly used in ritual activities. Lemonniers choice
not to focus upon such objects, and to prioritize more obviously ritualized
material culture, results in an elision of the stated central concern of the
book: the agency and non-verbal communication of everyday objects.
Further, Lemonniers aim to use ethnographic observation to
further explore the power of things was ambitious. Tis was intended to
develop new approaches to everyday objects, and to emphatically recognize
the importance of object agency. Yet by continuing to frame that agency in
terms of intangible meanings bound up in ritual behaviour, Lemonnier falls
into the same pattern of analysis he himself critiquesplacing too much
focus on the non-physical relationship between people and things. Indeed,
archaeological explorations of object agency, which are ofen explicitly
focused upon connections between bodies and material culture, would have
225 edited by Penny Jones
Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Re v i e w f r o m C a mb r i d g e | 2 8 . 2 | 2 0 1 3 | 1 9 5 225
informed and strengthened Lemonniers argument signifcantly. While this
book is excellent as a scholarly and entertaining account of the relations of
fve particular types of object with people, many readers may thus fnd the
theoretical conclusions somewhat unsatisfying. It is to be hoped that this
will not prevent archaeologists from taking on and engaging with both the
concept of resonance and these fve thought-provoking case studies.
References
Alberti, B. and Marshall, Y.M. 2009. Animating archaeology: Local theories and conceptually
open-ended methodologies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19: 344-356.
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gosden, C. and Marshall, Y.M. 1999. Te cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology
31: 169-178.
Knappett, C. 2005. Tinking Trough Material Culture: an Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. Te cultural biography of things. In Appadurai, A. (ed.) Te Social Life of
Tings: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-91.
Preucel, R. and Mrozowski, S. (eds) 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Teory: the New
Pragmatism. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.