ABSTRACT
Archaeology as the study of fragments is a well-known trope. And indeed, this is what most of us do: become preoccupied with fragments of pots, fragments of tools, fragments of houses and fragments of societies. What is less widely recognized is that archaeology is also the study of fragmentation, by which I mean fragmentation as a social practice, not just as a by-product of accidents, the passage of time or taphonomic factors.
This contribution seeks to differentiate between the methodology of an increasing body of important studies of fragments (for example, the degree of fragmentation and abrasion of sherds or trampling) and fragmentation as a meaningful social act. Starting with the well-rehearsed methods of refitting and experimentation, the unit of analysis will be brought to focus, whether a pit, a house, a whole site or a class of artefacts. Can we use the same methods to explore the fragmentation of the landscape and the fragmentation of prehistoric figurines? A brief excursus will be made to compare formal methods with intuition and internal knowledge before finishing this overview with a consideration of unlikely methods in support of fragmentation.
