The cave Stora Förvar, excavated in the end of the 19th century, yielded a vast archaeological assemblage, providing great insight into the stone-age occupation of Stora Karlsö, an island a few kilometers off the west coast of Gotland. The bones of around ten humans dating to the Mesolithic have previously been identified among the four tons of faunal remains recovered from the cave. The human bone material featured cut-marks and split tubular bones. This, along with the apparent mixing of human- and animal bones in the cave, was interpreted as signs of anthropophagy. Later researchers have tentatively proposed that the individuals represented in the bone material might have been shamans, deviants, human sacrifices or low-status individuals. In the author’s opinion, this assertion is based on the dichotomies nature/culture and profane/sacred which produce a separation between the human bones and the animal bones. It is shown that defleshing and disarticulation were widespread practices during the Mesolithic, which could explain the marks found on the bones from Stora Förvar. Similarly, the mixing of human- and animal remains is a common feature of many Mesolithic sites across Europe. Employing a theoretical framework inspired by posthumanism and the ‘ontological turn’, the author argues that the assemblage should be understood through an alternative ontological premise where human and animal, hunter and prey, were not regarded as fundamentally different.

Vad vi framför är ett alternativ till idealismen och vi bemöter det ideella med relationell ontologi. Vi jämför Peter van Inwagen (2011), Bryan E. Bannon (2011), Achille Varzi (2016), Gil C. Santos (2015) och Robin Durie (2002) för att skapa en förståelse för vad relationell ontologi innebär. Vidare väljer vi att använda Andrew Benjamins (2015) definition för vidare struktur av vår teoretiska metod. Denna konkretisering menar på att vår tillblivelse är skapad utifrån relationer, ett utbyte mellan singulariteter, de punkterna som definierar en artefakt eller ett fenomen. Vidare analyserar vi analog skissteknik och applicerar den analysen och dess beståndsdelar på digitala tekniker som bildredigering och 3D modellering i vad vi kallar den Rhizo – Singulär analys som process metoden. Vad vi får ut är ett alternativt sätt att skapa vilket vi väljer att definiera som relationell avbildning, med detta utmanar vi idealismen och de ideella mönsterbilderna (Ohlsson, 2013). Med andra ord att vi förhåller oss till en öppenhet och de förvrängningar inom sinnes – världen utifrån Aristoteles och estetiken enligt Danius, Sjöholm, & Wallenstein (2012). Vi diskuterar de val som vi gör i designprocessen och fortsätter att argumentera för öppna förhållningssätt och förståelse som vi hämtar och jämför från Benjamin (2015) och Deleuze & Guattaris (1987) rhizomen. Undersökningen och den metoden vi skapar kan bli förstådd samt tillämpad i flertalet variationer. Slutgiltligen att den teoretiska metoden växer och förändras utav personer i en plural händelse vilket är Rhizo - Singulär analys som processmetoden. / We present an alternative to idealism and we meet the ideal with the concept of relational ontology. We compare Peter van Inwagen (2011), Bryan E. Bannon (2011), Achille Varzi (2016), Gil C. Santos (2015) and Robin Durie (2002) to create an understanding for what relational ontology is or could be. We choose Andrew Benjamin's (2015) definition to structure our theoretical method. This concretization means relations are fundamental for our becoming as people and objects. Relations are an exchange between singularities, the points which define an artefact or a phenomenon. Continually we analyze sketching techniques and apply that analysis and its components on digital techniques as photo editing and 3D modeling in what we call the Rhizo – Singular analysis as a process method. What we get from doing this is an alternative way of creating which we choose to define as a relational imaging, with this we challenge the idealism and the ideal pattern images (Ohlsson, 2013). In other words we approach to a openness and the material worlds distortions from Aristoteles and the aesthetics of Danius, Sjöholm, & Wallenstein (2012). We discuss the choices that we have made in the design process. We continue to argue for the open approach, the understanding which we gain and compare from Benjamin (2015) as well as Deleuze & Guattari’s (1987) rhizome. In other words the research, it's methods themselves can be understood and be applied in several variations. Finally the theoretical method grows and changes by people in a plural event that is Rhizo - Singular analysis as a process method.

This thesis is focused on the material known as the Mesolithic portable art. Earlier research have interpreted the material as representative art relating to ideology, mythology, prestige, ritual practices,and tribalism. Such interpretations are based on theoretical frameworks that build on hylomorphism and Cartesian metaphysics. By a change of theoretical framework, to a new animistic perspective based on a combination of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s rhizome theory, Tim Ingold’s meshwork and Giordano Bruno’s theory of bonds in general, followed by the use of ChantalConneller’s method rhizomatic chaîne opératoire, I conclude that the motifs on the tools and pendants are communications to the animated subjects that make up and inhabit the environment. Furthermore, I conclude that the binary positions of function and ritual cannot be applied when studying the formgenerating process of this material, as the tools and pendants along with their applied motifs are a result of what is in between these binary positions.

This work considers what ontology might be after the deconstruction of arché in Reiner Schürmann's and Giorgio Agamben's thinking. It addresses the question by reading Schürmanns historical deduction of the categories of presencing in his book Heidegger On being Acting: From Principles to Anarchy. This deduction is at the heart of his thought in that it tries to manifest what it means to live the transition from arché to an-arché, from a life under principles and why's, to a life without why, and the principle of anarchy. This transitional thought rests on what he calls the hypothesis of closure of the metaphysical field. The deduction is therefore a question of a relation between the first beginnings end as an other beginning. He shows this by establishing categories that are both conceptual- and sensible form. This reaches its full articulation in what he calls the categories of transition; categories in which the distinction between category and intuition seems to collapse – that are its own gaze or eye, that sees both the past and the future at the same time. This is a question regarding relationality: the transition from a causal relationality to an anarchic relationality, from a substance ontology to relational ontology. What is the relational status of the transition itself and its categories? This question lead to the main one: is the transition between arché and an-arché a relation between the two? The overall purpose is to explore this question in order to open, in the end, a path between him and Agamben. The later has pointed out that the key problem to live truly anarchic is a critique of the ontological relation because language presuppositional structure manifests in it, which takes its “full” form in his work The Use of Bodies. Here, perhaps – which we only can point to – Schürmann's thought can meet Agamben's in the caesura between arché and an-arché. Can anarchy ever be in a position of principle? In the end we will have to point to the notion of oikonomia as an area of further research to understand the question of anarchy between Agamben and Schürmann.