Material culture studies attempts to understand culture through peoples’ relationships with, and understandings of, objects. By studying the production of material culture anthropologists can gain an insight into cultural beliefs, whether this is through the methods of production or the materials used. Material culture further allows people to communicate ideas that they may not have spoken out loud through semiotics and metaphors within designs. Finally, the exchange patterns of objects may give anthropologists an enriched idea of social relations between different societies and cultures. The study of material culture further benefits anthropology as it can provide us with a greater understanding of past cultures by looking beyond the empirical data that is often associated with the analysis of objects.
One way in which anthropologists can study material culture is through looking at the materials and methods that are used to create objects. The chaîne opératoire is an analytical technique used to understand the production of artefacts. It allows anthropologists to gain an enriched understanding of why certain methods and materials were used in past cultures, thus providing us with information about the individuals associated with said artefact (Berger, 2009:99-100; Renfrew and Bahn, 2016:394). This can be seen through Shank’s analysis of a Greek aryballos, in which he found that the control required to create such a detailed design without the brush slipping indicates that the potter was highly skilled (Shanks, 1996:364-391). Moreover, this level of skill suggests that the pot was created in a society where specialization of industry was present. The talent required for such a piece, combined with the small size of the aryballos, which indicates it held a rare oil (Ibid.), further suggests that the owner of the aryballos must have been very wealthy, giving anthropologists an insight into the individuals associated with the pot and the society it came from.
Anthropologists can further use the study of material culture production to learn more about a society as a whole – especially when looking at belief systems and social relations. We can see an example of symbolism used in production through East African ironworking. The symbolism of ironworking can be seen through the imagery of the iron tower as a “beating phallus” (Schmidt, 1997:213) called a katerero. The recurrence of this symbolism demonstrates that the process of creating iron was tied up with symbols of fertility and reproduction – linking economics and the reproduction of life and, in turn, labour (Schmidt, 1997:209-215). This demonstrates the importance of fertility in East African cultures, placed as it is at the centre of everyday economic production. Thus, by learning more about how material culture is produced, we can gain a greater understanding of beliefs in different cultures.
We should also consider that changes in East African symbolism can indicate shifting social relations. As different families and kingdoms have gained economic power – and in turn political power – Schmidt notes that there are slight changes in the symbol systems used, therefore displaying “periods of radical changes in the social and political order” (Schmidt, 1997:213). Another way in which anthropologists can gain a better understanding of social relations is by looking at the materials that are used to make physical artefacts. This is demonstrated in Tilley’s study of the production of Wala Canoes on Melanesian islands, which are each created from eight or more plants and trees. As there is no obvious reason for using such a wide range of trees that have to be brought from all over the island, we can infer that the production of the canoe acts as an instrument to bring together people from across the island, as well as mirroring the characteristics of the island as a whole (Tilley, 1999:102-110). Through these examples, we can see that by studying the production of material culture anthropologists can not only gain a greater insight into past cultures, but also come to understand the symbolism of everyday objects, which convey the beliefs of different societies.
Material culture can also be studied through analyzing the style and design of objects. Anthropologists often study semiotics and metaphors within the design of the object, as “things” increasingly “have become regarded as texts” (Tilley, 2002:23). By viewing objects and artefacts as texts anthropologists can gain a greater understanding of a society’s ingrained beliefs, which may not, at first, be evident when talking to participants in ethnographic fieldwork. Using the technique of semiotics allows anthropologists to view the design of material culture as signs or symbols, helping them to gain an insight to the underlying views a society or individual holds (Miller, 1994:406; Crane and Bovone, 2006:321; Greene and Moore, 2010:277).
One of the main belief systems which has been accessed through anthropologists’ use of semiotics and material culture is that of gender relations. Many studies have shown that the decoration of pots and rooms can be interpreted as signs of female and male dominance and control, with houses often having certain rooms assigned to a sphere of female control and a separate space for male dominance (Hodder, 2012:174). One study that demonstrates how decoration can shed light on past cultures’ beliefs in terms of gender relations is Shank’s analysis of the Greek aryballos. The details of scenes depicting men suggests the societal views of the masculine domains were primarily those of sovereignty, risk, luxury and war (Shanks, 1996:364-391). Moreover, the excess of these scenes compared to those depicting women reinforces the theory that women were most likely seen as subservient in this society. This example reveals how the use of semiotics and metaphorical analysis can help anthropologists understand different social relations in the past, or those less likely to be spoken of during ethnographic research.
Material cultures, such as fashion and clothing, can further act as indicators of social organization, hierarchy and class distinctions (Crane and Bovone, 2006:319-323). An example of this is the royal snake shroud of the Kodi island. While all Kodi cloths are extremely detailed, cloths with the snake image on are only used by nobility at funerals, as the snake represents signs of power and privilege (Hoskins, 1998:83-86). The importance of the snake imagery to the people of Kodi is evident as it brings together local traditions and ideas of kings and royalty. Symbolizing the inheritance of power and healing, the image of the snake is only used in important rituals such as funerary rites, as to many the snake embodies a representation of their ancestors (Ibid.). The use of snake imagery has been adopted by many families to celebrate their ancestors and display their status within the family, just as it is used by nobility to state their status and importance within a whole society. The use of clothing in this way serves as just one example of how many cultures use symbolism as a method of asserting authority over others. By understanding the symbolism of the snake image in Kodi as an emblem of royalty, anthropologists can start to understand why this cloth is used so rarely, despite the lack of written records on the Kodi islands, giving them an enriched knowledge of social relations within this society.
Another way in which material culture can be studied is through analyzing the exchange patterns of a certain object or artefact. By studying exchange patterns of material culture through the substantivist approach, anthropologists can find out more about social relations both in the past and the present (Hodder, 1982:199-201). These exchange patterns can give anthropologists a greater understanding of what material culture means to the different people involved in exchange – while some exchanges are a purely economic transaction, many types of exchange play a significant role in sustaining social order and maintaining social relations between different societies. The way objects and artefacts are handled during the exchange process can therefore shed light on the significance of the objects involved.
The study of material culture involved in gift exchange can enrich anthropologists’ knowledge of social relations in and between different societies. One well-known example of this is the Kula exchange in the Trobriand Islands, first studied by Malinowski. The exchange of seemingly worthless armshells and necklaces was originally considered ‘savage trade’. However, it is now apparent through the rituals surrounding these objects and the obvious importance they have to those involved in the Kula trade, that while these objects may not have economical value they do have an important purpose within society. The gift exchange of armshells and necklaces can be viewed as a means of maintaining social and political order as it installs a sense of trust and obligation between partners, helping strengthen ties between different families and societies (Malinowski, 1932:81-95). Moreover, the type of armshell or necklace that is exchanged can give anthropologists an insight into the social standing of the owner. The relative value of armshells and necklaces is mainly based on the weight, colour, age and dimension of the shell used. For example, shells which are black in colour are seen as impure and so hold less value (Campbell, 1983:229-249). By analyzing the material culture used in gift exchange in this way, anthropologists are able to gain a more in-depth understanding of why exchange takes place and the status of those participating in the exchange.
Analyzing exchange patterns of material culture can also be useful for gaining an understanding of past exchange systems and social relations. By mapping the spatial distribution of exchanged artefacts through regression analysis, anthropologists are able to identify patterns of exchange, which may give an insight into past social relations (Earle, 1982:1-11). This technique was used to great effect in Hodder and Lane’s analysis of Neolithic axe distribution in Britain. While some of the axes had clearly been used as tools, suggesting exchange as an economic process, the larger axes showed few signs of being worn down (Hodder and Lane, 1982:213-233). The lack of wear on the larger axes may suggest to anthropologists that these items were used in some type of gift exchange, and that they were then regarded as too valuable to be used for everyday tasks. The reasons for this gift exchange would be presumed to be similar to those in Kula exchange – a method for maintaining social relations between different societies. This analysis of exchanges of material culture can therefore enrich anthropologists’ understanding of the social relations between different societies, both through the exchange patterns themselves and the use and handling of the objects being exchanged.
In conclusion, the study of material culture can be seen to greatly enrich anthropological research as it sheds light on different social beliefs and relations in a variety of ways. By looking at the chaîne opératoire and production of different objects anthropologists can gain a deeper understanding of the underlying beliefs of a whole society, both through symbolism and the materials used; while the analysis of semiotics and symbolism of the style and design of material culture can reveal both the hierarchical standing of an individual and the owners’ individual beliefs on issues such as gender, which may not be as easily communicated through speech. Lastly, the exchange patterns of material culture can give anthropologists an insight into the ways in which different societies interact with each other. It is evident that the study of material culture is useful in studying both past and present cultures as it provides a qualitative understanding of empirical data.