Object Analysis

Historians who study the things that people make are in agreement that material culture is a vital part of human society. However, how historians should analyze material culture is a topic that elicits a variety of responses. Some older sources such as E. McClung Fleming’s 1974 article “Artifact Study: A Proposed Model” are rigorous in their emphasis on more technical identification and information gathering from professional curators and connoisseurs. Other sources such as Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Halton’s The Meaning of Things focuses on what people feel about things and less on the physical aspects of the things themselves. In developing a method for approaching material culture study I have drawn from different aspects of past studies in combination with my own background and way of working.

One of the main difficulties in creating a system like this is that there are many overlaps in terms of the steps that analyzing material culture takes. For example, if the object is a decorated chair, I might notice signs of wear and immediately begin thinking about how someone used that chair before I even think about when someone made the chair. Regardless, for whatever my object is I will try to keep the analysis organized even if my imagination wanders.

My first step in analyzing an object is to get as accurate a physical description as possible and to learn about the object in terms of the materials used in making it and how it was made. Doing this takes many of the methods used in Fleming’s article as well as Charles Montgomery’s “The Connoisseurship of Artifacts.” This step may be more technical than what most historians are accustomed to, but I believe that proper identification is integral for a meaningful and reliable interpretation. This would involve looking at the objects dimensions, color, materials, and possibly photographing or drawing it. This first step would hopefully lead to a simple identification of the object in question.

Research into the object is the next step. This would involve learning about similar objects of the same period, possibly using typologies and art history resources if they exist to learn about any decoration on the object. Ideally I would be able to establish the provenience and provenance of the object and juxtapose the origins and ownership of the object against the typological information. I may be dependant on what type of information already exists in the objects file for the first two steps, but will hopefully gather enough to be able to move outside of the specific object to place it in some type of context.

Most of the reading borrowed methods primarily art historians and connoisseurs to describe and identify objects. Unfortunately these methods often leave me wanting more. I believe part of this is the emphasis on authenticity rather than use through time. An important aspect of my methodology is that I do not view any material culture as inauthentic. Where Fleming looks at the replacement parts of a cupboard as taking away from its original condition, I am interested in the story of the cupboard being used daily and through generations of the family that owned it. This may be the archaeologist in me, but I prefer objects that show some use and damage over pristine objects. For me, telling the use of an object leads to a more dynamic historical interpretation than telling how the culture produced the object in one place and point in time.

Because I am interested in the story of how people use objects after the objects creation I had tumultuous mental arguments with Jules Prown’s article “Mind in Matter.” Prown views culture as abstract beliefs and states that more art-oriented, decorative objects lead to better cultural understanding, while the interpretive promise of utilitarian objects is limited. My disagreement with Prown’s perspective may be another result of my archaeology background pitted against his more art history oriented perspective. Prown only looks at the meaning of objects at their creation. Csikszentmihalyi provided a good alternative by studying meaning during the life of the object. Csikszentmihalyi shows that a painting which an art historian would talk about in one way may be important to people for entirely different reasons. In the same light, utilitarian objects can attain cultural significance even though they seem mundane.

Describing and researching the object as fully as possible will allow me to ask meaningful questions about this particular object that may revolved around the objects creation, use, meaning to different people, or meaning in relation to other objects or events. For my methodology, the technical aspects of the description are important, but they are only a way to fully understand the context of the object in order to begin the process of interpretation. Karal Marlings’s article “Writing History with Artifacts” was successful in using material culture in a way that still focused on historical interpretation. This article described objects and relayed technical information when necessary, but not in an overwhelming way. Marling’s conclusions about objects being vehicles through which the masses understood history at the Colombian Exposition of 1893 displayed the cultural importance of things without getting too theoretical or caught up in the details.

Once I have research questions, I will have to do more research, this time possibly secondary and primary sources indirectly related to the object in order to come up with an interpretation. The interpretation is the last step that will hopefully tell a story about the object that adds to current historiography both in terms of material culture and history more generally. The interpretation would involve extracting from the technical descriptions and research into the period and people who interacted with the object through its existence. Ideally I would like most of the resulting research paper to focus on the interpretation and footnote the majority of the technical research.

This post has veered off topic at some point so here is a summary of my method:

1. Describe 

2. Identify

3. Research

4. Ask historical questions

5. More research

6. Interpretation

I’m sure that I will revise this method at times, but hopefully it will operate as a framework to begin my material culture studies.

Readings:

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Eugene Halton. The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Chapters 1-4. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Fleming, E. McClung. "Artifact Study: A Proposed Model." Winterthur Portfolio (1974): 153-173.

Marling, Karal Ann. "Writing History with Artifacts: Columbus at the 1893 Chicago Fair." The Public Historian (1992): 13-30.

Montgomery, Charles F. “The Connoisseurship of Artifacts.” In Schlereth, Thomas J., ed. Material culture studies in America. Rowman Altamira, 1982.

Prown, Jules David. "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method." Winterthur Portfolio (1982): 1-19.