Haley Stodart

Professor McCleary
Material Culture
5 February 2022
Essay 2: What is Material Culture?

A picture paints a thousand words and material culture presents a thousand ideas. How

does one narrow down a definition for all the objects in the world? Can one even equate or

connect such things into a single narrative? At times, it feels impossible; throughout our

readings, trying to narrow down a definition for material culture felt like trying to explain how a

square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.1 After reviewing the nuanced ideas and

concepts surrounding such a topic, I found the definition that works best for me to be: Material

culture is the historical analysis and study of non-literary, human influenced objects (or artifacts)

that are products of the cultural values, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions of a certain time.

These productions are also more inclusive, clarifying/accurate, and provide additional

information and interpretations.2

This definition may seem clarifying and broad at the same time, and that is on purpose.

The truth is that material culture can be a broad subject, but one that has particular regulations

with it. This is emphasized perfectly by Jules David Prown when he states “The word material in

material culture refers to a broad, but not unrestricted, range of objects. It embraces the class of

objects known as artifacts—objects made by people or modified by people. It excludes natural

objects.”3 I find this specification to be important; if we are to include natural objects, then we
1 This analogy is even referenced by Prown, a visual artist himself, who noted “For the moment, however, let it
simply be borne in mind that all tangible works of art are part of material culture, but not all the material of material
culture is art.” (19).
2 Before reading Deetz, I would have said material culture “presents” the cultural values. However, he makes the
excellent point that material culture is the “sector of our physical environment that we modify through culturally
determined behavior,” (24). I agree with this distinction, as humans are a product of their culture and material is a
product of humans; therefore, material culture is—on a baseline but not holistic level—materials that are products of
culture.
3 Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,” Winterthur
Portfolio 17, no. 1 (1982): 18.
must include everything on this planet, as it all derives from something natural. If that is the case,

why even create another subject title like material culture? This is why my definition of material

culture specifies influenced by man, because a spoon carved of wood is material culture, but a

stick naturally shaped like a spoon is not (unless it was used—and therefore influenced—as a

spoon by humans).

Before addressing human influence in my definition though, I specify non-literary, which

is another crucial part of the definition of material culture. It is true that diaries, journals, letters,

deeds, and more are material objects that are influenced by man, but they are limited to the story

they tell through words. The point of material culture is to go beyond those words, especially

considering how many early cultures (and large portions of the population of later cultures) were

illiterate by modern standards. Unlike written documents, objects were used by everyone

throughout history, and therefore are more inclusive of the larger population and culture being

analyzed.4 This is further emphasized by James Deetz when he states how “Archeological

materials…allow us to see into the past not through the writings of people who are

communicating their particular view of the world but through human actions that affected the

material world in a broad and general way.”5

This is also a critical way of combating great-man history. Historians have had a

tendency to study key political or powerful figures, who are often literary or have much written

about them. Even archeologists will dig for material pieces on certain sites simply because

someone important has a connection to the area.6 However, as Cary Carson highlights, New

History is straying away from this tendency, and “by investigating the smallest, most intimate

4 Jules David Prown, “Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method,” 20.
5 James Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten:The Archeology of Early American Life (New York: Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1977), 158.
6 Ibid, 28.
groups in society, historians are making a place in their ideas for the serious study of material

culture.”7 This is because, as I said before, objects and material culture artifacts were used by

everyone, so by studying all objects and not just literary or “great man” pieces, historians are

presented with a more accurate and inclusive analysis and image of the past. Furthermore, by

studying more than the written word or assumed history, one can also find new perspectives.

Now, one can learn the life and ideas of a layman (or woman) and see how they and the “great

men” relate to the larger culture of the whole society.

James Deetz did just that when he assisted in the formation of an inventory catalog from

the Plymouth Colony. When analyzing the artifacts that these individuals owned, a pattern seems

to emerge; most of their items, if not all, are domestically affiliated at first. However, as time

progresses there is less attention paid to the individual pieces and more to the general title of

what is owned beyond the home. For example, the inventory of Mary Ring in 1633 describes

every object she owned–of which almost all is within the home–down to the number (of which

most was 1). In 1671 though, Thomas Gilbert listed the exact number of acres he owned and a

few domestic pieces, but then just simply “more iron goods.” Finally, by 1683 with William

Spooner, it “tools of all sorts”...”spoons and dishes and other household lumbers”.8 This shift

indicates that there is less attention paid to what is considered “obvious possessions” and more

towards what is considered economically viable, which is land. As the colony grows, so does the

value of extending one's fortune beyond the domestic sphere, and this demonstrates the

economic, geographic, and cultural changes that are starting to arise in what was considered the

“new world”.

7 Cary Carson, “Doing History with Material Culture,” in Ian Quimbly, ed, Material Culture and the Study of
American Life (New York: Norton, 1978), 51.
8 Patricia Scott Deetz, Christopher Fennell, and J. Eric Deetz, “The Plymouth Colony Archive Project:
Analysis of Selected Probate Inventories,” Histarch.Illinois, last modified 1998-2020,
http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/probates.html
 This specific conclusion would not have become possible had we not been able to study

the material culture from the colony at those times. The inventories themselves are not material

culture by my definition, but the material objects they list tell us that many artifacts were home

related, and the attention given (or not given) to those artifacts tells us that the cultural trends at

the time were shifting because of the personal values of the individuals and the inventory

collectors. These personal values also tell us that these inventories themselves are biased. As

Deetz highlights:

“even a primary source, having been written by one individual, must reflect that person’s

interest, biases, and attitudes. To the extent that it does, such a source is secondary to

some degree, in inverse proportion to its objectivity. Total objectivity is not to be

expected in human judgment, and the best we can do is recognize and account for those

subjective biases we carry with us. Material culture may be the most objective source of

information we have concerning America’s past.”9

As our most objective resource–that also happens to be the most inclusive, accurate, and

interpretational–material culture is a critical part of historical analysis, study, and understanding.

As a product of the cultural values, beliefs, and attitudes of a certain time, material culture is a

broad, nuanced, and essential aspect of public history, and one that will continue to be

enlightening to our past, present, and future.

9 James Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten:The Archeology of Early American Life, 160.