Material History – A Dying Practice?

The discipline of history has seen a move to the prioritization of the written source amongst academics in recent centuries, and with this has come a subconscious dismissal of material sources – such as objects and art. This is seen both within public spaces of history, such as archives or mainstream publications, all the way down to our very own university classrooms. Why is this a problem? If written sources are easier to interpret, why wouldn’t it make sense for the modern historian to focus extensively on those?  

Material history refers to the use of material ‘things’ in order to study the culture and past of a certain community or individual. It is a method of working as opposed to a thematic subject and can be applied to mostly any part of history. Archeologists are material historians, but material history does not have to be limited to the field of archeology. Material history is wide and far-reaching: it could include visiting a medieval church and interpreting the role of religion by viewing depictions of icons or the architecture of the building in the same way it can include assessing the functional design of furniture to gain a better understanding of the day-to-day activities and challenges of past communities. There is immense value in the study of objects, and solely focusing on text would result in so much of this being lost. 

If material culture is so valuable, then how did this shift to focusing mostly on text happen? Some historians trace it back to the development of ‘scientific history’ amongst 19^th century German scholars, but the rise of digitalization and online resources is also a more recent factor in this. It is much easier to upload a PDF of a written diary than a three-dimensional clay pot. Furthermore, this is something future historians are socialized to as soon as specialized study starts. Therefore, it is no wonder they carry such practices and sentiments into the field and continue to do so in their academic professional career. Any student of history can testify to the fact that our reading lists are primarily, if not fully, written text sources.     

It is crucial that material history is given equal space to that of the written word. In a time where departments are increasingly focused on ‘decolonizing curriculums’ and ‘diversifying content’, material culture is a huge part of creating courses that are inclusive and genuine in such intentions. Language barriers and never fully perfect translation efforts cease to be an issue when looking at objects. Different means of communication—often used by marginalized groups—can become apparent and clearer when evaluating material history. Many written sources are also often created with the knowledge they will be read at some point, while objects are more often created without the intention that they will be seen by anyone else other than the community it belongs to. This adds a level of honesty to the object and can make the historian’s interpretation of it particularly compelling. 

Universities, as both places of education and hubs of academic research, have a central role to play in reinstating the value of material history. It is not enough to diversify content simply thematically, but the methods by which we do history must also reflect this. As we seek to make the field accessible and representative to as many people as possible, it is crucial that all types of history are allowed to flourish and given equal importance. 

• culture
• history
• material history
• university