Download a PDF of this webpage here!
Revised Summer 2024

What is a material analysis?

A material analysis closely inspects an artifact’s material and sensorial qualities and asks questions about its use and significance. Oftentimes, the data gathered supplements more traditional disciplinary methods, such as data gathered from textual analysis.

Starting in the 1980s disciplines like anthropology, archaeology, and art history – all areas with close ties to objects and museums – began to explore more complex relationships between the “cultural” and “material.” Consequently, material artifacts, especially commonplace objects of daily use (like the postcard pictured here), were viewed as not only reflecting important social values and identities, but also as mediating human behavior. A material analysis attempts to reconstruct how and why objects were used, often resulting in a more complex interpretation of human behavior.

---

Why might we want to perform a material analysis?

For one, objects tell us about the lives and experiences of people. Sometimes this may add to or complicate our understanding of an historical event or biographical narrative. At other times, this may contradict our presumptions and reveal new paths of inquiry.

Second, a material analysis also reveals to us that objects have their own “life story.” As artifacts move from one person’s possession (or spatial and/or cultural context) to another, their value, use, and meaning may change even if their form changes little. Charting such changes is oftentimes called a “cultural biography” of an object. 

Lastly, because people are enmeshed in a physical world, a material analysis reveals how objects help structure human activity in particular ways. For example, a large sun-lit cathedral hall will provoke different emotions and behaviors than a dark cave. Likewise, a sharp obsidian stone will shape a person’s response differently than a fluffy pile of goose down. In these cases, scholars have argued objects have agency because their materiality shapes human activity and subjectivity.

---

How do we perform a material analysis?

At one level, we examine the material properties of an artifact. This is best done with an object physically accessible to pokes and prods. This is a primary type of material analysis that directly inspects objecthood.

A secondary kind of analysis can be performed with care upon objects we access only by some kind of representational form, such as a photograph of the target artifact. This may be necessary if the artifact has been lost or destroyed or remains beyond our touch because it is hidden, restricted, or otherwise inaccessible. This may require amassing several visual documents (or written descriptions) to compile a more complete assessment of the target artifact. To take the postcard above as an example, one could use it as one documentary source to try and study the icon it depicts, the Kamakura Daibutsu. It would be more typical, however, to study the object at hand, namely the postcard itself.  

On another level, we also analyze the various networks of materiality that support and give meaning to an artifact. This means we also pay attention to how an object was made and by whom. Furthermore, we also examine who uses the object and for which purpose. It may be the case that we can infer some of these answers by closely inspecting the object and applying our general knowledge. Often, however, questions of production, consumption, and signification require additional research beyond inspecting objecthood.

Overall, there is no codified set of questions for a “proper” material analysis, although we typically start with our senses and extend outward to broader and more complex layers of social and intercultural meaning. [I’ve also prepared a list of 88* Questions to Ask an Artifact]

---

What can we do with a material analysis?

A close investigation of an artifact will provide the groundwork for your own interpretations. A material analysis can inform something as brief as a museum label. But just because museum labels are short by convention does not mean they are insignificant. Labels tell us how to interpret an artifact: should we see it as a curious anthropological object or as a piece of art? To use the postcard from above, should we frame it as a quaint, hand-written souvenir from the turn of the century or as a highly-technical hand-colored collotype print?

In addition, a material analysis can be used to compliment or complicate interpretations based on different materials and documents. For example, we may ask if American tourists to the Kamakura Daibutsu in the early twentieth century envisioned it as a sacred icon or as a piece of art. The inscription on the postcard here documents the statue’s dimensions and material composition, suggesting the visitor appreciated the craftsmanship over its sacredness. This can lead to different kinds of questions such as comparisons to Daibutsu talismans that were also sold on site to Japanese pilgrims.

It is also possible to do a more extensive report on an object (or class of objects) in the vein of an “object biography.” In such a case it is important to consider how artifacts may go through different life episodes as they are modified and re-purposed throughout their lifespan. Chip Colwell has recently published an excellent overview of how one might envision this process. In his example, Colwell divides the lifespan of a Buddhist Guanyin statue into four episodes: its creation process, being sold in a store, being used as a ritual icon, and being displayed in a museum (see diagram).

During each stage the artifact can be modified (things are added/inscribed or taken away/erased), different actions are performed in service to it, and it is placed in different spatial and interpretive contexts. Such a perspective allow us to see that as artifacts enter new life stages they typically accumulate new layers of meaning, value, and status.

---

* See Chip Colwell, “A Palimpsest Theory of Objects,” Current Anthropology 63, no. 2 (2022): 129–57, https://doi.org/10.1086/719851.

*This handout was originally prepared by Peter Romaskiewicz as part of a university course that explored religion and material culture. Feel free to use and/or adapt to your needs. Email: peter.romaskiewicz@gmail.com.

---

Related Posts

Download a PDF of this webpage here!
Revised Summer 2024

Instructions

Once you have a material artifact at hand you can being interrogating it. Below are a series of 88 questions (give-or-take) you can use to begin this process.

First, turn to the category of questions on Materiality and answer them by closely inspecting the artifact and thinking about your relationship to it.

Next, extend your analysis by attempting to infer answers to the questions under the second and third categories of Production and Consumption. You may find it worthwhile to do additional research beyond simple inspection to answer these.

The last category, Webs of Signification, attempts to create bridges between earlier questions. The overall point of this analysis method is to start small and build out larger networks of meaning that converge upon the artifact.

---

Category One: Materiality

• What are the artifact’s most salient sensorial properties?
  • Visual characteristics: What do you notice about line and shape (two-dimensional) and/or form (three-dimensional)? What do you notice about color (hue, shade, vibrancy, &c.), texture (porous, reflective, matte), and pattern (plain, banded, spotted, &c.)?
  • Tactile characteristics: What do you notice about dimension and shape (flat, round, angular, &c.) and/or texture (tacky, smooth, rough, &c.)? What do you notice about density (soft, hard, malleable, &c.) and temperature (cool, warm)?
  • Aural characteristics: Does the object seem like it is intended to make a sound? Is that sound pleasant or unpleasant? Does it sound like something (wind, music, birds, voices, &c.)?
  • Olfactory characteristics:Does the object have a noticeable smell? Is it pleasant or unpleasant? Does it smell like something (flowers, citrus fruit, soil, &c.)?
  • Gustatory characteristics: Does the object seem like it is intended to be ingested? Is the taste pleasant or unpleasant? Does it taste like something?

• What are the artifact’s most salient physical properties?
  • Materials: What is the object is made from (paper, wood, stone, metal, plastic, &c.)?
  • Size: What are the object’s measurements (length, height, depth, volume) or what can you say about its size (portable, awkward to grasp, imposing, &c.)?
  • Weight: What is the object’s weight or what can you say about its weight (light, moderately heavy, immovable, &c.)
  • Orientation: How is the object oriented? Is there a distinct front, back, top, bottom, inside, outside?
  • Integration: Is the object one part or is it made up of many parts? Is there organization among the parts? Do parts move, open, or connect?
  • Addition/Inscription: Are there parts or elements that seem to be added at later stages of the object’s life (inscriptions, stamps, modifications, &c.)?
  • Subtraction/Wear: Are there parts or elements or that seem to have been broken, worn off, or rearranged?

• What is your initial relationship to the artifact?
  • Do you have an emotional response to the artifact? What is distinctive, salient, or special about the artifact? How do you interpret or explain the artifact? Do you feel others would interpret or explain it in similar ways?
  • How might the artifact impel people to act? Does the materiality (sensory and physical properties) of the artifact provoke a particular kind of response, action, or performance? Does its materiality (size, weight, odor, &c.) invite or restrain certain kinds of responses or uses?

---

Category Two: Production

• What do we know about the artifact’s physical origins?
  • Fons et origo: Was the artifact human made, created through natural processes, or a meaningful combination of both? Is the artifact considered complete or is it part of something larger (part of an object, part of a set, &c.)? Is the object considered an original work or a copy (derivative of an original)? If the latter, what differences are there between the original (model) and the copy (derivation)?
  • Maker: Was the artifact signed or can it be attributed? Was more than one person involved in its creation? Who was the maker (artist, craftsperson, publisher, &c.)? Was the object designed by a different person or entity?
  • Age: When was the object created? Was it made in different stages and thus have different ages?
  • Place: Where was the object created (country, workshop, publishing house, &c.)? Does this place have a close relationship (cultural, economic, religions, &c.) to this type of object?

• What do we know about the artifact’s creation process?
  • Creation: What skills, methods, and techniques were necessary to create this object? What tools or technology were required? How long did production take?
  • Materials: What raw materials were used to make the object or were otherwise crucial to its production? Are the materials rare, costly, or difficult to acquire? Did they have to be transported long distances to get to the object’s place of production?
  • Timing: Was the object made during a special time? Was it made in response to a specific historical event or during a specific occasion?
  • Uniqueness: Is the object singular or mass produced? It is part of a larger group or set of objects? Does the object have a special relationship to other objects? Is it part (or an expression) of a broader genre of item?

---

Category Three: Consumption

• What do we know about the artifact’s physical destination?
  • Audience/Consumer: Was the object owned or used by a known individual or institution? Who is the type of person that would typically own or use this object?
  • Acquisition: Where did the consumer purchase or acquire the object? Was it close to where the object was produced? Was the object new or old at the time of acquisition?
  • Cost: What did this object cost? Was is relatively expensive, inexpensive, or free? Can appreciable cost be attributed to the object’s rarity, material composition, or the skill/time required in its production? What else might contribute to the cost of the object?
  • Placement: Where was the object located during acquisition? Was it placed in different locations at different times (from artist studio to temple altar, from store display to bookshelf, &c.)? Was it transported a long distance from its place of production? Was it kept in a private space (home, workspace, personal shrine, &c.) or public space (outside, museum, temple, &c.)? Was it kept in isolation or displayed with other objects?

• What do we know about the artifact’s use?
  • Material-use: How was the object used by the owner (held, displayed, hidden, &c.)? Does the object display signs of material use (oxidation, wear, modification, &c.)? Was the object used individually or collectively with others? Was it used by non-human species (eaten, buried and decomposed, &c.)?
  • Time-use: When was this object used by its owner? Was it used daily/regularly or only during special occasions (holidays, festivals, &c.)?
  • Place-use: Where was the object used by its owner? Is this location different from where it is stored? Was it used in private or public spaces?

---

Category Four: Webs of Signification

1. Does some known aspect of the artifact’s origin (maker, material, age, &c.) provoke certain kinds of responses or uses? Does the singularity or mass production of the artifact impact its reception or use? How does the artifact existing as either an original or derivation (copy) impact its reception or use?
2. Who is the intended audience of this artifact? Does possession or use of the object signal one or more group identities or affiliations (religion, class, race, gender, sexuality, nationality, &c.)?
3. What is the intended purpose of this artifact? Does it signify other concepts, meanings, or associations? What roles does it play within social, religious, and economic systems? Does possession or use of the artifact convey (or confirm) power or agency (human or divine)?
4. What is the artifact’s current context and relevance? What do we know about its provenance (history of ownership)? How might the current contexts differ from the artifact’s intended meaning, audience, use, and purpose?
5. Questions of a “religious” nature:
   • Does a divine presence “hold,” interact with, or inhabit the artifact? Does the object equate to divine presence (i.e. is the object an index of divinity)? Are there times when the divine presence is absent in regards to the artifact (i.e. profanation) ?
   • Does possession or use of the artifact signify divinity or elevated status in the user? Do all people have equal access to this divinity or status?
   • Do you feel the artifact, in its current material state and physical location, is adequately “religious”?
   • Does a religious message “travel through” this material object?
   • How does media shape the message of religion through this object?
   • How does replicability or non-replicability of the artifact impact its religious meaning?
   • Does the material object inspire belief or convey sacrality, divine power, or specialness?

---

*These questions were devised as part of a university course that explored religion and material culture. Feel free to use and adapt to your needs. Email: peter.romaskiewicz@gmail.com.

---

Related Posts