26 MATERIAL CULTURE

Stefanie Samida

Things are our constant companions; they are all around us. One can perceive their color, form, weight, surface, and texture with all senses—one can look at them, touch or weigh them, and sometimes hear, taste, or smell them.

We usually see them in terms of what they can do for us and how they affect us. We are dependent on things. This is not only true for everyday life, but also for numerous modes of historical enquiry, such as practices of reenactment. In this sense, doing history is always connected to things and our relationship to them.

While material culture was once neglected by scholars and of interest only to disciplines like socio-cultural anthropology and archaeology, the field has gained ground since the 1990s, especially in the humanities. In the UK and North America, a whole new discipline has been established: material culture studies (Hicks and Beaudry, 2010; Tilley et al., 2006; Samida et al., 2014). However, neither material culture studies nor disciplines like anthropology and archaeology have dealt extensively with things, their use, and their specific meanings in historical culture. Only recently have scholars begun to analyze the meaning of material culture in reenactment (Daugbjerg, 2014; 2016; Kalshoven, 2010; Kobialka, 2013), in which reenactors temporarily immerse themselves in an imaginary past so that they experience it with their senses in the present. The experience of immersion depends in three ways on material culture, which includes costumes, equipment, historical sites, and built environments. First, in concrete reenacted historical situations, the social use of things, the aesthetic experience of them, and their meaning in particular moments are all of utmost importance for what Gumbrecht (2004) refers to as the “production of presence.” Things make cultural events and aesthetic experiences tangible, such that they can impact recipients’ senses, emotions, and bodies.

Second, the relationship between humans and things in reenactment subcultures influences the degree and type of immersion that a given reenactment can achieve. Finally, things “communicate.” This is of great significance for reenactment, since it involves experiencing things, making things, and mediating history through things.

“Thing,” “object,” “artifact,” “material culture,” and “materialized culture” are often used as synonyms both in everyday language and in scholarly contexts. “Material culture” is one of the most contentious among them. It implicitly suggests that there is also an intangible culture that might be considered to be of greater value. The alternative term, “thing,” can be understood as a primary category and includes manmade objects (artifacts), as well as natural things and immobile objects, like houses, monuments, and caves.

Material culture

When exploring human relationships with things, the anthropologist addresses their cultural and symbolic meanings, which involve the social and historical contexts of their use. Things are embedded in our lived environment, they affect us, and their meaning depends on their context. These are central issues because things are mute, thus making it impossible to interpret them in themselves or simply on the basis of their material composition and form. Scholars have the tools to describe things and their characteristics (material, shape, age, and wear) as well as their use, meaning in different phases of their existence, and how they are perceived. In his article “The Cultural Biography ofThings,” Igor Kopytoff (1986, p. 66—67) pointed out that scholars should ask questions about things just like they ask questions about people. Thus, biographies of things make it possible to draw conclusions about manufacturers and owners of things. However, the significance of a hat, for example, is not, or only to a very limited degree, based exclusively on its shape and material, but rather on its function and on the interaction of shape, material, and function.

In the context of reenactment, the shape, material, and function of things are important objects of inquiry; the same applies to their concrete practical use during reenactment.

From a praxeological perspective, things are far more than mere objects of symbolization (Horning, 2015, p. 170). In anthropological discussions about material culture, the French philosopher and sociologist Bruno Latour and his actor network theory (ANT) play an important role. Latour developed ANT in the context of science and technology studies in the late 1970s. The theory attributes things with the capacity to act, and things are thus referred to as “actants” (Latour, 1996, p. 369). In so doing, Latour raises things, or nonhumans generally, to the same level as social actors. In this sense, material objects are anthropomorphized and obtain subject status. Drawing on these ideas, other theorists emphasize the “obstinacy” of things (Hahn, 2015). Due to their material and morphological characteristics, things suggest to potential users, specific ways of handling them, a relationship called “affordance” by anthropologists.

The close relationship between material culture and reenactment can be seen on three levels. First, there is the meaning of things for actors while performing reenactments: things do not lie “silently” in a museum showcase; instead, they are actively used and create an experience for actors. Second, there is the meaning of things within the reenactment community: here, the main focus is on the making of objects. And third, there is the meaning of things as presented to an audience, which involves a degree of mediation. All levels are interrelated because in all cases, the question of authenticity is key.

The things used in reenactments are not usually originals but rather replicas or reproductions. In practice, this distinction is of secondary importance because the things in reenactments matter in ways far beyond questions of representation and symbolism (Daugbjerg, 2016, p.

159). They are key to experiencing the past, which means things have to feel “real” (Otto, 2011, p. 191). This directs attention to details like the scratchiness of the clothing, uncomfortableness of the shoes, or unfamiliarity of physical work. For reenactors, presence is created by their bodily involvement—of being present and experiencing—and its interaction with things. It is important for reenactors to be in touch with things that have a connection to (imagined) past times: “The physicality of sites and materials thus works in concert with their human invigorators in bringing about such multi-layered moments and experiences” (Daugbjerg, 2014, p. 730). Affective engagement, “authentic” feelings, or Gumbrechfs notion of presence as mediated by things are central to reenactment. Cornelius Holtorf (2010; 2013), similar to Andreas Huyssen (2003), uses the term “pastness” to describe this phenomenon. Holtorf depicts pastness as the “contemporary quality or condition of being past” (2010, p. 35). This special quality comes with the “perception of something being past.” Hence, it is not so much a question of a thing's age or authenticity, but rather of perception and experience—a kind of “emanation of the past” or an

Stefanie Samida

evocation of something that no longer is. This concept is based on the significance and power of things and places.

However, things do not only play an important role in reenactments themselves, but also in the preparation for reenactments. Many actors create artifacts by drawing on their own knowledge and skills and often stay true to original processes of production. This kind of “do it yourself” (DIY) attitude can take on obsessive qualities (Handler, 1987, p. 340), as many reenactors insist that every detail has to be right. Things are assigned an almost sacral status and are given greater value than things that are simply bought: Wearing an outfit that is “just” bought rather than homemade signals insincerity and, to many reenactors, merely a superficial interest in reenactment (Kalshoven, 2010, p.

64) (expertise and amateurism). The DIY approach is thus not only testimony to the labor-intensive nature of the hobby for some individuals but also provides evidence of “authenticity,” a core concept within reenactment. The recreated and therefore authentic costume has a similar function for the reenactor as the footnote does for the historian (Gapps, 2009, p. 398). This authenticity of objects functions as a kind of currency in the world of reenactment and is hence a mark of distinction. Object authenticity bestows reputation and prestige within this subculture, and, beyond it, in the reenactor’s relation to institutions like museums and a wider public (Gapps, 2009, p. 398).

However, the DIY attitude should also be seen against the background of the distribution of historical knowledge. The acquisition of specific skills for making things is beneficial for more than just the individual. Reenactors also consider bodily experience and the haptic handling of things to be a key element of their performances in front of an audience. Here, things are seen as educational tools (Samida, 2017). Reenactors can only convey the artifact, explain its significance, and answer visitor questions about the artifact’s uses if they have intensively engaged with what they have produced. In this sense, reenactors emphatically see themselves as real-life “showcases” of historical knowledge.

Future research into the status of things in reenactment could invoke taking a processual approach and to focus to a greater extent on moments of “becoming.” The entangled interrelationships of actors, as well as entities such as things, space, and atmosphere, need to be considered. It is precisely this complex and open network of relationships, interactions, and transformations that should be analyzed. This special assemblage of humans, things, and other entities creates something new.

26 MATERIAL CULTURE

More on the topic 26 MATERIAL CULTURE: