CONTRIBUTION TO THE MEANING OF “MATERIAL CULTURE” IN THE STUDY OF HISTORICAL EDUCATION
Wildan Insan Fauzi
Material Culture and Archeology Relevance for today
Material culture is an aspect of culture that is material in nature; however, behind it, there is a specific meaning (Piliang, 2003, p. 13). The relevance of archaeology to the study of “material culture” until now has become an essential issue in the world of archaeology. The practice of archaeology which has only been intended for scientific purposes can benefit today’s society as well as how archaeology can have an economic impact on today’s society (Marwoto, 2019). Two articles examine material culture, namely. “Your trash is someone’s treasure: the politics of value at a Michigan landfill,” in the Journal of material culture” by Joshua Reno (2009), and Huitzilopochtli’s conquest of Aztec Ideology in the archaeological record by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel (2007) provide answers regarding the relevance.
The two articles provide examples that people do not only passively carry out their culture but actively give new meaning to their culture. Material culture, as part of a culture, becomes a means to create meaning and order in society (Tanudirdjo, 1997, p. 66). Thus, material culture is not a fossilized behaviour or a passive result of human action, but there is always active reciprocity between human ideas and actions and “material culture”. Thus, both the object of study is contemporary (TPA) and ancient (Aztec Heritage) will still provide a “new” meaning with a postmodernism approach in archaeology.
The study on TPA resulted in formulations on value politics, individuation, identity, and even gender. For Joshua Reno, waste is not a static object with definite value. However, in its circulation, it changes according to a different value regime, from what is considered useless or dirty, which is not more desirable, to be very useful. Joshua Reno calls this the interpretive practice of individuation (Reno, 2009, p. 34). In an object found, politics of value is related to how it is interpreted, with class identity and the individuation of the object’s value (Reno, 2009). The previous Reno study was also conducted by David H. Thomas (Supardan, 2008)) who is famous for the Garbage Project or “Waste Project” from the University of Arizona. Thomas researched household waste dumped around the city of Tucson, and it turned out that the garbage produced much information about the social activities of its people.
The work of Elizabeth M. Brumfiel (2007) shows that in cultural artefacts, rulers’ Ideology can be reconstructed for their interests. The aim is to maintain the regime from the threat of rebellion, to ensure public obedience, and to maintain social stratification in society. Aztec Ideology is shown through various artefacts and statues that reflect Aztec society’s political system and rules. When Ideology is conveyed to different targets, the way and appearance will differ. The Ideology of the target country was primarily aimed at the children of the nobility, who bound them in the form of loyalty to the state by suppressing potential resistance and attracting them as allies.
The two articles further emphasize the relationship between material culture and ideas, and human actions are never separated from three things: the human person, cultural and historical context (Hodder, 2003). Reno’s article shows the strength of the human personal factor and cultural context, while Brumfield’s article shows the strength of historical factors and cultural context in forming meaning. All of this seems to show the strength of postmodernism in archaeological studies. For postmodernism archaeology, actual knowledge or reality about the past does not exist; there is only knowledge of the present version of the past (Tanudirdjo, 1997). However, postmodern archaeology has been criticized for its many flaws.
The Use of “Material Culture” Analysis in Historical Education Studies
The concept of the meaning of material culture from Reno and Brumfiel and the development of postmodern archaeology provide a bridge for the author to connect archaeological studies and historical education. History education requires a scientific study of archaeology to help history reconstruct the past and new meanings to get the value that students can take (Carr, 1985; Wineburg, 2001).
However, it must also be understood that historical education is not only a vehicle for developing intellectual abilities and pride in the past but also a vehicle for improving the ongoing socio-cultural-political, economic, social and cultural life (Hasan, 1999, p. 9). Thus, learning history requires contextual material as well. Elaine B Johnson (2007:20) describes that in contextual teaching and learning, students can absorb lessons if they catch meaning in the academic material they receive and can relate it to the information they already have. This learning system needs to connect the subject matter with a new contextual meaning of “material culture”. Postmodern archaeological studies can contribute in the form of contextual and contemporary values that can strengthen national identity (Tanudirdjo, 1997). This is based on a pluralistic and relativistic analysis of postmodernism that allows the meaning to be fluid.
For example, what is the meaning of various historical monuments that students can see today? Alan S. Marcus and Thomas H. Levine (2010), entitled “Remember the Alamo? Learning History with Monuments and Memorials”, shows that the Alamo monument in Washington D.C. can be used as a source of learning history in order to develop historical thinking skills. A monument or monument designed as a memorial site functions as a historical symbol so that it can be maintained in addition to forming identity from generation to generation and maintaining national identity (Barton & McCully, 2005, p. 89).
Reference
Barton, C. K., & McCully, A. W. (2005). “History, identity, and the school curriculum in Northern Ireland: an empirical study of secondary students’ ideas and perspectives” in Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (1).
Brumfiel, E. M. (2007). Huitzilopochtli’s conquest of Aztec Ideology in the archaeological record. In Insoll, T(ed) (2007). The Archeology of Identity. USA: Routledge
Carr, E.H. (1985) What Is History? Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd.
Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, B Elaine. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Marcus, A. S. & Levine, T. H. (2010). “Remember the Alamo? Learning History among Monuments and Memorials” in Journal of Social Education, 74 (1).
Marwoto, I. (2019). From rubbish to cultural identity, Making archaeology relevant for the contemporary community. Discourse Vol. 20 No. 2 (2019): 317-351
Reno, J. (2009). “Your trash is someone’s treasure: the politics of value at a Michigan landfill,” in Journal of material culture, 14(1), pp. 29–46.
Supardan, D. (2008). Introduction to Social Sciences: A Study of Structural Approaches. Jakarta: Earth Literacy
Tanudirdjo, D.A. (1997). Postmodern Archeology to Ponder. Archaeological Scientific Meeting VII Volume 2. Jakarta: National Archaeological Research Center 1997-1998.