Objectives

Even in the human and social sciences we are seeing how the spread of virtual reality through the Internet and other technologies has led to a rapid decline in the importance assigned to material reality. Humanity continues, however, to live in a material world of organic and inorganic, natural and artificial things. The materiality of this world is conveyed to us through our senses, which are themselves thoroughly material phenomena. This project grew out of the recognition that despite the material realities that are foundational for human lives, materiality is a topic neglected by anthropology. Thus, our aim is to radically rethink the significance of materiality from the perspectives of physicality, sensuosity, and ontology. In addition we aim to explore materiality through case studies based on fieldwork that involves tactile feel, and to provide examples for further research.

Research Results

Introduction (Fiscal 2011): To share awareness of issues, (1) the research coordinator raised questions about “the anthropology of materiality” and we confirmed each researcher’s interest in “materiality,” and (2) we discussed points of contention about the concept of “materiality” based on a thesis by Tim Ingold as preceding research, and also discussed the relation between “materiality” and “ontology” based on a thesis by Eduardo Batalha Viveiros de Castro.

Development (Fiscal 2012): To find contentions common to individual reports, we had (3) a meeting in which every researcher made a brief report on “garbage and materiality,” (4) a meeting for three reports on “materiality of the body,” (5) a meeting for two reports on “materiality” in archaeology and one report on the sense of touch on exhibits (and “portraits”), and (6) a meeting for one report on uncleanness and materials from the viewpoint of visibility/invisibility and touchability/untouchability.

Turn (Fiscal 2013): To expand the subjects for “the anthropology of materiality,” we (7) discussed “materiality of liquid” based on a collection of theses about “blood“ as well as “material change by incineration” through brief reports by all researchers, (8) discussed “materiality relating to masks and people” based on three reports focusing on masks, performing arts and religion, and (9) held a study meeting at Shimane Museum of Ancient Izumo to discuss “materials and forms” based on a report by an archaeologist of that museum, “The tools for shamans in the Jomon period in terms of materials.”

Conclusion (Fiscal 2014): To collectively discuss the possibility of “the anthropology of materiality,” we (10) reviewed the outline of materiality from a viewpoint we had not paid so much attention to, through brief reports by all researchers about “the area between material and nonmaterial,” (11) discussed the theme of materiality in exhibition, comparing “the Power of Images” held at the National Museum of Ethnology with the same exhibition held at the National Art Center, Tokyo, and (12) collectively reviewed the range of “the anthropology of materiality” with an eye to publishing the research results.

Although we could not share an elaborated analysis framework because of the extensiveness of the subject areas of the concept of “materiality,” we were able to reach a common understanding through brisk and lively discussions about the extensiveness of overall issues and the issues to be further studied with regard to “the anthropology of materiality,” and also able to establish a basis that would lead to further development of “the anthropology of materiality.”