It was under the influence of two men that the fields of anthropology and ethnology began to change and transform into what they are today. Late 19th century ethnologist Augustus Pitt Rivers and early 20th century anthropologist Franz Boas each had very different approaches to material culture; they had different ways of understanding objects, and this guided the ways they organized and displayed them in museums. Pitt Rivers believed material culture could be used to illustrate the evolution of humans and technology, arranging museum displays to show progression of complexity. Boas believed material culture served to inform observers of the cultures from which they came, arranging his displays by 'tribal groupings. ' Nevertheless, both
…show more content…
He supported the use of inductive reasoning in studying objects. Boas pointed out that arguments based on analogies made of objects ' outward appearance can be deceptive because, though the outward appearance of two objects may be similar, their fundamental qualities may be different. For this reason, he believed that to fully understand material culture, it must be taken in its surroundings and used to study that context, though he recognized that this kind of study can be very complex. This is evidenced by Boas ' supervision of expeditions in search of not only objects, but also photographs and other data from primarily but not exclusively the cultures of the Western Hemisphere. Though he appreciated the work of Darwin, Boas viewed objects of material culture as being part of larger environments and that to understand the objects, one must understand their contexts and what influences acted upon them, which may be many. Clearly, these two men understood material culture completely differently; hypothetically, if they had been tasked with curating an exhibit together, they would have agreed on …show more content…
The effects of the work of these pivotal figures were influential on museums and the treatment of anthropological objects then and now. Pitt Rivers was dissatisfied with the geographic arrangement of objects in the British Museum; he believed the displays ignored the connections between objects from different times and regions as well as the objects ' functions. In response, he required his own museum, the Pitt Rivers Museum, to follow his rules of organization and display, defying norms and arranging objects of similar physical characteristics in order of increasing complexity. The effect of this was to make it easier to see patterns and connections between objects and ways that objects and styles moved across a landscape and influenced manufacturers, a new perspective on the study of history. His arrangement practices, he believed, were not only beneficial for research but also for the general public. In fact, his ideal museum, had it been built, would have been a unique marvel at its time. In his 1891 article, Pitt Rivers envisioned a circular building, at the center of which would be materials from the earliest times of men and expanding outward in concentric circles showing technology 's evolutionary progress through objects. He believed such a design would best
He supported the use of inductive reasoning in studying objects. Boas pointed out that arguments based on analogies made of objects ' outward appearance can be deceptive because, though the outward appearance of two objects may be similar, their fundamental qualities may be different. For this reason, he believed that to fully understand material culture, it must be taken in its surroundings and used to study that context, though he recognized that this kind of study can be very complex. This is evidenced by Boas ' supervision of expeditions in search of not only objects, but also photographs and other data from primarily but not exclusively the cultures of the Western Hemisphere. Though he appreciated the work of Darwin, Boas viewed objects of material culture as being part of larger environments and that to understand the objects, one must understand their contexts and what influences acted upon them, which may be many. Clearly, these two men understood material culture completely differently; hypothetically, if they had been tasked with curating an exhibit together, they would have agreed on …show more content…
The effects of the work of these pivotal figures were influential on museums and the treatment of anthropological objects then and now. Pitt Rivers was dissatisfied with the geographic arrangement of objects in the British Museum; he believed the displays ignored the connections between objects from different times and regions as well as the objects ' functions. In response, he required his own museum, the Pitt Rivers Museum, to follow his rules of organization and display, defying norms and arranging objects of similar physical characteristics in order of increasing complexity. The effect of this was to make it easier to see patterns and connections between objects and ways that objects and styles moved across a landscape and influenced manufacturers, a new perspective on the study of history. His arrangement practices, he believed, were not only beneficial for research but also for the general public. In fact, his ideal museum, had it been built, would have been a unique marvel at its time. In his 1891 article, Pitt Rivers envisioned a circular building, at the center of which would be materials from the earliest times of men and expanding outward in concentric circles showing technology 's evolutionary progress through objects. He believed such a design would best