Th e point is sometimes made that, like language, material culture is a ubiquitous feature of human life. Indeed, material culture may be regarded as one of the defi ning charac-teristics of being human: it has long been a convention to assert that to be human is to speak, and to make and use tools (Miller and Tilley 1996: 5; cf. Gibson and Ingold 1993). But whereas the systematic study of language has been codifi ed in the academic discipline of linguistics, or deconstructed in literary and translation studies, it is inter-esting to note that no equivalent discipline has emerged to address the systematic study of human artifacts. Th e study of material culture has, rather, been scattered across a number of disciplines and, as a result, is presented as a somewhat "undisciplined" fi eld of academic inquiry. In the inaugural editorial of the Journal of Material Culture , something of a mani-festo for contemporary material culture studies, these undisciplined possibilities were embraced by the editors as an advantage. As well as off ering an array of new issues to ex-plore, and methodologies to draw upon, this would encourage "the cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches between people concerned with the material constitution of social relations," and ensure a commitment to "a politics of inclusion" (Miller and Tilley 1996: 5–6). Th us conceived, material culture studies is said to thrive "as a rather undisciplined substitute for a discipline" (Miller 2010: 1), unfettered by the conservatism that can blight established disciplines, "with their boundary-maintaining devices, institutional structures, accepted texts, methodologies, internal debates and circumscribed areas of study" (Miller and Tilley 1996: 5). Th e interdisciplinarity of approaches to material culture studies seems to be born out in practice: among the contributors to the Journal of Material Culture are to be found geographers and historians, archaeologists and museologists, sociologists and psycholo-gists, art historians and students of design, as well as anthropologists. Yet, despite this 3085-195-P3-018-1pass-r03.indd 370 3085-195-P3-018-1pass-r03.indd 370 8/10/2012 3:55:16 AM 8/10/2012 3:55:16 AM MATERIAL CULTURE 371 eclecticism, the claim that material culture studies has "no obvious genealogy of ances-tors," "no obvious disciplinary home" (Miller and Tilley 1996: 5), can be questioned and its position in relation to the broader anthropological project reassessed. An objective of the fi rst half of this chapter is, therefore, to trace something of the anthropological pedigree of the study of material culture. To acknowledge this heritage is not to undermine the cross-fertilization characteristic of contemporary material cul-ture studies, but it does enable us to recognize that this is a signifi cant area in which anthropological ideas and approaches have taken root and have been infl uential in shap-ing wider academic debates within, between, and across disciplinary orientations. Due to the limitations of space, this will necessarily be a partial history, and one that fore-grounds the development of the infl uential "school" of material culture studies associ-ated with the Department of Anthropology at University College London (the editorial base of the Journal of Material Culture). Th ere are, of course, other ancestors and lineages that a more comprehensive account would need to explore, not least greater attention to distinct Continental and North American traditions. Th e chapter is not, however, in-tended primarily as a historical contribution. Hence, the second part goes on to discuss some of the more important trends and debates within material culture studies today.