Household Analysis: Assemblage Analysis

Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Global Historical Archaeology book series (CGHA)

Abstract

This chapter illuminates how the inhabitants of the Knight & Shenton store site used material culture to negotiate power and status relationships from 1870 through to 1941. It is arranged as a set of examinations and answers to a series of questions about the expression of social relations at the household level raised by the research within previous chapters. The site assemblages are compared to each other and to both early American and Australian sites and American and Australian sites of comparable age to compare and contrast similarities and differences. Finally, the chapter is an analysis at the interregional, regional, town, and site levels, identifying the overwhelming role that transportation and control of the transportation network had in shaping the new land. Loss of this control has led to the extreme drainage patterns of unopposed industrial capital being carved in the landscape and society of Western Australia, particular in the northwest. At the site level, there is a limit on the questions that can be asked and conclusions drawn from one site. However, the Knight & Shenton store site supports an active participation of a marginal regional population in the consumption of British-based mass-produced goods. It does not, however, support the consumer having a strong degree of control over what was consumed despite the strong connection of the site to trade.

Keywords

Sugar Clay Steam Transportation Excavation 

References

  1. Adams, W.H. 2003. Dating historical sites: The importance of understanding time lag in the acquisition, curation, use and disposal of artifacts. Historical Archaeology 37(2).Google Scholar
  2. Aris, K., J. Ball, and G. Nayton. 1998. Conservation plan, Moir Homestead. Report for the National Trust.Google Scholar
  3. Aris, K., H. Burgess, and G. Nayton. 2000. Conservation plan, Thomas River Homestead. Report for Owner.Google Scholar
  4. Australian National University. 2006. Australian dictionary and biography online edition. http://www.adbonline.anu.edu.au/adbonline.htm.
  5. Berry, B.J.L. 1967. Geography of market centres and retail distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, A. 2005. An archaeological guide to British ceramics in Australia 1788–1901. Sydney, NSW: The Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and the La Trobe University Archaeology Program.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, S. 2004. The material basis of the settlement process: The historical archaeology of the Swan District, Western Australia, 1827-1860. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, S. 2007. The archaeology of ‘Clarence’ – a settlers’ camp from the 1829-30 Peel Association at Henderson. Journal of the Royal Western Australia Historical Society 13.Google Scholar
  9. Crook, P., L. Ellmoos, and T. Murray. 2005. Keeping up with McNamaras. A historical archaeological study of the Cumberland and Gloucester Streets site, The Rocks, Sydney. The archaeology of the modern city project. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/amc/reports.html.
  10. Cuffley, P. 1984. Chandeliers and Billy tea. A catalogue of Australian life 1880–1940. Noble Park, VIC: Five Mile Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Cunzo, L.A. 1987. Adapting to factory and city: Illustrations from the industrialization and urbanization of Paterson, New Jersey. In Consumer choice in historical archaeology, ed. S.M. Spencer-Wood. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. EAMC. 2008. Archaeological data base. The archaeology of the modern city project. La Trobe University. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/amc/database.html.
  13. Edgar, A.W. 1884. Letter to Charles Stewart. November 10, Stewart family private papers.Google Scholar
  14. Gould, R.T. 2002. Logic and the analysis of function in historical archaeology. PhD dissertation, Dedman College, Southern Methodist University, University Microfilm, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  15. Klose, J., and A. Malan. 2000. The ceramic signature of the cape in the nineteenth century, with particular reference to the Tennant St Site, Cape Town. South African Archaeological Bulletin 55: 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawrence, S. 2000. Dolly’s Creek; an archaeology of a Victorian goldfields community. Melbourne, VIC: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lawrence, S. 2003a. Archaeology and the British Empire: Explorations of identity in Great Britain and its colonising 1600–1945. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lawrence, S. 2003b. Exporting culture: Archaeology and nineteenth century British empire. Australian Archaeology 37(1): 20–33.Google Scholar
  19. LeeDecker, C.H., T.H. Klein, C.A. Holt, and A. Freidlander. 1987. Nineteenth-century households and consumer behavior in Wilmington, Delaware. In Consumer choice in historical archaeology, ed. S.M. Spencer-Wood. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, K.E. 1977. Sampling the archaeological frontier: Regional models and component analysis. In Research strategies in historical archaeology, ed. S. South, 151–201. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. McRae, F. 1868–1878. Letters to his sister and father. 396A, PR 287A, PR 289A. Western Australian Archives.Google Scholar
  22. Nayton, G. 1992a. Applying frontier theory to a Western Australian site. The problem of chronological control. Australasian Historical Archaeology 10: 75–91.Google Scholar
  23. Nayton, G. 1992b. Identification and dating of lead bottle sealing capsules from Cossack. Published as an appendix in Australasian Historical Archaeology 10.Google Scholar
  24. Owen, B. 2004. Statistical analysis of bottle data by general categories: Appendix G. In Putting the “There” there. Historical archaeologies of West Oakland, ed. A. Praetzellis and M. Praetzellis. Cypress replacement project interpretive report No. 2. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/cypress/finalreport/FrontReport.pdf.
  25. Paynter, R. 1989. The archaeology of equality and inequality. Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Praetzellis, A., and M. Praetzellis. 2004. Putting the “There” there. Historical archaeologies of West Oakland. Cypress replacement project interpretive report No. 2. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/cypress/finalreport/FrontReport.pdf.
  27. Sholl, T.C. 1865–1866. Treverton Charles Sholl's Diary. ACC 193. Western Australian Archives.Google Scholar
  28. South, S. 1977. Research strategies in historical archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Spude, C.H. 2005. Brothels and saloons: An archaeology of gender in the American West. Society for Historical Archaeology 39: 89–106.Google Scholar
  30. Spude, C.H. 2006. The Mascot Saloon: Archaeological investigations in Skagway, Alaska. Vol. 10: Produced by Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, AK.Google Scholar
  31. Spude, C.H., R. Mills, K. Gurcke, and R. Sprague (eds). In press. Eldorado! The archaeology of the Northern Gold Rushes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  32. Steding, L. 1995. The punishment administered: Archaeology and penal institutions in the Swan River Colony, Western Australia. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA.Google Scholar
  33. Van Wormer, S.R., and G.T. Gross. 2006. Archaeological identification of an idiosyncratic lifestyle: Excavation and analysis of the Theosophical Society Dump, San Diego, CA. Society for Historical Archaeology 40.Google Scholar
  34. Varman, R. 1987. The nail as a criterion for the dating of buildings and building sites (late 18th century to 1900). Australian Historical Archaeology 104–112.Google Scholar
  35. Walker, M. 2004. Aristocracies of labor: Craft unionism, immigration, and working-class households. In Putting the “There” there. Historical archaeologies of West Oakland. Cypress replacement project interpretive report No. 2. Rohnert Park, CA: Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/cypress/finalreport/FrontReport.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations