Internalizing class in historical archaeology

Wurst, LouAnn

doi:10.1007/bf03374277

Cited by 67 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Class consciousness, identity formation, and social negotiation seem especially apparent in these sociohistorical situations because of the presence of owners and workers. Even in these environments, however, it is possible for archaeologists to deflect the importance of class by instead writing about status, socioeconomic status, or even worker resistance as cultural (i.e., ethnic) rather than class oriented (Wurst 1999). One approach has been to adopt the ''neutralized'' approach of interpretive archaeology (e.g., Taksa 2005), and another is to deny the importance of class relations all together (e.g., Palmer 2005).…”

Section: Vectors Of Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

Orser

2009

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of historical archaeology has exploded over the past two decades, and especially since 2000. Methodological advances and new theoretical insights mean that archaeological research requires periodic evaluation, and this overview builds on the work of three earlier assessors of the discipline. Here, I concentrate on four areas of research currently being pursued by historical archaeologists: analytical scale, capitalism, social inequality, and heritage and memory. I conclude that historical archaeologists have made major strides in understanding the modern world and that future research promises to offer diverse perspectives that will deepen our appreciation for how the past influences the present.

show abstract

Section: Vectors Of Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

Orser

2009

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…rapidly growing urbanism, the emergent automobile industry, and wartime production) (see Johnson, 1996;Leone, 1999;McGuire and Wurst, 2002;Mrozowski, 2006;Shackel, 2009;Wurst, 1999Wurst, , 2009. Overall, the socio-economic and ethnic composition of the Roosevelt Park neighborhood is consistent with Olivier Zunz's observations (Zunz, 1982) about the emergence of an entirely new society in Detroit during the first decade of the 20th century.…”

Section: Socio-economic Compositionmentioning

confidence: 98%

No home for the “ordinary gamut”: A historical archaeology of community displacement and the creation of Detroit, City Beautiful

Ryzewski

2015

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Michigan Central Station and Roosevelt Park were constructed between 1908 and 1918 as part of Detroit's City Beautiful Movement. The construction process was a placemaking effort designed to implant order on the urban landscape that involved the displacement of a community who represented everything that city planners sought to erase from Detroit's city center: overcrowding, poverty, immigrants, and transient populations. Current historical archaeological research reveals how the existing ornamental landscape of Roosevelt Park masks the history of a forgotten working-class neighborhood. This synthesis of archival and material evidence details the conditions of life within the neighborhood and of a contentious, decade-long displacement struggle rooted in the inequalities of early-20th-century industrial capitalism. Positioned at the start of a century of controversial urban planning initiatives, the Roosevelt Park case study encourages understandings of displacement as a process that has diachronic and comparative dimensions, both in Detroit and in other urban settings.

show abstract

“…This truism belies the explosion in archaeologies of difference. As Roseberry (1996) suggests, the emphasis on differences has been accompanied by a narrowing of options: labor, work, and class are often part of our ''excluded past'' (Wurst 1999(Wurst , 2002(Wurst , 2006. In fact, Bauman (1992) and others have argued that consumption has replaced work as the central focus of individual identities (Lodziak 2002:22-23;Ebert and Zavarzedah 2008), implying that in our modern world, work has become irrelevant.…”

Section: Labor Class and Capitalism In Historical Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 98%

Toward a Collective Historical Archaeology

Wurst¹

2015

Reviews in Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I begin with ideas of difference and try to weave together aspects of our disciplinary structure, contemporary theoretical critique, and research agendas to show how our emphasis on difference, multiplicity, and individual identity makes it difficult to comprehend all that we share and constrains our political action to only local concerns. Instead, the kind of archaeological research that I envision focuses on commonalities through questions of labor, class and capitalism geared toward developing an understanding of all that we as people share.

show abstract

Internalizing class in historical archaeology

Cited by 67 publications

References 19 publications

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

Twenty-First-Century Historical Archaeology

No home for the “ordinary gamut”: A historical archaeology of community displacement and the creation of Detroit, City Beautiful

Toward a Collective Historical Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About