Material culture studies and historical archaeology

Dwelling: transforming narratives at historic house museums

“…The tradition of inquiry within archaeology brings unique perspectives to both historical interpretation and to public engagement at historic homes. Archaeologists have a long tradition of analysing and theorising about material culture (Cochran and Beaudry 2006). Within historical archaeology in particular, we draw on vernacular architecture and spatial studies to consider not just artefacts, but houses and domestic spaces as material components of the lived experience (see, for example, contributors to De Cunzo and Herman 1996).…”

An Archaeology of Modernity in Colonial Jamaica

“…This dramatic shift, from local production and consumption to an increased dependence on mass-produced imported goods, clearly would have impacted the daily lives of people in many ways. Material culture plays an active role in the negotiation of daily life (Appadurai 1986;Buchli 2002;Cochran and Beaudry 2006;Küchler and Miller 2005;Loren and Beaudry 2006;Miller 1986Miller , 1998Miller , 2001Thomas 1991). A significant element of the quotidian experience of modernity has been, and is, widespread interaction with factory-produced goods transported great distances.…”

Transnational artifacts: Grappling with fluid material origins and identities in archaeological interpretations of culture change

“…The examples cited above reflect broader shifts in the realm of material culture studies, and in historical archaeology specifically, away from quantification and generalization towards interpretive and contextual object-based approaches (Beaudry, 2006;Claney, 2004;Cochrane and Beaudry, 2006;Loren and Beaudry, 2006;White, 2005). An early argument in favor of such an approach was articulated by Beaudry et al, 1991, which in the years since has increasingly become a standard part of the historical archaeologist's toolkit.…”

“…In part, these efforts are an attempt to overcome the limitations of rigid classification schemes that place objects into single, universal functional categories that do not allow for multiple functions and meanings in specific local contexts or between discrete users. Beaudry and colleagues note that interpretive approaches are hindered by such schemes and by the fragmented nature of much post-excavation analysis in which objects are studied in isolation from one another by material specialists, because they effectively decontextualize them (Cochrane and Beaudry, 2006;Loren and Beaudry, 2006). Likewise, Silliman (2009) challenges the traditional tripartite classification of artifacts from indigenous sites into ''Native,'' ''European'' and ''hybridized'' identities, which most students, fieldworkers, lab analysts, and interpreters have been trained to accept uncritically, because it does not allow for object types that are shared across cultural or ethnic boundaries.…”