Advertisement

Mapping Difference in the “Uniform” Workers’ Cottages of Maria Island, Tasmania

  • Pamela ChauvelEmail author
  • James L. Flexner
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, company towns often provided housing for workers within a system of benevolent paternalism. This paper examines a set of workers’ cottages known as “the Twelve Apostles” on Maria Island, Tasmania. The archaeology reveals differences between the standardized, company-built houses, providing evidence that the residents’ responses often varied in ways that were not officially expected or sanctioned by the company. People individualized their houses in ways that reflect their everyday routines and rituals, and demonstrate how they made these houses into homes.

Keywords

Maria Island Tasmania Household archaeology Capitalism Paternalism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Janelle Bray, Kathleen Carmichael, Mikhaila Chaplin, Alison Fenwick, Rebekah Hawkins, and Simon Wyatt–Spratt for their fieldwork assistance, and Guy Hazel for GIS, photogrammetry and surveying advice. Thanks also to Parks and Wildlife Tasmania, particularly Pete Lingard and Peter Rigozzi, and to Maureen Ferris at the Glamorgan Spring Bay Historic Society. Funding support came from a Carlyle Greenwell Research Grant and the Tom Austen Brown Fund for Australasian Archaeology at the University of Sydney.

References

  1. “Dio” (1888). Maria Island: its past, present and probable future. The Mercury, Hobart.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. M. (ed.) (1999). The Archaeology of Household Activities: Dwelling in the Past. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Argus [Melbourne, Victoria] (1885). Maria Island. January 23.Google Scholar
  4. Beaudry, M. C. and Mrozowski, S. A. (1988). The archeology of work and home life in Lowell, Massachusetts: an interdisciplinary study of the Boott Cotton Mills Corporation. Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology14: 1–22.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, A. (2002). Emulation and empowerment: material, social, and economic dynamics in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Virginia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology6: 253–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, S. (2009). Developing methods for recording surface artefacts on nineteenth and twentieth century sites in Australia. In Fairbairn, A. S., O’Connor, S., and Marwick, B. (eds.), New Directions in Archaeological Science. Australian National University ePress, Canberra.Google Scholar
  7. Borges, M. J. and Torres, S. B. (2012). Company towns: concepts, historiography and approaches. In Borges, M. J. and Torres, S. B. (eds.), Company Towns. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brumfiel, E. M. and Robin, C. (2008). Gender, households, and society: an introduction. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. Blackwell, Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, H. (1999). Meaning and Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Style, Social Identity, and Capitalism in an Australian Town. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casella, E. C. (2012). That’s just a family thing you know: memory, community kinship, social belonging in the Hagg cottages of Cheshire, northwest England. International Journal of Historical Archaeology16: 284–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chadwick, A. M. (2012). Routine magic, mundane ritual: towards a unified notion of depositional practice. Oxford Journal of Archaeology31: 283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daily Telegraph [Launceston, Tasmania] (1888). Ministerial trip to Maria Island. April 4.Google Scholar
  13. Examiner [Launceston, Tasmania] (1936). For the needy houses from Maria Island ready soon Hobart, June 26.Google Scholar
  14. Felmingham, B. (2005). Economy. In Alexander, A. (ed.), The Companion to Tasmanian History. Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, pp. 420–425.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, K. (2016). Global and local contexts: nineteenth to early twentieth-century gold mining settlements in the Upper Murchison, Western Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology34: 44–52.Google Scholar
  16. Flexner, J. (2009). Where is reflexive map-making in archaeological research? towards a place-based approach. Archaeological Review from Cambridge24: 7–21.Google Scholar
  17. Flexner, J. L. (2014). Mapping local perspectives in the historical archaeology of Vanuatu mission landscapes. Asian Perspectives: The Journal of Archaeology for Asia and the Pacific53(2): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forward (1984). The Maria Island Conservation Report. Report for National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania.Google Scholar
  19. Heath, B. J. and Bennett, A. (2000). “The little spots allow’d them”: the archaeological study of African-American yards. Historical Archaeology34: 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendon, J. A. (1996). Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labour: household practice and domestic relations. Annual Review of Anthropology25: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holdaway, S., Witter, D., Fanning, P., Musgrave, R., Cochrane, G., Doelman, T., Greenwood, S., Pigdon, D., and Reeves, J. (1998). New approaches to open site spatial archaeology in Sturt National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania33: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, M. (2007). Ideas of Landscape. Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lempriere, T. J. (1954 [1839]). The Penal Settlements of Van Diemen’s Land, Macquarie Harbour, Maria Island and Tasmans Penninsula. Royal Society of Tasmania, Northern Branch, Tasmania.Google Scholar
  24. Mate, G. (2013). Mount Shamrock: a symbiosis of mine and settlement. International Journal of Historical Archaeology17: 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maxwell-Stewart, H. (2005). Convicts. In The Companion to Tasmanian History. Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, pp. 415–419.Google Scholar
  26. McCoy, M. and Codlin, M. (2016). The influence of religious authority in everyday life: a landscape-scale study of domestic architecture and religious law in ancient Hawai’i. World Archaeology48: 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCoy, M. D. and Ladefoged, T. N. (2009). New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research17: 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGuire, R. H. (2006). Marxism and capitalism in historical archaeology. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1919). In darkest Hobart how the poor live: disgraceful housing conditions, rat-eaten floors, and bug-infested walls. September 19.Google Scholar
  30. Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1923). A Maria Island incident: an alleged assault. Police Court Proceedings. February 23.Google Scholar
  31. Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1936). Destitute persons provision of cottages at New Town early occupation. June 26.Google Scholar
  32. Metheny, K. B. (2007). From the Miners’ Doublehouse: Archaeology and Landscape in a Pennsylvania Coal Company Town. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  33. Moir, R. W. (1987). Farmstead proxemics and intrasite patterning. In Moir R. W. and Jurney, D. H. (eds.), Pioneer Settlers, Tenant Farmers, and Communities: Objectives, Historical Background, and Excavations. Richland Creek, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
  34. Mrozowski, S. A., Bell, E. L., Beaudry, M. C., Landon, D. B., and Kelso, G. K. (1989). Living on the Boott: health and wellbeing in a boardinghouse population. World Archaeology21(2): 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mrozowski, S. A., Grace, H. Z., and Beaudry, M. C. (1996). Living on the Boott: Historical Archaeology at the Boott Mills Boardinghouses, Lowell Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, T. and Crook, P. (2005). Exploring the archaeology of the modern city: issues of scale, integration and complexity. International Journal of Historical Archaeology9: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. News [Hobart, Tasmania] (1924) From the beginning: "father" of Maria Island Signor Bernacchi's work and his hopes, No. 2. July 15.Google Scholar
  38. Nida, B. and Adkins, M. J. (2011). The social and environmental upheaval of Blair Mountain: a working class struggle for unionisation and historic preservation. In Smith, L., Shackel, P. A., and Campbell, G. (eds.), Heritage, Labour and the Working Classes. Routledge, London, pp. 52–68.Google Scholar
  39. Pappas, E. I. (2004). Fictive kin in the mountains: the paternalistic metaphor and households in a California logging camp. In Barile, K. S. and Brandon, J. C. (eds.), Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  40. Pauls, E. P. (2006). The place of space: architecture, landscape, and social life. In Hall, M. and Silliman, S. W. (eds.), Historical Archaeology. Blackwell, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  41. Petrow, S. (1992). Hovels in Hobart: the quality and supply of working class housing, 1880–1942. Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association39: 163–181.Google Scholar
  42. Pluckhahn, T. J. (2010). Household archaeology in the southeastern United States: history, trends, and challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research18: 331–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preucel, R. W. (2000). Making Pueblo communities: architectural discourse at Kotyiti, New Mexico. In Canuto, M. A. and Yaeger, J. (eds.), The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Routledge, London, pp. 58–77.Google Scholar
  44. Preucel, R. W. and Meskell, L. (2007). Places. In Meskell, L., Preucel, R. W., and Wiley, I. (eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 215-229.Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds, H. (2012). A History of Tasmania. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  46. Robin, C. (2002). Outside of houses: the practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology2: 245–268.Google Scholar
  47. Robson, L. (1991). A History of Tasmania: Colony and the State from 1856 to the 1980s. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  49. Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2004). What difference does feminist theory make in researching households? a commentary. In Barile, K. S. and Brandon, J. C. (eds.), Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  50. Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2010). A feminist framework for analyzing powered cultural landscapes in historical archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology14(4): 498–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarlow, S. (2007). The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trachet, J., Delefortrie, S., Van Meirvenne, M., Hillewaert, B., and De Clercq, W. (2016). Reassessing surface artefact scatters: the integration of artefact-accurate fieldwalking with geophysical data at medieval harbour sites near Bruges (Belgium). Archaeological Prospection24(2): 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tringham, R. (1995). Archaeological houses, households, housework and the home. In Benjamin, D. N. and Stea, D. (eds.), The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meanings, and Environments. Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  54. Tsing, A. (2008). Becoming a tribal elder, and other green development fantasies. In Dove, M. R. and Carpenter, C. (eds.), Environmentatal Anthropology: An Historical Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 393–422.Google Scholar
  55. Visentin, F. (2016). Modernist ideas and local reception: the company towns of Piazzola sul Brenta and Borgonyà, 1895–1930. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40: 578–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wall, D. D. (1999). Examining gender, class, and ethnicity in nineteenth-century New York City. Historical Archaeology33(1): 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wandsnider, L. and Camilli, E. L. (1992). The character of surface archaeological deposits and its influence on survey accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology19: 169–188.Google Scholar
  58. Weidenhofer, M. (1977). Maria Island: A Tasmanian Eden. Darlington, Hobart.Google Scholar
  59. White, C. L. (2009). The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilk, R. R. and Rathje, W. L. (1982). Household archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist25: 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wood, M. C. (2004). Working-class households as sites of social change. In Barile, K. S. and Brandon, J. C. (eds.), Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 210-233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations