Skip to main content

Contextualizing the Materiality of Commodities: Using Quantitative Methods to Interpret the Meaning of Variation in the Physical Attributes of Copper-Alloy Buttons


The increasing cultural and spatial distance between the producers and consumers of household goods over the last few hundred years requires historical archaeologists to determine which attributes of objects were imbued with meaning by consumers. One method of interpreting the meanings an object was selected to represent is by contextualizing the artifact’s physical attributes within the range of variation in similar objects circulating within particular spatial and temporal networks. Utilizing a data set of early nineteenth-century flat-stamped copper-alloy buttons from archaeological sites in Virginia this study examines how manufacturers and consumers evaluated the quality of these commodities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In Appadurai, A., ed., The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–63.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaudry, M., Cook, L., and Mrozowski, S. (1991). Artifacts and active voices: material culture as social discourse. In McGuire, R. H. and Paynter, R., eds., The Archaeology of Inequality, Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 150–190.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chambers, D. (2005). Murder at Montpelier: Igbo Africans in Virginia. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crook, P. (2016). “Home”-made: exploring the quality of British domestic goods in 19th-century urban assemblages. In Brooks, A., ed., The Importance of Material Culture to Historical Archaeologies of the Nineteenth Century, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 305–328.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Dickens, C. (1852). What there is in a button. Household Words 5: 106. <>, accessed November 2017.

  6. Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979). The World of Goods: Towards Anthropology of Consumption. Basic, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton, H. (1967). The English Brass and Copper Industries to 1800. A. M. Kelley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamilton, T. and Fry, B. (1971). A Survey of Louisbourg Gunflints. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

  9. Heath, B. (2004). Engendering choice: slavery and consumerism in central Virginia. In Galle, J. E. and Young, A. L., eds., Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hicks, D. (2010). The material-cultural turn: event and effect. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 25–98.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hinks, S. (1988). A Structural and Functional Analysis of 18th Century Buttons. Master’s thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

  12. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindbergh, J. (1999). Buttoning down archaeology. Australasian Historical Archaeology 17: 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marburg, T. (1942). Management Problems and Procedures of a Manufacturing Enterprise, 1802–1852: A Case Study of the Origin of the Scovill Manufacturing Company. Doctoral dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, MA.

  15. Martin, A. S. (2008). Buying into the World of Goods, Early Consumers in Backcountry Virginia. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miller, D. (1987). Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, D. (2001). Coca-Cola: a black sweet drink from Trinidad. In Buchli, V., ed., The Material Culture Reader, Berg, New York, pp. 237–264.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Polity, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Morgan, P. and Nicholls, M. (1989). Slaves in piedmont Virginia, 1720–1790. William and Mary Quarterly 4: 211–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Noel Hume, I. (1970). A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rainer, J. (2000). “Commercial Scythians” in the Great Valley of Virginia: Yankee peddlers’ trade connections in antebellum Virginia. In Koons, K. and Hofstra, W., eds., After the Backcountry: Rural Life in the Great Valley of Virginia, 1800–1900, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 62–73.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Smith, M. (2007). Inconspicuous consumption: non-display goods and identity formation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 412–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith, H. (2017). Adorned Identities: An Archaeological Perspective on Race and Self-Presentation in 18th-Century Virginia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

  24. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1844). A day at the Birmingham factories. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 13: 465. <>, accessed November 2017.

  25. South, S. (1964). An analysis of the buttons from Brunswick town and fort Fischer. Florida Anthropologist 17: 113–133.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Trickett, M. (2012). “From Can See to Can’t See”: The Excavation of the Tobacco Barn Quarter at James Madison’s Montpelier. Manuscript on file, Montpelier Archaeology Department, Montpelier, VA.

  27. White, C. (2005). American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680–1820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation. AltaMira, Lanham.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


I would like to thank Matt Reeves, Allison Bell, Jenn Ogborne, and Beatrix Arendt for providing me access to the collections of artifacts used in this article. I also would like to thank Barbara Heath and the anonymous reviewers who have greatly improved this article with their comments and critiques.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric George Schweickart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schweickart, E.G. Contextualizing the Materiality of Commodities: Using Quantitative Methods to Interpret the Meaning of Variation in the Physical Attributes of Copper-Alloy Buttons. Int J Histor Archaeol 23, 496–512 (2019).

Download citation


  • Consumerism
  • Materiality
  • Trade
  • Slavery