Defining material differences between social groups has been a prevalent research topic among historical archaeologists. Previous artifact studies devoted to this subject typically adopt a qualitative approach, in which the extent of expensive consumer goods, such as porcelain or transfer-printed tableware, is viewed as a reliable indicator of socioeconomic status. In this article, an alternative method of exploring material differences between social groups, based on consumption levels, is proposed. Archaeological data from a sample of study sites suggest that the basic quantity, rather than quality, of material consumed and discarded by households in the past is a useful, although overlooked, measure of material differences between social groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsWilliam H. and BolingSarah J.1989Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three Georgia Coastal Plantation, Historical Archaeology, 23(1), pp. 69–96.
2.
BrooksRichard D.GrooverMark D., and SmithSamuel C.2000Living on the Edge: The Archaeology of Cattle Raisers in the South Carolina Backcountry, Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers, 10, Columbia, South Carolina.
3.
CabakMelanie A. and GrooverMark D.2004Plantations Without Pillars: Archaeology, Wealth, and Material Life at Bush Hill, Volume 1, Context and Interpretation, Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Savannah River Archaeological Research Paper, 11, Columbia, South Carolina.
4.
CabakMelanie A.GrooverMark D., and InkrotMary M.1999Rural Modernization During the Recent Past: Farmstead Archaeology on the Aiken Plateau, Historical Archaeology, 35(4), pp. 19–43.
5.
CabakMelanie A. and InkrotMary M.1997Old Farm, New Farm: An Archaeology of Rural Modernization in the Aiken Plateau, 1875-1950, Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers, 9, Columbia, South Carolina.
6.
CrassDavid C.PennerBruce R.ForehandTammy R.HuffmanJohnPotterLois J., and PotterLarry1997Excavations at New Windsor Township, South Carolina, Savannah River Archaeological Research Heritage Series 3, Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeologic Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.
7.
ForehandTammy R. and GrooverMark D.2000“A Very Celebrated Place”: Recent Investigations at Galphin's Silver Bluff, paper presented at the 33rd Annual Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Quebec, Canada.
8.
GrooverMark D.1998The Gibbs Farmstead: An Archaeological Study of Rural Economy and Material Life in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
9.
GrooverMark D.2001Linking Artifact Assemblages to Household Cycles: An Example From the Gibbs Site, Historical Archaeology, 25(4), pp. 38–57.
10.
GrooverMark D.2003An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
11.
GrooverMark D. and BrooksRichard D.2003The Catherine Brown Cowpen and Thomas Howell Site: Material Characteristics of Cattle Raisers in the South Carolina Backcountry, Southeastern Archaeology, 22(1), pp. 92–111.
12.
MichieJames L.1990Richmond Hill Plantation, 1810-1868: The Discovery of Antebellum Life on a Waccamaw Rice Plantation, Reprint Co., Spartanburg, South Carolina.
13.
MillerGeorge L.1980Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th-Century Ceramics, Historical Archaeology, 14, pp. 1–40.
14.
MillerJ. Jefferson and StoneLyle M.1970Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac, Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology No. 4, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
15.
OrserCharles E.Jr.1988The Material Basis of the Postbellum Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Piedmont, University of Georgia Press, Athens.
16.
OttoJohn S.1984Cannon's Point Plantation (1794-1860): Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South, Academic Press, New York.
17.
SassamanKenneth E.BrooksMark J.HansonGlen T., and AndersonDavid G.1990Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina, Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Savannah River Archaeological Research Paper, 1, Columbia, South Carolina.
18.
ScurryJames D.Walter JosephJ., and HamerFritz1980Initial Archaeological Investigations at Silver Bluff Plantation, Aiken County, South Carolina, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, 168, Columbia, South Carolina.
19.
SouthStanley A.1972Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology, The Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers 1971, 6, pp. 71–106.
20.
Spencer-WoodSuzanne M. and HeberlingScott D.1987Consumer Choice in White Ceramics: A Comparison of Eleven Early Nineteenth-Century Sites, in Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Spencer-WoodSuzanne M. (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 55–84.
21.
SteenCarlElliotDanFolse-ElliotRita, and WarrenAnthony N.1996Further Excavations at John de la Howe's Lethe Farm, prepared for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Diachronic Research Foundation, Columbia, South Carolina.
