Laurel Ulritch’s method of using provenance as a way to ask
questions about an object’s place in social history could have direct
correlations to my object. Ulritch, studying woman’s history, tried to see
objects passed down through mothers and daughters. This method was particularly
useful because it enabled Ulritch to look at an aspect of family life that is
not in the records, which traditionally favor husbands and fathers.
In many ways, my object is an affront to the type of social
history that is most common. The powder horn is traditionally associated with
men and was often a symbol of dominance over nature. This particular powder
horn may have belonged to, but is definitely commemorating, an aristocratic
British general who fought in an international war over state power. The
illustrations covering the horn include the most recognizable symbol of state
power in the eighteenth century, the British coat of arms. It was passed down
through men from one high-status Philadelphia family. That being said, Ulrich’s
method could be useful for my object. Where Ulritch used the tenets of social
history as a platform to view material culture, my object may force me to
question traditional social history in favor of a more nuanced interpretation
of culture where the lines between family, gender, and status on the one side,
and politics, power, and national identity on the other are blurred.
Opposed to Ulritch, and possibly closer to what I think I
can do with my object, Georgio Reillo’s “Things that Shape History” promotes
the use of materials specifically because they can challenge historical
concepts and narratives. The different ways that Reillo explains researchers
can approach material culture study will be useful for my research, especially
as I begin to think more about what the story of my object is. It will be a
good mental exercise to come up with three, or five, or ten different ways to
interpret my object before deciding on the final narrative. I had a similar
reaction to Karen Dannehl’s “Object Biographies.” Some of the biography method
could be useful, though assigning an object anthropomorphic life stages can get
too metaphorical for my tastes. (That’s either my inner cynic or my tendency to
take things more literally than they are meant).
Ames’ “Meaning in Artifacts” was an enjoyable read. The
author did a great job in making Victorian homes come alive through furniture.
One of the things I took from this piece was the sense of the past as a foreign
country. Ames stresses the now culturally defunct nature of hallstands and card
receivers in a way that makes Victorian life more real. For a people commonly
stereotyped as superficial this is a big deal. In terms of Ames interpretation,
I would have liked him to talk more to how the Victorian social life represented
in these items were a matter of what we would consider business instead of
private life and the implications of this on things like assumed Victorian
gender roles. If Victorian women spent much of their time handling business
affairs, why do historians consistently label Victorian women as relegated to
the domestic sphere? Do our own assumption about private and public life
prevent us from imagining life as the Victorians did? I have strayed away from
powder horns, though I do wonder where, in the home of the late-nineteenth
century owner, was the powder horn on display? And what did that display say
about the people who put it there?
Ames, Kenneth. “Meaning in Artifacts: Hall Furnishings in
Victorian America,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9 (1978):
19-46.
Dannehl, Karin.
“Object Biographies: From Production to Consumption,” in Karen Harvey,
ed. History and Material Culture: A Student's Guide to Approaching
Alternative Sources. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Reillo, Georgio.
“Things that Shape History: Material Culture and Historical Narratives,” in Karen
Harvey, ed. History and Material Culture: A Student's Guide to Approaching Alternative
Sources. New York: Routledge, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment