Monday, September 15, 2014

Readings Response: Stories and Things

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