Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Historical Archaeology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • “Dio” (1888). Maria Island: its past, present and probable future. The Mercury, Hobart.

  • Allison, P. M. (ed.) (1999). The Archaeology of Household Activities: Dwelling in the Past. Routledge, New York.

  • Argus [Melbourne, Victoria] (1885). Maria Island. January 23.

  • 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 Archeology 14: 1–22.

  • Bell, A. (2002). Emulation and empowerment: material, social, and economic dynamics in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Virginia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 6: 253–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Brumfiel, E. M. and Robin, C. (2008). Gender, households, and society: an introduction. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

  • Burke, H. (1999). Meaning and Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Style, Social Identity, and Capitalism in an Australian Town. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Archaeology 16: 284–299.

  • Chadwick, A. M. (2012). Routine magic, mundane ritual: towards a unified notion of depositional practice. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31: 283–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily Telegraph [Launceston, Tasmania] (1888). Ministerial trip to Maria Island. April 4.

  • Examiner [Launceston, Tasmania] (1936). For the needy houses from Maria Island ready soon Hobart, June 26.

  • 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.

  • Fleming, K. (2016). Global and local contexts: nineteenth to early twentieth-century gold mining settlements in the Upper Murchison, Western Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 34: 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flexner, J. (2009). Where is reflexive map-making in archaeological research? towards a place-based approach. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 24: 7–21.

  • 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 Pacific 53(2): 1–28.

  • Forward (1984). The Maria Island Conservation Report. Report for National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania.

  • Heath, B. J. and Bennett, A. (2000). “The little spots allow’d them”: the archaeological study of African-American yards. Historical Archaeology 34: 38–55.

  • Hendon, J. A. (1996). Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labour: household practice and domestic relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 45–61.

  • 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 Oceania 33: 1–19.

  • Johnson, M. (2007). Ideas of Landscape. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mate, G. (2013). Mount Shamrock: a symbiosis of mine and settlement. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 17: 465–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell-Stewart, H. (2005). Convicts. In The Companion to Tasmanian History. Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, pp. 415–419.

  • 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 Archaeology 48: 411–430.

  • McCoy, M. D. and Ladefoged, T. N. (2009). New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 263–295.

  • 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.

  • Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1919). In darkest Hobart how the poor live: disgraceful housing conditions, rat-eaten floors, and bug-infested walls. September 19.

  • Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1923). A Maria Island incident: an alleged assault. Police Court Proceedings. February 23.

  • Mercury [Hobart, Tasmania] (1936). Destitute persons provision of cottages at New Town early occupation. June 26.

  • Metheny, K. B. (2007). From the Miners’ Doublehouse: Archaeology and Landscape in a Pennsylvania Coal Company Town. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

  • 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.

  • 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 Archaeology 21(2): 298–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Murray, T. and Crook, P. (2005). Exploring the archaeology of the modern city: issues of scale, integration and complexity. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 9: 89–109.

  • News [Hobart, Tasmania] (1924) From the beginning: "father" of Maria Island Signor Bernacchi's work and his hopes, No. 2. July 15.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Petrow, S. (1992). Hovels in Hobart: the quality and supply of working class housing, 1880–1942. Papers and Proceedings: Tasmanian Historical Research Association 39: 163–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluckhahn, T. J. (2010). Household archaeology in the southeastern United States: history, trends, and challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 18: 331–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Reynolds, H. (2012). A History of Tasmania. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, C. (2002). Outside of houses: the practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2: 245–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, L. (1991). A History of Tasmania: Colony and the State from 1856 to the 1980s. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

  • Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

  • 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.

  • Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2010). A feminist framework for analyzing powered cultural landscapes in historical archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14(4): 498–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarlow, S. (2007). The Archaeology of Improvement in Britain 1750–1850. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Prospection 24(2): 101–117.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 Research 40: 578–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, D. D. (1999). Examining gender, class, and ethnicity in nineteenth-century New York City. Historical Archaeology 33(1): 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandsnider, L. and Camilli, E. L. (1992). The character of surface archaeological deposits and its influence on survey accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 169–188.

  • Weidenhofer, M. (1977). Maria Island: A Tasmanian Eden. Darlington, Hobart.

  • White, C. L. (2009). The Materiality of Individuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives. Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilk, R. R. and Rathje, W. L. (1982). Household archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617–639.

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Chauvel.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chauvel, P., Flexner, J.L. Mapping Difference in the “Uniform” Workers’ Cottages of Maria Island, Tasmania. Int J Histor Archaeol 24, 902–919 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-019-00531-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-019-00531-w

Keywords

Navigation