Speaking of second hand ceramics: In the community I live, there is a
tradition of inheriting the silver pattern and china pattern from The
Family. "Girls" strive to locate items to fill in the settings given to
them by a mother, grandmother, or aunt (since the original set is usually
divided among sisters or cousins. Lucky brides have table settings that date
back to the antebellum period. Selling "replacement" pieces to patterns no
longer being manufactured is, in fact, a big business.
I've often wondered how long this tradition has existed. Perhaps, in
addition to expecting the wholesale housecleaning of the old china when the
mother-in-laws dies, we ought to also look for similarities in china
patterns between home lots occupied by sisters! Anyway, its a thought I've
been intrigued with for some time now.
P.S. If my memory is not failing me, the first archaeological example of
wholesale housecleaning after the mother-in-law died -that I heard - was
reported on at the 1976 SHA meeting by Marley Brown and other Brown
University students. They were giving a session on the Mott Farm site.
Linda Derry, Director
Old Cahawba - AHC
719 Tremont St.
Selma, AL 36701 - 5446
ph. 334/875-2529 / email: [log in to unmask]
>In a message dated 2/26/01 4:52:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
><< I agree... isn't there a hypothesis that whole sets of dishes, etc.
found
>their way down privies when the female head of household changed? (i.e.
>from first wife to second, or from mother to bride)? Is this in Diane
>diZerega Wall's "The Archaeology of Gender", or am I thinking of another
>source? >>
>
>Megan,
>
>Now that one escaped me, but I also heard that masses of shirt buttons
meant
>the men never salvaged buttons because they did not make new shirts. Hence,
>the hypothesis that masses of buttons in privies and dumps means male
gender
>occupation. This concept has been kicking around for at least 20 years, but
>I
>do not know a source to cite or data to support it. On the other had, I did
>inherit my grandma's button jar and think there is merit to the idea.
>
>Wow, talk about spite! But, my folks probably would never had dumped sets
>of
>tableware because until the 1920s they could not afford them. A woman would
>have really had to be making a statement for that kind of behavior. Then
>again, people of the upper gentry would have had the money for that kind of
>fashion turnover. Maybe class distinctions are the key to the tableware
>changes?
>
>Ron May
>
>
>______________________________________________
>FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
>Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
|
