8
The material culture recovered from Viewbank has shown that life there in the 19th century was truly genteel. Yet the interpretation of material culture can go beyond illuminating daily life in the past. It is possible to expand on these insights by characterising the material culture in relation to gentility. This then allows for an examination of the role of material culture in negotiating class position for the ‘established middle class’.
The evidence from Viewbank homestead suggests that the material cultural pattern of the ‘established middle class’ will be characterised by three key indicators of gentility: cohesion in high quality goods across all aspects of lifestyle; consistency in goods for both public and private use; and keeping up with fashions. This pattern is markedly different from that of working-class sites previously excavated in Melbourne. For example, at the urban households of Little Lon and Casselden Place the assemblages were characterised by a smattering of expensive and luxury items among a range of cheap, utilitarian items or low quality seconds (Murray and Mayne 2001; Murray 2006). Further, higher value items were usually present in areas of life that were public as opposed to private.
It can be expected that a middle-class assemblage will have high quality goods in significant numbers, and this is certainly true for Viewbank. The assemblage included matching sets of both table and teaware, a variety of purpose-specific ceramic forms, high quality glassware, a large number of beverage bottles, expensive toys, personal items of luxury, medicine items and matching toilet sets.
When studying artefacts from working-class sites, archaeologists often particularly note the presence of high value items. Crook (2000:24) suggests that the mix of luxury and poor quality items in working-class assemblages might be the result of the influence of affordability and availability of second-hand goods in market bazaars. The presence of a small number of valuable items may also be the result of theft, gambling or heirlooms being handed down. This material cultural pattern differs significantly from that noted at Viewbank where the assemblage is suggestive of purchasing habits where desired goods could be purchased in large numbers at one time, as in the case of matching sets of ceramic or glass tableware. The purchasing of matching sets also suggests sufficient wealth to enable the family to shop in centralised arcades and specialised stores, and the list of debtors discussed in chapter 6 shows this to be the case.
This is not to say that the Martins did not possess any cheaper items, but rather that cheaper items were purchased for particular reason such as for use by servants. There is no evidence in the assemblage of scrimping and saving, or the reuse of items. Instead, there is cohesion in the quality of the assemblage as a whole.
Another notable characteristic of the Viewbank assemblage is that it has a consistency in quality and expensive items for various aspects of daily life, not just when on display to others. A wide variety of matching sets and vessel forms for both table and tea services meant that good taste and refinement was not just for serving guests but also for private breakfasts, lunches, children’s and servants meals. While marble fireplaces, elaborate cornices and wallpaper graced the public areas of the house, wallpaper was also used in the family bedrooms and housekeeper’s bedroom. Matching toilet sets further suggest the importance placed on creating a harmonious and genteel environment even in the private areas of the house.
Good taste and therefore fashion were important aspects of gentility, and there is evidence in the Viewbank assemblage that the Martins were keeping up with fashions. Particularly helpful here were the table and tea service assemblages which followed the Australian preference for colourful table settings, particularly transfer-prints. Makers’ marks on the ceramics allowed insight into purchasing patterns and the dates on the ceramics indicate that they were updated and purchased throughout the time that the Martins were at Viewbank. The list of debts in 1874 suggests that the Martins were continuing to update their crockery, and also drapery even in their last year at Viewbank (PROV, VPRS 7591/P2, Unit 17, File 12-586, 11 February 1875). Other artefacts also suggest keeping up with fashion including costume jewellery, dolls in fashionable styles, fashionable fabric covered buttons, and non-sight-correcting spectacles for appearance only.
Along with cohesion in value and consistency in goods for public and private use, fashion also indicates the gentility that characterises the Viewbank assemblage. Genteel performance and display were likely part of the rationale behind the acquisition of goods for the Martin family, however the genteel 76nature of the goods clearly extended beyond those that would form public display. Gentility pervaded all aspects of life from washing, dressing, eating and shopping, to religion and leisure.
While gentility can be used as a descriptor to characterise material culture and daily life, it can go beyond this when used as an analytical tool. It can be used to examine similarities and differences between people, and in turn society as a whole. By focusing on one family as representative of one group of immigrants in early colonial Melbourne, this study seeks to understand how this group were negotiating their position within, and also shaping, colonial society.
Gentility established a value system within which all social practice took place, akin to cultural capital as defined by Bourdieu (1977, 1984). Gentility dictated the tastes, behaviours and rituals of the middle class in Australia. It provided middle-class individuals with a means to locate themselves within the social organisation of 19th-century Australia and their choice of goods and their practices were vital in this.
The cultural capital of the upper middle class in Victoria was adopted and appropriated from British social standards. Russell’s (1994:50, 61) work on the colonial gentry in Victoria highlights that the Martin family were a part of exclusive society in Melbourne that relied on social standards and etiquette imported directly from Britain. Social practices, such as the complex system of social calls and genteel dining habits, were brought to Australia.
As society in early colonial Melbourne came to incorporate more and more people over the 19th century, it became increasingly difficult to tell people apart. The middle class became a large and diverse group incorporating many people with different class backgrounds and lifestyles. Young (2010:136) argues that ‘the range of internal variations set up hurdles of snobbery that generated a tension within the middle class in asserting and maintaining genteel status’. Social mobility and the difficulty of determining hierarchy in the colonial context meant that it was vitally important for middle-class individuals to define their status (Russell 1994; Waterhouse 1995:101), but gentility was more subjectively determined in Melbourne than in Britain and caused much anxiety.
Familial connections could not always be proven in the colony and were thus not as relevant as in Britain. The middle class feared that working-class interlopers would invade their group if they were not vigilant about maintaining boundaries. The Australian middle class imposed strict tests on educational and behavioural standards for admission to their ranks (Cannon 1975:214). Material culture became an important element in determining position (see Cohen 2006:xi), and gentility a key indicator of class (Davidoff and Hall 2002:398; Young 2003:4–5).
Women became central to demonstrating class: they were responsible for domestic affairs and gentility was increasingly enacted on a domestic stage (Bushman 1993:281). The emergence of a ‘cult of domesticity’ in the early 19th century created a shift in the role of women (Sklar 1973; Clark 1986; Marsh 1990): they became influential consumers, purchasers, users, and discarders (Klein 1991:78; Young 1998:134–135). The selection of goods and associated genteel performance was the domain of women (Bushman 1993:281) and was a vital determinant of class in the colonial context. Women negotiated their status through the social networks they established with other women in ways that were just as important, if not more so, than men (Russell 1994:14). The Viewbank assemblage suggests that Mrs Martin embraced her domestic role. Carefully chosen tableware in matching sets, expensive glassware, efforts to keep up with fashion, matching toiletware, appropriate jewellery and equipment for fancy needlework were all tools in genteel performance.
The characteristics of the Viewbank assemblage can be interpreted as the result of the particular and unique way that gentility was employed by the ‘established middle class’ (Hayes 2011b:40–41). For this group maintaining their rightful position meant that gentility had to appear to be inherent, coming naturally and seemingly without effort (Russell 1994:60). The assemblage recovered from Viewbank indicates that the Martins had the required equipment in the correct, up-to-date fashions for this to be achieved. With gentility pervading all aspects of their lives, the Martins can be seen as truly genteel and maintaining a superior position within society. Gentility manifests itself as inherent for the Martin family: it was a cultural capital with which they were seemingly born.
The material culture from Viewbank homestead also suggests that the inherent nature of gentility for the ‘established middle class’ can be seen as taking on a distancing aspect. Only the truly genteel could display the full repertoire of correct goods and behaviours. This allowed this group to be distinguished from socially mobile people of different class backgrounds. The Martin family, and others equal to their rank, could therefore claim a firm class position at the top of colonial society. For the ‘established middle class’ maintaining this position meant the display of gentility was all the more important, and it can be argued that maintaining delineation from those of lower-class backgrounds became an activity with which this group had to become fully engaged (see Russell 1994:14–15).
While the inherent and distancing nature of gentility for this group acted to exclude some, it also served the vital role of creating a sense of inclusion 77for those who did belong. Gentility allowed people of the same group to impress each other, but subtly and with seeming indifference (Russell 1994).
It was, however, necessary to allow entry to some. While it is beyond the scope of this study to examine how material culture was used to negotiate this, it likely played a key role in determining entry along with behaviour, networks and marriages (Russell 1994:9, 18). It is worth noting here that Dr Martin used the marriage of his children strategically to forge alliances in society, and was enraged when two of his daughters married ‘beneath them’.
The Martins’ brand of gentility suggests that they were negotiating a position of superiority in the colony, but without giving the impression of doing so. They capitalised on their middle-class background to give themselves an air of establishment, of having always been superior, once in the colony. Social and economic mobility was a threat to their position, but they too achieved higher status in Melbourne than at home.
While the Martins’ move from England to the colony afforded them greater wealth and status, it did not facilitate a significant move up the social ladder. Although their lifestyle was to some degree modelled on the British landed gentry, they did not in fact possess the power and control of the ruling class. Instead they appropriated characteristics of the British ruling class in a distinctive middle-class way. Though they remained middle class by British standards, they were near the top of Melbourne society. Their brand of gentility, as revealed by their material culture, set them apart within the middle class. It allowed them to negotiate a position of superiority and to attempt to control the boundaries of their group.
To some degree it was families like the Martins who ensured that class structure was transported to Melbourne. While it is not possible to know what the Martins thought of their class position, by using material culture and the cultural capital of gentility, it can be argued that class benefitted this group. They used gentility and its expression through prestigious goods to define themselves within their group, and to maintain their position in the face of great social mobility. They engaged with gentility to a significant extent throughout all facets of their lives. They communicated their class through their behaviours and consumer choices. Importantly, they also challenged those seeking entry to the middle class to grapple with the nuances of gentility.
Class structure in early Melbourne was both a recreation of British standards and a carefully contested adaptation that served to benefit some, but not others. Those who benefitted were families like the Martins: the ‘established middle class’. By focusing on the material culture of this group and treating class as an arbitrary category for analysis it has been possible to go beyond describing the Martins’ lifestyle and class position to examine class negotiation. By doing so, this study has demonstrated the potential of the archaeological record to examine the unique ways in which different groups of people engaged with gentility as the cultural capital through which they could define and maintain their position.
Arriving wealthy, the Martin family obtained significant property and expanded their wealth and influence once in Melbourne. Although the move from England to the colony afforded the family greater wealth, it did not facilitate a significant move up the social ladder. However, they did hold a position of superiority in the colony, one that they communicated through material culture.
The Viewbank homestead itself was in a situation that communicated status. Beautiful views, attractive gardens, a grand dwelling and desirable neighbourhood portrayed gentility. Inside, the house conveyed status to visitors through grand, purpose-specific public rooms and a large number of private rooms also catered to the needs of the household.
The material culture recovered from Viewbank homestead provides insight into the genteel lifestyle conducted by the Martins. Genteel dining was not just for guests but was also an important part of daily life with different sets of tableware for breakfasts, lunches and dinners. The Martins also had the necessary equipment to host parties and receive calls. Leisure involved family games, but there was also importance placed on constructive leisure such as sewing. Childhood was a valued phase of life as suggested by moralising china and expensive toys. Spending appropriate amounts of money shopping on Collins Street functioned as genteel performance for the women. Effort was taken with personal appearance and hygiene as suggested by jewellery, matching toilet sets, toothbrushes and ointment jars. Gentility was integral to all aspects of life.
While Viewbank was a place for private family time and the receiving of guests for the Martin family, it was a workplace for the servants employed there. The constant negotiation of class within the household was a daily issue at Viewbank and a characteristic experience of the middle class. The physical space at Viewbank was structured in such a way as to segregate servants from the family. They have left their own small trace in the archaeological record in the form of clay tobacco pipes, at least one dinner service, milkpans, and a small number of garden and sewing tools.
It has been possible to expand on these insights into daily life and lifestyle by characterising the assemblage in relation to gentility. The Viewbank assemblage can be characterised by cohesion in high quality goods across all aspects of lifestyle, consistency in goods for both public and private use, and keeping up with fashions. These characteristics can be interpreted as the result of the unique way 78in which the ‘established middle class’ used gentility as cultural capital.
For the ‘established middle class’, gentility had to appear to be inherent, a cultural capital with which they were seemingly born. This in turn enabled gentility to serve a distancing function to delineate this group from those seeking entry to their ranks. This also created a sense of inclusion for those who did belong. For the ‘established middle class’ to maintain their class position under the threat of social mobility, the cultural capital of gentility was a vital tool. The Martin family were defining and defending their class position in the new society that was coming in to being in Melbourne, and by this very action were at the same time imposing the class system that benefitted them.