ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: CREATING ANTHRACITE WOMEN: THE ROLES OF ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIAL CULTURE IN IDENTITY FORMATION IN PENNSYLVANIA ANTHRACITE COMPANY TOWNS, 1854-1940 V. Camille Westmont, 2019 Dissertation directed by: Professor Mark P. Leone Department of Anthropology Coal company towns are defined by the experiences of the men who owned and the men who worked in the mines, broadly ignoring the women and families who also inhabited and toiled in these spaces. In the Northeastern Pennsylvania anthracite region, women undertook a variety of methods to change their social positions through the renegotiation of their gender, ethnic, and class identities. Performing ‘proper’ middle class American gender expressions, including through the adoption of culturally-coded objects, provided working class women with greater social power and cultural autonomy within the context of systemic worker deprivation and ubiquitous corporate domination. Drawing on identity performance theories, material culture theories related to gender, class, and migration, and theories of the built environment, I examine how women established identities based in and reinforced by material culture and spatial organization Drawing on archaeologically recovered material culture, oral histories, archival research, and architectural data, I demonstrate the ways in which working class women used cultural norms to elevate themselves and their status within their communities. Women were able to balance their needs with ubiquitous gender oppression within working class industrial society by mastering the tasks assigned to women – responsibilities as mothers, familial ministers, household managers, and feminine matrons – and using those positions to pursue what they needed for their own survival. These identities were further negotiated and enforced by the built environment. By examining household decorations, house floorplans, house lot spatial organization, and company town layouts as a whole, I discuss how workers and company town architects used the built environment to exert and subvert ideas of power, control, and self- determination. This research reveals that the process of identity formation amongst working class women in the anthracite region was a careful and complicated conversation between national level cultural influencers, industrial directors, and company town social trends. As women sought out and exploited new ways of exercising discretion over their otherwise structurally circumscribed situations, they gained social leverage and influence that has been consistently ignored in modern retellings of their lives. Creating Anthracite Women: The Roles of Architecture and Material Culture in Identity Formation in Pennsylvania Anthracite Company Towns, 1854-1940. By Victoria Camille Westmont Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Advisory Committee: Professor Mark P. Leone, Chair Professor A. Lynn Bolles Professor Christina Getrich Dr. Bode Morin Dr. Matthew Palus © Copyright V. Camille Westmont 2019 Acknowledgements The greatest gratitude is owed in equal measure to Paul A. Shackel and Mark P. Leone, without whom this work never would have been started and never would have been finished, respectively. Thank you for knowing when to lean in and when to trust my judgment. Your sustained support, generosity, and confidence have been invaluable throughout this entire process. I am here today because of you. The guidance of my dissertation chair has been further enhanced by my unfailingly resilient committee members. I am indebted to A. Lynn Bolles, Christina Getrich, Bode Morin, and Matthew Palus for their patience and insight. Of course, archaeology is not a solo endeavor, and there are legions of students, volunteers, and community cheer-leaders to thank for making the Eckley and Pardeesville field schools a success year after year. Firstly, this work never would have happened without the incredible support of our community partners, including the Delorenzo family, the Yanac and Manganelli families, the Delazio family, the Salata brothers, many sets of Falatko families, the Moyer family, and Mr. J. Michel. Additionally, the hard work of our students, collaborators, and volunteers was invaluable. I want to thank Justin Uehlein, Jim Kuzma, Judy Joklik, Kerry Robinson, and Alex Hulse from the 2014 Pardeesville Field School; Dolly Canevari, Shannon Goodman, Mikaela Girard, Stephanie Bohn, Andreana Ely, Aaron Duafala, and Esther Whitlock from the 2015 Eckley Field School; and Shannon Geary, Aileen Kroll, Megan Sirak, Kyla Gutmann, and Nini Ahsan from the 2016 Eckley Field School. Additional thanks to our partners at the Hazleton Area School District and the Hazleton Integration Project. ii My time at Maryland has been fruitful due to the direct influences of a handful of wonderful mentors. Dennis Pogue, Carl Lejuez, Jen Shaffer, George Hambrecht, Nadine Dangerfield, and Sybil Paige have consistently challenged me to do more, better. I have also had the great fortune to work under the guidance of and in concert with a bevy of talented individuals outside of the University of Maryland, including Lisa Davidson and Catherine Lavoie at the Historic American Building Survey, Kristian Kristiansen, Bettina Schulz Paulsson, Andreas Antelid, and Jenny Högström Berntson at the University of Gothenburg, Marian Creveling and Bob Sonderman at the National Park Service, and volunteer extraordinaire Charlotte King. Extra thanks to my family and friends who provided much needed joy over the last five and a half years. Amelia Hood, Amelia Jamison, Zach Gieske, Michael Roller, Michael and Robin Kinney, Kyla Cools, Katie Boyle, Sarah Reynolds, Magda Mankel, David McMichael, Jeff Young, Allison Esterle, Sarah Hancock, Bruce Holle, Erin Sears, Megan Springate, and Richard Westmont have consistently been there for the good and the bad. I also have Dave Pollack, Gwynn Henderson, Jay Stottman, and Kim McBride to thank for providing me with a strong foundation in archaeology. As for Giselle and Arabella, I hope this proves that you can do anything if you’re just stubborn enough. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE 1322106 and the Society for Architectural Historians. Additional funding was provided by the University of Maryland’s School of Social and Behavioral Science’s Dean’s Research Initiative. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Anthracite Heritage Project............................................................................................. 3 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 12 A Note on Archaeologically and Architecturally Derived Knowledge .................... 12 Archival Data and Primary Source Documents ........................................................ 13 Oral Histories ............................................................................................................ 14 Archaeological Materials .......................................................................................... 16 Maps and Photographs .............................................................................................. 19 Architectural Data ..................................................................................................... 20 A Note on Terms ....................................................................................................... 21 Periods of Study ............................................................................................................ 21 Theoretical Frameworks ............................................................................................... 23 Identity Formation .................................................................................................... 23 Material Culture Theories ......................................................................................... 27 Built Environment ..................................................................................................... 32 Chapter Organization ...................................................................................................... 5 Women’s Identity Performances................................................................................. 5 Identities in the Home ................................................................................................. 6