Symbolism and Identity in Domestic Architecture

Although the material aspects of households are the most readily amenable to archaeological interpretation, symbolic archeologists would argue that one must surpass the purely material and functional understanding of domestic structures, to examine households as symbolic representations of the people who inhabit(ed) them. Symbolic archaeology arose in the 1980’s under the umbrella term ‘post-processual archaeology,’ as a reaction to the rigid materialism and ecologically-deterministic view of culture which dominated prior archaeological study. Ian Hodder, a British symbolic archaeologist, was critical of the ability of “function and utility in explaining social and cultural systems,” where “material culture is seen simply as a passive object of functional use” (Hodder 1982: 3). Instead, Hodder (1982) believed that culture, and material remains, should be interpreted for meaning rather than function.

Lepofsky et al. (2009) examined settlement remains of the Stó:lō Coast Salish people in Fraser Valley, British Columbia using data from six recently tested archaeological sites, spanning a period from 4200 B.C. to A.D. 1800’s. The six settlements in the analysis incorporate semi-subterranean houses of different forms as well as above-ground plank houses. Through this investigation of a range of house types over a quite broad time scale, the researchers are able to see both change and continuity in settlement location, layout, size and house form (595). Drawing from a rich source of historical and ethnographic records, as well as archaeological work done on the site over the past 60 years, Lepofsky et al. (2009) analyze and interpret how the house location, layout, size and form may “simultaneously reflect and reproduce social, political and ideological principles of their owners and occupants” (596).

Lepofsky et al. (2009) determined that there is a strong continuity between the ancient houses in the Frasier Valley and the more recent pithouse and plank house settlements that arose after colonial contact (Lepofsky et al 2009). The styles of the unique house and settlement types that exist in the Fraser Valley today are believed to be symbolic representations of the fluidity of the Fraser River itself, and represent “the unique character, central place, and long-term importance of the Stó:lō amid both Northwest Coast and interior spheres of regional interaction and identity formation” (595) .

The importance of agency is more apparent in symbolic constructions of domestic space, particularly in works such as Lepofsky et al (2009) which relate architecture to social identity. In general, symbolic archaeologists speak more about agency in archaeology than most, perhaps due to their typically finer-grained scale of analysis, and some even assert the concept of “active material culture.” In this sense, material culture is given a sort of agency in and of itself, in that it is not simply seen a collection of passive objects only to be used and manipulated by agents, but rather, material culture – and in this case, residential architecture – is active, simultaneously being shaped by and shaping human action.

Hodder, Ian
1982 Theoretical Archaeology: a Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lepofsky, D., Schaepe, D.M., Graesch, A.P., Lenert, M., Ormerod, P., Carlson, K.T., Arnold, J.E., Blake, M., Moore, P., and Clague, J.J.
2009 Exploring sto:lo-Coast Salish interaction and identity in ancient houses nad settlements in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. American Antiquity 74(4): 595-627.