Capitalism, by definition, describes an economic system that is characterized by the control, ownership and use of property by private actors for their personal interests. Whereas capitalism exists in several different variations, the defining feature of any capitalist production mode is capital accumulation and the profit-oriented production of services or goods. One of the fundamental elements of both capitalism and historical archaeology is labor, especially the enforced, colonized, and hierarchal kind that underlies class, mercantilism, colonialism and capitalism (Hall and Silliman 2006: 147). Understanding labor is therefore integral to understanding capitalism, and one way to do this is through a spatial examination of industrial sites and the labor employed there. Fort Vancouver, an economic hub for the operations of the Hudson Bay Company in Northwestern America, and its neighboring laborers’ village form the spaces to be examined. As a strategic foothold and supply center for the HBC, an embodiment of corporate capitalism, the fort and the village are appealing sites for researching capitalist ideology and its manifestation in archaeological records.
The Hudson Bay Company was initially established as a mercantile entity engaged in the sale of beaver pelts, which were the primary raw material for the European and English beaver fur hat markets. Over the course of its history, the company developed a production mode that combined elements of corporate and mercantile capitalism with some aspects derived from the feudal system that predated the company’s existence. HBC’s unique manifestation of capitalism was a key driver of colonial expansion through the entity’s establishment of forts such as the one at Fort Vancouver, which was the company’s main operational base. In the wake of fierce competition in the early 19th Century, HBC engaged in a restructuring initiative that sought to ensure profit maximization, which is one of the key objectives in a capitalistic system.
Fort Vancouver, being a colonial settlement, was characterized by a socioeconomic structure that was indisputably hierarchical with gradations dependent on the seniority of individuals within the company. The structure was inherently militaristic with Gentlemen occupying the officer positions and residing inside the Fort, where they took their meals, as the workers or servant class lived in the adjacent village. The social inequality manifested through the distinction in places of residence between these two groups is a hallmark of the capitalist system. The creation and maintenance of social inequality is a defining feature of capitalism, which is predicated on the withdrawal from production by the capitalists and a reliance on labor exploitation of the working classes, which is what facilitates the sustenance of capitalists positions at the apex of these hierarchies (Shackel 2009: 18). Capitalists, being the owners and controllers of the means of production, need to recruit workers to engage in the production of objects. On the other hand, the workers, who lack ownership of these factors, must sell their work ability in exchange for wages.
Thus, capitalism creates two distinct classes of individuals who are the workers and the employers. However, this class concept, albeit integral to capitalism is inherently antagonistic because it is predicated on the existence of exploitation of the direct producers by the capitalists who seek to maximize their profits through exploiting the labor provided by the subordinate classes to its fullest extent. Hence, an analysis of the ceramic objects obtained from both the Fort and the surrounding village where the officers and workers resided respectively would be a good indicator of the capitalistic relationship existent between these two groups. Besides this, the structural difference between the buildings in the Fort and those in the villages also demonstrates the discrepancy between the two groups.
From a structural perspective, Fort Vancouver, like similar colonial settlements, appears to reinforce the economic superiority of the capitalists over their employees. One of the buildings located inside the Fort is the one that housed the Chief Factor, who was the highest-ranking company officer at the site. The biggest and most eye-catching structure in the Fort, this building comprises of two stories with an elevated main floor and it is the key point of focus from the stockade’s main entrance. Surrounding the house is a piazza, grapes, and flowerbeds, which sets it apart from the other unadorned structures in the fort. In front of the building stand two inoperable cannons whose primary role is to reinforce the authority of the Chief Factor while communicating his dominance at the helm of the hierarchy. Unlike the lower-ranking officers, the Chief Factor, who is essentially the primary capitalist, does not need to work and can afford relative ostentation as exhibited by the adornments on his residence, which signify that he is a class above everyone else.
Fort Vancouver also contained a carefully tended English garden, which was a standout feature that contrasted sharply with the barrenness of the surrounding sand plains where the workers village was located. The many different varieties of fruits and vegetables in the garden symbolize capitalistic colonialists who exploited the North American resources to amass financial and political opulence at the expense of working class community who are represented by the barren land surrounding the Fort. The garden, which only provided food for the Gentlemen officers, only served to emphasize the class distinction between the capitalists and the workers. Whereas the bourgeoisie officer class who controlled the means of production used the returns obtained to access fine food, the proletariat workers who earned a pittance had to make do without such foods thus demonstrating the wide disparity between the two groups.
Similarly, an analysis of the ceramic ware obtained from both sets of sites evidences a visible class difference between the two sets of groups. Officers at the fort typically took their meals at the Chief Factor’s residence, and thus, this place was the main source of the ceramic ware collected at the Fort. The centralization of feeding for the officer class meant that there was uniformity in the ceramic ware collected from this area because purchases of items were likely to have been done in bulk and in matching sets. Conversely, the worker residents of the Village structures usually preferred to prepare their own meals individually and hence the ceramic ware obtained from this location was diverse and unlikely to be in matching sets. One element of capitalism evident from the existence of ceramic ware in both places is that of similarity in material culture (Leone and Potter 1999: 227). Material culture, in relation to capitalism, means that people irrespective of their class in life look to own nice items or properties. Hence, both groups in this case evidently spent money on fancy ceramic ware. However, whereas the capitalists, with their greater financial muscle could easily afford the purchase of complete sets of items, the poor working class had to make do with the few pieces that their meagre incomes could enable them to purchase.
Conclusively, it is evident that the built environment and the materials contained there are an integral element of human relations and actions. The analysis of these items helps in the provision of insight into capitalism and its manifestation, as exemplified by Fort Vancouver, a colonial outpost, and the adjacent village. The Fort, an operational hub for the capitalistic Hudson Bay Company housed the company’s officers who represented the owners of the means of production whereas the Village housed the workers who provided the necessary labor. The difference in the quality of structures in these locations and the nature of the ceramic ware evidences the existence of class disparities between the two groups, which is a hallmark of capitalism.
References
Hall, Martin, and Stephen W. Silliman
2006 Historical Archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Leone, Mark P., and Parker B. Potter, eds.
1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum
Shackel, Paul A.
2009 The Archaeology of American Labor and Working-Class Life. Gainesville, FL: Univ. Press of Florida
.
