I think that prior to 1928 a reasonable person might think that matter was a fairly limited concept, and that the study of matter could come to a conclusive end.
Now I think the known properties of matter are so intriguing that I see no reason to assume matter is limited in any way, though our knowledge of it is.
I am wrestling with your distinction between materialism and physicalism. At the moment I cannot clearly see the difference -- at least any difference that affects my way of thinking.
I will propose a little thought experiment for you. Imagine two parallel earths, both at the technological level of our 1898. The quantum is yet undiscovered. Is it possible for each earth to resolve the problems faced by physics in different ways -- one perhaps going our way, another leaping directly into string theory? In other words, is there anything behind the formalisms of our theories other than giving the right answers?
Personally, I don't see how we could have gotten to string theory without going through quantum mechanics. OTOH, we might have advanced in a number of other ways, e.g. by focusing on dimensions and dynamics.
I am wrestling with your distinction between materialism and physicalism. At the moment I cannot clearly see the difference -- at least any difference that affects my way of thinking.
The difference is a technical one and in everyday conversation the two terms are used interchangeably. IMHO, it is most important at the reins, i.e. which direction to take, not whether to go.