I GRACE BROS. BROADWAYnswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/22636_ID_Bairstow1997GraceB… · GRACE BROS. BROADWAY HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT VOLUME 1 -REPORT Damaris Bairstow

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

GRACE BROS. BROADWAY

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL

REPORT

VOLUME 1 - REPORT

Damaris Bairstow MA, LLB, PHD for Walker Civil Engineering April, 1997

Erratum: Peter Douglas, who excavated the area, and thus Martin Rowney who planned it have mislabelled the Water Board drain. Thomas Dunn built a timber drain in the 1840s and a decade later rebuilt part in stone. These drains vest in Walker Corporation as successor in title to Dunn. In 1905, Glebe Council built a brick and concrete drain along the line of the earlier drains. This was transferred to the Water Board in 1916 and this is the only drain vested in Sydney Water.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~

..J

I ~ . ~ I I I I I

u

CONTENTS

VOLUME 1 - REPORT

Acknowledgments

1. Preamble ........................ ......................................................................... 1 2. Summary of Results ................................................................................. 5 3. Research Questions ...................... ... ..................................................... 45 4. Methodology .................. .. ......................................................... ............. 57 5. Bibliography .......... .... ........... .... ... ... .. ...................................................... 63

VOLUME 2 - SITE PLANS

1 The excavation area, 1850, W.H. Wells. MLZM2 811 .17/1850/1 (Mider, February 1996, Figure 4)

2 The excavation area, 1889-90, Metropolitan Detailed Series ML ZM Ser 4 811/17/1 (Mider, February 1996, Figure 10)

3 General site location plan showing Area subdivisions and former house numbers

4 General plan of archaeological structures found between Francis and Grose Streets (Areas 4, 5 & 6)

5 Plan showing archaeological features in the tannery precinct, locations of historic structures and the subdivision of detailed figures 5.1 Detailed plan of northern end of tannery 5.2 Detailed plan of central area of tannery 5.3 Detailed plan of southern end of tannery 5.4 Plan of tannery showng pits excavated during the testing programme for

Aboriginal archaeological remains 5.5 Plans and section of the drain 5.6 Detailed plans and sections of the junction between sections 33 and 34 of

the drain 6 Plan showing archaeological features at the corner of Francis and Bay

Streets, and subdivisions of detailed figures 6.1 Detailed plan of 24 Bay Street 6.2 Detailed plan of 26 Bay Street 6.3 Detailed plan of 28 Bay Street 6.4 Detailed plan of 1 Francis Street

7 Plan showing archaeological features of 38-40 Francis Street, and subdivisions of detailed figures 7.1 Detailed plan of the houses of 38-40 Francis Street 7.2 Detailed plan of the yards of 38-40 Francis Street 7.4 Detailed plan of 38-40 Francis Street (rear)

8 Plan showing archaeological features of 46-48 Francis Street, and subdivisions of detailed figures 8.1 Detailed plan of the houses of 46 & 48 Francis Street 8.2 Detailed plan of the yards of 46 & 48 Francis Street

9 Plan showing archaeological features of 21-27 Grose Street, and subdivisions of detailed figures 9.1 Detailed plan of the houses of 21 & 23 Grose Street, phase 1 9.2 Detailed plan of the yards of 21 & 23 Grose Street, phase 1 9.3 Detailed plan of the houses of 25 & 27 Grose Street, phase 1 9.4 Detailed plan of the yards of 25 & 27 Grose Street, phase 1 9.5 Detailed plan of the houses of 25 & 27 Grose Street, phase 2 9.6 Detailed plan of the yards of 25 & 27 Grose Street, phase 2

10 Plan showing archaeological features of 29-33a Grose Street, and subdivisions of detailed figures 10.1 Detailed plan of the houses of 29 & 31 Grose Street, phase 1 10.2 Detailed plan of the yards of 29 & 31 Grose Street, phase 1 10.3 Detailed plan of the houses of 29 & 31 Grose Street, phase 2 10.4 Detailed plan of the yards of 29 & 31 Grose Street, phase 2 10.5 Detailed plan of the houses of 33 & 33a Grose Street, phase 1 10.6 Detailed plan of the yards of 33 & 33a Grose Street, phase 1 10.7 Detailed plan of the houses of 33 & 33a Grose Street, phase 2 10.8 Detailed plan of the yards of 33 & 33a Grose Street, phase 2

11 Plan showing archaeological features of 35-43 Grose Street, and subdivisions of detailed figures 11 .1 Detailed plan of the houses of 35 & 37 Grose Street 11 .2 Detailed plan of the yards of 35 & 37 Grose Street 11 .3 Detailed plan of 43 Grose Street (rear) - south end 11.4 Detailed plan of 43 Grose Street (rear) - north end

VOLUME 3 -APPENDICES

1 . Area excavation reports

• Blackwattle storm water drain Peter Douglas

• Dunn's Glebe Tannery (Area 4) Peter Douglas

• 24 Bay Street (Star Hotel) • 26-28 Bay Street • 1 Francis Street

Kate Holmes • 38-40 Francis Street • Rear 40 Francis Street

Robyn Stocks • 21 Grose Street • 23 Grose Street • 25 Grose Street • 27 Grose Street • 29 Grose Street • 31 Grose Street • 33 Grose Street

Martin Carney • 35 Grose Street • 37 Grose Street • 39 Grose Street • Rear 43 Grose Street

Kevin Hickson

2. Specialist reports

• Palynological Analyses M.K. Macphail

• Archaeological investigation of the Grace Brothers Aboriginal Pad Dominic Steele

• A short report on some faunal remains Dominic Steele

3. List of stratigraphic units 4. List of photographs not included in Appendix 3


.--------- --------- ------


5 Core bores 6. Site publicity and volunteers 7. Guide to the artefact database 8. Base and manufacturers' marks 9. Statistical analyses 10. List of artefact photographs

VOLUMES4 &5

Artefact database

-----

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. The tannery in course of excavation facing north .............................................. 21 2. North section of the 1845-7 timber-lined drain ................................................... 22 3. Part of the floor of the drain .............................................................................. 22 4. Leather items from upper tan pit fill, Unit 33G 15 ................................................ 23 5. Moreton ginger beer bottle, Area 4, Unit 143, Bag#1 ......................................... 23 6. Tv-..o-roomed cottage at 38 Francis Street ......................................................... 24 7. The well at Rear 40 Francis Street (Unit 28) in course of excavation ................ 24 8. South end of Areas 5 and 68, 21-Rear 43 Grose Street, in course

of excavation from the north-east ..................................................................... 25 9. Part south end of Areas 5 and 68, 21-Rear 43 Grose Street, in

course of excavation from the east ................................................................... 26 10. Tanpits Units 74, 78, 83, 84, 85 and 86 in Tanning Shed 1 ............................... 27 11. The machine base, Area 4 Unit 101, from the west.. ......................................... 27 12. The machine base after partial excavation ........................................................ 28 13. The liming pit (Unit 44) and adjacent wet area .................................................. 28 14. Detail of the liming pit.. ..................................................................................... 29 15. The stone-lined storm water drain ..................................................................... 29 16. Detail of construction of the above .................................................................... 30 17. Detail of the junction between the timber and stone drains ................................ 30 18. Timber-lined layering pit (Unit 100) in Tanning Shed 3 ...................................... 31 19. Area 7A, 24-28 Bay Street and 1 Francis Street... ............................................. 32 20. Machine cut behind 35 Grose Street sho'Mng superimposed

yard fills ............................................................................................................ 33 21. Part of Areas 5 and 68, 27-Rear 43 Grose Street, 38-40 and

Rear 40 Francis Street. ..................................................................................... 34 22. Areas 5, 6A and 68, 21-Rear 43 Grose Street, 38-40,

Rear 40 and 46-48 Francis Street ..................................................................... 35 23. 46-48 Francis Street from the north .................................................................. 36 24. 46-48 Francis Street from the south-west... ....................................................... 36 25. 29 Grose Street, kitchen extension (Unit 4) ....................................................... 37 26. 31 Grose Street after excavation ...................................................................... 37 27. 25 Grose Street after excavation ........................................... : .......................... 38 28. 27 Grose Street after excavation ...................................................................... 38 29. 33 Grose Street after excavation ...................................................................... 39 30. CesspitJWC (Unit 65) behind 46-8 Francis Street.. ........................................... .40 31. Cesspit behind 46-8 Francis Street, provenance of Unit R48F75 ..................... .40 32. Part of the Unit R48F75 assemblage ............................................................... .41 33. Baby feeders from Unit R48F75 ....................................................................... .41 34. Star Hotel cellar ................................................................................................ 42 35. The 1905 and 1840s-50s drain complex after excavation ................................. .42 36. Brick paved yard at 33 Grose Street ................................................................ .43 37. Corrugated iron fence between 26 Bay Street and 1 Francis Street... ................ 43 38. Rabbit bones from 35 Grose Street Unit 4 Quad F4 .......................................... 56 39. Wooden crucifix from 27 Grose Street Unit 23 Quad C9 Bag#105 .................... 56 40. Excavating the tannery using day labour ........................................................... 60 41. Excavation be hand llv'ith a view to wet sieving .................................................. 61 42. Wet sieving for artefacts using day labour ........................................................ 61

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I : I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I must acknowledge Walkers Group not only because they paid for this excavation (a not insubstantial sum) but also for the support facilities they provided. These included a 32-ton excavator (two if necessary) to remove unproductive overburden as required, an 8-ton excavator permanently , facilities for washing artefacts on site, a secured bay for bulk artefact storage, a series of demountable buildings equipped with shelving for artefact photography, sorting and storage, an air conditioned office as well as a furnished lunch room and offices. I have yet to think of any additional requirement.

Secondly I acknowledge the assistance of day labourers obtained initially from CES but subsequently recruited by work of mouth from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island community. The resultant team was a major contribution to the success of the field investigation.

Finally but by no means least, my thanks to those who volunteered their services. The dig took place in the weeks before Christmas, a difficult time of the year for most. Artefact processing continued into mid-January, an equally difficult period. But, bless them, they came and a few stalwarts stayed on. The names of all who volunteered appear as Appendix 7 to the report. However, my special thanks must be extended to Celia Jones and Marilyn Reay who persevered with the boring task of dry-brushing and bulk sorting artefacts to the bitter end. Without their help methinks we would still be there.

The professional team is acknowledged in Part 1 of the report.

.: I

I I I

I

1: I

I I

I

1: I

I : I

II I I I I I I I I I I

! I I I I I I I I I I

II

I I

II I

I I ! I

I I I

GRACE BROS. BROADWAY 1

1. PREAMBLE

1.1 The Site

The site, or rather sites since there were two, were behind the former Grace Bros., Broadway, being developed by the Walker Group as Broadway Retail. The main area for excavation comprised almost 6 000 square metres between Grose and Francis Streets; the second covered some 600 square metres on the north-west comer of Bay and Francis Streets (see Volume 2). The site had been assessed as having archaeological potential and the areas of sensitivity determined with considerable accuracy before the start of archaeological intervention (see Mider, Dana Jadwiga, The Former Grace Brothers Site at Broadway, Archaeological Assessment, unpublished report to Noel Bell Ridley Smith & Partners, February, 1996 and Review of Environmental Factors for the proposed stormwater diversion, September, 1996). Mider's reports set out the history of the site and provide details of land title and occupants. They are referred to throughout this report but are not reiterated. Researchers should refer to the originals for further information.

In all the excavation revealed, including the houses under the houses, a total of 25 houses with assorted outbuildings, an hotel, two tanneries, three wells and 38 assorted water closets, privies and cess pits and over 100 000 artefacts. Mechanical site preparation in advance of full-scale archaeological excavation made clear the extent of survival. This meant that, from the outset, all professional archaeologists were working under pressure. Each was faced with an enormous task to fulfil within a fixed time. Though back-up facilities involved a light mechanical excavator permanently and two 320-ton excavators on call as well as as many day labourers as requested on a day's notice, the archaeological team is to be congratulated on the amount of data recovered.

1.2 The excavation team comprised:

Damaris Bairstow

Dana Mider

D.BAIRSTOW

the excavation director who was administration director and had ultimate responsibility for the excavation program, archaeological methodology, artefact processing and this report.

the assistant director on whose historical research, archaeological assessment and review of environmental factors the excavation was based. Dana was in large part responsible for pacing the excavation so as to ensure maximum data retrieval within the time estimate, for much of the artefact processing during and after the excavation, for post-excavation research and for formulating post-excavation research questions.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

2 GRACE BROS. BROADWAY

The Area Excavation Supervisors in alphabetical order were:

Martin Carney

Peter Douglas

Kevin Hickson

Kate Holmes

Robyn Stocks

who was responsible for Area 5, 21-33 Grose Street and therefore inherited no less than twelve houses including the various rebuilds and for the previously unknown 1840s tannery attributed to Walton. Martin is also an expert on bottles (glass and ceramic) and made himself available for consultation as to identification and dating during and after the excavation. Any mistakes in identification are probably the director's. Martin's would have been accurate.

who came in to supervise the investigation of Dunn's Glebe tannery which had occupied Area 4. Accordingly Peter was also responsible for investigating the drain through which the original creek had been channelled.

who was responsible for the south and most of the central section of Area 68, numbers 35-43 Grose Street and for the strange conglomerate identified in this report as Rear 43 Grose Street [R43G].

who supervised the excavation of Area 6A, numbers 46-8 Francis Street and therefore acquired the taxidermist's refuse. Upon completion of this Area, Kate moved to Area 7 A, the Star Hotel and adjoining shops and dwellings.

who was responsible for the north section of Area 68, numbers 38-40 Francis Street and for the cottages behind, referred to as Rear 40 Francis Street [R40F].

Each of these supervisors produced an area excavation report at the end of the excavation. They appear as Appendix 1 to this report which is based on the information thus provided. In addition:

Dominic Steele was the expert on aboriginal cultural material which could have survived along the banks of the former creek in Area 4. Dom held the National Parks & Wildlife permit to destroy. His report on this part of the investigation also appears in Appendix 1. During the weeks before Area 4 became available, Dom assisted Martin Carney in Area 5. Indeed, it was the combined efforts of these two experienced archaeologists which ensured that the archaeological investigation of so large and complex an area was brought to a successful conclusion within the original six weeks' time estimate. Dom is also an expert on faunal remains and made this expertise available both during and after the excavation. As such he undertook a detailed investigation of the faunal remains in the 'taxidermist's' cess pit [R48875]. That report is contained in Appendix 2.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT D.BAIRSTOW

I I I I' I

I I I I I I I I I I I

II I

I I I I I

II I

I I it I I I

, I

~I

;. II

I I I I I I I I


Craig Barker

Kevin Barnes

Ron Gallagher

Dan Tuck

Tony Jenner

Martin Rowney

assisted Kate Holmes in the excavation of 46-48 Francis Street and the initial processing of the cess pit fill. After completion of this excavation, Craig assisted Martin Carney at 21-33 Grose Street.

acted as excavation assistant to Kevin Hickson at 35-43 Grose Street and as preliminary site planner in that area before the arrival of Martin Rowney. The plans of sections to the south of 35-37 Grose Street reproduced in this report are based on Kevin's site work. who is the best unqualified field worker and more experienced in historical excavation and associated recording than many professionals, acted as field assistant to Robyn Stocks and as general assistant to the Director, sorting and maintaining lists of the location of the mass of artefacts recovered from the site

also assisted Kate Holmes at 46-48 Grose Street where, in the absence of Martin Rowney he took over the job of site planner. All plans of this area are based on Dan's work. On completion of this excavation, Dan assisted both Martin Carney, for whom he also planned features which needed to be removed to allow excavation in depth, Peter Douglas at the tannery and Kate Holmes at the Star Hotel.

was the site photographer and was responsible for all the photographs reproduced in this report as well as for maintaining a day to day record of the excavation, a detailed record of individual structural features and deposits and for photographing artefacts as required.

was the official site planner. At the start of the excavation he was employed oversees. Hence the work of Kevin Barnes and Dan Tuck. After his return to Sydney Martin took over all planning. The plans which comprise Volume 2 to this report are his.

In addition to the foregoing specialist services were made available:

Michael K Macphail

Graham Wilson

1.3 Priorities

undertook palynological analyses. His report is contained in Appendix 2.

identified a number of clay tobacco pipes unknown to the excavation team

The increasing wealth of archaeological data necessitated the determination and redetermination of priorities. Methodological details are contained in Part 4. Sufficient at this stage to state that

D.BAIRSTOW HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

----------------- ---- --


• all structural units, most of which would be impacted by site development, were excavated and recorded in detail

• surface yard artefact scatters were discarded in favour of sub-floor occupation deposits and cess pit fills

• artefact cataloguing and processing and post-excavation archaeological records have concentrated on producing detailed lists to enable later analysis rather than constricted records on which to base present analysis.

These priorities were influenced by a request to use the excavated data as a base for a Master's thesis at Sydney University. Post-excavation analysis is always possible provided all the necessary data is available whereas no viable analysis is possible in the absence of information. The result is that examination of research themes in this report is more a series of questions than of answers, of impressions rather than analyses.

1.4 Format of the Report

Volume 1 is the report properly so called. Part 1 is this preamble. Part 2 sets out the results of the excavation examined in the light of documented information. Part 3 examines the research questions formulated in advance of excavation as well as ones formulated as a result of excavated data. Part 4 provides details of the methodological approach.

Volume 2 is a compilation of site plans.

Volume 3 provides the bulk of the information in the form of appendices

Volumes 4 and 5 contain the artefact catalogue.



I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

4.1 Preamble

This part of the report is designed to provide an overview of site development from pre-European settlement until 1920s-30s demolition. It is based on information contained in the various Area/Trench excavation and Specialist reports coupled with analysis of the artefact assemblages. Some interpretations made here may vary from those in the excavation reports. This is no criticism of area supervisors. Far from it! The excavation director had the advantage of all their reports, of the artefact catalogue and analysis and hindsight. None the less, this summary does not purport to be a definitive statement. That would be beyond the time/cost limitations of this (or any salvage) brief.

Details of the structural features and deposits associated with individual structures are to be found in the Area/Trench reports (Volume 3, Appendix 1 ). For further information on the artefacts, the researcher is directed to the artefact catalogue (Volumes 4 and 5).

One extraordinary feature of this site was the extent to which it was developed and redeveloped within less than a hundred years. The earliest houses were built between 1843 (subdivision) and 1850 (Map, Volume 2, Figure 1 ). Of these, only 26-28 Bay Street, 1 Francis Street, possibly 38-40 Francis Street (though the occupation deposits seem either early or late with a gap between suggesting a definite change), 46-48 Francis Street (though it is now considered that these were also replacement structures), the manager's house at the tannery (for which there is little evidence at all) and 29, 35 and 37 Grose Street appear to have survived into the 1920s. No.24 Bay Street was rebuilt as the Star Hotel in the 1870s. Wrthin 20 years the Star Hotel was altered by the addition of a new kitchen, water closets and urinals when the sewer became available in 1894. The availability of the sewer line along Francis and Grose Streets led to the gradual conversion of existing earth closets and to the construction of purpose-buiH water closets, but not all structures identified as water closets on the 1889-90 map (Map, Volume 2, Figure 2) were ever sewered. In Area 5, the International Harvester site (Plans, Volume 2, Figure 5), the sewer was connected only to the 20th century rebuilds. Sewerage connection at 38-40 Francis Street caused such damage to the house behind (R40F) that it was completely rebuilt at the turn of the century. Carney conservatively dates the later terrace at 33 Grose Street to between 1891 (after the 1889-90 map) and 1925 (the date of demolition). Artefacts recovered from the fill below the floor (Unit 12) suggest that this, too, was built in about 1900.

Archaeologists are trained to read stratigraphy. Some, therefore, present their findings in phases rather than by date. Others, conscious that historical archaeology is historical and should be dateable, endeavour to ascribe dates or a date range to their stratigraphic phases. Both schools of thought are represented in Appendix 1. This report endeavours to ascribe dates, and there are certain dates available on which to hang archaeological findings:

1829-1840

D.BAIRSTOW

Lease and Crown Grant to Joseph Hickey Grose (see Mider, February, 1996)


6

early 1830s

1830s-40s

1843-5 1845-7 1846 1847 1850 by 1860

1860s 1865-70 1875-80

c.1889 1889-90

1890s 1894

1896 1900 1905 c.1905 1907-1930s 1912 1915 c.1926 1929 1928 1932 1930-1932 early 1950s


Darling's development of the Haymarket as a cattle, hay and corn market. Holding paddocks pushed west to Grose Paddocks, now Victoria Park and the site of Sydney University. Archaeological evidence of soil erosion

Potteries in Sydney South and the Glebe area led to a requirement for wood to fire the kilns leading to deforestation and erosion? Subdivision and sale as the Bishopsgate estate Thomas Dunn's tannery was established J. Walton, 'dealer in hides and tallow' was located in Bishopsgate Walton was listed as owned of 33 Grose Street Map (Plan 1) Drain has been arched over all lots have been developed Water reticulation The Star Hotel was built Dunn moves out and a manger takes over the tannery Mrs Earnshaw moves out the tannery was closed and the land leased to Massey Harris Map (Plan 2) identifies as water closets privies which were never sewered Sewerage became available, but note Single-storeyed extension to the Star Hotel included water closets and urinals The Star Hotel is listed by name, but it has become the Broadway Hotel Construction of the Water Board drain Massey Harris took over Dunn's tannery site International Harvester gradually expanded across Area 5 the Broadway Hotel was not listed, but the building was identified as a coffee palace Henry Simon took over Area 6, but 35-37 Grose Street were still listed in Sands' Directory 27-33 Grose Street were listed in Sands' Directory, but by all had gone the hotel and adjoining houses were demolished 46-48 Francis Street were demolished

4.2 Pre-European contact.

The study area was situated adjacent to the upper reaches of a creek which rose in a swamp, now contained as an ornamental pool in Victoria Park on the south side of Broadway east of Sydney University, and flowed north into Blackwattle Creek, thence into Blackwattle Bay.

Remnant topsoil was located in patches in various sectors of the study area. Sandy soils were located at the Bay Street end (24B78, 28B80) at 40 Francis Street (40F25 and 30), where it appeared to contain more loam and at 46 Francis Street

IDSTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT D.BAIRSTOW

l I

I I

I II

I I II I



I I I I I I I


(46F40) where it was loamier still. Alluvial silt had been anticipated adjacent to the former stream where some remnants did survive in the north of the tannel)l site on the east bank (Area 4 Unit 40). This was selected as a test site for aboriginal evidence and also for soil sampling by palynological methods (see Plans, Volume 2, Figure 5.4).

Evidence of aboriginal occupation had not been expected nor was it found. The area had been known as the Kangaroo Grounds, suggesting hunting, but given the proximity of the swamp it seemed unlikely to have been chosen as a camp site when much better sites were available nearby.

Palynological analyses suggested that the site was a combination of minor wetland and grassy eucalypt woodland, analyses supported by archaeological evidence of occasional but not abundant trees (see M.K. Macphail, Palynological Analyses, Janual)l, 1997 and Dominic Steele, Archaeological Investigation of the Aboriginal PAD in Appendix 2)

4.3 European contact to 1843 Subdivision

In the 1830s, Governor Darling developed the Haymarket as a market. A new site for the holding paddock for stock destined for the Sydney market was found in the Grose Paddocks, the area now occupied by Victoria Park and Sydney University. In the 1830s and 1840s potteries were established in Sydney South and the Glebe area. Both would have necessitated land clearance - of undergrowth for stock and to provide wood for firing the kilns. Macphail found an abundance of she-oak pollen in the samples analysed. She-oak was prized for firewood and it may be that timber had been taken well before the 1830s to provide wood to fire the kilns at the convict brickfield at Brickfield Hill (near the north-east corner of George and Hay Streets) Joseph Hickey Grose was, among other things, a timber merchant dealing in hardwood shingles (Oyster, Barrie, Servant & Master. Building and Running the Grand Houses of Sydney 1788-1850, 101-2). Doubtless he made use of his Bishopsgate estate for this purpose. Both timber getting and grazing would lead to deforestation and soil erosion and thereby cause or exacerbate local flooding. The study area provided ample evidence of this.

The first European impacts reflected in the archaeological deposit were in the form of washed in sands and soils due to erosion on the one hand and loss of topsoil which had been washed elsewhere on the other. The deposits were more prevalent in the west of the site: in 31-40 Francis Street and 35-37 Grose Street (Units 38F31, 40F46, 35G56 and 37G34). The loss of topsoil was more obvious towards the east: at 29-33 Grose Street and in the south of the tannel)l. Trees were cut down, but hard eucalypt stumps appear not to have been grubbed out, several surviving in the A2 Horizon at the Grose Street end of the site. This is commensurate with Grose cutting for shingles. An attempt was made to burn some (35G42 and 47, 37G27), presumably in the 1840s to allow building, but the roots survived.


~~~~~---- --- -- -- --


4.4 1843-1850 Subdivision and Sale to c.1850 Map

Excavation The effects of erosion and flooding seem to have been known at the time of subdivision. To minimise the impact, the whole of the domestic area between the tannery and the high land occupied by 46-48 Francis Street was filled before any house was built (Units 38F26-28, 40F31-32. 39 and 43-45, 25G24, 27G29, 33G29, 35G18, 23 and 51, 37G13, R43G30). The fills were shallower at the Francis Street end, minimal below Rear 43 Grose Street but deeper in the south along Grose Street. At 21-29 Grose Street they reached a depth of almost two metres below the houses. This major capital expense seems out of proportion to the simple workman's houses built on the site. Presumably, therefore, the source of the fills was local, but where they came from has not been determined.

Although the land was subdivided in 1843, most of the Jots in the study area were not sold until 1845 and then by Grose's trustees in bankruptcy. In 1845 Thomas Dunn bought Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26 of Section 2 (see Plans, Volume 2 Figures 1, 2 and 5; Illustration 1) in order to build a tannery just outside the city limits in which noxious trades were not permitted. This was a curious purchase since it omitted the site of the creek, an assured water supply which would be essential for tanning. This suggests that the creek site was valueless, supporting Macphail's conclusion that part of the site was a minor wetland. Douglas suggested that the timber drain (Plans Figures 5.5 and 5.6; Illustrations 2 and 3) into which the creek was channelled may have pre-dated the tannery (Douglas, Peter, Summary Report on Archaeological Investigation ... of the . .Drain, Appendix 1). If this was so, Dunn most assuredly would have bought it.

It is difficult to date the various features which made up the tannery. The stratigraphy was horizontal rather than vertical with no single Unit clearly overlying another. There was no change in building fabric or technique to support a chronological sequence, artefact yield was minimal and mainly undiagnostic and, while significant changes were occurring in tanning technology towards the end of the century, Dunn failed to make use of them. 'No definite evidence of European occupation of the site prior to c.1850' was located and for this reason Douglas dated the entire complex to between c.1850, the date of the earliest known map (Plans, Figure 1 ), and 1900. In doing so Douglas overlooked a vital piece of information, a Moreton ginger beer bottle which must pre-date 1847, the year of Moreton's death. This was found in tannery bedding fill (Unit 143 Bag#1 ). Dunn's house, later the manager's residence, had been built by 1850 (Plans Figures 1 and 5.3) and there is external evidence that by 1847 the tannery was fully operational. It had attracted associated trades.

A timber-lined pit (33G7) was located behind 33 Grose Street (Plans, Figures 10 and 10.6). Sunk with regard to the lot boundary, it clearly post-dates 1843. Though no associated deposit was found by which to determine this pit's function, a second larger timber-lined pit (33G8) was discovered further to the rear. This was clearly a tan-pit and there was evidence that it had superseded the first. After the works closed this pit became a handy repository for domestic rubbish but both fills, especially the lower, contained leather, including off-cuts, in quantity not found in other domestic dumps (Illustration 4) while the upper fill contained a hide scraper. During the excavation a storm caused water to accumulate in the pit. Within days it


I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I



had turned vivid green and grown algae, suggesting that some chemical compound remained in the soil. Research undertaken by Carney as a result of his finds showed that J. Walton, who had owned the property between 1847 and 1848 was 'a dealer in hides and tallow'. Though the occupation of Walton's successors has not been determined, it is likely that subsequent tenants (the property was bought for rental) made use of his works for a short period. Since it is unlikely that Walton set up a minor tannery in direct competition with Dunn's vast establishment, Carney suggested currying, that is, reprocessing fine leather which may have come from Dunn's works (Carney, Martin, Trench Report, Grace Brothers Broadway Area 5, Appendix 1 ). This seems not unlikely. A currying works dating to approximately the same period was excavated at 271-273 Pitt Street, Sydney and it operated on a single pit (Bairstow, Damaris and Graham Wilson, 271-273 Pitt Street, Sydney, Historical Archaeological Report, June, 1990).

The 1850 map (Plans, Figure 1) shows that a free-standing cottage had been built on Lot 14, 33 Grose Street while the allotments to the east had also been developed. No.33 Grose Street was presumably contemporary with the first currying pit. The others seem to have been built about the same time in that all lots were sold in 1845. Nos 29-31 Grose Street (Lot 15; Plans, Figures 10 and 10.1) comprised a mirror-twin terrace built by Henry Wait who lived in No.29. Nos 25-27 Grose Street (Lot 18; Plans, Figures 9 and 9.3) were another pair, also in part owner-occupied by Richard Westman who lived at No.25. The third pair, Nos 21-23 Grose Street (Plans, Figures 9 and 9.1 ), was built to let. Thus we find a combination of tenants and small capitalists along this part of Grose Street. West of this group the situation was quite different.

Lots 5-12 of Section 2 (Plans, Figures 1, 2, 7 and 11) were bought by Ono Earnshaw whose family retained the land until 1924. Earnshaw had clearly bought to build rental accommodation and, as the evidence will show, became very much the slum landlord. At the time under discussion, however, he had developed only Lot 12, Nos 38-40 Francis Street on which he had erected two tiny two-roomed cottages fronting Francis Street (Illustration 6) and a substantial five-roomed house behind (Stocks, Robyn, Trench Report Pt. Area 68 comprising 38-40 Francis Street & Rear 40 Francis Street, Appendix 1) I seems that Earnshaw lived in this house for a short period (Mider, February 1996, p.67).

Whilst the 1850 map shows no development south of this, some activity seems to have taken place. Excavation revealed two east-west remnant sandstone footings (35G39) and a thin occupation deposit (35G40) which contained material commensurate with an 1840s-50s date. These lay below the clay bedding fill for the 1850s cottages. A possibly even earlier drainage channel (35G50) extended north to south. Insufficient survived to permit viable interpretation other than to suggest that the drainage channel was a reconstructed water course and that the other features were in some way connected with Earnshaw's house (Hickson, Kevin, Trench Report Pt. Area 68 comprising 35-39 Grose Street & Rear 43 Grose Street, Appendix 1 ).

Ambrose Thornley Bought Lot 4 but seems not to have built at this stage.

All the allotments on the corner of Bay and Francis Streets (Area 7A, Plans, Figures 1, 2 and 6) seem to have been bought to build rental accommodation. Lots 45 and 46, Nos. 24-26 Bay Street were bought by Stephen Milford who also owned 1-3 Francis Street which he retained until the 1880s. Milford was listed as occupant of



26 Bay Street, but not until 1870, and in 1875 he appeared in the rate books as occupant of the Star Hotel. Neither seems very likely. Most of the structural components of 24 Bay Street were destroyed with the construction of the hotel, evidence of this period being reduced to a small, rectangular structure (Units 30 and 99) containing a minor occupation deposit (Unit 96). However, sandstone footings and remnant boundary walls survived at No.26. All occupation material at No.26 was destroyed in the 1920s-30s. One substantial occupation deposit had survived from No.24, though it must be dated later than 1850. Lot 44, Nos.28-30 Bay Street was bought by Nathaniel Willis who may have built the original house and who sold to William Woodford in 1849. Holmes discovered that the house in its first form spanned the allotment. Woodford, another absentee landlord whose family retained the property until it was sold to Grace Bros. in 1921, converted it into two. Both survived in archaeological form, but No.30 was not fully excavated, a buffer zone being necessary at the time to support the adjoining building (Holmes, Kate, Trench Report Area 7 A comprising 24 (Star Hotel), 26 & 28 Bay Street & 1-3 Francis Street, Appendix 1)

Artefacts. The most outstanding artefact to be recovered which dates from this period, indeed the only artefact clearly deposited before 1850, was the mis-shaped grey saltglazed stoneware bottle referred to, made by Moreton to contain 'Lees Imperial Ginger Beer' (Illustration 5) and recovered from the tannery bedding fill. Moreton was a convict and an habitual criminal in that, though doubtless the laws were draconian, he continued to offend in NSW. The result was that he was almost permanently in gaol until 1833 and until that time could not have produced items under his own name. Moreton died in 1847. He is written up in the books, but to the best of the team's. knowledge no example of his work was previously known (Carney, verbal communication).

Three wells were discovered within the study area. Other thari to say that they were all likely to have been sunk before a reticulated water supply was available, that is, before the 1860s, there was no means of dating them. A well, however, was not a domestic necessity in the late 1840s - 1850s - one could rely on water carts - it was a luxury involving considerable expense. The first well to be identified was behind 30-40 Francis Street (R40F28). It was adjacent to Ono Earnshaw's house and Ono Earnshaw was a rich man. The second was found behind Thomas Dunn's House at the tannery. Dunn was a rich man. The third was behind the Star Hotel and is more intriguing. All hotels in the first half (and beyond) of the 19th century needed their own wells to ensure pure water for beer which was brewed by each pub. Hotels were judged by the quality of their beer. But the Star Hotel was not built until the 1870s. This well was not sunk for the Star Hotel. The artefact assemblage recovered (24B101 and 109) can be dated between 1850 and 1880. An 1850 date may be too early in that it does not allow for deposition delay, but an 1870s date is too late. This well was sunk to serve a tenant and that is what is intriguing. Why should Milford go to this expense? The only answer offered is that during the 1840s-50s when a well would have been desirable, Milford owned 24-26 Bay Street and 1-3 Francis Street, that the well was designed to serve the tenants of all his houses and that by this capital outlay he could command a greater rent. This is another hypothesis requiring further research.

Other deposits may have started at this time, but all are dominated by later material.


I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I



4.5 1850s-1860s

Excavation Glebe Council was established in 1859 and its first rate book indicate that at that date all allotments in the study area had been developed. The map of 1889-1890 (Plans, Figure 2) shows that the terraced cottages Nos 35-37 Grose Street, immediately west of the earlier group, were brick-built though Glebe Council's rate book record them as stone. Structurally each seemed to comprise only two rooms, but the rate books list four within a single storey. There was no evidence of northsouth internal walls commensurate with four rooms. Thus internal spaces must have been divided by timber partition walls. No change in artefact distribution indicative of differing room use was observed, though this might be revealed by more detailed analysis than is presently possible. Kitchens were attached to the back of the cottages. It is not certain that they were part of the original construction. Indeed, comparison with the other Grose Street houses suggests that they were not. However, they seem to have been built during the period under discussion.

There was considerable evidence that the fill laid down before construction of these houses was insufficient to stop flooding. Indeed, the first flood seems to have occurred soon after occupation. A thin, lower occupation deposit (Unit 16) at 35 Grose Street was covered by a layer of silt (Unit 15) which lay below the artefactrich upper occupation deposit (Unit 4). A similar phenomenon was observed at No. 37 where silt (Unit 15) lay below the main occupation deposit (Unit 3) with only a smear of occupation material below (Hickson, Appendix 1)

No trace of the timber cottages west of these was found. The stone cottages further west were destroyed by 1950s development apart from a couple of isolated remnant footings.

It is not certain when building started on the strangely shaped cottage which grew behind the Grose Street houses (Rear 43 Grose Street - R43G; Plans, Figures 2 and 11 ). Since it is not referred to in the 1850 map it was probably built after that date, but the introduced clay fill on which the house was built (R43G30) suggests that Rooms 3 and 4, which Hickson considered to be the original house, were there by 1860. Rooms 3 and 4 are the northernmost, the main room and a north verandah, which virtually abut the house behind 38-40 Francis Street (R40F). If Earnshaw was living there it could be that the cottage served as servants' quarters, possibly for a married couple since there was little evidence of internal spatial division. It seems unlikely that Ono Earnshaw would tolerate his social inferiors living just outside his back door unless they were his servants. The map of 1889-90 (Plans, Figure 2) shows that access was by way of a lane from Grose Street. Since the lane lay between houses built by 1860, it must be contemporary with R43G and is commensurate with a tradesman's-servants' entrance. Hickson's dating sequence indicates that Room 1, the southernmost, was built some time in the 1860s. It is later than Rooms 3 and 4 in that it was built on a new layer of introduced fill (R43G1, Hickson, Appendix 1). Room 1 was originally free-standing. There is little evidence of its then purpose other than to observe that Glebe rate books at one stage indicate that Mrs Earnshaw occupied a house and stables

To the north, Ambrose Thornley had developed Lot 4, later known as 46-48 Francis Street (Plans, Figure 8), but there is evidence to suggest that his was not the building which had left substantial remains in situ. Glebe rate books record



Thornley as having built two houses, one of brick with three rooms, the other of stone having two rooms, both single storeyed. Excavation revealed the substantially built, mirror-twin footings of two storeyed houses (evidenced by their stairwells) divided by a passageway which contained water connection not available until the 1860s. Below these footings were less substantial sandstone footings for an east-west wall (Units 32 and 76) which clearly pre-date the main house (Illustrations 23 and 24). No return nor evidence of a parallel wall, which would have established that the footings represented a house wall, was found, but no alternative can be suggested. A garden wall is unlikely in this location but the structure is in keeping with a light superstructure, viz, a garden wall or the wall of a single-storeyed cottage. A small area of cobblestones (Unit 42), suggesting a remnant yard surface, was located in the south-west corner of the second room while brick rubble (Unit 35) appeared to continue beneath the main footings. At the time of excavation this deposit was thought to have been introduced fill such as was found in virtually every section of the site. On reflection it may well have been an in situ demolition deposit. This hypotheses would explain the differences between the only substantial sub-floor occupation deposit (Unit 39), which by its contents has been dated to 1860s-90s but which could be slightly earlier, and the later cesspit deposit (R48F75). The former, with its pig's trotters, pig's head and lots of sheep reflecting the working class domestic debris common to the most of the excavated site with none of the exotica found in the cesspit, would relate to the simpler, Thornley-built cottages. The latter, a middle class assemblage, would relate to a comparatively new two-storeyed terrace which survived until demolition in the 1950s.

Some of the cottages along Grose Street were being extended and improved. Carney dates the kitchen addition and post-kitchen verandah at 21 Grose Street (21G6 and 7; Plans Figure 9.1) as well as the kitchen at No.27 (29G9) and its almost immediate extension (29G4) to the 1850s. By its construction, the cottage behind 27 Grose Street (27G5; Plans Figure 9.4) was contemporary with the main house. Since it is not shown on the 1850 map, it seems to have been a little later, say, 1850s. The second unidentified sandstone structure in the yard (27G8) seems to have been later but may have been built in the 1860s. A kitchen (33G30) was added to the back of 33 Grose Street at about the same time (Plans Figures 10, 10.5 and 10.6). It cut the corner of the first tanpit, putting it out of commission. Presumably the second tanpit was sunk as a result. As with the cottage behind No.27, Carney preferred a late 1840s date and it is only reliance on the 1850 map which rules this out. By 1859 a small two-roomed structure had been built behind 29 Grose Street (Plans Figures 10 and 1 0.4). Carney referred to it as a cottage, but there is little evidence of identity. Access seems to have been from Lot 16 to the north, land bought by Robert Wait who presumably was related to Henry. Each extension or new construction involved additional introduced fill (Carney, Appendix 1).

By this time the tannery seems to have reached what was to be almost its final form (Plans Figure 5). By the 1860s the storm water drain had been arched over, a reference which has been taken to mean that the stone section of the drain built by Dunn as part of a liming pit and 'wet' area complex dates to the 1850s. The integration of the tannery complex which Douglas has demonstrated suggests that the rest, or a substantial portion of it, had also been constructed.


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I



On Douglas's interpretation, raw materials (lime and tan-bark) were brought in along Francis Street and stored in bays in the north end of Tanning Shed 1, that located in the east of the tannery (Plans Figures 5 and 5.1; Illustration 1). The 1889-90 map (Plans Figure 2) shows a gap between this shed and one extending north to south near the centre of the tannery. Post-holes located around the perimeter of the second shed site were in keeping with this, but Douglas considered that the two buildings were one, that the building to the west was an open sided annex to Shed No. 1 in the east. Otherwise a number of activities associated with the western shed would have to have been conducted in the open air, which seemed unlikely. The map also suggests that the whole of the drainage system had been concealed below ground. Douglas rejected this also since the archaeological evidence shows all major structural features stopped short of the drain.

Tanning took place in a series of pits (Plans Figure 5.2 Units 83-86 etc.; Illustration 1 0) in the south of Tanning Shed 1 with an intermediate and/or final process occurring in the west annex. An unidentified machine base (Unit 101; Illustrations 11 and 12) was located in this area. The machine, clearly, had a central screw frtting and a drain which connected to the stone stormwater drain. Thus something was turned and fluid drained away. First thought to have been a mixer for tanning infusions, Douglas later suggested a wet-leather press. West of the drain were the liming pits and wet area referred to, the construction of which resulted in the centre of the timber drain being rebuilt in stone (Illustrations 13-17). These were contained in Shed No.2, the site of a wooden shed (centre south) and tanpits (centre north) on the 1888-90 map (Plans Figure 2). Shed No.3 was that shown adjacent to the west boundary. Much of this area had been badly impacted by a 20th century sunken workshop, but six pits were located (Plans Figure 5.2). Pit Unit 50, larger than the others, was chosen for excavation and was identified as a timber-lined layering pit. Another large, apparently timber-lined, pit further south (Unit 100; Illustration 18) was also considered to be a layering pit while smaller handling pits lay in the middle. A milky white deposit on the base and walls of the southern pit suggested residue of alum or salt used in currying. If this was a currying workshop it may well be the reason Walton and his successors went out of business so early. The structure shown as 'Old Wood' on the map turned out to be a privy, the only privy on the site and therefore an early structure. Between this and the building identified as iron on the map was another timber-framed structure (Plans Figure 5.1 Unit 126), apparently a store which Douglas considered must have post-dated the 1850 map and been demolished before 1888. Douglas tentatively identified the north-west structure (Unit 125) as having been built as a residence because of its verandah (Douglas, Appendix 1 ). The director disagrees and considers that the building postdates 1875. The reasons will be outlined later.

Between 1865 and 1870, No.24 Bay Street was demolished and rebuilt as the Star Hotel (Plans Figures 6 and 6.1; Illustration 19). Structural details of the hotel were available because of plans prepared in 1894 for the purpose of alterations and additions (see Mider, February, 1996, Figures 12-17). Excavation confirmed this information and confirmed also that the alterations were carried out.

Artefacts By this time occupation deposits were beginning to accumulate. Because most of the houses in the study area survived until the 20th century, most of these deposits have a broad date range. There are a few, however, which relate only to the early years.



A number of refuse pits were located at the rear of 23 Grose Street (Units 8-12). So early was much of the material that Carney thought they or some could pre-date the house and this may be true. However, the Thomas Field stoneware bottle in Pit 11 must post-date 1850 while a Bull & Ambler glass bottle from the same Unit was in a style registered by that firm in 1850. Pit 11 also contained a stoneware ink bottle and a gin bottle both in the style of the 1860s. This pit, therefore relates to occupation of the house though the others may be earlier. The contents of the pits varied, but each was indicative of mid-19th century domestic occupation- a quantity of fine earthenware, mainly flat-ware, a little glass, mainly pickle, oil and sauce though a little beer and gin was present. The occupants made their own bread (part of a bread pan), boiled their washing (a copper stick), used the standard massproduced health cures of the time, appear not to have smoked and they had at least one child. Of greater interest is the Copeland & Garrett transfer-printed platter (1832-47, 23G10 Bag# 6), a crystal wine glass and, possibly, snuff (23G12 Bag#s 9 and 13). These were behind a house built to house working class tenants, though this material did not come from Pit 11 and may, therefore, have been introduced.

The second tanpit behind 33 Grose Street (33GB) was used for refuse from, seemingly, the late 1840s or early fifties until the 1860s. The pit fill comprised two distinct deposits (33G15 and 16; Plans Figures 10 and 1 0.6), though the presence of fragments of a blue transfer-printed jardiniere in both (33G15Bag#167, 33G168ag#50) indicates that they were almost contemporary. Both contained a considerable quantity of leather (Illustration 4) and both contained domestic debris. The lower pit yielded also industrial iron, a pair of snips and part of a horse bit and was dated by Carney to just after closure of the works, the upper assemblage, which contained a hide scraper, being a little later. No clearly dateable items were found in the lower fill, but the upper was more productive yielding eight items by which the assemblage could be dated to the 1850s-60s (Appendix 8), earlier rather than later since it did not contain the mass of food jars which are the hallmark of the 1860s. Examination of the faunal remains indicates that the occupants at this time ate more beef than was found elsewhere. Pig bones appeared in the lower assemblage, but most were in the form of pigs' trotters and pig's head which have traditionally been ascribed to the working rather than to the middle class.

As has been said, the lower occupation and silt layers at 35 and 37 Grose Street date to this period. Except that the silt deposit (Unit 15) contained less than the early occupation unit (Unit 16), there is little difference in the two artefact assemblages. Sheep dominated the faunal remains, but there was a little rabbit. The cuts of meat and ceramic tableware suggests more roasts than stews. The only toys were marbles which may suggest a boy, but playing marbles was not restricted to children. A number of small beads of the type used for bags and bodices was also present.

Cesspit Unit 52 at 35 Grose Street seems to have been filled by 1870 and cesspit Unit 54 possibly a little earlier. The former contained less domestic debris than its neighbour. The tenants broke more cups than plates, but otherwise the material reflects that of the occupation deposits though, surprisingly, the only faunal remains were three cattle bones. Unit 54 was more productive and yielded a mass of food storage jars, stoneware and glass. For some reason it contained no faunal remains.



I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


Occupation evidence at No.37 was slight, though a refuse pit in the yard (Unit 39) is dated to the 1860s. Ceramics were a mixture of flat and hollow ware. Food jars and bottles dominated the glassware, though alcohol was drunk, mainly beer but some stout and gin. There was a surprising quantity of castor oil bottles in view of the fact that the assemblage contained no evidence of children. The other surprise is that sheep, cattle, pig and fish are equally represented. However, since the total count was ten, this may not be indicative of consumption.

Construction of the Star Hotel sealed a small occupation deposit which made possible comparison between pub and pre-pub occupation (see Part 3). Analysis of the assemblage shows that almost 36% of the material was glass, 1 0% comprising alcohol bottles and 16% food jars (kitchenware) reflecting the explosion of purposebuilt pickle, chutney, sauce, oil and vinegar bottles in the 1850s which is reflected in the archaeological record in the late fifties-early sixties and on to the end of the century. Hollow ware, which usually reflects tea drinking, was higher in this Unit than was the site norm.

Other deposits were accumulating at thus time, but they contained too many items of a later date to be dealt with here.

4.6 1870s-1880s

Excavation Local flooding seems to have continued in the low-lying sections of Grose and Francis Streets. Little cold be done about existing structures, but each extension or new structure involved fill to raise the level of the land. The yards were continually being raised. (27 G11, 29G2, 8 and 18, 35G5, 8, 14, 37G4 and 5). A section cut and recorded at 38 Francis Street revealed no less than nine yard fills (38F22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 35) over natural topsoil (38F31) but under two deep superimposed yard surfaces (38F16 and 17). Whilst No.42 Francis Street was not excavated as such, no major structural evidence having survived, machine excavation evidenced a similar phenomenon (see Kevin Hickson, Appendix 1). Not all these fills are dated to the 1870s-80s. Floods and yard fill seem to have taken place continually until the 1920s.

Between 1875 and 1880, Mrs Earnshaw, Ono's widow, left Francis Street. Her departure heralded the beginning of the slum which the Earnshaw property quickly became. Stratigraphic evidence suggests that it was at this time that Room 2 at Rear 43 Grose Street was created out of the open space between the 'servants' quarters' (Rooms 3 and 4) and Room 1 and the whole used as residential premises. This area was low-lying and poorly drained. The result, it seems, was that cesspits were flooded and overflowed necessitating a new pit or overflow pit which n turn overflowed. On the evidence, pit Unit 56 was dug in the 1850s, Unit 18 in about 1860, cesspit overflows Units 79 and 80 in the 1870s, pits Units 32 and 78 in the 1870s or 1880s with the open drain, Unit 4, being converted into a cesspit probably a little later and the brick and cement cesspit, Unit 15, which was eventually sewered, a little later still. As each pit became unusable it was filled with refuse and sealed. By the 1890s there was little space left in which to dig (Plans Figures 11, 11.3 and 11.4; Illustration 21 ).



At the same time as Mrs Earnshaw was moving out, Thomas Dunn left his (increasingly noxious) tannery, appointing a manager who occupied his house. It is at this stage, it is suggested, that the wood and iron 'store' in the north-west corner of the tannery yard was built. Dunn did not lose his financial interest in the tannery, but he could no longer run it from his house. He would have needed an office and so would his son who took over after him. Excavation revealed that the building contained at least two rooms and had a verandah which led on to the tannery yard (Douglas, Appendix 1; Plans Figures 5 and 5.1, Unit 125). In plan this is a typical late 19th century paymaster's and general office: an outer office with the only entrance door leading to an inner office which contained the safe and which had a window opening on to the verandah where the men would queue for their pay.

By 1889 Nos 46-48 Francis Street had been built in the form revealed by excavation (Plans Figures 2, 8 and 8.1; Illustrations 22-24)

In or by 1889 the tannery was closed and the land leased to Massey Harris for 25 years.

Artefacts More artefact assemblages were sealed during these years, though most contain material from the earlier period.

The first cesspit at 38 Francis Street (Unit 42) was sealed in about 1870. The privy fill (Unit 41) reflects the explosion of condiment bottles in the 1850s and sixties as well as containing gin bottles pre-dating and post-dating 1860. The deposit was typical of a mid-19th century working-class domestic assemblage as revealed throughout the study area. The privy at No.40 (Unit 8) seems to have been sealed a little later. Its fill (Unit 24) contained no aerated water bottles such as were to become popular during the 1890s. Thus an 1880s date is suggested. Again fairly typical of working-class domestic material, the noticeable absence was rabbit. This is in stark contrast with the occupation deposit from the back room of the same house (Unit 17) which contained numerous rabbit bones (see Plans Figures 7, 7.1 and 7.1 and Illustration 6). The occupation deposit, whilst containing material dating from the 1860s, was not closed until demolition of the cottage in the 1920s. Thus rabbit bone may be indicative of later deposition.

The early cesspit at 29 Grose Street (Unit 21) was sealed by the kitchen extension and its contents (Units 22 and 23; Plans Figures 10 and 10.1; Illustration 25) can also be dated to the 1860s-70s. This house was owned and occupied by Henry Wait. Whether the wealth of material in his privy (2550 items weighing almost two kilograms) reflects the wealth of Mr. Wait or just plain carelessness was not determined. His house was modest, but he did own the house next door and two behind fronting Francis Street from which, presumably, he received a rental income. The meat he ate, while mainly mutton (with many roast legs) included working-class pigs' trotters and pig's head, though beef was better represented than the norm. An alphabet plate (29G22 Bag#12) indicates that he had at least one child, a boy, as witnessed by another plate with the words 'for a good boy' (29G22 Bag#81; see Praetzellis, Mary & Adrian Praetzellis, "For a Good Boy" ; Victorians on Sacramento's J Street, Cultural Resources Facility, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, California, 1990). This item shows also that Henry Wait was a product of prevailing middle-class morality. The lad was cared for according to the customs of the time (Hora castor oil, 29G22 Bag#s 135-8 and a graduated





medicine glass 29G22 Bag#140). A decorated plate bearing the sentiment 'Long life to the noble Earl of Fife' (29G22 Bag#65) suggests that Wait was a recent immigrant who was not averse to drink (a Schilling's token (29G22 Bag#196), Schilling of 478 George Street being a wine and spirit merchant, and 107 fragments of liquor bottle compared with 84 from food jars) or smoke (29G22 Bag#s 97-100 and 134, 29G23 Bag#s 62-68). Although not sealed until later, the kitchen occupation deposit (Unit 6) yielded a number of buttons embossed 'Convict Prison' with a crown (29G6 B2 Bag#65, 10 items, also 29G11 Bag#14) as well as an identity disc numbered 251 and bearing the (government?) arrow (29G6 A 1 Bag#84). Since it is highly unlikely that Wait was a prisoner it seems likely that he may have been a prison officer. (There was one probably naval button in that it bore a crown and anchor [29G6 A2 Bag#40] in the kitchen deposit - Wait's older son or the same son now grown up?

The fill in cesspit Unit 19 and cesspit overflow Unit 79 at Rear 43 Grose Street date to the 1870s though both contain earlier material. The first contained little of interest by the second yielded a mass of debris and food remains. This was the only deposit other than that behind 46-48 Francis Street (see later) to have seeds, nuts and fruit stones other than the ubiquitous peach. Peach was represented, but also 55 apricot stones, cherry, plum, walnut, hazelnut, pumpkin, and coffee beans (R43G 79B Bag#s 178-187). There was a considerable quantity of liquor bottles, mainly black beers and gin bottles but also one of the few identifiable whisky bottles recovered from the excavation, this one being embossed with the name of the importers, Kinahan & Co of Carlisle and Dublin (R43G 79B Bag#85; 1860-90). Though alcohol made up 16% of the assemblage by function compared to 11% kitchenware (see Appendix 9), the latter contained over a dozen Thomas Field ginger beer bottles, some of which were detailed for display. Among the fine earthenware was a 'Copeland, late Spode' platter with a transfer print registered in June, 1851 (R43G 79A Bag#65). This is an extraordinary assemblage and perhaps supports the hypothesis that the occupants of the house at this stage were Earnshaw's domestic servants. ·

The well behind 24 Bay Street (Unit 1 07, Plans Figures 6 and 6.1) was sealed in the 1880s. This yielded an abundance of material (Units 101 and 1 09) but, although the well had been associated with the hotel for over a decade, its contents no not necessarily reflect this when compared with the pre-hotel occupation deposit (Unit 96). Percentage figures include:

Unit:- 96 101 109 fine earthenware 24.1 26.7 25.7 glass 35.9 36.5 but 47.1 kitchenware 17.0 20.1 19.2 alcohol 10.3 10.0 but 19.9

Clearly both glass and alcohol figures for the lower well fill exceed the norm and the one doubtless reflects the other. A similar phenomenon was observed in well fill behind Belfields Hotel on the corner of George and King Streets, Sydney, where filling the well appeared to have been a single act which occurred shortly before the well was closed. The heavier glass bottle bases sunk to the bottom leaving lighter material above (Bairstow, D., 400 George Street, unpublished Historical Archaeological Report to P.T. Limited, October, 1996). A detailed examination of the artefact database could determine if a similar event occurred at the Star Hotel. If bone number:weight is indicative, it did. However, unlike its Belfield Hotel counterpart, much of the material in the Bay Street well had little to do with hotel occupation. One of the moralising plates so dear to Victorian parents appeared in



the assemblage (248101Bag#134). Porcelain made up 5% of the upper well fill, one of the highest percentage figures for porcelain in the excavation area. The occupation deposit held only 2.7% porcelain (see Part 3 and Appendix 9). At least 150 items of ceramic tableware in the upper well fill were transfer-printed, not in matching sets which might be expected from an institution, compared with only 28 white and four banded items. A similar pattern occurs in the lower well fill. This assemblage is not indicative of 'pub-ware'. On the other hand, the pickle and mustard bottles were typical of pubs, more large roasts were represented in the faunal assemblage than in domestic assemblages and the deer antler (248 1 01 Bag#54 7) probably came from the bar room wall.

Construction of the terrace at 46-48 Francis Street sealed the earlier sub-floor deposit (46F39, Plans Figure 8.1; Illustration 24). The bone content of this unit was dealt with above. Of the rest of the assemblage, glass made up 32.4% by number and, while glass included window glass and some food jars, alcohol comprised 18.8% compared with kitchenware, 11.0% and food 15.4%. The alcohol content is almost as high as in the hotel well. Since alcohol formed an even higher proportion of the later deposit located in the cesspit behind the terrace, it could be that the further you lived from the pub, the more you brought home. This contention requires further examination of the database.

Cesspit Unit 56 at the Rear of 43 Grose Street (Plans Figures 11 and 11.3) seems to have been sealed in about 1890. An 18.5% alcohol content compared with 7% kitchenware and 7.8% food supports the contention above. Rear 43 Grose was even further from the pub (see also Part 3).

4. 7 1890 to the turn of the century

In the 1890s or possibly a little earlier a curious alteration was made to 29-31 Grose Street. To convert the central walkway for vehicular access, Wait demolished the east wall of No.31, the tenanted house (Plans Figures 10 and 10.3, Illustrations 8, 9 and 26). Presumably the wall was replaced by a timber partition since the house continued to be occupied, but the resultant tiny rooms no longer had fireplaces. The reconstruction allowed flood water to be carried below the floors of No.31. As with the sub-floor areas further west, the result was a depletion of the deposit in the south-west and an accumulation of material in the north-east (Carney, Appendix 1).

Sewerage became available in the 1890s. It led to the construction of a new kitchen with adjacent W.Cs and urinals behind the Star Hotel over the former yard and the site of the well (Mider, February, 1996, Figures 12-17; Holmes, Appendix 1). It should be noted, however, that connection to the sewer was not compulsory. The Water Board notations to Plan Figure 2 are misleading. Not all the structures identified as W. Cs were ever sewered. Indeed, the only sewered privies between 21 and 33 Grose Street inclusive were associated with 20th century rebuilding (Carney, Appendix 1 ). It may be, therefore, that some of the dates for cesspit closure given in this report should be a little later.

The availability of sewerage cannot be merely coincidental with the capital investment which occurred at the turn of the century. Stocks dates the replacement of the house known as Rear 40 Francis Street by a four-roomed cottage to c.1900 (Stocks, Appendix 1; Plans Figures 7 and 7 .3). Since this was based on a date of about 1890 for the first sewer, 1900 may be a little early but not by much. The





reconstruction obliterated all trace of earlier sub-floor occupation deposits. Nos 25-27 Grose Street were replaced by a new terrace with the central passageway being widened into a carriageway (Plans Figures 9 and 9.5; Illustrations 27 and 28). The cottage at 33 Grose Street was demolished and replaced by a terrace of two houses straddling a carriageway leading to a third, possibly commercial, building in the yard (Plans Figures 10 and 10.7; Illustration 29; Carney, Appendix 1).

Thus at the turn of the century, in the area between Grose and Francis Streets, the noxious tannery has been closed and replaced by Massey Harris' stores. Most of the houses fronting Grose Street immediately west of the tannery have been replaced. On the high, west section of Francis Street Thornley's cottages have been replaced by a well-built two-storeyed terrace and in the middle, with the exception of the four-roomed cottage, lay the Earnshaw slum. Even the new cottage leaves something to be desired. One of the rooms was identified as a laundry/bathroom, another must have been a kitchen, with only two rooms for all other purposes.

Artefacts In about 1890 the floor of Room 1, Rear 43 Grose Street (R43G1 ), was raised, sealing the sub-floor deposit (R43G2, Plans Figure 11.3). It is not proposed to examine in detail all sub-floor deposits. Some descriptive statistics will be analysed and research questions addressed in Part 3. Sufficient at this stage to say that the deposit contained more clay pipes than any other assemblage, that alcohol again dominated the glassware, that there was surprisingly little bone and that what there was was mainly sheep.

In direct contrast to this and to other working-class assemblages is the material recovered from the cesspit behind 46-8 Francis Street (Units 65 [pit] and 75 [filij, Plans Figures 8 and 8.2; Illustrations 30 and 31) identified in the database as R48F[75]. This was an extraordinary collection containing numerous native animal bones which led the archaeological team to hypothesise that the occupant of the house must have been a taxidermist and to suggest an association with the Australian Museum of the Macleay Museum at the University of Sydney, though Sands' Directory contains no reference to a taxidermist operating in this area. The deposit has been analysed in detail (see Steele, Appendix 2 with addendum). It is not proposed to reiterate that report here. Sufficient here to state that the aerated water bottles found in the assemblage dated it to 1880-1900. It contained a wide variety of fruit and nuts as well as evidence of top cuts of meat and delicacies such as goose and squab. Venetian glass, crystal stemmed wine glasses and cut glass tumblers were recovered in quantity and the deposit contained also the remains of several matched tea-sets, most being hand-painted porcelain (Bag#s 333-337, 339, 341 and 345) but some being fine earthenware (Bag#s 358 and 360) reflecting middle-class social ritual and constructs of gentility. Matched sets were found nowhere else in the excavation area. French cognac was drunk, the minimum bottle count being twenty-three, in addition to which 88 corks were recovered, all apparently from liquor bottles. This, however, was a family home. Ten baby feeders were recovered as well as dummies, dolls and remains of several toy teasets (Illustrations 32 and 33). If material remains reflect social status (a direct correlation is not accepted now as unquestioningly as it was a decade ago) then there is evidence that the occupant was a cut above his neighbours.

The cesspit at the Star Hotel (Unit 28) was sealed after the new sewer connection. Although glass makes up 48% of the material and alcohol-related items 17% by



function, food remains and kitchenware comprised 48% by function with tableware (which included an egg-cup filched from the Australasian Steam Navigation Company) adding another 13%. This may reflect the regular collection of recyclable alcohol bottles from an hotel (the cellar was bereft of artefacts, a phenomenon common in public houses, Illustration 34) in contrast to the irregular supply from private householders. On the other hand, it may reflect partial pre-hotel deposition. Examination of the faunal remains discloses more large roasts (about 50% of the assemblage) and cattle than was the norm for domestic deposits. The rest is very similar to private garbage - pigs' trotters, pig's head, sheep's head, sheep's tongue. This was, of course, a working-class hotel catering for working-class tastes.

4.8 The twentieth century

The first major event of the 20th century on this site was the construction by Glebe Council of a brick and cement stormwater drain along the line of Dunn's timber and stone drain (Area 7A Unit 30, Plans Figure 5; Illustration 35). The east side of the early drain was destroyed, but part of the west wall survived.

Sewerage was connected and this resulted in the final yard surfaces which, in common with other working-class areas, were mainly asphalted or brick paved (Illustration 36). The ubiquitous corrugated iron back fence appeared, and it survived between 26 Bay and 1 Francis Streets (Illustration 37).

In 1907, Nos 21-23 Grose Street were demolished and replaced by stores built for International Harvester, later to be taken over by Tillock & Co., wholesale grocers. Between 1925 and 1930 Tillocks acquired the land from 21-33 Grose Street inclusive as well as the land north to Francis Street. Meanwhile, between 1918 and 1920, Nos 25-27 Grose Street were rebuilt. As with the other new works along Grose Street, the former passage was widened to form a carriageway. This series of carriageways for what was certainly not carriage trade suggests minor industry or commercial use of the yards. However, the cottage behind 27 Grose Street, demolished between 1920 and 1925, was not converted to another use. The new terrace seems to have been demolished at about the same time., that is, within a decade of their construction, though Sands' Directory lists an apparently private occupant at No.27 in 1928 (Mider, February, 1996). Tillocks had certainly taken over by 1932. Archaeological evidence suggested an hiatus between Tillock's acquisition of 29-31 Grose Street and demolition. This is borne out by an airial photograph taken in 1931 which shows that the gabled roof of the terrace had survived. The photograph was taken for Sydney University. The study area is minor background and required considerable magnification before anything significant could be discerned and this part of the site is masked by Henry Simon's building. Whilst therefore unclear, Tillocks do not seem to have built on this land at this stage. No.33 Grose Street, on the other hand, went in 1928.

In 1924 the Earnshaw estate was sold to J.C. Williamson who resold to Henry Simon Aust. Limited two years later. With the latter sale, all the surviving cottages along the west end of Grose Street and. with the exception of Nos 46-48, those along Francis Street, were demolished.

The Star Hotel and its neighbours survived into the 1930s when they were bought and demolished by Grace Bros. Only Nos 46-48 Francis Street survived the Second World War and they were demolished in the 1950s.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT D. BAIRSTOW

I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I

I I

I I I

-~

; ~

~

~ ~ s ~ ; 0 ~

- -

l.~ .. • ·- ~, ' ;.·

~ .. ·.;',)· ~-~- . ... ~: ...

V• • • ,::·.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D..LUSTRATION 1. The tannery in course of excavation facing north. The south end was badly impacted by Massey Harris' construction, but the shadow of the manager's house can be seen bottom right. Behind it is a test trench dug to determine the nature of the deposit. The outline of the tanpits in Shed No. 1 can be seen further north with, north again, the various storage bays. At this time the drain was only partly excavated, but the liming pit and wet area can be seen bordering its west wall. North of this is the shadow of the 'Old Wood' privy not yet excavated. The layering and handling pits in Shed No. 3 can be seen near the west boundary. The tarpaulin marks the site of Pit No. 5.

-~ ~

~ ~

= ~

~ ~

N ...

22

~ •• 0 -

·~-

·•


.. ··.'

"··


llLUSTRATION 2 North section of the 1845-7 timber drain facing north. This section has been conserved.

llLUSTRATION 3

··~ ·

Part of the floor of the timber-lined drain facing south. The 1905 Water Board drain is to the left. Scale in SOOmm intervals.

D.BAIRSTOW




ILLUSTRATION 4. Leather items from upper tanpit till, Unit 33G15 Bag#s 8-16, 136-7

ILLUSTRATION 5 Moreton ginger beer bottle. Area 4, Unit 143 Bag# 1.

D. BAIRSTOW

23

u


24

··~ .. . . '

. ...... ...,_. ___ : . -· ........ -


.. .. ~

ILLUSTRATION 6. Two-roomed cottage at 38 Francis Street from the north. Scales in 500mm intervals.

ILLUSTRATION 7. The well at Rear 40 Francis Street (Unit 28) in co~~ne of excavation. As can be seen from the machine cut in the foreground, the well extended beneath the

water table. Excavation was abandoned before the base of the well was reached.



-!='

; ~

~

~ ; 8

~ e 0

el

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ILLUSTRATION 8. South end of Areas 5 and 6B, 21-Rear 43 Grose Street, in course of excavation from the north-east. No.21 Grose Street (far left) is as yet tmexcavated and No.23 is only partly cleared. Only Phase 2 of the development of Nos 25-27 Grose Street, the 20th Century terrace with vehicular access to the yard, has been revealed. The stone cottage behind 27 Grose Street can be seen below adjacent to, left of, the cottage behind No. 29. Nos 29-31 Grose Street are also in their last development period. The 'shadow' right of the central northsouth footing marks the late 19th century walkway which cut off access to the fireplaces at No.3!. The 20th century terrace (33a & b) dominates the site of No. 33 Grose Street, but the footings of the original, rectangular cottage can be seen below the main walls rear. llte tarpaulin lies across the site of the second tanpit. Nos 35-37 Grose Street (top right) have not survived to the same extent. Far left, in part covered by a tarpaulin, is Rear 43 Grose Street, skewed to the botmdary. Even at this stage of the excavation its close proximity to Rear 40 Francis Street is clear.

-~ ("} pj

~ fll

= 0

~ > <

~

-> <

~ ~ = rn 0

~ l'il u

~

\C N

- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -

ILLUSTRATION 9. Part south end of Areas 5 and 6B, 23-37 Grose Street, in course of excavation from the east. No.23 Grose Street (bottom) is only partly cleared. Only Phase 2 of the development of Nos 25-27 Grose Street, the 20th Century terrace with vehicular access to the yard, has been revealed. The stone cottage behind, right of, 27 Grose Street can be seen adjacent to, below, the cottage behind No. 29. Nos 29-31 Grose Street are also in their last development period. The 'shadow' above the central north-south footing marks the late 19th century walkway which cut off access to the fireplaces at No.3 I. The 20th century terrace (33a & b) dominates the site ofNo. 33 Grose Street, but the footings of the original, rectangular cottage and its paved front verandah can be seen below the main walls. The tarpaulin lies across the site of the second tanpit. Nos 35-37 Grose Street (top) are only partly shown. The pale deposit top left is the site ofthe early drainage channel.

-~

~ = =

~

= ~ 3 0

~ 8 0

~

I GRACE BROS. BROADWAY 27

I I ·-·· ....

A

.-·-······· '-·

I .? •

I - --. ·. :_~-~ ~ ·~ : : , ·'-"·-;-F ·.- ·-f :~:.,

I ,.

I I I ...

:..-· ·. _ ...... ,-.:~

I ILLUSTRATION 10. Tanpits Units 74, 78, 83, 84, 85 and 86 in Tanning Shed 1. Only pit 84 was excavated. The machine base, Unit 101 can be seen top right.

Scale in 500mm intervals.

I I I I I I I I

ILLUSTRATION 11. The machine base, Unit 101, from the west.

I Scales in 500mm intervals

I D.BAIRSTOW HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

28

....... ;. wrflt,./


ILLUSTRATION 12. The machine base after partial excavation showing drainage system which connected with the stormwater drain. Scale in lOOmm intervals.

•.. .,,.~ ... , .. ·.·.·

. .... : ~~ ... . . .

ie~-:- .. ~.: ::~, . .. ..:.; .• .. ,

ILLUSTRATION 13. The liming pit (Unit 44) and adjacent wet area facing south. Scales in 500mm intervals.

......... ;





ILLUSTRATION 14 Detail of the liming pit facing south showing coUapsed sump on the centre of the floor. The pale deposit on the surface of the bricks is lime. Scales in SOOmm intervals.

···-

ILLUSTRATION 15. The stone lined storm water drain facing south. The 1905 Water Board drain is on the left.



ILLUSTRATION 16 Detail of the construction of the storm water drain near its junction with the south timber section. Scale in SOOmm intervals.

ILLUSTRATION 17. Detail of the junction between the north end of the stone drain and the north timber section

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT D. BA.IRSTOW




ILLUSTRATION 18 Timber-lined layering pit (Unit 100) in Tan Shed 3. Note white alum or salt residue. Scales in 500mm intervals.

D.BAIRSTOW

31

(~-

l:· .. • ..

' .

.

.~ ~~·'

·'

:r . . ,. " · ·. tl'' ... ·

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOWGICAL REPORT

->

~ = i I:Q

t3 ~

"" f"'

- - -

......... _...:··•·"-i~"'~:.~·~•w,.,.,_, ..:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -......,. _, .. ...... .r;,j~ -:--~-- :· -;•', · ... -~ ·-·· ·. .. . '~- .... """ · .·:,47, t"' ,'tt ' ·, • '"' .. ' I T .,

· .. '..:J._, J ~,.;, ~- -~-_r· 1-i.-,_ - ' ~ "" :tl( 1/ ' ' , __ : .:·· . .. ,f.,/ ''t ;:

.~ . -~:-- ,-: · .:i f";,....,_.. A -~ ·. , ...... ~ " :. 'i;i'A_"''· -~ .... '. ' . > - . ·""" ." ~--··· . :~.-... "~-- . '" \ ,_

' ' ···:;' '·· .. ·-: .. '' . . """'- .

r-~--:..

' ..

..:,P_ .. ' !I II .I,-"""*~,. ,II N!S?i?i \

r . . ' J ''•' J 'f • I 7 ~ . . '"'; . r ~-- ru . ~ . ~, • .

' ,t .;..,'Y,..J .. \ . : j • . . .-.,_,_..,~ , . • ,1 , .. # ...... -~~ ; Jl'.f .;.~ . • . .~ •• ,~- ~-,,~. . .... ~~f~".+:: ;ry ~- . •·;.;;.• .. '.;· .. ... ~lf',><~f~ .... ~"'-,,t. ~~ .,. . ' .. -· ) ~ •)' -.. . ,, '

.__r-. . a-. -~ / · C. I 1 · · ·

. . ... .. , , ' >· ,.. -~(\~ . ~· " - ' Ji6 " ' - ' .. J:A ~fY_., , . - . • '·t . • .... . ....-..... ~· . ,_ , ' - ~ · . .. . . ' . - '

} ::;~:·:. :.:~:: : .. ' _; . -~-'! ' ~- ii '-, \' . . ., -.._, ·-~'<">'>~'tf"~.<"··. · ·· ;;1 · ·v _ _., .

. : ,:;$:;' . ' . " ,,,.. . . :-\, ' t '·

, . .,c _j'-':'~ ~:i . ~ 'I ~ ..

,~' ~ .-. -~- '~ ~~ { ~- > •

rr,.' .,;., .. ,

:'¥1;1·~,~~ -~~ \ _. ''"'-'-. • y.. \ : -~ l _ ;l'><, .,

·---·· ... /

' -

<~- - : .. -.~~

·, . " ...... ~_;:: . .... .... .... '·.~. ,.

.....

•,

ILLUSTRATION 19. Area 7A, 24-28 Bay Street and 1 Francis Street, in course of excavation facing south. The cellar (Unit 7) under the public bar of the Star Hotel can be seen top left. The hotel extended north to the first major line of east-west footings, its yard encompassing the two cesspits (Units 28 and 29). The outline of the hotel dining· room is indicated by the footings top centre with the 1894 kitchen and toilet block immediately right. No. 1 Fran cis Street, partially excavated, occupies the top right comer. The centre is the site of 26 Bay Street which was bereft of occupation material and whose yard had been impacted by 1930s fuel tanks, here removed and backfilled. No. 28 Bay Street and its yard occupy the foreground.

-~

~ =

t= 0

= ~ 3 0

~ ~ ~



ILLUSTRATION 20. Machine cut behind 35 Grose Street showing superimposed yard ftlls above the clay. Scale in 500mm intervals.

D.BAIRSTOW

33


-.... ....:

~ < 0 =: = en 0

== = ~ v ~ (J

..., t")

-

~~ :{~~. ,( •

.. •

,,

- - - -

: ... .. ~ . ~·· ... . ,,~, .. ,, .,_,....

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

....

lLLUSTRA TION 21. Part of Areas 5 and 68, 27-Rear 43 Grose Street, 38-40 Francis Street and Rear 40 Francis Street in course of excavation from the south-west. The front rooms of 35-37 Grose Street (right foregroWld) have been handed over to the developer. Note that the walls behind these as well as that extending diagonally across the site are 20th century Henry Simon's. The skewed cottage, Rear 43 Grose Street, can be seen centre left and its surrotmding cesspits are begiJming to emerge. The proximity between this cottage and Rear 40 Francis Street (centre left) is now quite apparent. The small houses fronting Francis Street, Nos 38 and 40, can be seen top left and the yards of 27-33 Grose Street centre right.

-~

~ IQ

=

~ 0

~ ~ ~ g 0

~ ~

~ ~

-!='

; ~

; -1

~ ~ ~

~ 0 s ~ ~

~ ~

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·<N~ ~·~- ....

••

ILLUSTRATION 22. Areas 5, 6A and 6B, 21-Rear 43 Grose Street (left), 38-40, Rear 40 and 46-48 Francis Street (right) in course of excavation from the east. No.21 Grose Street (bottom) is still Wlexcavated. The spoil heap, built over a sterile or badly impacted sector of the excavation area occupies the bottom right quarter. Nos 38-40 Francis Street and their central walkway are visible above, but Rear 40 Francis Street is hidden by a tarpaulin. In. this photograph Nos 46-48 Francis Street can be seen top right as can the impacted area which surroWlded them. For further details see illustrations 7 and 8.

-~ l"l t"'l

= 0 ~

= " 0 ~ ~ ~

1.-1 (JI


ILLUSTRATION 23. Nos 46-48 Francis Street after excavation from the north. The east side of No. 46 has been truncated by the cut for Henry Simon's west wall while the west

of No. 48 was left as a buffer to support the adjacent building. The pre-terrace eastwest wall can be seen extending between the two houses behind the main front wall

ILLUSTRATION 24. Nos 46-48 Francis Street after excavation from the south-west. This provides a better view of the pre-terrace east-west wall. The pre-terrace fills came from

the pit (top left) in the maio front room of No. 46





ll.LUSTRATION 25. 29 Grose Street kitchen extension: sandstone & brick footings, fireplace, flagged floor. The pit at the rear is the site of Unit 5, the 1880-1920s fill. Scales in 500mm intervals

ll.LUSTRATION 26. No.Jl Grose Street facing south. The f"rreplaces (left) have been cut off from the now partitioned rooms by the walkway and service lines. No. 29, originaUy a

mirror twin, is on the left. Scales in 500mm intervals.

37

D.BAIRSTOW IDSTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

38

*-.. .. .~., ~ ...... ~---

/ .. :.O~t.:··· .J.

-

/' ..

...-.-::.

'• .) :._, j _ ... ,,.._ -r·-? I _,._. ·: ..

~ --~~1 --------~-~ ~ , _______ _

ILLUSTRATION 28. 27 Grose Street after excavadon facing north. The original house is marked by the east-west foodng, centre, and by a jumble of brick & stone, centre righL Scales in 500mm intervals.

I

·, .,

·'


• ··::


ILLUSTRATION 27. No. 25 Grose Street after excavadon facing north. The original house is marked by the east-west stone footing, centre, and the north-south footing, left. Scales in SOOmm intervals

- . . .• J -- ...

~ ·- ' I ... '<QI ..

'"-...

r-~ ... :L.--· ··' . '~

D.BAIRSTOW

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a-

., .. I i

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I


ILLUSTRATION 29. No. 33 Grose Street after excavation facing north. Tbe footings and flagged front verandah of the 1840s cottage can be seen centre-right

beneath the c.1900 terrace. The original entrance to the yard was to the left. The first tanpit (Unit 007) is visible top right beyond the kitchen extension.

39


;

,; ..

10

.ILLUSTRATION 31. The cesspit below the WC, the provenance of Units R48F75. Scale in SOOmm intervals.

- -.'>:.

/

:., ,,

' .. · ... '' ~.x-. .....

,: • ~-~ ... .t~ - · ...J~



ILLUSTRATION 30. Cesspit/We behind 46-8 Francis Street facing west before removal of the we structural members. Scales in 500mm intervals

D.BAIRSTOW




"'0· ~--. ~ .....

D.BAIRSTOW

" f_· r.-:: . . ,.

.:· .. ~ . ...-~ . . -,,;:.' .. -,

.:~ '#' •• <: ••

': ·;:::i~~-~-

ILLUSTRATION 32. Part of the Unit R48F75 assemblage.

ILLUSTRATION 33. Baby feeders from Unit R48F75, Bag# 123.


42

ILLUSTRATION 34. Star Hotel ceDar from the west showing the barrel chute from Bay Street. Scales in 500mm intervals.

ILLUSTRATION 35 The drain complex after excavation. The 1905 Water Board drain is left of Dunn's timber and stone drain. Scales in 500mm intervals.

.,. .. '

-~--, ::-».~-.y

~,...41 ~-~

" ·-- ~-' ...

v-.Y ":_·~ uC1.;~~- ~s ---~~~·~:~:£;~~ ··'1~ ' 71<".•.•· .. ,..-.~ ~::·..<«> ...

"<:"""""·~ ~

''

.,..

· ;..

' ,{


GRACE BROS. BROADWAY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

D. BAIRSTOW I



·, .. ,..,:.~

.--.·:,:~ .. :.-::. ::;~·· .

ILLUSTRATION 36. Brick-paved yard at 33 Grose Street dated to c.l910. Scales in 500mm intervals.

ILLUSTRATION 37. Remains of the corrugated iron fence between 26 Bay Street and 1 Francis Street. Scale in 500mm intervals

43

. ..

""'··


I


~~- ----------------


3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

3.1 Preamble A prerequisite to any excavation permit is the formulation of a research design which focuses the aims of the excavation and the methods proposed to achieve those aims. That research design is not definitive. It is assumed that both research questions and methodology will be refined during excavation as a resuH of the excavated data. Thus this Part addresses the research questions originally formulated and others which the excavated data could address.

3.2 Statistical analyses & Unit Dates In Part 2 an attempt was made to provide date ranges for all stratigraphic units and analysis of the various assemblages was based on these dates, but the dates should not be accepted as absolute. We know, approximately, the dates of construction and demolition of the cottages and there are other dates on which to hang changes in use or occupation. However, the dates of extensions, aHerations and outbuildings are based in the main on stratigraphic evidence amplified by artefact content. Artefacts are not entirely reliable as a means of dating. Some things are certain; others are not. It is certain that the availability of cheap glass led to an explosion in the production of sauce, mustard, salad oil and pickle bottles in the mid-1850s. Many of these were purpose-designed and therefore clearly identifiable. These bottles had very thin walls and were easily breakable. Hence they were likely to enter the archaeological record with little time lag. An assemblage containing a mass of this glass could date from this time. However, production continued well into the 20th century. Thus most of these bottle types fail to provide an end date. Clay pipes are also easily breakable. Indeed they were designed to be disposable. They too are likely to enter the archaeological record soon after manufacture. Unfortunately, the majority of clay pipes found on this, as on most, site come from the mass-producers, Duncan McDougall, 1846-1967, Charles Crop, 1856-1967, Thomas Davidson, 1862-1911 or the local manufacturer, Dixson & Sons, 1839-1904. These dates are unhelpful. A mean production date for an identified manufacturer of fine earthenware coupled with an assumed deposition lag is not much more than an educated guess. Coins and tokens are datable, but again the time it takes for them to enter the archaeological record is uncertain. On this site single provenances yielded small denomination coins and (probably obsolete) tokens bearing dates half a century or more apart (see Appendix 8, see especially Unit 38F10) suggesting a child's collection rather than individual losses. Thus the end date, the date ante quem, is more difficuH to determine than the date post quem. It could be assumed that the availability of linoleum, the introduction of municipal garbage collection and an increasing awareness of the necessity for hygiene would reduce sub-floor refuse disposal by the 20th century. It is clear from this site, however, that the space beneath the floor-boards continued to be used until well into the 1920s, that is, for the full life of the houses (see especially Rear 40 Francis Street- R40F- Units 4, 6, 7, and 53). Thus accurate dating of archaeological deposits is a research problem on its own and one which some archaeologists prefer not to answer, relying instead more general phasing.



3.3 Research Questions formulated in advance of excavation The formulation of a research framework for urban sites received detailed attention as a result of The Cumberland/Gloucester Street excavation. Godden Mackay in conjunction with Grace Karskens proposed five major research questions which, while they arose "out of the historical context developed" for the Cumberland Street/Gloucester Street site, are directly relevant to social and urban history and therefore to the subject area: • the impact of the industrial revolution • the change during the 19th century from an integrated, pre-industrial, small-scale

city to a segregated, class-based, male dominated industrial city • gender 'and in particular the role of women in culture and society' • standards of living - rise or fall in the inner city in the late 19th century • the nature of the community, of the 'neighbourhood', a question which Karskens

and Thorp asked of the Rocks (Godden Mackay Pty Ltd & G. Karskens, The Cumberland Street/Gloucester Street Archaeological Investigation: Archaeological Assessment and Research Design, unpublished report to Sydney Cove Authority 1994; see also Karskens, G. and Wendy Thorp 1992 "History and Archaeology in Sydney: towards integration and interpretation", Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 78 Parts 3 and 4, 52-75; Bairstow, D., Millers Point Site 8900; Historical Archaeology Master Strategy, unpublished report to the Department of Housing, 1995; see also Bairstow, D., 'Urban Archaeology: American Theory, Australian Practice', Australian Archaeology 33, 1991, 52-58).

Other major research themes which have been pursued in the urban archaeological context have been • the growth of Victorian Sydney (Godden Mackay, Paddy's Market Archaeological

Investigation: Archaeological Assessment and Research Design 1990), a blanket which must embrace the change from spaced, free-standing dwellings to innercity terraced housing and site infill

• the impact of the middle-class temperance movement on the inner-city working class (Karskens 1994, 78), a theme which, it was thought, could be addressed directly by the Star Hotel and its subsequent use as a coffee house

• home and work, both integrated and segregated, themes which the Paddy's Market excavation addressed as "life, work and leisure" (Godden Mackay 1990, 92; Godden Mackay and Karskens 1994, 35-6; see also Bairstow, D, Mark Foys, Goulburn Street: Historical Archaeological Excavation, unpublished report to Noel Bell Ridley Smith & Partners and Avri Investments Pty. Limited, 1995)

In addition, a number of research questions are currently being asked of archaeological sites in the Sydney CBD. They include issues relating to: • whether it was possible to determine by artefact analysis a difference between

private/domestic, commercial/domestic and public house use • whether it was possible to identify by archaeological methods the nature of small

commercial enterprises (shops) when the nature of the enterprise changed over time

• whether it is possible to distinguish in the archaeological record periods of social upheaval such as the 1890s depression

• changes in land form, drainage control and the introduction of town services • source of supply of building materials and artefacts and site specific issues relating to




II

I I I

: I


• changing use and occupation as indicated in the documentary record • the relationship between the original construction and later adaptation of

buildings on the site • the relationship between the various functional areas within the sites.

Mider has drawn attention to other areas of research for the former Grace Bros. site: • possible evidence of clay cutting and processing for neighbouring potteries and • the possibility of distinguishing through archaeological evidence a difference in

the standard of living between short term blue-collar lessees, long term bluecollar lessees, white-collar lessees and owner-occupants.

3.3.1 The impact of the industrial revolution By this Karskens meant the change from a colonial, basically agrarian society to one based on industrialised cities. That cannot be directly demonstrated within the study area because it post-dates that development, but • agrarian activities were responsible for the change in land form which occurred

before settlement of the study area • Walton attempted to open a small-scale tanning or currying works, but could not

compete with the highly capitalised tannery down the road. Alternatively or in addition he may have found it more profitable to sell for residential purposes.

3.3.2 The change during the 19th century from an integrated. pre-industrial, smallscale city to a segregated, class-based, male dominated industrial city This is amply demonstrated within the study area. In the 1840s Thomas Dunn opened the Glebe Tannery and he lived on the premises. At the same time Ono Earnshaw bought a third of the land and he lived there. On a smaller scale, Henry Wait built 29-31 Grose Street and he lived at No.29. By the 1880s all three had moved away and Earnshaw's estate was rapidly deteriorating into a slum.

3.3.3 gender 'and in particular the role of women in culture and society' Gender is difficult to discern in the archaeological record. Sewing implements are usually associated with women, but sailers in the 19th century sewed and knitted and all tailers were men. Within a basically domestic environment, however, the bulk of the artefact assemblage probably reflects women's activities. The kitchen was the women's domain, and kitchens usually yield more data than any other part of the house, reflecting food storage and cooking (kitchenware) and child rearing (toys, dummies, etc.). On this site numerous small beads of the type used for handbags and bodices were recovered, almost all from the Earnshaw estate. Beaded bags and bodices were luxury items. Their presence in this context suggests piece-work by women otherwise occupied with domestic chores and children.

3.3.4 standards of living - rise or fall in the inner city in the late 19th century This is also difficult to answer. Clearly the standard of living within this area fell as owner-occupants moved out and more and more tenants moved in, but the fall may have been class-based. In Australia pork has always been expensive compared to lamb or mutton while rabbit, after rabbits reached plague proportions and before myxomatosis, was very cheap. Thus a comparison of consumption figures for both should indicate relative affluence:poverty. The figures (Appendix 9) show an increase in the amount of rabbit consumed and a decrease in pork, especially if the abnormal cess deposit behind 48 Francis Street is subtracted from the figures for pork. The increase in rabbit may have been associated with the rabbitoh who lived



at 35 Grose Street. In one square metre of the upper occupation deposit inside the house (35G4F4) over 800 rabbit bones were found, 147 being skull fragments and the rest mainly paws (Illustration 38). The carcases had been removed, presumably for sale. It is not possible to identify the rabbit-man or the period of his tenancy. The occupation material accumulated from about 1880 until the house was demolished in 1926. During this period the tenants changed at least every five years (Mider, February, 1996) and neither Sands' Directory nor the Council rate books list occupations. However, the simple equation between cheap/expensive consumer goods and other living standards is no longer accepted unquestioningly. Consumer choice seems to have played a greater role in buying habits than was claimed a decade or so ago and stewed rabbit also appeared on the middle class table.

3.3.5 The nature of the community, of the 'neighbourhood' Precisely what constitutes a 'neighbourhood' has been the subject of debate. Rothschild, in the course of a survey of downtown Manhattan, define neighbourhood by reference to a series of attributes which boil down to a selfcontained community, at least for the purposes of domestic life. Her neighbourhood had to include shops, school, church and possibly a police station and fire brigade. Honerkamp, faced with excavations in Charleston, South Carolina and Savannah, Georgia, suggested a smaller area though, like Rothschild, emphasised that it must have clear demographic boundaries (Rothschild, N.A., 'Spatial aspects of urbanisation', American Archaeology 5, 1985, 163-9; Honerkamp, N., 'Households or Neighbourhoods: finding appropriate levels of research in urban archaeology', Paper presented at a symposium entitled The Problems of Scale in Urban Archaeology, Meetings of the Conference of Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Savannah, Georgia, 1987). In Australia the pub seems to have been more of a neighbourhood focal point than the church and one stood on the corner in the excavation site. In 19th century Australia religious affiliation also seems to have played a roll in community attitudes. Writers from Dennis Jeans (historical geographer) to Judith Wright (poet, writing about her family) have demonstrated migration according to creed. Although the result of economic ability rather than sectarianism, Catholics moved into dairy farming while sheep farming was dominated by the Anglican establishment and the Church of Scotland.. The extent to which this was true of urban neighbourhoods has yet to be determined (see Part 3.4.3 for further discussion). On any definition the study area cannot constitute a neighbourhood but only part of a neighbourhood. It does constitute a community within a neighbourhood. Dunn ran the tannery and doubtless employed some of his neighbours. The Earnshaws collected rent from theirs. These families left, but in a way their roll seems to have been taken over by the better-class occupants at 46-8 Francis Street. The only place other than their cess deposit where cognac was found was at Rear 43 Grose Street, the poorest house of the lot, where a single bottle may have been a Christmas present to a domestic servant.

3.3.6 The growth of Victorian Sydney including the change from spaced, freestanding dwellings to inner-city terraced housing and site infill This change is amply demonstrated by the excavated data. In the area excavated by Carney, the only original free-standing cottage was replaced by three residential units. Next door at 29-31 and at 25-27 Grose Street a third residence was built in the yard. In addition to infill for domestic use, small industrial buildings were constructed in former yards (Carney, Appendix 1 ). Further west Ono Earnshaw started by building a house for himself and two small cottages to let. Within a decade he had built along both Francis and Grose Streets and had infilled between.


I




3.3. 7 The impact of the middle-class temperance movement on the inner-city working class, a theme which. it was thought, could be addressed directly by the Star Hotel and its subsequent use as a coffee house The delicensing of the Star Hotel was, of course, the result of the temperance movement. However archaeological evidence from the site failed to be relevant to this theme. If anything it demonstrated the regular attendance of the bottle collector. Carney points to a preference for Schnapps at No.31 Grose Street, but it was the cluster of Schnapps fragments in a small area (Quadrats A3, 82 and 83-three square metres) which made the deposit noticeable. Overall alcohol made up only 9.5% of the assemblage (Appendix 9).

To answer this question would require more detailed analysis than can be attempted within the constraints of a salvage brief. Furthermore, as has been stated, many occupation deposits spanned many years . However, descriptive statistics to date provide some indicators (see Appendix 9).

At No.35 Grose Street the contents of the cesspit overflow are dated to the 1860s-1870s. The alcohol content was 12. 7%. The upper occupation deposit at that house, dated to 1880-1926 yielded only 1.5% alcohol. Room 1 at Rear 43 Grose Street was raised in about 1890 sealing the sub-floor occupation deposit. It yielded 28.7% alcohol (the hotel cesspit contained only 17%). In Room 2, where the deposit continued into the 20th century, the alcohol content dropped to 16.9% while a greater fall occurred in Room 3 - 12.8% alcohol. This house was always tenantoccupied and could be compared with No.29 Grose Street, Wait's owner-occupied house. It produced figures of only 4.3% and 1.8%. On the other hand, No.33 was tenanted and the yield from the kitchen was only 1.4%. On these figures it seems more a question of personal choice than of outside influence, though fragments of at least one temperance plate were recovered (38F41 8ag#161).

That the middle-class temperance movement had any effect on working-class habits is debatable. On the evidence from this site, it had little effect on the middle-class. The alcohol yield from the cesspit at 46-8 Francis Street (R48F) was 25.9%.

3.3.8 Home and work. both integrated and segregated The excavation yielded information directly relevant to this, but the results are surprising. It is generally accepted that home and work became segregated during the 19th century as capital intensive factories replaced home workshops. In this area, however, small home industries seem to have sprung up late in the century (Carney, Appendix 1).

3.3.9 Whether it was possible to determine by artefact analysis a difference between private/domestic. commercial/domestic and public house use So far as this site is concerned, the answer is 'no'. Occupation evidence survived form only one of the shops and inspection of the assemblage reveals little substantial difference from domestic deposits. Deposits associated with the Star Hotel produced alcohol figures of 17%, 11.5%, 10.3% and 19.9% (see Appendix 9). As has been seen, the figures were higher in at least two of the houses.

D.BAIRSTOW HISTORICAL ARCHAEOWGICAL REPORT

-l


3.3.1 0 Whether it was possible to identify by archaeological methods the nature of small commercial enterprises (shops) when the nature of the enterprise changed overtime Again the answer is 'no', but the material remains are too slight and the occupation period too long for any answer to be expected.

3.3.11 Whether it is possible to distinguish in the archaeological record periods of social upheaval such as the 1890s depression This is debatable. If rabbit consumption is indicative of poverty then the inhabitants of this part of the Glebe were poor at the end of the century. However, rabbit figures continued to be high in the early years of the present century, years which are generally considered to have been affluent (see Appendix 9). Evidence in the form of leather off-cuts and cut pennies for heel caps indicated that shoes were mended at home. This evidence appeared to increase as the century progressed, but again it was found in 20th century occupation deposits such as at Rear 40 Francis Street.

3.3.12 Changes in land form, drainage control and the introduction of town services These have been addressed in Part 2. In brief, the land form changed both as a result of erosion before development and because of a series of fills introduced during development. The creek was channelled, first into a timber drain, then into a stone one and finally, as part of municipal drainage works, through a brick and concrete drain. Water was reticulated during the 1860s, but the wells remained in use. A sewer line extended along Grose Street, but was not made available to these premises until the 1890s and not utilised until the 20th century.

3.3.13 Source of supply of building materials and artefacts There was no indication that any of the bricks were fired on site (i.e., clamp fired). All came from brickyards, but the locality of the brickyards cannot now be determined. Most of the ceramics came from English factories, but there were ginger beer bottles produced by the local manufacturer, Thomas Field. In addition, some of the early deposits contained lead-glazed coarse earthenware which comes only in the form of heavy duty kitchen bowls and bread pans and is thought to have been produced locally. Early bottles were English (or Dutch gin or French cognac). Later bottles were made in Australia by such as Pocock at Camperdown, William Wilce at Newtown and Rylands of Barnsley, Victoria. Later still they came from AGM and the NSW Bottle Company. Clay pipes came mainly from Glasgow, Edinburgh and London with a fair share being locally produced by Dixson. This pattern is common to most 19th century archaeological sites. Of more interest on this site are trade tokens which came from Ipswich, Brisbane or Rockhampton and Melbourne (29G5Bag#4, 31G3A2Bag#137, 38F10Bag#18, 28B25A1Bag#14) and evidence, therefore, inter-colonial contact, and foreign coins. Small denomination Chinese coins are part of any child's collection having been brought into the country or handed down since the 1850s, but this assemblage included a half-stuber, the country of origin being illegible, and a two-cent piece whose origin was also not identifiable other than that it was not America (33G23C6Bag#32, R40F4C3Bag#99). A copper coin minted under Napoleon II was also retrieved. These may be associated with buttons bearing an anchor with or without a crown. Since, with the exception of a gunship moored at the entrance to Port Phillip, Australia in the 19th century relied on the Royal Navy for defence, the buttons are likely to represent the merchant marine rather than the 'silent service'. Trouser buttons also evidence overseas and interstate connection. Overseas trade was dominated by London



I I I

II II I I I I I I I

II

I I I I

I I I I


(Moses Levy & Co., R40FB4Bag#91, R40F53A4Bag#70, R48F75Bag#519, 27G18B5Bag#44 & 37G3C5Bag#35 and Threshore & Co. of 153 The Strand, R40F53A4Bag#71 ). Interstate connection is limited to two items, one from Townsville, Q, (R40F781Bag#7), the other from Melbourne, Vic. (R40F7C4Bag#16) which may not be representative especially since both came from the same address and date to approximately the same time. 'Potted Yarmouth Herrings' (33G15Bag#183), Holloway's ointment and Hora castor oil also point to the connection with Great Britain but the excavation yielded also French perfume (R43G79B Bag#1 09), root beer, sarsaparilla and hair lotion from New York (35G4B2Bag#3, 24864Bag#11, 24B9689Bag#70, 248101 Bag#355) and medicine from Germany (29G23Bag#86) and Auckland, New Zealand (38F10Bag#7). In common with other archaeological assemblages, clay pipes were dominated by London, Glasgow and Edinburgh and by locally produced items, but France was also represented (R40F53B2Bag#141, 38F34Bag#2, 248101Bag#491; see Appendix 8)

The site specific issues have been dealt with in Part 2, but Mider's two questions remain unanswered.

3.3.14 There was no evidence of clay cutting and processing for neighbouring potteries, though clearly the south end of the tannery site had been cut down into the clay horizon when International Harvester moved in. Pottery evidence came in a quite different form- kiln material in fill introduced late in the 19th century.

3.3.15 The possibility of distinguishing through archaeological evidence a difference in the standard of living between short term blue-collar lessees, long term blue-collar lessees. white-collar lessees and owner-occupants. To some extent this is unanswerable in that most of the occupants within the study area were short-term tenants and their occupation, blue or white collar, is not known. Owner-occupants can be distinguished from tenants by land title records. Unfortunately, on this site owner-occupied remains were minimal. No occupation deposits associated with either Dunn or the Earnshaws survived to allow comparison. The only owner-occupants left are Henry Wait who owned 29-31 Grose Street and two houses in Francis Street and was, therefore, lower middleclass compared with Dunn or the Earnshaws and Richard Westman at 25 Grose Street who owned only the house lived in. In any event, this is also a question for academic debate. As has been stated, consumer choice seems to have played a greater roll in determining the archaeological assemblage, at least in the late 19th century when there was choice, than was previously thought and the equation of cheap/expensive goods with socio-economic standards is no longer accepted unquestioningly. This is particularly so in Australia where, by and large, the demand for labour has meant that the working-class has always been well paid compared with its English counterpart. However, they were not so highly paid as to afford a house. This is a post-World War II phenomenon. To some extent, yet to be determined, they spent their money on consumer goods (and gambling).

The archaeologist is forced to rely mainly on the archaeological evidence and this brings us back to the pork/rabbit consumption statistics. To some extent the results appear Indicative of class, but they point to a defect in gross statistical analysis as a socio-economic indicator. The abbreviation 'P' is used to identify the animal 'Pig', but the distinction between 'pork', the word used by the Norman conquerors for the preferred cuts, and 'pig', the earlier English word for the head, trotters and tail considered suitable for their serfs, is still viable. Examination of the parts of the



carcase and the size of the pieces makes it clear that most of the 'pork' consumed, other than at 46-8 Francis Street and to some extent at 28 Bay Street, was 'pig' -the head and trotters cut into small pieces for boiling. Surprisingly, this is also true of the hotel/coffee house dining-room where some good cuts appeared but the assemblage was still dominated by pigs' head and trotters. As has been said, it was a working-class hotel catering for working-class tastes, but the author of this report knows English middle/lower middle class (Maggie Thatcher's shopkeepers) who would still enjoy a 'nice pig's trotter'. At 28 Bay Street, pigs' trotters are present but the assemblage contained a high proportion of the better cuts, which may or may not mean that the shopkeeper/occupant was better off than his neighbours since rabbit comprises a reasonable part of his refuse bones.

Statistical comparison of alcohol-related items proved inconclusive by number, but inspection of the assemblages revealed that the middle-class occupant of 46 or 48 Francis Street was drinking cognac while his working-class neighbours drank beer and gin.

Porcelain, which in the Australian context means in the main English bone china, has also been considered to be a socio-economic indicator. Unfortunately on this site, because of the longevity of so many deposits, porcelain [PC] covers also the late 19th century heavy duty tea-wares which, while translucent and therefore porcelain, were cheap mass-produced wares decorated only with a thin line of gilt. Percentage figures for porcelain compared with fine earthenware are:

Address occupant Unit PC FEW 24 Bay Street, hotel dining room 79 2.3 8.3

Rear 48 Francis 25 Grose

27 Grose

29 Grose

31 Grose

33 Grose 35 Grose

37 Grose Rear 43 Grose

tenant 96 2. 7 24.1 tenant 75 5.2 10.8 owner 17 1.4 7.0

18 0.0 24.5 tenant 17 1.1 7.6

18 2.7 13.6 owner 6 2.5 4.7

24 1.5 28.5 tenant 3 1.5 10.5

6 1.1 13.3 tenant 3 0.9 15.5 tenant 4 1.3 5.4

54 0.8 55.9 tenant 3 0.1 5.8 tenant 2 0.9 20.2

9 6.6 27.4 17 1.0 14.9

and, if the cesspit fills are included 57 5.1 44.6 60 4.2 41.0 79 2.4 19.6

As will be seen, porcelain appears to be no indicator of social status.

On the information from this site, the only possible status related items are food and drink.


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I



3.4 Research Questions formulated as a result of excavation As was said in the introduction to this Part, research questions arose from the nature of the excavated evidence.

3.4.1 The front room/back room syndrome Carney drew attention to this: the front, virtually unused parlour bereft of artefacts compared with the back room, the hub of household activity, where the artefact yield is high. He pointed particularly to 40 Francis Street (Unit 16 front compared with Unit 17 back) and 31 Grose Street where the yield from the front room (Unit 18) was so small that it was not retained whereas the back room (Unit 23) yielded 1017 items. It was hoped that a count of the artefacts at Rear 43 Grose Street would allow the orientation of the house to be determined. Whilst the front/back syndrome has been noticeable on many sites, it did not necessarily apply here:

Address location Unit Number 25 Grose Street front 17 1 414

back 18 298 27 Grose Street front 17 3 204

back 18 1916 At the latter house, the matrix was weighed for each Unit and shows that the percentage yield artefacts:matrix was also higher in the front than in the back room.

It did seem true of this site, as of others, that the kitchen deposits were the most productive:

Address total 29 Grose Street 3 763 31 Grose Street 5 050 33 Grose Street 2 883

The yield from the three main rooms at Rear 43 Grose Street was Room 1 1 137 Room 2 2 175 Room 3 477

In this case it was the central room, the former open yard, which was richest.

3.4.2 Deposition pattern: public and private spaces Carney also suggested that the artefact deposition pattern might differ between private living areas and one set aside for the public, that perhaps the hotel diningroom was kept clean and less odorous than dwelling houses. In most houses, however, the kitchen served as the dining-room and kitchen deposits are high in artefact content. Only at No.21 Grose Street, where the kitchen was so small that the back room must have been used for eating, was there a clearly separate diningroom. A comparison between only two units is not statistically valid, but the figures are startling. The dining-room at 21 Grose Street yielded an artefact:matrix weight ratio of almost 1%, the hotel dining-room only 0.1 %.

3.4.3 Evidence of a predominantly Catholic population Mider suggested this as an area for research. Certainly the excavation area yielded a number of religious emblems usually associated with Catholics and, in the 19th century, with Irish Catholics. A cursory examination of the database suggests that Irish Catholics were in the minority. Only two houses yielded readily identifiable Catholic items, Rear 40 Francis Street, a 20th century deposit (Unit 5382Bag#132 and 838ag#133) and 27 Grose Street (Unit 7A2Bag#71 and Unit 23C98ag#105, Illustration 39). Further examination of the artefact assemblage is necessary to test


--- --- ---- -------------------


this hypothesis adequately, but on the evidence outlined both Catholic and Protestant lived in the study area and there is no indication that the proportion of Catholics exceeded the national average.

3.4.4 National identity This question goes to the roots of historical archaeology, indeed of colonial historywhat makes an American an American, an Australian an Australian, as distinct from an expatriot Englishman? It is a question which has been debated by historians, historical geographers and environmental behaviourists both here and in America for over sixty years. The first to suggest an answer in the Australian context was probably Russell Ward. To him, the 'Australian' was forged on the squatters' frontier by ex-convicts and native born, forged in isolation amid the hardships of the bush in defiance of the colonial establishment. The 'Australian' had emerged by 1850. New chums had to conform in order to survive, especially on the next frontier, that of the goldfields. As the gold petered out, the 'Australian' brought that ethos to the city (Ward, Russell, The Australian Legend, first published 1958, reissued 1966). Indeed, the image of the blond, blue-eyed, lantern-jawed Aussie who could ride anything on four legs and shoot from the saddle survived, despite reality, until the mass European immigration which followed World War II. With modifications it may still survive in the 'surfie' cult. Just how applicable this is to the inner city is debatable.

Mider drew attention to several items which celebrate Australia, especially to two brooches and a pendant all three of which were recovered from deposits at Rear 40 Francis Street which date from about 1900 to the 1920s. One brooch reads 'Australia' (R40F4C3Bag#1 00) and could be of 19th century date but the other, which reads 'Commonwealth of Australia 1919' (R40FD38ag#52) clearly refers to the end of World War I and the return of Australian troops. Although from a deposit which could be dated only 1860-1930, a badge inscribed 'Diggers Day' and bearing a (Red) cross must refer to the same events.

Deposits of mainly 19th century date glorify the imperial connection - 'George Itt ... in memory of the good old times, 1790' (21G381Bag#89), two mugs depicting the Charge of the Light Brigade (31G6A2Bag#36, 33G15Bag#186), a memorial plate or plates commemorating the death of Prince Albert (35G528ag#32, 35G54Bag#2) and the plate at 29 Grose Street celebrating the 'Noble Earl of Fife' (29G22Bag#65).

Thus on the evidence from this site, national identity was forged not in the bush but at Gallipoli and in the trenches of France.

3.4.5 The Irish question The last two questions brings to a final research problem which involves the antiCatholic, anti-Irish prejudice of the Protestant establishment. This prejudice dates back probably to the First Fleet and certainty to the Castle Hilt uprising of 1804. The Irish Catholic, it was alleged, drank too much and worked too little and, furthermore, owed his allegiance to Rome and not to the Empire. This prejudice was expressed volubly during both World Wars.

The patriotic emblems referred to above came from 20th century deposits at Rear 40 Francis Street and 29 Grose Street. Of the four clearly Catholic items referred to, two came from contemporary deposits at Rear 40 Francis Street and an 'Australian Commonwealth Military Forces' button came from the same provenance (R40F482Bag#4 7).

ffiSTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT D.BAIRSTOW


I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I


Whilst a handful of artefacts is insufficient for any viable conclusion, it would seem that establishment prejudice was misplaced.

These questions have been addressed only on the basis of information from this site. Only inter-site analysis can establish viable answers.



·: ·t'. ,.._.._.._{ \.V't\"-\~~~ 1 '.'JS.t.*J

t:.l'~l \~ '.;\ ~~\'!·'~ ~~l~~·\J; '¥1\~V~V·:: ••

ILLUSTRATION 38. Rabbit bones from 35 Grose Street, Unit 4 Quad F4

ILLUSTRATION 39. Wooden crucifix from 27 Grose Street, Unit 23 Quad C9 Bag# 105.





4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Preamble

The site for open area excavation covered over 6 500 square metres which, potentially, contained relics from a tannery, 39 houses (13 of which date from the 1840s), 2-3 shops and an hotel as well as their associated cess pits, wells, rubbish pits and surface scatters. All of the allotments had undergone at least three occupation phases. The site of the hotel had 4 - 7 occupational/development phases. Special attention was paid to the one hotel and the commercial premises, a 50 % sample of the remainder being considered sufficient, assuming that a 50% sample survived. In the event, 19 house allotments were fully excavated. Given the number of rebuilds, the number of houses excavated totalled twenty-five.

To ensure maximum retrieval of archaeological data within a reasonable cost/time framework, the following methodology was adopted:

4.2 Field Methodology

4.2.1 Core-bores Geo-technical tests were placed with regard to archaeological requirements. The cores were examined and recorded archaeologically on a daily basis with a view to compiling a site profile. These determined that much of the site had been filled in the 1920s-30s, that the survival rate should be high and that there were areas of deep fill which could be removed mechanically.

4.2.2 Plan overlays The various site plans compiled by Mider (February, 1996), especially Figures 4, 8, 10 and 11 (pages 22, 25, 27 and 28) were scaled up and overlaid on a 1 :250 site plan to enable, in conjunction with the site profile, a predictive model of archaeological survival as well as a means of immediate identification of structural remains unearthed.

4.2.3 Site preparation Preparation of the site in advance of archaeological excavation involved removal of the concrete slab floors and bitumen car park as well as their bedding fills and as much demolition material as possible mechanically under archaeological supervision using a ripper attached to a 30-ton for concrete and a straight-edged mud bucket for fills and demolition debris. Where necessary to determine the nature of any deposit or its depth, 1x1 metre test squares were dug by hand by day labourers (also under archaeological supervision). This enabled unproductive fills to be taken out mechanically with a machine of size/weight appropriate to the width and depth of the fill. These steps were repeated until the surface of the archaeologically sensitive deposit had been revealed. The result was that at the start of the fullscale excavation the extent of survival, which surpassed any expectation, was revealed.

D.BAJRSTOW HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

-~ - ---------------


4.2.4 Archaeological excavation Thereafter excavation was by hand or machine according to the exigencies of the site. Machines of different capacities were called in wherever possible. Day labour was used to clear back after machine excavation (Illustration 40), for deposits which were unsuitable for mechanical removal and, as the skills of the labourers increased, for hand trowelling. Sensitive deposits were reserved for manual excavation by professional archaeologists or experienced volunteers.

Accurate stratigraphy was ensured by recording in traditional unit numbers which were used to record also structural features. These were recorded on pro forma recording forms to ensure uniformity across the site. In a reduced form, the recording sheet information appears as Appendix 3 to this report.

Spatial distribution was recorded for all sub-floor occupation deposits by the use of traditional 1x1 metre quadrats.

Site levels were taken continually to facilitate interpretation.

Each significant stratigraphic unit was sampled in that the matrix was weighed before discard so that the artefact yield proportionate to the deposit could be determined (see Appendix 3). All sub-floor occupation deposits were dug by hand and wet sieved through 2mm. screens. Cess deposits were wet sieved using 2mm screens (Illustrations 41 and 42).

Where of diagnostic value, unit type, colour (Munsell), texture, pH factor and content were recorded as was the manner of excavation (see Appendix 3). The artefacts were placed in trays identified by Unit and Quadrat where appropriate. The identification labels remained on the trays until after laboratory processing. The artefacts taken from the field were washed at the end of each day, replaced in the trays labelled on site at the time of excavation and left to dry overnight. The trays were then stacked according to area, stratigraphic unit (and excavation quadrat if appropriate).

Each structural feature and many fill deposits were photographed on Fujichrome Sensia 400ASA colour slide film and IIford HP5 400ASA black-and-white film. In addition a photographic record of the excavation was made, general shots being taken twice weekly (see Appendix 4)

Structural features were planned at scales of 1 :20 and 1 :50, but have been reduced for the purposes of this report (Volume 2). The location of important artefact deposits was noted by Unit number on the site plans.

As the extent of survival became apparent, excavation priorities were determined. Sub-floor occupation deposits and cesspit deposits took precedence over yard surfaces and fills, the latter being removed by machine or day labour.

4.3 Laboratory Methods

Excavation and analysis of the excavated data were seen as interdependent and interactive. Thus so far as possible artefacts were sorted and catalogued on site in tandem with the excavation. This ensured that a statistical sample was obtained

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOWGICAL REPORT D.BAIRSTOW

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I



and also allowed on site culling of undiagnostic or unproductive assemblages. What was deemed a statistical sample varied as the excavation progressed and the amount of artefact evidence became known. Thus artefacts from machine-stripped fills revealed in advance of archaeological excavation were retained and processed lest they prove to be all that was available. Thereafter, all material recovered from any deposit excavated by hand (which included yard fills, secondary and some primary deposits) were recovered from the site, cleaned and stored, but secondary deposits and yard fills were later discarded as the amount of primary occupation evidence was revealed. Primary occupation evidence dating to the 1920s-30s was recorded in full for some rooms (see especially R40F) which were then deemed a sufficient sample for analysis within the constraints of this brief, the remainder of the material being sorted in bulk.

Artefacts from each unit were sorted into material and function and then by decoration or other identification according to predetermined categories (see Appendix 7, Guide to the Artefact Database). Groups of identical artefacts were bagged together. Each artefact bag was numbered consecutively according to provenance. The contents of each bag were counted and weighed, weights being recorded to the nearest tenth of a gram. Provenance, bag number, contents, number and weight were recorded on Artefact Inventory sheets to facilitate entry as computer data. The database used was based on the MINARK Scientific Database System.

All manufacturers' inscriptions and base-marks were recorded. To allow the artefact catalogue to appear in A4 size suitable for the Report, these details have been omitted. Inscriptions and basemarks and their identification when known are set out in Appendix 8.

Diagnostic artefacts including ceramic base-marks were photographed on Fujichrome Sensia 400ASA colour slide film and IIford HPS 400ASA black-and-white film. A list of the photographs forms Appendix 10.

Experience having determined that ferrous objects reduce to rust unless treated, almost all such items were culled after recording. In addition, undiagnostic bottle glass was, in part, discarded

The artefact bags were then placed in larger bags labelled according to unit and provenance and boxed. The box number was entered on the Inventory sheets and thence on to the database so that the location of any artefact can be retrieved.

4.4 Analytical Methods

Detailed descriptive statistics were calculated for major deposits across the excavation area (see Appendix 9) and were analysed, at least in part, in order to address research questions (Part 3).

D. BA.IRSTOW HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT

60



ILLUSTRATION 40. Excavating tbe tannery using day labour

D.BAIRSTOW

I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I


ll..LUSTRATION 41 Excavation by hand with a view to wet sieving. Note archaeological supervision of mechanical excavation top left

' r \ ' ,.

! ~

'·..., .·

~~···· l

-. .• - .= · #..

~,.;,... . ' l' 4 .. · .. .

.'

"i l •

"'/ r •

ll..LUSTRATION 42. Wet sieving for artefacts using day labour.



<I


5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bairstow, D., 'Urban Archaeology: American Theory, Australian Practice', Australian Archaeology 33, 1991, 52-58

Mark Foys, Goulburn Street: Historical Archaeological Excavation, unpublished report to Noel Bell Ridley Smith & Partners and Avri Investments Pty. Limited, 1995

Millers Point Site 8900; Historical Archaeology Master Strategy, unpublished report to the Department of Housing, 1995

400 George Street, unpublished Historical Archaeological Report to P.T. Limited , October, 1996

Bairstow, D. and Graham Wilson, 271-273 Pitt Street, Sydney, Historical Archaeological Report to Crone & Associates & Kumagai Aust, June, 1990

Oyster, Barrie, Servant & Master. Building and Running the Grand Houses of Sydney 1788-1850

Godden Mackay, Paddy's Market Archaeological Investigation: Archaeological Assessment and Research Design 1990

Godden Mackay & G. Karskens, The Cumberland Street/Gloucester Street Archaeological Investigation: Archaeological Assessment and Research Design, unpublished report to Sydney Cove Authority 1994

Honerkamp, N., 'Households or Neighbourhoods: finding appropriate levels of research in urban archaeology', Paper presented at a symposium entitled The Problems of Scale in Urban Archaeology, Meetings of the Conference of Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Savannah, Georgia, 1987

Karskens, G. and Wendy Thorp 1992 "History and Archaeology in Sydney: towards integration and interpretation", Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 78 Parts 3 and 4, 52-75

Mider, Dana Jadwiga, The Former Grace Brothers Site at Broadway, Archaeological Assessment, unpublished report to Noel Bell Ridley Smith & Partners, February, 1996

Review of Environmental Factors for the proposed stormwater diversion. September, 1996

Praetzellis, Mary & Adrian Praetzellis, "For a Good Boy" ; Victorians on Sacramento's J Street, Cultural Resources Facility, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, California, 1990



Rothschild, N.A., 'Spatial aspects of urbanisation', American Archaeology 5, 1985, 163-9

Ward, Russell, The Australian Legend, first published 1958, reissued 1966



Documents

I GRACE BROS. BROADWAYnswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/22636_ID_Bairstow1997GraceB… · GRACE BROS. BROADWAY HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT VOLUME 1 -REPORT Damaris Bairstow