Mapping Commodities at Casselden Place, Melbourne

International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2006 ( C© 2006)DOI: 10.1007/s10761-006-0018-y

Mapping Commodities at Casselden Place,Melbourne

Peter Davies1

Published online: 21 November 2006

By the 1870s and 1880s Melbourne had emerged as Australia’s primary centre ofmanufacturing. Factories and workshops produced a wide array of commodities,from drinks and foodstuffs, to furniture, machinery and building materials. Recentarchaeological investigations at Casselden Place suggest that Melbourne wasalso an important destination for the import of commodities from internationalmarkets. Glass and stoneware containers from the site indicate the diversity ofbeverages, medicines, perfumes, condiments and other items routinely acquiredby working people of an inner-city neighbourhood in the later-nineteenth century.

KEY WORDS: Casselden Place; Australia; modern cities; glass; commodities.

INTRODUCTION

The international capitalist economy was firmly established by the nineteenthcentury. Factories and workshops in Europe and North America transformed rawmaterials from colonial outposts into manufactured goods, and new technologieshelped carry these products around the world. Local markets rapidly integratedwith national and international exchange systems. Rising incomes, cheaper prod-ucts and widespread advertising brought mass consumption to millions of newconsumers (Schlereth, 1991).

This paper aims to explore Melbourne’s place in the world during the latenineteenth century, and the role of residents at Casselden Place within a broadergeography of urban consumption. Casselden Place was typical in many respectsof inner-city neighborhoods of the period, with its mix of residential, work andcommercial premises. Glass and stoneware containers recovered from the site havebeen used to identify many of the commodities routinely acquired by working

1Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Melbourne Vic., 3086, Australia; e-mail:[email protected].

343

1092-7697/06/1200-0343/1 C© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

344 Davies

people of the neighborhood. Information about the containers and their contentsreveals the sources of supply exploited by local residents. Beginning with a briefoutline of Melbourne’s economic development during the nineteenth century, thediversity of glass and stoneware material identified at Casselden Place will beanalyzed and discussed. This paper concludes by reviewing some elements ofdomestic consumption at the site.

MELBOURNE

Melbourne’s place in the world changed dramatically during the nineteenthcentury. Founded in 1835 as a base for pastoral interests, the discovery of gold inVictoria in the 1850s brought a massive influx of people, goods, ideas and capitalto the English colony. These laid the foundations for Melbourne’s emergence asa major urban centre by the 1870s and 1880s. The city became a hub of interna-tional exchange, absorbing commodities and redistributing them throughout thehinterland of southeastern Australia.

Melbourne’s urban growth during this period is reflected by population fig-ures. On the eve of the Gold Rush in 1851 there were 23,000 people in the town.Ten years later this had increased more than five times to 125,000. By 1891 thepopulation stood at 473,000, with Melbourne one of the largest urban centers inthe southern hemisphere. In contrast, however, London (with 4.7 million people)was ten times the size of Melbourne (Hayter, 1891, p. 66; Peel, 1974, p. 57).

Improvements in communication and transport infrastructure during the1870s and 1880s sped up the integration of Australia’s colonies with the restof the world. Telegraphy and postal services became cheaper, faster and morefrequent. The opening of the Suez Canal, and innovations in marine technology,reduced transport costs and incorporated Australian ports into world shippingnetworks (Lewis, 1995, p. 59). Wool, wheat and other agricultural and miningproducts from the inland areas of Australia were funneled into Melbourne andthen shipped out to world markets. At the same time, goods arrived from foreignsources for local consumption and redistribution to the hinterland.

Melbourne developed essentially as a service centre for rural areas and itsown inhabitants. Factories were built to provide goods and employment for thecity, rather than the city growing up around an industrial centre (Davison, 1978,p. 44). Supported by British investment capital, local industries specialized inengineering, vehicle manufacturing and agricultural equipment. The processingof sheep and cattle products was also important. These industries, located besidethe Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers, produced hides and pelts, tallow, soap, andfertiliser, as well as meat and offal, and contributed to the city’s nickname of“Smelbourne” (Lack, 1985). There were also a large number of factories makingfoodstuffs, clothing, and footwear.

Mapping Commodities at Casselden Place, Melbourne 345

Glassworks and potteries also flourished. The manufacture of glass bottlesbegan in Melbourne in 1869, with the establishment of the Victorian Flint GlassCompany. This was followed, in 1872, by the Melbourne Glass Bottle Works(MGBW), later becoming Australian Glass Manufacturers in 1915 (Arnold, 1990,p. vii). The local production of stoneware bottles began earlier, in the 1850s,as brick makers learned to exploit the clay deposits of northern Melbourne, andadded drainpipes, bottles and other items to their list of products (Ford, 1995, pp.176–293).

Despite the growth of local industry, central Melbourne remained largelyresidential in character during the nineteenth century. The city’s main roads weredivided and bisected by scores of lanes and alleyways (Bate, 1994). These weretypically lined with terraces and lodging houses, with much of everyday life livedoutdoors (Brown-May, 1998). Pubs were located on almost every street corner.Architectural historian Miles Lewis has argued that Victorians were “incorrigiblyurban by nature.” By the 1890s almost half the colony’s population lived inMelbourne and its suburbs (Lewis, 1995, p. 64).

CASSELDEN PLACE

Casselden Place lies in the northeast of Melbourne’s central business district.The site included the remains of at least forty-nine residential allotments. Thesetypically had narrow street frontages of 13 to 26 ft (4–8 m) and depths of up to60 ft (18 m). Dwellings were generally built close to the front of each allotment,with a small yard and cesspit at the back of the house that sometimes included ashed for storage. The majority of nineteenth-century buildings in Casselden Placedated from the 1850s onward. These generally comprised two, three or four roomdwellings built from brick, stone and timber.

Casselden Place was a neighborhood of both residence and work. Tradeswere practiced in many local premises, included tailoring and cobbling, butcher-ing and baking. Later in the century, as Chinese residents became more numerousin the neighborhood, furniture making, and grocery trading became the predomi-nant local industries. By the turn of the century the neighborhood was graduallytransformed, as hotels closed and houses were demolished and replaced with smallfactories and workshops. Resumption of the whole area by the CommonwealthGovernment in the late 1940s eventually resulted in the demolition of nearly allof the buildings on the site.

The glass and stoneware assemblage excavated from Casselden Place during2002 included all those artifacts relating to domestic storage, including bottles,closures and jars. It also included stoneware ink and blacking bottles, but excludedglass tablewares, jewelry, toys and window glass. There were also significantproportions of Chinese food jars and wine bottles. A total of 131,204 fragments

346 Davies

Table I. Minimum vessel counts of glass and stonewarecontainers recovered from Casselden Place, Melbourne

Bottle form Quantity Bottle form Quantity

Aerated water 83 Jar 33Beer/wine 1394 Jug 2Blacking 29 Medicine 74Case gin 147 Milk 6Closure 302 Perfume 19Cognac 11 Pickle 36Condiment 10 Poison 1Crock 1 Port 1Demijohn 3 Salad oil 31Flask 1 Schnapps 1Ginger beer 148 Whisky jar 1Infant feeder 1 Wine jar 3Ink 72 Unidentified 562

was identified for analysis, representing a minimum vessel count of 2,670 vessels(Davies, 2004). Material of very low archaeological integrity, including artifactsfrom modern service trenches and surface cleaning, were excluded from analysis.Twelve major artifact forms were identified. These included generic containers foraerated waters, beer/wine, blacking, gin, condiments, ginger beer, ink, preserves,pickles, medicine, perfume, and salad oil. There were also more than 300 bottleclosures identified, including corks, sealing wires, crown seals, marbles and clubsauce stoppers (Table I).

By far the most common types of containers identified at Casselden Placewere dark olive green beer/wine bottles, which originally served as all purpose con-tainers for various kinds of alcohol, cordials, aerated waters and other householdproducts. Bottles containing food additives, including pickles, salad oil, sauces,and condiments were also recovered in significant quantities. Several hundredglass and stoneware bottles for aerated waters were found. Medicinal containersfor a variety of preparations, including proprietary “quack nostrums,” ointmentjars, ampules, homeopathic and Chinese vials, and pharmaceutical bottles werealso found. Smaller numbers of numerous other bottle forms were identified aswell.

Patterns of occupancy and patterns of discard at Casselden Place mean thatit is generally difficult to relate specific archaeological deposits securely withhistorically documented households. There was a high turnover of both ownersand tenants in the houses at Casselden Place. Occupancies were often only for acouple of years and thus archaeologically indistinguishable. In addition, it cannotbe assumed that all, or even much, of the material recovered from an allotmentwas originally consumed and discarded by inhabitants of the property. Dan AstleyGresswell was appointed to the Board of Public Health in Victoria in 1890. His“Report on the Sanitary Condition and Sanitary Administration of Melbourne


and Suburbs” documented Melbourne’s housing practices, refuse removal, watersupply and health administration. He recorded that household refuse was: “Beingthrown deliberately on to the back yard, over the boundary fence, or on to somenear vacant land, or being swept from the house or shop direct into the street-channel. This littering is a common feature of almost all low-rented localities,where, in fact, but few blocks of buildings and vacant allotments are free from it”(Gresswell, 1890, p. 10).

In archaeological terms, this means that much of the material recovered froma house allotment during excavation may originally have derived from neighbor-ing premises. Householders frequently discarded refuse over the fence or onto thestreet. This implies a substantial degree of mixing, or churning, in the spatial dis-tribution of domestic refuse. Items recovered archaeologically from one allotmentmay well have derived from one or several other nearby households. For these rea-sons the scale of analysis employed here generally ignores individual allotmentsin favor of considering artifact origins from the neighborhood as a whole.

COMMODITIES

North American archaeologist W. H. Adams used embossed bottles, tableceramics, and other archaeological evidence to analyse trade networks operatingat Silcott, a small farming settlement in southeastern Washington State, that beganin the 1860s (Adams, 1977, 1991). He identified six major interaction spheres,ranging from the local and regional, to national and international, and argued thatthese networks bound Silcott not only into an “integrated community,” but alsoto the national economy. Adams suggests that distant places may interact throughtrade, however indirectly, and that these links together help create the economicand social fabric of the community and nation. Nevertheless, the archaeologicalremains can only represent a fraction of the materials acquired and consumed fromdistant sources.

A similar approach has been adopted with the glass and stoneware contain-ers from Casselden Place, using evidence from manufacturers’ marks to iden-tify the trade networks linking residents of the neighbourhood to wider centresof exchange. Twenty different bottle makers were identified in the assemblage(Table II), along with fifty different manufacturers of contents (Table III). Al-though these examples in no way represent the entirety of commodities avail-able to people at Casselden Place, they nevertheless indicate general patterns ofacquisition and consumption practised at the site, and the trade networks in whichresidents participated.

Residents chose most of their beverages, especially beer and aerated waters,from local producers. In the absence of effective refrigeration and pasteurizationfor most of the nineteenth century, importing beers in good condition from

348 Davies

Table II. Glass and stoneware bottle makers identified at Casselden Place,Melbourne

Manufacturer Location Date Quantity

Aire and Calder Glass BottleCo

Castleford, Yorkshire 1836–1913 1

Australian GlassManufacturers

Melbourne, Sydney,Adelaide

1915 + 3

Albion Glassworks (Sykes &McVay)

Castleford, Yorkshire c1863 + 1

Joseph Bourne & Son Derbyshire 1809–1895 1Cannington (Shaw & Co) Liverpool 1850–1913 1Cooper & Wood Portobello, Scotland 1859–1928 5Crosse & Blackwell (C & B) London c1830 1Doulton & Co Lambeth, London c1858–1956 2J Ellis Bristol Late

18C/early19C

1

T Field Sydney c1842–1887 1Stephen Green Imperial

PotteriesLambeth, London 1820–1858 3

Henry Kennedy & Sons Glasgow 1866–1929 3John Kilner & Sons Wakefield, England 1857–1951 1Melbourne Glass Bottle

Works CoMelbourne 1872–1915 1

Patterson Bros (CaledonianGlass Bottle Works)

Port Melbourne 1899–1905 1

Powell & Co Bristol c1830–1906 7Powell & Filer Bristol 1858–1923 3H Ricketts & Co Bristol 1821–1853 6Wood Bros Glass Co Barnsley, Yorkshire 1828–c1970 1York City Glass Co York, England c1860–1900 1

overseas was difficult, so local brewers retained an advantage over British competi-tors. By the 1860s more than eighty breweries operated around Victoria. Duringthe depression years of the 1890s there were still more than thirty breweries inMelbourne alone. Consolidation of production, however, meant that less than adozen operated in Victoria by 1920. A similar pattern was evident in Sydney. Thusover time, the range of lagers and ales available to residents at Casselden Placegradually shrank, replaced by the cheaper, better quality products of just a fewvery large local operations (Deutsher, 1999, pp. 88–89). At Casselden Place thesewere represented by the Foster Brewing Company and the Carlton and UnitedBreweries. In addition, there were numerous bottles from Sydney’s Tooths Brew-ery, one of the few examples of commodities documented at the site that wereimported from New South Wales.

Aerated waters found at Casselden Place were manufactured almost exclu-sively within a three kilometer radius of the neighborhood. The premises of J.McLaughlin, for example, were located only a few doors away in Lonsdale Streeteast. In 1863, there were twenty manufacturers of ginger beer, cordial, and aerated


Table III. Content manufacturers’ marks identified in glass and stoneware containers, CassseldenPlace, Melbourne

Name Location Product Date

Amalgamated Dairies North Melbourne milk 1935-Angus & Co Fitzroy, Melbourne ink 1905–1919Atkinson & Barker infant food 1857–1859Batty & Co London pickles 1825–1920Booth & Co 55 Cow Cross, London gin 1850–1860Carlton & United Breweries Melbourne beer 1907 +Corringe & Company Tunbridge Wells, Kent soda waterG Coward London condimentS Cox & Son Melbourne medicine 1892 +James Dalby London medicine 1780-P G Dixon Melbourne aerated water 1852–1914Tho Dunkin & Son Bordeaux cognacG H Elliott Carlton, Melbourne aerated water 1864–1945Jean Marie Farina Paris perfume 1760 +T Field Sydney ginger beer 1842–1887Flower’s perfumeFoster Brewing Company Collingwood, Melbourne beer 1888–1907Frankston Springs Co Collingwood, Melbourne aerated water 1896–1932Harwood Fenchurch St, London inkHill & Jones Jewry Street, London picklesHockin London condiment >1845–1880+J C Hoffman London jam 1748–1889Holbrook & Co Birmingham condimentV Hoytema Cullemborg, Holland ginG James Brighton ginger beerKeiller & Sons Dundee marmalade 1829–1981G J Lawson Fitzroy, MelbourneLea & Perrins Worcester condiment 1837 +J McLaughlin Melbourne aerated water 1861–1865Sir James Murray England medicine 1830s–1860sPears Bloomsbury, London medicineJoh von Pein Altona, Denmark/Germany liqueur 19CPinaud France perfume 1810 +E J Prevot & Co North Melbourne aerated waters 1854–1883Producers Dairying Co Richmond, Melbourne milkEugene Rimmel Paris and London perfume 1834 +J Schweppe & Co Melbourne aerated water 1882–1935Smyth New Bonds medicineJohn Stewart & Co Kirkliston, EdinburghJames Tabulo Abbotsford, Melbourne aerated water 1889–1891Tanqueray Gordon & Co London gin 1898 +Robert Thin Liverpool condiment 1840–1860Tooths Brewery Sydney beer 1835 +Van Den Bergh & Co Holland gin c1830–1880James Violett & Co Bordeaux brandy 1795 +George Whybrow Minories Lane, London pickles >1840–1880Winckler Nagel Denmark/Germany schnappsWood’s Great Cure Melbourne medicineWoolfall beerWotherspoon Glasgow preserves

350 Davies

waters operating in Melbourne. By 1888 this had more than doubled, to forty-twofactories. The economic depression of the 1890s began with the numbers of aer-ated waters manufacturers increasing slightly, but then witnessed major industryrationalization. By 1895 only half of those companies operating seven years ear-lier remained in business (Sands and McDougall, 1895). Perhaps for consumers,such beverages were small, “discretionary” purchases that could still be affordedduring hard times. A bottle by James Tabulo (1889–1891) recovered from Lot83A/B provides evidence that for residents at Casselden Place, fizzy drinks werestill affordable during periods of severe economic hardship.

A ginger beer bottle from Lot 41A reveals both the range of beverages be-ing manufactured by local producers, and the products available to consumers atCasselden Place. E. J. Prevot & Co. Cordial and Aerated Water Manufacturershad premises in North Melbourne and on Queen Street, Melbourne. Their adver-tisements included ginger beer, green ginger wine, raspberry wine, currant wine,orange wine, mulberry wine, cherry brandy, brandy bitters, orange bitters, rumpunch, quinine wine, raspberry vinegar, raspberry balsam, lemon syrup, pepper-mint cordial, clove cordial, maraschino, curacao, noyeau, milk punch, gingerette,elder wine, and white and brown vinegars (Arnold, 1990, p. 128). This suggeststhere was a demand in Melbourne at the time for flavored drinks well beyond theusual staples of tea, beer and spirits.

Milk bottles came from dairy distributors based in North Melbourne andRichmond. The delivery of bottled, pasteurized milk in Australian cities onlybegan around the turn of the century, and in country towns much later. Creamseparators first appeared in Victoria in 1882, around the same time that commercialrefrigeration was being perfected. Along with pasteurization, these developmentstransformed the local dairy industry and the production of milk, cream, butter, andcheese for urban consumers (Farrer, 1980, pp. 212–221). No glass fruit preservingjars were found, however, which probably reflects the difficulty of household foodproduction on tiny urban allotments.

In striking contrast to the beverages found at Casselden Place, other products,such as food preserves and condiments, alcoholic spirits, and perfumes, derivedalmost exclusively from British and European sources. London was the source ofmany of the manufactured items in the assemblage, including pickles, preservesand condiments from Batty and Co., G. Coward, Hockin, Hill and Jones, andGeorge Whybrow. There were also stoneware ink bottles from Harwood and ginfrom Booth and Co. and Tanqueray Gordon. In addition, most of the glass andstoneware bottles identified at Casselden Place were manufactured in England andScotland. Only five positive identifications were made for Melbourne glassworks(see Table II), notwithstanding the large output of the Melbourne Glass BottleWorks Co. by the late nineteenth century (Arnold, 1990, p. vii). Despite a dramaticexpansion in local glass production during this period, bottles were still arrivingfrom abroad in very large quantities.


Fig. 1. Fragment of stoneware marmalade jar from Keiller and Sons of Dundee, Scotland, recoveredfrom Lot 42.

Other parts of England were also sources of items in the assemblage, such asa Corringe and Company soda water from Kent, Lea and Perrins Worcestershiresauce, a stoneware container from Price of Bristol and Robert Thin condimentsfrom Liverpool. In addition there were several items from Scotland identified: amarmalade jar from Keiller and Sons of Dundee (Fig. 1), a bottle marked JohnStewart from Kirkliston (near Edinburgh) and two jam jars from Wotherspoon’sof Glasgow. It is likely, however, that jams and preserves came not only fromScotland, but from local sources as well. Initially the Victorian market for jam wassupplied largely from Tasmania, but by the 1870s and 1880s the number of localgrowers and processors expanded significantly (Farrer, 1980, pp. 151–164). Thispattern may not be archaeologically visible, however, because most jam containerssold for domestic consumption were tin cans, which are poorly preserved in theground.

Several other items were embossed with European locations. These includedperfumes manufactured by Jean Marie Farina of Paris and Eugene Rimmel (Parisand London). French cognac distillers included Thomas Dunkin and Son andJames Violett and Co of Bordeaux. Dutch gin makers included V. Hoytema andVan Den Bergh & Co, while three liquor bottles were marked Joh von Pein, Altona(Denmark/Germany, Fig. 2).

352 Davies

Fig. 2. Base of glass liquor bottle from Joh von Pein of Altona, recovered from Lot 80C. Altona, innorthwestern Germany, was a Danish territory until 1866, when it passed to Prussia.

Residents at Casselden Place were also willing to experiment with a diversityof medicinal products from various sources to deal with health problems. Self-dosing with proprietary remedies was a common treatment during this era, andit seems that Australians were avid consumers of these products, with one of thehighest rates of consumption of medicinal remedies in the world. By 1905, suchmedicines accounted for almost 1% of all imports into Australia (Davies, 2001, p.70; Finch, 1999, p. 83). English medicines from the site included James Dalby’sCarminative, two Pears remedies and Sir James Murray’s Solution of Magnesia.Local concoctions were represented by a bottle of Wood’s Great Peppermint Cure,and a jar of Solomon’s Solution, used “for men, horses, cows and dogs” (Sandsand McDougall, 1892, p. 1262). Homeopathic kits were also widely available,and came with instructions for use in the home. At the same time, allopathic orethical medicines prepared by local doctors and chemists were also important.Several Chinese medicine containers discarded at the site, may have been used byEuropeans and Chinese alike.


The overall pattern identified in the glass and stoneware assemblage was forcommodities to have been produced, either locally, in Melbourne, or internation-ally, in the United Kingdom and Europe. Beverages were being manufactured innearby suburbs, but many other domestic consumables were transported aroundthe world for local distribution and consumption. No items were found that camefrom regional sources, such as Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo. However, two Sydneymanufacturers were identified: Thomas Field, a potter and ginger beer brewer, andthe Tooths “Kent” Brewery. In addition, a Tanqueray Gordon gin bottle, althoughoriginally from a London distiller, was probably distributed by Sydney agentsSwift and Co. No producers operating elsewhere in Australia were recorded inthe assemblage. Only one glass fragment from the United States was identified,marked “AN/NY/USA.” Material of Chinese origin, however, was recovered frommore than half of the excavated allotments at Casselden Place. While Chineseoccupants are documented at several premises by the turn of the century, thewidespread distribution of stoneware jars and bottles of Chinese origin suggeststhat these items were used by people from many different backgrounds other thanChinese at Casselden Place.

CONCLUSION

Historian Graeme Davison has argued that Melbourne was a “distant, butconstant,” satellite of both Britain and the United States (Davison, 1978, p. 131).Glass and stoneware commodities from Casselden Place complicate this straight-forward relationship. British goods were prominent, as were European goods to alesser extent, but American items were rare. British commodities were often man-ufactured in Australia under local licenses or distributed by metropolitan agents.In addition, while American goods may be poorly represented, American technol-ogy was an important element of Australian industry, although often introducedindirectly via Great Britain.

The six Australian colonies had long competed with each other, imposingintercolonial tariffs and customs duties to maintain trade advantages. Melbournewas not linked to Sydney by rail until 1883, and even then two different gaugesmeant delays at the border. Geoffrey Blainey (1966) has noted that during thisperiod Australia did not actually have a unified economy with heavy exchangesof goods between each region. Instead, it had many isolated economies, eachwith a main port and a hinterland (Blainey, 1966, p. 247). Each colony looked toGreat Britain for finance, goods and people. It is not surprising that there is solittle evidence for commodities at Casselden Place imported from elsewhere inAustralia.

The Little Lon neighborhood of which Casselden Place was a part was oftenportrayed by contemporary sources as a “slum,” filled with poverty, disease and

354 Davies

depravity. Recent archaeological and historical analysis, however, has challengedthis conventional mythologizing, and offered ways of re-imagining a notional“slum” neighborhood as a vanished but once-vibrant working-class urban com-munity (Mayne and Lawrence, 1998; Murray and Mayne, 2001). Even during thedepression of the 1890s, for example, it was widely acknowledged that given Vic-torian prices and wages, even ‘the humblest people’ could afford meat, fish, eggs,fruit, poultry, butter, cream, vegetables, sugar, tea, coffee and flowers (Davison,1978, p. 200). Acquisition through exchange and barter, gifts, heirlooms and sec-ond hand trading were almost certainly practiced as well. The diversity of goodsidentified at the site reinforces the role of residents as consumers, shopping forcommodities from either very local sources or very distant, international ones,with little available or acquired from places in between.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, W. H. (1977). Silcott, Washington: Ethnoarchaeology of a Rural American Community, WSULaboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, WA.

Adams, W. H. (1991). Trade networks and interaction spheres: A view from Silcott. In Miller, G. L.,Jones, O. R., Ross, L. A., and Majewski, T. (eds.), Approaches to Material Culture Research forHistorical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology, California, PA, pp. 385–398.

Arnold, K. (1990). A Victorian Thirst, Crown Castleton, Maiden Gully, Victoria.Bate, W. (1994). Essential But Unplanned: The Story of Melbourne’s Lanes, State Library of Victoria

with The City of Melbourne, Melbourne.Blainey, G. (1966). The Tyranny of Distance, Sun Books, Melbourne.Brown-May, A. (1998). Melbourne Street Life: The Itinerary of Our Days, Australian Scholarly/Arcadia

and Museum Victoria, Kew, Victoria.Davies, P. (2001). A cure for all seasons: Health and medicine in a Bush Community. Journal of

Australian Studies70: 63–72.Davies, P. (2004). Glass and Stoneware Containers. In Godden Mackay Logan, La Trobe University,

and Austral Archaeology, Casselden Place (50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne) ArchaeologicalExcavations Research Archive Report, prepared for ISPT and Heritage Victoria, volume 3(i):Artefact Reports, pp. 225–288.

Davison, G. (1978). The Rise and Fall of Marvellous Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, Mel-bourne.

Deutsher, K. M. (1999). The Breweries of Australia: A History, Lothian, Port Melbourne, Victoria.Farrer, K. T. H. (1980). A Settlement Amply Supplied: Food Technology in Nineteenth Century Australia,

Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.Finch, L. (1999). Soothing syrups and teething powders: Regulating proprietary drugs in Australia,

1860–1910. Medical History43: 74–94.Ford, G. (1995). Australian Pottery: The First 100 Years, Salt Glaze Press, Wodonga, Victoria.Gresswell, D. A. (1890). Report on the Sanitary Condition and Sanitary Administration of Melbourne

and Suburbs, Board of Public Health, Government Printer, Melbourne.Hayter, H. H. (1891). Victorian Year-Book for 1890–1, Government Printer, Melbourne.Lack, J. (1985). ‘Worst Smelbourne’: Melbourne’s noxious trades. In Davison, G., Dunstan, D., and

McConville, C. (eds.), The Outcasts of Melbourne, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, pp. 172–200.Lewis, M. (1995). Melbourne: The City’s History and Development, City of Melbourne, Melbourne.Mayne, A., and Lawrence, S. (1998). An Ethnography of Place: Imagining “Little Lon.” Journal of

Australian Studies57: 93–107.


Murray, T. and Mayne, A. (2001). Imaginary landscapes: Reading Melbourne’s “Little Lon.” In Mayne,A., and Murray, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 89–105.

Peel, L. J. (1974). Rural Industry in the Port Phillip Region 1835–1880, Melbourne University Press,Melbourne.

Sands and McDougall’s Melbourne and Suburban Directory (1892). Sands and McDougall, Melbourne.Sands and McDougall’s Melbourne and Suburban Directory (1895). Sands and McDougall, Melbourne.Schlereth, T. J. (1991). Victorian America: Transformations in Everyday Life, 1876–1915, Harper

Collins, New York.

Documents

Mapping Commodities at Casselden Place, Melbourne