Caboonbah: The Archaeology of a Middle Class Queensland Pastoral Family Linda Terry Published online: 29 May 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 Abstract Pastoralism was the mainstay of the developing economy of Queensland. The men and women who owned the pastoral properties were mainly from upper and middle class English and Scottish families. One such family, the Somersets, occupied Caboonbah, a pastoral property in the Brisbane Valley of Queensland in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century. Excavation of the rubbish gully associated with the homestead provided material evidence of how this family adhered to the tenets of middle class family life while living in an isolated rural area and contending with the fluctuating fortunes of life on the land. Keywords Middle class . Pastoralism . Queensland . Australia Introduction The simplistic nineteenth-century view of Australia frequently expressed by British and European visitors, of an egalitarian society was largely due to the absence of an aristocracy and the lack of the associated deference that was such a prominent part of European class practice (Connell and Irving 1992, p. 12; Young 2003, p. 6). The reality was that from the time of first European settlement in Sydney Cove, society in this outpost of the British Empire was marked by the same social differences as the Motherland (Poiner and Jack 2007, p. 4). While the middle class in Europe developed out of the industrial revolution, in Australia it grew initially from military officers, pastoralists, merchants and professionals and was later supplemented by agricultur- alists and successful gold miners (Barcan 1955, p. 69). As the nineteenth century progressed, the dominance of the original pastoralists, who wanted to emulate the ordered life of rural England, was challenged by squatters who illegally claimed large areas of lush grazing land outside the officially sanctioned areas of settlement. In Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 DOI 10.1007/s10761-013-0234-1 L. Terry (*) School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 4072 e-mail: [email protected]
Transcript
Caboonbah: The Archaeology of a Middle ClassQueensland Pastoral Family
Linda Terry
Published online: 29 May 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Pastoralism was the mainstay of the developing economy of Queensland.The men and women who owned the pastoral properties were mainly from upper andmiddle class English and Scottish families. One such family, the Somersets, occupiedCaboonbah, a pastoral property in the Brisbane Valley of Queensland in the latenineteenth and the early twentieth century. Excavation of the rubbish gully associatedwith the homestead provided material evidence of how this family adhered to thetenets of middle class family life while living in an isolated rural area and contendingwith the fluctuating fortunes of life on the land.
Keywords Middle class . Pastoralism . Queensland . Australia
Introduction
The simplistic nineteenth-century view of Australia frequently expressed by Britishand European visitors, of an egalitarian society was largely due to the absence of anaristocracy and the lack of the associated deference that was such a prominent part ofEuropean class practice (Connell and Irving 1992, p. 12; Young 2003, p. 6). Thereality was that from the time of first European settlement in Sydney Cove, society inthis outpost of the British Empire was marked by the same social differences as theMotherland (Poiner and Jack 2007, p. 4). While the middle class in Europe developedout of the industrial revolution, in Australia it grew initially from military officers,pastoralists, merchants and professionals and was later supplemented by agricultur-alists and successful gold miners (Barcan 1955, p. 69). As the nineteenth centuryprogressed, the dominance of the original pastoralists, who wanted to emulate theordered life of rural England, was challenged by squatters who illegally claimed largeareas of lush grazing land outside the officially sanctioned areas of settlement. In
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589DOI 10.1007/s10761-013-0234-1
L. Terry (*)School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,Queensland, Australia 4072e-mail: [email protected]
Australia, squatters were not the uneducated and unrefined “backswoodsmen” that theAmerican origin of the term implies, but rather men of both wealth and educationattracted by the early profitability of pastoralism, thereby giving the term a middle classassociation and an implied elevated socio-economic status (Cochrane 2006, p. 70).
The identity of these early pastoralists was made up of many facets: class, status,age, ethnicity, religion etc. that coexisted in the context of their lived experience(Meskell 2001, p. 201). Australia was part of the international culture of the coloniesof Greater Britain which shared an identity based on the ethnicity of Britishness andmiddle-class values and beliefs (Young 2003, p. 8). The middle class, particularly inthe early nineteenth century was dynamic, driven by the social aspirations of in-dividuals and families for self improvement and upward mobility (Lawrence andDavies 2011, p. 272; Young 2003, p. 15). The developing diversity of the economyand increasing immigration meant that hopes of “exclusiveness, caste, and inheritedsocial position were forced to give way before the material and social realities of abrash, democratic, colonial world” (Russell 2002, p. 434) described in an 1858 articlein the London publication Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country as a “peculiar…society… being formed in the Australian colonies” (Anonymous 1858, p. 664). Lackof an aristocracy combined with economic opportunities provided unprecedentedprospects for advancement into and within the middle class (Young 2003, p. 34). Inrural areas of nineteenth-century Australia, the middle class flourished (Barcan 1955,pp. 66–67). Pastoralists emerged as a powerful political group with increasingeconomic influence (Burroughs 1967, p. 131) and it was not until the rural economicdownturn of 1890–93 that their dominance started to be eclipsed by a new middleclass arising from national industrial expansion (Barcan 1955, p. 72).
This paper examines the class and status of the Somerset family who establishedand occupied “Caboonbah,” a pastoral property in the Brisbane Valley of south eastQueensland (Fig. 1) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The researchis based on the material culture obtained during archaeological excavations ofCaboonbah Homestead’s domestic rubbish dump between 2006 and 2009 combinedwith the documentary record of the family. It explores how the family adhered to thetenets of middle class life while living in an isolated rural area and contending withthe fluctuating fortunes of life on the land.
Background
From the early days of settlement it was recognized that Australia’s colonies had anabundance of land suitable for pastoralism (Davidson 1994, p. 79). In his 1823 Reportof the Commissioner of Inquiry on the State of Agriculture and Trade in the Colony ofNew South Wales presented to the House of Commons, Commissioner Bigge (1823,p. 92) stated: “Considering the nature and character of the greatest portion of thecolony that has been examined, and assuming that the character of a large portion ofthe remainder will be found to bear a resemblance to it, it may be fairly presumed thatits future condition will be that of pasture rather than tillage.” When the BritishGovernment decided to establish a penal colony in New South Wales the presence ofAboriginal people was ignored. As early explorers had reported no evidence ofboundary fences or markers, no farming or industry, and no permanent structures or
570 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
buildings, in line with British common law the eastern one-third of Australia wasclassed as terra nullius (Frost 1981, p. 515) and resulted in the British Crownclaiming ownership of all land in the colony. The first land grants in the colony ofNew South Wales were made through orders from the Crown and were entirelycontrolled by Governor Phillip under instruction from the Secretary of State inEngland. These grants, known as Tickets of Occupation made to liberated prisoners,were for 10 years and free from all taxes, rents and fees (Billis and Kenyon 1930,p. 2). In 1789, grants were extended to free immigrants and marines serving in NewSouth Wales who could acquire a maximum of 100 ac (40.5 ha) but were subject to aquit-rent of one shilling per annum for each 50 ac (20 ha) (Australian Bureau ofStatistics 2009, p. 219). The sale of land to free settlers was introduced in March 1825by Governor Thomas Brisbane at a minimum price of 5 shillings per acre with a limitof 4,000 ac (1,619 ha) to an individual and 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) to a family (AustralianBureau of Statistics 2009, p. 219).
The system of land use developed by the early pastoralists was a form of nomadicgrazing where sheep and cattle were moved from one selection of a large unfencedrun to another, under the watch of shepherds and stockmen. However, the restrictionsplaced on settlement made it difficult for pastoralists to acquire the amounts of landthey needed to be financially viable (Davidson 1994, pp. 83–84). Pastoralists con-tinued to solve land acquisition problems by illegally moving beyond sanctionedsettlement areas and becoming squatters.
In an effort to control this unauthorized selection of land, in 1827, Governor RalphDarling established the “Limits of Location”which specified the areas where settlers werepermitted to take up land (King 1957, p. 40). In October 1829, these boundaries werevaried, based on a trigonomical survey of the colony by JohnOxley and ThomasMitchell,and the eastern part of the colony was divided into “Nineteen Counties” (Fig. 2) coveringan area of 34,505mi2 (9,078 km2) and five million acres (2 million ha) (Australian Bureauof Statistics 2009, p. 220). Outside this area the government would not sell or grant land,
Fig. 1 Location of Caboonbah in the Brisbane Valley Queensland. (Courtesy Fryer Library)
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 571
permit permanent settlement or provide police protection (King 1957, p. 40). However, asthe land available in the Nineteen Counties was not only limited but also much of it waspoor quality, by the time this restriction was initiated stockowners were already occupyinglarge areas beyond the limits (King 1957, p. 40). By 1836, Governor Darling realized thathe was powerless to stop the squatters occupying land and “introduced law and order intothe lawless doings of the adventurers” (Collier 1911, p. 4) by initiating pastoral leases.
Fig. 2 Colony of New South Wales indicating the Nineteen Counties, 1842 (after Poiner and Jack 2007)
572 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
Under the Crown Lands Unauthorized Occupation Act 1836, squatters could graze stockon land outside the Nineteen Counties for an annual license of £10.
By the time Moreton Bay, a former penal colony incorporating Brisbane Town, wasofficially opened to free settlement in May 1842, squatters had already claimed largeruns on the rich grazing land of the nearby Darling Downs and Brisbane Valley (Kerr1988, p. 3). When Queensland became a separate colony in 1859, these pastoralists,many of whom were from upper- and middle-class English and Scottish families, wererecognized as being amongst the wealthiest men in the country and were knowncollectively as the “squattocracy.” At Separation (from New South Wales) in 1859 therewere 3.5 million sheep and 500,000 cattle in the colony of Queensland, with pastoralismcontributing 70% of the colony’s revenue and 94% of exports (Fitzgerald 1982, p.133).
Queensland adopted the same system of land tenure that was in place in New SouthWales and as the result of a plural voting system, which gave men with property in morethan one electorate the corresponding number of votes, the pastoralists maintained anextraordinary amount of political power (Melbourne 1963, p. 451). Attempts were madethrough theCrown Lands Alienation Act 1868 to weaken their hold by resuming parts ofthe large runs and making smaller parcels of land available to selectors. Similar to theUnited States Homestead Act 1862, men of limited means were encouraged to selectsmall parcels of land and undertake intensive agriculture such as wheat farming. As wellas an attempt to encourage closer settlement, this was a move undoubtedly designed tolessen the political power of the pastoralists, however, through manipulation of thecomplicated land allocation system and use of dummy purchasers, the pastoralistsmaintained their domination (Davidson 1981, p. 142).
While the pastoralists on the rich grazing land of the Darling Downs and theBrisbane Valley flourished (Fitzgerald 1982, p.132), others had mixed success. Manywere unfamiliar with Queensland conditions and overstocking combined with theexodus of shepherds and stockmen to the goldfields in the 1860s, recurrent droughtand flood, economic depression, fluctuating wool prices, menace from native faunaand the loss of free ranging stock presented pastoralists with ongoing challenges. Theunsuitability of the climate and terrain of many regions for sheep combined with anincreased demand for beef for the armies fighting the Franco-Prussian War, saw sheepnumbers decline by over 3 million between 1868 and 1878, while cattle tripled toover 3 million (Fitzgerald 1982, p.147). Additionally, improvements such as theintroduction of wire-fencing in the 1870s (Fitzgerald 1982, p. 146) and the sanctionedwidespread slaughter of native wildlife under the Marsupial Destruction Act 1877(Allen and Sparkes 2001, p. 77) provided some relief. The expansion of the railwaynetwork and the introduction of refrigerated shipping which facilitated the export offrozen meat, further improved the viability of many pastoral properties (Fitzgerald1982, p. 147). As Queensland moved into the twentieth century, the economy movedfrom a position of almost total reliance on pastoralism to be more diverse with sugarand minerals, mainly gold, also becoming major exports (Thorpe 1996, p. 132).
The Somerset Family of Caboonbah Homestead
Henry Plantagenet Somerset was born an aristocrat. His ancestry can be traced back,through the royal dynasty of the Plantagenets to William the Conqueror (Millar 1965,
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 573
p. 3). Born into a distinguished military branch of his family in Grahame Town, Capeof Good Hope, South Africa, on May 19, 1852, Henry was the second son of ColonelCharles Henry Somerset of the 72nd Highland Regiment of Foot (Somerset 1935, p.1) and Christiana Thompson daughter of William Rowland Thompson a wealthySouth African pioneer merchant (Rassool and Witz 1993, p. 460). His paternal greatgrandfather, Lord Charles Henry Somerset, was a former “Governor andCommander-in-Chief of His Majesty’s Castle, Town and Settlement of the Cape ofGood Hope in South Africa and Dependencies” (Millar 1965, p. 1).
After an early childhood spent in India, Henry returned to England in 1857 with hismother and siblings following the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny. Both his parents diedwhen he was 11 and he lived with his paternal grandparents at Southsea (Somerset 1935,p. 5) until he entered Wellington College, the precursor to Sandhurst Military Academy,as a Queen’s Cadet, an award open only to the sons of officers who had died in theservice of their country (Somerset 2010, p. 17). Completing his education in 1870,Henry left to travel on the Continent with friends with the intention of purchasing acommission in the Army on his return (Somerset 1935, p. 24). His lifestyle was financedthrough his family’s investments in South Africa, however, he was forced to return toEngland on the news that all their money had been lost (Somerset 1935, p. 25).
Needing to find employment Henry decided to try his luck in the colonies. Heobtained a Letter of Introduction and a 40 ac (16 ha) land order from the AgentGeneral for Queensland, Sir Charles Nicholson. His uncle, General George Somerset,agreed to pay his £40 saloon fare and Henry set sail for Queensland on the Polmaiseon June 10, 1871, arriving in Brisbane on September 19, 1871. He immediately foundemployment as a jackeroo on Mount Brisbane Station and later obtained a position asa stockman and station manager at Cressbrook Station home of David CannonMcConnel (Somerset 1935, p. 30). McConnel was the first squatter to take up a runin the Brisbane Valley and Cressbrook comprised 240 mi2 (622 km2) of fertile landwith a 12 mi (19 km) double Brisbane River frontage (Vickerman 1998, p. 2). Whileat Cressbrook Henry met and later became engaged to David McConnel’s daughter,Katharine Rose (Fig. 3) (Somerset 1935, p. 71).
Katharine was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1855, during a 7-year sojourn thatMcConnel and his wife Mary spent travelling in England, Scotland, and Europe
Fig. 3 Katharine McConnel and Henry Somerset ca. 1875. (Courtesy State Library of Queensland, neg no.188752)
574 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
(Vickerman 1998, p. 8). The family returned to Queensland in 1862 whereKatharine’s mother, described as “dominant, energetic and articulate” took an activerole in the life of Cressbrook (Kerr 1988, p. 5). A very strict Presbyterian (Vickerman1998, p. 10), Mary McConnel took a keen interest in social issues and was known tominister to sick women and children in the district (Banks 1931, p. 30). She was alsofounder and principal fundraiser for the Royal Children’s Hospital in Brisbane(Fison 1969, p. 417).
Henry and Katharine were married at the British Legation in Berne, Switzerland onJuly 5, 1879 where Mary McConnel was living at the time for her health (Somerset1935, p. 28). Following their honeymoon, the couple returned to Australia and settledin northern New South Wales where Henry managed the Ramornie Station andmeat works and later Gordon Brook Station for their English owners (Somerset1935, p. 109).
In 1888, Henry secured 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) of grazing land at Mount Stanley nearthe Brisbane Valley of which he exchanged 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) for 5,000 ac(2,023 ha) of Cressbrook freehold (Waite 2010, p.59). The site that Henry andKatharine chose to build their home stood on top of a 120 ft (37 m) cliff on thenorthern bank of the Brisbane River, below the junction of the Brisbane and StanleyRivers. They named their property “Caboonbah,” a derivation of a local Indigenousterm Cabon gibba meaning “big rock” (DERM 2009, p. 2). Their homestead (Fig. 4)was constructed from locally milled timber with a shingled roof and consisted of acentral corridor with four main rooms and verandahs on the north, east and southelevations. In addition to the house, an adjoining service building contained a bakery,washhouse, and storerooms. Henry devised a system whereby the bakery oven firewas used to heat water that was piped to the washhouse (Errol Miller, caretaker,Caboonbah Homestead, pers. comm.). The homestead was occupied by the family inMarch 1890 just prior to the birth of their fifth child (Vickerman 1998, p. 55).
Combining the properties at Mount Stanley and Caboonbah, Henry and Katharine,undertook extensive cattle raising and bred thoroughbred horses (Somerset 2010,p. 124). In February 1893, major flooding of the Brisbane River devastated much of
Fig. 4 Caboonbah Homestead. 2009
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 575
south east Queensland including the Brisbane Valley (Kerr 1988, p. 166). TheSomerset’s suffered huge losses; dairy cows, draught and thoroughbred horses and729 head of fat bullocks as well as fences and equipment. Additionally, 640 carcassesin the freezer of a ship bound for England and delayed in sailing by the floods had tobe discarded (Somerset 1935, p. 103). The floods were followed by severe drought in1901–02 and Caboonbah stock were saved only by the water couch which appearedin the Brisbane River as the water level fell (Somerset 1935, p. 104). During this time,Katharine and Henry demonstrated their altruism by removing their boundary fencesto let the struggling German community at nearby Mount Beppo graze their stock onCaboonbah land (Eriksen 1990, p. 83).
Henry served as a member of the Esk Divisional Board/Shire Council (Kerr 1988,p. 238) and was elected to the Queensland Parliament as Member of the LegislativeAssembly for Stanley in 1904. He held that position until 1920 when he resigned dueto advancing age (Courier Mail 1936, p. 13). Throughout his tenure, Henry staunchlysupported his electorate, declining the portfolio of Agriculture because of his oppo-sition to land tax (Courier Mail 1936, p. 13). He was largely responsible for majorimprovements to the district’s rail links (Kerr 1988, p. 109) and played a major role inthe establishment of the Rural School movement in Queensland where vocationalschools taught boys manual skills, elementary agriculture and farm management andgirls learnt home management and needlework skills (Logan and Clark 1984, p.4).Henry travelled extensively throughout his electorate. He visited every school andwas reportedly astonished to discover how many children had never seen the sea(Coleman 1980, p. 35). As a consequence, for many years, Henry organized trips forcountry children by train to Brisbane and then on the Queensland Government ShipLucinda to St Helena Island (Eriksen 1990, p. 84). In 1950, at public request, theelectorate of Stanley was renamed Somerset in Henry’s memory (DERM2009, p. 3).
Katharine was co-founder of the Stanley Memorial Hospital in the nearby town-ship of Esk (Kerr 1988, p. 185) and in 1905, she and Henry founded the CaboonbahUndenominational Church (Kerr 1988, p. 219). The Somersets donated the land andthe timber for the building and raised funds for the construction (Somerset 1935,p. 104). Prior to the establishment of the church, Henry took a fortnightly Church ofEngland service in a barn at Caboonbah and Katharine taught Sunday school (Eriksen1990, p. 105). Both Henry, Katharine and their daughters served as church organists(Somerset 1935, p. 105).
The Somersets had ten children, seven girls and three boys, two of whom died in1891. In an unpublished memoir recounting her childhood at Caboonbah, DorisSomerset notes that the family had only a small number of servants, one indigenousgirl, Clara, who helped with the children and another who helped with the cookingand housework. The children initially had a governess but attended the Mt. Bepposchool following its establishment in 1893. They rode the 8 mi (13 km) to schoolunescorted with the older children watching over the younger ones. Their eldestsurviving son Rollo, accompanied by his horse ‘Darky’ enlisted in the 5th LightHorse Regiment in 1914 at the start of WWI and served in Gallipoli and Palestine,attaining the rank of Captain (Anzacs n.d.). He was awarded the Military Cross in1917 (Australian War Memorial 2007).
Following Katharine’s sudden death on February 7, 1935 (QSA SCT/P1977 1935),Caboonbah Homestead and 983 ac (398 ha) of the land were sold and the homestead
576 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
was converted to a guest house (Vickerman 1998, p. 88). Henry went to live with hisdaughter Doris at nearby Toogoolawah where he died on April 11, 1936 (QSASCT/P2047 1936). Both Henry and Katharine, and their sons Rollo and Herewardare buried in the grounds of the Undenominational Church and their graves overlookthe site of Caboonbah Homestead.
Caboonbah Homestead Archaeological Project
The archaeological data from Caboonbah has been collected as part of the CaboonbahHomestead Archaeological Project (CHAP), a collaborative project of The Universityof Queensland and the Brisbane Valley Historical Society. The project began in 2006after an undisturbed rubbish dump was discovered in the gully line to the south ofCaboonbah Homestead following a controlled burn of the site. The eastern end of thegully contained domestic artifacts and matched exactly the location of the “rubishgully” [sic] on a plan of the homestead drawn by Hereward Somerset in the 1920s(Fig. 5). Three field seasons were conducted between 2007 and 2009. Shortly afterthe 2009 field season the homestead was totally destroyed by fire and unfortunatelythe site was bull-dozed and totally cleared thereby destroying any remaining archae-ological evidence.
Excavation
Eight 1×1 m pits were excavated in two trenches on the centerline of the gully inareas with the highest surface density of domestic artifacts. The stratigraphy wassimple, with only two Stratigraphic Units (SU) identifiable in the deposit. SUI, aconsistent friable, grey, sandy artifact-rich alluvium covered the entire site varying indepth between 0.4 cm and 85 cm. This layer was infiltrated by numerous roots andtubers from the Lantana camara and weeds that have infested the gully for manyyears and by a large number and variety of insects. SUII was compact grey/brownclay that uniformly underlay SUI across the entire site and was infiltrated by roots
Fig. 5 Plan of Caboonbah Homestead (drawn by Hereward Somerset. BVHS)
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 577
from large trees. The majority of the artifacts recovered were located on the interfaceof the two stratigraphic units, embedded in the clay or randomly scattered in thealluvium of SUI (Fig. 6). This allowed for the interpretation of SUII as the originalsurface during the period of artifact deposition (Prangnell 2007, p. 8).
Taphonomy
Taphonomic processes have had a major impact on the artifacts in the gully line.Given the steepness of the slope, graviturbation played a role in the initial depositionof artifacts with the supposition that larger, heavier and more rounded artifactsprogressed further down the slope with a high probability that gravity continued toaffect the distribution of artifacts after deposition. At some time during the operationof Caboonbah Homestead as a guest house (1935–62) a large concrete water tank wasinstalled at the head of the gully. The earthworks required to level the area for the tankundoubtedly saw the excavated sediment pushed down into the existing gully. Thiswill have had two major effects. Firstly, the spatial and visual relationships betweenthe homestead and gully have been changed as the head of the gully is now certainlyfurther from the homestead than when it was inhabited by the Somersets. Secondly,underlying (and therefore older) deposits from the head of the gully will have beenpushed down the hillside possibly burying more recent material. However, thecomposition of the two stratigraphic units suggests that in the area chosen forexcavation this has not been a factor (Prangnell 2007, p. 12).
The site was subject to major flooding that occurred in Queensland in 1974 and itis probable that the flood deposited some of the alluvium of SUI, thereby placing aneffective cap over the archaeological deposit. Additionally, the infestation of the siteby Lantana camara and tuberous weeds over many years and the large numbers andvarieties of insects noted within the deposit may have acted to disturb artifacts.
Fig. 6 Example of distribution of artifacts in the Stratigraphic Units. (J. Prangnell 2007)
578 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
Artifacts
A total of 20,189 artifacts was recovered. They were initially classified into grossfabric types (Table 1), with the most frequent being glass, metal, ceramic and faunalremains. As the purpose of the CHAP excavations was to answer higher-orderquestions related to the social organization of pastoralism in Queensland, artifactswere assigned functional categories (Table 2) based on a classification systemdeveloped by Casey (2004). While the intended function of an object may not equateto its actual use, and over time one item may have different functions (Brooks 2005,p. 18), items were categorized according to their original function. Characteristic ofhistorical archaeological sites in Queensland is the high degree of fragmentation ofthe assemblage and while fragment counts are used to provide information about thedistribution of the artifacts across the site, where applicable minimum vessel counts(MVC) are used to assist with the inference of how items were used by the Somersetfamily.
By far the most common general function category was Food. Forty-five condi-ment bottles were identified, including Holbrooks Sauce, Thomas Symington & Co.Coffee and Chicory, and Champion’s Vinegar. Ceramic artifacts represented foodstorage, preparation, and serving vessels as well as a variety of whiteware and bonechina tableware and tea equipage. There is evidence of three sets of tableware:Glenwood pattern (Fig. 7a), Regal (Fig. 7b) and Villeroy and Boch Pattern 508(Fig. 7c). Glenwood is a green floral underglaze transfer-print clobbered with blackand red enamel manufactured by Wood and Son between 1891 and 1907. Pattern 508,a red and green floral transfer print, was produced by Villeroy and Boch, Dresden from1874 to 1909. Both these sets are fine whiteware and there is evidence of a variety ofserving dishes.
The Regal design is a green underglaze transfer print produced by GeorgeJones & Sons from 1881 to 98 and is of a utilitarian nature. There is also a tea
Table 1 CHAP artifacts by fabric type
Fabric Inclusions #Fragment MVC %
Brick Brick, mortar, concrete 152 0.75
Ceramic Redware, stoneware, whiteware, bone china,parian, pipe clay
set in Willow pattern and another with three gilded lines around the rim of thecups and saucers, manufactured by Blair & Co. Willow and its variants wereextremely popular in the mid to late nineteenth century and were ubiquitous inVictorian households throughout the colonies (O’Hara 1993, p. 421). A crystalknife rest was also recovered.
Pharmaceutical is the second most frequent functional category with 29 medicinebottles identified including a clear circular vial marked Dr. Williams Pink Pills forPale People. Originally made in 1890 by the Dr Williams Medicine Company, asubsidiary of G.T. Fulford and Company, these iron based pills were marketedthroughout North America, Europe, and the British Empire (Loeb 1999, p. 127)and were particularly popular in Australia in the late nineteenth century (Fahey 2005,p. 3). A round, clear machine made jar with a screw-top thread marked BW & CoLondon, the trademark of Burroughs Wellcome, a pharmaceutical companyestablished in London in 1880, and another marked Kepler, a product marketed byBurroughs Wellcome from 1883, where cod-liver oil was mixed with malt extract inan effort to improve the taste (Tansey 2002, p. 411).
The Beverage category is under represented with only five beer bottles, onewhiskey bottle, one Udolpho Wolfe’s schnapps bottle, and one Gilbey’s gin bottleidentified. Alcohol bottles commonly make up a large percentage of the bottle glassidentified on historical household sites in Australia (see e.g. Hayes 2008, p. 166)whereas at Caboonbah Homestead they comprised only 19.5 % of identified bottles.Two aerated water and one cordial bottle were also recovered.
Health and hygiene related artifacts in the Personal category include a bonetoothbrush, a Colgate Tooth Cream tube, two whiteware ewers, and three washbowls.Also in this category is a Dr Lowers magnetic-electric battery (Fig. 8). This was to beworn around the neck on a ribbon and would reportedly cure everything fromdiphtheria to hysteria and fits.
Table 2 (continued)
General function Specific function Examples
Utilities Water Pipe
Light
Electricity Transformer
Sewerage Pipe
Work Tools
Fig. 7 Ceramic transfer-printed patterns. aGlenwood Pattern. b Regal Pattern. c Villeroy & Boch Pattern 508
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 581
Considering the number of women and girls living at the homestead there is a lackof evidence of perfume bottles with only four perfume bottles identified, althoughcontemporary etiquette books did recommend use of perfume only in “strictestmoderation” (Anonymous 1885, p. 376). There is also a lack of evidence of children,apart from a toy train carriage, four slate pencil pieces, and the remnants of a smallboot. It is possible that the two ceramic stoppers from Codd’s aerated water bottlesmay have been used as marbles.
Dating
Maker’s backstamps are important chronological indicators and are the best means toaccurately date the manufacture of a piece of ceramic (Burke and Smith 2004.p.370–371). Twelve makers’ backstamps have been identified (Table 3). Theseindicate dates of manufacture ranging from 1873 to 1936. However, as domesticceramic items can have long use lives and be introduced into the archaeologicalrecord many years after they were manufactured, dates obtained from maker’sbackstamps need to be used in conjunction with other lines of evidence(Williamson 2006, p. 329). The manufacture-deposition lag is always a concern whendating historical assemblages but generally bottle glass is known to be deposited intothe archaeological record more readily and quickly than ceramic (Williamson 2006,
p. 338). The seal types of the bottle glass recovered from the Caboonbah Homesteadrubbish gully have provided a TPQ of 1870 and a manufacturing date range into the1930s (Table 4). There is no stratigraphic evidence of deposits post dating this periodand this is supported by historical record of the sale and change of use of thehomestead in 1935.
Discussion
People exhibit their social identities through the “use and manipulation” of materialculture (Dellino-Musgrave 2005, p. 220). Consequently the archaeological recordrepresents the “aspirations, motivations, perceptions and realities” (Nassaney andBrandão 2009, p. 19) of individuals and groups whose actions were, often sublimi-nally, influenced by the social and cultural structures they took for granted (Brumfiel1992). The archaeological data obtained from the assemblage recovered from therubbish dump at Caboonbah Homestead contains the material evidence of the every-day life of the Somerset family, consisting of remnants of household items that are,according to Brooks (1999, p. 62), frequently chosen to establish identity. Whileidentity is constructed and maintained through the convergence and divergence of it
Table 3 Maker’s backstampswith dates of manufacture
Maker Date range
Minton c.1873
George Jones & Sons Ltd 1874–1924
Pattern reg. Jan.1889
Villeroy & Boch 1874–1909
R.H. Plant & Co 1881–98
John Aynsley & Sons Ltd 1891
Wood & Son 1891–1907
Lovatt & Lovatt 1895–31
Blair & Co 1900+
RH & SL Plant Ltd 1907–36
J & G Meakin 1912+
Johnson Brothers 1913+
Doulton & Co Ltd 1922–27
Table 4 Identified seal types withproduction dates
Finish type Production dates
Double collar 1870 to early 20th century
Applied lip 1872–1920
Codd’s patent seal 1878–95
Screw thread 1885 to present
Crown seal 1896 to present
Ring seal 1900–20
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 583
elements, for the Somerset family it was class and status that underpinned theiridentity. These elements signified who they were within the family, the communityand society at large. As a middle class family they went about their daily lives,organized their social space and used their material culture according to an under-standing of what was appropriate for their place in society. The family had a level ofsocial status within the community that came from the manner in which theyconducted their lives.
A common approach in historical archaeology has been to use the terms “class”and “status” interchangeably (Wurst 1999, p. 7) and although there is a high degree ofcorrelation between the two concepts (Meskell 2001, p. 191), there is a strongargument that they are not interchangeable (Babić 2005; Spencer-Wood andHeberling 1987, p. 74). Class is based on factors such as wealth, education, occupa-tion and ethnicity (Fitts 1999, p. 40) whereas status is socially constructed, throughthe positive or negative estimation of lifestyles and reputation and, unlike class, isconstantly negotiated by both individuals and groups (Babić 2005, p. 75; Meskell2001, p. 191). Status can be impacted by economic factors as well as social standing,aspects that can and do cut across one another (Stine 1990, p. 38). Spencer-Wood andHeberling (1987, p. 59) define status as “the social positions of individuals them-selves in the structure of any group” and it is undoubtedly a major factor determiningthe behavior of people towards one another (Babić 2005, p. 67).
Bourdieu explains the correlation between class and status through the notion ofcapital, a form of power by which an individual has the capacity to influence bothhis/her own future and the future of others (Postone et al. 1993, p. 4). Placing amaterial determination of status at the centre of his analysis of modern society,Bourdieu maintains that society is structured by the differential distribution ofeconomic capital, symbolic capital based on prestige and reputation, cultural capitali.e. culturally valued taste and consumption patterns (Webb et al. 2002, pp. x–xv) andsocial capital consisting of resources based on connections and group membership(Skeggs 1997, p. 8). All forms of capital are interchangeable (Bourdieu 1991, p. 14)but it is cultural capital that Bourdieu holds as pivotal to societal determination of thestatus of individual within their class (Harker et al. 1990, p. 1).
Both Henry and Katharine Somerset had abundant symbolic, cultural, and socialcapital by virtue of their family connections and upbringing. Their economic capitalfluctuated through the vagaries of life on the land, but despite the rigors of station lifeand the financial setbacks of their early years at Caboonbah, it is reasonable toassume that they had sufficient accumulated cultural capital to enable them tomaintain the proprieties of a genteel lifestyle and to pass this on to their children.This is not to imply that they considered themselves privileged landowners. On thecontrary, the documentary record portrays them as hard working with Katharine beinginvolved in the day-to-day running of the property as well as maintaining the home.However, both were raised in a culture of gentility where adherence to appropriateetiquette was the norm and it is unlikely that the Somersets felt the need to conform tosocial etiquette for what Fitts (1999, p. 58) described as Victorian middle class fear ofsocial faux pas.
Young (2003, p. 20), also drawing on the work of Bourdieu, has identified gentilityas a habitus i.e., socialization to the understanding of appropriate tastes and behaviorsfor one’s place in society and the material culture pivotal to this. The acquisition,
584 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
practice and maintenance of correct taste were essential in order to identify and beidentified correctly (Young 2003, p. 21) and adherence to style by acquiring the“correct” goods was necessary to demonstrate “good breeding and a thoroughknowledge of gentility” (Quirk 2008, p. 27). In other words, the acquisition anduse of material culture played a pivotal role in the complex network of interactionsbetween people.
Discussion of western identity in the nineteenth century overwhelmingly takes forgranted private female and public male spheres (Wilkie and Hayes 2006, p. 245). Thefemale sphere is presupposed to be the home (Nickolai 2008, p. 17; Rotman 2006,p. 666) with the woman perceived as passive, and her sphere of secondary importanceto the male domain (Diaz-Andreu 2005, p. 19). Within the home, this separation ofmale and female domains was physical as well as ideological. Traditionally, homeswere designed with private areas placed near the rear, thereby protecting the familyfrom worldly influences (Praetzellis and Praetzellis 2001, p. 646; Young 2003,p. 175) (for a description of a model Victorian home see Beecher 2007).Caboonbah Homestead was designed by Henry Somerset and did not conform tothis model (see Fig. 4). The bedrooms were at the front of the house and it wasnecessary to walk past these “private” areas of the home to reach the “public” sittingand dining areas. This further demonstrates that Katharine and Henry Somerset weresecure enough with their identity that they did not see the need to rigidly conform tothe outward manifestations of what was “correct” and designed their home to suit theneeds of their growing family, the Queensland climate and requirements of a pastoralproperty.
Maintaining the appropriate performance of middle class was naturally moredifficult on rural properties that were isolated by distance from one another. Animportant facet of the genteel performance was the establishment and maintenance ofthe correct social networks, a task that was principally left to the women (Hayes 2008,p. 330). A very British institution (Russell 1994, p. 50), there was a strict etiquetteassociated with visiting e.g. calls should be made between three and five in theafternoon, tea would be served and the maximum length of a visit should be 30 min(Flanders 2003, p. 280). It is debatable that this would have been strictly adhered to inrural Queensland. Leisure time was not a common commodity on these pastoralproperties and visiting may have been less an exhibition of leisure time and socialnetworking than the chance for women from adjacent properties to meet and provideeach other with support in matters of managing the home and children as well asdiscussing altruistic endeavors, such as the establishment of the Stanley MemorialHospital and raising funds for the Undenominational Church. Tea would have beenserved as this was an entrenched part of the custom of visiting and entertaining with acomplex set of customary beliefs and practices (Lawrence 2003, p. 219). Thepresence of fine bone china tea equipage attests to Katharine’s observance of thistradition.
It has been noted (Allison and Cremin 2006, p. 62) that the genteel performancewas an important concern for Australian women in the late Victorian period. Correctdining with the appropriate accoutrements was closely associated with these ideals(Wall 1994, p. 148). The association of household ceramics with this ritual wasexpressed through the use of elaborately decorated wares with an array of vesseltypes required for each meal (Wall 1994, p. 144). Matching sets of ceramic tableware
Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589 585
were an indicator of status and wealth and important in the practice of genteel dining(Hayes 2008, p. 286). Additionally, the use of matching sets or ceramics with acommon theme emphasized family unity by connecting those at the table with eachother (Wall 1994, p. 144). A middle-class family would have sets for everyday use,separate sets for lunch and dinner, and best sets (Fitts 1999, p. 52). The CHAPceramic assemblage with evidence of matching sets and a variety of serving dishes aswell as the crystal knife-rest suggests that the Somerset’s observed the proprieties ofgentility when dining, with perhaps the more utilitarian Regal pattern ceramics usedfor breakfast and lunch and the finer quality Glenwood used for dinners.
It can be argued that to an extent the gentility associated with the middle classactually gave women a degree of empowerment. It was the women who wereresponsible for the moral virtue and social conduct necessary to sustain and solidifyclass relations within colonial society (Russell 2002). There was an appreciation forthe place of a moral environment in character formation (Praetzellis and Praetzellis2001, p. 646). Middle-class culture was based on morality centered around “purity,temperance and self-restraint” (Lawrence and Davies 2011, p. 272) and it wasassumed that children who were surrounded with “morally uplifting influences . . .will grow up with the appropriate values and attitudes” (Praetzellis and Praetzellis2001, p. 646). It is obvious that strong Christian values guided the lives of theSomerset family. The whole family was active in church life and Katharine andHenry repeatedly demonstrated kindness towards their community. The relatively lowrepresentation of alcohol bottles identified in the assemblage possibly indicates thatthe family were likely to have been temperate in their consumption of alcohol,although reuse and disposal elsewhere cannot be discounted as several accounts existof alcohol bottles being cut down to form storage jars that performed a variety offunctions (Davies 2002, p. 64; Stuart 1993, p. 18).
Good health was highly valued with the “highest state of health . . . equivalent to thehighest degree of beauty” (Anonymous 1885, p. 375). In all social classes the use of patentmedicines increased dramatically in Australia between 1850 and the 1920s due to wide-spread advertising and a lingering distrust of doctors’ treatments (Davies 2002, p.64). Inrural areas this was compounded by both a lack of doctors and the tyranny of distance thatprecluded timely medical help. As Russell (1994, pp. 93–94) notes “the wives anddaughters of a well born pastoralist brought gracious living to the rural world, but theywere also able and indeed expected to turn their hands to any day-to-day emergency.”
The high proportion of pharmaceutical and health related artifacts indicates that thefamily used patent or proprietary medicines and the evidence of use of a magnetoelectric battery further attests to self-prescribed medical treatments. The responsibilityfor maintaining the health of her family and dealing with accidents fell to KatharineSomerset. The “prudery and excessive squeamishness” associated with middle classrespectability were unnecessary for “a lady in possession of true gentility because hermoral and social status were . . . incorruptible” (Russell 1994, p. 93).
Conclusion
The material culture used and discarded by the Somerset family is the physical expres-sion of their middle class practice. The choices theymade transposedmatters of taste and
586 Int J Histor Archaeol (2013) 17:569–589
function into expressions of their identity. Their habitus was infused into all aspects oftheir cultural practices and social relations and the material culture speaks of theiradherence to the customs and traditions of their British middle class heritage and oftheir recognition of the adaptations necessary for their Queensland environment.
Writing on etiquette in the early twentieth century, Theodosia Wallace (1909, pp. 5–6)expressed concern that an unacceptable level of elasticity existed in the social code ofAustralians, with each “abridgement of ceremony” lowering refinement and having thepotential to be “fatal to good manners.” What this does not acknowledge is that forfamilies like the Somersets gentility was not a ceremony but a way of life and theymolded their practice to suit the realities of everyday life in rural Queensland.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Jonathan Prangnell, Director of the Caboonbah HomesteadArchaeological Project and principal advisor for my PhD research for access to the CHAP collection andfor continued guidance and constructive criticism, the Brisbane Valley Historical Society for access to theirrecords and the volunteers who worked on the excavation.
References
Allen, L., and Sparkes, E. (2001). The effect of dingo control on sheep and beef cattle in Queensland.Journal of Applied Ecology 38(1): 76–87.
Allison, P., and Cremin, A. (2006). Ceramics from the old Kinchega homestead. Australasian HistoricalArchaeology 24: 55–64.
Anonymous (1858). Political and social prospects of the Australian colonies. Frasers’s Magazine for Townand Country 62(342): 659–669.
Anonymous. (1885). Australian Etiquette: Or the Rules and Usages of the Best Society in the AustralasianColonies: Together with their Sports, Pastimes, Games and Amusements: Revised, Illustrated andCompiled Expressly as a Household Treasure for Australian Homes, Peoples Publishing Co,Melbourne.Anzacs (n.d.). 5th Light Horse Regiment. <http://www.anzacs.org/5lhr/pages/5lhrmemberss1.html>.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Australian Year Book 1908. <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats.Australian War Memorial. (2007). Charles William Henry Rollo Somerset <http://www.awm.gov.au/
honours/honours/person.asp?p=MC1660>.Babić, S. (2005). Status identity and archaeology. In Díaz-Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babić, S., and Edwards, D.
(eds.), The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion,Routledge, London, pp. 67–85.
Banks, M. M. (1931). Memories of Pioneer Days in Queensland, Heath Cranton, London.Barcan, A. (1955). The development of the Australian middle class. Past and Present 8: 64–77.Beecher, C. E. (2007). A Treatise on Domestic Economy, for the use of Young Ladies at Home and at
School. <http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21829>.Bigge, T. (1823). Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry on the State of Agriculture and Trade in the
Colony of New South Wales, Parliamentary Paper, House of Commons, London.Billis, R., and Kenyon, A. (1930). Pastures New: An Account of the Pastoral Occupation of Port Phillip,
Macmillan, Melbourne.Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power, Polity Press, Cambridge.Brooks, A. (1999). Building Jerusalem: Transfer printed finewares and the creation of British identity. In
Tarlow, S., and West, S. (eds.), The Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain,Routledge, London, pp. 51–65.
Brooks, A. (2005). An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia 1788–1901, AustralasianSociety for Historical Archaeology, Sydney.
Brumfiel, E. (1992). Distinguished lecture in archeology: Breaking and entering the ecosystem—gender,class, and faction steal the show. American Anthropologist 94: 551–567.
Burke, H., and Smith, C. (2004). The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.
Burroughs, P. (1967). Britain and Australia 1831–1855: A Study in Imperial Relations and Crown LandsAdministration, Clarendon, Oxford.
Casey, M. (2004). Falling through the cracks: Method and practice at the CSR site, Pyrmont. AustralasianHistorical Archaeology 22: 27–43.
Cochrane, P. (2006). Colonial Ambition: Foundations of Australian Democracy, Melbourne UniversityPress, Carlton.
Coleman, N. G. (1980). The Early Settlement of Toogoolawah Town, Southern Cross, Toowoomba.Collier, J. (1911). The Pastoral Age in Australasia, Whitcombe and Tombs, London.Connell, R., and Irving, T. (1992). Class Structure in Australian History, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.Courier Mail. (1936). H.P. Somerset Dead. March 13.Davidson, B. (1981). European Farming in Australia : An Economic History of Australian Farming,
Elsevier, Amsterdam.Davidson, B. (1994). Development of the pastoral industry in Australia during the 19th century. In Chang,
C., and Koster, H. (eds.), Pastoralists at the Periphery: Herders in a Capitalist World, University ofArizona Press, Tuscon, pp. 79–95.
Davies, P. (2002). “A little world apart…”: Domestic consumption at a Victorian forest sawmill. Austral-asian Historical Archaeology 20: 58–66.
Dellino-Musgrave, V. (2005). British identities through pottery in praxis: The case study of a Royal Navyship in the South Atlantic. Journal of Material Culture 10: 219–242.
Diaz-Andreu, M. (2005). Gender identity. In Diaz-Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babic, S., and Edwards, D. (eds.),The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, Routledge,London, pp. 13–42.
Eriksen, E. O. (1990). Henry Plantagenet Somerset: The Reminiscences of a British Gentleman in ColonialAustralia, E. O. Eriksen, Brisbane.
Fahey, W. (2005). Lore of the land. Bulletin with Newsweek 123(6455): 38–41.Fison, D. (1969). The history of the Royal Children’s Hospital, Brisbane. The Medical Journal of Australia
1(8): 417–422.Fitts, R. (1999). The archaeology of middle-class domesticity and gentility in Victorian Brooklyn. Histor-
ical Archaeology 33(1): 39–62.Fitzgerald, R. (1982). From the Dreaming to 1915: A History of Queensland, University of Queensland
Press, St Lucia.Flanders, J. (2003). The Victorian House: Domestic Life from Childbirth to Deathbed, HarperCollins,
London.Frost, A. (1981). New South Wales as terra nullius: The British denial of Aboriginal land rights. Historical
Studies 19(77): 513–523.Harker, R., Mahar, C., and Wilkes, C. (1990). An Introduction to the Works of Pierre Bourdieu, Macmillan,
London.Hayes, S. (2008). Being Middle Class: An Archaeology of Gentility in Nineteenth-Century Australia.
Doctoral dissertation, LaTrobe University, Melbourne.Kerr, R. (1988). Confidence and Tradition: A History of Esk Shire, Council of the Esk Shire, Esk.King, C. (1957). The commencement of settlement. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics
25(3): 12–44.Lawrence, S. (2003). At home in the bush. In Lawrence, S. (ed.), Archaeologies of the British: Explorations
of Identifying Great Britain and its Colonies, Routledge, London, pp. 211–223.Lawrence, S., and Davies, P. (2011). An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, Springer, New York.Loeb, L. (1999). George Fulford and Victorian patent medicine men: Quack mercenaries or smilesian
entrepreneurs? Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 16: 125–145.Logan, G., and Clark, E. (1984). State Education in Queensland: A Brief History, Department of Education
Queensland, Brisbane.Melbourne, A. (1963). Early Constitutional Development in Australia: New South Wales, 1788–1856,
Queensland 1859–1922, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia.Meskell, L. (2001). Archaeologies of identity. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, Polity
Press, Cambridge, pp. 187–205.Millar, A. (1965). Plantagenet in South Africa: Lord Charles Somerset, Oxford University Press, Cape Town.Nassaney, M., and Brandão, J. (2009). The materiality of individuality at Fort St. Joseph: An eighteenth-century
mission-garrison-trading post complex on the edge of empire. In White, C. (ed.), The Materiality ofIndividuality: Archaeological Studies of Individual Lives, Springer, New York, pp. 19–36.
Nickolai, C. (2008). Of Farms and Women: The Occupation of the Emily and Amanda Shepard Farm,1876–1920. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
O’Hara, P. (1993). The willow pattern that we knew: The Victorian literature of blue willow. VictorianStudies 36(4): 421–442.
Poiner, G., and Jack, S. (2007). Setting the scene. In Poiner, G., and Jack, S. (eds.), Limits of Location:Creating a Colony, Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp. 1–11.
Postone, M., LiPuma, E., and Calhoun, C. (1993). Introduction: Bourdieu and social theory. In Calhoun, C.,LiPuma, E., and Postone, M. (eds.), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, University of Chicago Press,Chicago, pp. 1–13.
Praetzellis, A., and Praetzellis, M. (2001). Mangling symbols of gentility in the wild west: Case studies ininterpretive archaeology. American Anthropologist 103: 645–654.
Prangnell, J. (2007). Caboonbah Homestead Archaeological Project: 2006–2007 Field Season, Queens-land Heritage Council, Brisbane.
QSA SCT/P1977 (1935). Death Certificate, Katharine Rose Somerset, Queensland State Archives,Brisbane.
QSA SCT/P2047 (1936). Death Certificate, Henry Plantagenet Somerset, Queensland State Archives,Brisbane.
Quirk, K. (2008). The Victorians in Paradise: Gentility as Strategy in the Archaeology of ColonialAustralia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Rassool, C., and Witz, L. (1993). The 1952 Jan Van Riebeeck tercentenary festival: Constructing andcontesting public national history in South Africa. The Journal of African History 34(3): 447–468.
Rotman, D. (2006). Separate spheres? beyond the dichotomies of domesticity. Current Anthropology 47:666–674.
Russell, P. (1994). A Wish of Distinction: Colonial Gentility and Femininity, Melbourne University Press,Carlton.
Russell, P. (2002). The brash colonial: Class and comportment in nineteenth-century Australia. Trans-actions of the Royal Historical Society 12: 431–453.
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable, Sage, London.Somerset, H. P. (1935). Experiences of a Queensland Jackeroo in Early Pastoral Days, Unpublished
memoir. State Library of Queensland, Brisbane.Somerset, H. P. (2010). Trombone’s Troubles, Boolarong Press, Brisbane.Spencer-Wood, S., and Heberling, S. (1987). Consumer choices in white ceramics: An archaeological study
of ceramic tableware. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.), Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, PlenumPress, New York, pp. 55–84.
Stine, L. (1990). Social inequality and turn-of-the-century farmsteads: Issues of class, status, ethnicity andrace. Historical Archaeology 24(4): 37–49.
Stuart, I. (1993). Bottles for jam? an example of recycling from a post- contact archaeological site.Australian Archaeology 36: 17–21.
Tansey, E. (2002). Medicines and men: Burroughs, Wellcome & Co, and the British drug industry beforethe Second World War. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 95(8): 411–416.
Thorpe, B. (1996). Colonial Queensland: Perspectives on a Frontier Society, University of QueenslandPress, St. Lucia.
Vickerman, W. (1998). The Legend of Caboonbah, Boolarong Press, Moorooka.Waite, R. (2010). Discovering My Grandfather: Reminiscences of Henry Plantagenet Somerset,
Unpublished Memoir. Held at the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland.Wall, D. (1994). The Archaeology of Gender: Separating the Spheres in Urban America, Plenum Press,
New York.Wallace, T. (1909). The Etiquette of Australia: A Handy Book of the Common Usages of Everyday Life and
Society, Dymock’s Book Arcade and Circulating Library, Sydney.Webb, J., Schirato, T., and Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.Wilkie, L., and Hayes, K. (2006). Engendered and feminist archaeologies of the recent and documented
past. Journal of Archaeological Research 14: 243–264.Williamson, C. (2006). Dating the domestic ceramics and pipe-smoking related artifacts from Casselden
Place, Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 10: 329–341.Wurst, L. (1999). Internalizing class in historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology 33(1): 7–21.Young, L. (2003). Middle Class Culture in Nineteenth Century America, Australia and Britain, Palgrave
