'REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION I OF ...nswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/13202_ID...The...

I I I I I I I I I I

t I -l+D-(c,.C,~ E 4 1L}5

\ 'REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION

OF THE SITE OF THE EXTENSIONS TO THE HA WKES,BURY MUSEUM,

7 THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR, N.S.W. 1992

- -- ----- .- ~--~ ~~ -~=-'-~~ ~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I,

Edward Higginbotham M.A. Cambridge

CONSULTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES

www.higginbotham.com.au

Dr. Edward Higginbotham. Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd.

Phone: +612 9716 5154. Fax: +612 9716 8547.

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

REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCA V ATION

OF THE SITE OF THE EXTENSIONS TO THE HA WKESBURY MUSEUM, 7 THOMPSON SQUARE,

WINDSOR, N.S.W. 1992

E Higginbotham

Consultant Archaeological Services -"- --

www.higginbotham.com.au

Dr. Edward Higginbotham. Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd.

Phone: +612 9716 5154. Fax: +612 9716 8547.

For

Hawkesbury City Council.

May 1993

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

Extensions to the Hawkesbury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

CONTENTS.

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 3

3. DESCRIPTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS ............................................. 6

3.1. The extent of archaeological excavation ....................................................... 6

3.2. The archaeological sequence ......................................................................... 6

3.2.1. Phase 1. Topsoil and recent features .............................................. 7

3.2.2. Phase 2. Backfill of basement entrance ......................................... 9

3.2.3. Phase 3. Structural elements associated with basement

entrance and outbuilding .......................................................................... 11

3.2.4. Phase 4. Rubbish pits ................................................................... 12

3.2.5. Pits and post-holes, and other evidence associated with

timber and masonry structures ................................................................. 12

4. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 17

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 17

4.2. Analysis of the site ...................................................................................... 18

4.3. Dating of the artifacts, and methodology .................................................... 19

4.4. Functional analysis of the artifacts .............................................................. 29

4.5. Depositional Theory .................................................................................... 30

4.6. Functional analysis of the site ..................................................................... 31

4.6.1. Phase 1 .......................................................................................... 32

4.6.2. Phase 2 .......................................................................................... 33

4.6.3. Phase 3 .......................................................................................... 34

4.6.4. Phase 4 .......................................................................................... 35

4.6.5. Phase 5 .......................................................................................... 38

4.7. Descliption of the artifact assemblage ........................................................ 39

4.8. The interpretation of the artifact assemblage ............................................. .44

4.9. Quality of ceramics ..................................................................................... 45

5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 50

5.1. Recommendations ........................................................................................ 51

APPENDIX 1. SITE RECORDS .................................................................................... 52

Plimary archaeological records ........................................................................... 52

11


Extensions to the Huwkesbury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

Secondary site records ............... : ..................................................... ' .................... 53

Secondary artifact records ................................................................................... 53

Other secondary records ...................................................................................... 54

Tertiary site records ............................................................................................. 54

Pelmanent archive for all excavation records ..................................................... 54

APPENDIX 2. CONTEXT CATALOGUE .................................................................... 55

111

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

Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The author would like to thank

Client: Alice Brandjes and John Munns, Hawkesbury City Council.

Finds supervision: Rowan Ward.

Artifact cataloguing and specialist reports: Dominic Steele, Rowan Ward, Jean

Smith, Kevi~ Hickson and Jennie Lindbergh.

Volunteer excavation team: Elma Haley, Helene Hayes, Maree Hazell, Marina

Knowles, Cathy Mitchell, Bemadelte Murphy, Judith MUlTaY.

IV



1. INTRODUCTION.

The archaeological excavation of part of the Hawkesbury Museum at 7 Thompson

Square, Windsor, was commissioned by the Hawkesbury City Council on 16

December 1991.

In 1991 Hawkesbury City Council proposed to replace the then existing additions at the

rear of the Museum with a new larger extension, incorporating a new stairway to the

"basement. The former additions were in a deteriorated condition, and were of little or

no archaeological significance. Furthermore only service access to the basement was

then available by a hatch in the 1100r and a ladder. A new stairway was therefore

necessary to enahle public access to proposed exhibition space in the basement, which

had been conserved in 1985 - 1986.

Two options for basement access were considered, the first within the main house

(Museum), the second by an external stairway. The former option was dismissed,

because it would cause irreversible alterations to historic building fabric. The second

option was more appropriate, since it could reuse the original access. The original

doorway was visible in the rear of the basement. It had been blocked with sandstone in

the 1860s. Reuse simply involved removing the sandstone walling.

The purpose of the excavation was to recover archaeological evidence for outbuildings

and the original access to the cellar, prior to the construction of the new extensions to

the Hawkesbury Museum. It was hoped that it might be possible to reuse the original

basement stairway, but as a result of the excavation it was found that few structural

remains survived. A completely new stairway was therefore provided in the new

extensions.

The historical and archaeological significance of the site had been researched as part of

the archaeological excavations completed in 1985. These excavations had recovered a

substantial artifact assemblage from underfloor deposits in the basement. Historical

research not only indicated the presence of a number of outbuildings behind the house,

but also suggested that remains relating to the Government Domain, from 1796 to

1810, might survive in this location.l It was for this reason that an archaeological

excavation, rather than a monit0l1ng programme, was recommended.

1 Edward Higginbotham, 1986, Report on hist0l1cal and archaeological investigation of the Hawkesbury Museum, 7 Thompson Square, Windsor, NSW. Hawkesbury City Council.

1


Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, NSW. 1992

The archaeological excavation was completed in February and March 1992. An

excavation permit was approved hy the Heritage Council of New South Wales on 5

January 1992.

Thompson Square

Main House

New extensions

Shed

Shed

o HAWKESBURY MUSEUM, 7 THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR. Site plan.

10 metres

Figure 1.1. Site plan (~f the Hawkesbllry Museum, Windsor, showing the position of the main house (Museum), existing outbuildings, the proposed new extensions, and the area of the archaeological excavation.

2



2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.

The historical sequence of development upon the site of 7 Thompson Square was

researched as part of the archaeological investigations completed in 1985. 1 Other

research relating to Thompson Square and the Government Domain formed pmt of a

general report on the archaeological significance of Thompson Square itself.2

Evidence relating to this sequence may be summarised as follows:

Date Title House & outbuildings Notes

1795 to Government Possible site of bmTacks.

1810 Domain constructed between 1796

and 1800.

1810 Foundation of Town of

Windsor.

1811 - John Howe Construction of house depicted

1827 on 1827 plan.

1839 Property John Howe leaves Windsor

managed by for Hunter Valley.

agent.

1842 House depicted on 1842 map,

with front verandah, skillion on

SE side, skillion and verandah

at rear. Stables? & other

outbuilding.

c1842 to Leased to 'Daniel O'Connell Inn'

1848 Edward

Coffey,

innkeeper

1848 Account for repairs mentions

back v~randah and back

skillion.

1848 Leased to

Dr. Bell.

1 Edward Higginbotham, 1986, Report on historical and archaeological investigation of the Hawkesbury Museum, 7 Thompson Square, Windsor, NSW. Hawkesbury City Council. 2 Edward Higginbotham, 1986, Historical and archaeological investigation of Thompson Square, Windsor, NSW, Hawkesbury Shire Council.

3

-~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


1850 Account for repairs mentions

repairs to stables & water

closet. Oven shingled.

19 John Howe died, leaving

March house to Trustees for the

1852 use of his wife for life, and

then to be sold.

1 Death of J ane Howe,

Janumy widow.

1859

15 April Trustees sell Publican of the 'Australian,

1876. house to Windsor, Richmond and

George Hawkesbury Advertiser',

Davies, 1871 to 1899

Windsor,

printer

1898 House sold,

possibly

through

default on

mortgage.

The above historical documentation enables the establishment of a series of historical

periods:

Historical Sequence of historical historic date range

Period development.

1 Government Domain 1794 to 1810

2 Construction of house 1811 to 1827

3 Residence of John Howe to 1839

4 Lease. 'Daniel O'Connell c1842 to 1848

Inn'

5 Lease. Dr. Bell 1848 to ?

6 George Davies, printer 1876 to 1898

The histOlical evidence suggests that remains of the back verandah and skillion on the

house, as well as the stables to the rear of the allotment, may be located in the current

4



archaeological excavation. The water closet might be identified as' the other small

outbuilding behind the stable on the 1842 map. If this identification is correct, it

would lie outside the excavation area. The location of the oven, shingled in 1850, is

unknown.

It is also possible that the barracks, erected between 1796 and 1800 may be located

within the excavation area, although historical documentation indicates that it may be

closer to the Macquarie Arms Hotel.

5



3. DESCRIPTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS.

3.1. The extent of archaeological excavation.

The extent of archaeological excavation was determined by the location of the

proposed new extensions to the Museum. It was agreed that this site should be

excavated, together with a band, approximately 1 metre wide, around the perimeter, to

allow for disturbance during building activities and for service trenches. It was not

possible to excavate this additional band in two places, first where a museum exhibit

was left in situ, and second where access was necessary between the excavation and

neighbouring shed (Figure 1.1).

The previous outbuilding in this position was removed by the building contractors.

The Council then provided an excavator for opening up the archaeological trench.

The machine was fitted with a 1 metre wide bucket, without teeth, so that it could

excavate to a smooth surface. The trench was opened up under archaeological

supervision, simply by removing topsoil, and remaining demolition matelials. The use

of a machine for this purpose was made necessary because of the funding and time

constraints placed on the investigation.

3.2. The archaeological sequence.

The archaeological deposits were divided into a number of phases on the basis of

stratigraphy or the description and distribution of archaeological features. These

phases are summalised below:

Historical Phase Phase name Artifact date range

Period

7 I Topsoil and recent features. 1780s to the 1880s, with a

small number of later

artifacts.

5 2 BackfiIl of basement 1780s to the 1870s

entrance.

5 3 Structural elements 1760s to 1860s

associated with basement

entrance and outbuilding.

3 to 5 4 Rubbish pits. 1780s to the 1850s

6



2 to 6 5. Pits and post-holes, and 1780sto 1870s

other evidence associated

with tim ber and masonry

structures.

It is difficult to relate these phases to the historical periods of development:

Historical Sequence of historical historic date range Period development.



3 Residence of John Howe to 1839

4 Lease. 'DanielO'Connell c1842 to 1848

Inn'


6 George Davies, printer 1876 to 1898

7 Recent occupation 1898 onwards

The lack of conformity between the dating of the archaeological phases and historical

periods is partly due to the imprecision. of the dates of each archaeological phase, but

may also indicate that large numbers of artifacts are residual from previous

occupation.

The archaeological evidence for each phase is described below.

3.2.1. Phase 1. Topsoil and recent features.

Phase 1 includes the layer of topsoil (1) over the whole site, which was partly

removed by machine and then by hand to expose the underlying archaeological

features. Contained within topsoil were a number of masonry features, namely

7



5 Blocked doorway

HAWKESBURY MUSEUM, 7 THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR. Excavations, 1992.

o

+

+

5 metres

Figure 3.1. Plan qf the archaeological trench, showing features exposed by excavation.

fragments of hrick paving (2 and 3) (Figure 3.1). Brick types, with deep rectangular

frog, may be dated from the 1860s and suggest the presence of a yard smface after the

basement access (24) had heen hlocked. The yard may simply have comprised an

earth surface with hlick patching, and is less likely to have heen a more formal layout

of brick pathways.

Other recent features include water piping and sewer trenches (15) (figure 3.1). The

sewer trenches define the limits of the recent demolished outbuilding, both trenches

changing alignment at the COI11crs of the fOlmer huilding.

8



Blocked doorway

HAWKESBURY MUSEUM, o 7 THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR. Basement access plans 1 & 2

Section 2

Plan 1

Plan 2

5 metres

Figure 3.2. Plan of the access to the basement (24), showing archaeological features within the depression and uncovered during its excavation.

Bioturbation or cultivation have removed other evidence of pits and post-holes from

the topsoil.

3.2.2. Phase 2. Backfill of basement entrance.

Butting up against the blocked doorway, which originally provided access to the

basement, were a numher of layers (7,40,57,70, 75, 88,97 - 99) (Figure 3.1 -

3.3).These layers infilled the depression (24), which had originally been dug for the

steps down into the basement.

The backfill of this depression (24) contained building materials, including sandstock

brick, shell lime mortar and plaster. The uppermost layer (7) contained substantial

quantities of brick and shell lime mortar. The hackfill of the hasement entrance

9



__ Internal ground floor level

NE

Blocked doorway

Section 2

I +

__ Basement floor level

Section 1

24

+

NW+ Isection 1 +-

27

Section 2

HAWKESBURY MUSEUM,

24

7 THOMPSON SQUARE, WINDSOR. Sections 1 & 2.

+

8

+

Figure 3.3. Section 1 and 2 (~l The basemenr access area (24).

+ ....... ' '.

4 fireplace

Q melres

llIIlIJIII) Dark coloured IiI!JlI!liI soils.

mm J mm Light coloured IIJ:J soils. [I]] lay. k"",''''',',','1 Sand. ~ Sandstone. ffJ".QA Sandstock brick. c::::J Mortar. / / /. Disrurbance.

therefore coincided with the demolition of a structure which may have been built as

eady as the main house, perhaps a hack skillion or verandah.

Further evidence of destruction, associated with the backfill of the basement, is

provided by brick footings (6), which have slumped into the depression (24) (Figure

3.2). These footings are largely intact, hut have slumped to an awkward angle. These

footings may have belonged to a hack skillion on the south-eastern end of the back of

the house, as indicated on the I R42 map.

The latest artifacts, which appear in the backfill of the basement entrance (24), are

dated to the lR70s. Only a few fragments of cement render, and some wire nails are

involved. These may have heen introduced into the archaeological contexts from the

back wall of the museum. All the other evidence points to the hackfill of the basement

10

I I I

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


in the 1860s, and su~gest a direct link with the 1863 flood. This was the only flood

high enough to have inundated the basement, and could easily have rendered it

unusable.

3.2.3. Phase 3. Structural elements associated with basement entrance and

outbuilding.

Within the depression (24), backfilled in the 1860s, are a number of structural

elements. They include a two sandstone wall footings (5, 6) and a sandstock wall

footing (6), which has slumped to an awkward angle (Figures 3.1 and 3.2).It was first

assumed that the sandstone footings (5 and 6) were the original side walls of the

basement access steps, with a probable construction date of the 1810s or 1820s.

However one of the sandstone wall footings (6) was insubstantial, and overlay the

backfill of the basement access (layer 40), and is therefore dated to the 1860s. It was

also assumed that the footing trench (27) behind the other side wall (5) would date to

the 1820s, but in fact also dated to the 1860s (Layers 28, 37 and 38).

It must therefore be concluded that both the sandstone side walls (5 and 6) were

constructed in the 1860s, with the backfill of the basement access. They in fact appear

to be footings of an outbuilding, attached to the back of the house (Museum) and

constructed in the 1860s to replace whatever had been damaged or demolished by the

1863 flood. These sandstone side walls (5 and 6) may be grouped with the sandstone

footings of a fireplace (4), and also the evidence of the roof gable and weatherboard

side walls of the structure, preserved on the back wall of the main house (Museum).

Cement render, applied after the construction of this outbuilding to the back of the

house, had butted up against the weatherboards and roof gable, now leaving a gap

where they originally stood.

Since all but the brick wall footings (6) in the basement access depression (24) may

be dated to the 1860s, it must be assumed that all trace of the original structure and

steps into the basement have been removed. The stone used in the 1860s footings and

blocked doorway may have been reused from the original structure. The fact that

nothing of this original structure remains in situ may be because it had been so

severely damaged by the flood as to render it unsound. The rush of water into the

basement may have undermined the masonry, given that it was simply resting on

sand. The slumped brick wall footings (6) tend to support this conclusion.

11

I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I-1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1


3.2.4. Phase 4. Rubbish pits.

A series of rubbish pits (58, 82, 132) are located on the south-eastern side of the

excavation. They contain concentrations of crushed oyster shells and shell grit (59,

64), mud and lime mortar (64, 83) and a green soil staining normally associated with

cess pits or decaying organic matter (64). They also contain a wide range of domestic

rubbish, dated from the 1780s to the l850s.1 The location of the pits in this one pmt

of the site imply the presence of an open area without buildings upon it, which may

have been set aside for garbage disposal.

3.2.5. Pits and post-holes, and other evidence associated with timber and

masonry structures.

Various factors made it necessary to group all the remaining evidence for pits, post

holes and other features into one phase, namely Phase 5. These factors may be listed

as follows:

1. The limited extent of excavation means that it is extremely difficult

to recognise the structural relationships between post-holes and pits,

because parts of these structures may lie outside the excavation area.

2. The shallow stratigraphy may simply be divided into topsoil (1) and

subsoil. Most of the archaeological features are cut into subsoil, only a

few having any stratigraphic relationships with other features.

The small sample size of artifacts also makes the dating of individual features

extremely unreliable. On a collectively basis a more reliable date range may be

obtained, namely from the 1780s to the 1870s. However this date range does little to

assist in recognising the chronological order or groupings of individual features. In

spite of this difficulty, an attempt has been made to identify the structural elements

and phases.

Pits 104, 123 and 127 appear to form a group, having a similar leached fill. It is

believed that these features would have been post-holes in spite of the fact that post

pipes were unrecognised. A small sample of artifacts was found only in pit 104,

dating from the 1820s. Pits 123 and 127 flank the entrance to the basement and may

represent timber structural elements of a verandah, skillion or porch, covering the

1 See Chapter 4.

12

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

°

1 I


basement entrance, as shown on the 1842 map. The brick wall (6) in the basement

access pit (24) may align with pit 127, to indicate brick footings related to the above

timber structure. Post-hole 112, on the edge of the basement access pit (24), has a

small sample of artifacts dating from the 1820s, and may be related to a timber

structure providing steps from the back door of the house (Figures 3.1 and 3.2).

The fireplace (4) was most likely part of the ~utbuilding, erected in the 1860s, which

included the sandstone footings (5 and 6) in the basement access pit (24). The

fireplace (4) is also respected by three or four pits (86, 104, 102 and 116), all with

small samples of artifacts, dating from the 1820s. There is therefore a possibility that

the fireplace (4) was constructed in the 1820s and reused in the 1860s. Pits 86 and

116 appear to form a pair, tlanking the fireplace (4) (Figure 3.1).

Post-holes 12 and 108 are on a parallel alignment to Pits 86, 104, 102 and 116 in

relation to the back of the house, hut it is not known whether they form part of a

single timber structure. Post-hole 108 has a small sample of artifacts, dating from the

1820s (Figure 3.1).

The only other features dating from the 1820s are the series of shallow scoops and

irregular depressions in the vicinity of the fireplace (4). They are filled with lime

mortar and fragments of sandstock brick. They may represent the remnants of

demolition layers or yard surfaces.

Other pits and post-holes have small samples of artifacts dating from the 1840s. They

include adjacent pits 106 and 53, the latter appearing to have a post-pipe recorded as

pit 49. The position of this group suggests they form part of a timber structure

providing steps from the back door of the house. They may be an alteration or

addition to a previous structure.

The other group of features with small samples of artifacts dating from the 1840s is

located on the south-western side or the excavation. A slot (41) runs parallel with the

back of the house and has variolls pits located along its length (45 and 47) or on its

alignment (pit 29). The evidence may best be interpreted as a timber wall line, and

may possibly be the front wall of the stables, as depicted on the 1842 map.

Other pits and post-holes with small samples of artifacts may be dated from the 1850s

(pits 43, 60, and 67), but mostly from the 1860s to 1880s (post-hole 20, pits 62, 71,

13

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

I I I I I I I I I


55, 76 and,95). The concentration of pits 55, 62, 76 and 95 between the outbuilding

(fireplace 4) and the presumed stahles (slot 41, and pits 29, 45 and 47) may suggest

the presence of a wooden bmTier or fence between these two buildings by the 1860s.

The archaeological evidence in Phase 5 therefore indicates a sequence of timber

outbuildings, commencing in the 1820s with a structure over the back steps and

basement entrance. By the 1840s and certainly by 1842, the stables had been

completed. Finally after the 1863 nood, a new outbuilding was constructed on the

back of the house (Phase 3), with a fireplace. There may have been a fence between

the fireplace and stables from the 1860s.

14



Figure 3.4. The back ol the hOllse (MlIseum), sh(Hving the m([rks left by the removal ql the additions. The basemenr (lccess (24) is beneath and TO the right (~l the back door, the fireplace (4) is in the righrtr)f"("ground. The gable roolal1d side walls ol the 1860s addition may also be see17 Oil The right q(the back door. (Scale 1 metre, ,;vith 50 centimetre divisions). Figure 3.5. Alternative view ol the basement access (24), showing blocked doorway, sandstone .fiJOtings (5 and 6) mu/preplace (4). (Scale J Inetre, with 50 centimetre divisions).

15



Figure 3.6. Detail o{the sOllth-eostern side of the basement access area (24), showing the 1860s sandstonefnotings, mui underlying brickfootings (6), which have slumped into the depression. (Sct/le 1ll1etre, with 50 centimetre divisions). Figure 3.7. Derail o{ the st/l1tisfOne footings of the fireplace (4). (Scale 0.5 metre, with 10 centimetre divisions).

16

I I

I, I, I I I I I

I I I I I I I I


4. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS.

4.1. Introduction.

In this report, the computer catalogue of artifacts from the archaeological site has

been used for two principal purposes, first the dating of the artifacts, and second their

functional analysis. The dating of the artifacts is always an important consideration,

so that the chronological sequence of the site may be determined in relation to the

stratigraphic evidence. Nonconformity of the historical and archaeological evidence

for the dating of the site can also indicate three possibilities:

1. the contamination of the archaeological evidence, either by residual or introduced

artifacts,

2. the need to reassess the historical documentation,

3. the need to reassess the dating of artifacts, or

4. the need to reassess the dating of phases.

These processes are standard practice in the advance of archaeological knowledge for

sites or artifact types. Once the dating analysis has been successfully completed, the

functional analysis of a site can proceed. The artifacts were divided up into the

following categories for cataloguing purposes:

Artifact categories. Status.

1. Aboriginal artifacts. catalogued.

2. Bone unworked. catalogued.

3. Building materials. catalogued.

4. Ceramics. catalogued.

5. Glass. catalogued.

6. Kaolin catalogued.

7. Metals. catalogued.

8.1. Miscellaneous-coins. catalogued.

8.2. Miscellaneous-other. catalogued.

9. Organics. catalogued

10. Samples. catalogued

11. Shell unworked. catalogued.

12. Stone. catalogued.

13. Synthetics. catalogued.

17

I I

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


4.2. A~alysis of the site.

There are various procedures common to the dating and functional analysis of a site.

The archaeological contexts are grouped into a number of phases in accordance with

stratigraphic, chronological and other comparative evidence. The identification of

phases is in fact a significant simplification of the function of the "HalTis Matrix', but

achieves the same result. Furthermore for the purposes of the functional analysis of

the artifacts and for the description of the archaeological remains, it is more

convenient to divide these phases into a number of historical periods:

Historical Phase Phase name Artifact date range

Period

7 1 Topsoil and recent features. 1780s to the 1880s, with a

small number of later

artifacts.

5 2 Backfill of basement 1780s to the 1870s

entrance.

5 3 Structural elements 1760s to 1860s

associated with basement

entrance and outbuilding.

3 to 5 4 Ruhhish pits. 1780s to the 1850s

2 to 6 5. Pits and post-holes, and 1780s to 1870s

other evidence associated

with timber and masonry

structures.

It is difficult to relate these phases to the historical periods of development:

Historical Sequence of historical historic date range

Period development.



3 Residence of J olm Howe to 1839

4 Lease. 'Daniel O'Connell c1842 to 1848

Inn'


6 George Davies,~rinter 1876 to 1898

18

I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Extensions to the Hawkcsbury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

I Recent occupation 11898 onwards

The lack of conformity between the dating of the archaeological phases and historical

periods is partly due to the imprecision of the dates of each archaeological phase, but

may also indicate that large numbers of artifacts are residual from previous

occupation.

4.3. Dating of the artifacts, and methodology.

All datable artifacts have been used for the purpose of dating each site. For every

artifact category, it was possible to list the frequency of artifacts, together with the

date range of production. These dates were listed as follows:

'From' records the date production commenced.

'To' records the date production ceased.

Artifact frequency was calculated on total number of pieces found, not on any

calculation of the actual number of complete artifacts that might be represented by the

total number of pieces.

A phase may be dated by the following methods and considerations:

1. Production from dates: the commencement of consistent numbers,

rather than isolated instances, of artifacts coming into production is

usually taken to indicate the earliest date of a phase. The cut-off after

the peak of the graph is usually taken to indicate the latest date of the

phase. Often a low frequency of artifacts after the cut-off indicates

contamination or uncertainty of the artifact specialist in providing

precise dating.

2. Production to dates: the use of production to dates is made difficult

because of the production date range of artifacts imported or

manufactured in Australia. Except for this factor, the commencement

of consistent numbers, rather than isolated instances, of artifacts going

out of production might be interpreted as indicating the earliest date of

a phase. In making any assessment, the period of production for each

artifact should be considered.

19

I I

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


3. Comparison between the production dates from and to can be used

to indicate the date range of the artifacts in a phase.

4. Consumables: because most of the datable artifacts are consumable,

it is expected that they will not appear in the archaeological record

more than a decade after going out of production. Ceramics and glass,

except where they become collectibles or antiques, will fall into this

category. Building materials, especially bricks, cannot be considered

as consumables, since they can be reused so easily. Thus a sandstock

brick, which goes out of production in the 1830s, may be found in

much later contexts. Therefore they are not reliable indicators of the

commencement of a phase in the production to graphs. Coins can

usually be dated by their inscriptions. If not, then their date of first

production is usually known. Dates when coins and tokens go out of

circulation are also known, and can be useful in determining the date

of a phase. However the uncertainties of their usage as gaming pieces,

collectibles or antiques, often renders currency a very difficult medium

to use in the dating of archaeological contexts, when in isolation from

other datable artifacts.

5. In favourable circumstances, the graphs showing the date range of

production can provide accurate dating for phases of development on a

site. In this report, the closest dating is by decade, even if the exact

year of production is known. Further analysis of the exact dates may

reveal more precise dating once the graph has been completed. The

reliability of the dating is evaluated on the basis of sample size, the

concentration of frequencies in consecutive decades, and the

conformity of the graph towards a consistent or smooth curve. In some

cases, historical documentation may be used as an additional cross

check of accuracy.

20



4.2. Dating of the site.

The following pages are devoted to the analysis and interpretation of a number of

graphs indicating the frequency of artifacts against the date of production from or

production to, as defined above. In some cases the sample of datable artifacts was too

small to give a reliable date range. The result is that historical documentation and the

structural fabric of a site has to be relied upon for dating purposes.

21


Extensions to the Hawkcshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

(/)

~ :t:: 1000 t: ell

'0 .... Q) .c E :::l Z

Phase number: All phases.

Phase description: All phases

Total number of artifacts: I :rwo.

Date

Dating: all phases. • Date from

RI Date to

Reliability of sample: Consistent with historical documentation.

Number of undatable artifacts. Date from: 8584.

Date to: 11109

Interpretation of sample: The complete assemblage indicates occupation ranging in

date from the 1780s to the 1880s, with the addition of small numhers of mtifacts up to

the present. If the production to dales can be taken as a reliable indicator, the earliest

occupation of the site might he placed hetween 18(X) and 181Os.

The near absence of ani racts from the 1880s onwards indicates a change in the

pattems of deposition. The two most ohvious interpretations are either the removal of

garbage and its disposal off site, or the disposal of rubhish elsewhere on site.

22

I I I I I I I

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

Extensions to the Hav.ikeshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. IY<)2

!/)

~ 't ell

'0 .... Q) .c E ::J Z

Phase number: I

Date

Phase description: Topsoil and recent features.

Total number of artifacts: 5Y() 1

Dating: Phase 1.

• Date from m Date to


Number of undatable artifacts. Date from: 3374

Date to: 5144

Interpretation of sample: The artifacts either unstratified or located in topsoil

indicate occupation ranging in date from the 1780s to the 1880s, with the addition of

small numbers of artifacts up to the present. Tbe near absence of artifacts from the

1880s onwards is interesting since it indicates a change in the patterns of garbage

disposal or a hiatus in occupation. The archaeological assemblages from other sites in

Windsor should be compared, before any further interpretation of this evidence can

be made.

23


Extensions to the HuwkC'shury Museum, Windsor, NSW. 1992

Date

Phase number: 2.

Phase description: Backrill or hasement entrance.

Total number of artifacts: 32()2.

Dating: Phase 2. • Date from HI Date to



Date to: 2632

Interpretation of sample: The layers (7, 40, 57, 70, 75,88,97,98,99) backfilling

the access to the basement (24) arC' dated by attifactual evidence from the 1780s to the

1870s. The material used in the backfill is mostly derived from the previous

occupation of the site. The closing date of the 1870s suggests that the basement was

made unusable by the 1863 tlood and was blocked up soon after. This tlood was the

only one sufficiently high to inundate this basement.

24


Extensions to the Hawkcshury Museum, Windsor, NSW. 1992

rJ)

~ 1:: Cll

'0 .... Ql .c E :::::l Z

Phase number: 3.

Date

Dating: Phase 3. • Date from RI Date to

Phase description: Structural elements associated with basement entrance and

outbuilding.

Total number of artifacts: 190 I.



Date to: 1412

Interpretation of sample: The structural elements associated with the basement

access (24) are two flanking walls (5, 6) and the base of a masonry fireplace (4). It

was hoped these elements and the fill of the trench (27, 28, 37, 38) behind one of the

walls would provide a construction date for the basement access and hence the house.

Clearly the artifacts do not indicate such a date, instead pointing to the exposure of

these features to the occupation materials of the house from 1760s to 1860s. The early

date of 1760s is to be understood as the date when these artifacts came into

25


Extensions to the Hawkcshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

production, not the date they were discarded in Australia. These glass artifacts have a

date range of 1760s to 1850s, and are likely to have been deposited at any date within this range.

The cut off date of 1860s is further confirmation that the basement access went out of

use after the 1863 t1ood. Phases 2 and 3 therefore represent the same evidence of

occupation to the 1860s and should he regarded as a single phase.

26



!/)

E 1:: ro

15 ... Q) .0 E ::J Z

Phase number: 4.

Phase description: Ruhhish pits.

Total number of artifacts: 1350

Date

Dating: Phase 4. • Date from RI Date to



Date to: 999

Interpretation of sample: The ruohish pits (58, 82) represent occupation from the

1780s to the 1850s. with a small proportion of artifacts introduced from later contexts

(sewer trench, 15).

27


Extensions to thc Hawkcshury Muscum, Windsor, NSW. 1992

1

Date

Phase number: 5.

Dating: Phase 5. • Date from 11 Date to

Phase description: Pits and post-holes, and other evidence associated with timber

and masonry stl1lctures.




Date to: 922

Interpretation of sample: The pits, post-holes, slots, and other features associated

with timber and masonry structures contain artifacts representing occupation from the

1780s to the 1 870s.

The higher frequency in the 1 870s tends to skew the graph from a nOlmal curve. This

bimodal tendency is the result of a number of building materials, cement render and

wire nails, being dated from the 1870s.

28

I I I I I

, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 199~

4.4. Functional analysis of the artifacts.

The cataloguing of the each artifact includes a brief description, an object name, a

function and key function, in accordance with general practice in archaeology. There

is a very extensive range of possible uses for artifacts. The key function is therefore

used to cut down on the number of functions recognised, allowing them to be grouped

into a manageable number for statistical analysis. The following table lists all the key

functions that were used in the artifact catalogue.

Aboriginal

Aerated waters

Alcohol

Alcohol or medicine

Building

Building or food

Cleaning

Container

Cutlery

Economic

Economic or management

Equestrian

Equestrian or personal clothing

Food

Food container

Food container, medicine or toilet

Food serving

Food storage

Game

Haberdashery

Hardware

Horticulture

Horticulture or kitchen ware

Household appliance

Household fumishing

Household secm'ity

Hunting

Jewellery

Jewellery or religion

29

Kitchenware

Kitchenware or tableware

Medicine

Medicine or toilet

Merchandising

Metalworking

Natural

Omamental

Perfume

Personal accessory

Personal clothing

Personal footwear

Pest

Religion

Services energy

Services sanitation

Smoking

Snuff

Tableware

Tableware or toilet

Toilet

Toy

Trades

Transport

Unidentified

Writing



4.5. Depositional Theory.

The graphs summarising the functional analysis of the various phases are the key to

the archaeological information and interpretation. In general it may be assumed that,

where samples are large, they are probably statistically reliable. However it must be

understood that the graphs do not indicate a direct relationship with the activities that

have taken place on site. 'Depositional or Post-depositional Theory' has been

developed by archaeologists to cope with this and similar situations.! While it is not

intended to discuss this theory at length, nonetheless sufficient will be included in the

interpretive discussion to indicate that:

1. those functions which are represented by only small numbers of

artifacts are probably under-represented, and

2. other activities not represented at all in the functional analysis, could

have taken place on site.

The following equation has been used in the study of trade networks in archaeology:

Value = Distance marketed

Mass

where the distance over which objects are traded is related to the value and mass of

the objects. The greater the value, and the lesser the mass, the further an item may be

traded.

This equation can also be adapted to the disposal of objects, as follows:

Mass = Likelihood of disposal.

Value

The greater the mass and the less the value, the greater the likelihood an item will be

discarded. In this case disposal may mean a whole range of outcomes, from burning

and dumping, to reuse or recycling. Functions where materials are predominantly

reused or recycled are likely to be under-represented in the archaeological record.

-! D. L. Clarke, ed., Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, 1972, passim.

30


Extensions to the Hawkesbury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1~92

Furthermore it is possible ~hat the location of artifacts may indicate disposal patterns

rather than the location of their usage.

While the above equation may determine the introduction of materials into the

archaeological record, the survival of those materials in the archaeological context is

also the result of several factors, one of the most important of which is the destruction

of organic materials in all but anaerobic or anhydrous conditions. A well is one such

anaerobic environmen,t, where most organic matelials can be expected to survive.

While this discussion has concentrated on the artifact and its introduction and survival

in the archaeological record, there are other factors which stand between the activities

themselves and the interpretation of the archaeologist. These include the equation of

the activity with the artifact, and the ability of the archaeologist to recognise, recover

and interpret the evidence.

The above equation and other comments will be used in the following text to assist in

the interpretation of the site.

4.6. Functional analysis of the site.

For the purpose of the functional analysis of the site, the archaeological contexts were

grouped into the phases already used for dating the site. Various phases revealed

similar date ranges, and could be grouped together in historical periods. The

following pages are devoted to the analysis and interpretation of a number of graphs

indicating the frequency of artifacts against the range of key functions in each phase.

31

- - - - - - - - - -pj 0 ""I ~ Z ~ '"= ""I C'D ...... t1) - t1) = 0 ::r ......

r.tl ...... - .... e; S' r:> pj

_. a Cj er Cj (") ..,

~ - t1) ...... '=' .... .... - :: "C ..... -. Q.. 2' ~ - .., = .... _.

t1) O· .... 0 a r.tl :::1 0 « r:> (") ....,

c:. :: ...,., i:' '=' ::l . .- 0 t1)

0 0 cr ...., .., "0 :::1 ....,

C'D :: .... r.tl r:> 0 O· 'JO

2' en Cj ...., .... .... pj 3 -. Cj :: 0 :: 3 0 (") "0 :: .., .... "'0 tr r.tl C". -l _.

fr ;' 0 e.. 0 .j::. "'0 C'D :: n 'JO 'JO en -l oc .... ""' r. r.tl ~

:1. ::r .. cr (l; VI ::.:

-l ID :::; (l; ::.: 0 e.. e.. ::r rr.l (l; - 2 5 c

(JQ 'JO r. C'D 3' 'JO (l; .... pj :::; cr

_. 3 ....

C'D ~ "0 0' ""I '.>:l cr :::. - pj

N .... C'D .... C'D '< t:: 0- en ""I ..... N' C'D

~ :::1 :n C'D 0. pj pj :::; .... e.. ...... :::1 ""I (JQ pj

0-::l

(JQ ""I C'D

::.: 0 - ...,., -.- c· cr C'D ::l

(")

"0 ..... ......

cr 0 pj :::1 en en C'D en 5' e:- o. ..... - (") 0 pj

~ (p en en .... .... cr cr C'D C'D

- - - -'"= ::r e; t1) 0

:: Aboriginal

= Aerated waters a Alcohol a' Alcohol or medicine t'I) Building ..,

Building or food 9 .. Cleaning 2

Container Cutlery 5

Economic 7 Equestrian 3

Food Food container

Food serving Food storage

Game Haberdashery

Hardware Horticulture

HorticuMure or kitchenware "il Household appliance c: Household furnishing 7 ::J n. Household security 3 g" Hunting 2

Jewellery 9 Jewellery or religion 1

Kitchenware 14 Kitchenware or tabfeware

Medicine Medicine or toilet

Merchandising Natural

Ornamental Perfume

Personal accessory Personal clothing

Personal footwear Religion

Services energy Services sanitation

Smoking Tableware

Toilet Toy

Trades Transport

Unidentified Writing

- - - -Total number of artifacts

~

§ §

1027

1201

541

349

138

946

11 C ::::l () ..... O· ::::l (J)

-0 843 ::::l" !ll (J)

CD

116 -'-

- -.a;;.. ~

U'!

8 10-' . '"= ::r e; t1)

10-'

tT1 X ,.... r;. ::l :r-0 ::l :r-.... 0

3: t:: 'JO C t:: 3

~ ::l e.. 'JO

Q Z :n

~ ..-ID ID N

-I I



4.6.2. Phase 2.

Functions: Phase 2.

Cs Cs Cl ~

E Cs ,j ::::> .=

0 C 0 ::::> 0 Cl C '" u.. 1:: 0 'C

Cl 1ii 0 w '" ::I:

g> iii :.c '" Q; s: (5 (5 c u .!2 '" <ii '" <ii '" c Cl '" 0 c '~ '" ~

0 Cl f! '" '~

Cl.. '" (fJ

Cl.. '" (fJ

::::> Function 0' w

Phase number: 2.

Phase description: Backfill of hasement entrance.

Total number of artifacts: 3202.

Number of functions: 32

Reliability of sample: The large sample size and range of functions indicates the

reliahility of the sample.

Description of functions: The similarity in dating for all the phases allows the

artifact functions to he desclihed together below.

33



4.6.3. Phase 3.

Functions: Phase 3.

'E :::> u

0 Q) 1J)

"0 Q) <a (/)

c: <a Q)

32 (5 0 'u c: u 0 .r; 0 c: .~ .r; Q) Q) '6 (/) 0 Q) (/) lii Q) ID t? Q)

1J) :::> ;;:: ::E Cl.. Q) (fJ :::> 0 Cl.. 0 ::r: c: ::r: Q)

.r; ~ :i:

Function

Phase number: 3.

Phase description: Structural elements associated with basement entrance and

outbuilding.

Total number of artifacts: 190 I.


Reliability of sample: The sample size and range of functions indicates the

reliability of the sample.


artifact functions to be desclihed together below.

34



4.6.4. Phase 4.

Functions: Phase 4.

0 <Xl N

III N '" Q) i::' ~ ]l "0 0> 0> ,!!1 c: ~

Q) '" '0 :.;: .r: ;;: "" 0 '" "E f- C ~ iii '" Q) "E '" "0 .., Q) :r '2

8 .0 (5 ::> '" lJ.. :r (5

~ ~ ::J ;;: "" c: ::J Q) U .r: '", 12 0 :,;::

Function :r

Phase number: 4.




Reliability of sample: The limited sample size and range of functions indicates

caution should be exercised in the reliahility of the sample.


artifact functions to he desClihed together helow.

35


Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, NSW. 1991

Functions: Phase 4, Pit 58.

U'l ~

'<t N

~ !!' !!' ]l 0> Q) ell ell c:

J:: l: l: '0 :.;: <J)

"E c: f- ~ ell i! '8 "E ell

"0 Jl :r: £ 0 8 :;;: 5 Ll.. Ll..

ell :r: 5 !!'

!!' ell ::l l: =: c: ::l Q)

" .c 1: £ 0 ~

Function :r:

Phase number: 4. Pit 58.


Total number of artifacts: I ()97


Reliability of sample: The limited sample size and range of functions may indicate

bias in this sample.



36


Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, N.S,W. 1992

s: - Functions: Phase 4, Pit 82.

(/)

U .!!1 '€ a:l

a (jj .0 E :::l C

}g ~

(; <Il

~ 0; :;J ;;:

"" c: :;J <Il

'" .c:

'" .8 0 ::z

Function :r

Phase number: 4, Pit R2.




Reliability of sample: The limited sample size and range of functions may indicate

bias in this sample.



37

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor. N.S.W. 1992

4.6.5. Phase 5.

Functions: Phase 5.

Phase number: 5.

~

~ c: Q) .:: u ~

Function

<J) Q)

"0 ~ f-

~ ~

1:: "0 0 ~ C. <J)

E c: ~ Q)

"0 f- "2

:::l

(\J

Cl c:

~

Phase description: Pits and post-holes, and other evidence associated with timber

and masonry structures.



Reliability of sample: The sample size and range of functions indicates the

reliability of the sample.



38

I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I


4.7. Description of the artifact assemblage.

, The date range of each phase was sufficiently similar to allow the artifact assemblage

to be described as a whole, although interpretation of the range of functions in each

phase has been discussed above. The artifact assemblage will be described in order of

function, but with special emphasis on variation between phases.

. . Aboriginal. A number of stone Hakes, cores and river pebbles were found in all

phases, except Phase 3. They include mudstone, silcrete, chert and quartz. Some

exhibit flaking scars, retouch and patina. Most of the artifacts were found in topsoil,

or in other historic contexts. It is likely that the artifacts represent disturbance of pre

European occupation, or may have been introduced with shell for shell lime mortar.

The possibility of contact between Aboriginal and European settlers cannot be

discounted, although no historic artifacts exhibit use by Aborigines.

Aerated waters. A range of aerated water bottles were found in Phase 5, with one

example in Phase 4.

Alcohol. Variable to large quantities of objects related to the consumption of alcohol

were found in all phases. but were proportionately the most common item in Phase 4.

Large frequencies of alcohol are consistent with hotels, the high frequency in Phase 4

suggesting that this phase was specifically related to the period of use as the 'Daniel

0' Connell Inn' , from c.1842 to 1848. Bottles included beer, stout, wine, champagne,

gin or schnapps and brandy. with fragments of decanters and a hip flask.

Alcohol or medicine. A single stopper for a decanter or medicine bottle was found in

Phase 5.

Building. Building materials are found in large quantities 111 all phases. The

predominantly include brick fragments and nails. Fragments of fibro, nails, cement

render, wood offcuts and slate damp coursing are derived from the more recent

additions to the house, and the recently demolished outbuilding. Sandstock brick,

shell lime mortar, plaster. window glass, nails and other building metalwork indicate

that masonry and timber buildings were demolished and their materials used to

backfill the basement access (24) in the 1860s and 1870s.

39



. . Building or food. Quantities of shell and shell grit were found in Phase 1, but

predominantly in Phase 4. The absence of rock oyster in Phase 4 was taken as

evidence of shell used in shell lime mortar. 2

Cleaning. Laundry blue fragments and a spring from a peg were found in Phase 1, and

a blacking bottle in Phase 4.

Container. Those glass or meta1 containers, which cannot be specifically identified as

food, medicine, etc. were placed in the container function. They occur in all phases.

Cutlery. A small number of knife, spoon, teaspoon or fork pieces were found in Phase

1 to 3.

Economic. Small numbers of coins and a token were found in Phases 1 and 3.

Economic or management. A bronze seal was found in Phase 2.

Equestrian. Three horseshoes were found in Phase 1. Their presence on site is

expected, since the stables were 10cated nearby.

Equestrian or personal clothing. A buckle found in Phase 2 may belong to harness or

personal clothing.

Food. The interpretation of the bone and shell food debris may be described

according to phases: 3 In Phase 1 the majority of the shell is rock oyster, with a few

specimens of limpet, collected from coastal rock platforms. Sheep and cattle

predominate among the bone, with smaller samples of pig, chicken and duck. Sheep

bone indicates retail cuts, namely roasting leg cuts, loin chops and steak. Overall the

assemblage for Phase 1 indicates table and kitchen refuse, comprising mainly of

roasting cuts of mutton and beef, supplemented by pork, fowl and shellfish. Phases 2

and 3 have similar proportions of beef, mutton, pork, fowl and shellfish. as in Phase 1,

and may be interpreted in a similar manner. Phase 3 includes one identified rabbit

bone. Phase 4 includes the same basic range of species as in other phases, but also

2 Dominic Steele, 1993, A report on the bone and shell from the Hawkesbury Museum, Windsor, Consultant Archaeological Services. 3 Dominic Steele, 1993, A report on the bone and shell from the Hawkesbury Museum, Windsor, Consultant Archaeological Services.

40



indicates the processing and disposal of larger bones, possibly for marrow extraction.

Phase 5 has the smallest sample, but is essentially similar to the other phases.

Food container. All phases, except Phase 4, have glass food bottles and jars, for oil,

vinegar, sauce, pickle and chutney. Crown seals for food bottles are restricted to

Phase 1.

Food container, medicine or toilet. A single example of a glass stopper for a food,

medicine or toiletry container was found in Phase 2.

Food serving. A wide range of basins, bowls, jugs, lids, platters, tea pots and tureens

are found in all phases.

Food storage. Stoneware food storage bottles are found in all phases, except Phase 3.

Game. A single bone gaming disc was found in Phase 1.

Haberdashery. Sewing pins and thimbles were found in all phases, but a very large

number were found in Phase 3, near the back door of the house. The large quantities

imply intentional discard, but not necessarily the location of the sewing activities.

Hardware. Quantities of the common types of unidentifiable metalwork were grouped

under this heading, including hand, bar, ring, rod, sheet and wire. They were found in

all phases and may represent building materials.

Horticulture. Unglazed and slipped terracotta plant pots were found 111 small

quantities in Phases 1 and 5.

Horticulture or kitchenware. Lead glazed earthenware fragments may represent plant

pots, or use in the kitchen or dairy. Small quantities were found in Phases 1,2 and 4.

Household appliance. The key to a clock was found in Phase 1.

Household furnishing. Door furniture, a poker and upholstery pins were found in

Phases 1, 3 and 5.

Household security. A hasp, key and padlock were found in Phase 1, a hook in Phase

3.

41



Hunting. Bullet casings were found in Phases 1 and 2.

Jewellery. Glass beads, a turquoise blue faceted jewel, a brooch pin, and pierced coins

were found in Phases 1, 2 and 3.

Jewellery or religion. A brooch in the shape of a cross was found in Phase 1.

Kitchenware. A small number of fragments belonging to ceramic bowls, basins or

crocks were found in Phases 1, 2 and 3, an iron saucepan in Phase 5.

Kitchenware or tableware. Large quantities of small ceramic fragments were found in

all phases. They are most likely to have been used as kitchenwares or tablewares.

Medicine. Fragmentary glass phials and medicine bottles are found in Phase 1.

Medicine or toilet. A variety of glass bottles and phials for medicines or toiletries

were found in Phases 1, 3 and 5.

Merchandising. A bronze plate, with the lettering "COLONIAL MADE WIRE

NETTING, SYDNEY, NSW", was found in Phase 1.

Metalworking. Pieces of mixed iron and copper or bronze slag were found in Phases

2 and 5. They may represent the result of building (plumbing ?) or smithing

(blacksmith ?) activities, or of fire.

Natural. Natural products include a snail shell and various branches or roots.

OrnamentaL A variety of bowls, jugs, vases and figurines were found in Phases 1,2

and 5.

Perfume. Fragmentary perfume bottles were found only in Phase 1.

Personal accessory. Fragments of plastic combs and a brass fob watch chain were

found in Phase 1.

Personal clothing. Buckles, buttons and eyelets were found in all phases, except Phase

4.

42



Personal footwear. A small number of leather shoe fragments were found in all

phases, except Phase 4.

Pest. Rodent bones were found in Phase 3. The small quantities of rodent bone,

compared with sites in The Rocks, Sydney, may indicate higher standards of

cleanliness or a more healthy, efficient or sanitary method of the disposal of rubbish.

The size of allotments in country towns, as opposed to Sydney may be a factor

assisting in this behaviour.4

Religion. A rosary was found in Phase 1. This item is likely to indicate the presence

of a Roman Catholic woman.

Services energy. A variety of energy sources are indicated by the artifacts, including

oil or kerosene, candle, electlicity, wood, charcoal and coal. Evidence of electricity

was restricted to Phase 1 as expected, while oil, candle, charcoal and coal were found

in Phases 2, 3 and 5.

Services sanitation. Fragmentary drainage pipes were found in Phase 1 and in situ,

also in Phase 1. Sewered drainage appears only to have been available from the mid

20th century.

Smoking. A variety of kaolin clay tobacco pipes were found in all phases.

Snuff. Snuff bottle fragments were found only in Phase 4.

Tableware. A large VaI1ety or tablewares were found in all phases, including bowls,

cups, dishes, eggcups, plates, saucers, glass tumblers and stemware, and unidentified

fragments.

Tableware or toilet. A glass stopper, belonging to a vessel used as tableware or

toiletry was found in Phase 5.

4 Edward Higginbotham, 1991, Report on the interpretation of the artifact assemblages from the Australian Hotel, Bunker's Hill, Samson's Cottage, & Unwin's Stores, The Rocks, Sydney. Sydney Cove Auth0l1ty, pp. 93-4; Edward Higginbotham, 1992, Report on the archaeological excavation of the Jobbin's Building, 103 Gloucester Street, The Rocks, Sydney, N.S.W. 1991-2, Sydney Cove Authority.

43



Toilet. A range of poe fragments and pot lids, including one for bear's grease, were

found in all phases, except Phase 5.

Toy. Glass and ceramic marbles and a saucer from a toy tea set were found in Phases

1,2and3.

Trades. Files, a chisel, a hacksaw blade and a mattock head were found in Phases 1,2

and 5.

TranspOlt. A cart spring and a tyre valve were found in Phases 1 and 5 respectively.

Unidentified. Unidentified glass, bone, metal and organic artifacts were found in all

but Phase 2.

Writing. Slate pencils were found in all phases, while ink bottles were found in

Phases 1 and 5 alone. Slate pencils were often associated with children, but were also

used for keeping tally by tradesmen and others.

4.8. The interpretation of the artifact assemblage.

In general the range of functions in all the phases indicates a common domestic

assemblage of the nineteenth century. Characteristic are the high frequencies of

artifacts associated with building and construction, and food preparation and

consumption. The high frequencies of artifacts relating to alcohol consumption are

consistent with the use of the house as a hotel for a short period in the 1840s. This

association is especially evident in Phase 4. The leisure activity of smoking is also

well represented, and is again consistent with the hotel usage. The fragmentary snuff

bottles in Phase 4 are unusual.

Indeed Phase 4 exhibits variation from the expected range of functions and their

frequencies. The narrow range of 19 functions is not adequately explained by the

sample size of 1350 artifacts. For example, Phase 5 has 30 functions from just 1036

artifacts .. The narrow range may perhaps be explained on the basis of a limited

number of activities contributing to the contents of the rubbish pits. The functions

represented in each pit were plotted separately above. Pit 82 has only 13 functions

represented by 253 artifacts, while pit 58 has 16 functions from 1097 artifacts.

Activities predominantly represented include building, food preparation and

44



consumption, leisure and alcohol consumption. Other activities are represented in

small quantities of artifacts, namely cleaning, mending or making of clothes,

horticulture and personal health or hygiene. While pit 58 has a high frequency for

alcohol consumption, pit 82 is well represented in building. The activity largely

restricted to these pits is the evidence for the production or mixture of shell lime

mortar. It is possible therefore that the pits relate to a short period of use in

construction, and have a restricted range of functions for this reason. It is difficult to

confirm this hypothesis from the dating of the artifacts, although it is certainly not

ruled out.

The functions of the artifacts reveal the nature of domestic occupation during the

nineteenth century. Certain artifacts reveal evidence relating to religious beliefs, age

and gender, as well as other socio-economic factors. The mending of clothing, using

pins and thimbles, has traditionally been regarded as a female role. Jewellery and

perfume likewise points to female presence. The rosary may indicate a Roman

Catholic female. Toys including marbles and miniature tea sets point to children of

both genders. Literacy is indicated by ink bottles and slate pencils.

4.9. Quality of ceramics.

One of the only available measures of socio-economic standing using artifactual

evidence is the quality of ceramics found on a site. Ceramic values have been

assigned to ceramics in the Tableware, Kitchenware, Food Preparation, Food Serving,

Food Storage and Toilet functions.5 Other ceramics have been avoided, since they

may bias the results achieved. For example, stoneware bottles would have been

bought for their contents, not for the value of the bottle. To take these into account

would skew the frequencies in favour of utilitarian wares. What the researcher wishes

to establish in this case is the socio-economic standing of the site's occupants from

their tablewares and kitchenwares, which might legitimately be expected to show

valiation in this way. A number of graphs have been produced to show the variation

between the phases.

5 The value of ceramics has been assigned in accordance with those values given in Edward Higginbotham, 1991, Report on the archaeological excavation of the site of the Family Court of Australia, comer of Castlereagh and Goulburn Streets, Sydney. 1990. Australian Construction Services, Depmtment of Administrative Services: 171-175.

45



In general the ceramic quality ranges for all phases are consistent,' with the possible

exception of Phase 4. However Phase 4 still indicates the same proportional

relationship between ceramic values as all the others .. The low frequencies of cheap

and expensive wares in this instance may simply be due to the sample bias resulting

from the short duration of usage of these rubbish pits. In the other phases the medium

priced wares predominate, the cheap and expensive wares rarely being more than half

the medium priced, while the utilitarian wares are consistently low.

The graphs for Phases 1 to 5 are similar to those encountered on sites in The Rocks,

and elsewhere in Sydney. 6 The medium priced wares predominate, a situation

common to most of the other si tes. Historical and archaeological documentation

suggests that they represent households or families, with a wage earner or tradesman

providing the main source of income. This type of household would have been

widespread. John Howe may not necessarily be placed in this social category, since

he was a landholder and civil servant. The graphs represent the occupation of the

house not only by his family hut also of those later in the nineteenth century, who

would more closely resemble the socio-economic status of the other comparable sites.

Nonetheless this type of evidence should be compared with other sites in future, so

that the relationship between ceramic quality and socio-economic status may be better

understood.

6 Edward Higginbotham, 1991, Report on the interpretation of the artifact assemblages from the Australian Hotel, Bunker's Hill, Samson's Cottage, & Unwin's Stores, The Rocks, Sydney. Sydney Cove AuthOlity, pp. 93-4; Edward Higginbotham, 1992, Report on the archaeological excavation of the Jobbin's Building, 103 Gloucester Street, The Rocks, Sydney, N.S.W. 1991-2, Sydney Cove Authority; Edward Higginbotham, 1991, Report on the archaeological excavation of the site of the Family Court of Australia, corner of Castlereagh and Goulburn Streets, Sydney. 1990. Australian Construction Services, Department of Administrative Services

46


Extensions to the H;.l\vkeshury Museum, Windsor, NoSoWo 1 <)92

1000.-----------------------------------------------------.

Quality of ceramics. Phase 1.

c ('Cl

0;::

:l:'E

5

Cl.. ('Cl Q)

.!: ()

Quality

Q)

> 0

00 c Q) Cl.. ><

W

250~--------------------------------------------------__.

Ul

t5 ~ :;::::

tti 1 '0 ID

..Q E ::l Z

50


Cl.. ('Cl Q)

.!: ()

Quality

47

E ::l '6 Q)

::2

Q)

> 0

00 c Q) Cl.. ><

W

I I

Extensions to the Hawkeshury Museum, Windsor, N,S,W, 1992

80

I Quality of ceramics. Phase 3.

I Cl) 60 t) $

~

I '0 Qi 40 ..0 E :::l Z

I 20

I 0

I c CL E QJ <1l <1l > ';:: QJ :::l 'w :~ ..r:. '5 c

() QJ QJ

5 :2 CL x

I w

Quality

I Quality of ceramics.

I Phase 4.

.$ Q

I $

~ '0 Qi 100

I ..0 E :::l Z

I 50

I c CL E QJ

<1l <1l :::l >

I ';:: QJ

'5 'w .~ ..r:. c

() QJ QJ

5 :2 CL x w

I Quality

I I I 48

I


<f)

t5 ~

~1 o ID .a E :::J Z

50

Extensions to the l-Iawkeshury Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992


Cl.. t1l Q)

..c ()

Quality

49

Q)

> '00 c Q) Cl.. X ill



5. CONCLUSIONS.

The archaeological excavations of the Hawkesbury Museum in 1992 had been

undertaken in order to recover evidence of the back verandah and skillion on the

house, the access to the basemen t, the stables to the rear of the allotment, and the

location of other outbuildings mentioned in historical documentation. It was also

possible that the barracks, erected between 1796 and 1800, might have been located

within the excavation area, although historical documentation suggested a location

closer to the Macquarie Arms Hotel.

The excavation was successful in locating the basement access and back verandah.

Stairs to the basement had been removed, when the basement door was blocked. The

dating of the artifacts in the backrill confirmed a date of the l860s for this event. It

further confirmed the hypothesis that the 1863 flood had rendered the basement

unusable. The absence of any structural remains of the stairway was interpreted as

indicating that the flood had undermined the masonry, resulting in its removal and

reuse elsewhere. The back verandah over the back door and basement stairway was

shown to be of timber post construction.

One of the more important findings of the excavation was the discovery of an

addition to the house, replacing the earlier back verandah and basement stairs after the

1860s flood. This was a small weatherboard structure, with a sandstone fireplace and

footings. There is no recognisable mention of this building in any available historical

documentation.

The excavation was also successful in locating the front wall of the stable. The slot or

wall trench and accompanying post-holes indicate a timber framed building, possibly

of slab construction. The remainder of the stable lies to the back of the allotment.

The artifact assemblage recovered from the excavation has provided some important

evidence relating to the way of life and standard of living of the occupants of the

house between the l820s and l880s. These artifacts form the basis of a museum

display on the history of the house, and are ideal for displays interpreting the way of

life in the nineteenth century.

50



5.1. Recommendations.

The archaeological excavation has provided a wealth of infOlmation on the house and

its additions, as well as the way or life of its occupants. The artifact assemblage from

the basement, excavated in 1985, was catalogued in accordance with standards of the

time, but was not made into a computer database. The latter is a much more powerful

tool for the interpretation of the site. Both the 1985 and 1992 collections provide a

very important record of the usage and occupation of the house, and should be

considered together in any interpretive study.

The following recommendations may be made as a result of the excavation: It is

recommended that:

1. An archaeological management plan for Windsor and the other

Macquarie Towns should be completed in order that:

i) archaeological evidence may be recovered prior to redevelopment

and

ii) important sites may be conserved.

2. The disturbance of archaeological deposits on the remainder of the

Museum site should be preceded by archaeological investigation.

3. The 1985 collection or artifacts should be safely stored in the

Museum, and should be catalogued as a database.

51

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

I I I I I I I I

Extensions to the HawkesbUly Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

APPENDIX 1. SITE RECORDS.

Primary archaeological records.

1. Archaeological features and structures. Now destroyed on the part of the site

excavated. See F!gure 3.1.

2. Artifact collection. Conserved, with the exception of

building materials, which have been

culled down to a tY..Qe series.

Conservation treatment.

All artifacts have been cleaned, bagged, and packed into archive boxes. No laboratory

conservation was required.

The artifacts were divided into the following categories:

Artifact categories. Status.

1. Aboriginal artifacts. catalo_gued.

2. Bone unworked. catalo_gued.

3. Building matelials. catalogued and discarded, except for type

series.

4. Ceramics. catalogued.

5. Glass. cataloj1;ued.

6. Kaolin catalo--.&ued.

7. Metals. catalogued.

8. Miscellaneous. catalogued.

9. Organics. catalogued

10. Samples. catalogued

11. Shell unworked. catalogued.

12. Stone. catalo--.&ued

13. Synthetics. catalogued.

52

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


Secondary si te records.

1. Documentary.

Context sheets.

Context catalogue or index.

2. Photographic.

Black and white negatives and contact prints.

3. Graphic.

Site plans and sections or profiles.

Secondary artifact records.

1. Documentary.

Artifact catalogues.

Artifact categories.

1. Aboriginal artifacts.

2. Bone unworked.

3. Building matelials.

4. Ceramics.

5. Glass.

6. Kaolin

7. Metals.

8. Miscellaneous.

9. Organics.

10. Samples.

11. Shell unworked.

12. Stone.

13. Synthetics.

Specialist artifact reports.

Bone-unworked.

Ceramics.

Glass.

Kaolin.

Status.

catalogued.

catalogued.

catalogued and discarded, except for type

series.

catalo_gued.

catalogued.

catalogued.

catalo_gued.

catalo_gued.

catalogued

catalogued.

catalogued.

catalogued.

catalogued.

53



Metals.

Miscellaneous-coins.

Miscellaneous-other (including buttons).

Organics.

Shell-unworked.

Other secondary records.

None.

Tertiary site records.

1. Documentary.

RepOlt as presented to client.

Permanent archive for all excavation records.

The artifact collection, one set of the site records, and one copy of the

report will be stored by the Hawkesbury City Council.

54


Extensions to the Hawkesbmy Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

APPENDIX 2. CONTEXT CATALOGUE.

Context Category Part of Contains number

1 Layer, topsoil

2 Brick paving

3 Brick paving

4 Fireplace, sandstone 24

5 Wall footing, stairs W side 24

6 Wall footing, stairs E side 24

7 Mortar layer 24

8 Machine scoop 9

9 Fill 8

10 Machine scoop 11

11 Fill 10

12 Post-hole 13,17

13 Post-packing 12

14 Mortar & brick lenses

15 Trench for sewer 16,39

16 Fill 15

17 Post-pipe 12

18 Pit 19

19 Fill 18

20 Post-hole 21,25,26

21 Post-packing 20

22 Pit 23

23 Fill 22

24 Cellar entrance 4,5,6,7,40,57,70,

75,88,97,99

25 Post-pipe 20

26 Post-pipe fill 20

27 Foundation trench 28,37,38

28 Fill, sandy layer 27

29 Pit 30

30 Fill 29

31 Pit 32

55

Phase

1

1

1

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

1

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

3

5

5

3

3

5

5

5


32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67


Fill 31 5

Pit 34 5

Fill 33 5

Pit 36 5

Fill 35 5

Fill, mortar layer 27 3

Fill, sandy layer 27 . 3

Fill 15 1

Fill, humic 24 2

Trench 42 5

Fill 41 5

Pit 44 5

Fill 43 5

Pit 46 5

Fill 45 5

Pit 48 5

Fill 47 5

Pit 50 5

Fill 49 5

Pit 52 5

Fill 51 5

Pit 54 5

Fill 53 5

Pit 56 5

Fill 55 5

Fill, burnt clay 24 2

Pit 59,64 4

fill, shell 58 4

Pit 61 5

Fill 60 5

Pit 63 5

Fill 62 5

Mortar layer 58 4

Mortar and blick lenses 5

Pit 67 5

Fill 66 5

56


68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Extensions to the HawkesbUly Museum, Windsor, N.S.W. 1992

Pit 59 5

Fill 68 5

Fill, sandy layer 24 2

Pit 72 5

Fill 71 5

Pit 74 5

Fill 73. 5

Fill, clay layer 24 2

Pit 77 5

Fill 76 5

Pit 79 5

Fill 78 5

Pit 81 5

Fill 80 5

Pit 83 4

Fill 82 4

Pit 85 5

Fill 84 5

Pit 87 5

Fill 86 5

Fill,~artly humic 24 2

Pit 90 5

Fill 89 5

Pit 92 5

Fill 91 5

Pit 94 5

Fill 93 5

Pit 96 5

Fill 95 5

Slot 24 98 2

Fill 97,24 2

Fill, sandy layer 24 2

Pit 101 5

Fill 100 5

Post-pipe 116 103 5

Fill of post-pipe 102, 116 5

57

1-· !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

132

Extensions to the Hawkesbury Museum, Windsor, NoSoWo 1992

Pit 105 5

Fill 104 5

Pit 107 5

Fill 106 5

Post-hole 109,110,111 5

Post-packing 108 5

Post-pipe 108 5

. Fill of post-pipe 110,108 5

Post-hole 113, ll4, 115 5

Post-packing ll2 5

Post-pipe 112 5

Fill of post-pipe 114, 112 5

Post-hole 117, 102, 103 5

Post-packing 116 5

Natural sand A2 5

Natural topsoil Al 5

Tree root disturbance 5

Pit 122 5

Fill 121 5

Pit 124 5

Fill 123 5

Pit 126 5

Fill 125 5

Pit 128 5

Fill 127 5

Pit 130 5

Fill 129 5

Pit unexcavated

58

Date post:	13-Apr-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

'REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION I OF ...nswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/13202_ID...The...

Documents