superintendent co cts duplex 2-3· quality row . pit...
TRANSCRIPT
•
I. 'I
I
'
•
I
•
•
•
. • ' .
•
•.
•
• •
•
• • • .
N O.R F 0 L K ISLAND • •
I
• ' '
' •
*···~-·- .. . .. '. . . . . .... •
. '
KINGSTON AND ARTHUR'S VALE •
HISTORIC AREA ._ . · ·· ' .
SUPERINTENDENT OF CO CTS DUPLEX
. .
2- 3· Quality Row . Pit Distribution Report.
• •
' 1987 •
•
• •
This report was prepared for Australian Construction Services on behalf of the KA VHA Management Board
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
• '
•
• •
•• • •
. . : . • _ .. •• 1 ' • • . .. ' / .-.-. '· . -
f·--~ ., . '~ . ... -~
l / n.e-·.
A: Government House Reserve B: Lowland C: Cemetery Reserve D: Quality Row E: Land above 100ft. and Stockyard Valley
.. 'I
' . :\
' . '- . -· D -.- -
,.- --- • • E - . - .:.:- ... . .--__;;,:,· .:.;:;'::::...:.:=-. ' < ,., •• - • .. c -----'\ .......... ,_ - D -
.r...::. ___ ..:..--r~.-.:._;_· -~--"''-~-• J ·--- 0 - . _,,~~=:...::· :~:::::::::::=+==~
y-----:7 F
" . .,. - . -=:r-:..J.:;L__ d~~ -A F: Swamp G: Prisoner Compounds H: Landing Place Ridge
.. _
J: Slaughter & Emily Bay Beach Front
8 c
J B
I /K: Windmill Ridge
L: Chimney Hill M: Arthur's ValeWatermill Valley N: Bloody Bridge
Frontispiece: Norfolk Island and Kingston and Arthur's Vale Historic Area.
I I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I·
I 1-
I
I
•
•
- - r- ... -;,-
•
•
•
- - ·--·
I . . ·- . - . -~ _--- -. - ... .., '.
. . ~ . .. -· •
-I
..... .. .. .. .
- .
•
•.
•·
•
•
-- .
... --.. ~-- - .. --~. ·-
-- - - -~- ~
. - . . .
•
SUP E.R IN TEN D.E N-T S 0 F C 0 NV I C T S'
•
DUPLEX
·- -~--2·./.3 q"·uALITY'· ROW · · · .. .
'(D2 and D3) ·
PIT ·DISTRIBUTION REPORT ,
1987 EXCAVATIONS
•
KEY · T 0 S I T E· and
EXCAVATED KATERIAL
• "- - •
•
. - . .
. . ~
•
• •
•
• --- - • • •••
•
- .. ..!- -- -
•
•
-~- -~
. •
. -
. .. .. . -
• - .
• •
•
•
... ..........
. . •
...... ifA .. iCH 1 9 9 ~3 .
KAVHA -A R C H'A E 0 L 0 G I C A L
:R E"P 0 R T 11
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AUSTRAI.IAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
ROBERT V J VABMAN CONSULTANT ARCHAEOLOGIST
. . . . . • • . .
•
•
. .
-. . -
•
• .
•
•
. -•
•
•
I • •
•
•
•
.. •
r----------------------------------------····
..
!. . . .. ~
Photo 1. No 3 Quality Row. Former home of Philip McCoy (1830- 1913). Note that the surviving timbers resemble closely those of No 10 Quality Row. (Salt Collection. 1940s).
•
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I
I • •
• . . •
I •
•
• • • • • •
• • • • •
- • • •
• •
I •
C 0 H T E H T S • • • ,. • • • • • • . '
I • •
•
• • •
I • • • • • • Introduction 1 •
• • • • • •
•
I • • • •
• Background • to Excavation 5 •
• •
I Stat'ement of SignHicance 7 • •
• • • .
Methodology • 9 • •
•
I • • Phasing 13 •
• • •
I The Privy Pits • 23 •
• The Excavation • 27
• • •
• a
N
• ,g ... 0
<
===============================~==.:--------
Q ... l:
"' 1- - - ··.:r::::~
I
-
-------.......,,....---------.
I
-
% • ., ~ -ll
'a • :1
r
..
-i-- .. _ ...... --~ ----
~ -t ffir:-:-i ---._I .;:::J~ •C::.::::J-. L~.,
f.YL ~;::J
~======~~~ rcr====~=·====~, l ,.J,_ I ( E .. ~ !
- -
. '
Cl
Q
Q
•• ...
~
-
I I I
I .I
I I I I I I
~~~~~~==~~~~I
~-------.,..____ .. ~ ..- -..-..-;;-··- .-
• •
. ~. • L •.• 0 P 'A R B E I. 4~ B D ·p B. I V I E S
------
•
---..
•
-
l
•
~
r- .I
•
I I f
.
,·•
• •
I I I---; L-I I
I
I
,....
•
• • •
•
. r-----------~------•
0Y6W
• •
• I
-
•
• • • .. ,.wo ..... .,..
•
•
• • •
• I I
~--------------------~" _; ,l----4j ( •
•
• •
• • •
~ .... • • •
-"'- I
•
.
•
• •
• •
•
•
-~-
0
i ••
• - a •
• •
•
•
•
•
,
•
.. •
•
,. . ~
: ...
.(.:..~~ ~ I• ,. ' \
~:. (l I -..,
•
•
•
•
... ----- - -• ·-• .
• • •
~ .
Dl • 2 . . • •
• • .. •
•
• • ' • ,, . • .. ........... • . , • , . • • . -• •
- - - -.!~IT
..... .... • •
OW:M • •
• •
# I ,
•• • • • .. ~t ..... ... .. ~ • •
' ~ .t•
4 ' • I ....,.,._;w • •
•
• •
• . . •
• • • •
•
• • •
• • •
•
•
• • • •
• -· r-----------------~~~----~L~-------------
• •
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
------------------------
•
• • •
•
I I I
. .
I I
•
I •
• •
I ..
I
I •
I •
•
• •
• •
•
•
• • •
• •
I • 1. •
•
I • •
• I. •
•
•
1 • • •
• • • • •
• •
• • • - I M T R-0 D U C T ~ 0 B.
•
• •
• • . . This report was. commissioned by the Department of Administrative Services/ Australian Construction Services, as outlined in· their letter, dated November 4, 1992, reference 92/0145: Bruce Delprado, professional services co-o.rdinato'r, · KAVHA, Norfolk Island.
• •
• • • • •
The commission originated from the concern of the Norfolk Island KAVHA • • Board respecting the archaeological provenance and well~being of the
• •
excavated material from archaeological excavations which have taken pla~e since 1981. Enquiries leading to this'commission began in February 1991. . .
• •
• • . .
• • •
The brief in appendix specified.:
A, attached to the lette-r, dated November 4, 1992', • •
•
'Prepare a report on ••• the excavations supervised by •
yourself ••• for No. 2/3 Quality Row (Pit Distribution Report) in the Kingston and Arthur's. Vale Historic
• • Area, Norfolk Island. 'l;he report·fs to include plans, elevations and illustrations and is to provide a
• • "clear and concise key to the e.xcavat.ed· material".
• ' The report is to enable future curation and analysis •
of artefacts etc. stored from the time of.that excavation and also to facilitate future interpretation of the . . . site •. The report is ~~ be initially s~bmitted in draft format with a firial submission after consideration •
• • of comments by the KAVH,A·Board.' • •
• • • • • •
•
Financial constraints and lack of access to the excavaied .materially limited the ideal scope of this report, though
• material trusting
have that
•
the report more than answersthe commi~sion as set out ~hove. This report was commissioned to present the essential data resulting from the No 2/3 excavations: that being the docn eutatiou as described in the · . above quoted brief as a bagged material from the
'concise key to the excavated material'. The •
1987 excavations are stored on Norfolk Island • <
and are marked according to location-and depth etc. This report provides the location of the No 2/3 pits, the divisions of the pits for •
• excavation purposes, the excavation methods adopted and the' •
circumstanc~s surrounding the excavation. . · • • • •
• • • • • • • • . .
•
• • •
• • •
. -----·---
•
• •
•
•
• •
2
'
The report also provides an account of t~e phasing of the site during the Second and Third Settlements, an account of the (limited) artefact analysis and a site journal: this information is intended to facilitate future interpretation of the site and the material excavated.
The complete cessation of processing, conservation, research work etc., on the No 2/3 excavated material (the archaeological repository as a whole), after I left as curator/director of the Museums, has retarded the development of the educational, interpretatiVe and tourist potential of the collections. (See below). It has to be mentioned that I did seek to complete the final stages of the ceramic and glass analysis, gratis, but was repeatedly rejected (1989/1990). Happily, the situation has recently been addressed by the KAVHA Board and a start has been made on the Repositary as a whole.
As it may be useful for future work on the No 2/3 material, I envisioned the 'final stages' to be:
(a) The dating of the ceramics and glass as a priority (partly done and now forms part of the Archaeological Display in the Royal Engineers Office). At a later date the processing, conservation and dating of the remaining material, metals, bone, leather, building materials etc.
(b) The pit distribution of the fragments of selected, well dated objects and of objects whose ownership or place of secondary origin was firmly established, (1830s - ca 1912). The purpose of this would be to plot out a stratigraphic guide for the artefact deposits. At a later date, a more comprehensive distribution survey.
(c) Drawn and photographed recording of a type series from the No 2 and No 3 collections.
(d) The production of a well illustrated summary of .the short-term findings in report form. Later, a more comprehensive report which could be used as the basis for articles and perhaps a Museum publication.
(e) The commencement of an inventory suitable for conversion onto a Minark computer system. Depending on the methodology adopted, the . invent.ory work is much simplified because of the completion of 'reconstructed' whole items (referring to ceramics, each shard labelled).
Points a to d are recommended as an initial step toward the future interpretation of the site. The outline of the 'final stages' was designed as an economical way of achieving maximum results within a relatively short period of time, (though· the processing of· the a·rtefacts was very la.bour intensive). Point e ·would require an on-going prog_ram
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
#
•
•
' ' (
•
•
•
•
• •
. 3 . . . • ' • • •
•
• • • • •
• • •
• • • -So far, the excavated items have been used as in several displays (wh~ch is of course good)
anonymous 'period' pieces but the interpretative
• • value for the Duplex and the people who lived in the Duplex; the wider •
significance of the relationship of the house with the rest of the • •
Island and the world (diet, trade, building materials etc); and unexpected light thrown on life on Pitcairn Island etc., remains potent~al rather than actual.
•• • • • .
•
• • •
· The addition of the 1984 excavated Pier Area, Settlement Guardhous'e to . ~ . . " ..
Pier Store trenches to the 1983 Pier Area excavation report threw out the commission schedule by alm«?st two weeks. It was decided that it would b~tter suit the spirit ·and intent of the current commissipn to
• include the 1984 excavation-data in the Pier Area report,.rather tnan await a future.commission. Hence the delay of this report.
• • . .
• In the introduction of the Pier Area report, I expressed 'the opinion
•
•
•
that this report (on No 2/3) would not take as long to put together as I
•
•
had original~y estimated. With the discovery of further data, includi~g . . an example of a trial ceramic distribution case study, I find that my original estimate was correct. after all. .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •.
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
' •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
• •
. .. • •
• •
• •
•
•
' •
•
• •
• • •
• •
•
• •
•
• •
' •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
'
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
•
4
Photo 2. Yard behind the annex of No 2 Quality Row.
'
Photo 3. North elevation of Nos . 2 and 3 Quality Row. View from the east. The doorway leads
I '
I I!
I
-
into the privy
(north) of No 2. I'
I I I I fj
I I I I I
I· I I I I
•
I I I
•
•
•
I. I I I I I I
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
•
5
• • ,
• • • , •
• • •
BACKGROUND - •
•
·sometime in July 1981, I noticed a stack of earth covered bottles piled •
up in the narrow passage at the back of the Duplex. About six months ' later the bottles had gone and there was evidence of freshly ,turned
earth in the nearby privy pit. Upon making enquiries, I learned that the pits were often disturbed by 'bottle hunters'. My Duplex report of 1982, KAVHA Archaeological Report 11, part 1, notes the disturbed privies and the scattered ceramics and glass·. One of the contact prints in the back of the 1982 report shows a small crater in the center .of the mid .pit of
' . ~ . the No 3 privy. . . , • • •
'· • .. •
• • •
•
Efforts to discourage people from digging on •
mainly because approaches could.be.made from the site was unsuccessful, the north of'the building''
and from Hotel Paradise to the east, without •
being seen from' Quality · Row. Despite surveillance, over the ensuing years, the privies and other
•
areas inside the Duplex were regularly despoiled. During ~he years ~985/1986, the privies were seriously plundered twice, leaving a tra~l
of ceramics and glass strewn along the narrow passage and behind the building generally. The.shards were very large, indicating that they had been protected since their initial destruction and dumping by the earth· •
· in the pits. •
• • •
. It was decided to rescue the remaining material in both of the privy pits. At that stage nothing was known about the depth or contents of the·
• privy pits~ apart .from what had been disturbed by bottle hunters. It was . . ~
not known if the deposit.s had been completely. dug over or not • • • • •
• , •
The excavations took place in two stages; the first being the pit in • • •
No 3 and the second in No 2. The No 3 mid privy pit was divided 'into • • .sections in retrospect, the,grid-like sections being reconstructed on the .basis of the commencement and finishing'dates and the dated and initialled finds bags. The No 3 exeavation is provided with a dates and
· area excavated key. The No 2 mid privy pit was divided from the · · , commencement of excavation.
• • •
• •
•
• There was no precedence for such an excavation on the Island, apart from an excavated privy at No 6 by a visiting archaeologist during the mid 1970s, ,(1 still kriow very little about that exc~vation). Only a
• • selection of m~terial types was retrieved, as far as 1 could tell, and
. . . bagged according to a system of levels 1 to 3. Mr Jack Anderson, Norfolk Island Restoration Team, remembers· that the pit filled with water from an unknown source after rain during the excavation. The excavated material was returned to the Island but without ·a report or key to the levels.
•
• ,
,
•
,
•
•
6
Many of the Quality Row privies have been emptied over the years and dumped over boundary walls, along garden beds etc. In most cases the privies were emptied for reuse. The contents of the Old.Military Barracks privies were dumped at the 'Chinaman' (Emily _Bay/Point Hunter dump), as late as 1978.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l
I I I
.
I •
I I '
I· I I I I. I I
•
I I I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
..
,
• •
•
•
•
•
' 7
• • • •
• • •
• S T A T E H E B T 0 F S I G B I F I C A B C E - •
•
•
•
• THE PIT •
•
The Duplex long-drops a domestic structure, Old Military Barracks
are probably in the category of 'best pf kind' for although there are.similar constructions in the
•
Not many have come Engineer's design, discovery.
in houses constructed for officer accommodation. to light outside of Norfolk Island, ~hough as a Royal
- • many such examples must surely be waiting for . ,
• • •
-' The Duplex privies a~e superb examples of ·long-drop con~truction. The
•
masonry walls o.f the long-drop pits are equal in quality to the above •
• ,., 10
ground construction of the Duplex. The s~ccessfuL integration of the deep pits withi~ the annex building, the underground 'doorways' betw~en
. the.pits, the layout and depth of the pits (with sloping floors) are · particularly surprising features of early-mid ninteeni:h century sanitary
•
• engine·ering .in a domestic context. • • •
• • THE PIT CONTENTS
• • • •
•
•
•
The significance_of the pit contents relates to several cultural themes, but as a whole must be considered to be unique because of the . . combination of those themes:
• • • • • •
• • •
officers on the isolated penal The life and milieu of British civil •
outpost of Norfolk Island during the early-mid ninteenth .century • •
• "' I ' ' •
The life and milieu of early Third Settlement.families on Norfolk Is.land of Bounty'Mutlneer descent from Pitcairn·Island: the genesis. of Norfolk Island traditional c~lture •
• • • • • • •
European and Tahitian cultural integration on Pitcairn island before June 8, 1856,·as reflected by· their material goods •
' . - .. •
The consequent results ninteenth century.
of sanitary engineering of'the early-mid
• • • •
• , ' Domestic sanitary arrangem~nts and refuse disposal of
•
civil officers and • •
'the descendants, of ~he Bounty M~tineers, 1840s-1890s • •
• • • •
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
8
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE NOTES
-The contents of a rubbish pit of the 1840s to 1890s period, excavated i~ a large Australian city or town, would be of interest to many disciplines but because there might be many such pits, the significance could not be said to be great. The privy pits at the Duplex and possibly elsewhere on the Island, relate to several very specific cultural themes not found in such a combination anywhere in the world (outlined above).
There are many other 'Significance' criteria which could be enumerated, some of which are suggested under the heading 'Methodology' but as a refuse pit could potentially reflect the entire world, the above list has been restricted to the most obvio~s criteria as relates to the history of Norfolk Island (and as such also to Pitcairn Island).
The Statement of Significance is limited in that the contents of the privies have not been fully analysed.
Information potential may be enhanced by combining the circumstances o£ the actual pit and the pi~ contents, for example: the consequent results . of early-mid ninteenth century sanitary engineering at the Duplex ha~ the potential of a revealing study of ninteenth century understanding . and attitudes to health. In this case, the location of the privy pits are within the annex building adjoining the kitchen. The location of the annex is at the base of a hill, facilitating periodic flooding of the pits. The fairly close proximity of the well and the pits. Could these factors and the presence of dumped medicine bottles be connected with the deaths of three of the McCoy children in 1868? Was the privy build-up (though covered) indirectly responsible for the death of the entire Meade Adams family between 1918 and 1930 from tuberculosis?
The inclusion of, 'Pitcairn Island', 'Bounty Mutineer' and 'Tahitian' in
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
the Statement.of Significance may cause surprise. A small per~entage of If the material recovered from the privy pits could be positively identified as coming from Pitcairn Island; this indicates that a larger percentage of the material also came from Pitcairn. It was recorded that the Pitcairners took everything with them when they came to Norfolk Island in 1856 (some.Islanders returned with all their goods also). Such material included plates etc., with 'PI' (Pitcairn Island) scratched on the underside (in each case the article could be dated to before 1856: plates with 'NI' (Norfolk Island) scratched on the base have been found in pure Second Settlement contexts elsewhere). Pieces of yollo stone from Pitcairn Island were also found (relates to the Tahitian.style of diet). At the New Military Barr~cks a part of a classic Tahitian basalt pounder was found, it was of a type known to have been used on Pitcairn (but made in Tahiti) and taken tc Norfolk. Plates were found at the Duplex with the initials or full name of the former owner of the object,
. names such as Charles Christian, Philip McCoy and Ross Christian but were of all periods. One day the material may be compared with archaeological material· found on Pitcairn.
I I I I I I I
1-
I I 'I I· I I
••
I I I I
•
•
' . .
I I
•
I.
I I .. I
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• • •
• • •
•
• •
•
•
• •
9
• •
• • • •
• •
•
- M E T H 0 D 0 L G Y •
•
•
The first step was to research the site. As I had been collecting . information since 1981 on the 1844 building, the occupants from 1856 arid
• ' • Ill '
the history and culture of Pitc.airn Island, I was well prepared. · •
• As part of the methodology, a result of researching the historical back •
ground of Nos 2 and 3; I made a mental list of a number of things to . . . •
look for in the evidence of the refuse, reflection of: ,.. •
. --~the status of ·~he Superintendents of Convic~s • ---individuar personality {lnd taste. . ..
• • •
' . · ---places the individual may have been previously domiciled.
• ---availability of local food and goods during the.latter· part of the Second Settlement. · ~-availability of overseas penal colony).
• •
' . • goods on the Island (the trade position of
•
---master-servant use of the courtyard privy (south privy) wall privy (north privy).
and the back
•
---the horizon between the Second and Third Settlements (perhaps in the •
dumping of Second Settlement refuse, the result of a clean up when the •
Pitcairners took up residence). . •
---early Third Settlement adjustment (items from Pitcairn Island mixed • •
with a high percentage of Second Settlement material which was left •
behind in 1856). •
---culinary peculia~ities of the ?itcairn Islanders. ' . •
---changes in the availability of local food and go~ds: ---external trade, influence of the Melanesian Mission, American whalers
•
etc. • • • • •
• • --~the personality
•
t' ' • ...
of the residents. • . ---social connections within the community.
---changes of ownership within the McCoy and (Driver) Christian ' . families. • • •
---development'of the Pitcairn culture on Norfolk Island • •
• •
• • •
The second step was to determine the nature of the construction of the • •
privy pits, whether. they .were structurally safe and how they related to the building as a whole.
• • • •
The third step was to in order to determine
ascertain the nature of the contents of· the pits . '
the best excavation and recording approaches.· •
• • • • •
The second and •
third steps were already partially fulfilled, having monitored the site since June/July 1981.· I had made'Nos 2 and 3 a·part
' • • • •
• •
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
~~·----~-------~~~--------~
10
-of a recording study for my senior tutorial students in 1982 (University of Sydney, Historical Archaeology). Wrote two reports on Nos 2 and 3 for the Department of Housing and Co?struction over the years 1982 and 1983. During the time of these activities and the monitoring, noted a number of instances of site plunder, this gave me a good idea that the privy pit contained cultural material. The previous work on the construction techniques and building materials of the Duplex prepared me only in part for what was to emerge.
To further clarify the above, a test square was excavated on March 11, 16 and 17, 1987. This test square determined the stratigraphical nature of the pits, especially after initial artefact analysis. The·test square also confirmed the solid construction of the privy pits (the degree of solid construction was beyond all expectation, despite parallels in the Old Military Barracks).
EXCAVATION TECHNIQUE
Excavation took place using trowel and scoop. All material below layer 1 was sieved. The sieving took place outside of the pit, to avoid contamination and damage in the narrow confines of the excavation. For the same reasons and to reduce clutter, excavated soil was placed in long and thin hessian bags for easy removal. Accidental destruction of profiles, contamination of lower deposits and the collapse of unexcavated areas was avoided by limiting the number of persons excavating to one at a time. Climbing in and out of the pits was kept to a minimum.
Most of the excavated soil was processed in two to four stages: careful dislodging of soil with a trowel into a scoop, removing artefacts etc., from the scoop; the trowel contents 'jiggled' into the hessian bag in case anything was overlooked; sieving of the bag contents; sieved material deposited in areas where they could be later examined when the soil dried. There was no water supply on site; floatation was not an option.
Excavated material was bagged according to pit section and depth. Except for the test trench of March 11, 16 and 17, all bags were dated and the initials of the excavator marked on the bag. Different systems were used at No 2 and No 3 for a number of reasons •
•
The system at No 3 could be described as 'historical' in that the system wa~ developed with the understanding of the deposits and the · understanding of the potential of the deposits. The decision to divide the small pits into sections was made after the test trench had been extended, hence the sizes of the sections vary. The numbering system is
• based on the dates of excavation. (See chart and site journal). Levels
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
•
•
I· I I I I I
'
I I I I
•
•
••
•
'
•
. '
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11 • • • •
• •
•
. ' . for the stratigraphy at No 3 of the ~oorway' between the feature
are taken from the underside of the. ·lintel •
south and mi'd pits, that being a permanent
•
The·system at No 2 was developed on the mature understanding of No 3 . The pit was numbered as shown on the detailed plan of the No 2/3
~ ~ . privies. The division of the mid pit was ~determined by the holes left by
~ ' . the former floor joists on the east and we~t walls. The divisions, (sections) a~e the.largest just under the former privy seats. Later 'SP'~ (south privy) was made to stand for sections 1 and 2, wh~n I concluded that the area' was too small to justify the distinction,, in fact hindered trials to test pit disributiort models. The levels at No 2 were taken
' . .. . ,
from the-average level of the joist plate, as the surface of the privy . •
' . deposit, in places, was.~igher than .the lintel of· the 'doorway' between the so~th and mid pits: (See elevations) •
•
• •
•
A~tefacts were labelled with a number or letters indicating the section "' .
. . . of the. pit, followed by the number of the Duplex, 2 or 3. In some cases
•
belonging to. No l, 'No 3' is indicated and the date of excavation is quoted: the section of the No 3 pit may be found by consulting the . '
conversion chart or .the site journal. Below the area indicator, the depth was recorded, leaving out .. the last two noughts. Where missing, the date of excavation can be traced by finding the box or bag for. that ·
' '
a~ea: From an ~rchaeological point of ·v~ew, the' provenance of an · excavated item is of par.amo~nt importance. It is al~o important that the numbering system for items be made as brief as possible. In cases of
• disturbance, loss of provenance etc., thiw is indicated on the label •
• • • The individual items were not given inventory numbers because that belonged to the next phase'(when Iwas refused access to the Museums for
' ' - . .. the last twelve months ~ lived on Norfolk Island). This latter worl< is
'now in the proce~s of being considered, I bel~ev~. •
•
Examples:~ . 4/2 -•
pit section 4, No 2 . '
Quality Row. . • . • 18-19 = 1.800m- 1.900mm in depth (as indicated for No 2).
• • •
• • • • •
• •
• • = lost provenance • .. Lost Prov. •
. '
• . •
• • • •
•
• • • • •
• • • • • •
• •
• ' .
• • •
• • • •
•
~--,
•
•
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
----------------------------------,
•uo411m~H D E ·s~8T i~~nu~r ~94J~ 9p~m sa~u~q~ q41~ 1 'pti~lSI ~lOJ~ON '4U9ID914~9S JO ueld JO 11~490
7 ·11S
·uosuJqOE 3 .1
·9~8T Al~~a '~~8T 94~1 •pu~1s1 ~lOJ~ON 4~ 4uama1~~as JO ~alA ·£ ·111
• o, "' ·~I \
0
. ·-·· ~"0 ' '
0
' j ' ,
' .
,I
' ·'
•
-
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
' '
•
•
•
•
' . '
•
•
•
• • •
I '
•
. . .
·-, I
. .
•
I'
•
•
•
' ·'·
•
-------- < - -= ~ - ----------
•
13 •
•
• • • • •
•
•
• •
p H A • s I G
'
• •
' . ' •
p H A s E 1 . 1844 - 1856 •
•
'
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
·-
' . '·
Although a ~lan was prepared for the Duplex by the Royal Engi~eer in·~.
Sydney between March and ··May of 1844, it can no.t .be shown that such a
•
- - ' ' ' . . '
.'plan was in factused.-The last reference to. the plan dates ·to May'1844, ~ ~ w • •
•
•
when it· arrived on Norfo'lk Island. ·; • > • -
' • •'... .-' . • •
As it is recorded that the Duplex was ready to be •
1844, we _kno_w. that all the. masonry and. associate'd
· ..
ro·ofed by D~c~mber · . · structural ~imber·s
.
were put together in1844. In 'other-words, the main •
\ . .
strueture, ··as it has •
survived minus most of the timbers, dates wholly to 1844. :.. . 'o' ·J • I
. .-.; -. ,. -. I ~ - •• " -., .,.\ ··- ., ,.
•
The. Duplex was built at the same time as No 10 Quality Row but there a·re • •
differences: internal walls are of stone at the Duplex but of timber, . ~
lath and plaster at No 10; the Duplex buildings are slightly larger; the . ' ' Dupfex and No 10 annexes are on the same plan but ea~h half of the . . . Duplex has a store room with_s~~lving, No 10 has an extra privy a~d a privy sized closet· in place of the store room' •
• •
• • • •
The the the
construction of the Duplex was not ad hoc,' stone privY pits had to have been excavated
the and
various drains and constructed before
• •
walls went up. • • • • • •
• •
•
• • • P H A S E lA •
• • • •
• • • •
Additions of rubble calcarenite were made to No 3. ~.~~;room with chiinney •
was tacked onto the west elevation with access onto the south verandah • , . . ~ I •
and into the north-west room ofi.the main building. A stone sh~d was
•
•
•
constructed behind the south pr~vy, incorporating the north retaining _wall and the joint dividing (back) wall bet¥een No 2 and No 3. A covered - . way was also constructed in the No 3 courtyard. • •
• iE ,, >
When these additions took place is difficult to determine. Second • •
Settlement 'illustrations of some of the ~uality Row houses proviae . evidence that additions of stone were made to some of the houses. ·
•
•
However, the surviving additions have been so <covered with modern r.ender that it is impossible to make comparisons •. The exception may be ~he shed behind No 10 (seems to have been added by 1856) •
' • • • • •
• l
• • • •
• • I
•
•
•
•
• '
••
-
•
0 • •
I • •
•
" • • I, -· ..... ..... t•"'.
•
•
0
'
Ill. 5. Officers' •
' .
•
• •
• • •
, •
•
•
-· • •
•
•
• •
• ' •
•
0
0 • •
>- •
--')...-' .,. ... • --
•
0
' . -~·· •
-· ....
14
•
• 0
•
•
-' ..;.,.. ' " . •) . ~ " ...... "
.. . • • ••
,;s~· - .. ....
,.,,._ . •
-.
•
Quarters, Norfolk Island. September 13' 1853. 0 •
•
'•
• ... • -•
it~-11£-• --.' • • •
•
• 0
Ill. 6 Photograph taken around 1900. • . • • •
• • . ~
•
0
• •
,"
• • • • • •
•
•
I •
•
I
Lieu't. Gaynor. I •
I • •
. .,.
I • •
•
• • I
I • •
•
I •
• •
I 0
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
13
.....
P H A S I N G
P H A S E 1 1844 - 1856
Although a plan was prepared for the Duplex by the Royal Engineer in Sydney between March and May of 1844, it can not be shown that such a plan was in fact used. The last reference to the plan dates to May 1844, when it arrived on Norfolk Island.
As it is recorded that the Duplex was ready to be roofed by Dec~mber 1844, we know that all the masonry and associated structural timbers were put together in 1844. In other words, the main structure, as it has survived minus most of the timbers, dates wholly to 1844.
The Duplex was built at the same time as No 10 Quality Row but there are differences: internal walls are of stone at the Duplex but of timber, lath and plaster at No 10; the Duplex buildings are slightly larger; the Dup!ex and No 10 annexes are on the same plan but each half of the Duplex has a store room with shelving, No 10 has an extra privy and a privy sized closet in place of the store room.
The construction of the Duplex was not ad hoc; the various drains and the stone privy pits had to have been excavated and constructed before the walls went up.
P H A S E 1A
Additions of rubble calcarenite were made to No 3. A room with chimney was tacked onto the west elevation with access onto the south verandah and into the north-west room of the main building. A stone shed was constructed behind the south privy, incorporating the north retaining wall and the joint dividing (back) wall between No 2 and.No 3. A covered way was also constructed in the No 3 courtyard.
When these additions took place is difficult to determine. Second Settlement illustrations of some of the ~uality Row houses provide . evidence that additions of stone were made to some of the houses. However, the surviving additions have been so covered with modern render that it is impossible to make comparisons •. The exception may be the shed behind No 10 (seems to have been added by 1856).
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• '
•
•
• • •
•
• . .
. ' •
•
•
•
.. '
• 15 •
• . . •
• • • • •
-The masonry additions at No 3 and 10 have in common, thin walls of indifferent construction and poor quality mortar and render. The shed at
• No 10 would allow a Second Settlement date •. A general view of September
• • 1853 (Lieut. Gaynor) does not indicate the extra chimney at No 3, though it could have been buitt after .September 1853 and before 1856. The 1853
• view, as a general view, could not be taken as any sort of proof unless it did show the chimney •
An early Third Settlement date can not be ruled out because there was a mason on the Island during the initial years of Pitcai~n settlement and
• • • the huge family of Philip Me Coy could certainly have done with the . . ' . ·~ extra accommodation. After the time of the mason, there was a brief . period, late 1870s/1880s, when three Pitcairner houses were wholly ·or partially built of stone and rendered.
• • • •
• •
• P H A S E 2 1856 - 1908 •
•
Soon after the arrival'of the various families were allotted
'
Pitcairn Islanders on 6 June 1856, the buildings at Kingston (it was said, by . .
• •
· picking out one of a jumble of keys).
•
• • . ~
•
N o 2 Q U A L I T Y R 0 W
•
•
• •
No 2 became' the holl!-e of the recently married Cha~les Driver Christian · '
(1831-1906), wife Lucy Maria (Oty) Christian nee Christian (1838-1904)' and their first born Lucy,Emily (1856-1919)"; They had married in 1855 .on
•
Pitcairn Island and had fifteen children, up to thirteen of which grew •
to adulthood in the house. Mary Lucy died soon •
after she • was born in •
1874 and Abby Constance (1872-1880) drowned in •
a well. •
• • • •
Driver and his wife Lucy Maria'died a few years before the Government ' evictions of 1908. The house was lived in by their unmarried son Charl~s
Nichols (1862-1927). It was Charles Nichols Christian who was seen as responsibl~ for signing the lea·se. In refusing to .sign, he was evicted in 1908.
• • •
N o 3 Q U A'L IT Y R 0 W •
• • •
No 3, seems at first to have been occupied by the widow of Matthew McCoy . ' (1819-1853), Margaret McCoy nee Christian and her ni~e children. She .
l·ater married Mayhew Young and returned with her chi'ldren to Pitcairn Island (December 2, 1858).
•
•
•
•
Ill. 7. Beattie Collection No 150, ca 1895.
_, . . -... < • • .~. ..... ' •• ")
.. ~, -·'.
t ':-·. ! ":"
.. ,
-
..
• c . . '
....... ,,
~
'
-~..J' t . .
. ~--~ ~"'1"-<.•·' -
~:,- ..
6 p·~-..-· . . .
16
·-
• • -~:,,.··;.. . .' '
·.• ... ' ' . \. \
~"
Ill. 8. Les Brown (Norfolk Island) Collection, ca 1929.
. -.-
...... .:; •
·-- " ... ~ .... ~ ....
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I. I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
•
I I
•
17 •
• •
Photo 4. Nos 2 and 3 Qua!ity Row, bottom right, otherwise known as the Duplex. View from the north-west. The small group of buildings was known as 'Dewville', later extended and became Hotel Paradise. Cemetery Bay in the background. (Salt Collection. 1940s).
• •
•
Photo 5. 1986 view. See Photo 4. Hotel Paradise demolished in 1987 • •
•
•
•
•
18
If Margaret McCoy and children did have No 3, Margaret's nephew by marriage (and her children's first cousin), Philip Me Coy (1830-1913), would have occupied the house as of December 2, 1858.
Philip McCoy married Sarah Quintal (1835-1869) on Pitcairn Island in 1851 and by 1858 had four daughters. By the time of Sarah's death in 1869, they had had nine children, three of them having died in 1868. Philip McCoy married Lucy Ann Hagar Christian (1849-1909) in 1869 and went on to have ten more children (of which two died young). In total fourteen McCoys grew up to adulthood in the house.
Philip and Hagar Me Coy were still alive when the 1908 evictions took place. They, as the rest, refused to pay rent on a building that they believed to belong to them. Because of their old age, they were allowed to continue to live in the house.
P H A S E 3 1909 - ca1930
With the eviction of Charles Nichols Christian, No 2 fell into a rapid decline, the main house loosing its roof by about 1915, though that of No 3 remained and the resulting gable end filled in to keep out the rain and wind. The roofs of both annexes survived into the 1920s.
Hagar McCoy nee Christian died in 1909 and her husband Philip McCoy lived until 1913. Philip McCoy willed No 3 to his daughter Charlotte (1877-?).
Charlotte McCoy married Augustine Meade Adams (1876-1918) in 1896. They lived in the house with their four children. A series of misfortunes befell them, beginning with the eldest son Edward Ward Dillon (1901-1917) who drowned at sea when he was sixteen years old. Her husband Meade Adams died of tuberculosis in 1918, followed by a daughter in 1921, the other daughter in 1922 and finally the last son in 1930, all died of tuberculosis. Whether No 3 had become unhealthy to live in or not, people would no longer live in the house because of the gradual death of the family. Some people remember the unhappy status of No 3 to this day but others remember it as the house of Philip McCoy.
The privies of both No 2 and No 3 were filled with soil during this phase, probably the result of a health order which required disused privies to be sealed by a certain depth of fresh soil. No 2 privy was filled almost to capacity because it was so full in the first place, No 3 was filled to a little less than half capacity before the soil was deposited.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I
I •
• •
19
P H A S E 4 ca1930 - World War II
During this time the Duplex was completely abandoned and ruined. The •
ruin began to receive attention during the War when soldiers from the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia were posted on the Island.
• •
P H A S E 5 World War II - 1988
The evocative romance the Duplex seemed to inspire as a ruin continued throughout this phase. The fascination was part of a wider phenomenon, particularly in relation to ruins of the convict past (akin perhaps with the fascination for ruins during the formative years of the so called Gothic Revival of the late C18th and early C19th). The attraction of the ruins, in part, had the effect of delaying any form of comprehensive action to conserve what was left of the original structure.
Ramps, platforms and grills of timber were installed throughout the Duplex before 1981. The patching of large holes etc., took place in 1982~
Two archaeological reports were commissioned for the Duplex by the former Department of Housing and Construction during 1982 and 1983. Sporadic patching of the masonry took place from 1982. Meanwhile the Duplex regularly appeared on the agenda of the KAVHA Interdepartmental Committee (IDC). The last major IDC debate resulted in the conclusion that the structure should be roofed only, it remained to be decided whether the roof should be flat or hipped. The decision to use corrugated metal sheeting for the roof was based on the notion that people should not think that it is original.
• The privy excavations took place during 1987, though one small section was completed in January 1988. The material excavated was largely Third Settlement in deposition, though included material originating from the Second Settlement period and from pre-1856 P~tcairn Island. Many of the items (once reconstructed) were chronologically suitable for display in the Museums, particularly No 10 House Museum. Second Settlement deposited material was found at the base of the pits (some bottles seemed to have floated during pit flooding and finally deposited, in
•
some cases smashed, higher in the stratigraphy. My work in and around No 10 led rae to the conclusion that the bulk of Second Settlement refuse ended up in ash pits. The ash pits at the Duplex have not been searched for but no doubt exist below ground.
' .· .. . . ~. -· •
' -~ . • .
-~ •
. -
-."'- • I . .;~ li. •
'·
' ••
•
. .
' ' ' '
' •
I . "-f ... )\
I
20
~;.-~ ,_;-• • •
A.
•
•
,. • I
~
•
~ J -.
I. ' •
r
-r ' •j
..}1' \'
\ ... 1
.J.
i
-~
~ .... ~
I Photos 6 and 7. View of the I north privy (main pit) of No 3 Quality Row. Privy walls and subterranean walls. I Shane Quintal, excavator, at the base of the pit. The upper photo shows the north wall. II
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
I I· \
I I
' I
I •
I I I I
I I I I I ---------..
-· ~ • r •
- "-,· . -~- --- --
- -.j• --
l
•
' ·- -, 4 ,._ ·-- ~ • ~ ~t'
·--~-
. . ~-
- -........ . ~ .. -- ------- , ... ._ .·
~--- -~~
-- ..• !- !- _· -.·
' . •
• • ... ~ -· ?I
. . -
•
.. tf.
. 21 .
•
•
. ' ' ~-• ·'· . '!.• i' . . ·- \
•
Photos 8 and 9. The upper photo shows the north privy (main pit below) before excavation. The doorway is in the north wall The lower photo shows the south privy and the pit (about one third the size of the room). No 2 Quality Row.
•
•
r.
' .
·~ l
•
j
•
22
P H A S E 6 1988-
Work commenced on the Duplex roof (masonry stabilization etc.) in 1987 and completed early in 1988.
. . .
Photo 10. Nos 2 and 3 Quality Row from the south west. Compare the west elevation with the view below. Early 1988.
Ill. 15 Photograph around 1900.
·I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--1 ... '
I
I I I I •
I •
I •
I·
I·
I. I I I I I I I
•
•
I I· I
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
'
. .
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
23
• •
• •
•
•
• •
- T H E P R I V Y P I T S • • • • •
The privy pits were constructed of rubble calcarenite, laid flat and •
bonded with lime mortar manufactured from calcarenite. The materials and •
construction techniques are the same as for the above-ground walls • •
The pits have three divisions (unlike at No 10):
The south pit is located under the privy facing into tqe courtyard. This pit takes up about a third of the area of the room at the north end of
• • the room and is connected to the mid pit by what appears to be an
•
underground doorway. This pit takes up the area of the original wooden seat once located above it. The outline of the seat may be traced on the
• nqrth end of the east and west walls. The position of floor joists and · . .
the timber plate on which tne joists rested may ~lso be seen on the east and west walls. In some places the outline of the for~er skirting may·be . .
seen. A good idea of the original timber arrangement can be seen at No. 10. •
• • • • •
.The mid pit serves the back garden, or outside privy, and takes up the whole area of the room above. This is the largest of the three pits and
•
is connected by underground 'doorways' to the south pit and to the north pit. The outlines of the former·timbers can be traced the pit. rhe privy seat was located against the south
o.n the walls above •
wallof the room whereas . . in the south privy room, the seat was located against the north
• wall •
• •
•
The'north pit is located along the north elevation, or outside wall, of . .
• • the annex and is similar to the south pit in area but is narrower and ·
• •
longer. The pit is connected by an underground doorway to-the mid pit. . ' The pit is completely roofed by calcarenite slabs, below,grot!'nd level,
• similar to the capping over a square stone-lined drain. . •
• • • • •
The rational~ behind the privy pit design·se~ms to have been: the seats of both.pits, gradually flowing
night soil collected under the northwards in the' large mid pit and towards the small north pit. There . " . . was evidence to suggest that the original floor of the pits sloped in·a northerly direction (as shown in the pit elevations). It was difficult·
·to' determipe -the exact nature of the· pit· floor because of the blurred distinctions .between lime and kiln waste dumped on the floor and the mortar spilled from the construction period of the pit. The north pit
.was basically for acoess into the other pits •. When the main pit became uncomfortably full, the calcarepite slabs were lifted up and the
• • contents of the privy pits shovelled out. The north pit allowed access
~ ... .. without the need for demolishing the privy timber floor (joists set into . ~ - .. the masonry) or the privy seats and avoided fouling the air in the
•
courtyard and annex. Evidence was found at No 10 and other pit arrangements along Quality Row that a.ccess was obtained in this way.
• •
• •
•
•
•
---------~-----------,,.-------------------
1 I
--- I 2 ~
---
---
.
---.
P L A I 0 F Ioa 2 A I D 3 Q U A I. I T y
..... -· ..
. ..
...
. . . ....
.... hO 0
-'---·
-- ... --
..... _,._
....... .. -
.
' ' . '
~ ........ ~ .
"'~ ( u., PettA!- .... " .. ~
I I . I u., c•• c;. ._ .. ,. I
I 'Delt~W-"1" I .L ~-.J. ; : : .
r ' . -........______
\ ( \
\ ~ • \
( .
(
tt.....
\
/
.r-""
•
-·-
---' ·-/
, I
) \""""" --· ~L.a. I .....---
I j I ~-
' ' - ' . I ~
l /
/
l --..____/"
• I I I I v.!De&,•o...a• I I
I
-'Od1"
~
I
.
l"&IVV
'
-) .
' /
\. ••v••
-
PI,..
}
I I
--....
\ )
~
•
("'
'-
) '- '\ ~ - t j ---....... . -......
'-. . • .r • ' ' ,_... ,.., ~
J w• 3
' . .
C.OU ... TV •tL 0
)
-
.
' ••• -
r- ....... . . . .. .
. . . ••
... -'
\
.. . . - . . .
. . • • . - .. •• ••
./
·-----~- . ·-.
\ ...
\ ...... .
•• .......
'- _.
./ . . ... ... • .. .. .. .. . -
I •
I I
.. 0 1f
.
:
r
0 ..
Ill.
.
'
toiOII.:YM P•T
(u"'~'oe.w.a•) .
: II.Ui1'4C-.eu .... : h.! ~"o•w•..-' I
I .
I I
.
•
.
• • I v. .. ••<•••• ' I
I 'orcawa."' ~ .
- -
..S ... T\4 .... , ... f'IT
""-....
/ ' I .......... ) \
_) "" ( I ~ -c- -./
/ . ~
~.,~, "' I
9
1 n • • .... ~
. ·-. -\ l ~--
...
-· ...
... -...... ---
_,J
-
~--·
1--
( --· .
. -·-· ) I"
j ···-
. ~·-·· ( /
('-I
"'"" ('- /
'-.. ( •
\ . '-.. ........
\ j r---
J / ' • I -·-) - ' - ..,J
._. - /'- .J /'
" • - '"'\ .....
l \
i (l )
. Nt 2. ........
. .
' F'f..V-¥'1 ~~
COIII&.T 'II A a 'D •
I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
•
•
•
• •
•
' I
•
•
•
• •
•
• --.- ..... - - - c--\. ,,-R~r\ ,,,,,, . -
•
,,,,,, - -' ' ' ' ' ""'"....,.~ '''·'''' ------,,,,,,
• • • • • •
• •
• •
,,,, ''J ·-----·-- I I :, At, ' --
• c:n • ' ' ' ' • •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• • ~
• •
. . f
•
•
• 0
·!
'' ' ' ' ' ,,, ,, ''' ·' ,, ,,
~
''r· ' ' ,,
' ,, . ~ ' . . ' . ,, ' ' ' ,, ' ,,, ' '' '' ,, ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,.,
!=j. () Jlr L
rt .... ,, c:: toe • llt'rt,
I ~ .... , --, Ill, 0 0 00.
t"' • .Po
S: I
tot~~ ~!I
rl:~' ""' • •
• I : ""'" ' =.· r:Sg' ·• • 0 ,. ,. I rt t,.
.... '•· 1,.
•
' r;::..~ 1 .,.. i,r. •• • '"> ,.n, () , ..
• n. 01
• .., o. • t-41
... &Ill
•. I
' '
•
•. :1 ~ .: ... ..
J CD I . ,•
·~ L._=..:__ J ... ~· .. _+nO ''' '\ ''' '\ ''' '' ''' ' '' ''' ,., '' ~ '' '' ''' . ' ,, ''' '' ''J -·--"''' ,,,,,,.,,~,,,,,,,,,,.,. ,,,,,,,.,., I I . ,, I
• •
I • • • •
• •
•
I ,,
•
•
'
•
•
• • ·I
'1:1 ~ ....
• •
• •
' ' , •
•· •
- 'QO.!" • ... c: .... : ""'" rt ~ :: . Ill Iii CD •
~ • • ' 411 t
• •
• ,,,
•·o " '"" •
• ;0
:-. I • 'I
I . I.., I •
.. . . -- -. ,. ,, ,, '' ,,,,, ' ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,
I
I I I .I I I
• •
I •
I --- " " " ' " " ' " " " " '"'' ''"''''''''''''''''>"---I •
- ... -lo--------1----------------------------------................................................................................ .i
I J
• •
•
' ' ' ' ' J I ·• r ,M
:&Ill I
•
I I I
• •
,,,
I I
• I
• l .
• • • •
•
•
•
'
•
•
5 '1:1 ~ 1-i
•
•
•
•
•• I
• ' I
I I .1. . : • , j •• • • I ,.- ..... I ... -- .. . . • I -- ·11
•. . . I . I ...... ' '
I l ~ (:
. ~ ,, t ~ .....
I : • L' I • • ~·
I I . I . I
I I j,
•
•
I . . I
I · ' · ~I l • 'I •
I ~ . .
• .. I • • !
•
7 I I . ! ~· ~ '01< ;J . ' R ~ ,. I . . ~ ~ ·. I· . 1-i • ...... ' . • ---
---
.
• 1-1
1=' • ... 0
•
•
-- ..
•
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,, . --' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' '' ' ' ' ''' ' ' ' ' ' f.~' ''' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' '' ., ' '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ''' .. ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,·,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ' ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,, ,,,,,,,, ' ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . . .... ,, "' ' ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I I I I I
I I .I I
26
-It may have been intended that the long and narrow north pits should one day be connected to a single large drainage system (some claim that certain pits fill with water from an unknown source after heavy rain, suggesting that some of the pits are connected).
Evidence has been found that lime and/or kiln waste (even coral) was . thrown into privy pits during the Second and the Third Settlements. It has been concluded that during the Second Settlement most of the household rubbish went into ash pits, not usually the privy pits. Wine and gin bottles may have been a regular exception during the. Second Settlement. It has also been concluded that household rubbish almost invariably ended up in the privy pits during the Third Settlement (a custom on the Island which seems to have survived well into the 1950s, judging by anecdotes recounted by many of the residents). The former use of organic 'toilet paper' was the cause why, it seems to me, the pits. never seemed to fill up, as several of the old people have said (though obviously this was not always the case over seyeral generations of use).
•
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~
I I
•
I •
I • •
I I •
•
I •
I •
•
I • •
•
I. •
I •
•
I I •
•
•
I I •
• •
I •
27 -
' • •
•
• ' ' . •
• • - • THE EXCAVATION . •
•
The documentation of the Duplex excavations is of a different nature to •
that·of the Pier Area excavations. The former excavation was within the ·-
limits of a lon'gdrop pit, the latter involved the recording of some 184 meters rather (which
•
of trench. The emphasis of this report rests on description - .
than series ~f plans and elevations, such as for the Pier Area, was there necessary to locate the site and stratigraphy).
• •
•
The pits had a very simple deposits. The most complex the same household(s) over
stratigraphy made •
layer (layer 2 'in a period of up t9
up of ab9ut three distinct both pits) ;.,as deposited by· 57 to 75 years: once this
was understood, it became possible to work out a stratigraphy of sorts • •
In other respects, layer 2, seemed homogeneous because the matrix_in ' <_ ..
which artefacts etc., were found appeared the same throughout. Initial ' •
artefact analysis revealed that there was a subtle progression from -• •
older to more recent, depending on depth. It was noticed also that.the more recent material was lower down as one progressed away from the site below the former privy seat. These findings were established as the excavation of No 3 was in progress •
•
What could not be logic~lly explained at first' was why one half of· a ~ ~
plate might be found a~ the south of the interconnected pits and the other half, at the northern end or why quite a few early bottles were
. . found in later cont"exts. The latter may ·be explained by the fact that . ~ . ,. bottles tend to float until they eventually fill with water/silt or are broken (the pits would have been flooded from time:to time, as they still are during times of very heavy rainfall). Cases of unusual pit
•
· distribution may be explained by the rocks found in the pit:,it seems • • •
that they had been cast into the pit to compact the piled bottles, glass, cerami~s etc. Slumping may· also 'have been a factor but' the· extent
• • of organic build up at various stages can not be known. The organic . build up must have been considerable because the privi~s were used by upwards of fifteen to twenty people. In time the organic. build up would
••
have broken the pits.
•
• down naturally and because of the lime that was thrown into
• •
clear that a system of • With the understanding of the above; it became levels for dating purposes would only be valid for small specific areas.
• • • . . . · Pit distibution charts of dated objects seemed the answer. In using
dated objects, there were the usual factors of post-product~on •
deposition to keep account of: cases such as sets of cups and saucers, plates etc.; t~at were broken civer a pe~iod of per6aps 40 years; heirlooms such as plates, jugs etc.! marked 'PI' for Pitcairn Island and
• goods l~ft' over from the Second Settlement that were deposited as they were broken along with material 'of the mom~nt 1 • •
• • •
• • •
• --~~-----
•
4
•
•
-
I
I
I I I I I I
. . I I I r I
• I
1
"t;;
I
I I c •
I I I
I I
I
I I
I
I I I
DISTaiBUTlGit' oF THE PIEicz 0 F B I G R T S T A 1t D :1 S I C: • C WIP. I
D 1t S I G I· t K G I I t 1t A T I 0 • 0 C 1 0 B ~ 1l 1 I 6 2
J(O :2_ Q_4 ~W' P a 0 P I L El 0 PI P I T 8 l • I
•
• • I • • I
I I
I
n1. 11
•
I i J {..! J.J ....--f.~[-. -_ ---- • ' -·
' • • • • • I ' ' ' " • "" . - - -- . -- ~.. - - ..
I s;T t- . - .. -· -~- ... --
I I
' I
I I
' I
Indicatiea of 3 4+5 7+6 a., 10
I I Ne...
• • ' . . -T· . . .
-fj -, - ~~':__ NO~T't4 .. \T ~
-- J ..
- 200
-f-
0 - -- -fl.lt-- C> - -
- - ~-
•• - • 1..._ { ~ .&oDe ,_ , ~ I
- - - - I - - - - - - c.. - SOO • 1 - - ------- r- o o ~-I 0 I C> ~ C> -Q-· --· - - - - - - - - I - - ~- - - t. S . . .... - ::- - - I - - . - - -~ - - o- r 1
-- I ~ - l:'l - - - ~ - - I - - C> - I - - I -
-- ~ L - - 0 I - c - 1-- - -0- - - -
-- ~ -- -
- 6DO
- 7fl0
- aDO
• .JOO
- J.OOO ~. 010 ·~ I I - ~- -.. - .......:;7----- - - I Bach symbol repreaents one f· ttt- - ""· ~ _ _ _ _ _ ! c.::=:? -
1 - ( -
- - L._./ I & whole eup • 'I· ttl • _ .. - - i - 6 - -1
- 1·1 OON 011
- 1·200
- - -~- -
-
•
-{!>- -The loea~ion of' the aharct.. i·• · _ _ _ _ c:::::J _ t:> - 1-
0 - -
0 1 -
. I I within the pit divisions, as t·411- _ _ _ _ - - -0
-
d " I I illustrated here, h at raa om. f·5tt. · _ _ ·-
t•60t. ' -Depth aa indicated. · ~
~ ·700 • ¢ ty(}t ¢ 1.......-l A __..!... f ·100- I f""'...... · Q [J • e7 t:1 • ~ A : c::::a c::a
•·•-•~ ¢ 0 '<r*~r~t 1 ~ : ,..... ... ·w, 1 0 .,-;r._ .....
2·10t -I 0 ~~"- : ~ : :Z·UIO - .
- l·~oo.
• hloOO
- HiOO
- 1·,00
- 1·100
- 1·1«1
- l·iJOO
- 2·DOO
.... . I .J·IOO
..... ·I (::::) ~ /'-..._ I I rP I ~ 1-1·100 2 ..... • D ..:; "-! {:!) J '""'--1 . I .,.. .. ..... 0 b 1
J.Hifll I I I I I I ........
I I I I , 0 ...... •
r"f.,V.:ry - -...~ ... c~ :..,~
- -. ~ ~ - --
- 0 - - - -1- 0 - - --_ a=±;_ -0-b
c>~ ~
OOSt)
I I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
- - - -· - - - - - -. -· - - - - - - - - - -• • • • • • • ' I •
p L A R O I' D I S 'r R I B U 'f. I 0 B 0 F . 'r B Jl P I B C B S 0 I' I I G a Y' I 'r A I • I I I C • C W P S Ul. 12 • •
• DBIICII B.BGIS'r&A.'riOR OC"fOBitJl 1862
•
•
roo-. ---- --•
•
• • •
• I
• •
• •
. 0 •
NP •
.. -•
• •
• • '
• •
•
•
•
•
8
I .: i- .. I .. - - -
•
•
I I I
•
9
•
----- ___ __;;· __ _. _____ --.JI)
• • •
•
---- ____ ., •
•
•
I I
I I
• •
•
• •
•
. . • •
• •
• I •
•• I .. . Each ayDabol repreaen~s olle
•
The locati.oa of the •hard a : here, I
I I
i.l at: randOm. 1 I
•
•
"------ ·~- - ··---------
•
•
I I
I I • I
I I I
I I
•
-- -I I
I
I
•
I
I
I I •
•
•
•
' •
A
- - - -7 .
••
* .......... . ..... ~
•
•
•
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I - -I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -
whole cup. within the pit. divisions,
•
• •
•
4 •
• . • •
•
•
•
.
•
. •
. ' . .
' .
• ' I •
I
a a illuatr-ed I I
••
•
•
I I
I I I I .
•
•
.
•
•
•
• •
' •
• •
•
.
•
•
•
. • • •
• •
(
(
\ . I
'
I •
I I
•
•
•
•
.
• •
• • •
• •
• •
'/ ~· •
'
• •
'j / ( ~-
• •
•
ItO# XV "••<If tm
~ <:lfc.• lc. I : l.o
-
I • • -·
•
--------------------------------------------------------------
30
...... It is possible to formulate a stratigraphy by tracing the progress of the pieces of dated items throughout the pit but it would have to be done on a large range of objects to have any degree of validity. The result would have to be considered crude but would nevertheless be of use in obtaining approximate periods of deposition fo~ the undatable, such as food remains.
The No 2 pit was understood through the excavation of the No 3 pit (the large center pit of which was not divided into sections from the. beginning of the excavation). The divisions·were imposed later when the potential value for distribution studies was realized. The divisions for No 3 are based on the successive parts as they were excavated. Reconstruction of the various parts excavated was possible because I had noted the commencement and finishing dates for each part and of course" the artefact and soil sample bags were dated and initialled •• The No 2 pit was divided into sections from the commencement of the excavation.
•
•
I I 1:
I
I ' I
!
I' '
1: I
I '
I! I
li I
'
1: I.
! I i, I,
I I '
I' I I
I
I
-I
•
I •
I I I I
•
I I I I I I.
I •
I.
I
•
•
Photo 11. No 3 Quality Row. Profile of Section 3. South wall of the main pit. The ground :
• level was about 700mm below'the·arch of the sul(terranean '.doorway'. The ba-se here is ata depth of 2,000mm.
31
•
•
•
•
Photo 12. As Photo 11. Detail of the stratigraphy.
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
Photo 13 •. Detail of Phc 11 showing the dense
• artefact layer (layer : 1,450mm to ·2,000mm bel<
• the arch. This view is. truncated because of access difficul~ies; n< lOOmm notches to the right.
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
-~~-----------------~
32
KEY TO No 3 PIT PROVENANCE -
When the No 3 excavation commenced, it was not subdivided into sections as was the later excavated No 2 pit. However, No 3 pit was actually excavated in small sections at a time, starting with the test trench. A record was kept of the progress of excavation with details of the commencement and completion dates of each section.
The artefact layer, described as level 2 elsewhere in this report, was not as deep as that of No 2, meaning that an artefact distribution study will be less accurate than that of No 2 (consideration is taken of the
~
manner the artefacts were deposited originally and the events in the pit 'that took place subsequently).
10 March- 17 March
17 March 18 March • -
19 March - 20 March
20, 23 and 25 March
26 March - 27 March
30 March - 01 April
02 April - 03 April
03 April - 07 April
07 April
14 April
1 9 8 7
Section 1
2
3 20th - upper layers
4A 20th - lower layers
4B
5
6 03 - upper layers
7 03 = lower layers
Directly under lintel between 7 and 8.
8
15 and 16 April, 22, 25 and 29 May, 03 June 9
Note:
Any bag found without a d~te belongs to section 1.
Where dates overlap (20 March 03 and 07 April), the second repeated date will invariably represent the lower stratigraphy, representing a new section. Any artefacts labelled to date have been labelled with the number of the house, that is, No 3, followed by the date of excavation.
I I
I I
I I I
I
I I I I
- -• • •
• • •
• p LAB 0 ., p • .
'
~
• •
•
• . . -
• -------,· - - -I ----......__' ~---~ . .. \.
' \ • I \
TAST' • I
T"E .. CM ) •
' 1 ' I
I ... I I - - - - .,, I
SH£~ PRI'1:
9 )' , )'I
• J l
> l· . .._ ___ ./.} _.__ __ ....,. __ -;- \l
lJ ).~
. - .. .---" t ,,
• I I
•
•
.
•
•
-,.... --- •
. • "
I T 8 .
• •
•
•
• NP 10 HOICflt·PCW'f
~
f'IT • ·I
• •
• '
• ,.
•
'
"
•
• "
•
• •
• • '
' ' •
Aac~o~ ---- . . 8 •
• •
•
'
. '
• •
• I
-• l •
& ' .. .. .. • • -I t . I I
I I
6 I 8 • I "
I I I
I I • • • I I I • I I I -- - - - - - - - - - - -. I I I
I I I • • • I 9 I 7 I
I I I . I
• I I
I . I ' .
'
• " .
•
• J •
7 ; • . •
•• • ' • . 'I •
I . • • .
• I I •
" "
.I - - - - - -t - - - - -•
I • I •
5 b • • " • I. I • • • •
• I • "
I
•
• ' '
•
• 1 nt. 1l •
•
•
: • \ r ..-.\1 • • •
) • r· . i
• • • •
'-...../ • r 4 • 1 ~ __./'-
\. •
r - 1 ' I I
(' . l ~ • I, I \ • . \, \. • I 3
I ~ . ~--- • ..., • - -- - - I ' - - - • f"'lWY \ '\ ~ •
" • f'IT I ./ I I '" / •
'-' "
I I
2 5 \. ( '
• ._____ .
• # • \ ...----~I M.B. SP:: 1•1
I •
J ' ,/ ' -v-J r .......___ '
I
• '
• . • • •
• . . • • • " I I -
I I
( ) w I
w I ' • l-
I •
• ) ' \. "
• . 4A • 1. ---../ •
I .
"-r I -I I
l •
I • I I I • •
\ "
•
__) I I "'-./
I \
l • • 3· .
I \. ' I • I 'f!-
-
~ I I ) -I - -- -
I - -
\ I •'
I • I • -\
' - - - -2 - -•
'
I •
• •
• I
4a ', .../" \ . ~ I --.
:___/ I • ' ._.,
" I I I
• Co
• • RV3'V
• ...,.ec"~
~,. fc._. I ~.to • ' •
' • •
.
• •
34
- 2 I 3 QUALITY ROW D U P L E X
S U P E R I N T E N D E N T 0 F C 0 N V I C T QUARTERS
S I T E J 0 U R N A L
(Reconstructed)
This site journal is artificial in that it is based on extracts from my private journal, volumes XXXIV and XXXV.
The 2/3 Quality Row privies were excavated over a period of ten months. The bulk of the excavation was executed by Mr Shane Thornton Quintal under my supervision. During that time I was involved in a number of projects for the Department of Housing and Construction and the Norfolk Government/Australian Bicentennial Authority in relation to the restoration/conservation of historic buildings, sites etc., and the founding of the Norfolk Island Bicentennial Integrated Museums. It was therefore to Shane Quintal's great credit that he was willing and able to carry out archaeological duties to strict standards and under often primitive and uncomfortable circumstances. A good 95% of the actual excavation was performed by Mr Quintal. He was conscientious i~ reporting every new development or problem. Apart from general supervision, I was involved in the sieving, processing the dirt, artefact processing, provision of material, bags etc.
Mr Shane Quintal freely offered his services under the circumstances of an acute three month drought, being a groundsman with the Norfolk Island Public Works Department. The grass at the time had ~topped growing, limiting ·M~ Quintal's fuil extent of duties. Thanks are extended to Mr Quintal and also the head of Public Works, Mr David Saunders for permitting Mr Quintal the time.
This journal covers a period of about 10 months, hence references are limited to the excavation and excavation circumstances only.
• . Generally work commenced at about 7.30 if there were no other duties to perform. Morning tea was from 10.00 to 10.30 and lunch from 12.30 to 1.00. As trucks, tools had to be returned to the Works Depot, work generally finished at about 3.00. Work on weekends, public holidays and after 4pm was performed voluntarily. The progress of the excavation was suspended from time to time because of other duties, lighterage work, leave etc.
I
I I
•
I
•
I
--···----------------------------------------------------------------:-.--------, ·-
•
•
- -• • I I
•
•
I ••
• ·•
' • • • ,...__...,.._.
•
• I
' I
' , I
' •
•
•
-~--. •
•
•
•
•
I
I
I I
I
I I I
•
• - - -- --·-• • • •
• •
PROPILa OP Bo 3 •
P ll· I Y Y·
•
'
- --• • ....... _ .. -•
• ,,
• • •
•
- • • • • • •
- "•• ...
•
•
•
•
•
• • --:--.--·• • •
•
• • - , .,...... .. -
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
Depth from he . .
•
•
• •
IUD CLAY . &OIL WITH .sT1)N«. •
•
•
•
•
-~·--• t·ftt-
HtiO-
·--t.ltT£FI.CTS HM-II€LOW Ma~ • f·MWOT IN Dlan"~'O
Not· . ' HGO-
... • 1·1110-..
•
• '
-
•
•
•
• •
•
I I
•
•
- -•
•
•
--•
•
•
• •
-
•
-I I I
I----. -----,t-.~J-.---~·-~.1--.-.:~·.~;-.~.~~i-.. r~---.-.r~.-;-.-~~--l
• •
•
l • , • •
-• Ul.l14
I
' I I I I
I
- -•
•
•
• ---- -----•
-"-~-
--~
•
I I •
•
•
. -p::J'- o - - o-...-... /~- Q "' - - - 'J ~/~(' /C- - c -
.................... ~ :;..;.; / ... -- 8:) 7} _._.
~-~$(1~ ~.~~-a -V"::' · _ - - 0_ , -·L 0-~ _; c:> - - A c·~ -'--0.. v
- _c::-- - ~ - Q -C) - -
-
•
~
• • • •
• • •
• •
I I I
• -
... ..
• • •
•
•
- j)-- {) -0
-0 - - - -
- b - -c: J·
-
• • •
I I I
•
- - -- -
•
Rvxv !"( .... ICC .. m:
~o..f....i~lo•
-I I I I . t
I
-
I I
I
•
- 7IX)
- 800
- --1·000
-t· tto
-1·200
-1·.101
-1''" -f·AO
- f·fCIO
-i·M
-1·1110
-1·tot
-2·000
-HIO•
•
•
36
'
..... March 9, 1987. Monday.
The Duplex long-drop privies had long been plundered by treasure and bottle hunters. The No 3 privy had been particularly prone and more so of recent times: ceramics and glass strewn along the ground at the back of the Duplex.
I asked Shane Quintal if he would like to start on a test trench to determine the depth and nature of the deposits. As groundsman in charge of the Duplex area etc., at Kingston, he took a particular i~terest in the areas that he was in charge of (through his position with the Public Works Department). Mr Quintal agreed as there was not a lot that he could do while the drought continued).
March 10.
I put together some basic excavation materials and delived them to Shane at No 10 Quality Row at about 9.30. Some guidelines for Shane. Rained
·for half an hour !
March 11.
I I I I I I I I
•.
I I
Shane made very good progress at No 3 Quality Row test square (this was I the later area 1). Apart from ceramic and glass fragments, he found a whole 'black glass' wine bottle. I took a turn at excavating; found an octagonal 1850s/1860s vegetable oil bottle, some more of the wine bottles and the complete skeleton of a young dog (from its position·with the snout and forelegs on a high point in the south-east corner of the pit, had evidently perished there). An astonishing amount of ceramics above and below the dog skeleton.
The test square was made in the south-east corner of the mid pit. At that stage, a simple 'layer' system was· employed. Layer 1, commenced between 700mm and 780mm down from the underside of the inter-pit 'doorway' lintel and was composed of a red clayey soil with stone inclusions and turn of the century glass and ceramics.
Layer 2 was the very distinctive cerami~s, glass, bone, domestic objects layer.in a granular grey material of ash and lime, mixed with soil and calcarenite stone. Layer 2 began at a depth of between 1.350mm and 1.450mm. Later when I saw slight chronological differences in the finds, as the square was taken lower, a spit system was adopted (the matrix did not change much except that there were some concentrations of lime and stone). It should be remembered that at first it was not clear if the domestic refuse in layer 2 was the result of one dumping, a slow or a rapid accumulat~on. It became evident, after a few days of exca~ation, that the accumulation was a gradual one. In contrast, the bulk of layer 1 had been deposited at one time (when the pit was sealed as result of a health regulation regarding pit privies).
I I
I I I I
J
I •
I •
Photo 15. After the removal of 700mm to 1,450mm. Shane Quintal was about to excavate 1,450mm to 2,000mm·,· broadly referred to in the text as.·layer 2. This is the commencement of the excavation of section 7. Mr Quintal does not normally approve of having his likeness
•
37
• · Photo 14. No 3 Quality Row. Sections 1
•
~~ •1 and 2 removed, also 3 and 4 under and
beyond the subterranean 'doorway'. The • upper third of the photograph records j the former position of the privy floor ·plate (ledge) and the positions of the
-~~·.wooden bricks (rectangular holes in the >:!~_,·masonry) which supported the wooden frame
of the former privy seat.
Photo 16. Height of the stone lintel (2,000mm). Note soil bags to the right.
38
Layer 2, down to 1.700mm, seemed to have a broad dating artefact range of 1830s to 1880s. One artefact found at the depth of 1.600 had a registration date of 1857 (but of course, it may have been in the owners' hands for many years before being dumped in the privy). Shane and I took the material to my office, Shane and I checked some of ceramic data in my G A Godden.
March 12. Ile de Lumiere II (Shane etc., working ship).
March 13. Ship working
Cleared out my offices (Surgeon's Kitchen), shifted parts of the Repository to the Royal Engineers Office, to make room for the soaking and washing of the No 3 material. Purchased seven basins, three buckets and mini trowel for myself, no provision for such materials.
March 14 and 15. Weekend. No work on No 3.
March 16.
Shane continued the excavation of March 11.
March 17.
Spent the day at No 3 with Shane. I mostly did the sieving and labelling. Several visitors: Ross Quintal, Mamie and Harry McDonald. Many items already suitable for museum display. Washed finds till 6.35. I noted some convincing chronological indicators, despite that the matrix showed little or no change as the excavation went deeper. Decided that layers 1 and 2 should be dug in spits of 100mm.
March 18.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Spent the day at No 3 with Shane, mainly sieving. Shane doing justice to II the spit system. Mickey Christian-Bailey visited the site.
March 19.
Shane excavating under the lintel of the 'doorway' between the south and mid pits (ie section 3, almost completed). Took photographs.
March 20.
Shane excavated all day. Nearly all areas of level 2 are so built up with ceramics and glass that i~ is difficult to get in and out of the trench, let alone excavate while in it, without crushing deposits and collapsing baulks. (Shane went to lengths to avoid any such damage throughout the entire excavation).
March 21 and 22. Weekend.
I I I I I I
,-------------------------------------------------------.
I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I
•
I I I I I
I
39 ·~' ------
•
•
... Photo 17. Representative of the layer 2 deposits; large fragments of ceramics and glass, metals, bone, leather etc., the matrix being largely composed of lime, altered organic matter, ferric oxide etc.
•
I
•
•
Photo 18. No 3, section 8 at the entrance into the north privy pit. The fill layer with very few artefacts in contrast witt layer 2. The large white objects are fragments of plate.
40
-
Spent Saturday washing material from No 3 at the Commissariat Store. Noted early French champagne (type) bottle base with high kick-up. Some high quality willow pattern noted.
March 23.
Shane on the narrow south pit (4A). I busied myself with the bagging, sieving and sorting. Last week set aside areas for the dumping of the distinctive level 2 matrix. This was done according to pit section and depth. The white gritty material (matrix) often camouflaged small items, despite careful excavation with trowel and scoop and despite sieving; (a lot of this material would not go through even a 5mm gauge sieve).
We were still in the Pitcairn period.
March 24.
Worked with Shane for most of the day. Continued as yesterday. Found another plate with a printed registration mark, decoded to refer to 1861. Paul K (Aussat) Christian and Laurie (Buck) Quintal visit site. Late afternoon, Shane took his son Peter to view the processed No 3 material in my office.
In order to minimise damage to the baulks, or unexcavated profiles, and spoils build-up, we have devised a system of placing the excavated soil in long and narrow hessian bags. The bags are fairly easily lifted out of the trench but the process needs two people, as the base of the pit is deeper than two metres. March 25.
Shane continued as yesterday. David (Dids) Evans inspected the site. I had to leave to give tours at Government House.
March 26.
Barry N (Barley) Christian and I completed work at No 10. Later joined Shane at No 3. Some spectacular finds. G E (Puss) Anderson, foreman of Restoration, visited No 3: said he hoped to see the material on display one day. Shane on the south end of pit, 4B.
March 27. Paperwork at home.
March 28. Saturday.
At the Commissariat Store washing No 3 material which had been soaking in buckets etc. Restoration on Church plaster project.
March 29. Sunday. Kentia Palm seed picking at Sadie Nobbs'.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I
I •
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
>
I •
I I I
•
41
•
Rearranged more of my office for the reception of No 3 material in the •
morning. Shane and brother Nick Quintal visited my office. Steady stream of visitors,; Marie Bailey, Naomi Christian~ Ena Et Christian and tour groups. Shane helped with the artefact washing from 1.30 to 5.00.
March 30.
Meeting with CAO, Ron Malcolm, agreed on my establishing a formal Archaeological/Restoration Repository for my work since 1981 as part of the Bicentennial Museums project. Puss asked if I could start on the No 10 privies. Puss alloted Barley Christian to assist me. The No 10 privies have been partially or wholly
•
emptied a few times since the 1880s/1890s, the contents having been dumped around the garden and over the west stone wall.
Later joined Shane at No 3. He had begun the mid west section of the centre pit (section 5), having completed 1.700- 2.000 below lintel level of 4B. He had already removed the soil and stone layer (layer 1).
March 31.
Hauled out the bags of soil at No 3 and placed the contents in the alloted areas for further processing. Shane busy elsewhere. Started on the great 1953-1954 bottle glass layer, east privy, No 10, with Barley.
)
•
April 1, 1987. Wednesday.
Meeting with CAO, Geoff Bennett, Puss etc. Have officially become Bicentennial Museum Project curator and director/co-ordinator. My part 1 of the plan having been accepted. No 10 work continued, Shane gave Barl a hand. ·
• April 2.
Joined Shane at No 3 btween 10.30 and 12.30. Shane unearthed a huge willow P.attern platter from at the 'doorway' into the north end pit. (Regarding the platter, I wrote 1ca 1900 1 : this refers to the depth of section 6 but located next to or going into the 'doorway' of the north pit. Several more platters were found).
April 3 •
•
•
The top layer, or layer 1, of section 7 at No 3 cleared by Shane. Adrian--. Evans (Work Experience with Resto~ation) gave Shane a useful hand.
•
•
I I I I
• I •
I I
Photo 19. No 3 Quality Row. At the threshold of section 8. How such concentrations I of artefacts became to be deposited so far from the privy seats remains a puzzle (though theories are offered in the text). In places, excavation profiles were difficult to maintain. Shane fills out a bag for the finds (per spit of 100mm). I
Photo 20. Section 8 before the removal of finds.
Photo 21. Section 8 after the removal of finds. I
I.
I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I
1-•
I I I
•
43 • •
•
April 4. Saturday.
Washing No 3 material on the pine slab table next to my office from 7.30 to 5.30. Shane volunteered his time till 3.00.
April 5. Sunday.
Washed No 3 ceramics and glass as yesterday. Shane put in six hours of washing. Constant train of tourists.
April 6.
Sporadic work at No 3. The north-east section (section 7) of the mid pit continued as begun on the 3rd: excavated down to 1600mm - 1700mm. Barley found a fragment of a yollo stone from Pitcairn Island at No 10, east privy, in th~ 1880s/1890s layer. The stone would have belonged to the Isaac Christian family or, more probably, Mirriam Christian nee Young. (At a later date a larger yollo fragment was found at the Duplex).
April 7.
• Checked No 10 and then helped Shane remove the spoil bags from the pit at No 3. Shane pushes the bags up and I drag them to the place of deposition, ready to be sieved. The gritty ash/lime spoils are difficult to sieve, especially while still moist. Systematic floatation would have · been the simplest way but there is no water available •
•
Section 7 excavated down to 2.000mm and the area directly under the north pit lintel. I took samples of the layers and recorded the
• locations of where the spoils of the different levels and areas were deposited.
April 8. Ile de Lumiere II arrived.
April 9. Ship working as of 10.30. No excavation. Took photographs.
April 10. Ship working. No excavation.
April 11 and 12. Weekend. Ship working at Cascade • •
Took No 3 material home for soaking and washing. On Sunday the truck got •
bogged in the long driveway for quite some time •
April 13. No excavation.
April 14. - •
•
Shane finished excavating the small north pit (section 8). Mainly recent material at the top and very little at the base. I did a fair bit of
•
•
--------------------'
•
•
,. -~
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
•
-,.
~ .. ~ " .. . - '> . ,, . - ...
. ' ·-. ' . '
' '
4i .. • -... • -t:l ... . ... ~
' '
' •• . .
'
' •
\1 •
• ~
-, '
• • I
I Photo 22. No 3 Quail Row. Shed Privy (8) Possibly dates to t
1890s or a little
I later.
I I I I
Photo 23. The stackll bottles and pile da between about 1940 I and 1947 (the bulk of the privy conten
I I I II
II Photo 24. The pit o I the shed privy was not lined with ston Spade impressions m I be seen on the side of the pit.
II
I II
I I
. I
I I I I.
I I I I . I
I I I
•
I I I I I I I I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
-
•
• •
45 •
• • •
• • • •
• •
•
sieving and bagging at No 3. away from Norfolk since about
Pone (Quintal) visited 1~74, noted the growth
the site, had been · of t~e cemetery.
' . -. --· •
April 15. ' • I • • •
' • • •
'Shane and I to No 3 at 1.00. We filled two 44 gallon drums with beer etc., bottle glass dating between 1942- 1946. The bottles fairly
• certai~ly came from Hotel Paradise. _Qne common pattern in the cera_m~cs associated with the bottle glass was matched with whole pieces surviv.ing . . • • in the Bubby Evans collection. The pattern was ,identical. Decades ago,
• •
· Bubby received his who1e pieces from Bob Dewey, the founde.r of Hotel . · - . .. . Paradise (though the place was then under a different name) .• •
• • • •
April 16. No excavation. • • • •
' • • • • . April 17. Good.Friday. To No 10 took photographs and measurements of the
• privies and ti~bers.
April 18. Easter Saturday. .
Returned to Sydney. • •
No excavation to~k place while I was away.
'
May 9 and 10. Weekend. Returned to Norfolk Island on the 9th. Ship in · '
• May 11 and 12. Ship in since 9th but networking (dispute). •
• •
• •
May 13. Ship working. At no 10. Gave Government House tours. # .il .. •
• • • • •
• • • May 14. Shfp working. No excavation. •
• • •
May 15. At No 10 •. • • •
• May 16 and 17. Weekend. • • • • -• • • •
MaY. 18. Q •
• • • •
• • Shane and I remove the original 'Archaeol.ogical Unit 1 box, the large
• Government.House mirror etc.; from my office to the Pier Store to create
• more room ·for processing tlie No 3 material •
- - -• .. •
1 May 19 and .20. No excavation. •
• ' •
•
•
•
• May 21. •
• ' • • • •
·, Collected and bagged the last of the major finds from the spoil heaps· at No 3. These heaps had been labelled as to-section, date and level. Shane . removed some of the rocks cluttering up the area •
• •
• •
• • • • • •
•
•
•
46
...... May 22. NZ Minister for Conservation visited.
. May 23 and· 24. Weekend. HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Success visit (to Figi)
From 1.30 on Sunday worked. on the 'no date' and 07:04:1987, 1800- 1950 material. The No 3 'no date' material comes from area 1. A late Chinese export porcelain jar (via USA?).
May 25, 26 and 27.
Cleared more space for No 3 material. Washed No 3 material after work till 7.40 on 25th. Aussat, Shane and I shift more of the Archaeological collection from my office to the Pier Store on 26th.
May 28.
Shane began on the shed privy pit (section 8) at No 3. WWII period whore and broken bottles, ceramics, batteries, metal etc.
May 29.
Joined Shane at No 3, continued on yesterday's work. I found two tea pots and an almost whole cup. Did a survey on the bottle glass: dates between 1939 and 1946, the greatest percentage of dated bottles dates to 1942. The first of the tressle tables,.made by Duncan Edward and Mick Johnston arrive at my office. Meeting with CAO and Geoff Bennett.
-
May 30 and 31. Weekend. Captain Kermedec working.
. JUNE 1 to JULY 9, 1987 •
. This period, as far as No 3 was concerned, was mainly occupied by processing excavated material during after hours etc., establishing a system of small box containers (shoe boxes answered well), work areas,
. conservation techniq~es etc. Other duties increasingly began to take up most of my free time. Specific work on No 3 is listed below:
June 3. Capta1n Kermedec unloading cancelled.
To No 3 shed privy (section 9). Great quantities ~f World War II (WW II) dumped material. Began th~ excavation of the north-east division. Under the WW II dump, material of 1920s to ca1890s emerged.
June 12.
Afternoon at No 3 with Shane. Shane excavated a test trench (1) in the south-east corner (the WW II material was removed on June 3). The first
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
I I I I I II I I I I
•
I I I I I I
-~
I I I
1=-----
1-
•
•
47 -•
encountered layer had a 1890s to 1920s date, below that material of a 1880s/1890s date. The privy pit was probably established after the main pits were full, perhaps during the 1890s or even later. The material should be assessed again, as should the material from the upper layers of the main pit. The shed pit was crudely dug, spade marks may still be discerned in the clay-like soil. The pit diminished in size to about the mid depth. The earlier deposits were not very substantial, the great bulk of the excavated material belonging to the WW II period. June 15.
Alan Campbell from the Department of Housing and Construction and Eric Martin from Philip Cox and Partners arrived in Kingston, (stayed till about the 19th).
June 23.
Worked with Shane at No 3 shed pit. This time I filled the bags and passed them up. Established depth marks, taken from the line of the crude paving at the surface. Reached 2.300mm - 2.500mm. Even at that depth, the material seemed to date from the 1880s to around WW I. Found plates marked 'Anthony Horderns, Brickfield Hill'. Some 1930s-1940s intrusions.
June 24 . . •
Shane and I excavated at No 3 shed pit. Reached the bottom by 1.30. I had to conclude that there was nothing much earlier than the 1880s. The excavation at no 3 concluded.
No 2 QUALITY ROW
The excavation of the No 2 Duplex privy benefited from the excavation of the No 3 privy and the partial analysis of the excavated material. The grid-like division of the central pit (largest of the three
• connected pits) was worth the effort for broad stratigraphic purposes. Archaeologically speaking, the central pit is a small division in itself but as it seemed at No 3, the artefact layer, or layer 2, was deposited over a long period of time, the pit was divided so that artefact
• distribution studies could be made during the analysis period. The distribution study is very likely to lead to a form of stratigraphy based on the excavated material, despite the fact that the matrix
• remained much the same throughout layer 2.
, -
•
.. •
. . . ' •
, l ' ~ ' I .. . . . ... -~ '~
25. No Photo Quality Row.
and privy threshold
subterranealil entrance to the north pit below.
11
I I
Photo 26. As fox Photo 25. I
I I I I I I I
Photo 27. South
2onfolt I Site
wall of No •
pr~vy.
former • pr~vy se<
I I I I I I
I •
I I I I 1-I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
•
• •
49
•
•
As the excavation began with a system developed through the course of excavation of the No 3 privy and contents analysis, few comments need to be made on day to day progress. The pits were divided into 10 sections, though sections 1 and 2 were amalgamated to form 1 SP 1 , South Privy pit, The south pit of the privy is so small that a good percentage of the larger fragments and fragments of a same original item straddled both sections 1 and 2. The latter scene was repeated in the other divisions also. What should be kept in mind when distribution analysis takes place is that a certain percentage of the excavated material would have been
• divided (and consequently bagged under different section numbers) according to, what is after all, an artificial division. No 2 privy was excavated in 100mm spits, measuring from the base of the recess of the former timber ground below the former floor joists.
Shane was again the principal excavator and informed me of any surprising developments the instant they arose.
No 2 was different to No 3 in that the deposits reached almost to the original floor level. The artefact deposit, layer 2, was significantly greater in bulk than that of No 3. The pit was also deeper but this is
· explained by the absence of a lime content deposit (without artefacts).
July 10, 1987. Friday.
At lpm, Shane and I visited the No 2 Duplex privy. Measured up the privy into ten sections, as shown in the plan. The divisions for the central pit was devised to conform partially with the joist spacings of the former floor. The widest spacing, at the south end of the pit, conforms with the original position of the privy seating, because this was the area of. deposition of material. Sections 6 to 9 and into the north privy pit would have been areas where the deposited material slumped or flowed (as the weight of the material piled up bene'ath the privy seats. Dolly Christian)visited. Took photographs.
July 18 • •
Spent the afternoon at spoil heap·s. The work has been slow
• of the arrivals of the Ile de Lumiere II.
July 27.
the Duplex bagging artefacts from the labelled
• from the 12th to 24th July due to the coincidence cargo ships, Norfolk Trader, Ile de Lumiere I and
•
Jon Carpenter from the Western Australian Maritime Museum·arrives to
process some of the Sirius material, check and advise on our
•
• •
•
•
---------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------- - -------·--------------------------
Photo 28. No garden wall.
·-
50
2 Row. the •
Quality was the This way to
between north
Garden area the pr~vy.
... • . . ·-
-- ... ~ -----
. ' , . . .~: ~
•• • • •
annex and the north
Photo 29. Entrance to the north •
pr~vy.
I I I I I I I
.f'" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I
I I I I .I
I
•
•
,..~;.... ... ~ -
~· ... . . • •
•
•
51
•
• •
conservation program. I place members of my staff to work with him as part of their training. Puss allowed Barley Christian and Mick Johnston some time off for conservation instructions (particularly because they assist the Sirius Team whenever the Team comes to th.e Island).
July 29.
Shane resumed excavation at No 2. The stone layer was reached at about 1.600mm and at 1.900mm found the remains of a large jug. The stratigraphy above this is fairly uniform, being composed of reddish soil with little or nothing in it. The soil (layer 1) was apparently dumped at one time, a result of a health regulation. Shane on the south pit (sections 1 and 2). Took photographs.
.August 10. Ship working •
The Department of Housing and Construction representatives, Alan Campbell and Eric Martin arrived on the 9th.
August 11.
Shane at No 2. Reported 1940s bottles broken, spade, ladder and bags missing but no other damage.
August 18.
•
Loaned Shane, Neville Bigg for the day (after morning tea). They filled in the shed privy at No 3.
August 19.
Shane continued at No 2. Took Clive Lucas and Ian Stapleton (architects) around KAVHA with Puss. (Later on James Broadbent and Rosemary Annabel). They are to prepare a new management plan for KAVHA.
August 20. Loaned Shane, Neville Bigg to expedite the excavation of No 2.
August 27. Return to Sydney. August 31. Return to Norfolk Island.
September 3. •
Shane at No 2 uncovers bottles from the Second Settlement period.
September 17. •
Shane required a ladder at no 2 to get in and out of the pit. Easy to provide now with Government ute (as of 14th Sept.; Datsun, 'A 72 1 ) •
• •
•
•
•
f
i I l '
' , ! I
r ' , '
'
I l
! ' '
I I. ·:\ ....
r-... ' .
!1 . ~e
t "' --1~ . " J '
(
!,_ .
~
' \
" --
..............., __ - --Photo 30. No 2 Quality Row. Sections 4 and 5. The lower part of the excavation represents Section 5 at 1,600mm. Seen to the right of the stone are the remains of a ca 1900 jug.
'
52
. '
Photo 31. Detail of Photo 30. Layer 1, or the fill layer, has been removed. Typical of the interface between layers 1 and 2 at both Kos 2 and 3, was a deposit of stone.
I
I
I I
I I I
Photo 32. South privy pit I east end, before excavatic
I I I I
I
I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
•
• •
53
September 19, 20 and 21. •
Set up shelving under the Pier Store and placed small box system No 2 material along the east wall. Set up the recently made tressle tables on the ground floor of the Pier Store for processing purposes.
October 2.
To No 2 with Darren Took photographs.
Anderson to collect the latest excavated material. .I
October 7. •
Set up display
some on the
of the reconstructed ground floor of the
ceramics from No 3 for an initial Pier Store (workshop). The
reconstruction of ceramic and glass items very popular. Beattie Bigg, Hagar Christian and Puss Quintal are regular and encouraging visitors to the workshop.
October 9.
Shane reported the collapse at no 2 of a (temporary) baulk at No 2 (very upset); apparently some children in the vicinity. This material was bagged as such, under the heading of the section number involved. The workshop and No 3 display proving very successful among local and overseas visitors. Lighterage regular visitors. The 'collapsed layers' material was processed as of November 9; soaked, cleaned, labelled etc •
•
October 10 and 11.
Shane excavating at No 2; sorts some of the ceramics in his own time.
October 14.
Shane excavating. Slight gentleman jumped into the
•
disruption pit without
at No 2 when an warning and pulled
enthusiastic out ceramics
from Shane's very careful profiles, thinking no doubt that they had been overlooked. It is difficult for the untrained to understand why items must be left in section. It was a particularly dangerous situat~on, as parts of the profiles were often composed of piled shards. It is to Shane Quintal's credit that he was able to excavate, the very difficult divisions within the constricted pits, in a manner professional and without mishap.
October 15 • •
The main work on the Museum collection over, most of the material from No 2·and No 3 on the tressle tables. This was considerably expanded
• • . . •
••
.... i ' ,_,
Photo 33. Ceramics from No 2 Quality Row soaking to remove possible salts. The brown concretions (ferric in nature?) had to be removed with dental tools (hard work).
-
54
•• -~
·-· ' {
I I
I ~AI
,_...,..·:;.~.
;I
I Photo 34. Lamp base exca~~~ed--a~s--a•n~----~ amorphous lump. At this stage it was half way through conservation treatment. I WA Maritime Museum techniques.
Photo 35. Pier Store during the archaeological workshop phase. John 'Beef' Buffett.
I I I I I I I' I
I I I I
1-I I I I I I I
I I I
I
•
•
•
55
••
•
•
during November 18 to 20 with the completion'of the last tressle tables and the completion of five 'No 1 1 display cabinets. The stages for ceramics and glass were as follows: from artefact bags to labelled small boxes (shoe boxes mainly) so that they could be easily stored and seen; from box to soaking trays (preferably for a week or two); washing and the iron oxide-like concretions removed with dental tools; drying and labelling; the shards were then ready for reconstruction using UHU glue in a tube. (UHU glue was preferred as it is a clear glue, has a limited life and can be soaked off).
December 6.
Reviewed the No 2 excavation. Came to the conclusion that sections 1 and 2 should.be united under the letters 'SP' (South Privy pit) as the distinction served no real function for distribution studies etc.
• • The pit is contained on three sides by masonry walls and originally one of the privy seats was located directly above it. By the following day,
r
the No 2 ceramics and selected glass had been sorted out. One section of No 2 remained to be excavated.
December 17 to 30. Away from the Island.
January 11, 1988. Monday.
Shane reminded me on the 7th that the No 2 'NP 1 (North Privy pit) remained to be excavated. Aussat helped Shane to excavate the last of the material. One knew the collection so well that many of the excavated shards were recognised immediately as to where they would fit the .. reconstructed items.
By mid January, the reconstruction of plates, jugs, chamber pots, cups, saucers etc., had just about been completed, except for a percentage of' the white ware and the 'Pheasant' ware.
At a later date, 1 was permitted to use the basement of the Commissariat Store as an archaeological•repository. 1 was able to borrow Duncan Edward and Mick Johnston from Restoration to erect a system of shelves •
• Upon completion, the No 2 and No 3 labelled boxes were stored on those shelves.
•
.,
56 I
Photo 37. As for 36. Note Photo 36. As the objects were completed they were grouped together according to function. In this photo, temporarily in the new Museum display cabinets.
sorting left.
table on the lower I
Photo 38. Left. Beakers (surprising number), cups and saucers. I
Photo 39. Below. Chamber pots reflect the large size of the typical Norfolk-Pitcairn family of last century.
I I I I ~I I I I I
I I I •
I I
•
I I I ,I , rl
I I
57
- -_ .. _.___, -·-• • •
•
... - - . . . . ,- ~~- . . -. . - ~ -
Photo 40. Much of the material excavated went on display in the Norfolk Island Bicentennial Integrated Museums. Ceramic display in the Pier Store. A large part of the ceramics went on display in the House Museum and the Archaeological Workshop in the Royal Engineer's.
• I
'~ ! • r~. t
I •
-•
••
~ • ., -
Photo 41. Part of the glass from Nos 2 and 3 became part of this chronological development glass exhibit in the Pier Store •
•
a
•·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
·AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
File No.: 92/0145 · Contact: Bruce Delprado Telephone: 02 414 7494 Fax.: 02 414 7010
•
Robert V J Varman 31 Wombat Street . Berkeley Vale NSW
•
2259
•
•
Norfolk Island Conservation, KAVHA Archaeological Excavation Reports
• •
•
• •
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
•
Enclosed are final copies of your excavation reports for the Pi~r Area (Arch. Report -7 Part 5) and for 2/3 Quality Row (Arch. Report 11 Part 3). Your work in producing · these reports has been very appreciated by the KAVHA Board and I also wish to express my own appreciation. • ·
I hope that we can be work together again in the future.
•
yours faith~ully • • .
•
Bruce Delprado Professional Services Coordinator, KAVHA
•
13 May 1994
•
• . .
• • •
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
•
-<
•'
; \
• '
I r I