Guidelines for Investigating
Historical Archaeological
Artefacts and Sites
Prepared by:
Heritage Victoria, Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure
References throughout to the Heritage Victoria website refer to:
www.heritage.vic.gov.au which includes the searchable Victorian Heritage
Database.
The Victorian Heritage Register (places and objects of state significance) is also
available through the iPhone App: Vic_Heritage.
Version 2: January 2014
Version 1 published, December 2012 online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au
© State of Victoria, 2012.
ISBN 978 1 921940 86 6
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do
not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your
particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other
consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Heritage Victoria
1 Spring Street, Melbourne 3000
GPO Box 2392, Melbourne, Victoria 3001
Phone: (03) 9208 3333
Email: archaeology.admin@dtpli.vic.gov.au
Web: www.heritage.vic.gov.au
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... 6
1.
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL .................................................... 7
1.1
Permit or Consent Approval ............................................................ 7
1.2
Site Statement of Significance ........................................................ 8
1.3
Research Design............................................................................. 9
1.4
Excavation Methodology ............................................................... 11
1.5
Artefact Retention Policy ............................................................... 12
1.5.1
1.6
1.6.1
1.7
2.
Artefact sampling and discard ....................................................... 12
Artefact Management Proposal ..................................................... 13
Alternate artefact repositories ....................................................... 13
Artefact identifiers ......................................................................... 14
FIELDWORK.................................................................................. 16
2.1
Implement Excavation Methodology ............................................. 16
2.2
Artefact Retention Policy ............................................................... 16
2.3
Artefact recording and management ............................................. 16
2.4
Discovery of dangerous material ................................................... 16
2.5
Discovery of human remains ......................................................... 17
2.6
Field Conservation ........................................................................ 17
2.7
Preliminary management recommendations ................................. 18
3.
CONSERVATION, ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND SUBMISSION
OF ARTEFACTS .......................................................................... 19
3.1
Artefact Conservation Proposal..................................................... 19
3.2
Catalogue completion ................................................................... 20
3.3
Artefact analysis ............................................................................ 21
3.4
Site analysis and addressing the Research Design ...................... 22
3.5
Assemblage Statement of Significance ......................................... 22
3.6
Revised site Statement of Significance ......................................... 24
3.7
Management recommendations .................................................... 24
3.8
Submission of artefacts and records ............................................. 25
3.9
Project Report ............................................................................... 25
3
APPENDIX A ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CASE STUDIES ............... 27
A.1 Case studies background ............................................................................... 27
A.1.1
Site Statement of Significance ...................................................... 28
A.1.2
Research Design........................................................................... 28
A.1.3
Excavation Methodology ............................................................... 30
A.1.4
Artefact Retention Policy ............................................................... 31
A.2 Scenario One – large and diverse assemblage with high significance ........... 32
A.2.1
Artefact analysis and interpretation ............................................... 32
A.2.2
Assemblage Statement of Significance ......................................... 36
A.2.3
Revised site Statement of Significance ......................................... 37
A.2.4
Artefact Conservation Proposal..................................................... 38
A.2.5
Management recommendations .................................................... 40
A.2.6
Submission of artefacts and records ............................................. 40
A.3 Scenario Two - small and limited assemblage with low significance .............. 41
A.3.1
Artefact analysis and interpretation ............................................... 41
A.3.2
Assemblage Statement of Significance ......................................... 43
A.3.3
Revised site Statement of Significance ......................................... 43
A.3.4
Artefact Conservation Proposal..................................................... 43
A.3.5
Management recommendations .................................................... 43
A.3.6
Submission of artefacts and records ............................................. 44
APPENDIX B PREPARATION OF ARTEFACTS FOR SUBMISSION ................... 45
B.1
Artefact handling ........................................................................... 45
B.2
Cleaning artefacts prior to packing ................................................ 45
B.3
Damp or waterlogged artefacts ..................................................... 46
B.4
Objects from contaminated or salt affected sites ........................... 46
B.5
Artefact packaging ........................................................................ 46
B.6
Labelling materials ........................................................................ 46
B.7
Packing materials .......................................................................... 47
B.8
Policy for handling dangerous materials ....................................... 47
B.9
Policy for handling human remains ............................................... 48
B.10
Joins .............................................................................................. 48
B.11
Box numbering .............................................................................. 48
APPENDIX C MATERIAL SUPPLIERS .................................................................. 49
APPENDIX D ARTEFACT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES .................................. 51
4
D.1
Conservation requirements .......................................................... 51
D.2
Treating artefacts ......................................................................... 51
D.2.1
Wet and damp versus dry burial environments ............................ 52
D.2.2
Salt affected artefacts .................................................................. 52
D.2.3
Organic materials ......................................................................... 52
D.2.4
Metal artefacts ............................................................................. 53
D.2.5
Ceramic, Glass, Stone and Siliceous materials ........................... 55
D.2.6
Faunal material ............................................................................ 55
D.2.7
Conservation case studies ........................................................... 55
D.3
Personal safety ............................................................................. 56
D.4
Documentation ............................................................................ 56
D.5
Storage requirements ................................................................... 56
APPENDIX E CONSERVATION REFERENCES .................................................... 57
APPENDIX F POST-CONTACT ARTEFACT REFERENCES ................................ 59
F.1
Ceramic ......................................................................................... 59
F.2
Glass ............................................................................................. 61
F.3
Small Finds ................................................................................... 63
F.3.1
Buttons .......................................................................................... 63
F.3.2
Coins ............................................................................................. 63
F.3.3
Childhood ...................................................................................... 63
F.3.4
Clay Pipes ..................................................................................... 64
F.3.5
Miscellaneous ............................................................................... 65
F.4
Building Materials .......................................................................... 65
F.4.1
Bricks ............................................................................................ 65
F.4.2
Nails .............................................................................................. 66
F.4.3
Miscellaneous ............................................................................... 66
F.5
Faunal Analysis ............................................................................. 66
F.6
Indigenous post-contact artefacts ................................................. 67
F.7
Chinese artefacts .......................................................................... 68
APPENDIX G GENERAL REFERENCES............................................................... 69
APPENDIX H HERITAGE COUNCIL’S CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE..................................... 73
5
INTRODUCTION
The Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites outline
the requirements under which Permits and Consents are issued for disturbance to
historical and maritime archaeological artefacts and assemblages in Victoria. These
approvals are issued under the Heritage Act 1995.
The information relates to the recovery, assessment, conservation, recording,
analysis and management of historical archaeological artefacts and assemblages
prior to excavation, in the field and post excavation.
The guidelines also establish new requirements for the development of Research
Designs and Statements of Significance for both assemblages and sites.
This information assists Heritage Victoria to manage Victoria’s archaeological
resources, and facilitate research. It also enables the broader community to
understand why archaeological work is undertaken, and to appreciate and value the
results.
This document was first published in December 2012 and amended in January 2014.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
These guidelines were prepared by Heritage Victoria’s archaeology and conservation
staff with significant contributions from the Archaeology Advisory Committee of the
Heritage Council of Victoria.
The committee comprised Anita Smith (Chair), Kristal Buckley, Andrew Jamieson,
Susan Lawrence, Peter Lovell, Jamin Moon, Oona Nicolson, Charlotte Smith and
Catherine Tucker. The committee also included Heritage Victoria archaeologists
Jeremy Smith and Brandi Bugh.
Input was provided by Heritage Victoria staff including former Executive Director Jim
Gard’ner, Tim Smith, Steven Avery, Susanna Collis, Anne-Louise Muir, Bethany
Sproal, Maddison Miller and Rhonda Steel.
Former committee member Mike McIntyre also made extensive contributions. Peter
Davies, Sarah Hayes, Adrienne Ellis and Simon Greenwood reviewed numerous
drafts and provided valuable content. The list of references (Appendix F and G) were
developed by Susan Lawrence and Peter Davies from the Archaeology Program at
La Trobe University.
6
1.
1.1
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
Permit or Consent Approval
It is necessary to obtain an approval from the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria,
in accordance with the Heritage Act 1995 (‘the Act’), for any works which may affect
the historical archaeological values of a place.
A Heritage Act Permit or Consent is required even if a Cultural Heritage Management
Plan has been approved to authorise archaeological investigations or other
subsurface works, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Requirements
Section 64 of the Act specifies that it is necessary to obtain a Permit from the
Executive Director of Heritage Victoria (‘the Executive Director’) to authorise works
on a place that is included in the Victorian Heritage Register. The Victorian Heritage
Register is a listing of the state’s most significant heritage places and objects.
Section 127 of the Act specifies that a Consent is required to authorise works on a
site included in the Heritage Inventory. The Heritage Inventory (‘the Inventory’) is a
listing of all known historical archaeological sites in the state. An application must
address the requirements outlined in sections 1.2 – 1.7 of this guide. Consent and
Permit application forms are available online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au.
An application for a Permit or Consent must include the following:
completed Permit or Consent application
outline of proposed works, identifying area of heritage impact
site description and background history
Statement of Significance for the site
Research Design
Excavation Methodology
Artefact Retention Policy
Artefact Management Proposal
CV of project director and all supervisors, including artefact analysis and
conservation skills
Permit or Consent fee
A simplified application may be appropriate for some salvage archaeology projects,
provided it is able to address the Research Design and test the archaeological
potential raised in the site Statement of Significance. The detail of the application
should reflect the complexity and significance of the site.
Where a party other than Heritage Victoria (such as a museum or other
institution) has an involvement or responsibility for the conservation, curation
or display of artefacts or an assemblage, it is essential that they are also
involved in the development, approval and implementation of all management
processes.
7
1.2
Site Statement of Significance
A Statement of Significance describes what is important about a site, and evaluates
its cultural heritage significance.
Article 1.2 of The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of
Cultural Significance (Australia ICOMOS, 2013) defines cultural heritage significance
as follows:
‘Aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual values for past, present
or future generations.
Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting,
use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related
objects.
Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.’
An understanding of the significance of a site informs the Research Design,
Excavation Methodology, Artefact Retention Policy and other aspects of a field
project. The Statement of Significance and the Research Design frame questions
which will be addressed through the investigation of the site.
Requirements
A site Statement of Significance must be prepared as part of a Permit or Consent
application.
Guidelines for assessing the significance of archaeological sites are detailed in the
Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys (Heritage Council of
Victoria & Heritage Victoria, 2009). Section 3.5 of this guide will also assist the site
assessment.
The Statement of Significance must utilise the Heritage Council of Victoria’s Criteria
for Assessing Cultural Heritage Significance (see Appendix H). Sites may have
significance in one or more of the categories. The Statement of Significance must
indicate the degree of significance the site has under the relevant criterion (state or
local), with supporting evidence where a criterion is met. The Statement of
Significance must describe the cultural heritage significance of the place using the
following categories of significance:
aesthetic
archaeological
architectural
historical
scientific
social
Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2010)
identifies themes that relate to Victoria’s heritage.
The assessment must also consider the results of previous surveys and
investigations of the site or of similar or associated sites. Information on relevant or
comparable sites may be found through searches of the Victorian Heritage Database
and Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository’s Online Artefact Database. Information
8
about site significance can also be obtained from other statutory listings and
registers, archaeology project reports, heritage studies and other publications, from
community groups, and by field assessment.
In assessing the significance of an archaeological site, it is important to consider the
‘potential’ values that the site and its associated artefacts may have, even if these
values have not been demonstrated. To evaluate the archaeological potential of a
site, it is necessary to understand its history and the sequence of activities that have
taken place at the site. This information indicates where archaeological features and
deposits may be located on a site, and the likelihood that they have survived later
phases of disturbance or development. The character of natural and cultural features
in the surrounding environment may also contribute to the significance of the site.
The understanding of a site’s significance may change during excavation or postexcavation analysis. The Statement of Significance must be revisited at the end of
the project and updated to incorporate and reflect the results of the investigation and
the analysis of the artefacts (see section 3.6, and Appendices A.2.3 and A.3.4).
A separate Statement of Significance for the recovered artefact assemblage must be
prepared following fieldwork, cataloguing and analysis (see section 3.5, and
Appendix A.2.2 and A.3.2).
1.3
Research Design
The Research Design details how the potential of the site will be scientifically
approached, tested and realised. It is the framework that identifies questions which
will be addressed as a result of the archaeological investigations. The Excavation
Methodology, artefact recovery process, and Artefact Retention Policy will be
influenced by the questions identified in the Research Design.
The Research Design is informed by an understanding of the site (as detailed in the
Statement of Significance), knowledge of relevant archaeological and historical
sources, and appropriate theoretical approaches. It directs and focuses analysis and
resources into areas that are most relevant and productive for investigation. The
Research Design must consider the entire sequence of a site’s occupation and use,
not just the phase that is considered to be the most significant.
By addressing the questions posed in the Research Design, the archaeologist
ensures that the findings of an investigation are considered, evaluated, and
presented for other archaeologists, researchers, stakeholders and the broader
community. A Research Design assists developers, clients, landowners and other
stakeholders to understand the archaeological process, why the site is being
excavated, and the types of outcomes that will be achieved.
An example of a Research Design is included as Appendix A.1.2.
Requirements
A Research Design (typically 1-2 pages in length, more for sites of high significance)
is required for all sites as part of a Permit or Consent application.
While the Research Design questions will guide the strategies in the field, the
unpredictable nature of archaeology means some flexibility is required. Where
unexpected aspects of the site that were not addressed by the Statement of
9
Significance and Research Design arise during fieldwork, the archaeologist must
revise the scope of the site investigation and document all changes.
The level of detail provided in the Research Design depends on what is known about
the history of the site and its significance (which may change with excavation). The
scope of the Research Design must consider any project constraints. Victoria’s
Framework of Historical Themes may serve as a source of direction for research
questions. In framing the Research Design, it is useful to consider the following three
lines of enquiry:
1.
Description
2.
Analysis
3.
What features and deposits were identified at the site?
When were these features or deposits created?
What site formation processes contributed to the stratigraphy?
What contexts, phases, and activity areas are evident, and how are these
demonstrated by the various excavation units
(trench/square/context/feature)?
Where were the artefacts located? Group features into spatial units based
on activity and age.
When were the artefact deposits formed (based on stratigraphic
information and artefact manufacturing dates, etc)?
What happened at the site?
What were the contexts of discard (primary; secondary;
loss/abandonment/discard; yard/open area/sub-floor/pit/privy/cistern)?
Who was responsible for the deposition of artefacts (for example site
occupants at each phase)?
How many artefacts were present in each type of deposit (quantities of
each fabric and each function/sub-function group)?
Interpretation
Interpret the results in terms of broader themes, posing questions that help
to inform the Statement of Significance.
Compare the results with other relevant sites, related projects and current
research; how does the project fit into broader, regional frameworks and
theoretical models?
Indicate how and/or why the subject site differs from other sites.
The questions raised in the Research Design must be addressed at the completion of
the project (see section 3.4) and included in the project report. The Research Design
should be written in plain English so that it can be understood and appreciated by
anyone who may read it.
An example of a Research Design is included as Appendix A.1.2.
10
1.4
Excavation Methodology
The Excavation Methodology outlines how the excavation will be undertaken. The
purpose of an excavation is to recover and record material evidence which answers
research questions and enhances the understanding of the site and its artefacts.
The method by which a site is investigated and recorded should test the site’s
archaeological values and potential, as expressed in the site Statement of
Significance. It enables the Research Design to be addressed by targeting potentially
significant areas and by determining artefact recovery, sampling and discard policies.
The Excavation Methodology establishes a context for artefact recovery, and sets a
framework for broader site analysis, management and interpretation.
Requirements
An Excavation Methodology is required as part of all Permit or Consent applications.
The development of the Excavation Methodology must consider the extent of any
proposed impacts, the perceived significance of the site, the Research Design
questions, levels of resourcing, site constraints and other factors. The methodology
must consider the following:
What is known about the history of the place?
What is the current site condition?
Is the full extent of the site known or unknown?
What proportion of the site will be investigated?
What parts of the site will not be investigated and why?
What deposits will be targeted and why?
Will all phases of activity be investigated?
What resources and constraints exist?
How can the questions raised in the Research Design be addressed?
The methodology must describe how the deposits will be excavated, record spatial
and stratigraphic information and recover artefacts. It must also explain why these
methods have been chosen and how they will help address the Research Design.
The Excavation Methodology must include:
location of trenches within the site, and reason for selection
trench size and dimensions
excavation techniques (for example, backhoe stripping, trowel, etc)
context and artefact recording systems
artefact mapping and recovery techniques (for example, sieve sizes, point
proveniencing, etc).
The recording of excavation details must reflect spatial and temporal units that
meaningfully convey the history of the site and site formation processes. Artefact
records must include trench, feature, context and phase information so that
activity areas can be identified as comprehensively as the integrity of the site
permits.
An example of an Excavation Methodology is included as Appendix A.1.3.
11
1.5
Artefact Retention Policy
The Artefact Retention Policy specifies how and why individual artefacts and types of
artefacts will be retained, discarded or sampled during an investigation.
The development of a policy prior to the commencement of fieldwork ensures that a
considered and consistent approach to artefact management is maintained
throughout a project and is an essential component of the documentation for any
archaeological collection that results from the investigation. The Artefact Retention
Policy should reflect what has been identified as significant at the site, site
conditions, the Research Design, and the Excavation Methodology.
Requirements
An Artefact Retention Policy is required as part of all Permit or Consent applications.
The policy should be informed by the perceived significance of the site, and the
following questions:
1.5.1
How much sampling will be done? Will samples be taken from each
deposit or from ‘intact’ deposits only? Will all material types be sampled?
Will only diagnostic artefacts be sampled?
Will surface finds be retained?
What artefacts / artefact types will be retained, and why?
How will artefact recovery be managed (details of sieve sizes, bulk
recording, point proveniencing etc)?
How will artefact retention and discard processes be documented and
recorded?
What provisions will be made for the collection of ecofacts (such as pollen
or soil samples)?
Artefact sampling and discard
The sampling and/or discard of individual artefacts, artefact types or other material
may be justified in some cases, in particular where it is clear from field observations,
stratigraphic evaluations and analysis that archaeological contexts lack integrity.
Requirements
Discard may be justified if an excessive quantity of redundant materials has been
recovered, particularly in the case of building materials. Where the quantity of a class
of artefacts is such that its values can be represented in a sample, it may not be
necessary for the entire collection to be retained. However all artefacts or other
cultural material must be recorded prior to discard, to enable valid statistical
assessments to be made.
Sampled materials such as bricks and structural timber, and modern (less than 50
years old) materials should be noted in the report and on context sheets, rather than
catalogued and retained. This should be clearly stated in the discard policy. It should
be kept in mind that, in some cases, modern materials may be useful for determining
the age and/or integrity of deposits, and may warrant retention and cataloguing for
this reason.
When considering retention/discard options, the policy should clarify whether the
recovery of one or more significant artefacts within a less significant assemblage may
12
require the retention of a larger portion of the whole assemblage than would
otherwise be the case.
1.6
Artefact Management Proposal
An Artefact Management Proposal details how recovered artefacts will be managed
in the field and post-excavation.
Artefacts may be lodged with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository, Museum
Victoria, other museums or other repositories subject to approval from Heritage
Victoria and the proposed repository.
Requirements
The project archaeologist must demonstrate a knowledge of field artefact
management and conservation processes. They are required to make a submission
which details how artefact conservation issues will be addressed in the field. Ideally,
qualified conservators should be engaged as part of a project where artefact
conservation issues are likely to arise.
Some conservation management issues to consider include:
Is there sufficient space on site for artefact cleaning and processing?
Is there a structure or shelter for artefact processing and storage?
Are amenities, such as clean water, available?
Is furniture, such as tables, shelves and drying racks, required?
Are standard artefact processing materials available (such as buckets,
tubs, storage boxes, brushes, Zip-lock bags, trays, labels, markers, gloves,
masks)?
Is specialised equipment, such as lights and a fridge, required?
Do you have the capacity to manage all artefacts?
Do you have the skills to protect and manage significant artefacts if they
are identified?
Is there sufficient site security to safeguard the material?
Details of the proposed repository must be submitted as part of the Permit or
Consent application. The details of the repository must include proposed storage
conditions, artefact management details, address and contact details. The proposed
artefact lodgement details must be submitted to Heritage Victoria for approval.
1.6.1
Alternate artefact repositories
If it is proposed that the assemblage recovered from a site may be lodged at a
repository other than Heritage Victoria, a proposal must be submitted for the approval
of the Executive Director which addresses the following:
What is the ownership status of the assemblage?
What custodianship arrangements (if any) are proposed?
How will access to the assemblage (for research, exhibition and other
purposes) be facilitated and managed?
13
What will be the conditions of storage and display?
How will the assemblage be managed, and how will the integrity of the
collection (ensuring that artefacts do not become separated from identification
numbers or from other associated objects) be maintained?
How will the conservation requirements of the assemblage be monitored and
addressed?
How will assemblage and object movements be tracked and recorded?
Will the assemblage be stored securely?
The management of the assemblage and of individual objects must be informed by
an understanding of the site and artefact significance. Collection management
requirements will be more rigorous for collections and objects of high significance,
and less complex for those of lower significance (see section 3.5). Artefacts of low or
no significance approved for discard by Heritage Victoria offer an opportunity to be
stored and/or displayed at places such as educational institutions and community
museums.
Regardless of the repository the documentation of a site, its assemblage and artefact
catalogue must be lodged with Heritage Victoria. The detail required in an artefact
catalogue will vary based on the significance of the assemblage.
While Heritage Victoria will retain artefact catalogues for assemblages stored at and
managed by alternate facilities, it should be noted that it will not maintain a site’s full
catalogue records as it will be a static record. Full catalogues should be maintained
by the final repository. Any transfer of assemblages from an alternate repository (with
the exception of approved deaccessioned assemblages) should be documented and
communicated to Heritage Victoria.
It is essential that the proposed repository manager is involved in the development,
approval and implementation of all processes relating to curation and storage.
1.7
Artefact identifiers
Heritage Victoria’s collection management staff provide unique identifiers (prefixes)
for each excavation. The identifiers allow differentiation between assemblages (and
projects) with each artefact having a unique catalogue number. Other repositories
have systems and identifiers appropriate to their collections.
Requirement
Where it has been determined that artefacts will be deposited with Heritage Victoria,
site identification prefixes will be issued by Heritage Victoria staff as part of the
Permit or Consent. These must be used in the catalogue, artefact labelling and
packaging processes.
For assemblages lodged with Heritage Victoria, all identifiers must comply with the
following conventions:
A two or three letter prefix unique to each site will be assigned by Heritage
Victoria.
14
The unique artefact number should be in a five digit format with a space
between the assigned prefix and sequential number (for example VB
00024).
When documenting the relationship between components of one artefact
(for example components of a single clock), sub-numbering may be used
(for example VB 00024.001). However the parent record consisting of all
the artefacts (for example VB 00024) must be generated as well. Contact
HV staff for more information on this topic before starting.
Complete items must be given individual numbers.
Numbers must not be duplicated.
Fragmentary items must be sorted and grouped by stratigraphic context
and artefact type (that is, fragments sharing object form, function, material,
sub-material, manufacturing technique, and decorative technique).
Types must not be mixed within one numbered group.
Each numbered item or group of items must be bagged individually.
Each number must only refer to items in one bag.
Each artefact or group of artefacts must be accompanied by an acid-free
label indicating the artefact number using specified inks. Wet and damp
artefacts must be accompanied by a waterproof (Tyvek™) label indicating
the artefact number (see Appendix B).
For artefacts lodged with another repository, details of their identifier system must be
provided in the Artefact Management Proposal as part of the Consent or Permit
application, and the project stakeholders will need to establish details for the
cataloguing and artefact numbering process.
15
2.
FIELDWORK
2.1
Implement Excavation Methodology
Fieldwork must be conducted to a high standard, in accordance with the approved
Excavation Methodology, in order to optimise the quality of site interpretation and
artefact analysis.
Requirements
Any changes to the Excavation Methodology require prior approval from Heritage
Victoria. All changes must be detailed in the Project Report.
2.2
Artefact Retention Policy
The careful and consistent application of the Artefact Retention Policy during
fieldwork ensures that appropriate and detailed analysis can take place at the
completion of fieldwork and in the future.
Requirements
The Artefact Retention Policy must be implemented in accordance with the approved
Permit or Consent. Changes to the policy must be approved by Heritage Victoria, and
detailed in the Project Report.
In most cases, Heritage Victoria recommends comprehensive retention of artefacts in
the field. For assemblages deemed of little or no significance following fieldwork and
analysis, discard may be appropriate at the completion of the project (with the
approval of Heritage Victoria).
2.3
Artefact recording and management
The collection, documentation, labelling and management of recovered artefacts in
the field is essential for quality analysis following fieldwork.
Requirements
Artefact cleaning, packaging, and cataloguing (including catalogue design, field
descriptors, terminology and content) must be in accordance with the requirements of
Heritage Victoria (see Appendix B), and artefacts being submitted to Heritage
Victoria must be catalogued using the Heritage Victoria Catalogue Template (see
section 3.2).
2.4
Discovery of dangerous material
Many archaeological sites contain potentially dangerous or hazardous materials.
Below is a list of materials that Heritage Victoria will not accept for storage
Heritage Victoria will not accept any artefacts containing:
asbestos, fibreglass or other hazardous synthetic mineral fibres
potentially explosive objects (including ammunition)
toxic, explosive or asphyxiant gases (for example, methane)
16
putrescible or infectious materials (for example, medical waste)
oils and tars
pesticides
radioactive waste
arsenic, cadmium, mercury pigments, industrial wastes, mining wastes or
poison.
Some dangerous materials (such as lead objects) may be accepted, in consultation
with Heritage Victoria’s staff. Those materials must be clearly marked as hazardous
and all parties who may handle the assemblage should be made aware of the
presence of hazardous materials.
It is likely that other repositories will have similar requirements.
Requirements
If any potentially dangerous or contaminated material is uncovered, all works must
immediately cease and Heritage Victoria must be contacted.
If any potentially explosive objects are discovered, works in the subject area must
cease immediately and Victoria Police and Heritage Victoria must be contacted. The
Police will arrange for the attention and disposal of the artefacts by military
personnel. Any artefacts thought to be unexploded ordnance must be left
undisturbed, and people kept a safe distance until the area is declared safe.
If artefacts containing asbestos are excavated, they should be catalogued and then
disposed of according to the guidelines provided by the Environment Protection
Authority.
For additional information, including the proper handling and disposal of dangerous
materials, contact the Environment Protection Authority or see Industry Standard
Contaminated Construction Sites, Construction and Utilities (WorkSafe Victoria,
2005).
2.5
Discovery of human remains
If any suspected human remains are discovered or exposed at any time, it is
necessary for all works in the vicinity to cease immediately and for Victoria Police and
Heritage Victoria to be notified.
2.6
Field Conservation
All applicants are required to undertake conservation works for significant artefacts
recovered during archaeological investigations and other works. In cases where the
recovery of artefacts is likely, the Executive Director will include a condition in the Act
approval requiring the engagement of a project conservator.
Requirements
It is the responsibility of the project archaeologist and conservator to ensure that
artefacts exposed and recovered in the field receive appropriate conservation
treatment (see Appendix D). Some artefacts will deteriorate if conservation processes
are not initiated immediately after, or even during, an excavation.
17
If artefacts with urgent conservation needs are recovered, they must be brought to
the attention of the project conservator immediately. This is particularly important for
artefacts that may be of high significance. The conservator and Heritage Victoria staff
can also provide advice about the consolidation of artefacts prior to their excavation,
recovery, sampling, artefact packing and transport. In some cases, the location,
condition or environment of an archaeological site may present particular
conservation challenges. For example, artefacts from foreshore sites are likely to
have a high salt content. Advice on the management of artefacts from sites with
unusual or challenging conditions should be obtained from Heritage Victoria staff or
other conservation experts.
Organic artefacts (such as leather) or metal artefacts (such as coins and medallions)
are particularly likely to require urgent conservation treatment. Before artefacts are
separated from the assemblage for urgent conservation treatment, care must be
taken to ensure that:
2.7
they have been assigned catalogue numbers
preliminary cataloguing has been completed
their location has been noted in the catalogue.
Preliminary management recommendations
Preliminary management recommendations include options for the retention of site
fabric, site avoidance or other site preservation measures, and opportunities for the
development of interpretation schemes.
In some cases, it is necessary for recommendations regarding site management to
be made during the excavation process or immediately after its completion. This may
be the case if options are being considered for the retention of site fabric in situ, or
for the development of an interpretation scheme.
Requirements
Management options should be provided to the proponent or site owner and Heritage
Victoria as soon as possible. It may not be appropriate to wait and include site
management information in the standard project report, which may not be completed
until many months after the fieldwork.
18
3.
3.1
CONSERVATION, ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND
SUBMISSION OF ARTEFACTS
Artefact Conservation Proposal
The requirement for an Artefact Conservation Proposal is listed as a condition on
most Heritage Act archaeology approvals (in accordance with section129(4b) of the
Act). The Artefact Conservation Proposal details the conservation works that are
proposed for recovered artefacts. It must be a significance-based assessment of
conservation requirements for artefact types and individual artefacts.
Once the Proposal has been endorsed by the Executive Director, the project
conservation works can commence in order to address the Permit or Consent
conditions. Conservation works must be undertaken my materials conservators with
appropriate qualifications and expertise.
Requirements
The Artefact Conservation Proposal (ACP) must be submitted to the Executive
Director for approval at the completion of fieldwork. The proposed conservation
processes must be informed by an understanding of the significance of the site,
individual contexts, object groups, object types, material types and individual items.
It is recommended that the project archaeologist work with the conservator to ensure
that the significance of the site, its context and artefacts accurately informs the
development of the ACP.
The ACP must include details of all artefact management and conservation work
including that undertaken by the project conservator and archaeologist. The Proposal
must also detail how conservation treatments will be recorded.
The ACP must include timeframes for the completion of the proposed conservation
and artefact management work.
Appendix D (Artefact Conservation Guidelines) provides advice on the level of
conservation work that will usually be required for artefacts of high, medium and low
significance, and of varying material types. See the case studies in Appendix A for
examples of proposals (A.2.4 and A.3.3).
19
At the completion of fieldwork the archaeologist and conservator must draft an ACP
for assessment by Heritage Victoria. Once Heritage Victoria is satisfied with the
details of the proposal, it will be returned for counter-signing by the applicant. This
ensures that all parties are aware of the level of conservation work that is required.
Once the counter-signed proposal has been received by Heritage Victoria, the
Executive Director will consider it for final endorsement. In some cases, the
Executive Director will not issue a final Consent to Damage for a site until the
Artefact Conservation Proposal has been submitted and approved.
3.2
Catalogue completion
The artefact catalogue provides primary data as the basis for artefact analysis and
tracking. The artefact catalogue data is used to address the questions raised in the
Research Design, and to establish the significance of the site and overall
assemblage. The catalogue enables the synthesis of artefact and stratigraphic
information, and comparative analysis.
Requirements
All assemblages submitted to Heritage Victoria are entered into a collection
management system which contains artefact records for sites across Victoria. The
20
use of standard fields and terminologies ensures that all assemblages are recorded
in a consistent way and are searchable.
For assemblages lodged with Heritage Victoria, the catalogue design and content
must use the Heritage Victoria catalogue template. Heritage Victoria welcomes
comment and suggestions for additions to cataloguing terminology. New terms will be
considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis.
Other repositories, including Museums Victoria, have their own templates and
systems. Catalogue numbers must comply with the conventions used by the
repository where they will be lodged (see section 1.7). Where a third party may have
an involvement in the conservation, curation, management or display of artefacts or
an assemblage, it is essential that they are involved in the development of the
catalogue design and content.
Care must be taken to ensure the use of correct terminologies. Incomplete and nonstandard catalogues will result in the assemblage being returned to the project
archaeologist.
Catalogues can be submitted electronically when artefacts are delivered or prior to
delivery. An Excel spreadsheet of the catalogue must also be included in the Project
Report when lodged with Heritage Victoria, regardless of the repository used.
3.3
Artefact analysis
The information and research that results from artefact analysis is one of the most
important outcomes of site investigations. It helps to mitigate the permanent damage
to a site caused by its excavation and disturbance. Analysis assists the archaeologist
to understand the history of a site, address the Research Design and inform the
interpretation of the site (see section 3.4). It also informs the Statements of
Significance for the site and for the assemblage (3.5 and 3.6).
Requirements
Artefact distributions must be presented in such a way that the provenance of
elements within the assemblage can be designated to an area, feature, and phase of
the site. Tables should include the following (see Appendices A.2 and A.3):
quantities of artefacts in each functional and sub-functional category by
major feature and/or activity area and by phase, where relevant
minimum numbers of domestic glass and ceramic forms and of clay pipes
and small finds
minimum numbers counts for other artefact types
makers’ marks
manufacturing dates
synthesis of artefact date ranges associated with major features.
Information derived from the artefact analysis must be synthesised with results from
the excavation and background research to develop an understanding of site
formation processes and activities.
The project archaeologist must ensure that appropriate resources are allocated for all
aspects of artefact processing, cataloguing, analysis and reporting, and that staff are
21
appropriately qualified and experienced. Where relevant, the archaeologist should
liaise with the project conservator to ensure that any information that has come to
light during conservation is incorporated into the cataloguing and analysis.
In some cases, it may be necessary to engage an individual with expertise in specific
areas of artefact analysis. Expert artefact reports, on all or parts of the assemblage,
do not replace the requirement to address the Research Design.
In some cases, usually for large scale projects, Heritage Victoria may require the
development of an artefact type series, which will be specified on the approved
Permit or Consent.
3.4
Site analysis and addressing the Research Design
The synthesis of the results of an archaeological investigation is the most important
outcome of the project. It is a combination of all the collected information, including
historical research, archaeological findings, artefact analysis and addressing the
Research Design. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the site and the
activities that occurred there, offsetting the irreversible damage caused by
development.
Requirements
The questions identified in the Research Design must be addressed in the Project
Report.
The analysis must assess and summarise the contribution the excavation has made
to the understanding of Victoria’s history.
It will not always be possible to answer all the questions raised, and the results of the
excavation and analysis may generate new questions.
3.5
Assemblage Statement of Significance
Conservation, curation and management decisions are guided by the assemblage’s
Statement of Significance.
The significance of an archaeological assemblage determines whether it is suitable
for inclusion in the Heritage Victoria collection. If an assemblage is not assessed as
being of medium or high significance, it will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria and
other arrangements must be made (which may include lodgement in a local museum
or reburial on site).
Requirements
The Statement of Significance for the assemblage must refer to (and be informed by)
the site Statement of Significance (see sections 1.2 and 3.6). The site Statement of
Significance may need to be updated to reflect the results of the excavation, and site
and artefact analysis.
The Statement of Significance for the assemblage must be provided when the
artefacts are delivered to Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository, or other approved
storage location. The assemblage’s Statement of Significance must be a detailed
evaluation which addresses the Heritage Council’s significance criteria (see
Appendix H).
22
The assemblage’s Statement of Significance must identify how and why the
assemblage is significant. It should consider:
integrity of the site and its deposits
percentage of the site that was excavated
condition of artefacts in the assemblage (for example intactness,
preservation of organics, post-depositional damage)
size and diversity of the assemblage
ability of the assemblage to enhance the significance of the site
ability of the assemblage to address significant research questions
aesthetic, technological, or social values of individual artefacts in the
assemblage, if relevant
potential for further analysis of the assemblage
potential for archaeologists to conduct future work at the site.
An assemblage of high significance will typically:
be from deposits of high archaeological integrity
be large and diverse in the range of artefact types
have potential for research or display
enhance the significance and understanding of the site
be lodged with either Heritage Victoria or Museum Victoria.
An assemblage of medium significance will typically:
be from deposits of moderate archaeological integrity
be sufficiently large and diverse in the range of artefact types included to
permit limited additional research or display
enhance the significance of the site
be lodged with Heritage Victoria, Museum Victoria, a local museum or
other similar repository, if appropriate.
An assemblage of low significance will typically:
be from deposits of little or no archaeological integrity
be small and lacking diversity in the range of artefact types included
have no potential for further research or display
have some potential for educational use
be lodged with a local museum or other similar repository, if appropriate, or
be discarded.
All assemblages do not have equal potential for further research, education or
display purposes. The level of significance will dictate the assemblage’s suitability for
use and curation. For this reason, the assemblage Statement of Significance must be
as informed, detailed and accurate as possible.
23
In the event that individual artefacts within an assemblage have a higher level of
significance than the rest of the assemblage, the artefacts should be specified in the
Statement of Significance.
The assemblage’s Statement of Significance should include recommendations for its
future retention and management, which may be to accession it as part of the
Heritage Victoria collection, to arrange permanent storage elsewhere (for example at
a regional museum or historical society), reburial on site, or discard all or part of the
assemblage.
Where it is recommended that all or part of the assemblage be discarded, Heritage
Victoria staff must be consulted before any action is taken. If approved, the reasons
and the circumstances of discard must be fully documented in the report. The final
catalogue should retain the information (including representative photographs) about
the discarded artefacts and clearly indicate that they are no longer part of the
assemblage
3.6
Revised site Statement of Significance
The site Statement of Significance must be reassessed by the project archaeologist
following the completion of the fieldwork, and site and artefact analysis.
Requirements
The revised site Statement of Significance must indicate how the results of the
excavation and artefact analysis have contributed to a better understanding of the
site significance, and whether the archaeological potential of the site was realised.
The final Statement of Significance should be written as a stand alone document. It
must address the appropriate Heritage Council criteria. The responses to the
questions raised in the Research Design will also inform the reviewed statement.
Even though a separate Statement of Significance is required for the archaeological
assemblage, the final site Statement of Significance must make reference to the
recovered artefact assemblage, as it contributes to the significance of the site as a
whole.
3.7
Management recommendations
Clear, logical and precise management recommendations ensure that the
archaeological values of a site and assemblage are appropriately managed and
protected.
Requirements
At the conclusion of the project, management recommendations must be developed
that reflect the significance of the site and the assemblage. The recommendations
must specify options for the use of the site, and consider whether impacts on areas
of significance can be avoided, reduced or mitigated.
If part of the site retains known or potential archaeological values, the
recommendations must identify where the areas are located, and where
investigations or monitoring may be required in the future.
24
Opportunities for site interpretation (for example, signage, artefact displays or
retention of historic fabric) must also be identified.
3.8
Submission of artefacts and records
Assemblages to be lodged with Heritage Victoria must be packed according to
Heritage Victoria’s guidelines (see Appendix B); accompanied by an electronic copy
of the artefact catalogue; the assemblage Statement of Significance; the final Project
Report; and be delivered to the Artefact Repository.
An appointment with the repository must be made in advance. In some cases
(usually for major excavation projects), Heritage Victoria may require submission of
copies of all field records including photos, maps, plans, section drawings and
stratigraphic record sheets. This requirement will be specified on the Permit or
Consent.
3.9
Project Report
One hard and one portable document format (PDF) copy of the Project Report must
be submitted to Heritage Victoria, regardless of the repository, in accordance with the
conditions and timeframe specified on the Permit or Consent. Failure to provide a
Project Report by the archaeologist within the timeframe specified on the
Permit or Consent is a breach of the Act.
A checklist is provided on the next page for quick reference.
25
The Project Report must include the following:
copy of the Consent or Permit
copy of any correspondence regarding modifications to the Permit or
Consent (for example, modifications to timeframe or nominated
project archaeologist)
background research, including site, local and regional histories,
environmental conditions, etc.
list of site occupants and relevant dates of occupation
Research Design
Excavation Methodology, including list of excavated contexts
describing location, phase and description
list of deposits of interest (that is, of particular significance or with
potential for further research) and corresponding context numbers
illustrative maps, plans, sections, and photos, including full site plan
showing location of all trenches and excavated features
Artefact Retention Policy, including any changes made while in the
field
details of discarded artefacts
Artefact Conservation Proposal
artefact catalogue in Excel format
artefact analysis, including summary tables
interpretation (that is, synthesis of stratigraphic and artefact
analyses and addressing of Research Design questions)
assemblage Statement of Significance
statement indicating where assemblage has been lodged, including
contact details
revised site Statement of Significance
management recommendations for the site and assemblage.
26
APPENDIX A
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CASE STUDIES
A.1
Case studies background
This case study presents the archaeological investigation of a fictitious Heritage
Inventory site. It includes the requirements in completing an Application for Consent
(pursuant to Section 129 of the Heritage Act 1995), including the site Statement of
Significance, Research Design, Excavation Methodology and Artefact Retention
Policy.
The case study includes two scenarios of the reporting and analysis resulting from
the excavation. Each assesses the analysis and interpretation of the excavation,
including artefact data, an assemblage Statement of Significance, a revised site
Statement of Significance, and management recommendations.
In the first scenario (A.2), the assemblage is considered to be of high significance
due to the excavation and analysis of a number of artefact-rich deposits, adding
considerable knowledge to the site.
In the second case (A.3), the assemblage is considered to be of low significance due
to the excavation recovering very little and the artefacts analysis not adding new
information to the knowledge of the site.
Brabanti Cottage Site H7822-0000
The Brunswick property has a frontage of 6.1 metres to the street and a depth of 24.4
metres, with a total area of 148.8 square metres. Within the property are visible
footings of a demolished single fronted single storey Victorian cottage with twobedrooms, attached kitchen, and small rear yard with laneway access.
Other visible features include a well-preserved bluestone wall footings and intact
underfloor deposits. Survey of the surface deposits revealed domestic debris
including glass, ceramic and animal bone fragments, sewing pins and hooks and
eyes.
Background research
Search of council rate books and Sands & McDougall Directories indicate the
dwelling was built around 1873. It was constructed at the eastern end of a row of six
almost identical properties (plan attached). There is no evidence of a previous
building on the site.
A tailor, Joseph Brabanti, rented the house in 1873 and lived there with his wife,
Maria, and five children. It is uncertain if he worked in a factory, workshop or from
home. The Brabanti family occupied the site from 1873 until 1970.
Upon the death of Joseph Brabanti in 1917 (Maria died in 1912), the house was sold
by the owner to Brabanti’s eldest son, Sergio. Sergio worked in a woollen mill in
North Fitzroy until the 1960s.
The house was sold after Sergio’s death in 1970, and used as student
accommodation. By 2005 the dwelling was condemned, and in 2008 was sold as a
‘demolish and rebuild’.
27
Reason for applying for Consent
There is a proposal to redevelop the site into medium density housing. The
development proposal intends to retain the surviving footings, and incorporate them
as a landscape feature in an open space.
A test excavation would provide a rare opportunity to examine the material discard of
a single immigrant family over almost a century.
The Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria has been consulted and determined, in
accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, that a Cultural Heritage
Management Plan was not required for the site.
A.1.1
Site Statement of Significance
What is significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site in Brunswick contains the archaeological remains of an
inner-city Victorian cottage which was occupied by an Italian migrant family from
1873 to 1970.
Archaeological features including remnant footings, a relatively intact bluestone wall,
and underfloor deposits indicate that the house was a standard two-bedroom, single
storey dwelling with attached kitchen, and small rear yard with laneway access.
Surface artefacts of domestic and occupational activity also remain.
The site has the potential to contain artefacts in the covered cesspit.
How is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site is of local historical and archaeological significance.
Why is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site is of historical significance for its association with Victoria’s
mid-late 19th century migrant history.
The Brabanti Cottage site is of archaeological significance for its potential to contain
archaeological deposits, features and artefacts that relate to the construction and use
of the place. The archaeological remains also have the potential to yield information
about ethnicity, consumption practices, and domestic labour arrangements within a
19th century Melburnian migrant working family. Such dwellings were built in their
thousands during this period, but few examples beyond the Melbourne CBD have
been the subject of thorough archaeological investigations.
A.1.2
Research Design
The main focus of research in this investigation will be on the domestic arrangements
and work practices of a migrant family in late 19th century Melbourne. Previous
archaeological research into working-class households in Melbourne focused mainly
on Anglo-Australian and Chinese people. This site has the potential to provide new
information about several generations of a single Italian migrant family, and how they
negotiated issues of work, consumption, ethnicity and gender in a new society.
Descriptive questions
What is the nature of the archaeological fabric of the site? Describe results
of archaeological work relating to wall footings and what these reveal about
the construction of the building.
28
What evidence is there for rubbish and sewage disposal on the site? Are
there preserved cesspits or rubbish pits in the rear yard?
What is the nature of the archaeological deposits at the site? Describe
results of archaeological work relating to associated underfloor and yard
deposits.
What natural and cultural taphonomic processes have contributed to the
archaeological site and its associated deposits?
What stratigraphic sequences are represented at the site?
Analytical questions
How many artefact fragments were recovered from the excavation of the
site?
How were these items distributed spatially within the four main areas of the
site (that is, the three interior rooms and the rear yard), and are there
particular concentrations of artefacts within these areas?
What types and quantities of major artefact groups were recovered? These
are likely to include architectural items, domestic tablewares and teawares,
glass bottles and tablewares, clay tobacco pipes, toys, tools, sewing
equipment, personal items.
What are the Minimum Number of Vessel (MNV) counts for household
ceramic and glass objects, and other relevant artefact types?
How much diversity of form is there within each of these artefact groups?
What similar sites have been investigated within the local or broader
context?
Interpretive questions
What do the artefacts reveal about the daily lives of the Brabanti family,
specifically relating to:
o diet (include reference to faunal and botanical material)
o hygiene, sanitation and rubbish disposal
o consumerism, status, respectability, ethnicity, household structure, etc.
o work practices?
What evidence is there for the consumption of mass-produced
commodities in a working-class household?
What evidence is there for work in the tailoring/textiles trade at the
property?
What evidence is there for the expression of Italian ethnicity in the material
remains?
How do the patterns of daily life and work identified at the site compare
with those seen at similar colonial urban households such as Casselden
Place in Melbourne CBD, the Rocks in Sydney, and Port Adelaide?
29
A.1.3
Excavation Methodology
Excavation will focus on four main areas of the site:
front room
second room
kitchen
rear yard.
The site is approximately 149m2 in total size. An area of up to 54m2 will be
excavated, representing 36% of the site. Excavation will focus on deposits relating to
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries only. No excavation of any surviving preEuropean deposits will take place.
The full extent of the three main internal rooms will be excavated. Each of these
areas will be gridded into one metre squares to ensure spatial control of artefact
recovery and facilitate the later analysis of activity areas. The two front rooms each
measure approximately 4 metres square. The kitchen measures 5 x 3 metres. These
three rooms will be excavated in their entirety, giving a total excavation area of 16m 2
+ 16m2 + 15m2 = 47m2.
Only a small portion of the rear yard will be excavated, to locate rubbish and cesspit
deposits adjacent to the northern boundary, as indicated on MMBW plans. The rear
yard is approximately 10 metres deep and 7 metres wide. A 5m x 1m trench will be
excavated adjacent to the northern boundary of the rear yard. If a cesspit is located,
excavation will be expanded up to an additional 2 m2 to include this feature.
As the footings are already exposed no mechanical stripping will be required and all
deposits will be manually excavated with trowels in 5cm spits. Cultural horizons will
be followed where possible.
Excavation units [contexts] will be recorded in a single running sequence for the
entire site.
All features will be planned to scale and photographed in situ.
All deposits will be sieved through nested 10mm, 5mm and 2mm sieves to ensure
highest possible rate of artefact recovery. Artefacts will not be point-provenienced but
will be bulk bagged according to type within each feature, context or grid square.
In the event of a cesspit deposit is excavated, soil samples of 2 litres each will be
collected from each 10cm of deposit. These samples will be labelled and doublebagged and analysed during the post-excavation phase to identify seeds and small
animal bone fragments, relating to food consumption. All appropriate health and
safety procedures will be followed during the investigation and analysis of any cess
pits and associated deposits.
In the event of finding Aboriginal cultural material, all works will cease immediately
and the project archaeologist will notify Heritage Victoria and Aboriginal Affairs
Victoria, in accordance with the approved Heritage Act Consent and the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 2006.
It is anticipated that fieldwork will take 10 days (two weeks) to complete.
30
A.1.4
Artefact Retention Policy
All artefacts relating to the Brabanti occupation of the site will be retained, including
surface material. The only artefacts to be sampled will be building debris such as
bricks and bluestone. Material which is clearly less than 50 years old will not be
retained but will be noted on context sheets and in the project report. Artefacts will be
bulk bagged in the field according to type within each feature, context or grid square.
Heritage Victoria will be contacted immediately if any artefacts with urgent
conservation requirements are identified.
All artefacts recovered in the field will be processed and catalogued according to
Heritage Victoria’s Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts
and Sites, using the Heritage Victoria Catalogue Template. Artefacts will be analysed
and interpreted in terms of the questions in the Research Design.
Any decision to discard excavated material on site will be thoroughly documented
and will be subject to prior approval from Heritage Victoria.
Artefact submission
If the assemblage is deemed of medium to high significance, it will be recommended
for lodgement with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository.
Project Report
A Project Report of the all the excavation results, artefact catalogue, materials
analysis and interpretation will be presented to Heritage Victoria within 12 months of
the completion of the fieldwork, in accordance with a condition under the Consent.
The Project Report will include:
a copy of the Consent
any modifications to the Consent, as approved by Heritage Victoria
development proposal
full background history of site and its occupants, including historic plans
and images
fieldwork records, plans and photos
list of excavated contexts describing location, phase and description
Artefact Retention Policy, including approved in-field amendments
Artefact Catalogue in electronic format
artefact analysis, including summary tables
Artefact Conservation Proposal
interpretation to synthesize stratigraphic and artefact analyses and address
Research Design
assemblage Statement of Significance
updated site Statement of Significance
management recommendations (including if further investigation is
recommended).
Archaeological investigation personnel
Project archaeologist
31
Two trench supervisors
Four excavation assistants
One artefact analyst
One historian
A Curriculum Vitae for each team member is attached.
A.2
Scenario One – large and diverse assemblage with high significance
All tables shown demonstrate what is required to summarise the results of analysing
different aspects of the assemblage. The tables are intended to indicate structure
only and do not document all artefact types likely to be recovered.
A.2.1
Artefact analysis and interpretation
Several rooms and features at the former Brabanti Cottage site had large quantities
of artefacts, including a cesspit located in the rear yard. As Table 1 indicates,
architectural items were the most numerous but a large quantity of sewing-related
items was also recovered. The front room had the largest overall quantity of artefacts
but as these are predominantly architectural forms it is likely that this relates to repair
or demolition activities in that room. Most of the sewing items were pins recovered
from the third room, suggesting that sewing was carried out in that location.
Form
Front 2nd
3rd
Yard Cesspit Total
room room room
Architectural Structural
Window
29
5
15
1
8
58
Hardware
Fastenings
Nail
132
37
50
3
-
222
Kitchen
Food
Service
Eggcup
2
6
Sugar
bowl lid
1
1
Teapot
lid
1
1
3
75
3
3
18
366
Function
Sewing
Subfunction
Sewing
Pins
4
12
2
58
Scissors
Total
173
44
127
4
Table 1: Functional distribution of artefact fragments
Tables 2a and 2b indicate the range of ceramic forms recovered from each major
feature. Most were recovered from the cesspit indicating the careful disposal of
kitchen rubbish. Bowls were slightly more abundant than plates, indicating that liquid
foods were favoured. Teawares were present in common, inexpensive blue transfer
printed designs.
32
Material
SubDecoration
material/colour
Ceramic
White
earthenware
Glass
Colourless
Cup
Plate Bowl
Blue
1
transferprint
5
Brown
3
transferprint
1
4
etc
3
Total
9
4
Pressed
Total
etc
6
4
4
7
17
Table 2a: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass (cesspit)
Material
SubDecoration Cup
material/colour
Plate Bowl
Ceramic
White
earthenware
Blue
8
transferprint
2
Brown
transferprint
1
Glass
Colourless
8
etc
Total
10
Pressed
Total
etc
3
1
2
1
1
2
13
Table 2b: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass (house)
Table 3 shows that as with tablewares, most glass containers were recovered from
the cesspit rather than the house interior. The presence of stoneware ink bottles
suggests that members of the family were literate.
Material
SubForm
Material/colour
Cesspit
House
Yard
Total
Glass
Aqua
Soda
water
8
3
4
15
Olive green
Case
15
3
2
20
Stoneware
Ink
4
8
27
14
Ceramic
Total
12
0
47
Table 3: Minimum number of glass and ceramic containers
The clay pipe assemblage from the site (shown in Tables 4a and 4b) is larger than
would be expected on a domestic site and indicates someone in the family was a
heavy smoker. At least 28 pipes were represented in the cesspit deposit, suggesting
some smoking may have been done there, but the recovery of parts of at least 102
pipes from the house indicates that smoking indoors was common.
33
Decoration
Stem
fragments
Bowl/stem
fragments
Mouthpiece
fragments
Complete
Plain
18
20
9
1
‘White’
7
6
Burns cutty
1
1
Total
26
27
9
1
Table 4a: Minimum number of clay pipes (cesspit)
Decoration
Stem
fragments
Bowl/stem
fragments
Mouthpiece
fragments
Complete
Plain
103
87
56
5
‘White’
50
8
7
Burns cutty
7
2
Total
160
97
63
5
Table 4b: Minimum number of clay pipes (house)
Makers’ marks on the ceramics (Table 5) and glass (Table 6) show some
discrepancy in deposition. While the ceramics were first available from the 1850s
and were either in use for some time or acquired as slightly old-fashioned items, the
glass bottles date to the early twentieth century and were disposed of comparatively
soon after they were acquired.
Mark
Maker
Date
Form
Cesspit
‘JHWB’ within
printed knot
design,
;1000/No
268892/Made
in England
‘Liddle, Elliot
and Son’
Wood,
J.H.
1850s1920s
Plate
2
Liddle,
Elliot and
Son
18621871
Serving
dish
4
House
Yard
1
Table 5: Ceramic makers’ marks
Mark
Maker
“G.H.B’, ‘G.H.
Billson’,
‘Melbourne
‘GHB’ ‘G.H.
Bennett/Richmond
Date
Form
Cesspit
House
Yard
1904
Soda
water
bottle
Soda
water
bottle
3
1
3
1900
Table 6: Glass makers’ marks
34
4
1
The dates of the artefacts shed some light on when and how the archaeological
deposits were formed and acquired, use, and disposal practices of the Brabantis.
The artefacts from the house span the entire period of its use, indicating that the
underfloor spaces were at least partially accessible throughout (see Figure 1). The
concentration of artefacts from the 1870s-1950s reflects both the main period of the
Brabanti’s occupation and suggests that some form of floor covering was installed
when the house was sold in 1970. Nearly all the artefacts in the cesspit date to the
1870s-1920s, indicating the cesspit was filled sometime in the early 1920s (see
Figure 2). The yard represents an even more mixed assemblage, with a relatively
even spread of artefacts from all periods (see Figure 3).
In both deposits there was a substantial quantity of items manufactured before 1870,
and even a small quantity earlier than 1850. This suggests that the Brabantis brought
their own, older household goods with them when they moved into the house in 1873
and/or acquired older, possibly second-hand goods while living there.
post-1970 pre-1850
1950-1970 1%
1%
1850-1870
1%
9%
1920-1950
35%
1870-1920
53%
Figure 1: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (house)
1950-1970
0%
post-1970
0%
1920-1950
0%
pre-1850
0%
1850-1870
3%
1870-1920
97%
Figure 2: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (cesspit)
35
pre-1850
1%
post-1970
29%
1850-1870
3%
1870-1920
18%
1920-1950
25%
1950-1970
24%
Figure 3: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (yard)
Interpretation
This section should use the synthesis of stratigraphic and artefact information to
address the questions posed in the Research Design:
Discuss the context of discard and loss for the artefacts in the different areas of the
site. For example any apparent functional differences between rooms, fewer artefacts
within house than in cesspit, dating evidence showing cumulative assemblage in
house due to ongoing deposition, filling of cesspit prior to 1900.
Use faunal, ceramic, and glass material to characterise the diet of the family, with
particular reference to any evidence of the family’s Italian background.
Comment on presence or absence of large quantities of hygiene-related items.
Discuss any evident patterns of consumer preference, cultural practice and items
associated with gender and age.
Discuss presence and distribution of sewing-related artefacts with reference to
Joseph Brabanti’s employment as a tailor.
Compare patterns at site with artefacts at sites of similar age.
A.2.2
Assemblage Statement of Significance
What is significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is from deposits of high archaeological
integrity associated with the occupation of the Brabanti family in from the late 19th
century to mid 20th century.
The assemblage is relatively large and diverse and has the potential to shed light on
behaviour at this site and to facilitate comparison with other sites. As a whole, it has
the potential to support further research, with some components (for example sewing
materials, clay pipes, faunal remains) being worthy of particular note in this regard.
Many of the items from the cesspit are intact or nearly so and would be suitable for
display.
36
How is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is of historical and archaeological significance
to the State of Victoria.
Why is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is of historical significance as the only known
assemblage associated with a gold-rush migration of non-British ethnic groups to
Victoria.
The Brabanti Cottage Site assemblage is of archaeological significance for its ability
to contribute to an understanding of domestic activities of an Italian immigrant family
from 1873 to the 1970.
A.2.3
Revised site Statement of Significance
The original Statement of Significance indicated that the site was significant at the
local level as an example of a common type of housing in Melbourne’s inner-north,
and indicated that due to the lack of subsurface disturbance (as the it was rented by
the same family from 1873 to 1970), the site had high archaeological potential.
The archaeological potential has now been realised and found to be considerable.
The artefact assemblage contributes significant new information. The site is
significant for the artefact assemblage associated with the residents (the Brabanti
family) of the house from 1873-1970.
The excavation contributed no new architectural information about the structures on
the site, and the site itself has been demolished (with appropriate approvals).
What is significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site in Brunswick is significant only for its recovered artefact
assemblage as a result of archaeological investigations.
How is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site is not significant; however its artefact assemblage is of
archaeological and historical significance to the State of Victoria.
Why is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of historical significance because it
is a rare example of a domestic deposit from a 19th century Italian migrant family.
The assemblage is the only known Victorian example of this site type that has been
archaeologically investigated.
The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of archaeological significance for its
intactness and diversity of domestic archaeological material.
It has potential to produce information on the mid 19th century migration of people of
non-British backgrounds due to the gold-rush (in particular, the intact cesspit
artefacts).
See assemblage Statement of Significance.
37
A.2.4
Artefact Conservation Proposal
Overall, the artefact assemblage recovered from the Brabanti Cottage site is
considered to have a high level of significance. For the purposes of conservation
works, various site contexts (and some objects) have been ascribed differing levels
of significance. These significance levels are based on the project archaeologist’s
interpretation of condition, rarity, representativeness and other factors. The
significance assessments are summarised below:
Contexts
High Significance
Medium Significance
Low Significance
28, 30-44
9,10,13-27, 29
1-8, 11, 12
These contexts
include all those that
are likely to relate to
the pre-1900
occupation of the site,
including the cess pit
(31,32) which was
filled c.1900.
These context include
all those relating to the
occupation of the site
from 1900-c.1962.
These context
include all those
relating to the
occupation of the
site from c.19622012.
The following objects were recovered from contexts assessed as being of Medium
Significance, but are considered to have High Significance because of their rarity,
suitability for research, display or interpretation, relevance to the Research Design
questions, or other factors:
BCB 331 coin (from context 29)
BCB 306 coin (from context 27)
BCB 267, BCB299 and BCC 301 matching chamber pot fragments (from
context 25)
BCB 304 watch (from context 27)
BCB 311 pendant/brooch (from context 29)
BCB 94 military medal (from context 14)
In accordance with Heritage Victoria’s Conservation Guidelines, the following
schedule of conservation works is proposed (all works proposed for artefacts
assessed as having high significance will be undertaken by the project
conservator unless otherwise specified):
38
Type
High Significance
Ceramics
Will be washed, packed by
archaeologists.
Objects BCB 267,299 and 301
will be joined. Also BCB408-415;
456-463 and 489-492.
Medium
Significance
Low
Significance
Will be washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Will be
washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Glass
N/A
Will be washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Will be
washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Bone
N/A
Will be washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Will be
washed,
packed by
archaeologists.
Metal
All coins inc BCB331, 306 will be
checked for the presence of salt,
dry cleaning will then be
attempted, chemical cleaning
may be carried out on coins
where further information is
required and where the
inscription can be revealed by
chemical cleaning methods. The
coins may be coated with a
conservation grade coating at the
completion of the cleaning.
The watch BCB304 will be
disassembled, cleaned and
dewatered via cotton swab with
solvent, potentially some parts
may be coated with an
appropriate conservation grade
metal coating, a separate
housing and support will be
constructed for this artefact as it
is fragile.
The pendant/brooch BCB311
and medal BCB 94 will be:
o chemically cleaned to
remove corrosion
products
o coated with a
conservation grade
coating
39
The pen knife BCB 351 will be
examined to determine if there is
stable original metal remaining in
the blade; tested for presence of
chloride ions; the iron alloy will
be stabilised as much as
possible; the copper alloy
component will be
dewatered/cleaned with solvent
and coated with a conservation
grade coating; and the wooden
handle will be cleaned and
consolidated to prevent further
material being lost.
Organics
Leather children’s shoe BCB361
Determine if leather can be
consolidated by use of poly
ethylene glycol (if found wet and
kept wet then this treatment can
proceed).
Perform a detailed clean of the
leather surfaces prior to any
other treatment.
Create a custom housing support
ton promote good conditions for
long term storage.
It is anticipated that the conservation work for the Brabanti Cottage assemblage will
take the project conservator approximately 4-5 weeks to complete.
A.2.5
Management recommendations
The site was deemed to be of no significance and was destroyed in the course of
further development, with approval from Heritage Victoria.
Given the significance of the artefact assemblage, some form of on-site interpretation
should be considered. This may include in situ retention of elements of the bluestone
foundations with relevant site information.
The assemblage should be considered for display in the Immigration Museum, local
historical society, museum or other community space.
A.2.6
Submission of artefacts and records
As the assemblage is deemed highly significant, the entire historical archaeological
assemblage recovered from the site was retained (in accordance with the approved
Artefact Retention Policy) and lodged with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository,
along with the Project Report.
40
A.3
Scenario Two - small and limited assemblage with low significance
All tables shown demonstrate what is required to summarise the results of analysing
different aspects of the assemblage. The tables are intended to indicate structure
only and do not document all artefact types likely to be recovered.
A.3.1
Artefact analysis and interpretation
The Brabanti Cottage site archaeological deposits were highly disturbed, probably as
a result of previous demolition activity. Few in situ artefacts associated with the
Brabanti family were recovered. The cesspit was not located and the rear yard was
leveled recently, stripping and removing all topsoil from the site. The tables and
figures below provide an overview of the artefact types found, their distribution and
age.
Due to the small size of the assemblage and that it cannot be definitively associated
with the Brabanti family, it is not possible to address the questions in the Research
Design.
Form
Front 2nd
room room
Architectural Structural
Window
8
3
Hardware
Fastening
Nail
5
8
Kitchen
Food service
Plate
Function
Subfunction
Sewing
Pins
Total
Yard
15
28
2
4
17
Total
11
Bowl
Sewing
3rd
room
11
2
1
1
1
5
17
2
47
Table 1: Functional distribution of artefact fragments
Material
Sub-material/colour
Decoration
Plate
Ceramic
White earthenware
Blue
transferprint
1
Glass
Colourless
Bowl
Total
1
Brown
transferprint
1
1
Pressed
1
1
2
3
Total
1
Table 2: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass
41
Material
Sub-material/colour
Form
Total
Glass
Aqua
Soda water
3
Olive green
Case
5
Total
8
Table 3: Minimum number of glass and ceramic containers
Mark
Maker
Date
‘JHWB’ within printed
knot design,
;1000/No
268892/Made in
England
Wood, J.H. 1850s-1920s
Form
Quantity
Plate
1
“G.H.B’, ‘G.H.
Billson’, ‘Melbourne
1904
Soda
water
bottle
1
‘GHB’ ‘G.H.
Bennett/Richmond
1900
Soda
water
bottle
1
Table 4: Ceramic and glass makers’ marks
pre-1850
1%
post-1970
29%
1850-1870
3%
1870-1920
18%
1920-1950
25%
1950-1970
24%
Figure 1: Artefact manufacturing date ranges
42
A.3.2
Assemblage Statement of Significance
What is significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site archaeological assemblage was highly disturbed, small
and lacking in diversity. It is not possible to associate the artefacts with any particular
period of occupation.
How is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of low historical and archaeological
significance.
Why is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is too small to demonstrate the
occupation of the site, facilitate comparative analysis, or support further research. Its
archaeological deposits are highly disturbed and none of the recovered artefacts are
from deposits that can be associated with the Brabanti family.
A.3.3
Revised site Statement of Significance
The original site Statement of Significance indicated that the site was significant at a
local level as an example of a common type of terrace housing in Melbourne’s innernorth, and has the potential for intact archaeological deposits.
The archaeological potential has been tested and determined that the deposits lack
integrity and the ability to contribute new information to Victoria’s historic record. The
artefact assemblage is small and not clearly associated with any residents. The
excavation contributed no new architectural information about the structures. The site
has subsequently been demolished and has no further significance.
What is significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site represents the remains of an inner-city Victorian cottage
from the later nineteenth century. The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is
from disturbed contexts and highly fragmented.
How is it significant?
The Brabanti Cottage site is of low historical and archaeological significance. The
Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of no historical or archaeological
significance.
See assemblage Statement of Significance.
A.3.4
Artefact Conservation Proposal
The assemblage has been assessed as having a low level of significance, and no
conservation works will be undertaken.
A.3.5
Management recommendations
The structural remains at the site were deemed to be of no significance and were
destroyed in the course of redevelopment, with approval from Heritage Victoria.
43
A.3.6
Submission of artefacts and records
Due to its low significance, the assemblage was discarded due to its low significance
and reburied on site, following approval from Heritage Victoria. The marked bottles
and ceramics have been retained by Heritage Victoria as part of its reference
collection.
44
APPENDIX B
PREPARATION OF ARTEFACTS FOR SUBMISSION
Artefacts must be packed, labelled, stored and transported in ways that preserve the
contextual information, prevent damage, and facilitate their management.
Requirements
Assemblages will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria unless they comply with these
guidelines. On completion of an excavation, consultants should notify Heritage
Victoria staff of the date they expect to complete the Project Report and when the
artefacts will be moved into storage at Heritage Victoria or at another nominated
artefact repository.
B.1
Artefact handling
Despite surviving often aggressive conditions many archaeological artefacts are
inherently fragile and should be handled carefully and appropriately once recovered
from the ground. If breakages do occur, all fragments should be retained and
bagged together. Advice should be sought from Heritage Victoria staff, or the project
conservator, regarding in-field conservation and artefact handling advice.
B.2
Cleaning artefacts prior to packing
Any aqueous cleaning of artefacts should be done with water only; do not
use detergents or solvents. Allow artefacts to then air dry completely
before packing into polyethylene bags with their labels.
Used toothbrushes and sturdy bristle brushes make the best cleaning
brushes; do not use wire brushes on any artefact.
Glass and ceramic artefacts that have stable (unweathered, non degraded)
surfaces can be washed in water; however, interiors of bottles should not
be washed as residues can potentially be identified through analysis (see
Appendix D.2.5).
Shell, bone, and ivory can undergo basic cleaning, including washing (see
Appendix D.2.6 for further information).
Metal can be gently cleaned with the use of a soft bristled brush (see
Appendix D.2.4).
The cleaning of corroded coin surfaces should be carried out by a qualified
conservator; there may be inscriptions which can be saved through proper
treatment.
Do not attempt to clean archaeological wood, cork, textile, leather, paper or
other organic materials; seek a conservator’s advice about cleaning these
materials.
45
B.3
Damp or waterlogged artefacts
Culturally significant damp or wet organic materials should be catalogued and
brought to the attention of the project conservator as soon as possible so that
stabilisation and/or conservation treatment can begin. Until this time, damp or wet
items should be kept damp or wet in plastic bags and refrigerated if possible.
Waterlogged organic artefacts will usually not be able to support their own weight;
they should be placed onto sturdy supports such as pieces of wood or corrugated
plastic sheets before being put into bags. Translucent plastic take away food
containers can be used to support smaller items in transit.
Damp or waterlogged artefacts are at risk of developing mould in the days after
excavation if not monitored and treated properly by the project conservator.
B.4
Objects from contaminated or salt affected sites
Salt affected artefacts can become unstable if allowed to dry out or get wet
repeatedly after excavation. The instability of the salt inside the artefact can cause
considerable damage to the fabric of the artefact. All objects from maritime, tidal and
areas near salt water should be assumed to be salt affected. They should be kept
wet after excavation and treated by the project conservator as soon as possible. If
groups of artefacts need to be kept together, keep separately in bags in the one
container. Use waterproof artefact labels with waterproof ink for the catalogue
number.
B.5
Artefact packaging
Artefacts should be sorted and boxed by material, then by context and type.
A minimum requirement for packing is that all dry artefacts are placed in transparent
polyethylene bags (for example, Zip-lock™ bags). The bags should be placed into
corrugated polypropylene boxes (see section B.7).
Care should be taken when packing fragile artefacts. Alternative containers could be
used with extra padding, such as rigid plastic boxes with press seal lids. Consultants
are encouraged to seek advice from Heritage Victoria staff about packing fragile,
wet/damp artefacts, or organic items.
Do not over-pack boxes, or pack small fragile items with large heavy ones. Artefacts
will sustain damage if packed together too tightly. The box lid should fit tightly on the
base with no protrusions in the lid surface.
Appropriate packaging materials may be purchased from the suppliers listed in
Appendix C. The packaging materials specified by Heritage Victoria have been
chosen because they will contribute to the long-term preservation and management
of the artefacts.
B.6
Labelling materials
Artefact identification labels
Archival quality labels must be used. Contact details for suppliers who provide
Tyvek™ and acid free cardboard labels are listed in Appendix C.
46
Computer generated labels
Although computers can be very convenient for producing artefact labels for dry
artefacts please remember to use acid free card printed with a laser printer. There is
no truly archival computer printing technique for labels for wet artefacts and these
should be handwritten using waterproof labels and waterproof ink (see below).
Acid free card
Thin acid free card is specified as the registration label material. Use archivally stable
ink for printing the artefact number; fine tipped pens such as Artline™ pens or Pigmapens™, are suitable and are most readily available through conservation materials
suppliers. A sharp pencil with a hard lead can also be used.
Tyvek™ labels
Tyvek™ is the only archival waterproof label material on the market. It is pure spun
bonded polyester. The uncoated variety should be purchased. Please note that
‘Artline Drawing System’ pens are not suitable for Tyvek™ labels as the ink bleeds
into the fibres obscuring the registration number.
B.7
Packing materials
B.8
Resealable polyethylene bags for all dry non fragile artefacts.
Resealable polyethylene bags with wet cotton fabric for damp non fragile
artefacts.
Rigid plastic containers (for example Tupperware or take away food
containers) with foam, or tissue for dry and fragile items. For damp fragile
items use wet cotton fabric to keep the environment moist. Alternatively
rigid plastic containers filled with water may be used to immerse wet fragile
items providing the items can not move excessively within the container.
CorfluteTM lidded boxes (twin-wall polypropylene sheet) internal dimensions
(mm) 230(w) x 435(l) x 100(h).
CorfluteTM boxes should be used for the majority of artefacts once bagged.
These boxes have been specified because they are designed to most
efficiently fit with Heritage Victoria’s existing storage system.
For bottles, use robust plastic tubs or vented crates. Alternatively bottles
can be packed into CorfluteTM boxes, with no more than two or three
complete full sized bottles to a box with padding between them.
Items larger than the above boxes should be packaged carefully in plastic
tubs or crates.
Policy for handling dangerous materials
The presence (or possible presence) of any dangerous or hazardous materials which
may be included in the assemblage should be well documented and all parties who
handle the assemblage must be made aware of any potential hazards or hazardous
materials that may be present in artefacts.
See section 2.4 for a list of examples.
47
B.9
Policy for handling human remains
Human remains will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria under any circumstances
(see section 2.5). The discovery of any human remains must be immediately reported
to the Victoria Police.
B.10
Joins
It is preferable that archaeologists not undertake joining ceramic and glass artefacts.
If joins are found in ceramic or glass pieces then note this on the catalogue sheet
and bag and label the fragments appropriately.
If the project archaeologist wishes to perform analysis on the conjoining fragments,
do not join fragments with adhesive or pressure sensitive tapes such as Sellotape™
or masking tape. If it is absolutely necessary for items to be joined temporarily for
drawing or photography use 3M Scotch Magic Tape™, which is easily reversed.
Do not mark the surfaces of conjoining ceramic pieces using ink pens.
If the joining of artefacts of high significance is necessary for analysis and report
production, this work must be undertaken by the project conservator.
B.11
Box numbering
Each box base and lid should be numbered in the centre of the short ends as follows:
site name
site number
box number.
48
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL SUPPLIERS
Please note that suppliers other than those listed below may be available.
Polypropylene boxes or Corflute™ boxes
Archival Survival sell the polypropylene artefact boxes made to Heritage Victoria’s
specifications. These can be sold as separate units and in low numbers.
www.archivalsurvival.com.au/index.htm
Accessed 16 April 2012
Corex – for bulk orders of the polypropylene boxes; to be cost effective Corex usually
need a minimum order of 500 boxes.
[C220 Tray/C221]
261 Frankston Rd
Dandenong VIC 3175
Acid free and waterproof artefact labels
Artefact labels can be purchased in a several different sizes in either Tyvek™ or in
acid free cardboard.
Archival Survival
www.archivalsurvival.com.au
Accessed 16 April 2012
Preservation Australia
PO Box 210
Enmore, NSW 2042
www.preservationaustralia.com.au
Accessed 16 April 2012
Zetta Florence
197 Brunswick Street
Fitzroy VIC 3065
www.zettaflorence.com
Accessed 16 April 2012
Permanent felt tip pens
Pigma pens are available from Archival Survival or Zetta Florence
Artline Drawing System EK-234 (0.4mm) and EK-238 (0.8mm) pens are
available from larger stationary and art suppliers (but may need to be
ordered).
India and Rotring inks; and Nib and Rotring pens are also suitable for hand
printing labels; They are available from larger stationary and art suppliers.
49
Resealable and plain polyethylene bags (bulk)
Venus Hartung
555 Church St
Richmond VIC 3121
www.venuspack.com.au
Accessed 16 April 2012
Bottle tubs
Heritage Victoria suggests the following suppliers for the purchase of larger and
sturdier vented crates and tubs for transporting quantities of bottles or oversized
artefacts.
Sitecraft
17 Macquarie Drive,
Thomastown, Vic 3074
Ph 1300 363 152
Fax 1300 722 383
www.sitecraft.net.au
Accessed 16 April 2012
Team Systems Materials Handling
285 - 289 Abbotts Road,
Dandenong South, VIC 3175
www.teamsystems.net.au
Accessed 16 April 2012
50
APPENDIX D
ARTEFACT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES
In Victoria, the management of artefacts is guided by an understanding of the
concept of cultural heritage significance as it pertains to archaeological sites,
artefacts and collections of artefacts. Before any conservation work is undertaken,
the conservator must be aware of the significance of the site and the significance of
the artefacts they are treating.
This document is intended to provide guidance to professionally trained material
conservators to treat and stabilise archaeological materials recovered through the
excavation process, in accordance with the approved Consent and Permit. It is not
intended to provide specific or detailed treatment outlines, but provide an initial
framework for the treatment of various material types.
As part of the development and implementation of the Artefact Conservation
Proposal, the project conservator and archaeologist will be required to liaise with
Heritage Victoria staff about conservation programs and treatments (see section 3.1).
The conservation process may reveal more information about an artefact and should
seek to preserve this information for future reporting and analysis.
D.1
D.2
Conservation requirements
Any conservation processes carried out on artefacts must be appropriately
documented by the materials conservator. Documentation includes
information on artefact condition, photographs where appropriate, and details
of treatments undertaken.
Conservators intending to undertake work on significant artefacts must
demonstrate to the project applicant and Heritage Victoria that they have the
necessary professional training and experience to undertake the work.
Conservators undertaking work on significant artefacts must have an
appropriate qualification in conjunction with relevant experience. Membership
of the Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Materials (AICCM) or
an equivalent international professional organisation is preferred.
Conservators working on artefacts must work in accordance with AICCMs
code of Ethics and Code of Practice (http://aiccm.org.au).
Treating artefacts
The primary aim of the conservation process is the long term stabilisation and
protection of significant artefacts recovered through archaeological work. There are
specific deterioration processes which affect artefacts. Conservators should have a
good understanding of deterioration processes specific to artefacts from
archaeological contexts and should be able to confidently undertake basic analytical
51
testing of materials if required (for example, for salt detection or metal identification
see Odergaard, 2007).
Conservators working on artefacts should be knowledgeable about the various
approaches to conservation treatments. Some artefacts will require complex
conservation treatments, and in other cases, the artefact may require a more passive
means of stabilisation such as the creation of a storage support.
Heritage Victoria advocates the conservation approach “do as little as possible, as
much as necessary”.
D.2.1 Wet and damp versus dry burial environments
Conservators should be aware of the burial environment that artefacts were
excavated from prior to quoting for the conservation work. Materials from damp, wet
and/or saline environments will behave very differently from materials that have been
excavated from dry environments.
D.2.2 Salt affected artefacts
Artefacts from any kind of burial environment (land, intertidal or marine) can be
adversely affected by salt ingress. Conservators should be familiar with the standard
tests available to detect the presence of salts within artefacts.
D.2.3 Organic materials
The approach to preserving organic artefacts will firstly be determined by the burial
environment in which it is found (waterlogged, wet or damp, or dry); the condition that
the artefact immediately post-excavation; and how the artefact is stored until it is
assessed by a conservator (whether it is kept damp or allowed to dry).
Some basic conservation approaches to organic materials are summarised in Table
1. For specific guidance for organic artefacts by material type you should refer to the
many professional texts available on each material type. A list of references has
been compiled for conservators and is found in Section F of this document.
NSW Heritage Council’s publication Stabilising Stuff: A Guide for Conserving
Archaeological Finds in the Field (2012, p.30) provides guidance for archaeologists
and conservators about excavating organic archaeological materials including advice
for dealing with dry and semi-dry organic artefacts ,and damp and water-logged
artefacts.
52
Artefacts demonstrating
high cultural significance
Artefacts
demonstrating medium
level of significance
Artefacts
demonstrating a low
level of significance
Wet or waterlogged
Wet or waterlogged
Wet or waterlogged
Keep wet and cool, store
in sealed bags in fridge if
possible.
Keep wet and cool,
store in sealed bags
in fridge if possible.
May require careful
cleaning to remove
soil/debris/corrosion
products.
If composite artefact it
may require disassembly
if this is appropriate.
May require careful
cleaning for the
purposes of further
identification and
analysis.
No further treatment
recommended past
any cleaning which
was performed to
identify the artefact.
Determine if further
treatment is
necessary (as for high
significance artefact)
or whether the
artefact can be dried
- or - kept in cool
storage in the long
term (some plastics
require this).
Some organic material
such as leather and textile
may require consolidation
treatment.
Drying phase.
Construction of a storage
support to stabilise
artefact in the long term.
Dry
Dry
Dry
May require additional
cleaning to remove dirt
and to aid in
identification or
analysis.
No treatment
recommended.
(found dry and/or allowed to
dry prior to conservation)
May require additional
cleaning to remove
dirt/debris/corrosion
products.
May require support to be
constructed for long term
storage.
Table 1. Summary of basic conservation approaches to organic material types
D.2.4
Metal artefacts
Materials conservators need to be able to identify metal types through observation of
the characteristics of an artefact or by using basic spot testing techniques.
Conservators should be able to identify some common corrosion forms, especially for
iron and copper alloys.
53
Metal artefacts excavated from archaeological sites may have undergone a basic
cleaning process on site for identification purposes. It is appropriate to dry clean
metal that is recovered from a (dry) site with a non metal brush. Any further
conservation processes for metal artefacts will depend on the type or types of metal,
its condition once excavated and its significance. A summary of conservation
approaches to metal artefacts of high, medium and low significance is contained in
Table 2.
All significant iron and iron alloy artefacts that are to be retained as a part of the
stored assemblage should undergo a stabilisation treatment as soon as possible
after excavation. The aim of the stabilisation treatment is to slow down the iron
corrosion process as much as possible.
Stabilisation treatments for iron are generally composed of one or a combination of
the following processes:
rust conversion treatments
dewatering
application of a coating or barrier film
desalination
electrolytic reduction
If iron artefacts do not undergo a stabilisation treatment shortly after they are
recovered from the site they may deteriorate rapidly. Heritage Victoria staff have
observed that untreated iron artefacts can completely deteriorate within five years of
being excavated even when stored in a controlled environment.
Metal artefacts
demonstrating high
significance
Metal artefacts
demonstrating medium
level of significance
Detailed clean, using dry
cleaning methods and
wet techniques if
necessary.
May perform additional
clean if this assists in
identification or
analysis.
May require chemical
treatment to remove
corrosion products.
Dewater metal using
organic solvent.
Pack the metal for
storage.
Dewater metal using
oven and organic solvent
Application of a coating
system if appropriate.
Construction of a storage
support to stabilise
artefact in the long term.
Metal artefacts
demonstrating low
level of significance
Table 2. Summary of conservation approaches to archaeological metal
54
No treatment
recommended.
D.2.5 Ceramic, Glass, Stone and Siliceous materials
In most cases, the material can be cleaned by the project archaeologist prior to any
conservation process. Additional cleaning of ceramic or glass may only be required if
fragments are to be joined. Joining of ceramic or glass fragments would only be
required to aid in archaeological analysis or for the purposes of exhibiting the artefact
or for other interpretive purposes. Stone artefacts are not commonly found with the
exception of slate. Bricks are often retained from historic archaeological sites and are
generally stable if there is no salt present.
D.2.6 Faunal material
Faunal material (shell and animal bone) can undergo basic cleaning process,
including washing, by the archaeologist prior to any conservation documentation or
treatment. Additional cleaning of bone is usually not required, although if it is not
dried completely after initial washing by the archaeologist, it can develop mould
which does require treatment before it is placed into long term storage. Further
conservation treatment of bone would only be required to aid in archaeological
analysis, or for long term preservation or for exhibition purposes.
D.2.7 Conservation case studies
The following case studies are provided as examples of conservation approaches
required to stabilise archaeological materials from different site environments, and
with differing levels of significance.
Case Study 1: iron pot
An intact, rare, iron pot is recovered from a clear context and considered to be a
highly significant find. It was brought to the attention of a conservator soon after it
was excavated. It underwent a wet clean in an aqueous bath (at an alkaline pH)
which was monitored for salt content. Once the conservator was satisfied that salt
ingress was not a problem the pot was carefully cleaned manually with various tools
over three weeks. The pot was kept in its alkaline bath during this time to control the
rusting of the iron. Once the surfaces of the pot were as clean as they could be
without applying further chemical treatment, it was rinsed to a neutral pH using
successive deionised water baths with a corrosion inhibitor. It was then dried in a
laboratory oven, dewatered with organic solvent, and then finally coated in an acrylic
based coating with added vapour phase inhibitors.
Case Study 2: shoe leather from a wet-waterlogged site
Several leather pieces were found in a waterlogged site composed of a clay type soil
which had retained a great deal of moisture and had almost created an anaerobic
environment for the leather while it was in the ground; the preservation of the leather
was very good and the context of the find determined it being of high archaeological
significance. It was determined at this time that conservation treatment of this leather
would be undertaken and the costs for consolidating the leather using polyethylene
glycol was discussed and approved by the client. Once the artefact was excavated it
was kept wet by placing it into sealed plastic bag which was then placed inside a
plastic tub; this was then transported to a fridge for storage until the conservation
treatment could be done. The leather was kept damp and cool and was not allowed
55
to dry out during the period of time between the excavation and the conservation
treatment being performed. The leather was carefully wet cleaned and then
consolidated in a solution of polyethylene glycol and then freeze dried. The leather
was successfully conserved as a result of this treatment and has retained some
flexibility and was able to be reshaped for further analysis and interpretation. The key
to the success of the conservation treatment was the identification of the significance
of the leather as soon as it was found and the early conservation intervention. Please
note that treatments such as the one discussed in the case above have a tendency
to be costly in terms of conservation expertise and material resources and it is
important to make the client in particular, and all other parties aware of the
ramifications of embarking upon such a conservation treatment.
D.3 Personal safety
Materials conservators should be aware of the management of personal safety when
undertaking conservation treatments on artefacts. Ensure that all personal protective
equipment is in good working order and that it is worn during the work.
D.4 Documentation
D.5
Artefacts which have been identified as having high significance must undergo
a basic condition assessment even if no treatment is required.
Artefacts which are recommended for conservation treatment must be the
subject of a condition and treatment report which documents the conservation
process, and ideally should include an image of the artefact before and after
treatment.
All conservation treatments should be documented as per best practice
conservation methodology. This should include a record of what materials
were used (including brand names and solution concentrations) as well as
timings for any treatments.
If further treatment is recommended by the conservator, which won’t be
undertaken at that time, it should be documented in the artefact condition
report under the heading of “Future Recommendations”.
Conservators should identify if there are any particular handling and storage
requirements for the artefact, if this is applicable.
Storage requirements
In some cases, some artefacts will require custom storage mounts or boxes to aid
long term preservation. The need for custom designed storage supports should be
discussed with all parties (archaeologist, project applicant and Heritage Victoria)
particularly if this aspect of the treatment will add time to the conservator’s work.
Ceramic pieces which are joined will often become too big for the standard sized
polypropylene storage boxes and if out-size artefacts are excavated these may
require boxes to be specially constructed or purchased for them.
56
APPENDIX E
CONSERVATION REFERENCES
General
Cronyn, J.M. 1990, The elements of archaeological conservation, Routledge,
London and New York.
Heritage Council of NSW 2012, Stabilising stuff: A guide for conserving
archaeological finds in the field, Heritage Council of New South Wales, NSW
Government Office of Environment & Heritage, accessed 02 January 2014
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage.
Odergaard, N., 2007, Material Characterization Tests for Objects of Art 2nd
edition, Archetype, London.
Pearson, C., 1987, The Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects,
Butterworths, Oxford (out of print)
Roy, A., & Smith, P., 1996, Archaeological Conservation and its
Consequences: Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen Congress,
26-30 August 1996, International Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works, London.
Sease, C 1994, A conservation manual for the field archaeologist, 3rd edition,
Archaeological Research Tools 4, University of California, Los Angeles.
Watkinson, D, & Neal, V 2001, First aid for finds, written by the Archaeology
Section of the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC), The
Lavenham Press Limited, London.
Metal
Selwyn, L. 2004, Metals and Corrosion: a handbook for the conservation
professional, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa
Scott, D, Podany, J & Considine B, 1994, Ancient and Historic Metals:
Conservation and Scientific Research, Proceedings of a symposium
organised by the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Conservation Institute,
Getty Trust Publications: Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Scott, D 2002, Copper and Bronze in Art: Corrosion, Colorants, Conservation,
Getty Trust Publications: Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Ceramics and glass
Buys, S & Oakley V., 1996 The Conservation and Restoration of Ceramics,
Routledge, London and New York.
Davison, S., 2003., Conservation and Restoration of Glass 2nd edition,
Routledge, London and New York
57
Koob, S 1986, ‘The use of Paraloid B-72 as an adhesive: Its application for
archaeological ceramics and other materials’, Studies in Conservation, Vol.
31, pp. 7-14.
Koob, S, 2006, Conservation and Care of Glass Objects, Archetype, London
Organic materials
Horie, V., 2010 Materials for Conservation: Organic consolidants, adhesives
and coatings 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York.
Mills, J., & White, R., 1999, The Organic Chemistry of Museum Objects, 2nd
edition, Routledge, London and New York.
Odergaard, N., 2007, Material Characterization Tests for Objects of Art 2nd
edition, Archetype, London.
Wills, B (ed.) 2001, Leather Wet and Dry: Current Treatments in the
Conservation of Waterlogged and Desiccated Archaeological Leather,
Archetype, London
The proceedings of the various ICOM-CC Waterlogged Organic
Archaeological Materials (WOAM) working group meetings
58
APPENDIX F
POST-CONTACT ARTEFACT REFERENCES
F.1
Ceramic
Adams, W & Boling, S 1989, ‘Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on
Three Georgia Coastal Plantations’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 6996.
Brooks, A 2005, An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia
1788-1901, The Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and La Trobe
University Archaeology Program.
Brooks, A 1999, ‘Building Jerusalem: Transfer-printed Finewares and the
Creation of British Identity’, in Tarlow, S & S West (eds), The Familiar Past,
Routledge, London, pp. 51-66.
Brooks, A 1997, ‘Beyond the Fringe: Transfer-Printed Ceramics and the
Internationalisation of Celtic Myth’, International Journal of Historical
Archaeology vol. 1, pp. 39-56.
Casey, M 1999, ‘Local Pottery and Dairying at the DMR Site, Brickfield Hill,
Sydney, New South Wales’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp.
3-37.
Coysh, A & Henrywood, R 1982, The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed
Pottery 1780-1880, The Antique Collector's Club, Woodbridge, Suffolk.
Erskine, N 2002, Kingston Ceramics: A Dictionary of Ceramic Wares in the
Norfolk Island Museum, Norfolk Island Museum, Kingston.
Ewins, N 1997, Supplying the Present Wants of Our Yankee Cousins:
Staffordshire Ceramics and the American Market 1775-1880, City Museum
and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent.
Fitts, R 1999, ‘The Archaeology of Middle Class Domesticity and Gentility in
Victorian Brooklyn’, Historical Archaeology 33, vol. 1, pp. 39-62.
Ford, G 1995, Australian Pottery: The First 100 Years, Salt Glaze Press,
Wodonga, Victoria.
Godden, G 1991, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks,
Reprint of 1964 edition, Barrie and Jenkins, London.
Graham, M 2006, Printed Ceramics in Australia, The Australian Society for
Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 2.
Graham, M 1976, Australian Pottery of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth
Century, David Ell Press, Sydney.
Hall, W & Hall, D 1991, Australian Domestic Pottery: A Collector’s Guide,
Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, NSW.
Klose, J & Malan, A 1991, Ceramics of the Southwestern Cape 1650-1850: A
Guide to the Analysis and Interpretation of Ceramic Assemblages Excavated
from Archaeological Sites, Cape Town, Historical Archaeology Research
Group, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
59
Majewski, T & O’Brien, M 1987 ‘The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century
English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis’, Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 11, pp. 97-209.
Miller, G 1991, ‘A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and
Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787-1880’, Historical
Archaeology, vol. 25, pp. 1-25.
Miller, G 1991, ‘Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century
Ceramics’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds),
Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists,
Society for Historical Archaeology, pp 37-58.
Muir, AL 2003, ‘Ceramics in the Collection of the Museum of Chinese
Australian History, Melbourne’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 21,
pp. 42-9.
Neale, G 2005, Miller's Encyclopaedia of British Transfer-Printed Pottery
Patterns 1790-1930, Mitchell Beazley.
Orton, C, Tyers P & Vince, A 1993, Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Pynn, B & Swanson, B 2004, ‘Collecting Ceramic Pot Lids’, Bottles and Extras
Winter, pp. 42-44.
Roberts, GB 1997, True Blue: Transfer-printed Earthenware: Catalogue of
Exhibition at the Wedgewood Museum, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire, Friends of Blue, Christies, South Kensington, and Wedgewood,
Staffordshire.
Samford, P 1997, ‘Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze
Transfer-Printed Wares’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 31, pp. 1-30.
South, S 1977, ‘Chapter 7’, in Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology,
Academic Press, New York, pp 201-274.
Staniforth, M & Nash, M 1998, Chinese Export Porcelain from the wreck of the
Sydney Cove (1797), Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
Sussman, L 1997, Mocha, Banded, Cat’s Eye, and Other Factory-Made
Slipware, Studies in Northeast Historical Archaeology No. 1., Council for
North East Historical Archaeology.
Sussman, L 1979, Spode/Copeland Transfer Printed Patterns, Canadian
Historic Sites Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, Parks Canada,
Ottawa.
Sussman, L 1977, ‘Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware 1780-1830’, Historical
Archaeology vol. 11, pp. 105-111.
Turnbaugh, W & Peabody Turnbaugh, S 1991, ‘Alternative Applications of the
Mean Ceramic Date Concept for Interpreting Human Behavior’, in Miller, GL,
Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical
Archaeology, pp. 355-370.
60
Wall, DD 1992, ‘Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity
in Mid-19th-Century New York, in Gender in Historical Archaeology’, Historical
Archaeology, vol. 25, pp. 69-81.
F.2
Glass
Arnold, K 1990, A Victorian Thirst, Crown Castleton, Maiden Gully, Victoria.
Arnold, K 1987, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, Part 2, Crown Castleton,
Maiden Gully, Victoria.
Arnold, K 1985, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, Part 1, Crown Castleton,
Maiden Gully, Victoria.
Bolton, S 2005, ‘Purple Haze: Evidence for a Later Date for Solarized
Amethyst Glass’, Australian Archaeology, p. 60.
Bonasera, M & Rayner, L 2001, ‘Good for What Ails You: Medicinal Use at
Five Points’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 35, pp. 49-64.
Boow, J 1992, Early Australian Commercial Glass: Manufacturing Processes,
Department of Planning, New South Wales, www.heritage.nsw.gov.au (viewed
22 March 2012)
Busch, J 1991, ‘Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse’, in Miller, G,
Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical
Archaeology, pp. 113-126
Carney, M 1999, ‘A Cordial Factory at Parramatta, New South Wales’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 16, pp. 80-93.
Davies, P 2001, ‘A Cure for all Seasons: Health and Medicine in a Bush
Community’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 70, pp. 63-74.
Fike, R 1987, The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic Embossed
Medicine Bottles, Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.
Hutchison, D 1981, ‘Identifying Bottles’, Australasian Society for Historical
Archaeology Bulletin, vol. 11.
Jones, D 2009, Thirsty Work: The Story of Sydney's Aerated Water
Manufacturers, Riverwood, NSW.
Jones, O & Smith, EA 1985, Glass of the British Military ca. 1755-1820,
National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Jones, O 1991, ‘Glass Bottle Push-ups and Pontil Marks’, in Miller, GL, Jones,
OR, Ross LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research
for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 8798.
Jones, O 1986, Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850, Studies
in Archaeology, Architecture and History, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Jones, O, Sullivan, C, Miller, G, Smith, EA & Harris, J 1989, The Parks
Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat
61
Glass, and Closures, Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, Parks
Canada, Ottawa.
Lindsey, B 2010, Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website,
Bureau of Land Management and Society for Historical Archaeology,
www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, viewed 22 March 2012.
Lindsey, B 2006, ‘Overview of BLM's Historic Glass Bottle Identification and
Information Website’, Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, vol. 1, pp.
16-20.
Lockhart, B 2006, ‘The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container
Glass’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 40, pp. 45-56.
Lorrain, D 1968, ‘An Archaeologist's Guide to Nineteenth Century American
Glass’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 35-44.
Miller, G & Sullivan, C 1991,’Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of
Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T
Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical
Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp 99-112.
Peters, SJ 1997, ‘Archaeological Wines: Analysis and Interpretation of a
Collection of Wines Recovered from the William Salthouse Shipwreck (1841)’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 14, pp. 63-8.
Ross, D 2009, ‘Identification and Dating of Japanese Glass Beverage Bottles’,
Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 7-17.
Staski, E 1991, ‘Just what can a 19th Century Bottle Tell Us?’, in Miller, GL,
Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology,
pp. 127-40.
Stuart, I 1993, ‘Bottles for Jam? An Example of Recycling from a Post-Contact
Archaeological Site’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 17-21.
Stuart, I 1991, ‘Glass Bottles from the 'Loch Ard' Shipwreck (1878): A
Preliminary Study’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 31-36.
White, J 2000, ‘Bottle Nomenclature: A Glossary of Landmark Terminology for
the Archaeologist’, in D Brauner (ed), Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology and
Parks Canada Uniontown, PA., pp. 139-48.
Willmott, H 2005, A History of English Glassmaking AD 43-1800, Tempus,
Stroud, Gloucester.
62
F.3
Small Finds
F.3.1
Buttons
Classen, C 1994, ‘Washboards, Pigtoes, and Muckets: Historic Musseling in
the Mississippi Watershed’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 1-145.
Cossum, JK 1988, Buttons of the Defence Forces in Australia, Globe Press,
Sunbury, Victoria.
George, S 1999, Unbuttoned: Archaeological Perspectives of Convicts and
Whalers' Clothing in Nineteenth Century Tasmania, Honours Thesis in the
Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Lindbergh, J 1999, ‘Buttoning Down Archaeology’, Australasian Historical
Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 50-7.
Luscomb, S 1967, The Collector's Encyclopaedia of Buttons, Bonanza Books,
New York.
Olsen, S 1963, ‘Dating Early Plain Buttons by Their Form’, American
Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 551-4.
Peacock, P 1978, Discovering Old Buttons. Princes Risborough, Bucks Shire.
Sprague, R 2002, ‘China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating’,
Historical Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 111-127.
White, CL 2005, American Artifacts of Personal Adornment 1680-1820: A
Guide to Identification and Interpretation, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford.
F.3.2
Coins
Boland, P 1987, Report on Coins Found on First Government House Site,
Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.
F.3.3
Childhood
Davies, P 2005, ‘Writing Slates and Schooling in Victoria’, Australasian
Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 63-70.
Davies, P 2005, ‘‘The Children are Running wild’…Uncovering Childhood at a
Forest Sawmill Camp’, in Calver, M, Bigler-Cole, H, Bolton, G, Gaynor, A,
Horwitz, P, Mills, J & G Wardell-Johnson (eds), A Forest Conscienceness,
Sixth National Conference of the Australian Forest History Society, Albany,
WA, Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 75-83.
Davies, P & Ellis, A 2005, ‘The Archaeology of Childhood: Toys from Henry's
Mill’, The Artefact, vol. 28, pp.15-22.
Derevenski, JS 2000, Children and Material Culture, Routledge, London.
Ellis, A 2001, Toy Stories: Interpreting Childhood from the Victorian
Archaeological Record, Honours Thesis, La Trobe University.
Wilkie, L 2003, The Archaeology of Mothering: An African-American Midwife's
Tale, Routledge, New York.
63
Wilkie, L 2000, ‘Not Merely Child's Play: Creating a Historical Archaeology of
Children and Childhood’. In Derevenski, JS (ed), Children and Material
Culture, Routledge, London, pp: 100-13.
Yamin, R 2002, ‘Children's Strikes, Parents' Rights: Paterson and Five
Points’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 6, pp. 113-126.
F.3.4
Clay Pipes
Binford, L 1978, ‘A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem
Samples’, in R Schuyler (ed), Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive
and Theoretical Contributions, Baywood Farmingdale, New York, pp. 66-67.
Bradley, C 2000, ‘Smoking Pipes for the Archaeologist’, in K Karklins (ed),
Studies in Material Culture Research, A Reader from the Society for Historical
Archaeology, pp. 104-133.
Brassey, R 1991, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Site of the Victoria Hotel,
Auckland, N.Z.’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 2730.
Cook, L 1997, ‘Promiscuous Smoking: Interpreting Gender and Tobacco Use
in the Archaeological Record’, Northeastern Historical Archaeology, vol. 26,
pp. 23-38.
Dane, A & Morrison, R 1979, ‘Clay Pipes from Port Arthur 1830-1877’,
Technical Bulletin No. 2, Department of Prehistory, Research School of
Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Davey, P 1981, ‘The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe’, British
Archaeological Reports.
Davies, P 2011, ‘Destitute Women and Smoking at Hyde Park Barracks,
Sydney’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 15, pp. 82-101.
Gojak, D 1995, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes from Cadman’s Cottage, Sydney,
Australia’, Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter, vol. 48, pp. 11-19.
Gojak, D & Stuart, I 1999, ‘The Potential for the Archaeological Study of Clay
Tobacco Pipes from Australian Sites’, Australasian Historical Archaeology,
vol. 17, pp. 38-49.
Harrington, JC 1976, ‘Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Century Clay Tobacco Pipes’, in R Schuyler (ed), Historical Archaeology: A
Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, Baywood Farmingdale,
New York, pp. 63-5.
Higgins, D 1999, ‘Little Tubes of Mighty Power: A Review of British Clay
Tobacco Pipe Studies’, in Egan, G & R Michael (eds), Old and New Worlds:
Historical/Post Medieval Archaeology Papers from the Societies, Joint
conferences at Williamsburg and London 1997 to mark thirty years of work
and achievement, Oxford, pp. 310-21.
Jack, RI 1986, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes Exported from Scotland to Australia in the
Nineteenth Century: Some Preliminary Observations’, Historic Clay Tobacco
Pipe Studies, vol. 3, pp. 124-34.
64
Wilson, G & Kelly, A 1987, Preliminary Analysis of Clay Tobacco Pipes from
the First Government House Site, Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.
F.3.5
Miscellaneous
Beaudry, M 2006, Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing,
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Busch, J 1981, ‘An Introduction to the Tin Can’, Historical Archaeology, vol.
15, pp. 95-104.
Courtney, Y 2000, ‘Pub Tokens: Material Culture and Regional Marketing
Patterns in Victorian England and Wales’, International Journal of Historical
Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 159-189.
Kenmotsu, N 1991, ‘Gunflints: A Study’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross LA &
T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical
Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 197-222.
Veres, M 2005, ‘Introduction to the Analysis of Archaeological Footwear’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 89-96.
F.4
Building Materials
F.4.1
Bricks
Burke, K 1987, Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical
Archaeology, University of Idaho Press, Moscow.
Gemmell, W 1986, And So We Graft from Six to Six, Angus and Robertson,
Sydney.
Hutton, J 1981, ‘Clays and Bricks of the Penal Settlements at Port Arthur and
Maria Island, Tasmania’, Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Tasmania, vol. 115, pp. 153-161.
Pearson, S 1988, Building Materials Analysis: First Government House Site,
Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.
Ringer, R 2008, The Brickmasters: 1788-2008, Horsley Park NSW, Dry Press
Publishing, N.S.W.
State Heritage Branch, 1991, Technical Note 3.3: Old Bricks in South
Australia, Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide.
Stuart, I 1987, ‘A History of the Victorian Brick Industry: 1826-1920’,
Australian Archaeology, vol. 24, pp. 36-40.
Stuart, I 1995, ‘The History and Archaeology of the Hoffman Brick and Tile
Company, Melbourne, Australia’, Industrial Archaeology Review, vol. XVII, pp.
129-144.
Stuart, I 2005, ‘The Analysis of Bricks from Archaeological Sites in Australia’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 79-88.
65
F.4.2
Nails
Adams, WH 2002, ‘Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production
and Use for Dating 19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Sites’, Historical
Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 66-8.
Fontana, B 1965, ‘The Tale of a Nail: On the Ethnological Interpretation of
Historic Artefacts’, The Florida Anthropologist, vol. 18, pp. 18-102.
Luebbers, R 1998, Newman's Pontville: Fabric Analysis and Archaeological
Investigations of a 1840’s Homestead, Templestowe, Victoria, with a
Comparative Study of Sweeney's Culla Hill, Eltham, Parks Victoria,
Melbourne.
Middleton, A 2005, ‘Nail Chronology: The Case of Te Puna Mission Station’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 55-62.
Varman, R 1980, ‘The Nail as a Criterion for the Dating of Building and
Building Sites (late 18th Century to 1900)’, Australasian Society for Historical
Archaeology Bulletin, vol. 10.
Wells, T 1998, ‘Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived
Features’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 32, pp. 78-99.
F.4.3
Miscellaneous
Jones, S 1984, Cleanliness is next to Godliness, Historic Houses Trust of
New South Wales, Sydney.
Jones, S 1984, Let There be Light, Historic Houses Trust of New South
Wales, Sydney.
Kemp, EL 1981, History of Concrete 30 B.C. to 1926 A.D, American Concrete
Institute no. 14, Detroit.
Pearson, M 1992, ‘From Ship to the Bush: Ship Tanks in Australia’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 24-29.
Ross, L 1991, ‘Sixteenth Century Basque Coopering’, in Miller, GL, Jones,
OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research
for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 223-54.
Staniforth, M 1987, ‘The Casks from the Wreck of the William Salthouse’,
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 5, pp. 21-8.
Weiland, J 2009, ‘A Comparison and Review of Window Glass Analysis
Approaches in Historical Archaeology’, Technical Briefs in Historical
Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 29-40.
F.5
Faunal Analysis
Colley, S 2005, ‘Marine Shell from Australian Historic Sites: Coding,
Recording and Research Design’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol.
23, pp. 71-8.
Colley, S 2006, ‘A Preliminary Beef Meat Cuts Typology for NineteenthCentury Sydney and Some Methodological Issues’, Australasian Historical
Archaeology, vol. 24, pp. 47-54.
66
Crabtree, P 1985, ‘Historic Zooarchaeology: Some Methodological
Considerations’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 19, pp. 76-8.
English, A 1990, ‘Salted Meats from the Wreck of the William Salthouse:
Archaeological Analysis of Nineteenth-Century Butchering Patterns’,
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 8, pp. 63-9.
Gibbs, M 2005, ‘The Archaeology of Subsistence on the Maritime Frontier:
Faunal Analysis of the Cheyne Beach Whaling Station 1845-1877’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 115-22.
Howell-Muers, S 2000, ‘Nineteenth-Century Diet in Victoria: The Faunal
Remains from Viewbank’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 18, pp. 3946.
Landon, D 1996, ‘Feeding Boston: A Zooarchaeological Study’, Historical
Archaeology, vol. 30.
Lyman, R 1987, ‘On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position
and Cost Efficient Meat Purchases’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 5866.
Lyman, R 1977, ‘Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains’, Historical Archaeology,
vol. 11, pp. 67-83.
Mitchell, S 1999, ‘Dog's Dinner? Archaeological Evidence for Meat
Consumption on Chinese Historic sites in the Pine Creek Region’, Australian
Archaeology, vol. 48, pp. 23-8.
Piper, A 1990, ‘Can Taphonomy Aid in the Analysis of Faunal Material from
Historic Archaeological Sites?’, in Solomon, S, Davidson, I & D Watson (eds),
Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Tempus Volume 2, University of New
England, Armidale, N.S.W., pp. 149-57.
Rothschild, N & Balkwill D 1993, ‘The Meaning of Change in Urban Faunal
Deposits’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 27, pp. 71-89.
Schmitt, D & Zeier, C 1993, ‘Not by bones alone: Exploring Household
Composition and Socioeconomic Status in an Isolated Historic Mining
Communities’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 27, pp. 20-38.
Schulz, P & Gust, S 1983, ‘Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century
Sacremento’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 44-53.
Simons, A & Maitri, M 2006, ‘The Food Remains from Casselden Place,
Melbourne, Australia’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 10,
pp. 357-74.
F.6
Indigenous post-contact artefacts
Harrison, R 2002, ‘Archaeology and the Colonial Encounter: Kimberley
Spearpoints, Cultural Identity and Masculinity in the North of Australia’,
Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 351-77.
Harrison, R 2002, ‘Nowadays With Glass: Regional Variation in Aboriginal
Bottle Glass Artefacts from Western Australia’, Archaeology in Oceania, vol.
35, pp. 34-47.
67
Harrison, R 2002, ‘Australia's Iron Age: Aboriginal Post-Contact Metal
Artefacts from Old Lamboo Station, Southeast Kimberly’, Australasian
Historical Archaeology, vol. 20, pp. 67-76.
Wolski, N & Loy, T 1999, ‘On the Invisibility of Contact: Residue Analyses on
Aboriginal Glass Artefacts from Western Victoria’, The Artefact, vol. 22, pp.
65-73.
F.7
Chinese artefacts
Abrahams, T & Wegars, P 2003, ‘Urns, Bones, and Burners: Overseas
Chinese Cemeteries’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 58-69.
Bell, P 1993, ‘Chinese Ovens on Mining Settlement Sites in Australia’, in P
MacGregor (ed), Histories of the Chinese in Australasia and the South Pacific,
Proceedings of an International Public Conference held at the Museum of
Chinese Australian History Melbourne, 8-10 October 1992, pp. 213-29.
Cameron, F 1985, ‘Analysis of Buttons, Clothing Hardware and Textiles of the
Nineteenth Century Chinese Goldminers of Central Otago’, Anthropology,
University of Otago, Dunedin.
Jack, RI, Holmes, K & Kerr, R 1984, ‘Ah Toy's Garden: A Chinese MarketGarden on the Palmer River Goldfield, North Queensland’, Australian
Historical Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 51-8.
Lydon, J 1997, Many Inventions: The Chinese in the Rocks 1890-1930,
Monash Publications in History, Melbourne.
McCarthy, J 1988, ‘The New Gold Mountain: Chinese trade networks in
northern Australia’. In Birmingham, J, Bairstow, D & Wilson, A (eds),
Archaeology and Colonisation: Australia in the World Context, Sydney, pp.
139-48.
Mitchell, S 1999, ‘Dog's Dinner? Archaeological Evidence for Meat
Consumption on Chinese Historic Sites in the Pine Creek Region’, Australian
Archaeology, vol. 48, pp. 23-8.
Muir, A.L 2003, ‘Ceramics in the Collection of the Museum of Chinese
Australian History, Melbourne’, Australasian Journal for Historical
Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 42-9.
Piper, A 1988, ‘Chinese Diet and Cultural Conservatism in Nineteenth Century
New Zealand’, Australian Journal for Historical Archaeology, vol. 6, pp. 34-42.
Ritchie, N & Park, S 1987, ‘Chinese Coins Down Under: Their Role on the
New Zealand Goldfields’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 5,
pp. 41-8.
Schulz, P & Allen, R 2004, Archaeology and Architecture of the Overseas
Chinese: A Bibliography, Society for Historical Archaeology.
Staniforth, M & Nash, M 1998, ‘Chinese Export Porcelain from the wreck of
the Sydney Cove (1797)’, Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
Terrey, P & Pastron, A 1988, ‘Chinese Export Porcelain in Gold Rush San
Francisco’, in Pastron, AG & Hattori, EM (eds), The Hoff Store Site and Gold
Rush Merchandise from San Francisco, California, Special Publication Series
no. 7., The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 75-81.
68
APPENDIX G
GENERAL REFERENCES
Adams, WH 2003, ‘Dating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding
Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use and Disposal of Artefacts’,
Historical Archaeology, vol. 37, pp. 38-64.
Adams, WH 1976, ‘Trade Networks and Interaction Spheres: A View from
Silcott’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 99-112.
Adams, WY & Adams, EW 1991, Archaeological Typology and Practical
Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andrews G & Thomas R 1991, Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP
2), English Heritage.
Australia ICOMOS 1999, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter
for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICAMOS.
Banning, EB 2000, ‘Research Design and Sampling’, in Jochim MA & Dickens
RS (eds), The Archaeologist’s Laboratory, Kluwer Academic Publishing, pp.
73-92.
Beaudry, M 2006, Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing,
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Beaudry, M, Cook, L & Mrozowski, SA 1991, ‘Artefacts and Active Voices:
Material Culture as Social Discourse’, in R McGuire & Paynter R (eds), The
Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 272-310.
Binford, LR 1964, ‘A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design’,
American Antiquity, vol. 29, pp. 425-441.
Birmingham, J 1990, ‘A Decade of Diggings: Deconstructing Urban
Archaeology’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 8, pp. 13-22.
Black, SL & Jolly K 2003, Archaeology by Design, Archaeologists Toolkit 1,
AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Brauner, D 2001, Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical
Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology.
Brooks, A 2005, ‘Observing Formalities: The Use of Functional Artefact
Categories in Australian Historical Archaeology’, Australasian Historical
Archaeology, vol. 23 pp. 7-14.
Burke, H & Smith, C 2004, The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook, Allen and
Unwin, New South Wales.
Carmichael, DL, Lafferty, RH & Molyneaux, BL 2003, Excavation,
Archaeologist’s Toolkit 3, AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Carver, M 2009, ‘Field Research Procedure: A Framework’, in Archaeological
Investigation, Routledge.
69
Casey, M 2004, ‘Falling Through the Cracks: Method and Practice at the CSR
Site, Pyrmont,’ Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 22, pp. 27-43.
Cochran, M & Beaudry, M 2006, ‘Material Culture Studies and Historical
Archaeology’, in Hicks, D & Beaudry, M (eds), The Cambridge Companion to
Historical Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 191-204.
Connah, G 1994, ‘Bagot's Mill: Genesis and Revelation in an Archaeological
Research Project’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 12, pp. 3-55.
Crook, P 2005, ‘Quality, Cost and Value: Key Concepts for an Interpretive
Assemblage Analysis’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23 pp. 15-24.
Crook, PS, Lawrence & Gibbs, M 2002, ‘The Role of Artefact Catalogues in
Australian Historical Archaeology: A Framework for Discussion’, Australasian
Historical Archaeology, vol. 20, pp. 26-38.
Crook, P & Murray, T 2004, ‘The Analysis of Cesspit Deposits from the Rocks,
Sydney’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 22, pp. 44-56.
Dunnell, R 1976, ‘Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy’, American
Antiquity, vol. 43, pp. 192-202.
English Heritage 2008, Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, English Heritage,
United Kingdom.
English Heritage 2006, Management of Research Projects in the Historic
Environment, MoRPHE Project Planning Note 2, Developing Controlled
Vocabularies, English Heritage.
Ewen, CR 2003, Artifacts, Archaeologists Toolkit 4, AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Gibbs, M 2005, ‘Editorial’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 35.
Hardesty, D & Little, B 2009, ‘Scientific and Scholarly Significance’, in
Assessing Site Significance, A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians,
Second Edition, Altamira Press, pp. 53-76.
Hardesty, D & Little B 2009, ‘Summary’, in Assessing Site Significance, A
Guide for Archaeologists and Historians, Second Edition, Altamira Press, pp.
153-160.
Heritage Council of Victoria and Heritage Victoria 2010, Victoria’s Framework
of Historical Themes, Heritage Council of Victoria, Melbourne.
Higginbotham, E 2010, ‘Say it With Assemblages: A Simple Method for
Comparing Sites’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 43-60.
Karklins, K 2000, Studies in Material Culture Research, A Reader from
Historical Archaeology, The Society for Historical Archaeology.
Karskens, G 2003, ‘Revisiting the Worldview: The Archaeology of Convict
Households in Sydney’s Rocks Neighbourhood’, Historical Archaeology, vol.
37, pp. 34-55.
Karskens, G 1999, Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighbourhood,
Hale and Iremonger, Sydney.
70
Lampard, S 2009, ‘The Ideology of Domesticity and the Working-Class
Women and Children of Port Adelaide, 1840-1890’, Historical Archaeology,
vol. 43, pp. 50-64.
Lawrence, S 2006, ‘Artifacts of the Modern World’, in Balme J & Paterson A
(eds), Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysi,.
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 362-88.
Lawrence, S 1999, ‘The Role of Material Culture in Australasian Archaeology’,
Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol.16, pp. 8-15.
Lawrence, S & Davies, P 2010, An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788,
Springer, New York.
Lydon, J 1993, ‘Task Differentiation in Historical Archaeology: Sewing as
Material Culture’, in Du Cros, H & Smith, L (eds), Women in Archaeology: A
Feminist Critique, Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra,
pp. 129-133.
Lydon, J & Ireland, T 2005, Object Lessons. Archaeology and Heritage in
Australia, Australian Scholarly Publishing. Melbourne.
Mayne, A & Lawrence, S 1998, ‘An Ethnography of Place: Imagining Little
Lon’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 57, pp. 93-107.
Mayne, A, Murray, T & Lawrence, S 2000, ‘Historic Sites: Melbourne's Little
Lon’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 31, pp. 131-151.
Miller, G 2000, ‘Telling Time for Archaeologists’, Northeastern Historical
Archaeology, vol. 29, pp. 1-22.
Murray, T & Mayne, A 2001, ‘Imaginary Landscapes: Reading Melbourne’s
Little Lon’, in Mayne A. & Murray T. (eds), The Archaeology of Urban
Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 89-105.
Noel Hume, I 1970, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, New York,
Knopf.
Orser, C 1989, ‘On Plantations and Patterns’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 23,
pp. 28-40.
Orser, Jr. CE 2004, Historical Archaeology, Pearson Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Orton, C 2000, Sampling in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sagazio, C 2004, ‘The Italians’, in P Yule (ed), Carlton: A History, Melbourne
University Press, Melbourne, pp. 73-88.
Schacht, I 2010, ‘Towards a Thematic Research Framework for Australian
Historical Archaeology,’ Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 6176.
Schacht, I 2008, Determining Research Significance in Archaeological
Collections from Historic Sites, PhD thesis, Deakin University.
71
Stone, GW 1988, ‘Artefacts Are Not Enough’, in Beaudry M (ed),
Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 68-77.
Sullivan, LP & Childs, ST 2003, Curating Archaeological Collections: From the
Field to the Repository, Archaeologist’s Toolkit 6, AltaMira Press, Oxford.
Sussman, L 2000, ‘Objects vs. Sherds: A Statistical Evaluation’, in K Karklins
(ed), Studies in Material Culture Research, The Society for Historical
Archaeology Uniontown, Pennsylvania, pp. 96-103.
WorkSafe Victoria 2005, Industry Standard Contaminated Construction Sites,
Construction and Utilities , Worksafe Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria.
72
APPENDIX H
HERITAGE COUNCIL’S CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE
The following assessment criteria were adopted by the Heritage Council of
Victoria in August 2008. They replace the previous criteria adopted by the
Heritage Council in 1997.
Criterion A Importance to the course, or pattern, of Victoria’s cultural history
Criterion B Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of
Victoria’s cultural history.
Criterion C Potential to yield information that will contribute to an
understanding of Victoria’s cultural history.
Criterion D Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a
class of cultural places or objects.
Criterion E Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.
Criterion F Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or
technical achievement at a particular period.
Criterion G Strong or special association with a particular community or
cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the
significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and
developing cultural traditions.
Criterion H Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of
persons, of importance in Victoria’s history.
73
