Guidelines-for-investigating-historical-archaeological-artefacts-and-sites

Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites Prepared by: Heritage Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 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 2A: July 2015 Version 2: January 2014 Version published, December 2012 online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au © State of Victoria, 2012 ISBN 978 921940 86 Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees 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 Nicholson St, Melbourne 3000 PO Box 500, Melbourne, Victoria 8002 Phone: 136 186 Email: archaeology.admin@delwp.vic.gov.au Web: www.heritage.vic.gov.au CONTENTS Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites INTRODUCTION4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FIELDWORK 14 CONSERVATION, ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND SUBMISSION OF ARTEFACTS 19 APPENDIX A 27 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CASE STUDIES 27 APPENDIX B 45 PREPARATION OF ARTEFACTS FOR SUBMISSION 45 APPENDIX C 49 MATERIAL SUPPLIERS 49 APPENDIX D 51 ARTEFACT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES 51 APPENDIX E 57 CONSERVATION REFERENCES 57 APPENDIX F 59 POST-CONTACT ARTEFACT REFERENCES .59 APPENDIX G 69 GENERAL REFERENCES 69 APPENDIX H 73 HERITAGE COUNCIL’S CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 73 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 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL 1.1 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 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 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 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: Description 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 Analysis 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 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 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: 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)? 1.5.1 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 10 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 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 1620 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 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 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 27-30 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 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 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 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 58-66 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 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 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 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 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 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 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