DaVince Tools Generated - University of Sydneynswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/12997_ID_BickfordAssoc1993Irra... · I I I I I 'i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 1.0 EXECUTIVE

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

HUNTER WATER CORPORATION

THE IRRAWANG POTTERY SITE

GRAHAMSTOWN DAM RAYMOND TERRACE NSW

':-':' ...... N.:_. -- -.,-.~--..--~ -.. :-. . . : .",', .-::":':' ....

~=-~~~~ .c_ .. ·.,c ..• ~g.:=z.._ . ~.:-:'._:. ,::~ ..

-,;:-

. - . "-' '~ .. _ ..... .~ .':;;...':"~~. .1:._

. ":t'#'."":.~

ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. AND

OPTIONS FOR ITS FUTURE

Anne Bickford and Associates MAACA . Heritage Consultants

135 Catherine St Leichhardt NSW 2040 Phone 02-5699672 Fax 02-5500261

FINAL REPORT October 1993

I,\Q3_ ~ictfuvd.-' r(VO\\f\f~

I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.1 Background Information

2.1.1 The client 2.1.2 The study area 2.1.3 Purpose 2.1.4 Name of consultant and authorship of report 5 2.1.5 Sources consulted

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 6 3.1 Background 3.2 History of the Irrawang Pottery 3.3 Description of Site 7

3.3.1 Appearance of the site in history 3.3.2 The site during excavation 8 3.3.3 The site at the time of survey 3.3.4 Present state of the site

3.4 The concept of cultural significance 9 3.4.1 Background 3.4.2 Aesthetic value 3.4.3 Historic value

3.4.3.1 James King 3.4.3.2 Comparison of Irrawang with other 19th c 10 potteries in Australia 3.4.3.3 Intactness

3.4.4 Scientific value 3.4.4.1 Future excavation 3.4.4.2 Conservation to retain scientific value 11

3.4.5 Social value

4.0 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 12

5.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE IRRAWANG SITE 5.1 Option 1 5.2 Option 2

5.2.1 Method of excavation for Option 2 13 5.2.2 Estimated cost of excavation 5.2.3 Estimated cost of post-excavation analysis and report 14 5.2.4 Conclusion of costs for Option 2

5.3 Preferred option

1

Anne Bickford Irrawang Pottery Site Assessment of Cultural Significance Final Report Oct 1993


2

APPENDICES Following p. 14

APPENDIX A. Excavation Permit Application to Heritage Council of NSW by A. Bickford for supervision of borehole tests for soil contamination by environmental scientists from Kinhill Engineers. (21 pp) APPENDIX B. Letter from A. Bickford to J.M. Birmingham, Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology, University of Sydney, listing information required as part of the significance assessment for the Irrawang site. (2 pp) APPENDIX C. Report by J.M. Birmingham to A. Bickford. Draft Contribution to a Significance Statement for the Archaeological Site of Irrawang NSW. (40 pp) APPENDIX D. "Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance and Conservation Policy" From The Burra Charter, Australia ICOMOS. (6 pp)

LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER

(All figures follow Executive Summary) Location map of site in the Hunter Valley 1 Location map of site at Grahamstown Dam, Raymond Terrace 2 Surveyors plan of Grahamstown Storage Reservoir 3 Detail of above plan showing surveyors plan of excavations 4 Plan of site as excavated by 1976 correlated with engraving 5 Archaeological plan of site with annotations by A. Bickford 6 General view of Irrawang Pottery Site 26 July 1993 7 Kinhill scientists collecting borehole samples 27 July 1993 8 Kiln site showing choking vegetation 9 Irrawang Pottery Site enlarged from aerial photograph 10


I I I I I 'i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

3

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 The Irrawang Pottery Site was surveyed on 26 and 27 July 1993.

1.2 The cultural significance of the site has been assessed. It is found to have aesthetic, historic, scientific, and social value.

1.3 The statement of cultural significance states: The Irrawang pottery is a site of national significance. It is the earliest known intact pottery site with major physical evidence in Australia, and through archaeological investigation has revealed large amounts of potsherds, bricks, and tiles, giving a representative sample of the shapes and types of vessel made there. It is of state and loc;:al significance because it was owned and built by James King, an important and active entrepreneur in the Raymond Terrace, Hunter Valley area in the first half of the 19th century.

1.4 Two options for the future of the site have been proposed: 1) Retain the site undisturbed in situ. 2) Remove all significant elements of the site so that the site can

be destroyed as part of the augmentation of the Grahamstown Dam.

1.5 The option to retain the site undisturbed in situ is the preferred option.


I

FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP

\ ~ ""t:-

Juflcuon O( P.Jcl,je .and "( .... ew E.,gland Hlghw.lY}' "

, /* !\~I,rin~lp

R

HfC

FIGURE 2 LOCATION MAP

GRAHAMSTOWN DAM NORTH OF RAYMOND TERRACE

LAKE

--l,,';:~f.I GD4 (Isolated site) .. _ ....... _._- ·· __ ·_·t····· -.-:-.~'"----'.-:.~::::: .... : ... - ..... _ ............ .

: ---.--GRAHAMSTOWN LA K E

o

• .. Aboriginal archaeological sites

European heritage site C,I,,,p-,. ~

S"'D"'" Approximate limit of inundation

-- at completion'of Stage 2 ,.

I I I Il I I

·1 'I I

I

I 3:7 ~') 1'1:1 H

..L I

.. •

OFiIGI" OF LEVELS-CPe-OI CBaH u, •• U c~.bl(.dI:·R.LI4,~a g f\_O:uetlonl er C"Q:u:ltn.~ Y.>OII .. CA "'ell S ropa. .huII '06 .. r·I!\!5.I~'" Q')d l60 ~ I ta A..H.O. (1OClor -1-c.7\)",:

FIGURE 3 PLAN OF GRAHAMSTOWN STORAGE

RESERVOIR 5(3(1986

/

/ /

/ / I

/1 I R<FC.':>'CE DRAWiNGS

SdMdult of r.r~ mutts within clO) Nrrow or,CI.. 11/3~

//

/ / ""'IIl",, __ ""'" __ _ / . 'M Im'at IiiimI.'fi IlTB ilOAIQ

I , , I~V

I 1'·l1iJ I ''-.,5

I I !

I i I

I I I

i ' !'"t 7:-~ IT' H ._-I .

I

I I I I

I

11 I I

11 I

11 I ·

I j' i I

I ·

I l-11

I'll · I 1---

I -~-

I

U:>E',:

;S D.'ftPI peG p'cu:td 0' It •. I1I~ wit'" eft'!'C'OI.)t .'1 16OC'X~OX50 ",orh .. · "GU f'Q1 ..... d .tEe It·i\ltld * :. ~II' PCiI ploced 01 h.L.1I 13 'rllb ",c.;Qlot .'1 J8;)OX~O),50 er.orker .uu POillol1'lS Y£~!.;)W (eIght'

~ : .", r~\J plocd 01 R.L :4 4~ w."" ."4Iltotcr c. i .e;);,X~X~ morker .':t"'~ P'4"'~ .. d 'jII('I;TC hid

~----.-"-- .. --

FIGURE 4 SURVEYOR'S PLAN OF EXCAVATIONS

5/3/1986

DETAIL~ OF KING'S

POTTERY EXCAVATIONS

SCA'_S·t,500

w

• ~

FIGURE 5 PLAN OF SITE AS EXCAVATED BY 1976 CORRELATED WITH 1836 ENGRAVING

I I I I I I

IRRAWANG POTTERY c.1836

I I I I I

N

TANK

'--------1------, I TANK

MILL

@"

I _PLATFORM ~--------------------~ I ,

t-N ROAD,/

----------------------------;

I I TANK TANK

I ..

.. -£.-"'~ .. - .. .,' . ~ - - --.... ~-:. ---..... :~

C'~t~~D::~,,~~,::, . -.. -=~--- .. - -.. ;.--:-

KILN

KILN

et° ° 0 ° ;:=::::::::==:::

= ... . . ... . .

0- .. ___ 0:

I I

. HORSEWORKS WORKSHOP

IRRAWANG POTTERY. PLAN OF THE SITE 1976

I I· I I I I I ,I

I I I I 'I I I I I

7'ANJ<

'H W~~//:£-~N wO/ut. ! Ht? P

o I I

• I C

a a

I I \ \ \

\ ,

0 0

0

0

0

0 • • I

• • 0 -------:::===== --------

FIGURE 6 PLAN OF SITE WITH ANNOTATIONS

BY A. BICKFORD

rA-lJl<.

D CtAY Pi,

Sr2tJAr<.E· .J) e p Il. e !fl t?~ r.

Cl

-rANk

G

E CA R c.-V t..A-J< 1:Ji~ JJRESl / 0/\

7 .

I Is .'

K· I< '1-)(/

.srJ<. tJc-rv~£ L ?

N • Tm:UIIlVERSITYOrn'D~r;y r CENTRE FOR. HISTORICAL .ur.CHAEOLOCY

IRRAWANG IIISTORlCALARCIlAEOLOCICAL IIIVtSTICATIOIIS IfO.l"'

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

I1

FIGURE 7

GENERAL VIEW OF IRRAWANG POTTERY SITE 26 JULY 1993

FIGURE 8

KINHILL SCIENTISTS COLLECTING BOREHOLE SAMPLES 21 JULY 1993

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

FIGURE 9

KILN SITE SHOWING CHOKING VEGETATION

FIGURE 10

IRRAWANG POTTERY SITE

ENLARGED FROM

AIR PHOTO, JULY 1991


~I

4

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background Information

2.1.1 The client This Report was commissioned by the Hunter Water Corporation Limited (HWC), PO Box 5171B, Newcastle West, NSW 2302.

2.1.2 The study area The study area is the James King Pottery Site, which James King named 'Irrawang', about 3 kilometres north east of Raymond Terrace, Lower Hunter Valley, NSW. In this Report the pottery site will simply be referred to as Irrawang. The site is located in a water catchment area of the HWC on the edge of the Grahamstown Dam (Figures 1 and 2).

2.1.3 Purpose The HWC proposes to undertake augmentation of the Grahamstown Dam which involves among other things the construction of a major spillway. One of the proposed spillway location sites is located near Irrawang, and if the spillway construction went ahead here the pottery site would have to be destroyed. Therefore the HWC commissioned a study of Irrawang to determine the scope of work and costs involved in undertaking full documentation and salvage of the site remains. Following its review of this preliminary study the HWC will evaluate the cost of a salvage excavation, particularly in relation to the costs of the other spillway location options described in the Grahamstown Dam Environmental Impact Statement produced by Kinhill Engineers, May 1993. The brief states that the consultant archaeologist is required to:

- define the physical parameters of Irrawang . - review available information and provide a description of the

heritage significance of the site - arrange for the permits necessary to inspect the site - carry out an inspection of the site which would include the

provision of advice to a soil contamination expert on the likely location of pottery dumping areas

- consult with the Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning NSW

- document a methodology and scope of works for full documentation and salvage of the site remains to meet the requirements of the Heritage Act in relation to the disturbance of an archaeological site

- provide an estimate of costs associated with the documentation and salvage of the site remains. This cost estimate should include a breakdown of professional fees and expenses.



5

2.1.4 Name of consultant and authorship of report The author of this Report, Anne Bickford, of Anne Bickford and Associates, Heritage Consultants, was engaged by the HWC to carry out the research and produce this report.

2.1.5 Sources consulted Kinhill Engineers May 1993: Grahamstown Dam Augmentation Environmental Impact Statement for the Hunter Water Corporation.

Staff of the Hunter Water Corporation: involved with this EIS Mr. Brad foot, Project Manager, Grahamstown Dam; Mr. Peter Cupitt, Enginee4 Design Consulting Services, and Mr. Dick Holroyde, Water Engineer.

Staff of the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, NSW: Ms. Usa N ewell, Dr. Damaris Bairstow, and Mr. lain Stuart.

Associate Professor I.M. Birmingham: Most of the Irrawang artefacts and excavation records from excavations carried out from 1967 to 1976 are housed at the UniverSity of Sydney, under the control of Associate Professor J.M. Birmingham of the Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology. As I was unable to study and inventory this material for this report, Ms. Birmingham was engaged to provide an inventory and information about the site for a donation to her consultancy project, the Centre for Historical Archaeology, University of Sydney, of which she is the Director. The draft report from Ms. Birmingham is attached to this Report as Appendix C.

Mr. David Wells: Curator at the Newcastle Regional Museum, 787 Hunter St. Newcastle West 2309. The Museum is featuring an exhibition of potteries of the Hunter Valley. Some Irrawang artefacts on loan from the University of Sydney collection are on display.

Mrs. Cynthia Hunter: Treasurer of the Raymond Terrace and District Historical SOciety, PO Box 255 Raymond Terrace, 2324. Mrs. Hunter made a submission to the EIS inquiry, and to the Shadow Minister for Housing Mrs. D. Grusovin, urging the preservation of the site in situ. Anne Bickford interviewed Mrs. Hunter about the site when she was at Raymond Terrace during fieldwork on 26 and 27 July 1993.



6

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

3.1 Background

The brief states that the Heritage Branch recommended that an archaeologist be engaged "to carry out a preliminary investigation of the site to determine the scope of works and costs involved in undertaking full documentation and salvage of the site remains." It seemed to me that the Report should best take the form of an Assessment of Cultural Significance as recommended by Australia ICOMOS, the leading professional body concerning these matters. Australia ICOMOS has produced a conservation charter called The Burra Charter, and Guidelines for assessing the cultural significance of a site. Most government heritage conservation departments (including the Heritage Branch, Department of Planning NSW) recommend that consultants carry out work in accordance with the Burra Charter. I suggested this in my "Expression of Interest" and enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines to the Burra Charter : Cultural Significance" with my application (Appendix D)

1) - First the Cultural Significance of the site should be assessed; 2) - then Options for the future of the site should follow from

the statement of cultural significance, - and once the option has been chosen 3) - then a Conservation Policy should be prepared, which

identifies the future management of the site, security, maintenance, control of physical intervention, impact of physical intervention on the significance of the place, etc.

This Report deals with the assessment of significance and recommended options for the site only. A conservation policy should be prepared to guide and protect the HWC once the HWCs preferred option has been decided.

3.2 History of the Irrawang Pottery

The history of the site is documented in detail in my 1971 paper "J ames King of Irrawang : A Colonial Entrepreneur" published in the Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society Vol 57 Pt 1 March 1971 (Attached as part of Appendix A, Excavation Permit Application). A description illustrating the site and some of its productions is published in J. Birmingham, I. Jack, and D. Jeans, 1983, Industrial Archaeology in Australia : Rural Industry {Attached as part of Appendix A). In summary, the pottery works was begun by James King at the site, Irrawang, in the early 1830s, and closed down in the mid 1850s. The


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

'I ~

7

venture was successful, exporting wares to the Hunter and to Sydney. (Some stamped Irrawang sherds have been excavated at the Rocks, Sydney Cove). The complete pottery manufacturing process was carried out at the site, from the breaking down and mixing of the clays, to the casting or throwing of the pottery, drying, firing in kilns, and packing in straw to transport it to the markets.

In 1856 King died and the pottery works closed down. The area became used as farmland and when the pottery site was rediscovered in 1967 it was in an open field on a dairy farm. A couple who lived on the farm in the early 1900s, Mr. and Mrs. Blundell, who I interviewed on site in 1968, remembered a hexagonal shed and rows of pottery vessels standing on shelves in a standing building on the site.

Between 1967 and 1976 the site was excavated by students from the Sydney University Archaeological Society. At that the site was owned by the Hunter District Water Board, now the HWC. The early excavations were directed by David Frankel (now of the Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Victoria) and myself. The excavation was taken over by Judy Birmingham (now of the Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology, University of Sydney), who has control of the artefacts and site paper records. The material is in the hands of Ms. Birmingham who has not allowed access. The ownership of the material has not been tested, but I assume it is owned by the HWC. Although the Heritage Act did not exist when the· site was being excavated, in the Heritage Act 1977 it is clear that the site and the artefacts are owned by the landowner, in this case the HWC. When dealing with material excavated directly prior to its proclamation I think the spirit of the Act should obtain with all practicing archaeolOgists.

3. 3 Description of Site

3.3.1 Appearance of the site in history The engraving of the site about 1838 by J. Carmichael (first published in J. Maclehose's Picture of Sydney and Stranger's Guide 1839) is the only illustration known which shows the site in operation (Figure 5). This shows kilns, workshops, and the horse-works, with King's vineyard on the hill slope behind. This can easily be related to the present day site plan (Figure 5).

3.3.2 The site during excavation During excavation of the site for two weeks in most May and December vacations from 1967 to 1976, the excavated areas of the site were not backfilled. Backfilling a site to protect it from damage and collapse, and



8

to protect people from falling into the holes is standard practice. According to Ms. Tracy Ireland of the Heritage Branch DOp, arrangements were made in 1978 between the HWC, Heritage Council, and Ms. Birmingham, for the HWC to burn off the site and cover it with soil to protect it. For various reasons this was not done.

3.3.3 The site at the time of survey The site was surveyed on 26 and 27 July 1993. The purpose of the survey was first, to locate the site, second to set the locations of the six boreholes to be taken by Kinhill scientists testing for soil contamination, and third to describe the present state of the site for the cultural significance assessment.

The borehole testing by the two Kinhill scientists led by Mr. Anthony Acret, Environmental Scientist, was carried out on 27 July 1993 (Figure ~). Mr. Acret produced a report of August 1993 to the HWC for Kinhill Engineers Pty Ltd called Hunter Water Corporation Soil Contamination Assessment lames King Pottery Site.

3.3.4 Present state of the site On Thursday 1 July 1993 a 30 minute search for the site by myself and two other archaeologists took place. We approached the site from the (new) Pacific Highway, but the site could not be seen. (Some days later two archaeologists from the Heritage Branch who were working in Raymond Terrace, Martin Carney and Wayne Johnson, went to search for the site but they also could not find it.) On Monday 26 July my field assistant, Eugene Nieczerowitz, and I were taken to the site by HWC Engineer Dick Holroyde. We surveyed the site on Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 July. The site is thickly overgrown with tall grasses, and thick clumps of blackberries, mostly impassable (See photographs Figures 7-9). As the site was not backfilled at the conclusion of the excavation in 1976, the squares and trenches where deposits had been excavated out were filled with water. Site visibility at ground level was almost nil. This meant that artefacts left in situ at the conclusion of excavation, such as lines of bricks at the Site H Workshop, thick scatters of potsherds at Site L, and to the south of the Workshop Site H; and the bricks of the two kiln sites, have been crushed and broken by people walking on top of them and not being able to see underfoot. Also, only well trained archaeologists would know not to walk on these bricks and other parts of the structures. Other people with me chose the structures to walk on as they were above the water lying in pools on most parts of the ground.

Even though the site is in a HWC water catchment area and entry is prohibited to the public, those interested enough will search for it. The site is thus at risk from visitors who manage to find it, not only



9

because they may dig in the ground looking for whole pots, and souvenir the sherds and bricks lying around, but also because they will further damage the structures by walking on them.

3.4 The Concept of CultuTal Significance

3.4.1 Background In the Burra Charter cultural significance means "aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social value for past, present, or future generations." (From Guidelines to the Burra Charter, attached here as Appendix D) The following paragraphs will assess the cultural significance of Irrawang in relation to these categories, and sum up its significance in the Statement of Cultural Significance.

3.4.2 Aesthetic value Irrawang has aesthetic value in its location and its intactness. The whole site is on open land gently sloping down to the shores of the Grahamstown Dam. It is in a quiet and open setting. If the site were preserved in situ and interpreted to the public, visiting the site would be a pleasurable experience. Its intactness - meaning that remains of all of the site are there under the ground - allows the full pottery works working system to be shown and explained to the public. This could be linked up with a display of the sherds and some whole pots in the Newcastle Museum or somewhere at Raymond Terrace.

3.4.3 Historic 'value Irrawang has historic value in the fact that it was established by a Significant historical figure, James King, as part of his entrepreneurial activities, and because it is one of the earliest pottery site in Australia, and survives underground but intact.

3.4.3.1 James King was a pioneer of Raymond Terrace and the Hunter Valley. He bought land in Raymond Terrace in the 1830s and built several buildings beside the Williams River. He sent sand to Scotland to have glass made, and was a very successful vigneron. His Irrawang pottery factory was one of several of his financial ventures. King is commemorated in Raymond Terrace in the name King Street, and King's Hill. The name of his property and pottery 'Irrawang' is commemorated in the suburb of Raymond Terrace, Irrawang, and the name of the High School. (for details of King's activities see my 1971 paper ''James King of Irrawang : A Colonial Entrepreneur" attached as part of Appendix A)



10

3.4.3.2 Comparison of Irrawang with other 19th century potteries in Australia There are no other potteries of the early 19th century in Australia which are known to have survived so intact. Other important intact potteries such as Lithgow (begun about 1882), and Bendigo (begun 1858), and the Hoffman Brickworks all began after the Irrawang pottery closed. There may be other substantially intact pottery sites in the Hunter Valley, Tasmania, or Victoria, but none are as early as Irrawang. As far as is known the sites of the early pottery works of the 1820s in Sydney at Brickfield Hill or Sydney Cove, and in Tasmania at Hobart, are now well covered by office buildings.

3.4.3.3 Intactness Under the heading '2.3 Historic value' the Guidelines to the Burra Charter : Cultural significance say: "For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where settings are substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive"(See Appendix D). Irrawang's intactness increases its significance as an historic site.

3.4.4 Scientific value Irrawang's scientific value has already been partly investigated by the archaeological excavations from 1967-76. These have revealed the types and shapes of ceramics made at the pottery. Until all the excavated material, site notes, and other paper records have been analysed in detail, the scientific value of the site cannot be finally assessed. In her report Ms. Birmingham suggests a completion date of the excavation report at mid to late 1995. Once this is completed it will be possible to assess how much more excavation is needed, if any, to reveal the scientific value of the site, its processes and its productions.

3.4.4.1 Future excavation Because its intactness is one of the major features of Irrawang's Significance, if the site is to be kept in situ, future excavation should occur only in exceptional circumstances. A moratorium on future excavation is advocated. The Burra Charter is 'a charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance' and it 'gives guidance on conserving significant places' (Illustrated Burra Charter p:l0). Article 24 of the Charter says:

Study of a place by any disturbance of the fabric or by archaeological excavation should be undertaken where necessary to provide data essential for decisions on the conservation of the place and/ or to secure evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible through necessary conservation or other unavoidable action. Investigation of a place for any other reason which requires physical disturbance and which adds substantially to a scientific body of knowledge may be permitted, provided that it is consistent with the conservation policy for the place. (my italics)



11

Because the site was left open during the process of excavation from 1967 to 1976, and from 1976 onwards, it has already suffered much deterioration. For example the brick arches of the kiln flues have collapsed, and thick scatters of sherds and brick courses left lying on the ground have been trodden on and damaged.

To excavate more of the site would be to reduce its intactness; and therefore to reduce its significance. If the site must be destroyed in the dam augmentation iprocess then it should be properly excavated to collect the maximurr} scientific information. The Birmingham report states that there are structures visible on the pre-1963 air photograph which have not been investigated in any way. However, the plan of the site from her report (Figure 6) shows only those features excavated (except for feature L, to the south of kiln K which is not shown). Despite nearly 10 years of excavation seasons the site has not yet been properly surveyed. Survey by non-intervention methods such as ground-probing radar or resistivity should be part of the site conservation policy, whether the site is to be excavated and removed or retained in situ.

3.4.4.2 Conservation to retain scientific value To retain the site's significance it must be protected from physical damage by people and the elements. It is recommended that if the site is to be conserved in situ a conservation plan including a comprehensive conservation policy be prepared. This should include advice concerning hand clearance of the blackberries, full site survey, repairs and conservation works to the remains to protect them, and backfilling of the site.

3.4.5 Social value. The site has high social value to the community of Raymond Terrace, as it is the most important historic site near the town. It represents an early factory, whose products were sold in the Hunter Valley, Sydney, and other places in NSW at the beginning of the town's development, and is a significant place associated with one of the town's founders, James King. Further afield Irrawang has social value to potters, antique collectors, and others interested in the early productions of Australia. Whole Irrawang vessels are very few and they are almost priceless. To my knowledge they are all in private collections; none is owned by a Museum. To contribute to the site's social value the excavated material held by Ms. Birmingham in the Department of Prehistory and Historical Archaeology at Sydney University should be analysed, the archaeological report of the excavations produced, and the artefacts and



12

site records placed in a" public museum so that the collection is accessible to the public and to researchers. At the moment its inaccessibility reduces its social value.

4.0 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Irrawang pottery is a site of national significance. It is the earliest known intact pottery site with major physical evidence in Australia, and through archaeological investigation has revealed large amounts of potsherds, bricks, and tiles, giving a representative sample of the shapes and types of vessel made there. It is of state and local significance because it was owned and built by James King, an important and active entrepreneur in the Raymond Terrace, Hunter Valley area in the first half of the 19th century.

5.0 OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE IRRAWANG SITE

5.1 Option 1 Purpose: Retain the site undisturbed in situ. Action: Prepare a Conservation Plan Conservation Policy document for guidance to future management of the site by HWC. Carry out recommendations of the document for physical protection of the site. Result: Site remains protected by HWC in HWC water catchment area. Costs: c. $10-$30,000.

5.2 Option 2 Purpose: Remove all significant elements of the site. Action: Survey and excavate the site so that all significant remains are removed; analyse data and produce a complete report on the site. Result: Site can be destroyed. Costs: 1) For Archaeology: Directed by a consultant with a large team of assistants and community volunteers in one year = c. $200,000 + 2) For anti-lead contamination measures to be taken by archaeologists when excavating the pottery kiln areas: (Estimate from Kinhill Soil Contamination Unit has not been received at the time of writing). + 3) Removal of contaminated soils (Estimate from Kinhill Soil Contamination Unit has not been received at the time of writing).



13

5.2.1 Method of excavation for Option 2 If Option 2 is chosen then every effort must be made for maximum community involvement. As James King was an important historical figure, and the site of his pottery is of national significance, the local community should be given the opportunity of being involved in the work. The excavation could be organized using local volunteers as excavators, with a paid Director and Supervisory staff. Local volunteers from the Raymond Terrace Historical Society, people on unemployment benefits, schoolchildren from the Irrawang High School, and/or members of the Friends of the Newcastle Regional Museum could all be given a place as volunteers. An excavation of this kind was carried out at the beginning of the year by me at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, and was very successful. It could be arranged for the cataloguing and report writing to take place on public view at the Newcastle Regional Museum using volunteer helpers.

5.2.2. Estimated Cost of Excavation

12 week excavation season = 60 working days. Assumptions Personnel: 1 Director 2 supervisors 1 planner 15 volunteers Accommodation: Caravan Park at Raymond Terrace Caravan Park prices are from Bellhaven Caravan Park Raymond Terrace 10 volunteers camping in tents = $10 per night x 10 x60 2 supervisors in 1 on site van = $30 per night x 60 = 1 planner in 1 on site van = $30 per night x 60 = 1 Director in 1 on site van = $30 per night x 60 = Food allowance = 14 people x $10 per day = 14 x $10 x 60 = Payments to personnel: Director = consultants fee = $500 pd x 60 = 2 supervisors = consultants fee = $200pd x 2 = $400 x 60 = 1 planner = consultant's fee = $200pd x60 = 15 volunteers = $10 per day expenses =15 x $10 =150 x 60 On site equipment costs: Hire of 2 portaloos for site = 2x$21.32pwx12=$511.68+$60float= Portaloo prices are from Arkhire Raymond Terrace Tea, coffee, biscuits = On site equipment storage shed

TOTAL

i 6,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 8,400

30,000 24,000 12,000

9,000

571.68

500 1,000 $96,871



14

5.2.3. Estimated cost of post-excavation analysis and report

Assumptions: 12 week analysis of artefacts and preparations for excavation report content ego Drawing up plans, cataloguing artefacts and paper records, reports of cataloguers, sorting and mending of ceramics, packing artefacts for final storage (at Newcastle Regional Museum). 12 weeks by director and one supervisor writing excavation report. Total time = 24 weeks Director @ $1,500 per week 6 Cataloguers @ $20ph = 20x7=140x5=700pwx12=8,400 x 6= 1 computer data processor @ $25ph=875pwx12= Photocopying, printing forms, printing reports, stationary

TOTAL

5.2.4 Conclusion of costs for Option 2

36,000 50,400 10,500 2.500

$99,400

Site excavation and report production = $96,871 + $99,400 = $196,271. Add 5% Contingency = $206,084. Therefore, it is estimated in round figures that to have this excavation carried out by a professional consultant using paid staff and local volunteers, all of the work would cost in the order of $200,000 and be completed in 1 year. Cost of all archaeological work to excavate and remove the site = $200,000. Add cost of measures for removal of contaminated soil to obtain total site work cost.

5.3 Preferred option Because of its national Significance, the best way to protect the Irrawang Pottery Site is to conserve it in situ, with no salvage excavation taking place. Therefore Option 1 must be the preferred option.

Anne Bickford Irrawang Pottery Site Assessment of Cultural Significance Final Report Qct 1993

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

APPENDIX A

EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATION 21 pp

1

I I HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NEW SOUTH WALES

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

APPLICATION FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT UNDER SECTION 140, HERITAGE ACT, 1977, AS AMENDED.

To: The Secretary, Applicant's Anne Bickford Heritage Council of New South Wales, name and HERITAGE CONSULTANTS P.O. Box A284 full postal 135 Catherine St. Leichhardt Sydney South 2000. address NSW Australia 2040 ..

Applicant's P-A.,>t 'phone no. ~~;?.9c6~ =rrc; 0':< (;;, I

Note: (1) This application must be submitted in duplicate and must be accompanied by a fee of $5 Cheques should be made payable to 'Heritage Council of New South Wales'. (2) Insufficient information may result in the return of the application or a delay in its processing'

I hereby apply for an excavation permit to disturb and excavate the land described below, for the purpose of discovering/~l:!esiEl~I'E!3f:l'liElF--a relic.

DESCRIPTION OF LAND L~~~..b (j.A!J.~ .,Jbw'-~ / ~~~ 7~· 6it~I~MwRJShirel'p# ..f,l:...v ~ 1~lTownJ.¥illa§eR~~~,?"UY'~ I Post Code,;(.{~« Street I Side of Street I House No. &/or Name Lot or Portion Section D.P. or S.P. County I Parish

VollBook FoI/No. I Frontage Depth I Nearest Cross Street

Nature of property (whether vacant land, house, etc.) wA~A' c,.47-C#A~.,y 'T Owner's Full Name: #, Address: t/~,.{ W~~ Ctt?-! P&lA'~'-/C?/l/. Has the consent of the Owner been obtained? y~-" Name of the Excavation Director: AJ)/IV~ ..2 / t!-~ ~Cl.(!!. ~ Where the Excavation Director has not previously supplied details of qualifications and past experience: The attached form, Page 3, must be completed.

.'

To what extent is the excavation (1) a training exercise? (2) salvage? (3) research? c ·h... &/Ne-#. (4) preliminary site exploration? -r~.,.. At?~ ,et;(. ~eA-.J> .Jo/~ t:.oNr7f.h /4/,;I-rj ON .t:::¥/~

Proposed date of commencement of excavation work: /..:A(Y.I lIifrwEM' ~-3t:?~.(.Y ~.:? Estimated date of completion of excavation wor!<:

Signature of Applicant ~ ,. .Q" VI'·./.. %~ ....-- r Date /2- /7/ t:J...:? Note: This application must be accompanied by: r

(1) Why the excavation is to be undertaken (2) A research design which includes:

(i) Detailed history (ii) Statement of Cultural Signific~nce (iii) Inter and Intra research questions to be answered by the excavation director (iv) * Accurate location plan (v) * Accurate site plan showing details of the area to be excavated t

(vi) Proposed excavation methods (vii) Information about team members (numbers, experience, etc.) and

arrangements for recording the information (photographer, draftsperson,etc.) (viii) A bibliography and illustrative materi~1 where available

* to show north point and scale {3} A description of the relic, where the application is for a permit to expose or move a relic and why.

PERMIT UNDER SECTION 140, HERITAGE ACT, 1977,As amended. Heritage Council use only

This permit is issued subject to the conditions on the reverse of this form.

Issued by the authority of the· Heritage Council of N.S.W. , For Secretary

Date


ANNE BICKFORD AND ASSOCIATES

Heritage Consultants

135 Catherine Street Leichhardt NSW 2040 Phone 02-5699672 Fax 02-5500261

ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT

IRRAWANG POTTERY SITE, RAYMOND TERRACE

1) Why the excavation is to be undertaken This is not an archaeological excavation, but the digging of a minimum number of test holes by a soil contamination expert from Kinhill Engineers. This work will be supervised by archaeologist Anne Bickford, the permit applicant. The Hunter Water Corporation (HWC), the landowner, is funding a preliminary investigation into the site. The HWC is concerned to find out whether the lead which was used in the manufacture of glazes at the Irrawang pottery between the 1830s and the 1850s has contaminated the ground; and therefore is a danger to the water supply. The sites to be dug will be areas of deposit where it is estimated that there were concentrations of pottery, and therefore lead, in the soil.

2) Research design (i) Detailed history The history of the Irrawang pottery is well documented in my 1971 paper "James King of Irrawang : A Colonial Entrepreneur"Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society Vol 57 Pt 1 March 1971 (a copy of the paper is enclosed with this application). The site description from the EIS is attached. Also attached is the extract on Irrawang from J. Birmingham, Jack, and Jeans 1983 Industrial A rchaeology in Australia : Rural Industry. Other references by J. Birmingham are listed in the attached Bibliography from the Grahamstown Dam Augmentation EIS by Kinhill for the HWC 1993. (ii) Statement of Cultural Significance See attached extract from EIS.

(iii) Research questions Not relevant for this project (iv) Accurate location plan Attached (v-vii) Not relevant for this project (viE) Bibliography See above under (i) Detailed history

3) Description of the relic For a description of the site see references attached.

Anne Bickford B.A. Hons.(Sydney) M.A.A.C.A.

/"f;QAwANb-

L DC-A-71£?J<i J1A P

R

IIIC

Junction qf P3clti~IHJ OX New England Hlgh~yi,/.t ....

• ¥ •• /* !\~nrl"~I,' \

/ RlZAWAN6-rdOM ~/lN'/lAMf 1"OWN ..b.,4h /El.! MA Y /0; C}2

LAKE

GD4 ·O~~~s~ 0 ... _ ......... -........... t ..... _ .. 7".~~.:~ .. :===.~.=_ .~ ........... _..... ... 1...' ______ .J

GRAHAMSTOWN LA K E • ... European heritage site

C."np.,:n. ~ ... am,-

_ _ Approximate limit of inundation at completion 'of Stage 2 '

..... l /"

I ~I '

I-I II I tl ,

la I I I I I' I I. I'· .

I I I "'1) ~. }i. ...

Appendix I REFERENCES

/ JlRAwA AlG-

~~OM; (J.,1f.##AfoU' 7'fJWIY -2:JAh

lE/oS !Y14 Y It; '73

•

Australian W r and Coastal Studies P td. 1990. Williamto n-Tomago Drainage. Repo 0.90125. Prepared for e Department ofW esources, NSW.

alian Wa~er and Co al Studies Pty Lt 1991. Supplement to W' iamtown Tomago Draina eport No. 901 . Prepared for the Dep ent of Water Resources, N

Binningham, J. 1 ?73. The archaeological contribution to nineteenth century history: Some AustralIan case studies. World Archaeology 7:3.

Birm!ngha~,!. In pre.ss .. James King of Irrawang: An historical archaeological InvestIgatIon of a rmd-mneteenth century pottery in th.e Hunter Valley, NSW.

6.3.2 EUROPEAN HERITAGE

The only known site of European heritage value in the study area is the James King or Irrawang pottery site. The location of the site is shown in Figure 6.2.

The Irrawang pottery site is listed in the Hunter Region Environmental Plan 1989 (Heritage), which was prepared to conserve heritage items of the Hunter region that were of State, regional or local significance. The feature is contained in Schedule 4 of the plan, which is for items requiring further investigation. Items contained in this schedule require further investigation by councils to establish their possible heritage significance and, where appropriate, to include provisions for conservation when preparing local environmental plans. At present' the Irrawang pottery site is not listed in the Port Stephens Shire Council Local Environmental Plan 1989.

The following discussion presents some background on the heritage significance of the site, and is based largely on the research presented in Birmingham (1973) and Birmingham (in press).

Background to the site

The Irrawang pottery site is the location of an early pottery in 'New South Wales (c. 1833-55), of which little evidence has survived apart from advertisements for the pottery in contemporary newspapers.

•

6·13

, , ,I

'I 'I

~:: I! i: I, ~II

I! , ~I '

I: t, . I ~ I

j , h

* *1 j:

r~O~;yAA#A~f~OWN~AM

EI,..S

Between 1967 and 1976, the Archaeological Society of the University of Sydney was involved in excavating the site. This has allowed the original layout of the pottery to be determined, and the former locations of several earthenware kilns, the houseworks and an edge mill, a series of clay pits, a loading and unloading area, and two workshops to be identified.

Since 1967, the Pacific Highway has been re-routed to the west of its former alignment, separating the pottery site from the old Irrawang House and winery which were subsequently demolished in 1969.

Heritage significance of Irrawang pottery site

After his arrival as a settler from Scotland in 1827, James King became well known within the colony for his talent for publicity and his willingness to experiment with new materials and new activities.

Probably beginning in 1833, pottery manufacture in Irrawang was advertised throughout much of the 1830s and 1840s through a series of notices placed in newspapers. These advertised improvements in pottery production and the types of products available, and provided locations for viewing and ordering pottery articles.

Brown and black glazed earthenware and stoneware produced at the Irrawang pottery subsequently gained a reputation as good quality and low priced domestic wares, and were viewed as being superior to the imported English product. The pottery was sold in 1855 after its effective closure in 1851 due to a shortage of labour caused by the gold rush.

J ames King pottery site remains one of the best and earliest examples of a colonial midnineteenth century pottery likely to be found. The site retains considerable potential for further excavation work to evaluate James King's contribution to the colony and nineteenth century industrial/manufacturing activities.

Impacts and management

The remains of the pottery site would be directly affected by the excavation works associated with construction of the proposed spillway. The HWC is liaising with the Heritage Branch of the Department of Planning about the documentation and salvage of the site remains, which would be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction.

Preliminary investigations will be undertaken by a qualified industrial archaeologist to evaluate existing information on the site and to define the extent and significance of the archaeological remains. Based on these investigations, a methodology will be fonnulated and implemented so that the site can be appropriately recorded. Where required, excavation permits and development consent would be sought for site investigations and salvage works. Consultation with rel~vant heritage organizations would also be carried out by HWC.

6-14

I I I I I

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

This collection of gingerbeer bottles was found during roadworks near the ::-'Iuseum of Applied Arts and Sciences, Sydney (~SW). 1\10st are stamped with the name of Thomas Field, a well-known potter of this arC'a from 1847. (COURTESY ~1t:SEUM OF

APPLIED ARTS AND SCIENCES,

SYDNEY)

!;{ RA WANC-7~t7ft1: .:I114;V1 / /V ~ #' A~ JACK.

r J',!3"AN£ /C}$3 Leake, incidentally, is one of ma~_1 -.-----r---- _______________ ...

wastage so common in the new colony - a man whose skills were too sophisticat d to be properly employed. Before his transportation he had made Egypt" n Black - one of the new hard stonewares developed in Staffordshire a the end of the eighteenth century. In fact, Governor Darling did use hI for specially commissioned ceramic portraits, none of which has yet surfa: ed.

The ~Joreton potte owned by Anson, Henry and Ralph Moreton was at Brickfield Hill and erated from 1821 to 183{. It was also suc-cessful although more has yet 0 be learned about it. Better known is that of Enoch Fowler, beginnin roduction in 1835 at the south end of George Street (now near Bay eet, Broadway) \\"ith ginger-beer bottles and blacking jars, both good-se 'ng lines. A little later, in 1847, Thomas Field began production in the sa: e area (the corner of J ones Street and Parramatta Road), with clay pip (smoking', cigar-holders and stoneware. It is evident that the movemen ut west from the city towards the excellent clay deposits of Camperdow and St Peters was already under way by the 183os. Another point of inter ;;t is that whereas in the first phase virtually any domestic containers and J cessities were sufficient to ensure survival of pottery, conditions were far mo e competitive by the 1830S and there was a further dh'ersification into commercial lines such as bottles and pipes.

A good example of a working pottery of this period a\\'ay from the metropolis is that of J ames King's pottery (1833-8, 18{3-j6; at Irrawang on the Williams Ri\'er in the Hunter Valley, In both its ground plan and the abundant pottery sherds King's was characteristic of innumerable mid-nineteenth century country potteries throughout Britain and the colonies. King had a \\'ashmill and an edge-mill, a central clay pit on site, an earthenware bottle kiln, an earthenware pottery shed with drying floor, and another kiln, pottery shed and spoil dump for his salt-glazed stonewares. An etching by Henry Carmichael, which King used as his bill-head, shows what the site looked like in about 1838 and the plan shows what excavation to date has revealed.

King advertised frequently, and some idea of his stock and marketing arrangements can be worked out from a combination of the advertisements and the sherds on the site. He began by concentrating on the domestic market alone - good and cheap vessels first in black and brown, lead-glazed earthenware, then in a fine yellow ware. These were sold both locally in the Hunter Valley, shipped by water to ~Iorpeth and l\-Iaitland, and also in Sydney where they were sold through an agent. Later King added excellent salt-glazed stonewares to his range, and these sales appear to have expanded steadily in the later phase of the Irrawang pottery. Ginger beers, and the fine Irrawang wine jars in 'which King sold his own Irrawang wine, are noticeably ad\'ertised more in the later years. There are several possible explanations, apart from the plausible suggestion that the earlier established sales in earthen wares no longer needed advertising. One is that the stonewares \\'ere tougher and less porous than the earthenwares and ultimately prO\'ed a better selling line. Another is historical accident - that King lost his earthenware thrower and glazer in the gold rush of 1850 but not his less skilled boys. It remains equally possible that he found it necessary to develop

80

I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I ~I~· :I~·

IRRAWANG 1974 PLAN OF POTTER

r!l O)(.f : J'l/.l h IN (J.,,,tI A;It ::r 4u: AJ.Lb ..:r£A.v ~ /~ 8 i "

Bill-head used by J ames King for his Irrawang pottery in the Hunter Valley (NSW). Drav.-n by H. Carmichael, it appears to show the layout of the pottery as it was about 1836 or so.

Plan of King's Irrawang pottery after excavation. Alterations clearly took place after the etching of the bill-h:;;:d was drawn, as can be seen by a comparison of the two.

Aerial view of the Irrawang excavation. North is to the right in this view. • (PHOTO: jUDY BIRMIXGHA!-!)

Examples of Irrawang pottery and moulds. King made brown, black, yellow and cane earthenware, all leadglazed, and some excellent stoneware gingerbeer bott.1es and wine jars. (PHOTO: JUDY BIRMINGHAM)

• some commercial lines and trade sales as a solid basis, with domestic sales being insufficient for a steady income, as did virtually all potteries in the nineteenth century.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I

.... ~ ..... ..,. •. : ...... '. -.:',,'

pt. fJA. :JJ/IlMIA/ f,.,./lA/VIl J/l.UI

AN.D .:7£AIVJ / q/Jd

King's old stone winery, later demolished, which stood near the remains of his old stone-lined cellar. ~ote the olive tree behind the winery, a tree often planted by early settlers. I,PHOTO: jl:DY DIRI\II~GIIAM)

Onc of the four fireholrs of tl1P main circular updraught kiln at Irrawang. (PHOTO: j1;DY BrR~IIXGIl.\~I)

One of the brick underHoor Hues which ran the length of the Irrawang workshop, utilising heat from the kiln to dry green pots, a practice mentioned by Dobson. These Hues ended in a brick chimney of which the footing6 remain. (PHOTO: jt:DY BrR~IINGHAM)

I I I

~ ,

I

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

Clay-puddling mill, illustrated by Dobson in 1850 and similar to the one found at Irrawang.

" i. •

One interesting aspect of the Irrawang potte,ry is that its clays and sherds together provide an interesting insight into a colonial experimental situation. Although the Hunter Valley is a rich clay area which then and now was to prove a source of excellent pottery, surface clays are not easy to use since they shrink a lot and are difficult to glaze; King himself describes two years of experiment before he was ready to market his first earthenwares. :\Jany of his experimental sherds have been found - bloating and warping was common, so was the bubbling of lead glazes. He tried out feather-edge ware in blue and white (but no glazed pieces have been found), and experimented with a variety of mottled and tortoiseshelltype glazes which seem never to have entered full production. King was using both the surface mottled zone clays and some of the lower white clays from the coast region. He used both red lead and galena in his lead-glazed earthenware, as well as calcite as a flux. He produced his brown and black (manganese) wares on the surfact' clay red body, and the later on a white body. His salt-glazed stonewares were of very high quality, with interior glaze and superb appearance, and the range of shapes was considerable.

King was also making tiles at Irrawang, both hexagonal and rectangular roughly glazed paving tiles and rectangular flat unglazed roofing tiles with a single hole in the edge. All these were found in use around his own kilns, and it is not clear whether he supplied them commercially. Such tiles were probably moulded by hand (as described by Ure) although the hexagonal tiles, which are denser and better shaped, may have been formed in a hand-press. There is no evidence of pipe production (and all King's mm ,drains were of the colonial brick-built kind).

King died in 1856 and his pottery closed. By this time there was at least one other pottery operating in the Hunter Valley; Mr Page at Newcastle had actually started in 1846 and his potter was Mr Plumridge. A Mr Plumridge (presumably junior) appears as a potter at Ballarat in the 1880s, an interesting illustration of how the gold rushes drained away skilled labour from the eastern states.

84

1--,---· ._ .... _- --- -- .. . ~ .... ,.-.... ,..-......... ----.---... ~ ._---- --. .... --

- -

40 .Jollrnal of the Royal Australian ilisiorical Society [March 19i1

James King of Irrawang: A Colonial Entrepreneur

ANNl~ BICKl"OH.J)

l

The excavation of such a site as the lrrawang Potter v, which operated from the early ] 83()'s to the early 1850's, is known as 'historical archaeology', 11 discipline in which archaeologists combine historical sources with excavation to interpret their sites, and so M' gain a more comprehensiye view than either history or archaeology alone can reveal. The initial interest of the archaeological investigation the 'lrrawang Project', directed by Miss .J utly Birlllinghlllll 'of the University of Sydney, was in James King's pottery.! But a search through his correspondence and papers revealetl him to be a man of wideranging interests, closely connected with the commercial' and industrial development of New South Wales. In addition to trading and speculating, he manufactured pottery, developed the glass-making properties 01 Sydney sand, grew olives and grapes, and made wine. This paper, which discusses his activities in their wider w;;pects, provides background for the 'Irrawang Project'.

James King was born in Colillslmrgh in Scotland in 17!.l7.2 He was educated 101' a business career and spent ten years in a glass manufactory in ])undct'. ne thcn moved t.o ]'}(linlllu'gh, bllt fllilillg h(~ltl1.h Illlldp hilll dl'eid(~ to ellJig-I'ate, lllld Iw :I1'I'i\'ed ill N!'w SOIlt.h \\'lJiI'S ill i\llJl'(~h )H~7,a Oil 11IIIdillg hp SI't. lip as a gmH'I'a) IIWI'(·hallt. alld Hg'I'IIt. Ht !i I\illg 8t.I'(!ut :-iydllo,v, sdlillg goods Iw had 1)I·ollglit. Ollt. 1'1'0111 :-ieotlalld, 111 1111 lJ(ln'I'tisellwllt in the Syd'Jley Gazette ill April J.B~74 he anllounced that he had on sa.le It quantity of cut and plain flint glass, tumblers, goblets, wme decanters, butter coolers, salts and so on, ra.nging frolll plain to well cut, high quality wares, He also had some 'strong made Scotch striped shirts' and IJ. few tartan mlmtles, By 21 September 1827 King's assets "'ere listed as £2,281,7,n in cash and goods,5

In IH28, along with other i'l'pe settlers with a certain alllount of capital, he received a land grant of 1,920 acres in the Hunter Valley-Parish of Thornton, County of (lloucestcrabout five miles north of Raymond Terrace,!! On this property which he called 'Irrawang',7 he grew grain and raised cattle. though still maintaining his office and home in Sydney. The Census taken in November 1828 lists: .James King; c:Imc free; Presbyterian; farlller; a<1drm;s, ]st branch llunter's River; 2,000 acrt's; 23 deal'cd and cultivated; I horse; 37 hOl'1lctl' ca.ttlc.s

'l'hronghout his lire Killg was aeti\'e in land s])Cculatioll, alld ill dm'isillg v:tJ'iom; seht'IIJeS to IlIak!' 1II0IW,v. '1'0 this (,Ilt! he \\'l1S cOllst.alltly writ.illg to t.1i(' gm'('J'lIl11ellt seekillg' ]H'I'IIJissioll to

IlIlifI ',\' IillJis l)iiI _ _ _ _ _

I

-

ro], 5i Pt 1J James King 0/ IrrCl!rang - Bick/ord

In March 1828 he applied for an area of land near the junction of the Hunter awl ,\Yilliums Rivers, where the town of Raymond Terrace now stands, to build a house and garden on the water, as 'lrrawang' had no ri\'er frontage, 'rhis was refused by the Colonial Secretary as it was reserved for a government village.D He then applied for a town allotment in Newcastlelo

and when he received no answcr, for one in l\Iaitland, In August 1830, he withdrew both of these and reapplied for land near the Hunter-\Yilliams ;j ullctio 11 , PermissiOIl was agaiu refused for the same reasoll.1 t

'In May 1829, King outlined to the government a proposal to drain an extensive swamp adjoining his grant on the east,l2 He said he would cut a canal more than a mile long between the swamp and the ,\Villiams Rh'er and offered to pay the Crown the usual quit rent of 2d. per acre, to commence six years after he receiyed the land.ls The SUrYeyor General's Department surveyed the swamp, finding that it covered over 100,000 acres altogether, and that part to the east of King, 3,280 aores,14 He was advised to obtain the written concurrence of Pennington and Graham, landholders to the south of 'Irra"\vang' as the s\vamp encroached 011 their land as well. Finally, the governor asked the Ilund Board to decide the issue and their report recommended that the scheme should not be sanctioned, as land was so plentiful in the area that there was no need to drain swamps, Also, the whole swamp should be drained at once, and this was not practicable,!5

\Vhile this was heillg cOllsidm'C'd, Killg alld a JlHI't.nPI', .JUIII!!S l!'aI'llJel', applind 1'01' 11IIHI at: l\'lait.lalld t.o (ll'l'd n t.hl'HHhillg and f10UI' mill,ln This was ill a gl'pat. gl'uill-g'l'()\villg' disLI'ict., lllld the threshing mill, being portable, was to:

itinerate the di~trict OIL the termiuatioll of the harvest (wheat in the straw being too ulIlky to be urollght to it) and will thus be capable of thrashing ou(. all the wheat ill thOH!' plLrt~, ·When this is lLcc:ompl,isIH;c1 the thra~hillg part of the j\( ill will he tliHf!ollll(lcted, and a pair of xlIII stOIlCS \\"Ill thell be attache(] t.o the Machinery which In.tter'lre intended to ue k!'pt at work during the remainder of 'the year.17

They had already spent £200 on the threshing mill and carriages to transport it, and n('eli<'d twenty bullocks (the mill used two changes a day), a paddock to graze them, a house to lodge the millers and machinery, and a punt to carry the grain.ls In September 1830, King paid Farmer £180 and took over the project.19 The authorities approved this application, and a month later he was promised and took possession of about six acres of land 011 the Hunter at \Yest l\Iaitland,20

King's O[)('I'1I1 iOlls as a merchallt alld a~ent contiuued to develop. In 183 L he applied for 11 small waterside allotment in Sydney Cove, on which to build Wal'Cholls('S and wharves for his trading' YOntlll'CS,21 n(, said 11(' had two ships loading with colonial pl'oduec 1'01' Bnglllll!l at. 1 wo diff('l'clJi. whlll'ves and ht' had to pay 1'pllt ror bot.h or 't.!H'III, Ut' had also Il!'g'llll t;) impol'\. flalllililnl iIIZl'a_lllld_I(,d _1101I1IIIi1 W"l0 - -

I, i I

I,

f I ...

42 Journal of the Royal Australian IIistorical Society l.\llll'ch Illi1

store it. This application was refused as the "ovcrmncnt had decided not to give any more watersid~ allotIl\Cl~ts.

By this time King had mauc many applications for lallu an.d only his refju.est fo~· six Hcres at West lHaillanu was grtmte<l: HIS a.nnoJ:ancc wlth. tIns lack or support leu ]1 im to inquire into the sItuatIOn and, lU Sept(,Illuer U~:J1, he SPilt a l\Iemorial to Go,:ernor Darling stating that the government had crr('I1, and askmg for an additional grant of land.22 His main grieYance was that, under existing regulations, he was entitled to a secondary grant. These were allowed only to those who did not owe the government money, and WIlD had carried out certain improvements on their original grants. King understood he wa~ eligible for an additional grant nnu had sent in ]lis applicatIOn on 11 J!ll1lwry 1830.2a In t.his JlC stat<'(/ that on his 1,920 acres he had SIxty head of horned cattle, had erected onc house, one barn, a dairy, stockyard et cetpra to the value of £40 had bought agricultural impl(>ments and stores, <md had ca~h in hand of £450 and upwards. He had employed and maintained during the previous year four convicts and two free servants. In the Memorial, he said he had understated the improvements he had made at that time, and in fact possessed eighty head of cattle valued at £320, and did not include the information that he had cleared fifty acres at an outlay of £l~!), and erected 4HO roods of fencing costing £75.

Despite this, it was decided a month later that the request for an additional grant could not bc complied with.24 On investigation he found that when it. was Ilpplied for, the Intcrnal Revenue Office 11ad notified thc Colonial Secretary that .Jallll's King owed money, and he discovered that they were confusing him .with another James King who owed rent on land granted to hIm.211 He then assumed that his subsequent applications for land were rejected for the same reason. However. a second letter from Internal Revenue two weeks llftPI· the fil'st 26 u1I1k('s it clellr that the government realized that. King was eligible for an extension, but still it was refused. In the Memorial to Darling, he asks that he be granted the land he should have been given at the time of his applicatio'n, or a smaller portion near Maitland for an additional paddock to graze working ImlIoeks for the threshing mill. This request also was rejected.

Seven years later, in 1838, King llppli('<1 ng"lliu for a 1'('uress of this injusth'c, this t.ime 10 Lord (lIelll'lg", tlw SI'('relarv of SI.II1.e for \VIIl' :11111 Coloni<'s.27 H('re he SlIhllJilll'd two Melllorials, (mch requesting" lL separnte additional grant of land. 'l'he fil"st211 claimed t.hat his available capital l'ntitfed him lllld<'r l'<'glllatiolls existing at the time of his uppJicatioll, 1.0 nil init.ial grant or 2,560 acres, not tl!(' 1,920 ac)·(·s ll<' llll<l l'('(·t'i ,.<,<1, and tllll t. tlJ is had been invpstigat('d IlIHl pl"owd !J,Y Ih(' Land HOIml. He discovered that his 1830 application for an exlension of his original grant was reflls('d because of a t(,llIj)or:ll'Y slIspension of part of the land regulations by OoYel'llor Darling". As people who had -.--------

\·01. 57 Pt 1] James King of IrrowaTlg-Bickford 43

applied both beforc and after the suspension had been granted auditionalland, he considered his claim still "aliu, and requested Olcnelg to authorize the New South Wales government to grant the extension he was cntitled to.

Thc seconu Memoria129 concerlled an' application for a secondary grant of land. Here he said that, having complied with the terms on which he received his primary grant, he had an acknowledged claim to a secondary grant. According to the regulations this was to bc the same size as the first grant, but as he should have received 2,560 acres in the first place, the Commissioners of Claims for secondary grants had recommended that he be given 2,560 acres. Not content with submitting both these requests, he went on to ask for an amount of land, to be chosen by nIenelg, in addition to t.hat recommended by the Commissioners or Claims, for services rendered to the colony. He stated that by 2 May 1838 he had spent not less than £3,300 in p<'rlllancllt improYements at '[rrawang', while the regulations required the cxpenditure of ouly £1,600 to cntitle him to a secondary grant. Independent of the £3,300, he possessed available capital of not less than £7,000, as well as several portions of valuable land in Sydney and the Hunter Valley. By this time he had also established the pottery manufactory, and discoycred and brought to the not.ice of the public the value of Sydney sand 1'01' glass-making. Finally, he argued that many people had l'(>ceived far beyond the maximum grant for services of equal or lesser value to the colony. For instance, John Macarthur receiv('d 10,000 acres for importing merino sheep, and ot.hers wm·(\ given grants for shooting bushrangers, finding new land, and so on.

Governor Gipps, who was then in office, felt that King had been adequately rewarded for his public services and that past decisions on his land should stand. Therefore he did not support King's claims, Glenelg concurred, and these Memorials too were refused. King continued to feel, with justification I think, that he was unjustly treated, but ceased to send Memorials, con- • fining his opinions to private correspondence.3o

Although, or perhaps because, his 1831 Memorial was not acceded to, he continued to speculate in land, in January 1832 applying to buy ]50 acres next to his grant Ht West Maitland to graze the working cattle used in his mill.3I This was refused as the land wus expressly rcserved for sma 11 allotments, and could not be sold.

At about. the sallle time he bought u hlock of land hi Sydney bound<,d by O('orge and Hunter Streets, and the government reserve bordering Spring Street.32 Hcre}lC built a row of brick houses, and then applied to purchase more land to extend this block soulh to Spring Street. This request too was refused, as the land was part of the rcserve33 and could not he sold. - - - - - - - -

I I. I

.,

t ., .... .. I r

(

- -

.Tournal of the Royal Australian llistorircrl Society LMnrch 1971

Il

King's experience in glass-maki])(r and interest in chemistry led him t.o discover that the sand a~~und Sydney and Botany Ba;v was Ideal for the production of fine flint and crystal glass. ThIS sand, resulting from the decomposition of the local sandstone, was free of iron and other insoluble impurities which affect the colour of g'lass.34 lIe notified the authorities of the importance of this discovery in 1832 and applied to Viscount Uoderich, the Secreta!'y of Btate for' 'Var and Colonies for a grant of fifty acres, either at Grose l!'arm (now the site' of the Unive~'sity of .Bydney) or?n the Sydney Domain, as a reward.35 He saId that mstead of usmg as ballast useless shale which had to be dumped in thc sea when ships reached England, shipowners would be able to make a profit by taking this sand and selling it to th~ English glass-makers. Goderich replied that he would sanctIOn the grant of a small sum of money to be taken off the price oE any land bought hy King, if his claim was jusiifkd. ,King WllS t.hl'n inl'ol'med t.lwi the l~xecuiive (JoulIeil of Ne\\' South 'Vales had considered his request and had recommended that. he be granted a rt'mission of £100 off any land he mi""hi buy in ~he fut~lre.:~(l He cOlIsidered this not 'nearly cOlllm~nsurate WIth the Importance of a discovery of such 'hio'h scientific value anq national importance',37 and endeavoured to alter the decision by influencing the Colonial Office in London. He had previously sent eleven bags of sand to England to be made into sugar bowls, cream pots, salt cellars and so on. lIe distributed these among various important people in Sydney,3S persuading them to write to London, extolling the quality of the glass and ~ommenting on the inadequacy of his reward. This attempt to m!luence the government WllS successful. King's casc was subI~Itted to t~e ~ords Commissioners of the Treasury, who dIrected an lllqUlry by the ConlIlIissioners of Excise.30 They reported that of thc threc manufacturers who had used the sand two st.ated that it. Pl'OdlH'cd glass "'hidl was far supnl'iol' a.ml lI\uch purer lhan any they had St'cn before, nud the thiru that it was llO better than l~nglish sand. Sc\'el'al other 11lallufacturers examined the sand and agreed with the third ""lass-maker though they did not actually carry out tests on it.4:J Had they experimented, it is likely that they also would have praised the sand, as Messrs Pellatt and Company, who gave it an exll'emely favourable report and put in an order for more, sai<l that before the soil and clay was 'washed out. in the laborat.ory, the sand appeared quite unexceptionablc.H Tlw Commissioners of the 'l'reasury decided that the superior quality of the salld was not fully established, and therefore its introductioll to the notice of British manufacturers did not deserve more tha.n t.he £100 off land which King had received.

. Bes,ides versuading his influential friends to plead fOl' hUll, Kmg IUlllseU wrote to London, to Viscount Uoderich, enclosing testaments from shipownl'rs, glass-lIIakprs and lISilillllIll'I'W" n.'se, W l1ll'SWl ill tPWlt lli.ifa1

\'01. 57 Pt 1J ./(llIIf[' ilillg of IrI'<1IC(l'I!J - l:icl:fr,rd 45

value of the disco\,ery, and the superiority of glass made from this sand.42 Pellatt and Company, of the Falcon Glass 'Works, London, reported 'wc finu it dccidedly superior to any we have previously employed . . . glass madc from this s({.nd is mo?'(' brilliant and watc1'Y than a11Y other'. The ~stronohler from the Parramatta observatory statcd that thc four specimens of optical glass which King sent him 'are the colour of pure water' and much clearer than those usually made by Pellatt and Company. Hc added that the important result of the discovery would be to furnish glass manufactuI'l'l'S with purcI' sand than had hitherto been available for the malmfacture of flint for optical instruments.

King went on to say that he had received ])0 personal advantage from this discovery, 1101' was he ever likely to derive any, because for many years to come, it would not he profitable to set up a glass manufactory in New South \Vales ill competition with those in Bngland. Despite these and other cogent <.I.l'gUl11 en1.s, (/oderieh was 1101. l1Ioved, a lit! I\illg was eventually notified that the £100 to be taken in land was sufficient reward.43 Although thc government failed to rccognize the real significance of this discovel'YJ in ]837/ King was awarded a Silver Medal for his gIasr-; by the London Society of Arts and Manufactul'es,44 and a 'Commendation' at the Exhibition of Natural and Industrial Products of New South \Vales in 1854.45

III

King was closely involved ill the initial settlement and development of l{aymond 'l'el'race, both in his capacity as an agent for Andrew Bennett, and on his own behalf. I have already mentioned that he asked for land there in 1828 and in 1830, both times without success. In 1832 he applied again, this time for 100 acres north of G. T. Graham's grant, and this too was refused.4u

Andrew Bennett was promised 100 acres south of Hood's 150 acres in April 1831.47 A year later he wrote to the government asking for an alternate grant to that which he had • selected.4s This was approved and he chose 100acres directly to the south of his original grant. In August 1832 he sold this new land to King for £2549 and then applied to purchase 200 acres between Hood's grant and that which he sold. This was refused as it was the only vacant land on that part of the river,50 and so he remained in occupation of the land he had just sold to King.

In 1834 King gave up his business in Sydney and took up permanent residence at 'Irrawang' to concentrate on his o'pel'ations in the Hunter Valley.lll In May of that yeaT he again requestcd land at l{aymond Tereace,52 saying that he hau begun to produce earthcllWal'e on his farm, but Lhat thc lurk of river frontage caur-;ed llim g'l'eat incon venicllce in running lJ il.; business.

_1cl'tY~h(' liii 10 iIiiI1owC' ..... hllyllliilii'w "n"",' of: lilll I ...

i;

_: -

.Ivurllal vf l/w Rvyal .d.ustralian Ili,,/urictll 8vcicly [.\lalch H',I

UIl the banks of the Hunter in the government reserve of Hay-1~101l(1 Terrace, a~ he proposed shOltly to rebuild his manufactory there. TIllS land would be of immediate benefit both as a place to ship out potte;'y to the markets, and for landing coal and other raw materIals. The government replied that he shoul~ applJ:" fo~ a specific quantity of land in the usual way, and hIS applIcatIOn would be considered. He then forwarded an application for from five to fifty acres to be put up for sale 011

tl~e reserve. This too was refused as the proposed site for a vlllagc had not becn surveyetl.r.3 As soon as hc received this reply, King wrotc back askillg to bc allowed to buy fivc acrcs as

. soon as possible, as 'delay will impede my speeulation'.54

. P.roximity to the river for tram;port must havc hecn of vital Importance 1.0 the success of tht' vcnturc, for five daYH later, on 10 .July 1834, hc wrote again to t.hc Colonial Secretary:

1 have the honor to rcquest that in laying lily letter lmfol"ll 11 is Ex. th~ Governor wherein I. solicit to he allowed to buy a sUlall portion o~ a v11~age reserve on the !mnks of the Itiver Hunter for the purpose o [ ere~tlllg- thereon It wharf-warehouse mul earthenware manufactory you ~vl11 als? be ple!l;sed t? represent to His Excellency that the spot :;pph~d for 1S a portlOn of the only C1"OlIm land in that quarter, which 18 sllttell for my pm·pose, and shonIa I not he forced to abandon my undertaking but commence Oil my farm which is three miles from tl{c ltiver 1 have not even a right of access to it to ship lily goods to market.. The public ~dvantage of ha:,ing such IL lJJrrnufactory in that part of the Colony 1S so clear that It needs no illuHtration from lne particularly w~ten it is k~own that [ intend to manufacture only Huch Course [sw} hulky art1cles al' the lIlere price of the freight frol1l England have hitherto excludell from thu Colony.Gr.

In this letter it is clear that he deliberately attemptcd to force the government's hand by saying" that if he was refused part or the reserve he would bc compelled to beCTin manufacturinCT on his farm, while in his application of 13 l\1~~y, two months ca;liCl·, he had stated that he had already ('omlllenced 1.0 manufacture pottery at 'Irrawang', and he wished to build in l{,aymond Terrace so that hc could have a river "f.rontage. Additional cvidence that the pottery was already in pl"olluction comes from the Sydney 11 erald, llVIay 1834, which rcads: 'A specilllcn of hrowl1 earthenware manufacture from thc Pottery of a gent.leman on the Hunter has been forwarded to our office for the inspection of the public. The vessell [sic] appears to have been turned out of the potte~'s han~ in a creditable manner; .. .' King's deception brought ImmedIate results, for the governor instructed the Surveyor General's Departmcnt to survey the reserve and lay out the village so that King could buy the land he wanted.u6

. In 1835 the 'Plan for the Village of Irrawang Bay Otl the RIver Hunter at Raymond Terrace'57 was drawn up with the town laid out between the grants of Graham and Bennett.58 The Surveyor General then wrote to King (as agent for Bennett), saying that BennetL's grant interfered with the formation 01 the village and that the government must therefore resume the land. It was proposed to give Bennett another _Ull.r_nnC_R w_ to _the _exc~)r tl_

\",,1. ;j, Pt 11

knoll on the rivet' bank, whet·c hc hau erected his house. Incorporatcd in the house were the Post Office, a business COll

nected with the Irrawang pottery, and a licenced public house called King's Hotel which later became the Junction Inn.6\1

The terms finally negotiated "were that Bennett should. receive six half-acre allotments in the town, to be chosen before they were put up for public sale, so that the land upon which his house was built might be included, and so that he might reSUlllC his origiilal selcction of 100 acres between Hood to the north, and the extension of the village 1.0 the HonthYl ·When the governlllcnt included the 100 acres uccupied by U(,lIl1ett, but actually owned hy King in the town, they changed the original 1835 plan, and laid it out to conform to the alignment of thc streets already existing on the grantY2 As Bennett rcccived the six allotmcnts as compensation :I'or the resumption O[ this 100 acres, owncd by King, in 1!:l3!:l lw traIlHi"err{!d hoth illl'He and thc new grant given in lieu of that re~ulllcd, to King.ua By thiH arrangement King receivcd gratis six valuable allotments ill Raymond Terrace, though it was Bennett who suffered the inconvenicnce of losing the land he had dcvelopcd since 1832.64

AB well as owning these six allotments King purchased four more ill the towu, two at the auction in August 1838 for £40,65 and two in November, for £20.11.6.°6 In his application for these last two he said he hoped thcy would be put up for sale soon, as he wanted to 'commence improvements on them'.6i Here he built the stone warehouse and wharf used in connection with his pottery business. These can be seen marked in the 1840 plan of Raymond 'l'crrace,68 and the warehouse still stands today, though the original wharf was recently demolished. In the same year he purchased two more allotments in l{,aymond Terrace, and one in the town 01' Muscle Brook (l\fuswellbrook) for £40.6U

By 1840 nearly all thc land in Haymund 'l'errace had becn sold, and already its value was increasing rapidly. The town had becomc a flourishing industrial and commercial centre for the people of the surrounding diHtricts, ·who formerly had to· go to lVIaitland or Sydney for goods and services.iu Under thesc circumstances frequent applications were made to King to purchase small portions of his adjacent 100 acres, especially that land on the river, as the government town lacked a river frontage sufficiently deep for ships to lay alongside the wharves. Some of these allotments had previously been sold by private contract, and the 1840 plan shows a blacksmith's and a steam mill with a substantial wharf already in operation on King's land.

King decided to capitalize on this situation and had his 100 acres divided up into allotments and laid out as an extension of the govcrument town, sellillg the individual hlocks at great profit.71 At thc same Lime he pnt up for sale his threshingmill land in ·West Maitland. This six acre property ('aUed 'Porl

"'fait'" ag-ailild n .... t riiiiillront""." ill tl'ilili'U, :1iIii "--------------------------~---

- .-• i \

i>

, ., i i ... -

.! vllmal of the Royal ..1118/ rali(lll iLisluf;cal /:iuc;;ely 1 jlarrh l!Jil

steepness of the bank elsewhere prevented it from being useu for wharves and warehouses. The block was situated on the Hunter, in the very centre of West l\[aitland, like Raymonu Terrace at t\1<' tim<', a thJ'h·illg l'iv('l' JlIll'I. Ilpl't' too hp lIIa<le a slIbstunt.ial gailJ froltl the sule.':!

By now King was a. very prosp<'rous man, as uemonstl'at~d by the size of his establishlllmt at 'lrl'awHng' in the census of New South Wales for 1841.7:1 lIe employed, in a variety of occupations, twenty-four men (three of these holding tickets-ofleave and eighteen in private assignment), and fiye womcn:

Lanued proprietors, merchau t~, haukers and professional persons ...... .. .. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 1 (King)

Mechanics and artificers .. ... ...... .... . ...... 1 Gardeners, stockmen, and persons ulIlployt'd in agriculture ~2 DOlum;tic gt'rV:Ln t R ... ......... !! All other pm·soll" not iJu'judt'd ill th,' fo'·"going' ('hl"~":; ... H 7-1

Only one building is mentioned-a house, muue of woou, finished and inhabitcd. This would have heell the 'lrruwung' homestead.

King's main argument Lor building the pottery in u,aylIIond 'l'errace was his lack of access to t.he \Villiams River. 111 U,.J.l he achieved this by purchasing" .lames Gill's 640 acres which lay hetween 'll'l'awang' and the Williams.7u '1.'he acquisition of this river frontage cannot have been entirely satisfactory, as it was over two miles from the pottery to the rh"er, In 1846 he applied again to erect a potter~ warehouse and wharves on the Hunter at Raymond Terrace, this time on his own lanu adjoining the original tOWll.76 He was granted permission to do this provided his wharves did not impede shipping as the area ehosen was directly opposite the confluence of the "\Villiams and Hunter,77 There is no eviuence that King actually went ahead and built a second pottery here, and it s<'cms that he eventually decided to forgo the idea.7s

In 1849 he thought he had un opportunity to sell at a good price the portion of his 100 acres· at Haymond Terrace that he retained, He hea.rd that the Bishop of Newcastle was thinking of buying some land in t.he Lower llun1.eJ' Ilwl, ne\'er one to let an opportunity slip by, immediat.ely wrote to the Bishop suggesting this area,79 He deseribeu it as having a new brick cottage, a vineyard of about eight acres, and some excellent land for growing corn.80 The Bishop replied in a short note that King was misinformed, and so lw kept this portion of his estate.

A year later he purchaseu a 1,310 acre property originally granted to Joseph Thew and adjoining 'Irrawang' on the southwest, from the Australian Agricultural Company.Sl By this time the 'Irrawang' estate covered nearly 4,000 acres. King's last land purchase was of a much lower order, being a town allotment at Seaham.82

Though mainly interested in land in the Hunter Valley, in 1834 he applied to purchase a large area in Sydney,S3 The -------- __ des_n _ - - -("0'" "O'I(Tn q,}\

Fig, ]

Fig, 2 - -

.; "

, . I ..

I I·

I ~

l ..

'. - -(For description

see page 92)

- -

Fig. 3

- - - -

Fig. 4

l"ig. ()

- -

\"01. 57 Pt 1/ .llIhI(~ KilliJ of l,nCl("(!Hg-Eid:!orJ

application was approvcd and hc bought l:iO acres at ~Iosn1all Bay for £86.5.0.84 Howcver he only paid £8.1~.6, the balance, £77.12.6 being part of the £100 off lanu purchased which he was allowed for his discovcry of the properties of Sydney sand.85 In 1853 he put this estate up for sale, and noticed that agents from Melbourne were bidding far more than those in Sydney. Consequently, he closed the sale, advertiscd the land in Melbourne newspapers, and sold it thcre, gaining a far higher price.8a

IV

'l'hough Killg\; lallu spcculations worc an important ami continuing intcrest throughout his lifc, the 'lrrawang Project' was primarily concerned with his pottcry manufactory, an enterprise which sccms to havc heell fairly periphcral to him. In the three large volumes 01 his corrcspondt'IH!C and papers only two foolscap pages are devoted to the pottcry, and these are principally descriptions of the wares he sent to the Paris Exhibition.

E. Eal'thenwa'1'8 thirty specimens llIade at 1I'rawang from clay ollcurring in the coal fields of the Hunter, congistillg of a water filter, two watel' cam.rc~, ('an add cover; -! Porous blue \\oolcl's, ono cnndlo Htick, lIew jugs various patterns, eight stone jars (assorted), two oval baking dishes, 1 l!'ruit Bottle, onc small Liqueur jar.-

'L'he light coloured articles are glazed with common glass glaze, the others with COllllllon salt, which is by its elemental'r constituents in a state of vapour at a very high temperature. The salt being thrown upon the bUl'lling fuel when the articles in the oven are ill that stnte.

'rhe body of the salt gl:Lzed articles is impervious to syrup 01'

acid. The glay.<l dOOH not however :dd that quality. Tho discovery of the AlIsi.mIian g-oltl fields raising tho IJrice of

labour al1l1 U1IHettIing thn minds of the worklll('n ':\Ir King was (\lJII-

1'(]<Ju()ntly cOllIl'elln.] to Idml1l1011 his III:tIlUflwtllr(', u(.herwiH() HpeeinwlI!< would lllLve heen ]>l'Hparml 1'01' tho Paris J~xhibition. 'l'hoso now seut being only part of a few articles of an indifferent description laying some years in the warehouse at Irrawnng.

Altho' t.hey are not specimens of superior workmanship they will however amply f'xhihit the nature of the material and show what was· once mnnufactul'ml ill tlHl colouy which no douht in time will be so again aud form (00 oue of the most important domestic manufactures in the country.Si

The only other documentary information we have on the pottery is found in a few travellers' accounts,88 and advertisements and reports in contemporary newspapers. The rest of the picture-the nature of the kilns, clay preparation mills, levigating pits, and other structures, the layout of the site, how the clay was prepared and the pottery made, its quality, glar.cs et cetera comes from careful excavation of the site itself. Nc\'cl'theless, by placing in chronological sequence all the advertisements and dated eyewitness accoun1s, important information can be gleaned about the develupment of the pottery, when new potters and t.echlliqut's were 'illtroduC'ed, a11(l RO OIl.

King was not a potter himself and seems to have established ...Jjle pottery purelv as a ... uel'eial YC111U .... t is l'('n~nnahi./ll -.-

J

t ... ,"

, .'

: .. "

i :

I."

: .. .. -

50 Jo 11 l"Ila I 0/ tile Royal Australian lliMori('al flocidy plarch 19;1

assume that his t.rain i Ilg as a met'eha lit, a nu his cOllllcctioll with glass,making, made him a ware oj' the Hecd for cheap and fUllC

tional household wares. 11 () klww 1.ha 1. glass made here eoulu HoL cOlllpete successfully with t he English produet., :lIld that the freight waH HO heavy Oil l~lIglish llOuHehold potit'l'Y that few pieces were importeu, anu fewer st ill could he afforded by tht, ordinary settlers. lIe therel:ol'e set up a pottery specifically to produce commonplacc kitchen ware-jars, bowls, milk pans, washbasins, preserve jars, jugs, and so on.80 Once the potter~r was in production there was a ready market with the settlers throughout the colony.

He does not say when the lllallufactory was actually COII

structed, but an auvert.ist'lIlent ill Od,oher 1835110 indieates that, after two years continued experimellt, he had succeeded in thl' III anu:J'aetUl'l' of' 'hrown and hlllek golaxed Elll·thenwHI·c, of' cxel'llcnt (llUllit.y, ullll in Ilcat IISI'f'1I1 shllpcs', lie prolmbly I><'gan to build, thcn, somc timc ill 18:3~ 01' 1833. Beforc this lw would have had to find suitable clay deposits, import equipment and potters from England, familiarize them with the local conditions, fuel and cluy, and construct the kilns and workshops according to their design. All this would have demanded a large capital outlay, and being a shrewd busiJlC'ssman, it is likely that he carefully examined the viabilit.y oI: t.he project before embarking on it. The advertisement goes on to say 'he is therefore now enabled to supply all the artieles generally manufactured, at lower prices than they can be imported, and of as good a quality as those made in England'. He also indicates an increase in production as he expected additional workmen from England in the near future.

An advertisement of a mont.h later describes the warC's available: 'Milk Pans of sizes, ChC'C'se ditto, Preserve Jars of' sizes, Cream ditto, Covered ditto, ,Jugs ditto, Porous 'Vatel' Caraffs, and Flats, Cullenders, & & with every other article required for domestic use'.n The quality and price of his pottery was welcomed by the settlers, and in August 1836 it was reported that it was 'so good and so cheap as to supersede the English commodity altogether'.92 His most sought-after articles were said to be water filters, vases, bread pans, and milk pans.

By 1843 he announced that he had begun to manufacture on an extensive scale, and within two or three months would hp ah10 1.0 snpp1y evCl'y Hl'l.iC'lc C'01ll1l1(1II1y I·p(jnirmlya ']'Iw CH 1'1,\' (H .. H)'s was Killg's lIlost slIeecssf'1I1 pcriod as f'ur as his IUlld speculation was "concerned, and he may have used some of the profits from his sales at Port Maitland and Raymond 1'erruce to develop the pottery and increase production. In an advertisement elated 20 August 1844, for instance, we have the first. lllC'ntion of the manufacture of stonewarC'.!H King also said that hC' had recently imported new moulds from Staffordshire, and 'English matel'inl :Cor the composition of a beaut.iful and permanent glaze'.9~ An addition to a similar entry in tha...&!!lne1l ----- --

\'01. 5i Pt 1J 51

illorning if cmU illdicated his desire to increast' tltl' output: '1'.S. P01"I'lms WAKTEV, npplicntillll to bl' made by letter, sLating what brallch ot: the busilless 1lll'Y ha\'t' hl'ell bred to.'UIl A year later the pottery was said to be so good that the demand greatly exceeded productioll,u7 'l'he fact that he could advertise only twelve months earlier that he was capable oJ' fulfilling any orders, either for the home markct or for neighbouring colonies, indicates just how popular his pottery was at. this time.98 This demand led to some experimentation and the production of more elegant and ornate wares. Two large water ewers of 'yellow Irrawang ware' ornamellted with medallions of thr. Apostles and thc Saviour are describC'd ill the lIIaitl(l:nd lIIercury for 1848.°9

The pottery IIourished until t.he ('a l'ly I H!)()'s when the mania 01' the Victoria.1I gold l'llsh('s callSI'd t.he worlwwll 10 leave their jobs, and t1l<' eOllseqllllllt high jll'ice or labour lIladll it so unprofitable that. production WUH discolltiulIcd. A contributing factor was the expense entailed in transporting clays from Maitland and Stroud, as the local Irl'aWallg elay was found to be much more difficult to work. IOO

King exhibited thirty specimells of Irrawang" ware at the exhibition of Natural and Indust.rial Products or New South "Wales ill Sydney ill 1854, and won a bronze lIledapoI even though these were some commonplace examples which had been left in the warehouse.lo2 Though production must have run into tens of thousands, because the pottery was functional household ware, few samples have survived. Those which we have seen in private collections are stamped stoneware 'vinegar jars' and earthenware decorated wine carafes,

v Although the pottery was his most lucrative venture, King

was much lIlorc personally involved with his vineyards and winc • production. loa In 1831 he planted a few acres of Spanish, Freneh and POl'tugese vines, under the direction of J\Ir Shepherd, a nurseryman in Sydney.l04 His motivation at this time was purely financial, as he felt that grapes were a much more stable crop than grain, and therefore more profitable.105

In 1836 he produced his first wine and built premises to make and store it. Thc winery was close t.o his l'('sicl(,ll(~c Ilnd was fitt.(!d wil.h a. PI'('SS, f'el'llImll,illg LullS, 1I11d uth('I' II('Cl!SSIII'.I' pieces of equipment, while the ccllar was beneath a two-storled stone building about twenty-five yards away. The vaults were kept cool with ventilation through windows at ground level. 'l'he smaller vault was fitted wiLh racks for bottled winr, while the larger con tained the vats, lOll

After the success of this first ,vine, King plante<1 more vines on slopes with 11 northern aspect, trcl1ching thirty inches . ' aydillf calcariom; Hlllttm' wDod m,ll and •• nal ..

.. ,

, -•

- -

,Journal of the Royal Allstralian llistorieal Sooiety [lI1arch 1nil

the soil,107 In about 1850 he imported bvo yille dressers and one cooper from Germany.lOB These men brought with them the most advanced European equipment and practical knowledge, and a few years later he began to make sparkling wines, spending about £500.0.{). on new apparatus and materials. luu

His interest ill chemistry aided hh; continual experimentation, and his papers contain many pagcs of tests and formulae. As well as producing wine, in 1848-9 he grew olives, preserving them in vinegar he made himself, and storing them in Irrawallg stoneware bottles in the cellar,uo '1'0 obtain maximum control over his wine-making processes, the annual out.put ,vas COIl

fined to about 2,000 gallolls. As H !'('snlt lrrawHllg wille was ill great demand and highly praised, not ollly in New South WaIt's, but also in Europe. In 1850 he won First Prize and a Gold Medal for dry white wine, and Second Prize and a Gold Medal for champagne, at the Horticultural Society's Annual Show ill Sydney.l11 He exhibited red and white wine (Vintage 1851 and 1852) and a sample of brandy at the Exhibition of Natural allt! Industrial Products of New South ,Vales in 1854, winning II

Silver Medal, First Class.112 At the Paris Exhibition of 1855 he again won a prize, while his wines were served at the table of Napoleon III,113

Ki:q.g was closely concerned with developing and promoting wine-growing as an important Australian industry, founding and becoming the first president of the Hunter River Vineyard Association in 1853.114 In the early 1850's his health began to deteriorate and he decided to t.rawl to Blll'()pe, visit.ing villl'yards ill j""allce alld o el'lllll lIy. Whill! ill 1,011<1011 \1(' )'l'(!(!i\'('d

a Medal from the Society of Arts as all importer of best (jualit.y wine from New South Wales,11a On leaving the colony in June 1855 he leased 'Irrawang' to his manager,116 He intended to return to New South Wales, hut fell ill in Bm'ope, and died ill IJondon in Noyembel' 1857.

King had been one of the most dynamic and enterprisillg businessmen in the colony. He harried the authorities for permission to carry out his schemes, and when they refused, as they so often did, he responded by putting forward alternative plans. He endeavoured to make the maximum capital as quickly as possible out of each idea, and when events did not take the course he wanted, he was not averse to attempting to force the government's hand.

King's wife and son remained at 'Irrawang' after his death, but eventually the estate was divided up and, sold to dairy farmers. The homestead, cellar, and other buildings gradually decayed and were pulled down, while the sandstone winery, the remaining original structure, collapsed early this year. The kilns, preparation mills, workshops, and storerooms of the pot.tery did not survive either, though the local farmcrs hastened the process by using t.he materials-especially the kiln bricks-to construct farlll buildings and floor their cowbails,117 One of th(' ------

\'01. 5i Pt 1J JOllies King oj IrnHf'lIlp-Eid:jord 53

oldest residents of Raymond Terrace, 1Ir Arthur Blun dell , remembers the pottery site around the turn of the century. At that time the only structure still standing was a shed which contained rows of pottery laid out on benches but, he recalled, the local children smashed the pottery and burnt down the shed. By the time the archaeologists al'l'ived in May 1967, all t.hat remained were some low grassy monnds, and shallow depressions filled with water.

REFERENCES

1. Miss Birmingham spoke to the RA.H.S. on the 'Irmwang Project' on 29 July 1969.

2. Fife Herald, and Kim'oss and Clackmannan Adv6I"tiser, 16 September 1858. Papers of James King of Irmwang, Vol. HI, Mitchell Library, ML, MSS 682/3. . .

3. James King to Lord Grey, 26 September 1849. 'rypescnpt coples of J. King's letters and notes, 1848·1857, p. 2, M.L., A2517.

4. Sydney Gazette, 9 April 1827. ~ee also 2] May 1827. 5. Land Board to Colonial Secretary, 28 September 1827. Colonial

Secretary: Letters Received re Land, Archivcs Office of New South Wales, 2/7!l00.

6. Promised 21 February 1828. [nternal Revenue and Colonial Treasury to Col. Sec., 22 July 1837, ibid. Deed dated 18 April 1842, N.S.W. Government Gazette, I, 1842.

7. I cannot find any explicit reference to \\'here the name 'Irrawang' <lomes from, or what it means. The m"idence suggests it is a Europeanization of a local aboriginal word. I have searched through all of Threlk<lld's works which deal with the aboriginal languages from this nrea, hut can find no word like 'Irrnwang'. In the 1837 'Plan of 1.11(' Villag-o of HIL.YIII {)JIII 'I'nrnu", on tlw nh'nr lIuntm" (A.Q.N.H.W., A:tNLI> IUHJ!k) It ~[.I"·"[, iI, 111111'1",,1 Umwanglt ~[.rnn[., while in [.hn IH4(J plan of the [.own (Jo:. D. BILI'low, l\f.L., M2811.23!l/ Haymond '1'./1840/1, lA, & le) the name has heen altered to [rrawung Street. F. Gerstaeckcr, in his Jmtrney LirOlmd the World, London, 1R53, Yi~i[.ncl Trrawang in ]1;51, and says that the word is 'nn Jnelian IIILUle' (Vol. I r, p. 288). This hook is translatcd from t1w original Germall, lLucl it is reasonable to assullle he lIleant it'Iboriginal' or 'nativp', thn translator reading it as 'Tndian'. Al~o, at this time, the word 'Indian' was commonly used to mean Aboriginal', e.g., 'iVatkin 'l'cnch, A Complete ACCOltnt of the Settlernent at Port Jaekson· in New SOltth Wales, London, 1793, p. 186; and James Bonwick, The Wild White Man and the Blacks of Victoria, second ed., Melbourne 1863, p. 4.

8. 1828 CenSlts, No. 882, M.L. 9. Application for Permission to Rent Land with a view to Eventual

Purchase, 4 March 1828, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900. 10. Application for an Allotment in the Town of Newcastle, 31 October

1828, ibid. 11. King to Col. Scc., 4 August 1830, ihicl. I'> King to Col. Sec., 21 May 1829, ibid. 13. King to Col. Sec., 6 August 1829, ibid. 14. Surwyor Gencrnl to Col. Sec., 17 February 183f), ibiel. 15. Land Board to Dnrling. Lnnd Board Report No. 451, 1.1 Decemht'l'

1830, ihil!. 16. King und 1·'arl1lor to Col. Sec., 4 March 1830, ibid. .17. King !l.Iul FaT11111r to Col. SC'e" 11 March 1830, ibid. IS. Thiel. 19. King [0 (!ol. ~<,,,., 15 SeptemIH'1' 1830, iJ.,id. ~O. Spc King- [0 Col. Sec., 2 .lnl,\" 1839, ibid. ~1. King- [0 Col. Spe., 10 February 1831, !Lud 9 l\lny 1831, ibiel, ...w" :'I .. tl, 1\'" !la"I!) 8_,(,1' ,-hid. _ _

-

54 Jonmal of the Iloyal Australian Ilistorical Society [March 1971

23. Application for additional Grant of Land without Purchase, 11 January 1830, ibid.

24. Note on back of, ibid. 25. Memorial, King to Dnrling, 15 Srpt.nmll!1r ]R31, ibid. !lli. :.lli .1 all 11:1 ry I S:IO, ihid. !li. l:!oo li.N.A., l:!odes i, XIX, Gipps to GlClwlg, 8 August 1838, and

(}Ilclosure~, pp. 527·5:17. 28. Ibid., pp. 5!l8·5!l9. 29. Ibid., pp. 529-531. 30. E.g., King to J. D. Lang, 12 :March 1855. Papers of Rev. J. D. Lang",

Vol. 7, pp. 16-18, M.L., A2227. 31. Application for Permission to PUl'cha~e, 11 Junuary 1832, A.O.N.S. W.,

2/7900. 32. King to Col. Sec., 18 April 1832, ibid. For a plan to this land see

J. F. Campbell, 'The Valley of the 'l'ank Stream', J.R.A.H.S., X, 1925, p.100.

:l:!. Application to Purchase, 6 December ]832, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900. For advertisement to let a portion of this land on a nine year lease see Australial~, 10 May 1833 and 29 November 1833.

34. Extract of u letter from James Dunlop to King in lI.B.A., i, xix, pp. 535-6.

35. li.B.A., i, XVI, p. 764, King to Goderich, 10 January 1832. In this application, in order to induce the government to grant him the land, King stated that the Domain was a hiding place for escaped convicts and thieves, and gave newspaper references to support his statemcnt. He said that the 'respectable house' he would build there would keep these mcn away. Governor Dourke vigorously denied this assertion, and criticized King's motives in exaggerating the situation. See Bourke to UlHler-Secretary Hay, 3 July 1833, lI.B.A., i, XVII, pp. 16.0-16 J.

36. Proceedings or the Bxecutive Council, 20 May 1833, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; all(I Col. Sec. to King, 11 .Tulle 1833, in iI.R.A., i, xrx, p.532.

37. King to Goderich, 1 July 1833, Il.R.A., i, XIX, p. 532. 38. See Surveyor General, T. L. Mitchell to King, 10 April 1833, thanking

him for a specimen of cut glass, l\LL., Ak35. 39. H.R.A., i, XVII, p. 498. 40. Ibid., pp. 499-50l. 41. Pellatt and Co., Falcon Glass Works, 17 August 1832. Bourke's

Despatches, January-December 1832. See also scientific analysis of the sand by John George Children of the British Museum, 6 November 1832; mul letter from BueeleH, Daxter and Buccle, King's agents in London, re the price of the sand, 6 September 1832, in Bourke's Despatches, 1832, M.L., A1269.

42. King to Goderich, 1 July 1833, II.R.A., i, XIX, p. 531 fl'. 43. 10 Novemher 1833, Bourke's Despatches, 1833, M.L., A1270. See also

A1(·stmlian !!8 June 1833. 44. King Papers, I, p. 158, M.L. 682/l. 45. Catalo{J1le of the Natural and Industrial Prodtlets of New South

Wales Exhibited in the Australian Ml£sellm by the Paris Exhibition, by the Paris Exhibition Commissioners ... Sydney, November 1854, p. 88, M.L. Q606. .

46. Application for Permission to Purchase Land, 1 June 1832, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900.

H. N.S.W. Government Gazette, I, 1838, p. 955. See also Col. Sec. to King (as agent for Bennett), 4 August 1832. King Papers, Il, M.L. 682/2. For plan see H380.663, Department of Lands, Sydney. I am extremely grateful to Mr C. Davis, Librarian, Department of Lands, for all his assistance.

48. Bennett to Col. Sec., 11 April J.832, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900. 49. King Papers, TT, 20 Augus!; ] 8:12, p. 9B, lUuI 21 August 1832 p . .l3,

IILL. 682/2. 50. Al'plir:ation to Purchase Land, 15 August ]833, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7800. 51. Killg is li:.;t(!cl as 71'Ierchant und Agent of King Street, Sydney until

1834, and 1r01ll then on his address is given as Williams River I RpYlllOIl(l TeIT:tce'IMe NI'iIIiI1th liiitCalelillfnd ~ry:

\'01. 5i Pt 1] Jallles King oj Irm!!"OlIg-Bickjortl

52. King to Col. Sec., 13 :May 1834, A.O.N.S.W., 2/1900. 53. Application to Purchase Land, 23 :May 1834, ibid. 54. King to Col. Sec., 5 July 1834, ibid. 55. From the origiIml in the Archives of Now Sout.h Wales, 2/i900. 56. 1:!urveyor Gelleml to Col. ::-lee!., 15 ::leptmnlJCr 183·1, ihid. 57. A.O.N.l:!. W., A2 NLD R.892a. . 58. I.e., the 100 acres Dennett sold to King in 1832. 'l'his land was

always referreu to subsequently as Dennett's, in correspondence between Bennett, King and the government, and the two legal documents of 20 anu 21 August 1832 (cited in footnote 49), transferring the lamI to King, provide the only evidence for the actual sale. Also, in two letters from King to Col. Sec., both dated 24 November 1839, he explains that he claimed the six allotments in Raymond Terrace in lieu of land he gave up to the Crown, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900.

59. Surveyor General to King, 10 February 1836, King Papers, II, lI.L. 682/2.

60. King (for Dennett) to Surveyor General, 18 February 1836, King Papers, II, pp. 25-29, M.L., 682/2; King (for Bennett) to Col. Sec., 28 November 1836, A.O.N.S.vV., 2/7900; King (for Bennett) to Col. Sec., 18 December ] 836, ibid. On the 'Plan for the Village of Raymond 'l'en'acc on the HiveI' Hunter, 1837', (A.O.N.S.vV., A3 NLD R.892c), Benllett's premises are marked 'King's Ho', while on E. D. Barlow's 1840 'Plall of the Town of Raymond Terrace' they are marked 'Junction Inn'.

61. Ibid., 28 November 1836; 18 December 1836; and King Papers, H, Col. Sec. to King, 22 November 1836, p. 44; King to Col. Sec., 10 December 1836, pp. 49-50.

62. See 1837 plan referred to in Noto 60 above. On this plan Bennett's 100 acres, with his huildings, are included as part of the town.

63. New South Walcs Govc'rnmimt Gazette, 1838, I, p. 955; Il, pp. 31-3 and 1840, I, p. 2:11.

64. Ibid; and King Papers, If, p. 66. l!'or JJlans see H2.1000 and R3.1000, Department of Lanos, Sydney. The half-acre blocks were 9 and 10 of Section 3, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Section 4, all bounded by Port Stephen Street aud the Hunter.

65. 5 and 7 of Sec. 3 'l'reasury Revenue Branch to Col. Sec., 25 October 1838. A.O.N.S. W., 2/7900; and plan R.3100, Department of Lands.

66. 5 and 6 of Sec. 4, Col. Treasurer to Col. Sec., 3 January 1839, A.O.N.S.W., 2/i900 and N.S.W. Govern-ment Gazette, 1839, I, p. 176; and II, p. 902.

67. King to Survcyor Geneml, 17 February 1838, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900. 68. E. D. Bm'low, 'Plan of the Town of Raymond Terrace including the

extension through the adjoining land of nIl'. King', 1840, M.L. • 69. Description, 26 January 1839, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; and N.S.W.

Government Gazette, Il, 1839, p. 1473 and 1840, I, p. 423. 70. On 31 July 1836 the residents of the locality sent a petition to the

governor asking him to set up a village where tradesmen might reside and work, as they were compelled to get work done in either Maitland or Sydney, and this was inconvenient. They asked that it be set out hetween the grants of Graham and Bennett. See King to Col. Sec., 28 November 1836, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; and James Jervis, 'The Hunter Valley: A Century of its History', Part IT, J.B.A.Il.S., Vol. 39, Part lV, 1953, pp. 194-195.

71. For the sale notice see A ustmlian, 4 June 1840; and for plan of the allotments see E. D. Barlow, op. cit.

i2. For the sale notice see A 1lstmlian, 4 June 1840; ancI for plan see E. D. Barlow, 'Plan of the Port Maitlaml AlIotments-'l'he Property of .Tames King', M.L., I1I2/81l.259/Maitland W.j1840/2.

7:1. (!ensus for 1841. AhRtract of the neturns of tho Popul:ttion, in the Count.y oC Gloul'ester. District of Il lty HI 01 III 'l\'rrucl', COHlltr oC Glo\J(!estc~r. neturIl Numbl'r 48, A.O.N.S.W., 'J/1247. I tun inclcbte<l to illrs Ceeily I1Iitchell of Newcastle for this reference.

i·1. 'I'hl!sl' Ulen were probablv cOllncI'lecl with the~'~_ _ _ _ _ .... !J, ... " _

'. :.~ .. ~~ ..~ .. ,- I'

79. SO.

Journal of the Royal Australian llistorical Society [March 19i1

King to Col. Sec., 12 November ISH, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; and N.S.W. Government Gazette, Il, 1846, p. 1427. For plan ace H623.663, Department of Lands, Sydney. Col. Sec. to King, 22 ~'ebruary 1847, King Papers, H, p. 73, M.L. 682/2; and Col. Sec. Letters Iteceived from July to December 1846, A.O.N.S.W., 2410·11. King to Col. Sec., 12 November 1846, Attorney and Solicitor Geuerals, 1847, Part I, A.O.N.S.W., 4/2751. In the same year King was concerned with one of the great exploring expeditions of Ludwig Leichhardt, albeit in a very minor role. In his papers there is a letter from Leichhardt to King, 28 September 1846, asking if he can leave his horses at Irmwang, and piek them up on the return journey. King Papers, Il, p. 127, M.L., 682/2. King to Bishop of Newcastle, 13 January 1849, ibid., p. 77. This is King's 'Turreela' Estate mentioned in the Historical Sum. mary of the Prooeedings and Reports of the Hunter River Vineyard Assooiation, • . • Published by George Piddington, 1854, p. 43; and in the Maitland Mercury, 23 November 1865, King Papers, II!, where beside the report 'Mr Martin Ims also a plot of vines (about ten acres) near Raymond 'l'errnce', is written in ink 'belonging to the Trrawallg estate'. King Papers, 1, p. 223, M.L. 682/1. ]n the Grunt to Joseph Thew this is described as in the County of Durham, Township of Eldon, when it is actually in the County of Gloucester, Parish of Eldon. N.S.W. Government Gazette, J, 1855, p. 1GGG. Application for permission to purchase land, 30 July 1834, County of Cumberland, Parish of Willoughby, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; N.S.W. Government Gazette, H, 1834, p. 559. For plan sce 'Plan of Allotments of Land Situate on "Silex" North Shore, the property of James King Esq.', M.L., F12/MIb. N.S.W. 'Government Gazette, J, 1835, p. 387; Internal Revenue Office to Col. Sce., 6 April 1835, A.O.N.S.W., 2/7900; Revenue Branch Colonial TreaRury to Col. Sec., 14 August 1838, ibid; King to Col. Sce., !) January ]9:19, ibid. Kill~ Plti'('r~, 1 r, [I. !lGlT., M.L., (jH2/!.l. King Pupcr~, I, pp. 165-167. l·'rom the original in. the 111 itchell Library, 682/1. I realize that the selection of his papers in the l\Iitchell Lihmry may be fortuitous. (His papers in the N.S.W. Archives specifically concel'll land. ) Nevertheless, he wrote many letters to the newspapers, and there is a box of his annotated press cuttings with his papers. These all concern wine and wine-making, and he published a pamphlet on wine, AustmUa May Be A1~ Extensive Wine-Growing Count1'y, Edinburgh, 1857. I know of no articles or books he wrote concerning the pottery. James Backhouse, A Narrative of a Visit to the Australian Colonies .. " London, 1843, p. 398; and J. lIIaclehose, The Picture of Sydney for 1838, Sydney, 1838, pp. 168-171. For statement of King's aims see above Letter, King to Col. Sec., 10 .r uly 1834, p. 10. Australian. 23 October 1835. Colonist, 2G November 1835. Sydney Gazette, 20 August 1836; see also Sydney Gazette, 20 October 1836; and A llstralian, 30 August 1836. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 April 1843; see also 31 October 1843. Fr:lUci~ Low, The City of Sydney Dircotory for 1844·5. I am indebted to Mr Km'in l<'nhy of Sydney for this rofol'<lllcl!. lhid. 7 August 1844. For a list of I.rrawang earthollware available in 184.l see Maitland Mercury. 13 July 1844. Mait/ancl Mcrcury, 1:1 Septemb~r lH45. Frallcis Low, op. <lit. 19 .1 anua ry 1 H48. jJ[a.illmtcZ Me/,('u.ry, 23 November 1865. Cataloglle of the Natural (md Inclustrial Produots of New South Wales. . by the Paris Exhibition Commissioners, p. 87. -------

Yo!. 57 Pt I] James King of Irrawallg-Bicl:ford 5i

10~. 103.

104. 105. 106. 107.

108. 109.

110. 111. 112.

113. n4. 115. 116. 117.

See above entn' in Kiner's Papers concerning' this pottery. p. ~ ."'": 'i I am only presenting ab summary of King's wine· producing actrntw5. here. The bulk of the re~earch Oil wine is being carried out· b:: a aection of the Irrawnng Project Research Group, The James Kmg Vineyard Restoration Society. 1'Iemorial, King to Darling, 15 September 1831, A.O:N.S.W. 2/7900. King to Goderich, 10 January 1832, p. 764, lI.B.A., 1, XVI. Maitland Merollry, 23 November 1865. lIistorical SU1ll1lta1'Y of the P1'Ooeeclin.r;s and RellOrts of the lIunter R·ive·r Vineyard Assooiation .•. , p. 42. Ibid., p. 13; and lI.R.A., i, XXV 1. James King, Australia May Be an Extensive Wine-Growing Country, p.9. Ibid., p. 16. King Papers, I, p. 221, M.L., 682/1. Catalogue of the Nat1~ral and Industrial Products of New South Wales, by the Paris Exhibition Commissioners, pp. 83 and 87. .T ames King, op. cit., p. 8. lIistorical Summary of the Prooeedings ancZ Bel,orts of the Hunter River Vineyanl Associll/.ion .•. , p. 6. James King, op. cit., p. 10. Ibid.; and Maitlancl .Merc1t1·y, 23 November ~865. . 'Ve have contactod several of the local reSidents who lIved on the estate in the 1890's nmI the early part of tlus century, or whose ancestors lived there, aud interviewt'u them on the site, to assist them in recalling what it looked like in the past. We are extremely grateful to lIrr and 1111'S Arthur BIundeII, Mrs Davis, and Mrs Talbot, all of Rnymonc1 Terrace, for being so helpful and patient with us.

•

- - - - - - - -

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

APPENDIX B

LETTER FROM A. BICKFORD 2 pp

1


1 AN NE BICKFORD AND ASSOCIATES

HERITAGE CONSULTANTS

135 CATHERINE STREET LEICHHARDT NSW 2040 PHONE 02-5699672 FAX 02-5500261

Associate Professor J.M. Birmingham Faculty of Arts, Prehistory and Historical Archaeology University of Sydney NSW 2006

Tuesday 21 September 1993

Dear Judy,

Outline of Information Required as part of a Significance Assessment of the Irrawang Site

I think you may have misunderstood my letter to you -of Monday 2 August. As I said in my letter I wished to get an assessment of the base information already collected about the site. My framework for this assessment is the Australia ICOMOS Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance. This is why I wanted to photocopy some material (eg plans). I had and have no intention of publishing this work I am doing for the HWC; it will simply be used for my report to them. As they are the owners of the material and the site I was surprised at your response. As I said in my fax to you this morning the HWC have agreed to your suggestion to compile the information yourself and with your assistants, and to pay the fee you requested of $3,000.

I have addressed my interests as a series of numbered questions. This will make it quicker and easier for you to write up the information. You suggested in your letter that you could have the work completed in three days. This gives a deadline of Friday afternoon, but as I will not be working on it until next Monday morning if your research is delivered to my office by 9am Monday 27 September that will be OK. Please do not fax it as plans and pictures will be illegible.

1. What is the contribution of the Irrawang site to the history of ceramics in Australia? 2. What is the scientific or research potential of the site? 3. I have your 1974 plan in BJJ 1983 p.81. If there are any more recent plans of the whole site please provide copies. NOTE: Plans and sketch plans can simply be photocopies of the site drawings; they do not have to be to publication standard, but simply be legible copies. 4. As 3. regarding aerial photos of the site.

ANNE BICKFORD BA HONS(SYDNEY) MAACA


2 ANNE BICKFORD AND ASSOCIATES HERITAGE CONSULTANTS

135 CATHERINE STREET LEICHHARDT NSW 2040 PHONE 02-5699672 FAX 02-5500261

5. In what year did you complete your excavations? Why did you stop digging there? Could you give me a plan of the site as it was left at the completion of the excavation - where spoil heaps were left etc. I gather the excavated areas were not backfilled. Did (do) you think the site had nothing more to offer you? Did you feel you had all you needed from the site? 6. Please provide an inventory of the artefacts and paper records -where they are stored; what they are; how many there are. 7. How much research has been done so far on the material? 8. Please estimate how many months and people it will take to complete the research and write your archaeological report. What is the projected date of publication of the Irrawang report? 9. What has. been produced about the site already in terms of information and analysis?

10. What more information might be found out by more excavation? 11. Please provide copies of the significant plans of each excavated area; a summary and conclusions of the excavation of that area; and copies of photographic prints if possible. 12. As 11. with regard to the structures excavated. 13. Please describe the types of artefacts excavated, and if you have done any artefact analysis what conclusions you have reached so far. 14. In relation to the HWC's plans there are three basic options for the site:

a) Do no more work and destroy the site b) Complete a research excavation and the site can be destroyed c) Retain the site in situ Which one of these do you prefer and why? 15. Do you see any value in retaining the site in situ? 16. If it wasn't there what would we lose? 17. Do you consider that enough work has been done on the site? Is more excavation necessary? What directions do you think any further work would take? 18. What are the main conclusions of your research at Irrawang? Please contact me if you have any questions. I will be in my office all the rest of the week.

Yours Sincerely,

ANNE BICKFORD BA HONS(SYDNEY) MAACA

I I I I I

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

1

APPENDIX C

REPORT BY J. M. BIRMINGHAM 40 pp


Draft Contribution

to a Significance Statement for the

Archaeological Site of

Irrawang, NSW

Assoc/Prof. Judy Birmingham, Centre for Historical Archaeology,

University of Sydney 02-6922763 (Tel) 02-692 4889 (Fax)


1.

2.

Questions to be Answered:

What is the Contribution of the Irrawang site to the history of ceramics in Australia?

Irrawang at the time it was excavated was the earliest colonial pottery site physically known, and remains the only intact nineteenth century Australian pottery site.

Its importance lies especially in the completeness of its ground plan: until the water level rose in the spillway the whole plan of the pottery works plan was visible. While very little of the structural remains were visible above ground the conformation of sub-surface foundations, trenches, tanks and roadways could be clearly made out even at ground level. This taken together with the advertisements for King's pottery which appeared in the Maitland Mercury and elsewhere and which list King's output allows considerable reconstruction of the way in which this medium-sized colonial enterprise operated.

Moreover, its waster heaps and surface scatters have yielded a remarkable sample of the ceramic table, kitchen and household wares King actually produced. This sample amounts to about 100,000 pieces, mostly broken sherds but a number of pieces large enough to be diagnostic of both shape and decorative design. While some analytical and experimnental work has been started on this resource, it is clear that there is a great deal more to be . done. Research questions in such a program should relate to the technical processes used by King, and in particular any such processes, originating in the British ceramic tradition, which have clearly been adapted to suit colonial conditions - different clays, climate and timbers.

More obviously, the pottery wasters are sufficiently numerous to allow the reconstruction of a substantial amount of King's original repertoire - in effect, it appears possible to recreate something like an Irrawang Catalogue of Colonial Pottery, circa 1844. There are no known colonial catalogues in Australia earlier than the Lithgow one of 1889, and this will be of great value to collectors as well as archaeologists both throughout Australia and in Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and the United States.

A longer background paper on Irrawang in the context of early pottery production in the colony is attached.

What is the research or scientific potential of the site?

After we became more familiar with the site of Irrawang we were able to develop our original research design further, and set expanded and refined goals for the archaeological investigation. While further analysis and investigation may lead to more specific research questions I would see these goals as essentially defining the scientific potential of the site:

o A total measured ground plan of the features of the site as a whole, which is the only virtually undisturbed mid-19th century colonial pottery works known to survive in Australia.

I I I I·

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

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Detailed plans, sections and structural analysis for each building both as a primary record and to give further insight into colonial adaptations of the British industrial vernacular building tradition.

Investigation and assessment of the immediate environment of each structure with reference to its working amenity (spaces, walking surfaces, shade, drainage, sewerage, water supply)

Flow charts for how the site as a whole functioned at various times in the site's history.

A significant sample of King's pottery that would as far as possible include all the wares, shapes and decorative patterns made by him during the whole operating life of the works.

A quantitative study of the distribution of different categories of pottery across the site and within specific deposits.

A time line for the site's innovation, development, expansion and decay to use in the analysis of the pottery operation overall, and also to set alongside other chronologically ordered data (the pottery advertisements, his land purchases, his vineyard interests etc.) in order to construct the trajectory of a colonial entrepreneur.

Archaeological survey over wider zones around the pottery site to reconstnIct the broader context for the Irrawang operation (transport, fuel, dwellings, the estate, clay bodies).

It would have to be said that these goals have only been realised to the, extent of about 25%. While there is an overall plan, it has many areas of uncertainty, in it. Similarly while there are plans of some of the individual structures there are many details of these requiring further investigation and clarification, while other stnIctures have not been looked at at all. Some of the intervening spaces have been excavated, and something of the site's drainage system has been worked out and planned: these aspects related to convenience and comfort of the pottery workers are particularly interesting given the site's extremes of summer temperature, and its often high rainfall combined with the swampy nature of the location.

The functional flow chart is incomplete because not all parts of the site have been studied: quite a lot of work has been done' on the broader social and environmental context of the pottery site but it is uneven and needs gapfilling.

Off-site work on the classification and analysis of the pottery wasters is, by contrast, considerably more advanced, with the exception of the technical work on King's clay bodies and firing methods. This would require experimental work by a professional ceramics laboratory on local clays in association with wasters from each kiln, including both the Irrawang clay itself, which King certainly used for some of his kiln furniture, and probably for some of his red wares, and the Stroud clay which he writes about using. This program, however, would require only limited further work on site.

In my view therefore about 75 % of the scientific and archaeological significance of the Irrawang site, as defined in the above terms, remains locked into the site in the form of research potential.


3.

4.

5.

Post 1974 plans of the sit.e

A composite plan of the site is attached, together with a work plan with identifyers for each structure.

Aerial phot.os of sit.e

One pre 1963 (n.d.) enlarged aerial oblique B/W

One aerial oblique c. 1963 B/W

One 1976 pair of stereo B/W aerial photographs, NSW Lands Photo Log E: NSW 1976, 5108, 5109. [Newcastle Run 3P, 22.9.71. 18,500' ASL; 88 12 MM]

The last of these can presumably be currently ordered from the Lands Department. The other two are archival. They could be copied if you wish to pay for them.

Completion of excavations, why and in what. st.ate.

The last excavation was carried out in December 1976, when further details were established for the large structure (H) identified as the western workshop. A brief outline of the progress of work is as follows:

Structure A Bottle kiln

Structure B Horse mill

" Structure C Unknown

Structure D Clay pit

Begun May and December 1967: May Decemb"er 68, May December 69

Begun May and December 1967: May December 68, May December 69

May 1969 (trial only)

Excavated December 1969

Structure E. Chilean mill Excavation continued December 1970

Structure F. Loading bay Completed December 1970

Structure H. W. workshop Begun December 1970, excavated May and Ju1yAugust 1971: excavated May 1973, december 1973. Excavated February 1975. Details June 1976

Structure K. Kiln Excavated December 1974

Structure L. Unknown December 1976

All structures produced immense quantities of pottery wasters, especially the two kilns, and the soak drain associated with the workshop's eavesdrop.


6.

7.

The decision to suspend excavation at Irrawang after 1976 was based on a combination of reasons. These included:

The need for a temporary stop on data collection in order to begin a preliminary analysis of what had been found to date. Given the excessive teaching commitments I had throughout the 70s (and other aspects of university politics at that time) there had been little opportunity to study the excavated materials or to do the required contextual work on British traditional potteries and other potteries in Australia.

The need to develop a computer-based method of analysis for the vast quantities of wasters. Such methods are now available, but were not in the pioneering stages of the discipline in the 1960s.

The need to re-assess the usefuli1ess and appropriateness of the traditional Wheeler-Kenyon excavation methods used to date for the special nature of Australian historic sites

The rising water level. The dam wall was finally plugged in or about 1976, and it was assumed that this would render work on the site far more difficult.

The political shift towards inventorying- the archaeological heritage for the National Estate from 1974 onwards under the Whitlam and Fraser governments, requiring all available archaeological expertise to assist in what was essentially a national program.

The one thing which was emphatically not part of the decision-making process was any sense that site-work was completed. All who knew the site were aware there remained an enormous amount still to be found out in terms of our basic understanding of layout, structures, processes and products.

Please provide an inventory of miefacts and paper records. where they are stored, what they are how many there are ••

Attached is an inventory of the Irrawang excavation record, both documents and artefacts. The artefacts, already cIassifed and listed on paper, are currently being entered into a database.

This inventory relates to their current passive storage locations. For the purposes of this brief there have already been some changes in location, and preparations for publication are re-activated.

How much research has been done so far on the material?

This is a difficult question to answer in any way that can be meaningfully quantified, except to say a lot.

First there has been an immense amount of wide-ranging research on related background topics such as nineteenth century colonial ceramics, the history pottery-making in NSW, especially the Hunter Valley and Newcastle, King's life and commercial activities, King's wine and vineyard interests, some of which has already been published as a direct consequence of the Irrawang excavations. One of the important spin-offs of a long-term archaeological project is its tendency to concentrate and trigger clusters of related research.

I I I 1-1-

I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I

8.

At Irrawang some of this has already been published in journal articles (Bickford 1971, Liston and Jack 1975'1). or in the form of exhibitions (HDWB exhibition of King's work 1968, Raymond Terrace exhibition about 1973, and the current (or recent) Newcastle Regional Museum exhibition on nineteenth century pottery manufactories in the Newcastle and Hunter areas. Very much is either completed and unpublished, or exists in files in the form of collected information and sources on various topics.

Second, more structured and complete is the processing and study of King's pottery wasters. These have been fully classified and inventoried by shape, ware and find spot, and now await only data entry (which can now be paid for thanks to this brief). It has been possible to reconstruct what seems likely to be a complete catalogue of the ceramic items produced by the Irrawang Pottery, including a number of his mOUldings - garden urns, tobacco jars, tea plates and cheese covers with elegant relief masks and floral designs,

Several hundred drawings have been completed illustrating both shapes and decorative designs, and these have already been photographed and reduced ready for lay-out.

More significant is what research still needs to be done.

The most important area will be to continue our coverage of comparable colonial potteries in Canada, South Africa and New Zealand - and in Britain and the US of A - especially those investigated since we last worked on this in the late 70s. This comparative data on contemporary ceramic processes, factory lay-outs, and ceramic repertoires elsewhere in the imperial system in the 1830s and 40s is fundamental to the appropriate consideration of King's Irrawang enterprise in the remote colony of New South Wales, and will . dictate much of the shape of our conclusions.

Another newer requirement is the need to examine excavated material from the various NSW excavations covering the early and mid 19th century to look for Irrawang material, and also to study the various other items of unsophisticated household earthen wares known to be appearing sporadically on Sydney and other excavation sites. Higginbotham in 1987 (ASHA JournalS: 15-20) published some of these from Paramatta: since then they have had a low-key but definite presence in most early colonial sites. The relationship between these, King's enterprise, and other known early local manufacturers needs to be investigated - if indeed they prove to be locally made.

Both I and some of our students and/or graduates are likely to be working intensively on both these fields in the near future.

Please est.imate how nany months and people it will take to complet.e t.he research and wdte the report. What. is the projected date of publicat.ion of t.he Irrawang Report.?

The additional research listed above will be done concurrently with the more mechanical work needed for completion of the report. It would be helpful to be able to pay a research assistant for three months to do particularly the first component listed as still to be done in the Question 7 answer, but this is not essential.

@


9.

The most time consuming editorial task will be completion of the stratigraphic report and final plans for the western workshop (Structure H) and the second kiln (Structure K). Full field notes for both are on file, with individual field plans for each grid square, but these have to be collated and redrawn along with analysis and interpretation of the notes and photographs. This work has been completed for the structures excavated earlier.

The remaining work is contained. One person is' needed for a few weeks to enter the ceramic classification lists into a database for Infomap and other manipulation and analysis. Another is needed to scan the pottery drawings and structure plans, which are all done except for structures Hand K, into our Corel Draw graphics program for consistent labelling, conventions and printing.

The primary limiting factor is my own time. My steady program to get all Sydney University's early excavations into print advanced another step with the publication of Wybalenna in 1992, and with the forthcoming Regentville publication in 1993-4. The Irrawang publication has always been planned as the next in line, and the current activity has stimulated frustration that the time frame has been so long. Even so, with other commitments to teaching and administration as Head of Section, I would see mid to later 1995 as a realistic publication date for the Irrawang monograph.

In summary, I estimate it would require the equivalent of one person fulltime for twelve months to complete the final draft of the monograph as planned.

What has been produced about the site ah'eady in terms of information and analysis?

If 'produced' means published, see answer to Question 7.

If it means producing in terms of advancing the frontiers of knowledge, I would see it as important to distinguish between the technical archaeological prerequisites for the investigation (set out as the goals in Question 2) and the process of analysis and interpretation that finally puts it all together.

The nature of archaeological investigation is such that the first 90 % is data collection and preparation. We have just proved this yet again at Regentville, where after eight years work we have produced all our major analyses and interpretations in the last three months.

Irrawang is no exception. It took ten years to complete classification, sorting and listing of the vast number of pottery wasters (admittedly not continuously), and these still have to be physically entered into a database before the analysis can be seriously got under way. Similarly with the comparative analysis of a nineteenth century colonial pottery in terms of building forms, ground plan and ceramic technology. While detailed plans, sections and descriptions of most individual structures have been drawn up, there are still two to be completed (H and K), perhaps the most critical two in terms of how the pottery functioned.

Therefore both in terms of the waster database and the form and function of the pottery works the real culminating work of analysis and interpretation is still ahead. Of course there is already a mass of data collected in both areas which is informative in itself, but the real story of King's Irrawang Pottery as part of the global mid-nineteenth century picture will emerge in the next few months.


10. What more informat.ion might be found out by mOI'e excavat.ion?

The following obvious areas of investigation come to mind.

First, details of the ground plan and structural details that are by no means clear at present. For example, what other structures were on the site, whether there waas a third kiln or a second workshop. The nature of the large tanks to the north of the excavation has never been determined in detail, nor have various apparent structures visible in the earliest aerial photograph been investigated.

Second, details of the pottery production process at the Irrawang Pottery that are equally unclear. For example where specific production activities such as glazing and throwing took place, storage areas for fuel, days and glazes, the mapping of waster heaps and whether transfer printed earthen wares were ever produced at Irrawang.

Third, details of the sequence of events at Irrawang, i.e. the dynamics of its rise and decline in the context of models for colonial enterprise.

Fourth, a thorough investigation of the drainage water and heat control systems King had set up at the factory site.

Fifth, various environmental and soils investigations we have developed at Sydney University subsequent to the last Irrawang field season.

What further 'selective' excavation is needed can only be known after assessment and analysis of the information already held" is complete. 'Total' excavation would solve this and would allow for selective analysis." Improvements in experience and techniques now make large-scale excavation far less arduous and amenable to the production of results far more quickly.

11. Please provide copies of the significant plans of each area or st.ructure, plus a summary and conclusions of the excavation of that. area: and copies of photographic prints if possible.

Plans of Structures A and B are attached, together with unfinished plans of Hand K. Summaries of the structures that have already been collated are also attached.

It is not possible to organise copies of photographic prints within this time frame. If you are still interested I will be able to return to this project over the long weekend and sort out negatives for copying early the following week.

12. Please see 11.

13. Please describe the types of atiefacts excavat.ed, and if you have done any artefact. analysis what conclusions you have reached so far.

The artefacts recovered were 99 % ceramic wasters. Other items included a little bottle glass, a few clay smoking pipe fragments, some buttons and little else.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I

14.

The ceramic wasters could be sorted as follows: earthenware or stoneware, salt-glazed or not, biscuit-fired or lead-glazed. The earthenwares were white-bodied or red-bodied with clear glazes, firing to a range of yellow, deep yellow, tan, dark tan and blackish products. The forms were primarily kitchen wares which could be identified by comparison to catalogues elsewhere as milk pans, bread pans, mixing bowls, pie dishes, pudding basins, casseroles, preserve jars, and the like. Other froms included water filters and water carafes, and chamber pots.

In addition a number of sherds were decorated usually in relief: some of these were from garden urns, others tea plates, cheese dishes, jars, with masks of satyrs, lions and women, scenes of cherubs, and floral and leaf borders and sprays. A number of plaster of paris moulds were found for these designs.

In relation to the HWC's plans there are three basic options for the site:

a. Do no more work and destroy the site b. Complete a research excavation and the site can be destroyed c. Retain the site in situ.

Which one of these do you prefer and why'!

I prefer Option C:

As estimated above the archaeological potential of this site has been recovered only to the level of about 25 % of total. However, sufficient fieldwork has been completed on this site for a significant first report and assessment of its archaeological character. Further work should only be carried out in the light of questions raised by this initial work, and with the benefit of future improved excavation and analysis techniques.

The question may well be asked -' If further archaeological work is desirable, why not Option B, especially if the S. U. Irrawang report is fasttracked to be available?'

In these circumstance Option B is not out of the question. However, the major obstacle is that work done in the framework of Option B would inevitably be carried out under pressure, rarely a recipe for satisfactory archaeological research, let alone excellence.

. The other obstacle is more fundamental. The significance of an archaeological site is not only embodied in the information potentially to be excavated from it. Irrawang, like other comparable sites, has its own historic significance as a place, and considerable state and Hunter region significance as the actual site of the remains of a nineteenth century pottery works. It has undeniable additional significance as being the location of the first historical archaeological excavation in NSW. These factors add weight to the selection of Option C.


15.

16.

17.

18.

Do you see any value in retaining the site in situ?

See Question 14. This place is of interest and importance in the history of Newcastle and the settlement of the Hunter Valley, as well as to thos interested more generally in colonial ceramics and the history of ceramics in Australia. There is archaeological reason to retain it for a period of time before further excavation is carried out. There is, as a different issue, historical and cultural reason to retain it as a site in situ because of its importance and intyerest.

If it wasn't there what would we lose'?

See previous answers.

Do you consider that enough work has been done on the site? Is more excavation necessary? What directions do you think any further work would take?

Again see previous answers where I think these issues have been fully considered.

In summary, no, I do not think enough work has been done on the site. As so often on any site, the first series of seasons serve primarily to familiarise those working there with the nature of the site and the generalities of what it has to offer. It is inevitable that it is not until a late stage in this familiarisation process that the real problems can be identified as different from the norms of the site - our work at Regentville has demonstrated this in classic form. .

Yes, more excavation is unquestionably necessary, both to seek clarification in areas already excavated, and to explore areas suspected of further structures as yet unchecked.

However, in both instances the time frame is critical. The report on the early work must be available and its content studied before new fieldwork is undertaken, and any fieldwork carried out must be a professional research undertaking by committed archaeologists without time constraint or pressure.

What are the main conclusions of your reseal'ch at Irrawang?

See Question 9.

While the major results in terms of both artefact distribution analysis and the precise nature of King's enterprise in a comparative intercolonial context have yet to be drawn out, I can make the following interim statements in no particular order.

In historical terms I have absolutely no doubt at all that the contribution of the site to our understanding of the Australian colonial experience will be significant and new. Whether in terms of King's responses to his market demands, his adaptations (or otherwise) of traditional working methods as well as ceramic products, and his early creative and experimental energy, the results of the Irrawang excavation will be a benchmark in our view of our own industrial past.


In archaeological terms also it will provide new techniques for demonstrating the distribution of sorted categories of artefacts across a landscape, together with its interpretation.

In architectural and building science terms Irrawang has already demonstrated a number of colonial building techniques and ways of solving construction problems which add to our already growing body of comparable information from other sites.

In ceramic terms we have immense potential for further experimental research into King's experimental processes, as well as scope for intercolonial comparison and exchange of international importance.

In educational terms, looking back over the records of the talented and subsequently successful students who came to work at the site between 1967 and 1976 I have to say it was probably one of the most rewarding educational and professional training experiences then offered by Sydney U ni versi ty .

In terms of archaeological science it provided an invaluable first Australian historical archaeological tield context for experiment and improvement of field techniques and methodology. The significant advances initiated later at Regentville were not in terms of thinking or strategy but rather in methodological management, and were based on .lessons learned on a first site which yielded huge logistical problems in terms of record management and the processing of huge numbers of artefacts.

Judy Birmingham 2S September, 1993

- - - -

,;

-

o

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

!I ! i I I I, ! :

J!

f/ ! :

; i J! : ! I' ! : ,: , : ; ! : ! 1 i I:

: i , : ,: ! : I: : : ,: : i I: ! : ! ! : ! i!

r j i i I I I' I I

: I I I I I J 1 I: I' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I

! I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --m THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

~ CENTRE FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

IRRAWANG 20 '0 100

meln, 20 '0 100

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL IN\'ESTIGATIONS 1%7-1976

SITE PLAN

I @

I I I I I I

\ , , ....

I 'F @ G

I \ , ....

I E

B

I I J

I 15 I

K, '" "

, \, " ,I . "

, ,

I I 0

0

I H 0

0

I 0 • TH1!: UNIVI!:RStTY or SVDN!:Y 0

C1!:NTR£ FOR HlSTORlCALARCHAroLOGY I I IRRAWANG I I

0 C , I

HlSTORlCALARCIlAEOLQGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1%7-1f76 a a

a a a

I o a a a

0 ----------------------

I


JJJl

STRUCTURE A ..

: .. .-.::. ... ..:.<L.;:;··:.~;! ;.\.::; .... ~

Datum

i:~;, ,:::::'r{;,l:~!::: . . . . . . .. ' ...... : ... . '. "

.JTlln L.::-=.=--___ ~--'

[]

A"l

I1 I I

I I I

All®

I i

~ ____ ~ __ ~J ~

Datum foil

AlIlI

-M- TilE UNIVERSIlY OF SYDNEY

~ CENTRE FOR IIISTORlCALARCIIAEOLOGY

IRRAWANG HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1967-1976

I I

I

I

I I ,

J...§ ! ____ ----'---'--'-'~

3 0 - -o

~ Datum

5

h?OdODO[

8B ---,

2

I I I

1 A41

10

3

feet

metres

---------------------IBlIlAI

3 o 10 - - feet

metres o 2 3

STRUCTUREB

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

~~1,J38 CENTRE FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

IRRAWANG HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1967-1976

----~------------------------------------------------------------- -- -

I" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Irrawang Inventory

Documents

A. FIe 1- D 1.

Descriptive statistics fIle List of Workers Structure B plan and sections F474/12 Structure Structure

K HH60 HHS9 HH36 H H64, H65, H63 HH26 HH12 & 13 HHS &H6 H H9, HlO, Hll H H27, H28, & H 66 (Double square space) HH24 &H25 HH20 &H32 HH17 &H18 HH7&H8 HH14&H16 HH4 HH3 HH1 &H2 HR1

IRW H Inventoried Finds Lists IRW Sagger counts IRW Site Plan IRW H Photographic Lists BW and Colour IRW H Plans of H Square numbers. IRW H Bay Lists James King Pottery IRW Notes IRW Earthenware Corpus IRW GLass Parish of Thomton Map Paterson NSW Map Newcastle Map List of illustrations Comparative Pottery processes etc. King's glass I making bottles Bricks and brick making Bricks IRW advertisement Structure A. Redrawn sections, square plan and summaries of squares IRW Structure D IRW Soils IRW J plan and layers Buttons Glass Structure A plane table plan IRW D Folder (general)

I-


Newspaper cuttings and info from local residents Photos accompanied by list of photo subjects HS/71 Folder A2 Folder A3-4 Folder A 7 Folder A9 Folder AlO Folder Al Folder AS FolderA A6 Folder

B. FIe 1- D2.

Irrawang Draft Papers and working material Bibliography of the environmental heritage of the Hunter Valley NSW 1981 Irrawang Finds Master List IRW Computer Update 1986 inc. B/W photos and Master Pottery list Pottery list by provenance Pottery list by type Pottery number list Data entry instructions for IRW pots Variable defmitions IRW Prints and research masterial Stereo pairs photo

Finds

C. Store (Old Lab)

1-1 Mouldings 17-36 1-1 n 37-60 + Misc. 1-1 Lids 2 If-lh + Misc 1-1 Lids 2 1-1 Ummarked 1-1 Rim Fragments 1-1 Mouldings Hll at Mac1eay Museum 1-1 Base S 1-2 Pie Dishes IX x 2 Boxes 1-2 Base Fragments x 2 Boxes 1-3 Base 10 1-3 Base 2B 1-3 Base 2A 1-3 Base 4A 1-3 Base 4B 1-4 Base 4C 1-4 Base 4D 1-4 Bases 4E - 4F 1-4 Base S 1-4 Pitchers 1-4 Kiln Material 1-4 IRW Experimental 1-4 Bread Pans X G 1-5 Soil and Clay Samples x 2 Boxes 1-5 Un-numbered Sherds 1-5 Base 6 1-5 Base 8 1-5 Base 9 1-5 Bases 10 - 11 1-5. Base 12 1-6 Body B x S Boxes

2

-- -

I @

I 1-6 Mise. Metal Fasteners (H2O)

I 1B Kiln/Ring setters 1B Clay Rolls x 2 Boxes 1B Glazed Brick 1B Kiln Saggers

I 1B Bricks x 3 Boxes

2-1 Body B x 5 Boxes

I· 2-1 Lids lll-V1 2-1 Lids 2 A 2-1 Lids 1 B

I 2-1 Lid Fragments 3 2-1 Lid Fragments 2 A 2-2 Kiln Saggers 2-2 Handles

I 2-2 Bowls XV1 2-2 Lids 2-2 Bread Pans XG

I 2-2 Tile x 2 Boxes 2-2 Glazed Brick 2-2 H Metal

I. 2-3 Lid Fragments x 2 Boxes 2-3 Technical Effects x 2 Boxes 2-3 Base 4A 2-3 Body B x 2 Boxes

I 2-3 Clay Pipes 2-3 Saggers 2-4 Strainer Coolers XV A,B,C,D,E x 2 Boxes

I 2-4 Base lA 2-4 Base 1B 2-4 Spouts lA, 1B, 1l,111A, lllB

I 2-4 Saggers x 5 Boxes 2-5 Base 2B 2-5 Rim Fragments C + Type Lids 2-5 Metal 3 Boxes

I 2-5 Base 2B 2-5 Tile 2-5 Base 4A

I 2-5 Body A 2-5 Rim Fragments C + Type Lids 2-6 Body B x 4 Boxes

I 2-6 Lid Fragments 2B Body B x 3 Boxes 2B Bricks 2B Base 3 x 3 Boxes

I 3-1 Lid Fragments 3-1 Body B

I 3-1 Saggers x 3 boxes 3-1 Bread Pans X A,B,C,Box 112 3-1 Breadpans X E x 2 Boxes 3-1 Bread Pans X F x 2 Boxes

I 3-2 Body B x 5 Boxes 3-2 Bread Pans X A,B,C,212 3-2 Bread Pans X G Box 212 (2 Boxes)

I 3-2 Bread Pans X G Box 112 (2 Boxes) 3-3 Rim Fragments 3-3 Body A

I 3

I

I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I

3-3 Body B x 3 Boxes 3-3 Bread Pans X G-K 3-3 Bread Pans X H-K 3-3 Pie Dishes IX 3-3 Base 1B x 2 Boxes 3-4 Body B x 5 Boxes 3-4 Casseroles XIX 3-4 Bread Pans C 3-4 Base 4A 3-4 Rim Fragments 3-4 Bread Pans G 3-5 Saggers x 5 Boxes 3-5 Bread Pans XE 3-5 Base 3 3-5 Pie Dishes IX x 3 Boxes 3-6 Bone 3-6 China 3-6 Glass x 2 Boxes 3-6 Shell 3-6 Small Finds 3-6 Kiln- Saggers 3-6 Body B Sherds 3-6 Base lA x 2 Boxes 3B Body B x 7 Boxes 3B Saggers 3B Body A Sherds

4-1 Testers 4-1 Clay Rolls x 2 Boxes 4-1 T.E. 4-1 Miscellaneous Shapes 4-1 Wine Jars 4-1 Ginger Beer 4-1 Beaded Pots XX 2 + 3 4-2 Saggers x 3 Boxes 4-2 Body B 4-2 Egg Cup, 4-2 Beer Mugs 4-2 Pudding Basin 4-2 Flat Rimmed Mixing Bowl XXI 4-2 Beaded Pots XXI 4-3 Saggers x 3 Boxes 4-3 Body B x 2 Boxes 4-3 Jars x 3 Boxes 4-4 Body B 4-4 Body B L22 (2) 4-4 Body B L22 (2) + Pt. (3) 4-4 Jars x 2 Boxes 4-4 XIX Casseroles + Bowls A,Bl,B2,C 4-5 K Glass 4-5 H Glass 4-5 Glass 4-5 Strainer XV 4-5 Soil + Clay Samples 4-5 Chamber Pots xrn 4-6 Body B x 5 Boxes 4-6 Macleay Museum Exb. 4-6 Body B

4

I: ,


4B Body B x 2 Boxes 4B Terracotta Sherds 4B Drain Body Fn/P1ooo91

5-1 Clay Rolls x 2 Boxes 5-1 Spur Setters 5-1 Ring Setters x 2 Boxes 5-2 Saggers 5-2 Kiln Ware, Saggers 5-3 Body A 5-3 Body B x 2 Boxes 5-3 Saggers 5-4 Saggers 5-4 Metal 5-4 Wood 5-5 Saggers x 2 Boxes 5-5 Glass 5-5 Mortar 5-6 Saggers 5-6 Bricks/Fragments x 2 Trays 5B Saggers x 5 Boxes Bung Jars A,B, C 000395-000423

2 Trays oxidised metal (trays unmarked) 3 Wooden Trays (trays unmarked) 1 Box Handles (box unmarked) 1 Box Misc. (box unmarked) Wooden Box Misc. (box unmarked) Ceramic Bottles + Jars (box unmarked) Hist. Arch. Types Box 112 (unmarked) Terracotta Draincover + Fragments Soil + Clay Samples (box unmarked)

Unprovenanced Artefacts (NPWS)

5


Attachments to Draft Contribution,

Irrawang Significance Statement.

...........

The attached texts are from the draft Irrawang report as already . written.

They are not to be used or quoted for any purpose other than in the context of this Brief.

Judy Birmingham,

Director, Irrawang Project.


<;,0 -rlf' '\ - \ \AI' ~ \ -s, '" \I\. ccu-C'1. d n:t. fr. & lA be 1.t. ~ \0. c..ee b ~ 'c.e-\~v- cM~ ~\' e(""o...\ ; \'\ 'M.A~~\d-..I.\d - ~ ~ .

5. Irrawang and the History of Pottery Production in Early N.S. W.

When King began the production of earthenware at Irrawang it is virtually certain that he was the first to attempt this in the Hunter Valley.

However, pottery production was certainly well under way in the Sydney area by the early l830s as can be seen from a study of government documents, contemporary books and early trade directories; actual examples of wares earlier thawn the 30s are very rare.

In fact attempts were made to find suitable clays for building materials very early in the establishment of the penal colony in New South Wales. After an initial comment on the abundance of both red and white clay by Governor Phillip ( ) early samples of the Sydney clays were sent to England for examination by Sir Joseph Banks. These were decclawred to be suitable for pottery making by Josiah Wedgwood, the celewbrated potter, ( ) who made medallions from them and said "The clay from Sydney Cove ... is an excellent material for pottery, and may certainly be made the basis of a valuable manufacture for our infant colony." ( ). Lawson' s comment (1971) on this is that Wedgewood's favourable report on a small and probably unrepresentative sample of Sydney clay was probably in the long run an inhibiting factor on the development of the indigenous industry by deflecting local experimentation.

The discovery of clay deposits about two miles from the harbour at the Brickfields (the area now south of Bathurst Street, between George and Pitt Streets) quickly led to the establishment of brick kilns and also a pottery; according to the diary of Lieutenant King (1791) "but a great inconvenience arises in their' not being' able to glaze the earthenware." ( ). Among the earliest potters was Daniel Southwell who made a soft brittle unglazed and unsuccessful earthenware. ( ). Another was the convict Elijah Leeke.

Brickfield Hill, a colony of houses and several properties, had a plentiful supply of clays and shales and also lay on the main road from Sydney to Parramatta. Here in Pitts Row Samuel Skinner set up the first successful pottery, (1803-1807) and was able to advertise in October 1803 and August 1804 that having made considerable additions to his manufactory he required four pottery apprentices. Unfortunately Skinner died shortly in 1807; D.

D. Mann in his "Picture of New South Wales" (1811) wrote:

"Several potteries have been established, but the most celebrated manufactures of this description named Skinner lately died. His dishes, plates, basins, covers, cups, saucers, teapots and chimney ornaments were in a very superior stnykle of work-manship, and other useful articles equally handsome" ( ).

After Skinner's deawth the quality of the colonial pottery apparently deteriorated. Simeon Lord and a chemist called Hutchinson advertised for pottery apprentices and entered into pottery manufacture (July 17, 1813), and another pottery is recorded under the name of J. Iohnson ast Cockle Bay (Darling Harbour) for the period 1813-1816, but little is known of either.


J. T. Bigge, Commissioner of Inquiry in New South Wales, 1819-20, reported unfavourably on the local attempts and like the earlier observers, commented on the problem of glazing.

One pottery only has been established in New South Wales, and a few articles of the coarsest kind only have been produced in it. The ware is both badly manufactured and very dear. An attempt was made by the chief engineer to employ some of the convicts at Sydney, and a proper furnace and buildings were erected at the brickfields . The two principaal workmen were very skilful in the ornamental part of their business, and succeeded in producing some very good specimens of workmanship. As, however, they had not the means of glazing the ware, it was not convertible to any useful purpose. I should recommend, therefore, that this species of manufacture should be discontinued, and that in future the attention of the few convicts that may be employed should be directed to the coarser and more useful kinds of pottery ware, which may be afterwards sold with some profit on account of government. ( ().

In spite of Bigge's unfavourable comments, local attempts at pottery production both continued and prospered to the extent that Cunningham, publishing in 1828, was able to write as follows:

tI All kinds of common pottery ware, such as milk dishes, large butter and cream jars with covers, large tubs for dsalting meat in, common brown Toby Philpot jugs, wine and water coolers and spruce beer bottles, are made in the colony in sufficient abundance to supply all odur wants, and sold at a tolerably cheap rate. The glazing is chiefly performed by lithange or salt - 1 there being no flints near to grind and make the finer glazes of. tI

This must have resulted largely from the work of Jonathon Leake. Leake, a convict, arrived on the Recovery (1819), and had been employed as a potter in Burslem, England. The New South Wales authorities soon gave him the opportunity to continue his trade, providing him with tools, land for his kiln, and eventually a free pardon. Leake's pottery operated from 1820-1839 in premises in Market Lane off Elizabeth Street, near the lower end of Wentworth Avenue in today's Sydney, and manufactured bricks as well as breadjars, crocks, milkpans, cooling pans and pipkins which even if the quality was poor, met the demands of the settlers ( ).

He had made earthenware and Egyptian Black (black stoneware) before his transportation; and in Sydney was employed by Governor Darling for special commissions (like the bust of Martin, a bushranger, and possibly another of Jack Donahue). His pottery became large, employing twenty free men by 1828 as well as his' wife and five children.

Another contemporary of Leake's must have been the Moreton pottery in Brickfield Hill listed 1821-18344 under A.J. Anson, Henry and Ralph Moreton, manifestly also successful.

Following the success of the Leake and Moreton potteries in the twenties came several more in the 30s, lamong which of course must have inclu'ded James King's pottery in the Hunter. Enoch Fowler started production in premises in George Street South (now adjacent to Bay Street, Broadway) in 1835 and manufactured ginger beer bottles and blacking jars for which there was a good demand. He moved to Camperdown in 1862 where he concentrated on the production of other commercial items such as drain pipes and stoneware flower tubs. ( ) Thomas Fieeld a little later produced clay pipes, cigar holders and stoneware of various types at his pottery near the corner of J ones Street and

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I

Parrasmatta Road, where he is listed from 1847 to 1871 (thereafter with his sons until 1887).

In fact Fowlers pottery was probably established about the time that lames King started production ast Irrawang. The fact is that by 1832 the potteries of Sydney had overcome their teething problems with the difficult and variable Sydney clays. King when he went a hundred miles north to the Hunter had to start afresh to experiment with a different range of clays, as well as an unknown marketing and distribdution situation, and a very different climate.

The significance of King's Irrawang Pottery would seem to rest more on its innovatory role in the development of the pottery industry in the lower Hunter Valley than in any major contribution to the Sydney scene.

When Irrawang began production there is no evidence that any other potters were working in the Hunter Valley. Brickmaking had begun in the penal settlement, continued to the time of the Australian Agricultural Co. and thence to 1 the present day. No potters are listed until the early l840s when one is mentioned, presumably Irrawang.

However, even by 1844 eight potteries are listed in the Newcastle area and in the course of the later 40s a little more information is available about them. Page's pottery was established at BURWOOD in 1846; bottles, jars and the stronger kinds of delf were reported to be good quality and to sell readily in the district. The proprietor was expecting to receive from England appliances which would widen his range of products, i.e. business was profitable. (Maitland Mercury 22.12.46, reputed from M.M. l6.12.46)??

Probably Samuel Welhan's pottery also at Burwood was established about the same time, since his business was large enough to permit him to employ at least one potter in 1849 (The Australian Journal 22.12.46 reputed from M.M. 16.12.46 - M.M. 25.4.49, p. 2). This pottery was known to be operating in 1856, in 1862 under the name Nathan Walker and .is lat heard of in 1866. Robert Turton also began brickmaking shortly after Welhan (in 1851) in the centre of Newcastle (Darby Street) but did not turn to pottery making until his move to Waratah in 1866. He employed an English potter Plumridge, and made a wide range of products including 24" drainage pipes, flower pots, drinking mugs, vases, pots and jars. A water filter mastked is also extant.

There is no evidence at present that any potteries had yet been established at Waratah which was later to become 1 the other major area of Newcastle for the production of' bricks, tiles and pottery (following the opening up of the coal seam there in 1865 with its associated clay overburden). Nor is there evidence as yet for any pottery making activity in the Maitland Hillcoat Pottery listed from 1872. An extremely fine water filter inscribed.

Within this context it would appear that Irrawang Pottery had virtually no local competition in its first phase, the mid-thirties, and it is difficult to see causes other than accidental and personal for its closure in 1838.

In its second phase (1844 - 52) this is no longer true. Turner suggests that the proliferation of new potteries in the Newcastle area in the early 1840s might have resulted indirectly from the cut in imports attendant upon the depression which in turn stimulated local production. Other hypotheses are possible: an increase in skilled British and European immigrants to work at the potteries, the consolidation of


settlement in the Hunter Valley with increased demand both for structural clay poroducts and domestic wares, increased access to good sources of clay following the further exploitation of coal together with the introduction of steam on a wider scale for winning and processing. It is incidentally worth noting that there is not the same sudden bulge in new potteries of the early 40s in the Sydney area, but rather the steady survival and development of those established in the 20s and 30s if our evidence is in fact representative. This would suggest that !consolidation of settlement and industry in a new area is the probable reason in Newcastle and the lower Hunter.

Whatever the cause the development of the clay industries in the Hunter stabilised, and there is no evidence for a real increase in the number of working potteries and brickworks in the Newcastle area until the sixties. In 1871 a total of fifteen are listed, and in 1888 a total of nineteen. To those may be added the known examples from Maitland -- Hillcoats established 1872, and Turton who moved there from Waratah probably in 1888 (Hall and Silcock are registered as the owners of the Waratah pottery from 1889,m and Silcock alone in 1894).

This mirrors more or less the later development in Sydney where a perusal of trade directories gives only two new potteries listed for the fifties, but seven during the sixties, eleven in the seventies, and forty-four in the eighties. In both regions it is evident that recovery from the general industrial malaise and labour shortages of the gold rush period in the 1850s took time.

It is in this period of stagnation that King's anonymous Irrawang craftsmen would have been forced onto the labour market unless they also joined the rush. It seems unlikely that even his master thrower and moulder (probably one man in a small enterprise) would have found local work for some time. It is not impossible that King's throwers, and certainly his apprentices went on to join Turton at Waratah in 1866, or more probably Hillcoat at East Maitland a little later. Possibly in the interim they came to Sydney 1 and worked for a time with Enoch Fowler in Parramatta Street, Glebe, or Thomas Field in George Street (1847-1871), just as James Silcock later spent a year (1880-81) at the Lithgow Pottery before returning to Newcastle.

Those early industrial potters in fact were surprisingly mobile in Australia moving considerable distances from the Hunter to Sydney, from Bendigo to Tasmania and also from the position of employer to employee freely according to circumstances. It would not be unexpected if the hand of the Irrawang master potter were to be detected in the products of another establishment later in the century -- potters also tend to be longlived. Like so many of his craftsmen colleagues however he must remain at present nameless.


IV. The Archaeogical Excavation: Summary

Identification of the site of King's pottery was confirmed in May 1976, and excavation began in August of the same year. The programme was undertaken because of the imminent fllling of the Grahamstown reservoir.

In all subsequent years excavation continued and followed much the same pattern, i.e. short seasons of ten to fourteen days in the University vacation, usually May and December. Students varying between ten and thirty in number camped in adjacent properties loaned by the Hunter District Water Board. A considerable number of students received their first experience of excavation at Irrawang, several of them to whom acknowledgement is made elsewhere in this volume, subsequently becoming professional archaeologists. An Adult Education teaching school was held at Irrawang in May 1969 organised by Newcastle.

The same conditions on the site which must have made King's occupation difficult equally hampered excavation, i.e. excessive rainfall and waterlogging in May, and drought conditions with rock-hard _clay and midday temperatures over 150 F in December.

In the course of the period 1967-1976 several changes have taken place on the site. In 1968 the Pacific Highway north of Raymond Terrace was re-routed west of its former line, so that it now cuts the pottery site off from the old Irrawang House and winery. In 1969 the house and stone kitchen (the former winery) were bull-dozed, and in the same year staff and students from the excavation used some of the debris to enlarge the existing cow bales which with the help of the Hunter District Water Board then became the permanent dig headquarters. In 1967 the water level of the spillway was still 12' -15' below the level of the kilns and although scheduled to rise within two years to within a foot it did not do so until 1975, allowing a welcome respite for investigation.

Although the Carmichael engraving of the site was already known, it was decided to work independently of it while carrying out the early excavation. For purposes of identification therefore surface features on the Pottery site were lettered, and excavation began with sites A and B, the earthenware kiln and horse works on the western side, respectively. C was a square depression to the south-east of A, which on superficial examination proved to be a large pit resulting from robbing for bricks or hard fill; its original form and purpose have not been ascertained and are probably beyond recall. D was the central pit usually f'1].led with rank weed and swamp vegetation in May, but susceptable to pumping and limited excavation in the drought of 1968. E, to the east of B, was another circular feature, subsequently identified as an edge-mill (or Chilean mill) since its circular trough was brick-linewd with a stone base. This was investigated in 1968-9; together with the adjacent square feature F just north of the clay pit which consisted of solid packed rubble and logs, and appears to have been either a machinery base or a loading and unloading area. At the same time another small circular depression to the north east of F and E was probed, but proved too badly robbed to yield much information. (G).

In 1970 the major structure H was begun, its rectangular lines clearly visible in the late afternoon sun just south of Kiln A. Excavation of this very large and pottery-rich workshop continued until 1975 and proved particularly fruitful. In 1974 a second kiln K was investigated to the East of B, and in 1975 a probable second workshop (L) was identified immediately south of K.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I

All the sites just mentioned were part of the pottery estate. In 1967 and 1968, fortunately before its demolition, a study was made of the stone barn belonging to Irrawang House, i.e. now west of the new expressway, and this was designated structure Z.

All finds were removed to be University of Sydney's Historical Archaeology work room for study; and selected material in due course will be lodged at Newcastle, in the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, Sydney, and in the University of Sydney Macleay Museum.

l. Structure A: The Western Kiln

The first structure to be excavated at Irrawang was a circular mound (A) standing 3'-4' high to the south-west of the central clay pit. This proved to be a circular brick-built bottle kiln destroyed to floor height with four fire holes. One of these on the north side, was particularly well preserved.

The kiln had originally had a tiled pavement at least on the east side extending some 6' out with a lean-to roof, supported on posts. A heap of roof-tiles mostly broken was found in the middle of the east side. The position of the kiln door in the middle of the east side also was confirmed by the finding of heavy iron door fittings and by a far greater concentration of pottery wasters, mostly biscuit- fired white wares.

The kiln was surrounded by a 2' thick brick wall robbed completely on the west and north sides and preserved above its lower causes only on the north and north east. Inside the base of the kiln consisted of the undisturbed soil profile i.e. silt with clay patches above a mottled clay zone, on which at a height of 2 ft above the base of the wall, was built a series of flues at least two brick courses high. Those were thickly coated with glaze in which odd fragments of saggar and setters were embedded.

Many clay rolls, setters and saggar fragments were found in the flues and there is some reason to suppose that kiln wasters were loosely packed above this point to the height of the clay kiln floor. Although none of this was preserved the robbed kiln wall trench on the west side was totally filled with loose kiln wasters of this kind and it seems that they must have fallen into the trench from above while the robbing was taking place.

The north flIe-hole was the best preserved and a reconstruction of it can be seen on fig. #. There were four arches which supported spanning flIebars. On these were placed square flIe-bricks. The throat of this fire-hole was not fully preserved but the thickened deposits of wood ash, powdery outside, and partly glazed inside, were very noticeable.

The fire-holes contained much charcoal and ash and the clayey soil below was burnt to a brilliant red. In the north and west fire-holes a number of moulded fragments were found. The east side was characterised by great quantities of biscuited and yellow-glazed wares. On the ground surface to the south west were a number of scattered ring celts and spurs used in loading the kiln.

The south flIe-hole unfortunately had been totally robbed, the more frustrating because of its probable connection with the pottery shed behind it.

The length of the fire-holes plus the quantity of charcoal and woodash in the three . surviving ones confirms King's use of wood as the major fuel in this kiln. The sherds

I

I'

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

were biscuited or lead-glazed, the clay body being either white or brown. The glazed pieces found were in yellow ware, light brown or dark-brown and this selection of glazes plus the fact that some of the yellow-glazed wares were badly bubbled would seem to confirm that this kiln was King's main lead-glazing kiln, serving well into the second period of the Manufactory if not throughout its existence.

2. Structure B - The Horse Works

Structure B, adjacent to the early kiln A and just to the north of it, proved to be a horse drawn puddler, a machine whereby some of the labour was taken out of mixing and working the clay.

The circular form of this construction could be clearly seen on the ground, for the 'moat' or ditch marking its outer ring was filled with reeds. Traces of the wooden palings which once lined its edges throughout could still be seen, and the ditch filling proved to be largely unmixed lumps of grey and white clay. Outside the ditch was a low bank of flinty stones on which was found a horse trace. Within a heavy beam set in the mottled clay subsoil ran north and south, and had set into it at the very centre of the circle a brass socket into which a turning post would have been set. .

On the ground surface of King's day within the circle were found a particularly fine series of moulded plates and other pieces as well as a number of grey bottles. All had subsequently been covered by quite a large mound of gritty sand the deposition of which must have dated to a period after the puddler ceased to be used. There was no evidence from the white clay found in the ditch that the puddler was used to mix sand and clay.

3. Structure H: The Western Workshop.

This large timber structure lay immediately to the south of kiln A. It corresponds quite well with the timber building shown behind the circular kiln on the etching, although only the ground plan was ascertained.

This structure (plan #) has posts and post-hole placed every three or four feet outlining a rectangular building 25'x75'. Some intermediate palings have survived, also occasional irregular lumps and packing of clay. There is evidence of one internal wall at the south end, of which a row of posts and a packing of brick and saggar rubble remain, and a possible pent house or portico on the eastern side. The floor was wooden, with boards running along the long axis of the builkding as shown by the distribution of nails and charcoal fragments, and the roof appears to have been of wooden shingles as no roof tile fragments were found.

By far the most striking feature of this building from the point of view of construction is the sytem of underfloor conduits that run along its long axis. These are regularly spaced across the eastern part of the building. The first is the eastern flue, which starts at a brick and stone kiln outlet on the north east corner of H, and continues almost to the south wall, ending in grid square H14. This eastern flue is badlky damaged in square H4, where it appeared to have been packed below and above with saggars and floor tile fragments, eventually disintegrating here to a red stain in the silt, also in H6 where it could scarcely be traced. Thereafter its line could be clearly followed south as far as Hl4 where it simply ended, unlike its counterpart the western flue which ended in an excellent chimney. The

(2J7-

I I I' I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I

western one which also began in a hot air outlet just north of the northern wall was better presserved along its whole length, ending in a nicely made brick vent or chimney base projecting slightly from the south wall.

For most of their length these flues had the same construction, i.e. two single courses of sandstock structures placed parallel, inner faces inches apart, on a bedding of silt. The red silt base on which they are set suggests that originally they were placed on a flat row of bricks as a base, now disintegrated. In some squares especially towards the lower (northern end) of H there is a second course of bricks added on edge, and in all squares there appears to have been a packing of white clay lumps around and over the bricks. Between these two, and equidistant from them on the same orientation as the main structure is the central drain, at a lower level than the flues, constructed with a capping row of bricks over the single course sides, and cut into a trench repacked afterwards with clay. This begins just south of the south wall, joining the similarly constructed east-west drain at a high level which runs across the building just outside the south wall. At the south west corner this latter drain turns noth at right angles, and ends in a shallow rubble spread; at the south east corner it also curves to the north and appears to flow into a rubble- filled soak pit. Only the central drain, thus flows from end to end of structure H under its floor, ending .

The finds from H differ from those of kiln A in being predominantly from finished pieces, and suggests that one function at least of this structure was storage of completed stock. Some shapes, such as lids, strainers, and garden urns occurred in localised areas and were doubtless stacked together. However, the presence of brown and shite raw lclays in ID3 and H28 make it clear that the building was in fact a multipurpose workshop-cum-store, in which all stages of pot-making were carried out. The flues suggest that the eastern part at least was used partly as a drying room utilising the hot air from the kiln. Structure H and its contents are discussed in detail square by square below.

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

Appendix C Stratification Report: Detail

Structllre A.

The excavation was carried out in 10 ft. squares, numbered in accordance with the plan shown in fig. #, the initial letter indication the structure to which each square belonged

Al

This square contains the fire-hole on the north side of the kiln which was much the best preserved of the four. Why this should be so is not clear. It might originally have presented a less tempting overburden of rubble, being on the down-hill side of the kiln. Moreover, the eastern fire-hole was more heavily built-up, having the kiln door on that side, while the south fire-hole probably had additional brick walls relating to the workshed behind it. Whatever the reason, the two sides of the fIre-hole in Al were preserved high enough for their four arches to have remained virtually intact. The tiled surround was preserved on the eastern side, and the kiln wall also survived intact in this corner of AI.

Between the two walls of the fire-hole the upper layers consisted of massed fallen brick rubble. Below the turf and the upper fine rubble was a layer of more fine well-weathered brick rubble which was especially deep at the northern (outer) end. Further south towards the kiln, the removal of this revealed a mass of fallen brickwork including arch bricks and spanner-bricks as well as some square fire-bricks in the extreme south. The careful removal of these showed that parts at least of the four arches were still in situ. These arches were originally built of ten tapered bricks set vertically to form the arch, with spanners laid between the arches with their T;-shaped ends touching. On at least the two arches nearest to the kiln the square fire bricks were laid on top of the spanners. The whole area near the throat was heavily caked with a while ash deposit. Below the brickwork was the floor of the fire-hole thickly covered with a clack deposit of charcoal, wood ash, shell, mortar and much pottery. In the extreme north (outer) end of the fire-' hole only was there a brick-paved floor at this level.

East of the fire-hole the brick fall from the upper part of the kiln overlay a tiled surround continuing from A2. It had been robbed along the edge of the east fire-hole wall revealing a whiteish clay bedding layer. On the tiles were found quantities of nails, pottery sherds, shell, charcoal, lumps of sticky clay and bits of the iron bands that once encircled the kiln. Below the tiles occurs the usual black silty soil of the natural profile, here speckled slightly with fme brick rubble. It seems more likely that this speckling reflects the debris of the building period itself rather than an earlier period of use before the tiles were laid. Another feature of some strati graphic interest is the presence of pockets of sticky black clay interfingering the layers of brick rubble above the tiles. These pockets are a feature of all the squares especially towards the lower edges of the original rubble mound, and they mark successive wet seasons when local swamp conditions partly submerged the site. They frequently contain quantities of redeposited sherds, glass and other finds.

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

I I I

A2

In A2 the volume of debris from the kiln collapse was much less than in AI. The main feature in the square was the survival of a tiled pavement over its southern half. The tiles were 9" square. of a palebluish-green. and virtually all of them were cracked. This may account for their survival. since the rest of the tiled surround was stripped. The cracking in this north-east quadrant of the kiln surround may have resulted from particularly heavy use. access being most likely from this direction. The tiles did not continue across the whole square.

In the north east quarter and along much of the eastern side a packed rubble surface took their place at the same level made up of pottery wasters. This surface extended out beyond A2 to the east as well as north towards Structure B. and must have been King's attempt ast an all-weather surface on this frequently swampy site. Manifestly it was laidor grew as a result of successive filling - after pottery production began on the site. The wasters included both lead and salt-glazed wares.

An additional feature of interest was a roughly laid brick enclosure about 2 ft. square in the south east corner of A2 which continued into A4 to the south. This lay on the tiles. and appeared to be a container for wood or ash rakings. It was filled with a black sooty deposit

A 3-4

A massive robber trench was driven into the kiln against the east side which had removed both walls of the east :fire-hole and most of the kiln wall down to below present ground level. For this reason the two squares were dug together. there being no possibility of a meaningful baulk between them.

The major feature of the north side of A4. at a high level. is the continuation through from A2 of the tiled paving. which extended right up to the robbed east fire-hole. wall. The square enclosure detectable in the SE corner of A2 continued into A4. together with the thick deposits of charcoal and ash within it Nails and pottery were also very abundant in these layers above the tiles. It is notable incidentally that there is a single brick border here at the junction of tiles and fire-hole; this may also have occurred in Al where the junction are robbed or disintegrated.

Of particular interest is the presence of a wooden post at the north east corner of the fuehole. i.e. at the edge of the tiled surround. It is clear that there was a depression at this point in the old ground level giving access to the fire-hole. This was filled at the time of the major brick robbing by a large pile of discarded half-bricks which more or less levelled the surface. The older ground surface around this entry was very uneven. with piles of kiln debris -- saggars and setters. pot rings and sherds. well trodden in. A pile of roof flat rectangular tiles mostly broken but one complete with a single nail hole subsequently fell or accumulated above them. and brick debris on this. The original floor of the stoke-hole was reached in this eastern end -- stiff clay with a thick layer of charcoal and ash and mortar above it.

Further in towards the kiln there were only two layers -- the upper churned-up bricky fill containing bricks and mortar. much disturbed during the robbing. and below this a more or less undisturbed layer of charcoal. sherds kiln debris and shelly mortar which lay immediately above the clay floor of the fire-hole. It was in this deposit that biscuit-fired white-body plates and pie-dishes were so common. The lower stumps of the fire-hole walls appeared at this depth. No arch bricks. spanners. etc. were identified among the debris in the upper layer here.

South of the fire-hole the tiled surround appeared to continue at the higher level. reappearing in A6 to the south.

I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A5

This fIre-hole to the south was the most completely robbed of all. It also suffered extreme flooding whenever it rained so that conditions for its excavation were diffIcult.

The square contained a deep depression running right into the kiln which represented the total robbing of both fIre-hole walls and the kiln wall. Only the lowest course of the western stoke-hole wall and the kiln wall remain; the easten stoke-hole wall is totally destroyed.

To the east, debris from the robbed stoke-hole was piled onto the tiled surround which continued from A6, causing a hump. To the west side of the robbed stoke-hole a flat white-clay surface, doubtless once the bedding for the continuation of the tiled surround, lies mostly in All.

The usual weathered brick rubble from the upper part of the kiln was found above the tiled floor, together with redeposited bits of spanner bricks and much kiln debris - setters and saggars which were probably within the kiln when its wall was removed. Fragments of the iron kiln bands were also found. Within the depression a layer of bricks in loam were mixed with fragments of spanner bricks, arch bricks, and some saggars, i.e. mixed debris from the robbing. Below this was a 5"-6" deep layer of charcoal and ash containing very few finds which was undisturbed, and which overlay the mottled clay floor of the stoke-hole.

One point of particular interest in A5 was the presence of kiln debris -- clay rolls and saggar fragments below the presumed tiles on the east side, just as they were in A6 awhere the evidence is more conclusive, the tiles being still in situ.

A6

A6 contained the south east quadrant of the kiln and its surround, and was a square of comparatively little interest beyond demonstrating that the tiled floor did continue here. Immediately above the tiled paving, which had tiles laid over kiln debris, and where some tiles had been upturned in some confusion, was a rich occupation layer with numerous nails, pottery sherds, bits of saggars and setters, and clay rolls, etc., some of which at least seems likely to have burst out of the kiln when the outer wall was removed. Overlying this layer was a rubble layer which had a marked piling up of tiles both floor and roof around its outer edge. A fallen log also lay along this pile, and there is some likelihood that the whole represents the fall from tiled lean-to continuing along at least the eastern side of the kiln.

Beyond the eastern edge of the tiles extend black and silty soil layers containing some pottery and specks of brick, clearly left by continuous seasons of flood water. Excavation down to near I ft. did not produce evidence of any steps down from the tiled paving.

A7

In this square the uneven humps of bricky rubble which characterised the surface contained kiln debris as well as the straightforward brick from the upper part of the kiln i.e. the robbing of the lower part of the kiln wall had released the massed kiln debris inside it probably below floor level.

The old ground surface in A 7 was quite distinct -- a blackish soil with lumps of clay in it which were sometimes whitish in colour, with quantities of nails, charcoal, pottery both whole and broken and glass both on the surface and scattereed through the layer. The numerous fInds Igradually decreased with depth until the silty black woil with specks of

. charcoal appeared to be virgin.

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

A question of some interest is whether there were ever tiles on this surface. The 'answer, in spite of one or two tiles (hexagonal) found on it seems to be no, or at least not until a late stage. This is suggested by the obvious gradual build-up finds through the layer. If tiles were ultimately laid, both their laying and their robbing has disturbed the finds scarcely at all.

Secondly, scattered both through this layer and on it especially in the west half were lumps of white calcite used by King for his glazes. Again it is difficult to see how tiles could have been removed without more evidence of their disturbance. On the other hand the abundance of bits of wood, and nails might well suggest a wooden floor here -- again perhaps laid at a later stage.

A9

The western stoke-hole falls within this square, which was an extremely uneven one before its excavation. It had the usual central depression I1lnning into the kiln floor 1 itself, caused this time by the extensive robbing of the northern stoke-hole wall, and the removal down to the bottom course of the kiln wall.

The inside of the stoke-hole had the same stratification as the others, i.e. a thick layer of shell, mortar, and charcoal lying on a natural grey silt. At its western end impressions of logs could be clearly seen, and there was a large patch of sticky white clay about its midpoint. A few sherds were found in this layer of burnt material, and there was a brilliant red patch of burnt clay just before the stoke-hole was out by the kiln wall robber trench. Above this was the brick and loam layer representing replaced robbed fill.

This kiln wall trench was filled with loose ashy kiln debris, i.e. clay rolls, broken saggars, setters and pottery wasters. This filling which as elsewhere must have fallen from the lower part of the kiln when the kiln wall was robbed was continuous, the robbed material of the wstern stoke-hole abutting against it. Close to the kiln wall was a wooden post base, and a similar one was found adjacent to the kiln wall in All.

On either side of the robbed stoke-hole were the higher level floor surfaces. To the south, i.e. continuous into All this was predominantly of whitish clay, with ash, charcoal, many nails and a few tiles scattered on it, as well as numbers of small clay setters and spurs (especialllin All). The imprint of a ciruclar bucket base was also found in A9 just south of the stoke-hole wall with traces of galena crystals near it.

To the north this surface was for the most pasrt of dark clay with sandy patches in it, and preserved a long dark stain of a log beside the stoke-hole in A9. This layer also is continuous into the adjacent northern square A7. The abundance of nails, charcoal and ash and occasional log stain suggests that this side of the kiln probably had a wooden floor laid atw a stage after there had been some accumulation of occupation material.

AlO

The eastern part of AlO contained the end of the western stoke-hole. Here two posts were found, one each side in a similar position to the one in A4 to the east and another in Al to the north. To the north of the stoke-hole is a continuation of the black clayey surface with large lumps of grey clay in it from A9 and A 7; it had similar finds on and in it -- sherds, iron and charcoal, and the occasional tile and was presumably also wood-covered.

All

This square comprised a large comparatively undisturbed area of the kiln surround between the western and southern stoke-holes. The only robbing had occurred in the north east corner where the kiln wall had been neatly removed. Below the loam and


rubble layer of the kiln collapse was a general scatter of charcoal, clay rolls sherds, setters, etc. the charcoal and ash especially thick towards the west and north. Below this was a layer of white sticky clay with pebbles and ironstone throughout it, which had a large number of finds through it -- especially ring and spur setters. Pots were also found, nails in quantity and fragments of a roof tile. A fine pink-red deposit wa found above the clay layer, probably staining from tiles subsequently removed. Below the white clay layer, which appears to have been the bedding for the later floor, was a thin layer of sand, and below this again a silt and clay layer representing virgin soiL

The wooden post base in the north east corner of the square is consistent with those found elsewhere, and suggests an inner ring of posts to support a lean-to tiled roof.

Area J (J 1,3,5,9 and J 11)

These squares span the area between structures A & B.

The main surface feature visible was a soil colour change in the central area; here there was a roughly circular spread of black extremely sticky soiL This was found principally in n, J3 and J9. After excavation it was found to correspond to a layer of densely-packed rubble consisting of brick, often glazed, saggers and sherds lying about 4" - 6" below the surface.

This waste material appeared to have been thrown deliberately between the mill and the kiln to make an allweather walking surface. The swamp growth developed after -aabandonment of the site when excessive moisture was retained by the clay and rubble surface.

A similar surface occurred in A2 on the North East side of the kiln although there was no comparable organic development.

The most interesting square in this area was J5, the square just north of the Al stoke-hole. Here below the grass and humus of (1) and (2) layer (3) continued the weathered brick rubble and iron band fragments of the upper layers to the south of it, i.e. the collapse of the kiln. Below this was the old ground surface (4), grittier in texture with waterworn pebbles, some charcoal and a scattering of sherds to the north (continuing the rubble

: spread of J, 3 and 9). To the south end of J5 there was a much greater concentration of sherds in (4) - tightly packed unglazed red ware, with glazed yellow wares increasing towards east and west, the working surface near the Al stoke-hole.

Below (4) was a yellow and grey clay layer with more charcoal, pebbles, sherds and' rubble (5) again becoming denser and dipping towards the south with a distinct cut noticeable now in the southern half of the square. Below (5) was another layer of rubble fill and mixed sherds (6), marking the cutting down to the stoke-hole of the kiln in lAL This was black and silty with clay lumps, i.e. redeposited top-soil when the kiln and fire hole were dug.

Running East-West across J5 just North of the cutting down to the fire-hole was a probable rubble drain at greater depth, yet to be investigate; with yellow clay packing above it like that of the H drains.

In Jll just to the West of J5 and the Al fire-hole the only evidence of the swampy black puddle was in the extreme North-East corner. In general the West side of this square had drier sandier soil in (3) with pottery, traces of wood chips and nails which may indicate the location of a wood pile. The East side dipped down in the South-East corner towards the firehole, with a dark ashy deposit probably shovelled from the fire to the North. There was some rubble material here in (3) but it was by no means concentrated.

,I I ,I I I I I I I I I' t I I I I 'I I I I I

-----

Structure F

Immediately to the north of the clay pit was a structure (F) discernible by its surface features. Some 35 ft. (East/West) by 23 ft., it appeared to consist of a number of parallel regular ridges and depressions running North South, and it marked the end of the broad track leading Soh twards e cay pitfrom the causeway.

To investigate the nature and extent of this structure the area was gridded into 10' squares and a number of trenches set out. These revealed that the area was a carefully-prepared substructure of 'corduroy' onstruction on a rubble-clay foundation, contained within a brick foooting and covered with a layer of white clay which may (by analysing with Kiln A) have formed the matrix for a tile floor subsequently robbed.

The nature of the stratification within Structure F was revealed by a series of trenches in FI, F4, F3-1O-9 (long trench) and two trenches in F5 - 13. All these revealed a consistent pattern of turf above a light brown sandy soil (2) which in turn covered a white powdery clay deposit (4). This white clay formed the matrix as well as the covering for a series of horizontal logs (about 6" in diameter) set North/South on average some 18" apart. Many of these logs had rotted forming the parallel depressions which characterized the presentday surface.

Betweeen the logs were rows of brick, tile and saggar rubble forming the parallel ridges (5), also set in grey white clay; and logs and rubble packing together were packed above a lower layer of darker clay with added brick rubble (9), probled in trench F4 West. Where it was excavated outside the south wall of Fin F4 extension the rubble-in-clay layer wa spread above a red-grey-yellow clay layer (15) which in turn lay above the old natural surface. (16). A few nails were found along the lines of the logs, i and occasional sherds and some fragments of chitter (coal waste) were found in the white clay layer (4).

The character of the rubble lines is of some interest, since some pottery was found in it as well as the broken floor tiles (usually with greenish colour rather than the bluish-white glaze of Kiln A, and occasional tapered bricks. The pottery included both lemon leadglazed pieces and stoneware, and the latter together with the green- glazed bricks confIrmS the eexistence of a comparatively early salt-glazing kiln somewhere on the property from which the foundations of F were derived.

The limits of structure F were ascertained on all sides (Fl ext, on the East, F7 /8, FIO and Fl2 to the North, F5/13 North and South to the West and F4 West and East to the South) although no signs of an entrance if any, existed, appeared in the excavated areas. On the North and South sides a low well-constructed brick wall was uncovered - two bricks wide, three courses preserved (in Fl2,) four in F4, laid stretcher, header, stretcher. .

This wall was shown to have been laid on the lower brick and clay rubble packing (9) in F4. Outside this wall on all sides appears to have been a rubble and pottery pavement or walking surface (eg. Fl3 N (14), F9 (14) F7/8 (7), F4 (5a) and Fl (3)). This mostly overlaid the former ground surface which contained charcoal and chitter in this area.

The precise function of this structure cannot be determined but its role as a solid allweather foundation cannot be doubted. The enclosing wall was not particularly substantial and was unlikely itself to have supported a major super-structure. However, the corduroy platform could have been a base for machinery, possibly that connected with exploiting or pumping the clay pit although no supports were found in the excavated region. Alternatively it may have served as a loading bay for wares on their way to dray to the river - a more likely explanation in view of the probable extension of the corduroy track north to the causeway. IfF was originally tiled such a purpose is particularly likely. Again, the white clay matrix (4) over and awround the clay and log packing may simply itself have fallen from drays drawn up here to unload the white clay which King had to import from Stroud.

,I I ,I I 'I I I I I I I I

I I I,

I I I I I

Structure H

HI

The main feature of this square is the brick flue inlet, formed by an eastern and a western brick projection with a low-level floor between consisting of 7 rows of bricks on edge. The eastern side has been robbed to its foundation course, and the trench filled with brick and saggar rubble from the adjacent kiln A area. The western side however still stands to a height of four courses and also preserves its junction with the flue to the south in H3. Both the floor bricks and the inner faces of the piers shows signs of heat staining. A hard layer of brick rubble and saggar partly mixed with silt (3A) extended over the central part of t.he square at the height of the top of the western pier, and a black silty fill with charcoal, mortar specks, nails, sherds and brick rubble as well as clay rolls, setters and saggar characterised the area between the two piers and also to the North and North-West of them. Several fragments of iron were found in this fill including an iron 'pestle' (inv. ) as well as a lot of pottery. There was some indication that the line of the two brick piers was continued northwards by a single course of bricks; more definitely was the existence of a tiled pavement; beginning on the north part of HI. The area west of the West pier contained fewer finds and was generally less disturbed. The next cuttring HI N however yielded only kiln debris in quantity -- small sherds, clay rolls and gritty silty soil, and no apparent structures. One feature was noted, viz. an E/W division of the soil, black silt with sherds, etc. lying to the south, and a marked line of heavy clay lying to the north. As this clay line could also be traced in H2 to the east in line with its HI appearance it was at one stage thought by comparison with the E/w drain in H64 and H65 to have marked the line of a drain along the N side of H. However, investigation in H2 showed that no drain existed there apart from the central drain and its terminal i soak pit.

H2

This square contained the outlet to the eastern flue, slightly different in form to that of the western flue. Here the eastern pier is partly preserved above ground level, while the base of the western area is formed by foundation of large sandstone blocks. As in HI, the whole robbed area is filled with bricky rubble and a hard-packed layer of saggar, brick fragments and sherds cover the area just below present ground level.

There are both similarities and differences between this area and that of HI. First, it is evident that the western pier in H2, probably of brick, was robbed down to the sandstone foundation course since there is a clear robber fill above this (8) and (6B), but it is nevertheless odd that the 'brick face' in the south section of H2, shows no sign of having been bonded in to such a wall. The use of sandstone as a foundation has not yet been established in HI; the line bricks-on-edge along the inner edge of the eastern pier suggests that this could have been the flooring in this area although no more survived.

The flue mouth was formed by three more - probably two - bricks placed obliquely to allow the passage of hot air. Unfortunately, the flue to the south of the mouth (in H4) was disturbed but the line is clear (fig. ).

The area of H2 to the west of the flue mouth structure contained two finds in its upper layers and none below (7). However, the line of the central drain was traced at a lower level along the western side of this square by means of its clay packing; in this square broken brick cappings and occasionally capping of complete saggar battens replaced the original brick construction. This drain was followed north beyond the limit of H2 to within a few feet of the Kiln A south stoke hole.

Finds in this square were largely confined to the mass of packed rubble and sherds of the SE corner in the upper layers (3A), i.e. overlying the brick structure. This included kiln

,I 'I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

debris decorated pieces, etc. clearly thrown from the waste material of the kiln area after the brick structure itself was no longer in use.

H3

In H3 there are three major features -- the western flue which in the H3 N slit trench can be seen widening just before its junction with the flue -end in HI; the central lower level drain here well preserved down the E side of the square, and a line of rubble pavement down the W side of the square.

The western flue consists here of 2 courses of stretcher bricks, rising to 3 courses in the N wall of H3 south. A characteristic feature of both this and the eastern flue was noted in this square, i.e. the presence of lumps of white clay along its outer edges and sometimes over the top of the top preserved course. The bottom of this flue consisted of red silt possibly from decomposed sandstock brick. (Further south along the flue however it wa s clear that there never had been a brick base). The edges of the cutting into which the flue had been built could be seen clearly in section, with undisturbed dsilty soil on either side of it. Sherds and nails were scattered quite corrunonly over the top layers (2) & (3) but little or nothing below them. A point of interest at the flue mouth is that the flue widens awt this junction, but in its upper courses only (cf. fig. ). The main flue continues to be one full brick length and two brick wide but the outlet width (cf. Seven bricks-on-edge circle) is some inches wider. This was accounted for by the upper course of the western side of the flue which splayed out to line up with the inner face of the western pier; the lowest course continued the original line.

The central drain was first excavated in this square when it was noted that the trench originally dug for the brick drain appeared slightly too wide for the clay and silt packing subsequently replaced into it -- perhaps because of shrinkage of the packing clay. The drain is built of a single course of bricks on edge covered usually by a single course of headers. However, in H3 N a circular saggar base, and a bread pan base reported have been used instead of bricks.

The rubble paving or scatter at the west side of H3 has not been fully investigated but it lies on the line of the internal wall traced in the S part of structure H. This wall was characterised by footings of brick and saggar rubble, as well as timber posts, and the H3 rubble may be its N extension.

H5

Both the western flue and the central drain could be traced clearly through H5 with the elucidation of one or two more interesting features. The western flue could here be seen to consist of a lower course of stretchers, with an inset upper course of bricks on edge. The inner space was one brick length as in H3 there approved to be evidence of a high course of decomposed bricks at this level.

Again there was evidence of white clay lumps along the outer faces of the bricks and there was in addition more evidence than in H3 of the former presence of wooden flooring presumably extending up to and even over the flue. A number of floorboard nails were found on either side of the flue, and four large bolts were regularly spaced along the top of the eastern row of bricks, approximately rectangular arrangement of nails aligned with the flue suggest the pattern of the floor joists, and several fragments of wood and charcoal confirmed the same patterning.

The stratification also was clearer in this square confirming that the main layer or scatter of sherds, glass, nails, etc. was found at the bottom of (2) about 3-4" below the surface, at the junction of softer humus with a harder compacted surface (3). Both the shallow trench for the western flue (4) and the deeper trench for the central drain were cut from

I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I'

this level. The line of the flue was also marked by brick rubble awt a higher lev~l, and sherds and nails, etc. were more concentrated above it and around it.

H7

This square was not completely excavated. In it there was a deeper accumulation of waterborne silt above the King level than in the squares further north -- a tendency increasingly marked in the squares further up the slope.

There was the usual quantity of weathered brick rubble and occasional floor tile lying at a slightly higher level in the general area of the western flue which in this square did not preserve any of its bricks on edge. White clay patches were conspicuous along the line of

, the flue and i there was the usual spread of sherds, glass a.,d nails below the accumulated silt at about the level of the top of the flue in (4). In fact the fmds from H7 were particularly interesting in that they included some glass fragments over the line of the flue apparently from about four different bottles -- one 'black glass' port or spirit bottle and three pale green wine bottles of thinner glass. One of these carried a medallion stamped ST. JULIEN MEDOC, an imported French wine bottle (lnv. 7187). Also scattered over this square were a large number of unglazed white sherds of distinctive fonn, some stamped with a leaf mould from several garden urns or jardinieres (Inv. 7182) (some of which were found in both higher levels of H7 and also in H).

The line of the central drain passes through the east side of this square, and was not excavated.

H9

In H9 the central drain lay wholly under the eastern baulk (between H9 and the early slit trench H9E). However the western flue was clearly traceable through the square, while the fIrst evidence was found of a row of posts with rubble footing and clay packing here called the west internal wall.

The line of this wall with posts at 4'6" centres could be traced back to the south wall of H. Its extension north has yet to be excavated as much of its line lies under existing baulks. The stratification in H9 was particularly clear. After removal of the turf the N/S line of the flue could be seen as a depression in the soil. Its trench had been cut into the virgin soil (3) on the east side of the flue and the more clayey and pebbly (5) on the west side of the flue.

Both had slight specks of charcoal -- doubtless the result of grass or bush-fIres -- but no other evidence of human disturbance. Between them lay the flue cutting in which the single course edges of the flue were packed outside and above with lumps of grey-white clay while brick rubble from the collapsed bricks-on-edge second course was mixed with clay and soil together with sherds, charcoal and nails above it. Nails, several of them bent were particularly common along the line of the flue. At this height on either side, above (3) and (5) respectively, was the deep'silty layer (2) the bottom of which particularly was characterised by the spread of sherds, glass, nails and charcoal marking the main floor level and occupation material of H. As usual the number of nails confinned that there was originally a wooden floor.

Along the extreme western side of the square was another soil change. An irregular trench (6) was cut into the natural soil of (5) and packed with clay and rubble. Two wooden posts (and much charcoal) were set in it with a third probably in the NW corner of the square. Between them, and just to the W of the line through their centres lay a rough paving of broken pottery and saggars including a ihigh proportion of soft-fIred ware. A large number of nails were found near the posts.

,I 'I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I 'I I I

Hll

In Hll the line of the flue was cleared to confirm its continuation southwards. The bricks were somewhat roughly laid here using half bricks as well as whole. Several had diamond frogs. No bricks-on-edge were preserved in-situ, although a good scatter of weathered bricks and an occasional floortile were found scattered above the line of the flue as usual. The same general stratification was found, the flue being packed on either side with grey-white clay.

A trial trench in the SE corner of Hll confirmed the presence there at a lower level of the central drain its construction the same as in H3 and H5. On the western side of the squarew virtually in the baulk were two parts of the western interioir wall continuing fromH9.

H 13 (and its extension south, H65)

Hl3 and H65 included the south wall of structure H, the end of the western flue, the junction of the central drain with the cross drain running E/W just outside the back wall of H (in H65) and also the southern end of the internal western wall in the extreme western edge ofH 13.

The most dominant feature of the square was the flue terminal -- a rectangular brick structure covered and packed with fallen brick rubble standing three courses high at its southern end. The sides of this structure are two bricks wide and it was presumably a low footing for a chimney stack. It is noticeable that this chimney projected 2 feet beyond the line of the south wall of H.

The flue and chimney are set in a clayey floor (6) on which were lying flat sherds, nails, peach stones, glass, charcoal, a sickle, etc. This occupastion continues quite deep (some 3-4"). Lying on it to the W of the flue and chimney is a mass of white clay (5) mixed with lumps of brownish clay with occasional nails and pieces of shell in it. (6) also overlies the central drain and a number of very thin window glass frasgments were concentrated near its southern end.

The southern wall of structure H is marked in H 13 by a line of posts, brick, pottery and charcoal 4" wide also containing glass, this time molten. It is cut through by the brick chimney and its overlying rubble.

To the south of this wall lay an impressive brick drain, some two feet below ground level at this point.

The Eastern Wing (H 59, 60, 61, H 62-3

In squares H59, 60, and 61 a clear line of posts and palings appeared along their eastern sides on the same orientation as the main line of posts through square H4, 6, 8, 10, etc. Moreover, it then became clear that the distance between these two levels of posts is the same as the distance between the interior western wall and the extreme western line of posts. Subsequently the south east corner was excavated CH 62, H 63).

H 59-60-61

It is simplest to consider these three squares together, since they were similar to each other and also were the only example of this eastern wing to be dug.

H59, the fIrst of these squares excavated, gradually revealed a rough pavement over most of it made of random floor-tiles flattened large saggar fragments and a lot of broken pottery and other fInds trodden on to it. This just 1 appeared in the NW corner where it

, was highest (3) but was eventually traced at uneven depths over most of the square «3)-

I 'I I I ~I

I I I I I I I I i I I 'I, I, t I I

(4)). Towards the western edge of the square was a mass of clay forming a low mound, which was found to cover a post hole.

A sprinkling of sand also occurred throughout the eastern half of this square, excavated in 1971. Later excavation completed the western half of the square, showing the continuation of the paving especially into the NE quarter, and also the existence of a post in the extreme SE corner, the first of a line extending S & N. This square produced many good sherds, especially from the strip trench along the inner side of the palings and posts (cf. Inv. Finds List).

In H60 the line of posts and palings continued along the western side. There was a small area of bricky rubble paving in the NW quarter and a more extensive area in the south and south-east quarter which continued through into the greater part of H61. Many finds, sherds, part of a mould, glass, nails and charcoal were scattered on and in this rubble paving which was found to be a roughly-laid floor. Bricks were set obliquely, one deep, their tops weathered and worn; some were set into pockets of mortar. Several peach stones were found on this paving and these were also found in squares Hl2 and Hl4 west of the line of palings.

When the bricks (3) of H 61 were removed in one area, a hard-packed pebbly layer (4) with more sherds and some charcoal was revealed below. A number of nails were scattered both above and below the brick floor. The brick floor thinned and disappeared in H6l about 1 ft. west of the western edge. Investigation then showed that the hardpacked clay and pebble layer of (4) which had been found under the brick floor in the east also continued in the west to the edge of the square with its associated sherds, glass, etc. Thus the brick surface was evidently a later addition laid over an already existing earth and pebble floor.

The main area of the secondary brick floor appears to be the northern two-thirds of H 61 and the S half of H 60. It may well have marked the end of a service track some 10- 12 ft. wide leading to a loading bay or door in the middle of the east side of H.

H62-3

In 1974 and 5 the south east corner post of this part of H was excavated, together with the main east-west drain lying just to the south of the south wall of H, which at this point turns,north to end in a soak pit at the junction of H 62 and H 61. At this point the drain was well" made, its cover bricks intact and a similar packing of pottery wasters above them to that in H 64. Originally it appears the drain turned north through a right angled bend. Subsequently, this was rounded to allow for easier flow. Among the predominantly terracotta waster sherds above the H 65 of the drain was a large sherd with male face moulding ( ). Two rotten palings in situ either side of the large post in H 63 confIrmed its role as the SE cover of H.

The Western Wing CH 28-7, 26-5, H 22-4 W Ext.)

Only in the course of the 73/12 season was the existence of the western internal wall discovered (in squares H 11) as for the most part it ran under baulks. It was subsequently laid in the west baulk of H 13, and was retrospectively recognised in the extreme western edge of H 3. In all these squares the character of the wall was similar -- wooden posts at the usual 3'6" centres placed along a line of clay packed with pottery and saggar fragments.

H28

This square formed the SW corner of H, an area evidently specifically concerned with the storage of clay. In H 28 nine evenly spaced square brick piers of 2 bricks 2 courses high appeared to have supported square wooden bins for clay storage. The existence of the

I I ,I, I I I 'I 'I I 'I, II ,I I I I 'I I I I I

western internal wall clarified what had earlier seemed a curious feature namely the storage of clay in a drying shed. White clay appeared to have been stored in the southern half of the area (6B), more mottled or mixed clays were found to the north (6A) and (6C). Nails and charcoal were found above these layers as well as pottery, suggesting wooden covers on the bins. The brick piers stood upon the underlying clayey native soil (7). Down the western side of the square was a thick layer of charcoal and nails with a great deal of pottery and glass (5) which also overlay (7). Some interesting pottery and a wine glass came from this square. In this NW area sherds were found between layers of charcoal suggesting the possibility of brick shelves. Other finds included a patch of greenish powder (possibly glaze) a clay pipe stem and a metal wedge. In the mottled brown clay towards the N of the squarew was found a reddish thin layer of decomposed metal sheeting -- possibly early galvanised iron. Another row of piers continued into the western baulk of this square, and the line of posts representing the west wall was found along the eastern edge of H 27.

H26

H26 lay immediately to the N of H28 i.e. forming the adjacent part of the west wing. As in H28 the parts of the external west wall did not quite fall within the square but rather just to the west of it in H25.

Some features of H26 suggeted that it might have had internal partitions, perhaps leading into the clay store. Two low brick footings were found, one in the SW corner of i the square - a 2-course constr_uction comparable to the more usual flues except that it was so truncated and a single line of bricks in the NE projecting from the E baulk.

While the form of these 'structures' was extremely flimsy they appeared to delimit an area notably in (3) on which finds of all kinds -- nails, glass pottery, metal, -- were concentrated in contrast to the northern and western edges of the square. Certainly this area had a wooden floor. The brick lines were sitting on (and slightly sunk into) (4) a clayey natural layer with river pebbles. The SW double line was distinguished by an extremely thick layer of charcoal with some nails and a little pottery which lay between the two faces and extended around its ends. It may well represent the burnt remains of an original wooden cover or bench top.

This H27 largely lay outside structure H. Its excavation in 1974-5 however revealed that the drain which ran east-west behind the structure continued through H66 and then turned north through a right angle and ended with what was probably a wooden cover. The water flowed north of this over a thin pottery scatter (3). This included a particularly interesting shattered pot -- a dark lead-glazed terracotta jardiniere with the of ours of the American colony on one side, and an Aphrodite moulding on the other, which with its flaking designs had been an unsaleable piece.

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

1

APPENDIX D

GUIDELINES TO THE BURRA CHARTER: CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSERVATION POLICY 6 pp


GUIDELINES TO THE BURRA CHARTER: CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

These guidelines for the establishment of cultural significance were adopted by the Australian national committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Australia ICOMOS) on 14 April 1984 and revised on 23 April 1988. They should be read in conjunction with the Burra Charter.

Contents 1.0 Preface 1.1 Intention of guidelines 1.2 Applicability 1.3 Need to establish cultural significance 1.4 Skills required 1.5 Issues not considered

2.0 The Concept of Cultural Significance 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Aesthetic value 2.3 Historic value 2.4 Scientific value 2.5 Social value 2.6 Other approaches

3.0 The Establishment of Cultural Significance 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Collection of information 3.3 The assessment of cultural significance

3.3.1 Extent of recording 3.3.2 Intervention in the fabric 3.3.3 Hypotheses

3.4 Statement of cultural significance

4.0 The Report 4. I Content 4.2 Written material 4.3 Graphic material 4.4 Sources 4.5 Exhibition and adoption

1.0 PREFACE

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Intention of guidelines These guidelines are intended to clarify the nature of professional work done within the terms of the Burra Charter. They recommend a methodical procedure for assessing the cultural significance of a place, for preparing a statement of cultural significance and for making such information publicly available.

Applicability The guidelines apply to any place likely to be of cultural significance regardless of its type or size.

Need to establish cultural significance The assessment of cultural significance and the preparation of a statement of cultural significance, embodied in a report as defined in section 4.0, are essential prerequisites to making decisions about the future of a place.

Skills required In accordance with Article 4 of the Burra Charter, the study of a place should make use of all relevant disciplines. The professional skills required for such

study are not common. It cannot be assumed that anyone practitioner will ~ave the full range of skills required to assess cultural significance and prepare a statement. Sometimes in the course of the task it will be necessary to engage addit ional practitioners with special expertise.

1.5 Issues not considered The assessment of cultural significance and the preparation of a statement do not involve or take account of such issues as the necessity for conservation action, legal constraints, possible uses, structural stability or costs and returns. These issues will be dealt with in the development of a conservation policy.

2.0 THE CONCEPT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICA~CE

2.1 Introduction

2.2

2.3

In the Burra Charter cultural significance means "aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations".

Cultural significance is a concept which helps in estimating the value of places. The places that are likely to be of significance are those which help an understanding of the past or enrich the present, and which will be of value to future generations.

Although there are a variety of adjecti\'es used in definitions of cultural significance in Australia, the adjectives "aesthetic", "historic", "scientific" and "social", given alphabetically in the Burra Charter, can encompass all other values.

The meaning of these terms in the context of cultural significance is discussed below. It should be noted that they are not mutually exclusive, for example, architectural style has both hi~toril: and aesthetic aspects.

Aesthetic value .-\esthetic value includes aspects of sensory pen:eption for which criteria can and should be slaled. Such criteria may include consideration of lhe form, scale, colour, texture and material of the fabric; I he smells and sounds associated with the place and its use.

Historic value Historic value encompasses the history of acsthel ies, science and society, and therefore to a large extent underlies all of the terms set out in lhi~ se<.:lion.

A place may have historic value be<.:allsc il ha~ influenced, or has been influenced by, an hbtoril: figure, event, phase or activity. It may also have historic value as the site of an importal1! event. For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survivcs in sit u, or where the settings are substantially inl act, Ihan where it has been changed or evidence does nol survive. However, some events or assoeial iOIl\ IlIay be so important that the place retains \i~llifiLallec regardless of subscquent treatmcllt.

I I 2.4

I I 2.5

I 2.6

I I

3.0

I 3.1

I I I

Scientific value The scientific or research value of a place wiII depend upon the importance of the data involved, on its rarity, quality or representativeness, and on the degree to which the place may contribute further substantial information.

Social value Social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment to a majority or minority group.

Other approaches The categorisation into aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values is one approach to understanding the concept of cultural significance. However, more precise categories may be developed as understanding of a particular place increases.

THE EST ABLISH~IE~T OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Introduction In establishing the cultural significance of a place it is necessary to assess all the information relevant to an understanding of the place and its fabric. The task includes a report comprising written material and graphic material. The content~ of the report should be arranged to suit the place and the limitations on the task, but it wiII generally be in two sections: first, the assessment of cultural significance (see 3.2 and 3.3) and second, the statement of cultural significance (see 3.4).

3.2 Collection of information

I ,I I I I I I I I I

Information relevant to the assessment of cultural significance should be collected. Such information concerns: (a) the developmental sequence of the place and its

relationship to the surviving fabric; (b) the existence and nature of lost or obliterated

fabric; (c) the rarity and/or technical interest of all or any

part of the place; (d) the functions of the place and its parts; (e) the relationship of the place and its parts with

its setting; (f) the cultural influences which have affected the

form and fabric of the place; (g) the significance of the place to people who use

or have used the place, or descendants of such people;

(h) the historical content of the place with particular reference to the ways in which its fabric has been influenced by historical forces or has itself influenced the course of history;

(i) the scientific or research potential of the place; U) the relationship of the place to other places, for

example in respect of design, technology, use, locality or origin;

(k) any other factor relevant to an understanding of the place.

3.3 The assessment of cultural significance The assessment of cultural significance follows the collection of information.

The validity of the judgements will depend upon the care with which the data is collected and the reasoning applied to it.

In assessing cultural significance the practitioner should state conclusions. Unresolved aspects should be identified. Whatever may be considered the principal significance of a place, all other aspects of significance should be given consideration.

3.3.1 Extent of recording -In assessing these matters a practItIOner should record the place sufficiently to provide a basis for the necessary discussion of the facts. During such recording any obviously urgent problems endangering the place, such as stability and security, should be reported to the client.

3.3.2 Intervention in the fabric -Intervention in, or removal of, fabric at this stage should be strictly within the terms of the Burra Charter.

3.3.3 Hypotheses -Hypotheses, however expert or informed, should not be presented as established fact. Feasible or possible hypotheses should be set out, with the evidence for and against them, and the line of reasoning that has been followed. Any attempt which has been made to check a hypothesis should be recorded, so as to avoid repeating fruitless research.

3.4 Statement of cultural significance The practitioner should prepare a succinct statement of cultural significance, supported by, or cross referenced to, sufficient graphic material to help identify the fabric of cultural significance.

I t is essential that the statement be clear and pithY, expressing simply why the place is of value but not restating the physical or documentary evidence.

4.0 THE REPORT

4.1 Content The report wiII comprise written and graphic material and wiII present an assessment of cultural significance and a statement of cultural significance.

In order to avoid unnecessary bulk, only material directly relevant to the process of assessing cultural significance and to making a statement of cultural significance should be included. See also Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.

4.2 Written material The text should be clearly set out and easy to follow. In addition to the assessment and statement of cultural significance as set out in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 it should include: (a) name of the client; (b) names of all the practitioners engaged in thl!

task;


4.3

(c) authorship of the report; (d) date; (e) brief or outline of brief; (f) constraints on the task, for example, time,

money, expertise; (g) sources (see 4.4).

Graphic material Graphic material may include maps, plans, drawings, diagrams, sketches, photographs and tables, and should be reproduced with suificient quality for the purposes of interpretation.

All components discussed in the report should be identified in the graphic material. Such components should be identified and described in a schedule.

Detailed drawings may not be necessary. A diagram may best assist the purpose of the report.

Graphic material which does not serve a specific purpose should not be included.

1 __ -

4A

4.5

Sources All sources used in the report must be cited with sufficient precision to enable others to locate them.

It is necessary for all sources consulted to be listed, even if not cited.

All major sources or collections not consulted, but believed to have potential usefulness in establishing cultural significance, should be listed.

In respect of source material privately held the name and address of the owner should be gi\·en, but only with the owner's consent.

Exhibition and adoption The report should be exhibited and the statement of cultural significance adopted in accordance with Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.

. ' .•...•.. ': ·'''''f:;:P], • , u •

I I I I I I I I I I "I I I I I I I I I I I·.

GUIDELINES TO THE BURRA CHARTER: CONSERVATION POLICY

These guidelines, which cover the development of conservation policy and strategy for implementation of that policy, were adopted by the Australian national committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Australia ICOMOS) on 25 May 1985 and revised on 23 April 1988. They should be read in conjunction with the Burra Charter.

Contents 1.0 Preface 1.1 Intention of guidelines 1.2 Cultural significance 1.3 Need to develop conservation policy 1.4 Skills required

2.0 The Scope of the Conservation Policy 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Fabric and setting 2.3 Use 2.4 Interpretation 2.5 Management 2.6 Control of physical intervention in the fabric 2.7 Constraints on investigation 2.8 Future developments 2.9 Adoption and review

3.0 Development of Conservation Policy 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Collection of information

3.2.1 Significant fabric 3.2.2 Client, owner and user requirements and

resources 3.2.3 Other requirements and concerns 3.2.4 Condition of fabric 3.2.5 Uses 3.2.6 Comparative information 3.2.7 Unavailable information

3.3 Assessment of information 3.4 Statement of conservation policy 3.5 Consequences of conservation policy

4.0 Implementation of Conservation Policy

5.0 The Report 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Written material 5.3 Graphic material 5.4 Sources

1.0 PREFACE

1.1 Intention of guidelines These guidelines are intended to clarify the nature of professional work done within the terms of the Burra Charter. They recommend a methodical procedure for development of the conservation policy for a place, for the statement of conservation policy and for the strategy for the implementation of that policy.

1.2 Cultural significance The establishment of cultural significance and the preparation of a statement of cultural significance are essential prerequisites to the development of a conservation policy (refer to Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance).

1.3 Need to develop conservation policy The development of a consen"ation policy, embodied in a report as defined in Section 5.0, is an essential prerequisite to making decisions about the future of the place.

I A Skills required In accordance with the Burra Chaner, the study of a place should make use of all rele\ ant disciplines. The professional skills required for such study are not common. It cannot be assumed that anyone practitioner will have·the full range of skills required to develop a conservation policy and prepare the appropriate report. In the course of the task it may be necessary to consult with other practitioners and organisations.

2.0 THE SCOPE OF THE CO:'\SERV A TIO:'\ POLICY

2.1 Introduction The purpose of the conservation policy is to state how the conservation of the place may best be achieved both in the long and shon term. It will be specific to that place. The conservation policy will include the issues listed below.

2.2 Fabric and setting The conservation policy should identify the most appropriate way of caring for the fabric and setting of the place arising out of the statement of significance and other constraints. A specific combination of conservation actions should be identified. This mayor may not in\ ol\"e changes to the fabric.

2.3 Use The conservation policy should identify a use or combination of uses, or constraint~ on use, tflat are compatible with the retention of the cultural "significance of the place and that are feasible.

2A Interpretation The conservation policy should identify appropriate ways of making the significance of the place understood consistent with the retention of that significance. This may be a combination of the treatment of the fabric, the use of the place and the use of introduced interpretative material.

In some instances the cultural significance and other constraints may preclude the introduction of such uses and material.

2.5 Management The conservation policy should identify a management structure through which the conservation policy is capable of being implemented. It should also identify: (a) those to be responsible for subsequent

conservation and management decisions and for the day-to-day management of the place;

(b) the mechanism by which these decisions arc tll be made and recorded;

(c) the means of providing security and regulal maintenance for the place.

==r=r ,-


2.6 Control of physical intervention in the fabric The conservation policy should include provisions for the control of physical intervention. It may: (a) specify unavoidable intervention; (b) identify the likely impact of any intervention

on the cultural significance; (c) specify the degree and nature of intervention

acceptable for non-conservation purposes; (d) specify explicit research proposals; (e) specify how research proposals will be assessed; (f) provide for the conservation of significant

fabric and contents removed from the place; (g) provide for the analysis of material; (h) provide for the dissemination of the resultant

information; (i) specify the treatment of the site when the

intervention is complete.

2.7 Constraints on investigation The conservation policy should identify social, religious, legal or other cultural constraints which might limit the accessibility or investigation of the place.

2.8 Future developments The conservation policy should set guidelines for future developments resulting from changing needs.

2.9 Adoption and review The conservation policy should contain provision for adoption and review.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF CONSERVATION POLICY

3.1 Introduction In developing a. conservation policy for the place it is necessary to assess all the information relevant to the future care of the place and its fabric. Central to this task is the statement of cultural significance.

The task includes a report as set out in Section 5.0. The contents of the report should be arranged to suit the place and the limitations of the task, but it will generally be in three sections: (a) the development of a conservation policy (see

3.2 and 3.3); (b) the statement of conservation policy (see 3.4

and 3.5); (c) the development of an appropriate strategy for

implementation of the conservation poUcy (see 4.0).

3.2 Collection of information In order to develop the conservation policy sufficient information relevant to the following should be collected:

3.2.1 Significant fabric -Establish or confirm the nature, extent, and degree of intactness of the significant fabric including contents (see Guidelines to Burra Charter: Cultural Significance).

3.2.2 Client, owner and user requirements and resources -Investigate needs, aspirations, current proposals, available finances, etc., in respect of the place.

1=-------___ _

3.2.3 Other requirements and concerns -Investigate other requirements and concerns likely to affect the future of the place and its setting including: (a) federal, state and 'local government acts,

ordinances and planning controls; (b) community needs and expectations; (c) locational and social context.

3.2.4 Condition of fabric -Survey the fabric sufficiently to establish how its physical state will affect options for the treatment of the fabric.

3.2.5 Uses -Collect information about uses, sufficient to determine whether or not such uses are compatible with the significance of the place and feasible.

3.2.6 Comparative information -Collect comparative information about the conservation of similar places (if appropriate).

3.2.7 Unavailable information -Identify information which has been sought and is unavailable and which may be critical to the determination of the conservation policy or to its implementation.

3.3 Assessment of information The information gathered above should now be assessed in relation to the constraints arising from the statement of cultural significance for the purpose of developing a conservation policy.

In the course of the assessment it may be necessary to collect further information.

3.4 Statement of conservation policy The practitioner should prepare a statement of conservation policy that addresses each of the issues listed in 2.0, viz.: - fabric and setting; -use; - interpretation; - management; - control of intervention in the fabric; - constraints on investigation; - future developments; - adoption and review.

The statement of conservation policy should be cross-referenced to sufficient documentary and graphic material to explain the issues considered.

3.5 Consequenc.es of conservation policy The practitioner should set out the way in which the implementation of the conservation policy will or will not: (a) change the place including its setting; (b) affect its significance; (c) affect the locality and its amenity; (d) affect the client, owner and user; (e) affect others involved.

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

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION POLICY

Following the preparation of the conservation policy a strategy for its implementation should be prepared in consultation with the client. The strategy may include information about: (a) the financial resources to be used; (b) the technical and other staff to be used; (c) the sequence of events; (d) the timing of events; (e) the management structure.

The strategy should allow the implementation of the conservation policy under changing circumstances.

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 Introduction The report is the vehicle through which the conservation policy is expressed, and upon which conservation action is based.

See also Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.

5.2 Written material Written material will include: (a) the statement of cultural significance; (b) the development of conservati.on policy; (c) the statement of conservation policy; (d) the strategy for implementation of conservation

policy.

It should also include: (a) name of the client;

(b) names of all the practitioners engaged in the task, the work they undertook, and any separate reports they prepared;

(c) authorship of the report; (d) date; -(e) brief or outline of brief; (f) constraints on the task, for example, time,

money, expertise; (g) sources (see 5.4).

5.3 Graphic material Graphic material may include maps, plans, drawings, diagrams, sketches, photographs and tables, clearly reproduced.

Material which does not serve a specific purpose should not be included.

5.4 Sources All sources used in the report must be cited with sufficient precision to enable others to locate them.

All sources of information, both documentary and oral, consulted during the task should be listed, whether or not they proved fruitful.

In respect of source material privately held, the name and address of the owner should be given, but only with the owner's consent. -

5.5 Exhibition and adoption The report should be exhibited and the statement of conservation policy adopted in accordance with Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.