Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites

Prepared by:Heritage Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

References throughout to the Heritage Victoria website refer to:www.heritage.vic.gov.au which includes the searchable Victorian Heritage Database.The Victorian Heritage Register (places and objects of state significance) is also available through the iPhone App: Vic_Heritage.

Version 2A: July 2015Version 2: January 2014Version 1 published, December 2012 online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au© State of Victoria, 2012.ISBN 978 1 921940 86 6

Disclaimer

This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Heritage Victoria8 Nicholson St, Melbourne 3000PO Box 500, Melbourne, Victoria 8002Phone: 136 186Email: archaeology.admin@delwp.vic.gov.auWeb: www.heritage.vic.gov.au

2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

1. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL 71.1 Permit or Consent Approval.............................................................7

1.2 Site Statement of Significance.........................................................8

1.3 Research Design..............................................................................9

1.4 Excavation Methodology................................................................11

1.5 Artefact Retention Policy................................................................12

1.5.1 Artefact sampling and discard........................................................12

1.6 Artefact Management Proposal......................................................13

1.6.1 Alternate artefact repositories........................................................13

1.7 Artefact identifiers...........................................................................14

2. FIELDWORK 162.1 Implement Excavation Methodology..............................................16

2.2 Artefact Retention Policy................................................................16

2.3 Artefact recording and management..............................................16

2.4 Discovery of dangerous material....................................................16

2.5 Discovery of human remains..........................................................17

2.6 Field Conservation.........................................................................17

2.7 Preliminary management recommendations..................................18

3. CONSERVATION, ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND SUBMISSION OF ARTEFACTS 19

3.1 Artefact Conservation Proposal......................................................19

3.2 Catalogue completion.....................................................................20

3.3 Artefact analysis.............................................................................21

3.4 Site analysis and addressing the Research Design.......................22

3.5 Assemblage Statement of Significance..........................................22

3.6 Revised site Statement of Significance..........................................24

3.7 Management recommendations.....................................................24

3.8 Submission of artefacts and records..............................................25

3.9 Project Report................................................................................25

3

APPENDIX A ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CASE STUDIES 27A.1 Case studies background................................................................................27

A.1.1 Site Statement of Significance.......................................................28

A.1.2 Research Design............................................................................28

A.1.3 Excavation Methodology................................................................30

A.1.4 Artefact Retention Policy................................................................31

A.2 Scenario One – large and diverse assemblage with high significance............32

A.2.1 Artefact analysis and interpretation................................................32

A.2.2 Assemblage Statement of Significance..........................................36

A.2.3 Revised site Statement of Significance..........................................37

A.2.4 Artefact Conservation Proposal......................................................38

A.2.5 Management recommendations.....................................................40

A.2.6 Submission of artefacts and records..............................................40

A.3 Scenario Two - small and limited assemblage with low significance...............41

A.3.1 Artefact analysis and interpretation................................................41

A.3.2 Assemblage Statement of Significance..........................................43

A.3.3 Revised site Statement of Significance..........................................43

A.3.4 Artefact Conservation Proposal......................................................43

A.3.5 Management recommendations.....................................................43

A.3.6 Submission of artefacts and records..............................................44

APPENDIX B PREPARATION OF ARTEFACTS FOR SUBMISSION 45B.1 Artefact handling............................................................................45

B.2 Cleaning artefacts prior to packing.................................................45

B.3 Damp or waterlogged artefacts......................................................46

B.4 Objects from contaminated or salt affected sites............................46

B.5 Artefact packaging..........................................................................46

B.6 Labelling materials.........................................................................46

B.7 Packing materials...........................................................................47

B.8 Policy for handling dangerous materials.........................................47

B.9 Policy for handling human remains................................................48

B.10 Joins...............................................................................................48

B.11 Box numbering...............................................................................48

APPENDIX C MATERIAL SUPPLIERS 49

APPENDIX D ARTEFACT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES 51

4

D.1 Conservation requirements...........................................................51

D.2 Treating artefacts..........................................................................51

D.2.1 Wet and damp versus dry burial environments.............................52

D.2.2 Salt affected artefacts...................................................................52

D.2.3 Organic materials..........................................................................52

D.2.4 Metal artefacts..............................................................................53

D.2.5 Ceramic, Glass, Stone and Siliceous materials............................55

D.2.6 Faunal material.............................................................................55

D.2.7 Conservation case studies............................................................55

D.3 Personal safety..............................................................................56

D.4 Documentation..............................................................................56

D.5 Storage requirements....................................................................56

APPENDIX E CONSERVATION REFERENCES 57

APPENDIX F POST-CONTACT ARTEFACT REFERENCES 59F.1 Ceramic..........................................................................................59

F.2 Glass..............................................................................................61

F.3 Small Finds.....................................................................................63

F.3.1 Buttons...........................................................................................63

F.3.2 Coins..............................................................................................63

F.3.3 Childhood.......................................................................................63

F.3.4 Clay Pipes......................................................................................64

F.3.5 Miscellaneous.................................................................................65

F.4 Building Materials...........................................................................65

F.4.1 Bricks..............................................................................................65

F.4.2 Nails...............................................................................................66

F.4.3 Miscellaneous.................................................................................66

F.5 Faunal Analysis..............................................................................66

F.6 Indigenous post-contact artefacts..................................................67

F.7 Chinese artefacts...........................................................................68

APPENDIX G GENERAL REFERENCES 69

APPENDIX H HERITAGE COUNCIL’S CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 73

5

INTRODUCTIONThe Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites outline the requirements under which Permits and Consents are issued for disturbance to historical and maritime archaeological artefacts and assemblages in Victoria. These approvals are issued under the Heritage Act 1995.

The information relates to the recovery, assessment, conservation, recording, analysis and management of historical archaeological artefacts and assemblages prior to excavation, in the field and post excavation.

The guidelines also establish new requirements for the development of Research Designs and Statements of Significance for both assemblages and sites.

This information assists Heritage Victoria to manage Victoria’s archaeological resources, and facilitate research. It also enables the broader community to understand why archaeological work is undertaken, and to appreciate and value the results.

This document was first published in December 2012 and amended in January 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThese guidelines were prepared by Heritage Victoria’s archaeology and conservation staff with significant contributions from the Archaeology Advisory Committee of the Heritage Council of Victoria.

The committee comprised Anita Smith (Chair), Kristal Buckley, Andrew Jamieson, Susan Lawrence, Peter Lovell, Jamin Moon, Oona Nicolson, Charlotte Smith and Catherine Tucker. The committee also included Heritage Victoria archaeologists Jeremy Smith and Brandi Bugh.

Input was provided by Heritage Victoria staff including former Executive Director Jim Gard’ner, Tim Smith, Steven Avery, Susanna Collis, Anne-Louise Muir, Bethany Sproal, Maddison Miller and Rhonda Steel.

Former committee member Mike McIntyre also made extensive contributions. Peter Davies, Sarah Hayes, Adrienne Ellis and Simon Greenwood reviewed numerous drafts and provided valuable content. The list of references (Appendix F and G) were developed by Susan Lawrence and Peter Davies from the Archaeology Program at La Trobe University.

6

1. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL1.1 Permit or Consent ApprovalIt is necessary to obtain an approval from the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria, in accordance with the Heritage Act 1995 (‘the Act’), for any works which may affect the historical archaeological values of a place.

A Heritage Act Permit or Consent is required even if a Cultural Heritage Management Plan has been approved to authorise archaeological investigations or other subsurface works, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

RequirementsSection 64 of the Act specifies that it is necessary to obtain a Permit from the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria (‘the Executive Director’) to authorise works on a place that is included in the Victorian Heritage Register. The Victorian Heritage Register is a listing of the state’s most significant heritage places and objects.

Section 127 of the Act specifies that a Consent is required to authorise works on a site included in the Heritage Inventory. The Heritage Inventory (‘the Inventory’) is a listing of all known historical archaeological sites in the state. An application must address the requirements outlined in sections 1.2 – 1.7 of this guide. Consent and Permit application forms are available online at www.heritage.vic.gov.au.

7

An application for a Permit or Consent must include the following:

completed Permit or Consent application outline of proposed works, identifying area of heritage impact site description and background history Statement of Significance for the site Research Design Excavation Methodology Artefact Retention Policy Artefact Management Proposal CV of project director and all supervisors, including artefact analysis and

conservation skills Permit or Consent fee

A simplified application may be appropriate for some salvage archaeology projects, provided it is able to address the Research Design and test the archaeological potential raised in the site Statement of Significance. The detail of the application should reflect the complexity and significance of the site.

Where a party other than Heritage Victoria (such as a museum or other institution) has an involvement or responsibility for the conservation, curation or display of artefacts or an assemblage, it is essential that they are also involved in the development, approval and implementation of all management processes.1.2 Site Statement of SignificanceA Statement of Significance describes what is important about a site, and evaluates its cultural heritage significance.

Article 1.2 of The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Australia ICOMOS, 2013) defines cultural heritage significance as follows:

‘Aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual values for past, present or future generations.

Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.

Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.’

An understanding of the significance of a site informs the Research Design, Excavation Methodology, Artefact Retention Policy and other aspects of a field project. The Statement of Significance and the Research Design frame questions which will be addressed through the investigation of the site.

RequirementsA site Statement of Significance must be prepared as part of a Permit or Consent application.

Guidelines for assessing the significance of archaeological sites are detailed in the Guidelines for Conducting Historical Archaeological Surveys (Heritage Council of Victoria & Heritage Victoria, 2009). Section 3.5 of this guide will also assist the site assessment.

The Statement of Significance must utilise the Heritage Council of Victoria’s Criteria for Assessing Cultural Heritage Significance (see Appendix H). Sites may have significance in one or more of the categories. The Statement of Significance must indicate the degree of significance the site has under the relevant criterion (state or local), with supporting evidence where a criterion is met. The Statement of

8

Significance must describe the cultural heritage significance of the place using the following categories of significance:

aesthetic archaeological architectural historical scientific social

Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes (Heritage Council of Victoria, 2010) identifies themes that relate to Victoria’s heritage.

The assessment must also consider the results of previous surveys and investigations of the site or of similar or associated sites. Information on relevant or comparable sites may be found through searches of the Victorian Heritage Database and Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository’s Online Artefact Database. Information about site significance can also be obtained from other statutory listings and registers, archaeology project reports, heritage studies and other publications, from community groups, and by field assessment.

In assessing the significance of an archaeological site, it is important to consider the ‘potential’ values that the site and its associated artefacts may have, even if these values have not been demonstrated. To evaluate the archaeological potential of a site, it is necessary to understand its history and the sequence of activities that have taken place at the site. This information indicates where archaeological features and deposits may be located on a site, and the likelihood that they have survived later phases of disturbance or development. The character of natural and cultural features in the surrounding environment may also contribute to the significance of the site.

The understanding of a site’s significance may change during excavation or post-excavation analysis. The Statement of Significance must be revisited at the end of the project and updated to incorporate and reflect the results of the investigation and the analysis of the artefacts (see section 3.6, and Appendices A.2.3 and A.3.4).

A separate Statement of Significance for the recovered artefact assemblage must be prepared following fieldwork, cataloguing and analysis (see section 3.5, and Appendix A.2.2 and A.3.2).

1.3 Research DesignThe Research Design details how the potential of the site will be scientifically approached, tested and realised. It is the framework that identifies questions which will be addressed as a result of the archaeological investigations. The Excavation Methodology, artefact recovery process, and Artefact Retention Policy will be influenced by the questions identified in the Research Design.

The Research Design is informed by an understanding of the site (as detailed in the Statement of Significance), knowledge of relevant archaeological and historical sources, and appropriate theoretical approaches. It directs and focuses analysis and resources into areas that are most relevant and productive for investigation. The

9

Research Design must consider the entire sequence of a site’s occupation and use, not just the phase that is considered to be the most significant.

By addressing the questions posed in the Research Design, the archaeologist ensures that the findings of an investigation are considered, evaluated, and presented for other archaeologists, researchers, stakeholders and the broader community. A Research Design assists developers, clients, landowners and other stakeholders to understand the archaeological process, why the site is being excavated, and the types of outcomes that will be achieved.

An example of a Research Design is included as Appendix A.1.2.

RequirementsA Research Design (typically 1-2 pages in length, more for sites of high significance) is required for all sites as part of a Permit or Consent application.

While the Research Design questions will guide the strategies in the field, the unpredictable nature of archaeology means some flexibility is required. Where unexpected aspects of the site that were not addressed by the Statement of Significance and Research Design arise during fieldwork, the archaeologist must revise the scope of the site investigation and document all changes.

The level of detail provided in the Research Design depends on what is known about the history of the site and its significance (which may change with excavation). The scope of the Research Design must consider any project constraints. Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes may serve as a source of direction for research questions. In framing the Research Design, it is useful to consider the following three lines of enquiry:

1. Description What features and deposits were identified at the site? When were these features or deposits created? What site formation processes contributed to the stratigraphy? What contexts, phases, and activity areas are evident, and how are these

demonstrated by the various excavation units (trench/square/context/feature)?

Where were the artefacts located? Group features into spatial units based on activity and age.

2. Analysis When were the artefact deposits formed (based on stratigraphic

information and artefact manufacturing dates, etc)? What happened at the site? What were the contexts of discard (primary; secondary;

loss/abandonment/discard; yard/open area/sub-floor/pit/privy/cistern)? Who was responsible for the deposition of artefacts (for example site

occupants at each phase)? How many artefacts were present in each type of deposit (quantities of

each fabric and each function/sub-function group)?

10

3. Interpretation Interpret the results in terms of broader themes, posing questions that help

to inform the Statement of Significance. Compare the results with other relevant sites, related projects and current

research; how does the project fit into broader, regional frameworks and theoretical models?

Indicate how and/or why the subject site differs from other sites.

The questions raised in the Research Design must be addressed at the completion of the project (see section 3.4) and included in the project report. The Research Design should be written in plain English so that it can be understood and appreciated by anyone who may read it.

An example of a Research Design is included as Appendix A.1.2.

1.4 Excavation MethodologyThe Excavation Methodology outlines how the excavation will be undertaken. The purpose of an excavation is to recover and record material evidence which answers research questions and enhances the understanding of the site and its artefacts.

The method by which a site is investigated and recorded should test the site’s archaeological values and potential, as expressed in the site Statement of Significance. It enables the Research Design to be addressed by targeting potentially significant areas and by determining artefact recovery, sampling and discard policies. The Excavation Methodology establishes a context for artefact recovery, and sets a framework for broader site analysis, management and interpretation.

RequirementsAn Excavation Methodology is required as part of all Permit or Consent applications. The development of the Excavation Methodology must consider the extent of any proposed impacts, the perceived significance of the site, the Research Design questions, levels of resourcing, site constraints and other factors. The methodology must consider the following:

What is known about the history of the place? What is the current site condition? Is the full extent of the site known or unknown? What proportion of the site will be investigated? What parts of the site will not be investigated and why? What deposits will be targeted and why? Will all phases of activity be investigated? What resources and constraints exist? How can the questions raised in the Research Design be addressed?

11

The methodology must describe how the deposits will be excavated, record spatial and stratigraphic information and recover artefacts. It must also explain why these methods have been chosen and how they will help address the Research Design.

The Excavation Methodology must include: location of trenches within the site, and reason for selection trench size and dimensions excavation techniques (for example, backhoe stripping, trowel, etc) context and artefact recording systems artefact mapping and recovery techniques (for example, sieve sizes, point

proveniencing, etc).

The recording of excavation details must reflect spatial and temporal units that meaningfully convey the history of the site and site formation processes. Artefact records must include trench, feature, context and phase information so that activity areas can be identified as comprehensively as the integrity of the site permits. An example of an Excavation Methodology is included as Appendix A.1.3.

12

1.5 Artefact Retention PolicyThe Artefact Retention Policy specifies how and why individual artefacts and types of artefacts will be retained, discarded or sampled during an investigation.

The development of a policy prior to the commencement of fieldwork ensures that a considered and consistent approach to artefact management is maintained throughout a project and is an essential component of the documentation for any archaeological collection that results from the investigation. The Artefact Retention Policy should reflect what has been identified as significant at the site, site conditions, the Research Design, and the Excavation Methodology.

RequirementsAn Artefact Retention Policy is required as part of all Permit or Consent applications. The policy should be informed by the perceived significance of the site, and the following questions:

How much sampling will be done? Will samples be taken from each deposit or from ‘intact’ deposits only? Will all material types be sampled? Will only diagnostic artefacts be sampled?

Will surface finds be retained? What artefacts / artefact types will be retained, and why? How will artefact recovery be managed (details of sieve sizes, bulk

recording, point proveniencing etc)? How will artefact retention and discard processes be documented and

recorded? What provisions will be made for the collection of ecofacts (such as pollen

or soil samples)?

1.5.1 Artefact sampling and discardThe sampling and/or discard of individual artefacts, artefact types or other material may be justified in some cases, in particular where it is clear from field observations, stratigraphic evaluations and analysis that archaeological contexts lack integrity.

RequirementsDiscard may be justified if an excessive quantity of redundant materials has been recovered, particularly in the case of building materials. Where the quantity of a class of artefacts is such that its values can be represented in a sample, it may not be necessary for the entire collection to be retained. However all artefacts or other cultural material must be recorded prior to discard, to enable valid statistical assessments to be made.

Sampled materials such as bricks and structural timber, and modern (less than 50 years old) materials should be noted in the report and on context sheets, rather than catalogued and retained. This should be clearly stated in the discard policy. It should be kept in mind that, in some cases, modern materials may be useful for determining the age and/or integrity of deposits, and may warrant retention and cataloguing for this reason.

13

When considering retention/discard options, the policy should clarify whether the recovery of one or more significant artefacts within a less significant assemblage may require the retention of a larger portion of the whole assemblage than would otherwise be the case.

1.6 Artefact Management ProposalAn Artefact Management Proposal details how recovered artefacts will be managed in the field and post-excavation.

Artefacts may be lodged with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository, Museum Victoria, other museums or other repositories subject to approval from Heritage Victoria and the proposed repository.

RequirementsThe project archaeologist must demonstrate a knowledge of field artefact management and conservation processes. They are required to make a submission which details how artefact conservation issues will be addressed in the field. Ideally, qualified conservators should be engaged as part of a project where artefact conservation issues are likely to arise.

Some conservation management issues to consider include:

Is there sufficient space on site for artefact cleaning and processing? Is there a structure or shelter for artefact processing and storage? Are amenities, such as clean water, available? Is furniture, such as tables, shelves and drying racks, required? Are standard artefact processing materials available (such as buckets,

tubs, storage boxes, brushes, Zip-lock bags, trays, labels, markers, gloves, masks)?

Is specialised equipment, such as lights and a fridge, required? Do you have the capacity to manage all artefacts? Do you have the skills to protect and manage significant artefacts if they

are identified? Is there sufficient site security to safeguard the material?

Details of the proposed repository must be submitted as part of the Permit or Consent application. The details of the repository must include proposed storage conditions, artefact management details, address and contact details. The proposed artefact lodgement details must be submitted to Heritage Victoria for approval.

1.6.1 Alternate artefact repositories If it is proposed that the assemblage recovered from a site may be lodged at a repository other than Heritage Victoria, a proposal must be submitted for the approval of the Executive Director which addresses the following:

What is the ownership status of the assemblage?

What custodianship arrangements (if any) are proposed?

14

How will access to the assemblage (for research, exhibition and other purposes) be facilitated and managed?

What will be the conditions of storage and display?

How will the assemblage be managed, and how will the integrity of the collection (ensuring that artefacts do not become separated from identification numbers or from other associated objects) be maintained?

How will the conservation requirements of the assemblage be monitored and addressed?

How will assemblage and object movements be tracked and recorded?

Will the assemblage be stored securely?

The management of the assemblage and of individual objects must be informed by an understanding of the site and artefact significance. Collection management requirements will be more rigorous for collections and objects of high significance, and less complex for those of lower significance (see section 3.5). Artefacts of low or no significance approved for discard by Heritage Victoria offer an opportunity to be stored and/or displayed at places such as educational institutions and community museums. Regardless of the repository the documentation of a site, its assemblage and artefact catalogue must be lodged with Heritage Victoria. The detail required in an artefact catalogue will vary based on the significance of the assemblage.

While Heritage Victoria will retain artefact catalogues for assemblages stored at and managed by alternate facilities, it should be noted that it will not maintain a site’s full catalogue records as it will be a static record. Full catalogues should be maintained by the final repository. Any transfer of assemblages from an alternate repository (with the exception of approved deaccessioned assemblages) should be documented and communicated to Heritage Victoria.

It is essential that the proposed repository manager is involved in the development, approval and implementation of all processes relating to curation and storage.

1.7 Artefact identifiersHeritage Victoria’s collection management staff provide unique identifiers (prefixes) for each excavation. The identifiers allow differentiation between assemblages (and projects) with each artefact having a unique catalogue number. Other repositories have systems and identifiers appropriate to their collections.

RequirementWhere it has been determined that artefacts will be deposited with Heritage Victoria, site identification prefixes will be issued by Heritage Victoria staff as part of the Permit or Consent. These must be used in the catalogue, artefact labelling and packaging processes.

For assemblages lodged with Heritage Victoria, all identifiers must comply with the following conventions:

A two or three letter prefix unique to each site will be assigned by Heritage Victoria.

15

The unique artefact number should be in a five digit format with a space between the assigned prefix and sequential number (for example VB 00024).

When documenting the relationship between components of one artefact (for example components of a single clock), sub-numbering may be used (for example VB 00024.001). However the parent record consisting of all the artefacts (for example VB 00024) must be generated as well. Contact HV staff for more information on this topic before starting.

Complete items must be given individual numbers. Numbers must not be duplicated. Fragmentary items must be sorted and grouped by stratigraphic context

and artefact type (that is, fragments sharing object form, function, material, sub-material, manufacturing technique, and decorative technique).

Types must not be mixed within one numbered group. Each numbered item or group of items must be bagged individually. Each number must only refer to items in one bag. Each artefact or group of artefacts must be accompanied by an acid-free

label indicating the artefact number using specified inks. Wet and damp artefacts must be accompanied by a waterproof (Tyvek™) label indicating the artefact number (see Appendix B).

For artefacts lodged with another repository, details of their identifier system must be provided in the Artefact Management Proposal as part of the Consent or Permit application, and the project stakeholders will need to establish details for the cataloguing and artefact numbering process.

16

2. FIELDWORK2.1 Implement Excavation MethodologyFieldwork must be conducted to a high standard, in accordance with the approved Excavation Methodology, in order to optimise the quality of site interpretation and artefact analysis.

RequirementsAny changes to the Excavation Methodology require prior approval from Heritage Victoria. All changes must be detailed in the Project Report.

2.2 Artefact Retention PolicyThe careful and consistent application of the Artefact Retention Policy during fieldwork ensures that appropriate and detailed analysis can take place at the completion of fieldwork and in the future.

RequirementsThe Artefact Retention Policy must be implemented in accordance with the approved Permit or Consent. Changes to the policy must be approved by Heritage Victoria, and detailed in the Project Report.

In most cases, Heritage Victoria recommends comprehensive retention of artefacts in the field. For assemblages deemed of little or no significance following fieldwork and analysis, discard may be appropriate at the completion of the project (with the approval of Heritage Victoria).

2.3 Artefact recording and managementThe collection, documentation, labelling and management of recovered artefacts in the field is essential for quality analysis following fieldwork.

RequirementsArtefact cleaning, packaging, and cataloguing (including catalogue design, field descriptors, terminology and content) must be in accordance with the requirements of Heritage Victoria (see Appendix B), and artefacts being submitted to Heritage Victoria must be catalogued using the Heritage Victoria Catalogue Template (see section 3.2).

2.4 Discovery of dangerous materialMany archaeological sites contain potentially dangerous or hazardous materials. Below is a list of materials that Heritage Victoria will not accept for storage

Heritage Victoria will not accept any artefacts containing:

asbestos, fibreglass or other hazardous synthetic mineral fibres potentially explosive objects (including ammunition) toxic, explosive or asphyxiant gases (for example, methane)

17

putrescible or infectious materials (for example, medical waste) oils and tars pesticides radioactive waste arsenic, cadmium, mercury pigments, industrial wastes, mining wastes or

poison.Some dangerous materials (such as lead objects) may be accepted, in consultation with Heritage Victoria’s staff. Those materials must be clearly marked as hazardous and all parties who may handle the assemblage should be made aware of the presence of hazardous materials.

It is likely that other repositories will have similar requirements.

RequirementsIf any potentially dangerous or contaminated material is uncovered, all works must immediately cease and Heritage Victoria must be contacted.

If any potentially explosive objects are discovered, works in the subject area must cease immediately and Victoria Police and Heritage Victoria must be contacted. The Police will arrange for the attention and disposal of the artefacts by military personnel. Any artefacts thought to be unexploded ordnance must be left undisturbed, and people kept a safe distance until the area is declared safe.

If artefacts containing asbestos are excavated, they should be catalogued and then disposed of according to the guidelines provided by the Environment Protection Authority.

For additional information, including the proper handling and disposal of dangerous materials, contact the Environment Protection Authority or see Industry Standard Contaminated Construction Sites, Construction and Utilities (WorkSafe Victoria, 2005).

2.5 Discovery of human remainsIf any suspected human remains are discovered or exposed at any time, it is necessary for all works in the vicinity to cease immediately and for Victoria Police and Heritage Victoria to be notified.

2.6 Field Conservation All applicants are required to undertake conservation works for significant artefacts recovered during archaeological investigations and other works. In cases where the recovery of artefacts is likely, the Executive Director will include a condition in the Act approval requiring the engagement of a project conservator.

RequirementsIt is the responsibility of the project archaeologist and conservator to ensure that artefacts exposed and recovered in the field receive appropriate conservation treatment (see Appendix D). Some artefacts will deteriorate if conservation processes are not initiated immediately after, or even during, an excavation.

18

If artefacts with urgent conservation needs are recovered, they must be brought to the attention of the project conservator immediately. This is particularly important for artefacts that may be of high significance. The conservator and Heritage Victoria staff can also provide advice about the consolidation of artefacts prior to their excavation, recovery, sampling, artefact packing and transport. In some cases, the location, condition or environment of an archaeological site may present particular conservation challenges. For example, artefacts from foreshore sites are likely to have a high salt content. Advice on the management of artefacts from sites with unusual or challenging conditions should be obtained from Heritage Victoria staff or other conservation experts.

Organic artefacts (such as leather) or metal artefacts (such as coins and medallions) are particularly likely to require urgent conservation treatment. Before artefacts are separated from the assemblage for urgent conservation treatment, care must be taken to ensure that:

they have been assigned catalogue numbers preliminary cataloguing has been completed their location has been noted in the catalogue.

2.7 Preliminary management recommendationsPreliminary management recommendations include options for the retention of site fabric, site avoidance or other site preservation measures, and opportunities for the development of interpretation schemes.

In some cases, it is necessary for recommendations regarding site management to be made during the excavation process or immediately after its completion. This may be the case if options are being considered for the retention of site fabric in situ, or for the development of an interpretation scheme.

RequirementsManagement options should be provided to the proponent or site owner and Heritage Victoria as soon as possible. It may not be appropriate to wait and include site management information in the standard project report, which may not be completed until many months after the fieldwork.

19

3. CONSERVATION, ANALYSIS, REPORTING AND SUBMISSION OF ARTEFACTS

3.1 Artefact Conservation Proposal The requirement for an Artefact Conservation Proposal is listed as a condition on most Heritage Act archaeology approvals (in accordance with section129(4b) of the Act). The Artefact Conservation Proposal details the conservation works that are proposed for recovered artefacts. It must be a significance-based assessment of conservation requirements for artefact types and individual artefacts. Once the Proposal has been endorsed by the Executive Director, the project conservation works can commence in order to address the Permit or Consent conditions. Conservation works must be undertaken my materials conservators with appropriate qualifications and expertise.

RequirementsThe Artefact Conservation Proposal (ACP) must be submitted to the Executive Director for approval at the completion of fieldwork. The proposed conservation processes must be informed by an understanding of the significance of the site, individual contexts, object groups, object types, material types and individual items.

It is recommended that the project archaeologist work with the conservator to ensure that the significance of the site, its context and artefacts accurately informs the development of the ACP.

The ACP must include details of all artefact management and conservation work including that undertaken by the project conservator and archaeologist. The Proposal must also detail how conservation treatments will be recorded.The ACP must include timeframes for the completion of the proposed conservation and artefact management work. Appendix D (Artefact Conservation Guidelines) provides advice on the level of conservation work that will usually be required for artefacts of high, medium and low significance, and of varying material types. See the case studies in Appendix A for examples of proposals (A.2.4 and A.3.3).

At the completion of fieldwork the archaeologist and conservator must draft an ACP for assessment by Heritage Victoria. Once Heritage Victoria is satisfied with the details of the proposal, it will be returned for counter-signing by the applicant. This ensures that all parties are aware of the level of conservation work that is required.Once the counter-signed proposal has been received by Heritage Victoria, the Executive Director will consider it for final endorsement. In some cases, the Executive Director will not issue a final Consent to Damage for a site until the Artefact Conservation Proposal has been submitted and approved.

3.2 Catalogue completionThe artefact catalogue provides primary data as the basis for artefact analysis and tracking. The artefact catalogue data is used to address the questions raised in the Research Design, and to establish the significance of the site and overall assemblage. The catalogue enables the synthesis of artefact and stratigraphic information, and comparative analysis.

RequirementsAll assemblages submitted to Heritage Victoria are entered into a collection management system which contains artefact records for sites across Victoria. The use of standard fields and terminologies ensures that all assemblages are recorded in a consistent way and are searchable.

For assemblages lodged with Heritage Victoria, the catalogue design and content must use the Heritage Victoria catalogue template. Heritage Victoria welcomes comment and suggestions for additions to cataloguing terminology. New terms will be considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis.

Other repositories, including Museums Victoria, have their own templates and systems. Catalogue numbers must comply with the conventions used by the repository where they will be lodged (see section 1.7). Where a third party may have an involvement in the conservation, curation, management or display of artefacts or an assemblage, it is essential that they are involved in the development of the catalogue design and content.

Care must be taken to ensure the use of correct terminologies. Incomplete and non-standard catalogues will result in the assemblage being returned to the project archaeologist.

Catalogues can be submitted electronically when artefacts are delivered or prior to delivery. An Excel spreadsheet of the catalogue must also be included in the Project Report when lodged with Heritage Victoria, regardless of the repository used.

3.3 Artefact analysisThe information and research that results from artefact analysis is one of the most important outcomes of site investigations. It helps to mitigate the permanent damage to a site caused by its excavation and disturbance. Analysis assists the archaeologist to understand the history of a site, address the Research Design and inform the interpretation of the site (see section 3.4). It also informs the Statements of Significance for the site and for the assemblage (3.5 and 3.6).

RequirementsArtefact distributions must be presented in such a way that the provenance of elements within the assemblage can be designated to an area, feature, and phase of the site. Tables should include the following (see Appendices A.2 and A.3):

quantities of artefacts in each functional and sub-functional category by major feature and/or activity area and by phase, where relevant

minimum numbers of domestic glass and ceramic forms and of clay pipes and small finds

minimum numbers counts for other artefact types makers’ marks manufacturing dates synthesis of artefact date ranges associated with major features.

Information derived from the artefact analysis must be synthesised with results from the excavation and background research to develop an understanding of site formation processes and activities.

The project archaeologist must ensure that appropriate resources are allocated for all aspects of artefact processing, cataloguing, analysis and reporting, and that staff are appropriately qualified and experienced. Where relevant, the archaeologist should liaise with the project conservator to ensure that any information that has come to light during conservation is incorporated into the cataloguing and analysis.

In some cases, it may be necessary to engage an individual with expertise in specific areas of artefact analysis. Expert artefact reports, on all or parts of the assemblage, do not replace the requirement to address the Research Design.

In some cases, usually for large scale projects, Heritage Victoria may require the development of an artefact type series, which will be specified on the approved Permit or Consent.

3.4 Site analysis and addressing the Research DesignThe synthesis of the results of an archaeological investigation is the most important outcome of the project. It is a combination of all the collected information, including historical research, archaeological findings, artefact analysis and addressing the Research Design. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the site and the activities that occurred there, offsetting the irreversible damage caused by development.

RequirementsThe questions identified in the Research Design must be addressed in the Project Report.

The analysis must assess and summarise the contribution the excavation has made to the understanding of Victoria’s history.

It will not always be possible to answer all the questions raised, and the results of the excavation and analysis may generate new questions.

3.5 Assemblage Statement of Significance Conservation, curation and management decisions are guided by the assemblage’s Statement of Significance.

The significance of an archaeological assemblage determines whether it is suitable for inclusion in the Heritage Victoria collection. If an assemblage is not assessed as being of medium or high significance, it will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria and other arrangements must be made (which may include lodgement in a local museum or reburial on site).

RequirementsThe Statement of Significance for the assemblage must refer to (and be informed by) the site Statement of Significance (see sections 1.2 and 3.6). The site Statement of Significance may need to be updated to reflect the results of the excavation, and site and artefact analysis.

The Statement of Significance for the assemblage must be provided when the artefacts are delivered to Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository, or other approved storage location. The assemblage’s Statement of Significance must be a detailed

evaluation which addresses the Heritage Council’s significance criteria (see Appendix H).

The assemblage’s Statement of Significance must identify how and why the assemblage is significant. It should consider:

integrity of the site and its deposits percentage of the site that was excavated condition of artefacts in the assemblage (for example intactness,

preservation of organics, post-depositional damage) size and diversity of the assemblage ability of the assemblage to enhance the significance of the site ability of the assemblage to address significant research questions aesthetic, technological, or social values of individual artefacts in the

assemblage, if relevant potential for further analysis of the assemblage potential for archaeologists to conduct future work at the site.

An assemblage of high significance will typically:

be from deposits of high archaeological integrity be large and diverse in the range of artefact types have potential for research or display enhance the significance and understanding of the site be lodged with either Heritage Victoria or Museum Victoria.

An assemblage of medium significance will typically:

be from deposits of moderate archaeological integrity be sufficiently large and diverse in the range of artefact types included to

permit limited additional research or display enhance the significance of the site be lodged with Heritage Victoria, Museum Victoria, a local museum or

other similar repository, if appropriate.

An assemblage of low significance will typically:

be from deposits of little or no archaeological integrity be small and lacking diversity in the range of artefact types included have no potential for further research or display have some potential for educational use be lodged with a local museum or other similar repository, if appropriate, or

be discarded.

All assemblages do not have equal potential for further research, education or display purposes. The level of significance will dictate the assemblage’s suitability for use and curation. For this reason, the assemblage Statement of Significance must be as informed, detailed and accurate as possible.

In the event that individual artefacts within an assemblage have a higher level of significance than the rest of the assemblage, the artefacts should be specified in the Statement of Significance.

The assemblage’s Statement of Significance should include recommendations for its future retention and management, which may be to accession it as part of the Heritage Victoria collection, to arrange permanent storage elsewhere (for example at a regional museum or historical society), reburial on site, or discard all or part of the assemblage.

Where it is recommended that all or part of the assemblage be discarded, Heritage Victoria staff must be consulted before any action is taken. If approved, the reasons and the circumstances of discard must be fully documented in the report. The final catalogue should retain the information (including representative photographs) about the discarded artefacts and clearly indicate that they are no longer part of the assemblage

3.6 Revised site Statement of Significance The site Statement of Significance must be reassessed by the project archaeologist following the completion of the fieldwork, and site and artefact analysis.

RequirementsThe revised site Statement of Significance must indicate how the results of the excavation and artefact analysis have contributed to a better understanding of the site significance, and whether the archaeological potential of the site was realised.

The final Statement of Significance should be written as a stand alone document. It must address the appropriate Heritage Council criteria. The responses to the questions raised in the Research Design will also inform the reviewed statement.

Even though a separate Statement of Significance is required for the archaeological assemblage, the final site Statement of Significance must make reference to the recovered artefact assemblage, as it contributes to the significance of the site as a whole.

3.7 Management recommendations Clear, logical and precise management recommendations ensure that the archaeological values of a site and assemblage are appropriately managed and protected.

RequirementsAt the conclusion of the project, management recommendations must be developed that reflect the significance of the site and the assemblage. The recommendations must specify options for the use of the site, and consider whether impacts on areas of significance can be avoided, reduced or mitigated. If part of the site retains known or potential archaeological values, the recommendations must identify where the areas are located, and where investigations or monitoring may be required in the future.

Opportunities for site interpretation (for example, signage, artefact displays or retention of historic fabric) must also be identified.

3.8 Submission of artefacts and recordsAssemblages to be lodged with Heritage Victoria must be packed according to Heritage Victoria’s guidelines (see Appendix B); accompanied by an electronic copy of the artefact catalogue; the assemblage Statement of Significance; the final Project Report; and be delivered to the Artefact Repository.

An appointment with the repository must be made in advance. In some cases (usually for major excavation projects), Heritage Victoria may require submission of copies of all field records including photos, maps, plans, section drawings and stratigraphic record sheets. This requirement will be specified on the Permit or Consent.

3.9 Project ReportOne hard and one portable document format (PDF) copy of the Project Report must be submitted to Heritage Victoria, regardless of the repository, in accordance with the conditions and timeframe specified on the Permit or Consent. Failure to provide a Project Report by the archaeologist within the timeframe specified on the Permit or Consent is a breach of the Act.A checklist is provided on the next page for quick reference.

The Project Report must include the following: copy of the Consent or Permit copy of any correspondence regarding modifications to the Permit or

Consent (for example, modifications to timeframe or nominated project archaeologist)

background research, including site, local and regional histories, environmental conditions, etc.

list of site occupants and relevant dates of occupation Research Design Excavation Methodology, including list of excavated contexts

describing location, phase and description list of deposits of interest (that is, of particular significance or with

potential for further research) and corresponding context numbers illustrative maps, plans, sections, and photos, including full site plan

showing location of all trenches and excavated features Artefact Retention Policy, including any changes made while in the

field details of discarded artefacts Artefact Conservation Proposal artefact catalogue in Excel format artefact analysis, including summary tables interpretation (that is, synthesis of stratigraphic and artefact

analyses and addressing of Research Design questions) assemblage Statement of Significance statement indicating where assemblage has been lodged, including

contact details revised site Statement of Significance management recommendations for the site and assemblage.

APPENDIX A

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION CASE STUDIES A.1 Case studies backgroundThis case study presents the archaeological investigation of a fictitious Heritage Inventory site. It includes the requirements in completing an Application for Consent (pursuant to Section 129 of the Heritage Act 1995), including the site Statement of Significance, Research Design, Excavation Methodology and Artefact Retention Policy.

The case study includes two scenarios of the reporting and analysis resulting from the excavation. Each assesses the analysis and interpretation of the excavation, including artefact data, an assemblage Statement of Significance, a revised site Statement of Significance, and management recommendations.

In the first scenario (A.2), the assemblage is considered to be of high significance due to the excavation and analysis of a number of artefact-rich deposits, adding considerable knowledge to the site.

In the second case (A.3), the assemblage is considered to be of low significance due to the excavation recovering very little and the artefacts analysis not adding new information to the knowledge of the site.

Brabanti Cottage Site H7822-0000The Brunswick property has a frontage of 6.1 metres to the street and a depth of 24.4 metres, with a total area of 148.8 square metres. Within the property are visible footings of a demolished single fronted single storey Victorian cottage with two-bedrooms, attached kitchen, and small rear yard with laneway access.

Other visible features include a well-preserved bluestone wall footings and intact underfloor deposits. Survey of the surface deposits revealed domestic debris including glass, ceramic and animal bone fragments, sewing pins and hooks and eyes.

Background researchSearch of council rate books and Sands & McDougall Directories indicate the dwelling was built around 1873. It was constructed at the eastern end of a row of six almost identical properties (plan attached). There is no evidence of a previous building on the site.

A tailor, Joseph Brabanti, rented the house in 1873 and lived there with his wife, Maria, and five children. It is uncertain if he worked in a factory, workshop or from home. The Brabanti family occupied the site from 1873 until 1970.

Upon the death of Joseph Brabanti in 1917 (Maria died in 1912), the house was sold by the owner to Brabanti’s eldest son, Sergio. Sergio worked in a woollen mill in North Fitzroy until the 1960s.

The house was sold after Sergio’s death in 1970, and used as student accommodation. By 2005 the dwelling was condemned, and in 2008 was sold as a ‘demolish and rebuild’.

Reason for applying for ConsentThere is a proposal to redevelop the site into medium density housing. The development proposal intends to retain the surviving footings, and incorporate them as a landscape feature in an open space.

A test excavation would provide a rare opportunity to examine the material discard of a single immigrant family over almost a century.

The Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria has been consulted and determined, in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan was not required for the site.

A.1.1 Site Statement of SignificanceWhat is significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site in Brunswick contains the archaeological remains of an inner-city Victorian cottage which was occupied by an Italian migrant family from 1873 to 1970.

Archaeological features including remnant footings, a relatively intact bluestone wall, and underfloor deposits indicate that the house was a standard two-bedroom, single storey dwelling with attached kitchen, and small rear yard with laneway access. Surface artefacts of domestic and occupational activity also remain.

The site has the potential to contain artefacts in the covered cesspit.

How is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site is of local historical and archaeological significance.

Why is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site is of historical significance for its association with Victoria’s mid-late 19th century migrant history.

The Brabanti Cottage site is of archaeological significance for its potential to contain archaeological deposits, features and artefacts that relate to the construction and use of the place. The archaeological remains also have the potential to yield information about ethnicity, consumption practices, and domestic labour arrangements within a 19th century Melburnian migrant working family. Such dwellings were built in their thousands during this period, but few examples beyond the Melbourne CBD have been the subject of thorough archaeological investigations.

A.1.2 Research DesignThe main focus of research in this investigation will be on the domestic arrangements and work practices of a migrant family in late 19th century Melbourne. Previous archaeological research into working-class households in Melbourne focused mainly on Anglo-Australian and Chinese people. This site has the potential to provide new information about several generations of a single Italian migrant family, and how they negotiated issues of work, consumption, ethnicity and gender in a new society.

Descriptive questions

What is the nature of the archaeological fabric of the site? Describe results of archaeological work relating to wall footings and what these reveal about the construction of the building.

What evidence is there for rubbish and sewage disposal on the site? Are there preserved cesspits or rubbish pits in the rear yard?

What is the nature of the archaeological deposits at the site? Describe results of archaeological work relating to associated underfloor and yard deposits.

What natural and cultural taphonomic processes have contributed to the archaeological site and its associated deposits?

What stratigraphic sequences are represented at the site?

Analytical questions

How many artefact fragments were recovered from the excavation of the site?

How were these items distributed spatially within the four main areas of the site (that is, the three interior rooms and the rear yard), and are there particular concentrations of artefacts within these areas?

What types and quantities of major artefact groups were recovered? These are likely to include architectural items, domestic tablewares and teawares, glass bottles and tablewares, clay tobacco pipes, toys, tools, sewing equipment, personal items.

What are the Minimum Number of Vessel (MNV) counts for household ceramic and glass objects, and other relevant artefact types?

How much diversity of form is there within each of these artefact groups? What similar sites have been investigated within the local or broader

context?

Interpretive questions

What do the artefacts reveal about the daily lives of the Brabanti family, specifically relating to:o diet (include reference to faunal and botanical material)o hygiene, sanitation and rubbish disposalo consumerism, status, respectability, ethnicity, household structure, etc.o work practices?

What evidence is there for the consumption of mass-produced commodities in a working-class household?

What evidence is there for work in the tailoring/textiles trade at the property?

What evidence is there for the expression of Italian ethnicity in the material remains?

How do the patterns of daily life and work identified at the site compare with those seen at similar colonial urban households such as Casselden Place in Melbourne CBD, the Rocks in Sydney, and Port Adelaide?

A.1.3 Excavation Methodology Excavation will focus on four main areas of the site:

front room second room kitchen rear yard.

The site is approximately 149m2 in total size. An area of up to 54m2 will be excavated, representing 36% of the site. Excavation will focus on deposits relating to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries only. No excavation of any surviving pre-European deposits will take place.

The full extent of the three main internal rooms will be excavated. Each of these areas will be gridded into one metre squares to ensure spatial control of artefact recovery and facilitate the later analysis of activity areas. The two front rooms each measure approximately 4 metres square. The kitchen measures 5 x 3 metres. These three rooms will be excavated in their entirety, giving a total excavation area of 16m2 + 16m2 + 15m2 = 47m2.

Only a small portion of the rear yard will be excavated, to locate rubbish and cesspit deposits adjacent to the northern boundary, as indicated on MMBW plans. The rear yard is approximately 10 metres deep and 7 metres wide. A 5m x 1m trench will be excavated adjacent to the northern boundary of the rear yard. If a cesspit is located, excavation will be expanded up to an additional 2 m2 to include this feature.

As the footings are already exposed no mechanical stripping will be required and all deposits will be manually excavated with trowels in 5cm spits. Cultural horizons will be followed where possible.

Excavation units [contexts] will be recorded in a single running sequence for the entire site.

All features will be planned to scale and photographed in situ.

All deposits will be sieved through nested 10mm, 5mm and 2mm sieves to ensure highest possible rate of artefact recovery. Artefacts will not be point-provenienced but will be bulk bagged according to type within each feature, context or grid square.

In the event of a cesspit deposit is excavated, soil samples of 2 litres each will be collected from each 10cm of deposit. These samples will be labelled and double-bagged and analysed during the post-excavation phase to identify seeds and small animal bone fragments, relating to food consumption. All appropriate health and safety procedures will be followed during the investigation and analysis of any cess pits and associated deposits.

In the event of finding Aboriginal cultural material, all works will cease immediately and the project archaeologist will notify Heritage Victoria and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, in accordance with the approved Heritage Act Consent and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

It is anticipated that fieldwork will take 10 days (two weeks) to complete.

A.1.4 Artefact Retention PolicyAll artefacts relating to the Brabanti occupation of the site will be retained, including surface material. The only artefacts to be sampled will be building debris such as bricks and bluestone. Material which is clearly less than 50 years old will not be retained but will be noted on context sheets and in the project report. Artefacts will be bulk bagged in the field according to type within each feature, context or grid square. Heritage Victoria will be contacted immediately if any artefacts with urgent conservation requirements are identified.

All artefacts recovered in the field will be processed and catalogued according to Heritage Victoria’s Guidelines for Investigating Historical Archaeological Artefacts and Sites, using the Heritage Victoria Catalogue Template. Artefacts will be analysed and interpreted in terms of the questions in the Research Design.

Any decision to discard excavated material on site will be thoroughly documented and will be subject to prior approval from Heritage Victoria.

Artefact submissionIf the assemblage is deemed of medium to high significance, it will be recommended for lodgement with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository.

Project ReportA Project Report of the all the excavation results, artefact catalogue, materials analysis and interpretation will be presented to Heritage Victoria within 12 months of the completion of the fieldwork, in accordance with a condition under the Consent. The Project Report will include:

a copy of the Consent any modifications to the Consent, as approved by Heritage Victoria development proposal full background history of site and its occupants, including historic plans

and images fieldwork records, plans and photos list of excavated contexts describing location, phase and description Artefact Retention Policy, including approved in-field amendments Artefact Catalogue in electronic format artefact analysis, including summary tables Artefact Conservation Proposal interpretation to synthesize stratigraphic and artefact analyses and address

Research Design assemblage Statement of Significance updated site Statement of Significance management recommendations (including if further investigation is

recommended).

Archaeological investigation personnel Project archaeologist Two trench supervisors

Four excavation assistants One artefact analyst One historian

A Curriculum Vitae for each team member is attached.

A.2 Scenario One – large and diverse assemblage with high significanceAll tables shown demonstrate what is required to summarise the results of analysing different aspects of the assemblage. The tables are intended to indicate structure only and do not document all artefact types likely to be recovered.

A.2.1 Artefact analysis and interpretationSeveral rooms and features at the former Brabanti Cottage site had large quantities of artefacts, including a cesspit located in the rear yard. As Table 1 indicates, architectural items were the most numerous but a large quantity of sewing-related items was also recovered. The front room had the largest overall quantity of artefacts but as these are predominantly architectural forms it is likely that this relates to repair or demolition activities in that room. Most of the sewing items were pins recovered from the third room, suggesting that sewing was carried out in that location.

Function Sub-function

Form Front room

2nd room

3rd room

Yard Cesspit

Total

Architectural Structural Window 29 5 15 1 8 58

Hardware Fastenings Nail 132 37 50 3 - 222

Kitchen Food Service

Eggcup 4 2 6

Sugar bowl lid

1 1

Teapot lid

1 1

Sewing Sewing Pins 12 2 58 3 75

Scissors 3 3

Total 173 44 127 4 18 366

Table 1: Functional distribution of artefact fragments

Tables 2a and 2b indicate the range of ceramic forms recovered from each major feature. Most were recovered from the cesspit indicating the careful disposal of kitchen rubbish. Bowls were slightly more abundant than plates, indicating that liquid foods were favoured. Teawares were present in common, inexpensive blue transfer printed designs.

Material Sub-material/ Decoration Cup Plate Bowl etc etc Total

colourCeramic White

earthenwareBlue transferprint

1 5 3 9

Brown transferprint

3 1 4

Glass Colourless Pressed 4 4

Total 4 6 7 17

Table 2a: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass (cesspit)

Material Sub-material/colour

Decoration Cup Plate Bowl etc etc Total

Ceramic White earthenware

Blue transferprint

8 2 10

Brown transferprint

1 1 2

Glass Colourless Pressed 1 1

Total 8 3 2 13

Table 2b: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass (house)

Table 3 shows that as with tablewares, most glass containers were recovered from the cesspit rather than the house interior. The presence of stoneware ink bottles suggests that members of the family were literate.

Material Sub-Material/colour

Form Cesspit House Yard Total

Glass Aqua Soda water

8 3 4 15

Olive green Case 15 3 2 20

Ceramic Stoneware Ink 4 8 12

Total 27 14 0 47

Table 3: Minimum number of glass and ceramic containers

The clay pipe assemblage from the site (shown in Tables 4a and 4b) is larger than would be expected on a domestic site and indicates someone in the family was a heavy smoker. At least 28 pipes were represented in the cesspit deposit, suggesting some smoking may have been done there, but the recovery of parts of at least 102 pipes from the house indicates that smoking indoors was common.

Decoration Stem fragments

Bowl/stem fragments

Mouthpiece fragments

Complete

Plain 18 20 9 1

‘White’ 7 6

Burns cutty 1 1

Total 26 27 9 1

Table 4a: Minimum number of clay pipes (cesspit)

Decoration Stem fragments

Bowl/stem fragments

Mouthpiece fragments

Complete

Plain 103 87 56 5

‘White’ 50 8 7

Burns cutty 7 2

Total 160 97 63 5

Table 4b: Minimum number of clay pipes (house)

Makers’ marks on the ceramics (Table 5) and glass (Table 6) show some discrepancy in deposition. While the ceramics were first available from the 1850s and were either in use for some time or acquired as slightly old-fashioned items, the glass bottles date to the early twentieth century and were disposed of comparatively soon after they were acquired.

Mark Maker Date Form Cesspit House Yard‘JHWB’ within printed knot design, ;1000/No 268892/Made in England

Wood, J.H.

1850s-1920s

Plate 2

‘Liddle, Elliot and Son’

Liddle, Elliot and Son

1862-1871

Serving dish

4 1

Table 5: Ceramic makers’ marks

Mark Maker Date Form Cesspit House Yard“G.H.B’, ‘G.H. Billson’, ‘Melbourne

1904 Soda water bottle

3 1 3

‘GHB’ ‘G.H. Bennett/Richmond

1900 Soda water bottle

4 1

Table 6: Glass makers’ marks

The dates of the artefacts shed some light on when and how the archaeological deposits were formed and acquired, use, and disposal practices of the Brabantis.

The artefacts from the house span the entire period of its use, indicating that the underfloor spaces were at least partially accessible throughout (see Figure 1). The concentration of artefacts from the 1870s-1950s reflects both the main period of the Brabanti’s occupation and suggests that some form of floor covering was installed when the house was sold in 1970. Nearly all the artefacts in the cesspit date to the 1870s-1920s, indicating the cesspit was filled sometime in the early 1920s (see Figure 2). The yard represents an even more mixed assemblage, with a relatively even spread of artefacts from all periods (see Figure 3).

In both deposits there was a substantial quantity of items manufactured before 1870, and even a small quantity earlier than 1850. This suggests that the Brabantis brought their own, older household goods with them when they moved into the house in 1873 and/or acquired older, possibly second-hand goods while living there.

1870-192053%

post-19701%1950-1970

1%

1920-195035%

pre-18501%

1850-18709%

Figure 1: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (house)

1870-192097%

1850-18703%

post-19700%

1950-19700%

1920-19500% pre-1850

0%

Figure 2: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (cesspit)

1920-195025%

1950-197024%

pre-18501%

1850-18703%

1870-192018%

post-197029%

Figure 3: Artefact manufacturing date ranges (yard)

InterpretationThis section should use the synthesis of stratigraphic and artefact information to address the questions posed in the Research Design:

Discuss the context of discard and loss for the artefacts in the different areas of the site. For example any apparent functional differences between rooms, fewer artefacts within house than in cesspit, dating evidence showing cumulative assemblage in house due to ongoing deposition, filling of cesspit prior to 1900.

Use faunal, ceramic, and glass material to characterise the diet of the family, with particular reference to any evidence of the family’s Italian background.

Comment on presence or absence of large quantities of hygiene-related items.

Discuss any evident patterns of consumer preference, cultural practice and items associated with gender and age.

Discuss presence and distribution of sewing-related artefacts with reference to Joseph Brabanti’s employment as a tailor.

Compare patterns at site with artefacts at sites of similar age.

A.2.2 Assemblage Statement of Significance What is significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is from deposits of high archaeological integrity associated with the occupation of the Brabanti family in from the late 19th century to mid 20th century.

The assemblage is relatively large and diverse and has the potential to shed light on behaviour at this site and to facilitate comparison with other sites. As a whole, it has the potential to support further research, with some components (for example sewing materials, clay pipes, faunal remains) being worthy of particular note in this regard. Many of the items from the cesspit are intact or nearly so and would be suitable for display.

How is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is of historical and archaeological significance to the State of Victoria.

Why is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site assemblage is of historical significance as the only known assemblage associated with a gold-rush migration of non-British ethnic groups to Victoria.

The Brabanti Cottage Site assemblage is of archaeological significance for its ability to contribute to an understanding of domestic activities of an Italian immigrant family from 1873 to the 1970.

A.2.3 Revised site Statement of Significance The original Statement of Significance indicated that the site was significant at the local level as an example of a common type of housing in Melbourne’s inner-north, and indicated that due to the lack of subsurface disturbance (as the it was rented by the same family from 1873 to 1970), the site had high archaeological potential.

The archaeological potential has now been realised and found to be considerable. The artefact assemblage contributes significant new information. The site is significant for the artefact assemblage associated with the residents (the Brabanti family) of the house from 1873-1970.

The excavation contributed no new architectural information about the structures on the site, and the site itself has been demolished (with appropriate approvals).

What is significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site in Brunswick is significant only for its recovered artefact assemblage as a result of archaeological investigations.

How is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site is not significant; however its artefact assemblage is of archaeological and historical significance to the State of Victoria.

Why is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of historical significance because it is a rare example of a domestic deposit from a 19th century Italian migrant family. The assemblage is the only known Victorian example of this site type that has been archaeologically investigated.

The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of archaeological significance for its intactness and diversity of domestic archaeological material.

It has potential to produce information on the mid 19th century migration of people of non-British backgrounds due to the gold-rush (in particular, the intact cesspit artefacts).

See assemblage Statement of Significance.

A.2.4 Artefact Conservation Proposal

Overall, the artefact assemblage recovered from the Brabanti Cottage site is considered to have a high level of significance. For the purposes of conservation works, various site contexts (and some objects) have been ascribed differing levels of significance. These significance levels are based on the project archaeologist’s interpretation of condition, rarity, representativeness and other factors. The significance assessments are summarised below:

High Significance Medium Significance Low SignificanceContexts 28, 30-44

These contexts include all those that are likely to relate to the pre-1900 occupation of the site, including the cess pit (31,32) which was filled c.1900.

9,10,13-27, 29

These context include all those relating to the occupation of the site from 1900-c.1962.

1-8, 11, 12

These context include all those relating to the occupation of the site from c.1962-2012.

The following objects were recovered from contexts assessed as being of Medium Significance, but are considered to have High Significance because of their rarity, suitability for research, display or interpretation, relevance to the Research Design questions, or other factors:

BCB 331 coin (from context 29)

BCB 306 coin (from context 27)

BCB 267, BCB299 and BCC 301 matching chamber pot fragments (from context 25)

BCB 304 watch (from context 27)

BCB 311 pendant/brooch (from context 29)

BCB 94 military medal (from context 14)

In accordance with Heritage Victoria’s Conservation Guidelines, the following schedule of conservation works is proposed (all works proposed for artefacts assessed as having high significance will be undertaken by the project conservator unless otherwise specified):

Medium Significance

Low Significance

Type High SignificanceCeramics Will be washed, packed by

archaeologists.

Objects BCB 267,299 and 301 will be joined. Also BCB408-415; 456-463 and 489-492.

Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Glass N/A Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Bone N/A Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Will be washed, packed by archaeologists.

Metal All coins inc BCB331, 306 will be checked for the presence of salt, dry cleaning will then be attempted, chemical cleaning may be carried out on coins where further information is required and where the inscription can be revealed by chemical cleaning methods. The coins may be coated with a conservation grade coating at the completion of the cleaning.

The watch BCB304 will be disassembled, cleaned and dewatered via cotton swab with solvent, potentially some parts may be coated with an appropriate conservation grade metal coating, a separate housing and support will be constructed for this artefact as it is fragile.

The pendant/brooch BCB311 and medal BCB 94 will be:

o chemically cleaned to remove corrosion products

o coated with a conservation grade coating

The pen knife BCB 351 will be examined to determine if there is

stable original metal remaining in the blade; tested for presence of chloride ions; the iron alloy will be stabilised as much as possible; the copper alloy component will be dewatered/cleaned with solvent and coated with a conservation grade coating; and the wooden handle will be cleaned and consolidated to prevent further material being lost.

Organics Leather children’s shoe BCB361

Determine if leather can be consolidated by use of poly ethylene glycol (if found wet and kept wet then this treatment can proceed).

Perform a detailed clean of the leather surfaces prior to any other treatment.

Create a custom housing support ton promote good conditions for long term storage.

It is anticipated that the conservation work for the Brabanti Cottage assemblage will take the project conservator approximately 4-5 weeks to complete.

A.2.5 Management recommendationsThe site was deemed to be of no significance and was destroyed in the course of further development, with approval from Heritage Victoria.

Given the significance of the artefact assemblage, some form of on-site interpretation should be considered. This may include in situ retention of elements of the bluestone foundations with relevant site information.

The assemblage should be considered for display in the Immigration Museum, local historical society, museum or other community space.

A.2.6 Submission of artefacts and recordsAs the assemblage is deemed highly significant, the entire historical archaeological assemblage recovered from the site was retained (in accordance with the approved Artefact Retention Policy) and lodged with Heritage Victoria’s Artefact Repository, along with the Project Report.

A.3 Scenario Two - small and limited assemblage with low significanceAll tables shown demonstrate what is required to summarise the results of analysing different aspects of the assemblage. The tables are intended to indicate structure only and do not document all artefact types likely to be recovered.

A.3.1 Artefact analysis and interpretationThe Brabanti Cottage site archaeological deposits were highly disturbed, probably as a result of previous demolition activity. Few in situ artefacts associated with the Brabanti family were recovered. The cesspit was not located and the rear yard was leveled recently, stripping and removing all topsoil from the site. The tables and figures below provide an overview of the artefact types found, their distribution and age.

Due to the small size of the assemblage and that it cannot be definitively associated with the Brabanti family, it is not possible to address the questions in the Research Design.

Function Sub-function

Form Front room

2nd room

3rd room

Yard Total

Architectural Structural Window 8 3 11

Hardware Fastening Nail 5 8 15 28

Kitchen Food service Plate 2 2

Bowl 1 1

Sewing Sewing Pins 4 1 5

Total 17 11 17 2 47

Table 1: Functional distribution of artefact fragments

Material Sub-material/colour Decoration Plate Bowl TotalCeramic White earthenware Blue

transferprint1 1

Brown transferprint

1 1

Glass Colourless Pressed 1 1

Total 1 2 3

Table 2: Minimum number of domestic ceramics and glass

Material Sub-material/colour Form TotalGlass Aqua Soda water 3

Olive green Case 5

Total 8

Table 3: Minimum number of glass and ceramic containers

Mark Maker Date Form Quantity‘JHWB’ within printed knot design, ;1000/No 268892/Made in England

Wood, J.H. 1850s-1920s Plate 1

“G.H.B’, ‘G.H. Billson’, ‘Melbourne

1904 Soda water bottle

1

‘GHB’ ‘G.H. Bennett/Richmond

1900 Soda water bottle

1

Table 4: Ceramic and glass makers’ marks

1920-195025%

1950-197024%

pre-18501%

1850-18703%

1870-192018%

post-197029%

Figure 1: Artefact manufacturing date ranges

A.3.2 Assemblage Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site archaeological assemblage was highly disturbed, small and lacking in diversity. It is not possible to associate the artefacts with any particular period of occupation.

How is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of low historical and archaeological significance.

Why is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is too small to demonstrate the occupation of the site, facilitate comparative analysis, or support further research. Its archaeological deposits are highly disturbed and none of the recovered artefacts are from deposits that can be associated with the Brabanti family.

A.3.3 Revised site Statement of Significance The original site Statement of Significance indicated that the site was significant at a local level as an example of a common type of terrace housing in Melbourne’s inner-north, and has the potential for intact archaeological deposits.

The archaeological potential has been tested and determined that the deposits lack integrity and the ability to contribute new information to Victoria’s historic record. The artefact assemblage is small and not clearly associated with any residents. The excavation contributed no new architectural information about the structures. The site has subsequently been demolished and has no further significance.

What is significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site represents the remains of an inner-city Victorian cottage from the later nineteenth century. The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is from disturbed contexts and highly fragmented.

How is it significant?

The Brabanti Cottage site is of low historical and archaeological significance. The Brabanti Cottage site artefact assemblage is of no historical or archaeological significance.

See assemblage Statement of Significance.

A.3.4 Artefact Conservation Proposal The assemblage has been assessed as having a low level of significance, and no conservation works will be undertaken.

A.3.5 Management recommendationsThe structural remains at the site were deemed to be of no significance and were destroyed in the course of redevelopment, with approval from Heritage Victoria.

A.3.6 Submission of artefacts and recordsDue to its low significance, the assemblage was discarded due to its low significance and reburied on site, following approval from Heritage Victoria. The marked bottles and ceramics have been retained by Heritage Victoria as part of its reference collection.

APPENDIX B

PREPARATION OF ARTEFACTS FOR SUBMISSIONArtefacts must be packed, labelled, stored and transported in ways that preserve the contextual information, prevent damage, and facilitate their management.

RequirementsAssemblages will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria unless they comply with these guidelines. On completion of an excavation, consultants should notify Heritage Victoria staff of the date they expect to complete the Project Report and when the artefacts will be moved into storage at Heritage Victoria or at another nominated artefact repository.

B.1 Artefact handlingDespite surviving often aggressive conditions many archaeological artefacts are inherently fragile and should be handled carefully and appropriately once recovered from the ground. If breakages do occur, all fragments should be retained and bagged together. Advice should be sought from Heritage Victoria staff, or the project conservator, regarding in-field conservation and artefact handling advice.

B.2 Cleaning artefacts prior to packing Any aqueous cleaning of artefacts should be done with water only; do not

use detergents or solvents. Allow artefacts to then air dry completely before packing into polyethylene bags with their labels.

Used toothbrushes and sturdy bristle brushes make the best cleaning brushes; do not use wire brushes on any artefact.

Glass and ceramic artefacts that have stable (unweathered, non degraded) surfaces can be washed in water; however, interiors of bottles should not be washed as residues can potentially be identified through analysis (see Appendix D.2.5).

Shell, bone, and ivory can undergo basic cleaning, including washing (see Appendix D.2.6 for further information).

Metal can be gently cleaned with the use of a soft bristled brush (see Appendix D.2.4).

The cleaning of corroded coin surfaces should be carried out by a qualified conservator; there may be inscriptions which can be saved through proper treatment.

Do not attempt to clean archaeological wood, cork, textile, leather, paper or other organic materials; seek a conservator’s advice about cleaning these materials.

B.3 Damp or waterlogged artefacts Culturally significant damp or wet organic materials should be catalogued and brought to the attention of the project conservator as soon as possible so that stabilisation and/or conservation treatment can begin. Until this time, damp or wet items should be kept damp or wet in plastic bags and refrigerated if possible.

Waterlogged organic artefacts will usually not be able to support their own weight; they should be placed onto sturdy supports such as pieces of wood or corrugated plastic sheets before being put into bags. Translucent plastic take away food containers can be used to support smaller items in transit.

Damp or waterlogged artefacts are at risk of developing mould in the days after excavation if not monitored and treated properly by the project conservator.

B.4 Objects from contaminated or salt affected sites Salt affected artefacts can become unstable if allowed to dry out or get wet repeatedly after excavation. The instability of the salt inside the artefact can cause considerable damage to the fabric of the artefact. All objects from maritime, tidal and areas near salt water should be assumed to be salt affected. They should be kept wet after excavation and treated by the project conservator as soon as possible. If groups of artefacts need to be kept together, keep separately in bags in the one container. Use waterproof artefact labels with waterproof ink for the catalogue number.

B.5 Artefact packagingArtefacts should be sorted and boxed by material, then by context and type.

A minimum requirement for packing is that all dry artefacts are placed in transparent polyethylene bags (for example, Zip-lock™ bags). The bags should be placed into corrugated polypropylene boxes (see section B.7).

Care should be taken when packing fragile artefacts. Alternative containers could be used with extra padding, such as rigid plastic boxes with press seal lids. Consultants are encouraged to seek advice from Heritage Victoria staff about packing fragile, wet/damp artefacts, or organic items.

Do not over-pack boxes, or pack small fragile items with large heavy ones. Artefacts will sustain damage if packed together too tightly. The box lid should fit tightly on the base with no protrusions in the lid surface.

Appropriate packaging materials may be purchased from the suppliers listed in Appendix C. The packaging materials specified by Heritage Victoria have been chosen because they will contribute to the long-term preservation and management of the artefacts.

B.6 Labelling materialsArtefact identification labels Archival quality labels must be used. Contact details for suppliers who provide Tyvek™ and acid free cardboard labels are listed in Appendix C.

Computer generated labelsAlthough computers can be very convenient for producing artefact labels for dry artefacts please remember to use acid free card printed with a laser printer. There is no truly archival computer printing technique for labels for wet artefacts and these should be handwritten using waterproof labels and waterproof ink (see below).

Acid free cardThin acid free card is specified as the registration label material. Use archivally stable ink for printing the artefact number; fine tipped pens such as Artline™ pens or Pigma-pens™, are suitable and are most readily available through conservation materials suppliers. A sharp pencil with a hard lead can also be used.

Tyvek™ labelsTyvek™ is the only archival waterproof label material on the market. It is pure spun bonded polyester. The uncoated variety should be purchased. Please note that ‘Artline Drawing System’ pens are not suitable for Tyvek™ labels as the ink bleeds into the fibres obscuring the registration number.

B.7 Packing materials Resealable polyethylene bags for all dry non fragile artefacts. Resealable polyethylene bags with wet cotton fabric for damp non fragile

artefacts. Rigid plastic containers (for example Tupperware or take away food

containers) with foam, or tissue for dry and fragile items. For damp fragile items use wet cotton fabric to keep the environment moist. Alternatively rigid plastic containers filled with water may be used to immerse wet fragile items providing the items can not move excessively within the container.

CorfluteTM lidded boxes (twin-wall polypropylene sheet) internal dimensions (mm) 230(w) x 435(l) x 100(h).

CorfluteTM boxes should be used for the majority of artefacts once bagged. These boxes have been specified because they are designed to most efficiently fit with Heritage Victoria’s existing storage system.

For bottles, use robust plastic tubs or vented crates. Alternatively bottles can be packed into CorfluteTM boxes, with no more than two or three complete full sized bottles to a box with padding between them.

Items larger than the above boxes should be packaged carefully in plastic tubs or crates.

B.8 Policy for handling dangerous materials The presence (or possible presence) of any dangerous or hazardous materials which may be included in the assemblage should be well documented and all parties who handle the assemblage must be made aware of any potential hazards or hazardous materials that may be present in artefacts.

See section 2.4 for a list of examples.

B.9 Policy for handling human remainsHuman remains will not be accepted by Heritage Victoria under any circumstances (see section 2.5). The discovery of any human remains must be immediately reported to the Victoria Police.

B.10 JoinsIt is preferable that archaeologists not undertake joining ceramic and glass artefacts. If joins are found in ceramic or glass pieces then note this on the catalogue sheet and bag and label the fragments appropriately.

If the project archaeologist wishes to perform analysis on the conjoining fragments, do not join fragments with adhesive or pressure sensitive tapes such as Sellotape™ or masking tape. If it is absolutely necessary for items to be joined temporarily for drawing or photography use 3M Scotch Magic Tape™, which is easily reversed.

Do not mark the surfaces of conjoining ceramic pieces using ink pens. If the joining of artefacts of high significance is necessary for analysis and report production, this work must be undertaken by the project conservator.

B.11 Box numberingEach box base and lid should be numbered in the centre of the short ends as follows:

site name site number box number.

APPENDIX C

MATERIAL SUPPLIERS Please note that suppliers other than those listed below may be available.

Polypropylene boxes or Corflute™ boxesArchival Survival sell the polypropylene artefact boxes made to Heritage Victoria’s specifications. These can be sold as separate units and in low numbers.www.archivalsurvival.com.au/index.htmAccessed 16 April 2012

Corex – for bulk orders of the polypropylene boxes; to be cost effective Corex usually need a minimum order of 500 boxes.[C220 Tray/C221]261 Frankston RdDandenong VIC 3175

Acid free and waterproof artefact labelsArtefact labels can be purchased in a several different sizes in either Tyvek™ or in acid free cardboard.

Archival Survivalwww.archivalsurvival.com.auAccessed 16 April 2012

Preservation AustraliaPO Box 210Enmore, NSW 2042www.preservationaustralia.com.auAccessed 16 April 2012

Zetta Florence197 Brunswick StreetFitzroy VIC 3065www.zettaflorence.comAccessed 16 April 2012

Permanent felt tip pens Pigma pens are available from Archival Survival or Zetta Florence Artline Drawing System EK-234 (0.4mm) and EK-238 (0.8mm) pens are

available from larger stationary and art suppliers (but may need to be ordered).

India and Rotring inks; and Nib and Rotring pens are also suitable for hand printing labels; They are available from larger stationary and art suppliers.

Resealable and plain polyethylene bags (bulk)Venus Hartung555 Church StRichmond VIC 3121www.venuspack.com.auAccessed 16 April 2012

Bottle tubsHeritage Victoria suggests the following suppliers for the purchase of larger and sturdier vented crates and tubs for transporting quantities of bottles or oversized artefacts.

Sitecraft 17 Macquarie Drive, Thomastown, Vic 3074Ph 1300 363 152Fax 1300 722 383www.sitecraft.net.auAccessed 16 April 2012

Team Systems Materials Handling285 - 289 Abbotts Road,Dandenong South, VIC 3175www.teamsystems.net.auAccessed 16 April 2012

APPENDIX D

ARTEFACT CONSERVATION GUIDELINES In Victoria, the management of artefacts is guided by an understanding of the concept of cultural heritage significance as it pertains to archaeological sites, artefacts and collections of artefacts. Before any conservation work is undertaken, the conservator must be aware of the significance of the site and the significance of the artefacts they are treating.

This document is intended to provide guidance to professionally trained material conservators to treat and stabilise archaeological materials recovered through the excavation process, in accordance with the approved Consent and Permit. It is not intended to provide specific or detailed treatment outlines, but provide an initial framework for the treatment of various material types.

As part of the development and implementation of the Artefact Conservation Proposal, the project conservator and archaeologist will be required to liaise with Heritage Victoria staff about conservation programs and treatments (see section 3.1).

The conservation process may reveal more information about an artefact and should seek to preserve this information for future reporting and analysis.

D.1 Conservation requirements Any conservation processes carried out on artefacts must be appropriately

documented by the materials conservator. Documentation includes information on artefact condition, photographs where appropriate, and details of treatments undertaken.

Conservators intending to undertake work on significant artefacts must demonstrate to the project applicant and Heritage Victoria that they have the necessary professional training and experience to undertake the work.

Conservators undertaking work on significant artefacts must have an appropriate qualification in conjunction with relevant experience. Membership of the Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Materials (AICCM) or an equivalent international professional organisation is preferred.

Conservators working on artefacts must work in accordance with AICCMs code of Ethics and Code of Practice (http://aiccm.org.au).

D.2 Treating artefacts The primary aim of the conservation process is the long term stabilisation and protection of significant artefacts recovered through archaeological work. There are specific deterioration processes which affect artefacts. Conservators should have a good understanding of deterioration processes specific to artefacts from archaeological contexts and should be able to confidently undertake basic analytical

testing of materials if required (for example, for salt detection or metal identification see Odergaard, 2007). Conservators working on artefacts should be knowledgeable about the various approaches to conservation treatments. Some artefacts will require complex conservation treatments, and in other cases, the artefact may require a more passive means of stabilisation such as the creation of a storage support.

Heritage Victoria advocates the conservation approach “do as little as possible, as much as necessary”.

D.2.1 Wet and damp versus dry burial environmentsConservators should be aware of the burial environment that artefacts were excavated from prior to quoting for the conservation work. Materials from damp, wet and/or saline environments will behave very differently from materials that have been excavated from dry environments.

D.2.2 Salt affected artefacts Artefacts from any kind of burial environment (land, intertidal or marine) can be adversely affected by salt ingress. Conservators should be familiar with the standard tests available to detect the presence of salts within artefacts.

D.2.3 Organic materialsThe approach to preserving organic artefacts will firstly be determined by the burial environment in which it is found (waterlogged, wet or damp, or dry); the condition that the artefact immediately post-excavation; and how the artefact is stored until it is assessed by a conservator (whether it is kept damp or allowed to dry).

Some basic conservation approaches to organic materials are summarised in Table 1. For specific guidance for organic artefacts by material type you should refer to the many professional texts available on each material type. A list of references has been compiled for conservators and is found in Section F of this document.

NSW Heritage Council’s publication Stabilising Stuff: A Guide for Conserving Archaeological Finds in the Field (2012, p.30) provides guidance for archaeologists and conservators about excavating organic archaeological materials including advice for dealing with dry and semi-dry organic artefacts ,and damp and water-logged artefacts.

Artefacts demonstrating high cultural significance

Artefacts demonstrating medium

level of significance

Artefacts demonstrating a low level of significance

Wet or waterlogged Wet or waterlogged Wet or waterlogged Keep wet and cool, store

in sealed bags in fridge if possible.

May require careful cleaning to remove soil/debris/corrosion products.

If composite artefact it may require disassembly if this is appropriate.

Some organic material such as leather and textile may require consolidation treatment.

Drying phase.

Construction of a storage support to stabilise artefact in the long term.

Keep wet and cool, store in sealed bags in fridge if possible.

May require careful cleaning for the purposes of further identification and analysis.

Determine if further treatment is necessary (as for high significance artefact) or whether the artefact can be dried - or - kept in cool storage in the long term (some plastics require this).

No further treatment recommended past any cleaning which was performed to identify the artefact.

Dry (found dry and/or allowed to dry prior to conservation)

Dry Dry

May require additional cleaning to remove dirt/debris/corrosion products.

May require support to be constructed for long term storage.

May require additional cleaning to remove dirt and to aid in identification or analysis.

No treatment recommended.

Table 1. Summary of basic conservation approaches to organic material types

D.2.4 Metal artefacts Materials conservators need to be able to identify metal types through observation of the characteristics of an artefact or by using basic spot testing techniques. Conservators should be able to identify some common corrosion forms, especially for iron and copper alloys.

Metal artefacts excavated from archaeological sites may have undergone a basic cleaning process on site for identification purposes. It is appropriate to dry clean metal that is recovered from a (dry) site with a non metal brush. Any further conservation processes for metal artefacts will depend on the type or types of metal, its condition once excavated and its significance. A summary of conservation approaches to metal artefacts of high, medium and low significance is contained in Table 2.

All significant iron and iron alloy artefacts that are to be retained as a part of the stored assemblage should undergo a stabilisation treatment as soon as possible after excavation. The aim of the stabilisation treatment is to slow down the iron corrosion process as much as possible.

Stabilisation treatments for iron are generally composed of one or a combination of the following processes:

rust conversion treatments dewatering application of a coating or barrier film desalination electrolytic reduction

If iron artefacts do not undergo a stabilisation treatment shortly after they are recovered from the site they may deteriorate rapidly. Heritage Victoria staff have observed that untreated iron artefacts can completely deteriorate within five years of being excavated even when stored in a controlled environment.

Metal artefacts demonstrating high

significance

Metal artefacts demonstrating medium

level of significance

Metal artefacts demonstrating low level of significance

Detailed clean, using dry cleaning methods and wet techniques if necessary.

May require chemical treatment to remove corrosion products.

Dewater metal using oven and organic solvent

Application of a coating system if appropriate.

May perform additional clean if this assists in identification or analysis.

Dewater metal using organic solvent.

Pack the metal for storage.

No treatment recommended.

Construction of a storage support to stabilise artefact in the long term.

Table 2. Summary of conservation approaches to archaeological metal

D.2.5 Ceramic, Glass, Stone and Siliceous materialsIn most cases, the material can be cleaned by the project archaeologist prior to any conservation process. Additional cleaning of ceramic or glass may only be required if fragments are to be joined. Joining of ceramic or glass fragments would only be required to aid in archaeological analysis or for the purposes of exhibiting the artefact or for other interpretive purposes. Stone artefacts are not commonly found with the exception of slate. Bricks are often retained from historic archaeological sites and are generally stable if there is no salt present.

D.2.6 Faunal material Faunal material (shell and animal bone) can undergo basic cleaning process, including washing, by the archaeologist prior to any conservation documentation or treatment. Additional cleaning of bone is usually not required, although if it is not dried completely after initial washing by the archaeologist, it can develop mould which does require treatment before it is placed into long term storage. Further conservation treatment of bone would only be required to aid in archaeological analysis, or for long term preservation or for exhibition purposes.

D.2.7 Conservation case studiesThe following case studies are provided as examples of conservation approaches required to stabilise archaeological materials from different site environments, and with differing levels of significance.

Case Study 1: iron pot An intact, rare, iron pot is recovered from a clear context and considered to be a highly significant find. It was brought to the attention of a conservator soon after it was excavated. It underwent a wet clean in an aqueous bath (at an alkaline pH) which was monitored for salt content. Once the conservator was satisfied that salt ingress was not a problem the pot was carefully cleaned manually with various tools over three weeks. The pot was kept in its alkaline bath during this time to control the rusting of the iron. Once the surfaces of the pot were as clean as they could be without applying further chemical treatment, it was rinsed to a neutral pH using successive deionised water baths with a corrosion inhibitor. It was then dried in a laboratory oven, dewatered with organic solvent, and then finally coated in an acrylic based coating with added vapour phase inhibitors.

Case Study 2: shoe leather from a wet-waterlogged siteSeveral leather pieces were found in a waterlogged site composed of a clay type soil which had retained a great deal of moisture and had almost created an anaerobic environment for the leather while it was in the ground; the preservation of the leather was very good and the context of the find determined it being of high archaeological significance. It was determined at this time that conservation treatment of this leather would be undertaken and the costs for consolidating the leather using polyethylene

glycol was discussed and approved by the client. Once the artefact was excavated it was kept wet by placing it into sealed plastic bag which was then placed inside a plastic tub; this was then transported to a fridge for storage until the conservation treatment could be done. The leather was kept damp and cool and was not allowed to dry out during the period of time between the excavation and the conservation treatment being performed. The leather was carefully wet cleaned and then consolidated in a solution of polyethylene glycol and then freeze dried. The leather was successfully conserved as a result of this treatment and has retained some flexibility and was able to be reshaped for further analysis and interpretation. The key to the success of the conservation treatment was the identification of the significance of the leather as soon as it was found and the early conservation intervention. Please note that treatments such as the one discussed in the case above have a tendency to be costly in terms of conservation expertise and material resources and it is important to make the client in particular, and all other parties aware of the ramifications of embarking upon such a conservation treatment.

D.3 Personal safety Materials conservators should be aware of the management of personal safety when undertaking conservation treatments on artefacts. Ensure that all personal protective equipment is in good working order and that it is worn during the work.

D.4 Documentation Artefacts which have been identified as having high significance must undergo

a basic condition assessment even if no treatment is required. Artefacts which are recommended for conservation treatment must be the

subject of a condition and treatment report which documents the conservation process, and ideally should include an image of the artefact before and after treatment.

All conservation treatments should be documented as per best practice conservation methodology. This should include a record of what materials were used (including brand names and solution concentrations) as well as timings for any treatments.

If further treatment is recommended by the conservator, which won’t be undertaken at that time, it should be documented in the artefact condition report under the heading of “Future Recommendations”.

Conservators should identify if there are any particular handling and storage requirements for the artefact, if this is applicable.

D.5 Storage requirements In some cases, some artefacts will require custom storage mounts or boxes to aid long term preservation. The need for custom designed storage supports should be discussed with all parties (archaeologist, project applicant and Heritage Victoria) particularly if this aspect of the treatment will add time to the conservator’s work.

Ceramic pieces which are joined will often become too big for the standard sized polypropylene storage boxes and if out-size artefacts are excavated these may require boxes to be specially constructed or purchased for them.

APPENDIX E

CONSERVATION REFERENCESGeneral Cronyn, J.M. 1990, The elements of archaeological conservation, Routledge, London and New York.

Heritage Council of NSW 2012, Stabilising stuff: A guide for conserving archaeological finds in the field, Heritage Council of New South Wales, NSW Government Office of Environment & Heritage, accessed 02 January 2014 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage.

Odergaard, N., 2007, Material Characterization Tests for Objects of Art 2nd edition, Archetype, London.

Pearson, C., 1987, The Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects, Butterworths, Oxford (out of print)

Roy, A., & Smith, P., 1996, Archaeological Conservation and its Consequences: Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen Congress, 26-30 August 1996, International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, London.

Sease, C 1994, A conservation manual for the field archaeologist, 3rd edition, Archaeological Research Tools 4, University of California, Los Angeles.

Watkinson, D, & Neal, V 2001, First aid for finds, written by the Archaeology Section of the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC), The Lavenham Press Limited, London.

MetalSelwyn, L. 2004, Metals and Corrosion: a handbook for the conservation professional, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa

Scott, D, Podany, J & Considine B, 1994, Ancient and Historic Metals: Conservation and Scientific Research, Proceedings of a symposium organised by the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Conservation Institute, Getty Trust Publications: Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.

Scott, D 2002, Copper and Bronze in Art: Corrosion, Colorants, Conservation, Getty Trust Publications: Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.

Ceramics and glass Buys, S & Oakley V., 1996 The Conservation and Restoration of Ceramics, Routledge, London and New York.

Davison, S., 2003., Conservation and Restoration of Glass 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York

Koob, S 1986, ‘The use of Paraloid B-72 as an adhesive: Its application for archaeological ceramics and other materials’, Studies in Conservation, Vol. 31, pp. 7-14.

Koob, S, 2006, Conservation and Care of Glass Objects, Archetype, London

Organic materialsHorie, V., 2010 Materials for Conservation: Organic consolidants, adhesives and coatings 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York.

Mills, J., & White, R., 1999, The Organic Chemistry of Museum Objects, 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York.

Odergaard, N., 2007, Material Characterization Tests for Objects of Art 2nd edition, Archetype, London.

Wills, B (ed.) 2001, Leather Wet and Dry: Current Treatments in the Conservation of Waterlogged and Desiccated Archaeological Leather, Archetype, London

The proceedings of the various ICOM-CC Waterlogged Organic Archaeological Materials (WOAM) working group meetings

APPENDIX F

POST-CONTACT ARTEFACT REFERENCESF.1 Ceramic Adams, W & Boling, S 1989, ‘Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three Georgia Coastal Plantations’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 69-96.

Brooks, A 2005, An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia 1788-1901, The Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and La Trobe University Archaeology Program.

Brooks, A 1999, ‘Building Jerusalem: Transfer-printed Finewares and the Creation of British Identity’, in Tarlow, S & S West (eds), The Familiar Past, Routledge, London, pp. 51-66.

Brooks, A 1997, ‘Beyond the Fringe: Transfer-Printed Ceramics and the Internationalisation of Celtic Myth’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology vol. 1, pp. 39-56.

Casey, M 1999, ‘Local Pottery and Dairying at the DMR Site, Brickfield Hill, Sydney, New South Wales’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 3-37.

Coysh, A & Henrywood, R 1982, The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery 1780-1880, The Antique Collector's Club, Woodbridge, Suffolk.

Erskine, N 2002, Kingston Ceramics: A Dictionary of Ceramic Wares in the Norfolk Island Museum, Norfolk Island Museum, Kingston.

Ewins, N 1997, Supplying the Present Wants of Our Yankee Cousins: Staffordshire Ceramics and the American Market 1775-1880, City Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent.

Fitts, R 1999, ‘The Archaeology of Middle Class Domesticity and Gentility in Victorian Brooklyn’, Historical Archaeology 33, vol. 1, pp. 39-62.

Ford, G 1995, Australian Pottery: The First 100 Years, Salt Glaze Press, Wodonga, Victoria.

Godden, G 1991, Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks, Reprint of 1964 edition, Barrie and Jenkins, London.

Graham, M 2006, Printed Ceramics in Australia, The Australian Society for Historical Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 2.

Graham, M 1976, Australian Pottery of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century, David Ell Press, Sydney.

Hall, W & Hall, D 1991, Australian Domestic Pottery: A Collector’s Guide, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, NSW.

Klose, J & Malan, A 1991, Ceramics of the Southwestern Cape 1650-1850: A Guide to the Analysis and Interpretation of Ceramic Assemblages Excavated

from Archaeological Sites, Cape Town, Historical Archaeology Research Group, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Majewski, T & O’Brien, M 1987 ‘The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 11, pp. 97-209.

Miller, G 1991, ‘A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787-1880’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 25, pp. 1-25.

Miller, G 1991, ‘Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp 37-58.

Muir, AL 2003, ‘Ceramics in the Collection of the Museum of Chinese Australian History, Melbourne’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 42-9.

Neale, G 2005, Miller's Encyclopaedia of British Transfer-Printed Pottery Patterns 1790-1930, Mitchell Beazley.

Orton, C, Tyers P & Vince, A 1993, Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pynn, B & Swanson, B 2004, ‘Collecting Ceramic Pot Lids’, Bottles and Extras Winter, pp. 42-44.

Roberts, GB 1997, True Blue: Transfer-printed Earthenware: Catalogue of Exhibition at the Wedgewood Museum, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, Friends of Blue, Christies, South Kensington, and Wedgewood, Staffordshire.

Samford, P 1997, ‘Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 31, pp. 1-30.

South, S 1977, ‘Chapter 7’, in Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp 201-274.

Staniforth, M & Nash, M 1998, Chinese Export Porcelain from the wreck of the Sydney Cove (1797), Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.

Sussman, L 1997, Mocha, Banded, Cat’s Eye, and Other Factory-Made Slipware, Studies in Northeast Historical Archaeology No. 1., Council for North East Historical Archaeology.

Sussman, L 1979, Spode/Copeland Transfer Printed Patterns, Canadian Historic Sites Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Sussman, L 1977, ‘Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware 1780-1830’, Historical Archaeology vol. 11, pp. 105-111.

Turnbaugh, W & Peabody Turnbaugh, S 1991, ‘Alternative Applications of the Mean Ceramic Date Concept for Interpreting Human Behavior’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 355-370.

Wall, DD 1992, ‘Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York, in Gender in Historical Archaeology’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 25, pp. 69-81.

F.2 Glass Arnold, K 1990, A Victorian Thirst, Crown Castleton, Maiden Gully, Victoria.

Arnold, K 1987, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, Part 2, Crown Castleton, Maiden Gully, Victoria.

Arnold, K 1985, Collecting Australian Found Bottles, Part 1, Crown Castleton, Maiden Gully, Victoria.

Bolton, S 2005, ‘Purple Haze: Evidence for a Later Date for Solarized Amethyst Glass’, Australian Archaeology, p. 60.

Bonasera, M & Rayner, L 2001, ‘Good for What Ails You: Medicinal Use at Five Points’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 35, pp. 49-64.

Boow, J 1992, Early Australian Commercial Glass: Manufacturing Processes, Department of Planning, New South Wales, www.heritage.nsw.gov.au (viewed 22 March 2012)

Busch, J 1991, ‘Second Time Around: A Look at Bottle Reuse’, in Miller, G, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 113-126

Carney, M 1999, ‘A Cordial Factory at Parramatta, New South Wales’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 16, pp. 80-93.

Davies, P 2001, ‘A Cure for all Seasons: Health and Medicine in a Bush Community’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 70, pp. 63-74.

Fike, R 1987, The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic Embossed Medicine Bottles, Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Hutchison, D 1981, ‘Identifying Bottles’, Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology Bulletin, vol. 11.

Jones, D 2009, Thirsty Work: The Story of Sydney's Aerated Water Manufacturers, Riverwood, NSW.

Jones, O & Smith, EA 1985, Glass of the British Military ca. 1755-1820, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Jones, O 1991, ‘Glass Bottle Push-ups and Pontil Marks’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 87-98.

Jones, O 1986, Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850, Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Jones, O, Sullivan, C, Miller, G, Smith, EA & Harris, J 1989, The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat

Glass, and Closures, Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Lindsey, B 2010, Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website, Bureau of Land Management and Society for Historical Archaeology, www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm, viewed 22 March 2012.

Lindsey, B 2006, ‘Overview of BLM's Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website’, Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, vol. 1, pp. 16-20.

Lockhart, B 2006, ‘The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container Glass’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 40, pp. 45-56.

Lorrain, D 1968, ‘An Archaeologist's Guide to Nineteenth Century American Glass’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 35-44.

Miller, G & Sullivan, C 1991,’Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp 99-112.

Peters, SJ 1997, ‘Archaeological Wines: Analysis and Interpretation of a Collection of Wines Recovered from the William Salthouse Shipwreck (1841)’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 14, pp. 63-8.

Ross, D 2009, ‘Identification and Dating of Japanese Glass Beverage Bottles’, Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 7-17.

Staski, E 1991, ‘Just what can a 19th Century Bottle Tell Us?’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 127-40.

Stuart, I 1993, ‘Bottles for Jam? An Example of Recycling from a Post-Contact Archaeological Site’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 17-21.

Stuart, I 1991, ‘Glass Bottles from the 'Loch Ard' Shipwreck (1878): A Preliminary Study’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 31-36.

White, J 2000, ‘Bottle Nomenclature: A Glossary of Landmark Terminology for the Archaeologist’, in D Brauner (ed), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology and Parks Canada Uniontown, PA., pp. 139-48.

Willmott, H 2005, A History of English Glassmaking AD 43-1800, Tempus, Stroud, Gloucester.

F.3 Small Finds F.3.1 Buttons Classen, C 1994, ‘Washboards, Pigtoes, and Muckets: Historic Musseling in the Mississippi Watershed’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 1-145.

Cossum, JK 1988, Buttons of the Defence Forces in Australia, Globe Press, Sunbury, Victoria.

George, S 1999, Unbuttoned: Archaeological Perspectives of Convicts and Whalers' Clothing in Nineteenth Century Tasmania, Honours Thesis in the Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

Lindbergh, J 1999, ‘Buttoning Down Archaeology’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 50-7.

Luscomb, S 1967, The Collector's Encyclopaedia of Buttons, Bonanza Books, New York.

Olsen, S 1963, ‘Dating Early Plain Buttons by Their Form’, American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 551-4.

Peacock, P 1978, Discovering Old Buttons. Princes Risborough, Bucks Shire.

Sprague, R 2002, ‘China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 111-127.

White, CL 2005, American Artifacts of Personal Adornment 1680-1820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford.

F.3.2 Coins Boland, P 1987, Report on Coins Found on First Government House Site, Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.

F.3.3 ChildhoodDavies, P 2005, ‘Writing Slates and Schooling in Victoria’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 63-70.

Davies, P 2005, ‘‘The Children are Running wild’…Uncovering Childhood at a Forest Sawmill Camp’, in Calver, M, Bigler-Cole, H, Bolton, G, Gaynor, A, Horwitz, P, Mills, J & G Wardell-Johnson (eds), A Forest Conscienceness, Sixth National Conference of the Australian Forest History Society, Albany, WA, Millpress, Rotterdam, pp. 75-83.

Davies, P & Ellis, A 2005, ‘The Archaeology of Childhood: Toys from Henry's Mill’, The Artefact, vol. 28, pp.15-22.

Derevenski, JS 2000, Children and Material Culture, Routledge, London.

Ellis, A 2001, Toy Stories: Interpreting Childhood from the Victorian Archaeological Record, Honours Thesis, La Trobe University.

Wilkie, L 2003, The Archaeology of Mothering: An African-American Midwife's Tale, Routledge, New York.

Wilkie, L 2000, ‘Not Merely Child's Play: Creating a Historical Archaeology of Children and Childhood’. In Derevenski, JS (ed), Children and Material Culture, Routledge, London, pp: 100-13.

Yamin, R 2002, ‘Children's Strikes, Parents' Rights: Paterson and Five Points’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 6, pp. 113-126.

F.3.4 Clay PipesBinford, L 1978, ‘A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples’, in R Schuyler (ed), Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, Baywood Farmingdale, New York, pp. 66-67.

Bradley, C 2000, ‘Smoking Pipes for the Archaeologist’, in K Karklins (ed), Studies in Material Culture Research, A Reader from the Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 104-133.

Brassey, R 1991, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Site of the Victoria Hotel, Auckland, N.Z.’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 27-30.

Cook, L 1997, ‘Promiscuous Smoking: Interpreting Gender and Tobacco Use in the Archaeological Record’, Northeastern Historical Archaeology, vol. 26, pp. 23-38.

Dane, A & Morrison, R 1979, ‘Clay Pipes from Port Arthur 1830-1877’, Technical Bulletin No. 2, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Davey, P 1981, ‘The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe’, British Archaeological Reports.

Davies, P 2011, ‘Destitute Women and Smoking at Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 15, pp. 82-101.

Gojak, D 1995, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes from Cadman’s Cottage, Sydney, Australia’, Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter, vol. 48, pp. 11-19.

Gojak, D & Stuart, I 1999, ‘The Potential for the Archaeological Study of Clay Tobacco Pipes from Australian Sites’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 38-49.

Harrington, JC 1976, ‘Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes’, in R Schuyler (ed), Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, Baywood Farmingdale, New York, pp. 63-5.

Higgins, D 1999, ‘Little Tubes of Mighty Power: A Review of British Clay Tobacco Pipe Studies’, in Egan, G & R Michael (eds), Old and New Worlds: Historical/Post Medieval Archaeology Papers from the Societies, Joint conferences at Williamsburg and London 1997 to mark thirty years of work and achievement, Oxford, pp. 310-21.

Jack, RI 1986, ‘Clay Tobacco Pipes Exported from Scotland to Australia in the Nineteenth Century: Some Preliminary Observations’, Historic Clay Tobacco Pipe Studies, vol. 3, pp. 124-34.

Wilson, G & Kelly, A 1987, Preliminary Analysis of Clay Tobacco Pipes from the First Government House Site, Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.

F.3.5 MiscellaneousBeaudry, M 2006, Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Busch, J 1981, ‘An Introduction to the Tin Can’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 15, pp. 95-104.

Courtney, Y 2000, ‘Pub Tokens: Material Culture and Regional Marketing Patterns in Victorian England and Wales’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 159-189.

Kenmotsu, N 1991, ‘Gunflints: A Study’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 197-222.

Veres, M 2005, ‘Introduction to the Analysis of Archaeological Footwear’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 89-96.

F.4 Building Materials F.4.1 Bricks Burke, K 1987, Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology, University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Gemmell, W 1986, And So We Graft from Six to Six, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Hutton, J 1981, ‘Clays and Bricks of the Penal Settlements at Port Arthur and Maria Island, Tasmania’, Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, vol. 115, pp. 153-161.

Pearson, S 1988, Building Materials Analysis: First Government House Site, Sydney, Department of Planning, Sydney.

Ringer, R 2008, The Brickmasters: 1788-2008, Horsley Park NSW, Dry Press Publishing, N.S.W.

State Heritage Branch, 1991, Technical Note 3.3: Old Bricks in South Australia, Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide.

Stuart, I 1987, ‘A History of the Victorian Brick Industry: 1826-1920’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 24, pp. 36-40.

Stuart, I 1995, ‘The History and Archaeology of the Hoffman Brick and Tile Company, Melbourne, Australia’, Industrial Archaeology Review, vol. XVII, pp. 129-144.

Stuart, I 2005, ‘The Analysis of Bricks from Archaeological Sites in Australia’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 79-88.

F.4.2 Nails Adams, WH 2002, ‘Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Sites’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 36, pp. 66-8.

Fontana, B 1965, ‘The Tale of a Nail: On the Ethnological Interpretation of Historic Artefacts’, The Florida Anthropologist, vol. 18, pp. 18-102.

Luebbers, R 1998, Newman's Pontville: Fabric Analysis and Archaeological Investigations of a 1840’s Homestead, Templestowe, Victoria, with a Comparative Study of Sweeney's Culla Hill, Eltham, Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

Middleton, A 2005, ‘Nail Chronology: The Case of Te Puna Mission Station’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 55-62.

Varman, R 1980, ‘The Nail as a Criterion for the Dating of Building and Building Sites (late 18th Century to 1900)’, Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology Bulletin, vol. 10.

Wells, T 1998, ‘Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 32, pp. 78-99.

F.4.3 MiscellaneousJones, S 1984, Cleanliness is next to Godliness, Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, Sydney.

Jones, S 1984, Let There be Light, Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, Sydney.

Kemp, EL 1981, History of Concrete 30 B.C. to 1926 A.D, American Concrete Institute no. 14, Detroit.

Pearson, M 1992, ‘From Ship to the Bush: Ship Tanks in Australia’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 24-29.

Ross, L 1991, ‘Sixteenth Century Basque Coopering’, in Miller, GL, Jones, OR, Ross, LA & T Majewski (eds), Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 223-54.

Staniforth, M 1987, ‘The Casks from the Wreck of the William Salthouse’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 5, pp. 21-8.

Weiland, J 2009, ‘A Comparison and Review of Window Glass Analysis Approaches in Historical Archaeology’, Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, vol. 4, pp. 29-40.

F.5 Faunal Analysis Colley, S 2005, ‘Marine Shell from Australian Historic Sites: Coding, Recording and Research Design’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 71-8.

Colley, S 2006, ‘A Preliminary Beef Meat Cuts Typology for Nineteenth-Century Sydney and Some Methodological Issues’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 24, pp. 47-54.

Crabtree, P 1985, ‘Historic Zooarchaeology: Some Methodological Considerations’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 19, pp. 76-8.

English, A 1990, ‘Salted Meats from the Wreck of the William Salthouse: Archaeological Analysis of Nineteenth-Century Butchering Patterns’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 8, pp. 63-9.

Gibbs, M 2005, ‘The Archaeology of Subsistence on the Maritime Frontier: Faunal Analysis of the Cheyne Beach Whaling Station 1845-1877’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 115-22.

Howell-Muers, S 2000, ‘Nineteenth-Century Diet in Victoria: The Faunal Remains from Viewbank’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 18, pp. 39-46.

Landon, D 1996, ‘Feeding Boston: A Zooarchaeological Study’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 30.

Lyman, R 1987, ‘On Zooarchaeological Measures of Socioeconomic Position and Cost Efficient Meat Purchases’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 58-66.

Lyman, R 1977, ‘Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 11, pp. 67-83.

Mitchell, S 1999, ‘Dog's Dinner? Archaeological Evidence for Meat Consumption on Chinese Historic sites in the Pine Creek Region’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 48, pp. 23-8.

Piper, A 1990, ‘Can Taphonomy Aid in the Analysis of Faunal Material from Historic Archaeological Sites?’, in Solomon, S, Davidson, I & D Watson (eds), Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Tempus Volume 2, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., pp. 149-57.

Rothschild, N & Balkwill D 1993, ‘The Meaning of Change in Urban Faunal Deposits’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 27, pp. 71-89.

Schmitt, D & Zeier, C 1993, ‘Not by bones alone: Exploring Household Composition and Socioeconomic Status in an Isolated Historic Mining Communities’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 27, pp. 20-38.

Schulz, P & Gust, S 1983, ‘Faunal Remains and Social Status in 19th Century Sacremento’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 17, pp. 44-53.

Simons, A & Maitri, M 2006, ‘The Food Remains from Casselden Place, Melbourne, Australia’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 357-74.

F.6 Indigenous post-contact artefactsHarrison, R 2002, ‘Archaeology and the Colonial Encounter: Kimberley Spearpoints, Cultural Identity and Masculinity in the North of Australia’, Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 351-77.

Harrison, R 2002, ‘Nowadays With Glass: Regional Variation in Aboriginal Bottle Glass Artefacts from Western Australia’, Archaeology in Oceania, vol. 35, pp. 34-47.

Harrison, R 2002, ‘Australia's Iron Age: Aboriginal Post-Contact Metal Artefacts from Old Lamboo Station, Southeast Kimberly’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 20, pp. 67-76.

Wolski, N & Loy, T 1999, ‘On the Invisibility of Contact: Residue Analyses on Aboriginal Glass Artefacts from Western Victoria’, The Artefact, vol. 22, pp. 65-73.

F.7 Chinese artefacts Abrahams, T & Wegars, P 2003, ‘Urns, Bones, and Burners: Overseas Chinese Cemeteries’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 58-69.

Bell, P 1993, ‘Chinese Ovens on Mining Settlement Sites in Australia’, in P MacGregor (ed), Histories of the Chinese in Australasia and the South Pacific, Proceedings of an International Public Conference held at the Museum of Chinese Australian History Melbourne, 8-10 October 1992, pp. 213-29.

Cameron, F 1985, ‘Analysis of Buttons, Clothing Hardware and Textiles of the Nineteenth Century Chinese Goldminers of Central Otago’, Anthropology, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Jack, RI, Holmes, K & Kerr, R 1984, ‘Ah Toy's Garden: A Chinese Market-Garden on the Palmer River Goldfield, North Queensland’, Australian Historical Archaeology, vol. 2, pp. 51-8.

Lydon, J 1997, Many Inventions: The Chinese in the Rocks 1890-1930, Monash Publications in History, Melbourne.

McCarthy, J 1988, ‘The New Gold Mountain: Chinese trade networks in northern Australia’. In Birmingham, J, Bairstow, D & Wilson, A (eds), Archaeology and Colonisation: Australia in the World Context, Sydney, pp. 139-48.

Mitchell, S 1999, ‘Dog's Dinner? Archaeological Evidence for Meat Consumption on Chinese Historic Sites in the Pine Creek Region’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 48, pp. 23-8.

Muir, A.L 2003, ‘Ceramics in the Collection of the Museum of Chinese Australian History, Melbourne’, Australasian Journal for Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 42-9.

Piper, A 1988, ‘Chinese Diet and Cultural Conservatism in Nineteenth Century New Zealand’, Australian Journal for Historical Archaeology, vol. 6, pp. 34-42.

Ritchie, N & Park, S 1987, ‘Chinese Coins Down Under: Their Role on the New Zealand Goldfields’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 5, pp. 41-8.

Schulz, P & Allen, R 2004, Archaeology and Architecture of the Overseas Chinese: A Bibliography, Society for Historical Archaeology.

Staniforth, M & Nash, M 1998, ‘Chinese Export Porcelain from the wreck of the Sydney Cove (1797)’, Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.

Terrey, P & Pastron, A 1988, ‘Chinese Export Porcelain in Gold Rush San Francisco’, in Pastron, AG & Hattori, EM (eds), The Hoff Store Site and Gold Rush Merchandise from San Francisco, California, Special Publication Series no. 7., The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 75-81.

APPENDIX G

GENERAL REFERENCESAdams, WH 2003, ‘Dating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use and Disposal of Artefacts’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 37, pp. 38-64.

Adams, WH 1976, ‘Trade Networks and Interaction Spheres: A View from Silcott’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, pp. 99-112.

Adams, WY & Adams, EW 1991, Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Andrews G & Thomas R 1991, Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP 2), English Heritage.

Australia ICOMOS 1999, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICAMOS.

Banning, EB 2000, ‘Research Design and Sampling’, in Jochim MA & Dickens RS (eds), The Archaeologist’s Laboratory, Kluwer Academic Publishing, pp. 73-92.

Beaudry, M 2006, Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Beaudry, M, Cook, L & Mrozowski, SA 1991, ‘Artefacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse’, in R McGuire & Paynter R (eds), The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 272-310.

Binford, LR 1964, ‘A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design’, American Antiquity, vol. 29, pp. 425-441.

Birmingham, J 1990, ‘A Decade of Diggings: Deconstructing Urban Archaeology’, Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 8, pp. 13-22.

Black, SL & Jolly K 2003, Archaeology by Design, Archaeologists Toolkit 1, AltaMira Press, Oxford.

Brauner, D 2001, Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, The Society for Historical Archaeology.

Brooks, A 2005, ‘Observing Formalities: The Use of Functional Artefact Categories in Australian Historical Archaeology’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23 pp. 7-14.

Burke, H & Smith, C 2004, The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook, Allen and Unwin, New South Wales.

Carmichael, DL, Lafferty, RH & Molyneaux, BL 2003, Excavation, Archaeologist’s Toolkit 3, AltaMira Press, Oxford.

Carver, M 2009, ‘Field Research Procedure: A Framework’, in Archaeological Investigation, Routledge.

Casey, M 2004, ‘Falling Through the Cracks: Method and Practice at the CSR Site, Pyrmont,’ Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 22, pp. 27-43.

Cochran, M & Beaudry, M 2006, ‘Material Culture Studies and Historical Archaeology’, in Hicks, D & Beaudry, M (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 191-204.

Connah, G 1994, ‘Bagot's Mill: Genesis and Revelation in an Archaeological Research Project’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 12, pp. 3-55.

Crook, P 2005, ‘Quality, Cost and Value: Key Concepts for an Interpretive Assemblage Analysis’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23 pp. 15-24.

Crook, PS, Lawrence & Gibbs, M 2002, ‘The Role of Artefact Catalogues in Australian Historical Archaeology: A Framework for Discussion’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 20, pp. 26-38.

Crook, P & Murray, T 2004, ‘The Analysis of Cesspit Deposits from the Rocks, Sydney’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 22, pp. 44-56.

Dunnell, R 1976, ‘Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy’, American Antiquity, vol. 43, pp. 192-202.

English Heritage 2008, Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, English Heritage, United Kingdom.

English Heritage 2006, Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment, MoRPHE Project Planning Note 2, Developing Controlled Vocabularies, English Heritage.

Ewen, CR 2003, Artifacts, Archaeologists Toolkit 4, AltaMira Press, Oxford.

Gibbs, M 2005, ‘Editorial’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 3-5.

Hardesty, D & Little, B 2009, ‘Scientific and Scholarly Significance’, in Assessing Site Significance, A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians, Second Edition, Altamira Press, pp. 53-76.

Hardesty, D & Little B 2009, ‘Summary’, in Assessing Site Significance, A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians, Second Edition, Altamira Press, pp. 153-160.

Heritage Council of Victoria and Heritage Victoria 2010, Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes, Heritage Council of Victoria, Melbourne.

Higginbotham, E 2010, ‘Say it With Assemblages: A Simple Method for Comparing Sites’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 43-60.

Karklins, K 2000, Studies in Material Culture Research, A Reader from Historical Archaeology, The Society for Historical Archaeology.

Karskens, G 2003, ‘Revisiting the Worldview: The Archaeology of Convict Households in Sydney’s Rocks Neighbourhood’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 37, pp. 34-55.

Karskens, G 1999, Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighbourhood, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney.

Lampard, S 2009, ‘The Ideology of Domesticity and the Working-Class Women and Children of Port Adelaide, 1840-1890’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 43, pp. 50-64.

Lawrence, S 2006, ‘Artifacts of the Modern World’, in Balme J & Paterson A (eds), Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analysi,. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 362-88.

Lawrence, S 1999, ‘The Role of Material Culture in Australasian Archaeology’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol.16, pp. 8-15.

Lawrence, S & Davies, P 2010, An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, Springer, New York.

Lydon, J 1993, ‘Task Differentiation in Historical Archaeology: Sewing as Material Culture’, in Du Cros, H & Smith, L (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 129-133.

Lydon, J & Ireland, T 2005, Object Lessons. Archaeology and Heritage in Australia, Australian Scholarly Publishing. Melbourne.

Mayne, A & Lawrence, S 1998, ‘An Ethnography of Place: Imagining Little Lon’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 57, pp. 93-107.

Mayne, A, Murray, T & Lawrence, S 2000, ‘Historic Sites: Melbourne's Little Lon’, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 31, pp. 131-151.

Miller, G 2000, ‘Telling Time for Archaeologists’, Northeastern Historical Archaeology, vol. 29, pp. 1-22.

Murray, T & Mayne, A 2001, ‘Imaginary Landscapes: Reading Melbourne’s Little Lon’, in Mayne A. & Murray T. (eds), The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 89-105.

Noel Hume, I 1970, A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America, New York, Knopf.

Orser, C 1989, ‘On Plantations and Patterns’, Historical Archaeology, vol. 23, pp. 28-40.

Orser, Jr. CE 2004, Historical Archaeology, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Orton, C 2000, Sampling in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sagazio, C 2004, ‘The Italians’, in P Yule (ed), Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 73-88.

Schacht, I 2010, ‘Towards a Thematic Research Framework for Australian Historical Archaeology,’ Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 61-76.

Schacht, I 2008, Determining Research Significance in Archaeological Collections from Historic Sites, PhD thesis, Deakin University.

Stone, GW 1988, ‘Artefacts Are Not Enough’, in Beaudry M (ed), Documentary Archaeology in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 68-77.

Sullivan, LP & Childs, ST 2003, Curating Archaeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository, Archaeologist’s Toolkit 6, AltaMira Press, Oxford.

Sussman, L 2000, ‘Objects vs. Sherds: A Statistical Evaluation’, in K Karklins (ed), Studies in Material Culture Research, The Society for Historical Archaeology Uniontown, Pennsylvania, pp. 96-103.

WorkSafe Victoria 2005, Industry Standard Contaminated Construction Sites, Construction and Utilities , Worksafe Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria.

APPENDIX H

HERITAGE COUNCIL’S CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

The following assessment criteria were adopted by the Heritage Council of Victoria in August 2008. They replace the previous criteria adopted by the Heritage Council in 1997.

Criterion A Importance to the course, or pattern, of Victoria’s cultural history

Criterion B Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s cultural history.

Criterion C Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Victoria’s cultural history.

Criterion D Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places or objects.

Criterion E Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.

Criterion F Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period.

Criterion G Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions.

Criterion H Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Victoria’s history.