350-1292-1-pb

1Number 63, December 2006

SEEING SLUMS THROUGH ROSE-COLOURED GLASSES: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney and its Limitations in the Search for Vanished Slum CommunitiesAndrew Sneddon

AbstractIn recent years there has been a tendency in some quarters

to use the archaeological record uncritically to argue for a

level of comfort and disposable wealth in nineteenth century

Australian slums that rarely, if ever, existed there. The Mountain

Street excavation, in what was once the Blackwattle Creek

slum but which is now the fashionable inner-Sydney suburb

of Ultimo, has demonstrated that site formation processes can

seriously distort our perceptions of nineteenth century slum

life. It demonstrated that even on sites where site formation

processes could be expected to exaggerate the levels of

poverty, the appalling living conditions and deprivation in

these places were actually understated in the archaeological

record. Thus, although some general observations could be

made about the ways in which people lived in the area in the

nineteenth century, the excavation data also demonstrated that

slum excavations should only be used with extreme caution

in the so-called slum debate, which is presently occupying

some sections of the Australian archaeological community.

IntroductionIn May 1890 the Sydney City Health Offi cer reported on one

of the streets in the slums along Blackwattle Creek (now the

fashionable Ultimo area):

There had been a heavy storm the evening before my visit to this

street, and the water marks were plainly visible. The water was six

inches above the fl oor in a few of the houses on the north side

From No. 11 to 27 there were the most offensive cesspits it has

ever been my lot to come across. The yards were ill-drained and

very damp, the open drain from one house running through the

yard of the next, and so on At No. 33 there is a cellar, which

had 2 feet of stinking water in it. The tenants in this case have had

constant ill-health, but have continued living here for ten years.

There has been sickness in almost every house, typhoid fever and

diarrhoea have been very prevalent (Clay 1890:4).

In other words, the Blackwattle Creek slums were awful. They

fl ooded in the rain, they reeked of cess, and the average death rate

(as evidenced by statistics presented by the City Health Offi cer)

was substantially higher than the average for the city as a whole

(22.758 per thousand as opposed to 15.222 per thousand, but

probably closer to 30 per thousand when other factors were

considered) (Clay 1890:1). By any objective standard these slums

were not the sort of place that the average Sydneysider would

have cared to live in, if they could have avoided it at all.

However, against the observation of the City Health Offi cer

we may read the following:

Slums are a construction of the imagination: a stereotype that

was fashioned in the early nineteenth century by bourgeois

entertainers and social reformers, and that obscured and

distorted the varied spatial forms and social conditions to which

it was applied (Mayne and Murray 2001a:1).

How to tell a typhoid victim they are dying of a stereotype!

But I have done Mayne and Murray a disservice. I have

deliberately taken the above quote out of context and presented it

as a self-contained argument. It is not. In fact, Mayne and Murray

have developed a nuanced and sophisticated argument over the last

decade in favour of the collaboration of historians and historical

archaeologists, to ensure that a balanced and multifaceted

depiction of the vanished communities from slums be recovered.

They have never argued that life in places like Melbournes Little

Lon in the nineteenth century was anything other than tough,

acknowledging that children there died young, and poverty was rife

(Mayne and Murray 2001b:101-102). Similarly, and importantly,

they recognise the need to appreciate the site formation processes

at work at such sites (e.g. Mayne and Murray 2001b:103). However,

unfortunately, in some quarters there has been a tendency to

see only the decontextualised quote. As a result, there has been

something of a rush towards a revisionist archaeology of the

slums (perhaps over-revisionism), a keenness to hunt down

those isolated pieces of material culture in the archaeological

record that refl ect the brighter side of living in abject poverty, or

even to argue a level of comfort that understates the diffi culties

experienced by the inner-city poor during the nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries. Take, for example, the observations of

an archaeologist recently interviewed while excavating part of the

Cumberland Street site at the Rocks, Sydney (a former slum area).

They are quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald (17 March 2006)

as saying, Were fi nding things like quality china, childrens toys,

gravy boats and lots and lots of sauces and pickles It means that

people had enough money at the end of the week to buy extras

It means people were well off . Mayne has acknowledged this

problem himself elsewhere (Mayne 2003:77).

This article is a reaction against this trend. It presents, in

summary form, the results of an excavation of an inner-city

slum, dating to nineteenth century Sydney, and tests its value

to the slum debate (for the full excavation report see Godden

Mackay Logan 2005). The so-called slum debate has seen some

lively exchanges between its protagonists (see, for example,

Casey 2003 and Murray et al. 2004, which together also provide

an excellent summary of the arguments and methodologies

used by all parties). As an historical archaeologist I am aware Godden Mackay Logan, 78 George Street, Redfern, NSW 2016, Australia

2 Number 63, December 2006

Seeing Slums through Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney

that this article to some degree will provide ammunition

to those who question the value of historical archaeology,

undermining Mayne and Murrays sensible observation that we

must engage our sceptics (Mayne and Murray 2001a:1). In fact,

the article agrees with the optimistic attitude taken by Mayne

and Murray to the value of archaeology to the slum debate and

argues that historical archaeology, used with historical research,

can and does make a very signifi cant contribution to the study

of history, as it has done at places like The Rocks in Sydney

and Little Lon in Melbourne (e.g. Godden Mackay Logan et

al. 2004; Karskens 1997, 1999). However, it also warns of the

limitations of archaeology when the site formation processes

are not adequately appreciated.

Further, it is a cautionary note to even the cautious, including

Mayne who has used the historical archaeological record (with

qualifi cations) to argue that the slum-dwellers of nineteenth

century Australia demonstrated a surprising agency and

adaptability within the constraints of their condition (Mayne

2003:77). Similarly, others have found (again with qualifi cations)

a richness and variety of life in the slums represented in the

archaeological record (Murray et al. 2004:94). However, the

results from the Mountain Street excavation suggest that site

formation processes can give a very false impression of life in

the slums, masking poverty and discomfort and suggesting an

agency, adaptability and variety of life that may rarely have been

there. In searching for the multidimensional nature of slum

life and relying too heavily on the archaeological record to do

it, we run the risk of forgetting that many of the inhabitants of

places like the Blackwattle Creek slum would have felt that their

lives were in fact overwhelmingly limited and one-dimensional,

the agency, adaptability and variety there having been severely

curtailed by poverty and appalling living conditions.

This article began with a quote from the City Health

Offi cer and I have taken at face value his general assertion that

the Blackwattle Creek slums were diseased, unsanitary and

uncomfortable. Of course, this source might be accused of

being a bourgeois social reformer perpetuating a stereotype. It

is possible that he stood to profi t from a clearing of the slums

and therefore exaggerated the living conditions at the site. It

is also possible that, as a salaried employee of the municipal

authority that wished to clear the slums, he chose to depict the

living conditions there in a particularly bad light. However, his

report was just one of many similar ones over several years and

his observations are generally supported by the sites topography

(the excavated site still fl ooded during rains) and the high death

rates and incidence of typhoid, diarrhoea etc offi cially recorded

for the area. While accepting the possibility that the conditions

in the slums may have been exaggerated to a degree in the City

Health Offi cers report, this article for the most part accepts the

claims made in it.

Figure 1 Map showing the location of the Mountain Street site in Ultimo, Sydney (shaded).

Figure 2 Site plan showing the Mountain Street site at the close of excavations. Blackwattle Lane follows the line of the former Blackwattle Creek. The numbered Areas refer to excavation areas. The grey east-west oriented rectangles were modern concrete piers.


Andrew Sneddon

The Mountain Street SiteIn 2003 the heritage consultancy Godden Mackay Logan

excavated the Mountain Street site prior to bulk excavation

for residential and commercial development by Multiplex

Constructions Pty Ltd. The Mountain Street site once formed

part of a nineteenth century slum area, along what was formerly

Blackwattle Creek, in the inner-city suburb of Ultimo (Figures

1-4). It is now on the corner of Mountain and Smail Streets,

Ultimo. It was occupied for a brief period from the c.1840s to

19061907, when the land was resumed by the government, the

buildings were demolished and the site was covered in fi ll.

In the fi rst half of the nineteenth century the Mountain Street site

was low-lying swampy land exploited for oysters, rushes and timber.

By the middle of the century, the intermittently fl owing Blackwattle

Creek was being used by early industry and the area came to be

dominated by noxious activities such as slaughterhouses. From

the 1860s levels of urbanisation began to increase. Noxious trades

began to move to other parts of the city to be replaced by (initially)

a small amount of residential development. The latter decades of

the nineteenth century saw the last of the noxious industries leave

the area and residential development dominate, in spite of the

dreadful living conditions, regular fl ooding and disease.

A series of reports in the last two decades of the nineteenth

century identifi ed the slum as a health hazard. Forced resumptions

began in 1906 as the government took steps to clear the area of

its former inhabitants and eradicate what the city saw as a major

health concern. The houses in the area were demolished and the

site was covered with up to 2m of fi ll.

At the close of excavations the remains of a dozen houses had

been exposed (Figures 2-8) in addition to almost 16,000 artefacts.

However, in addressing the research questions posed in the

Archaeological Research Design underpinning the excavation, it

became clear that surprisingly little could be said about the site

without heavily qualifying our observations or couching them

in only the most general terms. Those questions devised to make

a contribution to the slum debate bore particularly little fruit. I

began to pose a different question: If we did not know that the

Mountain Street site had been a slum, would the archaeology

alone have identifi ed it as such? Before a summary of the results

of the excavation are presented, it is therefore worth considering

what the site did not tell us, and why.

Limitations on the Relics for Dating Purposes and Spatial AnalysisThe Mountain Street site was occupied for about half a century

before it was sealed under a deep deposit of fi ll. Indeed, the

settlement of the Blackwattle Creek area, including the

construction of many of its structural features (houses, roads,

services), has been precisely dated by reference to historical

sources. It therefore provided an excellent opportunity to test

the value of the artefacts for fi ne-level chronological analysis.

In fact, the value of the artefacts as a dating tool proved to

be highly questionable. It was rarely possible to date individual

deposits (for example, under-fl oor deposits and cesspit fi ll) to

anything more refi ned than a broad mid-to-late nineteenth

century date range. In other words, the artefacts were of limited

value in refi ning the dates already obtained through historical

research. This problem was partly owing to the fact that many

of the artefacts from the nineteenth century that are most useful

for dating purposes are also the kind of artefact that people and

families use for long periods, subjecting them to repair when they

are damaged and passing them down through generations (for

example, imported table wares, decorative pieces etc). Therefore,

an artefact that might be dated by manufacturers mark or

decorative technique to an early period may not have entered

the archaeological record for decades after its manufacture. In

other words, a deposit containing early artefacts could not be

assigned an early date without additional supporting evidence

(stratigraphy, historical plans etc). For example, a large pit in

Area 6 (6.105) was sealed by the foundations of a building dated

by historical records to 1865 (possibly 1854). The fi ll contained

a high proportion of artefacts dating to decades before it was

Figure 3 Looking north on Athlone Place in the Blackwattle Creek slums, prior to resumption in 1906, showing typical dwellings in and around the site (Photograph: Council City of Sydney Archives).

Figure 4 Looking along the open sewer at the rear of properties on Howard Street prior to resumption in 1906 (Howard Street bisected the site from north to south) (Photograph: Council City of Sydney Archives).



sealed, with the bulk of datable artefacts belonging to the 1820s

to 1860s (Godden Mackay Logan 2005:Part B, 79). Similarly,

secure underfl oor deposits from a house in Area 3 (dated by

records to c.1865, possibly 1854, and demolished 19061907)

contained artefacts spanning almost the entire nineteenth

century (1820s to c.1900) (Godden Mackay Logan 2005:Part

B, 56). Thus, features such as cesspits which could not be dated

by reference to historical records could not be accurately dated

using the artefacts within the fi ll. For example, cesspit fi ll 1c.026

contained datable artefacts from the 1840s to c.1900 (Godden

Mackay Logan 2005:Part B, 56). This is of limited value in

establishing a meaningful date for the cesspits construction.

Nevertheless, it was possible to date some deposits through

a combination of artefact analysis and stratigraphic analysis,

to a broad early or late period in some circumstances. This

allowed for some general observations to be made about

changes at the site and in the areas population, from the early

slaughterhouse period to the later more urbanised period in

the lead up to resumption. However, for the site as a whole the

limits on the artefact assemblage as a dating tool were more

noticeable than their potential.

The site formation processes operating at the site also hindered

meaningful spatial analysis based on the artefact assemblage

alone. Historical sources established that the site was subjected

to frequent fl ooding in the mid-nineteenth century. This is likely

to have displaced many artefacts from their contexts of original

deposition (although heavier and less buoyant artefacts will

have been less affected in this regard). As a result, many deposits

identifi ed as under-fl oor deposits might have been contaminated

by artefacts deposited by the pooling of water under homes, while

the recovery of individual artefacts from within particular rooms

within houses (for example, clothes-making accoutrements)

could not necessarily be used to identify activity areas (such as

sewing rooms).

Similarly, given the areas reputation for poor sanitation and

ineffi cient garbage disposal, it seems likely that the area in the

nineteenth century was characterised by ad hoc garbage disposal

(in vacant lots, over back fences, in the street etc). This was

certainly the case in inner-city Melbourne in 1890, when that

citys Health Offi cer observed:

(rubbish) being thrown deliberately on to the back yard, over

the boundary fence, or on to some near vacant land, or being

swept from the house or shop direct into the street-channel. This

littering is a common feature of almost all low-rented localities,

where, in fact, but few blocks of buildings and vacant allotments

are free from it (Gresswell 1890).

Therefore, it would be dangerous to assume that an artefact

found in a particular yard or cesspit derived from the home to

which that yard or pit belonged. This made spatial analysis at

the Mountain Street site very diffi cult and many observations

about the assemblage had therefore to be couched in only the

most general terms about the area. In a similar way, the value

of the cesspits at the Mountain Street site was limited by site

formation processes. The subject of the limitations of cesspits

has been dealt with in detail by others (see, for example, Crook

and Murray 2004). Importantly, in the Blackwattle Creek area,

the City Health Offi cer noted that cesspits would be emptied by

inhabitants, before being reused. This may explain the relatively

low quantities of early period artefacts in the assemblage.

Processes Potentially Exaggerating the Areas Slum ConditionsThe Mountain Street site was peculiar in that it was the subject

of a government-organised depopulation in the early twentieth

century when the resumption of properties took place and the

area was buried under fi ll. This has an identifi able effect on

Figure 5 View facing east of 1850s house excavated at the Mountain Street site. This was one of the earliest structures exposed during excavations, belonging to a period when slaughterhouses operated in the area. A hallway is visible at the top right (with piers for timber fl oor joists), with two small rooms to its left and a well (pre-dating the house, at least its later phases) in the foreground (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).

Figure 6 Numbers 38 (right) and 40 (left) Owen Street, looking south (Owen Street bisected the northern part of the site, running east-west). Note the large sandstone wall footings, which would not be out of place in wealthier suburbs (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).


Andrew Sneddon

artefact assemblages (Tomka 1993; Webb 1995). People leaving

their homes for a new place, knowing that they will not return

and knowing that their old homes will be demolished, do a

number of predictable things:

They carefully collect the most valuable items in their possession fi rst and move them to the new property.

They clear the house and surrounding area of any items that may be of assistance to them in their new home.

They strip their houses of all materials that might be used in the furbishing of the new home. They may systematically

demolish the old home, selling construction materials for

reuse in other structures.

As a result, archaeologists should expect that assemblages from

such sites will contain very few valuable, complete, functional

or unusual artefacts. Conversely, the assemblages recovered

from such sites will be dominated by broken and poor quality

items. In other words, the assemblage may give an exaggerated

impression of poverty and need, an important issue in the

context of the slum debate. As a result, any attempt to argue

from the Mountain Street assemblage that the evidence clearly

demonstrates the poverty of the area during the nineteenth

century must be, at the least, qualified. It is impossible to

know what items indicative of economic stability, even wealth,

may have been taken from the area in 1906.

The Archaeological Understatement of Poverty in an Inner-City SlumHowever, in spite of the effects of curation on the assemblage

and the potential for it to exaggerate the poverty in the area,

there was still little in the results to suggest the extreme poverty

suffered by the Mountain Street inhabitants. The assemblage

contained a relatively large number of repaired shoes and

low quality ceramics were found in relatively high (though

not extraordinarily so) numbers. The large amount of sewing

paraphernalia suggested a great deal of clothing repairs. The bone

assemblage suggested a small preference for the cheaper cuts of

meat, based on taxonomy, age at death, butchery patterns etc

(Steele 2005:Part B, 89-110; see also Godden Mackay Logan et al.

2004:435-451 for comparable results at the Casselden Place site

in Melbourne). However, this cannot be treated as evidence of

poverty. Rather, it demonstrates the frugality of the era, evident

not just in slums but in almost every historical site from the

period, rich and poor. In other words, even allowing for factors

that might exaggerate the horrors of slum life, those horrors are

inadequately represented in the assemblage. This in turn makes

it easier, for those who wish to, to fi nd evidence of the brighter

side of slum life, or inadvertently to misrepresent the grinding

poverty that prevailed there, or to place too much emphasis on

the agency and adaptability of those who lived there.

This problem is compounded by any willingness to see

artefacts that suggest a degree of comfort, disposable income or

middle class aspirations as being defi nitive of these things. In

fact, it has long been demonstrated through a study of mortuary

archaeology that the urban poor in nineteenth century Britain

commonly expended considerable sums of money on the burial

of their dead, in a display of conspicuous consumption (an effort

to keep up with the Joneses) and resulting in an inversion of

the symbolism of rank (Pearson 1982; see also Wason 1994). As

a result, expensive grave goods and funeral paraphernalia we

might expect to fi nd in middle class or even upper class graves,

can turn up in the graves of the poor. The same principle

would apply equally outside the mortuary sphere, in everyday

life, with even the poorest city-dwellers at times expending

disproportionately large sums of money to acquire fi ne china,

porcelain dolls and gold jewellery. In other words, the urban

poor are likely to have worked hard themselves to subvert the

stereotype that prevailed with respect to their communities.

They were certainly not oblivious to those stereotypes. The

City Health Offi cer noted in 1890 that when he asked residents

about the prevalence of illness in the Blackwattle slums area,

he was often told in a most unhesitating manner that there

had never been any illness there, even though he was aware of

cases of typhoid just up the road! This is hardly surprising given

that rumours of property resumptions had been circulating

and people feared they would lose their homes. But it also

demonstrates that in seeking to fi nd the multiple facets of life

for the inner-city poor, it is often those very people who have

sought to disguise their limiting living conditions.

The Mountain Street site provided a number of more concrete

examples of how the archaeological record can understate the

suffering and deprivation experienced by the inhabitants who lived

there. This can be demonstrated by searching the archaeological

record for evidence of known examples of slum poverty that

were not actually represented in the archaeological record.

For example, in 1890 the City Health Offi cer made the

following observations:

There were high levels of disease at the site including higher than average levels of typhoid and diarrhoea. This was

refl ected in a higher than average death rate.

The area fl ooded in wet weather, with some yards inundated to a depth of 18 inches (50cm) and some house interiors also

Figure 7 The disturbed remains of Number 10 Adelaide Street (bottom of picture) and the shadows of the foundations for Numbers 1214 Adelaide Street (top of picture), facing east (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).



fl ooding. This caused disease as the cesspits in the area were

fl ooded also.

Many inhabitants reared poultry in their yards in close proximity to the houses resulting in fi lthy yard areas.

Although some homes were serviced with in-ground drains etc, the area was still dominated by cesspits and open drains

in 1890.

Similarly, we know from other historical sources that the area

was once dominated by noxious trades, living cheek-by-jowl

with residences for 20 years, including eight slaughterhouses by

the 1840s.

And yet, none of these things was unambiguously represented

by the exposed archaeology at the Mountain Street site. It is

virtually impossible to identify disease in a population without

access to human remains, none of which was present in the

assemblage, dating as it does to a time of effi cient disposal of

human remains. There was no clear evidence of high water

levels at the site either, such as clear silt lamination and grain

size sorting in the corners of subfl oor spaces. Some strata within

underfl oor deposits were silty and fi nely sorted, suggestive

of water deposition but certainly nothing to suggest the levels

of fl ooding reported by the City Health Offi cer. Without his

report, the stratigraphy would not have suggested fl ooding at all

(though it may have been suspected from a study of the sloping

topography around the site and the accumulation of water during

the actual excavation). There was no evidence of chickens being

kept in the area, with the exception of a ceramic egg possibly

used to encourage hens to lay. There was no preponderance of

chicken bones in the faunal assemblage and no concentration

of egg shells in the cesspit deposits. No parasitological studies

or chemical analysis of soils was undertaken, which may have

yielded such data. However, given the historical evidence for

overfl owing cesspits it is unlikely that this would have yielded

unambiguous results either.

Similarly, although the remains of around 12 homes were

excavated, only four (possibly fi ve) cesspits were exposed. It is

possible that the many other recorded cesspits were removed

as soon as proper services were installed to prevent these now

defunct pits from fl ooding during rains (some of those that

were exposed appear to have been sealed with clay or bitumen).

This would have occurred in just the last 1015 years of the

sites life, when most of the services were introduced. Finally,

with the exception of one concentration of large bones in a

pre-settlement deposit, the slaughterhouses remained entirely

unrepresented in the assemblage (even the concentration

of bones did not defi nitively demonstrate the presence of

a slaughterhouse).

It is also important to note that the remains of houses

excavated in the area did not stand out as being of particularly

poor quality. In fact, they would not have been out of place in

the wealthier parts of the city. Some incorporated substantial

Figure 8 View of Numbers 17 Howard Street after completion of excavation. Note Pit 6.105 at the top of the picture under the wall footings. Adelaide Street is visible to the left (north) of the wall footings and Howard Street is visible at the top of picture (east) with cut 6.058 in it (for a drain) (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).


Andrew Sneddon

sandstone footings (Figure 6) and apparently good workmanship

(the remains of houses are described further below).

What the Archaeological Record Did Tell UsNotwithstanding the many obstacles to interpretation noted

above, the Mountain Street excavation yielded a great deal of

information about the area and the lives of the inhabitants of

the slum.

The archaeological remains of around a dozen houses were

exposed during the excavation (Figure 2). The archaeology

demonstrated that the people inhabiting the Mountain Street

site in the mid-to-late nineteenth century lived either in small

detached houses with an open rear yard or in narrow terrace

houses, also with small yard areas, if only to accommodate the

outdoor toilet and laundry facilities. The houses were usually

made of rendered brick on substantial stone footings with

slate, tile or corrugated metal roofs. The rooms were small and

not numerous, suggesting a degree of crowding. They were

heated with fi replaces. Some people made an effort to beautify

their rather drab surrounds with fl owerpots, ceramic fi gurines,

expensive tea sets etc. Most toilet facilities were rudimentary

(cesspits). However, the remains of in-ground services dating to

the late nineteenth century were also exposed.

Few glass and ceramic artefacts dating to the early nineteenth

century were recovered from the site. Most of the artefacts

belonged to the second half of the nineteenth century when

residential development had expanded in the area (Harris 2005).

There was some evidence that the residents along Blackwattle

Creek purchased cheaper varieties of ceramic and glass serving

and storage pieces. However, there was also evidence suggesting

that at least some houses made the choice to purchase extras,

with some more expensive artefact types also being present in

the assemblage (although these may also have found their way

into the area as recycled second-hand pieces, parts of incomplete

sets and so on, and therefore may also be interpreted as evidence

of frugality and economic constraint). Most of the domestic

ceramic assemblage was manufactured in England, with many of

the manufacturers involved in the export trade being represented.

Glass bottles from Britain, the USA and Australia dominated the

glass assemblage.

Footwear worn by babies, children and adults dating between

c.1790 and c.1880 was found in many contexts (Stocks 2005).

Sturdy shoes and boots suitable for outdoor or heavy work were

the main type of wear. Most footwear was hand-stitched. To

judge from the shoe remains at the site, other techniques and

machine methods were used only to a limited extent during the

later half of the century. There was also evidence to suggest that

at least some of the recovered footwear may have been made or

repaired by a resident shoemaker from c.18201860.

The Mountain Street animal bone and shell assemblage

displayed a limited range of meat products (Steele 2005). The

bone assemblage, for example, was dominated by sheep elements,

followed by cattle and pig. Fish, bird and rabbit, by comparison,

were generally poorly represented. Few other edible species were

present. The cuts of meat evidenced by the bones recorded suggest

a small preference for cheaper cuts. The shells consisted largely

of rock oyster remains, followed by mud oyster and cockle. Shells

of deep water and/or open beach and rock platform species were

largely absent. Evidence of the slaughter house phase of land use

may have been visible in a number of bone dumps, pit fi lls and

bones scattered across the site, but this is not certain.

The inhabitants of the area also supplemented their diet with

eggs, often (the written sources tell us) keeping their own chickens.

The ceramics and glass artefacts at the site indicate that the residents

also ate pickles, chutney, olive oil, vinegar and jam. A wide variety

of nuts and fruits was also eaten including hazelnuts and walnuts,

and dates, passionfruit, watermelon, fi gs, cherries, plums, apples,

pears, peaches and grapes (Fairbairn 2005). Grains would also

have featured heavily in their diets but are not represented in the

archaeological record. They drank tea, aerated water, beer, wine,

champagne, ginger beer, gin and schnapps.

The artefacts recovered from under-fl oor and yard deposits

during the excavation plainly refl ected the presence of children,

and male and female adults at the site from an early period.

In other words, the artefact assemblage strongly suggests the

presence of family units from the earliest phases of settlement.

The size and confi guration of the structures there were also

consistent with family accommodation.

No unambiguous evidence of the elderly was recovered.

However, the numerous artefacts related to medicinal remedies

were at least consistent with the elderly being represented in

the area.

The artefacts recovered from all periods of the sites

development were consistent with a working class population

(although it is important to recall that white collar workers

such as a clerk will generate fewer artefacts likely to survive

in the archaeological record that unambiguously refl ect their

occupation, and conversely that a manual labourer will not

necessarily bring home the tools of their trade). The occupations

possibly represented by artefacts were almost exclusively related

to manual labour, including barrel pieces, brackets, a shovel

head, the tine of a pitch fork, a fi le/rasp, metal funnel and solder

pans; that is, the artefacts related principally to male occupations.

However, needlework artefacts also establish the importance

of clothes-making and repair to women, and may indicate the

presence of small cottage industries. It is also important to note

that the artefacts listed above as possibly representing working

class residents would not be out of place in wealthy suburbs of

the same period.

There were no artefacts that unambiguously pointed to the

presence of any particular ethnic group at the site (for example,

the Chinese, Jews or Syrians). Rather, the assemblage suggests a

strongly Anglo-Irish population.

The assemblage did not contain overtly religious artefacts.

However, the small quantity of moralising china found at the

site had Christian overtones. The artefacts did not shed light on

whether the inhabitants of the area were Catholic, Protestant or

another religion.

At the individual level, people decorated themselves with jewellery,

watches and silk-lined shoes. Attempts were made to keep up with

fashions and, seemingly, to maintain an air of respectability.

At least some residents seem to have been literate, at least in

the later period, as evidenced by the slate pencils, ink bottles and

alphabet plates recovered during the excavation.

Adults and children indulged in recreation from time to time.

The men (and possibly the women) smoked a relatively large

amount of pipe tobacco to judge from the pipes found there. A

number of gaming pieces and a domino piece hint at some of the



games that were played. Women probably engaged in a great deal

of needlework as both leisure and essential housework. Children

played marbles and had dolls, toy tea sets and other playthings.

Pieces of a harmonica and mouth harp refl ect musical tastes.

Clothes were fi xed with buttons, studs, hooks and garter snaps,

and were embellished with jewellery in some cases. Attention

was paid to personal appearance and hygiene in at least some

households. Toothpaste, perfume and decorative hair combs

were found in some contexts. The presence of a lice comb in one

context hints at the hygiene problems faced by the inhabitants of

the area (although lice of course are not a problem restricted to

the nineteenth century poor).

ConclusionsThe Mountain Street site yielded a considerable quantity of

data and allowed researchers to make a number of important

observations about the Blackwattle Creek slum. However, the

conclusions that could be reached, based on the archaeology

alone, could generally be expressed only in broad and heavily

qualifi ed terms. This is because the site was affected by a

number of formation processes common to inner-city historical

sites, which distorted the realities of life in the slums. This is

particularly important in the context of the so-called slum debate,

which has seen some participants use the archaeological record

uncritically to argue for a level of comfort and disposable wealth

that rarely, if ever, existed there. Even those who have combined

the archaeological data with rigorous historical research, to reach

cautious conclusions regarding the multidimensional lives of

the slum inhabitants, will fi nd the results of the Mountain Street

excavation sobering. It demonstrated that even on sites where site

formation processes could be expected to exaggerate the levels of

poverty, the appalling living conditions and deprivation in these

places were actually understated in the archaeological record. We

must take extreme care to ensure that the struggling poor of the

nineteenth and early twentieth century are not misrepresented in

our conclusions. There is little doubt that slum stereotypes mask a

multilayered and complex world, and that historical archaeology

and history can work together to create a more complete picture

of these vanished communities. However, we must not forget

that there were also many within those multilayered worlds who

found their horizons limited by the dreadful living conditions

and poverty characterising their lives.

AcknowledgementsGodden Mackay Logan allocates budget hours to all its

professional staff for professional development, including for

research and preparation of articles. This article was prepared

with the full support and assistance of Godden Mackay Logan.

I am grateful to Graham Wilson (Consulting Archaeologist),

Richard Mackay and Anne Mackay (Godden Mackay Logan) for

providing comment on an early draft of this paper.

ReferencesCasey, M. 2003 Review of The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations

in Slumland edited by Alan Mayne and Tim Murray. Australasian Historical

Archaeology 21:85-87.

Clay, W.R. 1890 Report of the City Health Offi cer, on the Sanitary Condition of the

Portion of the City Bounded by George Street West, Bay Street, Black Wattle Creek,

and William Henry Street. Report prepared for the City of Sydney, 9 May 1890.

Crook, P. and T. Murray 2004 The analysis of cesspit deposits from The Rocks,

Sydney. Australasian Historical Archaeology 22:44-56.

Fairbairn, A. 2005 Archaeobotanical analysis. In Godden Mackay Logan, 22-36

Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological

Excavation Report, Part B, Section 5.0. Unpublished report to Multiplex

Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Offi ce, October 2005.

Godden Mackay Logan 2005 22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo

(NSW) Archaeological Excavation Report. Unpublished report to Multiplex


Godden Mackay Logan, La Trobe University (Archaeology Program) and Austral

Archaeology (eds) 2004 Casselden Place (50 Lonsdale Street), Melbourne

Archaeological Excavations: Research Archive Report. Unpublished report to

ISPT and Heritage Victoria.

Gresswell, D.A. 1890 Report on the Sanitary Condition and Sanitary Administration

of Melbourne and Suburbs. Paper presented to parliament (Vic) No. 205.

Harris, E.J. 2005 Glass, ceramic and general artefacts. In Godden Mackay Logan,

22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological

Excavation Report, Part B. Unpublished report to Multiplex Constructions Pty

Ltd and the NSW Heritage Offi ce, October 2005.

Karskens, G. 1997 The Rocks: Life in Early Sydney. Melbourne: Melbourne

University Press.

Karskens, G. 1999 Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighbourhood.

Sydney: Hale and Ironmonger.

Mayne, A. 2003 A Road to Nowhere? In T. Murray (ed.), Exploring the Modern

City: Recent Approaches to Urban History and Archaeology, pp.65-87. Sydney:

Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.

Mayne, M. and T. Murray 2001a The archaeology of urban landscapes:

Explorations in slumland. In A. Mayne and T. Murray (eds), The Archaeology

of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, pp.1-7. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mayne, M. and T. Murray 2001b Imaginary landscapes: Reading Melbournes

Little Lon. In A. Mayne and T. Murray (eds), The Archaeology of Urban

Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, pp.89-105. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Murray, T., G. Karskens and A. Mayne 2004 Explorations in slumland: A reprise.

Australasian Historical Archaeology 22:94-97.

Pearson, M.P. 1982 Mortuary practices, society and ideology: An

ethnoarchaeological study. In I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural

Archaeology, pp.99-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steele, D. 2005 The faunal assemblageBone artefacts. In Godden Mackay Logan,

22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological

Excavation Report, Part B, Section 6.0. Unpublished report to Multiplex


Stocks, R. 2005 Footwear and miscellaneous leather artefacts. In Godden Mackay

Logan, 22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW)

Archaeological Excavation Report, Part B, Section 3.0. Unpublished report to

Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Offi ce, October 2005.

Tomka, S.A. 1993 Site abandonment behaviour among transhumant agro-

pastoralists: The effects of delayed curation on assemblage composition.

In C.M. Cameron and S.A. Tomka (eds), Abandonment of Settlements and

Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, pp.11-24.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wason, P.K. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Webb, J.M. 1995 Abandonment processes and curate/discard strategies at Marki-

Alonia, Cyprus. The Artefact 18:64-70.

350-1292-1-pb

Documents