Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1885-1960
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Historical Archaeology of Tourism at Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1885-1960 by Jennifer Kathleen Jones M.A., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2009 B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2005 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Archaeology Faculty of Environment Jennifer Kathleen Jones 2016 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2016 Approval Name: Jennifer Kathleen Jones Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (Archaeology) Title of Thesis: Historical Archaeology of Tourism at Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1885-1960 Examining Committee: Chair: George Nicholas Professor Ross Jamieson Senior Supervisor Associate Professor David Burley Supervisor Professor David Roe Supervisor Adjunct Associate Professor Alison Gill Internal Examiner Professor Department of Geography and School of Resource and Environmental Management Heather Burke External Examiner Associate Professor Department of Archaeology Flinders University Date Defended/Approved: January 14, 2016 ii Abstract This study examines the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia, between 1885 and 1960. Port Arthur, a popular Tasmanian tourist destination today, was first established in 1830 as a secondary punishment station for British convicts and closed in 1877. Six months following its closure, the first steamship full of pleasure-seekers interested in visiting the former penal settlement arrived at Port Arthur. While some groups in Tasmania worked to shed the stain of its convict past, tourist interest in Port Arthur increased. The substantial income tourism introduced to a limited local economy resulted in tensions between hiding the convict past and profiting from it. The way Port Arthur was created and recreated for tourists changed through time and was often affected by context. Constructions of the site and its history were driven by a number of fiscal, social and cultural factors, and these were navigated by several groups. A number of actors, including hotel proprietors, tour operators, postcard producers, museum curators and guidebook authors, had varied roles and interests in the site, and these were enacted in a variety of media. To explore some of the nuances in the ways Port Arthur was constructed for tourists, material culture from several contexts around the site was examined. This includes assemblages from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur, advertisements for the hotels printed in newspapers and guidebooks, postcards which depicted the site, and private museum collections that interpreted the site for visitors. These collections were examined for expressions of dark tourism and romanticism, along with broader understandings of authenticity and inauthenticity in the construction of Port Arthur for tourists. Evidence from all available contexts at Port Arthur was used (where possible) to evaluate historical theories regarding the development of mass tourism in the western world. Artefact assemblages from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur were also used to assess existing theories about the material nature of tourism as a phenomenon, identify a material signature unique to tourist sites and better understand material manifestations of tourism. iii Keywords: historical archaeology; tourism; material culture; Port Arthur; Tasmania; hotels iv Dedication I’d like to dedicate my thesis to my family and friends, as without their support and calming influence the PhD process would have been infinitely more difficult. My parents (Rod and Kathy) and brother (Robbie) require special mention as they kept me grounded and have been an amazing source of strength. My parents particularly provided me a place in their St. John’s, NL, home to hide and prepare for my comprehensive exam. My brother was an endless source of entertainment and kept me grounded during my studies my distracting me just enough that I could focus. My husband Paul brightened my days and was so crucial to me finishing everything up – I can’t thank him enough. To my grandfather Jim, uncles Jamie and Allen, aunt Brenda, cousins and close friends in Vancouver – I can’t thank you enough for your support and love regardless of the distance. Finally, I’d like to dedicate this thesis to my grandmothers Leila and Lutina who unfortunately passed during the course of my studies. v Acknowledgements There is a long list of people who were crucial to the successful completion of this dissertation. My senior supervisor, Dr. Ross Jamieson, has provided support and insight through the course of my doctoral studies. He worked with me through three potential PhD topics and accepted my decision to move to Australia and study at Port Arthur. I can’t thank him enough for his insight, patience and guidance. I’d like to acknowledge my supervisory committee, consisting of Dr. David Burley and Dr. David Roe. Dr. Burley’s input was crucial to grounding my dissertation while Dr. Roe helped me establish the central concepts for the project and provided so much support in terms of finding research resources, providing a workspace and temporary accommodation through PAHSMA while I settled in Tasmania. I must, of course, acknowledge of the support I received from PAHSMA and the amazing staff they have working across the site. Along with Dr. Roe, Annita Waghorn, Michael Smith and the staff at the Resource Library deserve special mention as they helped me navigate PAHSMA’s ample resources and were central to helping me understand the site. The heritage team at the Southern Midlands Council in Tasmania provided me with a workspace, employment and friendship when I moved away from Port Arthur – many thanks to Brad, Karen and Alan. Dr. Heather Burke and Dr. Allison Gill, who served as my external and internal examiners (respectively), provided thoughtful input into this project through their review and comments. I’d also like to acknowledge the faculty and staff at the SFU Department of Archaeology who facilitated the entire doctoral process and provided guidance and support over the course of my studies. I must, of course, thank SSHRC for funding a substantial portion of my research and the trip to Australia which eventually led to my moving there and doing this topic. Again, I’d like to acknowledge my family, friends and of course my husband Paul. He handled me locking myself into the office for days on end without complaint and undertook the endless chocolate runs so I could maintain my concentration. vi Table of Contents Approval .......................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ....................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vi Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xii List of Figures................................................................................................................ xv List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................xxi Ruins of the Penitentiary at Port Arthur ........................................................................ xxii Chapter 1. Project Overview ....................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Port Arthur .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Historical Archaeology of Tourism - Overview ........................................................ 4 1.3.1. Tourism ....................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2. Historical Archaeology of Tourism ............................................................... 5 1.3.3. Material Culture and Place .......................................................................... 9 1.4. Archaeology at Port Arthur ................................................................................... 11 1.5. Research Significance .......................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2. Convict Transportation, Nationalism and Tourism ............................... 14 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 14 2.2. Convict Transportation ......................................................................................... 14 2.2.1. Australia .................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2. Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) ................................................................ 20 2.2.3. Port Arthur ................................................................................................ 23 2.3. A Nation of Convicts ............................................................................................. 26 2.4. History of Tourism ...............................................................................................