Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1885-1960

Home , Australian Convict Sites, Batman (unit), Cascades Female Factory, Emancipist, Forestier Peninsula, Martin Cash

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

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

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.

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.

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 ...... 29 2.4.1. Australia ...... 32 2.4.2. Tasmania ...... 35 2.5. History of Tourism at Port Arthur ...... 40 2.5.1. Site Management ...... 45

Chapter 3. Place and Authenticities in Tourism ...... 49 3.1. Introduction ...... 49 3.2. Place ...... 49 3.2.1. Geographical Imagination ...... 51 3.2.2. Place and Tourism (Production and Consumption of Place) ...... 52 3.2.3. Authenticity and Inauthenticity ...... 53 3.3. Dark Tourism ...... 55 3.3.1. Shades of Dark Tourism ...... 55 3.3.2. Dark Tourism at Port Arthur ...... 60

vii

3.4. Romanticism...... 61 3.4.1. What is Romantic? ...... 61 3.4.2. The Romance of Ruins ...... 63

Chapter 4. Presenting Port Arthur in Museums ...... 66 4.1. Introduction ...... 66 4.2. Methodology ...... 67 4.3. Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum (c1890-1930) ...... 71 4.3.1. Overview ...... 73 4.3.2. Room 1 ...... 75 4.3.3. Room 2 ...... 78 4.3.4. Room 3 ...... 81 4.3.5. Discussion ...... 85 4.4. Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop at Port Arthur (c1925-1943) ...... 87 4.4.1. Overview ...... 90 4.4.2. Antiques ...... 93 4.4.3. Ethnographic Collection ...... 97 4.4.4. Natural History Collection ...... 99 4.4.5. Port Arthur ...... 99 4.4.6. Convict History ...... 102 4.4.7. Tasmanian History ...... 105 4.5. Conclusion ...... 107

Chapter 5. Depicting Port Arthur in Postcards ...... 108 5.1. Introduction ...... 108 5.2. Methodology ...... 109 5.3. Overview ...... 111 5.4. The Romance of Ruins ...... 112 5.5. A Place of Solitude – Erasing People ...... 116 5.6. Recreating History ...... 121 5.7. Wish You Were Here?: Dark Tourism in Postcards ...... 125 5.8. Authenticity ...... 128 5.9. Conclusion ...... 132

Chapter 6. Examining Material Culture from Hotels and Guesthouses ...... 135 6.1. Introduction ...... 135 6.2. Connecting Material Culture with Hotels and Guesthouses ...... 135 6.2.1. Class and Tourism ...... 137 Conspicuous Consumption ...... 139 Gentility ...... 139 6.2.2. Gender and Tourism ...... 140 6.2.3. Families Touring ...... 141 6.2.4. Health ...... 141 6.2.5. Leisure ...... 142 6.3. Methods ...... 142

viii

6.3.1. Finds Analysis ...... 146 Functional Analysis ...... 146 Ceramics ...... 150 Glass ...... 152 Miscellaneous and Small Finds ...... 154 6.4. Archaeological Excavations – Port Arthur ...... 154 6.4.1. The Commandant’s Residence (Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House) ...... 154 Archaeological Excavations ...... 165 6.4.2. Junior Medical Officer’s Residence (Tasman Villa & Hotel Arthur) ...... 168 Archaeological Excavations ...... 174 6.4.3. Roman Catholic Chaplain’s House (Hotel Arthur) ...... 178 Archaeological Projects...... 179 6.5. Comparative Assemblages ...... 180 6.6. Conclusion ...... 181

Chapter 7. Archaeology of Tourist Accommodation at Port Arthur ...... 182 7.1. Introduction – Hotel Assemblages from Port Arthur ...... 182 7.2. Ceramics ...... 182 7.2.1. Form and Functional Class ...... 183 7.2.2. Ware and Decoration ...... 188 Teawares ...... 194 Plates ...... 200 Serving Vessels ...... 203 7.3. Glass ...... 205 7.4. Miscellaneous Finds ...... 220 7.5. Artefact Class ...... 232 An Appropriately Decorated Setting ...... 235 Antiques and the Orient ...... 236 Personal Hygiene...... 238 Toys ...... 239 Tourist Items ...... 243 Medicinal Items ...... 246 7.6. Conclusion ...... 248

Chapter 8. Advertising Port Arthur’s Hotels and Guesthouses ...... 252 8.1. Introduction ...... 252 8.2. Methodology ...... 252 Newspapers ...... 252 Guidebooks ...... 255 8.3. Newspaper Advertisements ...... 256 8.3.1. Carnarvon Hotel ...... 256 8.3.2. The Tasman Villa Hotel ...... 265 8.3.3. Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House or ‘The Commandant’s House’ ...... 269 8.3.4. Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur ...... 270 8.4. Guidebooks and Hotel Directories ...... 271 8.4.1. Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904) ...... 272

8.4.2. The Tasman Villa (1899-1921) ...... 273 8.4.3. The Commandant’s House (Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House) (1917- 1939) ...... 276 8.4.4. Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur (1921-1959) ...... 279

Chapter 9. Discussion and Conclusions ...... 287 9.1. Introduction ...... 287 9.2. A Dark Place ...... 287 9.2.1. Accepting the Convict Past ...... 289 9.2.2. Being ‘Carnarvon’ ...... 291 9.2.3. A Variably Dark Place ...... 293 9.3. A Romantic Place ...... 295 9.3.1. A Beautiful, Rugged Place ...... 295 9.3.2. The Romance of Ruins ...... 296 9.4. An Authentic Place ...... 298 9.4.1. Benign History ...... 298 9.4.2. Authenticity and Inauthenticity in Tourist Experience...... 300 9.5. A Place for Tourists ...... 302 9.5.1. Class and Tourism ...... 302 Conspicuous Consumption ...... 303 Premium Alcohol ...... 303 Tobacco and Other Vices ...... 304 Avoidance of Vice ...... 304 Taking Tea ...... 305 Dining ...... 308 9.5.2. A Place for Families ...... 313 9.5.3. A Place of Recreation and Leisure ...... 316 9.5.4. Tourism-Specific Material Culture ...... 320 9.5.5. A Place to Convalesce ...... 322 9.6. Identifying Tourist Places (Towards a Material Signature for Tourism) ...... 325 9.6.1. Alcohol ...... 326 9.6.2. Condiment Bottles ...... 330 9.6.3. Tablewares and Serving Vessels ...... 332 9.6.4. Standardization of Tourist Experience in Mass Tourism ...... 334 9.6.5. Directions for a Material Signature for Tourism ...... 335 9.7. A Changing Place – Moving Towards Mass Tourism ...... 339

References……………………………………………………………… ...... 342 Appendix A. Analysis of Museum Collections ...... 359 Appendix B Analysis of PAHSMA Postcard Collection ...... 363 Appendix C Comparative Collections – Methodology and Sites ...... 367 Methdology – Comparative Collections...... 367 The Agricultural Hotel (1865-1910), Haymarket, NSW ...... 367 Red Cow Inn (1862), Penrith, NSW ...... 368 Queen’s Arms Inn (1838-c1900), Rouse Hill, NSW ...... 369 Trevathan Hotel (1886-c1925), Cooktown, QLD ...... 370 Government House Stables (1859-1912), Sydney, NSW ...... 370

Appendix D Supplemental Tables – Hotel Material Culture ...... 372

List of Tables

Table 4-1 Distribution of Objects by Room and Theme, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum c1916 ...... 86

Table 4-2 Functional categories of unprovenanced antiques in the Radcliffe collection ...... 94

Table 4-3 Identified places of origin for objects from the ethnographic collection within Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop...... 98

Table 4-4 Types of objects in the Radcliffe Collection associated with Port Arthur...... 100

Table 4-5 Objects in Radcliffe’s Collection associated with convict history sorted by theme...... 102

Table 4-6 Objects from Radcliffe’s Collection associated with Tasmanian history, sorted by theme...... 106

Table 5-1 Depictions of ruins in Port Arthur postcards through time...... 112

Table 5-2 Type of place presented in postcards, sorted by production dates...... 130

Table 5-3 Untitled postcards produced between 1919 and 1939...... 131

Table 6-1 Hypothetical assemblage types, from Harris et al. (2004:21)...... 137

Table 6-2 Description of functional subclasses used for artefact analysis...... 149

Table 6-3 Economic scaling of decorative techniques on ceramics, 1895- 1927 ...... 152

Table 6-4 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904) artefact assemblage ...... 167

Table 6-5 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917-1939)...... 167

Table 6-6 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for the Tasman Villa Hotel (1899-1920) ...... 176

Table 6-7 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959) ...... 177

Table 7-1 Hotel ceramic assemblages sorted by subclass and form...... 184

Table 7-2 Ceramic ware types distributed by site of tourist accommodation...... 189

xii

Table 7-3 Decorative techniques sorted by ware, all sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur...... 190

Table 7-4 Glass artefacts from the Carnarvon Hotel sorted by subclass and function...... 206

Table 7-5 Carnarvon Hotel bottle assemblage sorted by form...... 209

Table 7-6 Tasman Villa glassware assemblage sorted by sub-class and form...... 210

Table 7-7 Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house bottle assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 211

Table 7-8 Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house glassware assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 213

Table 7-9 Hotel Arthur bottle assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 216

Table 7-10 Hotel Arthur glassware assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 219

Table 7-11 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 221

Table 7-12 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Tasman Villa assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 224

Table 7-13 Miscellaneous artefacts from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, sorted by subclass and form...... 226

Table 7-14 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Hotel Arthur assemblage, sorted by subclass and form...... 230

Table 7-15 Artefacts from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur sorted by subclass...... 233

Table 7-16 Types of toys recovered at the Carnarvon Hotel...... 240

Table 7-17 Toys recovered from the Commandant’s House assemblage...... 241

Table 8-1 Keywords used to search for advertisements on TROVE...... 253

Table 8-2 Advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel recovered from TROVE...... 257

Table 8-3 Advertisements for the Tasman Villa recovered from TROVE...... 266

Table 8-4 Advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House, the ‘Commandant’s House’, recovered from TROVE...... 269

Table 8-5 Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur recovered from TROVE...... 271

xiii

Table 8-6 Advertisements for the Tasman Villa recovered from guidebooks and hotel directories...... 274

Table 8-7 Listings for the Commandant’s House from the Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania...... 278

Table 8-8 Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur recovered from guidebooks and hotel directories...... 281

Table 8-9 Listings for the Hotel Arthur from the Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania...... 284

Table 9-1 Artefacts from ‘Recreation’ sub-classes for all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur...... 318

xiv

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Map of Tasmania depicting the relative locations of Hobart and Port Arthur...... 3

Figure 1-2 Contemporary tourist map of Port Arthur showing various points of interest across the site...... 4

Figure 2-1 Australian penal colonies discussed in relation to convict transportation...... 17

Figure 2-2 Map of Southeast Tasmania depicting the Forestier Peninsula, Tasman Peninsula and various points of interest...... 23

Figure 4-1 Advertisement for Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum ...... 74

Figure 4-2 Room 1, Beattie Museum ...... 76

Figure 4-3 Room 2, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum ...... 79

Figure 4-4 Postcard depicting objects of convict discipline, sold by Beattie Studios ...... 80

Figure 4-5 Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum Room 3 (to the right) ...... 82

Figure 4-6 Radcliffe’s shop and museum (labelled ‘Port Arthur Museum’) on Champ Street, c1930 ...... 91

Figure 4-7 Advertisement for Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop ...... 91

Figure 4-8 Museum objects in the Radcliffe Collection sorted by theme...... 93

Figure 4-9 Postcard published c1940-1960 showing books and china plates in the Radcliffe collection ...... 95

Figure 4-10 Postcard printed c1940-1960 showing coins and commemorative medals, as well as ceramics and prints, in Radcliffe’s collection ...... 96

Figure 4-11 Postcard printed c1940-1960 depicting music boxes at Radcliffe’s Port Arthur Museum ...... 97

Figure 4-12 Postcard printed c1940-1960 depicting bust of Hippocrates and tools from Port Arthur in Radcliffe’s Museum...... 101

Figure 4-13 Postcard printed c1940-1960 showing objects of convict discipline in Radcliffe’s Port Arthur Museum ...... 103

Figure 4-14 Radcliffe’s display of convict relics staged for a postcard ...... 104

Figure 5-1 Postcard depicting the Church at Port Arthur covered in ivy, printed between 1905 and 1921 by J. Walch and Son...... 113

Figure 5-2 Postcard depicting the Church at Port Arthur cleaned of ivy, printed by Ash, Bester & Co. between 1940 and 1960...... 113

Figure 5-3 Historic re-creation postcard of Port Arthur featuring ominous skies, printed between 1920 and 1930 by Beattie Studios...... 115

Figure 5-4 Postcard depicting the Isle of the Dead within heavy fog, printed between 1905 and 1906 by Beattie Studios...... 116

Figure 5-5 Postcard depicting visitors in horse-drawn carts at the front of the Port Arthur Church ruins, printed in 1906 by McVitty and Little...... 117

Figure 5-6 Postcard depicting two men hip-deep in greenery on the Isle of the Dead, printed between 1905 and 1921 by J. Walch and Son...... 118

Figure 5-7 Postcard taken at the front of the Carnarvon Hotel, former Commandant’s Residence, printed in 1907 by J. Walch and Son...... 118

Figure 5-8 Postcard showing the Penitentiary ruins with a sports ground, cards and campers, printed by Murray Views in 1940...... 119

Figure 5-9 Historical re-creation (painting) of convicts at work and the ‘convict centipede’ at Port Arthur, printed by Beattie Studio...... 121

Figure 5-10 Postcard with an image of Port Arthur in operation c 1859, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930...... 122

Figure 5-11 Portraits of Port Arthur convicts, images taken c 1874, printed by Beattie Studios between 1917 and 1920...... 123

Figure 5-12 Postcard depicting the entrance to the Penitentiary prior to its ruin, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930...... 124

Figure 5-13 Postcard depicting the interior of the Separate Prison chapel prior to its ruin, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930...... 124

Figure 5-14 Postcard showing Isle of the Dead (‘Dead Island’) making mention of 1500 graves, printed by McVitty and Little between 1905 and 1920...... 126

Figure 5-15 Postcard with a painting depicting the ‘Dog Line’ at Eaglehawk Neck, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930...... 127

Figure 5-16 Postcard depicting the ‘Suicide Cliffs’ at Point Puer, printed by D.I.C. Photo between 1923 and 1926...... 127

xvi

Figure 5-17 Postcard depicting the ‘Underground Cells’ at Point Puer, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930...... 128

Figure 5-18 Focus of postcard images distributed by date of production...... 129

Figure 5-19 Postcard depicting the Paupers Mess overgrown with vegetation, printed by W. J. Little in 1910...... 133

Figure 5-20 Postcard depicting the Penitentiary from Champ Street, printed by Kodak between 1955 and 1968...... 134

Figure 6-1 Approximate route to access Port Arthur via Taranna...... 156

Figure 6-2 View from the front door verandah of the Carnarvon Hotel across Masons Cove...... 157

Figure 6-3 Mural from the verandah of the Commandant’s Residence, beside the front entrance...... 159

Figure 6-4 Mural at side verandah Commandant’s Residence, between doors to outside toilets...... 160

Figure 6-5 Image of the front of the Carnarvon Hotel during Joseph Cowen’s tenure as licensee...... 161

Figure 6-6 View of the Carnarvon Hotel c1900 from the Guard Tower...... 162

Figure 6-7 Front of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, ‘The Commandant’s Residence’ during filming in 1926...... 163

Figure 6-8 Dining room added to the west side of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s Residence, in 1927...... 164

Figure 6-9 Location of excavation trenches for COMM RES, all trenches part of Project 1982/01...... 166

Figure 6-10 Postcard depicting the front of the Tasman Villa Hotel between 1904 and 1917...... 170

Figure 6-11 Partial floor plan of the Hotel Arthur in 1939 with the approximate original extent of JMO marked in red...... 171

Figure 6-12 View of the front of the Hotel Arthur during Kerslake’s tenure as hotelier...... 172

Figure 6-13 View at the front gate of the Hotel Arthur showing a large motorized touring bus...... 173

Figure 6-14 Interior of the bar at the Hotel Arthur in 1926 with some of the crew from For the Term of His Natural Life...... 173

xvii

Figure 6-15 Menu from the Hotel Arthur for cruise ship passengers in 1927...... 174

Figure 6-16 Location of excavation trenches for JMO and RCC, listed by project and trench number...... 176

Figure 7-1 Earthenware garden pots and saucers recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage...... 186

Figure 7-2 Stoneware jar from D. Bumstead and Company, recovered from the Hotel Arthur...... 188

Figure 7-4 Elaborately hand-painted Chinese porcelain plate from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2324) with detail of design...... 192

Figure 7-5 ‘Kerslake’s Hotel’ hotel china cup recovered from the Hotel Arthur (Obj. #3081)...... 193

Figure 7-6 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Carnarvon Hotel...... 195

Figure 7-7 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Tasman Villa...... 196

Figure 7-8 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House...... 197

Figure 7-9 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Hotel Arthur...... 198

Figure 7-10 Hexagonal Rockingham-style teapot with a relief-moulded Chinese character wearing a hat...... 199

Figure 7-11 Decorative techniques applied to plates from the Carnarvon Hotel...... 201

Figure 7-12 Decorative techniques used on plates from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House...... 202

Figure 7-13 Decorative techniques used on plates from the Hotel Arthur...... 203

Figure 7-14 Decorative techniques applied to serving vessels from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur...... 204

Figure 7-15 Lead foil wrapper for Aitken’s Pale Ale, recovered in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #1520)...... 208

Figure 7-16 Cut and etched piece of stemware from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #532) ...... 214

Figure 7-17 Glass ashtrays recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2781 and #1208)...... 215

xviii

Figure 7-18 Medicine bottle forms recovered with the Hotel Arthur assemblage...... 217

Figure 7-19 Ed. Pinaud perfume bottle recovered with the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #2866)...... 218

Figure 7-20 Marbles recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage...... 222

Figure 7-21 Porcelain doll face recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #2077)...... 223

Figure 7-22 Golf ball recovered with the Tasman Villa assemblage (Obj. #3354)...... 224

Figure 7-23 Marbles recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house...... 225

Figure 7-24 Shotgun cartridges and a rifle shell from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house...... 227

Figure 7-25 Plastic calendar for Heathorn’s Hotel from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #589)...... 228

Figure 7-26 Miniature souvenir earthenware pot, marked ‘PA’ on the base, recovered in the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. 3465)...... 231

Figure 7-27 Plastic letter opener for the Port Arthur Motor Inn recovered in the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3448)...... 232

Figure 7-28 Hand-painted Chinese porcelain bowl from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2300)...... 237

Figure 7-29 Drawn metal container of ‘Gibbs Dentifrice’ recovered from the Hotel Arthur (Obj. #3390)...... 239

Figure 7-30 Porcelain doll head recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2299)...... 242

Figure 7-31 Toys recovered from the Hotel Arthur...... 243

Figure 7-32 Lifesavers sign recovered from the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3433)...... 244

Figure 7-33 Detail of the plastic letter opener recovered as part of the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3448) ...... 245

Figure 7-34 Hotel china cup for the Springs Hotel on Mount Wellington recovered from JMO (not assigned to a hotel assemblage)...... 246

Figure 7-35 Medicinal teapot from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2327)...... 247

xix

Figure 9-1 Timeline illustrating key historical events associated with the development of tourist at Port Arthur...... 288

Figure 9-2 Relative proportion of porcelain teawares within the teaware assemblages...... 306

Figure 9-3 Relative proportions of hand-painted and gold gilt teawares...... 307

Figure 9-4 Relative proportion of cheap transfer-printed patterns of all transfer printed vessels by artefact assemblage...... 309

Figure 9-5 Relative proportions of undecorated whitewares in the ceramic assemblage...... 310

Figure 9-6 Toys as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage...... 315

Figure 9-7 Recreation items as a proportion of all artefact assemblages...... 317

Figure 9-8 Advertisement for Tasmanian tourist souvenirs ...... 321

Figure 9-9 Medicine bottles as a proportion of selected bottle assemblages...... 323

Figure 9-10 Alcohol-related items as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage...... 328

Figure 9-11 Alcohol bottles as a proportion of the bottle assemblage...... 329

Figure 9-12 Condiment bottles as a proportion of the bottle assemblage...... 331

Figure 9-13 Relative proportion of ceramic vessels for food preparation, service and consumption...... 333

List of Acronyms

AATL Australian Anti-Transportation League CH Carnarvon Hotel COMM Commandant’s Residence HA Hotel Arthur JMO Junior Medical Officer’s Residence MBBH Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House (‘The Commandant’s House’) MIC Minimum Item Count NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service (Tasmania) PACAP Port Arthur Community Advisory Panel PACP Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project PAHSMA Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority RCC Roman Catholic Chaplain’s Residence SFU Simon Fraser University SPB Scenery Preservation Board TAHO Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office TMAG Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery TV Tasman Villa UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

xxi

Ruins of the Penitentiary at Port Arthur

Ruins of the Penitentiary at Port Arthur, Tasmania

xxii

Chapter 1. Project Overview

1.1. Introduction

This study examines the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur, Tasmania, between 1885 and 1960 through the analysis of material culture. Port Arthur, a heritage tourism site on the southeast coast of Tasmania, 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. As many Tasmanians worked to shed the stain of the colony’s 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.

Certain aspects of Port Arthur were promoted to tourists over others, and the ways in which Port Arthur was created and recreated for tourists changed through time and was often dependent on 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 were 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. Considering the contexts in which it was appropriate to embellish or omit certain aspects of the site’s convict history

was used in this study as a means of providing new insight into this aspect of Tasmania’s history.

The construction of Port Arthur for tourists was also used to more broadly address ideas of heritage tourism and the development of mass tourism in the western world. Where the archaeology of tourism is a relatively new field of study, evidence from all available contexts at Port Arthur was used (where possible) to evaluate existing 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. The goal of this was to identify a material signature unique to tourist sites. Artefacts were used to examine themes including class, gender, health and leisure to help broaden our understanding of the material manifestations of tourism. This should provide a uniquely archaeological contribution to the field of tourism studies.

1.2. Port Arthur

Port Arthur is a heritage site and tourist destination located on the Tasman Peninsula on the southeast coast of Tasmania, Australia. It is located approximately 100km southeast of Hobart, the state capital of Tasmania (Figure 1-1). Initially established as a timber-getting station in 1830 it operated as a secondary punishment station until 1877. It presently consists of several restored heritage buildings and stabilised ruins within a landscape of immaculate lawns and gardens. The settlement is arranged around Mason Cove and is presently enclosed by large regrowth forest covered hills and mountains to the west (Figure 1-2).Visitor experiences to the site include guided tours, a narrated cruise, ghost tours, a variety of more informal interactions with staff within the restored buildings, and plays re-enacting life at Port Arthur. Special events, including concerts, community days and art installations, are hosted at Port Arthur throughout the year.

Tourists began visiting Port Arthur in 1878, shortly after it closed as a penal settlement. The site is considered to have been at the forefront of the development of heritage management as the first historic place in Tasmania’s reserve system (1916),

and the first historic cultural heritage reserve in Australia. Port Arthur was one of Tasmania’s key tourist destinations for decades and is considered an iconic Australian site (Tasmanian Heritage Register Entry, THR No. 6, Port Arthur). Port Arthur was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2010 as part of the Australian Convict Sites listing.

Figure 1-1 Map of Tasmania depicting the relative locations of Hobart and Port Arthur. (Source: ESRI ArcGIS Basemap 2015 with author’s additions.)

Figure 1-2 Contemporary tourist map of Port Arthur showing various points of interest across the site. (Source: Map provided courtesy of PAHSMA, author’s additions.)

1.3. Historical Archaeology of Tourism - Overview

This section serves as an overview of archaeological literature relevant to the study of the historical archaeology of tourism. At heritage tourism sites worldwide, the research conducted by archaeologists is regularly used to facilitate site interpretation and presentation of the past to the public. Several archaeologists have raised issues about these interpretations of archaeological materials and constructions of the past, particularly as they relate to ethical issues and contemporary politics. Some key concerns include the commodification of the past (Baram and Rowan 2004), the construction of specific pasts at the cost of others (Creighton 2007), the impact of tourism on archaeological sites (Cooney 2007; Duke 2007), and the power relations inherent in how archaeological interpretations are used (Leone 2010; Waterton 2010).

The historical archaeology of tourism is a relatively new area of study that has proven fruitful over the last few years (e.g. Camp 2011; Corbin et al. 2010; Corbin and Russell 2010; Hunt 1994; Hunt 2010; O’Donovan and Carroll 2011; Russell et al. 2004; Russell et al. 2010). Instead of studying the implications of tourism at archaeological sites, it examines the material remains of historical tourism.

1.3.1. Tourism

The field of tourism studies has emerged over the last forty years with influential works by anthropologists, sociologists and geographers (e.g. Chambers 2010; Graburn 1989; MacCannell 1976; Nash 1989; Relph 1976; Smith 1989; Urry 1995). Although a more in-depth discussion and history of tourism is contained in Chapter 2, in the broadest sense, this thesis accepts that a tourist is ‘a temporarily leisured person who voluntarily visits a place away from home for the purpose of experiencing a change’ (Smith 1989:1). It also accepts that the reasons for travel vary widely, as does the degree of difference between the destination and the tourist’s home.

Tourism is based on three general elements: the availability of leisure time, discretionary income, and a willing recipient destination (Smith 1989:1). As a leisure activity, tourism is considered a manifestation of the re-organization of work and leisure into separate spheres with the dominance of paid work in ‘modern’ societies. With its links to wage labour and industrial capitalism, tourism is considered a defining characteristic of ‘modernity’ (Urry 1995:132; MacCannell 1976). Tourism has been likened to pilgrimages and religious voyages (Graburn 1989), though in the case of modern mass tourism some theorists would argue that the visitation of large-scale tourist sites represent the worship of our own modern, contemporary societies (e.g. Urry 1995:145). Currently the largest global industry, it differs from other industries as the product is experience while the ownership of the resources it utilizes and controls is often contestable (Chambers 2010:34).

1.3.2. Historical Archaeology of Tourism

While many archaeologists have long argued the importance of understanding the origins of contemporary politics and economic systems as central tenets of

archaeological research (Hodder 1986; Johnson 1996; Leone 1999; Leone 2010; Potter 1999), it is interesting that tourism, the largest industry worldwide, has taken so long to develop as a topic of scholarly interest (Camp 2011:280). The contributions of archaeologists working at Yellowstone National Park in the United States have been critical to the development of an historical archaeology of tourism (Corbin et al. 2010; Hunt 1994; Hunt 2010; Russell et al. 2004; Russell et al. 2010). Following the release of a few shorter articles and several government reports, in 2010 Corbin and Russell published an edited volume examining both land and water-based archaeological remnants of tourist activities within Yellowstone National Park in the United States. The following year a special issue on historical archaeology and tourism published by The International Journal of Historical Archaeology raised a variety of issues relating to archaeological sites of travel and tourism (O’Donovan and Carroll 2011).

Through these publications the historical archaeology of tourism has been approached in several ways: as a means of generating predictive models for site types and locations; a comparison of material culture from tourist sites as compared to domestic assemblages; studies of the marginalization and lives of service staff; and as a means of expressing socioeconomic and ethnic solidarity (Baram 2011; Camp 2011; O’Donovan 2011; Wurst 2011). Archaeologists examining the archaeology of tourism have discussed issues relating to authenticity and preservation, as well as what the public would accept as appropriately interesting or exotic subject matter (Graff 2011; Lovato 2011; Pope et al. 2011).

The development of transportation methods and public access to previously inaccessible areas is one means of devising an archaeological understanding of tourism. Many tourist sites and destinations developed alongside large-scale transportation networks. Railroads and other transportation companies often promoted tourism as another means of income, fiscally backing the development of extensive tourist amenities including hotels, transportation infrastructure and creating and promoting destinations (Baram 2011; Horne 2005; Russell et al. 2004). The central role of the railroad in opening access to the American West and the vast spread of transportation networks through Yellowstone National Park for tourist access is a key factor in Hunt’s (2010) model for predicting the presence of certain types of tourism-based archaeological sites. Similarly, in examining the maritime aspect of the tourist system at

Yellowstone National Park, Russell et al. (2010) found that the park’s extensive maritime system was unique in that it existed solely to transport tourists, not manufactured goods. The scale of tourist visitation and access affected the scale of marine vessels using the navigable waterways to experience the park. As a land-based example, the Venice Train Depot in southwest Florida was used by Baram (2011) to help understand the dynamic nature between people and the built environment, as transportation networks ultimately channel and facilitate particular types of movement over others. Transportation networks both create and limit access possibilities for tourists. Social inequalities affected and helped shape the history of transportation networks (Baram 2011:238).

The social organization of travel is another important aspect of understanding tourism, as while travel corridors allowed increased possibilities for tourism, many of them existed prior to mass tourism (Urry 1995:14; Wurst 2011:254). The social inequalities inherent in the process of tourism are discussed by Camp (2011) and Wurst (2011). The leisure experiences of the middle-class travellers from the turn of the twentieth century were (and still are) made possible through the labours of masses of service employees working at tourist destinations. While the history of tourism has been relatively amply studied, little has been written about service employees (Camp 2011:280; Wurst 2011:254). From the late nineteenth-century, hotels and resorts at both Niagara Falls and Los Angeles had labour forces highly structured by race and gender. Wurst (2011) used census records and hotel plans to generate a better understanding of the labour force at Niagara Falls and found that occupations were strictly limited by race and gender. Through the 1890s hotel owners adopted the ‘European Plan’ which entailed the separation of room from board with hotels developing dining rooms serving as restaurants. This restructuring served to increase profits and save on labour costs as the number of employees required and living on-site decreased over time (Wurst 2011:258). Using archaeological survey, excavation and historic document analysis Camp (2011) examined Mount Lowe Resort and Railway, California’s most popular destination from 1893 to 1936. Camp (2011) found that workers were physically marginalized from the tourist landscape, non-white ethic groups were written out of local history or romanticized, and workers were absent from literature, accounts and signage relating to tourism in the area. Archaeological survey indicates that workers faced

hazardous living and working conditions well out of sight of tourists. Material culture from worker residences indicated financial hardship, including subsistence on any acquirable food goods such as local small game, mostly squirrels and rabbits (Camp 2011:293).

As well as labourer accommodations, material culture from tourist accommodation has been examined to determine expressions of class, gender and conspicuous consumption. In her analysis of travel and social relations in the Catskill Mountains of New York, O’Donovan (2011) found tourism served several social functions, including reinforcing ethnic solidarity and producing and reproducing domestic roles. Material culture was only available for one of two hotels analysed, and O’Donovan (2011:273) found the functional composition of the artefacts nearly indistinguishable from domestic assemblages dating to the same period (c.1890-1920s). The only notable differences were an increased proportion of serving vessels and place settings in relation to food preparation vessels, as well as a significant number of cooking oils and condiments in the bottle assemblage (O’Donovan 2011:274). The hotels studied were predominantly patronized by middle-class Jewish tourists escaping the heat of New York over the summer. Class and ethnicity strongly influence why and how tourists travel, and O’Donovan (2011) makes the point that touring is not a consistent experience. Middle and working-class women were consistently required to perform their traditional domestic duties while on holiday. The traditional dichotomy of work and leisure brought to discussions of tourism ignores the fact that the home was a workplace for women and supposed leisure time still entailed work for them (O’Donovan 2011:277).

Corbin et al. (2010) also examined material culture from a boarding house and hotel at Yellowstone National Park. A few hundred artefacts were recovered from the nearby Firehole River, which was historically used to dump rubbish. Analysis of the recovered artefacts provided some insight into those consumer goods purchased and used within the park. Corbin et al. (2010:199) found that earlier guesthouse ceramic and glassware indicated that tourists were seeking luxury experiences in the wild, while later hotel guests sought a more domestic experience amidst the wilderness. Wealthy tourists in the nineteenth century aimed to travel America ‘in style’, which often entailed alcohol consumption (Corbin et al. 2010:199). Elite travel in the nineteenth century was

marked by conspicuous consumption as a means of reproducing class (O’Donovan 2010:268). Guesthouses often reproduced middle class values, including female domesticity and concepts of ‘home’, making status-appropriate acquaintances, and regular activity promoted by middle-class guilt over idleness (Horne 2005:128; O’Donovan 2011:269). Increased access to Yellowstone National Park via railroad and then automobile resulted in a changing tourist demographic and increased the diversity of domestic materials available within the park (Corbin et al. 2010:184).

Findings from the analysis of material culture from historic tourist accommodation at Port Arthur have provided a means of expanding on the work conducted on tourist material culture. Port Arthur is spatially isolated from key travel corridors – guests in Port Arthur guesthouses and hotels were unlikely to have been staying for reasons outside of tourism, such as travel for work or trade. The collections from tourist accommodations at Port Arthur reflect a continuous period of occupation and use at multiple establishments, allowing for useful intra-site comparisons through time. As an isolated tourist destination, Port Arthur serves as an excellent case study for examining material evidence associated with the development of mass tourism in Tasmania. One of these examinations is the construction of ‘place’ for tourists, a key concept in cultural geography and a key concept in tourism studies (Chambers 2010; Massey 2005; Miles 2010; Relph 1976; Urry 1995).

1.3.3. Material Culture and Place

‘Place’, a concept discussed in greater depth in Chapter 3, consists of not only a point on a map or vacant space, but that location in conjunction with everything that occupies it, conceptualized together as a meaningful phenomenon. Place is something that has a range of identities and significances, all of them fluid and context dependent. Place is present at multiple scales, and can be conceptualized as something as large as a continent or as small as a room. Place can also be understood on a smaller scale by examining material culture actively accumulated and discarded within it by distinct groups, such as household (or hotel) assemblages. Leone (1999:15) notes that persons existing within the modern capitalist system tend to identify themselves through their possessions. Acquiring material culture exists as a context for discourse about relationships at many scales, as people generate understandings about gender, class

and kinship as they purchase items deemed appropriate within their social context (Gazin-Schwartz 2004:99; Miller 2001). Consumption is a key aspect of tourism (Corbin et al. 2010; O’Donovan 2011). Tourism involves the consumption of services as well as incidental goods and amenities (Urry 1995:129), and associated purchases extend to accommodation, meals, services, tours, transportation and souvenirs.

While there have been no studies related to the use of material culture in constructing a sense of place for tourists, there has been some interesting work done in historical archaeology looking at the creation of ‘place’ in boomtown saloons in Virginia City, Nevada. The term ‘place’ isn’t specifically used, but Dixon (2005) looks at materials from within four distinct saloons to look at spaces tailored to different ethnic and cultural groups, reflecting concepts of refuge and solidarity. All the saloons date to the Gold Rush in the American West (c1860s-1880s), with one owned by German businessmen aimed at European immigrants, one African American bar with a predominantly African American clientele, and two owned by Irish proprietors with one bar dealing with lower and the other lower-middle classes. Dixon (2005) examined a variety of forms of material culture, including architectural remains, interior fixtures, food consumption and preparation items, and personal effects. She found that the combined attributes of different places had helped archaeologists visualize sight, smell, sound and tastes of each place (Dixon 2005:55). Many of the small items, including curios and decorations, reflected identifiable symbols and folk beliefs attributable to the each of the ethnic groups studied.

While not reliant on archaeological studies of material culture, the work of Pocock (2003) on the purposeful representation of the Great Barrier Reef as generic holiday locale is a useful example for considering the construction of place for tourists in Australia. By examining advertisements, postcards and other relevant media (forms of material culture themselves), Pocock (2003) examined how tourism operators successfully created a hyper-real holiday retreat with a general tropical influence. Semiotic analysis and the examination of icons and text were used to present how the Great Barrier Reef was actively constructed as a place for tourists.

1.4. Archaeology at Port Arthur

This section presents a brief overview of archaeological investigations at Port Arthur to situate this study within the broader context of existing studies. The archaeology program at Port Arthur began in 1977, 100 years after its closure as a convict secondary punishment station. The first structures examined were the convict barracks and what later became housing for ‘lunatic convicts…invalids and paupers’ from the 1850s until the closure of the site (Byrne 1977:19). Sadly the primary researcher Maureen Byrne, a PhD student at the University of Sydney, passed away suddenly before the research was completed. Further archaeological excavations took place through the early 1980s with major restoration projects occurring across the site as part of the Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project (PACP), which operated from 1979 to 1986 under management by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania (NPWS) (Egloff and Newby 2005:22). The Port Arthur summer archaeology program began in 1982 as a means of providing training and experience for students. Davies and Buckley (1987) produced an archaeological procedures manual through the development of the PACP in order to standardize archaeological project recording; it proved influential in Australian historical archaeology and is still referred to today. The PACP operated in line with The Burra Charter, a document outlining heritage practice and procedures first developed by International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Australia in 1979 and later reworked in 1999 and 2013. This included an understanding of the importance of authenticity and scientific reasoning, as well as the need for formal documentation of all changes made to sites and structures (Ireland 2004).

Archaeological excavations have continued regularly at Port Arthur since the early 1980s, either as part of the summer program for archaeology students or as a part of cultural resource management across the site during infrastructure alterations. There have been multiple publications about archaeology at Port Arthur covering a wide variety of topics. A sizeable portion of the literature concerning archaeology at Port Arthur focuses on site management, interpretation, sustainable heritage tourism and interactions with the public (Bickford 1981; Egloff 1984; Egloff and Newby 2005; Jackman 2001:12; Jackman 2009; Steele et al. 2007).

The archaeological potential of Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula and discussions of remnant archaeological materials forms another portion of literature on the archaeology of Port Arthur. The Isle of the Dead has attracted significant attention. As the burial place of between 1100 and 2000 convict and free inhabitants of Port Arthur, the location of an extensive Tasmanian Aboriginal shell midden and site of a historically significant high water line and weather station established by Thomas Lempriere in the 1830s, its multi-faceted aspects represent a challenge for conservation, as well as a potential site of interest for examining convict burial customs and diet (Jackman 2009; Thorn and Piper 1996:188).

The archaeological potential and remnant ruins within the harbour at Port Arthur are another key point of inquiry. The maritime landscape of Mason’s Cove, the central harbour at Port Arthur, contains the remnants of several site types reflecting multiple temporal periods, including Tasmanian Aboriginal sites, several industrial, domestic and punitive sites from the convict era, as well as infrastructure (jetties and roads) (Cook 1983). The remnants of the Point Puer settlement for convict boys established across the harbour from Port Arthur in 1833 would provide another means of examining penology and convict correction strategies (Jackman 2001). Archaeological excavations at Lithend were used to determine the sequence of construction and location for several industrial structures, including the dockyards, a sawpit and a blacksmith’s shop, helping define the industrial history and use of one part of the Port Arthur complex (McGowan 1985). The social and cultural significance of architectural changes to the buildings over time has also been used to discuss the development of Port Arthur (Egloff and Morrison 2001). While there has been a fair amount of published literature generated by historical archaeology at Port Arthur, a major paucity in the literature is the lack of studies which include the analysis of material culture. Two honours theses examining material culture from the First Prisoner Barracks have recently been completed.

1.5. Research Significance

At this point, there have been few archaeological studies of material culture relating to tourist sites. While managing to make thoughtful and well interpreted conclusions, those studies that have focused on tourist material culture relied on small

sample sizes and contained little in-depth discussion of the material culture (Corbin et al. 2010; O’Donovan 2011). This study is one of the first to test existing anthropological and geographical theories about the nature of tourism as a phenomenon. A model for the identification or understanding of the material signature of tourist sites should prove a unique addition to the field of archaeology.

This project is the first major archaeological study of material culture from over 30 years of excavation at Port Arthur, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The post- convict era focus of this study also comes at the request of the Port Arthur Community Advisory Committee (PACAC), a community committee based in Carnarvon, the town that developed around the ruins of Port Arthur. The analysis of artefacts relating to the post-convict era and the development of the township around Port Arthur will provide additional depth to the history of the region, as the primary focus to this point has been the convict era itself. The period bridging the convict era to the current day is a necessary context for more broadly understanding life in contemporary Tasmania.

An added understanding of tourism as a phenomenon is particularly socially relevant. Having emerged on the large-scale in the last 150 years, tourism represents a major global industry whose impacts are just beginning to be understood. The archaeological study of tourism at Port Arthur will add time-depth to the understanding of mass tourism as a phenomenon.

Chapter 2. Convict Transportation, Nationalism and Tourism

2.1. Introduction

This chapter provides the necessary historical context to the archaeological study of tourism at Port Arthur. As a convict site, an understanding of the convict system and its significance to the development of Australia as a nation is particularly useful for understanding Port Arthur’s later incarnation as a tourist site. The development of mass tourism, at several scales, is also presented to generate a broader understanding of tourist systems and changes to tourist activities. An overview of tourist infrastructure and site management at Port Arthur through time is also presented as a framework for more in-depth discussions of tourist activities at the site.

2.2. Convict Transportation

The use of convict transportation and re-settlement is by no means unique to Australia. The Roman occupation of Egypt, with the accompanying banishment of convicts and the establishment of convict settlements, is the earliest recorded example of penal colonies. A penal colony is defined as a ‘prison outpost established by the host country for military, political, social or economic advantage’ (Bogle 2008:5). The purposeful displacement of law-breakers and political prisoners was a common means of empire-building adopted by several European powers through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to lay claim to increasingly dispersed and less hospitable regions. Within Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were once among many dumping points for convicts within the British Empire, with noted instances of unregulated transportation of Irish convicts to their ports in the 1780s (Bogle 2008:14). Penal colonies existed (and exist) beyond the cessation of convict transportation to Australia in 1868. Some still

operated in the twentieth centuries and continue into the twenty-first century with island penal colonies still operated by Mexico, Italy and Brazil, among others (Bogle 2008:16).

The forced transportation and re-settlement of convict groups worked within the larger context of national and international migrations. The transportation of convicts, contracting of bonded labourers and capture of slaves complemented the movement of free European settlers prior to 1914 (Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:7). Penal colonies often helped establish colonial claims to lands too distant or lacking adequate resources to draw sufficient free settlers (Bogle 2008:5). The mandatory work undertaken by convicts was an essential part in establishing many of these colonies (much like that of slaves or indentured workers elsewhere) and often involved clearing vegetation for settlements, constructing roads and infrastructure, or serving assigned free families (Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:7).

The mass migration of primarily English and Irish convicts to Australia from 1788- 1868 still resounds today in the Australian psyche in ways not enacted in other colonial convict settlements (Bogle 2008; Casella and Fredericksen 2004; Ireland 2002; Jackman 2009; Nicholas and Shergold 1988a; Smith 2008). Some major differences distinguish the Australian convict system from that used elsewhere in the British Empire. Unlike other penal colonies, Australia was established with the purposeful intention of reaching self-sufficiency. One unique factor was the inclusion of women and children in the transported population and the promotion of marriage and family propagation among convicts (Bogle 2008:72; Casella and Fredericksen 2004:106). The promotion of families was meant to stabilize and normalize the population in the colonies (Bogle 2008:71).

The sheer number of convicts sent to Australia as compared to other colonies is staggering. As the second largest recipient of British convicts, the United States received 50,000 convicts in the 140 years up to 1776. In comparison, Australia received nearly 170,000 convicts in the 80 years up to 1868. This represents over three times the number of convicts in a period nearly half as long. To give an example of early population dynamics, in New South Wales in 1840, 71% of the population consisted of convicts and ex-convicts, 24% free immigrants and 5% born in the colony (Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:3). Major social reforms with regards to criminal reform and institutional

confinement arose in England during the 1780s after Britain ceased the transportation of convicts to the United States. Major penal infrastructure and formalized labour systems did not exist in the United States as they did in Australia, nor are the remnants still visible on the landscape as they are in Australia today (Casella and Fredericksen 2004:105).

A brief history of convict transportation to Australia, the cessation of transportation, and the role of the convict past as both a source of shame and nationalistic rallying point will be addressed to provide historical and social context for the driving forces behind the promotion or avoidance of the convict past at Port Arthur.

2.2.1. Australia

A major factor in Australia’s settlement involving a mass, forced convict migration was the independence of the United States of America from Britain in 1776 following the American Revolution (Lawrence and Davies 2010:10). Between 1640 and 1776 convicts were shipped to the northeast coast of the United States. After peace between Britain and the United States was established in 1783, the British government attempted to resume transportation to the United States but the convict-filled ships were turned away at the harbours (Bogle 2008:19).

After losing its primary transportation destination, Britain had to look elsewhere for a place to ship convicts. Convicts were stored in ship hulls (the hulks) in British harbours and provided free labour for dredging canals and working the docks. This was meant to be a temporary solution to convict overpopulation after the end of convict transportation to the United States but the practice continued for over 100 years (Nicholas and Shergold 1988b:30-31). The transportation of British convicts to Australia began in 1788 when the first permanent British settlement was established at Port Jackson in Botany Bay near present day Sydney, New South Wales (Figure 2-1). Between 1788 and the cessation of transportation to New South Wales in 1840 over 80,000 convicts were shipped to its shores (Bogle 2008:15; Lawrence and Davies 2010:10).

Figure 2-1 Australian penal colonies discussed in relation to convict transportation. (Source: ESRI ArcGIS Basemap 2015 with author’s additions.)

The next British penal colony established in Australia was at Risdon Cove, near current day Hobart, in Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) in 1803. France had a rumoured interest in the island south of the Australian mainland, and as a response Britain hurriedly established a settled population there (Bogle 2008:19). Van Diemen’s Land was initially envisioned as a primarily free colony with a small convict population for agricultural labour, domestic service and the development of public infrastructure. Despite these aims, within sixteen years convicts represented over 70% of the total population. Once transportation to Van Diemen’s Land ceased in 1854, the island had received over 69,000 convicts (Bogle 2008:31).

A penal colony was attempted at Port Philip near present-day Melbourne, Victoria, in 1803 and again in 1826 but each failed within a year. Similarly, small penal colonies were established in 1824 at Moreton Bay, near Brisbane, Queensland, and on

Melville Island in the Timor Sea off the coast of the Northern Territory (Bogle 2008:33). Convicts were sent to the Swan River colony, near present day Perth, Western Australia, from 1850. The Swan River colony had a free population of around 6,000, and the settlers felt they had neither the time nor sufficient workers to construct the infrastructure necessary for a successful colony. Having seen how successful convictism had been elsewhere in enhancing the markets of the other colonies, Swan River colonists wanted a similar boost.

The convict system in Australia involved major penal infrastructure and formal labour systems. Along with the thousands of convicts transported to the Australian colonies, thousands of free British settlers were transported as part of the necessary human infrastructure of the convict system, including engineers, warders, administrators and their families. The cessation of transportation to Western Australia in 1868 marked the end of British convict transportation to Australia (Bogle 2008:17; Gibbs 2001:60).

Convictism in Australia was not a system marked by incarceration and institutionalization, though these aspects are the most focused on in popular depictions of convict experience. The chain-bound character with distinct broad-arrow marked clothing (used to identify property of the British colonial government) is a common representation of the Australian convict of the nineteenth century. However, institutional confinement for Anglo-Australians was an atypical colonial experience, as most convicts did not spend time within places of confinement such as gaols, asylums and penal complexes (Casella and Fredericksen 2004:105). Most convicts had served the bulk of their sentence inside the hulls of convict ships, and upon arrival in Australia prior to 1840 most were assigned to private masters to work as labourers or domestic servants under the ‘assignment system’. Those who could not be employed or who offended again were assigned to public work gangs. After the 1820s, in the case of repeat offenders the government established secondary punishment stations. Secondary punishment stations were more akin to prisons and were characterized by varying degrees of heavy labour, increased supervision by guards and soldiers, and greater chances of wearing shackles and enduring corporal punishment (Jackman 2009:102). Two of the most notorious secondary punishment stations were Port Arthur (1830-1877) and Norfolk Island (1825-1856), though both were preceded by Sarah Island on Macquarie Harbour (1822-1833). Secondary punishment stations are the places from which many of the

horror traditions relating to the convict era emerged. While those places selected for secondary punishment stations by the colonial government are regarded today for their visually stunning landscapes, for sentenced convicts the remote nature of these sites with dense scrub and threatening fauna would have rendered these places terrifying (Bogle 2008:30).

Of the approximately 70,000 convicts transported to Van Diemen’s Land from Britain between 1803 and 1854, nearly 12,000 (12%) were female (Casella 2000:209). Female convicts were managed separately from male convicts through the Female Factory System. These were scattered prisons established as probation stations within which female convicts were incarcerated for the first six months of their sentence in Australia as part of the ‘Crime Class’, tasked with reforming through prayer and appropriately ‘feminine’ occupations such as laundry, sewing, and cooking. This sits in direct contrast to the heavy manual labour most male convicts engaged in. After their probationary period ended, most female convicts were transitioned to ‘Hiring Class’ and made available for domestic service to settlers. Those who re-offended while on probation were placed in solitary cells for punishment and essentially extended their probationary period (Casella 2000:209-210). If a convict woman found herself pregnant outside of wedlock (even as a result of sexual abuse), her sentence was extended and the child was born and raised within the confines of the female factory until the age of three, at which point it would be sent to an orphan school if its mother had not gained her freedom (Bogle 2008:73).

Facing public opposition to convict transportation in Britain, in 1837 the British government appointed the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Transportation to fully evaluate the system. The report released by this committee, headed by Sir William Molesworth, was integral to both major reforms in the convict labour system and eventually the cessation of convict transportation entirely (Bogle 2008:96; Dyster 1988:127; Young 1996:5). In the 1837 report, Molesworth found the use of unpaid convict labour under the ‘assignment system’, whereby convicts were assigned to private masters, as equivalent to slavery (Bogle 2008:96). The assignment system was portrayed as grossly inefficient, with convicts assigned to masters in a type of ‘lottery’ thought to overlook convict skill and landowner needs (Dyster 1988).

The cessation of transportation to New South Wales and the populated areas of Van Diemen’s Land was recommended, with secondary punishment stations Port Arthur and Norfolk Island reserved for the permanent exile of the most recalcitrant criminals (Bogle 2008:96). The perceived loss of convict labour became a focal point of civic elections. An increasing population of urban middle-class Australian colonists worked for the cessation of convict servitude, much to the chagrin of Australia’s wealthy oligarchy of landowners and graziers who relied on inexpensive convict labour (Bogle 2008:3). Some opponents to convict transportation equated it with slavery, even going so far as to calculate comparative head costs between Australian convicts and male slaves elsewhere in the British Empire (Bogle 2008:97).

When convict transportation to New South Wales ceased in 1840 the number of convicts sent to Van Diemen’s Land each year doubled. There were several opponents to convict transportation in both Britain and Australia, but the most effective force within Australia was the Australian Anti-Transportation League (AATL) which formed in 1849 with chapters in all capital cities except for the Swan River Colony. Newly arrived convict ships were met with mass demonstrations and political leaders had difficulties manoeuvering the highly capable and compelling leadership of the AATL (Bogle 2008:95). There are several reasons cited for the movement to end transportation, including penal reform in Britain and the increased popularity of the abolition/anti-slavery movement throughout Britain and North America. The discovery of gold in Australia also affected the British Government’s interest in shipping convicts, as providing free tickets to gold rich areas proved to be a poor deterrent to criminal activity in Britain (Lawrence and Davies 2010:10). Transportation to Tasmania ceased in 1852 with the last ship arriving in 1853. Convict transportation to Western Australia ceased in 1868.

2.2.2. Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania)

The first group of convicts and permanent British settlers to Van Diemen’s Land arrived in September 1803. They established a small settlement at Risdon Cove but moved to Hobart, now the capital of Tasmania, by 1804. A total of forty-nine people arrived in that first group, twenty-four of whom were convicts. A larger group later appropriated land on the north coast in November 1804 at Port Darymple and eventually re-settled at the site of present-day Launceston, currently the center for commerce in

northern Tasmania. Conditions were difficult in the fledgling colonies, with settlers working to endure the constant threat of starvation, all the while remaining entirely dependent on supplies from Sydney for survival (Young 1996:2). As an island, Van Diemen’s Land was seen by the colonial government as a secure site to isolate the worst convicts from New South Wales and Britain (Bayley 1971:7). The stigma of being the dumping ground for the colonies’ worst convicts, having the most notoriously cruel secondary punishment station, and reputedly decimating its Aboriginal population was carried by the island’s residents through the end of the convict era and arguably to the present day (Tumarkin 2005:221).

A state of near lawlessness existed on Van Diemen’s Land during the early years of the settlement, as there was initially no way to secure the convict population. Many made their way into the bush with guns and became bushrangers, outlaws potentially threatening to settlers. The degree of danger led the governor to declare martial law in 1813 and build the Hobart Gaol and barracks. By 1825, there were 6,000 convicts on Van Diemen’s Land but facilities to securely contain only 245 with no courts and few gaols established on the island. Governor Arthur, who oversaw Van Diemen’s Land from 1824-1836, worked to have every prisoner not working for settlers securely contained and guarded at night (Young 1996:3-4).

Following the examination of the efficacy of the convict system in Australia by the 1837 Select Committee of the House of Commons on Transportation, the convict labour systems in New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land transitioned from the ‘assignment system’ to the ‘probation system’. These changes had direct impacts on convict experience in Van Diemen’s Land. The ‘assignment system’, in use from 1803 onwards, saw convicts assigned to free settlers as labourers. The ‘probation system’ meant that incoming convicts were initially assigned to works gangs on public projects instead of private masters. To securely house the increasing number of convicts assigned to public projects, the British Government funded the construction of probation stations on the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas in the southeast of Van Diemen’s Land. The British Government was willing to pay to establish probation stations on the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas as they were readily guarded, resource rich, and firmly isolated from free or reformed populations (Young 1996:7). Stations elsewhere were built at the expense of the colonial government (Young 1996:5-6).

The first station was constructed at Saltwater River in 1841 (Figure 2-2). The focus of works was primarily agricultural, with the men housed in slab and bark huts. In the same year three more probation stations were established on the Forestier and Tasman Peninsulas, with three more opening within the next few years, including an invalid station at Wedge Bay west of Port Arthur on the Tasman Peninsula. Probation stations were established outside the Forestier and Tasman Peninsulas to meet the demand for accommodation, and previous stations used under the assignment system were modified to serve as probation stations (Young 1996:7).

Free settlers in Van Diemen’s Land were mostly opposed to the probation system, as it ended their access to the cheap labour made available by the assignment system. Under the probation system settlers had to pay to hire convicts on probation, but Van Diemen’s Land had entered a state of depression with the loss of free labour and competition from goods produced elsewhere. The first probationers were eligible for hire by free settlers in 1844 but few actually gained employment. In 1844 there were 8,100 unemployed persons within the convict system. The unemployed were held responsible for the wave of crime in Van Diemen’s Land, and probation stations were seen as centers of vice. The movement against transportation grew from settler dissatisfaction with the system, and in 1846 Britain stopped the shipment of convicts to Van Diemen’s Land for two years to allow the colony a chance to reorganize and develop the existing facilities (Young 1996:8).

After 1848 transportation slowed significantly. Many convicts that arrived in Van Diemen’s Land already held probationary passes or tickets of leave, and probation stations began to close due to the reduced need. Port Arthur alone continued to expand its infrastructure. The last convicts arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in May 1853, and by January 1854 the convict status of the colony was repealed. The remaining outstations and probation stations throughout Van Diemen’s Land closed, and only Port Arthur and the outstations on the Tasman Peninsula continued to administer the convict system. Van Diemen’s Land was renamed Tasmania in 1856 (Young 1996:10).

2.2.3. Port Arthur

Port Arthur originated in 1830 as a timber station within the convict system in Van Diemen’s Land and eventually became the largest penal complex on the island. Once Port Arthur was established as a secondary punishment station, the other two in use within the colony, Sarah Island in Macquarie Harbour and Maria Island, closed in 1832. Suitable clay was discovered on site at Port Arthur, and convict labour was used to produce bricks and timber to supply Hobart. In its early stages, all the buildings at Port Arthur were constructed of timber (Young 1996:5).

Figure 2-2 Map of Southeast Tasmania depicting the Forestier Peninsula, Tasman Peninsula and various points of interest. Note: Dashed blue line shows the approximate extent of the c 1836 convict-operated railway. (Source: ESRI ArcGIS Basemap 2015 with author’s additions.)

Aside from its relative proximity to Hobart, one draw to establishing a secondary punishment station on the Tasman Peninsula was the ease with which it could be

guarded. Eaglehawk Neck, the sole point of entry to the Tasman Peninsula by land, features a narrow isthmus which was infamously guarded by a row of ferocious dogs secured to posts at set intervals. The dogs rendered escape impossible except by water, and few convicts could swim. If any tried the raucous noise generated by the dog line would alert guards posted nearby. There was also a guard post established at present-day Dunalley in 1832 at the entry to the Forestier Peninsula just to the north of the Tasman Peninsula. This provided a second narrow isthmus with additional nearby guardhouses separating potential escapees from freedom (Bayley 1971:8). To even reach these isthmuses, potential escapees would first have to avoid guards on the Peninsulas and find their way through dense, treacherous bush land.

Within a few years, plans for brick prisoners’ barracks at Port Arthur, a boys’ prison school at Point Puer, and coal shafts at the Coal Mines at Saltwater River were submitted by Charles O’Hara Booth, Commandant of the Tasman Peninsula. The Coal Mines were opened in 1834 and acted as a particularly harsh punishment station for the worst class of prisoner from Port Arthur. No permanent buildings were constructed at Port Arthur until 1835. By October 1836 there were 1,000 convicts at Port Arthur and 300 boys at Point Puer. From 1836 to 1842 several permanent structures were completed, including the church, soldiers’ barracks, hospital, and powder magazine. In 1836 the first railway in the Australian colonies was constructed between Norfolk Bay to the north and Long Bay near Port Arthur. Less a train than a cart on rails pushed by convicts, the transport of goods to Norfolk Bay allowed ships to bypass the treacherous waters around Cape Raoul and Storm Bay off the Derwent River (Bayley 1971:14). In 1843 the total population at Port Arthur reached 2,300, with 1,100 convicts on site and 700 boys at Point Puer (Young 1996:5-6). Point Puer eventually closed in 1849.

Even as convict numbers began to decrease in Van Diemen’s Land, several buildings were constructed or modified at Port Arthur. Through the 1840s Port Arthur lacked a proper penitentiary. The flour mill and granary, constructed from 1842 – 1845, was the most imposing structure on the site and the largest building in the colony. The flour mill supplied most of the flour on the Tasman Peninsula, with grinding stones operated by water and a twenty-four-man treadmill. In 1852 a total of 546 convicts were transported to the Tasman Peninsula with the closure of the infamous secondary punishment station at Norfolk Island off the coast of New South Wales. Between 1853

and 1856 the granary was converted into a penitentiary, housing 136 convicts in individual cells and 348 men in an open, two-tiered dormitory (Young 1996:9-10).

The structures of Port Arthur reflect the evolution of the British penal system through the nineteenth century. These penal reforms culminated in the construction of the ‘Separate Prison’ in 1850 which was fabricated after the Pentonville Model of prisons. Silence and introspection were meant to replace the whip and heavy labour for reforming recalcitrant criminals. The cornerstones of this new model of penal reform were work, religious reform, silence, and isolation. The architecture of the prison helped enforce this and all prisoners were housed in solitary cells to work and read in complete silence for twenty-three hours a day, with the exception of chapel and exercise. Prisoners were exercised individually in confined yards, and even during hymns prisoners were separated by wooden walls to prevent their interaction with or viewing of other prisoners. Guards wore pads on their shoes to silence their footfalls, prisoners lost their names in place of numbers given to them on arrival, and each prisoner wore a hood over his head when walking through the halls, rendering him unrecognizable to his peers (who would also have been hooded). Re-offence while in the Separate Prison would result in up to thirty days in a punishment cell, which had a sequence of four heavy doors which sealed to keep out all sound and light, resulting in complete sensory deprivation. The isolation and silence led to a large number of convicts going mad; the Asylum was constructed next to the Separate Prison in 1867 (Brand 2003; Lennon 2009:171; Young 1996).

In 1853 and 1854 the remaining probation stations and outstations in Van Diemen’s Land closed, leaving the Tasman Peninsula as the lone remnant of the penal system. In 1854 there were only 846 convicts left at Port Arthur, and gradually the number of convicts at the site decreased while the number of invalids and paupers increased. A paupers’ mess was constructed at Port Arthur in 1864, and the asylum constructed in 1867 was the last major structure added to Port Arthur. The Tasman Peninsula remained forbidden territory until Port Arthur finally closed in 1877 (Young 1996:10).

2.3. A Nation of Convicts

The last convict ship arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in 1854, and in an effort to start anew the colony was renamed Tasmania in 1856. Several towns with names strongly affiliated with convict probation or reform were renamed and the land sold at auctions. At the end of convict transportation many Tasmanians were eager to forget the entire enterprise and the continued use of the Tasman Peninsula as a penal colony was considered an unpleasant reminder. Colonists in the three convict labour colonies (New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia) sought to put the convict past behind them. Through the 1880s and 1890s Tasmania’s Chief Justice actively advocated for the demolition of convict buildings as a means of wiping out the ‘convict stain’ (Lennon 2009:177). When Australia’s centenary came about in 1888 it was a difficult time for many, as celebrating British settlement of the Australian colonies inadvertently meant celebrating the arrival of the first convict ship in Botany Bay (Jackman 2009:104).

Through the 1880s and 1890s the Australian colonies remained strongly aligned with the British Crown and exhibited a broadly felt nostalgic fondness for all things ‘English’. In the wake of European imperialism, popular political ideology at the turn of the twentieth century promoted the importance of nationhood for a people to truly reach their potential. Australia was federated in 1901 as a nation within the British Commonwealth. In addressing Australia’s new nationhood, few were willing to delve into the convict past in Australia; for the most part it was entirely suppressed or downplayed as an unsavoury historical incident (Jackman 2009:101-104).

Through most of the twentieth century Australians linked the birth of Australia as a nation to the events in the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey in World War I. Here Australian and New Zealand soldiers (Anzacs) took part in their first major battle as nations, part of a joint campaign mounted by France and Britain between 1915 and 1916 to capture Constantinople (Istanbul), the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Turkish forces won the battle, with heavy casualties suffered on both sides. As one of the greatest failures of the Allied Forces in World War I, the battle at Gallipoli may seem like an unusual rallying point for Australia’s sense of nationhood. It provided a new focal point

for the nation, and the blood shed by Anzacs at Gallipoli has been described as having symbolically washed the taint of convict blood from Australia (Jackman 2009:101).

Following World War I, Australian convicts became an acceptable topic of academic study, though realistically there was no widespread Australian acceptance of the convict past until the 1970s and older generations are still disinclined to discuss it. Near the start of the twentieth century convict settlers were portrayed as ‘innocent and manly’, part of a benevolent ancestral population of poor rural workers forced into the evils of crime or political prisoners standing for their beliefs. Forced into an unsavoury situation they fought for their freedom and social justice in the face of unfair exile. As ties and loyalty to Britain were still firmly forged, fighting for the innocence of ancestral convicts without loudly decrying the British convict system was a complicated undertaking. The construction of the benevolent, innocent convict ancestor ties into romantic perceptions of early white Australians as either heroic adventurers/warriors or rugged, sun-hardened pioneers/settlers still prevalent today (Jackman 2009:101; Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:5-7).

The construction of the ancestral convict was first challenged in 1959 by historian Manning Clark and several other influential authors in his wake. Through quantification and analysis of data collected on transported convicts he determined that the concept of the convict as helpless victim of Britain’s social failings was grossly inaccurate. A wide variety of details were gathered on convicts departing Britain and arriving in Australia, but Clark’s analysis focused on sex, mean age, length of sentence, type of crime, marital status and religious convictions. His sample was comprised predominantly of unmarried men (80%) with an average age of twenty-six serving an average sentence of seven years (51%) for crimes against property, mostly theft (81%). In interpreting this data, Clark concluded that convicts transported to Australia were part of a specialized criminal class in Britain comprised of hardened, professional criminals who developed from the urban working classes. Several causes for criminal tendencies were outlined by scholars, including the purposeful training of young pickpockets by professional thieves, parental neglect and lack of discipline, psychological aberration, and the criminal subculture itself which promoted idleness, self-indulgence and easy money. This construction remained the dominant paradigm among Australian historians through the 1980s (Nicholas and Shergold1988a:4).

Nicholas’ (1988) edited volume Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past was among the first to re-evaluate these early statistical descriptions of Australia’s convicts. Nicholas and Shergold (1988a) re-examined the data used by Clark and others and incorporated additional factors such as occupation, age, and details of each convict’s crimes. Their reassessment of convict records resulted in a transition away from the image of convicts as illiterate, poorly trained professional criminals. Australian convicts for the most part reflected a representative cross-section of British society at the time, with comparable trade skills and a greater degree of literacy than the broader British populace. As Clark found, over 80% of male and female convicts were arrested for crimes against property but this was generally the theft of small items from employers or masters. Many were first time offenders. With the physical toll the act of transportation took on convicts, only the young and relatively fit were transported (Bogle 2008:51; Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:6-12).

Despite the negative portrayal of convict ancestors from the 1950s through 1980s, general interest in the convict past began to develop as an area of study in the 1960s and 1970s and has burgeoned since then. The convict ancestor has become a point of pride for many Australians, particularly following the bi-centenary of British settlement in Australia in 1988; claiming descent from convict ancestors was even fashionable at this time (Jackman 2009:103; Lennon 2009:177). The convict era in Australia has been used in recent years as a rallying point for nationalistic identities (Casella and Fredericksen 2004; Ireland 2002; Jackman 2009; Steele et al. 2007; Young 1996). Wilson (2008:2) describes prisons and sites of incarceration as crucial facets of Australian national identity and collective memory. Historical sites like Port Arthur have become increasingly popular, even though only a small portion of the convict population was sent there (Jackman 2009:103). Contemporary society throughout most of Australia developed within the framework of convict transportation, and this role as penal colony marks its original function within the British Empire. Holland (2002:15) suggests that interest in the convict past and Australian historical archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s stemmed from the Australian nation reacting to its colonial history. In attempting to develop a truly independent Australian nation, new mythologies and narratives of nationalism emerged, with the convict once again gaining the status of ‘venerable ancestor’ (Jackman 2009:103).

Casella and Fredericksen (2004:103) see Australia’s fascination with sites of confinement as neither nationalist nor colonial. They classify this interest as part of a post-colonial consciousness, whereby Australians are actively engaging with the more brutal aspects of their shared colonial past, including colonization itself and dispossession. Much like many former colonies, key historical narratives focus on ways in which Australia differs from Britain. Two romanticized archetypes appear most often in Australian histories: the rural pioneer and the law-breaker. The convict, who often embodies both roles, holds a national iconic status in Australia that is found nowhere else in the world (Casella and Fredericksen 2004:104). Some would go so far as to argue that ‘Australia was founded on the sweat, sorrow and suffering of felons forced to migrate’ (Lennon 2009:165). These myths, however, are predominantly white and overlook the presence and rights of Aboriginal Australians. Given that 19th and 20th- century ‘Aboriginal management’ strategies often resulted in institutional confinement for Aboriginal Australians at sites such as missions, residential schools, hospitals, police lock-ups and prisons, Casella and Fredericksen (2004:108) suggest that places of confinement then become part of the shared history of Australia through themes of alienation.

2.4. History of Tourism

Travel is not a phenomenon unique to tourism; prior to the development of mass tourism people travelled widely for a variety of purposes including trade, migration, pilgrimages, and war. The idea of travel for leisure is something that has emerged on a much greater scale since the Industrial Revolution. Mass tourism in Australia shares its developmental trajectory with tourism from Britain and North America; a few of those key developments will be briefly discussed here.

The pilgrimage, purposeful travel to significant spiritual sites for religious enlightenment, is one foundation of Western mass tourism. It spans a variety of groups through space and time beyond medieval Europe (Graburn 1989:28). While some forms of contemporary tourism exhibit features characteristic of the spiritual quest, the secular aspects of early pilgrimages display many negative traits accorded to modern mass tourism, such as relic hunting, graffiti, aggressive and destructive souveniring, and

wanton sexual excess (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:xxviii; Graburn 1989). Travel in medieval Europe was generally reserved for religious purposes as it was both difficult and costly for all classes.

The change in world-view brought about by the Renaissance is thought to have laid the ‘cosmological foundation for modern tourism’, as it presented truth as something that existed beyond the singular spirit or mind (Graburn 1989:29). This concept is manifest in the various expansive activities of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, such as scientific innovations, new astronomies and exploration beyond the previously accepted boundaries of the world. In the seventeenth century the wealthy were travelling to experience and understand for themselves the wonders of the ancient and the newly discovered worlds (Graburn 1989:29).

Mass touring in Western Europe is thought to have its origins in the ‘grand tour’, purposeful travel to sites of cultural, national and scholarly significance by the educated elite. Rome, Athens, Venice, Istanbul, Paris and places of marked religious influence were often included in the tour. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Grand Tour became a fixture of English education, particularly for the aristocracy and landed gentry as part of their grooming for future roles as political leaders, administrators and patrons of the arts. The purpose of the tour was not simply observing the sights and collecting souvenirs but also taking instruction in the social graces including manners, dancing, languages, and riding, amongst others. The shared experience of visiting the prescribed destinations created a bond between those privileged few who had the opportunity to tour at the exclusion of others (Baram and Rowan 2004:9; Graburn 1989:29).

The intersection of travel and education intrinsic to the Grand Tour became a fixture of Western leisure by the nineteenth century (Baram and Rowan 2004:10). The impacts of the Industrial Revolution from the late eighteenth century further compounded the connection between travel and education as it fueled the need for scientific knowledge, trade, raw materials, and imperial expansion. Romanticism, glorification of nature and the picturesque, arose as a reaction to the expanding cities and the pollution of industry and led new groups of wealthy tourists to experience the sublime and awesome (Graburn 1989: 29; Horne 2005).

Key to one’s capacity to tour for leisure purposes was the availability of funding to pay for the adventure and time away from other obligations. Until the development of mass tourism in the late nineteenth century travel was a luxury afforded to relatively few people. Travel by the elite was, and still is, a means of acquiring social distinction by visiting places considered authentic and unique. While some theories on mass tourism focus on middle and working-class travel as following along the trail of the wealthy, Chambers (2010:12) notes that nineteenth-century working-class travels exhibit different social relations. Where elite travel was often undertaken in small groups and was almost competitive in trying to find unique experiences, working class trips included more shared experiences and expressed collegiality and solidarity while reproducing and reinforcing everyday relationships (Chambers 2010:13).

The beginnings of mass tourism in the second half of the nineteenth century are attributed to three things: the advent and rapid expansion of mass transportation infrastructure; the introduction of paid holidays and the notion that time away from work increases productivity; and the rise of tour companies and tourism bureaus working to increase tourist numbers and access to places of interest (Chambers 2010; Davidson and Spearritt 2000; Horne 2005; Urry 1995).

Extended transportation networks provided a means of escaping the pollution and stress of the industrialized cities; ironically these networks were a by-product of the same industrial processes. Mass tourism developed within the framework of transportation infrastructure, particularly with the advent of the steam locomotive in the nineteenth century, the rapid expansion of railway and shipping networks, and later the introduction of the automobile (Chambers 2010:16; Davidson and Spearitt 2000; Horne 2005; Hunt 2010; Wurst 2011:256). Railway and shipping networks were constructed initially to serve increasingly productive industrial sectors, while the infrastructure they generated and the potential for the easy and regular movement of cargo and people meant transportation could be promoted at an affordable price. The exponential increase in scale and access democratised the process of travel, as it increased the affordability of transportation for a greater portion of the general populace. The late- nineteenth century was the first time mass transportation was available, as until that time travel itself was a mark of status available to few (Urry 1995:130).

While the newly available transportation networks were visibly exploited by tour companies to promote and enhance their offerings, the development of large-scale package tours required alteration to the social organization of travel (Urry 1995:141- 142). Rail and steamship infrastructure existed for decades before the introduction of the voucher system by Thomas Cook which rapidly developed international market potential.

A dedicated Baptist, social reformer and promoter of sobriety, Thomas Cook’s first involvement with travel arose when he organized the first packaged train trip to a temperance meeting in the 1840s (Davidson and Spearitt 2000:xix). Cook holds a position of central importance in the early promotion and production of package tours across the world and is often cited as the first tour operator and major travel agent (Chambers 2010:15; Davidson and Spearritt 2000:xix-xxi). Chambers (2010:15) notes that he was by no means the first to offer package tours; these were available in the late eighteenth century to destinations around Europe. As a product of his time, however, Cook (and his agency Thomas Cook and Sons) revolutionized the touring process in several ways, particularly in linking bulk travel with industrial transportation networks. He bolstered mass tourism by promoting the expansion of railways, the standardization of hotels and restaurants, and developing ‘Cook’s coupons’ (similar to traveller’s cheques) to make the process of travel easier for a greater portion of the populace. As Cook’s touring empire expanded, approved, accessible and standardized portions of the world were gradually opened for touring by the general public. Establishing large-scale, reputably safe tours meant that single women and other traditionally less mobile members of the public could travel; the development of large-scale tourism is said to have democratized the process of travel (Urry 1995:143).

2.4.1. Australia

Although small-scale tourism existed in Australia prior to the first tour of Australia packaged and sold by the Thomas Cook travel agency in 1871, this tour is considered the beginnings of mass tourism in Australia. As a destination, Australia initially drew little international interest due to its dark reputation as the dumping grounds for convicts. As a colony with British origins it lacked the appropriate exoticism to beguile wealthy tourists, and while it drew those Victorian tourists interested in adventure and difficult

travel, most wanted a guaranteed degree of comfort ‘spiced with a touch of adventure’ (Davidson and Spearitt 2000:1-4). In 1871 Thomas Cook and Sons offered their first round-the-world tour, and with the Suez Canal recently opened it seemed like an appropriate time to expand to Australia.

Tourists to Australia in the 1870s were offered adventure and very basic accommodation outside city districts. The railway network had extended little outside of Sydney in the 1870s, so coaches were relied upon for travel overland (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:3). Those travellers who did visit were generally the wealthy seeking adventure or recuperation from ill health in the warm, dry climate. Guidebooks to Australia and New Zealand were gradually published based on the travels of these wealthy few, and these proved successful in England and its colonies. These early guidebooks evoked a sense of colonial pride and depicted the settlements in Australia as refined and civilized, generating British curiosity in Australia as a destination for travel (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:5-6).

Given its isolation from other travel destinations, much leisure travel within Australia was (and is) undertaken by Australians. While travellers from Britain sought the dry heat to cure their ills, early retreats for Australians focused on the cool climates and elevations of hill and mountain retreats outside the major colonial centers. These locales drew tourists from the late 1860s; the wealthy had been building secondary residences there for decades. Many of the colonial centers across Australia were established near hill or mountain locations, most promoting themselves as ‘health resorts’ for escaping the excessive summer heat of lower lying areas (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:14). The Blue Mountains in New South Wales remained the most popular tourist destination in Australia through the late nineteenth century (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:18). Other key tourist destinations in Australia during the late nineteenth century included cave networks, beachside destinations with swimming baths and promenades, and large-scale festivals and exhibitions (Davidson and Spearritt 2000). The continued expansion of railway and steamship networks between major cities and out to scenic destinations led to increased ease of movement between destinations. From the 1880s grand hotels with elaborate architecture and luxurious interiors were constructed throughout Australia at key junctions as they were in Europe and North America.

From the late 1870s railways began publishing guidebooks for tourists, promoting regions with images of hotels and scenery. While the expansion of rail did feature in developing Australia’s domestic tourism industry as it did in Europe and North America, steamships were the most popular means of travel in Australia due to its extensive coastline and incomplete railway networks. The amenities offered on interstate steamships were comparable to those offered on ocean liners travelling from Europe to Australia and by providing a variety of fare options local operators were able to undercut international shipping companies. The fresh sea air (or ‘lung food’) ocean travel offered was promoted as beneficial to travellers. Passenger accommodation on coastal ships doubled in 1901 but decreased heavily after World War II with the wide-spread ownership of automobiles (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:34-38).

In the late nineteenth century, increased transportation and infrastructure meant that touring became increasingly accessible for middle-class clerical workers but mass tourism was not yet realized in Australia. In Britain, the middle class were travelling by the 1850s, while the working class was touring by 1865. Much of this difference in tourism development relates to varied labour legislation between places. In the 1870s in Britain, Bank Holidays were introduced, granting bank clerks two weeks of paid vacation each year. Legislation at the same time entitled factory workers to periods of leave (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:xix-xx).

In Australia, on the other hand, in 1870 Sydney workers were granted leave from work during Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Anniversary Day (January 26, now Australia Day), Good Friday, Easter Monday and the Queen’s Birthday. As these statutory holidays are dispersed across the year, day-trips remained by far the most common means of touring through the nineteenth century, as a labourer’s daily wage would just cover a day’s rail travel while another day’s wages would be required to stay overnight in a boarding house. Many resorts harboured a general sense of concern that the working class and labourers would swarm their accommodations en masse at the cost of retaining their wealthier clientele. When Australia was federated in 1901, only some salaried employees received paid leave. By 1902 middle-class employees such as public servants were granted three weeks annual leave. Workers were not entitled to a week’s holiday leave until the 1940s (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:26-28).

As in the United States and Britain, tourism in Australia was influenced by expanding transportation networks and the availability of packaged tours. The physical isolation of Australia from other regions of the world meant that it developed more slowly as an international tourist destination, and Australia was most often toured by Australians. Tasmania was the most popular destination for Australian tourists until the middle of the 20th century (Davidson and Spearritt 2000).

2.4.2. Tasmania

The popularity of Tasmania as a tourist destination began even before the end of the convict era. Although Port Arthur and the rest of the Tasman Peninsula in Tasmania’s southeast remained closed to the public until 1877, tourist visits to the island were increasing even in the 1850s. While much of the Tasmanian public called for the end of convict transportation to the colony, it also meant the withdrawal of nearly $350,000 in support funding from Britain and access to cheap, plentiful labour for settlers (Young 1996:12).

Wealthy visitors wishing to tour the island would have been a welcome boost to the struggling Tasmanian economy. The population of Tasmania stagnated at about 100,000 and faced severe depression during the 1860s and 1870s as many young men had left for the Victorian gold rushes in 1854 and 1858. Others who would have left were forced to stay by the enactment of the Victorian Convicts Prevention Act (1852), which required proof of unconditional freedom to enter the state of Victoria (Young 1996:14-15). In 1857 fifty-percent of all adults and sixty-percent of all men in Tasmania were either convicts or ex-convicts (Young 1996:15).

Conditions in Tasmania were sufficiently depressed for locals to see tourism as integral to the economy. Most tourists arrived by steamship from Melbourne or Sydney, and Tasmania promoted itself as the ‘Sanitorium of the South’, appealing to wealthy mainland Australian visitors with its temperate climate, ‘Englishness’, and scenery (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39; Young 1996:12). The Bass Strait, which separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland, could be crossed by steamship in fifteen-and-a- half hours by 1901 (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39).

The citizenry were self-conscious about the penal past of Tasmania and concerned with how they were perceived as a people, hoping not to be associated with either the criminal class or ‘sadistic overseers’ (Young 1996:12). In the popular imagination of mainland Australians, however, the convict past was full of horror and dark deeds. This darkness generated interest in Tasmania as a tourist destination, and by the 1870s some Tasmanians began to see the tourist fascination with the convict past as something potentially lucrative (Young 1996:13).

In the late 19th and early-20th centuries, sites associated with the convict past were actively demolished, neglected or forgotten (Casella and Fredericksen 2004:108). Tourist agencies worked to promote sites that encompassed Tasmania’s natural beauty, such as Mount Wellington near Hobart, the Cataract Gorge in Launceston, and the Mole Creek cave networks. Convict sites were considered tangible reminders of the convict era, a ‘birthstain’ the colony tried actively to erase. The push to sever ties with the convict past was particularly common during boom periods in Tasmania, such as the short burst in the 1880s when mining gold and tin suddenly took hold and the population began to increase. On the other hand, periods of economic instability were met with a sense of nostalgia for the stability of the convict era, particularly by landowners who would have benefited from inexpensive convict labour. While this would not have resulted in the active preservation of convict-era remnants, at the very least they were not actively sought for erasure (Young 1996:43).

As the state’s future brightened, nostalgia for the security of the convict days faded and some groups wished for a complete separation with the past (Young 1996:43). Community desire to erase memories of the convict past extended to the physical world as convict sites became targets for destruction, and renaming of convict places became commonplace. Convict records were actively destroyed from 1857 through the early 1900s (Young 1996:15). Those buildings that survived were for the most part secondary structures not directly related to incarceration, and their original lives are often obscured by modifications meant to adapt them to municipal use (Casella and Fredericksen 2004:110).

Even with the widespread destruction of convict-era buildings, Tasmania retained a notably greater number of historical buildings than other Australian states; population

pressure and development in Tasmania was nowhere near as extensive. While convict- era buildings and ruins were certainly of interest to tourists, historical buildings and architectural achievements in the state were also of interest. Tasmania still holds a unique position as the ‘only state whose buildings attracted constant admirers’ (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:256).

The earliest guidebooks for Tasmania, including Thomas’ (1869) Guide to Tasmania and Walch’s Tasmanian Guidebook, focused on recent architectural achievements and the beauty of the natural landscape, while for the most part omitting tales about the convict system. The majority of guidebooks published throughout the nineteenth century make absolutely no reference to the convict past (Young 1996:45). Two exceptions to this are the inclusion of romanticized bushranger stories and the description of the role of convict labour in constructing the Bridgewater Causeway (1831- 1836), as it took up to 600 convicts working at a time to complete it (Young 1996:16).

Two popular novels also stimulated interest in convictism: an autobiography titled Martin Cash: the Bushranger of Van Diemen’s Land, in 1843-4: a Personal Narrative of His Exploits in the Bush and His Experiences at Port Arthur and Norfolk Island, and Marcus Clarke’s (1872) For the Term of His Natural Life. The former favours the bushranger as a hero, highlighting his courage, chivalry towards women, and crimes against the wealthy, contrasting these to the innate cruelty and prejudice of the convict system and those responsible for it at all levels. The latter remained one of the most popular Australian novels for decades, recreated as both a play and early film. Clarke’s tale depicted a world of horrors and suffering well beyond the actual experiences of most persons within the convict system. Regardless of the fictional nature of the convict world Clarke created, the darkness and sadism he conveyed generated a very real interest in the convict past within thousands of Australians (Young 1996:19-22).

Young (1996:49) notes that over time the episodes invented by fiction writers like Clarke were accepted as fact, perpetuating the myths of convictism. Public appetite for Gothic romanticizations of the Tasmanian past was as fervent in Tasmania as in the Australian mainland. When the Surceus, an ex-prison hulk, was moored in the harbour at Hobart in 1894 exhibiting convict relics a large portion of the Tasmanian population went to view it. It was opened every day of the week for several months from 10am to

10pm. John Watt Beattie, a Scottish landscape photographer in the romantic tradition known for his photographs of Port Arthur through the 1880s and 1890s, opened a private museum in the 1890s featuring a collection of artefacts from Port Arthur. This museum was the most profitable convict-based tourist enterprise in Hobart through the early decades of the twentieth century (Cato 1955; Young 1996:65).

During the 1890s former penal stations Settlement Island and Macquarie Harbour became popular tourist sites, with tourists setting up tents in Macquarie Harbour and reading passages from Clarke’s (1872) For the Term of His Natural Life to each other before retiring to bed, selecting those which emphasized the brutality and past horrors of the site. Where sites like Port Arthur and Macquarie Harbour offer some uncertainty as to whether the draw for tourists lay in the natural scenery or the dark intrigue of the convict past, Settlement Island offered little by way of scenery, leaving no real excuse for visitation aside from interest in convict ruins (Young 1996:55).

There are no tourist statistics for the nineteenth century in Tasmania, but in 1880 there were an estimated 10,000 arrivals and departures, with the numbers in 1890 being closer to 30,000 (Young 1996:44). By 1892, however, Tasmania and other Australian colonies were in a state of deep depression. The depression struck the mining industries of the Tasmanian west coast, partly prompted by the collapse of the Bank of Van Diemen’s Land in 1891, leaving hundreds of young men unemployed and bolstering the importance of tourism to Tasmania’s future economic growth. The international promotion of tourism to Tasmania was considered to key to restoring the economy. In 1893 the Tasmanian Government created the Tasmanian Tourist Association to develop an international advertising campaign, establishing a branch of Thomas Cook’s Tourist Agency in the same year (Young 1996:59).

The landed gentry in Tasmania were not in favour of aggressive promotion of the island, and they imagined the advertisements were turning southern Tasmania into ‘a tawdry tea garden for filthy business’ sake’ (in Young 1996:60). The depression began to lift in 1896 and tourist numbers again began to increase, with around 10,000 tourists travelling to Tasmania in 1900, 20,000 in 1905 and 40,000 by 1912 (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39). The Tasmanian Tourist Association played a key role in publicizing tourist sites and promoting excursions. The government officials involved in the

Tasmanian Tourist Association brought civic expertise to the task, but much of the actual work was undertaken by Tasmanians enacting their civic pride (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:41). This included sign-posting destinations, creating tracks, organizing band concerts and building shelters.

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901, uniting the six British colonies of Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania as one country. This was a boost for the tourist industry in Tasmania as it simplified travel procedures for tourists between states, reduced the cost of export goods and ended inter-colonial customs duties (Young 1996:61). The Tasmanian Tourist Association used the surge of British patriotism to its advantage during this era. It peaked with Federation in 1901 but also experienced bursts with the death of Queen Victoria, the coronation and royal visit of King Edward, and the Boer War. England was often still considered ‘home’ for Edwardian Australians and talk of Tasmania’s healthy climate as a draw for tourists is thought to reflect direct nostalgia for England and the English way of life (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39).

As it presented the British Empire in a negative light, the convict era was handled sensitively by the Tasmanian Tourist Association from the end of the nineteenth century through to World War I. Port Arthur was advertised as a prime attraction while little to no mention was made to the site’s convict past (Young 1996:63). The Coal Mines, previously a punishment station and part of the Port Arthur industrial complex, also became a key site on tourist itineraries though admittedly more for its convenient location for an additional night’s accommodation than interest in the convict past (Young 1996:67). The Tasmanian Tourist Association was disbanded in 1914 and replaced with the State government operated Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau (Young 1996:62). The Bureau was incorporated into the Tasmanian Tourist and Immigration Department by 1920, which became the Tasmanian Government Tourist Department by 1926.

2.5. History of Tourism at Port Arthur

The future of Port Arthur as a tourist site was first commented on by David Burns, a visitor to the site in 1842 when the station had been established only twelve years. Burns remarked that he could imagine steamers full of pleasure seekers flocking there from Hobart (Davidson 1995:653). Visitors made their way to the site even before its closure. The Melbourne-published 1869 Guide for Excursionists from the Mainland to Tasmania, aimed at wealthy tourists, outlined the possibility of visiting the site but noted that the necessity of obtaining permits made it an incredibly difficult pursuit. The authors of this particular guide were granted access to the site and described convicts at work, rest, and even sleeping, as they managed to gain entry to the penitentiary at night in order to gaze upon the sleeping convicts (Davidson 1995:654).

Public curiosity in Port Arthur had an obvious impact in its strong emergence as a tourist site. In 1871 control of Port Arthur was transferred from the British government to Tasmania, and for many respectable Tasmanians the continued operation of the gaol was a source of embarrassment. By 1876, the year before Port Arthur closed, the process of decay had already begun, with many buildings beginning to fall into a state of disrepair. The colonial government had started dismantling select structures for construction materials in 1875, and until the site was abandoned moveable items such as tram tracks, iron railings and a steam engine were salvaged for use elsewhere (Scott 2002:53). That year a shipment of 100 paupers was sent to Port Arthur from Hobart. A party of seventy to eighty ‘pleasure seekers’ joined the trip, even while the area was still closed to the public (Young 1996:31). The penal colony was fully abandoned in October 1877, and on Boxing Day the same year a day excursion to Port Arthur was offered. Over 900 visitors crowded the ship, with hundreds more left at the wharf unable to secure a place on board (Young 1996:32). During the excursion there were multiple acts of destruction and vandalism at the site, caused either by mindless acts or purposeful destruction by old inmates. Two days later, the first attempt was made to auction off the land at Port Arthur, with the site (and later the town built around the ruins) being renamed Carnarvon in an attempt to sever ties with the penal past (Brand 2003).

Despite all of the interest in visiting the site of Port Arthur, at the land auctions for the new town of Carnarvon only one ten-acre block was sold. Visitors from both

Tasmania and other colonies expressed great interest in visiting the penal ruins at Port Arthur, and entrepreneurs, charitable organizations and steamship operators determined quickly that this interest could be used to generate substantial income. Against the wishes of the Tasmanian establishment, the early exploitation and cultivation of public interest in Port Arthur became the basis for the Tasmanian historic tourism industry (Young 1996:33).

Following the closure of Port Arthur as a secondary punishment station, most of the remaining buildings fell victim to abandonment, salvage, recycling, or bush fires (Egloff 1984:73). The new township of Carnarvon grew slowly. In August 1878 seventy- five lots of land were put up for sale on the Tasman Peninsula, and of those only five sold. The buildings sold, including the two-storey Military Barracks, were chosen for the value of their construction materials. Most were immediately demolished and removed from the settlement (Scott 2002:55). During the first half of the 1880s additional buildings from Port Arthur were again put on the market, and the low asking prices made them attractive. The Parsonage and Accountant’s House were purchased in 1883 by new immigrant Colonel Garnett and converted to guest houses. The hospital was purchased in 1885 by the Catholic Church for a boys’ home and college. The settlers came to realize the future of the town was highly dependent on tourism, as even with little advertisement tourist numbers had increased steadily since Port Arthur had closed in 1877 (Young 1996:33).

There are several factors that contributed to the slow growth of Carnarvon as a town, including the lack of a proper jetty, telegraph communications, and doctor, as well as the ruined state of the bridges on the road between Norfolk Bay and Carnarvon. Difficulties in transportation made the arrival of fresh supplies unpredictable and infrequent. While initial visitors arrived on steamships that travelled directly to Carnarvon on fundraising excursions, by 1881 the Whitehouse Brothers offered a bi- weekly steamship service between Hobart and Norfolk Bay. Visitors to Carnarvon had to make the additional 10km journey on foot, and as the steamer Pinafore left Hobart on Mondays and Thursdays but returned only on Tuesdays and Fridays visitors had no choice but to spend at least one night on the Tasman Peninsula. For several years there were no accommodations at Norfolk Bay, leaving passengers on the 8am sailing to

Hobart to sleep in a damp prisoners’ dormitory or spend the night walking back from Carnarvon (Young 1996:33-34).

In 1883 the Whitehouse Brothers purchased the Commissariat Store at Port Arthur and opened it as a hotel, immediately attracting large numbers of visitors. The occasional steamship was still privately chartered to visit Carnarvon as a one-day return trip; these excursions always advertised the site of interest as Port Arthur, not Carnarvon. Bands would play during the voyage and often the buildings were opened for inspection. These day trips to Port Arthur were relatively inexpensive, with transportation costing five shillings for an adult and two shillings six pence for children (Young 1996:34).

Young (1996:35) noted a distinct difference reflected in the attitudes of day visitors and those travelling in small groups on the Pinafore. Day-visitors were decidedly less reflective, as the crowds merrily danced, locked themselves in cells, and ‘souvenired’, carrying away moveable objects as mementos. Visitors arriving on the Pinafore tended to treat the site with more respect and generally paid more, with the trip costing seven shillings one-way and twelve shillings return fare in 1885. For the additional money they were also taken to Dunalley, a pioneer district with a well- established hotel (1866), as well as several penal stations before they spent the night and travelled to Carnarvon (Young 1996:35).

Of all the buildings at Port Arthur the Model Prison had by far the greatest influence on the imagination of visitors, though the Asylum, Penitentiary, and Church were also often opened for visitors by the resident caretaker. In an 1884 bushfire the church was reduced to ruins when the servant of one settler attempted a controlled burn on a nearby property. The Church impressed visitors, and many saw it as the ‘ornament of Port Arthur’ (Young 1996:36).

The town of Carnarvon and associated infrastructure developed around the remains of the Port Arthur penal settlement. Egloff (1984:73) describes the Carnarvon period, extending from 1880-1920, as an important aspect of Port Arthur’s past, citing the significance of the still-standing post-convict era buildings as representational of a typical turn-of-the-century Tasmanian village. During this period the township of

Carnarvon emerged amidst the convict-era ruins and promoted what is described as a ‘genteel tourist establishment which featured tranquil scenic values and downgraded the convict past’ (Egloff 1984:73). The parkland and ruins remaining today are the result of both accidental and deliberate management practices at the site extending over a hundred years, projecting a sense of ‘idyllic rustic contentment in contrast dramatically with Port Arthurs penal history’ (Lennon 2009:172).

The population on the Tasman Peninsula reached around 600 in 1884, and while relations between tourists and locals were at time strained, locals recognized the importance of tourism to their livelihood, even indirectly through the sale of produce and goods. Persons living on the Tasman Peninsula not directly involved with the tourist industry benefited from the infrastructure it necessitated, such as improved roads, jetties, telephones and sea communications. In 1885 the Commandant’s Residence was purchased and converted into the Carnarvon Hotel, the first proper hotel on the site of Port Arthur. The Carnarvon Hotel was also the first place on the Tasman Peninsula granted a license to sell liquor. This was a point of contention for the ‘pretty numerous teetotaller faction’ on the Peninsula which petitioned unsuccessfully against the license being granted (Scripps 1998:3). With upgraded infrastructure in place, all remaining lots of land placed for sale on the Tasman Peninsula in 1887 were purchased (Young 1996:37).

In an attempt to follow the successful sale of the land around Carnarvon, in 1889 the Tasmanian government placed the major buildings at Port Arthur for sale on the condition that the structures were demolished. This was met with a flurry of protest from both locals and visitors, with protesters arguing that the buildings were integral to attracting tourists. Instead of seeing the structures as reminiscent of painful memories from the convict era, protesters worked to convince the government that the convict system could be treated as ancient history. When the government went ahead in listing the sale, the protesting party presented them with a petition with over 100 signatures from Carnarvon residents and influential persons from Hobart. Mr. Cowen, proprietor of the Carnarvon Hotel at the time, noted that the buildings had drawn over 300 visitors to the hotel over the course of the tourist season (Young 1996:40). Protesters also noted that the theatrical adaptation of Marcus Clarke’s His Natural Life was playing nightly at the Theater Royale in Hobart with no ill-feeling in the community. With the vocal public

support for keeping the buildings intact the government eventually agreed that they could be converted instead of demolished. At the sale in March 1889 the Model Prison was purchased by J. B. W. Woolnough, the retired Anglican Chaplain for the Tasman Peninsula who had plans to convert it to a high class hotel and resort (Young 1996:41).

The same year the Carnarvon town council formed and began to restore and conserve the site by cleaning and clearing the ruins. The Church, Penitentiary and Asylum were the only buildings opened to the public, though the Asylum was modified extensively for use as a town hall. Reverend Woolnough was chairman of the board and initially forbade public entry to the Model Prison as its owner. In 1892 he began charging for admittance and employed an ex-convict familiar with the site to provide tours and detail the horrors experienced at the site. As initially planned he continued converting the prison to a hotel and resort, demolishing the interior of the prison chapel to create a billiards room (Young 1996:70).

Early tourism at Port Arthur followed in a ‘horror tradition’, with gruesome stories told to visitors by tour guides, themselves often past inmates (Egloff 1984:73). The earliest reference to ex-inmate tour guides comes from a British tourist who visited the site in 1880. Ex-inmate guided tours became increasingly common through the 1890s, as more were listed as available for hire in tour books. Past inmates were also able to generate meagre income from tourists at Port Arthur by creating and selling ‘convict relics’ to tourists (Young 1996:71). Through the 1890s, guidebooks presented the past at Port Arthur as something dark and vile, with the decaying ruins representing the convict era falling into the distant past. Though the guidebooks tried to stick to this concept, few were able to resist detailing the darker, Gothic attractions of Port Arthur (Young 1996:72).

After the decades immediately following Port Arthur’s closure as a penal station, the aesthetics of the ruins at Port Arthur and their impact on visitors are also said to have moved beyond their initial Gothic appeal and instead ‘emerged as possessing the unmistakeable qualities of a classical ruin’ (Tumarkin 2005:185). One visitor to Port Arthur in 1884 noted that Tasmania excelled at producing ruins, with buildings abandoned for less than twenty years resembling sites of great antiquity (Tumarkin 2005:184). Where the convict era moved out of living memory, in place of representing

the ‘convict stain’, the seemingly ageless ruins at Port Arthur added a sense of antiquity and validity to European colonial presence on the land. The quiet, peaceful setting of the ruins minimized the dark history of Port Arthur in favour of a seemingly ancient and benign past (Tumarkin 2005:185-186).

2.5.1. Site Management

The Carnarvon town council provided access to several of the buildings around Port Arthur (Carnarvon) after it formed in 1889. The buildings at Port Arthur were first maintained and opened for visitors by a caretaker, Mr. Evenden, and later Mr. Bellamie, the local Inspector of Police. Mr. Evenden would show visitors around the old buildings, his knowledge of the structures based on many years’ experience with the Convict Department (Young 1996:35).

In 1916 the Scenery Preservation Board was established by the Tasmanian government, with officials purchasing what they considered the most significant structures within the town of Carnarvon relating to Port Arthur. Neither the convict-built church nor penitentiary had ever been purchased, although both had been put up for auction twice. Bushfires in the 1890s had damaged and altered many of the structures, and many visitors noted that the work to be done to restore the site was quite significant, with some buildings posing potential hazards to tourists (Davidson 1995:656).

Those reserves and buildings at Port Arthur which were not owned privately were placed under the control of the Tasman Council between 1925 and 1938. Management of the site was transferred to the Port Arthur and Eaglehawk Neck Board, a specially created subsidiary of the Scenery Preservation Board, in 1938 (Scripps 1998:14). The Tasman Council established camping grounds in Port Arthur near the town hall and former Asylum in 1927.1 The same year filming occurred on-site for the silent film adaptation of Marcus Clark’s For the Term of His Natural Life, and the name of the township formally reverted back to Port Arthur from Carnarvon.

1 The Mercury 25 June 1927 “Municipal Councils: Tasman”, p.13.

During WWII Port Arthur fell into a state of disrepair. One observer noted cattle wandering in the ruins of the church and various forms of vegetation overtaking ruins throughout the site and threatening the structural integrity of the remains. After WWII, tourism to Port Arthur once again flourished and in response to this the Scenery Preservation Board formed the Port Arthur Scenic Reserves Board in 1947. With the generally poor condition of the site following the war the Scenic Preservation Board generated a list of upgrades required to the site, mainly aimed to sanitize and beautify. The restoration of the church was the first priority, as well as other tasks meant to mask ‘the horrors of the past’. This included plans to demolish the penitentiary and replace it with a pavilion and scale model of the original structure (Davidson 1995:656).

Restoration of buildings on site only really began in earnest in the 1940s with the church, which was decidedly the most attractive ruin. The difficulties in finding appropriately skilled workmen and funding resulted in the restoration being completed only by the mid-1950s (Davidson 1995:656). From 1947 to 1950 the site was a flurry of restoration activity as rubbish and vegetation were cleared from the site, unsightly old fences removed or replaced, walking paths built and landscaping undertaken. The reacquisition of buildings in town began in a more aggressive form, with title to all cottages within the site being taken over by the government, although the tenants were allowed to continue inhabiting them. Those buildings considered unsightly by management (generally wooden industrial structures) were demolished (Davidson 1995:656-657).

In the 1950s a youth hostelry was established in Smith O’Brien’s cottage, the residence of an Irish political prisoner sent to Port Arthur. Within the same time period there were complaints of the council-owned camping grounds and caravan park being perilously close to the remains of the penitentiary. The Hotel Arthur, the main accommodation at the time, was a point of constant complaint by visitors and it closed in 1959 when it was finally condemned by the State Licensing Court (Davidson 1995:658).

Plans for development and conservation at Port Arthur are indicative of the tensions and divisiveness of the place for Tasmanians. The 1944 plan advocated full restoration of some buildings but demolition of the penitentiary. The buildings were not decaying as quickly as some Tasmanians would have hoped, as they thought that the

site’s history would fade into the background of the manicured gardens and walks. In the 1950s the Board decided that, since the ruins of the church gave the best appearance of historic authenticity and antiquity, the best development strategy for the site and tourist appeal would be to maintain and stabilize the state of ruin the buildings had reached. A 1960 call for full restoration by the Bishop of Tasmania was turned down entirely. The romantic nature of the ruins, especially in relation to other ruined structures at Port Arthur, was considered a far greater draw for tourists (Davidson 1995:657).

Within the same time period, a departmental report developed by the Port Arthur Scenic Reserve Board also suggested that, instead of seeing Port Arthur in the context of a ‘garden town’, the ruins be considered a setting for displaying a dark, troublesome past through the contrast of the ruins against clean manicured lawns. The same report noted that other sites with dark histories, such as the Tower of London, were not under constant threat of destruction (Davidson 1995:658). There was a general consensus to keep the buildings in a state of ruin for tourism purposes, but there was no agreement as to why they should be kept. Although the buildings and ruins were maintained, it is worth noting that there was no real consistency or concern with ‘authenticity’ in any restoration and preservation, and it wasn’t until the 1960s that colour schemes accurate to the convict era were adopted in the buildings (Davidson 1995:658). Even into the 1960s there were minimal facilities developed at Port Arthur for the use of visitors, and public transportation to the site was generally poor (Davidson 1995:658).

Port Arthur was placed under the jurisdiction of the newly formed National Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania in 1971 (NPWS). A site management plan was drawn up and completed by 1975, and the key point of concern was the preservation of the buildings and worry that the vast number of visitors to the site could cause significant, irreparable damage. Numbers increased from 1970-1974, and management feared that by 1979 the yearly number of visitors to the site could reach 250,000 (Davidson 1995:658).

In order to facilitate the development of the ‘pioneer village’ model at Port Arthur, NPWS undertook an extensive works project, including building conservation and archaeological excavations. The Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project

(PACP) ran from 1979 to 1986, with nearly $9 million dollars of mixed State and Federal funding to develop infrastructure and services, as well as conduct major research and conservation works on most of the buildings. PACP archaeological works at the Commandant’s, Junior Medical Officer’s, and Roman Catholic Chaplain’s residences comprise key datasets for this dissertation. The PACP was a landmark in the development of Australian heritage practices, but unfortunately the project ended before much of the research reached suitable conclusions (Scott 2002:1, 4). When the PACP ceased in 1986, responsibility for administering the site was transferred to the Tasmanian state government. The Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority (PAHSMA) formed in 1987 as a statutory authority administering the site on behalf of the State government. PAHSMA still manages Port Arthur and a small suite of other historic convict sites in southern Tasmania. In 1997 PAHSMA began another extensive programme of interpretation refurbishments and building repairs (Scott 2002:1). PAHSMA has regularly pursued archaeological and historical research at Port Arthur since then.

In 2011 Port Arthur was one of 11 sites inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as part of the ‘Australian Convict Sites’ nomination. Places included on the World Heritage List must demonstrably represent ‘outstanding universal’ natural and/or cultural value. The 11 Australian Convict Sites hold significance as a representation of the world’s first conscious attempt to build a new society on the labour of convicted prisoners.2 The sites included in the nomination were chosen as they represent the range of convict experience in Australia. Inclusion on the World Heritage List has implications for the management of the site for PAHSMA by way of Australian Commonwealth legislative requirements further enforcing protection and maintenance of the site’s cultural values.

2 Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australian Convict Sites, 2010.

Chapter 3. Place and Authenticities in Tourism

3.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the theoretical framework for the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur, with a focus on authenticity in tourist experience, dark tourism, and romanticism. These concepts play a central role in the examination of hotel material culture, historic museum collections, postcards and advertisements throughout this dissertation. Where the historical archaeology of tourism is a relatively new area of study, the theoretical background for this project was fleshed out from existing geographical, sociological and anthropological theories on place as they relate to tourism.

3.2. Place

‘To be human is to live in a world that is filled with significant places: to be human is to have and know your place.’ – E. Relph (1976:1)

The concept of ‘place’ is central to the theoretical framework of this entire research endeavour, and as such it needs to be unpacked. The idea of place has been historically linked to the geographic sciences and studies of spatial relations, though the last thirty years have seen a re-evaluation of place in the social sciences more broadly, including anthropology and archaeology. Place is linked to a variety of topics of interest in this dissertation such as phenomenology, identity (of both a place itself and persons relating to it), conceptualizations of the natural world, authenticity, and consumption (e.g. Bender 2001; Daniels 1992:311; Daniels 2011; Gregory 1995; Hersch 1995; Massey 2005; Miles 2010; Urry 1995). Some would go so far as to suggest that the majority of social and cultural theories ultimately attempt to explain place in some way (Urry 1995:1).

Place is often defined in geography as the projection of time and social relations onto space (Relph 1976:3). As projections, places are constantly changing and further altered through the movement of goods and people (Massey 2005:137; Relph 1976:3). The experience of places by individuals and groups differs depending on their socio- political context as well as their culture; one place can be many different places to many people contemporaneously (Massey 2005:9; Urry 1995:2). For example, tourists’ experiences in Israel differ greatly depending on whether they are Jewish, Christian, or ‘spa tourists’ seeking the health benefits of Dead Sea mud and baths (Baram and Rowan 2004:4). Conceptualizations of place can range in scale from a vast continent or nation down to a single room or closet (Massey 2005:9).

As a complex, fluid interaction between space, time and social relations, the notion of a place can be difficult to define. One key to generating an understanding of place is phenomenology, a concept which has had some radical applications in archaeology but has also been thoughtfully applied to explore the nuances of human experience of place (e.g. Hamilakis 2002; Mack 2004; Robin and Rothschild 2002; Whitridge 2003). The experiences we as humans have in time and space affect our understanding of the world, our memories, our imaginations and our identities. These are all crucial facets in developing and identifying the significance of places (Bowser 2004:1-2; Relph 1976:4-6). As a multi-sensory experience, the tourist industry is concerned with feeding, rejuvenating and entertaining our bodies (Chambers 2010:25).

Our identities are inextricably linked to places, through local or nationalistic interests. Place is part of our everyday lives as a mixture of settings, landscapes, routines, rituals and other people (Relph 1976:29). Place is ‘the context of social relations’ (Daniels 1992:319). National, ethnic, regional and other identities are bound to particular townscapes or landscapes in multiple and contradictory ways; places are used as signifiers of identity and social memory. Urry (1995:27) notes that these memories are most often organized around artefacts at multiple scales, such as buildings, rooms, machines, and furniture within a place. The commodification of memory is most prominent in the heritage industry, with regular contestation over rights to claim places, generate the authoritative version of the past at a place, and the right to claim memories (Urry 1995:27). Understanding the importance of phenomenology for studying heritage sites will allow researchers to examine how these sites are visualized, represented,

perceived and known (Selby 2010:39). These constructs are particularly well conceptualized through the ‘geographical imagination’.

3.2.1. Geographical Imagination

While the creation of memory is an embodied process which involves most of the senses, place is most powerfully perpetuated and consumed visually (Daniels 1992; Jones 2010; Relph 1976:30; Selby 2010; Urry 1995:1; Waterton 2010). ‘Geographical imagination’ is a term used to describe both personally or broadly perceived and projected understandings of a place. Geographic imaginings of place are imbued with power. Visual portrayals of tourist landscapes both represent and help create their significance for both locals and visitors and it is through these images that places are produced, imagined and contested (Selby 2010:41). Postcards offer idealistic representations of places and valuable insight into the cultural constructs behind their production (DeBres and Sowers 2009:217).

The cultural constructs of place manifest in postcards also exist in imagery promoting places with historic content. Heritage sites have been critiqued for non- inclusiveness as they present places at a certain period in time at the cost of others (Creighton 2007; Pope et al. 2011; Waterton 2010:155). Waterton (2010) found that images used to promote heritage in England focused on the cultural symbols of a predominantly white, middle-class citizenry at the exclusion of other demographics and social groups. Similarly, Leone (2010:17-26) found that heritage re-enactments at Colonial Williamsburg were used to justify contemporary race relations in Virginia. While images at heritage sites are often considered neutral by general observers, both authors found that visual representations and interpretations served to constitute and sustain unequal power relations (Leone 2010; Waterton 2010). The visual presentation of places at heritage sites, such as museums, offer authorised heritage discourses which reflect the cultural biases and intents of their creator(s).

‘Authorised heritage discourse’ is the focus of attention on those places, things and landscapes that are aesthetically pleasing and ‘must’ be cared for and protected for future generations. Through the development of authorised heritage discourses what

qualifies as ‘heritage’ is defined and legitimised, along with who has the right to speak about the nature and meaning of heritage (Smith 2006:29).

3.2.2. Place and Tourism (Production and Consumption of Place)

In the modern world, mass consumerism is a powerful driver in the process of place-building (Daniel 1992:311). When interpreting heritage sites for tourists, tourism operators are actively driven to construct a historical ‘place’ which will prove enticing to tourists and therefore be economically viable. History is not merely represented at heritage sites but is produced as a commodity for mass consumption by tourists (Baram and Rowan 2004:4-6). The act of site production for tourists involves planning, developing and constructing a place (Sather-Wagstaff 2011:30). The right to produce interpretations for public consumption generally falls to a small group, including heritage managers, academics, government agencies and tourism operators, who determine how a site’s heritage is presented and consumed by the rest of the world (Chambers 2010:33).

Site consumption differs from production in that it encompasses the various ways in which visitors and the broader public engage with a place through experiential encounters. The ways in which people experience, remember and produce ongoing discourses about places through social consumption of sites is key to the construction of place meanings and public memory (Sather-Wagstaff 2011:30). ‘Heritage’ is not passively consumed by tourists, and through critical engagement, local dialogue and unofficial discourse visitor understanding contributes to a complex system of meaning and place-making which is ever changing and growing (Sather-Wagstaff 2011:31; Smith 2006:32-33). Through tourism, heritage sites are places where ‘…official, public and vernacular histories and memories intersect and act in dialog’ (Sather-Wagstaff 2011:20).

Material culture is one means through which historical places are both produced and then consumed by tourists in the form of souvenirs, trinkets, books, etc. Tourist shops exist as centralized repositories of material culture at tourist sites, providing material evidence of meaning attributed to the site by both tourists and tourism operators (Gazin-Schwartz 2010:93-94). Miller (2001) sees the act of shopping as a context for

examining social relationships at multiple scales. By purchasing materials identified as appropriate, people form and reinforce their understanding of class, gender and kinship.

As significant pieces of material culture, souvenirs act as touchstones to memory for tourists (Sharpley and Stone 2009:121). They provide tourists with the means to ‘possess’ some aspect of another group (Chambers 2010:112). Mass-produced souvenirs, including kitsch objects, are objects with consistent, simplified representations of tourist sites. Mass-produced souvenirs are one form of material culture associated specifically with mass tourism and serve as a primary indicator for the industry.

The tourist industry involves the production and consumption of a social experience. Harvey (1989) notes that people pay to experience moments outside of daily life during their leisure time, such as watching movies or going on tours. He refers to this as the consumption of services. Visitors to tourist sites pay for a variety of experiences, be they ‘authentic’, exotic, unique, or relaxing. Many of the services purchased by tourists, such as meals and accommodations, are incidentals incurred while trying to experience a tourist site (Relph 1976:85; Urry 1995:131-132). The actual experience of the tourist site is often fleeting though and the meals and accommodations are in fact primary services in the provisioning of the tourism industry. In her study of tourist activities at Stonehenge, Bender (1998) found that most visitors spent more than half their time on site visiting restaurants, gift shops and using the washrooms. Gazin- Schwartz (2010:93) found that a third of all visitors surveyed at Stonehenge and Avebury rated amenities such as restaurants, shops, washrooms and general cleanliness as key to their enjoyment of heritage sites. Requirements for amenities and services reinforce the importance of leisure in tourism, and in some instances the heritage of the site may play a secondary role to the comforts it might offer..

3.2.3. Authenticity and Inauthenticity

‘I’ll give you a look at my authenticity in exchange for your money.’ – Parker B. Potter Jr. (1999:73)

While places themselves can be described as authentic, inauthentic or even placeless, the broader notion of ‘authenticity’ is tied to value judgements about

experiences, cultures and the past. What constitutes ‘authenticity’ is regularly contested by anthropologists studying cultural tourism (Jones 2010), heritage agencies (Cooney 2007; Baram and Rowan 2004), and theorists interested in heritage and the construction of the past (Hodges 2009; Rowan 2004). Tourists’ desires for authenticity and the local communities’ desire to create ‘authentic’ experiences for economic gain can affect the outcome of cultural performances or the framing of heritage interpretation.

The notion of authenticity in tourist experience has been contemplated by observers since the beginnings of mass tourism in the mid-nineteenth century. Reactions to mass tourism at this time resulted in the separation of high culture/traveller/authentic experiences from low culture/tourist/inauthentic experiences (Sharpley and Stone 2009:115). The distinction between authentic and inauthentic is not clearly defined, however. Regardless of what experiences tourists receive, mass tourism is thought to derive from the quest for authentic experiences. While the ‘authentic experiences’ of tourism are meant to represent an escape from increasingly superficial and inauthentic lives, at the same time tourism itself is increasingly critiqued as inauthentic and commercial (Chambers 2010; Harkin 1995:652; MacCannell 1976; Potter 1999).

The authenticity of tourist experiences is not always important. While authenticity is certainly a concern in the tourist industry, well-conceptualized inauthentic sites have easily proven just as popular (Lovato 2011:201). The Holy Land, a ‘living biblical museum’, opened in 2001 in Orlando, Florida, and caters to tourists wishing to undertake a pilgrimage but lacking the means or desire to travel to Israel. The Holy Land represents the period from 1450BC-70AD and features reproductions of iconic Judeo-Christian sites within a safe, clean, unchallenging atmosphere (Rowan 2004). Along a similar vein, replica Anasazi cliff dwellings at Manitou Springs, Colorado, have been popular for visitors since they were purpose-built for tourists in 1907. Regardless of the fact that they exist outside the boundary of traditional Anasazi territory and were entirely fabricated, visitors have been steadily drawn to the site for over 100 years (Lovato 2011:197). The ease of access and amenities make it attractive to less mobile visitors. The manufacture of a false archaeological site for visitors also reduces the concerns for visitor impact, damage and conservation faced by authentic archaeological

sites elsewhere in the world, including reproductions of Lascaux and Chauvet Caves in France (Lovato 2011:203).

Chambers (2010:100) suggests that in place of concern for a single conceptualization of authenticity (or inauthenticity) the focus instead be shifted to a standard of significance. Perhaps what is significant enough to locals or visitors to be presented as authentic or important is worthwhile of study in itself. As a place’s identity can be fluid and context-dependent, the type of authenticity a place might offer visitors can be similarly multifaceted and complex. The types of authenticities created for visitors at Port Arthur between 1885 and 1960 is significant and worth study in itself. For the purpose of this dissertation, authenticity is considered a multifaceted aspect of the experience of a place. Understanding the underlying contexts, fiscal motivators and social and cultural factors driving various ‘authentic’ versions of Port Arthur as a place is a central focus for this dissertation.

3.3. Dark Tourism

3.3.1. Shades of Dark Tourism

The draw of sites of death, suffering and human atrocity has grown to such proportions in the past thirty years that tourist destinations with these dark elements currently form the largest category of tourist sites internationally (Stone and Sharpley 2008:574). They (and their draw) have garnered increasing academic attention over the past two decades (Lennon and Foley 2000:3). In the simplest sense, dark tourism is characterized as the ‘commodification of death’ within the tourist industry (Wilson 2008:9). Various death sites which seem to draw increasing tourist attention include former prisons, assassination sites, terrorist attack sites, Holocaust memorials, battlefield sites, murder sites, cemeteries, homes of deceased celebrities, and mausoleums (Lennon and Foley 2000:4; Wilson 2008:9).

The term ‘dark tourism’ was first coined by Lennon and Foley (1996). Lennon and Foley (2000:11) define dark tourism as an intimation of post-modernity. The use of global communication technologies is central to their definition of dark tourism as it generates public interest in the event as it is broadcast around the world; news about

these tragic events enters the household regularly and frequently. Dark tourism sites are meant to introduce uncertainty to the process of modernity and challenge the inherent order, rationality and progress that modernity represented. A key example is the sinking of the Titanic, at the time a marvel of modern science and supposedly unsinkable. Chronologically dark tourism sites are limited to those where the associated tragedy occurred within living memory of the visitors or post-date World War I as a pivotal point in communication technologies. Historic sites such as battlefields (or secondary punishment sites such as Port Arthur) do not qualify under this definition of dark tourism, as the negative events did not occur within the lifetime of those currently alive who feel the need to validate the events, nor do they cause tourists to question or doubt modernity and its consequences (Lennon and Foley 2000:12; Stone and Sharpley 2008:577).

While Port Arthur has been consistently referred to as a dark tourism site (see Section 3.2.2 below), Meskell’s (2002:558) term ‘negative heritage’ meaning ‘a conflictual site that becomes the repository of negative memory in the collective imagining’ is more appropriate. Sites of ‘negative heritage’ are not simply places of suffering; they exist within a complex network involving various groups who assign disparate values and meanings to the sites. Seaton’s (1996) concept of ‘thanatourism’ is similarly useful for examining tourist fascination with the more gruesome aspects of Port Arthur’s past, whether they be real or imagined.

Seaton (1996) sees tourist fascination with difficult sites as a phenomenon with its grounding in a ‘thanatoptic tradition’ (the contemplation of death) dating to the Middle Ages. The thanatoptic tradition escalated in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries with visits to battle sites. He refers to dark tourism instead as ‘thanatourism’, which he defines as ‘travel to a location wholly, or partially, motivated by the desire for actual or symbolic encounters with death, particularly, but not exclusively, violent death’ (Seaton 1996:240). The notion of thanatourism also contains a continuum of intensities relating to tourist motivation. The thanatourism element is weaker when the tourist has a person-specific interest in the site (such as a deceased relative) or their visit to the site has other motivating factors. The thanatourism element is stronger when tourists exhibit a more general interest in death and this interest acts as the sole motivating factor. The

role of the media is still an important factor in promoting interest in both the gruesome events and the site itself (Seaton 1996; Stone and Sharpley 2008:578).

The intensity of the thanatoptic element at a site of difficult heritage is often defined by the group responsible for interpretation at the site; in some cases the commodification of history can result in the trivialization of dark events in the past. Work on penal tourism internationally has found that the messages presented to visitors vary greatly between and within countries (Strange and Kempa 2003; Welch and Macuare 2011; Welch 2012; Wilson 2008). The interpretations of prison life are dependent on contemporary social and political context, and archaeologists and other heritage specialists are granted the right to make decisions about appropriate histories and the erasure of unsavory elements (Meskell 2002:566).

While the group managing a thanatourism site has control over the messages conveyed to tourists, tourists also bring with them their own knowledge and interpretations. In studying changes to interpretive material provided to visitors at Alcatraz in the United States, Strange and Kempa (2003) noted that visitor understanding of the site on arrival was heavily influenced by media and popular films about the prison island. Representations of Alcatraz prison in popular media had so influenced visitors that they paid little attention to more historically accurate information presented by park rangers. Sensationalized representations of life at the prison stifled the more rounded historical messages. Local cinemas show Alcatraz-based Hollywood movies, while ‘Escape from Alcatraz’ t-shirts and even subscriptions to pornographic websites featuring scenes shot on the island are available for purchase at nearby Fishermen’s Wharf (Strange and Kempa 2003:399).

Beyond representations in popular media, Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996:105- 106) outlined a series of characteristics which increase the marketability of a thanatourism site and ‘make atrocity usable’. The cruelty endured needs to be particularly unusual or gruesome, or the historic regime particularly unjust. The victims themselves need to seem especially vulnerable, innocent, non-complicit or famous; victims and perpetrators need to be readily distinguishable. As well, the victims facing hardship must have been a sizeable group, as humans tend to sympathize more easily with large groups. Finally, the original event itself needs to have had a high public profile

and records of said event must have survived (Stone and Sharpley 2008:389; Strange and Kempa 2003:389; Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996:105-106).

Thanatourism in Australia and North America has strong precedence in western European fascination with death through the 18th and 19th centuries. Nineteenth century tours of Paris often featured stops at the morgue to gaze upon corpses (Seaton 1996; Stone and Sharpley 2008:574). In eighteenth-century Britain the viewing of public punishment, including flogging, hanging and branding, proved to be riotously popular and socially acceptable entertainment. Public punishment often carried an air of pageantry. Through the 18th century and into the first half of the 19th century murderers, highwaymen and pickpockets attained celebrity status, with fictional and non-fictional characters such as the Artful Dodger, Sweeney Todd, and Spring-Heeled Jack being heralded as public figures (Bogle 2008:24).

Prose detailing true crime and hangings developed at a rate deemed alarming by public officials concerned about the perceived increase in crime. The earliest book seen as an example of the ‘true crime’ genre, The Newgate Calendar, or, Malefactors’ Bloody Register, appeared in 1773 and quickly grew to five volumes detailing the gory biographical information of all criminals hanged at Newgate Prison in London, England. The widespread popularity of The Newgate Calendar and rival publications as well as the reduction of taxes related to printed materials encouraged a series of printers to rush into publishing what became known as the ‘Penny Dreadful’, a literary genre celebrating crime and punishment. These novels were ‘encyclopaedias of aberrant behaviour’, featuring cannibalism, petty crime and moral misdeeds (Bogle 2008:26). The ‘Newgate Novel’ developed in the wake of the ‘Penny Dreadful’ as more sophisticated authors such as Charles Dickens and Walter Scott were caught up in the popularity of sensationalist crime stories (Bogle 2008:26).

‘Penny Dreadfuls’ and ‘Newgate Novels’ reflect part of a wider concern regarding crime rates in urban areas of Britain. This heightened level of concern at times approached hysteria, and the era of convict transportation from Britain to Australia between 1788 and 1868 followed the perceived increase in crime rates through urban Britain. Public interest in events featuring crime, terror, punishment and death was seemingly ‘insatiable’ during this period. Government amendment to social reform

regimes during this era meant that incarceration and punishment become more secretive and occurred in isolation as a means of altering the behaviours of criminals; hangings decreased significantly (Bogle 2008:27). The ‘Penny Dreadful’ and ‘Newgate Novel’ continued as successful literary genres. Destinations like Madame Tussauds’ Wax Museum, featuring the death masks of celebrities, revolutionary leaders and a gruesome ‘Chamber of Horrors’, appeared in the early nineteenth century. Given British fascination with true crime literature and public interest in events featuring crime, punishment and death, it is easy to imagine Port Arthur’s popularity when it was first opened to the public as a tourist destination in 1878.

As a British colony, Australia shared in the same social milieu and cultural ideas about crime and violence. Mirroring the popularity of notorious criminals and murderers in England, Australia also developed its own range of popularized outlaws and bushrangers, including Martin Cash, a convict and bushranger who published an autobiography of his exploits in 1870. Cash’s memoirs and other sensationalized ‘histories’ about the convict era proved highly popular through Australia (Smith 2008:307). Much like the macabre stories in the ‘Penny Dreadful’ and ‘Newgate Novels’ of Britain before it, Australia developed its own melodramatic, dark literary genre. The pinnacle of this genre and arguably the most widely read book was Marcus Clark’s bestseller For the Term of His Natural Life. The popularity of the book extended well beyond Australia and five-million copies sold even in the United States (Roe 2001:5).

For the Term of His Natural Life began in 1870 as a series of installments published in the Australian Journal. In 1874 it was published as a book by George Robinson in Melbourne and was an instant success. The book was based on Clark’s visit to Port Arthur in 1870 where he was given full access to the site and freedom to peruse the convict records. As Port Arthur was still a penal settlement at the time and the Tasman Peninsula closed to the public he had the opportunity to interview nearly 300 convicts, mostly elderly and infirm, finishing their sentences following the cessation of transportation (Rieusset 2001:26-27). Clark’s book was converted into theatrical productions through the end of the nineteenth century, most of which featured extensive runs and vast popularity. For the Term of His Natural Life was adapted to cinema at the start of the twentieth century with the most famous version recorded on site at Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula in 1926 (Rieusset 2001; Roe 2001).

3.3.2. Dark Tourism at Port Arthur

Wilson (2008:208) defines Port Arthur as ‘the archetypal dark tourism locale’. Rugged beauty is juxtaposed with not just the infamous convict history at the site, but also a key violent event in recent history. In 1996 thirty-five innocent women, men and children were massacred at Port Arthur by a lone gunman near what was once a café at the heritage site. The massacre is still a difficult aspect of Port Arthur’s history and fresh in the minds of Australians and particularly locals on the Tasman Peninsula. As an event which received extensive media coverage and public interest, the Port Arthur massacre falls into the definition of ‘dark tourism’ (Lennon and Foley 2000:11). Some visitors to Port Arthur can still be seen visiting the site of the Broad Arrow café, now a memorial, and searching for evidence of bullet holes in the ruin of the building.

With the addition of a mass shooting in the last 20 years to infamous convict punishment, Port Arthur is perceived in Australia as ‘the nation’s definitive hell-on- earth…A fusion of glorious scenery and a recurring history of violence’ (Tumarkin, 2005:5). With the continued violent occurrences at Port Arthur the site has been blankly referred to in the media as ‘evil’ or ‘the least innocent piece of soil in Australia’ (Tumarkin, 2005:219-220). Young (1996:23) notes that Port Arthur ‘has always dominated the popular historical imagination in Australia as the emblem of the miseries of transportation’ (see also Lennon, 2009:171; Tumarkin, 2005).

Contemporarily, Port Arthur is described as a ‘badland’ bearing the brunt of Australia’s dark colonial history (Tumarkin 2005:223). Mainland Australia vested Tasmania with the darkest qualities of its own history, as the state had the largest convict population and a history of dispossession and near genocide of its Aboriginal population. The representation of Tasmania as an aberration was meant to offset the horror of the colonial story for mainlanders in their own home states. As the most notorious penal site on the island Port Arthur took on the bulk of Tasmania’s dark mythologies, with the rest of the state re-imagined as beautiful and lush (Tumarkin 2005:220-222). Port Arthur is a ‘monstrous and perverted place, every vision of ‘hell on earth’, every fear, every shameful desire’, yet it is still one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country and has been since the early twentieth century (Tumarkin 2005: 223).

Dark tourism at Port Arthur began in 1878 once the site was opened to the public. Ex-convicts dressed in convict uniform guided visitors around the site telling horror stories about evil individuals (not always convicts) and their deeds. For an additional fee they would lift their shirts to show the marks they had received from whippings (Tumarkin 2005:45; Smith 2008:309). The same convicts were known to create replica whips and relics for sale to tourists, one of which is held in the PAHSMA museum collection.

Certain buildings in Port Arthur gained popularity for having particularly sinister histories. With a reputation as ultimately the cruelest form of punishment on site, as well as featuring in Marcus Clark’s novel, the Separate Prison (complete with punishment cells) was a key draw for thanatourism enthusiasts. The history of solitary confinement and eventually madness associated with the Separate Prison was part of the draw for tourists at Port Arthur, much as public fascination with the 1996 massacre still attracts visitors today.

3.4. Romanticism

3.4.1. What is Romantic?

Romanticism exists as part of a larger academic tradition that arose near the end of the eighteenth century. Romanticism was marked by great outpourings of emotional energy, purposeful fascination with subjective, personal reactions to the aesthetics of nature and art, and through this the rejection of classical formalism. In nineteenth century travel accounts this was most notably manifest in the increased preoccupation with the effects of the landscape and encounters with nature on European sensibilities (Buzard 1991:29; Horne 2005:204). The Romantic tradition focused on the ‘sublime’ in interactions with the natural world, a general sense of awe at the might of nature spiced with a hint of terror (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:12). The sense of ‘wonder’ was also highly esteemed and mentioned often in travel accounts, particularly in the face of exceptionally unusual phenomena which had not been previously experienced (Horne 2005:182).

The natural attractions described by travelers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did exist physically, but as Horne (2005:195) notes the types of natural attraction appreciated were socially contrived and in some ways ‘figments of the imagination’. Romantic interest in these attractions was shaped by academic traditions, and the characteristics of ‘nature’ defined by writers through the nineteenth through early twentieth century shifted with popular fashion. Tourists in Australia at the start of the nineteenth century were most drawn by caves and mountains; these were not initially considered worthy places for excursions, but were popularized by the works of the English Lake poets at the start of the nineteenth century. As time progressed, through the mid-nineteenth century nature became progressively defined by its existence as a series of scenic vistas; this coincided with the increased popularity of cameras (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:12). With a longstanding tradition of landscape and wilderness photography, Tasmania adopted legislation in 1858 allowing the preservation of ‘scenic reserves’ for ‘public purpose, including recreation and enjoyment’ (Horne 2005:147).

Romanticism was in many ways a European reaction to the Industrial Revolution and the new difficulties of the modern era. Increased urbanization and pollution in city centers garnered distrust for the increasingly industrialized world in favour of the glories of nature; remote destinations provided a necessary escape from the stressors of the modern world. Increased knowledge of sanitation and disease prevention, in conjunction with this need to escape the toxins of urban areas, fostered public interest in travel to scenic rural areas for ‘wholesome air or lung food’ (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:34).

In the 1880s and 1890s, travel in Australia was characterized by firm beliefs on the role of climate on health, particularly that warm, humid climates were detrimental to the health of those of European descent. Destinations with colder weather or higher elevations became valued as health resorts, with advertisements drawing the sickly and unwell with promises of respite and a variety of outdoor activities (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:14; Horne 2005:136). With its temperate climate and majestic wilderness, Tasmania advertised itself from the 1850s onwards as the ‘Sanitorium of the South’. Values placed on temperate climates were thought to mask ‘nostalgia for England and

all things English’, as Australians in the Edwardian era still considered England ‘home’ (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39).

Aside from bodily health, travel to natural attractions was meant to enhance the mind of the tourist. The observation of scenery considered sublime or awe-inspiring was meant to inspire tourists and free their minds to contemplate greater things. This lent a virtue to observing scenic vistas and ‘letting the effects of nature, combination of light, sky and anything else in view, figuratively wash over observers, cleansing them in preparation for inspiration’ (Horne 2005:76-77). To those who prescribed to Romanticism, ‘nature’ was thought to shape tourists and help them achieve personal enlightenment (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:300).

The scenery at Port Arthur is undeniably magnificent; its aesthetic appeal is praised by historic and contemporary visitors alike. Flanked by wooded hills with a peaceful inlet, extensive parkland covered with English trees and elaborate gardens it offers multiple places for observation and inspiration amongst the might of nature (Lennon 2009:172). Amidst the natural scenery are the ruins of the convict structures. Port Arthur had a Romantic appeal not limited to its natural splendour – the convict-built and overgrown ruins provided another focal point for Romantic energies.

3.4.2. The Romance of Ruins

Port Arthur exists in contemporary Australian memory as the epitome of the ‘romanticism of the neo-Gothic’ (Wilson 2008:208). For Australians, the convict-built structural remnants on the landscape represented human dominance and mastery of the landscape, much as castles in Europe dominated their physical surroundings (Wilson 2008:32). Romantic-era thought delighted at the overthrow of modern order by nature, and the ruins at Port Arthur provided a means of experiencing awe. To many ‘the coexistence of the savagery of human history with the majesty of nature was both shocking and enthralling, the Sublime, the Infinite, turned human beings into tiny ants lost in the landscape [and provided] catharsis’ (Tumarkin 2005:50). The ruins at Port Arthur had a similar aesthetic effect to the medieval remnants of churches and castles in England, while lending a Romantic appeal by being slowly reclaimed by nature (Wilson 2008:208). The ruin of Port Arthur’s church is considered the most iconic; it still exists

on the logo for the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority (PAHSMA). It was promoted by photographer J. W. Beattie as ‘Australia’s Glastonbury’ (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39), while others likened it to Tintern Abbey (Goc 2002:23). The church was long adorned with ‘luxuriant ivy climbing over towering walls, lofty roofs open to the brilliant blue canopy of Heaven, imposing towers and spires surrounded by a backdrop of wooded hills’ (Goc 2002:23). The ivy on the church ruins was particularly striking to Victorian and Edwardian tourists as it symbolized timelessness and was a favoured adornment on texts for persons of this era. Ivy leaves were historically gathered as appropriate souvenirs from both the church at Port Arthur and Tintern Abbey in Wales (Goc 2002:23). A report by the Engineer in Chief for the state government in 1913 notes that several of the Port Arthur buildings required repair. With regards to repairs to the Church and its ivy covering, he noted that it would be ‘undesirable to cut it back, other than where it is closing the old window openings’.3

Within the first twenty years of Port Arthur’s closure as a penal settlement it faced three serious bushfires (in 1884, 1895 and 1897) which readily reduced many of the sandstone convict-built structures to ruins (Goc 2002:22). As one visitor noted in a letter to the Tasmanian Mail in 1884: ‘you have a way of making ruins in this colony’ (in Tumarkin 2005:184). While the ruins of the church at Port Arthur were likened to iconic sites around England, many of the other convict-built sandstone structures strongly reminded visitors of classical ruins in Greece or Rome.

The aesthetic appeal of European antiquity on the Australian landscape also made the ruins a draw for tourists, as it visually rationalized their colonization of the land. The convict ruins provided (and still provide) historically significant markers for the Anglo-Celtic in Australia (Wilson 2008:47). A journalist who visited the site in 1918 declared Port Arthur ‘Australia’s only bona fide ruin’, finding it reminiscent of an old monastery (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:44). The ruins seem to ‘embody the solidity of a European foundation and the validation of historical claims’ in Australia (Tumarkin 2005:185).

3 The Mercury, 23 December 1913, “Old Port Arthur – Repairing the Old Buildings – Report of Engineer-in-Chief”, p. 3.

Another site of Romantic focus was the Isle of the Dead, also referred to as Isle de Mort or Isle des Morts, which contains the remains of around 1500 deceased who lived at Port Arthur during the Convict era. The island is relegated to Romantic sentiment in discussions of the history of tourism at Port Arthur (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:44; Goc 2002:24), although its sole function as a graveyard would suggest tourist interest in the island would be better left to discussions of thanatourism (Seaton 1996; Lennon and Foley 2000). D. Burns, who visited the site in 1842 well before its closure, remarked that he found the Isle of the Dead ‘picturesquely sorrowful, soothing in its melancholy…placid in its solitude’ (in Goc 2002:24). It featured in Clark’s For the Term of His Natural Life and has inspired its fair share of Romantic poetry. Whether the draw is a Gothic, romanticized contemplation of the frailty of human life or direct fascination with death, the Isle of the Dead is a popular site for tourists.

Chapter 4. Presenting Port Arthur in Museums

4.1. Introduction

The construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur between 1885 and 1960 is tangible in several contexts which will be explored within this dissertation. This chapter explores the means in which Port Arthur was produced for tourists through material culture displayed at two museums – John Watt Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum in Hobart (c1890-1930) and William Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop in Port Arthur (c1925-1943). The types of authenticity presented to tourists are explored along the themes of dark tourism and romanticism through the items collected and the ways in which they were displayed.

The means in which Port Arthur was produced for tourists was analysed through a combination of museum inventory lists, photographs and postcards depicting both assemblages. The most profitable convict-based tourist enterprise in Hobart was John Watt Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum, which was established at his photo studios in the 1890s (Young 1996:65). At Port Arthur itself, William Radcliffe established a collection of curiosities in his general store in the 1920s when he encountered a series of convict artefacts when digging the foundations for the building. Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop contained items collected until he passed away in 1943. The original shop in which he operated his museum was demolished in 1959 by the Scenery Preservation Board, though the collection was moved and displayed elsewhere.

Having the chance to compare the two collections is interesting as they differ spatially and temporally (as they overlap only slightly), as do the trajectories along which the collections were established. The two museums did share a focus on illustrating the convict past at Port Arthur in the best way each collector could imagine. While the resulting displays were superficially similar visually in images, the contents of each collection differed greatly. Some of the key similarities and differences between the two

museum collections will be discussed following a brief examination of each collection separately.

4.2. Methodology

As a means of exploring themes of romanticism, dark tourism and authenticities in the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur I examined the material culture presented in Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum and Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop. To ensure a consistent approach to evaluating both museums, I studied inventories of the collections to determine the types of objects on display. Historic images of the museums’ interiors, most of which were produced and sold as postcards, supplemented the inventory lists and provide an understanding of how these objects were situated for tourist enjoyment. By interrogating the titles given to items, the means by which they were collected and the ways they were grouped for display I hoped to draw out differences and similarities in the ways two individuals presented Port Arthur to visitors.

Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum, which operated next to his photographic studio in Hobart from the late 1890s to 1928, published inventories of its museum collection in 1910 and 1916. The two publications were nearly identical with the exception of an additional collection of items purchased at an estate sale prior to the publication of the 1916 edition. New items were added to the exhibit between 1916 and 1930 (when Beattie died and the museum closed), but the 1916 catalogue provides a snapshot of the museum’s contents. The 1916 edition was used for analysis; it contains a total of 620 listings of displays in three rooms, representing at least 1060 individual objects. The Beattie Museum catalogue was particularly useful for analysis as it reproduces the labels for each item, and these identify what Beattie thought would be the key points of interest for tourists. It also lists what room each object was displayed in, if it was part of a specially identified exhibit (e.g. ‘Whaling’), and if it was placed in a glass case with other objects. The use of the 1916 catalogue for the Beattie Museum collection is beneficial in that it offers information not only about the objects but the manner in which they were presented.

It is worth noting that the provenance given for the items in Beattie’s Museum has been considered dubious, and the association of a variety of items with convicts and government figures has come under question. For this study, the authenticity of the items is not of specific interest. How Beattie selected and presented these items to entice and intrigue visitors is more relevant, because this is how he created an understanding of Port Arthur and Tasmania’s convict past for tourists.

Where the analysis of the collection from the Beattie Museum benefited from having a published catalogue, the collection from Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop had to be examined using more complex methods. PAHSMA currently holds a large portion of the Radcliffe Collection, which was purchased by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Tasmania in 1973. The estimated collection range for the Radcliffe Collection is the mid-1920s through to Radcliffe’s death in 1943. After Radcliffe’s death in 1943 his wife continued operating the museum until it was purchased by NPWS. In documents from early negotiations for the sale of the collection in 1965 the Radcliffe family makes it clear that they would like to keep the collection intact and have it remain as-is in Port Arthur as a memorial to collector William Radcliffe.4 Where Radcliffe was an active collector who sought new collections from people across the state, it seems unlikely that the collection would have been added to much following his death. Examinations of the Radcliffe collection assume a degree of continuity between the collection as it would have been in 1943 and what remained in the 1970s when it was first documented by the NPWS and later PAHSMA.

All items currently possessed by PAHSMA have been catalogued and entered in their database, and these currently represent 1966 records. This includes 274 items that were deaccessioned to the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) in 2001 and 2004, mostly historic coins and ethnographic items.

While the items deaccessioned to TMAG in 2001 and 2004 were recorded, several portions of the collection as it existed in 1973 are no longer with PAHSMA. At the time the Radcliffe Collection was purchased by the NPWS and in the first few years

4 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Notes on explanatory talks between deportation from Tasman Board and members of Radcliffe family,” 29 July 1965.

following the sale several attempts were made to re-evaluate the collection and divide it between interested parties at TMAG, the NPWS, and the Tasmanian State Library and Archives. In 1973 the NPWS was not properly legislated to purchase a historical collection, and the State Library and Archives purchased the collection on their behalf. The presence of large quantities of original Convict Department records in the collection led to their removal under the terms of The Archives Act, 1965.5 Further involvement from the Treasury and Auditor-General’s offices raised concerns about the fate of the collection.6 A ‘Radcliffe Collection Committee’ (originally the ‘Port Arthur Museum Committee’) was formed with representatives from NPWS, TMAG, the Tasmanian State Library and Archives, and Department of Tourism to decide on the appropriate repository for different parts of the collection. In the end, many of the involved parties lost interest and much of the collection stayed at Port Arthur.

To determine the extent to which the collection was disassembled and get a sense of what the collection originally comprised, all correspondence relating to the purchase and evaluation of the Radcliffe Collection in the Port Arthur Conservation Project (PACP) file held by PAHSMA was examined.7 The file contained records of items removed from the Radcliffe Collection by various parties, and these listings were used to attempt to re-construct the original contents of the collection. Some of the listings were unfortunately vague. As an example, a list sent to the Auditor-General of items removed from the collection to TMAG references ‘744/745 All the seashells collection’.8 A list of items contained in glass cases at the Old Port Arthur Museum prior to the collection being moved in 1975 references 938 shell specimens. The same list also contains 143 geological specimens, including 38 fossils. There is no record of what happened to these geological specimens. Unfortunately several of the rarer antiquities, coins,

5 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Government estrays seized from the Radcliffe Collection, Port Arthur, July-Oct. 1973. Under the terms of The Archives Act, 1965.” 6 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) Correspondence, K. J. Binns (Under-Treasurer) to Hon. E. E. Reece (Treasurer), 27 July 1973. 7 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Radcliffe Collection” 8 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Disposal of items ex Radcliffe Collection”, 15 May 1978

medals, promissory notes, ivory gaming pieces, and personal effects listed are not accounted for in the collection records.9

The Beattie and Radcliffe museum collections were examined using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content analysis involves qualifying the presence or absence of objects or themes in materials, often texts or images. With roots in literary theory, critical scholarship and cognitive approaches in the social sciences, it involves the deconstruction and reinterpretation of media (Krippendorff 2004:17). While content analysis is primarily qualitative in nature, to help with managing the data I used spreadsheets to gather basic information and identify key themes associated with museum objects (Appendix A). For the Beattie Collection I generated a spreadsheet derived from the catalogue published in 1916. For the Radcliffe Collection I was provided with a spreadsheet containing data on every object held by PAHSMA. To maintain consistency with the analysis of the Beattie Collection, I added fields to the Radcliffe Collection spreadsheet provided by PAHSMA. New entries were added to the Radcliffe Collection for objects that were removed from the collection in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in an estimated total of 3,167 items.

To assist with the qualitative content analysis of museum objects, a classificatory system was used to identify the basic function and use of the each original object. From there affiliated people, places, and key information about each object’s provenance (e.g. made at Port Arthur) was recorded. From the information associated with each object, points of interest (or themes) for the object (e.g. historic Hobart, convict manufacture, convict discipline, Port Arthur – church) were identified. This was easier with the Beattie Collection, as each object listed had a title directly stating its origin and what Beattie considered relevant points of interest. The Radcliffe Collection was somewhat more difficult to assess as the contents of the collection were more varied and the object provenances were not as clearly identified. Some of the information contained in the original exhibits was likely lost during the various reviews of the collection through time. The differences between the two museum collections are still extensive and merit discussion with regards to the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur.

9 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Items in Show Cases – Old Port Arthur Museum” (5 pages, n.d.)

4.3. Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum (c1890-1930)

I have essentially been an outdoor man…I love the bush, and nothing gives me greater delight than to stand on the top of some high land and look out on a wild array of our giant mountains. I am struck dumb, but oh! my soul sings. (John Watt Beattie in Cato 1977:82)

John Watt Beattie is most famous for his photographic work and pivotal role in the promotion of tourism to Tasmania. Beattie first immigrated to Tasmania from Scotland with his family in 1878 at the age of 19 and worked on his father’s 320 acre farm outside Hobart for several years. During that time he worked closely with the labourers, many of whom were former convicts. In his memoirs, he states: ‘These were the days when my soul got soaked in the lore of Port Arthur, all our working men being ‘old hands’, and the romance of their experience fascinated me’ (Cato 1977:81). His early impressions of the island’s wild beauty and dark past are visible in much of his extensive photographic portfolio. His photographs were widely distributed and sold on site at Port Arthur, and it was thought that they ‘implicitly drew a connection between Tasman Peninsula’s extraordinary natural scenery and the extremity of its gothic past’ (Davidson 1995:657)

Beattie began working as a photographer for the Hobart-based Anson brothers in 1882. By 1891 he had bought them out and rapidly expanded the studio, progressing from a small room to the entirety of a three-storey building on Elizabeth Street in Hobart. By the late 1890s, the studio building contained two exhibition rooms (one for portraits, one for landscapes), the Beattie Lending Library, workrooms, darkrooms, the Beattie Museum of Van Diemen’s Land relics, a huge photographic studio to capture images of groups of 70 to 80 people, a framing department, room in the basement to prepare chemicals and papers, and a space on the rooftop for ‘sun printing’ (Cato 1977:81-82).

Beattie is most often associated with his work in Tasmania, as the state photographer from 1896 and ‘tireless promoter’ actively involved in establishing the Tasmanian Tourist Association (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:41). His work occasionally took him to other regions, and in 1903 he toured Polynesia and Melanesia for five months with the Bishop of Melanesia for the London Missionary Society. During this travel Beattie produced around 1300 images documenting the scenery and people of the

region. These images resulted in the production of several postcards documenting the area, many focusing on areas often overlooked by other photographers (Angleviel and Shekleton 1997:164, 174).

With his fondness for travel and the outdoors, Beattie’s photographic work also took him to some of the most remote places in Tasmania. His fascination with the convict era was well documented, and he produced six albums on Port Arthur alone (Davidson 1995:657). He created a series of six lectures with accompanying lantern slides to promote tourism to Tasmania, with lectures for the north, east, west, and south of the state forming lectures No. 1 through No. 4. Two lantern slide lectures were dedicated to specific regions, with No. 5 ‘The Lake Country of Tasmania’ and No. 6 ‘Port Arthur and Tasman’s Peninsula Illustrating the Convict Days of Van Diemen’s Land’ focusing on aspects of the state Beattie found of particular interest (Cato 1977:87). His discussions of Port Arthur in these lectures refer frequently to the darker side of the convict era, highlighting some of the brutalities of the penal system. Regular references were made to confinement, hard labour, the frequent, cruel floggings of convicts, and young convict boys committing suicide at Point Puer, a reformatory settlement for boys immediately across the harbour from Port Arthur (Davidson 1995:657). This lantern slide lecture proved popular enough that it was eventually published as a book in 1905 and sold widely (Young 1996:65). It was reprinted as recently as 1990 (Beattie Studios 1990). Beattie developed an intense historical fascination with Port Arthur and was responsible for several other publications on Port Arthur through his career, including Port Arthur: An Historical Survey of Van Diemen’s Land (n.d.), Glimpses of the History of Port Arthur (1904), and Convict Days of Port Arthur (n.d.) (Young 1996:121-122).

Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum grew directly through his travels around the state, and he often returned to Hobart laden with convict relics. The museum became increasingly popular and soon incorporated artwork on early Tasmania as well as antique furniture and objects associated with government figures. Entry to the Museum cost one shilling (Cato 1977:83). After World War I the museum had continued to expand and proved wildly popular, with hours of operation from 9am to 9:30pm during the tourist season with an average of 100 visitors a day (Young 1996:97). The collection continued to grow as Beattie gathered more objects, and by the late 1920s the Museum was filled with artefacts and Beattie had more in storage (Cato 1977:83).

By 1926 the collection was the largest and most significant in the state, with over 2200 objects on display. The collection had expanded beyond convict relics to include more than 160 pieces of artwork, including 75 oil paintings by colonial artists, 200 to 300 pieces of china and glassware, and antique furniture (Young 1996:97). The Beattie Museum, along with other major historical collections in the state, was privately owned and considered at risk of theft, destruction, or sale to the mainland. The government was urged to obtain historical collections, but the state-operated Tasmanian Museum in Hobart was significantly underfunded. Beattie attempted to sell the collection to the Hobart Corporation several times, hoping to have it housed at the Lady Franklin Museum, but was turned down due to lack of funds (Young 1996:96-97).

In 1927 the collection was sold to the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) in Launceston in the north of Tasmania for £4,000 (Cato 1977:83; Young 1996:97). A private collector on the mainland had offered him £3,000, and the sale to QVMAG allowed the collection to stay in the state (Young 1996:97). Moving the collection was an endeavour, as the total weight of all the exhibits totalled 20 tonnes. The contents of the Beattie Museum dominated QVMAG’s collections and required nine rooms when it opened in 1928, and half of the collection was still in storage by 1931 (Young 1996:99-100).

This collection was considered ‘the first Beattie collection’ (Cato 1977:83). While the first collection was being installed at QVMAG, Beattie was still being given convict relics. Beattie started reluctantly accumulating a second collection, though he admitted he was ‘’losing his punch’’ as he grew older (Young 1996:100). The collection was relatively substantial by 1930 when Beattie passed away, and the second collection was purchased by the City of Hobart for the Tasmanian Museum with the assistance of philanthropist William Walker (Cato 1977:83). The Beattie collections still reside at QVMAG and TMAG, portions of which are still on display.

4.3.1. Overview

Beattie’s published catalogue for the Port Arthur Museum (1916) lists objects by which room they were located in. The collection was divided into three rooms, and the types of objects contained in each room give a sense of different messages and themes

Beattie was trying to convey. In general, the rooms progressed from a focus on relatively benevolent historic scenes and personal effects of government and religious figures (Room 1), through to a focus on the darkness of the convict system, with displays of weapons, tools used in executions, and the remnants of some of the most notorious convicts and bushrangers in Tasmanian history (Rooms 2 and 3). The most controversial of these relics is the skull of notorious convict cannibal Alexander Pearce, particularly since it has reportedly been part of American phrenologist Dr. Samuel Morton’s collection since the 1850s. It now resides at the University of Pennsylvania museum with the remainder of Morton’s collection (Kidd 2000).

Of the minimum 1,062 objects inventoried in 621 listings for the Beattie collection published in 1916, the largest portion of the collection is directly associated with Port Arthur (538 objects, 260 listings). Only 12 items had no direct association with a person, place or event directly associated with convict-era Tasmania.

Figure 4-1 Advertisement for Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum Source: (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1927:32)

4.3.2. Room 1

As compared to the contents of the broader collection, items displayed by Beattie in Room 1 were relatively benevolent in nature. The 209 listings for Room 1 represent a total of at least 384 objects, the largest portion being items which originated at Port Arthur (67 listings, 146 objects). The objects in Room 1 are much more diverse in origin than Rooms 2 and 3, and the types of items from Port Arthur in Room 1 differ significantly from Port Arthur items in the other rooms. The collection included a number of fine items manufactured by Port Arthur prisoners, including oil paintings, a fiddle, a chest of drawers with fine inlays, furniture, and decorative housewares. Other objects associated with Port Arthur are predominantly ornaments, furniture, books, musical instruments, and fine housewares, including multiple clocks and candlesticks. These objects were associated with specific buildings around the Port Arthur settlement, identified as coming from Port Arthur generally, or identified as having been made there. No architectural items or tools associated with Port Arthur were on display in Room 1.

Aside from fine housewares manufactured by convicts, none of the objects in Room 1 related to general convict life at Port Arthur. In Room 1 there were instead relics associated with famous convicts, and these convicts differ from those portrayed in Room 2 and Room 3. Political prisoners Smith O’Brien, from the Young Ireland Party, and John Frost, with the Welsh Chartist Leaders, were both involved in uprisings against the British government and sent to Port Arthur. Paintings and drawings of both political leaders were displayed in Room 1, along with a book and chair that reportedly belonged to Smith O’Brien while he was at Port Arthur. A letter from convict Jorge Jorgensen, described by Beattie (1916:5) as ‘…the most remarkable of all the prisoners sent to Tasmania…’, also featured in Room 1.

Beyond objects associated with Port Arthur, much of Room 1 was dedicated to housewares, personal effects and furniture associated with significant government figures in Tasmania (58 objects). Objects broadly associated with historic events and places around Hobart and Tasmania (63 objects) also featured in Room 1, particularly items associated with early religious leaders in the colony.

One display by Beattie was specially noted within his catalogue, and that is an exhibit which featured artefacts from the Tasmanian whaling industry (59 objects). A

variety of tools and objects from whaling vessels formed the majority of the exhibit. A scrimshawed whale bone, objects linked to renowned whaler and Australian-born Master Mariner Captain James Kelly, an oil depicting whaling off the Southern Cape of Tasmania, 19 pewter plates used by whalers, and a wooden headboard from a whaler’s grave in Port Davey, Tasmania added human interest to the tools and ship pieces. FIgure 4-2 below shows Room 1, and the whaling tools were prominently featured.

Figure 4-2 Room 1, Beattie Museum Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2333; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

In addition to objects associated with whaling, a number of maritime objects (11 listings, 11 objects) were displayed in Room 1. This included a figurehead from a Chinese trading ship, various ship lights and rudders, a ventilator from The Lady Franklin and a bowsprit band from George III, the latter two being convict transportation ships.

Beattie had strong opinions on specific topics in historical Tasmania, including a concern with the harsh treatment of Tasmanian Aboriginals and convicts within the penal

system (Young 1996:65). A visitor to his museum in 1918 reported in the radical Hobart paper The Clipper:

Beattie has lots of historically interesting material, and uses it to advantage. Rather pleasing to notice that he did not shirk the black spots of our history, but was fair all round, through his denunciation of the treatment of the ‘free’ press in Governor Arthur’s time, the tyranny of certain jailers, the woes of the poor devils who in the jail yard ‘went up at eight and came down at nine’, and the inhuman annihilation of the aborigines, were evidently unpalatable to some lingering remnants of the old regime, who gnashed their gums in the semi darkness of the Town Hall (cited in David Young 1996:65).

While the harsh treatment of convicts under the Convict Department in colonial Van Diemen’s Land was well documented and presented by Beattie in Rooms 2 and 3, he created a small specialized display of items associated with the anti-transportation movement in Van Diemen’s Land in Room 1 (7 listings, 8 objects). This consisted of two drawings, two commemorative medals, two pieces of correspondence and a publication attributed to the Anti-Transportation League.

Beattie’s exhibit on the Tasmanian Aboriginal population included an unspecified number of tools, two historical engravings of Tasmanian Aboriginals, the death mask of an Aboriginal man executed for murder, and Governor Davey’s ‘Proclamation to the Aboriginals 1822’. The ‘Proclamation’ was not a published document but part of a series of nearly 100 oil paintings on Huon pine boards produced by Governor George Arthur in 1830 following a suggestion from Surveyor General Frank Sharland, who regularly noted his concerns with the treatment of the Aboriginal Tasmanian population (Edmonds 2011:05). Increasing violence between Aboriginal and European settler populations in Van Diemen’s Land had led to Arthur declaring martial law against the Aboriginals in 1828. As a last attempt at reconciliation, it served to outline British colonial legal procedure to the Aboriginal Tasmanian population. The boards dramatically illustrated images of friendship, legal equality (for murder at least), and mutual punishment for violent actions, seeming to call for the end of all frontier violence and conciliation under British rule (Edmonds 2011:201). As ‘instruments of diplomacy’ these proclamation boards were a massive failure. By the end of 1830 Governor Arthur had given up on conciliation, extended martial law across the island and enacted the ‘Black Line’, a six-

week military campaign intended to remove all Aboriginal Tasmanians from settled areas (Edmonds 2011:215). A significant object in Australian history regularly reproduced and discussed in history books, this was purchased from Beattie in 1919 by the State Library of New South Wales10 (Edmonds 2011:201).

Room 1 contained only two weapons and a few stray objects without direct associations with people or places (4 listings, 6 objects). These include a whalebone- framed umbrella (simply described as ‘old’), a walnut medicine chest, a wafer for folding envelopes, and a series of flints and steels used for creating fire prior to ‘lucifer matches’.

4.3.3. Room 2

Room 2 of Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum featured objects associated with convict life and discipline at Port Arthur and other penal settlements in Van Diemen’s Land. The only objects associated with government figures are a sword owned by former Port Arthur Commandant Captain Booth when he worked in India and a ‘Turkish gun’ owned by Lieutenant Cuthbertson, the first Commandant of the Macquarie Harbour penal settlement in 1822. Room 2 had 250 listings in Beattie’s 1916 catalogue, representing a collection of at least 443 objects. Of these, 159 of the listings and 336 of the objects are in some way associated with Port Arthur.

Where the Port Arthur objects in Room 1 focused on household items and fine wares created by convicts, the objects in Room 2 seem to provide more of a sense of convict life at Port Arthur. In place of household items, the Port Arthur collection in Room 2 contains mostly tools used by convicts around the settlement, as well as architectural fixtures from buildings, mostly padlocks, bolts and keys associated with confinement. One architectural feature is a window frame from an unnamed building at Port Arthur with evidence that the sash was filed through by an escaping convict. Figure 4-3 depicts Room 2 in Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum. This image was only labelled ‘Beattie Museum’, but the presence of the model semaphore and illustrations, weapons

10 State Library of New South Wales, Call Number “SAFE / R 247”

(including cannons) and disciplinary objects is consistent with the objects listed in the inventory for this room.

Figure 4-3 Room 2, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 66-1465; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

The tools in Room 2 represented some of the wide range of industries at Port Arthur, including brick-making, the black-smithy, cobbling, farming, tailoring, woodworking, and quarrying. Kitchenware from the Penitentiary, cutlery from around the site, medicine bottles from the Hospital, a convict blanket, and multiple photographs of the interior of buildings after abandonment provided insight into daily life for convicts. Personal effects such as smoking pipes constructed from mammal bones, a wooden

puzzle, dice and other objects belonging to convicts provided a more intimate look at convict life.

Complementing the wide range of objects associated with convict life was a large collection of uniforms (17 listings, 21 objects), weapons (43 listings, 45 objects) and disciplinary items such as leg irons and handcuffs (31 listings, 66 objects). The fascination and promotion of this aspect of the convict experience is visible in a postcard created and sold by Beattie (Figure 4-4). This same image featured in the lantern slide lecture created by Beattie in 1905, with this image labelled ‘Relics of Convict Discipline’ (Beattie Studios 1990:48).

Figure 4-4 Postcard depicting objects of convict discipline, sold by Beattie Studios Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.119; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Only two of the uniforms and 13 of the weapons were from Port Arthur. Of the 66 disciplinary objects just over half (36) were identified as coming from Port Arthur. Beyond the handcuffs and leg irons, pieces of Port Arthur’s convict-powered treadmill, including a length of chain meant to fasten a convict to it, were identified in Room 2. Another 13 objects (12 listings) were associated with penal settlements and prisons across Tasmania, including the Cascades Female Factory, Old Hobart Gaol, and Launceston Gaol. A dog’s collar reportedly from the Dog Line at Eaglehawk Neck formed another interesting part of the collection in Room 2.

In addition to examining the treatment of convicts at penal settlements around Tasmania, in Room 2 Beattie presents objects from famous Tasmanian bushranger Martin Cash, including a sword, pistol and quill box that reportedly belonged to him. In 1870 Cash published his autobiography Martin Cash, Bushranger, which contained extensive Robin Hood-like tales of robbing the wealthy and corrupt across colonial Van Diemen’s Land after escaping Port Arthur. The book was a popular bestseller and subversive in nature, criticizing law enforcement and class systems in Tasmania (Young 1996:17-18). A selection of weapons in Room 2 are associated with bushranger management in Tasmania. A ‘Blunderbuss’ gun carried by coach drivers to protect them from bushrangers features in the exhibit, as do a pair of carbine rifles given to a special ‘Field Police’ division of the Tasmanian police created to deal with bushrangers.

4.3.4. Room 3

Room 3 in Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum contained even darker, more difficult portrayals of Tasmania’s convict past than Room 2. Beattie’s catalogue showed 163 listings for Room 3, representing a minimum of 235 objects. Figure 4-5 below shows Room 3 with Room 2 in the foreground. A review of the Museum from 1918 in The Critic indicates that the displays did not shy away from criticizing the old regime and treatment of convicts. One exhibit was arranged by Beattie to illustrate the progression of a convict’s career ‘from trivial offence to inappropriate punishment, to hardening, to institutionalisation’, with the brutality of the regime revealed with ‘relics of torture…neatly docketed and arranged’ (Young 1996:102). Room 3 contains a large collection of original records and documents associated with the convict era not found in any of the other rooms, consisting of 37 listings and 51 objects. The progression of a convict’s

career begins with No. 1 ‘Record 1849 showing First Stage of Convict's Career, Northampton Gaol’ and No. 2 ‘Record (1851) Showing Second Stage of Convict's Career, Millbank Prison’, both original convict records from famous prisons in England (Beattie 1916:12).

Figure 4-5 Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum Room 3 (to the right) Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 66-1464; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Transportation to Australia was the next stage of a convict’s career illustrated in Room 3. Four transportation records (No. 3, 4, 5, 6 in Room 3) follow the two English records. These six pieces were the start of an extensive record and publication collection in Room 3, which included convict records, warrants, charge sheets, station reports and regulations for various Tasmanian institutions including Port Arthur. The four transportation records for convicts sent to Hobart were supplemented with two paintings and a series of seven photographs taken by Beattie of the Success, an ex- convict hulk converted into a tourist attraction that moored in Hobart in 1894 (Young

1996:50) as a temporary museum exhibit. Prior to its use as a temporary tourist attraction it was used as supplementary housing for convicts in Hobart during the 1850s. One of the photographs included in Room 3 is titled ‘Mr. John Price's ‘Iron Punishment Band’ used on The Success’. Price was a notoriously harsh penal administrator and magistrate who was eventually bludgeoned to death by convicts on the Success in 1857 (Young 1996:47). The record collection in Room 3 also contains an autographed letter from John Price. Room 3 contains several examples of violent death, including the example of John Price’s.

The focus on death and execution in Room 3 is something not seen in Rooms 1 and 2. Ten objects directly associated with execution are displayed in Room 3, including two hangman’s ropes tied into nooses, a cap worn by convicts condemned to death, a judge’s robe ‘worn when passing sentences of death’, and architectural pieces taken from the gallows of the Oatlands Gaol and Old Hobart Gaol. In a change from displays of political prisoners in Room 1 and the ‘gentleman bushranger’ Martin Cash in Room 2, Beattie’s display of famous convicts in Room 3 includes items from much more dangerous famous convicts. Drawings of notorious convict and cannibal Alexander Pearce following his execution are exhibited with the axe he used to kill his victims, the bolts and lock from his cell at the Old Hobart Gaol, and his skull. A gun barrel from the cave of bushranger Rocky Whelan’s cave hideout on Mount Wellington near Hobart is also on display. Comparatively benevolent bushranger Martin Cash features again, but instead of personal effects his portrait, reward poster, and a record of the policeman he shot and killed while trying to escape are displayed in Room 3. A slingshot from bushranger Matthew Brady was also displayed in Room 3. Brady was captured by famed bounty hunter John Batman and executed in Hobart.

Continuing with the progression of a convict’s career, alongside objects of death, execution and punishment are objects which almost seem strategically placed to elicit sympathy for convicts from the viewers. A series of 40 convict portraits are on display in Room 3, and these were reportedly taken in 1874 under the direction of Commandant Booth (Barnard 2010). As transportation of convicts to Tasmania had ceased by 1853, most of the individuals still institutionalized at Port Arthur were relatively sickly and feeble by the 1870s. A later image of Beattie’s museum shows a wall of death masks, and some of these are currently on display at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art

Gallery in Launceston. The convict portraits in Room 3 in 1916 are visible in the background, so it is entirely possible that death masks were a later addition to the generally gruesome content of Room 3.

Aside from these sad, haunting images of aging convicts the objects manufactured by convicts in Room 3 are again artworks as opposed to tools and architectural pieces. Objects identified as being produced by convicts at Port Arthur include a collection of vases manufactured from fern tree stumps and two oil paintings, a portrait of King Henry VIII and a still life titled ‘Fruit Study’. The last convict- manufactured item was an illustration of ‘Settlement Island’ at Macquarie Harbour in western Tasmania in 1832. Perhaps the inclusion of these more attractive, refined works alongside tales of cruelty and brutality during a convict’s progress through the system was meant to elicit more sympathy from the viewers in seeing convicts’ capacity to produce objects of beauty, and persons who were not just senseless brutes. A convict marriage license also displayed in Room 3 would have served a similar purpose.

As with Rooms 1 and 2, a large portion of the collection from Room 3 is directly associated with Port Arthur (42 listings, 95 objects). Forty of those objects are the convict portraits. A series of lock plates and signal plates from cells are included in the Room 3 collection from Port Arthur. A more diverse range of objects from Port Arthur is contained in Room 3 than Rooms 1 or 2, with miscellaneous items including a pair of deer antlers owned by Commandant Booth, a dugout boat made there (Figure 4-5), a taxidermied eagle shot there, survey instruments, medical tools to set a broken leg, and an oil painting of the site created by one of the Warders.

Like Room 2, Room 3 contained some uniforms and weapons, though in much smaller numbers. Eleven weapons were displayed in Room 3, all of which were military or police weapons with the exception of a barbed wire tool made by a convict in an attempt to escape the Old Hobart Gaol. A rope constructed from bed-sheets used by prisoners to escape the Oatlands Gaol is also on display. The three uniform pieces on display were police or military pouches. No items lacking clear associations to key themes were displayed in Room 3, but a water bottle and cooking utensil associated with the Crimean War were the least relevant items in the collection in Room 3.

As described by visitors in 1918, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum did no favours to the British colonial government and the treatment of convicts in the penal system. Having worked with old ex-convicts on his father’s farm in New Norfolk and having an appreciation for their stories and experiences, he developed a sympathy for people who had been made part of the convict system, often for initially petty offences. Beattie’s portrayal of the convict past marks an early incarnation of the idea that convicts were the victims of social and economic circumstance and generally misunderstood social outcasts (Young 1996:102).

4.3.5. Discussion

Table 4-1 below depicts a breakdown of objects listed in Beattie’s 1916 The Historical Exhibition Port Arthur Museum: Catalogue of Exhibits by points of interest identified by Beattie in his description of the objects.

Table 4-1 Distribution of Objects by Room and Theme, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum c1916

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Beattie 1916 Theme n= % n= % n= % n= % Aboriginal Tasmanians 8 2.1 0 0.0 2 0.9 10 0.9 Anti-Transportation 8 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.8 Convict Manufacture 18 4.7 20 4.5 5 2.1 43 4.0 Discipline 0 0.0 66 14.9 1 0.4 67 6.3 Execution 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 4.3 10 0.9 Famous Convicts 5 1.3 3 0.7 11 4.7 19 1.8 Government Figures 58 15.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 58 5.5 Historic Hobart 35 9.1 0 0.0 5 2.1 40 3.8 Historic Tasmania 28 7.3 1 0.2 2 0.9 31 2.9 Historic Australia 3 0.8 1 0.2 0 0.0 4 0.4 Maritime Tasmania 68 17.7 1 0.2 3 1.3 72 6.8 Penal System 0 0.0 0 0.0 51 21.7 51 4.8 Port Arthur* 135 35.2 267 60.3 95 40.4 497 46.8 Prison Hulks 2 0.5 0 0.0 15 6.4 17 1.6 Other Convict Sites 3 0.8 12 2.7 19 8.1 34 3.2 Uniforms 0 0.0 21 4.7 3 1.3 24 2.3 War 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.9 2 0.2 Weapons 7 1.8 45 10.2 11 4.7 63 5.9 Unassigned 6 1.6 6 1.4 0 0.0 12 1.1 TOTAL 384 100.0 443 100.0 235 100.0 1062 100.0 * Note that totals here for objects from Port Arthur don’t reflect the total for all objects associated with Port Arthur. Items from famous convicts, items manufactured by convicts, weapons, and uniforms associated with Port Arthur are included in the other categories.

Objects associated with Port Arthur form the largest portion of the collection in each room (and in general). In Room 1, objects associated with maritime Tasmania and government figures form the next most common thematic groupings. In Room 2, relics of convict discipline are the most common objects on display alongside objects from Port Arthur. Room 3 contains a large number of records from the convict era used by Beattie to demonstrate how the convict system worked and illuminate some of the system’s

flaws, and these are the most common items in Room 3 after objects from Port Arthur. In the entirety of the exhibit, following objects from Port Arthur the most commonly found items on display in Beattie’s museum were maritime relics, relics of convict discipline, and weapons.

4.4. Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop at Port Arthur (c1925- 1943)

William Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop at Port Arthur was established on an entirely different trajectory from Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum in Hobart. Both established their collections as sidelines to their primary businesses, but their means of collecting and the objects they selected to display tended to differ greatly. Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop began when he was digging the foundations for his general store sometime in the late 1920s. He uncovered several convict relics and from there developed The Old Curiosity Shop to display his findings (Young 1996:121). There is also evidence that he did some scavenging around the grounds of Port Arthur for objects. The Radcliffe Collection contains two stone sculptures of Hippocrates that he reportedly removed from the façade of the Hospital in the late 1920s when he started his Old Curiosity Shop. Where Beattie developed his collection through travels around the state, Radcliffe’s collection developed as he gradually purchased pre-existing collections started by other collectors.

One of the largest collections purchased by Radcliffe for his Old Curiosity Shop was W. L. Williamson’s ‘Old Curiosity Shop’ in 1930. Williamson’s shop was established in Brown’s River, just southeast of Hobart, and contained an array of maritime artefacts he acquired as a sailor in the 19th century as well as Tasmanian convict relics, including leg-irons, uniforms, and cat-o-nine-tails (Young 1996:66). With the addition of Williamson’s convict relics to his own, Radcliffe boasted possessing over 500 convict-era objects (Young 1996:121). Williamson’s collection also contained a large quantity of seashells. Radcliffe’s marine specimen collection was further supplemented with items from Port Arthur-based collectors. Additional seashells were

purchased from William Mawle, a conchologist from Port Arthur.11 12 Several seaweed specimens collected by Mrs. Louisa Eastman of Port Arthur in the 1860s and 1870s were also added to the collection.13 Mrs. Eastman was the wife of the Reverend George Eastman who served as the Parson for the convict settlement between 1845 and 1870.

A few years later, in 1936, Radcliffe purchased the Powder Magazine which held the contents of another small private museum owned by G. R. Eldridge (Young 1996:121). Radcliffe absorbed Eldridge’s collection and used the building to display exhibits until the building was purchased by Port Arthur and Eaglehawk Neck Board in 1940. The Board unsuccessfully sought additional funds from the state government to purchase Radcliffe’s collection and establish a museum in the newly purchased Commandant’s Residence (Young 1996:127). Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop continued operating out of his general store. Around this time, Radcliffe also developed the first standardized script for use by tour guides around the site. Prior to the late 1930s there was no history produced on the buildings around the site, and the tour guides tended towards fictional elaboration. In 1938 and 1939 he worked on a general script and based the content on information gathered from original Convict Department documents in his possession (Young 1996:123). Much of the same information was used to produce his self-published booklet Port Arthur Guide: Historical Facts (n.d.).

Through the 1930s and early 1940s Radcliffe continued purchasing miscellaneous collections from Port Arthur and abroad. A large number of books contained in the Radcliffe Collection were purchased from the ‘elderly spinster daughter’ of Reverend Woolnough at some point in the 1930s or early 1940s14. Woolnough was an Anglican priest who had worked on the Tasman Peninsula and purchased the Separate Prison after retiring in 1889 (Young 1996:41), and many of the books show evidence of water damage from being stored there.

11 The Mercury 18 May 1940, “Mr. William Mawle Prominent Port Arthur Resident”, p.13 12 PAHSMA Heritage Collections Database, Accession ID 1997.4 13 PAHSMA Heritage Collections Database, Accession ID 1998.652 14 PAHSMA Heritage Collections Database, Accession ID 1983.77

The origins of many of Radcliffe’s other acquisitions remain unknown. A record of disposal from 1982 indicates that Radcliffe’s collection contained a 12-pound Semi Armour-Piercing (SAP) projectile rocket that had to be expediently removed and destroyed.15 The collection contains a large number of ethnographic items collected from Melanesia, Polynesia and across Australia. Little to nothing is known about how these items were acquired beyond minor notes in the files and occasional receipts discovered.

The collection contains a business card for James Butterworth, a curiosity dealer specializing in Maori items from New Plymouth, New Zealand. His shop was also called the ‘Old Curiosity Shop’, and one might speculate that he may have been the source of some of the Maori material culture in the Radcliffe Collection.16 Butterworth was born in Hobart, Tasmania and died in 1903 (Day 2005:94). It is possible that either Radcliffe obtained Butterworth’s card when he absorbed another collection, or Butterworth’s son (also James Butterworth) continued operating the shop after Butterworth’s death.

The object record for an egg gathered in Fiji in 1913 mentions its association with the ‘Philips Collection’, but gives no other indication to how Radcliffe obtained it.17 The project file held by Port Arthur for the Radcliffe Collection contains a receipt dating to 1912 from the Division of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D. c It outlines the trade of biological specimens from Mr. J. E. Philip in Lindisfarne, Tasmania for a total of 51 lithic artefacts from the United States, mostly Georgia and Ohio.18 This may be the same Philip associated with the collection of exotic bird eggs. Suffice to say, the wide range of artefacts gathered by Radcliffe and the means by which he obtained them are just vaguely understood. He obviously sought materials from a wide range of sources to generate a sufficiently intriguing point of interest for tourists.

Radcliffe passed away in 1943, and the care of the museum was taken over by his widow. By 1958 the museum was described the ‘most tragic part’ of Port Arthur by

15 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Removal of Artillery Shell – Radcliffe Collection”, 2 February 1982 16 PAHSMA Heritage Collections Database, Accession ID 1996.41 17 PAHSMA Heritage Collections Database, Accession ID 1998.562 18 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Invoice and Specimens”, Invoice #128, 28 June 1912

visitors, with artefacts and curiosities displayed in a filthy shed where ‘they can be handled, damaged or defaced by anyone who has the price of admissions’ (in Young 1996:135). The Scenery Preservation Board purchased the general store building containing the museum in 1948 and demolished the building in 1959, at which time the family had to move the collection to an off-site premises (Young 1996:135). In 1965 negotiations began for the purchase of the collection from the Radcliffe family, and after agreeing to a price in 1973 the collection was acquired by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Tasmania). By 1975 the collection was moved from its location outside of Port Arthur into the newly renovated Asylum/Town Hall.

4.4.1. Overview

Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop, which interestingly shares its name with a number of other collections it absorbed, was situated on Champ Street in what was also the local general store (Figures 4-6 and 4-7). Charles Dickens’ popular novel The Old Curiosity Shop was first published in 1841 and proved hugely popular with Queen Victoria. The name of Radcliffe’s shop reflects a widespread tradition in naming collections of antiquities after Dickens’ novel. Two of the collections Radcliffe acquired originated from shops with the same name, and Day (2005:94) notes that the name ‘Old Curiosity Shop’ was used by several antiquities dealers operating in Auckland, New Zealand (including James Butterworth) at the turn of the twentieth century. Trodd (2006) notes that the tradition of the ‘Old Curiosity Shop’ reflects the wunderkammern tradition dating back to the sixteenth century Europe, with cabinets of curiosities with seemingly random items to intrigue and entertain grouped for display.

Figure 4-6 Radcliffe’s shop and museum (labelled ‘Port Arthur Museum’) on Champ Street, c1930 Source: (PAHSMA Heritage Collection, Image 1998.570; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Figure 4-7 Advertisement for Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop Source: (Tasmanian Government Tourist and Immigration Department 1936:43)

Where Beattie’s collection in 1916 exhibited a great deal of cohesion and adherence to limited exhibit topics, Radcliffe’s collection was more varied in content and

areas of interest. In many cases, the most interesting thing about the exhibits was merely that they were antiques or things that represented antiquated ways of life. The means by which the convict era at Port Arthur was depicted by Radcliffe was different from the way Beattie represented it. While Beattie focused on the brutality of the regime under British rule and heavy-handed overseers, Radcliffe focused more on the daily life and labours of convicts. Where Beattie had access to more fine objects, antiques and household goods associated with high-ranking government officials and figures, Radcliffe made do with more tools from Port Arthur and other convict sites.

Beyond artefacts from convict sites, Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop contained a variety of ethnographic artefacts from various Pacific Islands. A listing of the contents of some of the display cases prior to dismantling of the Radcliffe family’s displays in 1975 indicates the presence of even more exotic goods not currently located in the PAHSMA holdings or accounted for elsewhere, such as a brick from Pompeii, three oil lamps from Egypt, a large Eastern pipe, and an Egyptian reading book.19 It is very possible that many of the items in the collection have lost their initial provenance, giving the appearance of plain tools or antiques. They may have also reinforced notions of Port Arthur as a site of antiquity.

Several images of Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop, held by PAHSMA, were used to generate a better understanding of how the museum functioned. The inventory for Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop contains little information regarding how things were displayed for visitors, and a basic thematic analysis of objects by room as done for the Beattie collection was not possible. Figure 4-8 below represents the distribution of object themes from the Radcliffe collection; clearly the contents themselves differ greatly from the Beattie collection.

19 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Items in Show Cases – Old Port Arthur Museum” (undated)

Figure 4-8 Museum objects in the Radcliffe Collection sorted by theme.

The broad themes listed in Figure 4-8 above will provide the basis for discussing some of the contents of the Radcliffe collection. Antiques, objects whose key point of interest is their age, comprise the largest portion of the collection (47%). The number derived for objects associated with the natural history collection may over-represent the impact of these items on display, as 983 of those objects represent either individual shells or boxes of shells. This part of the collection had to be reconstructed from records in the Radcliffe Collection PAHSMA file as the shells and geological items are no longer in PAHSMA’s collection.

4.4.2. Antiques

Of the 1,539 antiques comprising Radcliffe’s collection, there are several themes within them (Table 4-2). Radcliffe collected a total of 416 antique books covering a wide variety of topics and geographic regions (except Australia or Tasmania). Antique china also forms a large part of the antique collection, with 470 fine tablewares and teawares

(predominantly English in origin) recorded in PAHSMA’s inventory and disposal records (Figure 4-9). Eight pieces of antique china, nine antique housewares, two pieces of furniture and a Chinese opium pipe all originated from Asia.

Table 4-2 Functional categories of unprovenanced antiques in the Radcliffe collection .

Items Object Types n= % Architectural 29 1.9 Art 34 2.2 Books 416 27.0 Clothing (Civilian) 1 0.1 Coins & Medals 83 5.4 China 470 30.5 Communication 7 0.5 Furniture 24 1.6 Housewares 218 14.2 Maritime 36 2.3 Musical Instruments 31 2.0 Personal Effects 24 1.6 Recreational Items 16 1.0 Tools 73 4.7 War Memorabilia 26 1.7 Weapons 51 3.3 TOTAL 1539 100.0

Figure 4-9 Postcard published c1940-1960 showing books and china plates in the Radcliffe collection Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2564; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Another major group of artefacts is represented by a collection of coins, including commemorative coins and medals celebrating various events across the British Empire (Figure 4-10). The coins date from 1663 through to the 1950s and originate from England and Australia. The commemorative medals focus on royal events, such as the crowning of King William IV in 1831, his death in 1837, the laying of a foundation stone for a new hospital by Prince Albert in 1844, and young Queen Victoria’s visit to London in 1837. Other commemorative medals in the collection include one marking the end of slavery in the British Empire (1834), and the opening of the Crystal Palace in London in 1854.

Figure 4-10 Postcard printed c1940-1960 showing coins and commemorative medals, as well as ceramics and prints, in Radcliffe’s collection Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2580; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

A notable portion of the antiques in Radcliffe’s collection is a collection of music boxes. Seven music boxes with 24 additional music discs for use in the boxes were included in the collection. The music box collection was obviously a significant enough point of interest in the collection that an image in a series of postcards was dedicated to displaying it (Figure 4-11).

Figure 4-11 Postcard printed c1940-1960 depicting music boxes at Radcliffe’s Port Arthur Museum Source: (PAHSMA Heritage Collection, Image 1986.41; image courtesy of PAHSMA)

The remainder of the antiques collection is formed by decorative housewares (218), personal effects (24), items used for recreation (16), and war memorabilia (26). A large portion of the war memorabilia consists of items from the Boer War in South Africa (1899-1902). A semi-armour piercing rocket removed from the collection in 1982 was included as one of the pieces of war memorabilia displayed by Radcliffe. Another 72 tools with unnoted provenance were included in the antiques grouping of the collection, as they illustrated what would have been more archaic or rural industries.

4.4.3. Ethnographic Collection

The ethnographic portion of the Radcliffe collection consists mostly of objects collected from the Pacific Islands. Of the 202 items in the collection, 138 (68.3%) were identified as originating from an area in the Pacific, mostly in Melanesia and Polynesia (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3 Identified places of origin for objects from the ethnographic collection within Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop.

Items Origin n= % Africa (Unspecified) 4 2.0 Australia 27 13.4 India 1 0.5 Fiji 10 5.0 Galapagos Islands 2 1.0 Kiribati/Tuvalu 3 1.5 Marshall Islands 3 1.5 Melanesia (Unspecified) 1 0.5 New Caledonia 1 0.5 New Zealand 9 4.5 Niue 8 4.0 Pacific (Unspecified) 3 1.5 Papua New Guinea 31 15.3 Polynesia (Unspecified) 8 4.0 Samoa 9 4.5 Solomon Islands 41 20.3 Tonga 3 1.5 Vanuatu 6 3.0 Unidentified 32 15.8 TOTAL 202 100.0

How Radcliffe obtained these items is not indicated in any of the project files or records for the objects. An egg from the natural history portion of the collection was collected in Tonga in 1913. It is possible that some of these ethnographic objects originated in the same collection.

A wide variety of objects are represented in this collection, including a large number of stone tools, nets, clothing, water containers, clubs and spears. A significant number of cultural items from the Pacific Islands (as well as Australia) on display in a

shed attached to a general store in rural Tasmania is a seemingly unusual concept. It follows traditions consistent with antiquarian collector practices, and perhaps anything that might be considered unusual or outside of daily life would be considered interesting for visitors.

No images of Radcliffe’s collection held by PAHSMA include materials from the ethnographic collection. Items from the natural history portion of the collection are also lacking from images of Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop.

4.4.4. Natural History Collection

The second largest portion of Radcliffe’s collection consists of the natural history collection (35.3%, n=1,117). The vast majority of the natural history consists of assorted sea shells (n=983) that Radcliffe received as part of William Williamson’s collection from Brown River in the 1930s, as well as the Mawle collection. Thirty-eight fossil specimens and another 105 geological samples were recorded in an inventory of items on display in 1975, but no other information is available about them.

A small variety of biological specimens (beyond shells) is also included in the Radcliffe collection. Twenty preserved seaweed samples collected in the 1860s and 1870s were included in the collection. Four eggs, five dolphin mandible fragments, a shark’s jaw, reptile claw, ram’s head with articulated horns, and an emu leg and foot form the remainder of the natural history portion of Radcliffe’s collection.

4.4.5. Port Arthur

Although Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop was located in Port Arthur, objects associated with the penal settlement represent the smallest portion of the collection (n=76, 2.4%). Table 4-4 below depicts some of the types of items associated with Port Arthur in the Radcliffe collection. The largest portion of the objects are associated with objects found around the site, such as architectural fixtures from the buildings, objects made by convicts (mostly bricks and nails), tools used by convicts for a variety of industries, and furniture and housewares from inside the buildings.

Table 4-4 Types of objects in the Radcliffe Collection associated with Port Arthur.

Items Object Types n= % Architectural Fixtures 18 24.0 Confinement 6 8.0 Convict Manufacture 15 20.0 Convict Discipline 0 0.0 Convict Uniform 4 5.3 Depictions 7 9.3 Furniture & Housewares 10 13.3 Grave Furniture 1 1.3 Tools 12 16.0 Weapons 2 2.7 TOTAL 75 100.0

The architectural fixtures from around Port Arthur included light fixtures from the Penitentiary, cast iron lions from the Guard’s Tower, two carved stone busts of Hippocrates from the Hospital, and several pieces from the Semaphore (Figure 4-12). Another six items associated specifically with confinement could be included with the architectural fixtures, including food hatches from isolation cell doors and lock plates.

As mentioned, most of the objects made by convicts at Port Arthur in the Radcliffe collection were tools and building materials, as compared to the fine objects and artworks made by Port Arthur prisoners in Beattie’s collection. A few finer objects created by Port Arthur convicts in Radcliffe’s collection include a series of wood carvings, such as a pair of clogs, an elaborately decorated fork, and a plaque depicting some sort of deity. All convict uniforms listed in Table 4-4 above were also noted as having been made by convicts. This includes a leather boot, a leather cap and two woollen caps worn by convicts in the Hospital. A series of tools not clearly labelled as being made by convicts but still associated with convict labour at Port Arthur include axes, mattocks, a pulley, a hoe and a brickmaking mould. A group of four riveted leather

100

buckets kept in the Penitentiary to extinguish fires was included with the tools from Port Arthur.

Figure 4-12 Postcard printed c1940-1960 depicting bust of Hippocrates and tools from Port Arthur in Radcliffe’s Museum. Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2582; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA).

As a contrast to Beattie’s collection, the furniture and housewares associated with Port Arthur are not fine objects used by the commanding class. Radcliffe’s collection includes wrought iron beds from the Hospital, cupboards from cells in the Penitentiary, a cauldron used in the Penitentiary mess, a barrel used to store food, and a bell with stand from the Church. While most of the Port Arthur objects in the Radcliffe collection are associated with convict labour and experiences while incarcerated at Port Arthur, they do not exhibit the same dark nature of some of Beattie’s collections, such as objects associated with discipline and death. These types of items are included in Radcliffe’s collection but are not associated directly with Port Arthur.

101

4.4.6. Convict History

Objects directly associated with convict discipline and confinement represent a significant portion of Radcliffe’s convict collection, though these items are not directly associated with Port Arthur. Where Radcliffe’s collection only contained 75 objects associated with Port Arthur, his general convict collection was significantly larger with 163 objects (Table 4-5). Compared to the entirety of the Radcliffe collection, convict- associated objects still represent a small portion of the overall assemblage (5%).

Table 4-5 Objects in Radcliffe’s Collection associated with convict history sorted by theme.

Items Object Types n= % Architectural Fixtures 2 1.2 Confinement 21 12.9 Convict Discipline 38 23.3 Convict Manufacture 8 4.9 Convict Uniform 10 6.1 Famous Convict 4 2.5 Furniture & Housewares 5 3.1 Government Figures 6 3.7 Penal System 51 31.3 Prison Hulks 4 2.5 Tools 8 4.9 Uniforms - Guard/Military 1 0.6 Weapons 5 3.1 TOTAL 163 100.0

Objects of convict discipline are the most gruesome items contained in the collection, with a number of whips, chains, leg irons and handcuffs represented. One cat-of-nine tails included in the collection is smaller in size and represented as an object that would be used to discipline a child convict. Notes on the collection indicate that at least two of these objects were modern replicas and did not in fact originate in the

102

convict era. Figure 4-13 depicts some of the items associated with convict discipline on display in Radcliffe’s museum. Beattie’s images of the interior of some of the Port Arthur buildings (Separate Prison and Penitentiary) are hanging just above the counter, and a print featuring the portraits of several Port Arthur convicts c1874 is resting on the counter near a bell, a grouping of beer steins and several whips/cat-o-nine-tails.

Figure 4-13 Postcard printed c1940-1960 showing objects of convict discipline in Radcliffe’s Port Arthur Museum Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2565; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Unlike Beattie’s collection, no relics associated with executions are included in Radcliffe’s collection. The closest thing would be a drawing of cannibal convict Alexander Pearce after his execution. Beattie displayed the same image in his museum, but had several objects including Pearce’s skull and murder weapon on display with it. Though Radcliffe seemed to stay away from the truly macabre, he did attempt to fashion a display of convict discipline with his artefacts for reproduction on postcards (Figure 4- 14). It is established in the same manner as Beattie’s popular ‘Relics of Convict Discipline’ postcard and image from his lantern slide lectures (see Figure 4-4 above).

103

Figure 4-14 Radcliffe’s display of convict relics staged for a postcard Source: (PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 3065; image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

A large number of records associated with the penal system forms the largest part of the convict-associated collection. The number of items (51) is likely an under- representation given the number is based on the number of headings created by an archivist who removed the records from the Radcliffe collection in 1973.20 Each heading likely represented multiple documents.

The other classification groupings of convict-associated artefacts represent a miscellaneous assortment of objects from other penal stations, images of government figures, and maritime relics from a convict transportation hulk. Radcliffe’s collection also

20 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Estrays seized from the Radcliffe Collection, Port Arthur, July – August 1973. Under the terms of The Archives Act, 1965”. n. d.

104

includes four objects from famous convicts, including the drawing of Alexander Pearce following his execution. The other objects include a drawings of Martin Cash, famed bushranger, and two oil paintings by convict artist William Gould. Both paintings were taken to TMAG in 1973.21

The various objects from other penal stations include a variety of items that provide more intimate insights into convict daily life and experiences. Furniture representing common items found in convict cells and wards are present in Radcliffe’s collection, as are smaller items that would have been used by convicts daily, such as government-issue pewter bowls and convict-made pewter spoons. Radcliffe’s collection also includes a ‘convict love token’, a coin modified with a message to create a memento for friends, family or lovers outside the convict system. The love token from Radcliffe’s collection is made of copper and reads ‘Joseph Yeats/ Transported/ for 7 years/ Feb'ry 17 1820/ Aged 16’ on the obverse, ‘When this/ You see../ Think of Me/ Sarah Farrell/ (symbol of love heart)’ on the reverse. As small mementos sent to loved ones in the hopes of not being forgotten, convict love tokens are considered some of the earliest forms of Euro-Australian artwork (Howell and Xie 2013:121).

4.4.7. Tasmanian History

Relatively few items associated with historic Tasmania were included in the Radcliffe collection (n=179, 5.5%). The largest portion is represented by what was meant to be a significant and valuable collection of early promissory notes from Van Diemen’s Land (Table 4-6). These items were in place when part of the collection was catalogued in 1975 prior to being moved to the new Asylum museum. They were noted missing later, and may have been accidentally disposed of when other items were deaccessioned in the late 1970s.22 Unfortunately many of these notes were the last remaining examples of their kind. For the sake of this study it was possible to add an accurate representation of their presence in the Radcliffe collection using the 1975

21 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Port Arthur Museum Committee Meeting Notes” 9 October 1973. 22 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) Correspondence, to Project Manager, from Curator (Elspeth Wishart), 24 January 1985.

105

inventory of items displayed in glass cases.23 Twenty-eight of the 115 currency objects were lost promissory notes, and the additional 87 objects are unnumbered cheques from the Van Diemen’s Land bank still held by PAHSMA.

Table 4-6 Objects from Radcliffe’s Collection associated with Tasmanian history, sorted by theme.

Items Object Type n= % Artwork 3 1.7 Books 8 4.5 Currency 115 64.2 Historic Figure 1 0.6 Housewares & Furniture 22 12.3 Maritime 9 5.0 Medals/Plaques 7 3.9 Publications 5 2.8 Tools 1 0.6 Uniforms 2 1.1 War 6 3.4 TOTAL 179 100.0

The majority of the other objects are associated with local families in Carnarvon. Six of the seven medals/plaques originate with three brothers (surname Allen) who served in World War I. The housewares and furniture that represent 22 items associated with historic Tasmania have various origins. Thirteen pieces were from Price’s Pottery, which operated at Port Arthur from c1880-1900. Five objects originated from steamships which travelled to Port Arthur in the early days of tourism to the area, including four pieces of china from ‘White Star Line’, ‘West Indian Pacific SS. Co. Ltd.’, and ‘LMS N Co’, and a printed menu from the ‘S. S. Loongana’. A gong used to call

23 PAHSMA PACP File M2/66/101(1) “Items in Show Cases – Old Port Arthur Museum” n.d.

106

visitors to meals at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house in Port Arthur is included with these items.

Maritime objects in the historic Tasmania portion of the collection are predominantly relics associated with shipwrecks off the coast of Tasmania (n=7). The other two objects include a glass from a ship given to a local man from the captain of the Isabella Hercus (an immigration ship) in 1851 and a relic from a British warship broken down near Hobart.

4.5. Conclusion

While the means by which the Beattie and Radcliffe collections were curated differed greatly, the assemblages created by both collectors provide some insight into the motives and views of their creators. Beattie’s empathy for the plight of Tasmania’s convicts, likely influenced by his regular interactions with them as a young man, probably influenced his portrayal of Tasmania’s convict past. As his museum was situated in Hobart, some distance from Port Arthur, addressing the more difficult aspects of the site’s past for tourists may have been easier without direct contact with those most affected by the site’s dark past.

Radcliffe’s ‘Old Curiosity Shop’ at Port Arthur reflects an attempt to titillate and intrigue visitors to the site along the tradition of curio collections. The display is not as place-specific as Beattie’s museum, and instead of taking a political stance about the convict era in Tasmania, he collected and displayed as many intriguing and unusual objects as he could collect to generate tourist interest. The means by which these collections tie into broader questions of place, authenticity, romanticism and dark tourism will be addressed in Chapter 9 (Discussion and Conclusions).

107

Chapter 5. Depicting Port Arthur in Postcards

5.1. Introduction

The early twentieth century was the golden age of postcard production and transmission, and in the first decade of the twentieth century over a billion postcards were produced worldwide every year (DeBres and Sowers 2009:218). Picture postcards have been examined by academics in a number of ways: as kitschy tourist paraphernalia, as evidence documenting ways of life, and as items critiqued for being deceptive media promoting certain ideologies (DeBres and Sowers 2009:217). Postcards are valuable for research examining depictions of the past as they contain culturally-constructed images created for purchase. Postcards are useful objects for examining prevailing attitudes, as they actively convey messages regarding a place or time. They ‘strive for the ideal’ as they are objects bought, shared, collected, and mailed with ‘Wish you were here’ on the back to boast about travels and experiences (DeBres and Sowers 2009:217). While photographs are used in postcards, unlike personal photographs postcards contain images that are purposefully selected by a publisher, mass produced and mailed to friends and family by the purchaser (Angleviel and Shekleton 1997:161, 163).

Postcards are used in this dissertation with advertisements and museum collections to explore the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur. To assess common themes in postcard depictions, I examined all postcards held by the Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Authority which portrayed locations on the Tasman Peninsula and dated within the temporal boundaries of this study (1885-1960). A total of 198 postcards matching these parameters were included in this study.

108

5.2. Methodology

Postcards were first invented in Austria in 1869, but didn’t enjoy widespread popularity in Australia until 1895 when it was legal to mail correspondence without envelopes (Angleviel and Shekelton 1997:163). Until 1905 the reverse side of the card was meant for the recipient’s address only, with all correspondence meant to be contained on the front of the card with the image. Changes to Australian postal legislation allowed the back of the card to be divided in two sections (Angleviel and Shekleton 1997:164). The postcards used for this study include both black-and-white and colour images dating from 1905 to 1968. No postcards dating between 1885 and 1905 were found in the collection. Collector’s literature for historic postcard enthusiasts was consulted to date the marks and stamps on the postcards, as were publications focused on Tasmanian photographers (Long 1995).

Where the date range for postcard publication often spanned two or three decades, division by war eras was most appropriate for this study. Phases in tourism in Tasmania and Australia were often dictated by the country’s involvement in each World War, with bureaus and government agencies slowing or folding during war eras (Davidson 1995:656). To this end, the postcards were divided into three temporal groups. The first group of postcards was produced before or during World War I (1905- 1918). The second group of postcards was produced in the interwar years between World War I (WWI) and World War II (WWII) (1919-1939). None of the postcards printed had production dates within WWII. The final group of postcards post-date WWII (1946- 1960).

Postcards with the potential for production during war years were assigned to the period prior. Postcards with production dates that overlapped slightly into different periods (e.g. 1905 to 1920) were assigned to the period most represented by the date range. This was only done in case of overlaps of less than five years. Postcards with production dates that spanned well into two ranges (e.g. 1909 to 1929) were excluded from discussions of changes to postcard depictions through time, but were included in more general discussions. A total of 10 postcards were considered temporally undefined.

109

Digital copies were made of the fronts and backs of every postcard, and they were inventoried in a Microsoft Access database designed to allow the identification of key themes and depictions. A variety of data were collected for each postcard and input into the database, including the name of the publisher, estimated date of publication, title, the type of image (landscape, seascape, portrait, etc.), and an estimated date of when the original image was taken (as opposed to printed). This allowed for possible comparison between photographers, publishers and temporal ranges.

To draw out ideas about dark tourism, romanticism and authenticity, the findings of the PAHSMA postcard collection were subject to content analysis and critical discourse analysis. As with the museum collections, content analysis served to identify key themes presented within the postcard assemblage. The Microsoft Access database was used to assist with data entry and management. Beyond data related to general context (as described above), each postcard entry included fields designed to address identified themes, with pre-defined options to ensure continuity of data entry. Fields included the degree of vegetation, view orientation, the weather, buildings (and/or ruins) present, the presence of people (including gender, numbers and dress), and activities portrayed. The fields used and pre-defined options are presented in Appendix B of this dissertation. These fields were influenced by those used by Pocock (2003) in her analysis of tourist activities at the Great Barrier Reef.

Beyond just visual representations, the text attached to the images was also analysed. Purposeful naming of places is socially significant, and describing the ruins of the church at Port Arthur as either ‘The Church’ or ‘The Convict Built Church’ may indicate the values and interpretations of the person creating the postcard

The findings of qualitative content analysis (described in Section 4.2) were further informed by critical discourse analysis. Discourse analysis allows the examination of signs and symbols used in various contexts, including tourist sites. Urry (1995:xx) goes so far as to state that ‘…identity almost everywhere has to be produced partly out of the images constructed or reproduced for tourists’. Tourists seek out cultural markers, signs and symbols that signify histories and cultures in a way that is familiar or desirable to people consuming, or paying to experience, a place (Selby 2010:40). It is important to note that understandings taken from particular signs and

110

symbols are culturally specific. While discourse is often accepted as neutral, it is often in fact culturally and socially highly significant; groups with differing interests in a heritage site generally present different facets of its heritage or culture. The demand for constructions of the past are met by multiple groups, and within this heritage sites often produce places that signify certain cultures, social groups and histories (Selby 2010:41).

Discourse analysis involves critically interrogating and deconstructing the nature of visual imagery. Much like texts, visual presentations are indicative of the underlying motives and interests of their creators. Images, text and visual presentations create, promote, preserve and naturalize very specific constructions of the past. Seemingly neutral documents such as postcards, brochures and guidebooks are just as involved in recreating power and status as more overtly ideological items (Waterton 2010:156). These constructions shape the representation of social relations both past and present and are often best presented in visual imagery and iconography as both are powerful forms of meaning-making (Waterton 2010:256). The findings from these examinations are presented below.

5.3. Overview

A total of 198 postcards held by PAHSMA within their heritage collection were examined to determine some thematic trends in representations of Port Arthur created for sale to tourists. Of the 198 postcards studied, 35 date to or before WWI (1905-1918), 106 date to the interwar period (1919-1939), and 47 post-date WWII (1945-1960). The production date of 10 postcards was not sufficiently well defined to assign them to a specific period, and they have been included in general discussions of postcard images but not changes to postcard contents through time. None of the postcards was postmarked during WWII or had specific production ranges associated with the 1940s. Postcards with potential production periods from 1940 to 1960 were included with the cards that post-date WWII.

111

5.4. The Romance of Ruins

The appeal of the Port Arthur ruins is well documented. The way in which the ruins were depicted changed through time in tourist postcards, as did their frequency as a primary focus in postcards produced for the region. Table 5-1 below depicts the number of occurrences for ruins as the focus of a Port Arthur postcard, sorted by date range. It also provides a distinction for the way in which the ruins were depicted – either cleaned of greenery in a relatively manicured setting or overgrown with vegetation.

Table 5-1 Depictions of ruins in Port Arthur postcards through time.

Overgrown Clean Totals by Date Date Range n= % n= % n= % 1905-1918 (35) 14 40.0% 4 11.4% 18 51.4% 1919-1939 (106) 21 19.8% 14 13.2% 35 34.0% 1945-1960 (47) 6 12.8% 16 34.0% 22 46.8% Undated (10) 5 50.0% 1 10.0% 6 60.0% TOTAL (198) 46 23.2% 35 17.7% 81 40.9%

The portion of overgrown ruins is greatest with the earlier period (1905-1919) of postcards, with 40% (n=14) of all postcards featuring overgrown ruins (Figure 5-1). This period of postcard production also generally features the largest portion of images featuring ruins, at 51.4% (n=18). Over time, through the interwar period and after WWII, depictions of the ruins become gradually more manicured and sterile, with images of cleaned ruins representing a larger portion of postcards produced (Figure 5-2). In the post-WWII production range, images of overgrown ruins represent only 12.8% (n=6) of the postcards in the assemblage.

112

Figure 5-1 Postcard depicting the Church at Port Arthur covered in ivy, printed between 1905 and 1921 by J. Walch and Son. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1997.222, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Figure 5-2 Postcard depicting the Church at Port Arthur cleaned of ivy, printed by Ash, Bester & Co. between 1940 and 1960. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1997.299, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

113

Works to clean the ruins and establish the township of Carnarvon around the ruins likely influenced the increased cleanliness of the ruins through time. That said, more than half (58%) of the postcards produced between 1919 and 1939 were historical reprints from earlier decades (discussed further in Section 5.6 below). Most of those reprints were of Port Arthur immediately following abandonment, artistic recreations of historic scenes, or convict portraits. Historic landscapes of overgrown ruins would have been available for printing, but there was a choice not to focus on those images between 1919 and 1939. The period in which Port Arthur was an operational settlement seems to have been more of interest at that time.

Whether or not the ruins were present, abundant greenery and overgrowth is abundant in most outdoor images of Port Arthur produced between 1905 and 1960. Of 198 postcards, 43 (21.7%) feature abundant overgrowth of greenery to a point where the central image was identified as ‘enveloped in greenery’. Vegetation in another 20 postcards (10.1%) qualified as overgrown, and an additional 51 (25.8%) were described as ‘slightly overgrown’. Another 37 (18.7%) images featured ‘manicured greenery’ and 45 (22.7%) images featured ‘no greenery’. It is worth noting that the images described as having ‘no greenery’ are comprised of all the photographs of museum interiors, building interiors, and studio-based portraits. For all of the outdoor images featured in postcards of Port Arthur (153), 75.8% (n=116) feature greenery overgrown to some degree.

Postcards are not a straightforward documentation of a trip, but rather an idealized version of reality, they often feature blue skies, sunshine and balmy weather (DeBres and Sowers 2009:217). Even in early 20th-century depictions of Main Streets through the United States, it is never winter, and the trees always have leaves (DeBres and Sowers 2009:223). Postcards depicting Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula do rarely feature blue skies and sunshine, but instead reflect key tenets of the Romantic fascination with the natural world. Arguably postcards of Port Arthur reflect the ‘sublime’, a general sense of awe at the might of nature spiced with a hint of terror (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:12). Dark, ominous skies feature in more than half of the landscape postcards, particularly in the earlier (pre-1945) images (Figure 5-3). Of the 127 photographic postcards with the sky visible in the background, the backdrop for 53 (41.7%) is in fact a clear (or slightly cloudy) sky. Overcast, cloudy skies are represented

114

in 39 images (30.7%), and another 35 images (27.6%) feature fog-obscured hills (Figure 5-4). The representation of Port Arthur on postcards does not reflect a leisure tradition common on postcards from other destinations.

Figure 5-3 Historic re-creation postcard of Port Arthur featuring ominous skies, printed between 1920 and 1930 by Beattie Studios. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1986.35, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

115

Figure 5-4 Postcard depicting the Isle of the Dead within heavy fog, printed between 1905 and 1906 by Beattie Studios. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.102, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

5.5. A Place of Solitude – Erasing People

People feature in a small portion of all postcards from Port Arthur. Of 198 postcards in this study, only 58 of the images had people in them. Of those 58 images, ten are historic portraits of Port Arthur convicts (c.1874), 11 are artist depictions of the penal settlement when it was operational, two are photographs of the site when it was operational, and two more show an old convict guide within the abandoned Separate Prison’s chapel.

Only 44 images show visitors and people actively engaged with Port Arthur as a tourist site or town, accounting for 22.8% of all postcards created. The presence of tourists in postcards changes through time at Port Arthur. In postcards created from 1905 to 1919, tourists or residents appear in 10 of 35 postcards (28.5%). Women appear in three of the postcards, and a child is present in one of the images with women. Men are present in all images of tourists or residents. Most of the images are portraits or close-up scenes, such as the postcard depicting resident Archibald Blackwood riding down the street in a horse-drawn cart, a group of at least eight people between three horse-drawn carriages posing in front of the Church ruins (Figure 5-5), and a portrait of a

116

Port Arthur guide holding a dog. Slightly more distant images include two men standing hip-deep in greenery amongst gravestones on the Isle of the Dead (Figure 5-6), a view of a woman sitting on the shoreline with ruins of the Military Precinct in the background, and a view of the verandah of the Carnarvon Hotel with a woman and child gazing into the distance towards the sea (Figure 5-7).

Figure 5-5 Postcard depicting visitors in horse-drawn carts at the front of the Port Arthur Church ruins, printed in 1906 by McVitty and Little. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1997.151, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

117

Figure 5-6 Postcard depicting two men hip-deep in greenery on the Isle of the Dead, printed between 1905 and 1921 by J. Walch and Son. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.103, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Figure 5-7 Postcard taken at the front of the Carnarvon Hotel, former Commandant’s Residence, printed in 1907 by J. Walch and Son. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1989.18, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

118

In postcards created from 1920 to 1940, tourists or residents appear in 15 of 106 images (14.1%). The people in two of the images are so far in the distance walking or paddling boats that they are barely visible. Women are present in seven of the images, and men are present in all but one which features actress Eva Novak on the verandah of the Hotel Arthur during the filming of For the Term of His Natural Life in 1927.

Of the 47 postcards printed between 1945 and 1960, only four have images with people present in them (8.5%). One image depicts a tour guide in the Separate Prison, the second shows two women socializing in front of the ruins of the Separate prison, the third depicts the music box collection in Radcliffe’s Port Arthur Museum with a female visitor looking in glass display cases, and the final image shows the Port Arthur sports grounds with cars, campers, and people dotting the landscape (Figure 5-8). Postcards from 1945 contain the lowest proportion of images with people in them, and interestingly more postcards from 1945 depict women tourists. Gradually increasing images of female travellers in postcards may reflect increasing numbers of female travellers or the wish to attract more female visitors.

Figure 5-8 Postcard showing the Penitentiary ruins with a sports ground, cards and campers, printed by Murray Views in 1940. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1989.18, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

119

Through time, people slowly disappear from images of Port Arthur. In the earlier (1905-1918) images, purposeful portraits of tourists and colourful local characters, as well as tourists gazing wistfully into the distance, form a small but still significant portion of all postcards produced in that period (28.5%). That portion reduced steadily through the interwar period, and visitors or tourists appeared in a very small number of all postcards produced between 1945 and 1960 (8.5%). Only one of the images focuses on a person, and people appear as shadowy or incidental figures in the other three images. The lack of people visiting, touring, holidaying in these images promotes a sense of solitude at Port Arthur.

Regardless of the hundreds of people visiting Port Arthur in a day or week, by 1945 they are nearly entirely absent from postcard reproductions sent to friends and family back home. This is particularly interesting as access to the site, particularly by motor vehicle, would have greatly improved from earlier periods of travel. The introduction of paid holidays for all Australian workers in 1940 also meant greater freedom and mobility for middle and working class tourists, which would have helped boost tourist numbers (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:28).

DeBres and Sowers (2009:225) noted a consistent trend in postcards depicting American Main Streets, as pedestrians, animals and vehicles disappeared from depictions of towns between 1930 and 1945. Shadowy figures were visible in the distance, but the streets shown in postcards were consistently empty, with the exception of one or two expensive parked vehicles. They attribute this to placelessness and presenting relatively anonymous towns in favour of promoting national or regional ideals of wealth, success and private business (DeBres and Sower 2009:220). I would suggest that the absence of people engaging with Port Arthur in images represents tourist attempts at representing authentic experiences at and meaningful engagement with the site. The ideal at Port Arthur represented solitude and isolation, and a chance to experience the romance of the past. Tourism is thought to be driven by tourist attempts to engage with authentic experiences in a meaningful way, particularly as the world became increasingly industrialised and ‘inauthentic’. Idealised images of the site saw gradually reduced images of people interacting with the site, giving a sense of peace and isolation. These may reflect the ideal of the time with regards to tourist attempts to engage with the seemingly vacant site in a meaningful way.

120

5.6. Recreating History

Of the 106 interwar postcards produced (1919-1939), over half (n=58, 54.7%) are recreations of historic images. This includes 11 artistic imaginings of historic scenes (drawings, paintings) (Figure 5-9), 13 photographs from the site after abandonment (c.1880s) prior to the bushfires that created so many of the ruins, nine photographs of the site when it was an operational penal settlement (Figure 5-10), 10 portraits of Port Arthur convicts c1874 (Figure 5-11), seven images of the site in a state of partial ruin, and another eight historic images of the Port Arthur ruins. Several images depicted the interiors of the prison buildings after abandonment but prior to the bushfires or further decay of the site (Figures 5-12 and 5-13).

Figure 5-9 Historical re-creation (painting) of convicts at work and the ‘convict centipede’ at Port Arthur, printed by Beattie Studio. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.115, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

121

Figure 5-10 Postcard with an image of Port Arthur in operation c.1859, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.115, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

122

Figure 5-11 Portraits of Port Arthur convicts, images taken c.1874, printed by Beattie Studios between 1917 and 1920. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Images 1996.18 and 1996.21, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

123

Figure 5-12 Postcard depicting the entrance to the Penitentiary prior to its ruin, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1996.35, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Figure 5-13 Postcard depicting the interior of the Separate Prison chapel prior to its ruin, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1996.96, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

124

This interest in the historic nature of the site is not replicated in the other two time periods. In the 1905-1919 postcards, only ten of 35 postcards (28.6%) are historic reproductions. This includes six images of Port Arthur after it was first abandoned (c.1880s), two images of the operational penal settlement, and two pictures of the site in a state of partial ruin. No artistic recreations of the convict era were found in the first group of postcards.

Postcards produced after WWII similarly exhibit a reduced interest in replicating the past at Port Arthur. Only one of 47 postcards produced between 1945 and 1960 was a reprint of a historic image, and this was an overview of the site from Scorpion Rock with the Church in the foreground (similar to Figure 5-10 above).

5.7. Wish You Were Here?: Dark Tourism in Postcards

The idea of writing ‘Wish you were here’ on the back of postcards featuring museum exhibits of convict relics, staged photographs of old tour guides demonstrating the function of isolation booths in the Separate Prison’s chapel, Hotel Arthur burning down, and views of the Gravedigger’s Hut on Isle of the Dead seems like a strange concept. Of the 35 postcards produced between 1905 and 1918, only five (14.3%) represent darker aspects of Port Arthur’s past. All five depict the Isle of the Dead, though one specifically mentions the number of burials at the front and shows the Gravedigger’s Hut (Figure 5-14). Another five (14.3%) of all postcards produced from 1905 to 1918 actively present the site’s prison history, with four images of the Penitentiary and one image of the Model Prison.

Postcards produced from 1919 to 1939 similarly show a higher proportion of images that could be interpreted as representing an interest in dark tourism at Port Arthur. Of the 106 images produced, 27 (25.5%) depict places associated with convict punishment and death, real or imagined. The images include an artistic interpretation of the ferocious dogs comprising the ‘Dog Line’ at Eaglehawk Neck (Figure 5-15), the Isle of the Dead complete with Gravedigger’s Hut, the Separate Prison, the Penitentiary, and both the ‘Suicide Cliffs’ and ‘Underground Cells’ at Point Puer. Notably the ‘Suicide Cliffs’ refer to a fictional occurrence in Marcus Clarke’s For the Term of His Natural Life

125

where two boy inmates at Point Puer throw themselves off the cliffs desperate to end their lives within the convict system (Figure 5-16). Similarly, there is no evidence that the ‘Underground Cells’ at Point Puer served that function, but their use for punishment was popularized in local fiction (Figure 5-17). Of the 65 postcards that had titles, nearly half (n=29, 44.6%) contained at least one word that referenced the site’s convict past, including ‘cell’, ‘convict’, ‘prison’, ‘punishment’ and ‘suicide’.

Figure 5-14 Postcard showing Isle of the Dead (‘Dead Island’) making mention of 1500 graves, printed by McVitty and Little between 1905 and 1920. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1996.96, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

126

Figure 5-15 Postcard with a painting depicting the ‘Dog Line’ at Eaglehawk Neck, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1996.38, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Figure 5-16 Postcard depicting the ‘Suicide Cliffs’ at Point Puer, printed by D.I.C. Photo between 1923 and 1926. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1998.169, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

127

Figure 5-17 Postcard depicting the ‘Underground Cells’ at Point Puer, printed by Beattie Studios between 1920 and 1930. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.100, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

In the final grouping of postcards, produced between 1940 and 1960, every postcard had a title but none made reference to Port Arthur’s convict past. Of the 47 postcards produced, only four (8.5%) contained convict objects or people, and these were all images from inside Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop. An additional eight (17.0%) depicted the site as a prison, though they made no reference to the prison in their titles.

5.8. Authenticity

The subjects depicted in the postcards shifted through time. The most commonly depicted places between 1905 and 1918 were the Church (n=8) and Isle of the Dead (n=5). The Separate Prison (n=14) and general overviews of Port Arthur (n=10) from Scorpion Rock were the most common depictions on postcards created between 1919 and 1939. On postcards post-dating WWII, Radcliffe’s Museum featured on the most postcards (n=7), with representations after that relatively evenly distributed between the Church (n=5), Military Precinct (n=4), Penitentiary (n=4) and Separate Prison (n=4).

128

Figure 5-18 Focus of postcard images distributed by date of production.

The things that postcards focused on changed through time (Figure 5-18). The earliest group of postcards were predominantly images featuring the exterior of a specific building, while postcards created between 1919 and 1939 featured more sweeping landscapes, as did postcards created between 1945 and 1960. Seascapes were defined as landscapes in which Mason’s Cove (or another relevant part of the sea) formed a significant portion of the landscape. The prominence of landscape images is interesting, particularly as the Port Arthur penal settlement is wrapped around Mason’s Cove and is located on a peninsula. No point on Port Arthur is more than a few hundred metres from water, but the majority of images focused on the greenery and expansive forests behind the settlement.

Postcards produced between 1919 and 1939 have the most diverse focus, incorporating a range of artistic representations of historic scenes, examinations of building interiors (mostly abandoned), and the largest range of seascapes. Postcards produced between 1945 and 1960 had the greatest focus on museum exhibits,

129

purposefully manufactured representations of the past, and geological formations around the Tasman Peninsula.

Table 5-2 Type of place presented in postcards, sorted by production dates.

1905-1918 1919-1939 1945-1960 Type of Place n= % n= % n= % Abandoned 6 17.1 13 12.3 0 0.0 Artistic Depiction (Historic Place) 0 0.0 12 11.3 0 0.0 Convict Objects/People 0 0.0 11 10.4 4 8.5 Historic Objects/People 0 0.0 3 2.8 3 6.4 Historic Houses 3 8.6 10 9.4 0 0.0 Holiday Destination 5 14.3 6 5.7 3 6.4 Scenic/Natural 2 5.7 5 4.7 12 25.5 Operational Penal Settlement 2 5.7 9 8.5 0 0.0 Partial Ruins 2 5.7 7 6.6 0 0.0 Ruins (Clean) - Ancient Place 2 5.7 8 7.5 12 25.5 Ruins (Overgrown) - Ancient Place 11 31.4 11 10.4 4 8.5 Township 1 2.9 3 2.8 1 2.1 Township Juxtaposed with Ruins 1 2.9 8 7.5 8 17.0 TOTAL 35 100.0 106 100.0 47 100.0

Aside from the central focus of the postcards (in a broad sense), the type of place Port Arthur might be as presented in tourist postcards changes through time. Table 5-2 above derived from a general interpretation of the content of each postcard, as well as knowledge of where many of the images originated (and when). Some key trends in how Port Arthur was reproduced through time emerge. Between 1905 and 1918, images of overgrown ruins and abandoned prison buildings were most popular. Port Arthur is also most often represented as a holiday destination between 1905 and 1918, with 14.3% of all images (n=5) focusing on tourist amenities and activities.

The reproduction of Port Arthur between 1919 and 1939 is more diverse, but the majority of objects focus on the historic nature of the site. Images from inside abandoned prison buildings account for 12.3% (n=13) of all postcards from this era, and

130

artistic depictions of scenes from around the site represents 11.3% (n=12). Artistic recreations made into postcards were only found for this era. With the broad range of reproduced historic images and scenes, fewer postcards produced between 1919 and 1939 had titles than any other group. Of the 106 postcards produced between 1919 and 1939, 41 (38.7%) lacked identifying titles. Only six (17.1%) postcards produced between 1905 and 1919 lacked titles. Every postcard produced between 1940 and 1960 had a title.

Postcards produced with no title between 1905 and 1918 included one image of the abandoned Port Arthur settlement, a site overview focused on Civil Officer’s Row, a portrait of tour guide ‘Old Harry’ and his dog, a close-up photo of one of the guesthouses, and the only two historic images of Port Arthur when it was operational.

Table 5-3 Untitled postcards produced between 1919 and 1939.

1919-1939 Untitled Postcards n= % Artistic Depiction (Historic Place) 7 17.1 Convict Objects/People 11 26.8 Historic Houses 2 4.9 Holiday Destination 5 12.2 Scenic/Natural 2 4.9 Operational Penal Settlement 2 4.9 Partial Ruins 5 12.2 Ruins (Clean) - Ancient Place 3 7.3 Ruins (Overgrown) - Ancient Place 2 4.9 Township 1 2.4 Township Juxtaposed with Ruins 1 2.4 TOTAL 41 100.0

Of the 41 untitled postcards created between 1919 and 1939, 11 (26.8%) featured convict objects or people. Ten of those postcards featured portraits of Port Arthur convicts taken c1874 before the settlement closed (see Figure 5-11 above). The

131

eleventh convict-object postcard was Beattie’s famous ‘Relics of Convict Discipline’ image, but in this case it was left unlabelled. Seven artistic depictions of historic scenes at Port Arthur and two images of the operational settlement have no titles to indicate their origins. Were these images so iconic that people were expected to recognize them without titles, or did the image not matter so much as the act of sending a postcard? Of the five labelled artistic depictions of the site, only two mention the antiquity of the image. Of the seven labelled images of Port Arthur as an operational penal settlement, only four mention the antiquity of the site.

Although all postcards produced between 1940 and 1960 had titles, the subject matter differed greatly from the earlier periods. A total of 12 (25.5%) depictions of scenic or natural features lacking evidence of human presence featured on these later postcards. Similarly, another 12 (25.5%) postcards depicted the cleaned, sanitized ruins of Port Arthur. As time progressed, people and activities were portrayed on postcards less, and the images of the ruins became cleaner and less overgrown. The site began to look more sanitized, manufactured and devoid of human interest as time progressed, even as human impact to and activity around Port Arthur would have been increasing.

5.9. Conclusion

Several trends were identified during the analysis of postcards from PAHSMA’s collection dating from 1905 and 1960. The presence of dark skies and overgrown vegetation on imagery of the site for all periods of production differs from leisure conventions of sunny skies more traditional in postcards produced for other places. Postcards produced between 1905 and 1918 tended to show the exterior of convict buildings, with the Church and the Isle of the Dead being the most common places depicted. Images of ruins were the most common type of postcard for this period (51.4%), and the majority of the ruins were heavily overgrown with greenery (77.8% of all ruin images) (Figure 5-19). Few seascapes were represented in this period, although the site is entirely surrounded by water. Images from 1905 to 1918 often depicted the site as a place abandoned (17.1%) or an ancient place with overgrown ruins (31.4%). As a contrast, this period also contained the largest proportion of images (14.3%) which depicted Port Arthur solely as a leisure-focused holiday destination.

132

Figure 5-19 Postcard depicting the Paupers Mess overgrown with vegetation, printed by W. J. Little in 1910. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2012.100, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Postcards produced between 1919 and 1939 sought to recreate history, and a large proportion (54.7%) featured artistic recreations of the convict era or reproduced images of the operational or recently abandoned site. The same group of cards had the largest representation of convict punishment or death, real or imagined. Many of the postcards produced between 1919 and 1939 did not have titles, which suggests the sender could assume the receiver’s familiarity with the site. Of those postcards with titles, nearly half ( 44.6%) contained at least one word that referenced the site’s convict past, including ‘cell’, ‘convict’, ‘prison’, ‘punishment’ and ‘suicide’.

All postcards produced between 1945 and 1960 had titles, though none made direct reference to the site’s convict past. The Port Arthur ruins appear prominently on postcards from this period (46.8%), but only 27.7% of the ruin postcards show overgrown ruins (as compared to 77.8% from 1905 to 1918). The appearance of clean ruins among manicured lawns began to dominate depictions of Port Arthur (Figure 5-20). As well, postcards produced between 1945 and 1960 suggest gradual elimination of people from the landscape, even as visitor numbers and impacts to the site would have increased. In the few images that show people interacting with the site, the highest

133

proportion of women is present in postcards produced between 1940 and 1960. This might represent either an increase in women travelling to the site or attempts to draw more female visitors to Port Arthur.

These trends will be further drawn out and incorporated into broader discussions of place, dark tourism, romanticism and authenticity in Chapter 9 (Discussion and Conclusions).

Figure 5-20 Postcard depicting the Penitentiary from Champ Street, printed by Kodak between 1955 and 1968. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 2011.41.5-13, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

134

Chapter 6. Examining Material Culture from Hotels and Guesthouses

6.1. Introduction

Material culture from archaeological excavations at the former Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904), Tasman Villa Hotel (1899-1921), Mrs Brimage’s Boarding House (the ‘Commandant’s House’) (1917-1939) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959) were examined as part of this dissertation. This chapter presents the methods and middle range theories used to connect material culture from archaeological excavations at former Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses with the concepts of dark tourism, romanticism and authenticity which are central to this dissertation. This chapter lays the groundwork for developing a material signature for mass tourism. Theories which propose identifiable patterns in hotel and tourism material culture and broader theories about tourism as a phenomenon provide the framework for the examination of hotel material culture.

6.2. Connecting Material Culture with Hotels and Guesthouses

Hotels were significant institutions in the development of Australian towns through the nineteenth century, often integrated with the local public house. These were central locations used for public gatherings and functions, as well as suitable beds for early explorers (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:97). Most hotels were relatively ramshackle structures until the spread of the railroad system through Australia in the late nineteenth century and the onslaught of tourists that followed. The ease of travel by rail boosted the number of wealthy tourists, but as access to destinations became less difficult the demands of elite tourists increased. To draw the wealthy from distant locations major hotels had to offer the most modern amenities and services to stay competitive with other facilities (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:98). Hotel advertisements

135

from the 1880s and 1890s often focused on modern conveniences such as electric lights, electric bells, reliable hot and cold water for bathing, gas lighting and heating, and upgraded washroom facilities. These modern conveniences would have addressed upper and middle-class concerns with cleanliness and sanitation, with increased attention paid to fresh air, ventilation and sunlight (Horne 2005:124). Aside from exciting guests with novel technologies, large hotels prided themselves on their spaciousness, modernity, attentive service and extensive views (Horne 2005:123). Many tried to emulate grand houses by way of comforts and services, offering attractions such as croquet lawns and tennis courts (Horne 2005:125). Through the 1890s, the widespread adoption of the European plan for hotel layout had major ramifications in the labour structure of hotels. Meals were no longer provided as part of room and board, and separate dining rooms were designated for use as restaurants (Wurst 2011:258).

Tourist did not always seek luxury and novelty; the Victorian sensibilities of middle-class Australians forbade excesses along with idleness. Guesthouses were economical alternatives for thrifty middle-class tourists who wanted respectable accommodations but intended to be out experiencing the tourist destination instead of focusing on hotel amenities. Accommodation for middle class tourists at guesthouses focused on good meals, comfortable beds in well-ventilated rooms, polite service, and staff to arrange their local transportation and excursions (Horne 2005:126). Guesthouses, much like larger hotels, were concerned with hygiene and cleanliness. The idea of ‘home’ was appealing to guests as it incorporated expectations of household structure and meal times, with guests gathering for meals and retreating to the parlour afterwards for entertainment and games. Advertisements for guest houses often emphasized their comfort, private ownership and in some cases indicated selectivity with regards to clientele (Horne 2005:128).

Archaeological assemblages derived from hotels are thought to have a distinct material signature differentiating them from household assemblages. While guesthouses are meant to resemble respectable middle-class houses, how do their archaeological assemblages differ? How do hotel and guesthouse assemblages differ? Do hotel and guesthouse assemblages become more specialized and different from household assemblages with the spread of mass tourism? Harris et al. (2004:21)

136

devised a series of hypothetical assemblage types based on their expectations, including groupings for hotels and family households (Table 6-1).

Table 6-1 Hypothetical assemblage types, from Harris et al. (2004:21).

Family Type Assemblage Hotel/Club Type Assemblage High frequency of decorated ceramics High frequency of undecorated ceramics Low relative frequency of liquor bottles High frequency of tobacco pipes Child-specific items High frequency of liquor bottles Female-specific items Tumblers Canning jars High frequency of food remains Furnishings Low frequency of medicine bottles Personal items Condiment bottles

Despite the anticipated differences, they found that hotel assemblages in historic Brisbane differed little from household assemblages by way of content. The relative frequency of artefact types was the key means of identifying hotel assemblages (Harris et al 2004:21). O’Donovan (2011:274) came to a similar conclusion when she found the assemblage from a hotel (c.1890-1920) in the Catskill Mountains, New York nearly identical to a household assemblage but with greater frequencies of place settings and serving vessels as compared to food preparation vessels. Cooking oil and condiment bottles also featured more prominently than in most household assemblages she had examined (O’Donovan 2011:274).

Beyond assessing existing theories about hotels and tourism in archaeology I will also examine hotel and guesthouse material culture through existing theories about the nature of tourism as a phenomenon. Examining issues such as class, gender, health and leisure through material culture will help broaden our understanding of the material manifestations of tourism, which should provide a uniquely archaeological contribution to the field of tourism studies.

6.2.1. Class and Tourism

Much theoretical concern with tourism focuses on touring as a class-based enterprise, initially available only to the wealthier classes but increasingly accessible to

137

the middle classes in the mid-nineteenth century through to the working classes in the twentieth century (Chambers 2010; Davidson and Spearritt 2000; Horne 2005). O’Donovan (2011) rejects the trickle-down theory of emulation with regards to the progressive appearance of middle class and then working class tourists over time. Different classes did (and still do) tour for many of the same purposes but in different ways.

O’Donovan (2011) notes that touring experiences for upper, middle and working class tourists are intrinsically different with regards to their access to leisure and consumption. Where some theorists define tourism by means of leisure time or conspicuous consumption, working class holiday-makers, particularly women, were still often responsible for the same household and child-minding tasks while holidaying. Similarly, middle-class tourists were noticeably different from elite tourists in that they habitually felt the need to keep busy for fear of the ‘sin of idleness’, occupying themselves with constant outings and sports endeavours (Horne 2005; O’Donovan 2011:276). Not wanting to be grouped with the idle-rich or the poor, middle-class vacationers focused on self-improvement through travel, seeking to enhance themselves intellectually and spiritually (O’Donovan 2011:268). Horne (2005) notes the middle-class preference for staying in guesthouses when touring in Australia through the late nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as they provided the ambience of a home, and the opportunity to meet socially acceptable, similarly situated acquaintances within the framework of Victorian gentility. Hotels offered more by way of luxuries, conspicuous consumption, novel technologies and amenities and scale well beyond that available at guesthouses. Both the conspicuous consumption of elite classes and socially appropriate genteel behaviours of the middle classes have been documented in Australia using material culture from archaeological excavations (e.g. Casey 2005; Lawrence et al. 2009; Quirk 2007). The needs and expectations of tourists belonging to different socioeconomic classes were significantly different.

What the material correlates of class relating to tourism are at Port Arthur is an important avenue of inquiry. As noted in Chapter 2, the economic composition of touring groups shifted significantly over time at tourist sites across Australia and the United States. With increased access to holiday time and the widespread availability of transportation to tourist destinations, the middle classes were touring more frequently by

138

late nineteenth century and the working class were increasingly mobile at the turn of the twentieth century. While many people were travelling, socioeconomic class was a major factor in what they experienced and how they vacationed. As with sites worldwide, the socioeconomic makeup of tourists at Port Arthur changed over time. Did the upper and middle classes still travel to Port Arthur once the working class were also visiting? Did different accommodations on site cater to different socioeconomic classes at different periods? Traditional archaeological methods for looking at class such as the economic scaling of goods, examination of foodways and were used to examine the socioeconomic basis of tourism at Port Arthur over time.

Conspicuous Consumption

References to elite tourists are often marked by mentions of conspicuous consumption (O’Donovan 2011:268; Corbin et al. 2010:199; Horne 2005). Early, wealthy tourists to Yellowstone National Park in the United States expected experiences of luxury in a wilderness setting. The epitome of elite cross-country travel in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century was the idea of ‘travelling in luxury’, a concept underlined by excessive alcohol consumption (Corbin et al. 2010:199). Exclusivity, modernity and excess were hallmarks of elite travel through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Material correlates for conspicuous consumption at tourist sites include the prevalence of alcoholic goods and drinking and smoking paraphernalia. Luxury goods are key economic indexes of conspicuous consumption, and useful material correlates to examine archaeologically. These include the presence (and relative quantities) of fine goods such as porcelain and lead crystal, along with exotic and expensive imported items. The proportions of these items and their countries of origin have been analysed and compared with middle class and elite household assemblages to determine luxurious excesses.

Gentility

As a near opposition to excessive consumption and gluttony is the concept of gentility, a middle-class worldview requiring the adherence to strict guidelines of etiquette grounded in evangelical Christianity. Key factors include the avoidance of vice

139

(drinking, smoking, gambling) and upholding morality while participating in formalized etiquette rituals involving elaborate meals, visiting, and purchasing items which highlight socially acceptable tastes in household items and adornment (Lawrence et al. 2009:68).

The archaeological correlates of gentility have several indicators including matching ceramic dining sets in a wide variety of forms (for elaborate meals), a lack of artefacts relating to smoking or drinking, the presence of fashionable household decorations and furnishings, items relating to childrearing and education, and appropriately genteel personal adornment (Quirk 2007:103). Items relating to personal hygiene, recreational pursuits and overall personal betterment are also useful for examining household adherence to genteel conduct (Lawrence et al. 2009:77).

6.2.2. Gender and Tourism

O’Donovan (2011) found that working-class female tourists had little by way of the leisure time expected by tourists as they were still expected to work and to fulfill their domestic and caretaker duties in self-service accommodations, only in a different environment. Horne (2005) discusses the differences in expectations and experiences between male and female tourists in nineteenth-century Australia. Perceived feminine constraints on mobility, such as the capacity to undertake strenuous voyages, limited the movements and experiences of female tourists, although earlier female travellers had often endured strenuous conditions as easily as their male counterparts. When female tourists became increasingly common there was a surge of interest in the cleanliness and homeliness of accommodations, as female travellers were thought to require a sort of ‘travelling hearth’ so they could maintain their household duties in a different setting. Female duties extended to travel as they were meant to be the party concerned with the suitability of accommodations.

Gender-specific artefacts were examined to understand the different actions and experiences of male and female travellers at the site. These were also used to suggest changes in the proportion of male and female tourists visiting the site through time.

140

6.2.3. Families Touring

Caretaker duties undertaken by working-class female tourists are addressed by O’Donovan (2011), though the role of family travel has not featured in most discussions of travel and tourism. The role of touring in educating children and providing leisure time with the immediate or extended family is something worthy of further attention in the study of tourist experience at Port Arthur. Travel would be experienced differently by individuals from different classes and genders; it would also be experienced differently by people in various phases of their lives.

The concept of families travelling to Port Arthur has been included in the study of the material culture of tourism with a specific focus on children being brought to the site. Evidence of children travelling might include concentrations of child-specific items such as toys, particularly if highly mobile varieties were common in the artefact assemblage. Material culture associated with families travelling might be a marker in the development of mass tourism.

6.2.4. Health

The entire state of Tasmania served as a respite from the heat of much of mainland Australia (Davidson and Spearritt 2000; Horne 2005). Hotels promoted themselves as health resorts hoping to gain the business of the infirm and publications reviewing and describing them abounded (e.g. Bruck 1888). Tasmania promoted itself as the ‘Sanitorium of the South’ and worked to draw persons with various ailments and disorders to seek the health benefits of the cooler climates and sea air (Davidson and Spearritt 2000; Horne 2005; Young 1996).

Archaeological indicators of tourists seeking health improvements in visiting Tasmania would be goods relating directly to the health and well-being of guests. Large proportions of medicine bottles and vials in the glassware assemblage, as compared to household assemblages, may reflect the presence of sickly clientele at Port Arthur and the importance of Tasmania’s climate to tourists.

141

6.2.5. Leisure

The activities and entertainments undertaken by tourists visiting accommodations at Port Arthur will also be examined through the material culture recovered. This includes material culture evidencing leisure activities and entertainments for visitors such as sporting goods, games, hunting and fishing equipment. Where leisure is central to tourism, examining exactly what those entertainments might be would be interesting. Alternately, if visitors spent most of their time sightseeing and touring around the Tasman Peninsula there may be little evidence of this.

6.3. Methods

The bulk of this study focuses on the material remnants of hotels and guesthouses that operated at Port Arthur between 1885 and 1959. The collections from Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses used in this dissertation form part of what might be called a ‘legacy collection’, artefacts from a series of excavations undertaken in the late 1970s and 1980s that have sat unanalyzed since excavation and preliminary examination for basic site report writing. The majority of the collection examined was generated by summer archaeological programs organized for students from 1982 to 1986.

The eventual standardization of methods agreed upon and published by the PACP in 1987 (Davies and Buckley 1987) led to an improvement in the standard quality of project recording, but unfortunately the bulk of the projects used in this dissertation preceded this. Historical archaeology in Australia really developed through the 1980s, with the first publication of The Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology (later Australasian Historical Archaeology) in 1983. As a field of study historical archaeology in Australia has advanced steadily since then, leading to vast improvements in analytical methodologies and techniques for artefact dating (Lawrence and Davies 2010:18).

With the lack of standardization of recording techniques and the fact that a fair amount of the excavation was undertaken by university students in training, there is a highly variable quality to the field notes recorded, data collected and the accuracy of interpretations of the resulting data. Over thirty years have passed since some of these

142

projects commenced, and in some cases key plan drawings, profiles and field notes no longer exist (if they did in the first place). Site management has changed hands several times and a lot of the paperwork and notes relating to the excavations are missing or scattered over a series of archived collections in the PAHSMA resource library and administrative files. In order to draw successful conclusions about the nature of tourism at Port Arthur, a set of guidelines were established for this project to structure analysis of the archaeological collections.

The archaeological collection at Port Arthur is extensive, with over 1000 boxes of artefacts in storage on site projects conducted over the last thirty years. Many of the structures at Port Arthur were used as hotels or guesthouses at the end of the convict area. I developed a series of guidelines for this project to ensure I only used artefacts from sealed deposits that could be confidently associated with a specific hotel or guesthouse.

Preliminary analysis of potential sites involved identifying which buildings at Port Arthur were used as hotels and guesthouses. Identified buildings were used to search the archaeological collections and identify projects with a sufficient accumulation and variety of artefacts to warrant analysis. Excavation reports provided detail about the extent of projects and gave a sense of the types of artefacts recovered. Physical examination in the archaeological stores and the results of a 2000 audit of archaeological materials held by PAHSMA provided a key means of evaluating artefact quantities for each project and archaeological site (Brooks 2000). The Commandant’s Residence (COMM) was identified as one of three sites with the greatest research potential (Brooks 2002a). The Junior Medical Officer’s residence (JMO) and Roman Catholic Chaplain’s residence (RCC) were also worked on extensively, and the resulting archaeological collections spanned several projects.

Although the 2000 audit of the PAHSMA archaeological collections identified the number of boxes of artefacts associated with each project, it did not assess the documentation associated with the project. Without appropriate documentation, even large, diverse artefact collections lack research potential. An initial overview of documentation gave a sense of how much data still existed about the various projects, though the initial evaluation proved overly optimistic.

143

Physically examining the boxes of artefacts in the archaeology store and evaluating site documentation were the most challenging aspects of this project. Regardless of how intact some of the projects appeared on paper many of the bags of artefacts had disintegrated, leaving unprovenanced artefacts scattered at the bottom of many boxes. Trench reports and notes lacked plans showing the location of described contexts. While much of the spatial data seemed intact much of it lacked key information, such as a missing plan recounting the location of over sixty squares for an extensive trench which covered the underfloor deposits for three rooms in the Commandant’s Residence. Eventually a photocopy of the original was recovered in an unlabelled box of artefacts found during an audit of the archaeological collections in 2012 (without which it may never have been found). Several boxes contained unsorted, un-cleaned artefacts that required more processing than originally anticipated. The difficulties encountered reinforced the need for strict criteria to evaluate which data could be used. With the projects for analysis selected, the next step in collections research involved identifying which portions of each project would be useful for further investigation.

Historically, archaeological excavations at Port Arthur were conducted using a system of variably-sized trenches placed in targeted areas. Some trenches were sectioned into 1x1m squares and all trenches were excavated by depositional context. Excavation trench reports were first examined to determine if they might contain hotel- era deposits or other usable data. Trenches with clearly delineated stratigraphy and minimal evidence of disturbance were selected for further analysis. Trenches with extensive evidence of disturbance, lack of stratigraphic differentiation or some other indication of unreliable data were discarded from the sample. The existence of excavation plans, stratigraphic profiles or Harris matrices, photographs, and context sheets were integral to continued analysis of potential trenches.

Since the research questions asked of the archaeological data in this project require temporal control, trenches with sealed deposits that were clearly relatable to hotel or guesthouse operations were selected for further analysis. Trenches with contexts that could be firmly tied to hotel activities such as underfloor deposits, rubbish pits, and outdoor spaces immediately adjacent to walkways, doors, and privies were

144

actively sought. Materials excavated far enough from key buildings to render the relationship between the artefacts and the hotels questionable were omitted.

Once projects with trenches of interest were identified, artefacts from these trenches were sorted by trench and depositional context. To verify the dates assigned to deposits in the trench reports, a spreadsheet was created for each trench and deposit. A preliminary time span for each depositional context was created using maker’s marks, patents, evidence of manufacturing technologies and the date of introduction or popularity. Trenches whose deposits showed evidence of extensive contamination or mixing were eliminated.

Trenches from each project that contained sealed artefact deposits which dated to the hotel era were isolated from others and artefacts from the selected deposits were catalogued for analysis. Each site (COMM, JMO and RCC) had several phases of occupation. The dates assigned to each sealed deposit following analysis was used to assign the deposit to a specific hotel or guesthouse at Port Arthur and create assemblages for comparison and discussion. The Carnarvon Hotel (CH) operated at COMM from 1885 to 1904 and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House (MBBH) was established in the same building and operated from 1917 to 1939. The JMO contained the Tasman Villa (TV) from 1899 to 1921, while the Hotel Arthur operated from the same building and integrated the neighbouring RCC from 1921 to 1959. Most buildings had periods of private use before or between different hotels which operated from them. In trying to ensure that the sealed deposits reflected one hotel or guesthouse and not another, the resulting assemblages are likely biased to represent earlier periods of use at the earlier hotels and later periods of use for the later hotels (e.g. the assemblage from the Carnarvon Hotel represents use closer to 1885-1895, while artefacts from the Hotel Arthur reflect more the period from 1935-1959). If sealed deposits could not be confidently assigned to a specific assemblage (as the diagnostic dates were too vague) they were excluded.

As this research focuses on the construction of place in re-adapted convict-built structures, artefact analysis focused on non-architectural aspects of the built environment, such as ceramics, tableware, decorative items, and miscellaneous small finds. This also ensured consistency with the artefact analysis techniques adopted by

145

most authors with the selected comparative data (see 6.4 Comparative Collections). The architecture and construction phases of all structures were sufficiently recorded and described in the early days of the PACP (Davies and Egloff 1984). Faunal remains and other organic food remnants were omitted from analysis.

6.3.1. Finds Analysis

Once the projects and trenches deemed appropriate for use were sorted, all artefacts were re-bagged and labelled in order to integrate them into PAHSMA’s updated cataloguing system (Harris 2012). All artefacts were catalogued using a Microsoft Access database that allowed for identifying relationships between artefacts from different projects, trenches or contexts as necessary for minimum item counts (MIC). Each artefact, or group of matching artefacts from the same context and square, was assigned a unique artefact number and described based on its material, manufacturing technique, decoration, decorative technique, maker’s details, diameter, size, weight, colour and count, as well as any other diagnostic or unique features. Diagnostic features were used to assign a date range to each artefact where possible. Most artefact identities were assigned based on the ‘Identity’ list generated by PAHSMA (Harris 2012:31-35) for data entry into their catalogue to ensure that the data from this study is suitable for their future use. Objects which were highly fragmentary or lacked diagnostic features were referred to as ‘undiagnostic’, while those objects which could not be identified but have the potential for future analysis were labelled ‘unidentified’.

To maintain consistency with the data from the selected collections from other sites chosen for comparison, artefact discussions focus on MIC as opposed to the total number of items or weights. To begin this process, all artefacts from projects selected for further cataloguing were grouped into assemblages representing one of four Port Arthur hotels being studied in this dissertation. Artefacts from each hotel assemblage were examined for evidence of cross-mends or matches.

Functional Analysis

A series of functional groups were devised to allow additional analysis beyond the descriptive and to bring this study in line with selected comparative studies. Functional analysis is a standard in Australian historical archaeology and a common

146

means of deriving greater value from archaeological assemblages (Brooks 2005:63; Casey and Lowe 2005; Quirk 2007:112; Harris et al. 2004) The distribution of artefacts between functional groups was used as a means of identifying site types. While it does have several uses it has been strongly criticised, particularly by Orser (1990), for being reductionist and compressing all of the data available from an archaeological assemblage over time into broadly generalized categories. Groover (2003b:465) notes that while it has largely fallen into disfavour with historical archaeologists in North America, nothing else has been developed to provide a similar means of analysis.

While Brooks (2005:64) is not opposed to well thought through functional analysis, he warns against several issues in using it. Many archaeologists assign functional groups which are often either too broad or specific to the research questions, negating the value of their conclusions. As well, there is a tendency to attribute functions to bottle glass based solely on colour (as opposed to form) which can result in faulty identification (2005:64). Finally, a single artefact can serve several functions over the course of purchase to deposition, such as the elaborately decorated teacup used as a flour measure once it was chipped. The function devised by the manufacturer, the objects actual use by the purchaser and secondary uses can complicate the act of assigning function to artefacts. One means of getting around some of these very serious issues with functional analysis is by purposefully creating functional categories based on a specific research question (Brooks 2005:65; Casella 2001). The functions used in this study were carefully thought through with regards to the comparative studies used, as well as the issues identified with studies of tourism. Functional analysis is only one means of artefact analysis that will be undertaken; the ‘more nuanced and in-depth analysis capable of deconstructing and critiquing [the] rich complexities’ of the assemblage will also be considered (Brooks 2005:65).

Identifiable artefacts were assigned both general and specific functions to allow further breakdown of historical tourist activities at Port Arthur. The table below was directly influenced by Australian archaeological studies examining gentility (Quirk 2007), study-specific categories devised for studies of convict isolation (Casella 2001), and the general categories used more broadly by scholars and consultants (Casey and Lowe 2005a; Harris et al. 2004). The ‘Activity’ and ‘Function’ categories used by PAHSMA in artefact cataloguing are far too specific and would not generate data broad enough for

147

comparison with other archaeological findings (Harris 2012:26-30). As these categories are largely based on old databases this has been the subject of extensive discussion at Port Arthur and is still under debate. The categories selected for this study ensured the data generated was comparable to other Australian historical archaeology studies with the general and specific functional categories selected to allow different levels of analysis in line with questions regarding tourism and material culture. Relating artefacts to medicine, hygiene, food preparation, vice avoidance, child-rearing, adornment, leisure or conspicuous consumption will allow a broader analysis of the material signature of tourism.

148

Table 6-2 Description of functional subclasses used for artefact analysis.

Subclass Description Bottle/container which contained alcoholic beverages - wine, beer, Beverage – Alcoholic champagne, liquor Bottle/container for non-alcoholic beverages - aerated water, cordial, Beverage - Non-alcoholic milk Beverage receptacle which held either alcoholic or non-alcoholic Beverage – General beverages Items associated with clerical work and stationery – wax seals, Clerical – Stationery document fragments, bindings, etc. Artefacts associated with writing – pens, pencils, ink bottles, writing Clerical – Writing slates, etc. Items which functioned only to decorate the house - figurines, vases, Domestic - Decorative pictures Items used to create or maintain fire - matches, stoves, fireplace and Domestic – Fire associated paraphernalia Domestic – Furniture Artefacts associated with furniture - upholstery tacks, handles Domestic – Garden Objects used to decorate the garden or yard - flower pots, sundials Domestic - Household Items used in non-architectural household maintenance - poison, paint, maintenance polish Domestic – Laundry Artefacts associated with laundry - clothes pins, irons Domestic – Lighting Objects used to assist in illumination - lamps, chimneys, candles Containers relating to storage of condiments, preserves, sauces and Food – Condiment oils Containers used to store commercially prepared foods - tinned beef, Food - Packaged foods olives, potato chips Vessels used to prepare food for consumption - mixing bowls, baking Food – Preparation pans Food – Service Vessels used in the service of food - platters, gravy bowls Food – Storage Vessels used to store food - Mason jars, crocks Vessels used at the table while dining - plates, silverware, drinking Food – Tableware glasses Food – Teaware Vessels used in the consumption of tea - teacups, saucers, teapots Personal - Adornment Jewelry, brooches, cuff links, decorative hair combs Personal - Economic Coins, tokens Objects linked to personal cleanliness - washing sets, toothbrushes, Personal – Hygiene perfumes, combs

149

Personal - Generic clothing Clothing pieces/fastenings not assignable to a particular gender Personal - Men's clothing Definitively male clothing items Personal – Religion Personal religious items - rosary beads, crucifixes Personal - Timepieces Watches Personal - Women's clothing Definitively female clothing items Broad category for medicinal items – syringes and ampoules or Medicinal - Medicinal medicine bottles which are not clearly patent or pharmaceutical Medicinal - Patent medicine Container assignable to patent medicine Medicinal – Pharmaceutical Container originating with prescribed medicines Recreation – Games Gaming pieces, darts Recreation - Musical instruments Items used to create music Recreation - Smoking Paraphernalia related to smoking - pipes, cigarette holders, ashtrays Recreation – Sport Outdoor sports - cricket, lawn bowls, croquet Recreation – Tourism Tourism-specific items - souvenirs, tourist maps Recreation – Toys Marbles, dolls, miniature tea sets Tools - Agriculture/Pastoralism Tools used for faming or gardening - shovels, hoes Tools – Carpentry Tools used specifically for wood-working - saws, drills, planes Tools – Firearms Gun pieces, lead shot, shotgun shells, bullet casings Tools – Fishing Fishing tackle, hooks, line fasteners Broad category for implements for household maintenance - Tools – Maintenance screwdrivers, hammers, paint brushes Tools – Sewing Needles, pins, thimbles Transportation – Automobile Objects related to automobile operation or maintenance Transportation - Equine Horse shoes, wagon operation or maintenance Transportation - Marine Ship or boat-related paraphernalia - oar pins, navigation equipment Unassigned Unidentifiable or not assignable to a specific function

Ceramics

Ceramics from each trench, context and square were bagged separately and assigned catalogue numbers, with only those sherds that mended together or were obviously from the same vessel bagged together. To allow for the determination of the minimum number of vessels (MNV), or MIC, the ceramics from each site were grouped

150

by ware type, decoration, and form. The ‘sensible minimum’ minimum vessel count promoted by Brooks (2005:23) was used to count individual vessels. Where only one sherd existed for a certain decoration and ware type (e.g. a lone piece of blue shell- edged ware), that sherd was counted as one vessel. This means of assigning vessel value was used very conservatively, as the decoration found on a single object can differ significantly from the body to the rim (e.g. a transfer-printed plate with a floral rim but a pastoral scene at the center). Ceramic artefacts were broken into wares including coarse earthenware (including terra cotta and redware), stoneware, refined earthenware (which includes whiteware, ironstone and white granite, among others) and porcelain (which includes both hard and soft past porcelains).

Where multiple sherds had the same decoration all pieces were examined for pattern match, refit, form, and vessel diameter. Brooks (2005:65) calls for the use of common sense in identifying single vessels here. With the increase in industrial mass production ceramic vessels became increasingly standardized and uniform. If, after cross-mending and matching sherds that are obviously from the same type of vessel, the rim pieces account for more than one vessel, there must have been at least two. If there are three rims for ‘Willow’ pattern transfer-printed cups but four handles, there must have been at least four ‘Willow’ pattern cups. If the images on two sherds overlap, such as the scenic center of ‘Rhine’ pattern vessels, there must be at least two vessels represented. Brooks (2005:65) cautions that not every sherd has to be assigned to a vessel; undiagnostic body sherds for well-represented patterns were most often not assigned to a particular vessel but still counted, weighed and assigned catalogue numbers. The minimum number of vessels is meant to be a conservative estimate which aims to represent the actual number of vessels while often underrepresenting it. In particular, this method tends to under-represent undecorated vessels as they are more uniform and less easy to differentiate than are decorated vessels. Careful examination and common-sense can often correct this (Brooks 2005:23; Quirk 2007:106).

Much of the archaeological assemblage at Port Arthur was highly fragmentary, which limited the ability to attribute form to all vessels in the count. Where a vessel had no definitively diagnostic features (such as those represented only by a single, uniquely decorated body sherd or a flat, central base fragment which could easily be from either a

151

plate or bowl) it was assigned the general term ‘vessel’. Fragments that could be assigned to hollowware or flatware vessels but lacked the diagnostic information to assign a specific form type were defined as ‘hollowware’ or ‘flatware’.

Economic scaling of ceramics, used in this study to examine evidence of socioeconomic class in relation to tourism, was completed through the analysis of decorative styles and wares using Henry’s (1987) scaling of ceramic decorations from 1895 through 1927. Miller’s CC Index (1984, 1991) formed the basis for this scaling, though his relative ranking of costs associated with decorative techniques are best applied to pre-1881 assemblages. Henry (1987:369) found that undecorated whiteware was consistently the least expensive ceramic type sold in the United States between 1895 and 1927, followed by relief-moulded ceramics. Table 6-3 below illustrates the relative levels of cost by ceramic decorative type through time as defined by Henry (1987:369) in her analysis of ceramics catalogues.

Table 6-3 Economic scaling of decorative techniques on ceramics, 1895-1927

1895-1897 1900-1909 1922-1927 Least Costly Undecorated Undecorated Undecorated Relief moulded Relief moulded Relief moulded Transfer-printed Colour (transfer-printed, decal), gilt Gilt banded Transfer-printed, gilt Porcelain Decal Most Costly Porcelain Porcelain *derived from Henry (1987:369)

The relative proportions of porcelain vessels and the use of gilt decoration, particularly in earlier hotel assemblages, has been examined in various contexts. The focus of relative quality and quantity of ceramic vessels, including the presence of porcelain and more elaborately decorated wares, is often practiced in Australian ceramic analyses (Brooks 2005:63).

Glass

Glass bottles and tableware were described and assigned dates using data from Boow’s (1991) Early Australian Commercial Glass: Manufacturing Processes, Jones and Sullivan’s (1989) Parks Canada Glass Glossary, IMAC’s (1992) IMACS User’s Guide,

152

and the Society for Historical Archaeology’s bottle identification website (Lindsay 2010). As it deals with the manufacture dates and availability of different bottle technologies in Australia specifically, as well as having listings of Australian manufacturers and marks, Boow’s (1991) guide to Australian glass was referred to first. Bottle finishes, manufacture techniques, and maker’s details were recorded in the artefact database. Undiagnostic glass body sherds were bagged by colour within each combination of trench, context and square. Each bag of undiagnostic glass was given an independent object number, weighed and counted to give a sense of glass-type distribution across the site. Bottle and tableware finishes and bases were bagged with matching or refitting sherds from the same trench, context and square and refits were checked within each trench. Bases and finishes were used to determine minimum item counts (MIC) for later comparison.

Once all glass was sorted and re-bagged with diagnostic elements identified, the glass from each site was re-grouped by glass colour and base or finish type. From there individual bottles were determined by counting the number of bases and finishes within each type using the ‘sensible minimum’ method used in the ceramics analysis. Each rim or base fragment more than 50% complete was assigned a value of one. As every bottle only has one rim and one base, the greater number of rims or bases (by glass colour) was used to generate the final MIC (Quirk 2007). While they may not have been incorporated in MIC, body sherds with maker’s marks traceable to manufacturer or country of origin were used in the analysis of imported goods used on site, as well as context dating.

Tableware counts were established using a similar method to that used in ceramic analysis, with all glass sorted by colour, method of manufacture, decorative technique and element. Using the ‘sensible minimum’ method outlined by Brooks (2005:22-23), the MIC was determined for glass tableware by careful examination of artefact type. The counts reached reflect a conservative estimate taking into consideration the potential for bases and rims to appear unrelated in fragmentary assemblages.

153

Miscellaneous and Small Finds

Artefacts from other miscellaneous classes were also considered in a method basically following the ‘sensible minimum’ to develop an MIC. Bottle finishes, copper wire ties and lead covers for beer and ale bottles were recovered from the assemblage for the Carnarvon Hotel. Instead of counting all of these objects in their separate material classes, the largest number of bottle materials was selected to represent the MIC, as each bottle would only have one finish, one lead foil cover and one copper wire closure.

6.4. Archaeological Excavations – Port Arthur

The following section briefly describes the histories of and relevant archaeological excavations at three structures at Port Arthur: the Commandant’s Residence (COMM), the Junior Medical Officer’s house (JMO) and the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s residence (RCC). Excavation reports are available in PAHSMA’s holdings for all but one of the excavations (1980/04, Junior Medical Officer’s House). Archaeological projects at Port Arthur follow a naming convention using the year the project began followed by a number indicating in what order it commenced that year (e.g. 1980/04 was the fourth archaeological project undertaken in 1980).

6.4.1. The Commandant’s Residence (Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House)

The site of the Commandant’s Residence was reserved for the commanding officer of the station when Port Arthur was initially established in 1830. Situated on a point on the south side of the cove, the selected location would have met several aesthetic desires and operational needs for a commanding officer, such as surveillance of the penal settlement. It would have allowed for a relative degree of privacy for the Commandant’s family while remaining in the immediate vicinity of the settlement. The position on the point would have provided space for elaborate ornamental and personal gardens, as well as extensive water views and the benefit of a north-easterly orientation to allow for optimal sunlight (Scott 2002:18). The beauty and secluded nature of the site of the Commandant’s Residence also made it a favourable location for a hotel.

154

The house itself was established in several phases, beginning in 1831 as a timber hut and garden plots (Scott 2002:18). The structure grew steadily with the needs of each Commandant and his family, and the resulting structure is an extensive, sprawling building with dozens of rooms and outbuildings24.

After more than four decades of occupation, the closure of Port Arthur in 1877 left the Commandant’s Residence vacant (Scripps 1998:1). With the other vacant buildings at Port Arthur, the Commandant’s Residence attracted the attentions of vandals and ‘souvenir hunters’. Caretaker John Evenden reported that by December 1877 stone ornaments from the front of the Commandant’s Residence were thrown into the water or down onto the lawn. In April and May 1880 the house was broken into twice, with vandals removing shelving and stealing a sundial (Scripps 1998:1).

By 1880 Port Arthur had been renamed Carnarvon and multiple attempts had been made to auction off the land on and around the former penal settlement. The Commandant’s Residence was purchased in September 1884 by entrepreneur William Ferguson, a prominent wine and spirit merchant in Hobart. The tourism industry to the region was still in its infancy, but Ferguson identified the need for a proper hotel in the area and announced his intentions to establish one in March 1885. At the time the nearest accommodation was Mrs. Whitehouse’s Hotel in Taranna, near the steamship port of call in Norfolk Bay but ten kilometres away from Carnarvon along a poorly constructed road (Figure 6-1). Having a hotel in Carnarvon benefited tourists as they no longer had to trek back to Taranna in the evening after visiting the site. The Commandant’s Residence was converted to the Carnarvon Hotel which was granted the first liquor license in the region in 1885, much to the chagrin of the extensive teetotaller faction on the Tasman Peninsula (Scripps 1998:2-3).

24 For detailed information on the structural evolution of the Commandant’s Residence, see Davies and Egloff (1984) or Scott (2002)

155

Figure 6-1 Approximate route to access Port Arthur via Taranna. (Source: ESRI ArcGIS Basemap 2015 with author’s additions.)

The first licensee of the Carnarvon Hotel was Benjamin Jones who leased it from Ferguson. Like Ferguson, Jones was entrepreneurially minded and in addition to the hotel he operated both a general store in the township and a transportation service that carried guests by horse-drawn chaise along the road to Carnarvon from Taranna. Historical accounts indicate that business at the Carnarvon Hotel flourished from the beginning, with evidence that clients were being turned away due to lack of vacancies by August 1885 (Scripps 1998:3).

Jones’ entrepreneurial instincts eventually led him elsewhere, and William McGuiness replaced him as licensee in 1886. McGuiness had already been working around Carnarvon as a carpenter and contractor, and he undertook extensive repairs and improvements around the hotel and gardens in addition to his work elsewhere around the township. Visitors to Port Arthur in 1886 commented that the hotel was surprisingly ‘…well-appointed…’ and ‘…a comfortable place of resort’ (in Scripps 1998:3). The scenic view offered from the front verandah of the Carnarvon Hotel is

156

depicted in Figure 6-2. At this time there were several locals working as casual staff when the need arose. The Boxing Day tradition of visiting Port Arthur, which began with the first visit in 1877, had grown exponentially, with McGuiness and other merchants setting up booths on the Esplanade to sell meals to the day-trippers from Hobart (Scripps 1998:4).

Figure 6-2 View from the front door verandah of the Carnarvon Hotel across Masons Cove. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image COM 2203, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Emily Tyree was briefly the third licensee at the Carnarvon Hotel from February to May 1887, and the brief nature of her stay suggests that she was a caretaker for the landowner Ferguson while a new licensee was found. The fourth licensee, Joseph Henry Cowen, was a notably well-travelled man in his early-fifties who had lived an adventurous life and delighted guests around the dining table with ‘racy little narrations’ of his experiences. He reports that in 1889 over 300 guests had stayed at the Carnarvon Hotel for the sole purpose of visiting the prison buildings (Scripps 1998:5). Visitor numbers fluctuated over the course of Cowen’s tenure, likely impacted by the cool summer of 1891 and widespread economic depression (Scripps 1998:8).

Six murals located at the Carnarvon Hotel are attributed to Cowen’s time as licensee (Figures 6-3 and 6-4). A postcard dating to the early 1890s shows the front of

157

the Carnarvon Hotel with one of the murals on the verandah in the background. Cowen is listed as the licensee. The artist of the murals is unknown but has been the source of extensive speculation historically, though Scripps’ (1998:6) historical research uncovered extensive evidence of Cowen’s artistic prowess. An accomplished painter, Cowen was hired in 1864 as a scene painter at a cathedral in Mendoza, Argentina, which was being rebuilt following an earthquake in 1861. He also painted the scenery for the Port Arthur concert committee, and his skill at oil and watercolour painting was mentioned in his obituary. The Carnarvon Hotel under Cowen’s tenure is shown in Figure 6-5. Following Cowen’s death in 1891, Cowen’s wife Mary Elizabeth took over the license for the Carnarvon Hotel until she remarried in 1893 (Scripps 1998:6-7; Scott 2002:57). Prior to Mrs. Cowen leaving the hotel business, a visitor to the Carnarvon Hotel in Easter, 1893, described it as:

…prettily situated, and embowered among trees. Among the old regime it was a regular paradise…It is still, in spite of its age, a charmingly pretty place, with a flight of stone steps leading up to the flower-embellished porch, the house really well and elegantly built. This is now the local hotel, but it is a regular puzzle to find the bar, which is in what used to be the Commandant’s pantry’ (C. W. Ballard, 1893, in Scripps 1998:8).

When Mrs. Cowen left the Carnarvon Hotel, James Lorimer took over as licensee in November 1893. Three months later, the Australian Squadron, including the Governor of Tasmania, Viscount Gormanston and Lady Gormanston, visited Carnarvon and stayed for two nights at the Carnarvon Hotel. Lorimer incorporated his high-status guests into Carnarvon Hotel advertisements, noting that it was ‘personally patronized by the Excellencies the Governor and the Admiral of the Fleet’ (Scripps 1998:8-9).

158

Figure 6-3 Mural from the verandah of the Commandant’s Residence, beside the front entrance. (Source: Image provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

159

Figure 6-4 Mural at side verandah Commandant’s Residence, between doors to outside toilets. (Source: Image provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

160

Figure 6-5 Image of the front of the Carnarvon Hotel during Joseph Cowen’s tenure as licensee. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image COM 1657, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

The owner of the Carnarvon Hotel, William Ferguson, died in March 1895 but his estate trustees administered the site for several years before the property was again sold. Charles Fairclough took over as licensee in December 1896. During Fairclough’s tenure as licensee the property changed hands twice again, with the property bought by David Barclay in August 1898 then sold to Lawrence Reynolds in August 1899. Reynold’s son William Bede Reynolds took over as licensee of the Carnarvon hotel in December 1899 where he stayed until 1904 (Scripps 1998:3). Figure 6-6 depicts the Carnarvon Hotel c1900 prior to its conversion to a private residence.

161

Figure 6-6 View of the Carnarvon Hotel c1900 from the Guard Tower. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image COM 1652, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

When William Bede Reynolds left the Carnarvon Hotel, his father, owner Lawrence Reynolds, converted the hotel into his private residence. Reynolds had worked at Port Arthur as a clerk in the Commandant’s Office in 1845. He is said to have named the property ‘Champville’ in honour of Commandant William Thomas Napier Champ who he worked for and held in high esteem. When the Carnarvon Hotel became a private residence the liquor license was granted to Henry Frerk at the Tasman Villa Hotel at the former Junior Medical Officer’s residence. The Commandant’s Residence remained a private residence until Reynolds’ death in 1917 (Scripps 1998:10-11).

In the division of Reynolds’ property, the Commandant’s Residence went to his daughter, Mary Louise Brimage. The building was operated as a boarding house until 1939, and Mrs. Brimage’s sister Mrs. W. T. McGuiness ran it until 1924 when Mrs. Brimage took over. When Mrs. McGuiness operated the boarding house it advertised space for twelve guests, but Mrs. Brimage increased the space for guests to twenty-two in 1924 and thirty by 1929. Figure 6-7 shows the ‘Commandant’s Residence’ (Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house) during filming of For the Term of His Natural Life in 1926. As

162

compared to earlier images of the Carnarvon Hotel the front of the building appears to have been gradually falling into disrepair.

Figure 6-7 Front of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, ‘The Commandant’s Residence’ during filming in 1926. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image COM 1652, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

A dining room addition, which doubled as the local ballet studio, was built by 1927 and would have allowed the use of the former dining areas for guest accommodation (Figure 6-8). Wedding receptions were held in the new dining hall, and a former staff member recalls that ‘the crockery was of very good quality’. The boarding house was connected to a septic system in 1929 but had no toilets accessible from indoors. The building was not connected to electricity until 1952, so public rooms were lit by kerosene lamp and guests were provided with candles for their bedrooms (Scripps 1998: 12-14).

163

Figure 6-8 Dining room added to the west side of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s Residence, in 1927. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image COM 1978, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Tasmania suffered the effects of the Great Depression, which greatly impacted the movement of tourists. At Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house this is most obvious in her reduction of room rates from 10-/day to 8-/day in 1936. In 1937 she introduced summer and winter rates for visitors seeking accommodation (Scripps 1998:12). The Tasman Council began negotiations to purchase the Commandant’s Residence in 1938 and finalized the transaction in June 1939. The Commandant’s Residence was gazetted as a reserve in November 1939 and Mrs. Brimage moved out in 1940 (Scripps 1998:14).

Following government purchase of the Commandant’s Residence in 1939 it served as employee housing until 1986. The hotel kitchen and adjacent room were used as a surgery and dispensary for Government Medical Officers from 1941 to 1944. These were the only rooms they considered usable, as the remainder of the house was not considered fit for habitation. Regardless of general opinion, a ranger for the scenic reserve lived in a couple of rooms at the front of the house from 1943 to 1945. The

164

house was sporadically occupied for short periods by other staff members until 1948 (Scripps 1998:15-16).

Major renovations were undertaken in 1948-1949 and the house was inhabited by Council Clerk Len Hartam and family from 1949 to 1972. During the Hartam family occupation of the Commandant’s Residence, Mrs. Hartam ran the Tasman Library through one of the rooms, and it was accessed widely by local residents, as well as fishermen and lighthouse keepers. Tourist visitation to Port Arthur picked up steadily following WWII, and the Hartam children recall tourists being a nuisance at their home, regardless of the sign marking it as private property. Tourists to the site regularly blocked the driveway with their cars, drove over flower beds and peered into windows, disturbing the daily activities of the Hartam family (Scripps 1998:17-18).

Following Mr. Hartam’s retirement, the building was again declared unfit for habitation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which had assumed control of the historic site, renovated the house so that it was suitable for occupation. Employee Arthur Riley and family resided in the Commandant’s Residence until 1981 when the PACP started. The house was then inhabited by archaeologist Martin Davies and the building became the site of the communal quarters and offices of the summer volunteer programme. By 1985 all of the rooms were furnished with period objects and the restoration project was complete (Scripps 1998:18-19). The Commandant’s Residence (COMM) is now a fully interpreted place for visitors at the Port Arthur Historic Sites.

Archaeological Excavations

Archaeological excavations comprising Project 1982/01 were spread over three field seasons and led by Martin Davies. A total of sixty-nine trenches were excavated within the house and outbuildings, as well as outside in the gardens and courtyards. Of the sixty-nine trenches excavated at COMM, artefacts from fourteen trenches were selected for use in this project. Of those fourteen trenches several contained mixed hotel era deposits and only six trenches (48, 55, 59, 61, 62 and 64) had sealed deposits which contained artefacts which could be related to either CH or MBBH through temporally diagnostic artefacts and/or dateable structural sequences. The location of these trenches is illustrated in Figure 6-9. Artefacts from these six trenches were used

165

to generate MIC to quantify glass and ceramic findings. The trenches and deposits used to create artefact assemblages associated with the Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house are presented in Tables 6-4 and 6-5.

Figure 6-9 Location of excavation trenches for COMM RES, all trenches part of Project 1982/01. (Source: Data provided by PAHSMA, ArcGIS Basemap 2015, author’s additions)

166

Table 6-4 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904) artefact assemblage

Project Trench Contexts 1982/01 48 19, 30, 59, 60, 62 59 4, 21, 22, 25, 37 61 10 62 16 64 5, 9

Table 6-5 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917-1939)

Project Trench Contexts 1982/01 48 15, 17, 24 55 4 61 12 62 12, 13 64 2, 12

Trench 48 was established to recover data from underfloor deposits about to be destroyed by building works within the COMM as three rooms had to be supported and braced. Carnarvon Hotel deposits included for analysis (Contexts 29, 30, 59, 60, 62) were associated with ‘sweepings’ in one part of the house capped by the collapse of a brick wall beneath the building. Deposits associated with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Contexts 15, 17, 24) relate to sweepings post-dating plaster falls from the reconstruction of the verandah in the 1920s and re-plastering of the front rooms following a fire in the area in the 1930s.25

Trenches 55, 59, 61, 62, and 64 form part of a large suite of trenches established on the east side of the property to locate historic paths and drains. Context 4 in Trench 55 represents post-1920s abandonment of gardens (and subsequent rubbish dumping).

25 NPWS File M2/66/277(2) 82/01(4.1), “Trench Reports, Trench 48”.

167

In Trench 59, contexts associated with the Carnarvon Hotel (Contexts 4, 21, 22, 25, 37) provided evidence of purposeful rubbish dumping (cut and fill of pits), resurfacing of the carriageway and occupational accumulation capped by later surfaces. Trench 62 uncovered a cut-and-filled rubbish pit with artefacts consistent in date range with the Carnarvon Hotel (Context 16), as well as later depositional layers associated with the construction and demolition of a shed. The artefacts from Contexts 12 and 13 were consistent in date range with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.26

Trench 61 contained a continuation of the rubbish pits associated with the Carnarvon Hotel found in Trenches 59 and 62 (Context 10), as well as a later deposit which contained temporally diagnostic artefacts consistent in date-range with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Context 12) capped by stepping stones added to the area in the mid-twentieth century. Trench 64 was excavated to locate pathways and fencelines shown on historic plans. Evidence from Trenches 64, as well as 55 and 61, suggested that the eastern side of the COMM was actively used during the hotel era only for rubbish dumping. Contexts 5 and 9 from Trench 64 contain evidence of artefact accumulation during the tenure of the Carnarvon Hotel and dumping in the area following the abandonment of pathways in the area. Contexts 2 and 12 contained further evidence of intermittent deposition of artefacts consistent in date with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.27

6.4.2. Junior Medical Officer’s Residence (Tasman Villa & Hotel Arthur)

The Junior Medical Officer’s house (JMO) is one of five cottages located in Civil Officers’ Row, a row of houses situated uphill near the Church overlooking the penal settlement. JMO is at the centre of the Civil Officers’ Row, with the Visiting Magistrate’s and Roman Catholic Chaplain’s (RCC) houses to the south and the Accountant’s House and Parsonage to the north. All the houses in Civil Officers’ Row were constructed in the 1840s, a period of major expansion at Port Arthur prior to the cessation of convict transportation in 1853. The granary and mill had just been constructed and satellite

26 NPWS File M2/66/277(2) 82/01 (4.1), “Trench Reports, Trenches 55, 59, 62”. 27 NPWS File M2/66/277(2) 82/01 (4.1), “Trench Reports, Trenches 61, 64”.

168

probation stations established at four locations on the Tasman Peninsula (Egloff 1986:2).

Each of the five houses in Civil Officers’ Row consisted of a complex of buildings including the house and outbuildings such as privies, stables, kitchens, sculleries, and livestock sheds. Three of the houses were converted to hotels and guesthouses after Port Arthur closed in 1877: JMO, RCC, and the Visiting Magistrate’s house (Egloff 1986:2). Artefacts from two of these houses (JMO and RCC) have been examined to provide comparative data regarding tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. Findings from excavations at the JMO house will be discussed first, followed by findings from RCC.

JMO was originally constructed between 1847 and 1848 for Deputy Assistant- Commissary General Thomas J. Lempriere. Lempriere was sent to Hobart Town late in 1848 after a major reorganization of Port Arthur’s officers, and Dr. Frederick Brock requested permission to occupy the house. In a letter to the Comptroller-General he indicated that he would be joined there by his wife, two sons, two daughters, a tutor, and a suite of servants. Following Brock the house was occupied mostly by surgeons and their families until 1872 when it was inhabited by Commissariat Storekeeper Thomas Todd. The building was described consistently through to the 1870s as a comfortable, handsome cottage with gardens (Scripps 1997:1-2).

JMO opened as the Tasman Villa Hotel (TV) in 1899. When the Carnarvon Hotel ceased operations in 1904, Henry Frerk at the TV was subsequently granted a liquor license and it became the only licensed establishment in Carnarvon (Scripps 1998:10). The license to the TV changed hands several times, being transferred from Harry Frerk to J. D. Danker in August 191528, Violet Adelaide Webb in November 191529, back to Danker briefly and finally to Mabel Kerslake in February 1917.30 JMO as the Tasman Villa is depicted in Figure 6-10.

28 The Mercury 14 July 1915, “Licensing District of Tasman”. 29 The Mercury 9 October 1915, “Licensing District of Tasman”. 30 The Mercury 10 January 1917, “Licensing District of Tasman”.

169

Figure 6-10 Postcard depicting the front of the Tasman Villa Hotel between 1904 and 1917. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

The lease on the TV was set to expire in 1921, and the Kerslakes purchased from Danker the license to the hotel, the neighbouring RCC, as well as all furniture and housewares contained in both buildings in 1917. Danker was concerned if he maintained the license to the hotel he would not be able to renew it as a German in Australia during World War I. While the TV operated under Mabel Kerslake to run out the license, her husband Lindsay Leo Kerslake purchased the old Commandant’s Offices and Law Courts nearer the waterfront and converted the ruins to a two-storey hotel. The Kerslake family was widely involved in the hotel industry across Tasmania, and L. L. Kerslake himself had operated the Old Bell Inn in Hobart. The Hotel Arthur opened in February 1920 and was considered ‘…the best furnished place outside of Launceston and Hobart…’ but burnt down under questionable circumstances in February 192131. While Kerslake was being investigated for arson and fraud in the destruction of the Hotel Arthur, the lease on the Tasman Villa had expired and it was

31 The Mercury 15 June 1921 “Port Arthur Hotel Fire Inquest Resumed in Hobart. Evidence of Vendor and Assurance Assessor”, p. 7.

170

offered for sale. The property in 1921 consisted of a brick house with 14 main rooms, offices, stables, and a garage, and 10 acres of land32.

The Kerslakes purchased the Tasman Villa Hotel in 1921 and operated it from then as the Hotel Arthur. (Scripps 1997:6). Several additions were made between the two Junior Medical officer’s and Roman Catholic Chaplain’s houses to increase the hotel’s capacity, creating an extensive network of rooms (Orme 1981:3). The Hotel Arthur was indicated by one visitor as the most characteristic building of the period. It is said to have resembled a ‘higgledy-piggledy set of accretions built on to the old…house so that one visitor likened it to an expanding bookcase’ (Davidson 1995:656) (Figure 6- 11).

Figure 6-11 Partial floor plan of the Hotel Arthur in 1939 with the approximate original extent of JMO marked in red. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Hotel Arthur advertised itself extensively as Port Arthur’s most prestigious hotel, and in a 1922-23 guide to accommodation in the area it was the most expensive at 12/-

32 The Mercury 16 March 1921 “Houses and Land for Sale”, p.2; The Mercury 15 August 1921 “For Sale by Tender, Tasman Villa, Carnarvon”, p.5.

171

day while the nearest in price were 10/- day (Scripps 1998:12). With Kerslake’s experience as a hotelier, as well as that of his extended family, there is no doubt that the Hotel Arthur had a lot to offer tourists. Figures 6-12 and 6-13 depict the Hotel Arthur while Kerslake was hotelier, including evidence of additional amenities the hotel offered, including parking for vehicles and a tour bus. In 1926 the entire cast of the silent film version of Marcus Clark’s For the Term of His Natural Life stayed at Hotel Arthur. Figure 6-14 shows the cast of the film having a drink inside the bar at the Hotel Arthur. Tourists visiting Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur were offered fine meals, as suggested by a menu from the hotel dating to 1927 (Figure 6-15). By 1937 ownership of the hotel transferred to L. M. and T. A. Pitman (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1937:101). The building was purchased by the Tasmanian Government in 1946, but continued operating as a hotel until 1959. Most of the hotel additions to the Junior Medical Officer’s and Roman Catholic Chaplain’s houses were removed by Port Arthur staff in 1965. The dining room of the Junior Medical Officer’s house was used as a pottery through the 1970s, until the PACP began works in the early 1980s (Scripps 1997:6).

Figure 6-12 View of the front of the Hotel Arthur during Kerslake’s tenure as hotelier. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, Image 1998.488, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

172

Figure 6-13 View at the front gate of the Hotel Arthur showing a large motorized touring bus. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

Figure 6-14 Interior of the bar at the Hotel Arthur in 1926 with some of the crew from For the Term of His Natural Life. (Source: PAHSMA Resource Library, provided courtesy of PAHSMA.)

173

Figure 6-15 Menu from the Hotel Arthur for cruise ship passengers in 1927. (Source: Image provided courtesy of PAHSMA)

Archaeological Excavations

Two archaeological projects at JMO were selected for inclusion in this examination of tourist accommodation material culture (Projects 1982/06 and 1985/24). Both were part of the PACP. The locations of all trenches used as part of this study are

174

presented in Figure 6-16. A summary of all projects, trenches and contexts used in compiling artefact assemblages associated with the Tasman Villa and Hotel Arthur are presented in Tables 6-6 and 6-7.

The 1982 excavations at JMO (Project 82/06) were led by archaeologist Martin Davies as part of Port Arthur’s Archaeological Summer Program in association with conservation works across the site. The trenches selected for excavation reflect the need to monitor and record portions of the building prior to potential disturbance from conservation works.33 Three trenches were formally excavated and recorded on the south side of JMO (Figure 6-16). An additional nine trenches were monitored for the installation of amenities and services to JMO, but archaeological data was limited to field notes with minimal information about the various contexts so these trenches were not included in this study.

33 NPWS M2-66-277(2) 82-06(1-13) “Archaeology – Junior Medical Officer’s House Pt I of II (p.1- 13).

175

Figure 6-16 Location of excavation trenches for JMO and RCC, listed by project and trench number. (Source: Data provided by PAHSMA, ArcGIS Basemap 2015, author’s additions)

Table 6-6 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for the Tasman Villa Hotel (1899-1920)

Project Trench Contexts 1982/06 1 4 2 6 1985/24 1 7 2 3, 6 3 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 14 7 3 8 3

176

Table 6-7 Projects, trenches and contexts used in creating the artefact assemblage for the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959)

Project Trench Contexts 1980/05 n/a 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 1981/46 n/a V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 1982/06 1 2, 3 2 1, 2, 3, 11 3 2, 3 1985/24 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 2 2 3 7 8 5 1989/03 10 2

No reports were completed for this excavation due to time constraints at the end of the field season and the demands of the conservation project on PACP staff. Trenches and deposits used for hotel era artefact analysis were determined by examining context sheets and sketch plans to assess each trench’s stratigraphic profile. During excavation several deposits were identified as dating to the hotel era by the excavation director, and diagnostic artefacts recovered from these deposits to confirm the assigned date range.34

Further analysis determined that Context 4 in Trench 1 and Context 6 in Trench 2 contained artefact deposits associated with the Tasman Villa (1899-1920). Deposits from Trench 1 (Contexts 2 and 3), Trench 2 (Contexts 1, 2, 3 and 11) and Trench 3 (Contexts 2 and 3) contained artefacts consistent in date range with the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959).

In 1986, the Archaeological Summer Program at Port Arthur (Project 1985/24) focused on landscape investigations at the front of JMO under the guidance of director

34 NPSW M2-66-277(2) 82-06(1-13) “Archaeology – Junior Medical Officer’s House Pt I of II (p.4- 72).

177

Brian Egloff. Primary research goals included verifying gardens, carriageways and paths indicated on historic plans. Locating and confirming these features would allow the landscaping of the house to be restored to its condition c1850 and remain consistent with the restorations made to JMO as part of the PACP. Nine trenches were excavated and reported on in a final report by excavation supervisor Roger Hall (1986), and five of those were selected for use within this project. Hall’s report was used in conjunction with an analysis of diagnostic artefacts to select those deposits attributable to the Tasman Villa (1899-1920) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959).

Trench 1 contained several deposits consisting of road surfacing material within the identified location of a carriageway, some of which were associated with use of the carriageway for motor vehicles as part of the Hotel Arthur (Contexts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15). Context 7 contained evidence of re-surfacing of the carriageway for use as part of the Tasman Villa. Trenches 2 and 3 were excavated to determine the location of the historic carriageway’s turning circle, immediately adjacent to hotel era outbuildings, including a garage and vehicle parking space. In Trench 2, Contexts 3 and 6 were associated with the Tasman Villa (and contained temporally diagnostic artefacts of a consistent date range), while Context 2 was associated with the Hotel Arthur. In Trench 3, Contexts 2, 3, 4, 9, 12 and 14 were associated with the TV, while Context 7 was associated with the HA.

Trenches 7 and 8 were excavated at the front of JMO to the southeast to locate the junction of a gravel surface with a road repeatedly depicted in historic plans of the site. Much like Trench 1 to the north, several road surfaces were encountered during excavation, many of which were attributed to hotel era use of the site. In Trench 7, Context 3 was associated with the Tasman Villa. In Trench 8, Context 3 was associated with the Tasman Villa and Context 5 was associated with the Hotel Arthur.

6.4.3. Roman Catholic Chaplain’s House (Hotel Arthur)

The RCC is located on Civil Officers’ on the south side of Champ Street, between the Visiting Magistrate’s house and JMO. RCC was approved for construction in October 1843 and it was completed prior to 1851. The plans indicate that the original building consisted of two rooms, a store and a kitchen and to minimize costs it was to be

178

built using convict labour and local materials. Prior to 1857 an oratory or private chapel was constructed at the back of the house for the Chaplain’s personal use (Orme 1981:3).

After Port Arthur closed in 1877, the RCC was first purchased in 1884 by J. Danker. The property was purchased in 1917 by L. Kerslake for use as supplementary accommodation for the Hotel Arthur, based next door at the JMO. It had been purchased previously by the owners of the TV but no specific date for the transfer of hands is given. In 1910 the TV started using neighbouring guesthouses to accommodate guests, so the purchase of the RCC next door would have occurred within the next few years.35 At the time of purchase by Kerslake, the property consisted of the house with four rooms, a western skillion addition and a suite of outbuildings behind the house (Orme 1981:3). A verandah was added to the front of the house during its use as part of the Hotel Arthur but was later demolished in 1981 as part of the restoration works by the NPWS Tasmania (Orme 1981:1).

Archaeological Projects

Three archaeological excavations at RCC were used to examine material culture relating to the hotel era at Port Arthur (Projects 1980/05, 1981/46 and 1989/02) (see Figure 6-4 above). Two of the three excavations was undertaken by Zusana Orme, who was contracted by the NPWS Tasmania in 1980 (and again in 1981) to conduct archaeological excavations in and around a variety of buildings at Port Arthur.

Orme’s 1980 investigations at RCC (Project 1980/05) resulted in trenches placed on all four sides of the building, in and around retaining walls, drains and out-buildings. The area on the west side of the house, in the backyard behind the toilets, was identified as an area used for refuse disposal (Orme 1980). Several of the excavated deposits in this area contained artefacts consistent in date with use of the property as part of the Hotel Arthur (Contexts 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30).

Orme’s 1981 investigations at RCC (Project 1981/46) focused on the interior of RCC and related outbuildings. All work was guided by the need to generate an

35 The Mercury 22 August 1910 “Carnarvon”, p.6.

179

understanding of the original structure for restoration works (Orme 1981:1). Special attention was paid to a verandah added to RCC as part of the Hotel Arthur. The verandah had a concrete base and walls, and sedimentary deposits had gradually accumulated onto this concrete base as the building was used as part of the Hotel Arthur (Orme 1981:12). Orme (1981:52-54) excavated the verandah deposit in six squares (V1 through V6), and the verandah was demolished at the cease of excavations. Artefacts associated with the verandah deposits have been included in the artefact assemblage for the Hotel Arthur.

In the winter of 1989, Jack McIlroy was hired as a private consultant to conduct archaeological testing at several sites around Port Arthur (Project 1989/03). Excavations at RCC sought the locations of the original gardens and paths in order to restore them to their accurate historical forms (McIlroy 1989:1). Five trenches were excavated in the exterior yards of RCC, and only one context from one trench contained sufficient artefacts that dated consistently with use of RCC as part of Hotel Arthur. Trench 10 was situated in the laneway between RCC and JMO. Context 2 in Trench 10 is a black, refuse-rich deposit thought to represent garbage disposal within the laneway. All diagnostic artefacts recovered from Context 2 represent a date range from 1920- 1940. Kerslake extended the Hotel Arthur to enclose both the RCC and JMO in the late 1930s (see Figure 6-11 above), and this extension would have ended rubbish dumping activities in the area of Trench 10.

6.5. Comparative Assemblages

The use of comparative assemblages is of central importance to understanding the material nature of hotel and guesthouse assemblages, particularly when suggesting broader trends for a material signature of tourism. Excavation reports with detailed artefact analysis and temporally comparable components were used to create a suite of artefact tables to draw comparisons with the Port Arthur assemblages.

Three hotel assemblages from New South Wales, the Agricultural Hotel (1865- 1910), the Queen’s Arms Inn (1838-1900) and the Red Cow Inn (1862) are included in the comparative collection. The Red Cow Inn is of particular interest as it was built at

180

the site of a rail terminus for tourists visiting the Blue Mountains, as opposed to a hotel for general travellers. One hotel from Queensland mostly used by travelling miners, the Trevathan Hotel (1886-c.1925), is also included in the comparative collection.

Artefact assemblages associated with Government House (1859-1912) in Sydney provide a sample of artefacts associated with elite Australian households. Wealthy tourists would have comprised the greatest portion of early visitors to Port Arthur, and having an assemblage consistent with their usual surroundings serves as a useful point of comparison. Further detail of the methodology used to select comparative assemblages and an overview of the relevant excavation reports is presented in Appendix c

6.6. Conclusion

This chapter has presented the methods used to examine archaeological assemblages from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur. It proposed a framework for identifying and assessing a material signature for mass tourism through the examination of different potential physical markers for tourism, including class, gentility, conspicuous consumption, gender, families, health and leisure. These were determined through previous archaeological studies of hotel and tourism, as well as broader ranging theories about the nature of tourism as a phenomenon.

This chapter also described the means by which four distinct artefact assemblages were created following the examination of collections resulting from archaeological excavations at Port Arthur in the 1980s. The criteria used to select sites, archaeological projects, trenches and deposits were identified, as were the methods used to analyse the resulting assemblages. The resulting artefact assemblages for the Carnarvon Hotel (CH) (1885-1904), Tasman Villa Hotel (TV) (1899-1921), Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House (MBBH) (1917-1939) and the Hotel Arthur (HA) (1921-1959) will be examined in Chapter 7 using the framework identified in this chapter.

181

Chapter 7. Archaeology of Tourist Accommodation at Port Arthur

7.1. Introduction – Hotel Assemblages from Port Arthur

This chapter will discuss the findings from the archaeological assemblages from four hotels and guesthouses that operated at Port Arthur between 1885 and 1959. Each section summarizes the artefact findings from each assemblage, focusing on ceramics, glassware, miscellaneous artefact materials, and functional classes. This chapter will present a basic comparison of the four accommodation assemblages from Port Arthur. Findings from the four sites of tourist accommodation will be compared and contrasted with select comparative collections in Chapter 9 (Discussion and Conclusions). Information from these discussions will be framed along thematic issues identified as relevant to the material nature of tourism.

7.2. Ceramics

Various methods of analysing the ceramic assemblages were used to develop an understanding of the hotel assemblages as they relate to broader questions about class, consumption and tourism. This included comparisons of ware types, economic expenditure on ceramics, decorative techniques, and dining patterns as represented by vessel forms. As an abundant, durable material remnant ceramics are often used to discuss socioeconomic class through foodways and the active purchase of socially and culturally appropriate items to display and consume food (Brooks 2005; Casey 2005; Lawrence et al. 2009; Majewski and O’Brien 1987).

182

7.2.1. Form and Functional Class

Vessel form and functional class are means of providing insight into foodways, the social, cultural and economic practices related to producing and consuming food. Form and function can be used to examine foodways as the types of vessels used reflect the means through which meals were produced and consumed. Table 7-1 below presents the quantities of vessel forms for all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. The lives of middle and upper class Australians were strictly enacted by elaborate rituals and performances requiring specialised items for the consumption of meals (Lawrence et al. 2009:68). The relative proportion of flatware and hollowware ceramic tablewares potentially provides insight into discussions of foodways and socioeconomic status (Cabak and Loring 2000:24; Groover 2003a:238; Voss 2005:466).

183

Table 7-1 Hotel ceramic assemblages sorted by subclass and form.

CH TV MBBH HA Subclass Form n= % n= % n= % n= %

Beverage - General Bottle 0 0.0 3 5.9 4 2.5 3 1.5 Clerical - Writing Bottle – ink 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.0 Domestic - Decorative Figure 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Ornament 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0

Vase 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Domestic - Gardening Flower pot 11 13.8 1 2.0 5 3.1 3 1.5 Flower pot base 2 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Domestic - Maintenance Bottle - blacking 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Food – Packaged Jar 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 6 3.0 Ginger jar 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Food - Preparation Bowl (prep/serve) 1 1.3 1 2.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Basin (kitchen) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.0 Milk pan 2 2.5 1 2.0 2 1.2 1 0.5 Food – Service Bowl (service) 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.9 1 0.5 Jug 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 0.6 2 1.0 Platter 7 8.8 3 5.9 9 5.6 14 7.1 Serving vessel (indefinite) 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 2 1.0 Serving vessel (hollowware) 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 5 2.5 Serving vessel (lidded) 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 Trivet 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Tureen 1 1.3 3 5.9 1 0.6 5 2.5 Food – Storage Canister 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Container/crock 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 6 3.0 Pot (storage) 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Food - Tableware Bowl (tableware) 1 1.3 1 2.0 3 1.9 6 3.0 Egg cup 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Plate 9 11.3 6 11.8 32 19.9 24 12.1 Soup plate 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.9 3 1.5 Food - Teaware Cup 11 13.8 9 17.6 30 18.6 39 19.7 Cup & milsey 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Saucer 10 12.5 6 11.8 18 11.2 24 12.1

184

Teapot 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 3 1.5 Creamer 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Sugar bowl 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Medicinal - Medicinal Ointment pot 2 2.5 0 0.0 3 1.9 0 0.0 Teapot (medicinal)** 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0

Personal - Hygiene Basin 1 1.3 1 2.0 0 0.0 2 1.0 Chamberpot 4 5.0 0 0.0 3 1.9 5 2.5 Unassigned Flatware 2 2.5 1 2.0 7 4.3 4 2.0 Hollowware 8 10.0 7 13.7 10 6.2 25 12.6 Unidentified 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Vessel 1 1.3 1 2.0 14 8.7 6 3.0 TOTAL 80 100.0 51 100.0 161 100.0 198 100.0 *CH=Carnarvon Hotel, TV=Tasman Villa, MBBH=Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House, HA=Hotel Arthur **A teapot form was used for patent steam-based medicine, as marked on the pot. ***Most common form for each site marked in bold.

The most common form at the Carnarvon Hotel is the earthenware (mostly redware) flower pots, numbers of which were recovered from trenches around the front of the hotel. Teawares as a group dominate the assemblage, representing 27.6% (MIC=22) of all ceramics recovered. Tablewares represent 13.9% of the assemblage, and plates are the most common tableware form found in the ceramic assemblage. Ceramic vessels relating to gardening represent 16.3% (MIC=13) of the ceramic assemblage (Figure 7-1). A selection of personal hygiene forms, including four chamber pots and a wash basin, represent 6.3% of the ceramic assemblage at the Carnarvon Hotel.

185

Figure 7-1 Earthenware garden pots and saucers recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage.

The most common ceramic form recovered at the Tasman Villa is the teacup, followed by saucers and plates. Teawares dominate the ceramic assemblage, representing 33.4% (MIC=17) of all ceramic vessels from the Tasman Villa. Serving vessels account for 15.8% (MIC=8) of the ceramic assemblage, while tablewares form 13.8% (MIC=7) of the ceramic assemblage. The Tasman Villa ceramic assemblage is the only one of the four in which hollowware serving vessels outnumber flatware serving vessels.

A large number of ceramic vessels were recovered as part of the assemblage associated with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House. Plates are the most common vessel form, while cups and saucers are next most plentiful. Included in the teawares is a matching teacup and milsey, a specialized strainer that rested on the teacup to strain the skin from unrefrigerated milk as it was poured into the teacup (Brooks 2005:51). Teawares as a class comprise the majority of the ceramic assemblage at 31.1% (MIC=50), while tablewares represent 24.2% (MIC=39) of the total ceramic assemblage. Serving vessels account for 11.1% (MIC=18) of the ceramic assemblage.

186

The cup is the most common form in the Hotel Arthur ceramic assemblage, and as with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house saucers and plates are the next most common forms. Teawares account for 33.8% (MIC=67) of the Hotel Arthur ceramic assemblage, while tablewares account for 17.1% (MIC=34) of the ceramic assemblage and serving wares for 14.6% (MIC=29) of the assemblage.

Vessels associated with commercial foods represent 3.0% (MIC=6) of the ceramic assemblage for the Hotel Arthur. While this is not a large proportion, it is significantly greater than any other site at Port Arthur. Vessels associated with commercially packaged foods are not present in the Carnarvon Hotel or Tasman Villa ceramic assemblages, while a single whiteware jar was recovered in the Commandant’s House ceramic assemblage. Three of the storage vessels from the Hotel Arthur were identified as whiteware jars which were sold containing commercial goods such as marmalades, fish pastes, ointments and teas. One was impressed with the maker’s mark on its base which reads ‘MALING’, an English company which specialized in producing commercial containers.36 Another stoneware jar (Obj. #2941) bore a maker’s mark with the British coat-of-arms stamped at the front and reads ‘68 LOWER…/ LON…’ around the base, with ‘BUMSTE…/ …BRITISH TA…/ ...R TH…’ stamped on the front of the body (Figure 7-2). D. Bumstead and Company were a British table salt company, manufacturers of the ‘Royal Table Salt’. An advertisement from The British Monthly dating to May 1902 notes that Bumstead’s Table Salt is useful for curing a wide variety of ailments, including eczema, rheumatism, scurvy, ulcerated sores and glandular swellings, among other things. The salt’s use for table and culinary purposes is also highlighted.37

36 , viewed March 29, 2015. 37 The British Monthly, May 1902, “Clarke’s Blood Mixture Bumstead’s Table Salt”, p. 294.

187

Figure 7-2 Stoneware jar from D. Bumstead and Company, recovered from the Hotel Arthur.

7.2.2. Ware and Decoration

An examination of ceramic wares and decorative techniques used on ceramic vessels from hotel assemblages is a useful means of querying the socioeconomic status of those responsible for purchasing or acquiring the ceramics. Porcelain, as a more expensive material, is differentiated from earthenwares to look at expenditure and socioeconomic class in the hotel and guesthouse assemblages from Port Arthur (Henry 1987:369). Table 7-2 below presents the relative proportion of ware types at the four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. Refined earthenware is the most common ware type recovered at all sites. Porcelain forms a significant component at each site, representing from 18.7% to 27.5% of individual ceramic assemblages.

188

Table 7-2 Ceramic ware types distributed by site of tourist accommodation.

Carnarvon Tasman Mrs. Hotel Hotel Villa Brimage's Arthur Ware MIC % MIC % MIC % MIC % Coarse earthenware 16 20.0 2 3.9 5 3.1 7 3.5 Stoneware 4 5.0 6 11.8 7 4.3 14 7.1 Porcelain 18 22.5 14 27.5 43 26.7 37 18.7 Refined earthenware 42 52.5 29 56.9 106 65.8 140 70.7 TOTAL 80 100.0 51 100.0 161 100.0 198 100.0

Majewski and O’Brien (1987) outline the importance of examining the distribution of ceramic vessels by decoration as opposed to just ware, as this is consistent with how ceramics were advertised to consumers. This discussion relates mostly to the distinctions between creamware, pearlware, white refined earthenware and ironstone. For the purpose of analysis, these wares were grouped under the term ‘whiteware’, or ‘white refined earthenware’. Table 7-3 below presents the decorative techniques applied to vessels by ware. The decorative techniques used on refined earthenware and porcelain vessels, which nearly exclusively account for all tablewares, teawares and serving vessels, are discussed further below.

189

Table 7-3 Decorative techniques sorted by ware, all sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur.

CH TV MBBH HA Ware Decoration MIC % MIC % MIC % MIC % Glazed 3 3.8 1 2.0 2 1.2 1 0.5 Coarse Earthenware Incised bands 4 5.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 2 1.0 Salt-glazed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Slipped 2 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Stamped 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Tin-glazed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Undecorated 6 7.5 1 2.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Stoneware Bristol-glaze 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Dry-bodied 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Glazed 0 0.0 2 3.9 3 1.9 8 4.0 Hand-painted (Chinese) 0 0.0 2 3.9 2 1.2 0 0.0 Salt-glazed 2 2.5 0 0.0 1 0.6 3 1.5 Slipped 2 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Stamped 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Black-on-red (Jackfield) 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Refined Earthenware Decal printed 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 3 1.5 Dyed-body ware 1 1.3 1 2.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Gold gilt 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.1 3 1.5 Gold gilt & decal printed 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 2 1.0 Gold gilt & hand-painted 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Hand-painted 3 3.8 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Hand-painted (enamelled) 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Lustre ware 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Banded hotel china 1 1.3 0 0.0 2 1.2 13 6.6 Majolica ware 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.5 Marble patterned 1 1.3 1 2.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Monochromatic glaze 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 4 2.0 Relief-moulded 3 3.8 1 2.0 6 3.7 8 4.0 Relief-moulded & gold gilt 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.5

190

Relief-moulded & painted 2 2.5 0 0.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 Relief-moulded & printed 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 0.6 3 1.5 Rockingham-style ware 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 2 1.0 Sponge-stamped 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Sprigged 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Transfer printed - black 3 3.8 2 3.9 12 7.5 17 8.6 Transfer printed – blue 7 8.8 6 11.8 22 13.7 27 13.6 Transfer printed - brown 1 1.3 4 7.8 8 5.0 13 6.6 Transfer printed - flow 2 2.5 3 5.9 1 0.6 4 2.0 Transfer printed - green 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 5 2.5 Transfer printed – teal 0 0.0 2 3.9 1 0.6 2 1.0 Transfer printed - purple 0 0.0 2 3.9 2 1.2 4 2.0 Transfer printed – red 1 1.3 1 2.0 1 0.6 3 1.5 Transfer printed & painted 3 3.8 0 0.0 5 3.1 3 1.5 Undecorated 11 13.8 2 3.9 20 12.4 14 7.1 Unglazed 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 Yellow ware 0 0.0 1 2.0 2 1.2 3 1.5 Porcelain Decal printed 2 2.5 3 5.9 1 0.6 3 1.5 Gold gilt 9 11.3 3 5.9 11 6.8 6 3.0 Gold gilt & decal printed 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.9 0 0.0 Gold gilt & hand-painted 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 Gold gilt & relief-moulded 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.0 Hand-painted 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.9 8 4.0 Hand-painted (Chinese) 1 1.3 0 0.0 6 3.7 0 0.0 Relief-moulded 0 0.0 1 2.0 8 5.0 4 2.0 Sprigged 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.5 Transfer printed - flow blue 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Transfer printed - black 0 0.0 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Undecorated 6 7.5 5 9.8 11 6.8 10 5.1 TOTAL 80 100.0 51 100.0 161 100.0 198 100.0

191

Blue transfer-printed whiteware is the most common combination of ware and decoration in the Tasman Villa Hotel, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and Hotel Arthur assemblages. The most common combination of ware and decoration at the Carnarvon Hotel is undecorated whiteware. Transfer-printed patterns which are ubiquitous at archaeological sites in Australia, including ‘Willow’, ‘Asiatic Pheasant’, ‘Two Temples’ and ‘Rhine’, account for most of the matching sets found in the Carnarvon Hotel, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and Hotel Arthur assemblages. Undecorated and gold gilt vessels, most common at the Carnarvon Hotel, would give the appearance of matching sets, regardless of whether or not they were purchased as a set. No matching sets were found at the Tasman Villa.

Beyond the matching transfer-printed sets at the Carnarvon Hotel, Mrs. Brimage’s and the Hotel Arthur, the assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house contains two more elaborate matching sets. A matching hand-painted porcelain Copeland serving set (lidded tureen and platter recovered) and set of four elaborately hand-painted Chinese porcelain plates and soup-plates were also recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Figure 7-4). The Carnarvon Hotel ceramic assemblage also contained a teacup and dinner plate with a matching pattern of hand-painted blue and black lines to create a ‘plaid’.

Figure 7-3 Elaborately hand-painted Chinese porcelain plate from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2324) with detail of design.

192

A matching set from the Hotel Arthur assemblage consists of banded hotel china marked with the name ‘Kerslake’, and the Hotel Arthur was widely advertised as ‘Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur’ (Figure 7-5). Two contained maker’s marks dating their production to 1936, though Kerslake sold the hotel shortly after in 1939. Hotel china, uncommon at all other tourist accommodation sites at Port Arthur, is represented in the Hotel Arthur assemblage by vessels with a wide variety of functional groups, including teawares, tablewares, serving dishes and personal hygiene products (chamberpot).

Figure 7-4 ‘Kerslake’s Hotel’ hotel china cup recovered from the Hotel Arthur (Obj. #3081).

Porcelain was separated from other wares in Table 7-2 above to allow for further examination as it is a more expensive material. All four hotels have nearly consistent proportions of porcelain within the ceramic assemblage, though the relative proportion of porcelain at the Hotel Arthur is notably lower than at the other three hotels. The assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house contains more porcelain vessels from China (MIC=8) and Japan (MIC=1). Imported Asian porcelain represents 5.6% of the ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

Ware and form create a tangible pattern in the ceramic assemblages of the Carnarvon Hotel, Tasman Villa Hotel and Hotel Arthur (see Appendix D, Tables D-1

193

through D-4 for detailed listings of vessel form by ware and decoration for each site). In these three assemblages nearly all tablewares are made of whiteware and nearly all teawares are made of porcelain. More specifically, porcelain is used at these three sites almost exclusively for teawares. At the Carnarvon Hotel the only non-teaware porcelain items are an ointment pot and a small (180mm diameter) plate consistent with those used for finger foods associated with taking tea. The only non-teaware porcelain items at the Tasman Villa are two plates, and at the Hotel Arthur the only non-teaware porcelain items include two plates, an egg cup and non-diagnostic vessels. The ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house differs as only 69.8% (MIC=30) of porcelain artefacts are teawares, and porcelain tablewares, serving vessels, figurines and ointment pots are present in the ceramic assemblage.

The ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house also differs from the others as it contains a comparatively large portion of hand-painted ceramics, which comprise 11.8% (MIC=19) of the assemblage (including vessels with multiple decorative techniques, including being transfer-printed or relief-moulded). A total of 8.7% (MIC=14) of vessels in the assemblage exhibit more than one decorative technique. Non- whiteware refined earthenwares are also more common in this assemblage, represented by majolica, Rockingham style, dyed-body, dark blue-on-beige, and Jackfield-style wares. The assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house is more colourful and diverse as compared to the other three assemblages which contain predominantly white wares.

Teawares

Decoration is a key aspect for understanding ceramic assemblages, as ceramics were historically sold by decoration, not ware (Majewski and O’Brien 1987). Understanding the use of decoration on ceramics in different contexts can provide insights into activities related to presentation and meals and social mores. To achieve this, the use of decoration on teawares, plates, and serving vessels will be examined further. Where more than one decorative technique was applied to a vessel, the more costly, based on an economic scaling for late nineteenth and early-twentieth ceramics (Henry 1987), has been represented in the tables below. Henry (1987:369) found that between 1895 and 1927 porcelain vessels remained generally more expensive than any

194

decorative technique applied to refined white earthenwares. Spencer-Wood (1987:6) found through several studies that teawares most often reflected the documented status of household residents.

Figure 7-6 represents the decorative motifs found on teawares at the Carnarvon Hotel. Gold gilt vessels dominate the assemblage. Teawares with just gold gilt form 31.8% of the teaware assemblage, but the inclusion of vessels with gold gilt with other decorative features brings that total to 45.4% of the assemblage. Undecorated teawares are the next most common, and 22.7% of the teawares at the Carnarvon Hotel lack decoration. As mentioned above, 16 of the 22 teaware forms are porcelain, with the remaining six made from refined white earthenware. Of those six teawares, one was gold-gilt and hand-painted, one was sponge-stamped, one was hand-painted and two were transfer-printed.

Figure 7-5 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Carnarvon Hotel.

Teawares from the Tasman Villa ceramic assemblage represent less costly wares. The Tasman Villa assemblage has fewer porcelain teawares than the other

195

sites, with the teawares recovered being more evenly divided between whiteware and porcelain than dominated by porcelains. Of the teaware objects, 41.2% (MIC=7) are refined white earthenware, and the remaining 58.8% are porcelain (MIC=10).

Figure 7-6 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Tasman Villa.

The teaware assemblage at the Tasman Villa is notably different from the Carnarvon Hotel (Figure 7-7). The majority of teawares are undecorated and the most common decorative technique on teawares is transfer-printing.

In the ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, of the 50 teaware vessels 60% are porcelain (MIC=30), 38% are white refined earthenware (MIC=19), and one object is dry-bodied stoneware. The lone dry-bodied stoneware item (Obj. #2467) was the only teapot recovered in this assemblage. It is a beige-fabric relief-moulded teapot with an elaborate pattern of flowers, vines and scrollwork along the spout. A search of popular dry-bodied stoneware patterns found that the spout matches a Wedgewood teapot pattern that features a spaniel finial on the lid.

196

Figure 7-7 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House.

A variety of decorative techniques were used on teawares from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Figure 7-8). As with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, gold gilding is the most common decorative technique for teawares at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, followed by undecorated teawares (generally porcelain). Three vessels had more than one type of decoration,. Two vessels were gold gilt with decal printing, while the third was transfer-printed and hand-painted.

Figure 7-9 below presents the different decorative styles for teawares at the Hotel Arthur. Of the 67 identified teaware objects, only 35.8% (MIC=24) are porcelain, the remainder of refined earthenware. This differs notably from the Carnarvon Hotel, where 72.7% (MIC=16) of the teawares were porcelain.

197

Figure 7-8 Decorative techniques applied to teawares from the Hotel Arthur.

Three teapots are present in the assemblage. Two are Rockingham-style wares with dark-brown glaze on beige refined earthenware. One (Obj. #2866) is a tall, 6-sided teapot with relief-moulded Chinese figures wearing conical straw hats on the exterior (see Figure 7-10). The third teapot is a relief-moulded porcelain pot with hand-painted gold gilding.

198

Figure 7-9 Hexagonal Rockingham-style teapot with a relief-moulded Chinese character wearing a hat.

Transfer printed teawares are most common at the Hotel Arthur. Where black and blue transfer printing are most common on tablewares and serving vessels at the Hotel Arthur, brown is the most common colour for transfer-printed teawares (9.0%, MIC=6). This may have best matched the Rockingham-style teapots. Undecorated teawares are next most common, and of the 11 undecorated teawares, six (54.5%) are porcelain. Gold gilt and hotel china teawares follow as the next most common decorative techniques. Teawares from the Hotel Arthur exhibit the widest range of decorative techniques used, as compared to the other three accommodation venues.

In terms of teaware forms, very few teapots, creamers or sugar bowls were identified in the ceramic assemblages for all four sites of accommodation at Port Arthur. One teapot, made of hand-painted Chinese porcelain, was recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #2108). A creamer and a sugar bowl were recovered from the Tasman Villa, the creamer being elaborately relief-moulded porcelain with gold gilt decoration (Obj. #3268) and the sugar bowl being hand-painted porcelain (Obj. #3147). A dry-bodied stoneware teapot was recovered in the ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house(Obj. #2467).

199

The Hotel Arthur assemblage contains three teapots and a creamer. One teapot (Obj. #2956) is a gold gilt porcelain teapot, while the other two are Rockingham-style teapots, one with a tapered, panelled body embossed with stylized Chinese images (Obj. #2886). The creamer was one of the branded ‘Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur’ hotel china wares (Obj. #3079).

Teaware forms which are not cups or saucers form a small percentage of all teaware assemblages. They represent 4.5% (n=1) of the Carnarvon Hotel teaware assemblage, 11.8% (n=2) of the Tasman Villa teaware assemblage, 2.0% (n=1) of the Commandant’s House teaware assemblage, and 6.0% (n=4) of the Hotel Arthur teaware assemblage. It is possible, particularly in assemblages with evidence of greater expenditure on teawares (Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House), that silver tea sets were purchased to serve tea to guests at these establishments. As items that are often curated, no evidence of these were recovered but this may explain the low proportion of vessels associated with serving tea. The Hotel Arthur assemblage also had a similarly low proportion of tea service forms, but all other socioeconomic analyses of the teawares suggests that comparatively little money was spent on this assemblage. It seems less likely that silver tea services would have been purchased.

Plates

Examining the decorative techniques on plates provides insight into one of the frequent vessel forms. Figure 7-11 presents the decorative techniques used on plates at the Carnarvon Hotel. Only one plate is not made of white refined earthenware, and that is the single relief-moulded plate (which is made of porcelain).

Of the nine plates at the Carnarvon Hotel, most were transfer-printed and two were undecorated (Figure 7-11). The two hand-painted plates shown include a hand- painted and transfer printed plate and a plate decorated in lines and bands patterned similar to a ‘plaid’ (Obj. #2513).

200

Figure 7-10 Decorative techniques applied to plates from the Carnarvon Hotel.

The Tasman Villa assemblage contains only six plates, and of those four are white refined earthenware (66.7%) and two (33.3%) are porcelain. All of the white refined earthenware plates are transfer-printed, while the other two plates are porcelain, one gold-gilt and the other decal printed.

Many of the plates at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House, were undecorated. This is consistent with the decorative techniques found on the teawares in the assemblage, as although there were elaborately decorated teaware forms, undecorated teawares formed the second most common grouping, as it does with the plates. Most plates were transfer printed, though transfer-printing occurred in a variety of colours and styles (Figure 7-12). This site is also interesting as while it contains the largest portion of undecorated plates, of all other tourist accommodation sites at Port Arthur it also contains evidence of more elaborate tablewares.

201

Figure 7-11 Decorative techniques used on plates from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House.

Two of the plates are hand-painted Chinese porcelain plates with elaborate multi- coloured butterflies covering nearly every surface of the plate (‘Thousand Butterflies’ pattern). These are part of a matching set with two soup plates. In this instance the most elaborate vessels are associated with dining as opposed to the taking of tea. Two of the transfer-printed plates have hand-painted elements, and two of the plates have both decal printing and gold gilding (one plate is porcelain).

Again presenting a marked difference from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Hotel Arthur assemblage contains only one undecorated plate (Figure 7-13) which is made of porcelain. Black transfer-printing is the most common form of decoration for plates at the Hotel Arthur (25.0%, MIC=6), and transfer-printing is found on most plates in the ceramic assemblage. The one hand-painted over-glaze plate recovered at the Hotel Arthur carries the same decoration of elaborate butterflies as those found as part of a matching set at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Whether this plate represents purchase from the same merchant, the sale of items from Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House to Hotel Arthur after its closure in 1939 or more dubious means is uncertain.

202

Figure 7-12 Decorative techniques used on plates from the Hotel Arthur.

Serving Vessels

Figure 7-14 below depicts the decorative techniques found on serving vessels from all Port Arthur assemblages. The blue columns represent the decorative techniques found on serving vessels from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. Over half were transfer-printed, including one vessel that had under-glaze hand-painting. The remaining vessels were either undecorated or relief-moulded.

203

Figure 7-13 Decorative techniques applied to serving vessels from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur.

The red columns represent the decorative techniques found on serving vessels from the Tasman Villa assemblage. All but one serving vessel in the Tasman Villa ceramic assemblage is transfer printed. The remaining serving vessel is relief-moulded.

While undecorated plates and teawares were common at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, only a small portion of the serving vessels from the site are undecorated. Blue transfer-printing is the most common decorative technique on serving vessels and is found on 38.9% (MIC=7) of the serving vessel assemblage, and transfer printing most broadly is the most common decorative technique used. As noted with the distribution of decorative techniques on the plates, more elaborate decorative techniques are used on the serving vessels at Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House than on serving vessels elsewhere at Port Arthur. Three (16.7%) of the vessels display multiple decorative traits, including a decal-printed and gold gilt serving bowl, a transfer-printed and hand-painted platter, a gold-gilt and hand-painted lidded serving vessel. Only one serving vessel is porcelain – a hand-painted Chinese porcelain serving bowl (Obj.

204

#2300) with four hand-painted Chinese characters in white circles. The remaining serving vessels are all white refined earthenware.

There were no undecorated serving vessels in the Hotel Arthur ceramic assemblage. Over half (51.7%) had blue transfer-printing, and the vast majority of all serving vessels (89.7%, MIC=26) were transfer-printed. The three vessels that were not transfer-printed exhibited relatively simple methods of decoration, as two were relief- moulded and one had linear bands around the rim consistent with hotel china.

7.3. Glass

Glass assemblages are discussed in this section both as representations of all glass artefacts recovered, as well as bottle assemblages. Discussing the functional groups of all glass artefacts and bottles more specifically is consistent with the methods adopted for most of the comparative collections. Looking at bottle assemblages distinctly helps examine purchasing patterns for each site.

Table 7-4 represents all glassware recovered at the Carnarvon Hotel, including bottles and tableware. Tableware forms are equally divided between stemware and tumblers, with two additional unassigned pieces of glass tableware represented by rims but no comparable bases. Both tumblers are decorated, one with moulded panels and the other with a pattern of panels and mitres. Two glass serving bowls are represented in the assemblage, one a press-moulded bowl with a flower and vegetation motif, and the other undecorated with a hemispherical body and flared lip.

The most common forms across the glassware assemblage are aerated/soda water bottles (23.5%) and beer/champagne bottles (11.8%). No cordial or flavoured essence bottles were recovered to indicate non-alcoholic beverage consumption.

205

Table 7-4 Glass artefacts from the Carnarvon Hotel sorted by subclass and function.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage - Alcoholic Beer 1 2.9 Brandy/wine 1 2.9 Champagne/beer 4 11.8 Liquor 2 5.9 Beverage - General Bottle 2 5.9 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic Aerated/soda water bottles 8 23.5 Domestic - Decorative Mirror 1 2.9 Food – Condiment Condiment bottles 2 5.9 Food – Service Bowl (serving) 2 5.9 Food – Storage Jar (food/preserves) 1 2.9 Food - Tableware Stemware – undecorated 2 5.9 Tumbler 2 5.9 Undiagnostic glassware 2 5.9 Medicinal - Medicinal Medicine bottles 1 2.9 Medicine/chemical bottles 1 2.9 Personal - Hygiene Perfume/toiletry 1 2.9 Unassigned Hollowware 1 2.9 TOTAL 34 100.0

A variety of glass artefacts were recovered in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, including an MIC representing 24 glass bottles (Table 7-4). Beverage-related bottles form the majority of the bottle assemblage, representing 74.9% of all bottles recovered. The beer/champagne bottles listed are bottles with a champagne finish. While this finish is often associated with champagne bottles, it was also often used to secure beer and ale bottles. Champagne is not common to sites in Australia (Boow 1991), and the recovery of 25 lead wrappers for beer and stout bottles and none for champagne indicate that although the finish is named for one beverage, there is no additional evidence that champagne was consumed on the site. Sealing carbonated beverages with a cork, wire and lead wrap was common for beer and ale bottles (among others) prior to the widespread use of the crown cap (Boow 1991:48). Moore (2000) notes the

206

common practice for upper-middle class and upper-class Australians in purchasing only beer wrapped with lead foil, as it provided a degree of security against the practice of recycling bottles and refilling them with inferior contents.

Of the 25 beer bottle covers, 12 were marked ‘AITKENS PALE ALE/A/J&L AITKENS & Co Ltd/THE BREWERY/FALKIRK’, five were marked ‘E. & J. BURKE/ E & J B/ TRADE MARK/ DUBLIN’, while the remaining eight bottles did not have complete enough foils to determine the maker’s marks (Figure 7-15). Aitken’s Pale Ale was produced in Falkirk, Scotland and first introduced to Australian markets in 1890. In a bicentennial paper published printed by Aitken’s in 1940 they claimed to have taught Australia how to brew beer (Richmond and Turnton 1990). E. & J. Burke was a Dublin- based company that produced Irish whiskey, schnapps, and Guinness for export markets, including North America and South Africa. E. J. & Burke had production centers in Dublin, New York, and Australia (Yenne 2007).

Three lead wrappers for liquor bottles were also recovered at the Carnarvon Hotel. Two were for ‘BISQUIT DUBOUCHE & Ci/ COGNAC’, a French cognac company established in 1819 and still producing today. The last lead liquor bottle was marked ‘CAMERON &…’ top, ‘…[W or N]AN…/ …SKY…’ around the sides, matching items from Cameron Bridge whiskey producers in Scotland, established 1824.

207

Figure 7-14 Lead foil wrapper for Aitken’s Pale Ale, recovered in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #1520).

If the lead wrappers were incorporated into the minimum item count (MIC) for the glass bottle assemblage, they would bring the total number of beer bottles in the assemblage to 25 (as the four champagne finishes and six wire closures in the assemblage would be negated given the potential that they could be from a single object) and the number of liquor bottles to three. This greatly alters the composition of the bottle assemblage as the most common form shifts from aerated/soda water bottles to beer bottles. Following this modification, alcoholic beverages then represent 65.2% of the bottle assemblage (Table 7-5).

208

Table 7-5 Carnarvon Hotel bottle assemblage sorted by form.

Bottle Form MIC % MIC (v2) % Aerated water/soda water bottle 8 33.3 8 17.4 Beer 1 4.2 1 2.2 Brandy/wine 1 4.2 1 2.2 Champagne/beer 4 16.7 25 54.3 Condiment 2 8.3 2 4.3 General beverage 2 8.3 2 4.3 Jar (food/preserve) 1 4.2 1 2.2 Liquor 2 8.3 3 4.3 Medicine bottle 2 8.3 2 4.3 Perfume/toiletry 1 4.2 1 2.2 TOTAL 24 100.0 46 100.0

Very few bottles and glassware items were recovered as part of the Tasman Villa assemblage (Table 7-6). Where the ceramic and miscellaneous items provide interesting comparisons with other sites, the sample size for bottles is too small to make any strong correlations. It is possible that the small portion of bottles recovered represents the existence of a specialized bottle dump elsewhere on the site, or possibly very active reuse and recycling of those bottles used. Only six bottles were recovered, and they were almost entirely alcohol bottles in various forms. With this small sample of bottles, alcohol bottles represent 83.3% (MIC=5) of the bottle assemblage at the Tasman Villa.

Glass tableware sherds representing at least two items of undiagnostic glassware were recovered in the Tasman Villa assemblage. As rim sherds it was not possible to assign them to stemware or tumbler forms, but they do each represent a form of drinking vessel. Both items showed no signs of decoration, but the remnants were highly fragmentary so this cannot be stated conclusively. Two additional unidentified glass forms were recovered.

209

Table 7-6 Tasman Villa glassware assemblage sorted by sub-class and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage – Alcohol Beer/wine bottle 3 30.0 Brandy/wine bottle 1 10.0 Liquor bottle 1 10.0 Domestic - Household Maintenance Poison/chemical bottle 1 10.0 Food - Tableware Undiagnostic glassware 2 20.0 Unassigned Hollowware 1 10.0 Unidentified 1 10.0 TOTAL 10 100.0

The bottle assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house represents a wide range of forms and classes (Table 7-7). The most common form is the medicine bottle, the next most common forms being condiment and liquor bottles and possibly beer bottles.

210

Table 7-7 Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house bottle assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage – Alcohol Beer bottle 5 8.2 Beer/champagne 2 3.3 Beer/wine 1 1.6 Liquor bottle 8 13.1 Beverage – General General beverage 1 1.6 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic Aerated/soda water 4 6.6 Domestic - Household Maintenance Poison/chemical bottle 3 4.9 Food - Condiment Condiment bottle 8 13.1 Food - Storage Jar (food/preserve) 5 8.2 Milk bottle 1 1.6 Medicinal - Medicinal Medicine bottle 12 19.7 Medicine/chemical bottle 1 1.6 Personal - Hygiene Perfume/toiletry bottle 1 1.6 Unassigned - Consumption Unassigned bottle 9 14.8 TOTAL 61 100.0

Alcohol bottles are the most common class of bottle at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (26.2%, MIC=16), and a nearly intact French Cointreau bottle was recovered as part of the assemblage (Obj. #1195). Medicinal bottles were the second most common subclass (21.3%, MIC=13), and this is a notable increase in the proportion of medicine bottles and decrease in alcohol bottles when compared to the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa assemblages. This may reflect an increasingly sickly clientele or adherence to temperance ideologies. Within the framework of the temperance movement ingestion of alcohol was more socially acceptable through medicine. Australia never experienced prohibition, but the teetotaller factor was relatively powerful in its attempts to curb alcohol consumption (Davidson and Spearritt 2000). Three bottles of ‘KITCHEN PHENYLE’, a disinfectant, deodoriser and cleaner, were also recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

211

Table 7-8 below depicts all forms from the entire glassware assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house sorted by sub-class. A range of housewares, decorative items and serving wares are present in the glass assemblage. A variety of finely decorated tablewares and two cut lead crystal decanters (Obj. #1248 and #2707) are among some of the more elaborate items from the glass assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Household items include two colourless glass trinket boxes, a small, pink, blown glass fish, and two colourless press-moulded ashtrays. A dark- purple glass pane, likely an inset piece for a cabinet, is included in the glass assemblage for the Commandant’s House. Two lead crystal bowls with cut patterns were found in the assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Both bowls have hemispherical bodies, but one features a starburst pattern on its base and diamond pattern on the body with a scalloped rim (Obj. #1130), while the other has a more elaborate star pattern cut onto its base and exterior (Obj. #2708).

212

Table 7-8 Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house glassware assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage – Alcoholic Beer bottle 5 5.0 Beer/wine bottle 1 1.0 Champagne bottle 2 2.0 Liquor bottle 8 7.9 Beverage – General General beverage bottle 1 1.0 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic Aerated/soda water bottle 4 4.0 Domestic – Decorative Bowl 2 2.0 Figure 1 1.0 Trinket box 2 2.0 Domestic – Furniture Coloured glass pane 1 1.0 Domestic - Household Maintenance Poison/chemical bottle 3 3.0 Domestic – Lighting Lamp shade 1 1.0 Food – Condiment Condiment bottle 8 7.9 Food – Preparation Measure 1 1.0 Food – Service Decanter 2 2.0 Jug 1 1.0 Pedestalled serving vessel 1 1.0 Food – Storage Jar (food/preserve) 5 5.0 Milk bottle 1 1.0 Food – Tableware Stemware 5 5.0 Undiagnostic glassware 1 1.0 Bowl 3 3.0 Tumbler 7 6.9 Food – Teaware Cup – glass 1 1.0 Saucer 2 2.0 Medicinal – Medicinal Medicine bottle 12 11.9 Medicine/chemical bottle 1 1.0 Personal – Hygiene Perfume/toiletry bottle 1 1.0 Recreation – Smoking Ashtray 2 2.0 Unassigned Hollowware 4 4.0

213

Vessel 3 3.0 Unassigned – Consumption Unassigned bottle 9 8.9 TOTAL 101 100.0

Nine pieces of stemware were found and only one of those was undecorated. Two pieces have a pattern of diamonds cut in a band around the body, while another two pieces feature a pattern of cut diamonds on the bottom half of the body with engraved Celtic knots around the rim (Figure 7-16). One stemware piece has a Greek key pattern engraved beneath the rim on the exterior, and the last three stemware pieces have moulded panels around their bodies. Four tumblers are included in the Commandant’s House glass assemblage. One is undecorated, one has a lithographed pattern of curved lines in blue towards the base, one has the phrase ‘HALF PINT’ embossed on the base, and the final tumbler has a pattern of fine flutes cut into its exterior. The tumbler with a pattern of flutes (Obj. #390) is made from lead crystal, as opposed to glass.

Figure 7-15 Cut and etched piece of stemware from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #532)

214

Glass wares beyond drinking vessels were also recovered. Three press- moulded, starburst patterned dessert bowls (one of Uranium or Depression glass) form part of the glass assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, all of which appear to be approximately the same size and have flared, scalloped lips. Teawares include two saucers with a relief-moulded, ribbed pattern and a colourless glass teacup (Obj. #2797). Two glass serving vessels were recovered: a pedestalled serving vessel, possibly for cakes or baked goods (Obj. #1231), as well as a colourless glass jug with a pouring lip and restricted rim (Obj. #2739). A cylindrical glass measure, with increments ‘00’ and ‘50’ lithographed on the exterior in white, represents a food preparation vessel recovered with the glass assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

Two press-moulded glass ashtrays were included in the glass assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. One ashtray has a pattern of ribs on the exterior and the other a pattern of hobnails and specialized projections around the rim to hold cigarettes in place. (Figure 7-17) This reflects the transition and increased popularity of cigarettes, particularly after World War I (Lawrence and Davies 2010:323).

Figure 7-16 Glass ashtrays recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2781 and #1208).

215

At the Hotel Arthur, medicine bottles represent the most common form in the bottle assemblage (Table 7-9). Bottle forms associated with medicinal uses form 32.2% (MIC=20) of the bottle assemblage, the largest of all subclasses (Figure 7-18). Condiment bottles are the next most common form. Similar to the bottle assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, bottles associated with alcohol consumption represent a smaller proportion of the bottle assemblage (21.0%, MIC=13). These are notable shifts in the bottle assemblage from earlier hotels, the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa Hotel, and useful for looking at the provisioning of meals, the idea of Tasmania as a potential destination for the sickly and evidence of a reduced focus on alcohol consumption.

Table 7-9 Hotel Arthur bottle assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage – Alcoholic Beer bottle 2 3.2 Beer/wine bottle 3 4.8 Champagne bottle 1 1.6 Champagne/beer bottle 1 1.6 Liquor bottle 6 9.7 Beverage – General General beverage bottle 1 1.6 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic Aerated/soda water bottle 7 11.3 Domestic - Household Maintenance Chemical/poison bottle 1 1.6 Food – Condiment Condiment bottle 8 12.9 Essence bottle 2 3.2 Food – Storage Jar (preserve/food) 1 1.6 Milk bottle 1 1.6 Medicinal – Medicinal Ampoule 2 3.2 Medicine bottle 15 24.2 Medicine/perfume bottle 1 1.6 Ointment pot 2 3.2 Personal – Hygiene Perfume/toiletry bottle 6 9.7 Unassigned Bottle 2 3.2 TOTAL 62 100.0

216

Figure 7-17 Medicine bottle forms recovered with the Hotel Arthur assemblage.

A total of 9.7% (MIC=6) of the Hotel Arthur bottle assemblage consists of perfume or toiletry bottles. Only one perfume bottle was recovered from each of the Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house assemblages, while no perfume or toiletry bottles were recovered with the Tasman Villa assemblage. One bottle (Obj. #2857) from the Hotel Arthur assemblage has a heart-shaped body with a patent finish but lacks any manufacturer details. The name ‘ED. PINAUD/ PARIS’ is embossed on the front of another of the perfume bottles (Obj. #2866), with the maker’s name embossed in cursive on the base (Figure 7-19). The perfumery was established in Paris in the 1830s by master perfumer Edouard Pinaud and still exists today.38

38 , last viewed March 29, 2015.

217

Figure 7-18 Ed. Pinaud perfume bottle recovered with the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #2866).

Table 7-10 below represents the glass assemblage from the Hotel Arthur sorted by sub-class and form. There is not so great a variety as that presented by the glass assemblage at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Of the glass assemblage medicine bottles make up 18.9% (MIC=15) and condiment bottles 10.8% (MIC=8). Medicinal items from Hotel Arthur are represented by a variety of forms, including glass ampoules with liquid contents suitable for delivery by syringe, ointment pots, and bottle with a cap suitable for extracting medicinal contents by syringe.

218

Table 7-10 Hotel Arthur glassware assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage – Alcoholic Beer bottle 2 2.7 Beer/wine bottle 3 4.1 Champagne bottle 1 1.4 Champagne/beer bottle 1 1.4 Liquor bottle 6 8.1 Beverage – General General beverage bottle 1 1.4 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic Aerated/soda water bottle 7 9.5 Domestic – Decorative Vase 2 2.7 Domestic - Household Maintenance Chemical/poison bottle 1 1.4 Domestic – Lighting Lamp shade 1 1.4 Food – Condiment Condiment bottle 8 10.8 Essence bottle 2 2.7 Food – Service Serving vessel (lidded) 1 1.4 Food – Storage Jar (preserve/food) 1 1.4 Milk bottle 1 1.4 Food – Tableware Stemware 1 1.4 Tumbler 4 5.4 Undiagnostic glassware 1 1.4 Medicine – Medicinal Ampoule 2 2.7 Medicine bottle 15 20.3 Medicine/perfume bottle 1 1.4 Ointment pot 2 2.7 Personal – Hygiene Perfume/toiletry bottle 6 8.1 Unassigned Hollowware 1 1.4 Vessel 1 1.4 Bottle 2 2.7 TOTAL 74 100.0

Glass tablewares form a small portion of the glassware assemblage (9.7%, MIC=6), with one piece of turned, colourless glass stemware, four tumblers and one

219

undiagnostic glass drinking vessel (rim only). Of the four tumblers, one is undecorated, one is optic moulded with a hexagonal interior, and two have cut flutes along their bodies. The two tumblers with cut flutes have lightly tapered bodies with heavy, substantial bases and may be made of lead crystal (as opposed to just glass).

7.4. Miscellaneous Finds

All other artefact classes beyond ceramic and glass are discussed in this section. Table 7-11 below depicts all artefact forms by class from the Carnarvon Hotel. Miscellaneous materials represent 120 objects within the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. Lead foil wrappers from alcohol bottles, including 25 beer/ale bottles, two bottles of French cognac and one bottle of Irish whiskey, are the most common items within the miscellaneous assemblage but have been included with the bottle assemblage for discussion. The miscellaneous assemblage represents a diverse range of objects, and toys form 10% (MIC=12) of the miscellaneous assemblage. Marbles are the most common type of toy recovered (Figure 7-20). Two miniature doll teasets (both porcelain, one relief-moulded, the other gold gilt), a hand-painted porcelain doll (Figure 7-21) and a wind-up toy were are also included in this assemblage.

220

Table 7-11 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Architectural – Flooring Linoleum 1 0.8 Beverage – Alcohol Closure - wire 6 5.0 Wrapper - lead 28 23.3 Clerical – Writing Pencil - graphite 1 0.8 Pencil - slate 3 2.5 Clerical – Stationery Seal - wax 2 1.7 Domestic - Household Maintenance Bell pull 1 0.8 Food - Packaged Foods Tin can 1 0.8 Foil wrapper (candy) 2 1.7 Personal – Adornment Bead 7 5.8 Personal – Economic Coin 2 1.7 Personal - Generic Clothing Button - 2 hole 5 4.2 Button - 4 hole 5 4.2 Button - shank 2 1.7 Grommet 2 1.7 Personal – Hygiene Comb - tortoiseshell 1 0.8 Personal - Men's Clothing Button - 2 hole 1 0.8 Personal - Women's Clothing Hook-and-eyelet fastener 3 2.5 Personal – Timepieces Pocket watch 2 1.7 Recreation – Smoking Packaging (tobacco) 2 1.7 Tobacco pipe - ceramic 5 4.2 Recreation – Toys Doll - unglazed porcelain, hand-painted 1 0.8 Wind-up toy 1 0.8 Marble - refined earthenware 5 4.2 Marble - unglazed porcelain ‘China’ 1 0.8 Marble - glass 2 1.7 Teaset - miniature 2 1.7 Tools – Firearms Bullet casing 1 0.8 Shot - lead 4 3.3 Tools – Sewing Hoop - lace making 1 0.8

221

Packaging (wool) 1 0.8 Pin - straight 15 12.5 Unassigned Unidentified 3 2.5 Unassigned – Consumption Foil wrapper 1 0.8 TOTAL 120 100.0

Figure 7-19 Marbles recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage.

222

Figure 7-20 Porcelain doll face recovered with the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #2077).

Straight pins are the second most common item within the miscellaneous assemblage from the Carnarvon Hotel. Items associated with sewing generally also form a sizeable component of the miscellaneous assemblage (14.1%, MIC=17).

Of the seven smoking-related items from the Carnarvon Hotel, five are clay tobacco pipes. The other two items are small metal packaging embellishments from tobacco containers. A small (9mm dia), flat label plate with prongs to affix it to a package marked ‘Wm CAMERON/ &/ BRO./ PETER o VA’ dates from at least 1865, when the Virginia-based tobacco manufacturers started exporting to Australia. A second small, enameled iron plate with an image of a woman on a red background reads ‘VICTORY/ T. c WILLIAMS Co./ RICHMOND VA’. It also has small prongs to attach it to a larger package. T. c Williams and Co. were key exporters to Australia and operated between 1850 and 1903 (Blyton 2010).

A total of 12 miscellaneous items were recovered in the Tasman Villa assemblage (Table 7-12). The artefacts forming the miscellaneous and small finds assemblage are relatively equally divided between the class groupings, as depicted in Table 7-12 below, representing items for recreation, clothing, and writing. The

223

recreation items from the Tasman Villa include a golf ball and two undecorated clay tobacco pipes (Figure 7-22).

Table 7-12 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Tasman Villa assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Clerical – Writing Writing slate 2 16.7 Domestic – Lighting Switch cover - bakelite 1 8.3 Personal – Hygiene Comb 1 8.3 Personal - Men's Clothing Button - 4 hole 1 8.3 Fastener - trouser 1 8.3 Recreation – Smoking Tobacco pipe - ceramic 2 16.7 Recreation - Sport Ball - golf 1 8.3 Unassigned Unidentified 3 25.0 TOTAL 12 100.0

Figure 7-21 Golf ball recovered with the Tasman Villa assemblage (Obj. #3354).

The light switch likely represents the running of electric lights at the Tasman Villa by use of a generator, as network electricity did not reach Port Arthur until 1952. The

224

Kerslake family assumed the lease of the Tasman Villa in 1917, and they installed electric lights in the first Hotel Arthur (at the Commandant’s Offices and Law Courts) in 1920. The second Hotel Arthur, essentially just the Tasman Villa with a new name, advertised electric lights as well.

Toy marbles are the most common artefacts within the miscellaneous assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House (Table 7- 13) (Figure 7-23), and a single porcelain doll is the other toy included in the assemblage. Shotgun cartridges (Figure 7-24) and tobacco pipes were also relatively common within this assemblage. Of the seven tobacco pipes recovered at least four were made in Glasgow.

As compared to earlier assemblages from the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa Hotel, there is increased evidence of packaged foods by way of plastic food wrapping, foil-wrapped candies and a wrapper of wax paper and foil. A small plastic calendar advertising a hotel in Hobart (Figure 7-25) and three crown cap bottle seals were also recovered.

Figure 7-22 Marbles recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

225

Table 7-13 Miscellaneous artefacts from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Architectural - Flooring Linoleum 1 1.4 Beverage - General Crown cap 3 4.2 Clerical - Writing Writing slate 1 1.4 Domestic - Decorative Chinese mother-of-pearl decoration 1 1.4 Domestic - Household Maintenance Bell pull 2 2.8 Key 1 1.4 Domestic - Laundry Clothes pin 4 5.6 Domestic - Lighting Lamp shade 1 1.4 Light bulb 1 1.4 Food - Packaged Foods Bag 2 2.8 Foil wrapper (candy) 2 2.8 Foil/baking paper (baked goods) 1 1.4 Food - Storage Meat safe 1 1.4 Food - Tableware Spoon (dessert), fiddle pattern 1 1.4 Personal - Adornment Bead 2 2.8 Personal - Generic Clothing Button - 2 hole 2 2.8 Button - shank 1 1.4 Grommet 1 1.4 Pin - safety 1 1.4 Personal - Men's Clothing Button - shank 1 1.4 Personal - Women's Clothing Button - shank 1 1.4 Hook-and-eyelet fastener 2 2.8 Recreation - Smoking Tobacco pipes - clay 7 9.7 Recreation - Tourism Calendar - plastic 1 1.4 Recreation - Toys Doll - glazed porcelain, hand-painted 1 1.4 Marble - unglazed porcelain ‘Chinas’ 13 18.1 Marble – glass 1 1.4 Tools - Firearms Bullet casing 1 1.4 Shotgun shell 7 9.7 Tools - Sewing Straight pin 1 1.4

226

Thimble 1 1.4 Unassigned Unidentified 4 5.6 Unassigned - Consumption Foil wrapper 1 1.4 Plastic container 1 1.4 TOTAL 72 100.0

Figure 7-23 Shotgun cartridges and a rifle shell from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

227

Figure 7-24 Plastic calendar for Heathorn’s Hotel from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #589).

Material culture from the Hotel Arthur miscellaneous materials and small-finds assemblage exhibits marked differences from the other assemblages. Modern materials, including plastics and polystyrene, feature in the Hotel Arthur assemblage. These are consistent with its date of operations (1921 to 1959). A large increase in the proportion of recreational items is evident in the miscellaneous materials as they represent 35.3% (MIC=18) of the assemblage. Two distinct souvenir items, a miniature souvenir pot and Motor Inn Port Arthur letter opener form part of the ‘recreation’ functional class (Figures 7-26 and 7-27). Other items associated with tourism include remnants of 35mm film, film containers, and a metal sign advertising ‘Lifesavers’ candies. A set of women’s stockings, a squeeze-tube with toothpaste, and a plastic pharmaceutical vial are among the materials not present at other Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses.

One lead foil seal, marked ‘CASTLE OE/ UNSWEETENED/ GIN/ W…GILBEY’ (Obj. #3348), was found in the Hotel Arthur assemblage. A plastic liquor dispenser, attached to a liquor bottle to standardise the amount of liquor poured into a drink, is the other alcohol-related item found in the Hotel Arthur miscellaneous finds assemblage. The five smoking-related items from the Hotel Arthur assemblage includes four clay

228

tobacco pipes and a bakelite mouthpiece for a composite smoking pipe. Two of the four clay tobacco pipes were made in Glasgow.

229

Table 7-14 Miscellaneous artefacts from the Hotel Arthur assemblage, sorted by subclass and form.

Subclass Form MIC % Beverage - Alcoholic Wrapper - lead (gin) 1 2.0 Dispenser 1 2.0 Clerical - Writing Pencil - slate 2 3.9 Domestic - Decorative Curtain ring 1 2.0 Domestic - Furniture Upholstery foam 1 2.0 Domestic - Household Maintenance Sink plug/stopper 1 2.0 Tape - electrical 1 2.0 Wire - electrical 2 3.9 Domestic - Laundry Washboard 1 2.0 Clothes pin 1 2.0 Domestic - Lighting Lamp shade 1 2.0 Light bulb 2 3.9 Food - Packaged Foods Sign - ‘Lifesavers’ 1 2.0 Bag 3 5.9 Food - Tableware Spoon - dessert - fiddle pattern 1 2.0 Fork - fiddle pattern 2 3.9 Medicinal - Medicinal Vial - pill 1 2.0 Personal - Adornment Bead 1 2.0 Personal - Hygiene Container (toothpaste) 1 2.0 Comb 1 2.0 Personal - Men's Clothing Button - 4 hole 2 3.9 Personal - Women's Clothing Stocking 1 2.0 Recreation - Art Pencil - coloured (taupe) 1 2.0 Recreation - Smoking Tobacco pipe - bakelite 1 2.0 Tobacco pipe - ceramic 4 7.8 Recreation - Tourism Souvenir miniature pot (Price's) 1 2.0 Film cannister 1 2.0 Letter opener (Motor Inn) 1 2.0 Film - photographic 1 2.0 Recreation - Toys Ruler - polystyrene 1 2.0

230

Figurine 6 11.8 Doll - plastic 1 2.0 Transportation - Automobile Glass - safety (impact glass) 1 2.0 Unassigned Unidentified 2 3.9 Unassigned - Consumption Cap - plastic 1 2.0 TOTAL 51 100.0

Figure 7-25 Miniature souvenir earthenware pot, marked ‘PA’ on the base, recovered in the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. 3465).

231

Figure 7-26 Plastic letter opener for the Port Arthur Motor Inn recovered in the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3448).

7.5. Artefact Class

Table 7-15 below represents a summary of all objects associated with the each of the Port Arthur hotel/guesthouse assemblages, sorted by sub-class. To maintain consistency with the comparative collections and ensure a continued focus on the construction of place and consumption by tourists, most architectural items (plaster samples, bricks, wood shavings, nails, screws, window glass) were excluded from the sampling strategy (Casey and Lowe 2005a).

232

Table 7-15 Artefacts from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur sorted by subclass.

Carnarvon Tasman Mrs. Hotel Villa Brimage's Hotel Arthur Class MIC % MIC % MIC % MIC % Architectural - Flooring 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 Beverage – Alcohol 32 14.3 5 6.8 16 4.8 15 4.6 Beverage – General 2 0.9 3 4.1 8 2.4 5 1.5 Beverage - Non-Alcoholic 8 3.6 0 0.0 4 1.2 7 2.2 Clerical – Writing 4 1.8 2 2.7 1 0.3 4 1.2 Clerical - Stationery 2 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Domestic - Decorative 1 0.4 2 2.7 8 2.4 4 1.2 Domestic - Furniture 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 Domestic - Gardening 14 6.3 1 1.4 5 1.5 3 0.9 Domestic - Household Maintenance 2 0.9 1 1.4 6 1.8 5 1.5 Domestic - Laundry 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 2 0.6 Domestic - Lighting 0 0.0 1 1.4 3 0.9 4 1.2 Food – Condiment 2 0.9 0 0.0 8 2.4 10 3.1 Food - Packaged Foods 3 1.3 1 1.4 5 1.5 4 1.2 Food - Preparation 3 1.3 2 2.7 4 1.2 3 0.9 Food – Service 12 5.4 8 11.0 22 6.6 30 9.3 Food – Storage 1 0.4 0 0.0 9 2.7 14 4.3 Food – Tableware 17 7.6 9 12.3 56 16.8 43 13.3 Food – Teaware 22 9.8 17 23.3 53 15.9 67 20.7 Medical – Medical 4 1.8 0 0.0 17 5.1 21 6.5 Personal - Adornment 7 3.1 0 0.0 2 0.6 1 0.3 Personal - Economic 2 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Personal - Generic Clothing 14 6.3 0 0.0 5 1.5 0 0.0 Personal - Hygiene 7 3.1 2 2.7 4 1.2 15 4.6 Personal - Men's Clothing 1 0.4 2 2.7 1 0.3 2 0.6 Personal - Women's Clothing 3 1.3 0 0.0 3 0.9 1 0.3 Personal - Timepieces 2 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Recreation - Art 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3

233

Recreation - Smoking 7 3.1 2 2.7 9 2.7 5 1.5 Recreation - Sport 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Recreation - Tourism 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 4 1.2 Recreation - Toys 12 5.4 0 0.0 15 4.5 8 2.5 Tools - Firearms 5 2.2 0 0.0 8 2.4 0 0.0 Tools - Household Maintenance 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Tools - Sewing 17 7.6 0 0.0 2 0.6 0 0.0 Transportation - Automobile 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Transportation - Equine 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Unassigned 16 7.1 14 19.2 42 12.6 40 12.4 Unassigned - Consumption 1 0.4 0 0.0 11 3.3 3 0.9 TOTAL 224 100.0 73 100.0 334 100.0 323 100.0 *Most common form for each site marked in bold.

The most common form in the Carnarvon Hotel across all classes is the beer bottle (as indicated by lead foil wrappers, or capsules), which represents 11.7% (MIC=26) of the entire assemblage. Defined alcohol-related objects represent the largest portion of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. This does not include other probable alcohol-related items, such as the use of aerated water (a non-alcoholic beverage in itself) as a mix with liquor. Teawares form the next largest grouping of artefacts in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage.

The sub-classes in Table 7-15 illustrate the relatively broad distribution of artefacts in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage across functional categories, when grouped together. Only 26.8% of the artefacts in the assemblage relate to food, while 16.1% are associated with personal items and 8.5% of the assemblage consists of recreational items, mostly smoking paraphernalia and toys.

The Tasman Villa assemblage is the smallest complete assemblage (MIC=73) of the four Port Arthur hotels, but as the size of the assemblage is consistent with some of the comparative collections it has been included for further analysis and discussion. Teawares are the largest sub-class in the Tasman Villa assemblage, with tablewares and serving vessels being the next most common sub-classes of food-related items. Unassigned objects are actually the second largest sub-class of the assemblage, and

234

this is a reflection of the fact that the assemblage associated with the Tasman Villa was highly fragmentary and many objects could not be confidently assigned a class. As a class, food-related items dominate the Tasman Villa assemblage as 50.7% of the total assemblage (MIC=37).

The most common forms present in the Commandant’s House assemblage are plates and cups, which represent 9.6% (MIC=32) and 9.3% (MIC=31) respectively of the assemblage. Continuing along this trend, tablewares and teawares are the most common functional sub-classes represented in the Commandant’s House assemblage. Food-related items represent 47.0% (MIC=157) of all artefacts at the Commandant’s House.

Food consumption and service dominates the artefact assemblage at the Hotel Arthur. Beyond food-related items (52.9%, MIC=171), beverage bottles are the next most common class at the Hotel Arthur (8.4%, MIC=27), followed by medicinal items (6.5%, n=21). Ceramic vessels account for 61.3% (MIC=198) of the Hotel Arthur artefact assemblage, while bottles account for only 19.8% (MIC=64). Looking at distribution by form across the site, no major concentrations are notable. Cups are the most common form of artefact found in the Hotel Arthur artefact assemblage, and they represent 12.1% (MIC=39) of the entire assemblage.

An Appropriately Decorated Setting

When considering the construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur, it is worth examining the ways in which the places of tourist accommodation were decorated. While most items would have actively served to decorate the site (such as elaborate ceramic tablewares and glasswares), it is worth considering those items specifically associated with decorating or beautifying a hotel. At the Carnarvon Hotel, flower pots comprise the most common form in the ceramic assemblage, with 11 coarse earthenware (mostly redware) pots of varying sizes and finishes recovered along with two bases. Together, these items represent 16.3% of the entire ceramic assemblage for the Carnarvon Hotel. Most of these vessels were recovered from areas towards the front verandah of the house. While the pots themselves generally had limited ornamentation, actively planting around the front of the Carnarvon Hotel would have served to beautify the hotel entrance. As well, a brass bell pull used to call servants was

235

identified in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage (Obj. #632), as was a milk glass vase and a glass mirror.

Murals at the Commandant’s Residence, most likely painted during the tenancy of the Carnarvon Hotel (Scripps 1998), depict Greco-Roman classical ruins on several walls within and around the house (see Figures 6-3 and 6-4). The recreation of ruins from classical sites across the world rendered a placeless, generically ‘historic’ component to tourist experience at the Carnarvon Hotel.

At the Tasman Villa, a whiteware vase with a teal transfer-printed pattern was recovered, as was a ceramic figurine. The figurine is made beige-coloured, dry-bodied stoneware consistent with Wedgewood-style wares. The relief-patterned figurine depicts a person or animal. A redware flower pot was also recovered from the Tasman Villa artefact assemblage. The assemblage of decorative items for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House, contained a distinct assemblage which will be discussed further below. Its assemblage also includes five flower pots. The Hotel Arthur assemblage contains three flower pots and only one decorative item, a ceramic figurine.

Attempts to decorate and modify the interiors of hotels and guesthouses is evidenced by a small variety of specifically decorative items recovered from the assemblages at Port Arthur. Decorative items (excluding plant pots) account for 0.4% (MIC=1) of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, 2.7% (MIC=2) of the Tasman Villa assemblage, 2.4% (MIC=8) of the Commandant’s House assemblage, and 1.2% (MIC=4) of the Hotel Arthur assemblage.

Antiques and the Orient

Evidence from the Commandant’s House suggests the purposeful curation of antiques and imported Chinese objects by proprietor Mrs. Brimage. As international trade expanded through the sixteenth century, Chinese-influenced art, objects and architecture were increasingly in vogue in Europe and the associated colonies. As time progressed, Chinese import goods became gradually more affordable, and ‘Chinoiserie’ became a common artefact class in some places. During the late Victorian era there was a revival of interest in oriental wares in the western world (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:129).

236

A variety of imported Chinese items were recovered in the artefact assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House. The set of four Chinese hand-painted porcelain plates are decorated in the ‘Thousand Butterfly’ pattern within the Rose Medallion variety of export porcelains produced in China between 1840 and 1880 and considered rare by collectors today.39 A large decorative Chinese porcelain bowl hand-painted with four characters pre-dates 1911, as one of the characters is an archaic form that dates to the Qing Dynasty (Figure 7-28).40 As well, a mother-of-pearl ornament with brass Chinese characters affixed to it forms part of the assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. A heavy, bowl-shaped brass gong with fine Chinese script around the rim, which was contained in Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop (Item 1998.294), was reportedly used at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (the Commandant’s House) while it was still in operation. The establishment of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house in 1917 post-dates late Victorian fascination with oriental wares, so it is not likely that the items recovered from the Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house at Port Arthur represent this phase of interest in ‘Chinoiserie’.

Figure 7-27 Hand-painted Chinese porcelain bowl from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2300).

39 , last viewed March 30, 2015. 40 Dr. M. Ruse, pers. comm. November 2011.

237

Non-Chinese antiques were also recovered in the Commandant’s House assemblage. A Coalport bone china vase with a maker’s mark that dates between 1881 and 1920 was also recovered (Godden 1993:55). A hand-painted and gold-gilt Copeland serving vessel and matching plate recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house date between 1851 and 1885 (Godden 1993:56), well before the establishment of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house in 1917.

Personal Hygiene

Items associated with personal hygiene were found at all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. Evidence of items associated with personal health and hygiene is thought to reflect genteel behaviour (Lawrence et al. 2009: 68, 77; Quirk 2007:103). As a subclass, items associated with personal hygiene represent 3.1% (MIC=7) of the total Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, 2.7% (MIC=2) of the total Tasman Villa assemblage, 1.2% (MIC=4) of the Commandant’s House assemblage, and 4.6% (MIC=16) of the Hotel Arthur assemblage. These include both items provided by hotel proprietors, such as wash basins and chamber pots, as well as personal effects introduced by hotel guests, such as combs and toothbrushes. In either instance these are thought to represent middle and upper-class concerns with cleanliness and personal health.

At the Carnarvon Hotel, four chamber pots and one wash basin were recovered in the ceramic assemblage and one perfume/toiletry bottle was identified in the glass assemblage. Object #1418 is a tortoiseshell comb that was also recovered as part of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage, representing an item of personal hygiene. It has teeth at least 31mm long with tapered points which are not overly closely spaced, suggesting it represents comb for detangling hair as opposed to eliminating a lice or nit infestation.

Only two items associated with personal hygiene were found in the Tasman Villa assemblage, including one wash basin and a white plastic comb. Four items were recovered in the Commandant’s House assemblage, including a perfume/toiletry bottle and three chamber pots. The Hotel Arthur has the highest proportion of items associated with personal hygiene (4.6%, MIC=16). The Hotel Arthur assemblage also includes the widest variety of items associated with personal hygiene. Items recovered include five chamber pots, two wash basins, six perfume/toiletry bottles, a toothpaste

238

container and a plastic comb. The toothpaste container (Obj. #3390) consists of a drawn metal container with ‘GIBBS/ DENTIFRICE’ lithographed across the top which would have held a solid cake-style toothpaste. (Figure 7-29) This toothpaste container dates between 1910 and 1950 as Gibbs’ Dentifrice was established in London, England around 1910 and introduced a crown to its maker’s mark from 1950.41 As noted in section 7.3, one of the perfume bottles in the Hotel Arthur assemblage was imported from France.

Figure 7-28 Drawn metal container of ‘Gibbs Dentifrice’ recovered from the Hotel Arthur (Obj. #3390).

Toys

The Carnarvon Hotel assemblage compared the largest proportion of toys of the four Port Arthur sites, with 12 toys representing 5.4% of the entire assemblage. A variety of items was recovered, and these are presented in Table 7-16 below. One graphite pencil and three slate pencils were recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. If these were used as educational items for children, up to 7.1% (MIC=16)

41 , last viewed April 2, 2015.

239

the entire Carnarvon Hotel assemblage could consist of items associated with childrearing and education.

Table 7-16 Types of toys recovered at the Carnarvon Hotel.

Toys - Carnarvon Hotel MIC Marble – earthenware 6 Marble – glass 2 Doll - porcelain, hand-painted 1 Teaset - miniature, gold-gilt porcelain 1 Teaset - miniature, undecorated porcelain 1 Wind-up toy (key) 1 TOTAL 12

Carskadden and Gartley (1990:55) note that marbles often represent at least half of the toy assemblage in most late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century sites. The six earthenware marbles recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel represent half of the toy collection. Ceramic marbles commonly represent 80-95% of marbles found at late- nineteenth and early-twentieth century sites as they were inexpensive, often bulk- purchased items (Carskadden and Gartley 1990:55). These are hand-formed marbles with a pale grey-beige fabric with fine grey inclusions, one with a splotchy brown glaze. While most marbles were imported from Germany, many local potteries made marbles from leftover clay to give to their children or sell to other local children (Carskadden and Gartley 1990:56). Given the similarity in fabric between the ceramic marbles recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel and items the Port Arthur-based Price’s Pottery (1886-1912), it is possible that these marbles are of local manufacture. Price produced a wide range of objects, including tiles, vases, planters, and miscellaneous tourist souvenirs, among others.

Aside from the ceramic marbles, two machine-made glass marbles were recovered, along with pieces from two porcelain teasets, a wind-up toy and a soft-paste porcelain doll. Several pieces of the doll’s face were recovered, and these pieces indicate a relatively elaborate method of manufacture and involved labour (see Figure 7- 22 above). The face has finely moulded features, and the empty eye sockets indicate

240

that it would have had articulated, rolling glass eyes. The mouth was moulded open, and a separate glazed-porcelain plate with neatly formed teeth was pasted behind the lips to give the sense of realistic teeth. The doll itself is unglazed and painted a peach colour with hand-applied details including the upper eyelashes, lower eyelashes and lips. It is uncertain if the remainder of the doll’s body was porcelain or upholstery (another indicator of the doll’s initial value), but it is not the type of object generally associated with lower middle-class or working class toy assemblages. This is consistent with the interpretation that the Carnarvon Hotel provided accommodation for wealthy or upper- middle class tourists.

The assemblage with the next highest proportion of toys was Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, and the 15 toys recovered represent 4.5% of the total artefact assemblage. Marbles dominate the assemblage (Table 7-17 below), and in place of hand-formed earthenware marbles (‘Commies’) are unglazed, undecorated porcelain ‘Chinas’. A porcelain doll was recovered in the assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, though it doesn’t have quite the same attention to detail as the one from the Carnarvon Hotel (Figure 7-30). This doll has a white glazed porcelain head with a moulded face and short curly hairstyle. The curls are hand-painted black, as are the eyebrows and eyelashes. The cheeks and eye crease are painted a vivid coral pink. One writing slate was recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. If this was used as an educational item, up to 4.8% (MIC=16) the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage would consist of items associated with childrearing and education.

Table 7-17 Toys recovered from the Commandant’s House assemblage.

Toys - Commandant's House MIC Doll - glazed porcelain, hand-painted 1 Marble - unglazed porcelain ‘Chinas’ 13 Marble – glass 1 TOTAL 15

241

Figure 7-29 Porcelain doll head recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2299).

A total of eight toys are included in the Hotel Arthur assemblage, representing 2.5% of the total assemblage (Figure 7-31). If two slate pencils recovered in the Hotel Arthur assemblage were included, up to 3.1% of the Hotel Arthur could be associated with childrearing and education. Only one glass marble was found in the Hotel Arthur assemblage, a marked difference from the other two toy assemblages that were dominated by marbles. Four of the eight toys are plastic, including a small doll with articulated arms, a miniature seated milkman figurine which would have fit into a toy truck, and two fragments from unidentified toys. A painted resin animal figurine and miniature porcelain teaset were also found. A hand-painted, unglazed porcelain bird was also found. The Hotel Arthur toy assemblage differs from the others as it reflects a transition to new material types (plastics, resins) and variety of mostly mass-produced toys. The Hotel Arthur operated between 1921 and 1959, and this period would have seen the introduction (and widespread use) of an array of new plastics and synthetic fabrics.

242

Figure 7-30 Toys recovered from the Hotel Arthur.

The Tasman Villa assemblage did not include any toys. Two writing slates were recovered, representing 2.7% of the entire Tasman Villa assemblage. These may have been associated with education. It is interesting to note that no female or child-specific items were recovered from the Tasman Villa assemblage, particularly given the wide array of toys, sewing items, beads and items of adornment recovered from the other accommodation sites at Port Arthur. This may relate as well to the limited complexity of the teawares at Tasman Villa. This is not to say that the Tasman Villa did not receive female clientele, but perhaps in such a remote location the Carnarvon Hotel would have had more to offer female travellers by way of comfort and amenities (as well as an appropriately classed domestic setting deemed important for female travellers of the time).

Tourist Items

One tourist-associated object was recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, a calendar printed on a flat piece of plastic advertising Heathorn’s Hotel in Hobart. The majority of tourist-specific material culture was found in the Hotel Arthur

243

assemblage (MIC=4). A drawn aluminum film canister and length of black-and-white 35mm film are included in this grouping, and the Hotel Arthur advertised Kodak products from at least 1926 (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1926:74). A metal plate with advertising for Lifesavers candies painted on in blue and white was also recovered as part of this assemblage (Figure 7-32).

Figure 7-31 Lifesavers sign recovered from the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3433).

A hand-decorated, miniature thrown earthenware pot with ‘PA/ 18’ and a broad arrow carved on the bottom was also found in the Hotel Arthur assemblage. Initially associated with Price’s Pottery that operated in Port Arthur from 1886 to 1912, if the ‘18’ on the base represents 1918 it must have been made by another company. The broad arrow and ‘PA’ associate it as a souvenir of Port Arthur, at the very least. The last tourist-associated object from the Hotel Arthur is a plastic, moulded letter opener for the ‘MOTOR HOTEL/ PORT ARTHUR’. The letter opener is shaped like a sword with a small enamel medallion attached to the hilt. The medallion contains a colour photograph of the Church inside a map of Tasmania (Figure 7-33).

244

Figure 7-32 Detail of the plastic letter opener recovered as part of the Hotel Arthur assemblage (Obj. #3448)

Objects associated with tourism at Port Arthur were recovered during artefact analysis, but due to lack of sufficient provenience many items were not included in hotel assemblages to maintain consistency with the artefact sampling strategy. A hotel china cup for the Springs Hotel on Mount Wellington was recovered with unprovenanced material culture from the Junior Medical Officer’s house (Figure 7-34). The Springs Hotel opened in 1907 and operated until 1967 when it burnt down. Mount Wellington was (and is) a popular destination for tourists in southern Tasmania, as it is located immediately adjacent to Hobart and provides extensive views of the state and surrounding seas.

245

Figure 7-33 Hotel china cup for the Springs Hotel on Mount Wellington recovered from JMO (not assigned to a hotel assemblage).

Medicinal Items

A variety of medical complaints are represented by the medical paraphernalia recovered from the various sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. At the Carnarvon Hotel, four medical items were recovered, including two medicine bottles and two whiteware ointment pots. One bottle has a patent finish, the other a two-part finish (ring collar, tapered skirt) with ‘…IS THE…/…UNIT…’ embossed on it. Unfortunately none of these items is marked to indicate the ailments they would have addressed.

No medical items were recovered with the Tasman Villa assemblage. At Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, medical items represent 5.1% (MIC=17) of the entire assemblage. Of the 13 bottles represented, four have finishes consistent with either patent or prescription medicines (collared ring finish), three have finishes and bodies consistent with prescription (including homoeopathic) medicine, and six are patent medicine bottles. One of the patent medicine bottles (Obj. #2684) has ‘…ALLEN & HANBURYS' LTD’, the name of a British pharmaceutical company, embossed along its body. Beyond bottles, three whiteware ointment pots were recovered, along with a patent medicine teapot. The teapot (Obj. #2327) is made of whiteware with a marble

246

pattern around the exterior, with instructions for medicinal use transfer-printed in black (Figure 7-35). The instructions read:

‘…SON'S/ …VED/ …NHALER/ DIRECTIONS FOR USE/ REMOVE MOUTHPIECE-HALF FILL/ INHALER WITH BOILING WATER/ DROP REMEDY ON SPONGE OF MOUTH-/ PIECE-APPLY LIPS TO IT- BREATHE/ FREELY IN & OUT AS IN ORDINARY/ RESPIRATION- WHEN ONLY THI…/ OF HOT WATER OR ANY INFUS…/DESIRED REMOVE THE SP[ONGE]…/ FROM MOUTHPIECE-…’

Figure 7-34 Medicinal teapot from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (Obj. #2327).

Hotel Arthur also has a large medical component to its assemblage, representing 21 items or 6.5% of the overall assemblage. The medical items from the Hotel Arthur assemblage are highly diverse, including two colourless glass ampoules, two patent medicine bottles, a bottle with specialized cap for extracting injectable medicine, three homoeopathic vials, three prescription bottles, seven small medicine bottles (nearly vials), and one bottle which could be ascribed to patent or prescription medicine (see Figure 7-19 above). Injectable medicine was not identified at any of the other Port Arthur sites. Maker’s marks were found on two of the bottles. A rectangular flask (Obj. #2855) is embossed ‘A. J. MILLER & MAUND PTY LTD/ PROPRIETORS HOBART’, a chemist shop which advertised a stock of patent medicines in Tasmania

247

through the 1940s. A second embossed bottle with a prescription finish is marked ‘HOMOEOPATHIC PHARMACY/HOBART’. Unfortunately, the types of ailments being treated for are not indicated. A wide variety of medicines (patent, prescription and homoeopathic) were used at the Hotel Arthur and Commandant’s House. The varied range of medical items may represent treatment of a wide range of ailments.

7.6. Conclusion

There are several ways in which the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1907) artefact assemblage was distinct from the other assemblages. The Carnarvon Hotel had a high proportion of alcohol bottles as compared to the other assemblages. Most of the evidence of alcohol consumption consisted of lead foil wrappers from beer and ale bottles imported from England, Scotland and Ireland. Wrappers for French cognac and Irish whiskey were also recovered. The use of foil wrappers on bottles served to guard against the practice of recycling bottles and refilling them with inferior contents, and these were predominantly purchased by upper-class and upper-middle class Australians (Moore 2000). Ceramics from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage were mostly undecorated whitewares, although teawares as a sub-class were most often gold-gilt or undecorated porcelain. Porcelain was used almost exclusively for teawares, and 72.7% of all teawares for porcelain. Objects associated with gardening (earthenware pots and bases) and hygiene (chamberpots and a wash basin) were also recovered. Toys and sewing paraphernalia formed a significant portion of the miscellaneous items assemblage at the Carnarvon Hotel.

Toys and sewing items were entirely absent from the Tasman Villa assemblage. The assemblage was so small, however, that it is difficult to make any conclusive observations. Ceramics from the Tasman Villa hotel were mostly blue-transfer printed whitewares, and teawares were the most common sub-class of ceramic vessel present. Serving vessels outnumbered tablewares, but again this may reflect the small assemblage size. Glass bottles were mostly associated with alcohol, and recreation activities at the Tasman Villa are represented by clay tobacco pipes and a golf ball.

248

Recreational activities at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house are represented by tobacco smoking pipes and ashtrays, a plastic tourist calendar for a hotel in Hobart, and several toys. The artefact assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house is differentiated from the others in several ways. All but one glass tableware item were decorated, and a notable number of decorative glass items including trinket boxes, a blown glass fish and cut lead-crystal bowls were recovered in this assemblage. This assemblage also has the largest proportion of hand-painted vessels and imported Asian porcelain. However, the majority of the ceramic assemblage is characterised by blue transfer-printed and undecorated whitewares. Unlike the other assemblages in which porcelain vessels are almost exclusively teawares, porcelain tablewares, serving vessels and decorative items are present in the ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Medicine bottles are the second most common form in the bottle assemblage, and a medicinal teapot and several ointment pots were also recovered as part of the overall artefact assemblage.

Medicine bottles are also the most common form in the Hotel Arthur bottle assemblage. Other medicinal items were recovered as part of the Hotel Arthur glass assemblage, including liquid-filled glass ampoules, ointment pots, a plastic pill vial and a glass bottle with a specialised cap for drawing injectable fluids by syringe. The Hotel Arthur ceramic assemblage had the highest proportions of hotel china, a utilitarian banded ware which in some instances was part of a matching ‘Kerslake’s’ pattern featuring a transfer-printed shamrock. It also has the lowest proportion of porcelain vessels as compared to the other three sites, and unlike every other assemblage where teawares were mostly porcelain, the majority of teawares at the Hotel Arthur were brown transfer-printed whiteware.

Some trends were observed across all four sites. Blue transfer-printed whiteware is the most type of ceramic found at the Tasman Villa, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur, while undecorated whiteware was most common at the Carnarvon Hotel. In terms of where decoration types were most likely to appear, plates were mostly transfer-printed whiteware at all four places of accommodation. Most of the differences between sites in terms of ceramic decoration and ware were present in the choice of teawares and serving vessels used at the different sites. Teawares were the most common sub-class of ceramic vessel recovered at all four sites. As well, in the

249

ceramic assemblages for all four sites flatware vessels outnumbered hollowware vessels. This suggests that the greatest portion of the menu served to tourists consisted of solid-based, portioned foods, as opposed to soups and stews. This pattern is consistent with middle class or upper class dietary patterns, as ceramic assemblages for the rural poor or working class groups were traditionally, but not exclusively, dominated by hollowware vessels (Brooks 2002b:55).

The bottle assemblages from the earlier hotels (Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa) have higher proportions of alcohol bottles as compared to the later hotels (Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur). As well, both of the later hotels have higher proportions of medicine bottles and condiment bottles, as the medicine bottle is the most common form in the Hotel Arthur assemblage and second most common at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. The condiment bottle is the second most common bottle type at the Hotel Arthur and third most common at Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. These changes may suggest a transition in focus for tourist experience, or perhaps a changing clientele.

Toys formed a notable component of three of the four assemblages, as the Tasman Villa assemblage contained no toys. Toys represented 2.5% to 5.4% of the total assemblage for tourist sites at Port Arthur. Recreation items, which included toys, smoking items, tourism-specific items, sporting goods and art supplies, were recovered from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. Recreation items represented 4.1% to 8.5% of the total artefact assemblage for all four sites.

As items predominantly used as tools, firearms were separated from recreational items for the comparative examination of assemblages. Shooting was, however, advertised as a recreational pursuit in advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel, and firearms-related artefacts were recovered from the assemblages for both the Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. Arguably objects associated with firearms could be considered recreational items in the context of hotels and boarding houses at Port Arthur. The inclusion of firearms as recreational items would result in recreational items representing 10.7% of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage and 9.9% of the artefact assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house.

250

The examination of material culture from all four places of tourist accommodation did not encounter any evidence of elements of dark tourism or romanticism. Most of the ceramic patterns selected by hotel proprietors were ubiquitous to nineteenth and early- twentieth century archaeological sites across Australia. No individual items recovered suggested the display of particularly dark or romantic household items or personal effects. The hotels and guesthouses and guesthouses appear to have offered comfortable, relatively homey accommodation for visitors to the site.

This chapter has broadly characterized the artefact assemblages from the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904), Tasman Villa (1899-1921), Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917-1939) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959). The findings from this chapter will be used to discuss evidence of class, recreation and evidence for the ‘type’ of tourist place Port Arthur might have been in Chapter 9. These concepts will be discussed in association with findings from the comparative assemblages presented in Section 6.5. Artefact assemblages from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur will be used to interrogate existing theories about the material nature of tourism as a means of identifying a material signature for tourist sites.

251

Chapter 8. Advertising Port Arthur’s Hotels and Guesthouses

8.1. Introduction

Following the examination of material culture recovered from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur, I now consider how these establishments marketed themselves to tourists. The selective description of the available accommodation and nearby amenities on offer provides insight into those features considered most important by the hotel and guesthouse proprietors. Understanding the type of accommodation product the proprietors were trying to create for guests should add a new dimension to the findings from the analysis of material culture. Advertisements for all four places of accommodation were examined in newspapers and guidebooks.

8.2. Methodology

Newspapers

To generate a sample of advertisements from newspapers relating to the tourist accommodations at Port Arthur, an online database of digitised Australian newspapers created by the National Library of Australia was searched for relevant materials. TROVE consists of data collected by the National Library of Australia and includes content from over 2,000 state, territory and public libraries across Australia, as well as other cultural and educational institutions. At July 2012 TROVE contained over 302 million online resources, including digitized Australian newspapers and journals42. Digitized newspapers are available from 1800 to 1959 and include over 660 titles across all

42 “TROVE Content Inclusion Statement 20 March 2013” , from http://trove.nla.gov.au/general/more-about-trove/, accessed 1/3/2014

252

states. To this end, the newspaper advertisements used may not be representative, but they are a convenient sample of all newspapers indexed.

To determine changes to newspaper advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904), Tasman Villa (1899-1921), Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House (1917-1939) and Hotel Arthur (1921-1959), I used the name of each hotel in quotations (e.g. ‘Carnarvon Hotel’) as a search term to query digitized newspapers. All newspaper hits for the search terms listed were examined for information on each accommodation, particularly advertisements drawing tourists. In some cases small ‘snapshots’ of the township were offered by touring journalists who published their opinions regarding their visit.

Table 8-1 below represents the search terms used for each hotel or guesthouse, the number of results and the number of newspapers represented. Searches for the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa were searched using just their titles, while several terms were used to search for advertisements relating to Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House and the Hotel Arthur.

Table 8-1 Keywords used to search for advertisements on TROVE.

Establishment Search Keywords Newspapers Hits Carnarvon Hotel ‘Carnarvon Hotel’ 79 3410 Tasman Villa ‘Tasman Villa’ 10 103 Mrs. Brimage's Boarding House ‘Mrs. Brimage Boarding’ 0 0 ‘Brimage Boarding’ 1 2 Brimage boarding ‘Port Arthur’ 9 58 ‘Commandant's House’ boarding Carnarvon 4 8 Brimage boarding Carnarvon 14 154 Hotel Arthur Kerslake Hotel Arthur 70 2133 Kerslake Hotel ‘Port Arthur’ 8 127 Kerslake Hotel Carnarvon 12 103 ‘Hotel Arthur’ Carnarvon 5 183

253

Of all establishments, the Carnarvon Hotel had the highest number of advertisements published in Australian newspapers, as well as the widest assortment of advertisement styles. Eleven styles of advertisement for the Carnarvon Hotel dating from 188643 to 189744 were recovered from five newspapers. Two out-of-state newspapers published advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel: The Australasian and The South Australian Register from Melbourne, VIC and Adelaide, SA respectively.

The hotel with the second highest number of advertisements retrieved was the Tasman Villa, with a total of nine advertisements in two newspapers. Three advertisement styles were represented, with the first advertisement printed in 190445 and the last in 191646.

For Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House, several searches were used to try and recover advertisements for the establishment, as the commonly recorded name did not successfully retrieve anything. Two styles of advertisement were found in one newspaper, The Mercury. Both actually list the name of the establishment as ‘Commandant’s House, Carnarvon (Port Arthur)’47 or ‘Commandant’s House, Port Arthur’48, with Mrs. M. L. Brimage as the proprietress. Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house appeared in two additional advertisements, but they were for Hume Septic Systems and featured several other hotels and guesthouses using the same system, including Kerslake’s Carnarvon Hotel49.

The search for the Hotel Arthur, also referred to as Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur, Kerslake’s Carnarvon Hotel, and at times just the Carnarvon Hotel, required the use of multiple searches to recover any advertisements. The only newspaper advertisement recovered appears as what looks like a succinct travel article consisting of three

43 The Launceston Examiner, 7 December 1886, p.1 “Business Notices” 44 The Clipper (Hobart, TAS), 1 May 1897, p.1 45 The Mercury, Wednesday 21 December, 1904, p. 3, “Tasman Villa Still Holds the Sway at Port Arthur” 46 The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 1 January, 1916, p.5, “Tasmania” 47 The Mercury, Saturday 16 January, 1926, p.3 “Commandant’s House” 48 The Mercury, Monday 14 April, 1924, p.10 “Commandant’s House” 49 Advocate (Burnie, TAS), Wednesday 11 November, 1925, p.15, “Summer Approaches With Its Dreaded Diseases”

254

sentences. It is situated on a Sunday newspaper page with other formal hotel advertisements, sports results and games.

The context within other hotel advertisements and lack of any other subject matter beyond recommending Kerslake’s hotel indicates that this is in fact an advertisement for Hotel Arthur. This was the only newspaper advertisement recovered for the Hotel Arthur.

Guidebooks

Given the unanticipated paucity of newspaper advertisements recovered, I included advertisements for the hotels and guesthouses recovered from tourist guidebooks. To view a sample of advertisements in guidebooks, I searched for all guidebooks and hotel directories dating from 1885 to 1960 held by the Tasmanian State Library and the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office (TAHO). I limited my examination to guidebooks that focused on the state of Tasmania or contained detailed chapters on the state, as opposed to larger Australia-wide publications.

A search of the Tasmanian State Library and TAHO’s records retrieved a total of 24 guidebooks and hotel directories. Four additional un-recorded guidebooks were found in archival boxes with other publications, while one of the items that came up in a search of the catalogue could not be found. One record represented a serial publication with 16 editions. In the end, a total of 42 guidebooks and hotel directories for Tasmania (or southern Tasmania) dating from 1890 to 1951 were reviewed for advertisements for any of the four places of accommodation being studied. For each advertisement the front of the book and advertisement were digitally scanned or photographed to generate a digital record of hotel advertisements. Travel sections that mention Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula were also copied to add to the discussion of Port Arthur as a place for tourists.

The search of all tourist publications recovered a total of 34 listings between the four hotels and 10 advertisements. The Carnarvon Hotel had three listings, Tasman Villa had three listings and five advertisements, Hotel Arthur had 16 listings and five advertisements, and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House had 12 listings. One

255

advertisement was encountered for both Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop at Port Arthur and Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum in Hobart.

Once all listings and advertisements were recorded, each was examined for a variety of factors. Information of interest included the name of the township used, amenities offered at the hotel, mentions of the penal history of the site, prices, and number of rooms/spaces.

8.3. Newspaper Advertisements

This section discusses the findings for newspaper advertisements relating to the four hotels and guest houses published in Australian newspapers. Key concepts of interest are the amenities offered to guests, the location and frequency of printing, references to the convict-era ruins, and what name they use when describing their location. All images of newspaper advertisements originate from the National Library of Australia.

8.3.1. Carnarvon Hotel

Table 8-2 depicts all advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel recovered from a search of TROVE’s database of digitized Australian newspapers.

256

Table 8-2 Advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel recovered from TROVE.

Advertisement Range Runs Newspaper Location 1 07 Dec, 8 The Launcesto 1886 Launceston n, Examiner Tasmania to

13 Jan, 1887

2 20 Jan, 1 The Mercury Hobart, 1887 Tasmania

3 30 Sept, 2 The Mercury Hobart, 1893 Tasmania

4 Oct, 1893 4 28 Oct, 2 The Mercury Hobart, 1893 Tasmania

1 Nov, 1893

257

5 04 Nov, 43 The Mercury Hobart, 1893 Tasmania

25 Apr, 1894 6 28 Feb, 2 The South Adelaide, 1894 Australian South Register Australia to

28 Mar, 1894

7 15 Nov, 4 The South Adelaide, 1894 Australian South Register Australia to

3 Apr, 1895 8 11 Nov, 15 The Mercury Hobart, 1894 Tasmania

13 Feb, 1895

9 6 Mar, 5 The Mercury Hobart, 1895 Tasmania

1 May, 1895

258

10 16 Nov, 1 The Melbourne, 1895 Australasian Victoria

11 23 Nov, 4 The Mercury Hobart, 1896 Tasmania

27 Nov, 1896 12 5 Dec, 1 The Clipper Hobart, 1896 Tasmania

13 27 Feb, 6 The Clipper Hobart, 1897 Tasmania

1 May, 1897

259

TOTAL 94

Thirteen styles of advertisement were recovered for the Carnarvon Hotel in a total of ninety-three printed newspaper advertisements. All references to ‘Types’ in this section relate to the numbers assigned to each of the unique advertisements above for ease of discussion. Advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel use several strategies to interest visitors to the site. The penal history of the site, health benefits of the Tasmanian climate, amenities and activities offered, the natural beauty of the site, and appeals to British patriotism were all used to promote the Carnarvon Hotel in Australian newspapers.

Place

Only three of the six proprietors who operated the Carnarvon Hotel advertised in Australian newspapers, and James Lorimer (proprietor from 1893 to 1896) was the only lessee to run advertisements in out-of-state newspapers. Lorimer is also the only lessee to make reference to Carnarvon as the name of the township (‘Carnarvon Hotel, Carnarvon’), but this was only done under a large banner of ‘Port Arthur’ across the top of each advertisement. Lorimer’s out-of-state advertisements in newspapers in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney didn’t bother with this nicety and refer to the site only as ‘Port Arthur’, perhaps recognizing that the newly named township may not be recognized by out-of-state travellers.

Of all thirteen advertisements, only five even refer to the township of Carnarvon. Three advertisements were published out-of-state, and none of these name the township as Carnarvon. This means that only half of all newspaper advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel published in Tasmania bothered with even mentioning the name of the Carnarvon township.

Only one advertisement, which ran twice in The Mercury in 1893, refers to the location of the Carnarvon Hotel as Carnarvon primarily with ‘Port Arthur’ in brackets beside it (Type 3). This was the first type of advertisement published by Lorimer, and three weeks later an extensive series of advertisements (45 in total, see Types 4 and 5 in Table 6.1 above) listing ‘Port Arthur’ across the heading was published. The first

260

version lessening the importance of the location as Port Arthur may have proved unsuccessful, leading to a shift in strategy to increase the draw of tourists.

Penal Station

The first published advertisement (Type 1 above), run by proprietor Arthur McGinnes, contains a series of thinly veiled references to the penal background of Port Arthur. He firstly refers to visitors as ‘Wanted…’, makes direct reference to Port Arthur’s brutal role in the play ‘His Natural Life’ (based on Marcus Clarke’s book) and asks them to ‘…judge for themselves the most interesting sights in Tasmania…’. While he does not directly state that Port Arthur is a former penal settlement with convict-era ruins worth visiting, he certainly alludes to it strongly.

The only other advertisements (Types 12 and 13) to refer to Port Arthur’s role as a penal station (beyond just listing the original name of the site) were published by proprietor c Fairclough from December 1896 to May 1897. The only reference they make to the former institution is describing the Carnarvon Hotel as ‘…(formerly the residence of the Commandant of Port Arthur)…’.

Health Resort

Three of the thirteen advertisements promote the health benefits of the Carnarvon Hotel (Types 2, 6 and 10). Two were published out-of-state and promote the healthy climate of Tasmania in general. Type 6, published in Adelaide, describes the Carnarvon Hotel as ‘…a cool and comfortable retreat during the hot season’. Type 10, published in Melbourne, notes that ‘…[t]he climate of Port Arthur renders it suitable as a health resort for residents from the more tropical colonies…’. The final health-related advertisement, Type 10, was published in Hobart and relates more to concerns increasingly held by middle and upper class travellers relating to cleanliness and ventilation for health (Horne 2005:124). It entices visitors by describing the hotel as ‘…free from all dampness, and well ventilated…’.

Amenities and Activities

No luxuries or technological advances of the time were advertised for the Carnarvon Hotel (e.g. hot and cold baths, electricity, etc.) as was common for larger or

261

luxury hotels (Horne 2005:123). The nearest to this was Type 3 published by Lorimer in 1893 describing the hotel as ‘…redecorated and refurnished…’ following a change in proprietors to announce that the hotel was again open for business. Advertisement Types 1, 2, and 11 make reference to the comfort and hospitality offered at the Carnarvon Hotel.

One major amenity the Carnarvon Hotel offered in its advertisements was suggested ease of access and position within a network of transportation and travel agencies. Port Arthur was notoriously difficult to reach, and even into the early twentieth century travellers to ‘the famous Port Arthur’ found it a ‘rather inaccessible spot’.50 Of the thirteen types of advertisement, six include additional information regarding access. Types 1, 2, and 9 contain information on coaches supplied to meet patrons of the Carnarvon Hotel at Norfolk Bay. Types 8 and 9 advertise that there are both overland and sea routes available to access the hotel. Types 4, 5, 8, and 9 refer potential visitors to the Carnarvon Hotel to either Cook’s Tourist Office or the Office of the Tourist Association to make further enquiries.

All distinct amenities offered were associated with outdoor pursuits available on or within proximity of the hotel grounds. Active pursuits are offered in four of the advertisements (Types 1, 10, 11 and 12). Type 1, the advertisement published by McGinnes which loosely addresses the infamy of the site, also advertises ‘…splendid fishing, boating, shooting, etc. …’ at the hotel. Type 10, published by Lorimer, advertises ‘…excursions, boating, fishing, shooting, sea bathing, golf, lawn tennis, &…’, while Type 11, published by Fairclough, advertises ‘…boating, sea bathing, fishing…’. Type 12, also published by Fairclough, advertises ‘…excursions, fishing, sea bathing, boating, shooting, golf, etc. …’. As a theme, outdoor pursuits at the Carnarvon Hotel focused primarily on sea-based activities with miscellaneous shore-based recreation activities.

A Beautiful Place

50 Australian Town and Country Journal, Wednesday 7 February, 1906, p. 40-41, “The Ladies’ Pages. Ten Days in Tasmania”

262

Three advertisements, Types 10, 12, and 13, contain the same phrase describing the beauty of the hotel’s location. The phrase is consistent between all three advertisements even though the first advertisement was printed by Lorimer and the last two by Fairclough. These advertisements describe the Carnarvon Hotel as ‘…standing amidst pleasure grounds by the sea…Unrivalled in Tasmania for Beauty of Situation…’.

The beauty of the site of the Carnarvon Hotel is difficult to dispute. The Tasmanian Tourists’ Association considered that the best feature Tasmania had to offer tourists was its romantic scenery, but remained ambivalent towards Port Arthur’s role as a tourist site (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:65).

British Patriotism

During the 1880s and 1890s the Australian colonies were still loyal to the British Crown and there was a broadly felt fondness for all things ‘English’. In the wake of European imperialism, popular political ideology at the turn of the twentieth century promoted the importance of nationhood for a people to truly reach their potential (Jackman 2009:101-104).

Two types of advertisements (Types 8 and 9) published by Lorimer between November 1894 and May 1895 rely on British patriotism and patronage by an elite class to attract tourist attention to the Carnarvon Hotel. These advertisements ran a combined total of twenty times in The Mercury, and state that the Carnarvon Hotel was ‘Personally Patronized by their Excellencies the Governor and the Admiral of the Fleet’. The Australian Squadron, including the Governor of Tasmania, Viscount Gormanston and Lady Gormanston, visited Carnarvon and stayed for two nights at the Carnarvon Hotel in February 1894.

The elite status of these guests may have boosted the standing of the Carnarvon Hotel in various social circles around the state. As well, Tasmania as a state maintained firmer ties to Britain and exhibited signs of Anglophilia, even after Australia was federated as a nation within the British Commonwealth in 1901. The temperate climate with marked seasons, manicured lawns and landscapes, including imported plants and birds, were thought to appeal to British sensibilities and drew those interested in regaling in British tastes and styles (Davidson and Spearrit 2000:39).

263

An Infamous Place

Some of the most interesting advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel are those that offer little to no information about the site aside from the location (Port Arthur), the name of the hotel, and the name of the lessee or proprietor. These seem to rely on existing knowledge and infamy around the site itself, which indicates a broad general knowledge of the place amongst both locals and tourists alike, in and out of Tasmania.

An advertisement printed by Lorimer four times in the South Australian Register from November 1894 to April 1895 (see Type 7) states only the name of the site (‘Port Arthur, Tasmania’), the name of the hotel (‘Carnarvon Hotel’) and the name of the lessee to contact (‘James Lorimer, Lessee’). No other detail is given to entice tourists to visit the hotel, perhaps indicating an assumption that tourists will know where Port Arthur is and why it would be worth visiting with little other entreaty.

An additional two advertisement types (Types 4 and 5) printed by Lorimer in The Mercury follow a similar format, though they provide the name of the Tourist Association to visit for further information in addition to the proprietor’s name.

Discussion

The themes described above appear consistently through all recovered advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel. None of the themes dominates the advertisements, and this suggests a strategy of varied advertisements meant to appeal to different groups’ interests in order to draw a greater number of visitors to the hotel.

A more contextual examination of the advertisements provides interesting points of discussion. Unexpectedly, every advertisement that alludes directly to the history of Port Arthur as a penal station was published in Tasmania, as opposed to other states in the mainland.

While the health and climatic benefits of the Carnarvon Hotel appear in only three advertisements, it is worth noting that two of the three were printed in out-of-state advertisements. Of the three out-of-state advertisements printed for the Carnarvon Hotel, two deal directly with the climatic benefits of Tasmania and the Carnarvon Hotel’s location near the sea.

264

8.3.2. The Tasman Villa Hotel

Table 8-3 below depicts the advertisement types recovered in a search of TROVE for the Tasman Villa. The Tasman Villa operated as a private boarding residence until 1904 when the Carnarvon Hotel closed. The local hotel license was transferred to Henry Frerk at the Tasman Villa in 1904, when it became known as the Tasman Villa Hotel.

265

Table 8-3 Advertisements for the Tasman Villa recovered from TROVE.

Advertisement Range Runs Newspaper Location 1 21 1 The Mercury Hobart, Dec, Tasmania 1904

2 15 4 The Mercury Hobart, Feb, Tasmania 1905

8 Mar, 1905

3 1 Jan, 4 The Sydney Sydney, 1916 Morning New Herald South Wales to

25 Mar, 1916

Detail from above advertisement:

TOTAL 9

The first advertisement for the Tasman Villa in an Australian newspaper was published in 1904, weeks after the Hotel (and liquor) License was transferred to the

266

Tasman Villa from the Carnarvon Hotel. This marked the conversion of the private boarding residence to hotel and only licensed liquor vendor in the area. The ad was short and served to advise steamship passengers that dinner and refreshments were still available from the Tasman Villa during the popular Boxing Day excursions following the closure of the Carnarvon Hotel.

The end of the advertisement requests that the reader ‘Note Flag – Red, white, blue’. Both the British union jack and Australian flag (which features the British union jack) contain red, white and blue as their primary colours. After Federation in 1901 and prior to 1953 the Australian flag featured a red background with the Southern Cross constellation and the union jack in the upper left corner. Having ‘red’ listed as the first colour may indicate their reference to the Australian flag being flown, as opposed to the British flag.

The Type 2 advertisement for the Tasman Villa Hotel was first published in February and March 1905, several weeks after the Type 1 advertisement was printed. This advertisement was printed four times in The Mercury in Hobart, advising that the Tasman Villa Hotel had the ‘best brands of wines and spirits stocked’.51 In a direct contrast to the Carnarvon Hotel advertisements, the Type 2 advertisements does two very different things. It firstly refers to the site of the Tasman Villa Hotel as strictly Carnarvon, Tasmania as opposed to referring to the site at Port Arthur. Secondly, it states directly that ‘Carnarvon is famous as the old penal settlement of Port Arthur…’, and in doing so makes none of the veiled references to the site’s penal past. Frerk’s 1905 advertisement directly addresses the historic aspect of the site, while looking to the future by addressing the place by its renewed name. This advertisement actively places Port Arthur in the past as a curiosity, while maintaining Carnarvon as the source of a respectable future.

Aside from some key differences, this advertisement shares several traits with the advertisements from the Carnarvon Hotel. It lists a series of draws to Port Arthur and the hotel for tourists, including ‘…unequalled scenery, good fishing and boating’. It

51 The Mercury, Wednesday 15 February, 1905, p. 1, “Tasman Villa Hotel”

267

also references affiliations with Cook’s Travel Agency in Hobart and the capacity to arrange excursions to nearby geological formations.

One area where advertisements again differ for the Tasman Villa Hotel is the direct promotion of alcoholic beverages. The Carnarvon Hotel was the only licensed establishment on the Tasman Peninsula from 1885 to 1904, but the availability of alcohol was never mentioned in any advertisements. With the transfer of the liquor license to Frerk in 1905, he immediately advertises that the Tasman Villa Hotel has the ‘Best Brands of Wines and Spirits Stocked’. This statement has primacy over all other advertised traits, aside from the name of the hotel and township (Carnarvon). The reference to ‘refreshments’ available during Boxing Day in the Type 1 advertisement may be another allusion to the availability of alcohol for purchase at the Tasman Villa Hotel.

The last lot of advertisements were published in January through March 1916 in The Sydney Morning Herald (Type 3). The Tasman Villa was grouped with a series of other establishments in an advertisement by the Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau to draw tourists to the state, describing it as ‘AUSTRALIA’S PLAYGROUND AND SANITORIUM’ with ‘CLIMATE AND SCENERY UNSURPASSED’.52 The proprietress at this time was Miss Violet Adelaide Webb, to whom the liquor and hotel license for the Tasman Villa Hotel was transferred in November 1915.53

The actual excerpt in the advertisement pertaining to the Tasman Villa directly is short but to the point. The site is named ‘Port Arthur’ with no reference to Carnarvon. The locale of the Tasman Villa Hotel is described simply as ‘Historic and beautiful’. This advertisement, the only out-of-state one published for the Tasman Villa, contains several traits identified in other advertisements. It boasts of Tasmania’s healthy climate, refers vaguely to the historic aspects of Port Arthur, it neglects to call the town Carnarvon, and touches upon the beauty of the site. As a publication produced by the Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau, as opposed to just a private merchant, it represents a

52 The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 1 January, 1916, p.5, “Tasmania” 53 The Mercury, 9 October, 1915, p.12, “Licensing District of Tasman”

268

willingness within a government agency to forgo the new name assigned to the place in order to successfully draw tourists.

8.3.3. Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House or ‘The Commandant’s House’

Table 8-4 depicts the advertisements found in a search of all Australian newspapers digitized by the National Library of Australia on the site TROVE. One of the most interesting results from having to use multiple queries to find any data relating to Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House was learning that the establishment never had that name. In all newspaper advertisements recovered, the boarding house is called ‘The Commandant’s House, Port Arthur’. There were only two types of advertisement recovered, with a total of five printed between the two. This is not a large sample size but the search terms used would have captured any variations on the name of the establishment.

Table 8-4 Advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House, the ‘Commandant’s House’, recovered from TROVE.

Advertisement Range Runs Newspaper Location 1 29 Mar, 2 The Mercury Hobart, 1924 Tasmania

14 Apr, 1924 2 16 Jan, 3 The Mercury Hobart, 1926 Tasmania

6 Feb, 1926 TOTAL 5

The Type 1 advertisement states little about the establishment, aside from the fact that it is the former house of the Commandant at Port Arthur. The name Carnarvon

269

is entirely lacking in this advertisement, indicating an assumed familiarity with, and interest in, the history of the site and the ruins.

The Type 2 advertisement was printed two years later and situates the Commandant’s House in the township of Carnarvon, mentioning Port Arthur as an aside. Interestingly, Carnarvon’s name reverted to Port Arthur the following year, in 1927. A wide variety of pleasant amenities are listed, including outdoor venues such as a tennis court, easy access to the sea, and successful fishing grounds. Until the 1960s, gaining weight was a common goal for tourists on holiday (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:107). The description of cream and fruit ‘in abundance’ adds to the general ambience of pleasure-seeking and relaxation outlined in this advertisement. This advertisement makes the establishment, a ‘…1st-class Boarding Establishment…’ appealing for everything but the history and ruins at the site.

Both advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House were printed in The Mercury, based out of Hobart, Tasmania. No out-of-state newspaper advertisements were recovered.

8.3.4. Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur

The search for advertisements relating to Kerslake’s hotel at Port Arthur recovered only one item. Several search terms were used to try to locate advertisements, as outlined in Section 8.2 resulting in thousands of unrelated articles and advertisements being examined without success. The only advertisement recovered is presented in Table 8-5 below.

270

Table 8-5 Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur recovered from TROVE.

Advertisement Range Runs Newspaper Location 1 3 June, 1 The Sunday Perth, 1928 Times Western Australia

TOTAL 1

Even as the only advertisement, this inclusion in a Perth, Western Australia newspaper resembles a short article or travel note more than the hotel or boarding house advertisements noted above. The context of this advertisement is the only reason for its inclusion in this section. This note was printed on a two-page spread in a Sunday newspaper alongside sports news, cribbage strategies, puzzles, and advertisements for other hotels along the margins. This prose offers no other story but to suggest that the reader visit Port Arthur and stay at Kerslake’s hotel .

If this is in fact an advertisement, which the context would suggest it is, it is an interesting one as it presents itself as part of the actual news reported by the paper. It draws on the historic ruins and natural beauty of the site, while promoting the comfort and hospitality of Hotel Arthur, noting that there ‘…is a nice hotel in the township kept by a proprietor who knows how to look after his guests and make them comfortable’.

8.4. Guidebooks and Hotel Directories

From 1914, the Tasmanian Tourist Bureau provided a successful advertising outlet for guesthouses and hotels, and as such the role of newspaper advertising decreased in importance. During the first years of the Tourist Bureau’s operation, advertising was allocated half of the budget (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:67). This section discusses the findings from hotel advertisements guidebooks and directories as

271

they relate to the Carnarvon Hotel, Tasman Villa Hotel, Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House, and the Hotel Arthur at Port Arthur.

A total of 42 guidebooks and hotel directories were examined for references to any of the four hotels included in this study: the Carnarvon Hotel, the Tasman Villa Hotel, The Commandant’s House (Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House) and Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur. As compared to the newspaper advertisements, the published guidebooks seemed to provide advertisers with significantly more room to promote their establishment. As many of these booklets were distributed freely to tourists by government or tourist agencies, it would have been a wiser expenditure for hotel owners than publication in a daily periodical such as a newspaper as it ensured the target tourist audience would have access to their message. A general discussion of trends found through the advertisements and listings will follow sections describing the findings for each hotel or boarding house.

8.4.1. Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904)

While the Carnarvon Hotel had the greatest number of newspaper advertisements, it had the fewest number of mentions or listings in the guidebooks and hotel directories examined. Most of the guidebooks examined post-dated the establishment of the government-operated Department of Tourism in 1914 (Young 1996:62), with only 12 of 42 publications pre-dating the Department of Tourism.

Three listings for the hotel were found, and two of these were from re-prints of the same book by the Tasmanian Government Railway. In a chapter outlining areas of interest for tourists around Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula, it notes that ‘The hotel at Port Arthur was once the Commandant’s residence, its grounds gently sloping to the water’s edge…’ (their bold). On the same page in a side-bar listing ‘Accommodation’ it mentions that ‘At Carnarvon (Port Arthur) there is one hotel, tariff 8s. per day…’ (Tasmanian Government Railways 1903:46).

The third listing for the Carnarvon Hotel was found in the Guide for Visitors to Tasmania, published by the Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company in 1890. In a page titled ‘Country Hotels’ it lists the town, hotel name and proprietor. No proprietor was

272

listed, but ‘Carnarvon’ was listed for both the town and hotel (Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company 1890:123). No amenities or attractions were included with this listing, and Port Arthur was not mentioned in any proximity to the hotel listing. Port Arthur was discussed in depth in a chapter added to book titled ‘Chapter X: Places Not Included in the Previous Routes’, where it is described as ‘…a spot as/ lovely in its position as it is ugly in its memories…’ (Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company 1890:79-80). This section contains the necessary information identifying Carnarvon as the township from which to visit Port Arthur, referring to Carnarvon as ‘…Port Arthur proper’ (Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company 1890:80).

8.4.2. The Tasman Villa (1899-1921)

Significantly more advertisements were found for the Tasman Villa Hotel than the Carnarvon Hotel, with three listings and five advertisements recorded in total (though two were reprints of the same advertisement). There are no advertisements for this establishment for when it was operating as a guesthouse (1899-1904) prior to becoming licensed when the Carnarvon Hotel closed. Being the only licensed hotel on the Tasman Peninsula was obviously a point of pride for the Tasman Villa Hotel’s early proprietor Henry Frerk, as this fact supersedes all others in his advertisements (Types 1 and 2 in Table 8-6 below). All advertisements but one mention (Type 3) that the Tasman Villa is licensed for alcohol.

273

Table 8-6 Advertisements for the Tasman Villa recovered from guidebooks and hotel directories.

# Advertisement Source 1 Accommodation Guide to Hotels, Boarding Houses, & c in the Tourist Districts.

Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association (1904 & 1905) – printed twice.

2 Tasmanian Accommodation Guide to Hotels, Boarding Houses, and c in the Southern Districts.

Tasmanian Tourist Association (1908:82)

274

3 Holiday Resorts for Tourists in Tasmania.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau (c.1914- 1918: 17)

4 Complete Guide to Tasmania.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Department (1918).

The advertisements for the Tasman Villa become increasingly brief through time. Type 1 refers to the town within which the Tasman Villa is located as ‘Carnarvon’ but notes that ‘Carnarvon is famous as the site of the Old Penal Establishments of Port Arthur…’. Only the first two advertisements mention the penal settlement, and the third briefly mentions the ‘…many Historic and Natural sights’. The fourth advertisement lists the place as ‘Port Arthur’ but makes no mention of the historical nature of the town.

The other amenities and sights available to tourists from the Tasman Villa are relatively consistent, with proximity to natural attractions such as the Tasman Arch and

275

Blowhole mentioned in Typess 1, 2, and 3. The ‘…Unequalled Scenery…’ near Tasman Villa is described in Types 1 and 2, while Type 3 more subtly refers to the ‘…Historic and Natural sights’. The quality of fishing and boating is mentioned in Types 1, 2, and 4. The promotion of Tasmania as an ‘’the Angler’s paradise’’ is well documented (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:45) and many of the guidebooks for Tasmania feature a small picture of ruins at Port Arthur or a natural attraction on the Tasman Peninsula framed in the center of a fishing-themed image.

No modern amenities or technological advances are advertised for the Tasman Villa Hotel. More than anything, the advertisements focus on the hotel’s ability to meet tourist needs and offer enjoyment through experience and consumption. The capacity to arrange interesting tours, offer ‘Excellent Accommodation’ (Type 4), ‘Excellent Cuisine’ (Type 3) and ‘Every Attention to Tourists and Travellers’ (Types 1 & 2), as well as make alcohol available, is the most consistent aspect through all of the advertisements.

Beyond the five advertisements located for the Tasman Villa Hotel, three listings for the hotel were found in directories. Two listings were found in the Accommodation Guide to Hotels, Boarding Houses, & c in the Tourist Districts published by Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association in 1904 and 1905. They refer to the hotel as ‘Tasman ville’, operated by H. F. Danker at a cost of 7/- per day with room for 20 guests. The location is listed as ‘Carnarvon (Port Arthur)’. The third listing was in the Complete Guide to Tasmania published by the Tasmanian Government Railways in 1913. It refers to the Tasman Villa as the ‘Carnarvon Hotel’ and its location as ‘Port Arthur’. The Tasman Villa’s liquor license was transferred from the Carnarvon Hotel at the former Commandant’s residence, and it is likely that in government documentation this was the legal title of the establishment. The name of the Carnarvon Hotel follows the liquor license through to the Hotel Arthur in the 1920s.

8.4.3. The Commandant’s House (Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House) (1917-1939)

No advertisements were found in any of the guidebooks for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House. Similarly she had comparatively few

276

newspaper advertisements which indicates that either she primarily advertised elsewhere or did not rely on advertising to bring in a sufficient number of guests.

Twelve listings for the Commandant’s House boarding house were found in the same serial produced by the Tasmanian Government Tourist Department from 1922 onwards. This was given freely to visiting tourists, and it appears that advertising space could be purchased for a fee as half-page advertisements for the Hotel Arthur feature in four editions. Not every edition of the annual publication was available at the Tasmanian State Library or TAHO, but a listing was located for every publication until 1939 when the boarding house closed. The listings in the Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania provide interesting information on the location of the boarding house, the costs to stay there, number of guests accommodated, and in later years the amenities offered (see Table 8-7 below).

277

Table 8-7 Listings for the Commandant’s House from the Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania.54

Year Heading Name Locality Keeper # Day Wk. B&B 1922 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon Mrs. 12 10/- 60/- n/a (Carnarvon) House McGuinness 1923 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon Mrs. T. F. 20 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House Brimage 1924 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon Mrs. T. F. 20 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House Brimage 1926 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon Mrs. T. F. 22 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House Brimage 1927 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon Mrs. T. F. 22 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House Brimage 1929 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon M. L. Brimage 30 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House 1930 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon M. L. Brimage 30 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House 1931 Port Arthur Commandant’s Carnarvon M. L. Brimage 30 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House 1933 Port Arthur Commandant’s Port Arthur M. L. Brimage 30 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House 1934 Port Arthur Commandant’s Port Arthur M. L. Brimage 30 10/- 50/- n/a (Carnarvon) House 1936 Port Arthur Commandant’s Port Arthur M. L. Brimage 18 8/- 50/- 5/- (Carnarvon) House 1937 Port Arthur Commandant’s Port Arthur M. L. Brimage 20 9/- 50/- 5/- (Carnarvon) House (sum) (sum) 8/- 42/- (win) (win)

The addition of a new, European-style dining room to the boarding house in 1927 is evident in the increase of accommodation capacity to 30 by 1929, as she likely adapted the original dining room to house more guests (Scripps 1998:12-14). Accommodation capacity again decreased in 1936 with the introduction of bed and

54 After 1931 this was renamed Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation.

278

breakfast charges, indicating that something may have happened to some of the accommodation space and the business reverted to its earlier mode of operation. When the building was purchased in 1939 it became part of the Scenic Reserve and was used for staff housing. By 1940 much of the house was considered uninhabitable, and this may have been the case by 1936 (Scripps 1998:15).

The introduction of winter and summer rates and the general reduction of prices is visible in the listings from 1936 onwards, reflecting the lower number of visitors and difficulties faced by tourism operators during the Depression. At 8/- a day in 1936 it cost the same amount to stay in the Commandant’s House owned by Mrs. Brimage as it did in 1903 when it was the Carnarvon Hotel (Tasmanian Government Railways 1903:46).

8.4.4. Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur (1921-1959)

Where only one advertisement was found for Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur in a search of Australian newspapers, the Hotel Arthur was the most widely advertised hotel in the guidebooks and hotel directories examined. A total of five advertisements and 15 listings for the Hotel Arthur were located.

Of the five advertisements found for Hotel Arthur, four of those were contained in the same serial publication all of the listings for the Commandant’s House boarding house were listed in: Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation produced by the Tasmanian Government Tourist Department. The fifth advertisement, Type 1 in Table 8-8 below, was also found in a government-issued publication, but the guide was produced by the Government Tourist and Immigration Department. It is not an advertisement for the hotel of the same name at the former Junior Medical Officer’s house. It is actually an advertisement for the converted Commandant’s Offices and Law Courts that were completed in February 1920 but burnt down in 1921. Proprietor L. L. Kerslake’s wife Mabel was the licensee of the Tasman Villa Hotel at the same time, and that became the Hotel Arthur when they

279

bought the property in 1921. The cause of the fire was reportedly an issue with the electric light advertised as an attraction.55

55 The Mercury 15 June 1921 “Port Arthur Hotel Fire Inquest Resumed in Hobart. Evidence of Vendor and Assurance Assessor”, p. 7.

280

Table 8-8 Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur recovered from guidebooks and hotel directories.

# Advertisement Source 1 Complete Guide to Tasmania.

Tasmanian Government Tourist and Immigration Department (1920:42)

281

2 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Department (1926:72).

3 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Department (1939:90; 1940; 1941)

Of the five advertisements found for the Hotel Arthur, three were reprints of an identical advertisement in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (Type 3). It is evident from the two advertisements published by Kerslake in 1920 and 1926 (even though they were for different buildings), the modern amenities on offer at the hotel were the greatest highlights, with the history of the site treated as a headline to grab initial interest. Hot and cold water, electric lights, sewerage, Kodak supplies, and access to cars would have been relatively luxurious features for the Port Arthur area in the 1920s and 1930s, as electricity wasn’t widespread until 1952 and the only local competition used pan- toilets and oil lighting even in 1941 (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1941:91).

282

Consistent with advertisements for the Tasman Villa Hotel, the beautiful scenery, proximity to natural attractions, and the availability of boats and fishing are key points in advertisements for the Hotel Arthur. All advertisements but Type 1 boast the fact that the Hotel Arthur was ‘The only Licensed House on the Peninsula’. When advertisement Type 1 was published the license would still have been held at the Tasman Villa.

The use of the hotel by crew for the filming of For the Term of His Natural Life was also used as a draw for tourists to stay at Hotel Arthur, and it is interesting that this was only directly mentioned over a decade after the film was released. Some of these trends and points of interest continue through the listings found for the Hotel Arthur. Instead of advertising the use of the Hotel Arthur by the famous cast of For the Term of His Natural Life in 1927, Kerslake instead raised the price of staying at the Hotel Arthur in the years immediately following the filming (see listings for 1928 and 1929 in Table 8- 9 below). All listings found for the Hotel Arthur were contained in the same guidebook series as the listings for the Commandant’s House.

283

Table 8-9 Listings for the Hotel Arthur from the Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania.56

Year Heading Name Locality Keeper # Day Wk. B&B 1922 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. Kerslake 45 12/- 70/- n/a (Carnarvon) 1923 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. Kerslake 45 12/- 70/- n/a (Carnarvon) 1924 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. Kerslake 45 12/- 70/- n/a (Carnarvon) 1926 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. Kerslake 40 12/- 70/- n/a (Carnarvon) 1927 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. Kerslake 40 12/- 70/- n/a (Carnarvon) 1929 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. L. Kerslake 50 13/6 80/- 3/6 (Carnarvon) Lunch 1930 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. L. Kerslake 50 13/6 80/- 3/6 (Carnarvon) Lunch 1931 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Carnarvon L. L. Kerslake 50 12/- 80/- 3/- (Carnarvon) Lunch 1933 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur L. L. Kerslake 50 12/- 80/- 3/- (Carnarvon) Lunch 1934 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur L. L. Kerslake 50 12/- 80/- 3/- (Carnarvon) Lunch 1936 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur L. L. Kerslake 40 12/- 70/- 7/- (Carnarvon) (sum) (sum) (sum) 10/- 50/- 6/- (win) (win) (win) 1937 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur L. M. & T. A. 40 12/- 70/- 7/- (Carnarvon) Pitman (sum) (sum) (sum) 10/- 50/- 6/- (win) (win) (win) 1939 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur T. A. Pitman 42 12/- £3/10/0 7/- (Carnarvon) Pty. Ltd. (sum) (sum) (sum) 10/- £2/10/0 7/- (win) (win) (win)

56 After 1931 this was renamed Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation.

284

1940 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur T. A. Pitman 42 12/- £3/10/0 7/- (Carnarvon) Pty. Ltd. (sum) (sum) (sum) 10/- £2/10/0 7/- (win) (win) (win) 1941 Port Arthur Hotel Arthur Port Arthur T. A. Pitman 42 13/- £3/15/0 11/- (Carnarvon) Pty. Ltd.

The number of guests accommodated at the Hotel Arthur remained relatively consistent through time, as compared to the Commandant’s House which grew rapidly through the 1920s. Kerslake had purchased the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s residence next to the Tasman Villa in 1918 with plans to extend visitor accommodation to the building when he was the licensee. Plans of the Hotel Arthur in 1939 depict a mass of additions encapsulating both the original Junior Medical Officer’s residence and the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s house. The steady number of guests that the Hotel Arthur could accommodate indicates that most of the extensive additions were likely in place in the early 1920s, if not by 1929 when capacity reached 50 guests.

Much like the Commandant’s House boarding house, the Hotel Arthur introduced winter and summer accommodation and meal rates, likely indicating a degree of financial hardship and the need to attempt to draw tourists during the Depression. The charge to stay at the Hotel Arthur was highest in the years immediately following the release of the film version of Marcus Clarke’s For the Term of His Natural Life. The fact that much of the cast and crew stayed at the Hotel Arthur when they filmed in 1927 was thoroughly documented by the hotel proprietor (Kerslake), and this was considered a motivating factor for tourists to want to stay in the same place (Scripps 1997:6).

Though not included in Table 8.9 above, in 1939 the hotel directory began listing other amenities at every hotel, specifically the sanitation system used, type of lighting used, and whether or not there was a garage for vehicles. In 1939 the Hotel Arthur had a septic system in place, used electric lighting and had a garage. The Hotel Arthur advertised modern amenities, and having the chance to compare it to other hotels in the area directly provides some sense of that. The only other place of accommodation listed at Port Arthur in 1939 was Roseview, a guesthouse situated a couple hundred meters uphill from Hotel Arthur. Roseview used a pan sanitation system, which was simply the

285

use of a pan beneath a toilet seat which was collected and replaced at regular intervals (Beder 1990). Roseview had oil lighting, which would have been common in the area as the electrical grid did not reach much of Port Arthur until 1952 (Scripps 1998:15).

Like the Hotel Arthur, however, Roseview also advertised a garage. This is an indication of the developing primacy of motor vehicles in tourism. Car ownership rapidly expanded through the 1920s and 1930s, and where only 15 in 1,000 Australians owned a car in 1921, nearly five-times as many (72 in 1,000) owned one in 1938 (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:74). Requirements for space and access for vehicles began to make old- style hotels and guesthouses obsolete in the wake of motor hotels and motels with extensive parking, private washrooms and drive-up rooms (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:104).

286

Chapter 9. Discussion and Conclusions

9.1. Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings from the four data sets selected to study tourist experiences of place at Port Arthur – museum collections, postcards, artefact assemblages and advertisements. Findings from these four data sets will be used to examine expressions of dark tourism, romanticism, authenticity and material evidence of tourism at Port Arthur. Figure 9.1 is a historical timeline of development at Port Arthur and provides a reminder for key changes to the site over time.

9.2. A Dark Place

Public intrigue with Port Arthur’s dark past is well documented. This section discusses the contexts in which expressions of dark tourism appeared in the data sets examined. Interest in the site as a former secondary punishment station is manifest in several ways. These include direct acceptance and reproduction of the convict past, rejection of renaming the place ‘Carnarvon’ in favour of retaining the name ‘Port Arthur’, and the contexts in which portraying the darker aspects of Port Arthur’s past was acceptable.

287

Timeline

1780

1788 European colonisation of Australia

1800 1803 First colony established at Van Diemen's Land

1820

1830 Port Arthur established as a timber-getting station 1840 1831 Construction of the Commandant's Residence c. 1840 Construction of JMO and RCC

1853 Cessation of convict transportation to Van Diemen's Land 1860 1856 Van Diemen's Land renamed Tasmania

1872 Marcus Clarke's novel For the Term of His Natural Life published 1877 Port Arthur closed as a secondary punishment station 1880 1878 Tourists begin to visit Port Arthur, township renamed Carnarvon 1881 Bi-weekly steamship established, 1885 Carnarvon Hotel opened c. 1890 Beattie's Collection established 1893 Tasmanian Tourist Association, 1899 Tasman Villa opened 1900 1901 Australian Federation 1904 Carnarvon Hotel closes

1916 Scenery Preservation Board formed 1920 1917 Mrs. Brimages boarding house opened, 1920 Tasman Villa closed 1921 Hotel Arthur opened, c. 1925 Radcliffe Collection established 1926 For the Term of His Natural Life filmed at Port Arthur 1927 Township of Carnarvon renamed Port Arthur 1940 1939 Mrs. Brimage's boarding house closed 1945 End of WWII, restoration works begin at the site

1952 Electricity introduced to Port Arthur 1960 1959 Hotel Arthur closed Figure 9-1 Timeline illustrating key historical events associated with the development of tourist at Port Arthur.

288

9.2.1. Accepting the Convict Past

The end of the nineteenth century in Tasmania was marked by a series of attempts by the colonial Tasmanian government to destroy the tangible remnants of the convict era dotting the landscape. A fondness for all things ‘British’ meant few were willing to delve into Australia’s convict past, and it was most often suppressed or glossed over as an unsavoury historical incident (Jackman 2009:101-104; Young 1996). The buildings at Port Arthur were only barely spared this fate; in 1889 the Tasmanian government tried to place the major buildings around Port Arthur for sale on the condition that they be demolished. This condition of sale was eventually dropped once the government was faced with extensive protest from visitors and locals who had identified the potential for tourism at the site. By the 1890s Port Arthur was advertised, with very direct focus on the darkest parts of its penal past, extensively in guidebooks, as evidenced by the review of guidebooks in Chapter 8 (Section 8.4). Of the hundreds of convict sites across Tasmania, Port Arthur continually had its own chapter in guidebooks which covered the entire state. Some of the reasons that Port Arthur was accorded this position are worthy of discussion.

At the start of the twentieth century, popular constructions of Australia’s convict origins shifted away from the shame of the ‘convict stain’, and a new description of convicts as ‘innocent and manly’ began to permeate expressions of convict history. This investigation of the nature of Australian convicts was most marked following World War I. Convicts were increasingly depicted as a benevolent ancestral population of either poor rural workers forced into the evils of crime by desperation, or political prisoners standing for their beliefs in freedom and social justice, only to be unfairly exiled (Jackman 2009:101; Nicholas and Shergold 1988a:5-7).

Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum in Hobart is a key example of a romanticized portrayal of convicts in early twentieth-century Australia. His museum displays actively portrayed the fine artworks and objects produced by convicts as evidence of their inherent capacity for good and an appreciation for culture. This is set in contrast to the depiction of the convict’s passage through the system, the final stage of which emphasises the punishment and execution of convicts. As a narrative presented in

289

Beattie’s museum, the convict system began with a petty crime and ended with brutal treatment, hardening, and eventually death or execution.

While the first academic studies projecting the ‘innocent and manly’ convict ancestor appeared at the start of the twentieth century, the idea itself is clearly manifest in earlier publications. Its foundations were established in the 1870s by two widely popular publications: Martin Cash, the Bushranger (1870) and Marcus Clarke’s (1874) For the Term of His Natural Life. The former was an autobiography of the bushranger that presented his crimes in a Robin Hood-esque fashion, highlighting his gentlemanly behaviour and kindness to women while adventuring his way through a faulty criminal system. The latter features protagonist Rufus Dawes, who is of noble birth but through a twist of fate is wrongly accused of murder and is shipped to Australia. There he faces repeated cruelty in the convict system at the hands of sadistic overseers and corrupt officials. His essentially good nature and noble origins make his an archetypal figure for the benevolent ancestral convict. Clarke’s For the Term remained the most popular Australian novel into the first decades of the 20th century. Clarke’s novel was widely cited in tourist advertisements for Port Arthur from the 1880s, even featuring in advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel in 1886.57 Clarke’s novel was adapted into a wildly popular play that ran nightly in Hobart at Theatre Royal in 1886 and ran regularly through the 1880s and 1890s across the state (Young 1996: 41, 96). The theatrical version of the novel was a much more romantic adaptation, and while the cruelty of the convict system remained the same the ending was adapted so the hero and heroine live happily ever after; the ending of the novel is much more bleak (Young 1996:49-50). The novel was also adapted to film in 1908, 1911 and 1927, the first and last of which were filmed at Port Arthur (Young 1996: 67, 95).

Martin Cash’s autobiography was significantly more subversive in challenging the class system in Britain and Australia, depicting the inherent brutality and unfairness of the convict system with descriptions of cowardly estate owners (that he robbed), inept constables, corrupt magistrates, and cruel penal station operators as the antagonists in his story (Young 1996:18). Where Clarke’s novel was actively used in advertisements

57 The Launceston Examiner, 7 December 1886, “Carnarvon Hotel Port Arthur”, p.1.

290

from the 1880s, Martin Cash is not mentioned in a Tasmanian guidebook until 1916 (Young 1996:18).

An examination of postcards produced for Port Arthur provides additional insight into the promotion of Port Arthur’s dark past. Of all postcards analysed, those which present the convict past or thanatouristic elements (such as punishment or death) were most common among those printed in the interwar years (1919-1939) and least common in postcards which dated between 1945 and 1960. Postcards that presented the site as a prison were most common among those printed between 1945 and 1960, followed by those printed between 1905 and 1918. However, none of the titles given to these postcards make reference to the site’s penal history. Of all the postcards that date between 1919 and 1939 that had titles, nearly half of the titles make direct reference to Port Arthur’s convict past, making use of the words ‘cell’, ‘convict’, ‘prison’, ‘punishment’ or ‘suicide’. This is significant, as the number of postcards with titles that reference the convict past at Port Arthur outnumber actual depictions of the prison or convict items. Even relatively benevolent looking pictures lacking images of prison buildings or convicts were still assigned titles that referenced the site’s convict past.

The promotion of Port Arthur’s dark past, even falsified portions of it, began in the 1870s and progressed through the twentieth century. While there is evidence of the Tasmanian government’s discomfort with the convict past, it was never actively suppressed enough to cease promotion of Port Arthur’s convict history in support of the local tourist industry. By 1927, the Education Department sponsored the viewing of the 1927 film version of For the Term of His Natural Life by Tasmanian school children for its ‘‘tremendous historical and educational value’’ (Young 1996:96).

9.2.2. Being ‘Carnarvon’

While Port Arthur’s convict past was presented in museums, theatrical productions and eventually film, Port Arthur was renamed Carnarvon in 1878 to suppress its association with the convict past. The name of the site reverted to Port Arthur in 1927. The name Carnarvon was given to the township in social notes, town meeting minutes, and even travel accounts published in newspapers. The continued use of the name Port Arthur in private advertising for hotels and guest houses, as well as

291

in guidebooks and postcards, reflects continued reliance on the infamy of the name Port Arthur to attract guests.

In hotel advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel, Port Arthur is mentioned over Carnarvon in every advertisement. The name ‘Port Arthur’ is the most significant, continuous trait in all advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel, reflecting the importance of the name when defining the place. Newspaper advertisements, especially those printed in Tasmania, would have been highly visible publicly, as opposed to specialized tourist literature which a typical Tasmanian probably would not read. The regular high visibility, public proclamation of Port Arthur as a still-existing place indicates that attempts to re-brand the township as Carnarvon to forget the convict era failed. Of the nineteen advertisement types published for the Carnarvon Hotel, five were published outside of Tasmania. None of the advertisements published outside the state of Tasmania even mention the name Carnarvon – the site is referred to only as Port Arthur.

The weight of the name ‘Port Arthur’ meant that it never disappeared during the 49 years of the township’s existence as Carnarvon. In newspaper advertisements, the name is never just ‘Carnarvon’. In nearly all newspaper advertisements for all hotels, the name appears as Port Arthur. If the word Carnarvon appears (beyond in ‘Carnarvon Hotel’) it is listed as ‘Carnarvon (Port Arthur)’ or ‘(Port Arthur) Carnarvon’. No newspaper advertisements for hotels or guesthouses found for this study refer only to Carnarvon to indicate location.

The only time one of the hotels is listed as being in Carnarvon is an advertisement for the Hume Pipe Company (Australia) which lists ‘Mrs. M. L. Brimage, Boarding House, Carnarvon’ as one of 11 satisfied hotelier clients.58 This advertisement has nothing to do with tourism, so does not rely on tourist capacity to determine that Carnarvon is actually Port Arthur. In trying to attract a Tasmanian client base, in avoiding reference to Port Arthur this advertisement may be trying to appeal to more conservative sensibilities in downplaying the state’s convict past. By not mentioning Port Arthur in the advertisement, the Hume Pipe Company ensured that they wouldn’t offend any especially sensitive potential Tasmanian clients.

58 Advocate, 11 November 1925, “Summer Approaches with Its Dreadful Diseases”, p.15.

292

Advertisements for Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses in guidebooks are consistent with the newspaper advertisements and none refer to the location as just Carnarvon. One 1904 advertisement for the Tasman Villa lists its location as Carnarvon but notes that ‘Carnarvon is famous as the site of the Old Penal Establishments of Port Arthur…’ (Southern Tasmania Tourist Association 1904:n.p.). Similar to the newspapers, some of the hotel directories list the township as Carnarvon (Port Arthur). In these cases Port Arthur seems to be the name assigned to the penal ruins within the framework of the township of Carnarvon. Guidebook chapters dedicated to Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula are contained in the majority of guidebooks published after 1890. Similarly, not one of the 198 postcards in the PAHSMA collection mention Carnarvon. Even a c1910 postcard (Item 1997.226) featuring the Town Hall is labelled ‘Port Arthur Town Hall’.

Changing the name of Port Arthur to Carnarvon did not work to erase the convict past at the site, particularly for tourists and those involved in the tourism industry. Evidence from newspaper advertisements, guidebooks and postcards indicate that the change was not widely accepted beyond the township. The name ‘Port Arthur’ was perpetuated nationally in tourist materials through the 49 years it was meant to be ‘Carnarvon’.

9.2.3. A Variably Dark Place

As the most difficult aspect of Port Arthur’s past, the dark tourism (thanatourism) element at Port Arthur was mostly limited to media not intrinsic to the experience of the site, such as postcards, advertisements and Beattie’s off-site museum. Presentations of the convict past and dark heritage of Port Arthur, particularly representations on site, generally represented them as aspects of the site’s distant past.

As the tourist venture which presented the darkest aspects of Port Arthur’s past, Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum was situated nearly 100km away from Port Arthur in Hobart. Beattie was not descended from convicts himself which may have made it easier for him to address the darkest aspects of Tasmania’s convict history for tourists. The lucrative nature of public interest in Tasmania’s convict history would also have motivated him. Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop also contained prison and convict exhibits

293

but had a more diverse message reflecting an interest in presenting miscellaneous antiquities and curiosities in a manner consistent with the fictional shop after which it was named. Radcliffe advertised over 500 prison exhibitions, but closer examination of his collection shows that they formed only around 5% of the entire collection.

In terms of representations of the site in printed media, while historic postcards of the site present dark aspects of the site’s past and prison buildings, the majority of those postcards present them as items from the past. By the end of World War I Port Arthur’s role as a penal settlement had generally moved out of living memory, rendering it less menacing. The majority of depictions of prison buildings represented them as abandoned structures or ruins, reflecting the idea that the convict history of the site was something of the distant past. Advertisements for Port Arthur published in newspapers and guidebooks made alternately veiled and direct references to the site’s penal history, depending on the hotel proprietor. Some made veiled reference to the site’s history by calling it ‘Port Arthur’ instead of ‘Carnarvon’, while others referred to Marcus Clarke’s novel For the Term of His Natural Life or the generally historic nature of the site. Those advertisements that did make reference to the site’s penal history described it as ’old’, while several sites referred instead to the vaguely historic nature of the site. An example of this is advertisements for the Tasman Villa printed in guidebooks in 1904, 1905 and 1908 which note that ‘Carnarvon is famous as the site of the Old Penal Establishments of Port Arthur…’ (Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association 1904; 1905:n.p.). Lindsay Kerslake’s 1920 advertisement for the Hotel Arthur, calling it ‘Australia’s only Bona Fide convict ruins’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist and Immigration Department 1920:42). By referring to convict ‘ruins’, he presented them as historic relics which they would have been, having been built nearly 100 years prior.

By 1926, Kerslake’s advertisements for the Hotel Arthur referred to Port Arthur instead as ‘the most historical spot in Australia’. The Tasmanian Education Department played the film version of For the Term of His Natural Life for school children as a historical message. Instead of being a place with a dark, convict past, Port Arthur was increasingly represented as being historic more generally. Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur, published by later owner T. A. Pitman between 1939 and 1941, note that ‘The Hotel Arthur overlooks relics of the Penal Settlement of a hundred years ago…’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1939:90). As Port Arthur moved out of

294

living memory its dark history fell further into the past as it became less menacing and more educational.

The material culture from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur examined as part of this study contains no evidence of dark tourism. The hotels and guesthouses appear to have offered comfortable, relatively homey accommodation for visitors to the site. However, historic accounts of tours at the site through the 1930s suggests that the guides followed a ‘horror tradition’, willingly elaborating on and perpetuating fictional tales emphasizing the site’s dark history (Young 1996:77-80, 121-122). Historic interest in Port Arthur’s convict past, and the associated thanatouristic elements, is undeniable. The representation of thanatouristic elements in material culture was mostly limited to ephemeral items such as advertisements, tours and postcards. Through time, representations of the convict past actively promoted their belonging in the distant past, even when the site had been closed as a secondary punishment station for less than 30 years.

9.3. A Romantic Place

The Romantic tradition focused on the ‘sublime’ in interactions with the natural world, a general sense of awe at the might of nature mingled with terror (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:12). At Port Arthur, this could be experienced both by interactions with the beautiful, rugged natural scenery surrounding the site as well as through the convict ruins scattered across the site.

9.3.1. A Beautiful, Rugged Place

The natural beauty of Port Arthur’s rugged landscape features richly forested hills reaching down to rocky coves and bays. Advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel, Tasman Villa and Hotel Arthur attempted to capitalize the on area’s visual appeal, as at least one advertisement for each establishment uses the site’s ‘unrivalled scenery’ as a draw for tourists. A series of several different advertisements placed for the Carnarvon Hotel between 1895 and 1897 describe it as, ‘…standing amidst pleasure grounds by

295

the sea…Unrivalled in Tasmanian for Beauty of Situation’.59 Advertisements for the Tasman Villa in 1905 note that it is situated in an area of ‘unequalled scenery’60, while in 1916 it is referred to just as ‘Historic and Beautiful’.61 The Hotel Arthur advertises Port Arthur as ‘probably the prettiest place on the island’62 having ‘unrivalled scenery’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1939:90).

The importance of the nature at the site is also extensively evidenced in postcards of Port Arthur. Images focused on the natural landscape (including seascapes and geological features such as the Devil’s Kitchen and Tasman Arch) represent nearly half of all postcards examined. Abundant greenery and overgrowth featured in most outdoor images of Port Arthur printed between 1905 and 1960 and nearly a quarter of all postcards examined featured such an abundance of greenery as to be classified as ‘enveloped in greenery’. Together with images classified as ‘overgrown’ and ‘slightly overgrown’, images with abundant greenery are found on 57.6% (n=141) of all postcards examined. Manicured greenery was found on only 18.7% (n=37) of all postcards.

Postcards featuring stormy, overcast or fog-obscured skies were similarly popular, where postcards as a genre traditionally depict idealised scenes with perfect weather and clear skies (DeBres and Sowers 2009:323). The skies at Port Arthur appear dark or ominous in over half of all landscapes depicting Port Arthur, particularly those printed prior to 1945. The foreboding, dark clouds in images of Port Arthur may represent a romantic ideal (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:12).

9.3.2. The Romance of Ruins

The romantic element of Port Arthur’s appeal is undeniable – even the darker aspects of the site’s history retain elements of the romantic. Wilson (2008:208) notes that Port Arthur exists in contemporary Australian memory as the epitome of the

59 The Clipper, 27 February 1897, “Carnarvon Hotel”, n.p. 60 The Mercury, 15 February 1905, “Tasman Villa Hotel, Carnarvon”, n.p. 61 The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 1916, “Tasmania, Australia’s Playground and Sanatorium”, n.p. 62 The Sunday Times, 3 June 1928, untitled.

296

‘romanticism of the neo-gothic’. Where convict-built structural remnants on the landscape represented human dominance and mastery of the physical environment, romantic-era thought delighted at the overthrow of modern order by nature, and the ruins at Port Arthur provided a means of experiencing awe. The ruins at Port Arthur had a similar aesthetic effect to the medieval remnants of churches and castles in England, while lending a romantic appeal by being slowly reclaimed by nature (Wilson 2008:208).

Port Arthur’s ruins appealed to tourists, and this was used to advertise tourist accommodation as part of the site’s natural and historic sights. The presence of the ruins features in several hotel and guidebook advertisements. One advertisement for the Hotel Arthur, placed between 1939 and 1941 in a guidebook produced by the Tasmanian Government Tourist Department (1939:90), notes that the hotel ‘overlooks relics of the Penal Settlement of a hundred years ago’. Similarly, Port Arthur ruins feature prominently in postcards of the site during all phases of production. Postcards featuring Port Arthur’s ruins represent 40.9% (n=85) of all postcards within the PAHSMA collection, and this is the largest focal point of postcards analysed through all phases. The way in which the ruins were portrayed changed through time, as images representing ruins cleaned of overgrowth and surrounded by manicured greenery gradually replaced more rugged, romantic images of the ruins being overtaken by vegetation and nature.

The ruins of Port Arthur did not continue the slow process of reclamation by nature but were gradually cleaned of greenery and placed in an increasingly manicured setting of tended lawns. By the late 1940s much of Port Arthur was heavily overgrown by weeds, blackberries and other vegetation. The Port Arthur Scenic Reserves Board, established in 1947, implemented an extensive program of ‘beautification’ and ‘sanitisation’ across the town to correct the ‘unsatisfactory and untidy appearance of the town’. Overgrowth was cleared from around the ruins, fences and unsightly buildings were demolished, and formalised paths were laid out among extensive plantings of grasses and trees (Davidson 1995:654-655). I would suggest that this extensive program of works, as well as its continued maintenance, represents the end of the romantic appeal of the overgrown ruins.

297

9.4. An Authentic Place

The notion of authenticity and inauthenticity in tourist experience represents a heavy-handed dialectic imbued with value judgements. As a place’s identity can be fluid and context-dependent, the type of authenticity a place might offer visitors can be similarly multifaceted and complex. It is worth considering the tensions between authentic and inauthentic (or fictional) representations of Port Arthur for tourists.

9.4.1. Benign History

Over time, the once contentious ruins of the Port Arthur secondary punishment station became increasingly benign, represented as being of interest for being ‘historic’, and for their potential to allow Australians to imagine themselves walking through classical ruins in Greek and Rome, or medieval ruins in Europe. The ruins at Port Arthur, sharing a strong visual aesthetic with the remains of ancient cultures, lent an air of antiquity to European presence on the Australian landscape. This served to neutralize the impact of the convict era at Port Arthur regardless of its notoriously cruel and violent past. It was visually rendered benign and chronologically distant; the ruins at Port Arthur made convictism appear as if it were ancient history (Tumarkin 2005:185- 186).

The aesthetic appeal of European antiquity on the Australian landscape also made the ruins a draw for tourists, as it visually rationalized their colonization of the land. The convict ruins provided (and still provide) a nationalistic rallying point as historically significant markers for the Anglo-Celtic in Australia (Wilson 2008:47). A journalist who visited the site in 1918 declared Port Arthur ‘Australia’s only bona fide ruin’, finding it reminiscent of an old monastery (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:44). The ruins seem to ‘embody the solidity of a European foundation and the validation of historical claims’ in Australia (Tumarkin 2005:185).

Murals at the Commandant’s Residence, painted during the tenancy of the Carnarvon Hotel, depict Greco-Roman classical ruins on several walls within and around the house. Part of the romance of strolling through ruins (any ruins) rendered a placeless, generically ‘historic’ component to tourist experience Port Arthur.

298

The addition of a generally ‘historic’ component to tourist experience at Port Arthur may be evident in material culture from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, which operated from 1917 to 1939. Once she established her boarding house it was renamed ‘the Commandant’s House’, and material culture recovered from the boarding house assemblage indicates that it contained both English and Chinese antiques. This may represent an attempt by Mrs. Brimage to restore and replicate some of the colonial splendour of the building from when it was occupied by the Commandant of the Tasman Peninsula when Port Arthur was operational. As one of the less expensive places of accommodation at Port Arthur, in a building that was evidently becoming increasingly ramshackle, filling the house with antiques and fine wares from distant places and time periods may have been a means of acquiring and entertaining guests. This partial re- enactment of the building’s past may represent a means of recreating historical ‘authenticity’ for visitors.

Similarly, as time progressed Port Arthur’s convict past became less directly relevant in museum collections portraying the site. While Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum, situated in Hobart, presented artefacts associated with Port Arthur’s convict past, Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop in Port Arthur displayed mostly antiques from Britain, ethnographic items and curiosities from around the world. Consistent with Charles Dickens’ The Old Curiosity Shop, Radcliffe’s shop had no direct focus and presented as wide and varied an assemblage as he could gather to catch the attention of passing tourists. Items of general interest from around the world were gathered and put on display, seemingly reducing the sense of Port Arthur’s place and history. Alternately, at Radcliffe’s Old Curiosity Shop the display of items from Port Arthur alongside well-known international sites may represent and attempt to validate Port Arthur’s status as an equally significant historic place.

Through time, reference to the convict past and specific historical events at Port Arthur decreased. Postcards of Port Arthur transitioned to presenting increasingly sterilised scenery of the site, devoid of overgrowth and people. As time progressed, people and activities were portrayed on postcards less, and the images of the ruins became cleaner and less overgrown while situated on neatly manicured lawns. While this may represent changes made to the site under increasingly organized government agencies, it is worth recalling that postcards represent an idealized depiction of a place,

299

and earlier images of the site would have been available for reprinting (as they were in the Interwar period). Every postcard printed between 1945 and 1960 had a title, and not one made reference to Port Arthur’s past as a prison. The site began to look more sanitized, manufactured and devoid of human interest as time progressed, even as human impact to and activity around Port Arthur would have been increasing.

Depictions of Port Arthur as generically historical (and benign) also increased through time in advertisements for hotels and guesthouses. While many advertisements through the early twentieth century acknowledged the site’s affiliation with the convict past, ‘historic’ itself started being used as a selling feature. A newspaper advertisement for the Tasman Villa which ran in The Sydney Morning Herald in 1916 refers to Port Arthur as simply ‘Historic and beautiful’, while a 1918 advertisement for the hotel refers to the site as containing ‘…many Historic and Natural Sights’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau, 1914-1918:17).63 An advertisement for the Hotel Arthur published in 1926 refers to Port Arthur as ‘the most historical spot in Australia’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1926:72), while a 1928 advertisement in a Perth, Western Australia, newspaper directs visitors to ‘…the historic ruins of Port Arthur.’64

Port Arthur was gradually so ingrained in the Australian psyche as a ‘must visit’ site that what people saw may not have mattered as much making the trip to visit the site. Through time, the ruins transitioned from being strictly the remains of a penal settlement ruins to just generic ruins of interest, and possibly a replacement for European or Classical ruins of great antiquity.

9.4.2. Authenticity and Inauthenticity in Tourist Experience

Manufactured authenticity is not unusual in tourism, and tourists often knowingly accept and consume it (Lovata 2011:201). Evidence of inauthentic or falsified aspects of the past at Port Arthur were relatively minimal in the contexts examined as part of this study. Postcards depicting the ‘suicide cliffs’ at Port Puer, the boy’s prison situated

63 The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 1916, “Tasmania – Australia’s Playground and Sanitorium, Climate and Scenery Unsurpassed”. 64 The Sunday Times, 3 June 1928, “Untitled”.

300

across the bay from Port Arthur, perpetuated the myth of two boys taking their lives as presented in Marcus Clarke’s For the Term of His Natural Life (1872). Similarly, postcards depicting the ‘underground cells’ at Point Puer, on later investigation determined to be the remains of bread ovens, represent fantastical aspects of the site’s history. Overall, however, these postcards represent a very small portion of all postcards examined in the PAHSMA assemblage.

Port Arthur’s actual history often took a secondary role as the site’s myths, created and perpetuated by the site’s role in popular fiction and the horror tradition adopted by tour guides until the 1930s. In some instances notoriety may have overshadowed its actual history as a secondary punishment station for convicts and rural Tasmanian township.

The authenticity of only one item from the museum collections examined that has been particularly questioned, being the skull of Alexander Pearce (famed cannibal convict) which was reportedly within Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum. This skull has also reportedly been part of American phrenologist Dr. Samuel Morton’s collection since the 1850s and it is now said to reside at the University of Pennsylvania museum (Kidd 2000). Without clear evidence of fabrication or falsification of an item’s origins it is difficult to determine the extent of ‘inauthentic’ aspects of Port Arthur’s past being presented to tourists. Oral traditions and tales perpetuated at Port Arthur, such as the ‘horror tradition’ said to have been promoted by tour guides at Port Arthur through the 1930s, do not leave material traces easily studied. Although there may be some evidence for reimagining of the past at Port Arthur, perhaps what is most interesting are the ways in which Port Arthur was created for and by tourists interacting with the site, its stories, artefacts and elements.

Beyond the questions of the authenticity of items and stories told to tourists visiting Port Arthur, increasing tourist need for authentic experiences are evident in changes to the types of postcards of the site printed between 1900 and 1960. As time progressed, images of Port Arthur became increasingly void of people and activities within the landscape. I would suggest that the absence of people engaging with Port Arthur in images represents attempts at representing authentic experiences at and meaningful engagement with the site. From WWII onwards the ideal depiction of Port

301

Arthur illustrated solitude and isolation, and a chance to experience the romance of the past. Tourism is thought to be driven by tourist attempts to engage with authentic experiences in a meaningful way, particularly as the world became increasingly industrialised and ‘inauthentic’. Idealised images of the site saw gradually reduced images of people interacting with the site, giving a sense of peace and isolation. These may reflect changing ideals with regards to tourist attempts to engage with the seemingly vacant site in a meaningful way.

9.5. A Place for Tourists

9.5.1. Class and Tourism

Theories about the development of mass tourism are centered on notions of class. Socioeconomic class has been identified as a key factor which impacted on who had the money and time to travel, as well as the means by which they travelled. Many theorists suggest a ‘trickle down’ model where the upper classes would have started travelling to a site, followed by the middle and then working classes (Chambers 2010; Davidson and Spearritt 2000; Horne 2005). Discussions of elite tourists are often marked by references to conspicuous consumption and exclusivity; modernity and excess were hallmarks of elite travel through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Corbin et al. 2010:199; Horne 2005; O’Donovan 2011:268).

In direct opposition to conspicuous consumption and excess is the notion of ‘gentility’. The strict code of ‘gentility’ in Victorian Australia is defined as a middle-class worldview requiring adherence to strict guidelines of etiquette grounded in evangelical Christianity. Its morals rest in opposition to the perceived gluttony and excessive consumption more common to the wealthier classes. Archaeological correlates for gentility might include a lack of artefacts associated with drinking or smoking, as well as items associated with creating a fashionable household, child rearing and education. Items relating to personal hygiene, recreational pursuits and personal betterment are also useful for examining adherence to genteel conduct (Lawrence et al. 2009: 68, 77; Quirk 2007:103).

302

I would argue that artefacts associated with fashionable household decorations, child rearing, education, hygiene, and recreational pursuits also would be present in assemblages associated with the upper-class. Comparisons of these types of artefacts between sites at Port Arthur and beyond will provide additional insight into the socioeconomic class of tourists visiting Port Arthur and help test existing theories of class and tourism. Material culture from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur were examined to determine if they reflect a demographic shift through time from upper class travellers followed by middle and working class visitors.

Specific to examinations of tourist activities at Port Arthur, and Tasmania more generally, is evidence of use of the site as a medical retreat and material culture unique to tourism. The selected comparative artefact assemblages will be used to help provide further insight into the groups touring Port Arthur.

Conspicuous Consumption

Luxury goods related to leisure and consumption are key economic indicators of conspicuous consumption, and these might include the presence of fine goods or exotic and expensive imported items. Items associated with the consumption of liquor and tobacco were of particular interest as vice avoidance is a key tenet of middle-class Australian concept of ‘gentility’. The findings from the four accommodation sites at Port Arthur as they may relate to conspicuous consumption are outlined below.

Premium Alcohol

Evidence of alcohol consumption is greatest at the two earlier hotels, the Carnarvon Hotel and the Tasman Villa. Alcohol bottles comprise 64.4% of the Carnarvon Hotel bottle assemblage and 83.5% of the Tasman Villa bottle assemblage. Alcohol-related items recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel suggest a focus on premium, imported goods, as suggested by the lead wrappers for beer and alcohol bottles recovered. The use of lead wrappers for alcohol bottles, especially beer bottles, is considered a key indicator of a middle through upper class assemblages in Australia. Lead capsules illustrate the significant role of the export market for beer, liquor and other bottled goods (Petchey and Innanchai 2002:14). Export bottling companies in England often used second-hand champagne-style bottles to ship beer to the colonies as they

303

were inherently strong and could withstand the overseas voyage (Petchey and Innanchai 2012:2). The tendency to recycle bottles refilled with counterfeit products was a common late-19th century practice, and purchasing beverages with lead capsules was a way for consumers to ensure that they were receiving authentic products (Moore 2000:41). Imported British beers were thought to be popular due to their superior quality and status associations (Souter 2006:175).

The maker’s marks on the foil wrappers suggest that some of the beer and ale served at the Carnarvon Hotel was imported from Scotland and Ireland. No lead foil wrappers were found in the Tasman Villa assemblage, and the Hotel Arthur assemblage contained only one foil seal from a bottle of Gilbey’s Dry Gin, produced in London. A bottle of French Cointreau was recovered from the artefact assemblage associated with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. No other evidence of imported alcohol was found at the Tasman Villa, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house or the Hotel Arthur.

Tobacco and Other Vices

Smoking-related objects, considered part of the ‘leisure consumption package’ (Cessford 2001), were found at every accommodation site in Port Arthur. The purchase of imported, branded tobacco is an indicator of socioeconomic status at the Carnarvon Hotel. Cheaper, unbranded tobacco from the Australian mainland would have been widely available in Australia, with plantations first established in New South Wales in 1803 (Blyton 2010). The purposeful selection of tamper-proof imported luxuries by the clientele at the Carnarvon Hotel (for both alcohol and tobacco) suggests that they may represent a cross-section of Australian society with discerning tastes and a demand for particular luxuries.

Avoidance of Vice

Comparatively, the bottle assemblages from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur suggest a decreased focus on alcohol consumption. Alcohol bottles account for only 26.2% (MIC=16) of the Commandant’s House bottle assemblage and 21.0% (MIC=13) of the Hotel Arthur bottle assemblage. From the 1920s, the Hotel Arthur held the only liquor license at Port Arthur, and historic photos of the bar suggest that it was amply stocked (Figure 9-x). The reduced ratio of alcohol bottles suggests

304

that either the focus at the site was on other activities, or that alcohol bottles were recycled or disposed elsewhere. Evidence for sealed, premium imported alcohol was not recovered for the Hotel Arthur to the same extent as that found for the Carnarvon Hotel. Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house was never licensed, but a nearly intact bottle of French Cointreau was recovered beneath the floorboards (Obj. #1195).

There is no evidence for the avoidance of smoking at any site of accommodation at Port Arthur. Artefacts associated with smoking (as a sub-class) were recovered in consistent proportions from the Carnarvon Hotel, Tasman Villa, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur.

Taking Tea

Teawares formed one of the largest subclasses of artefacts recovered from all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. Taking tea was a significant social ritual through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for all classes of Australians (Lawrence and Davies 2010:297). Archaeologists in Australia and the United States have found that the socioeconomic status indicated by the cost of decoration and ware types for teawares correlated most closely to the documented socioeconomic status of households (Brooks and Connah 2007; Lawrence and Davies 2010:298; Spencer-Wood 1987:322). It should be noted that the correlation is complicated and in several instances socioeconomic status was not clearly indicated by markers such as the presence of porcelain or the cost of decoration. In this instance, more detailed examination of the teawares was used to look at the different ways in which the teawares at each site might represent socioeconomic status and targeted expenditure at Port Arthur’s sites of tourist accommodation. Beyond just the socioeconomic status expressed by the purposeful selection of teawares, understanding how tea was taken at each site of tourist accommodation (as they relate to the comparative assemblages) provides some insight into the environments constructed for tourists.

One means of examining socioeconomic status through teawares is the analysis of relative proportions of porcelain as part of the teaware assemblage. Although they become more affordable towards the end of the nineteenth century, teawares made of porcelain were known to be more expensive than refined earthenware (Henry 1987:326).

305

While there is some correlation, it should be noted that Brooks and Coonah (2007:143) found that the relative proportions of porcelain in an assemblage did little to reflect socioeconomic status. Figure 9-2 below presents the relative percentage of porcelain teawares from each Port Arthur site, as well as the select comparative assemblages.

Figure 9-2 Relative proportion of porcelain teawares within the teaware assemblages.

The Carnarvon Hotel has the greatest proportion of porcelain teawares as compared to all other sites, including the comparative assemblages. At most of the other sites, including Tasman Villa, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Queen’s Arms Inn (NSW), between 50% and 60% of all teawares are porcelain. Only two of the assemblages, the Hotel Arthur and the Agricultural Hotel in Haymarket, NSW, have teaware assemblages consisting of less than 30% porcelain wares.

306

Figure 9-3 Relative proportions of hand-painted and gold gilt teawares.

Figure 9-3 presents the relative proportions of hand-painted and gold gilt teawares in all four sites of tourist accommodation and all comparative collections with available data. The presence of hand-painted and gold gilt ceramics is a means of examining relative expenditure on an assemblage (Porter 2012:133-134). The Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house contain relative proportions of hand-painted and gold gilt teawares consistent with Government House, which represents an upper-class domestic assemblage. It is worth noting that the assemblage from Government House represented dumping activities from 1859 to 1912 and the use of gold gilt may not carry the same significance at the Port Arthur sites. The Agricultural Hotel and Red Cow Inn had no gold gilt or hand-painted teawares.

Teawares at the Carnarvon Hotel contain a significant proportion of hand-painted and gilt vessels as compared to the other three sites at Port Arthur (Figure 9-3). The comparative levels of porcelain are high as compared to the small collection of comparative assemblages. As compared to other sites, it seems that a significant

307

amount of money was invested by proprietors of the Carnarvon Hotel on costly teawares. This contributes to the idea that the Carnarnvon Hotel assemblage might reflect elite travel to Port Arthur in the early years of tourism to the site.

Dining

Artefact assemblages related to consuming and serving food can provide insight into socioeconomic status and foodways. A variety of vessel forms was recovered for each site of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur, including a range of forms associated with food service and consumption (see Table 7.1). Several trends across the four sites of tourist accommodation were identified in Chapter 7 as they relate to ceramic vessels and glass tablewares. These trends, as they relate to indicators of socioeconomic class, will be addressed in this section in relation to selected comparative collections. While teawares are thought to most clearly reflect the socioeconomic status of a household or establishment, examining artefacts relating to dining more broadly will give a sense of other types of ceramics used. It should be noted that the size and variability of a ceramic assemblage is a more reliable indicator of socioeconomic status. It should be noted that the size and variability of a ceramic assemblage is a more reliable indicator of socioeconomic status. It should be noted that the size and variability of a ceramic assemblage is a more reliable indicator of socioeconomic status. Examining the presence of more elaborately decorated wares as compared to plain undecorated wares at sites of tourist accommodation provides a sense of the attempts by tourism operators to create a specific environment for their guests.

Ceramic assemblages with larger proportions of gold gilt or hand-painted ceramic vessels suggest higher relative expenditure, suggesting that they would be more common in upper-class or elite assemblages (Harry 1987:139; Porter 2012:133-134). As a contrast, undecorated whiteware vessels generally represent the most inexpensive ceramic wares available (Miller, 1991:5; Majewski and O’Brien 1987:132).

Transfer-printing is the most common decorative technique used on ceramic vessels from all sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur, and transfer-printed vessels are ubiquitous at archaeological sites in Australia. By the late nineteenth century some transfer printed patterns were nearly as inexpensive as undecorated whiteware (Brooks 2005:62). The quality of the transfer printed vessels and rarity of the

308

pattern used can provide evidence of class differentiations in vessels using this decorative technique. Three common transfer print patterns ubiquitous to Australian sites (Asiatic Pheasant, Rhine and Willow) were relatively cheap to acquire during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Lawrence and Davies 2011:320). Examining the relative quantities of cheap transfer printed wares as a proportion of the entire transfer-printed assemblage for each site represents a useful socioeconomic indicator (Porter 2012:134-135). Figure 9-4 below presents the relative proportion of cheap transfer print patterns for each site with available data.

Figure 9-4 Relative proportion of cheap transfer-printed patterns of all transfer printed vessels by artefact assemblage.

The relative proportion of cheap transfer-printed patterns recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel is consistent with Government House, an upper-class bureaucratic assemblage. The relative proportions of cheap transfer-printed patterns increases gradually for all sites of accommodation of Port Arthur (arranged left to right by temporal range). The Agricultural Hotel and Queen’s Arms Inn had very low proportions of cheap

309

transfer-printed patterns, which is interesting as these sites represent middle-class hotels, one on the outskirts of downtown Sydney (Agricultural Hotel), the other at the outskirts of the greater Sydney region (Queen’s Arms Inn). Of all sites the Hotel Arthur has the highest proportion of cheap transfer-printed wares, though these are of a relatively high frequency at most of the Port Arthur sites.

Figure 9-5 Relative proportions of undecorated whitewares in the ceramic assemblage.

To provide yet another point of comparison, the relative proportion of undecorated whitewares as part of the ceramic assemblage is presented in Figure 9-5. While porcelain, hand-painted and gilt vessels are most common at the Carnarvon Hotel, it also has the highest proportion of undecorated whiteware of all sites at Port Arthur. Government House, thought to represent an assemblage resulting from an elite household, as well as their staff, also has a similarly high proportion of undecorated whiteware.

Having completed some examinations of socioeconomic status of the teawares and tablewares from sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur, a few trends have been identified. Artefacts from the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage and Mrs. Brimage’s

310

boarding house seem to generally represent what would normally be qualified as assemblages of higher socioeconomic status. The Carnarvon Hotel ceramic assemblage has the highest proportion of porcelain teawares, gold gilt and hand-painted teawares, and the lowest proportion of common, relatively cheap transfer-printed patterns. It did, however, have the highest proportion of undecorated whitewares of all sites at Port Arthur. This suggests a targeted expenditure on teawares while purchasing generally utilitarian tablewares. Given the evidence for expensively decorated ceramics and glassware, in addition to some evidence of conspicuous consumption through imported alcohol and tobacco, the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage appears to be more consitent with an upper-middle class hotel assemblage. This supports the theory that wealthy tourists were first visiting Port Arthur, demanding a certain quality of goods and service.

The Tasman Villa, with a less elaborate ceramic and glassware assemblage, may have represented a hotel oriented towards middle-class travellers. Similarly, material culture from the Hotel Arthur suggests that it was less elaborately outfitted than Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, the Commandant’s House. Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house is a bit of an anomaly and challenges traditional archaeological understandings for reconstructing class in household assemblages. In being referred to as a ‘boarding house’ it exists as the lowest class of accommodation establishments. Proprietors would not willingly refer to their establishment as a boarding house; this term was saved for guidebooks and journalists (Horne 2005:128). However, in one of her two published advertisements for the Commandant’s House, Mrs. Brimage refers to it as a ‘1st-class Boarding Establishment’.65 Boarding houses, along the lines of a guesthouse, offered cost-conscious travellers a comfortable retreat meant to offer the comforts of home (Horne 2005:128).

As compared to other sites at Port Arthur, the Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house assemblage contains artefact types traditionally associated with more elite household assemblages. A set of four matching hand-painted Chinese porcelain plates and soup bowls are the most elaborate vessels recovered from the hotel sites at Port Arthur. The

65 The Mercury, 16 January 1926, “Commandant’s House, Carnarvon (Port Arthur)”, n.p.

311

glass tablewares from the Commandant’s House also contain fine items not found elsewhere at Port Arthur, such as a lead-crystal decanter with cut diamond pattern, a lead crystal tumbler with a pattern of fine flutes cut on the exterior, a stemmed glass with an elaborate engraved Greek key pattern around the body, and two matching stemmed glass with a cut diamond pattern on the body and engraved Celtic-knot pattern around the rim. Nine of the 161 ceramic vessels from the Commandant’s House are from Asia (8 from China, 1 from Japan). They represent a small portion of the entire ceramic assemblage (5.6%), but are all hand-painted wares of varying complexity.

There is a split in the economic value of the plates in the ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house, as undecorated vessels form the second most common decorative grouping in the teaware and plate assemblages. There are several behaviours that could explain this. The undecorated ceramics could represent those vessels used by staff and servants in the taking of meals on site, while the finer china was saved for guests. Alternately, the undecorated, utilitarian ceramics may represent acquisitions during periods of economic depression in the region, as advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House through the late 1930s indicate the reduction of rates in 1936, followed by the introduction of seasonal rates in 1937 (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department, 1936:101; 1937:101). As a struggling establishment, the fineries within reach at the beginning of the endeavour may not have been replaceable as they broke. A third option is the use of sturdy, undecorated utilitarian vessels for the majority of guest dining. The construction of a specialized dining room meant increased community use for special events such as weddings, so perhaps the fine china was reserved for these limited occasions and served mostly as decoration.

All of the Port Arthur assemblages present comparatively high proportions of cheap transfer printed vessels as compared to the comparative assemblages, and the Carnarvon Hotel has a particularly high proportion of undecorated refined earthenware and porcelain. It may be that purchasing at the Port Arthur hotels, in attempting to recreate the comforts of a upper-middle class household, included a few prestige items to impress guests as well as more inexpensive wares to meet the needs of busy hotels. Having enough prestige items to provide a mantle of status would have suited the needs of upper-class and upper-middle class guests visiting during the earlier periods of travel to Port Arthur.

312

The Hotel Arthur represents the lowest values of economic expenditure for all examinations of socioeconomic status conducted through the tourist accommodation ceramic and glass assemblages at Port Arthur. It has the lowest proportion of porcelain teawares, the lowest proportion of gold gilt and hand-painted teawares, the highest proportion of cheap transfer-printed patterns, and a lack of decorated or specialised glass tablewares. Using traditional archaeological examinations of class through material culture, the assemblage from the Hotel Arthur would seem to be more consistent with a middle class or working class group. This may indicate a transition in the makeup of the tourist population visiting Port Arthur, as many of the luxuries required by wealthier upper and upper-middle class clientele were no longer catered to. A greater proportion of the travelling population to Port Arthur would have been middle- and working-class Australians, and perhaps the change to the ceramic and glassware assemblages reflect changes to the tourist demographic. However, it cost more for tourists to stay at the Hotel Arthur than the Commandant’s House.

If the assemblage at the Hotel Arthur does not represent the changing tourist demographic, perhaps it reflects a change in the types of facilities tourists required, such as modern amenities. Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur was an extensive enterprise which encompassed tours, transportation and sale of key tourist resources such as Kodak film. Advertisements for the Hotel Arthur suggest that it was the more prestigious of the two later hotels (and it cost more to stay there), with electric lighting, a septic system, tourist supplies and affiliations with Kodak and tour providers, automobile parking, and the only liquor license in Port Arthur. I would suggest that traditional archaeological tests for socioeconomic status and prestige may not apply as well on early to mid-twentieth century artefact assemblages. Socioeconomic prestige, as evidenced in tourist advertisements for the time period, would have been most prevalent in services and modern amenities than the type of china provided for taking tea.

9.5.2. A Place for Families

One potential marker for the development of mass tourism would be evidence of families travelling to tourist sites for vacations. Three of the four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur provide evidence of artefacts associated with children in the form of toys, as well as possibly clerical items such as writing slates and pencils

313

(though these could also have been used by adults and as such were not classified with toys).

In their examination of assemblage types anticipated in a city dump in Brisbane, Queensland, Harris et al. (2004:21) were surprised the find an infant’s bottle and child’s ABCs plate mixed with an assemblage whose material signified its origins in a hotel or pub. They noted that proprietors were required by law to reside on site, and these childhood-associated materials likely originated with the proprietor’s family.

The prominence of childhood material culture at Port Arthur accommodation sites (except the Tasman Villa) is particularly noticeable when compared to the proportion of toys at the comparative sites (Figure 9-6). In the assemblage with the highest proportion of childhood-related objects, the Queen’s Arms Inn, toys still only represented by 1.4% (n=7) of the total assemblage. Only one toy was recovered in the assemblages for each of Government House and the Red Cow Inn. However, two alphabet plates and a small chamber pot recovered from the Red Cow Inn assemblage represent children at the site. Children’s objects represented a notably small proportion of the overall site assemblage for the Red Cow Inn (Casey and Lowe 2005:76).

314

Figure 9-6 Toys as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage.

Hotel and guesthouse owners at Port Arthur had children, and some of the toys found could be attributed to them. Toys in the Port Arthur assemblages occur in such a high relative frequency to other hotels and household sites that it would be more realistic to attribute a large portion of the toys to children visiting the site. Small, highly mobile toys (such as marbles, dolls and figurines) would be useful for travelling families to bring to entertain children. They would also be particularly easily lost outdoors in gardens and beneath floorboards. The high frequency of toys in three of the Port Arthur hotel assemblages could be attributed to families travelling to the site.

Of the 198 postcards of Port Arthur examined as part of this dissertation 59 depict people and only of those people are children. Five postcards actively depict children touring the site, and all of these postcards were printed between 1905 and 1918. The other two images show children during historic periods (real or recreated) at Port Arthur. One image consists of a small boy in watercolour painting depicting Eaglehawk Neck and the dogline, and the other shows five children inside the Port

315

Arthur Church with Reverend George Eastman. Children are not depicted on postcards after 1930, but depictions of people in general became less common. Of all postcards which depict people at Port Arthur, postcards depicting children or families represent a very small portion. Postcards represent an idealised version of a place, and perhaps the cheerful nature of family vacations (even depictions of people in general) did not match the generally introspective nature or ruin-oriented depictions of Port Arthur.

9.5.3. A Place of Recreation and Leisure

The artefact assemblages from all four hotels at Port Arthur contain items associated with leisure and recreation. This includes all items identified as being associated specifically with leisure and recreation, including sporting goods, toys, art supplies, and smoking paraphernalia. While they do not represent as large a portion of the assemblage as food and beverage related items, they form a notable portion of each assemblage. One way in which the artefact assemblages from Port Arthur differ greatly from all comparative assemblages is the relative proportion of recreation items (Figure 9- 7).

316

Figure 9-7 Recreation items as a proportion of all artefact assemblages.

The comparative assemblage with the largest portion of artefacts related to recreation is the Agricultural Hotel, with six recreation-associated objects representing 3.2% of the entire assemblage. This, the largest proportion of recreation-associated objects in the comparative collection, is smaller than the smallest grouping of recreation- associated objects from the Port Arthur sites. Recreational items from the Agricultural Hotel are represented by four clay tobacco pipes and two marbles. All recreation objects from the comparative assemblages relate to smoking or toys.

The Carnarvon Hotel has the largest relative portion of leisure and recreation items within its assemblage, with the recovered items representing smoking and toys (Table 9.1). This pattern is consistent across all sites at Port Arthur, as most recreation- related objects from Port Arthur are associated with smoking or toys. Other activities are represented as well, including tourism itself (see Section 9.5.4. ‘Tourism-Specific Material Culture’). A golf ball from Tasman Villa hotel and pastel crayon from the Hotel Arthur represent the other two objects of recreation and leisure found in the Port Arthur.

317

Artefacts associated specifically with tourism were recovered from assemblages associated with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur.

Table 9-1 Artefacts from ‘Recreation’ sub-classes for all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur.

Carnarvon Tasman Mrs. Hotel Hotel Villa Brimage's Arthur Recreation – Art 0 0 0 1 Recreation - Smoking 7 2 9 5 Recreation – Sport 0 1 0 0 Recreation - Tourism 0 0 1 4 Recreation – Toys 12 0 15 8 TOTAL 19 3 25 18

Advertisements for hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur list a series of recreational pursuits available on site, including shooting. Evidence for shooting, in the form of shot pellets, bullet casings and shotgun shells, was recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House. Similarly, needlework and sewing have been identified as recreational activities for female guests. Material culture from both these activities have been grouped with the functional class ‘Tools’ to maintain consistency with the comparative assemblages. In a domestic context, these items may be more associated with different functional uses, such as making or mending clothing or shooting animals for food. I would argue that in the case of tourist sites at Port Arthur, it would be most sensible to consider evidence of shooting and needlework with other recreational pursuits.

This change would alter the relative portions of recreational items at the Carnarvon Hotel and Mrs. Brimage’s Boarding House (the Commandant’s House). Five items associated with firearms were recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel, including four gauges of lead shot pellets and a 0.22’ bullet casing. Sewing and needlework paraphernalia, including a hoop for lace-making, packaging for a skein of fine wool, and 15 straight pins were also recovered. The addition of these objects would have recreational items represent 18.3% (MIC=41) of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. Similarly, eight items associated with firearms were recovered from Mrs. Brimage’s

318

boarding house, represented by one spent 0.22’ bullet casing and seven spent paper and brass shotgun cartridges. A single straight pin and thimble were also recovered. The addition of these objects would have recreational items represent 10.5% (MIC=35) of the entire assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house. No items associated with sewing or firearms were recovered from the Tasman Villa or Hotel Arthur assemblages.

Advertisements from all four sites of accommodation at Port Arthur focused primarily on meeting tourists’ needs through recreation and leisure, though the types of pursuits and focus of these advertisements differed. Newspaper advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel focused primarily on the comforts of the hotel itself, the cleanliness of rooms, the favourable climate and the hotel’s famous or revered patrons. Only four of 13 newspaper advertisements mentioned leisure activities, suggesting that while these activities were available they were not necessarily the driving factor in tourist visitation.

Advertisements for the Tasman Villa focus almost entirely on the hotel’s ability to meet tourist needs and offer enjoyment through experience and consumption of food and drink. Tasman Villa advertised fishing, boating, sea bathing, excellent cuisine and the capacity to arrange for tours to local geological formations the Tasman Arch, the Blowhole and the Tesselated Pavement. Similar to the Tasman Villa, advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s ‘Commandant’s House’ focused on tourist experience and advertised a bathing beach, tennis courts, fresh food (fruit and cream) in abundance, and that the site was ‘a fisherman’s paradise’.

The Hotel Arthur advertised activities and excursions for guests, including sea bathing, fishing, boating, surfing arrangements for trips to ‘local beauty spots’ (Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1939:90). Unlike the other sites, however, the amenities offered by the Hotel Arthur were included in the advertisements, such as billiards tables, hot and cold baths, Kodak supplies, and boats and cars available for rent.

Even though recreation and leisure activities at Port Arthur were reflected in both the hotel assemblages and advertisements, only a small proportion of the postcard collection owned by PAHSMA depicts tourist activities at Port Arthur. Those postcards that did showed activities such as rowing, picnicking, travel by steamboat, touring by

319

automobile, and socialising among the ruins. The presence of tourists at Port Arthur was not considered part of the necessary narrative to promote the site to others, with people notably absent from most postcards. As tourist numbers increased through time the relative number of postcards showing people decreased, suggesting that while tourists might have been drawn by the activities and amenities advertised by hotels at the site, they continued to imagine Port Arthur as an isolated place of historic, scenic and natural interest.

The high proportion of recreational items at the sites of tourist accommodation in Port Arthur is consistent with the idea of tourism as a leisure-based pursuit. All of the hotels at Port Arthur advertised leisure pursuits and recreational activities to draw tourists. Tourists seeking (and engaging in) leisure would likely generate material culture representing a higher proportion of recreational activities than even domestic assemblages, as there would be a greater amount of time to dedicate to leisure pursuits while visiting tourist sites. Most guests visiting hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur, except possibly middle class or working class female tourists, would be removed from most of their traditional work requirements. This additional time for recreation is visible in the material culture at tourist sites as it is not elsewhere.

9.5.4. Tourism-Specific Material Culture

The easiest way to identify tourist-generated assemblages is to look for tourist- specific material culture. The earliest souvenirs of Port Arthur were objects stolen (or ‘souvenired’) from the grounds during the first couple of decades of tourism. The introduction of specialized tourist mementos must have begun in the early 20th century, as jewellers Taylor and Sharp advertised in 1913 that they were the ‘First people to introduce little Mementoes of Tasmania’ (Figure 9-8).

320

Figure 9-8 Advertisement for Tasmanian tourist souvenirs Source: (Tasmanian Government Tourist and Immigration Department 1913:26)

Tourism-specific material culture, in the form of tourist souvenirs, were recovered from the assemblages associated with Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917-1939) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959). This may reflect the transition away from stealing mementos from around Port Arthur to the purposeful manufacture of souvenirs for tourist consumption.

While tourism-specific material culture became increasingly popular at Port Arthur, it is worth noting that postcards produced for the site actively avoided the leisure

321

tradition of postcards produced for other tourist destinations. There were few images on postcards that depicted Port Arthur as a relaxing or leisurely getaway locale.

9.5.5. A Place to Convalesce

Tasmania was widely advertised as the ‘Sanitorium to the South’, with medical testimonials from doctors supporting the benefits of the cool, temperate advertised widely in early guidebooks. These books were promoted particularly extensively to the Australian mainland and the other British colonies situated in hot climates, such as India. Tasmania’s popular image as ‘Premier Health Resort of the Australian Colonies’ was boosted by the recovery of the ailing governor of Queensland following a visit to the island (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:39).

Two newspaper advertisements for the Carnarvon Hotel, published out of state in Adelaide and Melbourne in 1894 and 1895, make reference to hotel’s role as a health resort and retreat from the heat of mainland Australia. No other advertisements for places of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur make reference to the healing benefits of the cool, seaside climate, but material culture recovered from hotels and guesthouses suggest that it was still serving as a place of respite for the unwell.

Figure 9-9 illustrates that medicine bottles and associated paraphernalia form a significant portion of the bottle assemblages in the later hotels operating at Port Arthur, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur. It is worth noting that two additional ceramic medicinal items were recovered from the Commandant’s House, an ointment pot and a teapot-style vessel meant for use as an inhaler for a patent medicine. The directions for use, including use of a mouthpiece and sponge, are transfer-printed directly onto the vessel (Obj. 2327).

322

Figure 9-9 Medicine bottles as a proportion of selected bottle assemblages.

Medicinal paraphernalia form a significantly smaller portion of the bottle assemblages for the earlier hotels, the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa, which is interesting because Tasmania was already well established as a health resort by the 1890s. This suggests that sickly travellers were not visiting Port Arthur for other reasons.

The proportion of medicine bottles recovered from the Carnarvon Hotel is consistent with several comparative sites. Hotel assemblages where medicine bottles comprise less than 5% of the bottle assemblage include the Agricultural Hotel and Trevathan Hotel. No medicine bottles or medical items were recovered from the Tasman Villa assemblage. This may reflect the fact that guests at the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa were in average health and dealt with their maladies at a level consistent with middle and upper-class Australians (more broadly).

323

A significant shift in medicine bottles is visible in the later places of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur. The bottle assemblages from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (the Commandant’s House) and the Hotel Arthur have high proportions of medicine bottles. These are the only two sites of nine where medicine bottles represent greater than 20% of the bottle assemblage. This could represent un-well guests or household occupants. None of the historical descriptions of the proprietors of Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house or the Hotel Arthur mentions long-standing ailments, but this may not have been advertised publicly.

The comparative assemblages with the highest proportion of medicine bottles are the Queen’s Arms Inn, Government House and the Red Cow Inn. The high proportion of medicine bottles at the Red Cow Inn could be explained by the presence of a greater number of guests with health issues. The Red Cow Inn served tourists making their way to the Blue Mountains, another area identified for the remedial effects of its cool climate. The high proportion of medicine bottles at the Queen’s Arms Inn and Government House may also reflect un-well guests or household occupants.

The increase in medicine bottles and paraphernalia at later (post-1915) places of accommodation at Port Arthur is likely associated with improved transportation and access to the site by persons with chronic health complaints. Until that time Port Arthur was notoriously difficult to access. For the first couple decades following the closure of the penal settlement in 1877, aside from the occasional day trip offered on a steam ship, the nearest access to Port Arthur was Norfolk Bay, which then required a 10km hike through the bush to reach the site. This would also have made the site more difficult to access for families with children. The first formal road to Port Arthur was completed in 1892, but was not an easy route to travel and visitors to the township in 1906 found it a ‘rather inaccessible spot’, with even Hobart-based Tasmanians reportedly uncertain about the best way to reach the site.66

This would suggest that the visible increase in medicine bottle remnants and medical paraphernalia at Port Arthur hotels reflects the influx of a clientele for whom the site would have previously been inaccessible. The sickly, to whom Tasmania was

66 Australian Town and Country Journal, 7 February 1906 “Ten Days in Tasmania”, p.40-41.

324

widely advertised, would likely have found passage to Port Arthur difficult if not impossible prior to major improvements to access infrastructure in the early twentieth century.

9.6. Identifying Tourist Places (Towards a Material Signature for Tourism)

One key research objective for this dissertation, aside from examining the construction of ‘place’ for tourists, is the creation of a material signature for tourist sites. Several partial models and trends in hotel and tourist accommodation assemblages have been proposed by archaeologists, and the assemblages from the four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur will be assessed against them in the hopes of more clearly defining tourist materials archaeologically. These observations and trends will be outlined below and then further assessed alongside findings from the comparative assemblages.

Harris et al. (2004:21) propose that the relative frequency of artefact types is central to identifying artefact assemblages from hotels. They hypothesized that hotel or club assemblages should include higher frequencies of:

• undecorated ceramics; • tobacco pipes; • liquor bottles; • tumblers/glassware; and • food remains.

They anticipated that hotel assemblages would contain low relative proportions of medicine bottles and condiment bottles (Harris et al. 2004:21). This hypothesis relates to hotels more generally as opposed to tourist sites, and the differences between hotels used for broader travelling purposes not associated with tourism is explored through the comparative assemblages.

In her study of a tourist hotel assemblage (c.1890-1920) from the Catskill Mountains of New York, O’Donovan (2011:274) found that the hotel assemblage she

325

studied was nearly identical to a household assemblage but with greater frequencies of place settings and serving vessels as compared to food preparation vessels. Cooking oil and condiment bottles proved more frequent in the Catskill’s Mountain hotel assemblage than other household assemblages as well.

Corbin et al. (2010:199-200) reflect on the primacy of alcohol at tourist sites in their examination of materials from the Marshall/Firehole hotel site in Yellowstone National Park, particularly during the early periods when travel was more difficult and jarring. They associate its popularized use with easing the monotony of long-distance travel, and consumption of alcohol at the destination a continuation of the same act. Condiment and essence bottles also formed a significant portion of the assemblage, and these are thought to reflect the import of stable food sources into remote areas as highly transportable, safe flavouring (Corbin et al. 2010:207-208).

9.6.1. Alcohol

Consistent with Corbin et al. (2010:199-200), alcohol bottle remnants form the largest part of the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. An additional six pieces of glass tableware possibly associated with alcohol consumption were recovered in the Carnarvon Hotel assemblage. The Carnarvon Hotel was the first licensed establishment on the Tasman Peninsula and held the only license in the area when it closed in 1904.

The liquor license transferred to Henry Frerk at the Tasman Villa in 1904, and the Tasman Villa Hotel listed the ‘best brands of wines and spirits stocked’ (Southern Tasmania Tourist Association 1904:n.p.). The sample size for the Tasman Villa assemblage was very small, and few glass bottles were included (MIC=6). Alcohol bottles represent 83.3% (MIC=5) of the bottle assemblage from the Tasman Villa, though the assemblage is too small to draw any strong correlations.

Where Corbin et al. (2010:199-200) predict a focus on alcohol consumption during earlier stages of travel and tourism to an area, the implied shift away from alcohol consumption as a central activity is also represented by the later hotel assemblages from Port Arthur. As a portion of the entire assemblage, relatively few alcohol bottles were recovered from the Hotel Arthur, which resumed the hotel license from the Tasman

326

Villa in 1921. Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house also contained a lower relative frequency of alcohol-specific items than the Carnarvon Hotel or Tasman Villa.

The artefact assemblages for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur are sizeable and contain a sufficient number of bottles to suggest that while alcohol consumption was taking place at both establishments, other activities at the tourist site may have superseded alcohol consumption. It is likely that the bottles were regularly being recycled or there was a separate bottle dump elsewhere on the site. However, assuming all bottles were recycled those that ended up in the archaeological assemblage would represent those lost or broken, and this would have been consistent across all bottle types, not just alcohol bottles.

The relatively low frequency of alcohol-related objects in the hotel and guesthouse assemblages from Port Arthur are inconsistent with the assemblage typology developed by Harris et al. (2004:21) for hotels and clubs. Their model was created based on experience with assemblages from urban hotels and clubs, where hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur are rural establishments catering to tourists as opposed to locals and travellers. The shift away from alcohol consumption as a primary activity at tourist accommodations in Port Arthur is consistent with findings from Corbin et al. (2010:199-200), and suggests that patterning for tourist materials in rural areas may differ in several ways from urban hotel/pubs.

327

Figure 9-10 Alcohol-related items as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage.

Figure 9-10 above depicts alcohol-related items as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage for all four sites of accommodation at Port Arthur, as well as the selected comparative assemblages. Material culture from the dump at Government House in Sydney (used c1859-1912) contains the highest portion of alcohol bottles in relation to the entire assemblage (33.1%). This was not a hotel but the residence for the head of the state, as well as his servants, military personnel and personal staff (Casey and Lowe 2002:226). The three hotel assemblages in the comparative collection, represented by the Agricultural Hotel (1865-1910), Red Cow Inn (1865-1926), and Queen’s Arms Inn (c1890), contain alcohol bottle frequencies consistent with those from the Carnarvon Hotel. Of the three, the Red Cow Inn has the highest portion of alcohol bottles. The Red Cow Inn is the only tourist-focused hotel in the comparative collection, while the Agricultural Hotel and Queen’s Arms Inn were more focused on serving travellers (not specifically tourists) as they were not strategically situated on popular

328

touring routes. This suggests that the relative quantities of alcohol-related items is not a sufficient means of identifying hotel assemblages.

Figure 9-11 Alcohol bottles as a proportion of the bottle assemblage.

While examining alcohol-related items as a proportion of the entire artefact assemblage did not provide any useful patterns for differentiating hotel assemblages, looking at alcohol bottles as a proportion of the bottle assemblage may provide a different view (Figure 9-11). Compared to the assemblages from Port Arthur, the relative frequencies of alcohol bottles as part of the bottle assemblage for hotels sits in a steadier range across all sites, with the lowest frequency being 41.4% (MIC=70) at the Queen’s Arms Inn and the highest being 58.6% (MIC=17) at the Agricultural Hotel.

The proportion of alcohol bottles in the bottle assemblages from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur is significantly lower than at other sites. The hotel assemblages in the comparative collection range in date from 1865 to 1925, which represents time periods more consistent with the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa.

329

Alcohol consumption is represented as relatively steady across all hotel and domestic sites in the comparative collections. The high portion of alcohol bottles at the two earlier hotels in Port Arthur represents an increased focus on alcohol consumption in the early era of tourism to the site, while the later hotel and guesthouse may reflect greater adherence to temperance and family travel through the 1920s through1950s.

The consistent dominance of alcohol bottles at all comparative hotel is consistent with the predictions of Harris et al. (2004:21). However, given the low proportions at the Hotel Arthur and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the high proportion of bottles in the Government House assemblage, the prominence of alcohol bottles in an assemblage may not indicate the presence of a tourist hotel.

9.6.2. Condiment Bottles

Across the artefact analysis in all sites (including comparative collections), a variety of oils, salad dressings, sauces, relishes and chutneys made commercially available through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were grouped to represent the collection of condiment bottles for each site.

Hypotheses for condiment bottle frequencies in hotel material culture varies, as Harris et al. (2004:21) predicted low frequencies of condiment bottles at hotel sites, while Corbin et al. (2010:207-208) and O’Donovan (2011:274) anticipated higher condiment bottle frequencies at tourist sites. This may reflect differences in material culture from hotels in cities, which housed travellers who would have been staying there for a variety of reasons, as opposed to tourists, who were purposely seeking leisure, consumption and relaxation in a new locale.

O’Donovan’s (2011:275) study of an artefact assemblage from the Park Inn in the Catskill Mountains, New York, found that condiment bottles represented 9% (MIC=7) of the bottle assemblage, and cooking oils represented another 4% (MIC=3). The use of bottled condiments, particularly in rural tourist settings, was a means of providing flavourful meals to tourists without worrying as much about ingredient spoilage. It also guaranteed consistent foodways for tourists who have been unaccustomed to local

330

dishes; bottled condiments would allow them to adjust their individual meals with familiar flavours.

Figure 9-12 Condiment bottles as a proportion of the bottle assemblage.

The division between the earlier and later hotels at Port Arthur is again illustrated in the relative frequencies of condiment bottles, as the Hotel Arthur has the highest relative proportion of condiment bottles in the glass assemblage (Figure 9-12). In addition to having the highest proportion of condiment and sauce bottles, the Hotel Arthur artefact assemblage contains additional evidence for the procurement of additional seasonings and specialised foods to create a rich and varied menu for guests. Three whiteware jars which served as packaging for specialised foods (such as marmalades, fish pastes and teas) were also recovered from the Hotel Arthur assemblage, along with two stoneware jars which contained imported British table salt.

A total of 13.1% (MIC=8) of all bottles from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house were condiment bottles. The portion of condiment bottles at the later hotels is consistent with

331

O’Donovan’s (2011:275) findings at the Park Inn, a middle-class tourist hotel in the Catskill Mountains, New York. The earlier hotels, the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa Hotel, contained lower relative proportions of condiment bottles. There are two options which might suggest this shift in bottled condiment and sauce consumption.

Firstly, this shift may reflect changes in the widespread availability (and popularity) of pre-prepared condiments and sauces available to consumers. However, just as changes in alcohol consumption might be suggested by the differing frequencies of alcohol bottles between earlier and later hotels at Port Arthur, differences in the relative proportions of condiment bottles may indicate a transition in the needs of tourists. For elite tourists in the late-19th century, ‘travelling in luxury’ was a concept underlined by excessive alcohol consumption (Corbin et al. 2010:199). Through the early 20th century, middle-class tourists visiting hotels and guesthouses were more concerned with other amenities, including an establishment’s menu.

From Edwardian times through to the 1960s, gaining weight during vacation was considered desirable; being thin or underweight provoked sympathy (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:107). The focus on making food increasingly palatable and consistent in flavour may reflect attempts by hotel proprietors to appeal to the desires of their clientele to consume plentiful, wholesome food. Access to plentiful food, exercise, and fresh air were thought to enhance health, and as the health benefits of the Tasmanian climate were actively advertised having an ample selection of delectable meals would have been particularly important to drawing customers. One advertisement (of two) for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house advertises ‘Cream, fruit in abundance’67 while a later advertisement for the Tasman Villa advertises ‘Excellent Cuisine’ as its central focus (Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau 1914-1918:19).

9.6.3. Tablewares and Serving Vessels

O’Donovan (2011:274) remarked that guesthouse assemblages were nearly identical to household assemblages, with the exception of the proportions of ceramic tablewares and serving vessels in relation to food preparation vessels. Figure 9-13

67 The Mercury 16 January 1926 “Commandant’s House, Carnarvon (Port Arthur)”.

332

below shows the relative proportion of food preparation vessels, tablewares and serving vessels from the ceramic assemblages from all four Port Arthur accommodation sites and comparative collections. While the relative proportion of food preparation forms is consistently low across all sites, they are higher at all four sites of tourist accommodation at Port Arthur and the Agricultural Hotel. This differs from O’Donovan’s (2011:274) predictions that the relative proportion of food preparation forms should be lower at hotels and guesthouses than domestic sites, represented here by Government House.

Figure 9-13 Relative proportion of ceramic vessels for food preparation, service and consumption.

Aside from the low portion of food preparation vessels, each of the four sites at Port Arthur exhibits a relatively high portion of serving vessels. The Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa provided meals to guests, and at these establishments the proportion of ceramic tablewares is nearly equal to that of serving vessels.

The Commandant’s House, the boarding house operated by Mrs. Brimage, opened a separate dining room in 1927 and started providing meals and rooms as

333

distinct categories following the European plan for hotel layouts (Scripps 1998; Wurst 2011:258). With the service of individual meals and a reduction of group offerings on shared plates, tableware vessels in the assemblage are more than double in number to the serving vessels in the assemblage. The same distinction is not visible at the Hotel Arthur, as tablewares and serving vessels appear in similar proportions in the ceramic assemblage. It may be possible that the Hotel Arthur continued serving communal or banquet-style meals as opposed to individually plated meals.

The Agricultural Hotel and Queen’s Arms Inn both have comparatively low proportions of serving vessels to tablewares. The Red Cow Inn ceramic assemblage is similar to the assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house in that the number of tablewares is around double that of serving vessels. The presence of at least twice as many tablewares as serving vessels may be a reflection of each hotel having dining rooms that functioned as restaurants independent of the hotels, or at the very least the separation of room from board.

9.6.4. Standardization of Tourist Experience in Mass Tourism

The development of mass tourism is often associated with multinational corporations providing standardized tourist accommodation and experiences across the world, such as large hotel, restaurant and transportation franchises (Relph 1976:109- 114). Historic descriptions of all places of accommodation at Port Arthur suggest that they all operated independently from large hotel conglomerates. Evidence from newspaper advertisements suggests, however, that the sites of tourist accommodation were affiliated with Thomas Cook’s travel agency. Accommodations had to meet certain standards to be recommended by Cook’s Tourist Office (Davidson and Spearritt 2000:63).

The only evidence of standardization at the hotels was the increased presence of hotel china (common to cafeterias, railways, steamships, airlines and other large institutions) in the ceramic assemblages through time. This is most characteristic of the Hotel Arthur assemblage, which contains evidence of a matching, custom-printed hotel china set for ‘Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur’, complete with a shamrock logo (Figure 7-5). Hotel china specially produced for Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur were recovered in a variety of

334

forms, including dinner plates, a creamer, teacups and a saucer. Hotel china was available in the United States from the 1880s and was widely adopted from around 1910 (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:124; Miller 1991:7). This would suggest that standardization of hotels at Port Arthur began nearly 40 years after tourist accommodation was established on the site. Advertisements for hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur suggest that they generally attempted to recreate the comforts of home instead of a more standardised semi-institutional setting. This suggests that widespread standardization of tourist accommodation may be a hallmark in later (post-1930s) tourist sites.

9.6.5. Directions for a Material Signature for Tourism

The material culture associated with the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa Hotel is consistent with expectations guesthouses in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Both have contents similar to household assemblages but with larger portions of alcohol-related items, serving vessels, and tableware sets. Though they were both technically hotels (though Tasman Villa was a guesthouse from 1899-1904), they shared characteristics more consistent with guesthouses as relatively small establishments offering the comforts of home. At Port Arthur, the name ‘hotel’ in the title seems to refer to a guesthouse with a liquor license and bar.

The assemblage from the Carnarvon Hotel, with some evidence for more expensive tablewares (glass and ceramic), teawares and some imported alcohol and tobacco, might suggest that is served a comparatively wealthier clientele than the other three hotels. Advertisements for the hotel focused on the comforts of the hotel itself, its prominent patrons and the cool climate, with a lesser overall focus on the activities which might be participated in. Elite travellers were meant to be more focused on luxury experiences in the wilderness, with conspicuous consumption as a key aspect of upper- class tourism (Corbin et al. 2010:199). This is meant to contrast with middle-class tourists, who, not wanting to be grouped with the idle-rich or the poor, focused on self- improvement through travel, seeking to enhance themselves intellectually and spiritually (O’Donovan 2011:268).

335

The assemblage from the Tasman Villa hotel suggests that it may have offered fewer luxuries than the Carnarvon Hotel. The advertisements for the Tasman Villa focus on activities available for tourists at the site, as well as the comforts and meals offered by the hotel. Middle-class tourists were noticeably different from elite tourists in that they habitually felt the need to keep busy for fear of the ‘sin of idleness’, occupying themselves with constant outings and sports endeavours (Horne 2005; O’Donovan 2011:276). The artefact assemblage and advertisements together suggest that the Tasman Villa would have appealed to more traditionally middle-class sensibilities. Within the framework of gentility it was important to keep active during travel while having all of the comforts of home and the opportunity to meet socially acceptable, similarly situated acquaintances (Horne 2005).

Advertisements for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917-1939) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959) feature a similar focus on available activities at the site. The artefact assemblages from these later establishments also suggest a decreased focus in alcohol consumption, as well as an increase in imported food items meant specifically to add flavour and seasoning to meals. This may reflect values associated with gaining weight while on holiday through the consumption of wholesome, flavourful meals, particularly from the 1910s through 1960s (Davidson and Spearritt 2000).

Material culture from the later sites of accommodation at Port Arthur, Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and Kerslake’s Hotel Arthur, suggest a shift in tourist expectations not discernable through traditional methods of determining class through material culture. Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house was full of fine tableware, glassware, and named ‘The Commandant’s House’ which might suggest a degree of prestige and character. By 1925 it had a septic system, antiques, fine wares, and the best vantage point on the settlement for scenic seascapes. It contained an interesting assortment of Chinese and Japanese antiques and decorative items. Mrs. Brimage’s china collection was fine enough to garner a remark from a former employee and Port Arthur resident (Scripps 1998). Based on a traditional archaeological study of class, the assemblage for Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house would likely be associated with wealthier, elite households (or at the very least wealthier middle-class households).

336

Hotel Arthur offered modern amenities, famous clientele, and a family name in the Tasmanian hotel industry, obviously familiar with and experienced in establishing and successfully operating these businesses. The hotel established in the Commandant’s Offices as the ‘Hotel Arthur’ before it burnt down was described as the best outfitted hotel outside of Hobart and Launceston. One can imagine that the same care and attention would have been directed to the Hotel Arthur established by Kerslake at JMO in 1921. Evidence of fine menu offerings at the Hotel Arthur is provided by a c1927 lunch menu possessed by PAHSMA (see Figure 6-15), and their famous clientele were used to further promote the status of the Hotel Arthur. Class and prestige no longer seemed to be represented in fine chinas and tablewares and were gradually replaced by active branding, promotion and the provision of modern conveniences. The Hotel Arthur featured electric lights, running water, indoor bathrooms (with hot and cold water) and a septic system. Mrs. Brimage’s had no indoor toilets, and even when the septic system was hooked up in 1925 access to the washroom was still outdoors. Images of the front of the building from 1926 suggest in was in need of repair (see Figure 6-7). The Commandant’s House was not connected to electricity until 1952, 13 years after it had closed as a boarding house.

I would suggest that the comparative values assigned to the Hotel Arthur and Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house marks a transition in tourist accommodation needs. The benefits of indoor washrooms, a licensed bar on the premises, the capacity to arrange for cars, get film developed, consume fancy meals, and take part in arranged tours began to outweigh staying in a well-dressed but ramshackle old house with good views. This is consistent with Corbin et al.’s (2010:199) findings that earlier guests at Yellowstone National Park were wealthier tourists seeking luxury experiences in the wild, while later hotel guests sought a more domestic experience alongside the wilderness.

The analysis of the artefact assemblages from Port Arthur alongside the comparative collections identified some difficulties with identifying a distinct material signature for hotels and guesthouses. If anything, this examination has suggested that hotels associated more loosely with travel (in association with work) as opposed to tourism and leisure have different material signatures. As well, the time period within which a hotel existed and the class of clientele it serviced would again result in differences in material culture.

337

The shift in consumption patterns at tourist sites at Port Arthur, represented by the earlier assemblages for the Carnarvon Hotel (1885-1904) and Tasman Villa (1899- 1920), and the later assemblages for the Commandant’s House and the Hotel Arthur, are generally consistent with Corbin’s (2010) assessment of changes to tourist activities (and classes travelling) through time. The bottle assemblages for the Carnarvon Hotel and Tasman Villa suggest a greater focus on alcohol consumption more consistent with other sites in the comparative collections. The higher levels of condiment bottles and reduction in alcohol-associated artefacts from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (1917- 1939) and the Hotel Arthur (1921-1959) also support’s Corbin’s (2010) hypothesis for shifting demographics and focus at tourist sites.

The assemblages from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur were most consistent with material recovered from Government House (Sydney), with regards to porcelain and gilt ceramics (Carnarvon Hotel, Mrs. Brimage’s), relative proportions of alcohol bottles (Carnarvon Hotel, Tasman Villa) and condiment bottles (Mrs. Brimage’s, Hotel Arthur). The comparative hotel assemblages (Agricultural Hotel, Trevathan Hotel, Queen’s Arms Inn, Red Cow Inn) did not necessarily illustrate trends consistent with the hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur. This may suggest that the hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur offered amenities more akin to a grand household setting than a non-tourist hotel.

One way in which the Port Arthur assemblages are distinct from the comparative collections is the high proportion of artefacts associated with recreation and leisure. Medicine bottles are present at high levels in the assemblages from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house and the Hotel Arthur, but this may be a reflection of Tasmania’s broader role as a health resort for mainland Australians as opposed to a general material signature for tourism. This may relate to improvements in transportation infrastructure to access Port Arthur. Mass tourism worldwide is thought to have developed within the framework of transportation infrastructure (Chambers 2010:16; Davidson and Spearitt 2000; Horne 2005; Hunt 2010; Wurst 2011:256). The expansion of more accessible transportation to Port Arthur would have opened it up to groups for whom the site would have been previously inaccessible.

338

Items directly associated with tourism, such as souvenirs, are clear material indicators of tourism within artefact assemblages. Material trends for tourist sites identified at Port Arthur could be tested through the examination of hotel and domestic assemblages from a greater range of temporal and socioeconomic contexts to allow the further development of a material signature for tourism.

9.7. A Changing Place – Moving Towards Mass Tourism

The construction of place for tourists at Port Arthur demonstrably changed between 1885 and 1960, though the key elements of interest at Port Arthur (its dark history and romantic scenery) were utilised in a variety of ways to draw tourists to the site. A number of actors, as 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.

Attempts at omitting Port Arthur’s dark history were not as widespread as some studies might suggest. Bids to rename the town Carnarvon to hide the site’s convict history failed, as no advertisements for hotels or guesthouses from the site accepted this as the primary name of the township. From the 1890s guidebooks dedicated an entire chapter to Port Arthur and the Tasman Peninsula, describing the site as ‘…a spot as/ lovely in its position as it is ugly in its memories…’ (Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company 1890:79-80). Beattie’s Port Arthur Museum in Hobart similarly did not avoid the site’s convict past and instead provided a romanticized portrayal of convicts in early twentieth-century Australia. This was accomplished by actively portraying fine artworks and objects produced by convicts as evidence of their inherent capacity for good and an appreciation for culture in contrast to depictions of convicts’ passage through the system, the final stage of which emphasised their punishment and execution. Postcards of the site did not avoid the site’s convict past, and postcards featuring images of the operational penal settlement and historic re-imaginings of the site were popular, along with images of the overgrown ruins. Postcards from the 1940s suggest a reduced focus on the site’s convict past and darker aspects of its history, as images of cleaned ruins lacking reference in their titles to the site’s penal history became increasingly popular.

339

The romance of Port Arthur, including the neo-gothic romance of its ruins, was particularly marked in the early years of tourism when the site was more recently abandoned and overgrown. Through the early twentieth century works under various agencies saw the removal of all overgrowth and the eventual setting of the ruins in manicured lawns. As time progressed the ruins of Port Arthur were seemingly placeless as out-of-context lawn ornaments or culturally appropriate replacements for visiting the classical ruins in Greece or Italy. Port Arthur as ‘historic’, without mention of its penal past, was considered suitable in advertisements to attract guests. Radcliffe’s broad collection of generally ‘historic’ curiosities from around the world may reflect this more general sense of history at the site.

More than anything, as time progressed and access to the site improved, Port Arthur became a place for tourists, including families. Hotels and guesthouses advertised a range of activities and comforts to attract visitors, regardless of whether or not the site’s convict past was mentioned. Recreation items, toys and tourist-specific material culture are evident within assemblages from hotels and guesthouses suggesting a number of recreational pursuits undertaken at the site. Regardless of seeming shifts in the type of place Port Arthur was presented, its history was continually presented as an interesting and authentic aspect for tourists. While they may not have always made specific mention of the convict past, the ruins and history of the site were continuously presented as unique and worthwhile visiting. Postcards of Port Arthur produced between 1905 and 1960 never seemingly aligned with the leisure convention of postcards elsewhere in the world, and few images depicted sunny skies or leisure activities. Images often depicted ruins covered in vegetation of varying thickness, dramatic landscapes or portraits of operational or ruined structures. A certain sombre nature persisted in depictions of Port Arthur through time, suggesting that while mass tourism infrastructure was progressively increasing Port Arthur was still a unique place to tourists, not a placeless holiday-land.

Evidence from hotel and guesthouse artefact assemblages, historic advertisements, museum assemblages and postcards from 1885 to 1960 has suggested the various ways in which the geographical imagining of Port Arthur has changed through time. Port Arthur’s past was continuously negotiated by different actors promoting or concealing various aspects of the site’s ‘authenticity’, often dependent on

340

personal interest and context. These negotiations allowed Port Arthur to draw tourists as a thanatourism site, a romantic and rugged locale, a site of neo-gothic intrigue, evidence of Australia’s antiquity (as seemingly ancient ruins) and as a place of leisure and recreation.

341

References

Angleviel, Frederic and Max Shekelton 1997 ‘Olfala Pija Blong Niuhebridis Blong Bifo’: Old Pictures of the New Hebrides (Vanuatu). Pacific Studies 20(4):161-185.

Baram, Uzi and Yorke Rowan 2004 Archaeology After Nationalism: Globalization and the Consumption of the Past. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uzi Baram,pp.3-23. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.

Baram, Uzi 2011 Transformative Transportation: the Early Twentieth-Century Railroad on the Southwest Florida Frontier. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:236-253.

Barnard, Edwin 2010 Exiled: The Port Arthur Convict Photographs. National Library of Australia, Canberra.

Bayley, William A. 1971 Port Arthur Railway Across Tasman Peninsula: Australia’s First Railway. Austrail Publications, Bulli, NSW.

Beattie, John Watt 1916 The Historical Exhibit, Port Arthur Museum, Catalogue of Exhibits. Critic Print, Hobart.

Beatties Studios 1990 The Convict Days of Port Arthur. Beatties Studio, Hobart.

Beder, Sharon 1990 Early Environmentalists and the Battle Against Sewers in Sydney. Royal Australian Historical Society Journal, 76(1): 27-44.

Bender, Barbara. 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford Press , Berg. 2001 Landscapes on-the-Move. Journal of Social Archaeology. 1(1). pp. 75-89.

Bickford, Anne 1981 The Patina of Nostalgia. Australian Archaeology 13:1-7.

342

Blyton, Greg 2010 Smoking Kills: The Introduction of Tobacco Smoking into Aboriginal Society With a Particular Focus on the Hunter Region of Central Eastern New South Wales from 1800 to 1850. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies 3(2):2-11.

Bogle, Michael 2008. Convicts: Transportation and Australia. Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, Sydney.

Boow, James 1991 Early Australian Commercial Glass: Manufacturing Processes. Heritage Council of New South Wales, Sydney.

Bowser, Brenda. 2004. Prologue: Towards an Archaeology of Place. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 11(1):1-3.

Brand, Ian 2003 Penal Peninsula: Tasmania’s Port Arthur and its Outstations 1827-1898. Regal Publications, Launceston, TAS.

Brooks, Alasdair 2000 Archaeological Collections Audit. Unpublished report prepared for PAHSMA. 2002a Port Arthur Artefact Management, Report 1 – Strategy Recommendations (draft). Unpublished report prepared for PAHSMA. 2002b The Cloud of Unknowing: Towards an International Comparative Analysis of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Ceramics. Australasian Historical Archaeology 20:48-57. 2005 An Archaeological Guide to British Ceramics in Australia. The Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and the La Trobe University Archaeology Program, Melbourne and Sydney.

Brooks, Alasdair and Graham Connah 2007 A Hierarchy of Servitude: Ceramics at Lake Innes Estate, New South Wales. Antiquity 81(311):133-147.

Bruck, Ludwig 1888 Bruck’s Guide to the Health Resorts in Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand. Australian Medical Gazette, Sydney.

Buzard, James 1991 The Uses of Romanticism: Byron and the Victorian Continental Tour. Victorian Studies 35(1):29-49.

Byrne, Maureen 1977 Excavations at Port Arthur, 1977. Australian Archaeology 7:19.

343

Cabak, Melanie and Stephen Loring 2000 ‘A Set of Very Fair Cups and Saucers: Stamped Ceramics as an Example of Inuit Incorporation. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 4(1):1-34.

Camp, Stacey. L. 2011 Materializing Inequality: the Archaeology of Tourism Laborers in Turn-of-the- Century Los Angeles. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:279- 297.

Carskadden, Jeff and Richard Gartley 1990 A Preliminary Seriation of 19th-Century Decorated Porcelain Marbles. Historical Archaeology 24:55-69.

Casella, Eleanor c 2000 ‘Doing trade’: A Sexual Economy of Nineteenth-Century Australian Female Convict Prisons. World Archaeology 32(2):209-221. 2001 Every Procurable Object: A Functional Analysis of the Ross Female Factory Archaeological Collection. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19:25-38.

Casella, Eleanor c and Clayton Fredericksen 2004 Legacy of the ‘Fatal Shore’: the Heritage and Archaeology of Confinement in Post-Colonial Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):99-125.

Casey, Mary 2005 Material Culture and the Construction of Hierarchy at the Conservatorium Site, Sydney. Australasian Historical Archaeology 23:97-113.

Casey and Lowe Pty Ltd. 1995 Archaeological Excavation, RH/46: Queen’s Arms Inn and Rouse Hill Post Office for the Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project (Stage 1) Works. Unpublished consultants’ report prepared for Bryshaw McDonald Pty Ltd Consulting Archaeologists on behalf of Rouse Hill Infrastructure Project (Stage 1) Works Pty Ltd. 2005a Archaeological Investigation: Red Cow Inn and Penrith Plaza, Station, Jane and Riley Streets, Penrith. Unpublished consultants’ report prepared for Bovis Lend Lease. 2005b Preliminary Draft Archaeological Investigation: RH/46 – Queen’s Arms Inn, Windsor Road, Rouse Hill. Unpublished consultants’ report prepared for Mepstead & Associates on behalf of Sanctuary Investments Pty Ltd & Beechworth Homes Pty Ltd. 2009 Archaeological Investigation: 420-426 Pitt Street & 36-38 Campbell Street Haymarket. Unpublished consultants’ report prepared for Meriton.

Cato, Jack 1977 The Story of the Camera in Australia. Institute of Australian Photography, Melbourne.

344

Cessford, Craig 2001 The Archaeology of the Clay Pipe and the Study of Smoking. Assemblage: The Sheffield Graduate Journal of Archaeology 6.

Chambers, Erve 2010 Native Tours: The Anthropology of Travel and Tourism. Waveland Press Inc, Long Grove.

Cook, c 1983 Masons Cove, Port Arthur, Maritime Archaeological Survey. The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 7(2):38-41.

Cooney, Gabriel 2007 Introduction. World Archaeology 39(3): 299-304.

Corbin, Annalies and Russell, Matthew A.(eds) 2010 Historical Archaeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park. Springer, New York.

Corbin, Annalies, William J. Hunt, Christopher Valvano and M. J. Harris 2010 The Marshall/Firehole Hotel: archaeology in a thermal river environment. In Historical Archaeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park, edited by Annalies Corbin and Matthew A. Russell, pp. 159-226. Springer Science+Business Media, Society for Historical Archaeology and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, New York.

Creighton, Oliver 2007 Contested Townscapes: the Walled City as World Heritage. World Archaeology 39(3):339-354

Daniels, Stephen 1992 Place and the Geographical Imagination. Geography 77(4):310-322. 2011 Geographical Imagination. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36:182-187.

Davidson, Jim 1995 Port Arthur: a Tourist History. Australian Historical Studies 26(105):653-669.

Davidson, Jim and Peter Spearritt 2000 Holiday Business: Tourism in Australia since 1870. The Miegunyah Press at Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria.

Davies, Martin and Krystal Buckley 1987 Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project Archaeological Procedures Manual. Occasional Paper No. 13. Department of Lands, Parks and Wildlife, Tasmania, Hobart.

345

Davies, Martin and Brian J. Egloff 1984 The Commandant’s Residence at Port Arthur: An Archaeological Perspective. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, Hobart.

Day, Kelvin 2005 James Butterworth and the Old Curiosity Shop, New Plymouth, Taranaki. Tuhinga 16:93-126.

DeBres, Karen and Jacob Sowers 2009 The Emergence of Standardized, Idealized and Placeless Landscapes in Midwestern Main Street Postcards. The Professional Geographer 61(2):216- 230.

Dixon, Kelly J. 2005 Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City. University of Nevada Press, Reno and Las Vegas.

Duke, Philip 2007 The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance: Archaeology and Tourism on a Greek Island. Left Coast Press Inc, Walnut Creek, CA.

Dyster, Barrie 1988 Public Employment and Assignment to Private Masters, 1788-1821. In Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past, edited by Stephen Nicholas, pp. 127-151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Edmonds, Penelope 2011 ‘Failing in Every Endeavour to Conciliate’: Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Boards to the Aborigines, Australian Conciliation Narratives and Their Transnational Connections. Journal of Australian Studies 35(2):201-218.

Egloff, Brian J. 1984 Cultural Resource Management: a View from Port Arthur Historic Site. Australasian Journal of Historical Archaeology 2:73-79.

Egloff, Brian J. and Richard Morrison 2001 ‘Here Ends, I Trust Forever, My Acquaintance with Port Arthur’: the Archaeology of William Smith O’Brien’s Cottage. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19:14-24.

Egloff, Brian J. and Peter Newby 2005 Towards Cultural Sustainable Tourism at Historic Places: a Critical Study of Port Arthur, Tasmania. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7:19-33.

Franklin, Adrian 2003 Tourism: An Introduction. Sage Publishing, London.

346

Gazin-Schwartz, Amy 2004 Mementos of the Past: Material Culture of Tourism at Stonehenge and Avebury. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uri Baram, pp. 93-102. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.

Gibbs, Martin 2001 The Archaeology of the Convict System of Western Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19:60-72.

Goc, Nicola 2002 From Convict Prison to the Gothic Ruins of Tourist Attraction. Historic Environment 16(3):22-26.

Godden, Geoffrey A. 1993 Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Barrie and Jenkins, London.

Graburn, Nelson H. H. 1989 Tourism: the Sacred Journey. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Valene Smith, pp.21-36. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia.

Graff, Rebecca S. 2011 Being Toured While Digging Tourism: Excavating the Familiar at Chicago’s 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:222-235.

Gregory, Daniel 1995 Imaginative Geographies. Progress in Human Geography 19(4):447-485.

Groover, Mark D. 2003a An Archaeological Study of Rural Capitalism and Material Life: The Gibbs Farmstead in Southern Appalachia, 1790-1920. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York: 2003b Pattern recognition. In Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology, edited by Charles E. Orser, pp.464-465. Routledge, New York.

Hall, Roger 1986 Medical Officer’s Landscape Archaeological Investigations. In Medical Officer’s Residence: Landscape Investigations 1986 Summer Archaeological Program, A Trilogy of Reports. Unpublished report prepared for Port Arthur Historic Site.

Hamilakis, Yannis. 2002. The Past as Oral History. In Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, edited by Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik and Sarah Tarlow, p 121-136. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

347

Harkin, Michael 1995 Modernist Anthropology and Tourism of the Authentic. Annals of Tourism Research 22(3):650-670.

Harris, E. Jeanne 2012 Port Arthur Artefact Cataloguing Procedures Manual. Unpublished report prepared for PAHSMA.

Harris, E. Jeanne, Geoff Ginn and Cosmos Coroneos 2004 How to Dig a Dump: Strategy and Research Design for Investigation of Brisbane’s Nineteenth-Century Municipal Dump. Australasian Historical Archaeology 22:15-26.

Harvey, David 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwood Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Heath, Robert A. 1999 ‘After the Chinese Taste’: Chinese Export Porcelain and Chinoiserie Design in Eighteenth-Century Charleston. Historical Archaeology 33(3):48-61.

Henry, Susan L. 1987 Factors Influencing Consumer Behaviour in Turn-of-the-Century Phoenix. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne M. Spencer- Wood, pp. 359-379. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

Hirsch, Eric. 1995 Introduction. In The Anthropology of Landscape, edited by Eric Hirsch and Michael O’Hanlon, pp. 1-30. Claredon Press, Oxford.

Hodder, Ian 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodges, Matthew 2009 Disciplining Memory: Heritage Tourism and the Temporalisation of the Built Environment in Rural France. International Journal of Heritage Studies 15(1):76- 99.

Horne, Julia 2005 The Pursuit of Wonder: How Australia’s Landscape Was Explored, Nature Discovered and Tourism Unleashed. The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne University Publishing Ltd, Carlton, Victoria.

Howell, Max L. and Lingyu Xie 2013 Convicts and the Arts. Palmer Higgs Pty Ltd, Bayswater, NSW.

Hunt, William J. 1994 Using ‘Tourism’ as a Context for Historical Archaeology Sites: An Example from Yellowstone National Park. CRM 17(8):25-28.

348

2010 A Model of Tourism as Context for Historical Sites: An Example of Historical Archaeology at Yellowstone National Park. In Historical Archaeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park, edited by Annalies Corbin and Matthew A. Russell, pp. 1-74. Springer Science+Business Media, Society for Historical Archaeology and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, New York.

IMACS 1992 Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) User's Guide: Instructions and Computer Codes for Use with the IMACS Site Form. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Ireland, Tracey 2002 Giving Value to the Australian Past: Historical Archaeology, Heritage and Nationalism. Australasian Historical Archaeology 20:15-25. 2004 The Burra Charter and Historical Archaeology: Reflections on the Legacy of Port Arthur. Historic Environment 18(1):25-29.

Jackman, Greg 2001 Get Thee to Church: Hard Work, Godliness and Tourism at Australia’s First Rural Reformatory. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19:6-13. 2009 From Stain to Saint: Ancestry, Archaeology and Agendas in Tasmania’s Convict Heritage. Historical Archaeology 43(3):101-112.

Johnson, Matthew H. 1996 An Archaeology of Capitalism. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2011 Commentary: Archaeology as Travel and Tourism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:298-303.

Jones, Roy 2010 Authenticity, the Media and Heritage Tourism: Robin Hood and Brother Cadfael as Midlands Tourist Magnets. In Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past, edited by Emma Waterton and Steve Watson, pp. 145-154. Ashgate Publishing Company, Farnham.

Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary: For the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Kidd, Paul B. 2000 Australia’s Serial Killers. Macmillan Publishers Australia, South Yarra, VIC.

Krippendorff, Klaus 2004 Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage Publications Ltd, London.

Lawrence, Susan and Peter Davies 2010 An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788. Springer Publishing, New York.

349

Lawrence, Susan, Alasdair Brooks and Jane Lennon 2009. Ceramics and Status in Regional Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 27:67-78.

Leone, Mark 1999 Setting Some Terms for Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter,pp. 3-20. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 2010 Critical Historical Archaeology. Left Coast Press Inc, Walnut Creek.

Lennon, Jane 2009 Port Arthur, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia: Convict Prison Islands in the Antipodes. In Places of Pain and Shame: Dealing with ‘Difficult Heritage’, edited by William Logan and Keir Reeves, pp.165-181. Routledge, London.

Lennon, John and Malcolm Foley 1996 JFK and Dark Tourism: A Fascination with Assasination. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2(4):198-211. 2000 Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster. Thomson Learning, London.

Lindsey, Bill 2010 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Society for Historical Archaeology and Bureau of Land Management, , last viewed 12 July 2015.

Long, Chris 1995 Tasmanian Photographers 1840-1940: A Directory. Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Hobart.

Lovata, Troy R. 2007 Inauthentic Archaeologies: Public Uses and Abuses of the Past. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. 2011 Archaeology as Built for the Tourists: the Anasazi Cliff Dwellings of Manitou Springs, Colorado. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:194-205.

Mack, Alexandra 2004 One Landscape, Many Experiences: Differing Perspectives of the Temple Districts of Vijayanagara. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 11(1):59-81.

Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory 11:97-209.

Massey, Doreen 2005 For Space. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

350

MacCannell, Dean 1976 The Tourist. Schocken, New York.

McGowan, Angela 1985 Excavations at Lithend, Port Arthur Historic Site. Occasional Paper No. 11. Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.

McIroy, Jack 1989 Winter Excavations at Clougha, the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s and the Watchman’s Quarters, Port Arthur Historic Site. Unpublished report prepared for Port Arthur Historic Site.

Meskell, Lynne 2002 Negative Heritage and Past Mastering in Archaeology. Anthropological Quarterly 75(3):557-574.

Miles, Steven 2010 Spaces for Consumption. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

Miller, Daniel 2001 The Dialectics of Shopping. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Miller, George L. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for the Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1-25.

Moore, Mark 2000 Archaeology of the Trevathan Hotel. Unpublished consultant’s report prepared for the Department of Main Roads, Cairns.

Nadel, Ira Bruce 1974 G. W. Cooke and Laurence Oliphant: Victorian Travellers to the Orient. Journal of the American Oriental Society 94(1):120-122.

Nash, Dennison 1989 Tourism as a Form of Imperialism. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Valene L. Smith, pp. 37-52. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Nicholas, Stephen (ed) 1988 Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nicholas, Stephen and Peter R. Shergold 1988a Unshackling the Past. In Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past, edited by Stephen Nicholas, pp. 1-13. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

351

1988b Transportation as Global Migration. In Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past, edited by Stephen Nicholas, pp. 28-39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

O’Donovan, Maria 2011 A Trip to the Mountains: Travel and Social Relations in the Catskill Mountains of New York. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:267-278.

O’Donovan, Maria and Lynda Carroll 2011 Going Places: the Historical Archaeology of Travel and Tourism. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:191-193.

Orme, Zusana 1980 Archaeological Investigations at the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s House in Port Arthur. Unpublished report prepared for National Parks and Wildlife Tasmania. 1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Roman Catholic Chaplain’s House in Port Arthur. Unpublished report prepared for National Parks and Wildlife Tasmania.

Orser, Charles E. 1990 On Plantations and Patterns. Historical Archaeology 23(2):28-40.

Petchey, Peter and Jitlada Innanchai 2012 Bottle Top Capsules in New Zealand Historic Archaeological Sites. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(2):1-16.

Pocock, Celmara A. 2003 Romancing the Reef: History, Heritage and the Hyper-Real. Unpublished PhD thesis, submitted to James Cook University.

Pope, Melody K., April K. Sievert, and Sheree L. Sievert 2011 From Pioneer to Tourist: Public Archaeology at Spring Mill State Park. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:206-221.

Porter, Jennifer 2012 Former Menzies Centre Complex Archaeological Investigation, Volume 3 – Artefact Report. Unpublished report prepared for Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd on behalf of the University of Tasmania.

Potter, Parker B. 1999 Historical Archaeology and Identity in Modern America. In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, pp. 51-79. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Quirk, Kate 2007 The Victorians in ‘Paradise’: Gentility as Social Strategy in the Archaeology of Colonial Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, submitted to The University of Queensland.

352

Relph, Edward 1976 Place and Placelessness. Pion, London.

Richmond, Lesley and Alison Turton 1990 The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Rieusset, Brian 2001 Filming ‘the Term’: the Filming of For the Term of His Natural Life. In Port Arthur and the Making of For the Term of His Natural Life, edited by Michael Roe and Brian Rieusset, pp. 26-55. Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Robin, Cynthia and Nan A. Rothschild 2002 Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdoor Space. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2):159-172.

Roe, Michael 2001 VanDiemenism Debated: the Filming of For the Term of His Natural Life. In Port Arthur and the Making of For the Term of His Natural Life, edited by Michael Roe and Brian Rieusset, pp. 2-25. Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Rowan, Yorke 2004 The Repacking of Pilgrimage: Visiting the Holy Land in Orlando. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uzi Baram, pp. 249-266. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.

Russell, Matthew A., James E. Bradford, and Larry E. Murphy 2004 ‘E. c Waters’ and Development of a Turn-of-the-Century Tourist Economy at Yellowstone National Park. Historical Archaeology 38(4):96-113.

Russell, Matthew A., Larry E. Murphy, and James E. Bradford 2010 Maritime Archaeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park. In Historical Archaeology of Tourism in Yellowstone National Park, edited by Annalies Corbin and Matthew A. Russell, pp. 75-158. Springer Science+Business Media, Society for Historical Archaeology and the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, New York.

Sather-Wagstaff, Joy 2011 Heritage That Hurts: Tourists in the Memoryscapes of September 11. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Scott, David 2002 Port Arthur Historic Site Commandant’s Precinct Conservation Study. Unpublished report prepared for PAHSMA.

Scripps, Lindy 1997 Junior Medical Officer’s House (Principal Occupants). Unpublished report prepared for Port Arthur Historic Site.

353

1998 The Commandant’s Residence Post Convict History. Unpublished report prepared for Port Arthur Historic Site.

Seaton, A. V. 1996 Guided by the Dark: from Thanatopsis to Thanatourism. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2:234-244.

Selby, Martin 2010 People-Place-Past: the Visitor Experience of Cultural Heritage. In Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past, edited by Emma Waterton and Steve Watson, pp. 39-56. Ashgate Publishing Company, Farnham.

Sharpley, Richard 2009 Shedding Light on Dark Tourism: an Introduction. In The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, edited by Richard Sharpley and Philip R. Stone, pp.3-22. Channel View Publications, Bristol.

Sharpley, Richard and Philip R. Stone 2009 (Re)presenting the Macabre: Interpretation, Kitschification and Authenticity. In The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, edited by R. Sharpley and Philip R. Stone, pp.109-128. Channel View Publications, Bristol.

Smith, Babette 2008 Australia’s Birthstain: The Startling Legacy of the Convict Era. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.

Smith, Laurajane 2006 Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London and New York.

Smith, Valene L. 1989 Introduction. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by Valene L. Smith, pp. 1-17. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Souter, Corioli 2006 Archaeology of the Iron Barque Sepia – an Investigation of Cargo Assemblages. Unpublished MA thesis submitted to University of Western Australia.

South, Stanley E. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 1987 Introduction. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, pp 1-19. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

354

Steele, Jody, J. Clark, Richard Tuffin and Greg Jackman 2007 The Archaeology of Conviction: Public Archaeology at Port Arthur Historic Site. In Past Meets Present: Archaeologists Partnering with Museum Curators, Teachers, and Community Groups, Part I, edited by John H. Jameson and Sherene Baugher, pp. 69-85. Springer Science and Business Media, New York.

Stone, Philip R. and Richard Sharpley 2008 Consuming Dark Tourism: a Thanatological Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2):574-595.

Strange, Carolyn and Michael Kempa 2003 Shades of Dark Tourism: Alcatraz and Robben Island. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2):386-405.

Stronza, Amanda 2001 Anthropology of Tourism: Forging New Ground for Ecotourism and Other Alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:261-283.

Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association 1904 Accommodation Guide to Hotels, Boarding Houses, & c in the Tourist Districts. Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association, Hobart. 1905 Accommodation Guide to Hotels, Boarding Houses, & c in the Tourist Districts. Southern Tasmanian Tourist Association, Hobart.

Tasmanian Government Railways 1903 Illustrated Guide to Tasmania: The Holiday Resort of Australia. Tasmanian Government Railways, Hobart.

Tasmanian Government Railway Department 1913 Complete Guide to Tasmania. John Vail, Government Printer, Hobart.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau 1914-1918 Holiday Resorts in Tasmania. Sydney Day the Printer Ltd., Sydney. 1936 Complete Guide to Tasmania. Telegraph Printery, Launceston.

Tasmanian Government Tourist Department 1914 Beautiful Tasmania for Health, Holidays, Pleasure and Sport: Complete Guide to Tasmania. John Vail, Government Printer, Hobart. 1918 Beautiful Tasmania for Health, Holidays, Pleasure and Sport: Complete Guide to Tasmania. John Vail, Government Printer, Hobart. 1920 Beautiful Tasmania for Health, Holidays, Pleasure and Sport: Complete Guide to Tasmania. John Vail, Government Printer, Hobart. 1922 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1923 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart.

355

1924 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1926 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1927 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1929 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1930 Hotel and Boarding House Directory Tasmania. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1931 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1933 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1934 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1936 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1937 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1939 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1940 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart. 1941 Tasmania the Playground of Australia: A Directory to Hotel and Boarding House Accommodation. Examiner and Weekly Courier Offices, Launceston and Hobart.

Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company 1890 Guide for Visitors to Tasmania: How to Spend my Holiday. Tasmanian Steam Navigation Company, Hobart.

356

Thorn, Andrew and Andrew Piper 1996 The Isle of the Dead: an Integrated Approach to the Management and Natural Protection of an Archaeological Site. In Archaeological Conservation and Its Consequences (Preprints to the Contributions of the Copenhagen Congress, 26- 30), edited by Ashok Roy and Perry Smith, pp. 188-192. International Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, London.

Trodd, Zoe 2006 Waste and Wunderkammen: Recycling the American Cabinet of Curiosities. Verb 4(1):1-15.

Tumarkin, Maria 2005 Traumascapes: The Power and Fate of Places Transformed by Tragedy. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria.

Tunbridge, J. and Gregory J. Ashworth 1996 Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Wiley, Chichester.

Urry, John 1995 Consuming Places. Routledge, London.

Voss, Barbara L. 2005 From Casta to Californio: Social Identity and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. American Anthropologist 107(3):461-474.

Waterton, Emma 2010 Branding the Past: the Visual Imagery of England’s Heritage. In Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality and the Past, edited by Emma Waterton and Steve Watson, pp. 155-172. Ashgate Publishing Company, Farnham.

Welch, Michael and Melissa Macuare 2011 Penal Tourism in Argentina: Bridging Foucauldian and Neo-Durkheimian Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology 15(4):401-425.

Welch, Michael 2012 Penal Tourism and the ‘Dream of Order’: Exhibiting Early Penology in Argentina and Australia. Punishment & Society 14(5):584-615.

Whitridge, Peter 2002 Landscapes, Houses, Bodies, Things: ‘Place’ and the Archaeology of Inuit Imaginaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(2). pp. 213-250.

Wilson, Jacqueline Z. 2008 Prison: Cultural Memory and Dark Tourism. Peter Lang Publishing, New York.

357

Wurst, Luanne 2011 ‘Human Accumulations’: Class and Tourism at Niagara Falls. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15:254-266.

Yenne, Bill 2007 Guinness: The 250 Year Quest for the Perfect Pint. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Young, David 1996 Making Crime Pay: The Evolution of Convict Tourism in Tasmania. Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Sandy Bay.

358

Appendix A.

Analysis of Museum Collections

Table A-1 Headings used in the spreadsheets created for the analysis of the Beattie Collection and Radcliffe Collection.

Headings Description Number assigned to the item in the 1916 Beattie Catalogue or PAHSMA Item Number Collections Database. The room or cabinet the item was listed as being displayed in (Beattie Collection Exhibit only). Object Brief indication of the type of item (e.g. clock, harpoon, etc.). Count Number of objects assigned to the item number. Class Functional class, mostly derived from functional class for artefact analysis but adapted to museum objects during examination (see Table A-2). Association (person) Name of the person who made or used the item, if listed. Provenance Associations that don't qualify as a person or place, (e.g. made at Port Arthur, from Government Brig Tamar c1830). Association (place) Place associated with the item. Title Title given to the item by Beattie in the 1916 Catalogue (Beattie Collection only). Interest Summary of associations and class for analysis (up to three per item listed), see Tables A-3 and A-4 for groupings created during analysis. Notes Any other points of interest identified during analysis or mentioned in the 1916 catalogue or PAHSMA Collections Database.

Table A-2 Functional classes used in analysis of the Beattie Collection and Radcliffe Collection.

Item Class Appliance Book - Fiction Medal Tools - Cobbling Architectural - Door Book - History Medical Tool - Engineering Architectural - Fences Book - Music Military Tools - Execution Architectural - Fixtures Book - Poetry Model Tools - Farming Architectural - Flooring Book - Religion Musical instrument Tools - Fencing Architectural - Masonry Book - Technical Ornament Tools - Fire Architectural - Materials Book - Travel Personal - Adornment Tools - Firearms Architectural - Misc Cavalry Personal - Economic Tools - Firefighting Architectural - Ornamental Clerical Personal - Hygiene Tools - Gardening Architectural - Window Clothing Personal - Medal Tools - Hunting

359

Architectural plan Clothing - Footwear Personal Effects Tools - Metalwork Art - Drawings Clothing - Uniform Periodicals Tools - Misc Art - Engraving Communication Portrait Tools - Quarrying Art - Illustration Correspondence Publication Tools - Scientific Art - Needlework Domestic - Laundry Record Tools - Sewing Art - Painting Discipline Recreation - Games Tools - Shipwright Art - Photographs Ecofact Recreation - Leisure Tools - Timber Art - Print Essay Recreation - Smoking Tools - Trapping Art - Scrimshaw Ethnographic Recreation- Sports Tools - Whaling Art - Sculpture Furniture Tableware Tools - Woodworking Beverages Grave furniture Teaware Transportation Book Homewares Timepiece Transportation - Equine Book - Album Industry Tools Transportation - Rail Book - Biography Kitchenware Tools - Agriculture Weapons Book - Catalogues Lighting Tool - Animal Husbandry Book - Children's Maritime Tools - Brickmaking Book - Education Maritime transport Tools - Carpentry

Table A-3 General points of interest identified for individual objects in the Beattie Collection.

Interest Aboriginal Australians Industry - Brickmaking Port Arthur - Farm Port Arthur - Government House Anglican Church Industry - Shoemaking Gardens Anti-Transportation Industry - Tailoring Port Arthur - Hospital Port Arthur - Invalid Depot & Lunatic Bushrangers Industry - Timber Asylum Communication Interest Port Arthur - Library Launceston - Commandant's Convict Department Quarters Port Arthur - Safety Cove Convict Escape Launceston - Government House Port Arthur - Signal Station Convict Life Macquarie Harbour Port Arthur - Stone Quarries Convict Manufacture Maria Island Port Arthur - Treadmill Convict Outstations Maritime Port Arthur - Wharf Shed Convict Transportation Military Principal Superintendent of Convicts Convict Women Military uniform Prison Discipline Norfolk Island Prison Ship Eaglehawk Neck Old Religion Eaglehawk Neck - Dog Penal System Religious Figure

360

Line Execution Point Puer - Gaol Richmond Gaol Exploration Point Puer - Signal Station Roman Catholic Church Famous Convict Port Arthur Royalty Famous People/Events Port Arthur - ‘Exile Cottage’ Tasmania Police Port Arthur - Agricultural Flags Department Tasmanian Aboriginals Port Arthur - Boats' Crews Gold Rush Quarters Tasmanian Law Government Port Arthur - Carpenters' Shop Tasmanian Police Government Figure(s) Port Arthur - Church Tasmanian Prisons Government Issue Port Arthur - Coal Mines Unassociated Government Supply Port Arthur - Comm Residence Uniforms Port Arthur - Commandant's Graves Office Weapons Port Arthur - Commandant's Historic Australia Quarters Welsh Chartist Leaders Historic Hobart Port Arthur - Commissariat Store Whaling Historic Richmond Port Arthur - Convict Railway Young Ireland Party Historic Tasmania Port Arthur - Dead Island Port Arthur - Engineers' Hobart - Old Gaol Department

Table A-4 General points of interest identified for individual objects in the Radcliffe Collection.

Interest Africa Convict Manufacture Housewares Personal Effects Antiques Convict Uniform India Polynesia Architectural Convict Settlements Kiribati/Tuvalu Prison Hulks Architectural Fixtures Ethnographic Maritime Recreational Items Art Famous Convict Marshall Islands Samoa Australia Fiji Melanesia Shells Australiana Fossils Military Solomon Island Biological Specimens Furniture Musical Instruments Tonga Books Galapagos Islands Natural History Tools China Geological Samples New Caledonia Unidentified Clothing (Civilian) Government Figures New Zealand Uniforms Coins & Medals Guards Niue Vanuatu Communication Grave Furniture Pacific War Memorabilia Confinement Historic Figures Papua New Guinea Weapons

361

Convict Discipline Historic Tasmania Penal System

362

Appendix B

Analysis of PAHSMA Postcard Collection

Table B-1 Database fields used in the Microsoft Access database created for the analysis of the PAHSMA postcard collection.

Database Field Description ID Number assigned to entry by Microsoft Access. PAHSMA Accession Accession number from the PAHSMA Collection Database. Dates From Start of print range for postcard. Dates To End of print range for postcard. Publisher Company responsible for printing the postcard. Agency Company that actually took the photograph for the postcard. Reference Book or website reference used to establish date range. Title Title printed on the front of the postcard. Series Series of postcards by an agency, if identified. Location Broader landscape location (e.g. Port Arthur, Eaglehawk Neck, Tasman Peninsula). Perspective Selected from a list, options are 'down a street/lane', 'downhill', 'other', 'site overview', 'straight ahead', 'uphill', 'view across water', 'view from water'. Landscape Features Selected from a list, options are 'building exterior', 'building interior', 'geological formation', 'landscape', 'museum display', 'portrait - person', 'portrait - object', 'seascape'. Buildings/Places Series of buildings and places selected from a list. See Table B-2. Ruins Selected from a list, options are 'Church', 'Commandant's Carriage', 'Commandant's Jetty', 'Commandant's Offices/Law Court', 'Government Cottage and Church', 'Guard Tower', 'Hospital', 'Military Precinct', 'Multiple - Church Foreground', 'Multiple - Other', 'Penitentiary', 'Powder Magazine', 'Separate Prison'. Transportation Selected from a list, options are 'automobile', 'bicycle', 'bus', 'carriage', 'cart', 'horse (riding)', 'railway', 'rowboat', 'sailboat', 'steamship', 'tallship'. Convictism Selected from a list of items that might represent convictism. See Table B-3. Nature Selected from a list, options are 'enveloped in greenery', 'manicured', 'no greenery', 'overgrown', 'slightly overgrown'. Activities Selected from a list, options are 'bush walking', 'dining', 'drinking', 'fishing', 'hunting', 'other', 'picnicking', 'posing - sitting', 'posing - standing', 'rowing', 'sitting', 'socializing', 'standing', 'strolling', 'sunbathing', 'swimming', 'working'. Other/Any Places Selected from a list, options are 'beautiful house', 'British Coat of Arms', 'bush/remote', 'civic infrastructure', 'formal gardens', 'hotel', 'Main Street', 'palm trees', 'union jack', 'vegetable garden'.

363

# People Indicate the total number of people depicted on the postcard. # Women Total number of women depicted on the postcard. Female Attire Type of attire worn, selected from a list, options are 'bathers', 'casual', 'convict dress', 'formal', 'guide uniform', 'historic dress', 'military uniform', 'other', 'semi- clothed'. Men Total number of men depicted on the postcard. Male Attire Type of attire worn, selected from a list, options are 'bathers', 'casual', 'convict dress', 'formal', 'guide uniform', 'historic dress', 'military uniform', 'other', 'semi- clothed'. Children Total number of children depicted on the postcard. Children's Attire Type of attire worn, selected from a list, options are 'bathers', 'casual', 'convict dress', 'formal', 'guide uniform', 'historic dress', 'military uniform', 'other', 'semi- clothed'. Promotion Relevant to postcards that appear to advertise something, selected from a list, options are 'goods & services', 'hotel', 'restaurant', 'tourist agency', 'tourist bureau', 'transport company'. Place Qualitative judgement about why 'type' of place the postcard depicts, selected from a list, options are 'dark', 'historic', 'natural', 'prison', 'tourist', 'town'. Background Background depicted in the postcard, selected from a list, options are 'buildings', 'forested hills', 'mist covered forested hills', 'photography studio', 'ruins', 'sky (backdrop)', 'trees'. Foreground Foreground in the postcard, selected from a list, options are 'buildings', 'bushes/shrubs', 'fences/walls', 'gardens - decorative', 'gardens - food', 'lawn', 'leaf litter', 'overgrown grasses', 'road/street', 'rock', 'ruins/rubble', 'shoreline', 'water'. Authenticity Qualitative judgement about why 'type' of authenticity the postcard depicts, selected from a list, options are 'abandoned place', 'convict objects/people', 'government objects/people', 'historic depiction of settlement (artist recreation)', 'historic place (intact historic buildings)', 'holiday destination', 'natural', 'operational place - historic', 'partial ruins', 'ruins (clean) - ancient place', 'ruins (overgrown) - ancient place', 'township', 'township juxtaposed with ruins'. Historic Image? Check box - mark to indicate the image is a known re-print of a significantly (20+ years) earlier photograph or artwork. Approximate Age of Approximate year or decade when image on postcard was taken or produced (or Image reproduces). Date Entered Date postcard entered into database. Notes Additional notes or observations about the postcard.

364

Table B-2 List of buildings and places available for selection in the ‘Buildings/Places’ database field.

Buildings/Places Asylum Isle of the Dead Beattie's Museum Junior Medical Officer's Blowhole Military Precinct Canadian Cottage Model Prison Carnarvon Hotel Mrs. Brimage's Boarding House Church Multiple Buildings - Other Civil Officer's Row Penitentiary Clougha Point Puer Commandant's Carriage Port Arthur - Overview Commandant's Offices/Law Courts Powder Magazine Commandant's Residence Radcliffe's Museum Devil's Kitchen Roman Catholic Chaplains Dog Line - Eaglehawk Neck Scorpion Rock Eaglehawk Neck Semaphore Government Cottage Smith O'Brien's Cottage Guard House - Eaglehawk Neck Suicide Cliffs - Point Puer Guard Tower Tasman Arch HMS Success - Hobart Tesselated Pavement Hospital Town Hall Hotel Arthur Underground Cells - Point Puer

Table B-3 List of convict-associated items or images available for selection in the ‘Convictism’ database field.

Convictism ball and chain broad arrow chains convict dress convict guide convict railroad convict(s) dog line flogging isolation cell leg irons

365

multiple convict artefacts prison soldier ward weapons window bars

366

Appendix C

Comparative Collections – Methodology and Sites

Methdology – Comparative Collections The initial query with Heritage Tasmania, the state repository for archaeological grey literature, contained only one report for a hotel site with sufficiently detailed artefact analysis (Hadleys Hotel, Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd 2009). Unfortunately no deposits with an appropriate temporal range were identified in the report. Heritage Tasmania holds many statements of archaeological potential and historical studies of hotels, but little to no records of archaeological excavation. For the few hotel excavations reported on, the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century components were not considered significant and were therefore not discussed. When the search of Heritage Tasmania’s report collection was expanded to any report with artefact reports or catalogues from the late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century no reports were found. A query with GML Heritage (formerly Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd) recovered an additional report for excavations undertaken at the Menzies Centre, Hobart from 2007 to 2009 which included open excavation of six properties. This report provided three assemblages associated with upper-middle class Tasmanian families in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. The comparative collections are mostly comprised of sites from New South Wales. The majority of tourists to Port Arthur were from the Australian mainland, so having an understanding of hotels and households from mainland Australia should still provide some valuable comparisons about the creation of place for tourists and the material signature of tourism. Almost all of the comparative reports originate with consulting firm Casey and Lowe. This firm produces reports with a degree of academic rigour and detail surpassing most others, and their artefact classification and analysis practices were adhered to in this dissertation to further enable sufficient comparisons.

The Agricultural Hotel (1865-1910), Haymarket, NSW Archaeological material culture relating to the Agricultural Hotel in Haymarket, NSW, was excavated and reported on by heritage consulting firm Casey & Lowe (2009). Archaeological excavations occurred in March 2005 prior to the redevelopment of the site for a multi-storey residential and commercial complex, including an extensive below- ground parking lot (Casey & Lowe Pty 2009:2). Several significant phases of occupation were identified by the authors through the examination of historic maps and plans: - The Natural Landscape; - Pre-1788 – Aboriginal use of the area; - 1788 – 1823 – Brickfields established in the area; - 1823-1845 – Ownership and occupation by William Hutchinson, emancipist, with a large house, stables and gardens; - 1865-1910 – Agricultural Hotel and Billiards Room, subdivision of property; and

367

- 1920+ - Demolition Hutchinson’s House and Agricultural Hotel, construction of Chamberlain Hotel and Motor Garage. The Agricultural Hotel operated on the corner of Pitt and Campbell Streets until around 1910 when the hotel (Hutchinson’s house) was demolished to make room for the new Chamberlain Hotel and Motor Garage. Many of the contexts were disturbed by this later construction, destroying much of the earlier data about the site, but four artefact-rich deposits relating specifically to the Agricultural Hotel were identified during analysis (Casey and Lowe Pty 2009:6). Contexts 5211 and 5212 represent a semi-circular pit feature cut (5212) in the area identified as the hotel yard, and filled (5211). This has been interpreted as a rubbish pit, and artefacts recovered from the fill layer (5211) date between 1845 and 1920 indicate its association with the Agricultural Hotel (Casey and Lowe 2009:63). Similarly, contexts 5234 and 5233 form a large circular feature cut (5233) into the yard of the hotel and filled with rubbish (5234) which dates from 1845 to 1920. A later service trench (5235) was dug through 5234 and re-filled. There are incidences of re-fit between artefacts recovered from 5235 and those from 5234, indicating that much of the same deposit was used to re-fill the trench (Casey and Lowe 2009:64). The final deposit (5213) represents an underfloor deposit recovered from one of the rooms of the Agricultural Hotel. Artefacts recovered from 5213 also date between 1845 and 1920 (Casey and Lowe 2009:63). Part of the documentation made available by Casey and Lowe (2009b) is a complete catalogue of all artefacts recovered, sorted into the minimum individual count (MIC). Artefacts recovered from contexts 5211, 5213, 5234 and 5235 were collated to generate a distinct Agricultural Hotel assemblage suitable for comparison with hotel and accommodation sites at Port Arthur. Minimum object counts established by the authors, and the use of comparable artefact class systems, have made it possible to establish several points of reference between the different sites.

Red Cow Inn (1862), Penrith, NSW The Red Cow Inn was first built by Thomas Smith, a landowner with vast quantities of property in the Penrith region and one of the first elected aldermen to the newly established Penrith Municipal Council. The Penrith railway station was established on an adjacent property, also owned by Smith, in 1863, and the Red Cow Inn was granted a liquor license in 1864. Smith leased the land around the railway station and inn on the condition that no other public houses or venues for liquor be established on those properties (Casey and Lowe Pty 2005a:21). The location of the Red Cow Inn was strategically chosen, as it was situated near the railway terminus and the departure point for coaches escorting passengers to the nearby Blue Mountains, a popular tourist destination. Business thrived in the first few years until the railway was extended into the Blue Mountains, but even then by 1882 the hotel had to be expanded to keep up with the demand. An 1889 account of the Inn suggests that it was a slightly eccentric establishment ‘littered with items of interest’ (Casey and Lowe 2005a: 22). The interior of the Inn contained multiple statues, including two bronze statues on marble pedestals, a horse’s head at the entrance and a custom stained-glass window which read ‘I was glad when they said unto me, let us go unto the house of T. Smith’. The front of the Inn featured a statue of Admiral Nelson facing the front gates

368

alongside anchors, a small cannon, part of a ship’s cabin, a tall fountain and assorted other maritime objects. Notable amenities available at the hotel included a bar, billiards room, verandah and stables (Casey and Lowe Pty 2005a:22-23). The Red Cow Inn changed hands, was renamed, and renovated several times. The initial Red Cow Inn structure and associated outbuildings remained generally intact until 1926 when an application was made to make extensive alterations to the building, including a new roof, new wing, modifications to the original buildings, and facilities for hot and cold water and sewerage (Casey and Lowe Pty 2005a:25). By the late 1920s the importance of Penrith as a destination had declined drastically, and the Red Cow Inn was no longer located on a main thoroughfare. The hotel fell into decline and disrepair. In 1930 the licensee was ordered to make repairs or risk losing their liquor license, and major upgrades were again made to the Inn, including the addition of seventeen new rooms and electric lighting (Casey and Lowe Pty 2005a:26). A total of fourteen deposits relating to the Red Cow Inn were excavated by Casey and Lowe between August and September 2004. Context 4713 is a deposit accumulated within a timber-lined well or cesspit associated with the Red Cow Inn (Casey and Lowe 2005a:71). Context 4713 was capped in the early twentieth century with the construction of a southern wing in 1926. Artefacts from Context 4713 represent depositional activities at an inn between 1864 and 1926, with little opportunity for disturbance (Casey and Lowe 2005a:51). Artefacts from Context 4713 have been used for comparison with material culture from hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur. The Red Cow Inn was situated on a rail terminus for travel to a popular Australian tourist destination – the Blue Mountains. The Red Cow Inn should provide useful comparative information with regards to tourist activities in Australia.

Queen’s Arms Inn (1838-c1900), Rouse Hill, NSW Casey and Lowe Pty Ltd were involved in archaeologist excavations at the Queen’s Arm Inn and Post Office at Rouse Hill, New South Wales in 1995 prior to infrastructure works, and again in 2002 as a result of further proposed development on the site (Casey and Lowe 1995, 2005b). Two of the inter-site research questions driving excavations at the Queen’s Arm Inn relate to the rural setting of the Inn. By using a core-periphery model, Casey and Lowe aimed to use data from the Queen’s Arm Inn to look at the availability, quality and variety of consumer goods found at the site as a means of exploring the relationship between Rouse Hill and the rest of the world. Casey and Lowe were also interested in the comparative examination of material culture from the Queen’s Arms Inn in relation to other rural sites, particularly other rural inn sites from the same chronological period (Casey and Lowe 2005b:6). Some of these questions are addressed in the discussion portion of the Red Cow Inn site report (Casey and Lowe 2005a), and further comparison with material culture from Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses may provide some additional information about the nature of rural inn sites. The Queen’s Arm Inn was constructed between 1838 and 1839 and licensed by 1839. The Rouse Hill Post Office was housed in the Inn from 1857 (Casey and Lowe 2005b:9- 10). By 1886 the Queen’s Arm Inn was considered ‘dilapidated’ and the Post Office was moved to other quarters. The Queen’s Arm Inn was demolished by 1900 and a new cottage constructed to the south of the original building (Casey and Lowe 2005b:11).

369

Casey and Lowe’s 2002 excavations salvaged a variety of features, including brick paving, rubble stone footings, and a possible drain. A rubbish pit measuring 3.2m by 2.4m with a depth of 1.2m was also situated within the study area (Casey and Lowe 2005b:16). Analysis of artefacts from fill layers within the rubbish pit (Contexts 2, 3, 8) provided a date range around the 1890s, consistent with the abandonment and demolition of the Inn. A small portion of artefacts with terminus post quem from the 1920s and 1930s were considered evidence of minor disturbance to the rubbish pit in the early twentieth century (Casey and Lowe 2005b:22). Artefacts from this rubbish pit have been included as part of the comparative collection.

Trevathan Hotel (1886-c1925), Cooktown, QLD The Trevathan Hotel in Cooktown, Queensland, was excavated by Mark Moore with Gordon Grimwade and Associates in 1998 to mitigate impact to the site from planned roadworks. Remains of the hotel were not included in the study, as they were not within the scope of works and appeared to have been destroyed during previous construction works (Moore 1998:12). Excavations occurred within a bottle dump associated with the historic hotel. The bottle dump was so extensive that a sampling strategy was adopted, with a total of twenty-two 50x50cm units excavated in two stages. A total of 3327 artefacts were excavated between all units, and 98% of all material recovered was bottle glass (Moore 2000:5, 12). For obvious reasons, data from the Trevathan will be included in discussions of glassware and bottles. The initial construction of the Trevathan Hotel is tied to the tin mining industry in far northern Queensland, where tin deposits were first found in 1885. Alluvial tin deposits were found in four mountains around Trevathan, and access to these deposits and the prime agricultural lands to the sound was cental to the establishment of the Trevathan Hotel in 1886 (Moore 2000:5). The location of the hotel was strategically placed to meet an influx of travellers needing to rest their horses, though it eventually failed as it was situated too close to a major settlement to entice travellers to stop. The licensed hotel was named the ‘Hit or Miss’ by the first proprietor until 1888, when it was renamed the ‘Trevathan’ (Moore 2000:8-9). Besides being a hotel and licensed pub, the Trevathan Hotel provided postal service from 1892 (Moore 2000:10). Commercial operation of the hotel ceased around 1920-1925, and local history suggests that it burnt down around 1925 (Moore 2000:11). Data from the Trevathan Hotel will provide a useful point of comparison for bottles recovered from Port Arthur accommodation sites. As a hotel established to serve guests travelling to minefields or farming districts, the purpose served by this hotel differed from the tourist-specific hotels and guesthouses at Port Arthur. While recognizing that the constructs of ‘tourist’ and ‘traveller’ are not opposites and people are mobile for a variety of reasons, patrons of the Trevathan Hotel and Port Arthur hotels were visiting for very different reasons. Differing patterns in material culture from tourist-specific hotels and more work or travel-oriented hotels were examined as part of this dissertation.

Government House Stables (1859-1912), Sydney, NSW Excavations at Government House Stables were conducted by consulting firm Casey and Lowe Pty Ltd between 1998 and 2001 prior to works on the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and the Conservatorium High School. Excavations targeted evidence of

370

historic occupation at the site dating from c1800 through to the early twentieth-century (Casey and Lowe 2002:1). Evidence of extensive land clearing, quarrying and landscape modifications was recovered for multiple phases of occupation. The Government House Stables and associated roads and drainage systems were constructed between 1817 and 1821. The Stables building was initially used to house the horses of the Governor and his staff. They were gradually modified for use as offices and eventually accommodation for staff. The Stables were converted to the Sydney Conservatorium of Music in 1913 (Casey and Lowe 2002:1-3). An extensive rubbish dump (Context 850) measuring approximately 20m by 25m was excavated in the eastern area of the property. Only 10% of the dump was excavated, with a 2m wide trench excavated through the centre of the dump, and this yielded a total of 1069 objects relating to the occupation of Government House. The artefact-rich context consisted of a loose dark-grey/black sandy-sediment with a high proportion of charcoal indicative of sweepings from kitchen and bedroom fireplaces (Casey and Lowe 2002:226). Historical evidence supports the interpretation of Context 850 as a dump relating to Government House, as document recovered confirmed the use of the eastern side of Government House as a rubbish dump by 1859 (Casey and Lowe 2002:228). Context 850 was interpreted as the rubbish dump for residents at Government House, including the Governor and his family, as well as all the associated servants, military and personal staff residing within Government House or the nearby Stables (Casey and Lowe 2002:226). Artefacts from Context 850 form part of the comparative assemblage for this project. Where travel and tourism has been traditionally associated with the availability of wealth and leisure, having an artefact assemblage associated with an ‘elite and hierarchical environment’ is a useful point of comparison for assessing the value and composition of artefact assemblages in Port Arthur hotels and guesthouses. Government House was ‘the home of one of the leading citizens of New South Wales and Australia, who was British by birth and allegiance’ (Casey and Lowe 2002:228). Artefacts from Government House will assist in understanding material culture, household items and purchasing habits associated with the wealthier, affluent Australian demographic.

371

Appendix D

Supplemental Tables – Hotel Material Culture

Table D-1 Carnarvon Hotel ceramic assemblage broken down by ware, decoration and form.

Ware Decoration Form MIC % Coarse earthenware Undecorated redware Flower pot 5 6.3 Pot saucer 1 1.3 Glazed Flower pot 1 1.3 Milk pan 2 2.5 Slipped Flower pot 2 2.5 Carved bands Hollowware 1 1.3 Flower pot 3 3.8 Stamped Hollowware 1 1.3 Coarse stoneware Salt-glazed Container (storage) 1 1.3 Pot (storage) 1 1.3 Undecorated/slipped Bottle - blacking 1 1.3 Egg cup 1 1.3 Porcelain Undecorated Cup 3 3.8 Ointment pot 1 1.3 Plate 1 1.3 Saucer 1 1.3 Gold gilded Cup 4 5.0 Saucer 5 6.3 Hand -painted Chinese Teapot 1 1.3 Decal printed Cup 1 1.3 Saucer 1 1.3 Refined earthenware Hand-painted/enamelled Chamberpot 1 1.3 Cup 1 1.3 Plate 1 1.3 Dyed body ware Hollowware 1 1.3 Gold gild & under-glaze paint Saucer 1 1.3 Hotel china - banded Chamberpot 1 1.3 Black-on-red (Jackfield style) Hollowware 1 1.3 Marble patterned Hollowware 1 1.3 Under-glaze paint & relief moulded Flatware 1 1.3 Pot saucer 1 1.3 Relief moulded Chamberpot 1 1.3 Hollowware 1 1.3

372

Platter 1 1.3 Sponge -stamped Saucer 1 1.3 Transfer print - black Ointment pot 1 1.3 Platter 1 1.3 Serving vessel 1 1.3 Transfer print - blue Flatware 1 1.3 Plate 2 2.5 Platter 1 1.3 Saucer 1 1.3 Tureen 1 1.3 Vessel 1 1.3 Transfer print - brown Plate 1 1.3 Transfer print - flow blue Chamber pot 1 1.3 Plate 1 1.3 Transfer print with hand-painting Flatware 1 1.3 Plate 1 1.3 Trivet 1 1.3 Transfer print - red Cup 1 1.3 Undecorated whiteware Basin 1 1.3 Bowl (preparation) 1 1.3 Bowl 1 1.3 Cup 1 1.3 Hollowware 2 2.5 Plate 2 2.5 Platter 3 3.8 TOTAL 80 100.0

Table D-2 Tasman Villa ceramic assemblage broken down by ware, decoration and form.

Ware Decoration Form # % Coarse earthenware Undecorated Flower pot 1 2.0 Glazed Milk pan 1 2.0 Coarse stoneware Beige-bodied Bottle 2 3.9 Bristol glazed Bottle 1 2.0 Dry-bodied Figure 1 2.0 Hand-painted (Chinese ) Ginger jar 1 2.0 Vessel 1 2.0 Refined earthenware Hand-painted over-glaze (enamelled) Teaset (sugar bowl) 1 2.0 Dyed body ware Bowl 1 2.0

373

Marble pattern Cup 1 2.0 Relief-moulded & transfer printed (blue) Hollowware 1 2.0 Relief-moulded & gold gilded Hollowware 1 2.0 Relief-moulded Jug 1 2.0 Transfer printed - black Hollowware 1 2.0 Serving vessel 1 2.0 Transfer printed - blue Basin 1 2.0 Hollowware 1 2.0 Plate 1 2.0 Platter 1 2.0 Tureen 2 3.9 Transfer printed - brown Hollowware 2 3.9 Plate 2 3.9 Transfer printed - flow blue Plate 1 2.0 Platter 1 2.0 Tureen 1 2.0 Transfer printed - teal Platter 1 2.0 Vase 1 2.0 Transfer printed - purple Flatware 1 2.0 Saucer 1 2.0 Transfer printed - red Cup 1 2.0 Undecorated Cup 1 2.0 Hollowware 1 2.0 Yellow-ware Bowl (food preparation) 1 2.0 Porcelain Decal printed Cup 2 3.9 Plate 1 2.0 Gold gild Plate 1 2.0 Saucer 2 3.9 Transfer printed - flow blue Saucer 1 2.0 Transfer printed - black Cup 1 2.0 Relief-moulded Teaset (creamer) 1 2.0 Undecorated Cup 3 5.9 Saucer 2 3.9 TOTAL 51 100.0

Table D-3 Ceramic assemblage from Mrs. Brimage’s boarding house (‘The Commandant’s House’) broken down by ware, decoration and form.

Ware Decoration Form # % Coarse earthenware Undecorated Flower pot 1 0.6

374

Glazed Flower pot 1 0.6 Milk pan 1 0.6 Carved bands Flower pot 2 1.2 Coarse stoneware Glazed Bottle 3 1.9 Salt-glazed Bottle 1 0.6 Chinese hand-painted Bowl 1 0.6 Hollowware 1 0.6 Dry -bodied Teapot 1 0.6 Refined earthenware Decal printed Bowl 1 0.6 Vessel 1 0.6 Decal printed & gold gilt Bowl (serving) 1 0.6 Plate 1 0.6 Hand-painted Hollowware 1 0.6 Relief-moulded & painted Vase 1 0.6 Majolica ware Vessel 1 0.6 Dyed body ware Vessel 1 0.6 Gold gild Cup 3 1.9 Flatware 1 0.6 Saucer 1 0.6 Gold gild & over-glaze enamel Serving vessel (lidded) 1 0.6 Hotel china Cup 1 0.6 Plate 1 0.6 Black -on-red (Jackfield-style) Vessel 1 0.6 Marble pattern Teapot 1 0.6 Beige fabric, dark-blue glaze Ointment pot 1 0.6 Vessel 1 0.6 Rockingham-style Hollowware 1 0.6 Beige fabric (unglazed) Storage vessel (lidded) 1 0.6 Relief-moulded Chamberpot 1 0.6 Hollowware 1 0.6 Plate 3 1.9 Soup plate 1 0.6 Relief -moulded and under-glaze paint Flower pot 1 0.6 Relief-moulded and transfer-printed Plate 1 0.6 Transfer printed - black Plate 4 2.5 Flatware 1 0.6 Hollowware 1 0.6 Platter 2 1.2 Vessel 4 2.5 Transfer printed - blue Bowl 1 0.6 Cup 3 1.9

375

Flatware 3 1.9 Hollowware 1 0.6 Jug 1 0.6 Plate 5 3.1 Platter 4 2.5 Saucer 1 0.6 Serving vessel 1 0.6 Tureen 1 0.6 Vessel 1 0.6 Transfer printed - brown Bowl (serving) 1 0.6 Cup 1 0.6 Plate 3 1.9 Saucer 3 1.9 Transfer printed - flow blue Hollowware 1 0.6 Transfer printed - green Chamberpot 1 0.6 Vessel 1 0.6 Transfer printed - teal Cup 1 0.6 Transfer printed & hand-painted Cup 1 0.6 Plate 2 1.2 Platter 1 0.6 Trivet 1 0.6 Transfer printed - purple Serving vessel (lidded) 1 0.6 Plate 1 0.6 Transfer printed - red Plate 1 0.6 Undecorated Bowl (Preparation) 1 0.6 Chamberpot 1 0.6 Cup 5 3.1 Flatware 1 0.6 Hollowware 1 0.6 Jar 1 0.6 Plate 7 4.3 Platter 2 1.2 Vessel 1 0.6 Yellow ware Milk pan 1 0.6 Vessel 1 0.6 Porcelain Hand-painted over-glaze Cup 1 0.6 Saucer 1 0.6 Hand -painted under-glaze (Japan) Cup 1 0.6 Decal printed Cup 1 0.6 Hand-painted (Chinese) Bowl (serving) 1 0.6 Plate 2 1.2

376

Saucer 1 0.6 Soup plate 2 1.2 Gold gild Cup 6 3.7 Saucer 5 3.1 Decal printed with gold-gild Cup 1 0.6 Cup and milsey 1 0.6 Plate 1 0.6 Relief-moulded Cup 1 0.6 Ornament 1 0.6 Flatware 1 0.6 Hollowware 2 1.2 Saucer 3 1.9 Undecorated Cup 4 2.5 Egg cup 1 0.6 Ointment pot 2 1.2 Saucer 4 2.5 TOTAL 161 100.0

Table D-4 Hotel Arthur ceramic assemblage broken down by ware, decoration and form.

Ware Decoration Form # % Coarse earthenware Tin-glazed Kichen basin 1 0.5 Salt-glazed Hollowware 1 0.5 Carved bands Container (storage) 1 0.5 Flower pot 1 0.5 Glazed Kichen basin 1 0.5 Slipped Flower pot 1 0.5 Undecorated Flower pot 1 0.5 Coarse Stoneware Stamped pattern Jar 1 0.5 Bristol-glaze Container (storage) 1 0.5 Salt-glazed Bottle 1 0.5 Container (storage) 1 0.5 Ink bottle 1 0.5 Glazed/undecorated Bottle 2 1.0 Container (storage) 2 1.0 Ink bottle 1 0.5 Jar 2 1.0 Vessel 1 0.5 Dry-bodied Figure 1 0.5

377

Refined earthenware Blue-glazed, relief-moulded Bowl 1 0.5 Cup 2 1.0 Lustre ware Cup 1 0.5 Decal printed Cup 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Hand-painted Saucer 1 0.5 Dyed-body ware Cup 1 0.5 Gold gilt & decal Plate 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Gold gilt Hollowware 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Soup plate 1 0.5 Hotel china Chamberpot 1 0.5 Creamer 1 0.5 Cup 4 2.0 Plate 2 1.0 Saucer 4 2.0 Tureen 1 0.5 Relief-moulded Chamberpot 1 0.5 Hollowware 4 2.0 Plate 1 0.5 Serving vessel 1 0.5 Tureen 1 0.5 Relief-moulded & gold gilt Bowl 1 0.5 Relief-moulded & transfer-printed Platter 1 0.5 Hollowware 2 1.0 Majolica ware Hollowware 1 0.5 Rockingham-style ware Teapot 2 1.0 Sponge-stamped Saucer 1 0.5 Sprigged Saucer 1 0.5 Transfer printed - black Cup 2 1.0 Hollowware 3 1.5 Plate 6 3.0 Platter 4 2.0 Serving vessel 1 0.5 Soup plate 1 0.5 Transfer printed - blue Bowl (serving) 1 0.5 Bowl (tableware) 1 0.5 Cup 2 1.0

378

Hollowware 1 0.5 Jug 1 0.5 Plate 5 2.5 Platter 8 4.0 Saucer 1 0.5 Serving vessel 3 1.5 Soup plate 1 0.5 Tureen 2 1.0 Vessel 1 0.5 Transfer printed & hand-painted Hollowware 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Vessel 1 0.5 Transfer printed - brown Cup 4 2.0 Flatware 3 1.5 Hollowware 1 0.5 Plate 2 1.0 Saucer 2 1.0 Serving vessel 1 0.5 Transfer printed - flow blue Bowl 1 0.5 Chamberpot 1 0.5 Platter 1 0.5 Vessel 1 0.5 Transfer printed - green Cup 2 1.0 Jug 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Transfer printed - teal Hollowware 2 1.0 Transfer printed - purple Cup 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Tureen 1 0.5 Transfer printed - red Hollowware 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Serving vessel 1 0.5 Whiteware,lilac-grey glaze Chamberpot 1 0.5 Undecorated Bowl 2 1.0 Cannister 1 0.5 Chamberpot 1 0.5 Cup 5 2.5 Hollowware 2 1.0

379

Jar 3 1.5 Yellow ware Basin 2 1.0 Milk pan 1 0.5 Porcelain Decal printed Cup 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Vessel 1 0.5 Enamelled/painted over-glaze Cup 1 0.5 Hollowware 2 1.0 Saucer 1 0.5 Vessel 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Painted under-glaze Hollowware 1 0.5 Cup 1 0.5 Gold gilt Cup 2 1.0 Saucer 4 2.0 Gold gilt & painted band Cup 1 0.5 Gold gilt & relief-moulded Teapot 1 0.5 Flatware 1 0.5 Relief-moulded Cup 2 1.0 Hollowware 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Sprigged Cup 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Vessel 1 0.5 Undecorated Cup 5 2.5 Egg cup 1 0.5 Hollowware 1 0.5 Plate 1 0.5 Saucer 1 0.5 Unidentified 1 0.5 TOTAL 198 100.0

380