By the Sad and Mournful Sea: Mortuary Memorialisation in The

Copyright and use of this thesis This thesis must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction of material protected by copyright may be an infringement of copyright and copyright owners may be entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits an authorized officer of a university library or archives to provide a copy (by communication or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in the library or archives, to a person who satisfies the authorized officer that he or she requires the reproduction for the purposes of research or study. The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work a number of moral rights, specifically the right of attribution, the right against false attribution and the right of integrity. You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you: - fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if you quote sections from the work - attribute this thesis to another author - subject this thesis to derogatory treatment which may prejudice the author’s reputation For further information contact the University’s Copyright Service. sydney.edu.au/copyright

The research described in this thesis, except where referenced, is the original work of the author and was a discrete project supervised by Dr Annie Clarke and Dr Peter Hobbins. This thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis presented by me for another degree or diploma. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis.

Sarah Janson

June 2015

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in the Department of Archaeology, the University of Sydney, Australia, 2015.

Cover Images: (Top) Quarantine Station Third Cemetery Vista 2014, Sarah Janson (Bottom, left to right) Grave of John Madden, Quarantine Station Third Cemetery, 2014, Sarah Janson. ‘Sitting on the Fence’, image courtesy of the National Park and Wildlife Service, Sydney Quarantine Station Collection. Angel Sculpture, Manly Cemetery, 2014, Sarah Janson. Quarantine Burial Ground c.1874, Arthur Wilmore, National Library of Australia, accessed at http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an7370584.

For Dad and Trevor

iii

Statement of Authorship ...... ii Dedication ...... iii List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... x Acknowledgements ...... xi Abstract ...... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Aims and Scope ...... 2 Research Design ...... 4 Rationale ...... 4 The Sites ...... 5 North Head Quarantine Station and the Third Cemetery ...... 5 Manly and Manly Cemetery ...... 7 Outline ...... 8

Chapter 2: Mortuary Memorialisation in Context ...... 10 The development of approaches to death, burial and memorialisation in archaeology ...... 10 The nature of mortuary archaeology ...... 10 Processualist approaches ...... 12 Post-processualist approaches and beyond ...... 13 Cemeteries and memorialisation in Australia ...... 14 Historiographical approaches to death and memorialisation ...... 17 Conclusion ...... 18

Chapter 3: Archaeology, Liminality and Theory ...... 19 The Rite de Passage and Liminality ...... 19 Liminality in Archaeology ...... 22 Mortuary Archaeology and Liminality ...... 23

Quarantine as Liminal ...... 24 Conclusion ...... 27

Chapter 4: Methodology and Analyses ...... 28 Site Selection ...... 28 Sampling Strategy ...... 28 Data Collection ...... 30 Analysis of Results ...... 34 Materiality ...... 34 Temporality ...... 34 Spatial Organisation ...... 34 Inscription Content ...... 35 Conclusion ...... 35

Chapter 5: Social and Historical Background ...... 36 Historical Attitudes towards Death and Dying ...... 36 The Victorians in the Nineteenth Century ...... 36 The Twentieth Century ...... 39 Chinese Burial Practices in Australia ...... 43 Disease, Quarantine and Medical Ideologies ...... 46 Quarantine in Australia and North Head Quarantine Station ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 50

Chapter 6: Fieldwork Results ...... 51 Temporality ...... 51 Materiality...... 54 Form ...... 54 Grave Type ...... 56 Material ...... 56 Grave Furniture ...... 58 Motifs ...... 58 Font Types ...... 60 Condition of Grave ...... 60

Size of Monuments and Graves ...... 61 Inscription Content ...... 65 Elements of Inscription ...... 65 Language and Place of Origin ...... 66 Names in Inscription...... 67 Length of Inscription ...... 68 Spatial Organisation...... 69 Landscape ...... 69 Aspect ...... 75 Denomination ...... 75 Conclusion ...... 75

Chapter 7: Discussion ...... 77 Energy Expenditure and Emotional Investment ...... 77 Changing Landscapes and Access ...... 81 Language and Cultural Variation ...... 83 Chinese Burials ...... 84 War Memorialisation in Civic and Quarantine Contexts ...... 86 Negotiating Liminality ...... 91 Conclusion ...... 92

Chapter 8: Conclusion ...... 94 Mortuary Memorialisation and the Quarantine Context ...... 95 Broader Implications ...... 96 Future Directions ...... 96 In Conclusion ...... 97

Reference List ...... 99 Appendix A: Fieldwork Data ...... 109 Appendix B: Recording Form ...... 110 Appendix C: Burial Registers ...... 115 Appendix D: Recording Typology and Parameters ...... 138

Figure 1.1 Map of North Head showing location of the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012...... 3 Figure 1.2 Features of North Head including location of quarantine burial grounds. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012...... 6 Figure 1.3 Manly Cemetery, looking west towards Hill Street. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 8 Figure 2.1 Some of the different themes explored as a part of mortuary archaeology...... 11 Figure 3.1 Chart describing the tripartite structure of the rite de passage and its correlates in the circumstances of death and quarantine. The question posed is whether the specific circumstances of quarantine and death in the liminal period will lead to a distinct pattern of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration...... 26 Figure 4.1 Gravestone of John Baptist Adonis, an example of a gravestone known to have existed at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery but unable to be relocated during fieldwork. Photo: Jean Duncan Foley, c.1970s-80s...... 29 Figure 4.2 Survey areas (blue) selected within Manly Cemetery (red). Yellow areas represent Church of England sections, green represents Catholic and purple signifies General sections. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012...... 30 Figure 4.3 Example of the detailed sketches of gravestones conducted as part of the recording methodology. Clockwise from top: HS040, HS040, HS007, HS001...... 33 Figure 5.1 Advertisement for T. Andrews & Sons monumental masons. Source: Sands Directory 1898...... 38 Figure 5.2 Left: CWGC grave at Tyne Cot, featuring the service number of the deceased, followed by rank, name, regiment or ship, date of death and age. A regimental badge and a cross or appropriate religious symbol occupy the central part of the stone (Tarlow 1997, p. 111). Right: Tyne Cot Cemetery. Source: Department of Veterans Affairs [http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/zonnebeke/visiting-tyne-cot.php#]...... 42 Figure 5.3 Advertisement for repatriation,Tung Wah News, 4 February 1899, p. 4. Courtesy of John Wu...... 44 Figure 5.4 Chinese gravestone at Rookwood Cemetery, showing conventions for inscriptions. Source: Jones (2001)...... 45 Figure 5.5 Timeline showing changes in ownership and access at North Head...... 49 Figure 6.1 Graph plotting the number of deaths each year according to the gravestone inscription. This figure omits the modern addition of a sandstone boulder memorial (HS017) at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery, commissioned by the Returned and Services League (RSL) and unveiled in 1997, to commemorate the 14 World War I servicemen interred at the cemetery who died between 1918 and 1919...... 52 Figure 6.2 A comparison of the number of deaths as recorded in the burial register with dates on extant gravestones...... 52 Figure 6.3 A comparison of the number of deaths per year as derived from extant grave inscriptions, burial register and historical population statistics data...... 53 Figure 6.4 Number of basic forms of monuments present at each site...... 54

vii

Figure 6.5 Concrete slab ledgers at the site of servicemen graves. Photos: (left) Sarah Janson, 2014 (right) Jenny Wilson, 2014...... 55 Figure 6.6 Material of construction used in monuments at each site...... 57 Figure 6.7 Types of grave furniture at each site...... 58 Figure 6.8 Number of motifs present on monuments...... 59 Figure 6.9 Motif types recorded on monuments...... 59 Figure 6.10 Different types of fonts used in inscriptions...... 60 Figure 6.11 Assessment of condition of graves...... 60 Figure 6.12 Box and whisker plot showing the range and spread of the measurements of vertically orientated monuments. Manly Cemetery, n = 59, Third Cemetery, n = 45...... 63 Figure 6.13 Box and whisker plot showing the range and spread of measurements for horizontally orientated monuments. Manly Cemetery, n = 3, Third Cemetery, n = 16...... 63 Figure 6.14 Box and whisker plot for area of graves, calculated using the dimensions of the ledger stone or border/perimeter where appropriate...... 64 Figure 6.15 Box and whisker plot for an approximate volume of monuments, calculated using three axes of measurement (height, width, length), to assess the overall impact of the monument in the landscape...... 64 Figure 6.16 Elements of inscription present...... 65 Figure 6.17 Country of origin as derived from inscription...... 66 Figure 6.18 Language of inscription...... 66 Figure 6.19 Number of names recorded on a monument...... 67 Figure 6.20 RSL boulder monument (HS017). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 68 Figure 6.21 Number of lines in inscription...... 68 Figure 6.22 Plan of Manly Cemetery showing location of the selected dataset. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012...... 69 Figure 6.23 The North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012...... 70 Figure 6.24 Position of identified graves during the 2006 survey, indicated in red and interpolated graves, indicated in green, based on burial register, showing sequence of burials. Source: Gojak and Pullar (2006, p. 27)...... 71 Figure 6.25 Map showing the denominational areas at Manly Cemetery. The red outline indicates survey area. Source: Wohlwend (1998)...... 71 Figure 6.26 Manly Cemetery, 1931, Source: Courtesy of John MacRitchie, Manly Library Local Studies via Ivanhoe Park Precinct [http://www.ivanhoeparkprecinct.com.au/our- community.html]. The flat and open landscape contrasts to the vegetated and sloped Third Cemetery...... 72 Figure 6.27 (Above) 2012 aerial imagery of Manly Cemetery (below) 1943 aerial imagery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012...... 72 Figure 6.28 Comparison of 1943 and 2012 aerial imagery of North Head and the Third Cemetery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012...... 73 Figure 6.29 Series of photographs showing intermittent clearing and vegetation growth at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. The landscape was cleared in 1991 but photos taken in 2008 and 2006 show a return of heavy scrub vegetation...... 74 Figure 6.30 (above) North Head (below) Detail of the Third Cemetery. Source: Macleay Museum, HP83.66.113 - Hall and Co, 1930s...... 74

viii

Figure 7.1 MC014 (left) MC038 (right) Examples of sculptural forms at Manly Cemetery. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 78 Figure 7.2 Examples of commemorative materials including flower vases and pebbled plots. Clockwise from top left: MC041, MC040, MC046, MC056. Photos: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 83 Figure 7.3 HS025, grave of Ah Cee Bow Yow. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 85 Figure 7.4 Gravestone of Andrew O'Young (HS020). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 86 Figure 7.5 Moylan Family Grave (MC058). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 87 Figure 7.6 Memorandum relating the dimension and plans for the War Grave Commission headstones. Source: NAA: SP399/1, 80/8...... 89 Figure 7.7 White marble obelisk gravestone of Hector Hicks (HS010). Photos: Sarah Janson, 2014...... 90 Figure 7.8 Chart showing possible responses in memorialisation patterns to the occurrence of death in the liminal period of quarantine...... 92

Table 3.1 Model of types of liminality proposed by Thomassen (2009)...... 21 Table 4.1 Description of the fields used to collect data...... 31 Table 5.1 Major epidemics in nineteenth and twentieth century Sydney ...... 46 Table 6.1 Number of types of grave at each site...... 56 Table 6.2 Number of different materials used on monuments...... 57 Table 6.3 Aspect of graves...... 75

Firstly, my very appreciative thanks to my supervisors Dr Annie Clarke and Dr Peter Hobbins. They have given me invaluable guidance, advice and amazing support over a difficult year as well as so many wonderful opportunities for which I am extremely grateful. Thank you.

This project would not have been possible without the support of the Stories from the Sandstone Project, a linkage project with the University of Sydney, the Australian Research Council and industry partners, the Mawland Group, in cooperation with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. I thank them for their support and for the opportunity to work at an incredible site. The vital assistance of the Carlyle Greenwell Fund enabled me to conduct the fieldwork.

I am extremely grateful for the help and guidance I have received from several academics. Many thanks to Denis Gojak for his generous loan of his materials and resources from an earlier investigation of the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Dr John Wu for his expertise of the Asiatic experience of quarantine. Thanks also to Professor Harold Mytum for giving me his time and advice whilst patiently answering over enthusiastic questions.

Thanks must go to Bella Vista Café and staff for their encouragement each morning and for kindly letting me stow equipment in their shed. Many thanks to John MacRitchie and the Manly Library Local Studies Collection for invaluable help in accessing transcriptions of burial registers, photos and prior research. Thanks also to Jenny Wilson and the Friends of the North Head Sanctuary for sharing their knowledge, research and enthusiasm for the Third Cemetery site.

Thanks to Manly Council for their permissions to work at Manly Cemetery and Karly Inglis at Sydney Harbour Federation Trust for permissions to work in the Third Cemetery. Thanks also to Ina Kehrberg-Ostrasz for her assistance in organising fieldwork equipment.

I could not have done this without my fellow archaeology friends and particularly my honours cohort, Samantha, Michael, Phil, Winsome and Kitty, whom I must thank for their camaraderie, conversation and friendship as well as for the regular pub trips that helped maintain some sanity over the course of the past year. I am grateful for the unwavering support of my close friends Amelia, Victoria and Cassie for their continual encouragement and patient listening to ramblings about graveyards and thesis writing woes over dinner.

And finally, I must thank my family for their support and understanding - my sister Caitlin for her reassurances, humour and patience, my wonderful mum Sue, for braving the Spit Bridge with me and being a constant source of love and encouragement and my partner Chris, whose love and support throughout my studies has been invaluable in helping me finish.

xii

The concept and processes of quarantine are shaped by changing medical theory and ideology concerning the causes, spread and methods for curtailing infectious disease. North Head Quarantine Station in Manly, New South Wales is one of the oldest quarantine facilities in Australia, operating from the 1830s until 1984 and its associated Third Cemetery is the material manifestation of one of the possible outcomes from the processes of quarantine; the occurrence of death. This thesis is therefore concerned with exploring whether the specific circumstances and liminal nature of the quarantine experience affects patterns of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration at this site.

A recording of 68 grave markers at the Third Cemetery and 68 grave markers at Manly Cemetery has been undertaken. Spatial, temporal, material and inscription content analysis have been applied to the recorded data in order to compare and contrast patterns in memorialisation. Further juxtaposition between historical attitudes and practices concerning death and dying has been explored. The results have been considered in light of a theoretical body whereby it has been argued the quarantine experience displays elements of the liminal period in a rite de passage (van Gennep 1960, Turner 1987). This model entails a tripartite structure of a subject’s separation from mainstream society, an in-between or liminal stage whilst in quarantine and reincorporation; into society.

By comparing the two sites in light of this framework, the data show similarity in material fabric and style but clear difference in spatial patterns of memorialisation as well as variation in language, the temporal use of the sites and size and complexity of monuments. A dissonance with the historical accounts of death and dying in Australia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was revealed.

The unique circumstances and ideologies of quarantine and the liminal nature of its processes therefore have had an effect on the types and patterns of memorialisation and commemoration at these sites, both constraining and liberating memorialising activity at the unique Third Cemetery site. Consequently, this research has implications for analysis of cemeteries in other liminal institutional contexts such as hospitals, sanatoria and asylums.

xiii

By the sad and mournful sea The dearest one that was to me Lies sleeping here, eternal rest His soul is numbered with the blest

Epitaph from the grave of John Madden Quarantine Station Third Cemetery

Quarantine is a multifaceted process that involves the separation and isolation of people for a period of time that are suspected of having an infectious disease. Placed at North Head on the very outer reaches of Sydney Harbour, the city’s Quarantine Station represents one of the most intact examples of Australia’s quarantine policies and changing medical ideologies. For the people who passed through the Quarantine Station through its years of operation from 1835 to 1984, quarantine could be a terrifying, miserable, boring, frustrating, or even an enjoyable experience (Maglen 2006). For some, it was part of immigration to a new land or a return home after a difficult sea voyage. Some were Sydney residents removed from their homes during epidemics or military personnel quarantined in the course of their service. These stories can be seen in the thousands of inscriptions carved into the sandstone that covers the site (Clarke & Frederick 2012).

For most, it was a transitory experience however another outcome of the quarantine process deserves a closer examination: death.

The Third Cemetery at North Head Quarantine Station and its grave markers and other forms of memorialisation are the material manifestations of this particular quarantine experience. The grave marker is the predominant example of memorialisation in the historic period. Between text and artefact, gravestones record biography, demographics and social and medical histories, while its material elements can reveal changes in mortuary fashions and iconography. Their potential is underutilised in archaeological and historical analyses and are not given a central place in the sub- discipline of mortuary archaeology (Mytum 2004, p. 11).

Mortuary memorialisation is part of the human desire to remember and be remembered. Different cultures and societies develop recognised ways of handling death and dying, including material responses that are subject to change over time. Material culture is especially important in

enabling people to leave a permanent recording of presence (Petts 2003, p. 194). Two processes can be seen at work in the cemetery context; memorialisation and commemoration. In this work, memorialisation is used to refer to the initial act of material creation for the purposes of marking and fixing a memory in space and time. Commemorative practice is defined as the re-expression and reassertion of a connection to this memory.

Death in quarantine presents a unique set of circumstances. Action at the time of death is dictated not only by acceptable and desirable cultural behaviours but also informed by institutional quarantine procedures and medical ideology. Isolated from mainstream society and situated in an in-between state, are the established protocols for memorialising and commemorating death realised in quarantine? Are material, temporal and spatial signatures of death affected? As an investigation in historical archaeology, this research focuses on the intersection between two elements: the distinctive, liminal and institutional process of quarantine, and the material memorialisation of death. This thesis therefore seeks to answer the key question:

Do the circumstances of quarantine produce distinct types and patterns of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration?

This conjecture will be explored through a case study comparing the material culture of the Quarantine Station’s Third Cemetery and a municipal general cemetery in the nearby suburb of Manly.

Answering this research questions entails a number of objectives. I aim to:

 assess how death, burial and mortuary memorialisation has been approached in the archaeological scholarship;  consider a theoretical framework which explores the material implications of both death and quarantine as liminal experiences;  record, describe and compare the gravestones and material remains from the North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery;  investigate correspondences or dissonances between the material remains of mortuary practice and historical accounts of quarantine, mourning and burial practices;  analyse the collected material, temporal and spatial data to investigate similarity and difference

Figure 1.1 Map of North Head showing location of the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012.

By meeting these aims, the research question can be responded and conclusions specific to the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery can be made. The scope of this dissertation focuses on a

comparison of two sites and chronologically, relates to the period of operation for the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery, from 1881 – 1925, complemented by later site history where applicable.

Historical archaeology requires consideration of both the material remains and the historical records of the past. It is the contrast between what is said and what is done, that charges archaeologists to ask meaningful questions of the past. Fieldwork can supplement gaps in the historical records – and vice versa – to create a more holistic and multidimensional understanding of the past. This study therefore comprises multiple comparisons. It compares material assemblages across two contemporaneous and proximate Sydney cemeteries, whilst also contrasting their physical remnants with their historical records and historiographic accounts. To achieve this, fieldwork was conducted in accordance with a methodology developed from existing literature (see Chapter 4) and an appraisal of the historical context of death, dying and trends in mortuary fashions (see Chapter 5).

The research design also includes the consideration of a theoretical framework to interpret the material. The concept of liminality will be used to argue that both the processes of quarantine and death result in the creation of a ‘betwixt and between’ period of ambiguity. This construct is adapted from the work of van Gennep (1960), Turner (1987), Huntington and Metcalf (1979) and Thomassen (2009, 2014). I will argue that normal rituals and behaviours that negotiate the uncertainties of death are interrupted by the special conditions of quarantine. I will also assess whether methods of memorialisation and commemoration were adapted to resolve these ambiguities of liminality.

Cemetery studies in Australia have been intermittent and ad hoc and often lack an engagement with interpretative theoretical frameworks (see Chapter 2). My research seeks to address this issue by demonstrating the potential of gravestones in archaeological and historical analysis. The comparative analysis adopted not only considers the depth of information available for archaeologists in a historic cemetery, but also demonstrates the potential for discerning between archaeological signatures of historical cemetery site types around Australia.

The collision of disease, military service, migration, class, race and death mark the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery as unique and worthy of in-depth study. My comparative aspect in Manly

Cemetery will both enhance the analysis and add to a growing archaeological literature interrogating historical cemetery landscapes.

The North Head Quarantine Station is currently the subject of a multidisciplinary study being undertaken by the University of Sydney, exploring the history and archaeology of mark-making practices in quarantine. The memorialisation of death that takes place in the Third Cemetery forms an important subset of this practice and consequently, the data and analysis presented here will contribute to this project. It has also become crucial to have an accurate recording of the deteriorating remains of the Third Cemetery.

The two sites analysed in this study are the North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery, both located in Sydney’s north, at the mouth of Sydney Harbour. The backgrounds of the sites are introduced here and expanded upon in Chapters 4 and 5.

An estimated 16,000 people and at least 580 vessels have been quarantined at North Head between 1828 and 1984, making it one of the earliest and most enduring sites of quarantine in Australia. Beginning with the quarantining of convicts arriving on board the Bussorah Merchant in 1828, the site was used for both maritime and some terrestrial quarantines (Foley 1995, p. 18). People as diverse as military servicemen, Sydney residents, migrants, asylum seekers and Vietnamese war orphans have all passed through the Station (Foley 1995, p. 128).

The station’s operational life spans its original institution by the New South Wales colonial government, transfer to federal control in 1908 and a period of military occupation during World War II(Foley 1995, p. 97). The Station’s operations and role was subject to changing theories of disease as well as impacted upon by political and social ideas of containment, immigration, border control and defence. Eventually, the predominance of air travel and changes in the types and treatments of infectious diseases led to the closure of the station in 1984 (Foley 1995, pp. 128-30).

North Head’s first and second burial grounds operated from March 1837 to May 1853, and June 1853 until September 1881 respectively. The first burial ground contains the remains of an estimated 228 people. Located just below the third-class accommodation quarters, its position raised concerns about both the pollution of ground water and the demoralisation of other quarantined passengers who witnessed the build-up of crosses at the site (Foley 1995, p. 131). The second cemetery was located behind the main buildings and contains an estimated 102

graves, with three markers known to remain in situ (Foley 1995, p. 133). Headstones from these cemeteries were removed and some have been retained in a collection at the Quarantine Station.

The Third Cemetery was in use between 1881 and 1925. It contains the bodies of victims of Sydney’s 1881 small pox epidemic, the 1900–01 bubonic plague outbreaks and the 1918–19 influenza pandemic amongst others (Foley 1995, pp. 11-2). The site was chosen by medical officer Dr Foucart and Constable Cook after enquiries into the alleged overcrowding and mismanagement of the second cemetery during the 1881 epidemic (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882). The key advantage of the new site was its location away from the main buildings of the Quarantine Station and its position on higher ground which would allow for appropriate depth of burial. Of the 241 burials that took place at the Third Cemetery, 68 grave markers remaining at the site have been included in this analysis.

School of Artillery Quarantine Station

Third Cemetery

Second Cemetery First Cemetery

Figure 1.2 Features of North Head including location of quarantine burial grounds. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012. The Third Cemetery has also had a history extending beyond the last burial that took place there in 1925 and has resulted in a multitude of institutions apportioning the headland. In the interwar

years, the local Manly council was granted occupancy to open the headland for public use. This was rescinded in 1935 when the federal government took control in order to fortify and install a coastal gun battery as part of the defence of Sydney in World War II. Military presence at the site wound down after 1945. It was at the conclusion of the Quarantine Station’s operations in 1984 that the Station itself came under the control of National Parks and Wildlife Service whilst the Third Cemetery forms part of the North Head Sanctuary, controlled by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and is located within the former School of Artillery. The Sanctuary opened to the public in 2007.

The Third Cemetery was surveyed and recorded for the Trust in 2006 (Gojak & Pullar 2006). The resultant archaeological management plan has been an invaluable source, permitting comparison with the data collected for this project.

Manly has a long history of Indigenous occupation and is the traditional land of the Guringai language group. The Manly area was one of the first places explored by white settlers after the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 and was famously given its name by Governor Arthur Phillip due to his admiration for the Aboriginal people’s courage and manliness.

From the mid-1850s, Manly became popular as a health and tourist retreat, in the same vein as England’s Brighton and Blackpool (Curson 1985, pp. 146-7). A beach-going, seaside culture developed, aided by the promotion of ‘developers, civic worthies, ferry companies, real estate agents and some medical practitioners who saw the place as a sanatorium’ (Ashton 2008). Improved transport to and from the city of Sydney saw the population rise from 500 in 1871 to 1327 in 1881, 3236 in 1891 and 5035 in 1901 (Ashton 2008).

Manly Cemetery is located off Sydney Road in the Manly suburb of Fairlight. The first burial at Manly Cemetery occurred in 1863, with the land consecrated by a Church of England minister in 1865. The cemetery is divided into denominational areas, including Church of England, Roman Catholic and General sections. Over 5000 burials have taken place at Manly Cemetery with over 3000 monuments present.

Figure 1.3 Manly Cemetery, looking west towards Hill Street. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014.

Gravestone inscriptions and epitaphs at the site were transcribed in 1993 (Vine Hall 1993), whilst the site has been the subject of several local histories and conservation plans (Berckelman 1993; Thompson 2005; Wohlwend 1998). The materiality of the site has been considered in some heritage reports. The burial registers have been transcribed by volunteers for the Manly Library Local Studies Collection. These resources have been used to supplement the data collection, the results of which are presented in Chapters 5 and 6.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter introduces the research question and the aims, research area, sites, scope and rationale are presented.

Chapter 2: Mortuary Memorialisation in Context

This chapter positions my methods and analysis in the context of a critical review of the archaeological literature pertaining to death, burial and memorialisation, particularly in Australia.

Chapter 3: Archaeology, Liminality and Theory

This chapter introduces a theoretical background of liminality. It discusses the history and application of liminality in archaeology before demonstrating how a framework could be applied to the experiences of quarantine and death. From this discussion, hypotheses are formulated.

Chapter 4: Methodology and Analyses

This section explains the processes for data collection and outlines and justifies the different categories of analysis used.

Chapter 5: Social and Historical Background

This chapter presents an outline of the social and historical background of quarantine and attitudes regarding death and dying. This work permits a comparison of the historical record with the in situ physical remains.

Chapter 6: Fieldwork Results

This chapter presents the results of fieldwork at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery, including tabulated and graphed data, site maps and statistical comparisons.

Chapter 7: Discussion

This chapter discusses the results of both the fieldwork and the historical research compared to one another and in relation to the theoretical framework in order to interpret observed patterns.

Chapter 8: Conclusion

This chapter summarises the key conclusions from the discussion and results, then assesses these outcomes in relation to the research question and aims. I will also consider the implications of the research and outline further research directions.

The archaeological study of mortuary memorialisation fits within the broader field of mortuary archaeology. It is therefore worthwhile to consider the key developments and variety of approaches that archaeology has developed in order to analyse patterns of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration. This chapter offers an appraisal of these developments over time, with a focus on the social constructivist approach (which this research engages with) as well as how such approaches relate to the study of historical cemetery sites. A more focussed examination on cemetery and gravestone studies in Australia will demonstrate the intermittent nature of research in this area and contextualises the work carried out in this project.

Studies of death and memorialisation in the historical period also include histories that are essential in considering congruency or dissonance between written history and material correlates. How attitudes to death and memorialisation have been approached in historical writing is also briefly considered.

The mortuary context is a rich and invaluable source of information for archaeologists and has been analysed from an endless array of perspectives and methodologies to inform our understanding of past humans in temporally and spatially varied cultures. Data from the mortuary context has been used in studies ranging from diet reconstructions and analyses of health (Lewis 2002) to dating and exploring migration patterns (Harke 2007), the examination of belief, religion and ritualized practice through iconography (Hodder 1982), to trade and exchange, social relationships, and populations and demographics (Dethlefsen & Deetz 1966). Whilst all this information can be derived from mortuary context data, it does not necessarily address or focus on the specificity of death. Although never tightly defined, this centring of the human response to death as the primary aim of research is what constitutes the more specialised sub-discipline of mortuary archaeology (also called the archaeology of death and burial). It is within this field that the study of mortuary memorialisation falls.

Generally, mortuary archaeology can be approached from a biological naturalist or social constructivist perspective. The naturalist approach considers death as a biological event, where

the material remains and object of analysis consist primarily of the body. Methodologically, this perspective relies heavily on archaeometry, palaeopathology and osteological analyses – most commonly of sex, age, diet and pathology of the deceased, plus dating, migration and sourcing of materials found in the mortuary context (Roberts 2013). However, it can also be said that death takes place in a social and cultural context and therefore the human response to the ontological transition initiated by biological death is a socially constructed experience (Robb in Tarlow & Nilsson Stutz 2013, p. 454). The response and processes that accompany the death of an individual – and its archaeological correlates – are therefore socially created and hence ‘meaningful and expressive’ (Huntington & Metcalf 1979). This approach is typified by efforts to refocus on the specificity of responses to death, not just extracting information from the mortuary context.

Even within a social view of mortuary archaeology, there are further thematic divisions, primarily scholarship that focuses on death and its associated cultural behaviour compared to literature focussed on ‘the social, economic or symbolic deductions drawn from mortuary data’ (Mytum 2004, p. 179).

The concerns of this thesis fall within the wider social constructivist approach with an awareness of the pitfalls of false theoretical dichotomies as there are obvious overlaps between the schools of thought (Robb in Tarlow & Nilsson Stutz 2013, p. 454). Research within the social constructivist dimensions of memorialisation has been approached differently over time, reflecting some of the major intellectual shifts in the discipline and will be outlined here.

MORTUARY ARCHAEOLOGY

BIOLOGICAL SOCIAL ASPECTS ASPECTS

CULTURAL BEHAVIOUR SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ASSOCIATED WITH SYMBOLIC RESPONSE TO DEATH DEDUCTIONS

Figure 2.1 Some of the different themes explored as a part of mortuary archaeology.

Cemetery and gravestone studies and their archaeological potential was first realised in Deetz and Dethlefsen’s studies of change in gravestone motifs in New England (1966). This seminal work began the focus on themes of social, economic and symbolic deductions that would be exemplified in the aims and works of the processualist school of archaeological thought. The works of Brown (1971), Chapman (1981) and O’Shea (1984) focus on finding and explaining difference and variability in mortuary practices through a hypothetic-deductive model and ethnographic studies. From this, cross-cultural regularities and generalisations are explored in order to create ‘correlations between archaeologically observable phenomena and archaeologically unobservable human behaviour’, i.e. middle range theory (Binford 1981 in Trigger 2006, pp. 32-4).

Saxe’s unpublished thesis ‘Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practice’ (1970) and Binford’s consequent article ‘Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential’ (1971) constitute the ‘Saxe-Binford’ approach to mortuary archaeology which argues that variability in mortuary practice in a society will vary with the social complexity of that society. Similarly, the concept of the ‘social persona’ explains mortuary variability by equating various dimensions of a person such as age, sex, social position and manner of death with archaeological correlates and complexity of mortuary treatment (Binford 1971 in Parker Pearson 1999, pp. 28-9). With greater social complexity comes a growth in the scale and diversity of the aspects of the social persona as demonstrated in mortuary ritual. Applied directly to patterns of memorialisation and grave monuments, the use of the ‘social persona’ framework can provide an interesting perspective. An analysis of a Las Vegas cemetery that tested Binford’s social persona framework demonstrates its partial success in explaining differences in mortuary memorialisation and remains an influential approach (Holz 1996).

These early approaches to analysing mortuary practices were applied firstly in prehistoric and pre-state societies and used biological information and grave goods; not gravestones and memorialisation. When applied to the historical period and its material remains, both the usefulness as well deficiencies of these approaches are highlighted. Critiques of the processualist approaches include the emphasis on vertical stratification, the issues with equating complexity with status and a heavy reliance on modern ethnography as methodology as it raises issues of generalisation and inaccuracy. Some of these issues were identified and addressed in the next wave of archaeological approaches to mortuary memorialisation.

Whilst archaeology’s first forays into considering what information can be derived from mortuary data focused on prehistoric sites, a growing consideration of historic sites demonstrated some of the issues with processualist approaches. By returning to what the cemetery and the gravestone as specific sites and artefact classes are able to tell archaeologists, Parker Pearson, McGuire and others of the wider ‘post-processualist’ trend, demonstrated the issues with assuming that the material unambiguously reflects the status and identity of the dead (McGuire 1988; Parker Pearson 1982, 1995, 1999). Instead, these scholars argue ‘that mortuary rituals are frequently utilized by the living to negotiate, display, mask, or transform actual power or social relations’ (McGuire 1988; Parker Pearson 1982, 1995, 1999; Rakita et al. 2005, p. 7).

The processualist concepts of the social persona and the reconstruction of social organisation are predicated on identifying roles and particular identities for people as represented in their mortuary memorialisation. Parker Pearson argues however that social systems and organisation are not determined by roles but are formed through recurrent social practice (Parker Pearson 1982, p. 100). Processualism treats identity and social relations as passive abstracts that are reflected in the material culture, rather than concepts that are negotiable, with the mortuary and funerary context as an ‘arena of activity’ for displays and assertions of power and status (Parker Pearson 1999, p. 84). All this leads to the principal maxim of post processualist mortuary archaeology, that is: the dead do not bury themselves. This approach has been particularly applicable to studies of memorialisation, commemoration and grave markers in the historical period, as seen in Parker Pearson’s examination of funerals and memorials in Cambridge in the Victorian Era through to modern times. He observes increasing investment of wealth in funerals and funerary material culture in Victorian times which is explained as part of the role of the death ritual as a type of social advertisement, necessary during the rapid changes of the Industrialisation of Britain to reaffirm, negotiate or conceal relations of power. Social values and stigma would lead all classes to participate in social competition (Parker Pearson 1982, 1999).

The study of cemeteries in the historical period has become increasingly formalised and legitimate as the archaeological potential of such sites is realised. Mytum (2000, 2004) has especially emphasised the value of mortuary monuments as being able to inform archaeologists on social dimensions such as identity and status through spatial, temporal and material analysis of mortuary monuments. Through advocating and developing methodologies for the recording and analysis of graveyards and their monuments, Mytum has made an invaluable contribution to the wider scholarship, encouraging rigorous and thoughtful analysis of sites (2000).

Recent archaeological scholarship has been geared more towards the refocus on the human response to death in the archaeological record as the most central and important (and oft neglected) line of enquiry. Emotional (Harris & Sørensen 2010; Tarlow 2000), experiential and phenomenological approaches (Muller 2006; Tilley 1994) have added depth to analyses of memorialisation.

The consideration of emotion in archaeological analysis of material remains of death and dying is predicated on the concept that if emotion can be considered to have a socially constructed facet that informs human interaction with the material, it has potential to be studied archaeologically (Gosden in DeMarrais, Gosden & Renfrew 2004; Tarlow & Nilsson Stutz 2013, p. 7).Tarlow has made an important and fascinating contribution to this concept through her work with the Orkney Graveyard Project (1999). By analysing over 3000 monuments to trace changes in commemoration over time, Tarlow demonstrates the archaeologist’s ability to deduce patterns in memorialisation to make meaningful observations. Through statistical analysis and examination of change in form and material of memorials and the analysis of the contents of inscription, such as the use of euphemisms and increase in relationships documented on gravestones, the role of affective emotion in the creation of monuments can be seen (Tarlow 1999). This methodology and approach has greatly influenced this work, particularly in informing a greater awareness of the archaeologist as a situated subject and of the emotional responses of humans as a way of looking at social relations that are not economically or politically deterministic (Tarlow 1999, pp. 22-3).

The review offered above of the development of scholarship in mortuary memorialisation draws upon from research across the world but has focused particularly on a western tradition of scholarship based in the United States and United Kingdom. However, research particular to Australia has been lacking. In the early 1990s, Connah identified the rich potential that historical cemeteries and gravestones offer for historical archaeology in Australia and lamented the lack of study undertaken, particularly compared to overseas sites (Connah 1993).

Cemetery and gravestone studies in Australia have primarily consisted of site histories (e.g. Weston, Burge & Sigrist 1989; Zelinka 1991), genealogical research and epitaph recordings (e.g. Cape Banks Family History Society 1992; Vine Hall 1993)undertaken by genealogists and historical societies. A primary goal for this category of research is identifying gravestones and combining the inscription with biographical information. Such works are created for general audiences and often aim to record for posterity. The interesting, biographical, often humorous

stories told in works like Brasch’s ‘Permanent Addresses: Australians Down Under’ (1995) and Gilbert’s ‘The Last Word: Two Centuries of Australian Epitaphs’ (Gilbert 2005) illustrate this approach and are important to remind us of the human stories that accompany cemeteries rather than depersonalising a site. Such research also has a tendency to be biased towards more notable and elaborate monuments and the more interesting stories, often at the expense of examining broader trends. This is appropriate for its intended audience and local histories but the potential of an archaeological approach is not realised. The material attributes of gravestones are rarely discussed in depth however a key exception can be found in the recordings of the Parramatta cemeteries, in which both inscription and discussion of material attributes are included (Dunn 1998;1991 in Mytum 2004, p. 6). Institutional or specialist cemeteries have similarly been subject to the same approaches, where historical investigation and perhaps transcription are the limits of research, see for example histories of the Coast Hospital (Cape Banks Family History Society 1992), Waterfall Sanatorium and Kenmore (Goulburn and District Historical Society 2003) amongst others.

Studies of funerary art and symbolism form another genre of research that more closely aligns to archaeological interest. The language and symbolism of motifs in cemeteries can be imbued with meaning; the history and interpretations of which have been outlined by Gilbert and others as has the history of changes in style and form of grave markers (Gilbert 1980; Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales 1981). Well studied cemeteries such as Rookwood have allowed for a more varied and holistic view of the cemetery as they encompass different lines of enquiry, not only biography, but architectural styles and symbolism and the site history (Weston, Burge & Sigrist 1989).

Culturally specific burial practices have also received attention in the scholarship. Kok’s (2005) study and transcription of Australian Chinese cemeteries provides an extensive resource that demonstrates cultural trends and traditions in burial but is mostly descriptive in nature. Other works of history are more successful at connecting to the material aspects of burial and are useful in contextualising the position of expatriate Chinese (see Abraham & Wegars 2003; Macgregor 1995; Ryan 1991) However these works lack a comparative element and deal with broad trends rather than exploring difference. The engagement with a theoretical body to frame possible explanations is similarly lacking.

Archaeological investigations of cemeteries are usually undertaken as rescue projects, for example, Old Sydney Burial Ground (Birmingham & Liston 1976; Mackay et al. 1997) or as assessment and survey projects (Thorp 1993) and therefore analysis is undertaken in terms of

assessing the significance of the site or recording for posterity. The nature of recovery work often does not allow for comparative and complementary research (Bell 1994, p. 10). The limitation of archaeological investigations of this type is in part due to the temporal and cultural closeness felt with historical ancestors (compared to ancient remains) and is affected by attitudes regarding the exhumation or disturbance of human remains; excavation is therefore rare (Connah 1993, p. 150). When it does take place, the emphasis is often placed on biological lines of enquiry as remains form the body of data. Conversely, some geomorphological study has also investigated the deterioration of headstones in a coastal setting in order to measure weathering processes, which in turn may assist with dating illegible grave markers (Dragovich 1997).

The previous studies of both Manly Cemetery and the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery reflect the outlined trends in the available literature. The Manly Cemetery has been transcribed, although in an abridged form, and has been the subject of a number of local histories and surveys (Berckelman 1993; Thompson 2005; Vine Hall 1993; Wohlwend 1998). The Third Cemetery’s history, significance and condition has been assessed as part of the responsibilities of various controlling government bodies whilst its archaeology has been recorded in conjunction with these motives and to assess and recommend strategies for the site (Gojak 1986; Gojak & Pullar 2006; Partners & Menses 1988). Kok’s (2005) work has included translating some of the Chinese graves at the Third Cemetery but is incomplete. No excavation has taken place at either site and more analytical or comparative research is yet to be undertaken.

However, a growing number of works concerning mortuary practices in Australia show a developing interest in expanding and utilising the potential of cemeteries and grave makers. Phenomenological approaches influenced by Tilley, have been applied to cemetery landscapes in Adelaide, emphasising the experiential aspect of cemeteries (Muller 2006) and applications of Tarlow’s (1999) methodologies highlight a burgeoning willingness to engage with the difficult but necessary consideration of emotion in the material culture of death and dying through analysis of inscriptions(Farrell 2003).

The scholarship in this area is therefore variable and intermittent. Well known cemetery sites attract research but rarely prioritise the materiality of the sites. Archaeological analysis, when carried out, is rarely done for its own sake. The possibilities and potential for comparative and work that attempts demonstrate variability or similarity can help shed light on various types of cemetery site and provide a more nuanced contribution to our understanding of patterns of mortuary memorialisation.

The relationship between text and material in historical archaeology can show dissonance, congruity or ambiguity and reference to both types of evidence gives a more holistic view of the relationship between what is said and what is done. As such, a brief overview of the historiography of death will assist in showing attitude to death drawn from primary documentary material and highlights the importance of the role that archaeological studies of memorialisation and commemoration will play. The actual historical background will be explored in Chapter 5 whilst this section will evaluate what has been covered in the history of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration in the historic period.

Despite often being categorised as a taboo subject, death has been well studied historically and sociologically. Numerous studies take a wide ranging overview including Ariès’ work ‘Western Attitudes Towards Death’ was considered a seminal work that draws out the wider trends in human responses to death from its familiarity to its designation as a taboo (1977).

In the Australian context, Jalland’s body of work on the social history of death and dying in Australia stands out as comprehensive in its scope and so forms a valuable resource to complement archaeological understandings of the materiality of death (Jalland 1999, 2002, 2006). Diaries, letters art, literature, newspapers and other personal sources are utilised to great effect to invoke a humanistic view of death throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The work covers both what is particular to Australia through an examination of the transmission of values from Britain to Australia, as well as considering variation within the created Australian ways of death and dying. Death in the bush, at sea and in asylums demonstrate comparative experiences of death in Australia and could be improved by a consideration of whether the material culture expresses differences also (Jalland 2002). Similarly, Jalland’s chapter on death in asylums has the potential to be expanded to consider death in institutions at large (Jalland 2002, pp. 199-218). Scholarship on migration and transportation often focuses on concepts of death at sea, ideas best capitulated by Haines (2003) and Reid (2011). This subsection of the literature is helpful in examining cultural responses that do not conform to a norm or ideal.

A more material engagement can be seen in utilising headstone inscriptions to supplement and support arguments, for example Straw’s look at Scottish identity in Tasmania through inscriptions and the assertion of cultural affiliations (Straw 2012). This could still be further enriched by archaeological considerations of form and style alongside the textual information.

Histories of cemeteries and gravestones are more often found in the site studies and literature as discussed in the previous section however memorialisation in connection to specific historical events attracts more scholarly interest. The prime example is the body of work on the memorialisation and commemoration of the First World War. Death on such a massive scale required the creations of new forms of mourning and dealing with grief. Damousi (1999) has written compellingly on the effects on those who mourned war losses however Inglis’ ‘Sacred Places’ (2008) brings to the fore the material correlates in his exploration of war memorials, the history of their creation, iconography, location and what meaning they have and how that has changed over time in Australian society. Similarly, Ziino (2007a, 2007b) explores the connection between the grieving process and the materiality of the gravesite and its disconnected location overseas.

This review of literature demonstrates how archaeological approaches to memorialisation stem from a wider consideration of mortuary practice. The scholarship examined here shows the development of archaeological thought in this area has reflected wider shifts in thinking in the discipline. Whilst earlier theorisation focused on social status and organisation, post-processualist and recent thinking aims to place the specificity of death, human reaction to dying and its associated material culture at the centre of its research.

Historical archaeology has been well placed to test and develop thinking about how and what social aspects can be derived from study of cemeteries and gravestones. However, in Australia, studies of memorialisation and the cemetery as a site type have been intermittent. Often comprehensive studies by genealogists and local history groups are valuable but do not address the unrealised archaeological potential. Archaeological studies where they do occur take place in rescue or survey circumstances and lack comparative analyses.

Historians have addressed Australian ways of death and dying in the historical period in relation to the cultural influences from Britain and have viewed change as a reflection of wider social trends however the materiality of memorialisation has been addressed only in limited ways.

What has yet to have been addressed by both historians and archaeologists is the complex ways in which the material and investment in monumental practice could be complicated by the liminal status of deceased, especially in institutional contexts such as quarantine.

The previous chapter demonstrated that cemetery studies in Australia often lack an interpretive element, and seek to record and describe but do not engage theory to form deeper analyses. This chapter presents a potential theoretical outline that when applied to archaeological considerations of mortuary memorialisation and the circumstances of quarantine, may offer insights into similarity and difference in the material fabric of the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. The concept of liminality, a betwixt and between state, can be used to characterise experiences of death and quarantine which leads us to question how might this multilayered ambiguity affect the material culture.

In this chapter, a brief examination of the roots of the concept of liminality will be explored followed by a consideration of its application in archaeology and specifically, mortuary archaeology. How this concept can then be applied to the quarantine process will be discussed.

Sociologist Arnold van Gennep’s seminal work Rite de Passage (1960) originated the sociological and anthropological tripartite framework that shows how multiple societies carry out ‘the rites that accompany every change of place, state, social position and age’ (Turner 1987). Van Gennep argued that at times of life-crisis, critical moments of transition and changes of state for individuals, a subject undergoes three phases:

1) separation; the removal of the subject from the mainstream 2) liminality; an ambiguous period of ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner 1967) and 3) incorporation; the reintroduction of subject into its new state

Birth, puberty, marriage and death are the main transitions discussed by van Gennep. In relation to topic of this thesis, his analysis of death is of most relevance. Van Gennep describes that ‘those funeral rites which incorporate the deceased into the world of the dead are most extensively elaborated and assigned the greatest importance’ (van Gennep 1960, p. 146). To demonstrate the rite de passage model, we can take death, in its historical western context, as our example. The separation would consist of the biological death, whereby the person is no longer living. The liminal period is characterised by ambiguity, in this case, the status of the dead; the body is physically present but devoid of life. Rituals such as the laying out of the body and

maintaining a vigil reflect the transitional stage. The processes of incorporation include a funeral and memorialising activities such as grave visitation, photographs and in memoriam columns and obituaries which help negotiate the status of the subject as they move from ‘living’ to ‘dead’. These activities help reincorporate the deceased into framework of understanding, such as social memory, thereby helping society to understand the death of a person. These processes may be recognised in the rituals described in the social history of death and mortuary memorialisation outlined in Chapter 5.

This tripartite framework has been criticised as overly simplistic and universalising; merely describing rituals as having a beginning, middle and an end. Thomassen (2009) counters this, arguing that the breadth of the rites de passage model is integral to allowing enough scope to demonstrate the similarity between different types of rituals in different types of cultures. Huntington and Metcalf highlight that human lives and culture cannot exist without moments of transition and therefore, there is a necessity in the definition of roles in cultural and social systems that the model provides (1979, p. 8). If transition exists as a universal, then the universality of the model can be seen to be justified (Huntington & Metcalf 1979, p. 8; Thomassen 2014). The fact that the concept has taken hold in such diverse domains of enquiry is evidence of the frequency, importance and relevance of rites of passage and liminality in the human experience.

Liminality, from the Latin limen, meaning ‘threshold’, was a concept expounded in the work of anthropologist Victor Turner (1987) who delved further into the characteristics of what it means to be ‘betwixt and between’. Turner made liminality a more defined and yet undefined category. By elaborating on the work of Van Gennep, Turner framed the definition of the liminal experience and explained the hyper-agency that exists when social structures are suspended. Simultaneously, the universalising and ambiguity of what it means to be liminal widened the concept from its place as the middle stage in concretely acted out ritual passages to allow it to be moulded and applied to all sorts of transitory contexts. As Hovarth writes, ‘the term captures something essential about the imprecise and unsettled situation of transitoriness’ (Hovarth, 2013 in Thomassen 2014, p. 2). This paved the way for the expansion of the model of liminality into disciplines outside of anthropology including literary theory and performance studies, history and gender and cultural studies.

Since this expansion of the concept, it has again more recently gained traction in scholarship, as academics have worked to give more definition to the characteristic of liminality, in order to use it as an interpretative framework. This has taken place primarily in anthropological studies

(Szakolczai 2009; Thomassen 2009, 2014) by considering the temporal and spatial features of liminality.

Table 3.1 outlines Thomassen’s model of the relationship between subjecthood and temporal dimension to characterise different types of liminality. Further to this, Thomassen (2014, p. 91) argues that liminality includes a spatial dimension and can relate to:

1. specific places such as thresholds, doorways 2. area, zones and ‘closed institutions’ (border areas between nations, monasteries, prisons, sea resorts, airports) 3. countries or larger regions, continents

Table 3.1 Model of types of liminality proposed by Thomassen (2009).

Using these ideas, studies of liminality have taken hold in sociological discussions of immigration and marginality (Hynes 2011) as well as a in political anthropology and discussions of modernity (Szakolczai 2009). It has found use in historical analysis of similar subjects, such as a treatise on isolation and exclusion that implicitly engages with this theme (Strange & Bashford 2003)

Thomassen raises an interesting question that arises when engaging in the concept of liminality: ‘whenever previously existing border or limits are lifted away or dissolve into fundamental doubt, the liminal presents itself with a challenge: how to cope with this uncertainty?’ (Thomassen 2014, p. 2). This is a vital question that evokes notions of continuity, change and the human reaction to transition. Consequently, the applicability to archaeology can be seen – how is the liminal represented or resolved materially?

Archaeology frequently engages with ideas of marginalisation, peripheries and the idea of ‘the other’. This implicitly overlaps with the concepts of liminality and its transitoriness but a model of liminality is rarely extracted as a primary organising principle.

Liminality can be applied to archaeology through connecting the social processes and rites described by van Gennep and others with the material culture required to support said processes. As Garwood states ‘rites of passage may thus be manifested in specific kinds of material cultural, spatially patterned placement of artefacts and distinctive architectural forms designed to guide and facilitate repeat performances’ (2011, p. 277). For example, in death, the ritual of depositing the body and ensuring the transition of the dead into the afterlife may require grave goods and other material culture to successfully negotiate the liminal stage.

Liminality is most often analysed and discussed in recent approaches to landscape archaeology. Prehistoric and historical Scandinavian landscapes, including cave sites, medieval boundaries and peripheral activity such as fishing settlements, have all considered in terms of their spatial liminality (Holm, Stene & Svensson 2008). Ritual landscapes and the architecture of ritualised action including boundaries, gateways, thresholds and portals and the way the material dictates ritual passage have also utilised the theme (Parker Pearson & Richards 1994) as has a study of the use of Upper Palaeolithic painted caves used for initiation rituals (Owens & Hayden 1997) (see Garwood 2011 for a comprehensive overview).

The most overt use of liminality in archaeology has been undertaken by Haour, who similarly argues that liminality has not been teased out as a core principle and reiterates that archaeology has focussed on spatial conceptions of liminality to attempt to access social liminality (Haour 2013, p. 17). In a study of the liminality of West Africa in the past millennium, Haour highlights diaspora merchants engaged in long distance trade and the liminal status afforded to craft specialists to start to identify the archaeological signature of an ‘outsider’.

Consideration of rites of passage and liminality in archaeology are often dominated by discussions of death when compared to other transitions such as birth and marriage rituals (Garwood 2011). In both prehistoric and historic contexts, the rite de passage structure and particularly the concept of liminality has been used to interpret and discuss burial ritual, iconography, religious belief and deviant burial behaviour.

In theoretical terms, concepts of being outside of a norm can be seen to have impacted upon early attempts to explain difference in mortuary treatment. The influence of liminality can be seen in Binford’s concept of the social persona (1971), whereby the social position of the person in life will have an impact on their treatment after death. Whilst it has been demonstrably proven that there is much more nuance involved in mortuary treatment than a direct reflection of life in death (see Holz 1996; McGuire 1988; Parker Pearson 1982), certain aspects of the social persona, such as an ambiguous status, can affect mortuary practice.

Finlay (2000) uses the concept of liminality to describe the ambiguous nature of infant death in the historic period in Ireland and the existence of the phenomenon of cillíní, or infant burial grounds. Finlay explains the infant is considered a category of ‘other’ and the deviation from normal life-course events including premature death and death before baptism, gives the infant an ambiguous, liminal status. This leads to their exclusion from normal patterns of mortuary treatment including exclusion from burial in consecrated ground, inhumation as opposed to cremation, and peripheral burial at roadsides and field corners, rather than a central position (Finlay 2000, pp. 408, 19). Logistically, cillíní may serve as a means of burial for those who could not afford another type and the fact they often do not have markers (or very simple markers where they do exist) may reflect the level of non-investment in a child burial, ‘turning the sites into passive memorials rather than places of active remembrance’ (Finlay 2000, p. 419). Similar peripheral treatment of victims of infanticide is documented, for example, disposal of remains in wells (Burnston 1982).

Differentiation in mortuary treatment can also be seen for those who are liminal in that they step outside the bounds of society. Reynolds in his study of patterns into divergent Anglo Saxon burial uses spatial analysis to determine outlying burials as deviant. The peripheral position of bodies and cemeteries as well as body position, such as prone, face down and decapitated bodies (treatment often reserved for executed criminals), mark out those that are not part of mainstream society (Reynolds 2009).

Suicide also does not conform to the expected deathways of numerous societies and cultures, many believing the soul of the deceased to be condemned to a purgatory or limbo, a liminal state, and as such, attracts a different kind of mortuary treatment. For example, until 1823, those who committed suicide in Britain were denied burial in consecrated ground and instead were interred at a crossroads, in some cases with wooden stakes driven through the body (Tsaliki 2008, p. 7).

These examples are based on excavation of human remains and still retain a focus on spatial analysis to demarcate the liminal. Historical period studies, and particularly studies of extant mortuary memorialisation, are yet to have been viewed through a lens of liminality. This project seeks to apply this concept to address this lacuna by engaging with some of the approaches used by the discussed literature, such as drawing upon spatial elements to discuss liminality, but importantly, move to further engage with the form of memorialisation. This includes investigating the material make up and size, inscription content and other elements of mortuary monuments (further outlined in Chapter 4) to consider both presence and absence of specific memorialising behaviour and to determine whether is there a departure or adherence to a ‘norm’ that would characterise a site and its archaeological record as liminal.

Firstly, the argument for quarantine to be considered liminal must be made before the material outcomes are assessed in the remainder of this thesis.

Using the model proposed by Thomassen (2009) in Table 3.1, quarantine would be characterised as a liminal ‘moment’ that could impact on each individuals, groups and societies. Disease events cause an interruption to society that quarantine seeks to prevent or resolve. Liminality in the quarantine experience is multilayered. As Huntington and Metcalf note, that when engaging with liminality, ‘there are transitions within transitions within transitions’ (Huntington & Metcalf 1979, p. 118). Not only are people moving through the tripartite structure of a medicalised system, but others such as the immigrant are undergoing their own rite of passage or as a patient, are subject to the obligations of the ‘sick role’ (Lupton 2012, pp. 4-5). Due to this nesting effect, a scope must be defined. Consequently, this section focuses on the system of quarantine as liminal although concurrent and alternate liminal experiences will become important in later analyses.

The first stage of separation occurs when people infected with a contagious disease and contacts are physically parted from the mainstream of society and are removed to a geographically

isolated area (Bashford 2004, p. 48; Maglen 2005, p. 200). The North Head Quarantine Station’s position at the opening of the harbour is at the very edge of the nation, and is separated by both constructed and natural barriers from its nearest metropolitan populace at Manly. In its role as a marine quarantine station, the North Head Quarantine Station functions literally as threshold, acting as the doorway that must be passed through for disease affected ships to be allowed into Sydney and permitted to join its population.

Whilst in quarantine, the inhabitants have an ambiguous health status, and must wait for symptoms to either present themselves or to subside. Whilst class and racial distinctions were still maintained, manifested in the use of segregated accommodation blocks, there is the broader split described by Turner between the ‘senior’, the system of medical governance and government employees running the quarantine station, and the ‘junior initiate’, the quarantined people, who defer to senior authority (Turner 1969, p. 95).

Material culture is an integral part of performing ritual, necessary to mark identity and status. Mark making practice in the sandstone rock faces that cover the Quarantine Station shows some of the negotiations in identity taking place through choices in inscription, for example, choosing to identify with a ship, a crew, other passengers, as an individual or as an immigrant (Clarke & Frederick, in press). Turner’s concept of communitas, (the formation of more egalitarian relations allowed by the ambiguity of status and sharing of the new common bond in a liminal phase) can be seen in an analysis of biography, positioning, formality, omission and inclusion in inscriptions (Clarke, Frederick & Williams 2010, pp. 87-8). North Head Quarantine Station’s assemblages of inscriptions are unique in the global context and constitute an example of the material trace of liminal events.

Quarantine also encompasses rituals of reincorporation; actions based on the medical ideologies of the time that are designed to transform the sick patient, object or place into a healthy one. Procedures such as medical assessment, disinfectant showering, vaccination and the fumigation of goods and ships are attempting to cure the sick and prevent the spread of disease. The built environment also structured historic movement through the site; moving upon arrival through luggage stores and the disinfectant showers and segregation into ‘healthy ground’ and ‘sick ground’, thereby crafting the liminal experience. Quarantine is also temporally defined, traditionally consisting of a forty day period, which allows either for the presentation of symptoms or the incubation period of the disease to pass (Mackowiak & Sehdev 2002). When this temporal moment has elapsed, the healthy or recovered are able to cross the quarantine boundaries to join society at large.

Having established quarantine as a liminal experience and place, we can return Thomassen’s question of coping with ambiguous liminality. When death occurs in the liminal period of quarantine, are the rites and rituals already associated with a ‘normal’ death able to take over?

I would suggest, based on the connection between liminal circumstances and differential mortuary treatment borne from an examination of the literature, that in contrast to a municipal cemetery, the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery will show differences in mortuary memorialisation Manly Cemetery, as a metropolitan cemetery, should have recognisable correlation with the expected rites that occur in the mortuary context whilst the Third Cemetery, with the isolation and global demography of people associated with quarantine, would likely exhibit differences in cultural indicators and overall less investment and higher deterioration in mortuary memorialisation.

Figure 3.1 Chart describing the tripartite structure of the rite de passage and its correlates in the circumstances of death and quarantine. The question posed is whether the specific circumstances of quarantine and death in the liminal period will lead to a distinct pattern of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration.

The tripartite rite of passage structure, characterised by a separation, liminality and incorporation, has been developed in anthropology and sociology but has found parallels for use in archaeology to explain and describe ritual materials and landscapes. In order to answer the research question as to whether circumstances of quarantine produce different types of mortuary memorialisation, quarantine has been argued to contain a liminal period, with death taking place within this ambiguous moment. Having examined how liminality has been used as an interpretive framework in archaeology, it can be seen that those who die in liminal circumstances can often receive different mortuary treatment. Consequently, a material difference between the liminal Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery is hypothesised.

The following chapter outlines the methodology used to record and compare the archaeological record at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery to Manly Cemetery before the results of the historical investigation and fieldwork are discussed

This chapter describes the methodology used to collect and analyse the data from the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. As the majority of the data for this thesis was based in primary research, the processes of fieldwork are documented as well as a rationale for the choice in comparative site and sampling strategy. The categories of analysis to be used and how they will be used to answer the research aims are outlined.

As the primary aim of this research was to explore the effects of quarantine and liminality on material commemorative patterns and practices, a comparison to a site that is judged not to be subject to the same processes is required to assess if similarity or difference is present in such patterns.

Manly Cemetery provides a suitable comparison as its geographical proximity to the North Head Quarantine Station ensures that the two sites operated within the same broader social, political and cultural context. Its earliest use dates from 1845 and continues throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, being used concurrently with the Third Cemetery. It is an example of a municipal and government gazetted general cemetery and exemplifies the characteristics of a Victorian cemetery (Thompson 2005). This prescribes Manly as a ‘typical’ cemetery and therefore suitable to compare the highly specialised and institutional use of the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery as it can be established that the key differences between the sites are the liminal processes of quarantine.

The Quarantine Station Third Cemetery constitutes the primary dataset for this research and as such, the aim was to record what survives of the Third Cemetery in its entirety. In the face of deterioration and the overrunning of the cemetery, all visible and accessible gravestones above ground were recorded, totalling 68 grave markers. However, it is known that the collected dataset does not encompass the entire material record that existed originally in situ at the site. Photographic records and earlier survey reports note the presence of grave markers that were unable to be relocated in the current period of fieldwork (Gojak 1986; Gojak & Pullar 2006). Of the 241 recorded burials at the Third Cemetery, the 68 surviving memorials equate to approximately 28.2% of the deceased having a surviving grave marker, although names cannot be confirmed for each.

In contrast to the limited number of remains at the Quarantine Station, Manly Cemetery contains at least 3000 monuments across an area covering approximately 2.6 hectares (Gojak & Pullar 2006). Its largely intact condition and size meant that for logistical concerns and management of data, a sample would be required. A structured random sample was selected using the Manly Cemetery burial registers, as transcribed by a team of volunteers for the Manly Library local history studies.

In order to extract a comparable sample, the burials that took place between 1881 and 1925, the same time span as the operation of the Third Cemetery, were isolated from the register data. This totalled 3372 burials and forms a dataset that will be used to examine wider trends. However for a more manageable archaeological sample, this dataset required further focussing.

Figure 4.1 Gravestone of John Baptist Adonis, an example of a gravestone known to have existed at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery but unable to be relocated during fieldwork. Photo: Jean Duncan Foley, c.1970s-80s. A survey area was selected that encompassed the original Hill Street end of the cemetery. The area selected covered all three categories of denomination (Church of England, Catholic and General or Mixed Denomination) present at the cemetery. In this area, there are 1681 burials recorded in the registers, 898 names of which are recorded on grave markers. As the objective of the sample was to examine the materiality of commemoration, the strategy focussed on these 898 plots with grave markers in situ. This introduces bias but for the purpose of this thesis, can be justified. The fact that Manly Cemetery also exhibits a loss of monuments over time is recognised. The 898 entries were randomised and the details of 68 gravestones extracted to be recorded during fieldwork. This sample represents approximately 2% of the overall total number

of monuments in Manly Cemetery and 7.8% of the recorded names with grave markers in the selected survey area.

Figure 4.2 Survey areas (blue) selected within Manly Cemetery (red). Yellow areas represent Church of England sections, green represents Catholic and purple signifies General sections. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012.

Whilst some previous archaeological survey (Gojak 1986) and the work of genealogists and historians (Vine Hall 1993), has been undertaken at each site, the level of detail recorded would not be sufficient for a more in-depth analysis. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency and comparability of data, primary research was undertaken at both the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery.

Data collection began with the designing of a recording form (see Appendix B). This was adapted from a recording form used by the University of Sydney’s Stories from the Sandstone Project to record the sandstone inscriptions that cover the quarantine landscape at North Head. The use of this form ensured a consistent level and standard of recording across the landscape and allowed for the data collected from this thesis to contribute to a larger study of the North Head Quarantine Station. Additionally, the work of Mytum (2000, 2004) and other field guides

(Burke & Smith 2005, p. 350; Jones, J 1984) and their methodologies for recording historical graveyards were consulted to ensure a comprehensive collection of data. This also ensured that widely accepted archaeological standards in recording were upheld. Additions and adaptions to the standard data fields used in such graveyard studies were included to collect data to address the key concerns of this thesis; for example noting whether a cause of death or disease is mentioned.

Table 4.1 Description of the fields used to collect data.

Data Categories Variables Site Information GPS coordinate Vegetation Internal cemetery record number Project record number Gravestone Information Material Shape/ typology of the gravestone Grave type (single, double or group interment) Grave furniture Border, fences, kerbing Measurements of height, width/thickness and length Inscription Information Font type Font size Font technique Motif type and description Language Inscription Content Transcription of inscription, noting  date of birth  date of death  age  place of origin  cause of death or disease  dedicator  epitaphs

In order to ensure consistency in these data fields, several sources were consulted. The National Trust of Australia’s guidelines for recording cemeteries (2009) were used for identifying the typology of gravestones (see Appendix D). The Council for Scottish Archaeology’s field recording standards and guides for identifying and recording gravestone materials was also utilised (Council for Scottish Archaeology 2007).

The data fields included site information, gravestone information, inscription information and inscription content as well as fields for notes and sketches. Table 4.1 outlines the specific attributes recorded.

Concerted effort was made to ensure consistency in recording standard to ensure the validity of conclusions made from comparison. The GPS coordinates were taken from the middle of headstones or middle of ledger stones with a Garmin eTrek 10 GPS unit and calibrated for a minimum of one minute at each separate recording to increase accuracy of the readings. Similarly, measurements of gravestones required careful consideration to ensure consistency. Detailed measurements were recorded on accompanying sketches whilst the measurements that are used in the analysis are the highest, longest and widest points of the grave marker in order to give an overall impression of the size and space occupied by a gravestone in the landscape. Height measurements did not include the plinth (see Appendix D) as this is often set within the earth and therefore data may be skewed by different levels of erosion of surrounding soil. Appendix D further details the recording conventions and typologies used.

A detailed sketch was included for the Third Quarantine Station Cemetery grave markers in order to highlight aspects of the gravestones not visible in photography and provide an interpretive impression of the gravestone (see Figure 4.3). The visibility of engraved inscriptions is heavily dependent on preservation and lighting conditions. By moving around and interacting with the gravestone to reveal different features, a sketch with more detail was able to be produced to complement the photographic record.

The Manly Cemetery dataset, with its higher degree of preservation of inscription, was photographed but not sketched. The combination of the transcription of inscriptions and photographic record allowed an appropriate level of detail to be recorded within the time constraints of the project. Photos were taken with a scale bar with intervals of 10cm.

The raw data was compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, contained in Appendix A.

Figure 4.3 Example of the detailed sketches of gravestones conducted as part of the recording methodology. Clockwise from top: HS040, HS040, HS007, HS001.

The recorded data has been analysed along four main lines of enquiry; the materiality, temporal patterns, spatial organisation and inscription content. Temporal and spatial analysis is supplemented by the use of secondary data from the burial registers of each cemetery to provide a comparison to trends from a larger dataset. The discussion of this data in Chapter 7 will draw in secondary and historical sources as outlined in the historical investigation (Chapter 5), to compare wider social trends in attitudes to what is observed in the material record. As these categories are broad, in order to focus on the link between the material and the liminal processes of quarantine, specific questions to be asked of the data are outlined below.

SPSS and Excel have been used to calculate, analyse and present results. In order to determine whether comparisons between the sites were significant, the data has been analysed using independent sample t-tests and exact p-values given.

The materiality of commemoration manifests itself primarily through gravestones and grave furniture. By quantifying attributes of the gravestones at each site, comparisons can be made. The overall size of the memorials as well as the popularity of specific types or forms and material will be compared. An assessment of complexity will also be made through quantifying the number of materials, font types and inscription elements that are used in a single monument. Burial types will also be compared such as the number of occurrences of single, double and group interments.

The analysis of temporal patterning has excellent applicability to this research in demonstrating changes over time in patterns of memorialisation and commemoration. By quantifying the number of monuments for each year, periods of increased and decreased usage of the cemeteries can be determined and compared. Similarly, an examination of the popularity of types of material used over time at each site can show congruence or dissonance with historical funerary trends.

Not only do individual headstones have archaeological potential but also their wider context and relationship to one another. The cemetery landscape and its organisation will be studied through mapping and secondary data such as historical photography and maps. The organisation of the cemetery landscape by denomination, family groupings, in rows or clusters and the aspect of the graves will be considered.

Inscription content includes data that is derived from text recorded on grave markers. The objective of this category of analysis is not to derive all possible information about the person interred, rather it is to determine what recurring elements are considered important, necessary or conventional to include in the creation of a memorial. The content of inscriptions will be analysed influenced by Tarlow’s examination of sentiment and emotional attitudes in material culture (1999). Calculating different languages used, numbers of names commemorated on memorials, the presence of a an epitaph, a named cause of death and places of origin can also be used as points of comparison and can be linked back to possible impacts of the quarantine process.

The methodological approach outlined here fulfils this research’s aims to accurately and thoroughly record the archaeology of two comparable graveyards. From the data collected, an analysis of the materiality of the gravestones, the temporal and spatial aspects of the sites and a consideration of the content of inscriptions will be used to postulate similarity and differences in patterns of memorialisation at each of the sites. The discussion will assess these analyses in light of the framework of liminality and in relation to the social and cultural context in order to answer the research question.

This chapter will investigate the historical attitudes to death and dying in Australia, as well as a brief history of quarantine and the medical ideologies that underpin it. It will cover the general trends in the period 1881 to 1925; the period in which the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery operated. Additionally, the archaeological implications will be considered, as well as how they may relate to the material at Manly Cemetery and the Third Cemetery. The results from this chapter will then be utilised in conjunction with the results of the fieldwork survey to discuss the research question. Establishing the social and historical background is therefore important in contextualising the data and in determining whether the material remains of the two sites conforms, or shows difference to what is known from the historical record.

This section describes the changing attitudes to death and the material consequences of such attitudes. This includes ideals about the manner of death, appropriate behaviour, mourning rituals and fashions in material culture. The 35 year time span investigated here allows for an examination of the major changes in mortuary trends over a generation. This includes the end of the elaborate Victorian age, its transition into the more secular and private mortuary trends of federated Australia and issues in mortuary practice brought about by the Great War.

Differences in memorial practices are influenced by social class, religion and cultural affiliation; but in all cases materiality is integral for the rituals that accompany death, as it marks a person in space and time (Mytum 2014). It is important to emphasise there are no universal responses to death, and consequently this chapter seeks to outline the general and typical characteristics.

Death was a more prominent and visible part of life in nineteenth century Australia, with high mortality rates and low life expectancy. In the 1880s, an estimated 90 per cent of infants might live to twelve months, whilst only about 78 per cent reached adulthood (Jalland 2006, p. 4). With the ever presence of death, religious, cultural and social practices adapted to cope. This resulted in a rich religious involvement in death and an elaborate set of practices and material culture.

One of the strongest influences on attitudes towards dying was the Evangelical Protestant concept of the ‘good death’, an ideal model of death that was transmitted from England and

Europe. Jalland demonstrates how many middle class families attempted to recreate this ideal in the colony (2002, p. 51). A ‘good death’ required several elements; it should take place in the home, surrounded by a loving family, and the dying person needed to show fortitude in the face of physical suffering and ideally remain conscious and lucid, with ‘time, and physical and mental capacity, for the completion of temporal and spiritual business’ (Jalland 2002, p. 52). Deaths that did not fit this model including sudden, unfortunate and accidental death, were met with anxiety and regret (Jalland 2002, p. 61). Such an attitude is relevant to the circumstances of death in quarantine.

The attitudes and values towards death in the late nineteenth century required a vast and varied material culture to support its mortuary memorialisation and commemorative rituals, such as mourning material, cemeteries and cemetery landscapes and gravestones (Mytum 2004, p. 35).

The second half of the nineteenth century saw a change in choice of burial location. Churchyard overcrowding and a newfound focus and design philosophy of the tranquillity and beauty of landscapes saw a rise in secular landscaped cemeteries, memorial parks and lawn cemeteries (Gilbert 1980, p. 17; Jalland 2002, p. 145; Loudon 1981 [1843]; Mytum 2004, p. 42). Consequently, the municipal landscape cemetery, as opposed to the churchyard of a specific religion, required the creation of segregated denominational sections, as can be seen at Manly Cemetery (Mytum 2004, p. 52).

The layout of the grave itself also has material implications. Christian burials, for example are traditionally orientated with the head at the west and feet at the east, so the deceased can rise to face the east on Judgement Day. The grave serves several commemorative purposes as a physical location for appropriate ritual and a site for remembrance. This provides a connection to the decease and evokes ‘a sense of closeness to the dead, and thus [graves] became shrines which kept alive the memory of the loved one’ (Jalland 2002, p. 144). Grave visitation was an essential ritual that reemphasised the physical connection whilst commemorative practices such as leaving flowers, photos and maintaining the grave, speak of a sense of continuity and a duty towards the memory of the dead.

The gravestone provided a defined locus for commemorative practice whilst the style and materiality of the gravestone formed part of this practice itself. Monumental masonry firms became well established in the early nineteenth century and tombstone design became increasingly standardised (Jalland 2002, p. 122) In Sydney, well known firms such as the Andrews Bros., Cunningham, Ross & Bowman and George Watters at Manly offered a range of established monument types including upright slabs, horizontal slabs, pillars and obelisks, crosses, desk monuments and sculpture (see Appendix D for the typology used in this project).

Figure 5.1 Advertisement for T. Andrews & Sons monumental masons. Source: Sands Directory 1898. Gravestone shapes and forms in the late Victorian era favoured ornateness and symbolic design and utilised Roman and Greek Classicism and Gothic revival architectural styles (Weston, Burge & Sigrist 1989). The upright headstone was the most popular form (Mytum 2004, p. 63). The late nineteenth century was the peak period for monumental sculpture with the most popular forms being angels, urns and allegorical figures (National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee 2009, p. 27). In Sydney, popular materials for headstones included local sandstone and imported marble and granite (Gilbert 1980). Due to its availability, sandstone remained popular throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

A language of symbols also permeated the culture of mortuary memorialisation, both through motifs and as part of the form of a memorial. Care must be taken to consider the role of the living in the creation of memorials and not to read meaning where there may be none, therefore symbolism can be considered as evidence but not proof (National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee 2009, p. 37; Parker Pearson 1999). Despite this, conventions exist for expressing different elements of a social persona. Religious affiliation could be expressed with a cross or Star of David for example, whilst cultural connections may be seen in an Irish shamrock or Scottish thistle. Group affiliations, such as the compass and set square symbol can indicate belonging to the Masons, or military insignia can denote service. Symbols were also used to communicate aspects of the death or deceased. For example, the broken column or flowers with a broken stem denote ‘a life cut short’, unopened buds tell of potential life, whilst skulls and hour glasses were reminders of mortality (Griffin & Tobin 1997, p. 92; Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales 1981; Keister 2004; National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee 2009, p. 34). Whilst their popularity peaked in the early and middle Victorian age, the use of symbolism persists as part of mortuary material culture.

Inscription design and choice offer another way people communicated belief and identity on gravestones. Formulaic inscriptions focused on memory rather than mortality. The most common dedications were ‘in memory of’ and later replaced by ‘in affectionate memory of’ and ‘in loving memory of’ (Mytum 2004, p. 80). Tarlow argues that this is part of the nineteenth century rise of affective individualism which led to an increase in emotionally charged epitaphs that incorporated themes of reunion and sleep as well as a euphemistic treatment of death (1999).

 Denominational areas in landscaped cemeteries  Christian east-west burial alignment  Decorative, ornate gravestones, use of symbolism and sculptural headstones  Vases, photos, flowers and other commemorative material culture at grave  Formulaic inscriptions, emotional language and featuring family relationships

The turn of the century shows a marked change in the attitudes and consequent material culture of mortuary memorialisation. Public and overt expressions of grief and elaborate material culture gave way to more privatised commemorations and simple memorials. Changes in demographics,

religious belief and medical approaches served to remove death from the everyday, resulting in a ‘denial of death’ that contrasts against its public presence in the Victorian age.

Jalland identifies demography and religion as the two major agents in the shift from public and overt to private and simple (2006, p. 4). From the 1880s, mortality rates declined whilst life expectancy and infant survival rates increased. For the first time, people were more likely to die at an old age and increasingly in hospitals, rather than at home. Increasing secularism in society’s approaches to death was encouraged by advances in medicine and the attribution of death to specific causes rather than God’s will (Jalland 2006, p. 196). There was also a move away from a Christian model of dying. Instead of a sudden death being considered ‘bad’, it is seen as ‘freedom from prolonged suffering and…meant that the dying person was unaware of imminent death’ (Jalland 2006, p. 196).

The material culture changed alongside these shifts in attitude. Many of the patterns from the late nineteenth century, such as denominational segregation, the landscaped lawn cemetery and types of materials used for monuments continued into the twentieth century. Other traditions, such as the use of iconography and euphemistic memory-centred language can still found although at a less intense level. Gravestone forms and decoration in this period tend towards simplicity and austerity (Weston, Burge & Sigrist 1989, p. 39) Lower headstone styles became popular, size of monuments reduced and large sculptured scenes became rarer (Mytum 2004, p. 95). As death becomes more removed, there is less expenditure on material memorialisation (Mytum 2004, p. 102).

Cremation became an acceptable burial practice, impacting upon the cemetery landscape with the introduction of crematoria and columbarium (Damousi 1999, p. 10). This is seen by Ariès as a telling sign of the ‘denial of death’ in the twentieth century, as it removes interactions and evidence of the corpse and therefore avoids confrontation with the reality of death (Ariès 1977). Cooke sees the acceptability of cremation as a new understanding of death. This stems from a lack of intimacy with death, greater understanding of medical science and hygiene and a shift in religious focus from resurrection of the flesh to the importance of the soul (Cooke 1991).

 Simple, smaller and more austere headstone forms  Secular epitaphs  Lawn and landscaped cemeteries

 Columbarium for housing of ashes, crematoria, urns

The First World War had a major impact on patterns and attitudes to memorialisation and commemoration, accelerating and crystallising the aforementioned trends.

Approximately 60 000 Australians were killed in World War I and about 25 000 Australians who died in action were never identified and have no known burial place (Jalland 2006, pp. 41-2). Such wide scale loss and grief in conjunction with a policy of not repatriating remains resulted in the challenges of ‘the distant grave’, which required new forms of material expression (Ziino 2007a, p. 248; 2007b). This occurred at national, local and personal levels (Tarlow 1997, p. 111).

Material public commemoration manifested itself in the formalisation of war memorials. Inglis chronicles the rise and trends of this phenomena and explores differences in design choice, such as the focus on sacrifice, location, social and cultural contexts of their creation and how war memorials can be initiatives of nations, institutions or local communities (Inglis 2008).

The Imperial (now Commonwealth) War Graves Commission (CWGC) was officially established in May 1917 by Royal Charter and exemplifies the creation of mortuary memorialisation at a national level. The Commission was created to ensure the recording and maintenance of the final resting places of war casualties from the empire. Frederic G. Kenyon’s 1918 report regarding the proposed form of war graves and cemeteries set out the guiding principles for commemorating the war dead, both ideologically and materially.

One of the key principles established in this report was equal treatment. Kenyon argued that ‘the monuments of the more well-to-do would overshadow those of their poorer comrades; the whole sense of comradeship and of common service would be lost... what was done for one should be done for all’ (Kenyon & Great Britain Commonwealth War Graves Commission 1918, p. 6). Therefore the material result is that ‘each of the dead should be commemorated individually by name either on the headstone on the grave or by an inscription on a memorial; that the headstones and memorials should be permanent; that the headstones should be uniform; that there should be no distinction made on account of military or civil rank, race, or creed’ (Francis 2004). Although the choice to individually commemorate or repatriate remains was denied to families, the Commission allowed for a personalising choice of epitaph to adorn the bottom of the gravestone (Tarlow 1997). These trends are relevant to the commemoration of 14 Australian servicemen and other military personnel interred at the Third Cemetery.

Figure 5.2 Left: CWGC grave at Tyne Cot, featuring the service number of the deceased, followed by rank, name, regiment or ship, date of death and age. A regimental badge and a cross or appropriate religious symbol occupy the central part of the stone (Tarlow 1997, p. 111). Right: Tyne Cot Cemetery. Source: Department of Veterans Affairs [http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/zonnebeke/visiting-tyne-cot.php#]. Whilst these public war memorials and war cemeteries were one way of providing a material space and place for commemoration, this was often inadequate at a personal level. Families of deceased soldiers developed another type of memorialisation which included the ‘in memoriam’ columns of newspapers and a material culture of ‘relics’ including letters, photographs, personal effects and photos of the final resting place of their relative (Damousi 1999, pp. 18-9). Family gravestones were often appended with the names of sons, brothers and fathers who died overseas (Tarlow 1997, p. 112). Such a practice will be shown to be present at Manly Cemetery.

In contrast to the patterns of memorialisation for battlefield dead, both at the site of the body and at home, Larsson’s work draws attention to the differences in modes of grief and the disenfranchised nature of bereavement for families of soldiers who died in the post war period (Larsson 2009). Unlike the ‘cut down’ heroic battlefield dead, returned men often endured long periods of suffering before death whilst families also struggled to gain official and social legitimisation, and support as war bereaved. However, the families of post-war dead were united in the fact that they did not suffer the same ‘distant grief’ and could ‘grieve in the presence of a body and could exercise a high degree of control over funeral and burial arrangements’ (Larsson 2009, p. 87). Larsson identifies the Returned and Services League (RSL) as a primary source for the legitimisation of returned servicemen’s post war death. This also has archaeological implications as the RSL also participated in the creation of memorials and the upkeep of the graves of ex-servicemen. A disparity between the care for overseas graves compared to the

haphazard management of war graves in Australia contributed to further differentiation between ‘types’ of war dead, with the RSL providing the care and recognition of the latter (Larsson 2009, p. 91). This is relevant to the processes of memorialisation at the Third Cemetery after it ceased being used actively.

The Great War also impacted upon civilian mortuary practices, whereby the senseless loss of so many soldiers overseas made deaths at home seem insignificant. This resulted in the sentiment that grandiose displays of funeral pageantry for civilians were ‘self-indulgent and even immoral’ (Jalland 2002, p. 305). Therefore a simpler, more restrained approach to mortuary memorialisation developed.

 Public war memorials for communal commemoration  Overseas war cemeteries  Standardised CWGC headstones  Personal (e.g. photos, letters) and official mementos ( e.g. Memorial Plaque, known as a ‘dead man’s penny’)  Appending of names on family headstones

The fabric of Australian society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century consisted of a variety of cultures and ethnicities. The Chinese formed one of the most visibly different groups and relations between the Chinese population and colonists have often been a major topic of research. The presence of Chinese gravestones at the Third Cemetery attests to the flow of different people and cultures through the Quarantine Station and raises the issues of potential cultural differences in burial practice.

Burials in China would be the responsibility of the family of the deceased and an ideal burial would consist of three parts. Firstly, after death, the body would be buried relatively quickly, usually outside the home village on a burial hill in a shallow grave. This interment is temporary, as after time has passed for the worldly flesh to decompose, the spiritually important bones are exhumed (Jack in Macgregor 1995). Finally, the bones are then placed in an urn which is housed in the family vault, arranged using the principles of feng shui (Abraham & Wegars 2003, p. 58). Commemorative practice primarily takes place during Qing-ming, the spring festival, where

family will visit the ancestral tomb to leave offerings of food and drink and burn incense (Abraham & Wegars 2003, p. 58; Jones, DY-C 2001, p. 1).

Figure 5.3 Advertisement for repatriation,Tung Wah News, 4 February 1899, p. 4. Courtesy of John Wu. Across Australia there are numerous examples of specific historical Chinese burial grounds as well as Chinese sections in general cemeteries (Jack in Macgregor 1995). Treated as the ‘other’ in society also extended to treatment in death and ‘many Christians refused to allow 'heathen' Chinese to be buried in consecrated ground or required that they were buried in fenced off 'Chinese' or 'alien' areas’ (Ryan 1991, p. 12). Expatriate Chinese burials attempted to conform to the familiar rituals and processes that would be undertaken at home. ‘Rituals must be held, even in the absence of family, and steps must be taken to restore the deceased to the home village’ (Abraham & Wegars 2003, p. 59). This can be seen through repatriation services and benevolent funeral societies run within Chinese communities. Chinese newspapers advertised these services and ‘mention the sad fate of the deceased turning into “hungry ghosts” if their bones are not repatriated’ (Ryan 1991, p. 8; Wu, John 2014a).

Chinese gravestones and their inscriptions typically share a set of key features which include the necessary details required if the bones of the deceased are to be repatriated. Firstly, an identifying name or information about the deceased is usually recorded in the middle of the stone in larger characters than surrounding writing. On the left (or east) a date of death is usually recorded and finally on the right (west) is the record of the ancestral village of the deceased (Jones, DY-C 2001, p. 1). Local laws and customs also needed to be considered in trying to adhere to a traditional burial programmes. In some cases, local health concerns objected to the shallow eighteen inch (0.5 m) graves that were employed for easier exhumation, instead of the traditional six foot deep grave (Minnick 1988, p.293 in Abraham & Wegars 2003, p. 60).

Figure 5.4 Chinese gravestone at Rookwood Cemetery, showing conventions for inscriptions. Source: Jones (2001).

 Headstone identifying ancestral village  Incense burners and other offerings and material culture for commemorative practice  Shallow burial, approximately 0.5m deep  Adherence to feng shui principles in spatial organisation

The processes of quarantine have its earliest roots in the Middle Ages and the thirteenth century plague epidemics. The word ‘quarantine’ comes from the Italian quarante , referring to the forty day period ships and people were detained and isolated during plague outbreaks in attempts to curb the spread of the disease (Mackowiak & Sehdev 2002). Quarantine therefore refers to the ‘compulsory physical separation, including restriction of movement, of populations or groups of healthy people who have been potentially exposed to contagious disease, or to efforts to segregate these persons within speciﬁc geographical areas’ (Barbera et al. 2001, p. 2712). It is underpinned by the concept that disease is spread by close contact.

A consideration of how disease and quarantine relate to death in the historical record is outlined here in order to contextualise the circumstances in which mortuary memorialisation took place at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery.

As an island nation, regulation of Australia’s borders has been a primary concern since colonial times. Quarantine, as one strategy of control, can be seen in the national quarantine network that formalised in the early twentieth century. Other major quarantine stations include Torrens Island in South Australia, Point Nepean in Victoria, Woodman Point in Western Australia and Peel Island in Queensland. North Head however is one of the earliest places of quarantine in Australia and one of the first formalised stations (see Chapter 1). The station dealt with a number of maritime and terrestrial quarantines and its usage peaked at times of disease outbreak. Table 5.1 details the major epidemics that Sydney and the Quarantine Station experienced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is pertinent to establishing temporal trends in numbers of death in Sydney and relative use of the Third Cemetery and quarantine infrastructure.

Table 5.1 Major epidemics in nineteenth and twentieth century Sydney

Epidemic Epidemiology Impacts Smallpox  163 people infected The outbreak was first detected in the house of a Chinese 1881-82  41 deaths merchant in George Street, fuelling out of proportion  52 cases and 94 contacts hysteria. Already strong anti-Chinese sentiments were were quarantined at North exemplified and Chinese suspects were more often than Head (Curson 1985, pp. 90- their European counterparts forcibly removed to North 2) Head and were segregated in quarantine (Curson 1985, pp. 112-4).  One of many outbreaks in

Sydney’s history The epidemic was pivotal in the creation of a public

health administration including the commissioning of the

Coast Hospital, the creation of a Board of Health, an Infectious Disease Act and later the 1881 Royal Commission into conditions at the North Head Quarantine Station (Bashford 2004, p. 42; Curson 1985, p. 91; New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882; New South Wales. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station & "Faraway". 1882). Asiatic Flu  Affected hundreds of The sheer number of cases and difficulty in identifying 1890-91 thousands mild forms of the disease meant that the methods such as  234 deaths quarantine and fumigation that were introduced during  ‘Asiatic’ flu was named so the smallpox epidemic, were impossible to put into effect due to the belief that the (Curson 1985, p. 31). North Head Quarantine Station was strain originated in Asiatic not used in this epidemic; rather the rest of Sydney’s Russia (Curson 1985, pp. hospitals and institutions bore the brunt of the care of 124-5) sufferers.

Bubonic  103 deaths Like the smallpox epidemic, the Chinese community were Plague  In excess of 1800 people vilified as the originators and spreaders of the plague 1900 quarantined, many forced whilst the epidemic was sensationalised in the media by police and health causing widespread fear and panic (Curson 1985, pp. 158- authorities (Curson 1985, p. 9). Official response to the epidemic included 151). quarantining, a program of rat extermination, vaccination  One of ten outbreaks and slum clearance. between 1900 and 1922, totalling more than 600 cases and 196 deaths (Curson 1985, p. 137).

Pneumonic  Devastating worldwide Official responses to the epidemic included instituting (Spanish) impact, killing between 50 preventative measures such as prohibition of larger Influenza and 100 million, affecting gatherings of people such as church services, the 1918-19 an estimated 25-30% of the compulsory wearing of masks and the quarantining of world’s population (Curson cases and contacts (Curson & McCracken 2003, p. 116). & McCracken 2006, p. All vessels arriving in Australian ports from Africa and 103). New Zealand were required to undergo a period of  300,000 people infected in quarantine. As many as thirteen vessels were moored in Sydney Spring Cove at the one time (Foley 1995, p. 110).  3,500 deaths (Curson & McCracken 2006, p. 119)

Quarantine, it has been stated, is underpinned by medical ideologies of separation and disease transmission. This is apparent in the very fabric of the site and affects the types of operations, processes and treatment that took place. The Quarantine Station was not only geographically isolated but also internally segregated into Healthy Ground and Sick Ground to separate the

diseased from contacts. Theories of disease transmission, primarily the shift from miasma to germ theory, also affected operations, such as the use fumigation and disinfectant showering procedures. It follows that treatment of the bodies of victims of infectious disease are directly informed by theories of disease transmission and result in pragmatic choices in burial treatment. However a review of the historical record also reveals the influence of cultural norms.

Many of these attitudes and their archaeological correlates are revealed by a Royal Commission into conditions at the site following the mishandling of the 1881 smallpox epidemic. The commission investigated allegations of offensive smells emanating from the second burial ground, as well as concerns regarding shallow burials (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882, p. 1776). This reveals a concern about miasmas and the ability of the disease body to act as a vector. Similarly, the bodies of victims the 1900 plague epidemic, who died in Sydney outside of quarantine, were often transported to North Head for burial. The closeness of the route of gravediggers conveying the dead body to the burial ground is also discussed in the Commission and is a matter for both medical concerns and the sensibilities of quarantined onlookers in Healthy Ground.

The conduct and behaviour of gravediggers, the performance (or lack) of religious rites at the graveside and the erection of memorials are other issues raised by the report and indicate a concern for the carrying out of the normal respects accorded to the dead (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882, p. 13). At the Second Cemetery, the Commission records that wooden plaques were used to mark graves after attempts at making stone memorials proved too time consuming. The adoption of this practice at the Third Cemetery will be investigated through an examination of the material in Chapter 6 and the work of Gojak (2006).

The Commission therefore set the precedent for appropriate procedures for burial at the Third Cemetery. The Third Cemetery site was chosen as being further away from the accommodation and Healthy Ground and graves were being dug to a depth of 10 feet with the addition of a lime covering (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882, p. 1776). The time between death and burial was as short as possible and burials occurred in the order of death, marked in the burial register with a grave number. A medical officer began a practice of reading a graveside service and religious officials could be present at the burial (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882, p. 12). This demonstrates the pragmatic and culturally informed burial practices at this site.

As quarantine is based on the principles of isolation, access to quarantine sites is controlled and restricted. Access to the Third Cemetery by the public was by application to the Chief Quarantine Officer and was usually granted unless an active quarantine was in place. Visitors would be required to present an issued permit to the gatekeeper and sometimes report to the Superintendent. Similarly, the erection of a memorial at the site was possible by application through the same channels, and masonry work could be commissioned at the expense of the relative or party (National Archives Australia 1917-49).

Control of access to North Head and the Third Cemetery site passed over to the Department of Defence in 1935 and military occupation continued throughout World War II, effectively ceasing public access. Whilst no burials took place at the cemetery after 1925, the continuity of care and treatment of a burial landscape is in keeping with the aims of this research to consider continuity and change in commemorative practice. Clearing of vegetation and construction of perimeter fencing was likely to have been undertaken in this period (Gojak & Pullar 2006, p. 10 ).

•Third Cemetery in use, North Head is part of Quarantine reserve 1881

•Ownership of Quarantine Station passes from the State of New South Wales to the 1911 Commonwealth of Australia

•Manly Council granted a permissive occupancy of over 300 acres for public use, 1929 stone walls built to separate the reserve from the quarantine area

•Federal government withdraws permissive occupancy to fortify the headland 1934

•Military presence at North Head, North Fort facilities built, barracks complex 1935-36 completed in 1938

•North Head Sydney Harbour National Park Reserve established 1979

•Quarantine Station control handed to National Park and Wildlife Service 1984 (NPWS)

•Sydney Harbour Trust assumes responsibility for the School of Artillery, associated 2001 military installations and the Third Cemetery as part of North Head Sanctuary

•North Head Sanctuary open to the public 2007

Figure 5.5 Timeline showing changes in ownership and access at North Head. 49

 Deeper depth of burial and lime covering in grave  Wooden grave markers and few stone monuments  Limited formal landscaping  Isolated location  No segregation of burials

This chapter describes what can be deduced about historical attitudes and processes surrounding death and quarantine from the historical record whilst also highlighting potential archaeological implications. General trends in mortuary memorialisation have been shown to have shifted from Victorian ornateness and public display to a more private, secular and constrained attitude and resultant material culture. Death in quarantine is shown to be affected by both pragmatic medical concerns but also a sense of the culturally informed respect for the dead.

Some of the archaeological implications identified through historical research cannot be tested by the scope of this survey (e.g. depth of burial) but are important in demonstrating possible different processes in quarantine compared to ‘normal’ burial.

The following chapter will examine the material culture of the Manly Cemetery and the Third Cemetery, which when compared to the research presented here, will form the basis of this thesis’ discussion.

The previous chapter presented the results of an investigation into the historically recorded trends in mortuary memorialisation and commemoration and their archaeological correlates. This chapter presents the results of fieldwork at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. The results are grouped by four categories of analyses;

 the temporal patterns,  attributes of the material remains,  attributes of the content of inscriptions,  spatial patterns

Major trends and patterns in each of these areas will be described and the resulting conclusions will be compared with the results of the historical investigation in the following chapter. The ‘unknown’ category is used when the condition of the gravestone is such that the presence or absence of information for a data field cannot be determined. For analyses specific to gravestones, the dataset for the Third Cemetery will include 67 monuments, as one grave site only has a border and no extant gravestone.

The full results of the fieldwork are included in Appendix A and individual cases are referred to by their allocated recording number.

The Quarantine Station Third Cemetery operated between 1881 and 1925 whilst the sample drawn from Manly Cemetery was selected using these parameters. An examination of the year of death as recorded in the inscriptions examined is one way of examining the patterns in use over time.

Figure 6.1 Graph plotting the number of deaths Number of Deaths per year by Inscription each year according to the gravestone inscription. This figure omits the modern 18 addition of a sandstone boulder memorial (HS017) at the Quarantine Station Third 16 Quarantine Station Cemetery, commissioned by the Returned and 14 Third Cemetery Services League (RSL) and unveiled in 1997, to commemorate the 14 World War I servicemen 12 Manly Cemetery interred at the cemetery who died between 1918 10 and 1919. 8 6 4

Numberofmonumnets 2 0

Year

Figure 6.2 A comparison of the number of deaths as recorded in the burial register with dates on Number of Deaths per year at Quarantine Station Third extant gravestones. Cemetery 100 Third Cemetery Burial Register 90 80 Third Cemetery Headstones 70 60

50 40 30 20 10 0 1881 1883 1885 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 52 Year

Figure 6.1shows the comparison between the two datasets. There is an obvious spike of inscriptions with a date of death in 1900, coinciding with the plague epidemic in Sydney. The Third Cemetery data also has many more gaps indicating years where there are no corresponding inscriptions, for example, the dataset at Third Cemetery bear no inscriptions with a date between 1889—99, 1903—09, and 1919—25. Conversely, the Manly Cemetery has a more even spread. Whilst preservation rates at the cemetery may mean inscriptions once existed and the headstone is no longer present, a comparison to the burial register data also reflects similar gaps and peaks. This shows periods of use and inactivity at the Quarantine Station and the sporadic nature of epidemic events and deaths in quarantine. Manly Cemetery inscriptions follow a gradual increase that is in line with the historical population growth patterns.

The discrepancy between the surviving extant graves between the 1900-01 and the 1918-19 epidemics may be explained by the missing 13 graves of the World War I servicemen (these graves have been identified as 13 unmarked concrete slab graves, but as they have no marked date of death were not included in the above analysis).

A comparison of the burial register data to the fieldwork data demonstrates that these patterns are similar and the information from the extant graves is a fair reflection of number of recorded deaths.

Deaths per Year

300

250

200

150

100 NumberofDeaths 50

1899 1881 1883 1885 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 Year Manly Cemetery Burial Register New South Wales Deaths perx 100 100 (ABS Australian Historical Population Statistics) Quarantine Station Third Cemetery Register

Figure 6.3 A comparison of the number of deaths per year as derived from extant grave inscriptions, burial register and historical population statistics data.

The burial register data from Manly Cemetery, the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery when compared with historical rates of death (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014) also demonstrates difference. All three data sets exhibit a spike around 1918-19, contemporary with the influenza pandemic. The 1900-01 plague epidemic still presents a significant peak at the Third Cemetery compared to the statistics from the wider population.

Recording the extant material remains at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery was the main goal of the fieldwork recording. The results show patterns in the form of monuments, material used in construction, the use of motifs, condition of graves and their spatial measurements.

Basic Form

35 30 Quarantine Station Third Cemetery (n=67) 25 20 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 15 10 5

0 Number of gravemarkers of Number

Form type

Figure 6.4 Number of basic forms of monuments present at each site.

The most popular form at the Third Cemetery is the upright tablet followed by the desk monument whereas the desk is the overwhelmingly most popular form at Manly Cemetery, making up over 48% of the sample.

The discrepancy between the numbers of ledger type monuments at each site is in part skewed due to the 13 concrete slabs at the Third Cemetery which cover the graves of World War I servicemen. These graves were originally marked with Commonwealth War Graves Commission issued marble tablet headstones, later removed (Tapscott 1987).

Figure 6.5 Concrete slab ledgers at the site of servicemen graves. Photos: (left) Sarah Janson, 2014 (right) Jenny Wilson, 2014. The conditions at each site were such that the original construction type was able to be discerned, despite some missing elements (such as parts of crosses broken off or pieces of ledgers missing or moved).

Manly Cemetery displays a greater range of monument types present, with examples from 8 of the 9 categories present in the sample whilst the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery has examples from 6 categories. No sculptural or statue forms are present at the Third Cemetery however there is one example of the obelisk form (HS010), in combination with a chest tomb type monument and has been included in the ‘combination’ category.

Table 6.1 Number of types of grave at each site.

Grave Type Quarantine Station Manly Cemetery Third Cemetery Individual 68 26 Double 0 22 Group 1 20

The Quarantine Station Third Cemetery consists almost entirely of single grave sites compared to the Manly Cemetery sample which exhibits an even distribution between individual, double and group plots, as determined by inscriptions indicating the number of interments. The one group type monument at the Third Cemetery is represented by the RSL memorial.

The Third Cemetery is dominated by sandstone monuments, followed by concrete and marble- sandstone gravestones. The most predominant material at Manly on the other hand, is combination of marble and sandstone. This was often a sandstone desk type with a marble plaque. The ‘other’ category includes a monument with 3 different materials and the RSL memorial which is constructed of sandstone with brass plaques. No slate, cast iron or tile monuments were noted in either data set. One timber marker was located at the Third Cemetery. 36 wooden markers were noted in a 1980 National Trust of Australia’s NSW Cemeteries committee inspection whilst in 1991, 8 of these markers were recorded in situ and removed to secure artefact storage (Gojak & Pullar 2006, pp. 11-2). Monuments of purely concrete construction were only found at the Third Cemetery and consist of the 13 servicemen graves.

Table 6.2 demonstrates the simpler material make-up of the extant monuments at the Third Cemetery, with 79% of monuments using only one material type with the remainder using two materials. In contrast, the majority of monuments at Manly Cemetery utilised 2 material types and a further two used 3 types.

Material of Construction 35

Quarantine Station Third

30 Cemetery (n=67) 25 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 20 15 10

NumberofMonuments 5 0

Figure 6.6 Material of construction used in monuments at each site.

Table 6.2 Number of different materials used on monuments.

Number of Quarantine Station Manly Cemetery Different Materials Third Cemetery Monuments Used Monuments 1 53 31 2 14 35 3 0 2

Grave Furniture

60 Quarantine Station

50 Third Cemetery Manly Cemetery 40 30 20

10 Numberofoccurances 0 None Vase Tiles Plantings Pebbles Pebbles Other and Vase Grave Furniture Type

Figure 6.7 Types of grave furniture at each site. Grave furniture is often a key indicator of commemorative practice. The large number of pebbled sites at Manly Cemetery is likely to be modern addition, related to conservation efforts at the site (Thompson 2005). Pebbles and gravel provide a low impact and reversible method of improving the appearance, drainage and prevention of overgrown weeds at a grave site. Other grave furniture considered to be modern additions at Manly Cemetery includes one instance of artificial flowers. At the Third Cemetery, 78% of graves did not exhibit any evidence of additional grave goods, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). The majority of furnishings fell into the ‘other’ category as they primarily consisted of jagged, broken remnants of white and black stone. It was unable to be determined whether these were a gravel or the remnants of a broken up grave covering such as tiles or stone. No instances of glass covered displays, personal items, photos, statues, tiles and shells were recorded at either site.

More than half of the recorded monuments at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery had no decorative motif, whilst the presence of motifs was unable to be determined for further 13 gravestones, equating to 73% of the dataset having no recoded motif. Contrastingly, 51% of the Manly sample contains at least one motif, with some more complexly decorated monuments containing up to 6 different motif types. These differences had a significance of p = 0.068.

Motif Types on Monuments

40 35 Quarantine Station Third 30 Cemetery 25 20 Manly Cemetery 15 10 5 Numberofoccurances 0

Motifs

Figure 6.9 Motif types recorded on monuments.

Number of Motifs Present on Monument 40

35 Quarantine Station Third 30 Cemetery (n=67) 25 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 20 15 10

NumberofMonuments 5 0 None 1 2 3 4 5 or more Unknown Number of Motifs

Figure 6.8 Number of motifs present on monuments. The most popular motif type at Manly Cemetery is foliage, the majority being shamrock decoration. There were equal numbers of floral, foliage and cross motifs at the Third Cemetery. Both sites exhibited unusual motif types such as an anchor at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery (HS001) and shields, torches and Christograms at Manly Cemetery. Manly Cemetery exhibits slightly more variety with at least one example of 8 of the 9 motif types whilst the Third Cemetery contains examples from 6 categories.

Fonts 45 Quarantine Station Third 40 Cemetery (n=67) 35 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 30 25 20 15 10

Numberofmonuments 5 0 1 2 3 4 or more None Unknown Number of Different Fonts

Figure 6.10 Different types of fonts used in inscriptions. Whilst a combination of 2 font types is the most common occurrence at each site, Manly Cemetery had a significantly greater number of graves that use 3, 4 or more different font types (p < 0.001). The Third Cemetery also has a high proportion of graves with no inscription, affecting these results.

Whilst the majority of grave sites were given a rating of ‘fair’ at both sites, Manly Cemetery showed a greater proportion of ‘good’ and ‘very good’ monuments, making up 37% of the sample. 28% of the Third Cemetery fell into these two upper categories.

When compared to the burial register data, 28.2% of recorded burials at the Quarantine Station

Condition of Grave 40 Quarantine Station Third

35 Cemetery (n=68) Manly Cemetery (n=68) 30 25 20 15 10

Numberofmonuments 5 0 Poor Fair Good Very Good Condition

Figure 6.11 Assessment of condition of graves.

had an extant marker recorded during fieldwork whilst the Manly Cemetery has an approximately 9336 burials recorded with 5071 markers

The scale of monuments at each site forms a key component of analysis. Although caution must be taken not to uncritically equate greater size or complexity with greater socioeconomic status or power, it does give a basic indication of the scale of remains at each site and the means, ability and accessibility to construct monuments.

Measurements were taken along three axes for each monument, the height from the ground or lowest set plinth, the thickness (or width) and the length across the monument. These axes change depending on whether the monument is vertical or horizontal. Vertically orientated monuments include the tablet, block, desk, obelisk/pillar, statue/sculpture and cross forms whilst ledger stones forms and other tomb-type monuments and other are considered to be horizontally orientated (see Appendix D). Monuments in the ‘other’ and ‘combination’ category have been excluded. In Figures 6.12 to 6.15, outliers are defined as points that extend more than 1.5 box-lengths from the edge of the box and are indicated with a dot (○) whilst an asterisk (*) indicates extreme points that extend more than 3 box-lengths from the edge of the box (Pallant 2005, p. 71).

Figure 6.12 shows a greater range in heights, length and thickness of the vertically orientated monuments in the Manly Cemetery sample. There is particularly more variation in height. In all three instances, the Third Cemetery has a lower median. The differences where significant in each axis of measurement (height: p = 0.019, width/thickness: p < 0.001 and length: p = 0.008) as well as the overall volume of the monuments (p = 0.016).

For horizontally orientated monuments there is a smaller number of examples; 3 from the Manly dataset and 16 from the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. There is substantially less variation in height from ground and width which is statistically not significant. The Third Cemetery has a tighter distribution of longer ledger monuments compared to the spread of the Manly sample.

Again, when the area or ‘footprint’ of each grave is calculated (Figure 6.14) the Manly sample demonstrates a greater spread and higher median size (p < 0.001). The Third Cemetery has a much tighter distribution. This is reflective of the individual graves at the Quarantine Station and the presence of double and group plots at Manly Cemetery.

An approximate volume of each monument was calculated using the three measurements. Although this is can only be used as a rough guide, it indicates a value of how much space is used on average for memorialisation at each of the sites. Figure 6.15 shows that Manly Cemetery exhibits a greater spread and a higher median, meaning monuments are overall larger in size and occupy more space although it borders on levels of signficance at the p < 0.05 level (p = 0.074). HS010 was excluded as an extreme outlier, with a value of 6.762m3.

Figure 6 .12 Box and whisker plot showing the range and spread of the measurements of vertically orientated monuments. Manly Cemetery, n = 59, Third Cemetery, n = 45.

Dimension (cm)

Figure 6.13 Box and whisker plot showing the range and spread of measurements for horizontally orientated monuments. Manly Cemetery, n = 3, Third Cemetery, n = 16.

63 Dimension (cm)

Figure 6.14 Box and whisker plot for area of graves, calculated using the dimensions of the ledger stone or border/perimeter where appropriate.

Figure 6.15 Box and whisker plot for an approximate volume of monuments, calculated using three axes of measurement (height, width, length), to assess the overall impact of the monument in the landscape.

The inscription content is a component of the materiality of the site. This category includes a closer analysis of the textual elements of the gravestone.

Elements of Inscription Present 50

Quarantine Station Third

40 Cemetery Manly Cemetery

10 NumberofGravestones

0 Occupation Named Organisation Cause of Death Epitaph Place of Origin Dedicator Elements of Inscription Content

Figure 6.16 Elements of inscription present. The various elements that are often seen in gravestone inscriptions may give insight into the relative importance of particular identities or ideas as they are considered important or conventional to mark on a grave.

Manly Cemetery has a significantly higher number of epitaphs mentioned (p = 0.027) whilst the Third Cemetery has more instances of named dedicators (p= 0.063) and place of origin (p > 0.05). The ‘place of origin’ category assumes the 6 Chinese headstones in the Quarantine Station a standard format of Chinese headstones discussed in the literature, that includes the name, date of death and the home village of the deceased (Abraham & Wegars 2003; Jones, DY-C 2001). Translations of what can be read of the Chinese gravestones by Doris Yau Chong-Jones (Gojak & Pullar 2006) and Dr Kok Hu Jin (2005) confirms the use of this standard format and the presence of a place of origin on the readable gravestones.

One monument (HS055) contained the name of a vessel on which they arrived when quarantined whilst one grave mentions a disease by name, bubonic plague, (HS031).

The presence of different languages used in inscriptions is a highly significant point of difference the two sites (p <0.001). The Manly Cemetery sample contained graves inscribed only in English, whilst the Third Cemetery contained inscriptions in four languages, although predominately (70%) English. The gravestone of Andrew O’Young (HS020) contains inscriptions in both English and Chinese; unique at the site and unseen at Manly Cemetery. The remaining 6 Chinese gravestones sometimes contain a Romanised name at the top of the gravestone; these have been included as Chinese inscriptions.

Country of Origin in Inscription

8 7 Quarantine Station 6 Third Cemetery 5 4 Manly Cemetery 3 2 1 NumberofMonuments 0 Australia New England Ireland Scotland China Germany Italy Zealand Country

Figure 6.17 Country of origin as derived from inscription.

Language of Inscription 80 70 Quarantine Station Third 60 Cemetery (n = 53) 50 Manly Cemetery (n = 68) 40 30

20 NumberofMonuments 10 0 English German Italian Chinese English and Unknown Chinese Language

Figure 6.18 Language of inscription.

At the Third Cemetery, 25% of legible gravestones (n=52) recorded a place of origin (19.1% of total extant monuments) whilst at Manly Cemetery 14.9% of monuments mentioned a place name. The country as place of origin has been derived from the place names listed in inscriptions, e.g. ‘London’, has been extrapolated to mean ‘England’, in order to discern wider patterns. In the case of the Chinese headstones where the original text cannot be read, it has been assumed the country of origin is China (see above regarding standard Chinese gravestones). Place of origin in all these instances was listed as a city or county, sometimes with country also included, demonstrating place of origin can emphasise a more regional identity rather than at a purely nationalistic level.

Number of Names on Monument 35

30 Quarantine Station Third Cemetery (n=44) 25 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 20

Numberofmonuments 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Number of names

Figure 6.19 Number of names recorded on a monument.

The number of names on the monument includes personal names but excludes organisations or other phrases such as ‘family’. This analysis is to give an indication of the number of people interred, the use of monuments for the commemoration of multiple people and the weight given to relations or other connections that are important enough to include on a permanent memorial. Manly Cemetery has on average, a significantly larger number of names on each monument (p <0 .001), which could correspond with the greater number of double and group plots. At the Third Cemetery, the number of names to appear on a monument cluster around 1 – 3 names on a gravestone. The outlier of 15 names at the Third Cemetery relates to HS017, the RSL monument.

Figure 6.20 RSL boulder monument (HS017). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014.

An analysis of the number of lines in an inscription is included to give a broad indication of the space available on a gravestone, the number of people commemorated and the energy expenditure in the creation of the monument.

At the Third Cemetery, 36% of graves were recorded to have with no inscription or recorded as ‘unknown’, as text is present but where the inscription or condition of the grave is deteriorated

Number of Lines in Inscription

35 Quarantine Station Third 30 Cemetery (n=67) 25 Manly Cemetery (n=68) 20 15 10 5

Numberofmonuments 0

Number of lines

Figure 6.21 Number of lines in inscription. 68

to the point where the inscription could not be sufficiently made out. The majority of inscriptions for both Manly and the Third Cemetery have between 6 and 10 lines. Manly Cemetery has a greater positively skewed spread favouring longer inscriptions, representing a significant distinction between the two datasets (p < 0.001). The outlier for the Third Cemetery refers to the RSL memorial and its three plaques that give a short background to the site and interred serviceman as well as listing the 14 names.

The spatial patterning of each site was recorded with site maps produced from GPS coordinates, historic photographs, examinations of plans to determine the denominational layout of the sites, and the aspect of graves.

Figure 6.22 Plan of Manly Cemetery showing location of the selected dataset. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012. The Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery are situated in vastly different landscapes with different levels of organisation. Both sites are ordered by rows however the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery has more irregular spacing and alignments. Manly Cemetery has a more

standardised grave plot size and precise alignments. This was apparent in moving through the landscapes during fieldwork and the maps produced from GPS data.

Figure 6.24 shows the spatial build-up of the Third Cemetery. Grave 90 is most likely located in the northern row, and there is a mistake in erecting a headstone after burial over Grave 84. Burial numbers that do not appear could not be reliably interpolated. This sequencing demonstrates changes in the organisation and use of space, first using the lower south-east corner and building up towards the north before utilising the western area of land. The original approach and entrance to the cemetery was from the bottom of the sloping landscape, to the south west.

Figure 6.23 The North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. Source: Adapted from Land and Property Information, 2012.

Figure 6.25 Map showing the denominational areas at Manly Cemetery. The red outline indicates survey area. Source: Wohlwend (1998).

Figure 6.24 Position of identified graves during the 2006 survey, indicated in red and interpolated graves, indicated in green, based on burial register, showing sequence of burials. Source: Gojak and Pullar (2006, p. 27). Historical photos and a comparison of the 2012 and 1943 aerial imagery available from the NSW Department of Finance and Services Land and Property Information show stark differences in the extent of clearing at each of the sites. The military occupied the headland when the 1943 aerial survey took place and consequently, the imagery shows a clearance of vegetation and the presence of infrastructure and tracks, as does a c.1930s photograph of the Quarantine Station.

When contrasted with imagery from 2012, the reclamation of vast areas of the headlands to vegetation is apparent, including the interior of the Third Cemetery.

Figure 6.26 Manly Cemetery, 1931, Source: Courtesy of John MacRitchie, Manly Library Local Studies via Ivanhoe Park Precinct [http://www.ivanhoeparkprecinct.com.au/our-community.html]. The flat and open landscape contrasts to the vegetated and sloped Third Cemetery.

Figure 6.27 (Above) 2012 aerial imagery of Manly Cemetery (below) 1943 aerial imagery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012.

Figure 6.28 Comparison of 1943 and 2012 aerial imagery of North Head and the Third Cemetery. Source: Land and Property Information, 2012.

Figure 6.29 Series of photographs showing intermittent clearing and vegetation growth at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. The landscape was cleared in 1991 but photos taken in 2008 and 2006 show a return of heavy scrub vegetation.

Figure 6.30 (above) North Head (below) Detail of the Third Cemetery. Source: Macleay Museum, HP83.66.113 - Hall and Co, 1930s. 74

The difference between the 1943 and 2012 imagery at Manly Cemetery is less dramatic. The interior of the cemetery remains largely clear and unchanged bar the growth and addition of some trees and the encroachment of housing to the east.

Table 6.3 Aspect of graves.

Aspect of Grave Quarantine Station Manly Cemetery Third Cemetery North 1 South 67 East 62 West 6

The Quarantine Station Third Cemetery is aligned upon a north-south aspect, with the foot of the grave at the south. Manly Cemetery follows the traditional east-west alignment, with the majority with the foot at the grave facing east and the head at the west.

Aspect was determined by compass measurement and categorised into the four ordinal points (0°, 90°, 180°, 270°) + 30°.

The organisation of graves by denomination is not known to have occurred at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. The burial register makes mention of the religious officiator at the burials of later deaths as well as some examples of religious motifs such as the IHS monogram and other Christograms often related to Catholic religious iconography (Keister 2004, p. 146).

The Manly Cemetery on the other hand has within it three main religiously segregated groups. This is apparent from the burial register data and early histories of the site in its development at a municipal cemetery (Thompson 2005). Cemetery plans also show the religious segregation (Wohlwend 1998). Church of England, Catholic and General areas make up 46%, 35% and 19% of the sample respectively; proportional to the overall makeup of the cemetery (see Figure 6.25).

The fieldwork recording has demonstrated numerous examples of difference and similarity of each site. The Manly Cemetery sample exhibits variety in most categories of analysis. There are more different grave types, more examples of different motifs, materials, fonts, grave furniture

and gravestone types. Inscriptions are significantly longer and contain more personal names. The Third Cemetery however demonstrates a variety in languages and country of origin. Vertically orientated monuments are significantly larger at Manly Cemetery than the Third Cemetery and additionally, Manly exhibits larger area of grave plots and a higher overall volume of monuments.

The next chapter will discuss these results compared to the results of the historical investigation and in connection to the extant scholarship. The theoretical framework of liminality discussed in Chapter 3 will be used to provide interpretations for these incongruences and similarities, drawing the differences in the sites to the processes and ideologies of quarantine.

Although it is well established that cemeteries negotiate the liminal process of death through formal memorialisation practices, the archaeology of the two surveyed sites suggests finer layers of gradation. The specific liminal conditions within the quarantine context result in adaption, improvisation or no reconciliation between the expected memorialisation and the extant archaeological record. Although the administrative and geographic context of quarantine imposed restraints upon the possibilities for memorialisation and commemoration, the material remains at this site reveal some surprising corollaries of its liminality. This analysis will move through key reoccurring themes whilst relating these back to the temporal, spatial and material units of analysis and drawing in results from fieldwork and the historical review.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the relationship between size, complexity and energy expenditure in the creation of a monument can be a flawed assumption. This analysis does not assume that the size of a monument invariably reflects the social status of the deceased. Nevertheless, at a basic level and taken as an assemblage, elements such as the variety of materials and techniques used, or the number of lines of text per headstone, offer indicators of the effort and agency invested in monuments across each site that are used as a measure of difference.

The isolation of those who die in liminal circumstances impacts upon the logistical ability to create a monument and raises questions about the pragmatic value in creating complex memorials. The memorialisation offered by the institution of quarantine in the period of the Third Cemetery’s operation was a wooden marker, used to identify the person and position of the grave. Any further elaboration would have to be arranged by others. This allows the presence of material remains indicate something about the ability to conduct memorialising activity and the degree to which they could in the quarantine context.

Whether taken as an assemblage or disaggregated into individual elements, Manly Cemetery consistently presents a greater material investment in the process of memorialising the deceased. Analysis of the recorded data suggests that this divergence manifested not only in the physicality of the grave markers, such as size or complexity of construction, but also in the energy tied to inscription and ornamentation. With significantly longer inscriptions and a larger number of names (also a result of family and group identities), Manly Cemetery stands in stark contrast to a number of uninscribed and unidentified graves at the Quarantine Station. The more common

appearance of decorative motifs and of variety in font types used in the Manly Cemetery dataset as well as a number of sculptural monuments reinforces this trend.

When considered in light of Parker Pearson’s assertion that the cemetery landscapes are the stage for the negotiation and transformation of power, status and social relations, it presents several issues for an analysis of the Third Cemetery. With limited through to no public access, what social relations would be transformed; with an intermittent or no audience to receive the messages?

Tarlow’s consideration of the role of emotion is far more likely to play into the circumstances of the Third Cemetery, as she argues ‘it is personal relationships, at least as much as power or status, which we see negotiated and represented in the archaeology of death’ (Tarlow 1999, p. xi). The rise of affective individualism and increasing importance on familial and romantic relations are important in considering that memorials have an emotional dimension not accounted for in ideas of power displays in a cemetery context. Whilst Chapter 5 has outlined how important the

Figure 7.1 MC014 (left) MC038 (right) Examples of sculptural forms at Manly Cemetery. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014. 78

gravestone is in acting as the physical focus for commemorative practice and other rites of incorporation, the actual act of constructing a monument may have more emphasis in the quarantine context. For those connected to the deceased, the importance of having a permanent gravestone in place, knowing that they are memorialised despite their separation and the avoidance of the stigma and anonymity of the unmarked grave, may be the alternate goal. Using this concept, complexity of a monument is secondary to presence.

However Tarlow, like Parker Pearson (1982) and McGuire (1988), still connect the erection of memorials with their ability to demonstrate something to an audience – for Tarlow this is relationships and emotion rather than status. In the case of the sequestered Third Cemetery, the applicability is complicated. However Tarlow emphasises that a gravestone ‘is a memorial to the deceased but also, crucially, a memorial to the relationship’(Tarlow 1999, p. 131). Additionally, the Third Cemetery demonstrated a significantly greater presence of named dedicators on gravestones, a memorialising strategy that would give the deceased and those commissioning monuments a sense of the context of their relations and connections in the void of liminality in quarantine.

The greatest similarities observed at the two sites was the adherence to broader historical mortuary trends in terms of monument form (although this may be affected by low survival rates of wooden markers), with both cemeteries seeing the shift from the upright tablet in the nineteenth century to desk monument that became popular in the twentieth century. Manly Cemetery has a much wider variety of monument types whilst the Third Cemetery draws from a more limited range. The difficulties of the isolation of quarantine place may have created a surprising material corollary. These trends suggest that those erecting monuments in the Third Cemetery emulated the normal patterns of memorialisation. Their frequent success, despite the strictures imposed by the site, suggests a degree of historical agency not readily apparent in the documentary record. As with the emotive reasons for ensuring the presence of a memorial, this effort to adapt as best possible to fulfil normal conventions would help normalise the processes of death and dying that have been disrupted.

Correspondingly, the historical record shows how the institution of quarantine pursued a similar strategy, as after the outrage of the treatment of the dead during the 1881 smallpox epidemic, changes such as the reading of prayers at the graveside were instituted to reinstall a sense of dignity and normality (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882, p. 12). Historical sources suggest that these meaningful rituals were adhered to for many burials after 1881, except during the height of epidemics in 1900 and 1919.

One of the most striking patterns at the Third Cemetery site is the paucity of material remains memorialising recent immigrants and seamen. Already occupying a liminal space, having under gone a separation, and lacking both local connections and social agency for the organisation of formal memorialisation, it is unsurprising that as a group they betray little investment in monumental practice beyond the wooden markers documented by Gojak and Pullar (2006, p. 28). Logistically, efforts to formal memorialise are less likely to occur and pragmatically, perhaps not as necessary. The possibility must also be considered that for some, mortuary memorialisation may simply not be a priority, as seen in Finlay’s analysis of unmarked infant burials (2000). Conversely, a large number of the stone monuments present memorialise those who died during the 1900-01 bubonic plague epidemic of which, a very high proportion were Sydney and Australian residents. Their proximity helps maintain the connections necessary for the commissioning of formal memorialisation.

Familial connection represents another explanation for differences in size and complexity of memorialisation patterns at each of the two sites. The importance of the family plot lies within its role as a connecting, shared resting place and helps place a person in their social context as a member of a family unit (Buckham 1999, p. 199; Tarlow 1999). Material responses to the focus on family include large monument types, such as the cross with stepped base form, which allowed for the densest pattern of commemorations in the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries (Mytum 2004, p. 125). Manly Cemetery conforms to this pattern, with family plots taking advantage of this type, as its greater surface area allows for a larger number of inscriptions.

The Manly dataset consistently recorded more names and longer inscriptions and had 42 group or double plots in the sample selected. The communality of the family grave is something not seen or not possible at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. The burial registers reveal that there were family groups that did die in quarantine in a short time frame, for example, Emelia and Marian Christinson, victims of smallpox from the vessel Preussen, but it is unknown whether a communal type burial or a double interment took place. The practices set out in light of the 1881 Commission would suggest that burial took place as soon as possible, with lime covering, so that the reopening of graves would not occur in case of exposure to the disease. Consequently, any multiple burials would not occur here. Whilst there is precedent for mass burial in the time of epidemics, e.g. the plague pits of the Black Plague in Europe, where high mortality outweighs the ability to adhere to regular funerary practice, this does not occur at the Third Cemetery (Kacki et al. 2011). The liminality of the deceased, in their separation from

familial connections, becomes fixed and whilst named dedicators and family relations are recorded on Third Cemetery gravestones, the physical separation is unable to be overcome.

Interestingly, given the possibility of multiple burials from a single event or vessel, there are no communal markers beyond the post-hoc placement of the RSL monument in 1997. This practice stands in contrast to the strong sense of communitas (Turner 1969, pp. 131-2) inscribed into the carvings across North Head, and to the obelisk erected in 1855 to commemorate the travails of the quarantined ship Constitution.

The vastly differing landscapes of the two cemeteries are key influences on the patterns of memorialisation. Quarantine necessitates a physical separation and isolation. On the literal edge of the country itself, the physical liminality of North Head Quarantine Station and its cemetery limits access, whilst contrastingly; the metropolitan Manly Cemetery sits within the community it serves, both a place of private memorial but public space. These differences translate into issues of access and change over time.

On an internal level within the quarantine landscape, the Third Cemetery is further to the periphery even at the already isolated Quarantine Station. Compared to the positions of the original first and the second burial grounds, close by the accommodation blocks, the Third Cemetery is even further removed, a decision based on the medical ideologies of contagion and to protect a sense of propriety for quarantined onlookers (Foley 1995, p. 73). As time continued, the peripheral status of the Third Cemetery is further compounded in the transfer of control to the military in their occupation by the army.

Ideologically, Manly Cemetery fits the model of the nineteenth garden lawn cemetery that provides comfort in picturesque, well-arranged surroundings (Gilbert 1980, p. 17). The standardised grave plot sizes, with individual plots consistently measuring 230cm in length and 107cm across and group plots being 230cm and over 210cm wide, are in keeping with philosophy of orderliness and the ‘the improving of moral feeling’ that this can impart for families and society at large (Loudon 1981 [1843], p. 8). The Third Cemetery, in its institutional context and by the nature of its sporadic use, has not been laid out to a precise plan. This is spatially recognisable in the unevenness of rows and columns as experienced in field recording and in mapping the site. Spatial organisation within Manly Cemetery follows the norms of denominational segregation for cemeteries that are not fixed to a particular place of worship (Mytum 2004, p. 144). At the Third Cemetery, order of burial was determined by order of death,

resulting in no such segregation, therefore religious affiliation is not able to be expressed in a spatial way at the Third Cemetery.

The temporal patterns described in Chapter 6 show the usage of each cemetery over time. Quarantine can be a sporadic occurrence, happening in line with the ebbs and flows in the threat of contagious disease – the ‘moments’ of liminality described by Thomassen (2009, p. 17). A comparison of the way the landscapes of the cemeteries have been built up over time reflects this. The peaks around epidemics, namely the 1900-01 plague and 1918-19 influenza epidemics contrasts a steady increase of use at Manly, in line with the increasing permanent population at Manly. This correlates with the material remains in situ with the largest number of monuments present at the Third Cemetery naming dates of death in 1900 and 1901, followed by monuments dating from 1918-19.

Following on from the difficulties that a lack of connection in quarantine has on memorialising activity, the access restrictions of quarantine add a further hindrance. There are more bureaucratic and logistical obstacles for those wishing to firstly erect memorials at the Third Cemetery and then also for the feasibility of visiting the grave sites. The archival records shows correspondence that demonstrate the series of permissions that needed to be sought to visit, all with the caveat of there not being an active quarantine in place (National Archives Australia 1917-49). Such limited access connects to the observed lack of commemorative material and grave furniture at the Third Cemetery. The vases and urns for flowers and traces of continued care and decoration (i.e. the use of coloured pebbles) seen throughout Manly Cemetery are absent. This could be attributed not only to the limited or hindered connections of the deceased in their liminal position, but also the difficulty and perhaps the futility of the continued upkeep of commemorative materials given limitations on access and the state of dereliction of the site after 1945.

Figure 7.2 Examples of commemorative materials including flower vases and pebbled plots. Clockwise from top left: MC041, MC040, MC046, MC056. Photos: Sarah Janson, 2014. Surprisingly, there was not a significant difference in the assessment of the condition of graves at each site however this could similarly be due to their differing positions in the landscape. Manly Cemetery has had problems with vandalism due to its open and readily accessible location and most damage is manifested in toppled monuments. Conversely, at the Third Cemetery, inscriptions are more weathered and the deterioration and loss of monuments is more likely caused by the cycling between clearing vegetation overgrowth and the exposed coastal position.

A major finding of the fieldwork conducted at each site was differences in variation of language and signifiers of cultural and national affiliations. The processes of quarantine, by their nature, draw people from different backgrounds into the same space; and consequently death and mortuary practice occurs in these close quarters. The usage of Manly Cemetery on the other hand is shaped by the demographic of its residents and wider community.

Mytum notes in a discussion on the expression of identities in mortuary memorialisation that ‘national identity is rarely emphasised, as it redundant’ (2004, pp. 137-8) but in quarantine, with its global demography, identifying a place of origin would not be a superfluous practice. At

Manly Cemetery, where place names were recorded, they predominately featured Australia, England Ireland and Scotland; countries that reflect the primary makeup of Anglo places of immigration. Conversely, the Third Cemetery records places of origin including China, Italy, Germany and New Zealand in addition to England, Scotland and Australia. These ties to places of origin are considered important enough to include on a permanent memorial.

Language of inscriptions is the most obvious and significant difference observed. All 68 of the gravestones recorded at Manly used English for their inscriptions and an examination of the transcriptions of Manly Cemetery shows this to be largely true for all gravestones at the site (Vine Hall 1993). Conversely, 9 of 68 graves at the Third Cemetery featured a language other than English, including the bilingual grave of Andrew O’Young.

Mytum’s (1994) study of the choice of the Welsh language in inscriptions on nineteenth and twentieth gravestones in Pembrokeshire demonstrates the power of language as a cultural indicator and assertion of a specific identity. In the context of quarantine, the use of a language other than English is a particularly potent identifier. When death occurs in the liminal stage, the rituals for reincorporation have not taken place. Migrants have not been able to establish themselves in a new community or found connections on the far side of the threshold. Reversion to the more concrete and familiar traditions known to subjects before their separation seems to make sense, particularly if as speculated, fellow passengers influenced or arranged for the erection of memorials (Gojak & Pullar 2006, p. 26).

The presence of Chinese burials at the Third Cemetery is a particularly strong example of cultural variation between the two sites. Comparing the expected archaeological correlates for Chinese burial in Australia identified in the historical investigation with the material record at the Third Cemetery, areas of similarity and dissonance can be identified. Materially, out of the seven graves with identified Asian script, 6 of these conform to the semicircular upright tablet form. Additionally, the text followed the typical three vertical line format. The erections of these headstones are amenable to the restrictions of quarantine however other mortuary rites used in reintegration are unable to take place. Whilst the depth of the burials in the Third Cemetery cannot be verified, the findings of the 1881 Commission required a specified 10 foot deep grave with lime covering (New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station 1882; New South Wales. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station & "Faraway". 1882). These conditions, implemented on the basis of a medical ideology, are not compatible with the concept of the traditional shallow burial that

Figure 7.3 HS025, grave of Ah Cee Bow Yow. Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014. enabled later exhumation of bones for return to the ancestral village. One person’s remains, those of Mon Yick, were recorded in the burial register as having been exhumed, demonstrating that provisions could be made to accommodate the normal expected rites, but it does not occur for all. The repatriation services set up by expatriate communities show that the liminal aspects of a migrant experienced had been worked through by ensuring that the reincorporation necessary to complete the rite of passage of death are made possible. This is reliant on social connections within a community, difficult to maintain across the boundaries of quarantine. Commemorative practice such as the burning of incense and the celebration of Qing-ming with its associated grave visitation, cleaning and leaving of offerings, would also become problematic with limitations on access to the cemetery.

The spatial patterning and position in the landscape of the Third Cemetery was determined by order of deaths and logistical reasons. Consequently, any agency for the accommodation of feng shui principles are lacking, with all monuments with the exception of the RSL monument, facing south (Ryan 1991). Similarly, cultural and denominational tensions are not tailored to at this site. As Ryan demonstrated in a review of burial practices in Western Australia, strong tensions existed, with many of white society resenting sharing burial grounds with 'heathen' Chinese (1991, p. 12). Indeed, there was a practice of confining Chinese and other cultures to separate ‘Asiatic’ quarters during quarantine due to an unjust vilification for their supposed propensity for carrying disease, but unexpectedly, in death, this separation is not maintained (Foley 1995, p. 84; Wu, John 2014b). Despite this racialism, however, Chinese burials were afforded the courtesy of

a monument in their own language, and of the 10 Chinese buried on site as derived from the burial register, 7 retain a permanent headstone.

Figure 7.4 Gravestone of Andrew O'Young (HS020). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014. Several layers of liminality can be seen in the gravestone of Andrew O’Young, who is in-between in many ways. The form of his grave diverts from the norm, as does its use of both English and Chinese language in the inscription. Mytum puts forward that the use of more than one language suggests a ‘multi-lingual lifestyle’ and that the weight given to various languages ‘can be important indicators of acculturation and conscious manipulation of the medium of the memorial’ (Mytum 2004, p. 147). As translated by Dr Andre Rodriguez (2015), the name ‘O’Young’ appears to be a homophonic anglicised version of the name inscribed in the Chinese lettering, ‘Ouyang’. The burial register identifies O’Young as a Sydney resident, who died of plague and removed from his home in Pitt Street whilst a Presbyterian minister oversaw his burial. This speaks of contradictions; there is both integration with the religious values of the white, English speaking society and the use of a poetic epitaph in English, in conjunction with the assertion of an aspect of the social persona in the use of a conventional Chinese inscription.

Chapter 5 outlined how the events of World War I had a significant impact on patterns in mortuary memorialisation, both for the commemoration of military personnel but also in civilian cemeteries. Both Manly Cemetery and the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery have connections to military burials however the manifestation of memorialisation at each site differs; primarily

due to the presence of the remains of soldiers at the Quarantine Station and the lack of remains and abstract forms of memorialisation at Manly.

At the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery, 95% of headstones with a visible inscription had 1, 2 or 3 names recorded whilst at Manly Cemetery, 41% of headstones had 3 or more names inscribed. As has been discussed, this can be contributed to large family plots with multiple interments but can also indicate the recording of familial relations and commemoration of family members who have died elsewhere. This extends to the established practice of appending gravestones with the names of sons, fathers and brothers who died during World War I as a way of negotiating the lack of remains, closing ‘the distant grief’ and providing a space close to the family for commemorative practice (Tarlow 1997, p. 112; Ziino 2007a, 2007b).

56 names of World War I soldiers have been noted at Manly Cemetery, and four references to military activity have been noted in the sample (Manly Library 2013). The Moylan family monument exhibits this memorialisation adaption. Captain J.B. Moylan of the 15th Light Horse, interred at Gaza and Private S. Moylan of the 1st Australian Pioneers and interred at Bernafay Wood in France, are both named and commemorated on the Calvary cross style monument, corresponding with the expected archaeological correlates for this historical trend.

Figure 7.5 Moylan Family Grave (MC058). Photo: Sarah Janson, 2014. By comparison, war memorialisation at the Third Cemetery is a much more complex and ongoing process which has been impacted upon by the cemetery in the landscape, the ambiguous

position of the soldiers who died in quarantine and crossovers in the institutional care. The ambiguities brought about by the liminality of the Third Cemetery are best seen in the memorialisation of a group of World War I servicemen. Their story includes the removal of decaying headstones and the creation of alternative monuments at a separate municipal cemetery which was followed by the loss of individual grave markers and the eventual erection of a new, collective memorial in the form of the 1997 RSL monument, seventy years after the quarantine cemetery closed. Such discontinuities demonstrate that the ambiguities of liminality have not been as successfully negotiated like it has at metropolitan cemeteries such as Manly.

The majority of military related deaths at the Third Cemetery were from the troopship Medic and were as a result of the 1918-19 influenza pandemic. The Medic was transporting AIF servicemen and Italian Reservists to the battlefields of Europe but was recalled when peace was declared. Influenza, however, had struck the ship and it was quarantined on November 21, 1918. The burial register records 13 Australian Imperial Force (AIF) soldiers, 1 Royal Australian Navy sailor, a military nurse, as well as 9 Italian Reservists who are buried at the cemetery. Through fieldwork and consultation of historical records, the graves of the 14 servicemen were identified as the unmarked 13 concrete slab type graves in addition to the named monument of Private Hector Hicks. The material record that exists today is however only the end point of a variety of changes. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Imperial (now Commonwealth) War Graves Commission was the key institution in creating the principles and style of mortuary memorialisation for military deaths during and after World War I (Kenyon & Great Britain Commonwealth War Graves Commission 1918, p. 6). At the Third Cemetery, by December 1924, 5 of the standard marble War Graves Commission headstones had been erected by order of the Defence Department for the AIF servicemen and more followed later. Correspondence between the Quarantine Station and the department reveal concern for the upkeep of the graves(National Archives Australia 1917-49, 1929 - 1930).

Figure 7.6 Memorandum relating the dimension and plans for the War Grave Commission headstones. Source: NAA: SP399/1, 80/8. In the early 1960s it was decided that the standards of care laid down by the Commission were not being met and the gravestones would be removed. The servicemen would instead be commemorated at the NSW Garden of Remembrance at Rookwood Cemetery. The graves would be sealed with a concrete slab and a metal disk affixed to them to identify the graves however no metal discs were discovered during fieldwork. The RSL monument now substitutes as its inscription notes that the individual graves can no longer be identified.

The servicemen interred at the Third Cemetery do not fall neatly into either broad categorisation as wartime dead or post war dead and the liminal circumstances therefore complicate the expectations of memorialisation. They are neither veterans nor ex-servicemen who returned home, but did die in the course of their service. Similarly, their death was due to disease rather than wounds and does not fit the script of battle dead lying in foreign lands. They made it to Australian shores, but died on the threshold. Correspondence between the Military Board, the Repatriation Department, Imperial War Graves Commission, the Health Department and other departments discussed the eligibility for the dead servicemen for a monument erected at government expense (National Archives Australia). This, in combination with the cross overs in

institutional responsibility at the site that saw the cemetery undergo periods of neglect and care, demonstrates that without the defined rituals of reintegration available, mortuary memorialisation in the liminal period has occurred in an ad hoc and improvisational way.

The exception to this is the obelisk of Hector Hicks, which demonstrates interplay between institutional commemoration and private memorialisation. Whilst the Hicks family, who resided in Sydney, did not have the body itself to mourn, their proximity to Hector’s final resting place gave them some agency that they were able to exert in arranging a personal tribute. Commissioning an elaborate headstone at the site of the body was not an option available to many war bereaved families and none at Manly Cemetery. A consequence of the obelisk’s greater size and visual impact has seen it more visited and the area surrounding it more cleared and looked after better than surrounding graves. Its silhouette dominates the skyline and is the subject of modern photography at the site. It also draws disproportionate amounts of attention to the military associations at the cemetery. This differs from the experience of families who appending names on graves at Manly Cemetery. There are no physical remains to inter and names are added as an addition to a family grave rather than a specifically created monument.

Figure 7.7 White marble obelisk gravestone of Hector Hicks (HS010). Photos: Sarah Janson, 2014.

This monument could be ideologically confronting in light of the norms being established for war memorialisation. Whilst Hector Hicks’ family was able to furnish his grave and create a lasting, imposing monument to his memory, Hick’s comrades lay surrounding him in unidentified graves, now covered only by the concrete slabs. The principles of equality in sacrifice and duty that underpin the uniform memorials created by the Imperial War Grave Commission are challenged by the presence of a highly personalised, emotive and rather rich white marble obelisk in contrast to the ordinariness and the almost invisibility of the slabs. Whilst the serviceman may be commemorated equally on an official level at a stand in place at Rookwood’s Wall of Remembrance, the re-opening of the site to the public and its re- remembering draws attention to the different types of treatment, and now that the graves are not so inaccessible or forgotten, a disjointedness is created between the two types of memorialisation.

The Third Cemetery therefore does not follow expected patterns of memorialisation. Instead, the presence of the bodies, the ambiguous status of the soldiers’ deaths in the official schema of differentiating war and post war dead and the intersection of personal and institutional interests has created distinct types of memorialisation.

There are several types of liminality operating at the Quarantine Station. Death is its own rite of passage and includes the liminal stage after biological death where the dead body and the persona of the deceased are problematic and resolved with established ritual. Quarantine can be seen to share characteristics with the rite de passage framework, with a vast majority of the experience of quarantine takes place within the liminal phase. The analysis presented here demonstrates that when death occurs in quarantine, it interrupts the expected outcomes. As a consequence, the memorialising patterns at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery are distinct in the way they demonstrate varying response to the problematic nature of death in liminal quarantine.

For Sydney and Australian residents and others who had close connections, memorialisation was able to adhere to traditional monument forms and materials, reverting to a type of normality for rituals of reintegration. However, other omissions such as lack of grave furniture and commemorative practice such as grave upkeep and visitation, easily achieved at Manly, were still problematised by the issues of limited access and isolation.

Further conflicts with the liminality remain unable to be negotiated and are unresolved, fixing the deceased in a type of permanent liminality. Spatial organisation by denomination, or any factor

other than the order of death, does not appear to take place. The possibility for exhumation for Chinese burials, essential to avoid becoming a “hungry ghost”, are unlikely to occur whilst other deceased with deteriorated or no markers are lost to the scrub at the Third Cemetery.

Other instances of memorialisation at the site present an unexpected and ad hoc form of memorialisation. The ability for Hector Hicks to be personally commemorated at the site of his remains defies the mainstream trend for war memorialisation and consequently can be ideologically confronting. Similarly, the concentration of differing languages in one site distinguishes the Third Cemetery from Manly whilst bi-lingual identities and the lack of cultural segregation pose interesting questions about acculturation in nineteenth and twentieth century Australia.

Figure 7.8 Chart showing possible responses in memorialisation patterns to the occurrence of death in the liminal period of quarantine.

This chapter has shown that from a comparison of the two sites – one an institutional quarantine cemetery, the other a metropolitan civic cemetery – that the liminal circumstances of quarantine interrupt the normal patterns of mortuary memorialisation. This has been realised through comparing the material remains with congruence and divergences from the historical record.

There are varying responses to this interruption. Those whose connections have not been as severed following their separation and confinement in quarantine have mortuary patterns that tend to follow, in ways that work with or around quarantine restrictions, the established norms of mortuary memorialisation. Whilst there is overall less complexity and diversity in the extant material at the Third Cemetery than Manly Cemetery, the role of emotion as well as pragmatism should be considered when considering their purpose and construction. On the other hand, rites that cannot be realised by virtue of limitations on access, such as the ability to conduct commemorative practice, are omitted. Other memorialising activities become possible in the ambiguity of the liminality; in a vacuum created by a lack of pre-established responses when death in quarantine occurs, exemplified in the ongoing processes of war memorialisation at the site. These outcomes demonstrate that liminality and the ambiguity it brings, allows for some memorialising behaviours whilst simultaneously limiting others.

Situated as it is ‘by the sad and mournful sea’, the Third Cemetery at Sydney’s former Quarantine Station presents an archaeologically distinct assemblage. As this thesis has demonstrated, multiple facets of liminality have been negotiated within this burial site, both during its years of interment and the subsequent phases of neglect and rejuvenation. Analysis of the material remains in the Third Cemetery suggests its value for interpreting other former quarantine cemeteries, with implications for graveyards in other liminal institutional contexts. These key findings as well as the broader implications and future directions for research will be considered in this final chapter.

The aims of this dissertation as outlined in Chapter 1 were:

The review of literature has shown how thought regarding to analysing social aspects of mortuary memorialisation is evolving and also identified a lack of comparative analysis and engagement in theoretical analysis of historic cemeteries in Australia. This has paved the way for a discussion of liminality as an interpretive framework to consider the pattern of material at cemetery sites and in quarantine. These ideas have been interrogated against archaeological data collected as part of intensive fieldwork, undertaken in accordance to the methodology set out in Chapter 4. These results were analysed and compared to an appraisal of historical accounts of death and dying in nineteenth and twentieth century Australia. The material remains recorded at each site demonstrated similarity in usage of material and difference in cultural variation, temporal use, access, material complexity and size. The archaeological record at Manly Cemetery largely corresponded to the expected outcomes from the investigation into historical accounts of

memorialising practice however, when compared to the extant material at the Third Cemetery; it was found that quarantine interrupts these processes.

Realising the aims outlined above has allowed the key research question – whether the circumstances of quarantine produce distinct types and patterns of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration – to be answered.

Both the fieldwork and the comparison to historical accounts have shown that in elements such as size, complexity, characteristics of the landscape and language that there is a distinct pattern of memorialisation and commemoration at the North Head Quarantine Station when compared to Manly Cemetery.

Using the tripartite structure of the rite de passage, I have argued that quarantine fits the temporal and spatial characteristics of the liminal period and has shaped the distinct patterns that emerge at the Third Cemetery. This framework is not meant to assume the causal primacy of any single factor but it does present a pragmatic and thoughtful way to view difference between a cemetery site that represents a broad experience of death and dying, and the institutional and specialised nature of the peripheral Third Cemetery. My results have shown that several strategies for negotiating the ambiguity of liminality emerge from an analysis of the material, including:

 efforts to echo mainstream patterns of memorialisation, albeit adapted to accommodate constraints imposed by the physical and social isolation of the site;  the fixing of social identities in a permanent liminal state, as exampled by headstones carved in the native language of immigrants who died upon arrival and an inability to fulfil expected rites such as repatriation;  ruptures in continuity, including the absence of family plots and the serial abandonment of military graves and their subsequent re-memorialisation;  improvisational and ad-hoc practices, typified by irregular spatial patterning, disjointed burial numbering and the erratic preservation of selected monuments.

The circumstances of quarantine, as shaped by its underling medical ideologies and consequent embodiment of liminality, concurrently constrains and allow for different practices of mortuary memorialisation at the Third Cemetery site.

As the oldest and largest operating quarantine station in Australia, the Third Cemetery at North Head is of great historical and archaeological importance. With intact burials and monuments of immigrants, Chinese diaspora and local residents in conjunction with historical context and events in which they died, the site represents a collision of histories and archaeologies of disease, transition, isolation and memorialisation. The extant remains at the Third Cemetery form an important facet of the quarantine experience and part of the quarantine landscape as a whole. This research has broader implications and applicability in adding to the narrative of quarantine at North Head. The comparative approach used in this dissertation further highlights the distinctiveness and significance of the site. The use of liminality as a key organising principle to view quarantine has implications for viewing other processes and their material responses at the Quarantine Station.

The framework used has potential implications for sites that also see an intersection between liminality and death. For example, the Waterfall Sanatorium (Garrawarra) Cemetery, the Coast Hospital Cemetery (Cape Banks Family History Society 1992), Point Nepean Quarantine Station in Victoria (Welch 1969), Peel Island in Queensland (Ludlow 1995) and other quarantine and liminal cemeteries, such as asylums and refugee facilities, could all be analysed in this way.

This research represents a first step in investigating and recording for posterity patterns of mortuary memorialisation at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery. Potential future research directions could move to deepen our understanding of the Third Cemetery as well as broaden the scope of research to include similar comparative sites.

Time constraints and the limits of the thesis required the use of a sampling strategy to collect a manageable dataset at Manly Cemetery for comparison. A larger dataset would increase the power of the statistical comparisons undertaken, providing a more robust assessment of the observed differences between the sites. Additional comparison cemetery sites would also increase the reliability of the conclusions drawn.

To complement the record of the extant material remains, further investigation into the individual biographies and stories of those who died at the Quarantine Station would be able deepen the stories and understanding of the quarantine experience. Such a direction would enable an investigation into the socio-economic and cultural background of those memorialised at the site. Historical research into mason registers and records may reveal the exact cost of

erecting gravestones. These research directions must be complemented with the understanding of affective emotion (Tarlow 1999) and the issues with the concept of negotiations of status (Parker Pearson 1982) that are present in the particular context of the Third Cemetery. Additionally, further cross referencing to diaries and the Quarantine Station’s daily logs could assist in linking the process and actors involved in burials and erection of monuments with the extant graves themselves. As part of the wider Stories from the Sandstone project, the data gathered here has to potential to connect headstone epitaphs with the personal and communal inscriptions found across the Quarantine Station landscape.

The advancement of image capture techniques such as Polynomial Texture Mapping (PTM) and the application of 3D scanning technology have the potential to reveal more detail from historic gravestones and inscriptions. Already, PTM techniques have been used on a sample of headstones from the Third Cemetery in order to draw out a greater level of detail (Forbes & Jackson 2015). Extending the use of these technologies would be worthwhile for recording in posterity the significant headstones that are at risk of deterioration. Similarly, geomorphological methodologies, such as outlined by Dragovich (1997), may assist with dating illegible gravestones and assessments of degradation.

As has been shown, use of liminality as an organising principle in archaeological discussions is often implicit rather than an explicit engagement. Further testing of the application of the concept of liminality to cemetery contexts and other spaces of transition could further demonstrate and explain difference in the resultant patterns in the material culture. Using such an approach will allow future studies of cemeteries to look beyond the genealogical and pursue what the materiality of memorialisation is able to reveal.

By characterising the time spent in quarantine as liminal, the occurrence of death in quarantine can be seen to interrupt expected material culture of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration. This has been shown through comparison between the North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. The ambiguous circumstances at the Third Cemetery site evoked differing responses to the complications of liminality for mortuary memorialisation. These results show an incongruity when contrasted with the civic contexts of Manly Cemetery, where the recorded trends largely conform to the established practices for negotiating death as a rite of passage.

Therefore, liminality in the quarantine context simultaneously constrains and alters processes of mortuary memorialisation and commemoration, allowing a distinct pattern of material practices in a unique historical context to emerge at the North Head Quarantine Station Third Cemetery.

Abraham, T & Wegars, P 2003, 'Urns, bones and burners: overseas Chinese cemeteries', Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 58-69.

Ariès, P 1977, Western attitudes toward death : from the Middle Ages to the Present, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Ashton, P 2008, Manly, Dictionary of Sydney, viewed April 4 2014, .

Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Historical Population Statistics (cat. no. 3105.0.65.001), 2014,viewed 12 August 2014, .

Barbera, J, Macintyre, A, Gostin, L, Inglesby, T, O'Toole, T, DeAtley, C, Tonat, K & Layton, M 2001, 'Large-scale quarantine following biological terrorism in the united states: Scientific examination, logistic and legal limits, and possible consequences', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 286, no. 21, pp. 2711-7.

Bashford, A 2004, Imperial hygiene : a critical history of colonialism, nationalism and public health, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmills.

Bell, EL 1994, Vestiges of mortality & remembrance: a bibliography on the historical archaeology of cemeteries, Scarecrow Press, London.

Berckelman, M 1993, 'Manly Cemetery', Unpublished Thesis, University of New England.

Binford, LR 1971, 'Mortuary practices: their study and their potential', Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, pp. 6-29.

Birmingham, J & Liston, C 1976, Old Sydney Burial Ground 1974, Studies in Historical Archaeology.

Brasch, R 1995, Permanent addresses: Australians down under, Angus & Robertson, Pymble.

Brown, JA 1971, Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices, Society for American Archaeology.

Buckham, S 1999, 'The men that worked for England they have their graves at home”: consumerist issues within the production and purchase of gravestones in Victorian 99

York',in S Tarlow & S West (eds), The Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain, Routledge, London, pp. 199-214.

Burke, H & Smith, C 2005, The archaeologist's field handbook, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Burnston, SA 1982, 'Babies in the Well: An underground insight into deviant behavior in eighteenth-century Philadelphia', Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, pp. 151-86.

Cape Banks Family History Society (ed.) 1992, Monumental transcription of headstones at the Prince Henry (Coast) Hospital Cemetery, Little Bay, Sydney, Cape Banks Family History Society, Maroubra.

Chapman, R, Kinnes, I & Randsborg, K 1981, The archaeology of death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clarke, A & Frederick, U 2012, '‘Rebecca will you marry me? Tim’: inscriptions as objects of biography at the North Head Quarantine Station, Manly, New South Wales', Archaeology in Oceania, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 84-90.

---- (in press), '“Born to be a Stoway”: inscriptions, graffiti and the rupture of space at the North Head Quarantine Station, Sydney', International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Special Edition: Colonial Institutions.

Clarke, A, Frederick, U & Williams, A 2010, 'Wish you were here: Historic inscriptions from the North Head Quarantine Station, Manly, NSW', Australasian Historical Archaeology, vol. 28, pp. 77-84.

Connah, G 1993, Of the hut I builded: The archaeology of Australia's history, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cooke, S 1991, 'Death, body and soul: The cremation debate in New South Wales, 1863–1925', Australian Historical Studies, vol. 24, no. 97, pp. 323-39.

Council for Scottish Archaeology 2007, An introduction to graveyard recording, Council for Scottish Archaeology, Carved Stones Adviser Project, Edinburgh.

Curson, P 1985, Times of crisis: Epidemics in Sydney, 1788-1900, Sydney University Press, Sydney.

Curson, P & McCracken, K 2003, 'Flu downunder: A demographic and geographic analysis of the 1919 pandemic in Sydney, Australia',in H Phillips, D Killingray & J Müller (eds), The Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-19: new perspectives, Routledge, London.

100

---- 2006, 'An Australian perspective of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic', New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 103-7.

Damousi, J 1999, The labour of loss: mourning, memory, and wartime bereavement in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

DeMarrais, E, Gosden, C & Renfrew, C (eds) 2004, Rethinking materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Dethlefsen, ES & Deetz, J 1966, 'Death's heads, cherubs, and willow trees : experimental archaeology in colonial cemeteries', American Antiquity, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 502-10.

Dragovich, D 1997, 'Weathering of marble tombstones in a near-coastal environment, Australia', paper presented to International Symposium on Engineering Geology and the Environment.

Farrell, ZK 2003, 'Sacred to the memory an archaeological investigation into emotion and ideology within two regional cemeteries', Unpublished Honours Thesis Flinders University of South Australia.

Finlay, N 2000, 'Outside of life: Traditions of infant burial in Ireland from cillín to cist', World Archaeology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 407-22.

Foley, JD 1995, In quarantine: a history of Sydney's Quarantine Station, 1828-1984, Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst.

Forbes, P & Jackson, G 2015, PTMs of Quarantine Station Inscriptions, Quarantine Project, Sydney.

Francis, P 2004, 'Commonwealth War Graves Commission', in R Holmes, C Singleton & S Jones (eds), The Oxford Companion to Military History, viewed 15 June 2014,

Garwood, P 2011, 'Rites of passage',in T Insoll (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 261-84.

Gilbert, LA 1980, A grave look at history: glimpses of a vanishing form of folk art, John Ferguson, Sydney.

---- 2005, The last word: two centuries of Australian epitaphs, Kardoorair Press, Armidale.

Gojak, D 1986, Draft Cemeteries Conservation Plan Quarantine Station Conservation Office. 101

Gojak, D & Pullar, S 2006, Third Quarantine Station Cemetery - archaeological management plan Banksia Heritage + Archaeology prepared for Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.

Goulburn and District Historical Society 2003, Kenmore Hospital Cemetery 1895-1942: information ordered by date, The Society.

Griffin, G & Tobin, D 1997, In the midst of life... : the Australian response to death, 2nd edn, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Haines, R 2003, Life and death in the age of sail: the passage to Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Haour, A 2013, Outsiders and strangers: an archaeology of liminality in West Africa, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Harke, H 2007, 'Ethnicity, 'race' and migration in mortuary archaeology: an attempt at a short answer', Anglo Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, vol. 14, pp. 12-8.

Harris, OJT & Sørensen, TF 2010, 'Rethinking emotion and material culture', Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 17, no. 02, pp. 145-63.

Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales 1981, In memoriam: cemeteries and tombstone art in New South Wales, Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.

Hodder, I 1982, Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture, Cambridge University Press.

Holm, I, Stene, K & Svensson, E 2008, 'Liminal landscapes: Beyond the concepts of 'marginality' and 'periphery'', paper presented to European Association of Archaeologists.

Holz, BA 1996, 'A recent application of the Saxe-Binford hypothesis in establishing social persona', M.A. Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Ann Arbor, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Huntington, R & Metcalf, P 1979, Celebrations of death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hynes, P 2011, The dispersal and social exclusion of asylum seekers : between lininality and belonging, Policy, Bristol.

102

Inglis, KS 2008, Sacred places: war memorials in the Australian landscape, 3rd ed. edn, Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton.

Jalland, P 1999, Death in the Victorian family, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

---- 2002, Australian ways of death: a social and cultural history 1840-1918, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

---- 2006, Changing ways of death in twentieth century Australia: war, medicine and the funeral business, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Jones, DY-C 2001, Reading Chinese Gravestones Rookwood Necropolis.

Jones, J 1984, How to record graveyards, 3rd edn, Council for British Archaeology, London.

Kacki, S, Rahalison, L, Rajerison, M, Ferroglio, E & Bianucci, R 2011, 'Black Death in the rural cemetery of Saint-Laurent-de-la-Cabrerisse Aude-Languedoc, southern France, 14th century: immunological evidence', Journal of Archaeological Science, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 581-7.

Keister, D 2004, Stories in stone: a field guide to cemetery symbolism and iconography, Gibbs Smith, Publisher, Salt Lake City.

Kenyon, FG & Great Britain Commonwealth War Graves Commission 1918, War graves: how the cemeteries abroad will be designed, H.M.S.O., London.

Kok, HJ 2005, Chinese graves and burners in cemeteries in New South Wales, vol. 11, Golden Dragon Museum, Bendigo, Victoria.

Larsson, M 2009, 'A Disenfranchised Grief: Post-war death and memorialisation in Australia after the First World War', Australian Historical Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 79-95.

Lewis, ME 2002, 'Impact of industrialization: comparative study of child health in four sites from medieval and postmedieval England (AD 850–1859)', American journal of physical anthropology, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 211-23.

Loudon, JC 1981 [1843], On the laying out, planting, and managing of cemeteries : and on the improvement of churchyards, Ivelet Books, Redhill, Surrey.

Ludlow, P 1995, 'Peel Island: quarantine as incarceration',in J Pearn, P Carter & M Australian Society of the History of (eds), Islands of incarceration: convict and quarantine islands of the Australian coast, Australian Society of the History of Medicine, Amphion Press, Brisbane.

103

Lupton, D 2012, Medicine as culture: illness, disease and the body, Sage, London.

Macgregor, P 1995, 'Histories of the Chinese in Australasia and the South Pacific : proceedings of an international public conference held at the Museum of Chinese Australian History, Melbourne', Melbourne, 8-10 October 1993.

Mackay, R, McCarthy, J, Sullivan, K, Douglas, P, Wilson, G, Johnson, B, Wright, R, Iacono, N, Dallas, M & Donlon, D 1997, Randwick Destitute Children's Asylum Cemetery, Austral Archaeology Godden Mackay Pty Ltd.

Mackowiak, PA & Sehdev, PS 2002, 'The Origin of Quarantine', Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1071-2.

Maglen, K 2005, 'A World Apart: Geography, Australian Quarantine, and the Mother Country', Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 196-217.

---- 2006, '“In This Miserable Spot Called Quarantine”: The Healthy and Unhealthy in Nineteenth Century Australian and Pacific Quarantine Stations', Science in Context, vol. 19, no. 03, pp. 317-36.

Manly Library 2013, World War One Headstones in Manly Cemetery, http://manlylocalstudies.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Manly%20Cemetery>.

McGuire, R 1988, 'Dialogues with the dead',in M Leone & PB Potter (eds), The recovery of meaning: Historical archaeology in the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington pp. 435-80.

Muller, SW 2006, 'Colonial Experiences of Death and Burial: The Landscape Archaeology of West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide', Flinders University of South Australia.

Mytum, H 1994, 'Language as Symbol in Churchyard Monuments: The Use of Welsh in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Pembrokeshire', World Archaeology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 252-67.

---- 2000, Recording and analysing graveyards, Council for British Archaeology in association with English Heritage, York.

---- 2004, Mortuary monuments and burial grounds of the historic period, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

104

---- 2014, Markers and Memories: archaeological perspectives on memorials and inscriptions, paper presented at Quarantine: History, Heritage, Place Q Station, Sydney.

National Archives Australia Register of Deaths at Quarantine Station, 1881 - 1925, Sydney: C526.

---- North Head graveyard, 1917-49, Sydney: SP399/1, 80/8. .

---- Graves of Soldiers and Sailors North Head Quarantine Station, 1929 - 1930, Melbourne: B1535, 746/8/96.

National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee 2009, Guidelines for cemetery conservation, 2nd edn, National Trust of Australia (NSW), Sydney.

New South Wales Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station, NH, the hulk "Faraway". 1882, Report of the Royal Commission, appointed on the 13th September, 1881, to enquire into and report upon the management of the Quarantine Station, North Head, and the hulk "Faraway"; together with the minutes of evidence and appendices, Govt. Printer, Sydney.

New South Wales. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Management of the Quarantine Station, NH & "Faraway"., th 1882, Second report of the Royal Commission appointed on the 13th day of September, 1881, to make a full diligent, and searching inquiry into the Management of the Estalishment known as the Quarantine Station at North Head and the hulk "Faraway"; and on the 20th day of December, 1881, to inquire into and report upon the general management of the Quarantine Station from 1 January, 1876, to 1 June, 1881, together with the minutes of evidence and appendix, Govt. Printer, Sydney.

O'Shea, JM 1984, Mortuary variability: an archaeological investigation, Academic Press Orlando.

Owens, Da & Hayden, B 1997, 'Prehistoric rites of passage: A comparative study of transegalitarian hunter–gatherers', Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 121-61.

Pallant, JF 2005, SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Parker Pearson, M 1982, 'Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study',in I Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology, vol. 1, pp. 99-113.

---- 1995, 'Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis', Antiquity, vol. 69.

---- 1999, The archaeology of death and burial, Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

105

Parker Pearson, M & Richards, C 1994, 'Ordering the world: perceptions of architecture, space, and time',in M Parker Pearson & C Richards (eds), Architecture and order: approaches to social space, pp. 1-37.

Partners, T & Menses, P 1988, Sydney Harbour National Park Quarantine Station conservation plan, N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

Petts, D 2003, 'Memories in Stone',in H Williams (ed.), Archaeologies of Remembrance, Springer, pp. 193-213.

Rakita, GFM, Buikstra, JE, Beck, LA & Williams, SR (eds) 2005, Interacting with the dead: perspectives on mortuary archaeology for the new millennium, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, /z- wcorg/.

Reid, K 2011, 'Ocean funerals: the sea and Victorian cultures of death', Journal for Maritime Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 37-54.

Reynolds, A 2009, Anglo-Saxon deviant burial customs, Oxford University Press.

Roberts, C 2013, 'The Bioarchaeology of Health and Well-Being ',in S Tarlow & L Nilsson Stutz (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial Oxford Univeristy Press, Oxford, pp. 79-98.

Rodriguez, A 2015, Chinese Headstones at the Third Cemetery, Personal Communication, 19/3/2015.

Ryan, J 1991, 'Chinese burials in Western Australia in the nineteenth century', Studies in Western Australian History, vol. 12, pp. 8-16.

Saxe, A 1970, 'Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices', University of Michigan, Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Strange, C & Bashford, A (eds) 2003, Isolation: places and practices of exclusion, Routledge, London.

Straw, L 2012, 'Landscapes of the Scottish dead: Headstones and identity in colonial Tasmania', Journal of Australian Colonial History, vol. 14, pp. 89-106.

Szakolczai, A 2009, 'Liminality and Experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events', International Political Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 141-72.

Tapscott, D 1987, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Office of Australian War Graves, Correspondence,

106

Tarlow, S 1997, 'An archaeology of remembering: death, bereavement and the First World War', Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 7, pp. 105-21.

---- 1999, Bereavement and commemoration: an archaeology of mortality, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

---- 2000, 'Emotion in archaeology', Current Anthropology, vol. 41, no. 05, pp. 713-46.

Tarlow, S & Nilsson Stutz, L (eds) 2013, The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of death and burial First edition. edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Thomassen, B 2009, 'The uses and meaning of liminality', International Political Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5-28.

---- 2014, Liminality and the modern: living through the in-between, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Farnham.

Thompson, J 2005, Manly General Cemetery Fairlight NSW Conservation Management Plan.

Thorp, W 1993, Archaeological Assessment St Patricks Cemetery Church Street North Parramatta, Prepared for Roads and Traffic Authority.

Tilley, CY 1994, A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments, Berg, Oxford.

Trigger, BG 2006, A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Tsaliki, A 2008, 'Unusual burials and Necrophobia: an insight into the burial archaeology of fear',in EM Murphy (ed.), Deviant burial in the archaeological record, Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1-16.

Turner, V 1967, The forest of symbols: aspects of Ndembu ritual, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

---- 1969, The ritual process: structure and anti-structure, Aldine Pub. Co., Chicago.

---- 1987, 'The liminal period in rites of passage',in S Foster, M Little & LC Mahdi (eds), Betwixt & between: patterns of masculine and feminine initiation, Open Court, La Salle. van Gennep, A 1960, The rites of passage, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Vine Hall, N 1993, Manly cemetery transcripts: 1845-1993, Nick Vine Hall, Scriptorium Family History Centre, Albert Park.

107

Welch, J 1969, Hell to health: the history of quarantine at Port Phillip Heads, 1852-1966, Nepean Historical Society.

Weston, DA, Burge, L & Sigrist, J (eds) 1989, The Sleeping city: the story of Rookwood Necropolis, Society of Australian Genealogists in conjunction with Hale & Iremonger, Sydney.

Wohlwend, S 1998, Manly Cemetery Study, Manly Council

Wu, J 2014a, Chinese Burials at North Head Quarantine Station, Personal Communication,

Wu, J 2014b, 'Life-world of exclusion: 'racial hygiene' in Australian quarantine', paper presented to Quarantine: History, Heritage, Place, Q Station, Sydney, 14 - 16 August 2014.

Zelinka, S 1991, Tender sympathies: a social history of Botany Cemetery and the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney.

Ziino, B 2007a, 'Bringing Back the Dead: Mourning and Symbolic Return', Brisbane, 2009.

---- 2007b, A distant grief: Australians, war graves and the Great War, UWA Press, Crawley.

108

Data collected during fieldwork was entered into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis and importation into IBM SPSS. A ‘notes’ column in the Excel spreadsheet explains interpretations of various gravestones. Where data could not be determined for specific fields, the cell is marked ‘unknown’. The spreadsheet is available to view on the CD included at the back of this work.

109

110

111

112

113

114

This appendix contains a transcription of the burial register for the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and an extract of the Manly Cemetery burial registers for the sampled dataset used in this dissertation.

The Quarantine Station Third Cemetery burial register has been transcribed using the digitised copy of the original document held at the National Archives of Australia, C526. The relevant project numbers have been included in an additional column for reference.

The Manly Cemetery burial registers were transcribed by volunteers for the Manly Library Local Studies Collection and provided courtesy of John MacRitchie. It includes the reference number of the grave inscription in Nick Vine Hall’s transcription work (1993).

Square brackets and question marks, i.e. [?], are used where there is a questionable transcription or the original handwriting or condition of the original documents made the text undecipherable.

115

Information Project Grave Quarant- Cause of Medical sent to Name Age Died Remarks No. No. ined Death Attendant Registrar General First Burial in the New 1 Selina ELLIOTT 44 9.9.1881 12.9.1881 Small Pox Dr Day Cemetery Jimmy - 2 ? 9.9.1881 21.9.1881 Small Pox Dr R. Beattie Aboriginal Frederick 3 20 9.9.1881 27.9.1881 Small Pox Dr R. Beattie SOUTHCOTT 4 James McNAIR 23 9.9.1881 13.12.1881 Small Pox Dr R. Beattie

5 Alice FORSHAW 25 15.1.1882 17.1.1882 Small Pox Dr R. Beattie S.S. "Garonne"

Adelaide 6 8 days 15.1.1882 19.1.1882 Small Pox Dr R. Beattie S.S. "Garonne" FORESHAW Barque "Illic", one of the crew Christian Intermittent 7 42 15.1.1882 14.12.1882 died before entering the ROSLIN Fever Heads. Ship "Duchess of Argyle". 8 May WILDING 4 7.2.1883 9.2.1883 Scarlet Fever Dr R. Beattie Immigrant. William Ship "Duchess of Argyle". 9 2 7.2.1883 14.2.1883 Scarlet Fever Dr Walford KNIGHT Immigrant. Inflammatio 10 Richard WRAY 31 6.5.1883 15.5.1883 Dr R. Beattie Ship "Allanshaw". Immigrant. n of Lungs Florence 11 6 6.5.1883 22.5.1883 Scarlet Fever Dr Smith Ship "Allanshaw". Immigrant. SIMPSON 12 Henry GRIFFIN 2 7.5.1883 22.5.1883 Scarlet Fever Dr Smith Ship "Allanshaw". Immigrant.

Ship "Sterlingshire". 13 Adam KERR 3 18.2.1884 3.3.1884 Scarlet Fever Dr Sibley Immigrant. George Dr G. HS049 14 28 12.9.1884 22.9.1884 Small Pox Sydney HAMMOND Muskitt

116

15 John CASEY 34 8.12.1884 20.12.1884 Small Pox Dr. J. Service Sydney

Elizabeth 16 47 24.12.1884 25.12.1884 Small Pox Dr. J. Service Botany Rd, Sydney SAWYER Joseph 17 8 10.1.1885 6.2.1885 Small Pox Dr. J. Service Balmain FRANKLIN S.S. Arab of NSW Soudan Typhoid Contingent. Body moved to 17A Richard PERRY 26 19.6.1885 23.6.1885 Dr Williams Fever Victoria Barracks via Government Boatshed Kate Dr 18 20mths 5.7.1885 9.7.1885 Bronchitis S.S. Chimborazo. Immigrant O'LOUGHLIN McMaster Marian Congestion 19 2 5.7.1885 13.7.1885 Dr Sibley S.S. Chimborazo. Immigrant CHISWELL of Lungs Bertha 20 8mths 5.7.1885 21.7.1885 Pneumonia Dr Sibley S.S. Chimborazo. Immigrant FIDDLER Harrie 21 16mths 5.7.1885 21.7.1885 Pneumonia Dr Sibley S.S. Chimborazo. Immigrant WILLIAMS Alexander Dr. M. 22 4 13.1.1886 17.1.1886 Exhaustion MYLES Donohoe Henry Broncho 23 2 13.1.1886 21.1.1886 Dr Sibley S.S. Parthia. Immigrant. LOVELOCH Pneumonia Bronchitis & 24 Isabella CAIRNS 18mths 4.6.1886 10.6.1886 Dr Sibley S.S. Energia. Immigrant. Tonsilitis Francis Congestion 25 16mths 4.6.1886 14.6.1886 Dr Sibley S.S. Energia. Immigrant. YEOMAN of Lungs Bessie 26 3 4.6.1886 17.6.1886 Bronchitis Dr Sibley S.S. Energia. Immigrant. MONTGOMERY E.J.A. 27 MEERKIN 14days 26.12.1886 4.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes E.J.A. HS047 28 William MILLS 21 26.12.1886 7.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes Walter E.J.A. HS046 29 FUNNELL 21 26.12.1886 11.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes

117

Gervano E.J.A. HS045 30 31 26.12.1886 11.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. FORTISANO Haynes E.J.A. HS053 31 Mary MOORE 25 26.12.1886 11.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes Thomas E.J.A. 32 31 26.12.1886 11.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. JENKINS Haynes Marian E.J.A. 33 6 26.12.1886 12.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. CHRISTINSON Haynes David E.J.A. 34 35 26.12.1886 12.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. WILLIAMS Haynes E.J.A. 35 Bella REID 18 26.12.1886 12.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes E.J.A. 36 Katie REID 7 26.12.1886 12.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes E.J.A. 37 Rosina WALTER 12mths 26.12.1886 13.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes Emelia E.J.A. 38 18mths 26.12.1886 14.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. CHRISTINSON Haynes E.J.A. HS055 39 Herman PETERS 27 26.12.1886 23.1.1887 Small Pox S.S. Preussen. N.G.L. Haynes J. Ashburton 40 Chow Chiong 48 26.12.1886 16.3.1888 Small Pox Thompson Iole Child of A. Lakeman Esq. MP HS050 41 2 1.4.1888 6.4.1888 Small Pox Dr. Russell LAKEMANN of Manly Whooping Violet S.C. Wilkins 42 5weeks 1.10.1891 9.11.1891 Cough - CORNELIUS - Manly convulsions H.M. 43 Albert BLAKE 30 20.6.1892 29.6.1892 Small Pox Quarter Master R.M.S. Oroya Curtayne 44 Ah YET 39 14.5.1894 15.5.1894 Small Pox A.R. Broome Stevedore Ex S.S. Taiyuan

Cardiac Came from S.S. Orizaba. 2nd Sydney G.M. 45 28 1.5.1898 16.5.1898 Failure - class passenger from Western BURROWS Swinson Pnuemonia Australia. 46 Edmund 33 1.5.1898 26.5.1898 Confluent C.J. Bellamy Passenger from London to

118

THURLOW Small Pox Brisbane Ex S.S. Orizaba Nurses Sydney James Child of Assistant Storekeeper 47 20mths 30.5.1899 Home, Dr Thomas CORNELIUS C.E. Cornelius Manly First death from B.p. known in Thomas R. Bubonic Australasia. Died at residence 48 49 24.2.1900 24.2.1900 Dr Pickburn DUDLEY Plague Drummoyne, body brought here per steamer Came from No. 4 Murray Bubonic 49 John MAKINS 36 25.2.1900 27.2.1900 Dr Shells Street, Pyrmont. Buried noon, Plague 28/2/1900. HS006 Was proprietor of Hunter John Daniel 5.3.00 Bubonic & 50 25 2.3.1900 Dr Shells March 6 River Inc from whence he MADDEN 11.45am Plague HS007 came to Quarantine Robert 6.3.00 Bubonic Lived Hoake [?] Cottage, 51 23 2.3.1900 Dr Shells March 6 WALKER 1.45am Plague Annandale prior to admission Frederick Bubonic 52 2 9.3.1900 9.3.1900 Sydney Hospital DOVEY Plague Lionel Rescue 11.3.00 Bubonic Lived 170 Regent Street, 53 16 9.3.1900 Dr Shells March 12 Herbert OWLES 11pm Plague Redfern, son of Nathan Died at his residence, 328 Bubonic Dr Bourke Street., Surry Hills. HS004 54 Edward KELLY 39 14.3.1900 14.3.00 March 16 Plague Boardman Body brought from there for burial Died at 86 Windmill St., Post Mortem Dawes Point, taken from to Elleanor Matilda Bubonic 55 14 18.3.1900 17.3.1900 at North March 19 North Morgue where Post McCANN Plague Morgue Mortem was held thence for burial Died at Residence of parents Henry Bubonic 103 Walker St., Red from 56 16 19.3.1900 19.3.1900 Dr Maitland March 21 O'CONNELL Plague whence body was bought here for burial HS003 57 Sidney Cecil 20 20.3.1900 21.3.1900 Bubonic Dr Salter March 22 Came from 132 Windsor St.,

119

PEPPER Plague Paddington. From Allison Road, Randwick. Vincent Bubonic Buried on 22/3/1900 the Rev HS002 58 23 20.3.1900 21.3.1900 Dr Salter March 22 HEATON Plague Father Ignatius Le Mesurier officiating. Buried at Midnight. Mr William James Bubonic Vincent Supt officiating at HS038 59 21 23.3.1900 25.3.1900 Dr Salter March 27 HAYDEN Plague grave. Came from 23 Thompson St., Marrickville. 26.3.00 Bubonic 60 Walter HAYNES 25 24.3.1900 Dr Salter March 28 From 116 Quay St., Ultimo. 11.45pm Plague 27.3.00 Bubonic Came from Sydney Hospital to 61 John GATES 26 27.3.1900 Dr Salter March 28 8.30pm Plague Quarantine Oliver 28.3.00 Bubonic From 55 Young Street, 62 24 28.3.1900 Dr Salter BENNETT 12.15pm Plague Annandale Francis 29.3.00 Bubonic From 44 Glebe St., Glebe, was HS039 63 38 29.3.1900 Dr Salter JACKSON 7.15pm Plague buried about 9.30pm Frederick Wm 31.3.00 Bubonic 64 34 31.3.1900 Sydney Hospital BURNS 11.35pm Plague George Bubonic Buried at 10.20pm. C.H. 65 ? 1.4.1900 COOPER Plague Dichow officiating at grave 1.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from 128 Walker St., 66 James O'REILLY 36 1.4.1900 11.45pm Plague Salter Redfern. R.C. Bubonic Dr A.E. Silversmith. Came from 37 67 Andrew MILLS 24 25.3.1900 2.4.00 7am April 4 Plague Salter Edith St., Leichhardt, Bubonic Dr A.E. 68 Charles WELLS 19 3.4.1900 5.4.00 4am Stated late of Colo Vale. Plague Salter From Shakespeare St., Robert Wm Bubonic Dr A.E. HS037 69 48 3.4.1900 5.4.1900 Canterbury. Rev Allan SMITH Plague Salter McDougall officiating at grave George 6.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. From 221 King St., City. 70 40 2.4.1900 April 8 NICHOLAS 3.20am Plague Salter Presbyterian Elizabeth 6.4.1900 Bubonic Son lives 149 Elizabeth St. 71 60 LANGFORD 10.15pm Plague Husband People's Palace 123

120

William St., buried 11.30pm. Father Le Mesur. Payne, Hall Curton From 80 Dowling Street, Mary 7.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Paddington. Buried at noon. 72 6 5.4.1900 April 7 RAWLINSON 5.30am Plague Salter Father Ignatius officiating at grave. 8.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from 9 Law Street, 73 John GAYNOR 28 4.4.1900 April 8 3.30am Plague Salter Ultimo. Father Ignatius Came from 36 Bedford St., 8.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 74 Mary QUINN 34 4.4.1900 April 8 Balmain. Father Ignatius 9.20am Plague Salter officiating Bubonic Sydney 75 Arthur YATES 18 8.4.1900 8.4.00 Plague Hospital Frederick Bubonic Sydney 76 3 1/2 8.4.1900 ? BOSHELL Plague Hospital Died in Wexford Street. Buried Moon Kee Bubonic 77 ? 9.4.1900 by the Rev J.F. Moran. First (Chow) Plague Chinaman who died of B.P. Died at 2 Belmore St., St Arthur Bertram Bubonic Peters. Buried by Rev. J. 78 23 9.4.1900 8.4.1900 Dr Wade BULLOCK Plague Moran about midnight 8.4.1900 Came to Q. from Rushes 10.4.00 Bubonic 79 Enoch POWELL 44 8.4.1900 Dr Salter Hotel, Waverley Rd, Waverley. 12.15pm Plague Rev J.F. Moran officiating 11.4.00 Bubonic 80 Oswald MUNRO 16 9.4.1900 Dr Salter 25 Aukram St., North Sydney 1am Plague 11.4.00 Bubonic Binning St., Erskineville. Rev 81 Godfrey ROSEN 16 10.4.1900 Dr Salter 2.20pm Plague J.F. Moran 9 Brougham St., Glebe. Rev Charles MILLER 12.4.00 Bubonic McDougall, Minister. White 82 22 10.4.1900 Dr Salter Jul 2 [?] or PARKER 5.30am Plague Undertaker, Payne and Hall witnesses.

121

267 Liverpool St. Rev Moran James Bubonic 83 27 9.4.1900 12.4.00 Dr Salter Minister. White Undertaker, VAUGHAN Plague Payne and Hall Witnesses. Charles 13.4.00 Bubonic From Silver St., Marrickville. 84 45 8.4.1900 Dr Salter KENNEDY 2.40pm Plague Rev Ignatius Minister Post Mortem Bubonic HS035 85 William DAVIS 36 13.4.1900 12.4.1900 at Sydney Plague Morgue From Windsor St., Ebenezer John 15.4.00 Bubonic HS036 86 11.4.1900 Dr Salter Paddington. Rev McDougall WAKEHAM 2pm Plague Minister Was stated to have been Bubonic 87 John HAYNES 62 15.4.1900 employed at Forsyth's Rope Plague where he died Edward 17.4.00 Bubonic Came from 77 George St., 88 52 17.4.1900 Dr Salter POWELL 3.15pm Plague SYDNEY Died Lords St., Botany. Body Bubonic 89 Huong WAH 25 17.4.1900 ? Dr Hunter brought from thence. Buried Plague 6pm. Rev McDougall Died 27 Spencer St., Summer Bubonic HS034 90 John O'NEILL 18.4.1900 18.4.1900 April Hill from whence body Plague brought Richard M. 20.4.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from 76 Dowling St., 91 17 18.4.1900 April 26 CURTIS 3.8pm Plague Salter Paddington buried a Charles George 22.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Brought from 24 James St., 92 16 22.4.1900 ROFFEY 12.20am Plague Salter Woollahra, buried 6am Bubonic Died Bay St., Ultimo from 93 Annie AUSTIN 56 22.4.1900 22.4.1900 Plague whence body was brought Came from 260 Crown St., John 23.4.00 Bubonic 94 45 20.4.1900 Dr Salter April 26 Ultimo. Buried by Rev Le McCARTHY 6.45pm Plague Mesurier. Died at Prince Alfred Hospital Bubonic HS032 95 GUNNY Gooney ? 23.4.1900 P.A. Hosp from whence body brought. Plague No particulars available.

122

Lived 38 Levy St., Jeanny Bubonic Sydney Chippendale. Died in Sydney HS033 96 15 9/12 23.4.1900 22.4.1900 April 25 THOMPSON Plague Hospital Hospital. Rev. A McDougall. Pres. Minister. Lived 205 Thomas St., Ultimo. George Mark Bubonic Sydney 97 57 24.4.1900 23.4.1900 April 24 Died Sydney Hospital. Rev J.F. BURMAN Plague Hospital Moran (C of E) Minister. Died Austral Club Hotel, Timothy Bubonic Sussex & Druitt Streets from 98 25.4.1900 MAHER Plague whence body was brought. Rev Igantius (RC) Frederick Alfred Bubonic Died 1 Sutherland Avenue, 99 4 2/12 25.4.1900 25.4.1900 Walter Smith April 28 Wm BRANCH Plague Paddington Came from 10 Abbitoirs Road, Florence 27.4.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 100 12 26.4.1900 April 27 Balmain. Buried… Rev. J.F. YOUNG 10.50am Plague Salter Moran C of E. 1.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from 2 Burnett St., 101 William EVANS 21 28.4.1900 May 2 12.25pm Plague Salter Redfern Died 160 Walker St., Redfern Bubonic Dr A.E. HS030 102 Alice LAWLER 24 1.5.1900 1.5.1900 from whence body was Plague Salter brought. Rev Ignatius at grave. Came from 9 Hornsey St., Sarah Veronica Bubonic Dr A.E. 103 13 29.4.1900 2.5.1900 May 3 Balmain. Buried 10.30… O'CONNELL Plague Salter Father Le Mesurier officiating Grosvenor Hotel, City. Rev Margaret 3.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. HS031 104 40 29.4.1900 May 5 Allan Mc Dougall officiating at WHITEHEAD 7.30am Plague Salter grave. Thomas 3.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 105 35 3.5.1900 May 5 Ivanhoe Hotel, Manly STOCKDALE 2.55pm Plague Salter Tennyson Pt, Parramatta. Bubonic Dr 106 Henry BUTLER 59 3.5.1900 2.5.1900 May 6 Buried 10pm, Rev Ignatius Plague McDonagh officiating Bubonic Rev Ignatius officiating at 107 M… HOGAN ? 3.5.1900 ? ? Plague grave

123

359 Harris St., Pyrmont. Peter 3.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 108 16 2.5.1900 Buried at 3am on 4.5.00. RAFFERTY 5.30pm Plague Salter Father Ignatius (RC) Minister From Barque Powona. Buried 5.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 109 Stanley SPRATT 19 29.4.1900 May 8 10pm. Rev J.F. Moran 9.30pm Plague Salter Minister. 11 Brisbane St., City. Buried Donald 5.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 110 15 5.5.1900 May 8 11.15pm. Rev J.F. Moran (C of McLEMON[?] 10.30pm Plague Salter E) Minister. Edmund Bubonic Dr A.E. 111 15 7.5.1900 7.5.00 8am May 8 37 Nickson St., Surry Hills. EDMUNDS Plague Salter 64 George Street, Redfern Gladys Caroline 6.5.00 Bubonic from whence body came to 112 5 7.5.1900 Dr Scott May 8 McALLOON 6.15pm Plague Station for burial at Quarantine 565A Bridge Road, Margaret Bubonic Camperdown. Body brought 113 64 7.5.1900 7.5.1900 Dr McIlroy May 4 LAWRENCE Plague from thence for burial at Quarantine 67 George Street, City. Rev Etienne 7.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 114 65 3.5.1900 May 9 Ignatius Le Mesurier ANGELE 10.10pm Plague Salter officiating Catherine 8.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 163 Hargraves St., Paddington. 115 49 3.5.1900 May 9 HENDERSON 1.30am Plague Salter Rev Father Ignatius Minister Moore Park Road, Moore John 9.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 116 53 6.5.1900 May 9 Park. Rev J.F. Moran C of E HARDWICK 5.40am Plague Salter Minister 25 Macquarie St., City. Buried 10.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. HS028 117 Ah HON 26 9.5.1900 May 11 7am 11.5.1900. Rev Mr 9.50pm Plague Salter McDougall Minister. Came from Sir John Young 11.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Hotel, Liverpool & George HS029 118 Arthur REID 25 4.5.1900 May 11 6.10am Plague Salter Streets. Bureid 11.30am. Father Ignatius Minister.

124

25 Rosser St., Rozelle. Buried 11.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 119 Harrie SARINA 17 10.5.1900 May 11 11.30am. Rev Mr Moran 9.40am Plague Salter officiating Minister Died 6 Chapman St., Moore Michael Bubonic 120 25 11.5.1900 11.5.1900 Dr Scott May 12 Park. Father Ignatius MOLONEY Plague officiating Minister 13.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 20 Gordon St., Paddington. HS023 121 Stella PATMORE 11 9.5.1900 May 14 12.35pm Plague Salter Father Ignatius Minister 91 Elizabeth St., Redfern. Rev 14.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. HS024 122 John Isaac NUTT 28 9.5.1900 May 15 Allan McDougall officiating 12.20pm Plague Salter Minister Body brought from Botany Bubonic HS025 123 BOW You 28 15.5.1900 Unknown Unknown May 15 Road, Alexandria. Rev Plague McDougall Minister. 17.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 36 Derwent Street, Glebe. Rev HS026 124 David FATZEUS 20 9.5.1900 May 17 5.55am Plague Salter J.F. Moran Minister. Died Crown St., St Peters from Henry Milne Bubonic 125 20 17.5.1900 17.5.00 Dr Spencer May 18 whence body was brought McDONAGH Plague here. J.F. Moran Minister Body brought from Sydney for Bubonic 126 Ah HERN ? 18.5.1900 ? ? burial. Rev Allan McDougall Plague officiating Died at 9 Little Essex Street, Bernard Bubonic Dr J. 127 19 18.5.1900 17.5.1900 May 21 Sydney, from whence came. O'SULLIVAN Plague Frazer[?] Father Ignatius Minister. 6 Castlereagh St., City. Rev 15.5.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 128 Ah CHONG 38 9.5.1900 May 22 McDougall officiating 10.10am Plague Salter Minister. Body broguth from Nelson St., James Bubonic Sans Souci where death 129 70 19.5.1900 ? ? DOHERTY Plague occurred. Rev Ignatius Minister Joseph Sudbury Bubonic Died [?] Glassop St., Balmain 130 45 20.5.1900 19.5.1900 ? REDMAN Plague from whence body was

125

brought for burial. Rev J.F. Moran Minister. Died Eustace Street, Manly. William Bubonic 131 17 3/4 21.5.1900 21.5.1900 Dr Hall June 5 Body brought to Q for burial. COOPER Plague Rev J.F. Moran Minister. Drs Walton 478 Oxford Street. Body Lawrence George Bubonic 132 4 21.5.1900 21.5.1900 Smith & Jun 5 brought from there.[…?] Chesney PLANT Plague Quaife [?] Minister officiating From 102 Beattie Str., Rozelle. William 22.5.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. 133 27 16.5.1900 May 22 Rev Allan McDougall DOCKREY 12.00am Plague Salter officiating Minister 22.5.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. 51 Windmill St., Miller's Point. 134 James MUNN 31 23.4.1900 Jun 5 7.50am Plague Salter C of E Minister officiating Andrew Came from 435 Pitt St., 24.5.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. HS020 135 O'YOUNG 26 23.5.1900 Jun 2 Presbyterian. Mr A McDougall 10.25am Plague Salter (Chinese) Minister. 25.5.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. 470 Riley St., Surry Hills. Rev HS021 136 Edward EDNEY 47 24.5.1900 Jun 1 9.40am Plague Salter J.F. Moran Minister. Roger Bubonic Dr A.E. 144 Allison St., Annandale. 137 23 28.5.1900 30.5.1900 Jun 2 DRUMMOND Plague Salter Rev A McDougall Minister. Rev Ignatius Le Mesurier Bubonic Dr A.E. 138 Patrick BUTLER 55 1.6.1900 Jun 2 officiating at grave. Body Plague Salter brought from Sydney for burial 108 Boulevarde Lewisham. Charles 1.6.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Rev McDougall Minister. HS015 139 17 6.5.1900 Jun 8 BENNETT 9am Plague Salter R.Sargent Undertaker. Moore & Fall [?] Witnesses. 3.6.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from Rose Bay. HS016 140 James WILSON 7 2.6.1900 Jun 3 12.55pm Plague Salter Presbyterian Minister 3.6.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Came from Burwood. Rev J.F. 141 Richards JONES 16 2.6.1900 Jun 4 2.50pm Plague Salter Moran Minister William Henry 4.6.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. From 4 Moncur St., Woolahra. 142 18 1.6.1900 Jun 4 BROWN 12.25pm Plague Salter C of E. 143 Lily 6 5.6.1900 10.6.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Jun 13 From 5 Langley St.,

126

STEPHENSON 3.10pm Plague Salter Darlinghurst. C of E. Died Waterloo from whence body was brought. Rev Father Bubonic Dr Power & 144 David APPS 50 15.6.1900 14.6.1900 June 16 Ignatius Minister, Ball Plague Cooley Undertaker. Grinson a & Dec…[?] Charles 16.6.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. Late of Menangle. RC Ball 145 17 22.4.1900 June 18 McKINLEY 1.15am Plague Salter Dechow Hall. Michael 18.6.00 Bubonic Dr Henry Botany Rd., Botany. RC 146 6weeks 23.6.1900 June 20 LONERGAN 7.30am Plague Harvey Dechow Hay Gurron [?] 68 Campbell St., Paddington. Elizabeth 26.6.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 147 65 24.6.1900 June 27 Wesleyan, Ball, Brown & CARTER 8.45pm Plague Salter Moore. 29 William St., Redfern, David William 27.6.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. 148 29 26.6.1900 June 27 Wesleyan, Dechow Grinson PERKINS 2.25am Plague Salter Brown. Post Mortem Patrick J. 377 Pitt St., Sydney. RC 149 55 30.6.1900 29.6.1900 at Sydney None July 1 CLANCEY Dechow Moore, Grinson [?] Morgue Came from Guilford, Rev. A 28.7.00 Bubonic Dr A.E. McDougall Minister. W. 150 George ELLIE 17 26.4.1900 July 29 9.40am Plague Salter Grimson U.T., W. Hay, G.A. Payne & Fox From 64 Greek St., Glebe. Rev 18.8.1900 Bubonic Dr A.E. Moran Minister. C.H. Dechow 151 Robert WEST 58 17.7.1900 Aug 19 10.40am Plague Salter undertaker, Payne, Hay and I. Fox assisting From S.S. Antillign, Able Bubonic Dr A.E. 152 Claus OLSEN 19 2.3.1901 3.3.01 3.45 March 5 seaman, Minister A.H. Plague Salter Wilshire, Undertaker J.F. Ball Sup acting Chaplain Q.O. Ball, Charles Walter Dr A.E. Miller F and Miller T assister, HS008 153 22 26.4.01 20.5.01 Small Pox May 21 SMART Salter A.B. of NSW Naval Brigade from China, Ex S.S. Chingtu.

127

Supt Actg Clergyman, J.F. Ball Lavells Dr A.E. 154 5 27.5.01 5.6.01 Small Pox May 6 Undertaker. T. Miller and A HANDOCK Salter Campbell assisting. G.A. Payne officiating as Alice 8.6.01 Dr A.E. Minister, J.F. Ball acting 155 25 3.6.01 Small Pox May 7 BLENDELL 3.15pm Salter undertaker. T. Miller and A Campbell assisting J.F. Ball acting undertaker Edwards James Unknown Dechow acting Minister & 156 28 6.8.01 5.8.01 Unknown Aug 22 FURY (Septicaemia) Dead body brought from 61 Abercrombie St., Redfern. Dead body brought from 57 Ernest Bubonic Dr W.C. Sprint St., Waverley. J.F. Ball 157 36 11.12.01 11.12.01 Dec 16 DENINGTON Plague Armstrong [?] acting undertaker. I.I. Drew and W. Hay witnesses. Julia Fordyce Buried in Manly Cemetery 157a 51 23.3.02 Dr Hall 26.3.02 VINCENT 27.3.02 Mary Ann Chronic Buried in Manly Cemetery 157b 26 26.3.02 Dr Hall 28.3.02 EDWARDS Enteritis 27.3.02 Chas. Edward Drs Hall & Buried in Quarantine 158 CORNELEUS 9 1.7.02 Scarlet Fever 3.7.02 Thomas Cemetery. Rev Fr Hayden RC jnr Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 20.11.02 officiating Minister Suicide by Dr Hall at 21.11.02 HS001 159 William HAY 54 19.11.02 S.M. Johnstone. Witnesses J.F. Shooting inquest Manly Vincent & Quarantine Staff. Undertaker Mr Waugh, Manly. 13.12.02 Decembe The Supt Officiated. Witnesses 160 Ahmed SAID 27 6.12.02 Small Pox Dr Grieves 5am r 13 Q.O's Dechow & Phillips Sabina Rachel Pneumonic The Supt Officiated. Witnesses 161 30 30.6.06 30.6.06 Dr Stacey Jul 3 1906 MILES Plague G. Ball, Phillips & Erickson John Lindsay Dr Thomas June 13 Father Murphy. Supt of Q.H. 162 4. 21 12.6.06 Pneumonia CHRISTIE Manly 1907 Dechow. HS009 163 Hector SPENCE 35? 1st April 10 6.?.10 [H…traghie] Dr J.L. 8th Apr Witnesses Q.O.s A.H.

128

Small Pox Vinchin [?] 1910 Willshire, Thos Fox & M … Buried at Quarantine Cemetery Smallpox, attended by Fr Ba… Manly. Kathleen May De Dr J. 26 Sept HS040 164 28 ? Sep 1911 25.9.11 Funnicles [?] Dr MacMasters, Mr Gelting & STURLER McMaster 1911 Asthemia Williams. … Sterler [?] and Miss Cleary and Station Staff Died just as ship cast anchor Dr. C. and was buried in the Kuon KWONG Pthisis & Retallack Quarantine Cemetery in Grave 165 (Chinese Fireman 36 11.10.11 11.10.11 Heart 13.10.11 (Ship's No. 70, 12.10.11 …(S.S. S.S. Eastern) Disease Surgeon) Eastern). Witnesses to burial Dechow, Ball, Willshire Novembe 166 Phyllis HUGHES 5 14.11.12 19.11.12 Measles Dr Reid Grave No. 165 r 1912 Tonsilitis & Dr W.F. Neil Thomas Cousin 167 3 5.2.1913 Celulitis of [?] (Ship's ROBERTSON neck Surgeon) Died on board S.S. Rangatira and buried in the Quarantine 168 E. NEWMAN 26 20.3.13 Cemetery 22.3.13. Grave No. 167. Buried in the Quarantine HS041 169 C. BRAUNTON 20.3.13 23.3.13 Dr Reid Cemetery 25.3.13. Grave No.

168. Buried in the Quarantine HS042 170 J.B. FREEMAN 2yrs 20.3.13 27.3.13 Dr Reid Cemetery 28.3.13. Grave John Baptist Buried in the Quarantine 171 42 1.5.13 13.5.13 Dr Reid ADONIS Cemetery 15.5.13. Grave Buried in Quarantine Cemetery. Undertaker J Ball. Mrs Mary Smallpox & Dr 172 29 26.8.13 29.8.13 Witnesses N. Brown and D MARTIN Childbirth Robertson Noonan. Minister Fr … Elligoth from Manly. 173 Elsie STONE ( 33 21.6.14 12.7.14 a.Bright's Dr H.N. 13.7.14 Buried in Quarantine

129

Known as Elsie Disease b. Fealonby Cemetery. Undertaker Jas …. GRANT) Variola Witnesses to burial David Noon & Allan Jacton, … Rev A.T. Stoddart, Ch of England. a. Gastro- Keith enteritis b. Drs Reid & 173 a SLATTERY 8weeks 6.7.14 11.7.14 Strangulated Fealonby (contact) inguinal Hernia Deceased was admitted from the Sacred Heart Hospital Darlinghurst. Buried in a. Carinoma Quarantine Cemetery. 174 James TOOHEY 75 8.7.14 31.7.14 of stomach Dr Reid Undertaker Jas Fredk Ball.

b. Variola Wintnesses N. Brown and D…. Minister Rev father J.D. Simons from St Patrick's College Buried in Quarantine Station 175 Mailili 23 8.11.18 10.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 Cemetery 11 Nov 18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 176 LUCIO 28 8.11.18 11.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 11 Nov 18 Joe JASSIA Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 177 30 8.11.18 11.11.18 Dr Dean 22.11.18 (Fijian) B 11 Nov 1918 William K. Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery HS058 178 30 8.11.18 11.11.18 Dr Dean 22.11.18 MENZIES B 11 Nov 1918 Percy Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 179 22 8.11.18 12.11.18 Dr Dean 22.11.18 EATHORN B 12 Nov 1918 Alfred Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 180 23 8.11.18 12.11.18 Dr Dean 22.11.18 BARNETT B 12 Nov 1918 Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 181 PERASI (Fijian) 20 8.11.18 13.11.18 Dr Dean 22.11.18 B 13 Nov 1918 Charles Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 182 34 8.11.18 14.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 LELLAND 16 Nov 1918

130

MONASSA Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 183 8.11.18 14.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 (Fijian) 14 Nov 1918 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 184 James MOORE 35 8.11.18 16.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 16 Nov 1918 John Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 185 28 8.11.18 16.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 McKARRALL 16 Nov 1918 MASSAMURA Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 186 29 8.11.18 19.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 22.11.18 (Fiji) 20 Nov 1918 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 187 ABEL (Fiji) 30 8.11.18 21.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 25.11.18 21 Nov 1918 Charles Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 188 35 8.11.18 20.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 25.11.18 DICKSON 21 Nov 1918 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 189 A. William BLISS 10mths 8.11.18 22.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 25.11.18 23 Nov 1918 Frank Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 190 27 13.11.18 24.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 25.11.18 SAUNDERS 25 Nov 1918 Walter H. Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 191 34 21.11.18 23.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 McCRONAN 24 Nov 1918 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 192 George RIDLEY 19 21.11.18 25.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 26 Nov 1918 John Henry Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 193 25 21.11.18 25.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 PETHERICK 26 Nov 1918 Frederick Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 194 Thomas 19 21.11.18 25.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 26 Nov 1918 MORGAN SAVANAKA Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 195 24 8.11.18 26.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 29.11.18 (Fijian) 26.11.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 196 Harry McKAY 26 25.11.18 26.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 26.11.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 197 Robert FAIRLEY 19 25.11.18 27.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 27.11.18 Thomas John Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 198 29 25.11.18 27.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 TRACEY 27.11.18 199 James Michael 28 25.11.18 27.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery

131

CAHILL 28.11.18 Marina Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 200 35 25.11.18 28.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 MINERVINI 28.11.18 Bachisio Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 201 30 25.11.18 28.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 29.11.18 MACCIONI 29.11.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 202 Ngo CIANATTI 30 25.11.18 29.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 30.11.18 Joseph Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 203 23 25.11.18 29.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 BIAGIONI 29.11.18 Luigi Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 204 27 25.11.18 30.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 MOTARALLI 30.11.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 205 Joseph FOGLIA 24 25.11.18 30.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 30.11.18 Hector Fraser Buried in Quarantine Cemetery HS010 206 18 25.11.18 30.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 HICKS 30.11.18 Sgt Percy George Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 207 29 25.11.18 28.11.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 30.11.18 EDWARDS 2.12.18 Lorenza Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 208 29 25.11.18 3.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 10.12.18 SPINOZA 4.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery HS011 209 Annie EGAN 24 3.12.18 3.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 10.12.18 4.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 209A Jawai LIN 24 3.12.18 3.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 4.12.18 Elizabeth Buried in Quarantine Cemetery HS062 210 33 5.12.18 5.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 10.12.18 McGREGOR 5.12.18 Sgt Joseph Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 211 32 25.11.18 6.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 10.12.18 STOCK 7.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 212 James LACY 20 25.11.18 4.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 10.12.18 5.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 213 Lugi URSINO 30 25.11.18 5.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 11.12.18 5.12.18 Alfred Ernest Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 214 18 25.11.18 14.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Broad 14.12.18 BROWN 14.12.18 215 George 29 12.12.18 16.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 16.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery

132

GRAINGER 16.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 216 Alice Ethel SIME 28 12.12.18 19.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 21.12.18 20.12.18 (Body exhumed and

taken to Melbourne) Alexander Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 217 28 12.12.18 20.12.18 Pneumonia Dr Dean 23.12.18 MOAR 21.12.18 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery Pneumonia 22.1.19 (Remains exhumed for 218 Yick MON 32 22.1.19 Dr Mitchell 22.1.19 B Transportation to China 10.9.29) Pneumonia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 219 Peras PIETRO 33 25.11.18 22.1.19 Dr Mitchell 22.1.19 B 22.1.19 On ship Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 220 A. ATTREE 24 21.2.19 21.2.19 ? Nil Malta 21.2.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 221 KAMANTI 25 5.4.19 7.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 7.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 222 TOBU 19 5.4.19 9.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 9.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 223 TONA 40 5.4.19 9.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 9.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 224 TEREBUA 25 5.4.19 9.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 9.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 225 TOWIA 20 5.4.19 9.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 9.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 226 FRANTZ [?] J.N. 27 5.4.19 10.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 10.4.19 10.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 227 J. SHAW 35 Staff 11.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 12.4.19 11.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 228 TAKIRNA 17 5.4.19 13.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 15.4.19 13.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 229 JEREMIAH 19 5.4.19 15.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 15.4.19 15.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery HS068 230 A. THOMSON 29 5.4.19 17.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 21.4.19 20.4.19

133

Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 231 Ali SAHALAL 25 8.4.19 16.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 21.4.19 20.4.19 Anchises Asphyxia Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 232 Peter CHERVIN 26 16.4.19 Dr Dean 21.4.19 15.4.19 (Hanging) 20.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 233 ALEXIS 22 8.4.19 20.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 22.4.19 20.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 234 Sala MARJI 30 8.4.19 20.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 22.4.19 21.4.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 235 GABY 27 8.4.19 25.4.19 Influenza Dr Henry 28.4.19 26.4.19 Acute Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 236 QUINIE 30 8.4.19 4.5.19 Dr Dean 9.5.19 Phthsis 4.5.19 Acute Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 237 DONA 24 8.4.19 27.5.19 Dr Benbow 28.5.19 Phthsis 28.5.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 238 DAVIS A 30 15.6.19 21.6.19 Influenza P Dr Benbow 25.6.19 22.6.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 239 WAMPO 30 18.6.19 4.7.19 Influenza P Dr Benbow 8.7.19 4.7.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery 240 MARTINSON P 44 27.6.19 7.7.19 Influenza P Dr Benbow 8.7.19 7.7.19 Buried in Quarantine Cemetery SAMAIN Ex S.S. Tuberculosis 18.8.25 (Died at S.I.H. Witness 241 29 2.8.25 17.8.25 Dr Blumer 18.8.25 TASMAN (Gen) to buriel Assistants Cr… James and Noonan) Mrs G. Privately cremated Northern MALLETT Ex Suburbs Crematorium 3.3.62 242 66 27.2.62 1.3.62 Dr Ramsay Vessell (Post Mortem held at Station "Strathmore" 2.3.62)

134

Project Surname First Name Plot No. Date of Burial Age at Register Monument Vine No. Death Page Hall Number MC001 ECCLES Maria E[lizabeth] B.077 1909.07.26 71 12 Y 183 MC002 SMITH Mary Jane B.168 1906.01.18 38 17 Y 381 MC003 EDWARDS Amy C[atherine] B.180 1886.08.06 18 Y 392 MC004 BENSON Sarah B.207 1891.10.27 79 19 Y 677 MC005 LORD Martha Louisa B.291 1919.04.22 47 Y 772 MC006 RUSSELL Frederick B., Lt Col B.321 1883.04.14 73 25 Y 808 MC007 JACKSON Ethel M[ary] B.343 1910.11.28 29 26 Y 788 MC008 OWEN [Edwin] Edgar B.457 1890.01.13 1 32 Y 1149 MC009 BAXTER Rachael B.489 1917.08.25 65 33 Y 1141 MC010 BLACKLOCK William B.590 1904.06.11 48 38 Y 1275 MC011 NIELSEN Neil Peter B.636 1915.02.20 27 41 Y 1429 MC012 BREILLAT Lily [Francis] B.630 1902.11.29 40 Y 1435 MC013 KORFF Louisa F[arrance] B.061 1911.11.04 12 Y 167 MC014 GOODWIN Austin Thomas B.197 1907.10.10 39 18 Y 409 MC015 EVANS Fannetta S[uzannah] A.044 1912.01.13 67 5 Y 411 MC016 WILSON Ella Constance A.077 1914.12.17 33 6 Y 626 MC017 KNYVETT Alice B.087 1910.01.15 60 13 Y 193 MC018 NEVILLE Joseph B.131 1896.04.14 15 Y 226 MC019 DALTON Charles B.129 1891.02.05 58 15 Y 227 MC020 CAZALY Clarissa Mrs B.101 1909.12.03 88 14 Y 256 MC021 CHAPMAN William Edward B.172 1905.10.28 76 17 Y 385 MC021 HARPER Marie Grafton B.178 1894.03.18 57 17 Y 390 MC023 BERRIMAN Fred Samuel B.319 1883.09.12 29 25 Y 811

135

MC024 KAY William Richard (died in WW1, B.369 1917.10.19 21 Y 996 buried elsewhere) MC025 KILMINSTER Mary Wilson B.429 1915.11.15 74 30 Y 1127 MC026 RULE Stuart B.486 1888.09.05 17 33 Y 1141 MC027 WEBB Frederick William B.490 1919.07.18 82 33 Y 1139 MC028 HOBDAY Henry S[mart] B.594 1914.09.10 39 Y 1271 MC029 AMAREL Eveline B.517 1914.01.19 1 day 35 Y 1225 [AMARAL] MC030 MEADOWS Mary Mrs S.377 1905.05.12 67 MD35 Y 1812 MC031 INGRAM George S.312 1908.04.13 66 MD29 Y 1879 MC032 MACDONALD William S.290 1897.04.08 77 MD27 Y 1901 MC033 PATERSON Mary C[hristina] S.238 1883.08.17 10 days MD22 Y 2056 MC034 JOHNSON Alice Ruth S.229 1885.04.27 1 MD21 Y 2048 MC035 BADMINGTON Jane S.200 1881.07.11 MD19 Y 2095 MC036 WILLIAMS Sophy Ann S.164 1913.10.13 95 Y 2134 MC037 BENNETT Samuel S.143 1903.08.29 81 MD13 Y 2261 MC038 WILSON Alfred E S S.135 [1893] MD13 Y 2269 MC039 PFOEFFER Katharina S.089 1901.06.23 85 MD9 Y 2435 MC040 FLOYER Arthur S.005 1907.09.20 20 MD1 Y 2551 MC041 WETHERALL Jessie Armstrong T.037 1917.06.13 75 MD43 Y 2748 MC042 MCCONNELL Clara Mrs T.041 1920.01.24 39 MD43 Y 2751 MC043 STODDART Alfred George, Rev G.002 1924.08.28 70 74 Y 1583, 2710 MC044 GREEN Annie G.025 1922.08.02 54 75 Y 2687 MC045 GOOD Charlotte R.110 1925.07.18 70 RC110 Y 2394 MC046 LOCANE Andrea John R.218 1924.01.26 29 RC120 Y 2233 MC047 HALL Mary Ann R.230 1924.09.17 66 RC121 Y 2221 MC048 DONOGHUE Alton Joseph N.139 1920.08.27 15 RC72 Y 1324 MC049 HINDS Arthur Douglas N.145 1921.03.26 8 mths RC73 Y 1318 MC050 HEGARTY Walter J[ohn] N.112 1922.09.04 55 RC70 Y 1351 MC051 ROGERS Mervyn Rees John N.055 1923.05.03 10 RC64 Y 1167 MC052 FRANCA Virginia N.065 1924.11.18 RC65 Y 1174

136

MC053 WALSH Michael P.001 1899.08.03 42 RC1 Y 1093 MC054 WARD Maggie P.008 1900.01.27 26 RC1 Y 1100 MC055 LYNCH Edmond P.070 1919.07.24 59 RC7 Y 845 MC056 ELLER Ann, Mrs PP.157 1923.12.26 72 RC41 Y 866 MC057 MOYLAN J[ohn] B[ede] (died in WW1, buried P.091 1918.09.28 39 Y 708 elsewhere) MC058 SWEENEY Hugh P.097 1911.07.13 72 RC9 Y 5925 MC059 DYSON Annie, Mrs PP.128 1920.11.10 70 RC38 Y 560 MC060 KENNY Catherine, Mrs PP.124 1921.07.13 49 RC38 Y 526 MC061 ELLIS Mary J[osephine], Mrs PP.118 1922.02.27 43 RC37 Y 520 MC062 CURTIS Ambrose Q.007 1924.06.11 75 RC55 Y 486 MC063 MCGURGAN Theresa Bridget, Mrs P.143 1913.12.19 64 RC13 Y 476 MC064 MALONE Annie P.156 1913.05.18 68 RC15 Y 343 MC065 GERAGHTY Irma [Ethel] P.197 1915.12.23 63 RC18 Y 264 MC066 SLY Martha P.182 1914.04.10 50 RC17 Y 279 MC067 MILLETT Edward Henry Charles Q.005 1915.08.12 RC55 Y 488 MC068 STEERE George P.017 1891.07.02 9 Y 98

137

This appendix provides the terminology, typologies and recording methodologies used in this thesis. It is not an exhaustive list of all gravestone and mortuary memorialisation terms and forms but provides a comprehensive collection of the types seen and analysed at the Quarantine Station Third Cemetery and Manly Cemetery. The methodologies are based on Harold Mytum’s ‘Recording and Analysing Graveyards’ (2000) and the National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee’s ‘Guidelines for Cemetery Conservation’ (2009). All images are adapted from these sources.

There is no overall standardisation for the terms used for the description of monuments and gravestones and terms will vary between academics, cemeteries and stone masons however the terms used reflect general usage.

The plinth refers to the course or masonry layer in contact with the ground whilst the pedestal refers to any other courses, or sometimes a block between the plinth and the upper section(s)

An inscription refers to text on a gravestone; other non-worded symbols are motifs or decoration. The epitaph refers specifically to words of conclusion that are in addition to records of names, dates and details of information relating to the deceased (Tarlow 1999, p. 73)

138

Elements to look for in a grave monument. Source: National Joint Committee of Rookwood Necropolis as in National Trust of Australia & Cemeteries Committee (2009).

139

TABLET (UPRIGHT SLAB)

Semi-circular with Rectangular Cambered Semi-circular shoulders

Semi-circular with Semi-circular with Gothic Gothic with shoulders acroteria cutaway shoulders

Anthropomorphic Gothic with acroteria Ogee Anthropomorphic with peaked shoulders

Gabled Pedimented Gabled with shoulders Cruciform

Gabled with peak Gabled with peak Cross surmount with Stepped shoulders shoulders shoulders

140

Circular surmount Miscellaneous, e.g. Double Stylised double with shoulders heart

HORIZONTAL (LEDGER) SLAB

Ledger Low ledger monument

Low ledger monument with convex top Low ledger monument with gabled top

Low ledger monunment with hipped top/sarcophagus Low ledger monument with gabled cross top

Tomb Table

141

BLOCK

Block Block with gabled top Rock

DESK

Scroll Desk Desk with plaque Desk with book Desk with scroll decoration decoration

OBELISK/PILLAR

Obelisk Pedestal Column Broken Column

STATUE/SCULPTURE

Urn Draped urn Angel Angel with Cross

142

CROSS

Circular Latin Rustic Latin Latin (Calvary cross with 3 steps) Celtic cross

OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS

Cairn Rustic pedestal Cusps (embellishment)

FENCING/BORDERS

Border with posts at Kerbing/Border Border with posts at corner and midpoint corner Iron picket fencing

143

To ensure consistency of recording, measurements were taken at specific points on monuments. The height, width/thickness and length of monuments depend upon whether a monument is horizontally orientated, e.g. ledger monuments and slabs; or vertically orientated, e.g. upright tablets and crosses. Measurements were taken at the largest points of each of the dimensions. These conventions are based on the methodology used by Mytum (2000).

Vertically orientated monuments

Horizontally orientated monument

Borders Includes both width across the entire border/grave and a measurement of the thickness of the border edge.

144