Australian Archaeology
ISSN: 0312-2417 (Print) 2470-0363 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raaa20
The free and unfree settlements of Norfolk Island: an overview of archaeological research
Martin Gibbs, Brad Duncan & Robert Varman
To cite this article: Martin Gibbs, Brad Duncan & Robert Varman (2017) The free and unfree settlements of Norfolk Island: an overview of archaeological research, Australian Archaeology, 83:3, 82-99, DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2017.1404732 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2017.1404732
Published online: 26 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raaa20 AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY, 2017 VOL. 83, NO. 3, 82–99 https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2017.1404732
ARTICLE The free and unfree settlements of Norfolk Island: an overview of archaeological research
Martin Gibbsa , Brad Duncana and Robert Varmanb aDepartment of Archaeology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia; bIndependent Researcher, Berkeley Vale, NSW, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The name ‘Norfolk Island’ has long been synonymous with its use between 1825 and 1855 Received 9 May 2017 as a harsh punishment station for recidivist British convicts. Much of its previous archaeo- Accepted 2 November 2017 logical investigation has focused on the conservation and management of standing struc- tures from that period, to the detriment of an overall understanding of the archaeology of KEYWORDS the island. This paper reviews the several phases of post-1788 occupation of this tiny and Convict archaeology; remote outpost of the British Empire and considers the archaeological potential of each of Norfolk Island; historical these distinct phases of free and unfree habitation. New directions and themes for further archaeology; Pacific archaeological research are considered, including broader comparison with contemporary archaeology; British mainland Australian free and convict settlements and a focus on processes of adaptation colonies; convict history and re-appropriation of buildings, sites and landscape by successive colonist groups.
Introduction small boat landings, at Cascade in the North and The name ‘Norfolk Island’ has long been synonym- Kingston in the south, are often difficult to access ous with its use between 1825 and 1855 as a harsh due to heavy seas. From the commencement of the punishment station for recidivist British convicts British settlement in 1788 until 1913, Norfolk Island (Hughes 1988). The material remains of this system was a British colony. After this it became an external have been the focus of historical archaeological territory of Australia, including a period from 1979 investigation on the island since the late 1970s, until June 2016 when it was self-governed. largely associated with the conservation and man- The history of Norfolk Island is typically divided agement of standing structures from that period. into four main phases (Hoare 1988; Nobbs 1988, However, the concentration of effort on this rela- 1991b, 2006). tively short but notorious phase, which is also — – encouraged by its value as a tourist drawcard, has Polynesian Settlement c.1200 1600 AD. — – often masked a far more complex island-wide cul- First (English) Settlement 1788 1814: Free and tural landscape which embodies evidence of several convict agricultural and industrial settlement, fol- – distinct periods of historic occupation from 1788 lowed by abandonment from February 1814 June through to the present day. This paper presents a 1825. — – review of the archaeological landscape of this tiny Second (English) Settlement June 1825 1856: and remote outpost of the British Empire and con- Closed secondary punishment convict settlement. — siders several of the themes which emerge as direc- Third (Pitcairner) Settlement 8 June 1856 to tions for future research. present: resettlement of the descendants of the HMAS Bounty mutineers from Pitcairn to Norfolk Island. Background Norfolk Island is a volcanic remnant of approxi- However, in this discussion of the changing cul- mately 35 km2, located in the Pacific Ocean 1670 km tural landscape, two further phases should be east of the Australian mainland (Figure 1). The included as distinct subsets within the Third island is for the most part bounded by cliffs, rising Settlement: to a flat plateau dissected by valleys, with the highest – point being Mount Bates at 319 m above sea level. Melanesian Mission: 1866 1920 – There is no harbor for large vessels, while the two World War Two: 1942 1946
CONTACT Martin Gibbs [email protected] Archaeology, Earth Sciences Building (CO2), University of New England, Armidale 2351, NSW, Australia ß 2017 Australian Archaeological Association AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 83
Figure 1. Norfolk Island.
Although these latter periods fall within the Third 1980 for a range of values including its archaeo- (Pitcairner) Settlement, they both involved signifi- logical potential and the area’s properties as a cul- cant changes to elements of the island’s physical and tural landscape. In 2010 inscription of KAVHA social landscapes, with consequences for the arch- along with 10 other convict properties as part of the aeological record. Australian Convict Site World Heritage Property on The following section provides a timeline and UNESCO’s World Heritage List has further high- context for archaeological research on Norfolk lighted and enhanced the significance of the area, Island, followed by a more detailed examination of while also raising questions regarding new ways to the archaeological record for each historic period. explore the relationships between different convict For the sake of brevity, the remainder of the text sites. The need for further research on all the histor- refers to the phases such as First (English) ical phases is also outlined in a new range of policies Settlement using the shortened form of First contained within the most recent Heritage Settlement, etc. Management Plan for KAVHA (GML Heritage 2016). From the late 1970s to the early 2000s there Historical and maritime archaeological were frequent archaeological investigations within research the central KAVHA as part of the ongoing conser- The significance of the Kingston and Arthur Vale vation project funded by the Australian Federal Historic Area (KAVHA) on the south side of Government, making this one of the more inten- Norfolk Island has long been recognized in sively explored archaeological landscapes in Australian heritage listings, being included on the Australasia. These surveys, excavations and associ- (now defunct) Register of the National Estate in ated historical studies were, however, of necessity 84 M. GIBBS ET AL. oriented towards the restoration and conservation research to attempt to characterize the location and of standing structures and surface visible ruins, nature of a diverse range of sites across the land- with some attention to avoiding disturbance to scape. A significant feature of this study is that it subsurface archaeological remains. The 1980 survey was the first attempt to consider sites and places of by Wilson and Davies (1980) forms the basic docu- significance to the Third Settlement (Pitcairner) ment for the area, with a subsequent series of heri- period (see also Varman 1998b). tage studies, surveys, excavations and monitoring In addition to terrestrial archaeology, since the projects, primarily by Varman between 1982 and early 1980 s there has been ongoing investigation of 1998 (although see also Bairstow and McLaren the wreck of HMS Sirius, lost on the reefs adjacent 1993). Although evidence of First Settlement struc- to Kingston in 1790 as it attempted to resupply the tures and sites and some aspects of Third First Settlement (Henderson and Stanbury 1988; Settlement occupation within the KAVHA area are Stanbury 1994). Since 2014 maritime archaeologists considered in these studies, the emphasis has been have also worked with the avocational Norfolk on the management of the standing Second Island Maritime Archaeology Association in record- Settlement structures and broader mitigation of ing maritime heritage sites. In addition to research potential damage, rather than a research agenda. on the historical period, during the 1990 s there The reports of these investigations are available in were excavations to investigate the pre-European the KAVHA Research Centre, with most of Polynesian occupation of Norfolk Island (Anderson Varman’s reports also now available via the NSW and White 2001). Archaeology On-line website (Gibbs and Colley Since the 1990s there have been intermittent miti- 2012). The Norfolk Island Museum also maintains gation and conservation projects with an archaeo- comprehensively catalogued assemblages of the logical component, primarily within the KAVHA excavated artefacts in an admirable archaeological area, but virtually no pure research. The most recent museum, although interpretive analysis has so far phase of investigation commenced in 2014 when the been minimal (Starr 1997, 2001). authors undertook a community-based remote sens- Archaeological research beyond the KAVHA area ing survey program (Figure 2) to sample the archaeo- has been far more limited, although Varman under- logical potential of sites associated with the three took various other archaeological and heritage stud- historic occupation periods (Duncan and Gibbs ies across the island as part of his employment with 2014). In 2015 a second season continued surface KAVHA, as an independent consultant, and as a recording of several major archaeological complexes, result of personal research interests, especially while in association with Varman who was fortuitously on resident on the island. Most notable is his island- the island at the time undertaking biological research. wide Survey of the First, Second and Third In the following sections, we explore research on Settlements on Norfolk Island (Varman 1984), which each of the phases of the island’s historic drew on extensive documentary and oral historical occupation.
Figure 2. Working with NI community members on Kingston magnetometer survey 2014 (Photo: B. Duncan). AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 85
Figure 3. View of the town of Sydney on Norfolk Island—Phillip Gidley King 1792. State Library of Victoria, Accession no: H3947.
The phases of history and archaeology (see Martin and Cox 1988; Nobbs 1988). Several images and plans depict the main settlement and Polynesian settlement—c.1200–1600 AD administrative centre, originally named ‘Sydney’, sit- In 1788 British settlers, including two Maori men, uated adjacent to the southern boat landing (Figures quickly recognized a former Polynesian occupation 3 and 4). These images show an evolving settlement of the island through the presence of exotic plants core including the Georgian style Government such as bananas, the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), House, various administrative, service and accom- and Polynesian artefacts found scattered across vari- modation buildings, as well as the small prison and ous areas of the coast and inland (Anderson and huts of the convicts (‘Irishtown’) arrayed along the White 2001; Hoare 1988; Specht 1978, 1993). An shoreline (Cox and Stacey 1971; Kerr 1984:11–15). excavation in the dunes above Emily Bay (Figure 1) Initially almost all buildings were of the easily sawn located structural remains and artefacts which sug- Norfolk Island Pine, although over time the main gest Polynesians from—or with links to—the public buildings and houses of officials were rebuilt Kermadec Islands and New Zealand, were present or replaced with stone or brick (Martin and Cox between 400 and 800 years ago, after which the 1988:131). Other settlement features in the KAVHA island was abandoned (Anderson and White 2001; included the watermill in Arthur Vale, quarries and Anderson 2002). Although the Polynesian period is garden areas. not a focus of the historic archaeological program, it Although several archaeological studies have iden- is important to recognize that at the time of the tified the likely locations of First Settlement struc- 1788 British settlement Norfolk Island was already a tures and features within KAVHA, deliberate cultural landscape. Given current community senti- archaeological investigation has been limited to test ment regarding their ‘Pitcairner’ Polynesian heritage, trenching to locate the footings of the original there is also growing interest in sites and places Government House (Varman 1992). Artefacts with from this pre-European phase. First Settlement origins and ecological information relative to the historic period human occupation and modification of the area have also been recov- First (English) settlement—1788–1814 ered during other mitigation projects (Varman Norfolk Island was originally visited by Captain 1993). While historic plans have previously been James Cook in 1774, and in 1788 was formally scaled as overlays, as part of the 2014 project these colonized by the British as an ancillary settlement were georeferenced as a guide to where First whose occupants were initially tasked with produc- Settlement structures and features were formerly ing food for the main colony in New South Wales. located. The remote sensing surveys of these target While it was also hoped to develop industries based areas identified significant subsurface anomalies cor- on flax growing and production of ship spars from responding to early structures including the original the endemic Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria hetero- gaol, indicating potential for archaeological investi- phylla), both almost immediately proved unsuccess- gation as well as testing the accuracy of these early ful (Clarke 1988). For the next two decades the depictions of the settlement’s layout (Duncan and colony was primarily agricultural with a combin- Gibbs 2014). In addition the geo-referencing and ation of free settlers and convicts, including eman- remote sensing process also demonstrated that a cipists who stayed after the end of their sentence large number of structures, including many of the 86 M. GIBBS ET AL.
Figure 4. Sydney Town (First Settlement). Based on W.N. Chapman 1792, Plan of the Town of Sydney, on the South Side of Norfolk Island, State Library of NSW Z/M2 819.21/1792/1.
Figure 5. Norfolk Island First Settlement Settlers Blocks, 1796. Based on National Library of Australia Map G9262.N6G46. AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 87
‘Irishtown’ convict huts, have been lost to foreshore In May 1990 the bulldozing of a roadway through erosion (Figure 4), supporting earlier analyses by the probable location of Phillipsburgh saw several Varman (1988:152; 1993). dozen late 18th/early 19th century ceramic sherds During the First Settlement phase much of exposed. Although Varman was able to recover these Norfolk Island (excepting the area around Mt Bates) artefacts, excavation within the impact zone was not was divided into freehold lots for farms (Figure 5). possible before the road surface was sealed. Varman Two small settlements were also established, one in was later able to undertake surface survey through- the north-east originally named Charlotte’s Field (or out the area to identify possible historic features and Charlotte Field) but renamed Queenborough (or areas of archaeological potential in advance of Queenboro’), and another to the west originally revegetation activities (Varman 1998a). No subse- called Cascade but renamed Phillipburgh (or quent subsurface investigation has taken place, Phillipsburgh) (Kerr 1984:12; Wright 1988). Both although surface survey in 2015 identified several settlements had a single road with a variety of stone alignments and further sherds which may be domestic and public buildings including guard associated with the early settlement. The adjacent houses, military barracks, storehouses and barns, valley and watercourse to the immediate northwest and a small gaol (King 1796:159; Martin and Cox which was also part of the village, as well as the site 1988). Initially the buildings of these settlements of the failed attempt at flax production, is now heav- were constructed of logs, but over time these were ily disturbed and silted, although as they are within replaced with timber frames and weatherboards, a reserve area there has been no further develop- with brick or stone chimneys (Kerr 1984:12; Martin ment. A probable site for Queenborough was identi- and Cox 1988). This is shown in the c.1804 paint- fied during the 2015 survey through comparison of ings of these two villages by artist John Eyre (Figure landscape features in the 1804 painting with current 6), based on sketches by convict artist William topography. However, heavy rains, dense surface Neate Chapman (reproduced in Cox and Stacey vegetation, cattle damage and significant erosion fill 1971:16). There are allusions to other smaller clus- into the valley surface prevented the possibility of ters of housing, such as at Arthur Vale, Ball Bay, confirming this through discovery of appropriately and the proposed Buckingham town to the northeast dated surface structures or artefacts. of Sydney town (Wright 1988:113–114). It is There are a number of other probable First assumed that at least some settlers also lived on Settlement features which have been identified on their own lots, dispersed across the island. the wider Norfolk Island landscape including a (heavily modified) stone bridge close to
Figure 6. A view of Queenborough on Norfolk Island, by J. Eyre, 1804 (with inset showing detail of houses). Dixson Library, State Library of New South Wales DL Pd 397. 88 M. GIBBS ET AL.
Phillipsburgh and remains of a brick clamp (NIHS building foundations (Varman 1988:158). Although 1994; Robert Varman pers. comm. 2016). Varman’s still nominally a British territory, the island then Three Settlements survey also identified a number of remained unoccupied until June 1825. possible First Settlement sites, sometimes identifiable through surface scatter of dateable ceramics (e.g. Second (English) settlement—1825–1855 Varman 1984:50, 108, 112, 147, 166). However, as much of the island is private property, many of the Shifts in the ideology of convict management and a valleys which might have contained remains of this perceived need to increase the efficacy of transporta- period were not accessible to the 1984 survey. As tion as a deterrent for criminals and recidivists led part of the 2014 survey, ground penetrating radar to the re-occupation of Norfolk Island as a closed was used to relocate graves associated with the ori- all-male ‘secondary’ punishment settlement. The ginal First Settlement cemetery which was located in island quickly gained and has subsequently retained the dunes above Emily Bay (Duncan and Gibbs notoriety for the brutality of its punishment regime. 2014). Survey was also made of a site on a hill above Despite its reputation, recent re-analysis by Causer the Cascade Pier (close to Phillipsburgh) where in (2011) suggests that many aspects of this regime the early 1970s human remains had been unearthed have been overstated, highlighting a need for a sig- (see Varman 1984:292). However, this failed to pro- nificant re-evaluation of the complexities of the vide conclusive evidence of a possible First island’s operation. Settlement graveyard. The original Sydney settlement area (renamed The population of Norfolk Island reached 1100 or Kingston) adjacent to the landing was immediately more persons, both free and convict, between 1791 re-occupied, since despite the deliberate destruction and 1805, but thereafter diminished (Nobbs 1988:5). of 1814, roadways, chimneys and some ruined walls The British government soon after made the deci- were still visible and could be reused (Martin and sion that as Norfolk Island was too remote from Cox 1991:100; Nobbs 1991b:3). Figure 7 shows an NSW and too expensive to operate, the residents 1839 plan of the area near the wharf, although in would be forced to relocate to Tasmania. In the twenty years that followed the site evolved even February 1814 the remaining buildings on the island further with, for instance, the final form of the new were deliberately destroyed by fire to hinder any for- goal buildings taking a different configuration. The eign attempts to claim or colonize the island. This georeferenced overlays of historic plans for this core event appears in the archaeological record as a dis- area near the wharf also show that the Second tinctive charcoal layer and in charring on some Settlement cadastral boundaries corresponded with
Figure 7. Kingston (Second Settlement). Based on H.W. Lugard 1839, Plan of the Settlement. Norfolk Island. Tasmanian Archives, Plan PWD 266/1/1940. AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 89
Figure 8. Norfolk Island—The Australian News for Home Readers. 27 October 1866. State Library of Victoria, Accession no: IAN27/10/66/13. the positions of First Settlement features such as demolished during the Third Settlement, although buildings and roads (Duncan and Gibbs 2014). significant archaeological remains survive and are Surviving elements of First Settlement structures, available for future study (Wilson and Davies 1980). were incorporated into Second Settlement buildings While most writers do acknowledge that there was include the Boat Shed near the main wharf, which change over time, there has still been a tendency to show distinct differences in its lower courses of represent the landscape and structures of Kingston stonework consistent with First Settlement archaeo- as relatively static, despite an obvious evolution over logical remains. Similarly, the adjacent Pier Store the 30 years of occupation. Georeferencing of his- foundation shows evidence of the 1814 fire (Varman toric plans, analysis of images and remote sensing 1993), while the Civil (convict) Hospital, Guardhouse all indicate successive changes in the footprint of the and Surgeon’s Quarters and privy are also suspected settlement responding to shifts in ideology and suc- of having a mid to late First Settlement origin cessive administrators. The 2014 remote sensing sur- (Robert Varman pers. comm. 2017). vey showed that many demolished KAVHA The stern Georgian architecture of the KAVHA structures and features, such as the Coxswain’s Second Settlement and the operations of the convict House, Commissariat Officer’s Quarters, Bakehouse, system during that period have been the focus of and the original Second Settlement Goal survive as much of the historical, architectural and archaeo- subsurface remains (Duncan and Gibbs 2014). logical literature of the island (e.g. Causer 2011; Archaeological excavation within KAVHA has so Martin and Cox 1991; Nobbs 1991a; Wilson and far been constrained to addressing the conservation Davies 1980). ‘The Settlement’, as Kingston was needs of standing (non-convict) structures rather known, was a complex structured landscape of dif- than research-oriented questions. However, these ferent styles of housing and barracks for soldiers, assemblages can provide the basis for future com- overseers, convicts and administrators of various parative research. The only research-based artefact ranks, administrative buildings, hospitals, store- analysis has been of materials excavated in 1987 houses, industrial structures and areas, a gaol and from the Civil Hospital privy, used c.1845–55 eventually a panopticon style prison (Figure 8; Kerr (Bairstow and McLaren 1993; Starr 1997, 2001). 1984:115). Roadways, stone walls, wooden fences, This assemblage contains a fascinating insight into vegetable gardens and even a formal water garden medical treatment for convicts, especially given the for the Governor also marked the area into zones, isolation of the settlement. A descriptive catalogue separating free from convict and emphasizing formal of some of the ceramics in the Norfolk Island and informal hierarchies. Museum is also available for comparative research Almost all of the buildings within Kingston which (Erskine 2003). were directly associated with the accommodation, Second Settlement convict activity spread across industry and punishment of the convicts were almost the whole of Norfolk Island, with a series of 90 M. GIBBS ET AL.
Figure 9. Norfolk Island Second Settlement. Based on W.T. Mountney (1848) Plan of Norfolk Island Shewing the position of the Police and Cattle Stations. State Library of NSW Map Cb 83/6. outposts, farms and industrial camps (Figure 9). On (Duncan and Gibbs 2014). These and many of the the basis of documentary, oral and archaeological other sites beyond Kingston are in private owner- evidence, Varman identified a range of Second ship, with varying levels of access available. Settlement sites in his 1984 Three Settlements report, With the end of transportation to NSW in the which has now been converted into a GIS as a guide 1840s the Norfolk Island population was progres- for future survey (Varman 1984). The two largest sively reduced. The remainder of the convicts was nodes beyond Kingston were the agricultural sub- removed to Tasmania by mid-1856, other than a settlements at Longridge and Cascade, both of which small group who remained several weeks later as a were substantial in size and could house several clean-up crew prior to the arrival of the next groups hundred convicts, guards and administrators and of settlers, with an overlap of a fortnight in which included a range of administrative and industrial they familiarized the newcomers with the landscape, buildings (Martin and Cox 1991). These sub-settle- buildings and resources. ments contained different classes and cohorts of prisoners from the main population at Kingston Third (Pitcairner) settlement—8 June 1856 to (Myers 1991). Longridge was also the focus of penal present reformer Alexander Maconochie’s experiments in prisoner classification, with the lower portion of his The Third Settlement brought a very different form revolutionary 1840 oubliette style prison surviving of community to Norfolk Island. On 8th June 1856, under (by being incorporated into) the structure of 194 descendants of the HMAS Bounty mutineers the standing ‘Branka’ House (Kerr 1984:126–127). were moved with assistance from the British Crown Unlike Kingston the documentary record for these 6,300 km west from their original tiny home on sub-settlements is relatively poor (there being no Pitcairn Island to Norfolk Island. The question of contemporary plan of Cascade at all) and mapping whether Norfolk was presented to the Pitcairners as of both became a focus for the 2014–15 surveys a gift or was provided simply for their use while AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 91 remaining the property of the Crown remains a Second Settlement housing forms (Varman hotly contested issue and is one of the root prob- 1984:7–8). More recently, Nash’s linguistic study of lems with current relations with the Australian gov- the island’s toponymy and cultural landscape has ernment (Nobbs 2006:32, 52). There are several generated a substantial body of additional data on accounts of the first weeks of the encounter with the significant sites and places which can be targeted for Norfolk Island landscape by the small migrant physical investigation (Nash 2013, 2016) population with its unique British–Tahitian cultural admixture and limited experience of the world Melanesian mission (1866–1920) beyond Pitcairn. These reports emphasize not only their reactions to what to their eyes was an enor- In 1866 a parallel community was created when the mous land area, but also to unfamiliar resources, the Anglican sponsored Melanesian Mission decided to existing cultural landscape including the massive base itself on Norfolk Island. Purchasing a substan- stone buildings of several stories, and the alien tial area of land on the west side of the island nature of horses, cattle and bullock-pulled ploughs (Figure 10), the mission housed mainly Solomon (Nobbs 2006:18–20). Nobbs (2006) has appositely Islander men and women undergoing religious, edu- discussed this encounter and the following years in cational and industrial skills training. The original terms of a process of adaptation. The recently aban- complex of buildings included housing for the mis- doned convict buildings were re-occupied and the sion staff, barracks for the trainees, school rooms, a island subdivided between families. The convict printer for missionary literature and materials, hos- transition party assisted with the first fortnight and pital, a church (St Barnabas') and agricultural infra- undoubtedly mixed their practical advice with cre- structure for their associated farming operations ative recounting of the nature of the cultural land- (Figure 11). The Solomon Islander men also con- scape that the Pitcairners now found themselves in. structed traditional style leaf huts (lodges) on the For the first century after their arrival the fringes of the mission area. Nobbs (2006) has docu- Pitcairners made Kingston the administrative hub of mented aspects of the mission’s relationship with the island, with the former military and administra- the wider island community, although the two tive buildings being used for government, school groups were surprisingly separate. In 1920 the mis- and church purposes while others were occupied as sion moved from Norfolk to the Solomon Islands, houses or re-used in various ways. A number of sig- which included dismantling and transporting some nificant buildings including the large convict prison, of the buildings to the new base at Kohimarama on barracks and industrial structures were progressively Guadalcanal. Varman’s(1994) historical and arch- demolished and materials distributed across the aeological study of the mission site focused on island, a process continuing into the 1960s. Across extant St Barnabas’ Church, although he also indi- the wider island landscape the Pitcairners re-used cates the archaeological potential for other areas. elements of the Second Settlement infrastructure An unfortunate aspect of the Melanesian Mission and landscape, including the various outstations and is that many dozens of men and women died on farms. They primarily engaged with agricultural pur- Norfolk Island of illness and injury, with their suits including fruit orcharding, although other bodies interred in a small cemetery located 300 m industries were pursued including timber milling, north of the church and settlement on the opposite boat building, fishing, growing kentia palm (Howea slope of the valley. In the 1960s the remaining head- forsteriana) and both traditional open boat and then stones were relocated closer to the church after cat- modern powered steamship whaling. However, tle had begun to damage the site, although the many of these industries have now diminished or burials themselves were not removed. Concrete posts vanished with the shifting local and international mark the original corners of the graveyard, together economy. Over time a distinctive vernacular timber with a memorial including the names of those architecture with relationships to earlier forms on known to have been buried there, although the Pitcairn Island was also developed (Cox and Stacey ground surface is now overgrown. The 2014 GPR 1971; Erskine 2003; Nobbs 2006:21). Varman's and magnetometer survey detected a number of the (1984) report on the three settlements remains the original burial plots, although a more extensive only archaeological study which has attempted to clearance of surface vegetation would undoubtedly locate significant sites associated with the Third provide a better result (Duncan and Gibbs 2014). Settlement Pitcairner use of Norfolk and provides an important baseline as it also includes oral informa- World War Two tion from now deceased islanders. This included his recording the floor plans of several of the oldest In 1902 Norfolk Island became a critical junction (1860 s) homes and their associated outbuildings point for the trans-Pacific telegraph cable connecting such as external kitchens, comparing these to earlier Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Canada and Great 92 M. GIBBS ET AL.
Figure 10. Norfolk Island WWII sites and other Third Settlement features.
Britain, with a station developed where the cables the destruction of buildings of the Second and Third emerged at Anson Bay. The strategic significance of Settlement, and major earthworks to create sufficient this facility saw a detachment of soldiers sent to the level ground. It also saw the removal of the iconic island at the outbreak of WWII. By 1942 the deci- Pine Avenue, planted during the Second Settlement sion was made to develop an airstrip so that the and by the 1940s a majestic thoroughfare across the island could be used as a staging depot for aircraft top of the island. This process of relocation and the en-route to the SW Pacific battlefields, as a naval loss of homes still resonates within the community. supply depot, and as a communications and surveil- However, the improved access to the island also saw lance hub (Hitch 1992). There were several bases the post-war emergence of a tourist industry, largely developed on the island, changes to the wharf, new based around the convict ruins. Hotels, guest houses and improved roads, development of a radar instal- and other tourism and hospitality operations lation atop Mount Bates, and most importantly the emerged, creating what is now the main industry of construction of the airstrip itself (Hitch 1992:15). the island. It could also be argued that the history of There has been limited investigation of the archae- the island includes other sub-phases that affected ology of WWII on the island other than an initial the cultural landscape of the island, especially the survey within the National Park around Mt Bates emergence and decline of industries such as whaling, (NIHS 1994). The 2015 survey also recorded a small lemon juice and peel, bananas, kentia palm seeds, or gun position at the base of the cliffs at Anson Bay, fishing, although these were in some cases short near to where the telegraph cable emerged from the lived and did not have the impact of the mission or sea. WWII periods (Nobbs 2006). The creation of the WWII airstrip required the Another consequence of the emergence of tour- forced resumption of a large number of properties, ism and the first wave of Australian heritage listings AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 93
Figure 11. St Barnabas' Chapel, Melanesian Mission, Norfolk Island. From P.S. Waddy 1906 A Visit to Norfolk Island. Westminster: Melanesian Mission, p. 5. was the decision in the 1970s by the Australian and outsiders, etc. (e.g. Anderson 2006; Rainbird Commonwealth to acquire properties within 2007). Added to this is the way in which the succes- KAVHA. Consistent with heritage management for sive groups encountered the landscape, colonized, the time, they removed residents and in some appropriated and re-contextualised the cultural and instances demolished post-convict structures and natural legacies of their predecessors. instituted restoration programs as a mechanism for Norfolk Island was a sub-colony of New South enhancing the significance of the surviving convict Wales and an exact contemporary of the earliest set- era fabric. tlements both there and in the other sub-colony of Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania). Given this relation- Discussion ship there should have been some degree of uni- formity between the different colonies in terms of The nearly 40 years of archaeological investigation the cultural backgrounds of colonists, expectations, of Norfolk Island have largely been driven by the preparedness, etc. (Birmingham and Jeans 1983). needs of heritage management and consequently Consequently there would be value in a closer com- limited in focus to particular periods, specific sites parison of the strategies, decisions and actions of the and localized areas. Consequently there has been lit- respective colonization processes (see Gibbs 2016). tle acknowledgement either of how individual sites One potential difference between the Norfolk Island operated within a wider system of occupation or settlers and the Australian groups might be the lack with respect to the insular landscape. The distinctive of interaction with an indigenous population. However, the 1788 landscape of Norfolk was neither nature of Norfolk Island’s multiple occupations natural nor ‘naïve’. The Polynesian occupation, presents a range of opportunities for different trajec- although several centuries earlier, had left a modi- tories of research. Many of the potential themes are fied environment and resources which were know- familiar to those studying island landscapes and ingly or unknowingly discovered and exploited by communities: colonization and adaptation, environ- the new European colonists. mental impact, cultural and economic isolation, In structure and operation it might be expected island as Utopia and/or dystopia, island as labora- that Norfolk’s Sydney settlement would have reson- tory, island as place of exile and control, insiders ance with the early NSW convict administrative 94 M. GIBBS ET AL. hubs of Sydney or Parramatta. Queenborough and The organisation and utilization of landscape, archi- Phillipsburgh might be compared to contemporary tectural forms, mechanisms for surveillance and convict assisted agricultural settlements such as control, and the nature of convict provisioning are Toongabie (NSW) or Yorktown (Tasmania). Also of obvious starting points for comparative research. interest is evidence for environmental adaptation, Similarities with convict systems employed by other such as in farming practices, or technological and nations, some of which based themselves on the innovation in the design of the wind and water mills British system and are also on island or remote or in industrial processes such as brickmaking landscapes, might also be the subjects for consider- (Varman 1993). Martin and Cox (1988:135) have ation (Casella 2007; Pearson 1999, 2000; Smith and already tentatively identified variations in the devel- Buckley 2007; Vaidik 2009). opment of architectural forms between Australia The Second Settlement was extremely hierarchical and Norfolk, based on environmental differences for both free and unfree occupants. As with the and interpretations of colonial policy. The social First Settlement there were marked differences relationships within and between the different free within and between the classes of convicts, guards, and unfree groups of the First Settlement (settlers, military and administrators on Norfolk Island, military, administration, emancipists, convict) were expressed in spatial, architectural and material terms complex and can be explored in spatial organization, including food supplies. Similarly, convicts were buildings and material culture. The existing assemb- subject to formal and informal hierarchies. lages from Phillipsburgh and Sydney (Kingston) can Progression through the system was dependent be compared to the wealth of contemporary assemb- upon their initial sentencing as well as their subse- lages now available from New South Wales and quent behaviour and performance, including the Tasmania (Lawrence and Davies 2011). This should value of their industrial skills, formalized at different also further illuminate the economic relationships times through classification or grading systems. between Norfolk Island and the other Australian Gradings resulted in placement in particular stations colonies, Britain, Asia and other parts of the wider and work situations, with material consequences global trade system, especially since Norfolk might including access to different kinds of accommoda- best be seen as a periphery of a periphery in the tion, material goods and food, as well as reduced World System. oversight and ameliorated work conditions (Dyster The convict Second Settlement of Norfolk Island 1996; Kerr 1984, 1988; Nicholas 1988). The convict has long been recognised as an ‘island of exile’, one system on Norfolk Island as with any penal estab- of an international network of penal establishments lishment also hosted an informal hierarchy among created by several European nations on literal the prisoners that influenced the distribution of peo- islands, peninsulas, or in extreme remote situations ple and goods (Stuart 1979). Exploration of these (e.g. Anderson 2006; Anderson and Maxwell-Stewart sorts of differences, as well as the grey economies of 2014; Maxwell-Stewart 2010; Winter 2013). prison life, and various indulgences unofficially Norfolk’s isolated and bounded nature enabled the allowed prisoners to ensure peace if not compliance, high levels of control of a total institution, strict lim- remains for future studies. The isolation of Norfolk itations on access and virtually no potential for Island was an obvious factor in the nature of its escape. Although the design and structure of provisioning. Comparative archaeological assemb- Kingston is considered in various historical, archi- lages from a range of convict sites have increasingly tectural, and archaeological studies, there has been become available (e.g. Casey and Lowe 2006; surprisingly little comparative analysis against the D’Gluyas et al. 2015; Mein 2012) which would illu- physical and operational aspects of contemporary minate issues of supply and treatment in different penal establishments (Kerr 1984). The 2010 convict contexts including Norfolk Island. Australian Convict Site World Heritage listing iden- One trajectory for research on the Norfolk Island tified this need for comparative study of convict landscape is to take a more holistic view of the rela- experiences within Australian convict sites (espe- tionships between sites within it. Although studies cially with the other secondary punishment settle- of secondary punishment convict stations have trad- ments such as Sarah Island, Port Arthur, Moreton itionally focused on the institutional and penal Bay, Newcastle and Port Macquarie), as well as with aspects of their operation, industrial performance British convict institutions further afield (such as was an integral part of the convict reform process Bermuda, Gibraltar, Andaman Islands or Mauritius) and in most instances men and women spent their (Pearson 1999, 2000). These sites were all subjected days in a range of industrial and service activities to similar ideological shifts in the balances between within and beyond the settlements, rather than in punishment and reform, in addition to often sharing prison (Lichtenstein 1996; Nicholas 1988; Robbins administrators and convicts as they moved through 2000; Roberts 2011; Tuffin 2013). Convict settle- the system, taking ideas and processes with them. ments were encouraged if not required to achieve at AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 95 least some degree of internal self-sufficiency and if This draws on well-established methods of data col- possible move to profit-making surplus production. lection and analysis used in the Founders and One of the emergent themes in current historical Survivors project (Maxwell-Stewart 2016), which is and archaeological research on convict settlements is one of the key collaborations in the ARC. Both an exploration of the industrial operations of these products and people moved in various physical ways establishments across the wider associated landscape across the closed settlement area of the Tasman (Gibbs 2012; Tuffin 2013). This reconsideration Peninsula, thus linking biography to landscapes, spe- focuses on the industrial nature of the convict cific sites and particular industries and creating experience and the relationships between the full opportunities for geospatial analysis (cf. Robertson range of major and minor stations and workplaces, 2016). It is intended that Norfolk Island be analysed including resource extraction sites, processing sites, in a similar fashion as a direct comparison with the transport and communication networks and the Port Arthur experience. public works which also represent the output of the Another largely unexplored feature of the Second system. Given the extreme isolation and supply Settlement landscape is the defensive aspect of the issues for Norfolk Island the need for effective agri- convict establishment. There was clearly a tactical cultural production was paramount. Kingston, the positioning of structures, defensible enclosures agricultural settlements of Longridge and Cascade, around administrative buildings and military bar- and the outstation farms and work camps spread racks, as well as high walls around the convict across the island operated as a single industrial sys- prison and barracks. A system of blockhouses and tem and a linked economic unit. stockade guard posts, as well many minor walls and The Landscapes of Production and Punishment landscape features such as earthworks are noted on ARC project (DP170103642) currently being under- many plans. Although some of these features are taken by Martin Gibbs (UNE), David Roberts evident in the landscapes of other secondary punish- (UNE) and Hamish Maxwell-Stewart (UTas), is ment stations such as Port Arthur, on Norfolk developing methods to explore the comparable con- Island there seems to be a heightened concern, pre- vict industrial landscape of Port Arthur. One of the sumably as a product of there being no immediate core principles is to parallel the industrial flow of relief in the event of a convict uprising. processes and products between and within sites of The Third or Pitcairner Settlement, the longest the Tasman Peninsula to the biographical flow of period of occupation of Norfolk Island, represented convicts through the system (i.e. viewing the con- a dramatic shift from the formerly institutional victs as ‘products’ of the labour and reform proc- environment into a free settlement. The re-occupa- esses) (Figure 12). Analysis of convict records can tion of Second Settlement structures provided the be used to explore a range of factors directly related foundation for their colonization, but the particular to the various industrial settings, including skill sets, circumstances and cultural dynamics of the deployment into particular industries, productivity, Pitcairner settlers, including their lack of familiarity health status, offending and absconding, and so on. with conventional British or Australian systems of
Figure 12. Norfolk island: The convict system 1847. National Library of Australia PIC Drawer 3843 #S9883. 96 M. GIBBS ET AL. settlement and agriculture, initially resulted in a dis- recognized within the values identified in the 2007 tinctive pattern of occupation. The processes of the Australian National Heritage List Inscription, with Pitcairners’ progressive adaptation to the environ- the current KAVHA Heritage Management Plan mental, social and economic circumstances of their identifying the Third Settlement occupation as a sig- new home, as well as their changing engagement nificant area for future archaeological and anthropo- with the outside world, has yet to be fully explored, logical research and interpretation (GML Heritage including from an archaeological perspective (Nobbs 2016:41–42, 51–53, 94–95). 2006). Study of this period should also see these Beyond the tightly managed KAVHA area, an developments relative to the social and economic additional consequence of the recent political shift organisation of life on Pitcairn Island prior to the on Norfolk is a requirement by the Australian resettlement on Norfolk (see Erskine 2004; Gibbs Government for open migration and property sales, and Roe 2017). formerly tightly regulated by the Norfolk Island gov- While the Melanesian Mission only occupied a ernment. This has seen a rush by islanders to sell portion of the western side of Norfolk Island and land in anticipation of the introduction of the arguably had limited physical impact on the wider Australian taxation system. This dramatic shift in landscape, the operation of this parallel community land ownership and development means that many across nearly 55 years certainly requires further con- of the traditional and multi-generational links to sideration. There remain many questions to be land, as well as the knowledge of landscape and sites addressed regarding the nature of proselytization that goes with it (Nash 2013), is likely to be lost as and the treatment of the Islander converts which properties are sold to non-islanders. As with many might be addressed in the light of wider Melanesian rural communities, young Norfolk Islanders are mission studies (see Flexner 2016), as well as their increasingly leaving to take up opportunities else- use of the Norfolk Island landscape and relations where, creating concern for generational continuity with the Pitcairner communities (see also Nash’s of knowledge about the island and its culture. As a 2012 work on the linguistic and toponymic heritage consequence there is increasing interest in the com- of the mission on the island). University of Sydney munity for documentation of oral history and place PhD student Tom Sapienza has recently begun heritage as a way of recording and defining relation- research on the operation of the Melanesian Mission ships with the island. on Norfolk. The WWII occupation of the island and the major social dislocation, landscape changes and Conclusions material consequences have also yet to be properly evaluated, as have the various post-WWII industries Since the First Settlement in 1788, Norfolk Island has including tourism. seen a fascinating cycle of different occupations. Each It is noteworthy that despite the Pitcairner occupa- phase saw subtly different processes of colonization, tion and use of Kingston extending for well over a adaptation and engagement with the isolated envir- century longer than the convict phase and continuing onment, depending in part upon the mixture of free, in various forms through to today, this aspect of the unfree and institutional objectives. This cycle often island’s heritage currently has limited recognition or included periods of complete abandonment, allowing visibility in the interpretation of the history or archae- subsequent re-appropriation of landscapes, buildings ology of the KAVHA area. Despite Norfolk Islanders and sites in ways that are distinct from preceding long being employed as part of the site management uses. The aim of this paper has been to bring atten- structure and continuing to access the site and facili- tion to the historical circumstances of the island and ties for recreation and their own commercial tourism the potential to address a range of new questions ventures, there is a strong sense of alienation. In this about its post-1788 occupation. Although the respect there are strong similarities to the circumstan- KAVHA area has been the subject of sustained arch- ces and consequences of the 1960 s–70 s removal of aeological management since the 1980 s, there has the Carnarvon community from the Port Arthur site not been an explicit research agenda developed that in Tasmania, also now part of the convict World considers the site, or the island as a whole, in light of Heritage listing. This has been exacerbated by the changing approaches to the archaeologies of colon- 2016 return of Norfolk Island to full Australian ization, convict management, or missionisation. administrative control, with much of the protest activ- The current Heritage Management Plan for ity focused on Kingston as the Australian administra- KAVHA sets out the need for further archaeological tion is housed within the former military barracks, research across all the periods of occupation, high- with the Australian Commonwealth Administrator lighting the potential offered by relatively undis- occupying the former Governors’ House (Grimm turbed archaeological deposits, existing artefact 2016). However, the significance of KAVHA as a past assemblages and the rich resource of documentary and continuing focus for community use is well and anthropological materials (GML Heritage 2016). AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 97
The opportunity exists for fleshing out the policy In R. Aldrich and K. McKenzie (eds), Routledge History directions of the Heritage Management Plan with a of Western Empires, pp.102–117. London: Routledge. well-considered and more holistic research design Anderson, A. and P. White 2001 The prehistoric archae- ology of Norfolk Island, Southwest Pacific. Australian that seeks to explicitly address questions. This sort Museum Journal Supplement 27:1–142. of relationship should also be seen as a pathway Bairstow, D. and P. McLaren 1993 The Civil Hospital towards generating good management, interpretive Research and Interpretive Design. Unpublished report and community outcomes for the KAVHA area and prepared for Australian Conservation Services on behalf Norfolk Island as a whole. Alignment with current of the KAVHA Management Board, Sydney. Birmingham, J. and D. Jeans 1983 The Swiss family research on other convict landscapes, such as the Robinson and the archaeology of colonisations. Landscapes of Production and Punishment project at Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology 1:3–14. Port Arthur, should prove to be a particularly useful Casella, E. 2007 The Archaeology of Institutional vehicle for advancing a comparative research Confinement. Gainseville: University Press of Florida. agenda. It is hoped that continuing research on the Casey and Lowe 2006 Preliminary Results Archaeological Investigation Stage 2c: Parramatta Justice Precinct for- island will address some of these shifts and bring a mer Parramatta Hospital Site cnr Marsden & George new appreciation of the complexities of this small Streets, Parramatta. Retrieved 10 May 2017 from but fascinating archaeological and cultural
Gibbs, M. and D. Roe 2017 Do you bring your gods with Nicholas, S. (ed.) 1988 Convict Workers: Reinterpreting you or find them there waiting: reconsidering the 1790 Australia's Past. Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Polynesian colonisation of Pitcairn Island. Journal of NIHS 1994 Report on the Human History and Historic Australian Folklore 31:179–197. Sites of Norfolk Island National Park. Norfolk Island GML Heritage 2016 Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Historical Society. Area Heritage Management Plan 2016. Unpublished Nobbs, R. (ed.) 1988 Norfolk Island and its First Settlement, report by GML Heritage, Context and Jean Rice 1788–1814. Sydney: Library of Australian History. Architects for the Australian Government and the Nobbs, R. 1991a Establishing another settlement. In R. KAVHA Authority. Nobbs (ed.), Norfolk Island and its Second Settlement, Grimm, N. 2016 Norfolk Islanders protest, demand 1825–1855, pp.1–5. Sydney: Library of Australian removal of Australian Government-appointed History. Administrator. ABC News On-line. Posted 29 Apr 2016. Nobbs, R. (ed.) 1991b Norfolk Island and its Second Retrieved 20 October 2016 from
Varman, R. 1984 Survey Study of the First, Second and Varman, R. 1998a Archaeological Zoning Plan: Third Settlements on Norfolk Island. Unpublished Phillipsburgh/Cockpit Historic Site. Unpublished report report for the Australian Heritage Commission, for Australian Construction Services, Canberra. Canberra. Varman, R. 1998b Upgrade and Assessment of Historic Varman, R. 1988 Material life including the evidence Values for Places Listed in, or Nominated to the from archaeology. In R. Nobbs (ed.), Norfolk Island Register of the National Estate. Unpublished report for and its First Settlement, 1788–1814, pp.151–158. the Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra. Sydney: Library of Australian History. Wilson, G. and M. Davies 1980 Norfolk Island: The Varman, R. 1992 Surgeon’s Quarters and the Site of the Archaeological Survey of Kingston and Arthur's. 1788 & 1792 Government Houses. Unpublished report Canberra: Department of Housing and Construction. for Australian Construction Services, Canberra. Winter, S. 2013 The global versus the local: modelling the Varman, R. 1993 'Pier Area' Report on Archaeological British system of convict transportation after 1830. Excavations. Unpublished report for Australian In M. Beaudry and T. Parno (eds), Archaeologies of Construction Services, Canberra. Mobility and Movement, pp.133–149. New York: Varman, R.J. 1994 St Barnabas' Chapel. Archaeology Springer. Component and Historical Perspective. Unpublished Wright, R. 1988 Land usage. In R. Nobbs (ed.), Norfolk report for Rex Glencross-Grant Consulting Civil Island and its First Settlement, 1788–1814, pp.112–125. Engineer and the Friends of St Barnabas. Sydney: Library of Australian History.