Archaeological Assessment: Royal Newcastle Hospital

ARCHAEOLOGICAL .ASSESSMEfNT ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL

A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HUNTER AREA HEALTH SERVICE

\VENDY THORP r I L I I I I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT I ROYAl, NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I

I A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HUNTER AREA HEALTH SERVICE I I SEPTEMBER 1991 I I I I I I WENDYTHORP CONSULTANT ARCHAEOLOGIST I I I "il - I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I CONTENTS OF THE REPORT I I I

1.0 Synopsis 1 I 1.1 Summary of the Report ...... 1 1.2 Recommendations 9

I 2.0 Preface to the Report .10 2.1 Location 10 2.2 Parameters of the Investigation ...... 10 I 2.3 Status of the Site .10 2.4 Objectives ...... 11 2.5 Methodology ...... 11 I 2.6 Constraints 11 I 2.7 Authorship and Acknowledgements .12 3.0 Historical Context 13 3.1 Phase I: 1818 - 1860 The First Hospital 14 I 3.2 Phase IT: 1860 -1875 Establishing A New Hospital 16 3.3 Phase ITI: 1875 - 1896 Extensions 17 3.4 Phase IV: 1896 -1914 Stagnation and Reconstruction 18 I 3.5 Phase V: 1914 - 1939 The "Third Hospital" - Incorporation and Consolidation .19 3.6 Phase VI: 1939 - 1989 The "Fourth Hospital" ... 20 I 3.7 Phase VII: 1989 - 1991 Earthquake and Heritage 21 4.0 The Potential Archaeological Resource ...... 22 I 4.1 Physical Development of the Site .22 4.2 Potential Additions to the Archaeological Record ...... 24 4.3 Factors Affecting Survival 23 I 4.4 Geo-technical and Comparative Evidence .26 4.5 The Potential Resource .27

I 5.0 Assessment ofSignificance 28 5.1 Criteria for Assessment 28 5.2 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as I Part ofthe Hospital Development .30 5.3 The Significance of the Potential Resource in Newcastle's Historical Profile ...... 31 I 5.4 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as a Demonstration of Colonial Development ...... 32

I Pagei I r- ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 5.5 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource for I Community Awareness 33 6.0 Management Strategies .34 6.1 Statutory Requirements ...... 34 I 6.2 Objectives for Immediate Archaeological Work 34 6.3 Long TermArchaeological Objectives ...... 35

I 7.0 Subsidiary Documentation ...... 36 7.1 Endnotes .36 I 7.2 Bibliography ...... 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page ii I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL

SECTION 1.0 SYNOPSIS

-i I 1.1 Summary ofthe Report

I Background

This report is concerned with the identification of the archaeological potential that I resides within the site ofRoyal Newcastle Hospital and an assessment ofthe significance of that resource. "Archaeological potential" is understood to mean any sites, relics, structures, features, soils and/or deposits that could be used to interpret past use, I management and occupation of the hospital site.

The primary focus ofthe study has been on the former city block that now encompasses I the North Wing and Nickson Building. This area has been utilised by the first hospital, the later nineteenth century hospital and most of the early twentieth century I improvements and is likely to be the focus of future development. Thesite is notsubjectto any currentstatutorylistings although a Section 130 Orderunder I the Heritage Act of NSW was applied to some elements, including the North Wing, in January 1981. The National Trust and the Royal Institute of Architects each have listed several buildings. The site has also been the subject of a conservation plan prepared I during 1991 which recommended the need for detailed archaeological work.

No archaeological assessment or field work has been undertaken on the study area to I date. I Objectives The primary objectives which have been identified for this work were to define the potential archaeological resource which resides within the hospital precincts; to assess I the significance ofthis resource and to recommend management strategies based on the assessment ofsignificance.

I Methodology I To achieve these objectives all detailed surveys of the site, from first settlement to the present day, were computer digitised to the same scale as a means of identifying zones

I Page 1 I 'I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I or sites ofpotential sensitivity. These digitised plans were used as an aid to assessing the impact of succeeding phases of development on those preceding them. Other factors I which may have influenced the survival rates of archaeological material have also been considered in this work.

I Criteriahavebeendeterminedwhichwereusedto assess the significance ofthe potential resource and comparative data from surrounding sites has been considered as welL

I Historical Context i 1I Thefirst hospital onthe site ofthe presentestablishmentwas the product ofa large scale building programme carried out during the second settlement of Newcastle. It was constructed in 1817. It appears to have started life as a gaol and was subsequently I converted for use as an hospitaL It was described in 1818 as being built in stone, with a verandah all round it. The site was enclosed by a paling fence. The structure is shown on I a number of contemporary surveys. By 1834 the hospital appears to have acquired what appears to have been either an additional building or an attached garden. By 1849 it definitely encompassed three I separate buildings. This arrangement was consistent through to the 1860s when the land was dedicated for a new hospital. There is no clear or detailed information with respect to the form, construction oruse ofthese new structures. The old buildings survived until I at least 1864 but they appear to have been demolished shortly after that time.

The need for a new hospital had been recognized since 1861 but it was not until 1865 I that the first new building was opened to the public. The site ofthe new hospital was in much the same location as the old hospital, however, no contemporary surveys of the complex are now available. The earliest survey that incorporates elements of the work I comes from 1889, approximately a thirty year lapse of time. Furthermore there is little I evidence for the nature ofthe building works associated with the new facilities. Mterinitial enthusiasm development ofthe new establishment lapsed and the buildings were left to function as best they could. It was not until 1871 that water closets were I installedinthegrounds and during the sameperiodmovesweremadeto secure thewater supply although this was not successfully achieved until some time later. It continued to be a severeproblemthroughout the remainder ofthe century as did erosion and damage I caused through drifting sand dunes. During the 1880s agitation for better facilities resulted in the construction of a number I of new buildings and additions and changes were made to the existing facilities. The hospital grounds were also expanded to encompass an additional twenty-two feet. The 1889 survey ofthe site shows the major facilities to be located, again, in the general area I ofthe old hospital wings. More buildings were added to the site during the earlyyears of the 1890s and these partially overlapped the area of the old hospital although large I sections of this facility are likely to have been unaffected by the later work. The need for more and improved facilities was pressing by 1897. Plans were made for a variety ofnewworks but only repairs to existing buildings and services were carried out I as well as, in 1899, a thorough cleansing ofthe entire establishment. In 1898 competitive

I Page 2 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I designs were called for the constructionofa newhospital thatwas to embrace the "better" parts of the old work. The competition was won by a Brisbane based architect but the I work did not proceed for some years. Repairs, even, were kept to a minimum in expectation ofthis long awaited building programme. The first stage was begun in 1901.

I Work continued sporadically during the earlyyears ofthe new century. Moneywas made available butitwas notuntil 1914 that construction commenced onthis projectwhen the I foundation stone was laid of the North Wing. Theimprovements thathadbeenmade to the site during the lateryears ofthe nineteenth century and the earlyyears ofthe twentieth century had further encroached on the area I of the earlier hospital although some sections remained untouched by this phase of I activity. Older buildings were demolished progressively during this time. Duringthe 1920s a variety ofbuildings and services were added to the site. In some cases these works required the removal of existing buildings. A similar programme of I improvements, including additions, demolition and renovations were carried on during the 1930s. The onset ofthe war years, however, slowed this progress although many new I works were planned for when finances and labour again became available. In 1945 work again commenced on a building programme that was to continue sporadically for the next few decades. The earliest ofthese projects was the construction I oftheNicksonBuildingwhich necessitatedthe removal ofa number ofexisting buildings. Further disruption to the site was caused through the construction of tunnels for steam I and power lines. Other additions were made during the remaining years of the 1940s. The 1950s were also a period of development. The 1960s for the most part, however, were quiet in terms ofbuilding activity in comparison to that which had preceded them. I However, in 1966, planning commenced for what was claimed to be the biggest single I development in the hospital's history. This subsequently became the McCaffrey Wing. Thisworkwas againfollowed by a lull during the early 1970s. The laterpart ofthis decade was characterized by a series of documents which were prepared to plan for the future I needs of the site. By this time a number of new projects were underway including the Clinical Services Building. Later studies, undertaken during the early years ofthe 1980s, considered the repairs to the existing buildings which would be needed to extend their I useful lives. A number ofbuildings were targeted for demolition.

During the later years ofthe 1980s a series ofprogrammes were designed to repair and I renovate existing facilities. However, the situation was rapidly changed by natural disaster in the final days of the 1980s.

I Mter the December 1989 earthquake the Nickson Building became the only safe accommodation within the site. Most buildings were damaged and the hospital was advised to demolish a number of structures in the interests of public safety. These I included the York Wing, the link wing and services block. These were demolished in 1990.

I These demolitions raised a number ofconcerns over the heritage issues associated with

I Page 3 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I this site although heritage awareness had surfaced first during the early 1980s. In response to concerns voiced by a number of interest groups various studies have been I initiated by the Hunter Area Health Service to clarify the issues relevant to heritage values and identify management strategies. This study is one of those investigations.

I Physical Development ofthe Site

From the first development of the site in 1817 the majority of construction has been I focused in the north-eastern block that now encompasses the North Wing and Nickson Building. Analysis has shown that the buildings currently on the site are not likely to overlie any remnant evidence of the earliest phase ofwork, up to 1834. However, later I additions made during this phase are likely to be partially encompassed within the areas of the NorthWing and the Nickson Building. One late out-building is likely to be free of I both later additions. The buildings constructed during the second phase of hospital development again I occupied much the same space as the earlier hospital and are certain to have had some impact, at least partially, on any remnant evidence of the earlier buildings. Changes to I the site during the later nineteenth century did not substantially alter this assessment. The most substantial impact on the potential archaeological resource of the earlier phases ofwork is likely to have occurred during the period c. 1910 and 1920 particularly I through the construction of, for example, the North Wing. The construction work associated with the new buildings of the hospital must also have created an impact on the sites of later nineteenth century hospital as well as those of the first hospital. I However, a large portion of the site of the central block of the original hospital still remained relatively untouched by the cumulative building works of the nineteenth and I twentieth centuries. Potential Additions to the Archaeological Record

I Computer analysis of the available surveys was valuable for defining areas ofpotential sensitivity, however, itwas limitedby the quality and extent ofthe documentary evidence. It is clear from comparing the various sources that more was constructed within the I hospital, at all periods, than has been recorded on the surviving surveys. For example, there are references to tanks, bath houses, drains, sewers and a variety of small out-buildings that do not appear on any survey. Rubbish disposal is also likely to have I added deposits to the site. All these additional and undocumented works could have affected the survival rate ofearlier works. Certainly they contribute to the formation of I a potentially complex and rich archaeological record. I Factors Affecting Survival Constant demolition and construction activity within a relatively small area must have affected the earlier works to some degree however, the extent of this effect is unclear. I There are no contemporary records with respect to the scale of demolition. Experience from other sites would suggest that, particularlyfor the earlier nineteenth centuryworks, I at least portions ofthe earlier buildings would have been left intact. The effect of the changing topography on any intact archaeological evidence must also

I Page 4 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I be considered as a factor. Ofparticular importance is the effect ofsand drift and erosion on the site. Contemporary documentation makes clear the substantial impact on the site I of these two factors. It is unclear, however, whether the level of the site was raised or altered, if at all, through these incursions. The cumulative effect oferosion and land fill I is an unknown. Geo-technical and Comparative Evidence

I Two other sites relatively close to the study area, the convict lumberyard and the James Fletcher Hospital, have been archaeologically investigated during recent years and the evidence from these sites has been considered as comparative data. The physical I evidence from these two sites was found to be vastly different and extrapolation of this I evidence to the hospital site was found to produce equivocal results. The Potential Resource I Withouttheconstraintsthatmaybeimposedfrom geo-technical dataandundocumented archaeological features it could be concluded that there is likely to be remnant evidence of the first hospital phase of construction and that this evidence is likely to consist of I some central portions of the main block, small sections of the southern block and the entire southernout-building. This archaeologicalmaterialis likely to belocatedbetween the south-eastern corner ofthe North Wing and the north-eastern corner ofthe Nickson I Building.

Some evidence of the first phase ofhospital construction is likely to be at least partially I disturbed and possibly entirely removed by the works of the mid and later nineteenth century and those of the early twentieth century.

I The later nineteenth and early twentieth centurywork is also likely to have considerably added to thepotential archaeological resource within the hospital site through structural evidence, relics anddeposits. This evidence is likelytobepartiallylocated over the earlier I hospital phase works as well as along the eastern boundary and centre west portion of the site. The North Wing, Nickson Building and Boiler House also encompass areas of I these phase ofworks. It is also likely that a variety of archaeological features are located within the site for I which no specific location or determination of survival rates may be made. These sites encompass drainage and sewerage works, structures, wells and other deposits and I features including the possibility ofportable relics in the form of dumped artefacts It was also considered likely that substantial traces of past landscaping may also be I located as identifiable deposits including paths and garden areas. Criteria for Assessment of Significance

I Traditionalcriteriafor assessing significance could notbeusedfor this site. Those criteria require knowledge ofthe physical condition of the subject whereas, on this site, it is the potential physical evidence that has been considered by the investigation. Criteria that I reflect the significance ofthe resource, ifit is found are, therefore, more appropriate.

I Page 5 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I At this time statements of significance have been presented which have an underlying inference that the material to which they refer will be found largely intact. However, if I investigation shows this to be not the case then these statements of significance must be reviewed.

I The criteria which have been adopted for this work are as follows:

• the importance that additional evidence provided by the archaeological material I could give to an understanding ofthe development of this particular site i • the importance ofthe site as part ifthe growing urban context • its significance as rare or unique examples of colonial evolution in technology, I philosophies, work practices and the like· I • its importance as a focus for community awareness and symbolism oflocal heritage. Statement ofSignficance I The Significance of the Potential Archaeological Resource as Part of the Royal New castle Hospital Development

I Ifarchaeological evidence ofthe first phase ofthe hospital development (c. 1817- 1864) was located within the site it would be significant because:

I • itwouldbethe only survivingphysical evidence ofthis phase ofhospital development either above or below ground. It would be representative and descriptive of the I formative phase ofthe institution's development. • thesystematicinvestigationofsubstantial sections ofthebuilding, ifuncovered, could provide evidence for the use and management ofthe facility during this phase. This I is largely undocumented.

• undocumented elements of this phase, for example, wells, structures or relics, if I located, would provide evidence that would considerably add to the history of management and use ofthis institution.

I Ifarchaeological evidence ofthe secondperiod ofhospitaldevelopment, essentially the later nineteenth century works, was located within the site it would be significant because:

I • it would be the only surviving physical evidence of this phase of development (prior to c, 1910) that survives on the site and, as such, would be representative and I descriptive ofthe works that formed the basis for the modern hospital • previously undocumented elements would provide evidence for the history of I management and use during this phase of development. If archaeological evidence of the third period of hospital development, essentially the I twentieth century works, (c. 1910onwards) was located within the site it would be considered

I Page 6 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I less significant because ofthegreater availability ofdocumentation for thisphase as well as I the survival rate ofabove ground examples. The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as Part ofNewcastle's His I torical Profile If evidence of the first phase of the hospital was identified and recorded it would be I significant: • for its associational and symbolicvalue ofthe earliestphase ofthe city's development -I and the growth of institutions relevant to that original "convict" based impetus for development.

• becauseitwouldprovide, atthis time, rarephysical evidence ofthatphase ofthe city's I development. I Evidence ofthe secondphase ofhospital development would be significant: • for its symbolism and demonstration ofthe growth ofNewcastle as a major regional I centre requiring and capable ofproviding modern medical care for its inhabitants. The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as a Demonstration of I Colonial Evolution • Comparisonofsurviving archaeologicalevidencefrom all phaseswouldbe significant I because oftheits abilityto demonstrate changing management and medicalpractices and technologies employed in the development and use of an hospital. This is particularly relevant because of the continued occupation of the one site by the I hospital for nearly one hundred and seventy five years. • Intact evidence ofthe first phase ofthe hospital would be significant for its historical I value and rarity. Itis comparable intime to the Rum Hospital ofSydney and similar institutions on Norfolk Island.

I The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource for Community Awareness

• The events and community involvement surrounding recent historic site I investigations, for example the Lumber Yard site, James Fletcher Hospital and CarringtonChambers, has positively identified thevery strong community awareness ofurbanheritage that exists within Newcastle particularly that relating to the earliest I "convict" phase of development. It is likely that the identification ofintact evidence of the first, and probably second phase of hospital development would generate an I equally keen community interest. Management Strategies

I Statutory Requirements

The potential archaeological evidence encompassed by the Newcastle Hospital site falls I under the relics provisions of the NSW Heritage Act (1977, amended 1987). This will

I Page 7 I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I mean that, prior to any redevelopment of the site or planned archaeological investigation, anExcavationPermitwith provisions for archaeologicalwork as necessary, I will need to be acquired from the Department of Planning. I Objectives for Immediate Archaeological Work This assessmenthas shownthatthere is thepotentialwithin the hospital sitefor a complex archaeological resource that dates from 1817 through to and including twentieth century I elements. This potentialresource has a"high level ofsignificance for its associational and symbolic values as well as for its ability to demonstrate past management practices, medicalphilosophies, building practices and technologies. Inmany cases itwould be the I only surviving physical evidence for nearly one hundred years of hospital development as well as rare evidence of town development. However, this investigation has been I unable to assess the extent, nature and integrity of the resource because of the lack of, particularly, geo-technical and other physical data.

I Itis ofparticular importance that the first archaeological work onthe site should address these problems. It should, therefore, be the first priority of subsequent archaeological work to determine the extent, nature and integrity of the potential archaeological I resource. It is suggested that the best means of achieving this will be through geo-technical and archaeological testing.

I Long Term Archaeological Requirements

During this assessment it has been a constant difficulty that the potential archaeological I profile ofthe city has not been addressed in the way that zoning plans have been, or are inthe process ofbeing, prepared for Sydney, Parramatta and The Rocks. The "isolation" ofthevarious elements in the hospital site in terms of, particularly, their potential rarity I has required that their assessed significance is, perhaps, greater than might necessarily be the case. Although not a direct concern ofthe hospital it has been suggested that the I relevant authorities be approached to consider the need for this planning document. I I I I I I

I Page 8 I 'I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 1.2 Recommendations

I On the basis ofthe investigation detailed in this report it is recommended that: I • a series of geo-technical bores be carried out on the hospital site to define the sub-profile. The locations ofthese bores should be defined with the assistance of an archaeologist making use of the digitised locations of earlier buildings produced in I this report. This evidence should then be used to determine how archaeological testing could be best carried out, for example, by the removal of overburden etc. I • using the results ofthe bores, a test trench should be excavated in an area that shows the greatest coincidence ofaccumulated material. This workwill be for the purposes of assessing the survival rates and integrity of each phase of development. On the I basis ofthe available evidence the location for this trench appears to be best situated inthe area ofthe North Wing and former York Wing. These lie over part ofthe main block of the 1817 hospital as well as various nineteenth and twentieth century I features.

• a smaller test trench might also be carried out on the site of the first hospital phase I out-building. I • the local community be involved as far as practicable in this work. • a report detailing the preceding work be presented which defines the results of the site work, reviews the statements of significance presented in this report and details I management strategies for the archaeological resource uncovered by field testing

• that the appropriate authorities (the Department ofPlanning and the local council) I be approached to consider, as a matter of priority, the commencement of an archaeological zoning plan for Newcastle. I I I I I I I

I Page 9 I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I SECTION 2.0 I PREFACE TO THE REPORT I I I I 2.1 Location

I Royal Newcastle Hospital is located within the City of Newcastle. It is a collection of buildings and services located primarilywithin two city blocks. The larger portion ofthe hospital is located on Pacific Street and is bound by Hunter and Watt Streets and I Shortland Esplanade and includes parts of Ocean and King Streets. The smaller block lies immediately to the north-west ofthe main hospital area. I 2.2 Parameters ofthe Investigation

I This investigation was undertaken to identify and assess the archaeological potential of the site. "Archaeological potential" was understood to mean any sites, relics, structures, features, soils and/or deposits that could be used to interpret past use, management and I occupation of the hospital site.

The primary emphasis of this study has been in the area of the North Wing, that is, the I former city block that encompasses the sites ofthe first hospital, laternineteenth century hospital and most of the early twentieth century improvements. Future development is I also likely to be focused in this area. I 2.3 Status ofthe Site The site is not included on the Register of the National Estate nor is it listed as a whole by the NSW Heritage Council although Section 130 Orders were applied to the North I Wing, YorkWing and WheelerHouseinJanuary 1981. TheNationalTrust and theRoyal Institute of Architects each have listed several buildings. The site has also been the subject of a conservation plan prepared during 1991 (McDonald McPhee Pty Ltd et aI., I "ConselVation Plan for Royal Newcastle Hospital". Hunter Area Health Service, 1991).

No detailed archaeological assessment or field work has been undertaken on the study I area to date. The conservation plan recommended that:

"Duringsite demolition orsite construction works... azonedarchaeological I sUlVey be carried out to record the built patterns ofdevelopment and any

I Page 10

1I! -I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I archaeological remains which may exist:' (1).

I This investigation has been undertaken in response to that recommendation at the request of the Hunter Area Health Board. The intent of the work has been modified I from the original recommendation as outlined in the following section. I 2.4 Objectives The primary objectives which have been identified for this work were to:

i • define the potential archaeological resource which resides within the hospital precincts

I • assess the significance ofthis resource

• recommend management strategies for this resource based on the assessment of I significance I 2.5 Methodology ,I To achieve these objectives the following tasks were considered necessary; • to locate andscale to the same size all detailed surveys ofthe site from first settlement I to the present day as a means ofidentifying zones or sites ofpotential sensitivity • to use the plans produced by the preceding work as a means of assessing the impact of succeeding phases of development on those preceding and to consider other I factors which may have influenced the survival rates of archaeological material I • to consider comparative data from surrounding sites • to determine criteria which could be used to assess the significance ofthe potential I resource • to prepare a report which presents the results of this work.

I Primary historical evidence was retrieved during the analysis prepared for the conservationplan and this has beenutilised for the purposes ofthis work. The computer digitisation was carried at a scale of 1:500 and plotted at a scale of 1:1000. The "best-fit" I method ofcomputerisationwas considered the most appropriate for accommodating the I information recorded in the various surveys. 2.6 Constraints

I The major constraint which has affected the outcome of this work has been the lack of geo-technical and other physical data. The sub-surface profile of the hospital site is unknown and this has precluded a detailed assessment of the potential resource that is I likely to reside within the hospital grounds. Reference to information supplied from near-by sites has not been able to clarify this issue. This problem has, in turn, affected

I Page 11 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I the assessment ofsignificance and influenced the formation of management strategies.

I 2.7 Authorship and Acknowledgements

This report has been prepared by W. Thorp. Historical detail has been gained from the I thematic history prepared for the conservation plan (Thorp, fv. Thematic History Royal Newcastle Hospital in McDonald McPhee Pty Ltd et al. 1991). The digitised plans of I earlier surveys were prepared by Jill Chapman of Godden Mackay Pty Ltd. The author has been grateful for the help and information supplied by Dr D. Bairstow and Mr W. I Johnson. I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 12 I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I HUNTER STREET

I 'pACIFIC 'ARK I I I OCEAN STREET I KING STREET I I I I I I I IIIJ I CHURCH STREET

flETCHER PARK I THE HOSPITAL SITE

I McDONALD McPHEE PTY UMfTE ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNER

I Figure 1: The Study Area (from McDonald McPhee et al., 1991 Fig. 2) I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I SECTION 3.0 I HISTORICAL CONTEXT I I I I It is not the intention of this discussion to reiterate the history already presented in the Conservation Plan. However, the chronological analysis defined inthatwork is used here I to provide a framework for an analysis of the developing built environment and, more particularly, to examine the cumulative creation of an archaeological record associated I with this development. The documentation, as it will be seen, provides reasonable definition for the spatial development of the site, however, it provides little or no evidence for the effect of I succeeding phases ofwork on those preceding. In particular, there are serious lapses in the archival record; for example, there are no plans ofthe site for approximately a thirty year periodbetween 1864 and 1889. These factors complicate an already unclear picture I of the extent and nature of the accumulating archaeological record. These issues are discussed in the succeeding section.

I The historical detail contained in this section, unless otherwise noted, is adapted from Thorp, W. Thematic History ofRoyal Newcastle Hospital in McDonald McPhee Pty Ltd I et al., 1991. The phases defined in that work and used in this report are: I Phase I: 1818 - 1860 The First Hospital Phase ll: 1860 - 1875 Establishing A New Hospital

I Phase Ill: 1875 - 1896 Extensions I Phase IV: 1896 - 1914 Stagnation and Reconstruction I Phase V: 1914 - 1939 The 'Third Hospital" - Incorporation and Consolidation Phase VI: 1939 - 1989 The "Fourth Hospital"

I Phase VII: 1989 - 1991 Earthquake and Heritage I

I Page 13 I ARCllAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.1 Phase I: 1818 - 1860

I The First Hospital

I The first hospital on the site of the present establishment was a product of the second settlement ofNewcastle, from 1804 onwards, the first having failed in 1802. A large scale building programme was put into effect soon after the new settlement commenced and I this included the construction town facilities as well as various institutional establishments. This programme was carried out between c. 1804 and 1820. The first I hospital was constructed in 1817 on a hill above the town in an area of sand dunes. The building started life as a gaol and subsequently was converted for use as an hospital. It is shown on contemporary plans and views of 1818 and was described in the same year I as being built in stone, with a verandah all round it. The site was enclosed by a paling fence. In evidence presented to Commissioner Bigge during 1820 some further, but limited, information was provided that allows some insight into the first establishment. I William Evans, the Assistant Colonial Surgeon, claimed that it was too small for the needs of the settlement; this problem was likely to worsen (2). There were at least two rooms in the main building and these could accommodate between twenty-four and I twnety-nine beds (3). Two small rooms were located under the verandah for the use of women but one had been commandeered for use as a mill house to grind wheat. These I rooms were ten feet long and six feet wide (4). Sand blowing into the hospital was a constant problem (5) and the only water to be had I was from a single well established on the beach; other wells had proven to be brackish (6). There may have been a separate privy to the main building (7). The general opinion was that the building was poorly constructed and would only last for a year or two (8). I There may have been other improvements for which no documentation now survives (9).

The 1822 town survey indicates a single building on the site. The most detailed I description of the building is also drawn from this year. It mentions that:

"...the building consists oftwo rooms for patients...and oftwo small rooms I ten feet long andsixfeet wide... The building is ofstone and rough cast with a projecting pediment in front supported by wooden columns..." (10)

I Other surveys show a similar location and arrangement of this building until 1834. By this time the hospital had acquired what appears to have been either an additional building or an attached garden. By 1849 it definitely encompassed three separate I buildings. This arrangement was consistent through to the 1860s when the land was dedicated for a new hospital. There is no clear or detailed information with respect to I the form, construction or use of these new structures. The old building survived until at least 1864 but appears to have beendemolished shortly I after that time although the details and extent ofthat demolition are now undocumented. During the twentieth century a building supervisor claimed to have seen foundations of three old buildings under the northern side of the hospital. These are said to have I consisted of massive sandstone foundations, crude lime cement and brickwork.

I Page 14 I --_ .. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I The location of these early buildings generally appears to fall between the south-east corner of the North Wing and the north-eastern corner of the Nickson Building. In the I later stages of the first hospital's development one building appears to have been constructed on ground that was later used for the eastern end of the North Wing. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 15 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I ...... ~., sr-~~~ , -,':".'.:.. -'"'( I

.... •.... ::. •••••••••,._•••••• _••••••••• -e .#~ - : ·.~; ~!!'~,/t·~~t":"f'rt:-r~::r-\I.~rl.,tt I . ... " """,,~::t:[~ !.t~~Jl.~ ..;.~.·r:"/: :~t:;r':::;:" ';.. ; i ~::.~~.!:~:'.: :;:£ :.: t 'J:':~' ..',~~~J;i;!1;'~:;S:?<:i;';:\ ~ t\~~: n /':'/',\/-:::, :;' "",';' ,;';, ;', :";' I .. I • ...... -..... I Figure 2: Detail of1823·1826 Town Survey (SADNSWAD Map 4385) 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I . . I (. I I ,I

.JJ

I . \'...... ' " I .t. I [~~'J t;'/~"",,,,'._jl ,,;l,J,u..... I , I . I rI \.>""""'__ ~J.! I .: _.. rtr":b1-_ f " H-;:.;~:..l I ./ .... .' '" I " I I

.-.. . ! " I , , , I I I .. I I Figure 3: Detail of1834 Town Survey (SAONSWAO Map 84) -I

I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 4: Detail of1849 Town Survey (SAONSWAO Map 4596) I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.2 Phase TI: 1860 - 1875

I Establishing A New Hospital

I The need for a new hospital had been recognized since 1861 but it was not until 1865 that the first new building was opened to the public and, even at that time, construction was not complete. The new buildings appear to have been located in much the same I location as the old hospital, however, no contemporary documentation of the new complex is now available. The earliest survey that incorporates elements of the work comes from 1889, approximately a thirty year lapse of time. Furthermore there is little I evidence for the nature of the building works associated with the new facilities in terms of demolition, construction activity and the like.

I Mter the initial enthusiasm development of the new establishment lapsed and the buildings were left to function as best they could. It was not until 1871 that water closets were installed in the grounds and during the same period moves were made to secure I the water supply. This, however, was not successfully achieved at the time. Prior to that waterhadcomefrom a well sunkonthe site. This well, presumably, was established either during the lateryears ofthe first hospital (the well on the beach supplying the site during I its early years) or early in this second phase of work. There is no indication from I contemporary documentation ofits location. I I I I I I I I I

I Page 16 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.3 Phase ill: 1875 -1896

I Extensions

I During 1875 a tankwas finally sunkin front ofthe hospital to create a secure water supply although the lack of water available to the hospital continued to be a severe problem throughout most of the rest of the century as did erosion and damage caused through I drifting sand dunes. The latter, in particular, at times overwhelmed sections of the hospital buildings.

I During the 1880s agitation for better facilities resulted in the construction of a number of new buildings including an infectious diseases ward (subsequently converted for use as a kitchen) and the new Hannell Wing, the latter a two storey Gothic Revival structure. I Duringthe later 1880s a number ofnew facilities were provided including a new mortuary and drying shed and additions and changes were made to the existing facilities. The hospital grounds were also expanded to encompass an additional twenty-two feet. The I 1889 survey ofthe site shows the major facilities to be located, again, in the general area of the old hospital wings.

I Later, in 1891, a newwing ofinfectious diseaseswards was constructed along the northern boundaryofthe hospital and a private ward was built at the same time. These works were I made possible by the construction of a new dining room behind the buildings. This new work was, once more, largely in the area of the earlier buildings, partially I overlapping them although large sections of the first hospital site are unlikely to have been alienated by the later work. I I I I I I I I

I Page 17 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I .. I' f, I !JI I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I \~ I N'AI(Rt PlA~.oI".- I Q .. \' ' " (1;\ t.1 l"'\ I I Figure 6: Detail of1889 SUlvey (NSWLands Department 80687) I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.4 Phase IV: 1896· 1914

I Stagnation and Reconstruction I The need for more and improved facilities was pressing by 1897. Plans were made for a variety of works but only repairs to existing buildings and services were carried out as well as, in 1899, a thorough cleansing of the entire facility. In 1898 competitive designs I were called for the construction ofa new hospital that was to embrace the "better" parts ofthe old establishment. The competition was won by a Brisbane based architect but the work did not proceed for some years. Repairs, even, were kept to a minimum in I expectation of this long awaited building programme. The first stage of this work commenced in 1901 when a new nurses' home was built in the south-western corner of I the site and an operating theatre was attached to the Hannell Wing. Work continued sporadically during the early years ofthe new century; a new laundry in 1906, a kitchen in 1908 and a new morgue. Money for new projects was allocated in the I same year but it was not until 1914 that construction commenced after various protests and one commission ofenquirywas appointed to investigate the matter. Eleven schemes had been considered for the new work and one, that incorporated significant elements I of the old establishment, was finally accepted by the committee.

The area of the work that had been utilised during the later years of the nineteenth I century and the early years of the twentieth century had further encroached on the site ofthe earlier hospital. Some portions of that site, however, remained untouched by this I phase of activity. During this period, as well, the old isolation wards on the northern perimeter appear to have been removed from the site, in c. 1910. I I I I I I I I

I Page 18 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.5 Phase V: 1914 . 1939

I The "Third Hospital" . Incorporation and Consolidation

I The foundation stone ofthe North Wing was laid in 1914 and it was finally completed in 1917. Theolderbuildingswereprogressivelydemolished during this time. A similar delay in commencement and completion was experienced during the construction ofthe York I Wing which was begun in 1925 and finally completed in 1927.

During the 1920s a variety ofbuildings and services were added to the site including new I nurses' accommodation, a kitchen, newisolationwards and a boiler house. In some cases these works required the removal of existing buildings.

I A similar programme ofimprovements, including additions, demolition and renovations were carried on during the 1930s, in some cases with assistance from unemployment relief funds. These works included a new administration blocks, Residents Medical I Officers' quarters, a new mortuary and workshops. The onset ofthe war years, however, slowed this progress although many new works were planned for when finances and I labour again became available. I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 19 I 'I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.6 Phase VI: 1939 . 1989

I The "Fourth Hospital"

I During the war years plans were prepared for a number of projects but none came to fruition. However, in 1945, work again commenced on a building programme that was to continue over the next few decades. The earliest ofthese works was the construction I of the Nickson Building which necessitated the removal of the existing Ward 12, linen room, kitchenblock and the old RMO's quarters. The former nurses' quarters were also demolished at this time. Further disruption to the site was caused through the I construction of tunnels for steam and power lines. During the remaining years of the 1940s other projects included the extensions to the outpatients' building and the I resumption of adjoining properties to allow for the future expansion ofthe hospital. The 1950s were also a period of development for the establishment including the completion ofthe Nickson Wing, the construction of a new laundry, a new nurses' home I and the purchase of a block of flats close to the hospital. The 1960s, for the most part, however, were quiet in terms of building activity in comparison to that which had preceded them. However, in 1966, planning commenced for what was claimed to be the I biggest single developmentinthe hospital's development. This subsequentlybecame the I McCaffrey Wing. Thisworkwas againfollowed by a lull during the early 1970s. The later partofthis decade was characterized by a series of documents which were prepared to plan for the future I needs of the site. A ten year development programme was envisaged by this work. By this time a number of new projects were underway including the Clinical Services Building. Later studies, undertaken during the early years of the 1980s, considered the I repairs which would be needed to extend the useful lives of the existing buildings. A number were targeted for demolition including the RMOs' quarters and the south wall I of the York Wing. Little follow up occurred inresponse to the findings ofthis work; for example, it was not until 1985 that repairs were made to the boiler house chimney. During the lateryears of I the 1980s a series ofprogrammes were designed to repair and renovate existing facilities including, in 1988, a one million dollar repair programme for the McCaffrey Wing and, in 1989, a five million dollar programme for various structures. However, the situation I was rapidly altered by natural disaster during the final days ofthe 1980s. I I I I

I Page 20 I 1I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 3.7 Phase VU: 1989 - 1991

I Earthquake and Heritage

I These demolitions caused concerns to bevoiced over the heritage issues associated with this site although heritage awareness ofcertain items had first surfaced during the early 1980s. For example, in 1981, the North Wing, the York Wing and Wheeler House were I listed as heritage itemsunderthe NSWHeritageAct (1979). The hospitalitselfhad taken pride in its own history and development causing various monographs to be published and celebrations to be held commemorating key events. However, patient and staff care I and accommodation had, necessarily, taken precedence over other interests. The effect of the earthquake was to bring hospital pragmatism into conflict with environmental I considerations. Inresponse to concerns voiced by a number ofinterest groups various studies have been I initiated by the Hunter Area Health Service to clarify the issues relevant to the heritage values ofthis site and identify management strategies for them. This study is one ofthose I investigations. II I I I I I I I

I Page 21 I 1 ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ~OYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL 'I SECTION 4.0 I THE POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE I I I I 4.1 Physical Development ofthe Site

I From the first development of the site in 1817 the majority of construction has been focused in the north-eastern block that now encompasses the North Wing and Nickson Building. The accompanying plans show the relationship of the first hospital to the I buildings currently on site. This is a "best-fit" application of the computerised plotting andencompasses thewidestpossible areathat could house remnants ofthis first building I as far as they are known to have existed. The 1822 and 1823-26 plans demonstrate that the buildings currently on the site are not likely to overlie any remnant evidence of this earliest phase ofwork, however, by 1834, I anotherbuilding hadbeenadded to the site and the NorthWing may be seento partially overlie this area. By 1849 another building had been added to the hospital complex and I this was adjacent to, but free of, the Nickson Building. The 1860 site survey appears to represent a similar arrangement of buildings although I the scale is markedlydifferent and, probably, more accurate than the earlier surveys. The 1864 survey shows a similar configurationwith what appears to be an additional building linked by, possibly, a wall to the southernmost of tItese group of three buildings. These I are still outside the area ofany of the current buildings.

The most detailed survey following the 1864 planwas prepared in 1889 and by that time I the hospital facilities had completely changed; the old buildings had been demolished andnewstructures erected intheirplace. The accompanying plan shows the relationship of this phase of work to the current site. The buildings again occupied much the same I space as the earlier hospital and are certain to have had some impact, at least partially, on any remnant evidence ofthe earlier buildings. Onewing ofthe new hospital was built directlyoverthenorthernmostblockofthe oldhospital andthe central and mainbuilding I was constructed at least partially over the main block of the former hospital. However, there appears to have been little impact by this phase of work on the southernmost I building and the later out-building. The 1896 survey demonstrates that more facilities had been added to the site between 1889 and 1896 butnone appeartohave beenany more destructive to the potential earlier I resource than that which had appeared in 1889. By 1908, however, the sites of more of

I Page 22 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I the former central block and all of the southern block had been encroached upon although the out-building to the latter remained in an area that had not, at that time, I been utilised by the hospital. The survey of 1910 illustrates a similar situation although some demolition appears to have occurred in the area of the former main block and I southern block. The most substantial impact on the potential archaeological resource of the earlier phases ofwork is likely to have occurred during the period c. 1910 and 1920 particularly I throughthe constructionof, for example, the North Wing. The survey plans ofthis period clearly demonstrate that the constructionwork associated with the new buildings of the hospital was likely to be creating an impact on the sites of the later nineteenth century i hospital as well as those of the first hospital. However, a large portion ofthe site ofthe central block of the original hospital still remained relatively untouched by the II cumulative building works of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

It is clear that the archaeological resource that may reside within the hospital grounds I has the potential to be complex, multi-phased and cumulatively developed over the preceding works.

I The final two plans show the maximum area that could be encompassed by the construction activity ofthe first hospital in relation to the current buildings on site as far as the primary documentation provides evidence for that establishment. This area has I then been overlain on a composite plan that shows the area alienated by the later nineteenth and early twentieth century works. It demonstrates that large portions of those earlier buildings are likely to have been affected by the later building works I although sections ofthe central block, southern block and the entire out-building to the southernblock are likely to have been relatively unaffected by these laterworks. This of course is in an "ideal" situation where one phase ofworks was constructed immediately I over the earlierphase. Itdoes not take into account other factors which may have either added to or affected the earlierworks and their survival rates. These issues are discussed I in the following sections. I I I I I I

I Page 23 I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL

I , I

I - I CAR PARK I .' I I !/ MeC "FFREY BUILDING V I~I I l> M---&-'I ---,

I DAVID ~DDISON t:. :/ BUlL NG I NtC ISDN Bt I DING o I

..... r-- r----'" 'I BOILER 1 WHEELER HOUSE HOUSE NilRrH WING c- r ,...- I ~ ~; \ D )CLUB_~ n, I r-- tr- 0 10 eo 30 40 501"1 1111 I I I I I ..... I 1991 I

I lRENE HALL NURSESl II HOME I I I Figure 10: 1822 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofHospital Building and Surrounding I. Town Allotments to Buildings Cwrently On Site ! I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I I I CAR PARK I

I .' I I

I DAVID M DD BUILD G I o I

I BOILER I HOUSE 'JING I

I 0 10 eo 30 40 501'1 I I I11 I I I I I 1991

IRENE HALL NURSES I HOME I Figure 11: 1823-26 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofHospital Building and I" Surrounding Town Allotments to Buildings Currently On Site. ~ I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I i CAR PARK I .' I I I ~ DAVID M DDIS I BUILD G I I I BOILER \JHEELER HOUSE----. I HOUSE rH \JING I

I o 10 eo 30 40 501'\ II 11 IIIII I 1991

ENE HALL NURSES I HOME I Figure 12: 1834 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofHospital Buildings and Town \'1 Allotments to Buildings Cun-ently On Site 1 I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL nEWCASTLE hOSPITAL I I

I CAR PARI i .' I s

I .' I I DAVID M Dl I IlUILD G I I \rIHEELER HOUSE: I NG I I

o 10 20 30 40 50Pl I I I 11 IIIII 1991

I IRENE HALL NURSES HOME I

I Figure 13: 1849 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofHospital Buildings and Town Allotments to Buildings Currently On Site I 1I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I L= I --- I 11 I I I DA'v I Il I I BD LER 'WHEELER HOUSE I HO SE 'WING I I

o 10 2&. 30 40 50M I 11 IIIIII, 1991

I IRENE HALL NURSES

I Figure 14: 1860 Survey ComputerDigitised to Show Relationship of Hospital Buildings and I Town Allotments to Buildings Currently On Site I I. I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I .'

I CAR I I I I I DAVID M DDI I BUILD G I. o J.m1S I

\/HEELER HOUSE I \lING I I o 10 20 30 40 501"'1 I! III III I 1991 I lREN~ .!:t1kL NURSES I

Figure 15: 1864 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofHospital Buildings and Town I Allotments to Buildings CU17'ently On Site I I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I '11

I CAR PARK

I .., I I I .' I DAVID MDDJ I BUILD G o I I

BOILER \tIHEELER HOUSE

I HOUSE \tIYNG I I I I I Figure 16: 1889 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship ofLater Nineteenth Century I Hospital Development to Buildings Currently On Site I I ------~

I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I CAR PARt I .' I I ..

I I I I I DAVID M DD I BUILD G

I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPTAL I I I I CAR PAf I I

I .' I

I DAVID I BUILD I I o I

I \lH£ELER HOUSE I \lING I I

o 10 eo 30 40 50H I 11 IIIIIII I

I Figure 18: 1910 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship tp Buildings Currently On Site I I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I I CAR PAl I I I I I

DAVID M I BUILD I o I I \oIHEELER HOUSE----. I I I o 10 eo 30 40 50M I IIIII J III

I Figure 19: 1924 Survey Computer Digitised to Show Relationship to Buildings Currently On Site I I • ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ROYAL NEWCAS1LE HOSPITAL I I I

I CAR PARK

I .' .1 I .. I I DAVID M DDISDN I BUILD G o I I

OILER I \lING lUSE I :1 o 10 eo 30 40 501"l 1111 I IIII I \991 I II I I Figure 20: Computer Compilation ofall First Phase Hospital Surveys Showing Maximum Area of I Archaeological Potential I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT : ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I I

I CAR PARK i I .' I I I DAVID M DDI I BUILD G o I I I 'WHEELER HOUSE I I

I o 10 20 30 40 50M III 11 IIII

I IRENE HALL NURSES HOME I Figure 21: First Hospital Phase Composite Plus 1889 and 1924 Surveys In Relation to Buildings I Currently On Site I 1 ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 4.2 Potential Additions to the Archaeological Record

I The preceding computer analysis is valuable for defining areas of potential sensitivity, however, itis limited by the quality and extent ofthe documentary evidence. The lack of site surveys for a thirty year period between 1864 and 1889 is particularly difficult. It is I clear from comparing the graphic evidence (maps, plans and sk;etches) with written records that more was constructed within the hospital, at all periods, than has been 1 recorded on the surviving surveys. For ex~mple, it is clear from later evidence that a well had been sunk somewhere on the I site during either the later years of the first phase or during the second phase of development, however, the location ofthat well has never been recorded. Furthermore, later bores were sunk for which locations are also unrecorded. There are references to I tanks, bath houses, drains, sewers and a variety ofsmall out-buildings that do not appear onany survey. Itis possible that the original hospital had ancillary buildings, for example I· privies, for which no evidence now survives. Disposal ofrubbish is also an elementthat is impossible to address because ofthe nature ofthe archival record. Itis known that town waste was dumped adjacent to the hospital, I causing a fearful stench, but the dumps, particularly for the first hospital, are unknown. If these are on the site and are located they could form a considerable archaeological I deposit. All these additional and undocumented works could have affected the survival rate of earlier works. Certainly they contribute to the formation of a potentially complex and I rich archaeologicalrecord. However, there areno means bywhich an assessment oftheir I survival rate is possible. I I I I 1 I I

I Page 24 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 4.3 Factors Mfecting Survival

I Clearly the constant demolition and construction activity within a relatively small area must have affected the earlier works to some degree however, the extent ofthis effect is unclear. There are no contemporary records with respect to the scale of demolition; for I example, whether all earlier foundations were grubbed up before construction commenced on the next phase. Experience from other sites would suggest that, particularlyfor the earlier nineteenth century works, this would be an unlikely scenario. I In this case one account states that foundations that appear to be commensurate with those ofthe early hospitalwere observed near the North Wing in 1949. This suggests that substantial portions of those buildings were left intact after demolition and, secondly, I that later works did not substantially affect them or at least those portions. I Even more difficult to assess is the effect of the changing topography on any intact archaeological evidence. Ofparticular importance is the effect ofsand drift and erosion onthe site. The hospital was and is constructed on an area that was originally composed I of sand dunes and there is considerable evidence detailing the extent and the problems caused by drifting sand throughout the nineteenth century. Whole buildings were overwhelmed and damage was caused to fences and other facilities through sand drift. I What is unclear, however, is whether the level of the site was raised or altered, if at all, through these incursions.

I Allied to this problemis the question oferosion, a problemalso documented throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some land reclamation programmes were initiated to rectify this situation, including the garbage dumping mentioned previously, I but the cumulative effect is anunknown. I I I I I I I I

I Page 25 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 4.4 Geo-technical and Comparative Evidence

I Two othersites relatively close to the study areahave been archaeologically investigated duringrecentyears andthe evidence from these sites has beenconsidered as comparative I data, particularly with respect to the problems discussed in the preceding section. The convict lumber yard site, adjacent to the Customs House at the bottom of Watt I Street, has been archaeologically excavated within the last few years and the results of this workareparticularly relevant. Initial investigations onthis site revealed a two metre accumulation ofsand overwhat were found to be remarkably intact structural and other i evidence of this very early industrial site.

Theintegrityofthis siteprovidesgood evidencefor the practice ofonlypartial demolition I on early nineteenth century sites and this, combined with the twentieth century account of"early" masonry andbrickwork, strongly argues for the survival ofelements ofthe early I hospital within the current hospital grounds. The accumulation of sand might also suggest a similar situation within the hospital site although this, in fact~ may be eroded material coming from the crest ofthe hill to rest on I the lumber yard site. There is insufficient evidence available for this analysis.

The second site which has been investigated close to the hospital is that of the James I FletcherHospital. This site is closer to the ridge and, therefore, more comparable to the hospital thanthe lumberyard site at the base ofthe slope. Bores were taken here as part ofthe site investigation. They revealed up to two metres offill, including coalwash, over I the eroding remnant A or B horizons of the natural soil profile. Few traces of early I occupationwere located on this site. The situation for the hospital using this comparative evidence is clearly equivocal. It is possible that remnants, and substantial remnants, ofthe early hospitalwere left intact at I its demolition and it is equally possible that substantial elements of this resource were not impacted on for most of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is particularlythe case closer to theNorth Wing. Itis also possible, although evenless clear, I thatsubstantialremnants ofthevarious laternineteenth centuryimprovements are likely to have survived above and around these earlier hospital traces.

I The major constraint to assessing the degree to which survival is likely to have occurred is thelackofgeo-technical datafor the hospital. The sub-profile for the site is completely unknown and until this evidence can be obtained an archaeological assessment can be, I at best, an indication of the likely resource encompassed within the site. I I I

I Page 26 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 4.5 The Potential Resource

I In summaryit canbe concluded from the available evidence and without the constraints thatmaybeimposed from geotechnical data and undocumented archaeological features I that: I • there is likely to be remnant evidence ofthe first hospital phase ofconstruction • this evidence is likely to consist of some central portions of the main block, small sections of the southern block and the entire southern out-building this evidence is I likely to be located between the south-eastern corner of the North Wing and the north-eastern corner ofthe Nickson Building I • some evidence ofthefirst phaseofhospital constructionis likelyto be atfeast partially disturbed andpossibly entirelyremovedby theworks ofthe mid and later nineteenth I century and those ofthe early twentieth century • this later nineteenth and early twentieth century work is also likely to have considerably added to the potential archaeological resource within the hospital site I through structural evidence, relics and deposits

• this later nineteenth and twentieth century resource is likely to be partially located I overthe earlierhospitalphaseworks as well as along the easternboundary and centre west portion of the site. The North Wing, Nickson Building and Boiler House also I encompass areas ofthis phase ofworks • itis likely that a varietyofarchaeologicalfeatures are locatedwithinthe site forwhich no specific location or determination of survival rates may be made. These sites I encompass drainage and sewerage works, structures, wells and other deposits and features including the possibility ofportable relics in the form of dumped artefacts

I • thatsubstantialtraces ofpastlandscaping may also belocated as identifiable deposits including paths and garden areas. I I I I I I

I Page 27 I ] ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I SECTION 5.0 I ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE I I -I I 5.1 Criteria for Assessment

I Traditional criteria for assessing significance, such as those defined in J. S. Kerr's Conservation Plan, could not be used for this site. Those criteria require knowledge of the physical condition of the subject whereas, on this site, it is the potential physical I evidence that has been considered by the investigation. Criteria that reflect the significance of the resource, if it is found are, therefore, more appropriate. The management strategies are intended to identify and define the physical resource and, I therefore, arrive at an absolute statement of significance. This absolute definition will I influence the future of any remnant archaeological evidence on the site. Itis clear that any remnant evidence ofthe first phase ofthe hospital and also the second phase ofdevelopment will be of high significance. This is because of the rarity value, its I representation of the only surviving physical evidence of those phases as well as the inherent symbolism, particularly for the "penal period" ofNewcastle's development.

I However, iffor example, only disconnected and small elements ofthatfirst hospitalwere located its significance, other than as a symbol, must necessarily be questioned and this I in turn must affect questions offuture retention and preservation. These multiple "strands" of significance which enmesh each phase of development on this site will only be resolved when the extent of the physical evidence is identified and, I inthe long term, when the greater archaeological resource that resides within Newcastle has been established.

I The significance of the potential archaeological resource has been considered on a number oflevels;

I • the importance that additional evidence provided by the archaeological material I could give to an understanding ofthe development ofthis particular site • the importance ofthe site as part ofthe growing urban context I • its significance as rare or unique examples of colonial evolution in technology, philosophies, work practices and the like

I Page 28 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I • its importance as a focus for community awareness and symbolism oflocal heritage. I I I i I I I I 1I I I I I I I I I

I Page 29 I -Ic----~------I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 11 5.2 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as Part of I the Royal Newcastle Hospital Development I Ifarchaeological evidence ofthe first phase ofthe hospital development (c. 1817 - 1864) I was located within the site it would be significant because: • itwouldbethe only surviving physical evidence ofthis phase ofhospital development either above or below ground. It would be representative and descriptive of the I formative phase ofthe institution's development.

• thesystematicinvestigationofsubstantialsections ofthebuilding, ifuncovered, could I provide evidence for the use and management of the facility during this phase. This is largely undocumented.

I • undocumented elements of this phase, for example, wells, structures or relics, if located, would provide evidence that would considerably add to the history of I management and use ofthis institution.

I Ifarchaeological evidence ofthe second period ofhospital development, essentially the later nineteenth century works, was located within the site it would be significant I because: • it would be the only surviving physical evidence ofthis phase of development (prior to c. 1910) that survives on the site and, as such, would be representative and I descriptive of the works that formed the basis for the modern hospital

• previously undocumented elements would provide evidence for the history of I management and use during this phase of development. I If archaeological evidence of the third period of hospital development, essentially the twentieth century works, (c. 1910 onwards) was located within the site it would be I considered less significant because ofthe greater availability ofdocumentation for this I phase as well as the survival rate ofabove ground examples. I I I

I Page 30 I I) ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 5.3 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as Part of I1I Newcastle's Historical Profile I If evidence of the first phase of the hospital was identified and recorded it would be I significant: • for its associational and symbolic value ofthe earliestphase ofthe city's development and the grovrth of institutions relevant to that original "convict" based impetus for i development.

• it would provide, at this time, rare physical evidence of that phase of the city's I development. I Evidence ofthe second phase ofhospital development would be significant:

I • for its symbolism and demonstration of the growth of Newcastle as a major regional centre requiring, and capable of, providing modern medical care for its inhabitants. I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 31 I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 5.4 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource as a I Demonstration of Colonial Evolution I • Comparisonofsurviving archaeologicalevidence from allphaseswouldbesignificant because of the ability to demonstrate changing management and medical practices I and technologies employed in the development and use of an hospital. This is particularly relevant because of the continued occupation of the one site by the I hospital for nearly one hundred and seventy five years. • Intact evidence ofthe first phase ofthe hospital would be significant for its historical value and rarity. Itis comparable intime to the Rum Hospital ofSydney and similar I institutions on Norfolk Island. I I I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 32 I ,-_. ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 5.5 The Significance ofthe Potential Archaeological Resource for I Community Awareness I The events and community involvement surrounding recent historic site investigations, for example the Lumber Yard site, James Fletcher Hospital and Carrington Chambers, I has positively identified the very strong community awareness of urban heritage that exists within Newcastle. This is particularly true for material that relates to the earliest "convict" phase of development. It is likely that the identification of intact evidence of I the first, and probably second, phase ofhospital developmentwould generate an equally keen community interest. I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 33 I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I SECTION 6.0 'I MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES I I I I 6.1 Statutory Requirements

I The potential archaeological evidence encompassedby the Newcastle Hospital site falls under the relics provisions of the NSW Heritage Act (1977, amended 1987). A relic is I defined as; "any deposit) object or material evidence relating to the settlement ofthe I area that comprises New South Wales) not being Abonginal settlement; and which is fifty or more years old. 11 I The Heritage Act, as amended, states that a person shall not remove a relic protected by a conservationinstrumentwithout approval from the Heritage'Councif. Further, no-one may disturb or excavate any land in New South Wales (excepti,q~rn:ilJonwealth owned I land) to discover, expose or move a relic without an Excavation P~rfrrit issuetl by the Heritage Council of New South Wales.. ~~.~ 7 ' I This will mean that, prior to any redevelopment of the site or planned archaeological investigation, anExcavationPermitwithprovisions for archaeologicalwork as necessary, I will need to be acquire.~romthe Department ofPlanning. 6.2 Objectives for Immediate Archaeological Work

I This assessmenthas shownthatthereis thepotentialwithin thehospital site for a complex archaeological resource that dates from 1817 through to and including twentieth century elements. This potentialresource has a high level ofsignificance for its associational and I symbolic values as well as for its ability to demonstrate past management practices, medical philosophies and technologies. In many cases it would be the only surviving I physical evidence for nearly one hundred years of hospital development as well as rare evidence of town development. However, this investigation has been unable to assess theprecise extent, nature andintegrity oftheresourcebecause ofthelack of, particularly, I geo-technical and other physical data.

The sub-profile of the hospital site is unknown and reference to comparable adjacent I sites has notclarifiedtheissue. Itis notknownwhetherportions ofthe site lie under large quantities of fill and/or sand and. whether this material may have acted to preserve

I Page 34 I 1 ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I elements of the site, for example as sand did with the lumber yard site, or act to erode or damage pre-existing material. Furthermore the effects of subsequent building I programmes are unclear with respect to the damage caused to earlier structures which have lain within the ambit of the new works.

I Itis ofparticular importance that the first archaeological work on the site should address these problems. Resolution of them will directly affect the type and scale of work that may need to be carried out in the future. It will either add to or detract from the I significance of the various elements and, finally, it will determine the necessity or -I otherwise ofpreservation, recording and/or removal strategies for individual elements. Itshould, therefore, be the first priority ofsubsequent archaeological work to determine the extent, nature and integrity of the potential archaeological resource. It is suggested I that the best means of achieving this will be through geo-technical and archaeological testing.

I It is recommended that a series of bores be carried out on the site to define the sub-profile. This evidence should thenbe used to determine how archaeological testing could be best carried out, for example, by the removal of overburden etc. It is I recommended that a test trench be excavated in an area that shows the greatest coincidence ofaccumulated material for the purposes ofassessing the survival rates and integrity ofeach phase ofworks. This appears to be best situated in the area ofthe north I wing and former Yorkwing that lies over part ofthe mainblock of the 1817 wing as well as various nineteenth andtwentieth centuryfeatures. A smaller test might also be carried out on the site of the first hospital phase out-building. It is strongly recommended that I the local communitybe involved as far as practicable in this work.

Atthe conclusion ofthis work detailed recommendations may be presentedwith respect I to the future management ofthe resource. The significance ofthe various elements may I be clarified and the effect of the community response may be judged. 6.3 Long Term Archaeological Requirements

!I During this assessment it has been a constant difficulty that the potential archaeological profile ofthe city has not been addressed in the way that zoning plans have been, or are inthe process of, being prepared for Sydney, Parramatta and The Rocks. The "isolation" I ofthevarious elements in the hospital site in terms of, particularly, their potential rarity has required that their assessed significance is, perhaps, greater than might be the case. For example, it is at this time unknown if the Lumber Yard and the potential resource I within the hospital represent the only surviving remnants of "convict" Newcastle. Ifso, their significance would be immense, however, if other comparable sites were located I within the city the significance ofthe hospital site might be lessened. Clearly, it is not a direct concern ofthe hospital but it is certainly a recommendation of this report that the appropriate authorities (the Department of Planning and the local I council) consider, as a matterofpriority, the commencementofan archaeological zoning !I plan for Newcastle.

I Page 35 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I SECTION 7.0 I SUBSIDIARY DOCUMENTATION I I II I 7.1 Endnotes

I 1. McDonald McPhee Pty Ltd et al., Conservation Plan for Royal Newcastle Hospital., Recommendation 15

I 2. Quoted inTurner,. (Ed) Newcastle as a Convict Settlement.,99 I 3. Ibid. I 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 100

I 6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., 107. The evidence refers to inmates wrapping themselves in bedding in the I hospital to make the trip to the privy. I 8. Evidence ofJohn AlIen 1820., Ibid., 149 9. Evidence of Governor Macquarie., Ibid., 220. He refers to the building being I considerably added to an improved by Wallis although the time frame is unclear. I 10. Sydney Gazette quoted inIbid., 4 I I I

I Page 36 I I ARCHAEOLOGICALASSESSMENT: ROYAL NEWCASTLE HOSPITAL I 7.2 Bibliography

I Mcdonald McPhee Pty Ltd, Thorp, W. and Burton, C. Conservation Plan for Royal Newcastle Hospital I Hunter Area Health Service. 1991. Public Works Department Geotechnical Centre I Bore Logs for James Fletcher Hospital Public Works Department 1989.

I Thorp, W. Thematic History Royal Newcastle Hospital MSS included in McDonald McPhee Pty Ltd Conservation Plan for Royal Newcastle I Hospital Hunter Area Health Service. 1991.

I Turner, J. Dr (Ed) Newcastle as a Convict Settlement: The Evidence Before J. T. Bigge in 1819 - 1821 I Newcastle Public Library. 1973. I I I I I I I I I I

I Page 37 I