Fremantle Prison Parade Ground Excavation Report | 2013
Alyce Haast, Kate Robertson, Philippa Hunter, and Varteny Boyadjian

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Fremantle Prison Parade Ground Excavation Report |2013
I NTRODUCTION
Fremantle Prison is recognised as ahistorically significant site. It has been
heritage listed on a state, national andglobal level – one of only two sites so
designated in Western Australia.
Possibly the oldest Feature of the siteis the original well dug to supply water
to the convicts during the prison’sconstruction. At some time during thelate nineteenth century, the well fell
into disuse, and may have been capped,
filled or used for refuse. This has led
to it vanishing beneath the grounds.
This project was initiated as part of
the field training for the Masters ofProfessional Archaeology Program atthe University of Western Australia.
Figure 1: Location of Fremantle Prison within Western Australia
The goals included: 1) mapping several
portions of the Parade Ground and cisterns using a total station, 2) setting up an excavation trench torelocate the 1852 well, and 3) to begin the process of photo-documenting the structures for developmentof a 3D model of the site. This undertaking was not part of a formal survey or mitigation process, but falls
under the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement between UWA and Fremantle Prison.

H ISTORICAL B ACKGROUND
When established in 1829, the Swan River Colony (now Perth, WA) was free of the convict penal systemthat was prominent in most of Australia at the time. The colony struggled to attract many new settlers
because it was small and isolated, with land that was generally inhospitable and difficult to farm. Without
a crucial influx of people, the colony faced a major labour shortage that threatened its development andsurvival. As a result, the Swan River Colony’s Legislative Council sent a petition to the British Government
requesting the transportation of convicts for use as free or cheap labour (Perth Gazette 1850).
The first convict vessel, the Scindian, landed at Fremantle Harbour on the 1st of June, 1850 – before
notification of the British Government’s approval for convict transportation had reached the colony. The
result of this unanticipated arrival was that the unprepared colony had no place to accommodate theconvicts nor the large workforce required to establish, manage and maintain their new institution. Aboard
the Scindian was Royal Engineer Captain Edmund Henderson, who was appointed to direct operations at
FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

2

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 2: Illustration of the Convict Establishment c. 1855

Western Australia’s Convict Establishment (Perth
Gazette 1850; Inquirer 1851). He immediatelybegan organising temporary convict barracks andstaff accommodation close to Fremantle Harbour,whilst also trying to expedite plans for theconstruction of a permanent prison complex.
Construction for the Convict Establishment began
in 1852, starting with the Warder's Cottages andthe Main Cell Block. In 1855 the first residents
moved into the prison and by 1859 the major
construction works were complete, allowing fulloccupancy.

Western Australia’s introduction of a colonialconvict system was during the terminal period of
Figure 3: Fremantle Prison Parade Grounds looking north c. 1909
Britain’s convict transportation policy (officiallyabandoned in 1868). The Swan River Colony convict population dwindled and by 1867 there were lessthan 60 detainees held within the prison (of approximately 800 at full capacity). In this year the British
Government relinquished control of the prison over to the Colonial Government, and the Convict
Establishment was renamed Fremantle Prison (Bavin 1994:100; Gibbs 2001:62). At this point, the prison
complex became Western Australia’s primary incarceration institution and maximum security facility.
Between 1940 and 1945 (during WW2), the Australian military requisitioned Fremantle Prison to inter‘alien civilians’ and for the detention of military personnel, but at the end of its military service, the prison
returned to its prior civil function (The West Australian, 18/04/1942:6).
For the next 46 years Fremantle Prison remained the state’s largest prison until in 1991, it was
decommissioned and all prisoners transferred to the newly constructed maximum security prison in
Casuarina.
Fremantle Prison represents one of the largest and most structurally sound convict structures of its kindleft in the world. It represents an important period in local, national and international history. In
recognition of its historical and cultural significance, the prison was converted into a museum and tourist
attraction in 1992 and remains so today (Fremantle Prison 2013).

1852 W ELL
One of the first Features created at the Fremantle Prison site was a 40 foot deep well, built to serve as awater supply for the workers and the construction process. The first documented record of this well is in a
progress report written by Henry Wray in 1853 (Wray 1853). Unfortunately, no location is given in thisearly report and there is no further documentation of any wells within the complex until 1856.

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

3

Masters of Professional Archaeology

PLAN OF THE CONVICT ESTABLISHMENT PARADE GROUNDS AND MAIN CELL BLOCK SHOWINGLOCATION OF WELL

Figure. 4: Approximate Location of 1852 Well (PWD 1647-105 c.1850)

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

4

Masters of Professional Archaeology

In another report (Wray 1856) there is a description of a series of wells along with a plan of the prison’s
layout. The 1852 well is not mentioned in the report but does appear on the plan drawing, as do theadditional wells (Fig. 4 and another overlayed in Fig. 6). These sources provide a key to identifying theearliest well’s approximate location because all other wells can be accounted for by Wray’s descriptions. By
a process of elimination, the 1852 well must be the undescribed well, located at the south end of theparade grounds, west of the kitchen area of the Main Cells Block structure (Wray 1856).
It is very difficult to determine the fate of the well because there is no documentation to reveal what
happened to it and when exactly it ceased to be used. In an 1890 plan of the site, the south-western well is
no longer shown, therefore the well was probably no longer present or used at this time. It is possible thata development and expansion of the prison’s water systems in the late 1870s rendered the well redundant;thus it became disused and either capped, filled, or used as a refuse pit at this point (WA Legislative
Council 1875:29).
The configuration of garden beds and grassland in the parade grounds at present was largely introduced
during a series of reforms in the early 20th century, but the area specifically associated with and
immediately surrounding the location of the well was used and altered extensively throughout the prison’s
history. Despite these changes, it is unlikely that the well would have been destroyed because most of thetransformations appear to have been light structures, built upon banks and raised surfaces, or not large
enough to cause substantial damage. Plans from the 1980’s/1990 indicate small structures (the garden
distribution and the laundry main switchboard) just south of the well’s location, a path leading to thesestructures as well as electrical trenches with pipes and cables to service these structures (Fremantle Prison
Conservation & Future Use 1990).

P REVIOUS W ORK
Fremantle Prison was acknowledged as an important historical site before it was decommissioned as a
prison in 1991. An archaeological/conservation project was commissioned to guide any future
development and ensure the survival of historically important Features. This may have been prompted (orat least expedited) as a result of the damaged caused during aprison riot in 1988 (Fig. 5). As part of his project, Bavin (1990)
created an archaeological zoning plan, classifying areas of theprison into high and low potential zones for archaeologicalmaterial. Bavin outlined different procedures to be followed aspart of any proposed development within the prison. These range
from archaeological test excavation and salvage operations prior
to development in the high potential zones, to a basic awarenessamong contractors of what to do if artefacts or structural remains of archaeological significance areuncovered during their development.

Figure 4: Interior damage to Fremantle Prison's
main cell block after the riot in 1988

Throughout the period following its closure in 1991, numerous architectural, structural and archaeologicalinvestigative reports were commissioned, regarding the prison’s development, conservation and historical
FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

5

Masters of Professional Archaeology

significance. Most valuable to the present search of the 1852 well is a series of exploratory excavations in
the parade grounds area, conducted by Eureka Archaeology in 2008 (2009). One of the aims of the
project was to locate the 1852 well but, unfortunately, the excavation was not successful. The 2009 report
describes the material and sediments encountered during excavation and this provides a good base for acomparative analysis between the 2008 excavation and the current 2013 excavation results.

A IMS AND S IGNIFICANCE
Fremantle Prison’s significance is acknowledged at the state, national, and world level through its place oneach heritage list. This significance is further expressed in the prison’s conservation and management plan:“Fremantle Prison contains major surviving evidence of the physical apparatusof the Convict Public Works establishment in Western Australia, and of its
subsequent adaptation for colonial and, later, state use. It is the outstanding
symbol of the phase in which major public facilities and infrastructure weredeveloped in Western Australia using convict labour. Together with theassociated housing and other remnants of the Convict Establishment, Fremantle
Prison is without exception the most intact such complex in Australia”(DTF
2010, p. 126)

This plan also acknowledges the Parade Ground’s archaeological potential, estimating its significance to be
between considerable and exceptional. Positioned within this area, the 1852 well has extremely higharchaeological potential, not only as one of the earliest structures within the prison complex, but also as arefuse area that would likely provide materials from the earliest period of the prison – especiallyconsidering the short-term primary use of the well.
The principal aim of this 2013 excavation was to continue the search for the 1852 well. Additional goals
were to: a) begin collating and georeferencing historic plans and maps to incorporate into a comprehensive
GIS map of Fremantle Prison; b) use surveys, maps, plans and photography to investigate the possibility ofbuilding a 3D model of the prison; and c) to assess the potential of this well and its surrounds for a more
extensive archaeological project. These goals fall under the Programmatic Agreement between UWA andFremantle Prison and the applicable Federal Legislation regarding Heritage Management of historic sites isoutlined in this document.

M ETHODS
As a first step, historic maps that plot the 1852 well were geo-referenced against a modern aerial
photograph of the prison to identify an approximate location for the well (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The
resulting map was compared to the location of the 2008 excavation trench and other noticeable modernchanges to the area. By a process of elimination, potential well site locations were narrowed and an
excavation trench site was chosen.

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

6

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 6: Overlay of Wray's 1856 plan drawing of "The Convict Establishment" with a modern aerial photograph(Wray 1856; Google Maps 2013)

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

7

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 7: Detail of the 2008 and 2013 Trench locations in the Prison Parade Grounds

A 3x1m trench was plotted along a north-south axis, located 1m east of the 2008 excavation trench, with
an option to extend west, should the initial excavation produce unfavourable results (Fig. 7). The surface
was thick grass within one of many lawn beds; this one in particular was established only after the prison
was closed (1991) and converted into a tourist destination and museum. Based on the height of the
roadways surrounding these lawn beds and information provided by our Fremantle Prison liaison, theoriginal occupation layer was expected to appear approximately 30cm below the current surface level. All
excavated sediments were screened through a 6 mm sieve and any artefacts discovered were collected andbagged according to which Spit or Feature they came from.
Surface grass was removed by shovel and sediment was initially removed by 10cm Spits despite somevariance in soil texture and/or colour. This was because it was a recent layer (post-1990) of fill used toraise the garden beds. This stratigraphic layer can be seen in Fig. 11, just below the top-soil layer. Whilst
digging Spit 1, a major colour change was observed in the sediment from the northern half of the trench.
The suspicion that it was a cut made during the installation of modern plumbing was later confirmed
when a water pipe was exposed within it. A buffer of unexcavated sediment was left around the pipe toprotect and support it.
Throughout Spits 1 to 3 a significantly higher concentration of artefacts were recovered from the southern
portion of the trench than from the northern end. The northern part of the trench was discontinued after
Spit 3 because we had reached the original ground surface and found no artefacts or Features. At the endof Spit 4, two Features were clearly defined in the southern portion of the trench (Fig. 8).
Feature 1 was characterised by limestone rubble, large protruding bones, charcoal concentrations, and aprofusion of flaking metal can fragments (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10). Feature 1 was originally split into northern
FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

8

Masters of Professional Archaeology

and southern halves to consider a profile of its internal
stratigraphy and to confirm its validity as a Feature before
removing its contents. After digging the north half of
Feature 1 it was clear that the two halves were indeed partof one Feature. The full extent of this Feature was not yet
discovered because it continued down into unexcavateddeposits.
Feature 2 consisted of a small, narrow band of extremely
dark rust-coloured soil exposed in the south eastern
corner of the trench. This was excavated vertically to its
full extent and horizontally to where it met (andcontinued into) the eastern wall.

Figure 8: Plan drawing of Trench 1 (2013)

The excavation ended without discovering the full extent
of Feature 1 because we ran out of allocated time. Whenthe excavation and documentation of the trench wascomplete, a layer of thick, green plastic was spread acrossmost of the trench and then the trench was backfilledwith the removed sediment.

R ESULTS
Spits 1 to 4 were largely characterised by
the same attributes: mixed and diverse
artefacts in dark brownish-grey sedimentwith small and motley lenses of othercolours throughout. Overall, they
provided a heavily mixed assemblage withmaterials including silicone, plastic, glass,

FPPGHigh
Excavation
Figure 9 (left):densityReportof bone: 2013and charcoal in Feature 1
Figure 10 (right): First indication of Feature 1 - a large protruding femur bone9

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 11 (top): Photograph of Feature 1 mid-excavation, showing stratigraphy with bands of limestone rubble and charcoal
Figure 12 (bottom): Photograph of Feature 2 post-excavation showing it's extent and stratigraphy above it
FPPG Excavation Report : 201310

Masters of Professional Archaeology

metal and bone. While Spit 4 does have a marginal increase in the amount of bone compared with theother Spits, it seems likely this is cross-over material from the adjacent Feature 1. Compared to theconcentrations found within the two Features, artefact density in the four Spits was low and their materials
and functions diverse. Feature 1 was delineated by a lightening of sediment colour and its surface
contained large pebble to cobble sized limestone rubble, protruding bone and flecks of charcoal. Material
removed from this Feature was overwhelmingly fragmentary bone and metal. A large proportion of themetal held its form when initially uncovered and while in situ, but the extremely friable nature of the metal
resulted in a high fragmentation rate upon retrieval.
Excavation of the north end revealed thick layers of charcoal banding - this charcoal was sampled but notentirely collected (Fig. 11). The largest bones from the Feature (some with very clear evidence ofbutchery), and a whole glass “ketchup” bottle, with a date range of 1922-1929 (Burke & Smith 2004 p.
370) This half of the Feature was excavated approximately 10 cm down to its perceived end, but following
the path of charcoal bands in the western profile indicates that there may be another layer of charcoal
beneath this level. In the southern half, charcoal was less concentrated and the bones were proportionallysmaller than in the north. Despite the minor differences, both halves of Feature 1 were sufficiently similarin their characteristic mix of bone, flaky metal, charcoal, and limestone rubble to be considered a sole
Feature.
By the end of the excavation, Feature 1 continued south and west beyond the excavated area and artefacts
were still being recovered from the lowest level.
The dark rust-coloured sediment of Feature 2 contained a very high density of artefacts within a small
deposit (Fig. 12). These artefacts were made from a variety of materials with a large proportion of glassand metal. This metal was different from the flaky can metal dominating Feature 1 and was mostly
structural materials (e.g. nails and bolts). There were also twointeresting brass buttons discovered; one with “Best Ring Edge”
branding and the other still retained some thread, despite its heavily
corroded state.
Window glass was the primary type of glass recovered from Feature 2(76%) and within the entire assemblage, 46% of the window glasscomes from Feature 2 (Fig. 13).
Figure 13: Window Glass Distribution

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

11

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 14: Artefact Distribution by Functional Category

Figure 16: Metal Typology

Figure 15: Artefact Distribution by Material Type

Figure 17: Glass Typology

FPPG Excavation Report : 201312

Masters of Professional Archaeology

S UMMARY OF A RTEFACTS
Artefacts were classified into primary categories based on their presumed original function (Fig. 14). For
the sake of consistency and standardisation, wherever a primary function could not be determined, afunction was designated to the object(s) based on most likely use, or similarity to objects with an
identified primary function. Most unidentified bone and metal fragments were deemed to be fragmented
from the butchered bone and tin can remains found within the trench and therefore assumed to be
subsistence-related. The exception to this practice was faunal remains identified as very small creatures(such as rodents) who were considered intrusive elements in the assemblage. Artefacts were thencategorised based on their distribution of raw material type as a secondary measure to remove the biases
that are associated with assuming function (Fig. 15). Materials that represented small proportions of theassemblage were grouped in order to focus on the distribution of the main material types, which inthe case of glass and metal, were then analysed for their functional distribution base. Histograms ofartefacts across all Spits and Features are displayed in the following graphs. These are calculated andcompared alternately by weight and artefact count to allow for preferential fragmentation and the disparity
in material weights.
Typologies
Glass and metal were classified into multiple functional categories (Fig. 16 – metal; Fig. 17 – glass),
depending on the individual artefact’s form. Much of the metal was corroded and highly fragmentary,often breaking further with even slight handling, therefore metal of this kind was collected, bagged andFigure 18: Window Glass Variation Across Spits/Features

FPPG Excavation Report : 201313

Masters of Professional Archaeology

weighed without counting. In this case, weight measures are more appropriate than artefact counts forevaluating metal distribution. Metal is clearly concentrated within Feature 1 and represents 3603.05g outof the 4109.37g of metal recorded, or 87.67% of metal within the assemblage. In contrast, Feature 2
contains 289.85g of metal, or only 7.05% of the assemblage. The unidentified , unless obviously
structural, were assumed to be consumption related. This assumption was made based on the fieldobservation of metal can shapes within the excavation. While this assumption would have increased theweighting of consumption items within the distribution there is a clear differentiation between thefunction of metal within Feature 1 – which was heavily subsistence based – while Feature 2 was heavily
structural. All other artefacts were counted and weighed.
Glass distribution was calculated using both the weight and count measures. Most notable in the weightgraph (Fig. 17 – top) is a large spike for glass in Feature 1 that is absent in the count graph (Fig. 17 –bottom). This spike exists because a large, whole bottle (FPPG-174; Fig. 22 f) was present in Feature 1.
No estimate of glass vessels within the assemblage is given here because most shards had no identifying
features capable of facilitating an accurate estimate.
Window glass was separated from bottle glass during accessioning and grouped based on glass thickness(Fig. 18). As glass thickness can be used as an indication of the age of the window glass, it could provide
approximate date ranges for the Spits/Features. While glass thickness typologies dating window glass
exist and have been analysed in sources such as Weiland (2009), they were not considered appropriate forthis site. Feature 1 was the only Feature/Spit that did not provide high levels of variation within its
window glass assemblage, however this was a direct result of Feature 1 containing only a single piece of
window glass. The low level of window glass within Feature 1 when used in conjunction with its otherartefacts reinforces the idea that this feature was used for subsistence based disposal. Feature 2, bycomparison, has a large variety of window glass – conforming to the high proportion of structural material
found within that feature.
Potential Can Calculation
A large proportion of the highly fragmentary metal was identifiable as food cans while in-situ, but these
metal forms, unfortunately, deteriorated during the excavation process. Although unidentifiable while insmall individual pieces, all of the metal that resembled the flaking form of these can fragments wasclassified together under the subsistence functional category. Their weight was used to estimate thepossible number of food cans represented by the collection of unidentified metal fragments (Table 1). For
this calculation, four cans of various sizes (one excavated and three from the UWA reference collection)
were weighed, and used to calculate a rough estimate of how many cans each context represented. As theSpits were interpreted as a mixed fill layer with comparatively small proportions of metal fragments they
Table 1: Potential Can Calculation

Base Weight (g)Whole CanRef - Small
Ref - Medium
FPPG Excavation Report : 2013
Ref - Large

131.27 g
91.4 g107.25 g
149.04 gSpits 1-4
114.181
1
1
1

Feature 1
2811.03
21
31
26
19

Feature 2
92.5
1
1
1
1

14

Masters of Professional Archaeology

Figure 19: Human Impact on Bone

were combined for the calculation.
Faunal Remains

Where possible, faunal remains were categorised into
groups based on signs of human impact, type of bone
and which side of the body it came from. Figures 6
and 7 highlight the trends that were observed
during the excavation. Bone fragments without any
identifiable marks of human impact dominate theoverall bone assemblage, but this does not necessarilymean they represent an absence of impact – just no
obvious markers. When this category is disregarded,
the leading characteristics alternate between burnt
bones and clear butchery marks, depending on which
comparative measure is used. For example, bones withbutchery marks dominate the entire assemblage by
weight (Fig. 19 – top), but represent a significantly
smaller portion when measured by artefact count (Fig.
19 – bottom). In general, the bones with evidence ofhuman impact were the largest of the collection andwere most often ribs or vertebrae. These are the best
Figure 20: Bone Distribution by Typesubsistence-related artefacts in the entire assemblage
because they represent large and ideal portions ofmeat, probably from cattle, sheep or pig (Fig. 22 a, b,c, d). Bones of much smaller animals were also present
within the assemblage but none had evidence ofbutchery and few were clearly burnt. The smallest ofthese animals (approximately rat or mouse sized) weremost likely not eaten. Despite this, many small, nondiagnostic bones and bone fragments were classified as“unidentified” within the subsistence category because they were associated with the bones that wereclearly subsistence-related. Where possible, the type of bone was identified (e.g. rib, femur etc–Fig. 20)
and what side of the body it came from was determined (e.g. right or left). Only seventeen bones could besided: fifteen were right and two were left. It is interesting to note that the left bones were both pelvises ofdifferent sizes.

Table 2: Bone Species & Use
Bos primigenius
Ovis aries

Common Name
CattleSheep

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

Use
Subsistence
Subsistence

Feature 1’s continuation into the south andwest wall means that the faunal remains
recovered are an incomplete assemblage;
perhaps this is why there is an odd ratio of15

Masters of Professional Archaeology

left to right bones. It is possible that the tendency towards right bones relates to actual portions consumed
per disposal but to evaluate this, the faunal assemblage must be complete and the bones identified securely
to specific species.
MNI Calculations
The minimum number of individual (MNI) specimens was calculated for bone over the entire assemblage(Table 3). The calculations only used specimens identified by side and specific bone and therefore muchof the bone was excluded. Once this was completed, bone was separated into small, medium and large
species in order to provide a basic measure of which bones in the assemblage had the potential to belong toa single animal. The MNI was calculated as 3 based on the based on the number of right femurs with anadditional individual based on the medium bone section that was determined to represent a different
individual then the small and larger remains. While there were alarge amount of vertebrae and ribs, as they were not identified to their specific location, they were notconsidered within the analysis.

Table 3: Bone Siding & Size

Right
Femur
1
HumerusPelvisScapula
1
Tibia

Small
Left Unknown

Right

MediumLeft Unknown

1
1

Right
1
1

Large
Left
Unknown11

11Unique Artefacts
A number of artefacts were selected as unique because they were able to be dated by specific attributes.
Others were similarly categorised because they possessed special characteristics within the feature, or trenchin general. Bones with obvious butchery marks or concoidal fractures were photographed, for example thelarge and medium sized pelvis, and the large femur (Fig. 22 a – e). These bones were selected because of
their size, and prominence within Feature 1. Other artefacts were generally miscellaneous items, anddiffered greatly from the average mix of bone, metal, and glass. A good example of this is the whole bottleof Rossella’s Ketchup, which was dated to between 1922 and 1929 using an ‘AGM’ embossed logo on thebase of the bottle (Fig. 22 f). Another artefact classed as unique was a small four-holed button identified
as a "Best Ring Edge" (Fig. 21 a), which are a common artefacts within convict sites. Other items such asa light bulb (Fig. 21 d), forceps (Fig. 21 e), other buttons, a chess piece (Fig. 21 c), and metal withengraved letters (Fig. 21 b) were unique within the trench, but no specific dates could be obtained fromthem.

FPPG Excavation Report : 201316

Masters of Professional Archaeology

A RTEFACT S AMPLING AND L ABORATORY A NALYSIS
Artefacts recovered during excavation were bagged at site based onmaterial type or individually if they represented a particularlyinteresting find. During lab analysis artefacts were cleaned and washed
as appropriate and accessioned assigning individual accession numbers
to each artefact. Fragmentary and non-diagnostic pieces of metal andbone were bagged as a single artefact based on Spit/Feature due to thematerial offering no diagnostic information. Artefacts were catalogued
using a Microsoft excel database recording weight, number of artefacts,and functional category as a minimum with extra information
pertaining to specific use or datable attributes being added whenavailable. Once analysed, Artefacts were stored at the UWA Lab
pending curation at Fremantle Prison.

Figure 21: Artefacts (left to right) - a. button with "Best Ring
Edge"; b. small brass object with "BO"; c. plastic chess piece; d.
light bulb; e. forceps

Figure 22: Artefacts (top to bottom) - a. &b. large femur with concoidal fracture; c. &d. large pelvis with butchery marks; e. smal
pelvis; f. glass bottle with "A.G.M."
FPPG Excavation Report : 201317

Masters of Professional Archaeology

The following definitions were used as a basis for cataloguing the material by function:

Domestic:

Materials used in a domestic setting, but not created to be a permanent Feature in thelandscape. These items included clothing and household items such as light bulbs andfurnishings.

Structural:

Material used in the construction of a permanent Feature on the landscape such as thoserelated to buildings and other general construction. This category included items such as
nails, brick and window glass.

Subsistence:

Material related to the consumption of food or beverages including the remains of thefood items themselves and the materials used in the consumption of the goods. This
included remains of cutlery, bowls, plates, bottles, cans as well as faunal remains. As aconvention, fragmented bone and metal were assumed to be related to subsistence ifotherwise unidentifiable.

Medicinal:

Material related to health or healing, included surgical equipment and glass bottles andjars with diagnostic Features indicating their use for medicinal purposes.

Recreational:

Material related to activities completed for enjoyment. Included in this is items related togames and leisure activities. This included Alcohol, Tobacco, Writing implements, andgame pieces.

Other:

Items identified but unable to be incorporated into the above categories.

Unknown:

Items that had no identified function.

FPPG Excavation Report : 201318

Masters of Professional Archaeology

D ISCUSSION
As a basic trend, material within the Spits seemed to represent a mixed fill deposit of a significantly morevaried nature than the Features below it. Artefacts within the Spits were made of a variety of materials
with a large diversity of function, including plastic cutlery and post prison closure coins, glass and metal ofvarying ages. Some artefacts were able to be refitted despite being found in Spit 1 and 3 respectively. The
Spits themselves, while having colour and texture changes within the soil, were composed of a thin lens ofmaterial as would be expected in a fill layer (the obvious exception being the cabling trench found runningeast-west in the southern portion of the trench). Feature 1 was mostly composed of bone and metal. The
metal, as previously mentioned, was considered to be subsistence related due to the high level of can shapes
identified during excavation. The material within the Feature seemed to indicate disposal relating mostly
to subsistence as well as the Feature being a long term refuse pile. This can be inferred from the thickcharcoal layering seen between the layers of Feature 1 – which was not immediately visible during the
excavation.
The most secure dating of the material culture within Feature 1 was provided by the undamaged ketchup
bottle, which suggests the 1920’s. Though this may be the case, there is still significant evidence that the
Feature does in fact relate to the well, including the high density of artefacts, bone and charcoal beneath alimestone rubble "cap-layer" in an approximate quarter-circle shape - and the absence of these features inother investigated locations (i.e. our 2013 trench and the 2008 trench).
Should the well have been used as a disposal point it is likely that, given its depth, a wealth of material
over a significant age point would have accumulated.
While future excavation is required to determine whether this Feature is simply a rubbish dump or theactual well, the depth at which high levels of artefacts have been found in comparison with the 2009
Eureka excavation only a metre away make the site extremely promising for future investigation.
Feature 2 consists mainly of metal and glass along with some domestic items such as buttons that were
found. While the Feature was comparatively small vertically, it provided an extremely high density ofartefacts, with a high proportion of these being iron fragments considered to be related to structural
material. The soil colour was stained to a heavily rust based colour, indicating the density of the metal
artefacts within the excavation. The size of the Feature despite only being partially excavated (to the limitof the trench) line is something of an oddity. Expansion of the trench in order to uncover the horizontal
extent of the Feature is required in order to examine it thoroughly or exhume it. At this point it is clearthat the material is functionally different to those found in Feature 1.
Features 1 and 2 are consistent with artefact composition, density and stratigraphic variance that could be
expected from a well used as a refuse dump. Also the work done for the 2009 report and the 2013 areasthat did not contain Features showed a consistent low density and diversity of artefacts that is in stark
contrast to the high density and diversity of results from Features 1 and 2.

FPPG Excavation Report : 2013

19

Masters of Professional Archaeology

The 2009 report specifies that by Spit 3 – at the 30 cm depth – there was a marked paucity of artefacts
implying that the excavation reached the original ground layer and there is perhaps no more to be found at
a greater depth. Conversely, when the 2013 trench reached a 30 cm depth, there was a sudden andproportionately large increase in artefact density. When added to the succession of stratified charcoal
layers and the array of artefacts found – in terms of density, type, items that could be effectively dated andhow those dates correlated to what could be expected, there seems to be a strong indication that Feature 1
is the top of the capped well. in contrast Feature 2 may be an associated deposit, or another refuse pit ofunspecified origin.

R ECOMMENDATIONS
Analysis both during excavation and during artefact sorting and accessioning suggests that Feature 1 andFeature 2 have high archaeological potential. Feature 1 must be considered likely to be related to the well.
As such trench 1 should be expanded on the southern end to fully uncover both Features. Both the 2009
Eureka Archaeology Report and this excavation describe significant modern fill within the area, it istherefore recommended that the grass topsoil and highest soil horizons (Spits 1 through 3) be removed
quickly.
Ground Penetrating Radar
Ground penetrating radar provides a non-invasive technology in which buried Features can be detected.
Previous archaeological excavations suggest that Features that have been buried often remain in situ within
the prison environment (Eureka 2009) and as such should be recognisable within the scope of a GPR
scan. The well should be easily identifiable, given its depth and what it is likely to contain. This should
provide a strongly contrasting signal when compared to the limestone bedrock that surrounds it. As there
is no record of ground penetrating radar occurring within the grounds of Fremantle prison it is highly
recommended that the area be tested using the technology. Of greatest priority for the field school run by
UWA is the testing of the parade ground and knoll area. Both areas should be considered to have higharchaeological potential. Fortunately these sites should offer minimal disruption to the everyday processesof the prison, as well as having a landscape in which the machinery of the ground penetrating radar is able
to function without impediment.

FPPG Excavation Report : 201320

Masters of Professional Archaeology

B IBLIOGRAPHY
Bavin, L. J. 1990 Fremantle Prison Conservation and Future Use: Archaeological Zoning Plan of the
Prison Compound. Report Prepared for Building Management Authority.
Bavin, L. 1994 The punishment administered: archaeology and penal institutions in the Swan River
Colony. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia, Crawley.
Smith, C.E. and Burke, H.D. 2007 Digging it Up Down Under: A Practical Guide to Doing Archaeology inAustralia. New York: Springer.

Department of Treasury and Finance [DTF] - Building Management and Works Division 2010
Fremantle Prison Conservation and Management Plan.
Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting UWA 2009 (Flemming, K. Morse, K. & Paterson,
A.) Fremantle Prison Parade ground Archaeological Test Excavation Results (Stage 3), Report prepared
for Palassis Architects.
Fremantle Prison Conservation & Future Use [Project] 1990 Electrical Site Plan. Department of
Housing and Works, ePlans Drawing List 0002ACB6. Building Management Authority, Perth.
Gibbs, M. 2001 The Archaeology of the Convict System in Western Australia. Australasian Historical
Archaeology 19:60-72.
Inquirer, 1851 The Inquirer, 15 October, p. 2. Available from: Trove Digitised Newspapers.
Royal Engineers' Office Fremantle - Lieut. R.E [Wray] (1855) Appendix D. Half-Yearly Report of theWorks in Fremantle District, from 1st July to 31st December 1853. Royal Engineers' Office Fremantle
14th January 1854. pp. 195-197. Australian Colonies Convict Discipline and Transportation:
Further Correspondence on the Subject of Convict Discipline and Transportation (In continuationof Papers presented May 1854). Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her
Majesty February 1855. Vol. 6. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London. [Battye Library Microfilm
Q343.2 COL - A collection of miscellaneous official documents relating to the transportation ofconvicts to Australia, covering the period 1810-1865, bound in 8 volumes (British Parliamentary
Papers)].
Royal Engineers' Office Fremantle - Lieutenant R.E [Wray] (1853) Appendix B. Fremantle, August
15, 1852. Report of Works Carried out Half Year Ending 30th June 1852. pp. 213-214. Convict
Discipline and Transportation: Further Correspondence on the Subject of Convict Discipline andTransportation (In continuation of Papers presented December 13, 1852). Presented to bothHouses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty July 18, 1853. Vol. 6. Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, London. [Battye Library Microfilm Q343.2 COL - A collection of miscellaneous official
documents relating to the transportation of convicts to Australia, covering the period 1810-1865,
bound in 8 volumes (British Parliamentary Papers)].
The Perth Gazette and Independent Journal of Politics and News 1850 Arrival of the "Scindian"with Convicts, 7 June 1850, p. 2. Available from: Trove Digitised Newspapers.
FPPG Excavation Report : 201321

Masters of Professional Archaeology
The West Australian 1942 Escaped Prisoners, 18 April, p. 6. Available from: Trove Digitised Newspapers.
Weiland, J. 2009 A Comparison and Review of Window Glass Analysis Approaches in Historical Archaeology,
Technical Briefs In historical archaeology, vol. 4, p. 29–40.

FPPG Excavation Report : 201322