ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBFLOOR POTENTIAL, COMMISSARIAT BUILDING,FREMANTLE PRISON, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

forPhilip Griffiths Architects andBuilding and Management Works
November 2010

eureka archaeological research and consulting

Dr Kate Morse
DirectorArchaeology M405
University of Western Australia
35 Stirling HWY
Crawley WA 6009
p: +61 (08) 6488 2860
f: +61 (08) 6488 1023:
e: eureka-archaeology@uwa.edu.auCopyrightThis report and the information it contains is subject to copyright and may not be copiedin whole or part without the written consent of Philip Griffiths Architects and Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting UWA.

Disclaimer
Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting is not responsible for omissions andinconsistencies that may result from information not available at the time this report wasprepared.

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 2010ieureka archaeological research and consulting

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................3
Background .................................................................................................................................................3
The Prison Commissariat ...........................................................................................................................4
Archaeological Team ..................................................................................................................................4
METHODS .........................................................................................................................................................5
RESULTS...........................................................................................................................................................6
Steward’s Office (Slot 1) .............................................................................................................................6
Clerk’s Office (Slot 2) ..................................................................................................................................8
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................11

TABLE OF PLATES
Plate 1. View east through the steward’s office to the clerk’s office (Scale = 1m)..........................................5Plate 2. Slot 1, top of limestone levelling layer (Scale = 1m) ..........................................................................7Plate 3. Slot 1, profile showing jarrah beam and lime mortar pad, view west (Scale = 10cm) .......................7Plate 4. Slot 2, view south pre-excavation (Scale = 1m) ................................................................................8Plate 5. Slot 2, top of degraded limestone layer (Scale = 1m)........................................................................9Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 2010

2eureka archaeological research and consulting

INTRODUCTION
During the course of ongoing renovation work at Fremantle Prison, Western Australia, Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting UWA (Eureka) was contracted by Philip Griffiths Architects toassess the archaeological potential of the sub-floor deposits in the Prison’s commissariat building. This
report details the methods and results of the archaeological assessment.

BACKGROUND
Fremantle Prison is located in the City of Fremantle, Western Australia and was constructed between 1852
and 1859. Upon its construction it was utilised as a public works prison, convict distribution depot, convict
workshop and the main site of Imperial convict administration in Western Australia. In August 2010
Fremantle Prison became the first built-environment site in Western Australia to be included on the World
Heritage list, along with ten other Australian convict sites. The Prison is a significant heritage site withmultiple usages, including at present as a tourist destination, museum and function venue. Fremantle
Prison is also listed on a number of local, State and federal heritage registers; including the Register ofHeritage Places, National Heritage Register, Register of the National Estate, City of Fremantle – Municipal
Heritage Inventory and the National Trust of Western Australia.
Previous archaeological work undertaken by Eureka at Fremantle Prison includes watching briefs andassessments of features exposed during development works (Sparkes-Santos and Stedman 2010), andarchaeological excavations in the prison parade ground and visitor centre’s café, in the context ofproposed re-developments (Burke et al. 2009; Fleming et al. 2009). A detailed historical background of theFremantle Prison complex is provided in Eureka’s prison parade ground excavation report and is notrepeated here (Burke et al. 2009).
Building development works are continuing within the Fremantle Prison heritage precinct, with the aim toimprove the functionality of the space, at the same time as enhancing and conserving the site’s historicalintegrity. As part of these developments, plans have been made to provide visitors with access to thesteward’s and clerk’s offices in the prison’s commissariat building, situated below the northern end of themain cellblock.
Significant archaeological deposits have been excavated from sub-floor contexts in historic Australianbuildings, such as Hyde Park Barracks in Sydney (Betteridge 1981). Following review of historicaldrawings and recommendations made in the Fremantle Prison parade ground excavation report (Burke etal. 2009:47), and in view of the potential to impact upon sub-floor archaeological deposits, Philip Griffiths
Architects, on behalf of Fremantle Prison, engaged Eureka to undertake an archaeological assessment of
the sub-floor potential in the steward’s and clerk’s offices in the prison’s commissariat building.

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20103eureka archaeological research and consulting

Recommendations are provided at the end of this report, in the event that archaeological features ordeposits are encountered during future ground disturbance works within the prison complex.

THE PRISON COMMISSARIAT
Construction of the cellar or basement under the northern association wards at Fremantle Prison wascompleted in 1856 and the subterranean space became the steward’s stores. The steward wasresponsible for distributing food and clothing to the prisoners. The building was surrounded by a sunken
area providing light and air, about 11 feet below the prison forecourt, with access via a stepped ramp to thenorth. To the south a cool, ventilated room with a segmental barrel vault, was used as a prisoner property
store, compositor’s room and later as a morgue.
With the end of convict transportation in 1868, pressure on the prison steward diminished, but it isprobable that the clerks continued to work in the commissariat’s two basement rooms until 1906/7, when
the ramp area outside the northern windows was backfilled to provide support for the entry into New
Division. It was at this time that masonry stairs were built at the western side and doors installed to giveaccess to the northern offices from the west. The open yard along the eastern wall was filled in by 1928.
During the Second World War the prison became a military establishment and in 1942 the area above thestairs from the old steward’s office was covered with timber to make an air-raid shelter.
By 1992 the basement rooms were in a derelict state and surviving lath and plaster ceilings, plaster walls,
fireplaces and floors were badly damaged and the spaces filled with rubbish and soaked by blockeddrains. Since then the basement and adjoining areas have been cleared, repaired and additional accessprovided by a new stairway from what used to be the foreyard (later the special handling unit). The
existing basement fabric closely matches the oldest prison drawing of this area dating to1899 (Bodycoat1993).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEAM
stThe following Eureka staff members undertook the archaeological assessment on 1 July 2010.
Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting
Jim Stedman

Project Manager, Archaeologist

Wendy Reynen

Archaeologist

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20104eureka archaeological research and consultingMETHODS
During an on-site meeting with representatives from Eureka, Philip Griffith Architects and Fremantle
Prison, the methods of the archaeological assessment were discussed. The original 150mm wide buttjointed jarrah floorboards in the steward’s and clerk’s offices were badly in need of repair prior to theinstallation of a visitor walkway and barrier (Plate 1). In order to preserve as much of the original floor as
possible, the boards were only to be replaced where they were already broken, and replacement boards
were to be of reclaimed timber 75mm wide and therefore distinguishable from the originals. It was agreed
that Eureka investigate the sub-floor deposit for archaeological material by excavating keyhole slots
through the holes between the intact floorboards. Two slots were excavated, one in the steward’s office
and a second in the clerk’s office. The slots were excavated using hand trowels and all excavated spoil
was sieved through 6mm and 3mm mesh screens. A record of the excavation was kept on stratigraphic
context sheets, levels were recorded using a dumpy level and digital photographs were taken.
Plate 1. View east through the steward’s office to the clerk’s office (Scale = 1m)

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 2010

5eureka archaeological research and consulting

RESULTSSTEWARD’S OFFICE (SLOT 1)
Slot 1 was excavated within a section of two broken floorboards at the southern end of the steward’s office.
The slot measured approximately 1.55m (north–south) by 0.40m (east–west) (Plate 2).
Excavation proceeded through a fine, grey, friable sandy silt layer approximately 120mm deep. As well aspieces of broken floorboards, artefactual material recovered from this layer comprised mixed rubbish
including modern materials such as brick fragments, plastic conduit, fragments of asbestos and linoleum,lengths of electrical wire and small Styrofoam balls. Metal finds from this layer include lengths of threaded
iron pipe, miscellaneous fragments of iron (some perhaps deriving from a broken fireplace), a completethaluminium safety razor and a range of modern screws, nails and tacks. Several possible late 19 century
nails were also noted, and are likely to have derived from the broken floorboards. This deposit isessentially modern rubbish that has fallen or was swept into the hole in the steward’s office floor after thejarrah floorboards collapsed.
Excavation continued through a barely discernable, dark grey silty interface. This layer was less than 5mm
thick and was not visible in the friable, collapsing sections, but could possibly be an intact sub-floor
deposit. Some timber fragments, which are likely to be pieces of broken floorboard were recovered, as
well as corroded iron nail fragments and a Styrofoam ball (that may have fallen in from the overlying
modern rubbish deposit). This deposit could derive from the construction of the jarrah floor, and also may
have built up over time with dust falling through the butt-jointed floorboards.
Excavation continued onto a degraded limestone deposit, indicative of a man-made levelling layer. The
depth of this was investigated using a small sondage (70cm x 40cm) at the centre of the slot. After digging
through the degraded limestone for approximately 100mm, limestone bedrock was reached.
On inspection of the sub-floor construction, a joist-bearing jarrah beam (115mm x 50mm) was exposedthat had been bedded into a lime mortar pad on top the limestone levelling layer (Plate 3). These timbers
are of the same dimensions as the floor joists, but are used with their wider side facing downwards.

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20106

eureka archaeological research and consulting

Plate 2. Slot 1, top of limestone levelling layer (Scale = 1m)

Plate 3. Slot 1, profile showing jarrah beam and lime mortar pad, view west (Scale = 10cm)

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20107

eureka archaeological research and consulting

CLERK’S OFFICE (SLOT 2)
Slot 2 was excavated within a section of three broken floorboards against the southern wall of the clerk’soffice. The slot measured approximately 0.65m (north-south) by 0.50m (east-west) (Plate 4).
A modern rubbish deposit excavated here was almost identical to that described above from Slot 1. A
similar range of artefactual material was also recovered.
Excavation proceeded directly onto a thin degraded limestone deposit (30mm), with no trace of thepossible sub-floor deposit that was noted in Slot 1. Again, no sub-floor deposit was visible in thecollapsing sections. A small sondage was excavated onto limestone bedrock at the centre of the slot.
Plate 4. Slot 2, view south pre-excavation (Scale = 1m)

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20108

eureka archaeological research and consulting

Plate 5. Slot 2, top of degraded limestone layer (Scale = 1m)

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 20109

eureka archaeological research and consulting

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis report outlines a brief archaeological assessment undertaken of the sub-floor of the commissariat
building (steward’s and clerk’s offices), Fremantle Prison. The archaeological excavations were conductedin areas where the jarrah floor had previously collapsed and modern rubbish subsequently filled the voids.
The existence of a thin sub-floor deposit in the steward’s office is a possibility, but it is notably
unsubstantial and was not definite. No significant convict or colonial-era artefactual material wasrecovered by the excavations.
As such, Eureka’s assessment determined that the proposed repairs to the jarrah floor will have nosignificant impact on the archaeological integrity of any sub-floor deposits that may survive in the steward’s
and clerk’s offices.
However, it is recommended that:
Care must be taken to ensure that development design does not have an adverse impact on thesignificant heritage values of the Fremantle Prison complex as a whole.

Consultation with the Heritage Council of Western Australia must be undertaken as part of theplanning process associated with the redevelopment of the Fremantle Prison complex, inaccordance with the Heritage Act of Western Australia 1990.

Monitoring of any ground disturbance works within the prison should be undertaken by a suitably
qualified archaeologist.

Where archaeological features or deposits are uncovered during monitoring or construction works,
work must cease and an archaeologist must assess the significance of the findings and determine
the best course of management.

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 201010

eureka archaeological research and consulting

REFERENCES
Bavin, L. J. 1990a Fremantle Prison Conservation and Future Use: Archaeological Zoning Plan of thePrison Compound. Report Prepared for Building Management Authority.
Bavin, L.J. 1990b Fremantle Prison Conservation and Future Use: Archaeological Excavations of in thePrison Compound. Report Prepared for Building Management Authority.
Bavin, L.J. 1993 The Punishment Administered: Archaeology and Penal Institutions in the Swan River
Colony, Western Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis for the Centre for Archaeology, Department ofGeography. University of Western Australia.
Betteridge M. 1981 The Sydney Mint Building and the Hyde Park Barracks Museum Project. In Burritt P.
(ed) Historical Archaeology at the Sydney Mint and Hyde Park Barracks 1980-1981. Unpublished Reportfor Department of Environment and Planning and Department of Public Works.
Bindon P. and Raynal J.P. 1993 Excavations in Fremantle Jail. Community Report 93/1, Anthropology
Department of the Western Australian Museum.
Bodycoat R. 1993 Fremantle Prison Conservation and Future Use, Detailed Conservation Policy forDivisions 3 and 4. Unpublished Report Prepared for Duncan Stephen & Mercer Architects.
Burke S., Paterson A. and Fleming K. 2009 Fremantle Prison Parade Ground Archaeological Test
Excavation Results (Stage 3). Unpublished report for Palassis Architects and Department of Housing andWorks by Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting UWA.
Kerr, J.S. 1998 Fremantle Prison: a policy for its conservation. Revised edition.
Sparkes Santos I. and Stedman J. 2010 Fremantle Prison, Number 14 The Terrace. Archaeological
Watching Brief and Excavation Results. Unpublished Report for Philip Griffith Architects and Housing andWorks by Eureka Archaeological Research and Consulting UWA.

Archaeological Assessment, Commissariat: Fremantle Prison 201011