ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2021

FREMANTLE PRISON

Cover image: Excavation of the ‘Bath House’. University of Western Australia, Discipline of Archaeology, 2013.

Acknowledgement of Country:
The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage recognises the diversityof the Aboriginal peoples of Western Australia and acknowledges theTraditional Owners and custodians and their connection to this land and its
waterways. We pay our respect to Elders past and present and those whowill follow in their footsteps.

INTRODUCTION

6

1.1

Background7

1.2

Site Identification

11

1.3

Legislative Context
and Listings

12

Report structure
and terminology

19

1.4
2.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
AND SIGNIFICANCE BY
MANAGEMENT ZONE
46

4.1

Introduction

47

4.2

East Terrace (East Bank)and Reservoir, Tunnels
and Pumping Station

49

4.3

East Workshops

56

4.4

Exercise Yards

61

4.5

Female Division

66

4.6

Gatehouse and Entry Complex 73

4.7

Hampton Road Reserve

78

4.8

Hospital

84

Main Cell Block89

HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAND CONTEXT

20

2.1

Preamble21

2.2

Pre-Colonial Era(prior to 1829)

21

Colonial Pre-Convict Era(1829-1849)

22

4.9

2.4

The Convict Era (1849-1886)

24

4.10 New Division

94

2.5

Prison Colonial Era(1886-1901)

4.11 Parade Ground99

4.12 Refractory Block

109

2.3

3.

4.

28

2.6

Federation and World War I Era(1901-1918)
29

4.13 Southern Knoll, Prison
Industries and Southern Area 114

2.7

Inter-War Era (1918-1939)30

4.14 Sterile Zones

124

2.8

World War II Era (1939-1945)30

4.15 The Terrace

126

2.9

Post-War Era (1945-1970)

30

132
133

2.10 Modern Era (1970-1991)

31

4.16 Watch Towers and ElevatedWalkways2.11 Post-Closure (1992-present)

32

4.17 West Workshops

2.12 Aboriginal Archaeology

39

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
AND SIGNIFICANCE
40

3.1

Potential

41

3.2

Significance

43

5.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENTPOLICIES, PRINCIPLES AND
ACTIONS
138

5.1

Policies from the HMP 2019

139

5.2

Actions from the HMP 2019

143

5.3

Appropriate Excavation
Methodologies

145

Specific Management
Considerations by Zone

148

5.4

Contents

CONTENTS

1.

iii

6.

7.

THE INTERSECTION BETWEENARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE
INTERPRETATION
152

6.1

Preamble153

6.2

The archaeological resourceand heritage interpretation

154

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE
FREMANTLE PRISON COLLECTION
158

7.1

Preamble

7.2

The Fremantle Prison
collection

iv

APPENDICES

170

Appendix A – Terms andAbbreviations

171

Appendix B – Historical Thematic
Framework

173

Appendix C – Overarching Policy for‘Archaeology’ from the HMP 2019 177
Appendix D – Summary of Previous
Archaeological Investigations
180

159

Appendix E – Chance Finds
Procedure

196

159

Appendix F – Standard Recording
Forms

198
206

7.3

Fremantle Prison collection
and archaeology procedures 161

Appendix G – Decision-Making
Flowcharts

7.4

Fremantle Prisonarchaeological database162

Acquisition, deaccession
and disposal

Appendix H – Minimum Standards
for Artefact Management Including
Recording
209

163

Appendix I – Recommended
Qualifications and Experience

213

164

Appendix J – Historical Overlay
Plans		

214

7.5
8.

9.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contents

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Extent Heritage
WA Pty Ltd. The following personnel, listed inalphabetical order, co-authored the text:• Ryan Crawford;• Jodie Crossman;• Natalie Guetlich;• Helen Munt; and• Andrew Sneddon.
The Fremantle Prison ArchaeologicalManagement Plan (AMP) has benefitted
significantly from the assistance of thefollowing personnel from the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH):• Daniel Holland, Project Officer(Archaeology), Fremantle Prison;• Eleanor Lambert, Assistant Curator,
Fremantle Prison;• Courtenay Heldt, Heritage Architect,
Fremantle Prison;• Kelly Fleming, Principal Heritage Officer,
Heritage Services;• Moss Wilson, Senior Heritage Officer,
Heritage Services;• Olimpia Cullity, Curator, Fremantle
Prison;• Oonagh Quigley, Heritage Interpretation
Officer, Fremantle Prison;• Janine Symons, Project Manager,
Heritage, Fremantle Prison;• Luke Donegan, Manager, Heritage
Conservation, Fremantle Prison;• Karen Jackson, Principal Heritage
Officer, Heritage Services;• Karina Williams, Senior Heritage Officer,
Heritage Services;• Gemma Wilson, Senior Heritage Officer,
Heritage Services; and• Katrina Carrello, Senior Heritage Officer,
Heritage Services.

Acknowledgementsv

INTRODUCTION

1

Above:

6

1.1 BackgroundFremantle Prison is a State Government asset of
the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage(DPLH), vested in the Minister for Heritage. The
management and operations of Fremantle Prison
falls under the remit of the ‘Heritage and Property
Services’ division of DPLH, specifically theProperty Services directorate.
Fremantle Prison is of Outstanding Universal Value(OUV), a matter reflected in its inscription on theWorld Heritage List (WHL) as part of the AustralianConvict Sites (ACS) serial inscription. It is also listedon the National Heritage List (NHL) and the WA State
Register of Heritage Places for meeting a broader
range of heritage assessment criteria. This posesparticular challenges for the managers of Fremantle
Prison who must balance the imperative to conserve
the place’s contribution to the OUV of the ACS against
the conservation needs of its National Heritage values
and State significance. These challenges also apply tothe management of the archaeological resource.
Extent Heritage was commissioned by DPLH todevelop an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP)
for the Prison. The area covered by this AMP is
the whole of the Fremantle Prison compound, as
described on the WHL inscription (being the same as
Lot 2095, Reserve 24042) (see Figure 1. Plan showing
cadastre for Lot 2095 (the amalgamated allotment,
extending to Hampton Road). This comprises thearea covered by this AMP and reflects the Prison as
inscribed on the WHL, below, and Part 1.2 for further
discussion of relevant boundaries).

Introduction

7

Figure 1. Plan showing cadastre for Lot 2095 (the amalgamated allotment, extending to Hampton Road).
This comprises the area covered by this AMP and reflects the Prison as inscribed on the WHL.

The Fremantle Prison AMP forms part of asuite of heritage management documentsthat govern activities at Fremantle Prison.
The AMP sits beneath the Fremantle Prison
Heritage Management Plan 2019 (HMP).
Insofar as there may be differences between
the AMP and the HMP, the policies andprocedures in the HMP will prevail.
The Fremantle Prison HMP included anumber of overarching policies of direct
relevance to the management of the known
and potential archaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison. These include policies inrelation to:• Outstanding Universal Value;• Aboriginal cultural heritage;• Archaeology;• Keeping a record;• Movable heritage;• Physical conservation; and• Telling the story.

8

Introduction

The HMP includes other overarching policies
that may also overlap with archaeologicalmanagement at Fremantle Prison, and the
AMP should always be read having in mind
the broader conservation policies in the HMP.
The overarching policy on Archaeology
contained in the HMP is reproduced inAppendix C for convenience.
This AMP supersedes and replaces all
previous archaeological assessments andmanagement documents (including Bavin
1990, and those summarised in Part 3).
Those documents were prepared prior
to Fremantle Prison’s inscription on the
WHL. In some cases, areas identified bythose earlier documents as having low
potential for historical archaeology, haveyielded archaeological features upon further
investigation.

There are important overlaps between the
management of the archaeological resource
and the management of the Fremantle Prison
Collection. The management documents thatgovern the management of the Fremantle
Prison Collection are:
• Fremantle Prison Collection Policy(2012, revised 2019);• Fremantle Prison Collection:
Archaeology Procedures (2019);• Fremantle Prison Collection Significance
Assessment (Heritage TODAY, 2017); and• Preservation Needs Assessment(Greg Manzie, 2020).
The Fremantle Prison AMP and the Fremantle
Prison Collection management documents
are interrelated, and it is intended that these
documents operate together. However, if any
inconsistency emerges, the guiding principle
will be that the AMP takes precedence if
there is any doubt about the ways in which
the research potential of the archaeologicalresource should be realised (e.g., in termsof excavation methodologies, curation andstorage of artefacts, research questions, andpublication). Once the research potentialof the archaeology has been realised, theFremantle Prison Collection management
documents will usually take precedence.
The AMP:• Assesses the archaeological potentialof Fremantle Prison based on historicalresearch, an analysis of site formation
processes, and previous archaeologicalfieldwork;• Assesses the significance of the known
and potential archaeological resource
having regard to a thematic historicalframework and a series of substantive
research questions presented inAppendix B. The archaeologicalresource is assessed for its scientificvalue in this AMP, as well as against
other significance assessment criteria
applied in WA;• Provides an over-arching policy
framework to guide decision-making
in relation to the known and potential
archaeological resource. This frameworkdraws on and augments thosecontained in the HMP 2019; and• Provides recommendations for the
management of archaeology at specificlocations, based on the zones identified
in the preparation of the HMP 2019.
The AMP has been prepared having regard to:• The Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention (UNESCO 2015);• The Burra Charter: The Australia
ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural
Significance, 2013 (Burra Charter);• Practice Note—The Burra Charterand Archaeological Practice (Australia
ICOMOS 2013); and• Archaeological Management Plans(Department Planning Lands andHeritage 2019).
The AMP is also intended to integratewith archaeological documents requiredby the Heritage Council of WA, including
Archaeological Management Strategies(AMS). An AMS provides practical strategies
for the management of the known andpotential archaeological resource at a site. An
AMS is intended to supplement an AMP and‘aims to address the specifics of a proposedor potential impact to the archaeology ofa place, with reference to the policies andresearch design in the AMP’ (Heritage
Council June 2019). A number of AMS’s havebeen prepared for discrete locations within
the Prison, and more may be prepared as
specific works programs are proposed.

Introduction

9

There are overlaps between the content
of this AMP and an AMS, and potential for
confusion. For example, the objectives of an
AMS are described below (quoting Heritage
Council June 2019, 3):• To develop a practical guide toinvestigations which ensures adequate
protection of the resource and produces
maximum research benefits from thearchaeological resource; and• To summarise the study area and its
history as outlined in the AMP;

• To outline how archaeological evidence
will be handled.

• To analyse the research strategy
and management recommendations
provided in the AMP with regard to thesite’s current context;

Any AMS prepared for Fremantle Prison must
be consistent with the content of the HMP
and this AMP.
Where this AMP refers to the preparationof an Archaeological Research Design forproposed archaeological works, any relevant
AMS would be an appropriate location forthat research design.

HE R I TA G E M A N A G E M E N T P L A N
Master Plan

Collection
PolicyInterpretation
Management
Plan

ArchaeologicalManagement
Plan

LandscapeManagement
Plan

Aboriginal
Heritage
Management
Plan

Accessibility &Inclusion
Plan
UNESCO
ValuesConservation
Management
Strategies

Interpretation
Management
Strategies

ArchaeologicalManagement
Strategies

LandscapeManagement
Strategies

Aboriginal
Heritage
Projects

Figure 2. The Heritage Management Framework at Fremantle Prison, with the Heritage Management Plan sitting atop
a number of inter-related management and strategy documents, and all aimed at the appropriate management of theplace’s contribution to the ACS OUV.

10Introduction

1.2 Site Identification
Fremantle Prison is located in the City ofFremantle, Western Australia. It comprises
approximately six hectares of land boundedby Hampton Road to the east, Fothergill
Street to the south, The Terrace to the west
and Knutsford Street to the north. The site’s
formal address is 1 The Terrace, Fremantle.
Its tenure details are as follows:• Reserve 24042;• CT: LR3123/551;• Parcel Identifier: P191368;• Lot Number: 2095;• Survey Number: 191368; and• Survey Type: DP.
As of 2021, the purpose of Reserve 24042 is‘Conservation and Management of Historic
Buildings & Ancillary & Beneficial Uses
Thereto’.
The study area for the AMP is the wholeof the Fremantle Prison compound, as
described on the WHL inscription (Figure 1.
Plan showing cadastre for Lot 2095 (theamalgamated allotment, extending toHampton Road). This comprises the area
covered by this AMP and reflects the Prisonas inscribed on the WHL and Figure 3).
There are some inconsistencies in listed
boundaries. The NHL curtilage includes the
Fairbairn Street ramp and Henderson Street
Warders’ Cottages (Figure 3). These areas
are not in the care and control of Fremantle
Prison and have not been included in thisAMP (although their management is capturedby the HMP 2019).

The WHL boundary also does not accord
with the heritage curtilage on the State
Register (Figure 3). Specifically, the space
between the Prison’s east wall and Hampton
Road was not included in the State registeredarea. This is because in 1994, Reserve 24042(Lot 1913) was amalgamated with Reserve28225 (Lot 1903), being the area on theeast side of the Prison compound between
the Prison wall and Hampton Road. The
amalgamated allotment became Lot 2095,
being Reserve 24042 (Figure 4). However,
because this amalgamation occurred aroundthe same time that the permanent entry into
the State Register was being progressed, the
new cadastre (the amalgamated lot) was not
captured by the State Registered boundary.
Nevertheless, the area between the Prison’seast wall and Hampton Road was includedin the WHL boundary and is included in thisAMP (Figure 3).
The Parry Street carpark has not been
included in any heritage listings, and is notcovered by this AMP.
The Knowle is a nineteenth century structurethat once formed part of Fremantle Prison.
It is now located in the grounds of theFremantle Hospital. Its management iscovered by the HMP 2019, but it is notincluded in this AMP.

Introduction

111.3 Legislative Context and Listings
1.3.1 Relevant Statutory Heritage
Listings and Constraints
In July 2010, Fremantle Prison, alongwith 10 other Australian Convict Sites,
was inscribed on the World Heritage Listfor being of Outstanding Universal Value(OUV). Fremantle Prison was part of a serial
nomination under the theme of ‘Convictism—
Forced Migration’1. Specifically, these sites
were inscribed for satisfying Criteria (iv) and(vi). Quoting the Statement of Outstanding
Universal Value, these are:
• Criterion (iv): The Australian convict
sites constitute an outstanding exampleof the way in which conventional forced
labour and national prison systems weretransformed, in major European nationsin the 18th and 19th centuries, into asystem of deportation and forced labour
forming part of the British Empire’s vastcolonial project. They illustrate the varietyof the creation of penal colonies to serve
the many material needs created by thedevelopment of a new territory. They bear
witness to a penitentiary system which
had many objectives, ranging from severe
punishment used as a deterrent to forced
labour for men, women and children, andthe rehabilitation of the convicts throughlabour and discipline.
• Criterion (vi): The transportationof criminals, delinquents, and politicalprisoners to colonial lands by the great
nation states between the 18th and 20th
centuries is an important aspect of humanhistory, especially with regard to its penal,
political and colonial dimensions.

1

12

The Australian convict settlements provide
a particularly complete example of thishistory and the associated symbolic
values derived from discussions in modern
and contemporary European society. They
illustrate an active phase in the occupationof colonial lands to the detriment of the
Aboriginal peoples, and the process ofcreating a colonial population of European
origin through the dialectic of punishment
and transportation followed by forced
labour and social rehabilitation to theeventual social integration of convicts as
settlers.
Fremantle Prison’s heritage significance has
also been recognised by its inclusion on the
National Heritage List, the State Register of
Heritage Places, and the City of Fremantle’s
Heritage List.
The statements of heritage significance sharemany features. However, an important areaof difference is that while the Statement of
OUV for the WHL (and to a slightly lesser
extent the NHL citation) focus on convictism
and the convict era heritage values, the State
Register of Heritage Places also emphasises
values from the post-convict period: its
more recent history and social significance,in addition to its exceptional aesthetic
values. This also has implications for the
management of the Prison’s archaeologicalresource. The statutory heritage listings forFremantle Prison are summarised in Table 1.
Summary of the statutory heritage listings forFremantle Prison.

The other convict sites included in the serial listing for World Heritage Listing are: Old Government House and Domain, HydePark Barracks, Cockatoo Island Convict Site, Old Great North Road - NSW; Port Arthur Historic Site, Brickendon-Woolmers
Estates, Cascades Female Factory, Coal Mines Historic Site, Darlington Probation Station—Tasmania; the Kingston and
Arthur’s Vale Historic Area - Norfolk Island.

Introduction

Table 1. Summary of the statutory heritage listings for Fremantle Prison.

Type

StatusDate

Item no.

World Heritage List

Inscribed

1 August 2010

UNESCO Registration
1306

National Heritage List

Registered

1 August 2005

Place ID 105762

State Register of Heritage Places

Registered

30 June 1995

Heritage Council
Registration 01014

City of Fremantle Heritage List

Adopted

8 March 2007

1.3.2 Governing Legislation:
Overview
Fremantle Prison is governed by complex
statutory frameworks. A simplified decisionmaking flowchart is provided in Appendix G.
Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention
states:Each State Party to this Convention
recognizes that the duty of ensuring theidentification, protection, conservation,
presentation and transmission to future
generations of [World Heritage places]
situated on its territory, belongs primarily
to that State. It will do all it can to this end,
to the utmost of its own resources and,
where appropriate, with any international
assistance and co-operation, in particular,
financial, artistic, scientific and technical,
which it may be able to obtain.
The Australian Government ensures thatits obligations under the World Heritage
Convention are met through the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act is theprincipal governing piece of legislation forFremantle Prison.
Schedule 5 (Reg. 10.01) of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Regulations 2000 includes the management
principles that apply to places on the WHL.
These emphasise that the primary purposeof management of the cultural heritage ofa World Heritage property must include
protecting and conserving the World Heritage
Values of the place.

The EPBC Act governs ‘actions’ that have,or are likely to have, a significant impact
on a matter of ‘national environmental
significance’ (NES). Places on the WHL(such as Fremantle Prison) are matters of
NES. An ‘action’ may include a project, adevelopment, an undertaking, an activity or aseries of activities.
Before taking an action that could have asignificant impact on the heritage valuesof Fremantle Prison, the action must be‘referred’ to the Australian Minister for theEnvironment and Energy under the EPBC
Act. The Minister will determine whether or
not further and more formal assessment andapproval is required, i.e., a ‘controlled action’.
The inclusion of a place on the WHL (oron the National Heritage List) does not
imply a full transfer of responsibility to the
Commonwealth. Rather, the EPBC Act
functions in tandem with State heritagelegislation.
Therefore, the Heritage Act 2018 (WA) andthe Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (andfuture Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill 2020)
also apply to Fremantle Prison. However, it
must always be recalled that the EPBC Act
will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency
between the Commonwealth and Statelegislation.
When making an application for an approvalto the State government (e.g., to excavatearchaeology that relates to State values),
Fremantle Prison must also consider whether
or not a referral under the EPBC Act isrequired. If matters of NES would not be
impacted, a referral will not be necessary.

Introduction

13However, if a State government approval
is obtained for works that, on referral, theCommonwealth government determines
impacts matters of NES, the State government
approval will offend the EPBC Act. Therefore,
Fremantle Prison must always consider thetwo systems in parallel and ensure that an
appropriate referrals process to the AustralianGovernment is followed where required.
Section 3 of the Heritage Act 2018 (WA)expresses the objectives of the Act which,in summary, includes the conservation of‘places’ of ‘cultural heritage significance’.
The Heritage Act defines a ‘place’ to include
archaeological remains (Section 7), andestablishes the Heritage Council as a criticalmechanism for ensuring that heritage places
are appropriately conserved (Section 17)
and, specifically, ‘if development or otherproposals may affect a registered place, toprovide advice to decision-making authorities
on ensuring that the place’s cultural heritage
significance is preserved’. Archaeologicalexcavation, or other work that may cause
ground disturbance in archaeologicallysensitive areas, fall within this definition andwould require referral to the Heritage Council
WA pursuant to Section 73 of the HeritageAct.
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)governs Aboriginal ‘places’, which includes
archaeological sites (Section 5). If Fremantle
Prison management encounters Aboriginalarchaeology it must notify the WA Registrarof Aboriginal Sites (Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage) (Section 15). It is
an offence to excavate an Aboriginalarchaeological site without the approval of
the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites (Section
16). Such approval will only be given after
an assessment is made of the nature andsignificance of the site (Section 18).
Pursuant to Section 38 of the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 1972 the Western AustralianGovernment maintains a Register of Places
and Objects for Aboriginal Heritage. No partof Fremantle Prison is currently included on
the Register.

14

Introduction

1.3.3 Relevant Planning
Considerations
The statutory planning requirements that will
apply to activities within Fremantle Prison
depend on the nature of the activity andwhether the activity is inconsistent with the
purpose of the Prison Reserve. More intrusive
or potentially destructive activities will typicallyrequire adherence to a detailed approvals
process. Therefore, before an activity isundertaken, managers at the Prison will needto characterise that activity according to thefollowing:• Development;• Maintenance; and• Research.
As archaeology, such as archaeologicalexcavation, is an activity or action—whether
as a component or outcome of development
works or as part of maintenance orundertaken for research purposes—it istherefore also subject to statutory planningrequirements, and the type of archaeologicalactivity and its potential impacts will
determine what approvals will need to besought.
The following discussion is summarised in adecision-making flowchart in Appendix G.

Conservation and development
Section 4 of the WA Planning andDevelopment Act 2005 (P&D Act) defines‘development’ broadly to capture ‘any
demolition, erection, construction, alterationof or addition to any building or structureon the land’. It includes ‘the carrying out on
the land of any excavation or other works’..
The P&D Act requires that ‘development’cannot proceed without approval (througha Development Application or ‘DA’)(section 162).

Whether prior to or part of development
works (e.g., to pre-empt the DA process),
substantial sub-surface archaeologicalexcavations may fall within the definitionof ‘development’ under the P&D Act andtherefore trigger a DA under the Metropolitan
Region Scheme (MRS). However, smallerscale excavation is unlikely to require a
DA. Fremantle Prison will submit a referral
to HCWA who can liaise with WAPC todetermine if a full DA may be required. In
most cases, pre-emptive archaeologicalinvestigation can be approved by HCWA
(e.g., section 79 permit).
Where excavation requires a full DA,
Fremantle Prison should submit a DA that
includes a completed MRS Form 1 to theCity of Fremantle, as the Local Government
Authority, who are responsible for referringthe DA on to the Western Australian Planning
Commission (WAPC), as the decision-making
or determining authority. The WAPC operates
with the support of DPLH with its functions andauthority established under the P&D Act. Beinga State Registered place, the WAPC will refer
the DA to the Heritage Council WA for advice,
and any other relevant State Government
agencies if required. The WAPC will advise theFremantle Prison of its decision directly and will
also advise the City of Fremantle and Heritage
Council WA of the outcome.
Development approvals will often be issued
with conditions, including advice received
from the Heritage Council WA, that require
the appropriate management of the known
and potential archaeological resource. These
will commonly be drawn from a Heritage
Impact Statement that accompanies the
DA or an AMS submitted with the DA andapproved by the WAPC.
In some instances, archaeological deposits
may be unexpectedly encountered during
a development. In this event, work would
need to stop while notification is made andnecessary approvals sought from approving
authorities before proceeding. See also the
Chance Finds Procedure in Appendix E.

Maintenance
Maintenance work does not requiredevelopment approval as it is an activity thatis unlikely to alter or impact on significance.
Maintenance activities that have the potential
to impact on archaeology will need to beconsidered under ‘development’. Examplesof maintenance where this might occur can
include:• Excavation for the purpose of exposing,inspecting, maintaining or replacing
utility services;• Landscape maintenance; and• Works where historic graffiti is present
and may be impacted.
Given that maintenance works do not
require referral, decisions about impacts toarchaeology will likely need to be made by
Prison decision-makers. This AMP will be
used to identify if the maintenance activity
may impact on the archaeology. Where doubt
exists or the AMP is unclear, advice will besought from an historical archaeologist.

Research
Archaeological research, such as thatinvolving excavation, is an activity that may
be part of a program of works that preempt the DA process where investigative
strategies are recommended in an AMS (i.e.,
proactive archaeology), or being undertaken
specifically to address research questions(e.g., academic research). It may also be
undertaken for the purposes of education
and/or interpretation. In the case of the
Prison this can be for a specific zone or for abuilding or other feature within a zone.
Approval for archaeological research should
be sought from HCWA (e.g., section 79
permit). Details of the archaeological work to
be undertaken (an Archaeological Research
Design and methodology in an AMS), as
well as evidence of the archaeologist’s ability
to undertake all required archaeologicalprocesses is required in the section 79
application. Consideration should also begiven to an appropriate repository for any
artefacts/material recovered and reporting
procedures/requirements following thecompletion of the activity.

Introduction

15

Other matters
The above planning considerations would
also integrate with other requirements withregards the Prison’s National and World
Heritage Listing. As noted in Part 1.3.2,
above, the EPBC Act applies. The EPBC
Act governs actions that have, or are likely
to have, a significant impact on a matterof national environmental significance. An‘action’ can include archaeological activities
that include ground disturbance works thatmight impact the archaeological resource
and therefore impact the heritage valuesof Fremantle Prison. Such ‘actions’ may
need to be referred by the owner to theAustralian Minister for Agriculture, Waterand the Environment who will determine
and advise whether or not further and moreformal assessment and approval is required.
Although technically the owner of Fremantle
Prison Reserve is the Minister for Heritage,referrals and reporting under the EPBC Act
is usually the function of Fremantle Prison
management.
At local level, the City of Fremantle Local
Planning Scheme No. 4 zones Fremantle
Prison as a Regional Reserve. By Section
2.2 of the Local Planning Scheme No. 4
Council approval is not required for thecommencement or carrying out of any use
or development on a Regional Reserve.
However, as the approving authority, theWAPC still requires all DAs to be lodged
with the relevant local government authority
in which the Reserve is located. The City ofFremantle is also responsible for issuing any
relevant permits that may be required as partof the development approval (e.g., building/health/parking permits).
Fremantle Prison is a significant part of theFremantle community and landscape, andinfluences tourism and marketing of the City,
as well as being on the City of Fremantle’s
Heritage List (City of Fremantle Heritage
Inventory, Level 1A, 18 September 2000).
Fremantle Prison seeks to observe a ‘goodneighbour’ policy with the City, and engage
with them on activities and changes thathave benefits for, or may impact on, the local
community.

16

Introduction

Archaeological Management
Strategies (AMS)
As noted in Part 1.1 above, an AMS is a
supporting document to the AMP. An AMS
is required where this AMP does not enableaccurate decisions about potential impactsof works on the archaeology (e.g., it may
be too broad or out of date) or investigativearchaeology is included as part of a
Development Application.
It will provide up-to-date information at
the time of development. This is especially
important if there have been any changes tothe development area.
Where an AMS forms part of a DA, theapproved works will need to be undertaken
subject to the methodologies described in
the AMS.
It is preferred that a proactive approach to
managing archaeology within development
is observed given that this approach maylead to better outcomes for both thearchaeological resource and program ofworks. It would be prudent for archaeology
to be considered prior to the DA process,including the preparation of an AMS where
necessary. This will allow any impacts toarchaeology to be identified as early as
possible in the process and any investigative
strategies actioned.

1.3.4 Non-statutory listings
There are non-statutory registers for historical
heritage places in Australia and Western
Australia. While inclusion on these registers
has no statutory implications, they are stilltreated as important sources of information.
The non-statutory heritage lists for Fremantle
Prison are summarised in Table 2. Summaryof the on-statutory heritage lists for Fremantle
Prison. The RNE ceased to function as a
statutory heritage listing in 2007 but is stillused as a reference document.

Table 2. Summary of the non-statutory heritage lists for Fremantle Prison.

Type

StatusDate

National Trust (WA)Classified

3 October 1960

Register of the National Estate

Permanent

21 March 1978

Item no.
Place ID 105762

State Registered Heritage PlaceWARDERS
COTTAGES

National Heritage List (NHL)World Heritage List (WHL)

Figure 3. Plan showing the boundaries of Fremantle Prison as inscribed on the World Heritage List, together with theboundaries on the National Heritage List entry and State Register.

Introduction

17

Figure 4. Plan showing former Lots 1913 and 1903, now amalgamated as Lot 2095. This plan resulted ininconsistencies between some listed boundaries.

18

Introduction

1.4 Report structure and terminology
1.4.1 Layout of the AMP
The policies and actions contained in theFremantle Prison AMP are based on theprinciple that the significance of the known
and potential archaeological resource will
govern the nature of the management
response.
Therefore, the AMP is divided into:• A history of the site which assists to
identify the site formation processes
that have operated there (Parts 2 and 4,
augmented by an analysis of previous
archaeological fieldwork in Appendix D).
• A thematic history and a list of
substantive research questions ofvalue to establishing the scientificsignificance of the known and potential
archaeological resource (Appendix B). It
presents a series of research questions
that the potential archaeologicalresource might be used to address,
having regard to known and emerging
themes across the other convict places
included in the convict serial listing, andother convict sites in Western Australia,
as well as research questions pertaining
to post-convict places.

1.4.2 Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)This report has been prepared to work intandem with an evolving GIS databaseadministered by the Prison. It is intended
that the database and associated maps
will be dynamic, capturing new informationand physical changes within the Prison asthat information becomes available andthe changes occur. Further, the maps areintended to become a tool for heritage
interpretation, as well as management
devices. The AMP will be reviewed regularly
but will, by its nature, contain data that may
not be as up-to-date as the GIS database.
Users of the AMP must consult both the AMP
and dynamic database when managing thePrison’s potential archaeological resource.

• A zone-by-zone summary of thepotential archaeological resource, with adescription of the kinds of artefacts thatmight be there, with an assessment ofsignificance.
• Policies for the management of the
known and potential archaeologicalresource (Part 5).
The interaction between the management of
the archaeological resource and the museum
collection (including artefacts presently instorage) is addressed in Appendix H.

Introduction

19

HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAND CONXENT

220

2.1 Preamble
Fremantle Prison operated continuously for 136 years as a place of incarceration. The history of
the site might be divided, for the purposes of interpretation, into the following distinct periods:• Pre-Colonial (prior to 1829)• Inter-War Period (1918 - 1939)• Colonial Pre-Convict Period(1829 - 1849)• World War 2 Period (1939 - 1945)• Post-War Period (1945 - 1970)• The Convict Period (1849 - 1886)• Modern Period (1970 - 1991)• Prison Colonial Period (1886 - 1901)• Post Closure Period (1992 - present)• Federation and World War 1 Period(1901 - 1918)

These periods are discussed further below.

2.2 Pre-Colonial Era (prior to 1829)
The Fremantle area sits within the Aboriginal
cultural region of Beeliar. Its Noongar nameis Walyalup—the place of walyo or woylie,
which is a small kangaroo-like marsupial once
common in Fremantle—and the First Peoplesof this area are called Whadjuk. Thousandsof years ago, the land around Fremantle/
Walyalup extended past Rottnest Island/
Wadjemup before the sea levels rose to where
they are today. Fremantle/Walyalup has always
been a significant place for the Whadjuk
people pre and post colonisation, being
situated on both banks of the Swan River/Derbal Yerrigan, and as a place of ceremonies
and significant cultural practices, of spiritualsites as well as a place for camping, meetingand trading (City of Fremantle Walyalup[Fremantle] Aboriginal History).
Prior to British settlement in the area,
Fremantle/Walyalup was well populated with
Aboriginal people who came to the area
particularly in summer to take advantage ofthe number of important freshwater mineralsprings at the base of Arthur Head. Arthur
Head, being the south bank of the Swan
River mouth, is called Manjaree, the namederived from manjar, which for Whadjuk
people is like a fair (gathering) in which theymeet and exchange items.

Above: The Rainbow Serpent and Spirit Children(detail), Peter Cameron, cell E30, 4 Division, 1991.

Although there are no known sites ofAboriginal significance currently recordedthat directly relate to the Fremantle Prison
site, there are a number of other sites around
Walyalup that have significance to the
Whadjuk people in addition to Arthur Headnot least of all the Swan River, Cantonment
Hill and Anglesea Point. However, postcolonisation, Aboriginal people engaged as
shepherds were believed to have camped on
the site of where the Fremantle Prison would
be built when they were shepherding sheep
to the Fremantle Port for shipment (Sunday
Times 24 August 1941). It is possible thatwith its high prominence on the coastal
limestone scarp and good views to theocean and the surrounding area, this locationin particular was a traditional camping site.

Historical Background and Context

21

2.3 Colonial Pre-Convict Era (1829-1849)
The Swan River Colony marked a newchapter in the British colonisation of Australia.
Proclaimed in 1829, it was to be a colony
for free settlers unlike the penal colonies
already established in New South Wales andTasmania (Van Diemen’s Land) (Fremantle
Prison website).
In August 1829, Captain James Stirling
announced that the area around Arthur Headin the ‘Neighbourhood of the Mineral Spring’
would be named Fremantle, after Captain
Charles Howe Fremantle, commander of the
HMS Challenger who was the first to officiallytake possession of the Swan River Colony inApril 1829 for King George IV (Appleyard andManford, 1979:139).

By this time, Fremantle had already become
the main camp for those who arrived after
the first wave of settlers—who had mostly
already gone to Perth and Canning totake up their land grants—and where they
stayed while they waited until their land
grants were ready for occupation. When
Surveyor-General John Septimus Roe arrived
in Fremantle to lay out the town as orderedby Stirling in August 1829, it was alreadyinhabited by hundreds of settlers, many ofwhom were still waiting for their grants to
be issued. The first camp area was locateddirectly behind Arthur Head and a second
was established further up the Swan River in
the North Fremantle area. Accommodationin the camps was very rudimentary, mainly
either huts or tents, made from local andsalvaged or imported materials (Appleyardand Manford, 1979,148-158, 175).

Above: Fremantle Prison ramp artwork

22

Historical Background and Context

Being the location of substantial camps,
Arthur Head was selected as the site of
the first British prison in Western Australia
when in 1830/1831 the Round House wasconstructed. Initially built to lock up local
criminals and unruly settlers, and also carryout executions, it would later house convicts
and Aboriginal prisoners being sent to
Rottnest Island/Wadjemup (Heritage Council
WA P0896).
As the main landing place for the British ships
and for their camp, and with its safe harbour
and freshwater springs, Fremantle/Walyalup
was inevitably a place where interaction
occurred between the British (wadjelas) andthe Whadjuk people in the early years ofcolonisation. This soon led to conflict andtension which resulted in an attack by the
British on a Noongar camp in the North
Fremantle area as early as 1830 (City ofFremantle Walyalup (Fremantle) Aboriginal
History).
Although the Swan River Colony wasestablished on the basis that it would not
become a penal settlement, twenty years
on the lack of infrastructure and shortage oflabour was stymieing the development of the
new Colony, both for building works as wellas the exportation of goods such as wool
and timber. Because of the lack of shepherds
and sawyers which would have brought inmuch-needed income, the Colony’s nascentpastoral and agricultural industries came toa halt by the early 1840s. Compounding thiswas the departure of disheartened settlers
who left for the eastern colonies either fed up
waiting for land or who were struggling withthe vastly different climate and environmental
conditions. By 1843 a major depression had
hit the Swan River Colony.

1

Agitation from wealthy pastoralists tointroduce convicts as a way to relieve theailing Colony would eventually outweighany concerns of the other free settlers overhaving to co-habit with convicts. Adding
to the drive to send convicts to Western
Australia was the British Government’s
growing struggle with its overcrowded
prisons.
On 1 May 1849 an Order-in-Council wasissued by the Crown nominating Western
Australia as a place where convicts could
be sent, the main purpose being for theprovision of labour and resources to assist
the ailing Swan River Colony desperately
in need of labour. On 6 November 1849,
the West Australian Government Gazettepublished the official announcement that the
Swan River Colony now ‘constituted a penal
settlement’, and planning commenced for
the Convict Establishment. The site selected
was on the undeveloped hill at the back of
the church (Perth Gazette and Independent
Journal of Politics and News 30 August
1850:2).1

The church referred to was likely the original St John’s Anglican Church built in 1843.

Historical Background and Context

23

2.4 The Convict Era (1849-1886)
In 1849, transportation of male convicts toWestern Australia was introduced with the firstconvicts arriving in June 1850. Also among
the new arrivals to the Colony was Captain
Edmund Henderson, who was appointed as
Comptroller General of Convicts and charged
with designing and building the Convict
Establishment. Included in the first lot of stores
requisitioned by Captain Henderson weredrawing instruments and building tools. To
assist in the building campaign, a company ofRoyal Engineers, led by Captain Henry Wray,
was sent to Western Australia. These men
would supervise the convicts in the buildingof the Convict Establishment and other publicbuildings and works throughout the Colony.
From the time when convicts were introduced,
Fremantle was identified as the central
Convict Depot with other small hiring depots
for convict work gangs and ticket-of-leavemen established at other settled areas
around Perth and regional towns such as
Guildford, York and Toodyay (Kerr 1998,1).
Until a permanent Convict Establishment
could be built, and with convicts arriving insignificant numbers, Henderson immediately
secured the lease of the premises of Harbour
Master, Captain Daniel Scott, in the Fremantle
townsite just near the Whaling Jetty which heset up as a temporary Convict Depot. Scott’s
premises, which had been partially developed
and comprising some stores and warehouses,
was on the corner of Collie and Essex streets
where the Esplanade Hotel is now located(Campbell 2010-2011,1.5). A site on alimestone ridge to the east of the Fremantle
townsite and comprising 36 acres had been
selected by Henderson for the permanent
Convict Establishment. Compared to the
low-lying swampy land where the temporary
Depot was located, the site selected for thepermanent Establishment was close to thecoast but on the low hills immediately tothe rear of the Fremantle townsite, and wasregarded by Henderson as ideally suited forthe purpose ‘as regards salubrity, facility fordrainage, supply of water and isolation’ being
located on ‘…a healthy and elevated spot
removed from the business part of the Town
and within convenient distance of the harbour’(Campbell 2010-2011, 1.8 and 7.9).

24

Historical Background and Context

The other advantage of the permanent
Convict Establishment site was that it was
situated on a limestone scarp which made for
an ideal quarry site. The first stone quarried
was transferred to the temporary Depot andused to finish off Scott’s buildings and to
start the building of the Perimeter Wall forthe new Establishment. A wooden tramway
was installed at the quarry to transport thematerials from the quarry and remove therubbish, transported on horse-drawn cars,
although some was retained to form theapproach to the Prison (Campbell 20102011, 3.3 and 7.29). Other quarrying residue
was sent down to the townsite and used
to form roads. The tramway later extended
to connect the Prison to the Commissariat
and the two jetties ‘…to form the first ‘heavy
rail’ goods transport system for Fremantle’(Campbell 2010-2011, 7.29).
A 40-foot-deep well was sunk through therock in the Convict Establishment in 1852
to supply water for works and for drinking(Campbell 2010-2011, 7.19). This well wasin the southern area that was later used as
the Parade Ground (Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage August 2020, 16).
Once the temporary Depot was sufficiently
completed, convicts were set to work on
the erection of the Warders’ Cottages on
Henderson Street. This alleviated the need torent existing lodgings in town where housing
was already in short supply. There were also
other buildings around Fremantle constructed
as part of the Convict Establishment,
including a Barracks for the Pensioner
Guards and their families on South Terrace(now a carpark), other staff cottages (where
the Fremantle markets are now located) andthe Commissariat Store, started in 1851, tohold government stores (now the Maritime
Museum Shipwrecks Gallery) (Campbell
2010-2011, 3.4-3.5).

Above: Photograph, Fremantle Prison gatehouse, c.1900s, Fremantle Prison Collection (99.731).

Although work on the permanent Convict
Establishment had commenced, the convicts
available were limited in their skills which
made progress slow. Where possible labour
was drawn from the civilian base, but moreworkers—referred to as “mechanics”—wererequired by Henderson. In 1852 a company
of army sappers and miners arrived fromEngland to provide ‘the necessary skilled
supervision at the work face’ (Kerr 1998, 3).
Work was now able to proceed in earnest.
The original Chaplain’s House (No. 10
The Terrace) was one of the first buildings
completed at the Prison in 1853, however
it was immediately commandeered byHenderson and First Lieutenant Henry Wray
who assisted Henderson in the constructionof the Prison until the Knowle was built
for the Comptroller General’s residence(Campbell 2010-2011, 7.20).
In 1854, two large tunnels for the main
sewerage and draining at the garden area
were constructed as reported by Wray:…that for the south end of the prison isdriven from the foot of the hill 212 feet
into the soft through solid rock, that for
the north end (including cookhouse,
wash-house etc.) has been driven to
the east and west from a shaft sunk ina central position to a length of 160 feet(Campbell 2010-2011, 7.21).
Additional wells were also sunk to service
buildings such as the north-wing, thebaths, cookhouse, wash-house andwashing sheds as well as the workshops(Campbell 2010‑2011, 7.21).
By 1855 enough of the Main Cell Block,
Perimeter Wall and service buildings werecomplete for the convicts to be transferred tothe site. However, there was still not enoughaccommodation before the lease ran out
at Scott’s in 1855 so the wooden buildingthat had been erected there in the yard in1853 was dismantled and erected at the
Prison which could accommodate up to 176
hammocks (Campbell 2010-2011, 7.22).

Historical Background and Context

25

The materials used in and around thePrison were a mix of imported and local,
drawing on whatever was most available
and affordable. The convicts had to take on,and even learn, a variety of trades and skills
including quarrying, lime-burning and slaking,stonemasonry, woodcutting, carpentry andjoining, plastering and painting.
A limekiln was established on the side of
the hill ‘…a quarter of a mile from the siteof the permanent Depot’, with the rubble
from the quarry and coarse sand burnt tomake mortar, plaster and limewash as wellas concrete for the early floors when goodtimber was difficult to source and expensive(Campbell 2010-2011,5.6).
Other facilities such as sawpits, carpenter,and blacksmith shops were initially locatedat Scott’s until they could be built at thepermanent Establishment being the East
Workshops. Limestone for the footings andwalls was not only quarried by the convicts
but also cut and dressed.
The final detailed descriptions of materials
used in the construction of the Convict
Establishment was reported by Wray to
the Comptroller General (Campbell 20102011, 7.21-7.29). Wray documents that the
cookhouse, bakehouse, washhouse, anddrying closet were paved with Yorkshire flags,
which had been imported as ballast fromships, and woodblock floors. The warder andboiler rooms were floored with woodblocks.
In the Main Cell Block, the ground floor
corridors of 1 and 2 Divisions were originallylaid with Yorkshire flagstones. Divisions 3
and 4 were paved with dense compacted
limestone that had been found under
the surface of the ground around North
Fremantle and which was raised anddressed by convicts. The floors of the cells
and galleries were laid with jarrah boards
directly fixed to the floor joists, as were theceilings below. Local granite was used forthe external steps and thresholds. Cast iron
window sashes, corrugated iron cell doors,
inspection plates, locks, and hinges were
imported from England.

26

Historical Background and Context

All the timber framing was made on site.
The iron rails and standards and hammock
hooks were being imported from England but
because of delays they had to be made onsite at the Blacksmith Shop using iron sourced
from convict ships.
The lack of iron crucibles meant that
not enough nails could be made andso, as an alternative, porcelain crucibles
were successfully manufactured using‘decomposed feldspar obtained from thehills’ (Campbell 2010‑2011, 7.21). The
roofs were clad with imported slate andlocal made shingles. The front gates were
fabricated mainly from iron sourced from theconvict ships and, because of the inferior
quality of the iron used, were made sothat they did not require welding but werestudded with iron knobs. Brick drains werebuilt for the privies and pipes laid. An engine
house was built to accommodate the fireengine. A well was sunk for the workshops
and a pump installed to raise water.
There was a major setback when a whirlwind
passed through the Convict Establishment
in May 1856 causing significant damage toseveral of the recently constructed elementsin particular the chimneys and skylights
as well as the Perimeter Wall and theyard walls. Although most of the damage
was done to the northern and westernsections, as reported by Wray, now theActing Comptroller General, the Perimeter
Wall had to be rebuilt, and the opportunity
taken to slightly re-engineer the original wall
specifications:
The whole of the boundary wall has beenrebuilt two feet thick, the former being
eighteen inches, and from the exposed
situation of the prison site it was deemedadvisable to add counterforts to thiswall at eighteen feet clear apar, eachcounterfort two feet thick and three feetwide (Campbell 2010-2011, 7.24)

Still short of accommodation for the convicts,
and with the arrival of even more, a large
tent with a boarded floor was installed in theyard (now known as the Parade Ground) at
the end of 1856. The temporary premises
at Scott’s also continued to be utilised after
the Prison was built as extra workshops
and stores. When no longer required, it was
eventually converted into a lunatic asylum
until the permanent asylum and invalid depot,
also in Fremantle, was completed in 1864
(now the Fremantle Arts Centre). In 1856, theCommissariat at the Prison was constructedin the north end of the Main Cell Block,therefore the original Commissariat built in
the Fremantle townsite (in 1851) was nolonger required (Archae-Aus 2020, 21).
Convicts were housed within thecomplex and worked outside the Convict
Establishment during the day. Prisoners
formerly incarcerated at the Round House,
were now incarcerated in the Colonial
Establishment’s Perth Gaol, which had
been completed in 1856. The convicts werevariously employed in public works suchas the construction of public infrastructure
including roads, bridges and public buildings,
as well as in agriculture and mining for freesettlers (World Heritage Nomination 2008,46). They were also engaged in work within
the Prison complex including for the Colonial
Government. In 1857, the Colonial Secretaryshifted the responsibility of Government
printing to the Convict Establishment which
had set up its own print shop to provide
work and training for convicts. In 1858,
the Prison started printing the Government
Gazette which was a weekly publication
with the identification ‘Printed at Convict
Establishment’ appearing on official notices
from then-on until convict transportationceased in 1868, when Government printing
was transferred to Perth.
In 1862 the gravelling and landscaping of the
Parade Ground may have been carried out,
softening the original stark limestone surface(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 13).

Although administration of the Convict
Establishment in Fremantle formally cameunder the Imperial Government in Britain, theapproach to the treatment of the convicts
sent to Western Australia was considered tohave been more enlightened than in other
British colonies, an aspect that was also
reflected in the design of the compound.
This was mainly due to the type of convicts
initially transported who—as anticipatedby the settlers—had not been convicted ofserious, violent crimes but were generally
more petty felons, regarded as having
potential to be reformed and eventually
released into free society. There was a strongemphasis at the Convict Establishment on
instilling good habits and a focus on religious
instruction, with convicts earning ‘marks’for good behaviour, access to a libraryand ‘gymnasium’, and the opportunity toearn their ticket-of-leave (World Heritage
Nomination 2008, 59). However, thecharacter of convicts being sent to Western
Australia was to decline relatively quickly, withproportionally more convicts convicted ofserious crimes ‘against person and property’arriving by 1853 (Stannage 1979, 94). The
Solitary Confinement Block, is indicative of
the need to still provide accommodation to
enforce punishment for the most problematicand troublesome convicts, including
confinement in windowless (dark) cells.
On 22 January 1867, it was announced in
the Government Gazette that the Convict
Establishment at Fremantle had beenrenamed Fremantle Prison. This was inanticipation of the cessation of convict
transportation to Western Australia (andAustralia) in 1868 that would result in thegradual transition of convicts to prisoners.
In 1874, the water derived from the Prison’s
wells was also being used to supply ships
with pipes laid along High Street. As demand
for water grew for both inside the Prison andFremantle townsite, a below ground reservoir
was excavated in the South Knoll area
(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 54 and Palassis Architects
in conjunction with Godden Mackay Logan
2010, 104).

Historical Background and Context

27

2.5 Prison Colonial Era (1886-1901)
After convict transportation ceased in 1868,
the number of convicts housed at the Convict
Establishment steadily declined. By 1886
only fifty convicts were still incarcerated in the
Prison originally designed to accommodate
1,000 inmates. That year, the British
authorities transferred the Establishment to
the Western Australian Colonial Government,
officially marking the end of the convict
system and the beginning of the site as aColonial Prison (World Heritage Nomination
2008, 46).
Female prisoners were introduced to the
Prison in 1886, at the time making it theState’s only female prison. The Hospitalbuilding in the north-east corner of the site
became the temporary Female Prison, while
the original cookhouse, bakehouse andlaundry was sectioned off from the rest of the
Prison and converted into Female Divisionby 1889. The size of the Parade Groundwas slightly reduced at this time with theconstruction of a dividing wall to separate theFemale Division from the rest of the Prison(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 10).
With the Prison now becoming the Colonial
Prison, the old Perth Gaol had its last
hanging in 1887 before it was closed andall its prisoners and functions transferred toFremantle (Stannage 1979, 320). Gallows
were then built at Fremantle Prison in 1888
now making it the Colony’s only legal place ofexecution (Palassis Architects in conjunction
with Godden Mackay Logan 2010, 13).
Outside of the Prison walls, the Knowle,
originally built as the residence for theComptroller General then later used as theconvict invalid depot, was handed to theColonial Government who continued touse it as a Colonial invalid depot and later
converted it into Fremantle Public Hospital in1897 (Kerr 1998, 29).
The boom in the Colony’s population during
the gold rush of the 1890s, compoundedby the introduction of female prisoners andthe closure of the Perth Gaol, inevitably

28

Historical Background and Context

resulted in a dramatic increase in the Prison’s
population during this period. Works were
undertaken within the Prison and by theprisoners to meet the demands of theincreasing population, not just in the Prison
but also the wider area of Fremantle andvisiting ships. In the late 1880s and early
1890s the construction of a network ofadditional tunnels was commenced by theprisoners to supply more water to the Prison
and the townsite, with the water originally
being hand pumped. Construction also beganon the East Reservoir with three new wells
sunk in the north-east area of the Prison. In
1894, a new Pumping Station was built andthe associated network of hydraulic tunnels
were completed, located twenty metres
underground, over one kilometre in total
length, and cut out of the limestone by theprisoners. The tunnel network, which also
includes a series of shafts, drives and weirs,
extended beyond the eastern Perimeter Wallto underneath Hampton Road (Kerr 1998, 66).
In 1898, a Royal Commission wasestablished to investigate the systemsof punishment at the Prison including
the classification of prisoners, sanitaryconditions, and the administration of the
Prison (Fremantle Prison 2013, 43). The
report noted that the ‘structural arrangementof Fremantle Gaol [is] in no way adapted
to meet the very varied purposes which it
is now required to serve’ (West Australian
24 December 1898, 3). One of the key
recommendations was the abolition of darkcells (in the Solitary Confinement Block) andthat a proper system of prisoner classification
be introduced. These recommendations
resulted in the division of the Main Cell Blockand associated yards into 1, 2, 3, and 4
Divisions, and the increase in the size of thecells (Fremantle Prison 2013, 44).
More skills-based work/employment for
prisoners was also introduced, in 1901, when
the new West Workshops were completed,providing spaces for traditional shops suchas tailoring, bookbinding, shoe making, matmaking and sign painting (Kerr 1998, 44).

2.6 Federation and World War I Era(1901-1918)
The Prison population again increased in theearly 1900s with the continuing population
growth in Western Australia from the goldboom, but there were also other factors.
One of the main impacts to the Prison
population at this time was the closure of
the Aboriginal Prison on Rottnest Island/
Wadjemup. From 1902, Aboriginal prisoners
began to be permanently relocated from
Rottnest Island/Wadjemup to Fremantle
Prison. However, Rottnest Island/Wadjemup
became an annex of Fremantle Prison,
low-risk prisoners, including Aboriginal
prisoners, were periodically sent there aspart of forced labour camps to build theinfrastructure required to service the island’s
tourism, usually in the off-season (TPG
2015, 26). With Perth Gaol also having beenclosed in the late 1880s, Fremantle Prison
now became the Colony’s primary placeof confinement for all men, women, andjuveniles.
Segregation of prisoners had been
implemented at the Prison in response to
the 1898 Royal Commission to assist in
the management and administration of
the increased Prison population. The four
Divisions of the Main Cell Block had beenorganised with each division reflecting thelength of sentence of the prisoners. Prisoners
sentenced to less than a year were placedin 2 Division. Because the vast majority of
Aboriginal men were sentenced to less than ayear for crimes such as possessing alcohol orbeing drunk and disorderly, they were placedin 2 Division (Fremantle Prison ‘Australian
History Curriculum Links for Year 10: The
Modern World and Australia – Rights andFreedoms’, 30).

A new cell division (called New Division),for the separate accommodation of earlystage prisoners and first-time offenders andincluding a distinctive radial exercise yard
(panopticon), was constructed to the east of
the Female Division in 1907.
Changes were introduced in this period
relating to prisoner welfare and reform that
impacted on both the physical aspects of the
Prison as well as the prisoners’ activities andopportunities. The radial exercise yard in New
Division was demolished as part of these
new reforms, after only five years of use. The
system of ‘marks’ was reintroduced in which
prisoners’ earned shorter sentences for good
behaviour, as well as more leisure activities
and increased educational opportunities(Fremantle Prison 2013, 37 and 45; Daily
News 26 December 1911, 2; West Australian
8 November 1919, 7). The introductionof flower and vegetable gardens into thelawned areas of the Parade Ground in c.1913
also added to the reform opportunities at
the Prison providing additional opportunity
to enhance and/or learn further skills(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 31).
By 1910 the Prison had to be connectedto the town’s water supply as its own water
sources were no longer viable and could only
be used for irrigation.

Historical Background and Context

29

2.7 Inter-War Era (1918-1939)
The main development in this period
occurred when a portion of the Prison was
set aside as a Reformatory Prison under the
Prisons Amendment Act 1918. The reason
for this was so that first offenders could
be separated from habitual offenders andrecidivists (Palassis Architects in conjunction
with Godden Mackay Logan 2010, 13). Other
physical changes at the site during this period
included the introduction of a new Prison

Reception and the introduction of sheltersin the Exercise Yards. By 1919, plans showthat two small buildings had been erected to
the northwest corner of the Parade Ground,labelled as a Clothes Store and a Rotunda– also referred to as the hexagonal guard
toilet structure and hexagonal sentry building(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 62).

2.8 World War II Era (1939-1945)
During World War II, the Prison was
effectively split in two with the Department of
Defence commandeering New Division, theHospital, Commissariat and Divisions 3 and
4 of the Main Cell Block for military prisoners,
including enemy ‘combatants’ and ‘illegals’(Fremantle Prison 2013:46). An air-raid
shelter was constructed, likely in the west
yard of the Commissariat, but this no longer
remains.2 The Prison was returned to civil use
after the war.

2.9 Post-War Era (1945-1970)
During this period a number of utilitarian
structures were erected on and below
the South Knoll terraces using a variety ofasbestos, timber, brick, and metal (Palassis
Architects in conjunction with Godden
Mackay Logan 2010, 13). After 1948, theClothes store built in 1919 at the north endof the Parade Ground was either adapted
into the ‘Old Canteen’ building or was
demolished and a new Canteen constructed(Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage
August 2020, 32).
The demographics of the Prison changed
through this period, particularly in the second
half of the twentieth century. The 1950s saw
an increase in the numbers of Aboriginal
prisoners, both male and female, at Fremantle
Prison. The increased proportion of Aboriginal
prisoners was mainly connected to post-war
legislation changes that resulted in the closureof Aboriginal missions and reserves.

230

Although the segregation of Aboriginal
prisoners was not an official policy of theGovernment or Prison Department, it wasmore an unofficial administrative practice at
Fremantle Prison that had been establishedin the early 1900s when the Main Cell Block
was first divided into 1-4 Divisions (Fremantle
Prison. ‘Australian History Curriculum
Links for Year 10: The Modern World andAustralia – Rights and Freedoms’, 30).
The Aboriginal men—now accounting for
between 30-40 per cent of the total Prison
population—were still located in 2 Divisionof the Main Cell Block as well as in New
Division. However, Aboriginal women who,
like the men, also represented a significant
proportion of the female prisoner population,
were not segregated but located in the general
Female Division (Kerr 1998, 13). By 1965, thepractice of segregation of Aboriginal and nonAboriginal prisoners was abolished (Fremantle
Prison. ‘Australian History Curriculum Links forYear 10: The Modern World and Australia –Rights and Freedoms’, 30).

Information provided by Courtenay Heldt, Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Historical Background and Context

By this time, the noticeable aging anddeterioration of the predominantly convictbuilt Prison buildings was starting to cause
tensions. A riot by prisoners in 1968 brought
attention to the conditions in which inmates

were living. As noted in a newspaper article
following the riot, ‘Prisoners still have asanitary bucket in their cell at night … there
are two or three prisoners crammed in manyof the ‘single cells’ (Tribune 19 June 1968, 4)

2.10 Modern Era (1970-1991)
This period began with a significant change
in the social history of the Prison with thefemale prisoners and staff transferred to the
new Bandyup Women’s Training Centre in
1970, and the Female Division became partof the male prison.
In 1974, the State Government recognisedthat conditions at Fremantle Prison were nolonger acceptable and began to plan a new
prison. A report was commissioned on theconservation and reuse of the Prison, by
the City of Fremantle with support from theCommonwealth Government.
The Fremantle Prison Museum was opened
on 14 December 1979 as part of the State’s
sesquicentenary year commemorations andoperated out of No. 16 The Terrace. It was
run jointly by the Department of Corrections
and the Fremantle City Council. The objects
formed the founding collection including
convict material such as clothing, shackles,
tools and punishment items like birches
and whips. A Museum Register listing 390
items was entered into the Fremantle Prison
Collection from 1978 to 1985. The residence
at No. 8 The Terrace was converted to staff
club use.
Progressively the complex of buildings
constructed by Scott then Henderson for
the temporary Convict Depot in Essex
Street, and those built for its later purposes,
deteriorated and the last of the buildings
were demolished in the 1980s for the
Esplanade Hotel.

3

In the 1980s, the original Yorkshire flags andstone floors in Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 werecovered in concrete.3
By 1983 the Western Australian State
Cabinet had formally resolved to close
Fremantle Prison by the end of the decade.
It was also decided at this time to investigate
possibilities for the future use of the Prison.
In 1988, another riot involving 130 prisoners
broke out again over prison conditions andthe mistreatment of a prisoner, with five
officers taken hostage. Parts of the Prison
were set alight and approximately $2 millionof damage was caused, including thedestruction of the northern part of the roof of
the Main Cell Block, being 3 and 4 Division.
Although the Prison was heading towards
closure, the roof was reconstructed, and new
security measures were put in place following
the riot (Kerr 1998, 5).
As the Prisons Department started towithdraw to their new facility through thelate 1980s, the Prison had already beenrecognised as a significant part of thecultural heritage of Fremantle and the Stateof Western Australia for its connection to theconvict period. Its transformation as a publicmuseum and cultural attraction had begun(Campbell 2010-2011, 7.31).
The Prison officially closed on 30 November
1991 (Kerr 1998, 5).

Information provided by Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Historical Background and Context

31

2.11 Post-Closure (1992-present)
The final historic period captures theactivity and changes that have occurredat the site after its closure as a prison andits conservation and gradual repurposing
into a historic site that encompasses
tourism, education, heritage management,interpretation, and visitor facilities and services.
This additional stage also captures the period
during which the World, National and State
heritage listings were implemented.
The heritage significance of the site was firstrecognised in 1960 by the National Trust andthen by its inclusion on the former Register of
the National Estate (1978). After its closure,it was assessed by the Heritage Councilof WA and entered in the State Register of
Heritage Places in 1992. However, despite
the recognition of its heritage significance, thefuture of the site had become the subject ofmuch debate and controversy that ranged
from total demolition of the whole Prison
complex through to its transformation intoa major historic heritage site. In the end it
was decided to retain the prison complex
and repurpose it as a museum and tourist
attraction. At this time, the Prison was the
responsibility of the Building Management
Authority of Western Australia. A conservation
analysis for the site was prepared by James
Semple Kerr leading to the Fremantle Prison
Conservation Policy and the establishmentof the Fremantle Prison Trust to consider andguide future developments at the site.
A number of heritage management strategies
were put in place. This allowed for the historicsignificance of the place to be maintained
while allowing it to continue as a usefulcommunity enterprise. Areas of the site wereleased for new purposes: the buildings on the
Terrace were leased for short-term residential
and office accommodation; the Female
Division and West Workshops became theTAFE School of Art and Design; the Prison
Hospital became the Fremantle Children’s
Literature Centre; New Division was leased by
the Coastal Business Centre and a gift centre
and café was provided in the main entry areain No. 14 The Terrace.

32

Historical Background and Context

In 1992 guided tours were introduced at
Fremantle Prison run by a private tourist
operator as the Fremantle Prison Guardians.
(Fremantle Prison website) In 1993 the site
was vested in the Minister for Works in
the Government of the State of Western
Australia for the purpose of ‘conservationand management of historic buildings andancillary and beneficial uses thereto’ (Vesting
Order of the Governor of Western Australia,
21 December 1993). In 1994, the strip of land
between the Prison’s eastern Perimeter Walland Hampton Road, being Reserve 28226,
was amalgamated with Reserve 24042 andLots 1913 and 1903 became Lot 2095.
During the 1990s, more changes weremade to the residences along The Terrace
for repurposing. In 1994 No. 2, No. 4 andNo. 6 The Terrace were converted into rental
accommodation and in 1998 No. 8 and No.
18 The Terrace were converted to offices.
In 1998 Kerr updated the Fremantle Prison
Conservation Policy, which became theguiding document for the care and future
use of Fremantle Prison. Also in 1998,
the Fremantle Prison Aboriginal Advisory
Committee commenced planning for the
Aboriginal Commemorative Memorial Projectfor outside the Perimeter Walls. This had been
triggered by the death in custody of John Pat
in Roebourne Prison some years beforehandin 1983 and resulted in an annual service toremember all Aboriginal people who have diedin custody (Palassis Architects in conjunction
with Godden Mackay Logan 2010, 20; West
Australian 8 October 2010).
In 2000 works were undertaken to the Entry
Complex to create a Visitor and Interpretive
Centre. In 2002 Prison operations werereturned to the State Government from theFremantle Prison Trust and vested with the
Minister for Works. In 2005 a new addition
was added to the cultural heritage experienceof the Prison with Tunnel Tours commencing
in the old underground hydraulic networkof tunnels at the eastern end of the site(including under Hampton Road) that werebuilt by the prisoners in the 1880s/90s.

Clockwise from left: Fremantle Prison gatehouse present day open for tours; guided tunnel tours;
Convict Depot Exhibition

Between 2006 and 2007 extensive
conservation works were carried out to various
buildings including the Gatehouse, Main Cell
Block, Anglican Chapel and New Division.
Further acknowledgement of the heritage
significance of Fremantle Prison to the broader
community, in addition to its entry in the State
Register of Heritage Places, has been its
inclusion on the National Heritage List in 2005
and in 2010, as part of a serial listing of elevenconvict sites in Australia, it was inscribed on
the World Heritage List. Apart from the Prison,
the Knowle, Commissariat in Fremantle (nowthe WA Shipwrecks Museum), and Henderson
Street Warders’ Cottages are the only
other extant buildings of the early buildings
constructed outside of the Prison boundaryand relating to the convict period.
In 2015 Fremantle Prison was vested in the
Minister for Heritage. Since 2017, Fremantle
Prison has been managed by the Department
of Planning, Lands and Heritage and continues
to operate as one of Western Australia’s
premier tourism site, offering a range of tours
and exhibitions and educational experiences.
The Rotunda located in the north end of the
Parade Ground was deconstructed in 2016
and stored onsite to be reconstructed in the
future (Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage August 2020, 62).

In 2018 Fremantle Prison won the National
Tourism Award for Cultural Tourism (2017).
In 2019 Fremantle Prison was awarded $5
million by the State Government to carry out
the following works:
Conservation works to the Main Cell Block.
This included Main Cell Block underfloor
archaeology in 2019 that involved removalof the floorboards of the cells. These
investigations revealed material dating back to
the convict era and up to recent times such asconvict clay pipes, handwritten letters, slateetchings, drawings, photographs, clothes,
knives, smoking paraphernalia, photographs,
tattoo devices and tattoo designs.
Restoration works to the Commissariat toremove the structurally compromised ceilingand replace with a new trafficable walkway
so visitors can see the yard below. A lift is to
be installed to improve visitor access for tours
and events.
Upgrades and repairs to the Prison Hospitaland Parade Ground including replanting ofsome of the former prison garden beds.
(https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.
au/Pages/McGowan/2019/10/Urgentconservation-works-at-Fremantle-Prison-toproceed.aspx)

Historical Background and Context

33

Historical chronology – specific activities
The following table provides a detailed chronological history of Fremantle Prison.
The information is re-cast in Section 4, arranged by zone, to assist users of this AMP tounderstand the zone-by-zone site formation processes that have operated at the Prison.
Date

Event/Actions

1849

Colony of Western Australia was constituted as a penal settlement to whichconvicts could be sent.

1850

First ship, carrying seventy-five male convicts and fifty pensioner guards andfamilies, arrives in Fremantle. Elevated site for permanent Convict Establishment
is selected.

1851

Construction of the first of the Warders’ Cottages on Henderson Street begins
known as Warders’ 1, located between 19-29 Henderson Street.

1852

Construction of the Blacksmiths’ Shop (East Workshops) and Refractorycommences.
Construction of the first of the houses along the west boundary wall to housesenior officers commenced, the first being No. 10 The Terrace.
Several wells are sunk throughout the site, including in the southern end of the
Parade Ground, to the east of Main Cell Block and up on the East Bank.

1853

Southern wing of the Main Cell Block commences construction.
No. 10 The Terrace is completed originally as Chaplain’s House but wasappropriated by the Comptroller General and Royal Engineers for offices.
Construction of Warders’ 2, being 31-39 Henderson Street, is complete.
The Knowle is built (south of the Prison) – a private two-storey house which later
became the original premises of Fremantle Hospital.

1854 –
1855

The Entry Complex is constructed. This included the Gatehouse, entry court,
and military and civil guard houses being No. 12 and No. 14 The Terrace (bothtwo-storey).
Southern wing of Main Cell Block is completed and the first convicts aretransferred to site.
Boundary/Perimeter walls are completed.
Timber building relocated from temporary convict establishment in Fremantle
townsite and reconstructed in the Southern Area as Wooden Division.

1856

Clock installed in Gatehouse.
A large tent capable of holding 160 men is installed in the Parade for additional
accommodation.
Warders’ 3, being 7-17 Henderson Street, is complete.
A whirlwind causes significant damage to the chimneys and skylights as well as
the Perimeter Wall and the yard walls. Perimeter Wall largely rebuilt particularly
the north and western sections.

34

Historical Background and Context

Date

Event/Actions

1857 –
1859

No. 2 The Terrace, Hospital (northeast part of Prison), Cook House and BathHouse are constructed.
Northern wing of Main Cell Block is completed.
No. 8, No. 16 and No. 18 The Terrace are completed. Two-storey senior
officers’ houses (west end) are completed.
Convict Establishment is ready to officially open on 31 December 1859.
Government Printing services are undertaken at the Convict Establishment.

1862

The principal north-south metalled road alignment in the Parade Groundis established, alongside driveways leading to the Hospital and the East
Workshops.

1867 –
1868

Transportation of convicts to Western Australia officially ceases.
Convict inmate numbers gradually starts declining.
The Convict Establishment was renamed Fremantle Prison (1867).

1878

No. 10 The Terrace becomes the Superintendent’s House.

1886

Control of Fremantle Prison is transferred from the British Imperial Government
to the Western Australian Colonial Government on 31 March 1886. Less than
50 convicts remaining.

1888

Prisoners are relocated from Perth Gaol to Fremantle Prison.
Gallows are built at the Prison, which is by now the only legal place of execution
in the Colony.
A tunnels system for water supply commences construction.

1889

North-east corner (former Hospital) is walled off for temporary use as the
Women’s Prison, whilst the former Cook House is converted to morepermanent quarters for female prisoners. Hospital then becomes Invalid Depot(1889 – 1904) – potentially due to severe overcrowding at nearby Fremantle
Lunatic Asylum, until new extension to Asylum is built.

1890s

Female Division modifications completed.
The Guard Room (No. 2 The Terrace) converted to quarters.
No. 4 and No. 6 The Terrace built as a duplex (single storey) alongside No. 2
The Terrace.
The reservoir is constructed.

1893

No. 18 The Terrace is extended.

1894

New Pumping Station built (next to East Workshops) and the associatednetwork of hydraulic tunnels are completed.

Historical Background and Context

35

Date

Event/Actions

1900 –
1901

West Workshops is constructed to provide more trade/training facilities.
Roadway access to the Hospital is extensively modified as a result, with thenorth yard beside the Commissariat being covered over as a result.

1906 –
1907

New Division with radial exercise yards is constructed at north-east of site.
Hospital returns to original use after some years in use as Invalid Depot(1889 – 1904).

1911

Radial exercise yards demolished.
Other structural changes commence including demolishing walls between
alternate cells in Main Cell Block to increase cell sizes and erecting new walls
between divisions in Main Cell Block to separate different classes of prisoners.
Miscellaneous sheds and toilet structured are built throughout the Parade
Ground.

1919

Clothes Store and Rotunda have been constructed in the north-west area of the
Parade Ground.

1920

A portion of the Prison is set aside as a Reformatory Prison.

1940 –
1945

The northern half of the Prison is occupied by the Department of Defence
during World War II as an internment centre and detention barracks for military
personnel.

c.1945 –1950s

A variety of structures are constructed on and below the South Knoll terraces in
the Parade Ground, including utilitarian structures using asbestos, timber, brickand metal.

1968

Prisoners riot over conditions.

1970

Females Division buildings become part of the remaining prison after female
inmates and staff are transferred to the new Bandyup Women’s Training Centre.

1979

No. 16 The Terrace is renovated to become the Fremantle
Prison Museum.

1980s

No. 8 The Terrace is converted to staff club use.

1988

A second, and more serious, riot at the Prison in whicha fire in the Main Cell Block resulted in extensive fire
and water damage including destruction of the northern
section of the roof being 3 and 4 Division.

1991

Fremantle Prison is closed as a penal institution andinmates transferred.
Conservation works to No. 12 and No. 14 The Terrace.
Francis Burt Law Education Centre moves into No. 8 The Terrace.
Adaptation of Gatehouse for prison guides (Fremantle Prison Guardians)
and a café.

Above: Photograph of damage to the Main Cell Block from 1988 fire, Fremantle Prison Collection.

36

Historical Background and Context

Date

Event/Actions

1992

Fremantle Prison is entered on the State Register of
Heritage Places.
Fremantle Prison opens to the public as a museum andcultural attraction. Areas of the Prison start being leased
to multiple tenancies. Guided tours introduced, run by a
private tourist operator known as the Fremantle Prison
Guardians.
New Division leased to the Coastal Business Centre.
Conservation and adaption work to No. 2, No. 4 andNo. 6 The Terrace for repurposing into rental
accommodation.
Conservation works to No. 10 and No. 12 The Terrace
and conversion to offices.
Conservation works to Warders Cottages.
Conservation works/adaptation of Prison Hospitalfor Fremantle Children’s Literature Centre.

1993

The site vested in the Minister for Works in the Government of the State ofWestern Australia.
Female Division and West Workshops became the TAFE
School of Art and Design and a new studio establishedin east yard.

1994

Conservation works to East Workshops.
No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 The Terrace leased
as rental accommodation.

1995

Conservation works to the Main Cell Block.
Establishment of Interpretive Centre in Special
Handling Unit.
Excavation of fill from basement area.

1996 –
1997

Conservation works to Main Cell Block to interpret cell range in 3 Division.

1997 –
1998

First Conservation Management Plan prepared for the site (Kerr).

Conservation works to Chapel to façade and interior artworks.
Conservation and reinstatement of garden and fencing to The Terrace.
Conservation works to No. 18 The Terrace for Department of Education.

From top: Guided tours of Fremantle Prison; Warders’ Cottages; Conservation works to East Workshops.

Historical Background and Context

37

Date

Event/Actions

2000

Conservation and refurbishment works to Entry Complex to create a Visitor andInterpretive Centre.
Conservation works to Wray Gate.
Fairbairn Street ramp resurfaced with cement stabilised limestone.

2001

Tourism operations returned to State Government control.

2005

Tunnel Tours commence after conservation andinterpretation works carried out.
Conservation/restoration works to the external fabricof Gatehouse, Main Cell Block and New Division.
Main Cell Block upgrade of electrical services.
Guard House converted to Visitor Centre/gift shop.

2006

Main Cell Block fire services upgrade.

2007

Conservation works to Main Cell Block and Chapel
external stonework.
National Heritage Listing.

2010

World Heritage Listing as part of a serial listing of 11 convict sites in Australia.

2015

Fremantle Prison vested in the Minister for Heritage.

2017

Prison managed by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

2018

Fremantle Prison wins the National Tourism Award for Cultural Tourism 2017.

2019 –
2020

State and Federal Government funding received for works and upgrades
to Main Cell Block, Commissariat, Parade Ground and Prison Hospital.

Above: Gatehouse entry complex. Inset: Tunnel Tour.

38

2.12 Aboriginal Archaeology
Fremantle Prison accommodated large
numbers of Aboriginal prisoners throughout
its history. There is the potential for thearchaeological resource within the Prison
walls to reflect this demographic. Users of
the AMP must always be alert to the ways
in which archaeological features within the
Prison may be reflective of Aboriginal people
and their responses to prison life.
The area contained within the walls of the
Prison has been the subject of significant
land-forming, including the levelling of theformer Church Hill, well into the bedrock.
There is generally low potential for preinvasion archaeology to exist within the
Prison walls. If any were to exist, it would
probably be highly significant to Aboriginal
people (a matter that can only be ascertained
through appropriate engagement with the
Aboriginal community).

There is anecdotal evidence that the families
of Aboriginal prisoners at Fremantle Prison
would camp in the space between theeastern prison wall and Hampton Road when
visiting their loved ones. This kind of transient
occupation typically produces archaeologicalremains (camp fire ash, casual discard) thatis particularly vulnerable to destruction bylater ground disturbance. This area has been
the subject of considerable disturbanceover the years, for landscaping and building
demolition, and there is generally low
potential for archaeological evidence of suchcamp sites to have survived.
Policies 5, 6, and 7 of the Fremantle Prison
HMP emphasise the need for appropriate
engagement with the Aboriginal community
to identify and manage Aboriginal heritage
values embodied by the Prison. Action 5 of
the HMP encourages that a formal study be
undertaken to achieve that objective.

Figure 5. Watercolour by Jane Eliza Currie c.1830 probably capturing the hill that was later levelled for the Prison. In
the image the location is undeveloped land that Aboriginal people are depicted hunting on. Source: Mitchell Library
ML827 Ref: 404727.

Historical Background and Context

39

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
AND SIGNIFICANCE

3

Above: Excavation of the ‘Engine House’. University of Western Australia,
Discipline of Archaeology, 2014.

40

3.1 Potential‘Archaeological potential’ refers to thelikelihood of archaeological remains to survive
at a site. It is assessed based on physicalevaluation and historical research.
The potential for archaeological remains
to survive at a site depends on the ‘site
formation processes’ that have operated
there. These processes include the physicaldevelopment of the site over phases ofbuilding construction and the activities
that occurred there, such as past ground
disturbance. A site that has been gradedby earthmoving machinery may have low
archaeological potential because grading
works often disturb or remove archaeologicalevidence. Also, some archaeological remains
are more vulnerable to disturbance (forexample, botanical remains), while others are
more robust (for example, wall footings).
The archaeological potential of Fremantle
Prison has been the subject of a number ofprevious assessments, some of which havebeen tested by archaeological fieldwork.
The results of those previous excavations
are summarised in Appendix D. Figure
6. Approximate locations of previous

excavations at the Prison. Greater detail isprovided below, illustrating the locations
where archaeological investigations haveoccurred in the past, which gives someindication of where archaeology may notsurvive. However, where the archaeologicalpotential has been shown as ‘nil’ due toprevious investigation, many excavations did
not extend to culturally sterile levels. Areas
shown as ‘nil’ potential need to be carefully
considered.
However, some of the earlier assessmentsof archaeological potential are now overthirty years old, have never been tested
through fieldwork or have been overtaken
by more recent field investigations. In somecases, areas that were assessed as having
low archaeological potential proved to bearchaeologically productive.
Further, some of the previous assessments
spoke in terms of archaeological ‘sensitivity’
which confused the potential for archaeology
to exist in a location with assessments ofsignificance should any archaeology prove tobe there.

not to scale
Figure 6. Approximate locations of previous excavations at the Prison. Greater detail is provided under eachmanagement zone.
Archaeological Potential and Significance41

This AMP assesses the potential for archaeology to exist within each zone applying the following
rankings:
Grading

Justification

High

Documentary research indicates that there was historical activity or developmentin the area and there is a very good chance that physical evidence of thisprevious activity or development (archaeological remains) remains in situ because
there has been little evidence or history of significant disturbance.
Previous fieldwork has demonstrated the existence of archaeological evidence.

Moderate

Documentary research indicates that there was historical activity or developmentin the area and that there is some chance that physical evidence (archaeologicalremains) will survive in situ. There has been some disturbance in the area indiscrete locations, or insufficient to impact robust remains.

Low

Documentary research indicates that there has been no historical activity ordevelopment in the area and it is unlikely that any physical evidence of previous
activity or development (archaeological remains) would be present and/or
The area has been subject to significant disturbance e.g., as part of recorded orobservable development activities, and/or
The area has been archaeologically investigated to a high degree andarchaeology demonstrated be unlikely.

Nil

The area has been archaeologically investigated and archaeology removed ordemonstrated not to exist, and/or
The area has been excavated to culturally sterile levels e.g., into bedrock.

The potential for archaeology at Fremantle Prison is assessed on a zone-by-zone basis
in Part 4.

Above: Excavation of the ‘Engine House’. University of Western Australia, Discipline of Archaeology, 2014.

42

Archaeological Potential and Significance3.2 SignificanceArchaeological potential should be
distinguished from ‘archaeologicalsignificance’ which refers to the heritage
values of any remains that may prove to havesurvived. This typically relates to the abilityof archaeological finds to address researchquestions (‘scientific significance’) but
archaeological finds can also embody othervalues (e.g., social, spiritual, associative,
historical). Thus, there may be low potential
for certain remains to survive, but if they dosurvive, they might be assessed as being ofhigh significance.
This AMP assesses the significance of
the archaeological resource applying thefollowing rankings:• OUV: Where evidence of convictera archaeology is identified, thepresumption is that it will contribute to
the OUV of the Australian Convict Sites.
However, some flexibility is required,
and the presumption may be reversed
as the archaeological resource in any
particular location becomes better
understood. For example, there may becircumstances where a highly disturbed
convict deposit, or a convict artefactthat is commonplace in Australia, is lesssignificant than a highly intact deposit orrare artefact from a later period.
• High: Archaeological features that would
yield data that cannot be obtained
from other sites or sources and which
can be used to address substantive
research questions. Typically, these
are undisturbed deposits, in situ
features, rare finds, finds that are highly
representative of past activities.

• Some: This AMP avoids the designation‘low significance’ because it may beinterpreted as being dismissive ofarchaeology from certain periods.
Archaeology of ‘some’ significance has
limited ability to yield data that could be
used to address substantive researchquestions. It might yield data that isreadily obtainable from other sites andsources. Typically, this archaeology
is from later periods of occupation or
highly disturbed contexts.
These matters are discussed in further detailin Part 5.

3.2.1 Managing different levels ofsignificanceThis AMP is responsive to Article 13 of the
Burra Charter, which states:
Co-existence of cultural values should
always be recognised, respected andencouraged. This is especially important incases where they conflict.
This AMP recognises that Fremantle Prison
embodies a range of heritage values atdifferent levels of significance. It envisages
that these can usually co-exist, and that it willordinarily be possible to conserve Fremantle
Prison’s contribution to the ACS OUV without
adverse impact on its National Heritage
values and State significance. However,in those circumstances where there is aclear conflict of conservation requirements,
the conservation of Fremantle Prison’scontribution to OUV will prevail.

• Moderate: Archaeological featuresthat augment data from other sites
and sources, and which can makea contribution, although not unique,to addressing substantive researchquestions. Typically, these may haveexperienced a level of disturbance.

Archaeological Potential and Significance43

3.2.2 Fundamental principles
underpinning the significanceassessments
There are many ways of assessing thesignificance of the potential archaeologicalresource. However, Fremantle Prison has
already been assessed as contributing to the
OUV of the ACS for its convict-era values.
Hence its inscription on the WHL. Similarly,
it is included on the NHL for those values. In
other words:• Although Fremantle Prison embodies
a range of heritage values, it has been
inscribed on the WHL for its convictera heritage values not those from later
periods of use. The presumption is thatconvict-era archaeology is of the highest
significance, although archaeology fromother periods can also be of exceptionalsignificance, and in some cases thepresumption can be reversed.
• Those elements of Fremantle Prison,
including its archaeology, that illustrateconvict-era coercion, austerity, isolationand labour are particularly important, as
are elements that illustrate the adaptive
responses of the convicts (see Appendix
B).
• Managers must be alert to the ways
in which form and fabric, includingarchaeological deposits and features,
demonstrate the convict-era functions.

The non-convict archaeological resourceis also of significance although its level ofsignificance may be less easily assessed. In
Western Australia, places are assessed fortheir heritage significance having regard tonine criteria based on the HERCON (Heritage
Convention) criteria. Although archaeologicalfeatures may satisfy a number of those nine
criteria, they are typically assessed against
criterion (c), potential to yield informationthat will contribute to an understanding ofWestern Australia’s history. This is commonlyreferred to as the archaeology’s ‘scientificsignificance’.
The Heritage Council’s ‘Development
Assessment Framework’ (Heritage
Council WA 2019, 3) provides a number ofconsiderations for historical archaeologists
who are assessing the scientific significanceof archaeological features, including(paraphrasing the Framework):• Importance for information/archaeologicalmaterial contributing to a wider
understanding of natural or cultural
history by virtue of its use as a researchsite, teaching site, type locality, reference,or benchmark site.
• Importance for its ability througharchaeological investigation to reveal
obscured fabric due to subsequent
alterations or additions and in so doing,
reveal aesthetic characteristics of an
earlier structure, either through design orsetting.
• Importance for its potential to yield
information contributing to a wider
understanding of the history of humanoccupation of the locality, region or theState.

Above: Stoneware bottle retrieved during
excavation of the Women’s Prison, 2015,
Gavin Jackson Resource Management.

44

Archaeological Potential and SignificanceArchaeology can also be significant forsatisfying one or more of the other HERCON
criteria including:• Criterion (a) Importance in demonstrating
the evolution or pattern of Western
Australia’s history.
• Criterion (b) Importance in demonstrating
rare, uncommon or endangered aspectsof Western Australia’s heritage.
• Criterion (d) Its importance indemonstrating the characteristics of abroader class of places.
• Criterion (e) Any strong or special
meaning it may have for any group orcommunity because of social, cultural or
spiritual associations.
• Criterion (f) Its importance in exhibiting
particular aesthetic characteristics valuedby any group or community.
• Criterion (g) Any special association
it may have with the life or work ofa person, group or organisation ofimportance in Western Australia’s history.
• Criterion (h) Its importance indemonstrating a high degree of creativeor technical achievement.
• Criterion (i) Any other characteristic
it may have that in the opinion of theCouncil is relevant to the assessment of
cultural heritage significance.
The assessments of significance presented
in Section 4 below are based on the scientificvalue of the potential archaeological resource(i.e., its ability to address substantive
research questions) while also having regard
to the other criteria (especially historicalsignificance, special associations, and rarity).
In Part 4, archaeology that has the potential
to yield a body of data that is importantto addressing certain research areas is
assessed as being of higher significancethan archaeology that is of little value in thatregard. Where that archaeology is rare, its
significance is enhanced.

To assist, a thematic history has been
provided in Appendix B. This identifies theimportant historical themes that have been
the subject of substantive historical andarchaeological research in the past, or which
warrant such research into the future. It
includes indicative research questions against
which archaeological finds may be tested.
Archaeological features that can contributedata relevant to these general themes andspecific questions are generally assessed as
being of higher significance than others inPart 4, below.

3.2.3 Other considerations
In addition to the above, the following
three questions are commonly applied byhistorical archaeologists when assessing thesignificance of the potential archaeologicalresource, and they underpin the assessments
provided in Part 4 (Bickford and Sullivan
1984):• Can the site contribute knowledge thatno other resource can (e.g., journals,
newspapers, historical photographs,
historical plans, and illustrations)?
• Can the site contribute knowledge thatno other site can?
• Is this knowledge otherwise relevant
to addressing substantive researchquestions?
These questions have a bearing on the rarity
or representativeness of archaeological finds,
as well as their integrity.
Notwithstanding the above, it must always
be recalled that the Prison is listed on the
WA State Register of Heritage Places andis subject to those legislative provisions
governing places of State significance.

Archaeological Potential and Significance45

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND
SIGNIFICANCE BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

4

Above: Underfloor deposit in the Main Cell Block, 201946

4.1 Introduction
This section is designed as a tool to assist decision-makers in relation to activities that may
impact sub-surface archaeological deposits.
Using the zones devised for the HMP 2019 (see Figure 7), the section:• Assesses the potential for archaeology to be present; and then
• Assesses the significance of that archaeology should it prove to exist.

F

P

B

A

G

C

J

I
R
H
M

K

D
Q

L

E

O

O

A

East BankJ

New Division

B

East Workshops

K

Parade GroundC

Exercise Yards

L

Perimeter Walls*

D

Female Division

M

South KnollE

The Gatehouse & Entry Complex

N

Sterile Zones*

F

Hampton Road ReserveO

The Terrace

G

HospitalP

Watch Towers & ElevatedWalkways*H

Main Cell Block

Q

West Workshops

I

Refractory BlockR

Gallows*see detailed zone plans

Figure 7. The management zones at Fremantle Prison, extracted from the HMP 2019.
In the following sections these zones are assessed for archaeological potential and significance.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

47

The significance of the potential
archaeological resource will be the ultimate
determinant of the appropriate management
response. This principle underpins thepolicies and actions presented in Part 5.
The assessment of archaeological potential
makes use of historical maps and plans thathave been overlain onto modern satellite
imagery. The historical plans sometimes
include discrepancies reflecting earlier survey
technologies, and in interpreting the overlays
an allowance must be made for somemargin for error in the precise location of, forexample, walls and services.
Further, the historical plans are not acomprehensive record of the site formation
processes at Fremantle Prison. They do notrecord all of the physical changes madethere for over 150 years. Therefore, a level offlexibility will be required of Prison managers.
This AMP seeks to address this issue throughrelevant policies and a ‘Chance Finds’
Procedure (in Appendix E). These overlays
should be regarded as illustrative rather
than definitive of the potential archaeologicalresource.

48

In broad terms, the overlays and previous
archaeological fieldwork indicate that there
is high potential for the following kinds ofarchaeological features to survive at the
Prison:• Brick or stone wall footings;• Refuse dumps and refuse pits;• Historic services (pipes, drains etc);• Wells (in discrete locations);• Retaining walls;• Garden beds, kerbing, paths andsurfaces;• Underfloor deposits;• Roof cavity and wall cavity finds;• Industrial archaeology (shafts, drives,
wiring etc);• Isolated finds within fill contexts (e.g.,bottles, buttons, cutlery, horseshoes,
nails etc); and• In the case of Aboriginal archaeology,
flaked stone artefacts or stone artefacts
with a ground edge.
The assessments of potential areaccompanied by assessments of significanceapplying the principles presented in Part 3,
above.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.2 East Terrace (East Bank) and Reservoir,
Tunnels and Pumping Station
The East Terrace, Figure 8, is a key historicalcomponent of the convict-era planningand development of Fremantle Prison.
The East Terrace management zone islocated centrally on the eastern side of
the Prison. The visible components of thismanagement zone have a limited presence
in today’s prison; however, the undergroundcomponents are extensive. The East Terrace
includes the site of the original 1850s
convict era Prison bath house. In the postconvict period, the zone included the East
Reservoir and its associated extensive water
reticulation system, and the Pumping Station
with associated yard and tunnels. These
survive sub-surface.
This management zone is adjacent to theoriginal Blacksmith’s Shop and its associated
Carpenter’s Shop. In c.1899 an engine
room was added to the north exterior of
the workshops, just inside the East Terracezone (Figure 12). In 2005, excavations to adepth of 1m were undertaken between the
Carpenters Workshop and Engine Housenear the boundary between the two zones.
Numerous post-World War II structuralelements were exposed (concrete slab,
threshold etc), but nothing of an earlier
date (although the excavations did notextend to bedrock or sterile deposits).
These excavations indicate that there ispotential for archaeology to survive below
floor level within the Engine House building,but given the ground disturbance required toconstruct it, the potential is generally low.

Archaeological excavations in the early
1990s demonstrated that the remains ofa c.1856 Bath House and Flush Well havesurvived at the central part of the Eastern
Terrace. The Bath House foundations wereidentified, composed of limestone caprock,from approximately 0.25 m below the current
lawned surface. The remains of handpressed brick baths (pre-1870) set on cut
bedrock were also exposed in the northernside of the building. These were filled with athick layer of crushed limestone, dated to the
mid-twentieth century (when use of the BathHouse ceased).
Excavations in 2014 exposed the west wallof the Bath House but a wall to the east
(thought in 1990 to be the Bath House
east wall) may belong to another building.
If so, the precise width of the Bath Houserequires clarification. A number of baths andassociated ceramic and cement piping werealso identified. Ashy deposits were locatednear the baths, mixed with some artefacts,
although they did not appear to be thesubstantial ‘ashy pit’ identified by Bavin in
1990.
Previous excavations have also identified the‘Flush Well’ associated with the Bath House,recorded in historical plans, outside thewestern wall of the Bath House. Excavationsof this feature identified deposits rich inartefactual material, particularly burnt bone.
The Flush Well had been filled, probably withthe remains of the former Incinerator, among
other debris.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

49

Rectangular features, the footprints of small
sheds, are indicated in some plans. They
were demolished by about 1920. There issome potential for archaeological evidence ofthem to survive (Figure 10 and Figure 11). A
well is recorded in Figure 10, in the extreme
south-east of the zone, just north of thewall of the old engine room. Archaeologicalinvestigations have not identified it, and thewell may never have been built. However,there is some potential for its archaeologicalremains to survive at depth.

A plan from 1919 indicates that thepresent roadway generally follows theearlier twentieth century one (Figure 14).
Archaeological investigations in the Parade
Ground have demonstrated the durability ofearlier path and road surfaces and there ispotential for earlier surfaces to exist under thepresent sealed road. Archaeological evidenceof the original extent of the retaining wall may
also survive.

A Boiler House was constructed in thesoutheast of the zone in 1909. It remains
there today. In Figure 12, a horseshoe
shaped slope (possibly a retaining wall or
revetment) is indicated, which is no longer
visible. This may reflect the original land form
but it is more likely that there was a level ofland-forming to build the Boiler House, which
will have removed any earlier archaeology
within the U of the horseshoe shape.

Above: Section drawing of east wall of trench 1, excavation of the ‘Bath House’,
University of Western Australia, Discipline of Archaeology, 2013.

50

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 8. The East Terrace (East Bank) and Reservoir, Tunnels and Pumping Station management zone.

N
Previous Excavations

Bavin 1990

Eureka 2005

UWA 2014

UWA 2014

Figure 9. Approximate locations of previous excavations in the management zone (and adjacent).

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

51

Table 3. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the East Terrace and Reservoir,
Tunnels and Pumping Station management zone.

Archaeological ArchaeologicalPotential
Significance

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

East
Cisterns

Built 1887 –
c.1894;extended 1898

Water storage andtransfer infrastructure

High

High

Tunnels

Built 1854 –c.1875

Water storage andtransfer infrastructure

High

High

Pumping
Station

Built 1887

Water storage andtransfer infrastructure

High

High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)

Pipes (ceramic,
concrete and metal);brick walls; ashy
deposits; artefacts
in the fill of the well;artefacts in fill generallyHigh

OUV (convict)

Post-WWII structuralfeatures (brick walls,
concrete slab etc);
mixed fillHigh

Extended
1898
Proposedconversion tobaths 1911

BathHouse andFlush Well

EngineHouse

Built 1856
Used until
mid-twentiethcentury

Built by 1897

High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)52

Cut into bedrock;possibly brick lined;
artefacts in the fillHigh

Built 1909

Evidence of terracing or
retaining walls

High

High

Possiblewatch
towersc.1890Brick or stone wall
footings; stratigraphy

Moderate

Moderate-toHighPreviousroads/
paths andretainingwalls

Early twentiethcentury or
beforeFlag stones; compact
surfaces; road base;kerbing; stone or brickwalls; steps

High

Moderate-toHigh

Well insoutheast
corner ofzone

Built 1852

Boiler Yard

Filled in 1902

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 10. 1851 Plan showing the earliest indication of the Bath House in this zone, at this time the east reservoir andengine rooms have not been planned or constructed. The Flush Well is visible adjacent to (west of) the Bath House.

Figure 11. Site plan from approximately 1890 showing detail of the Bath House, East Cisterns and associated wells
and structures. The construction of the East Cistern, as well as the numerous subsurface services (pipes and drains),
will have impacted earlier archaeology. An ‘ash pit’ is marked as a black square against the Prison wall on the eastof the zone. Two rectangular features are indicated on the western side of the zone. In a later plan each one isannotated as ‘shed’ (Figure 12). Note that a well is indicated on this plan, on the boundary between this zone and theEast Workshops zone (see also Figure 21).

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

53

Figure 12. The 1898 Plan of Fremantle Gaol shows the structures labelled near the western margin of thezone as ‘sheds’. These structures are excluded from the 1899 sewerage and drainage plan, Figure 13,
but are again shown on the 1919 electrical plan, this time labelled as ‘sentry boxes’ Figure 14.

Figure 13. The 1899 sewerage and drainage plan indicates the locations of plumbing to the east and south of theBath House, as well as earliest plan of the Engine House. This plan shows the horseshoe shaped landform createdaround the north side of the Engine House, indicating excavation to construct the Engine House, and the probable
destruction of archaeology in this location as a result.

Figure 14. 1919 electrical site plan showing the location of the ‘roadway’, following a similar alignment to the modern
sealed surface, as well as the retaining wall in the south of the zone. It is possible that the ‘roadway’ follows andearlier informal path, archaeological remains of which may exist. The western side of the zone shows a ‘pathway’ andthe previously labelled sheds are now labelled ‘sentry boxes’.

54

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 15. The 1922 amended plan demonstrates updated plumbing associated with the Bath House. This planomits the engine room and locations of the sheds/sentry boxes.

Figure 16. The 1987 site plan for Fremantle Prison shows the management zone largely as it appears today, withapproximate dates of construction indicated on the buildings. The Bath House has been removed.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone55

4.3 East Workshops
The East Workshops are a key convict-built
component of the Prison. The workshops
are located in the south-east corner ofFremantle Prison. This management zone
includes the original Blacksmith’s Shop andits associated Carpenter’s Shop. In the latenineteenth century, an engine room wasadded to the north exterior of the workshops,
just outside the zone, replacing the ‘oldengine room’ (Figure 22). Despite alterations,
the workshops contribute architecturally
and aesthetically to the Prison, and embody
important historical heritage values.
Two structures were constructed in thiszone in the 1850s (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
By the later nineteenth century these had
been partially demolished and substantiallymodified, and the zone had been converted
into a Victorian era industrial facility (engine
room, large well, shafts and drives, large
water pipes, coal bin etc). The construction ofthese industrial elements required significant
ground disturbance and there is generally
low potential for archaeological remains fromthe earlier convict era to survive in this zone,
except in highly disturbed contexts.

In 2005, excavations to a depth of 1mwere undertaken between the Carpenters
Workshop and Engine House. Numerous
post-World War II structural elements were
exposed (concrete slab, threshold etc),
but nothing of an earlier date (although
the excavations did not extend to bedrockor sterile deposits). Excavations within
the Engine House itself in 2014 exposeda chimney base and flue, indicating that
below floor level within these buildings, there
remains some potential for archaeologicalfeatures from the later nineteenth and earlier
twentieth centuries.
The southernmost part of this zone was open
space for much of the nineteenth century
and then a ‘wood yard’ into the twentiethcentury (Figure 22 and Figure 23). It will havebeen much disturbed by the construction ofwater infrastructure in the beginning of thetwentieth century (Figure 22 and Figure 23).
There is generally low potential for in situ
early archaeology in this zone.

Above: Elevation drawing of trench 4, excavation of the ‘Engine House’,
University of Western Australia, Discipline of Archaeology, 2014.

56

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 17. The East Workshops management zone indicated by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Eureka 2005

UWA 2014

Figure 18. Approximate location of previous excavations in the East Workshops management zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

57

Table 4. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the East Workshops
management zone.

Archaeological ArchaeologicalPotential
Significance

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Unnamedstructures(theseappear to
be earlier
forms of theCarpenters
Shop andBlacksmiths
Shop, latermodified)

1856

Brick or stone wall
footings; post holes;
pits; original groundsurface; artefacts inintroduced fill

Low

Carpenter’s
Shop

Built 1856

Brick or stone wall
footings from convict
era; services (pipes,
drains etc) from later
nineteenth century
and twentieth century;
earlier floors andsurfaces (flagstones,
paving, compact
surfaces etc)

Low-tomoderate

Brick or stone wall
footings from convict
era; services (pipes,
drains etc) from later
nineteenth century
and twentiethcentury; earlier floors
and surfaces

Low-tomoderate

Disturbed refuse
pits; artefacts within
introduced fill;services

Low

Blacksmith’s
Shop

Industrial
uses until
PrisonclosureBuilt 1852
Extended1961
Industrial
uses until
PrisonclosureOpen space– later ‘Wood
Yard’

From orbefore 1862

OUV (convict)
Artefacts inintroduced
fill – some.

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth century)

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth century)
Low if not in situ.
Otherwise, OUV(convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth century)

58

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 19. The 1856 ‘Block Plan of New Prison’ shows the earliest structure located in this zone. At this stage it isidentified as a ‘Smith’s (?) Shop’ (first word unclear).

Figure 20. The 1858 ‘Plan of Convict Grant’ shows the Smith’s Shop as well as a second unnamed structure in thezone. They are freestanding buildings. The boundary walls of this zone also appear for the first time in this plan.

Figure 21. The ‘Plan of Fremantle Gaol’ from approximately 1895 shows the modification of the area into an industrial
zone with the addition of an Engine House and well, plumbing and drainage, and coal storage. The ‘Smiths’ Shop’and other building have clearly been much modified. The plan has been damaged, and the wood yard is not shownat the south (to right). The ‘W’ of the word ‘Woodyard’ is visible. Note that a well is indicated on the north of thiszone, where it becomes the East Terrace zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone59

Figure 22. The 1899 ‘Fremantle Water Supply Plan’ show the location of additional water supply infrastructure in thezone. The excavations for the construction of the Pumping Station are recorded as a horseshoe shaped batter. Such
substantial excavation will have destroyed any earlier archaeology in that discrete location. The substantial water
pipes required deep excavation which will have impacted earlier archaeology here.

Figure 23. Plans from 1919 show the location of the No 3 Sentry Post for the first time. The coal bin is still visible inthis plan, however, Well No.1 and other unlabelled structures are not shown in the area now simply labelled ‘Yard’.

60

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.4 Exercise Yards
The Exercise Yards are a convict era area
within the Prison. They have long beenfunctionally associated with the Main Cell
Block complex and Refractory building. This
management zone has a large footprint that
includes walled divisions providing evidenceof the classification and segregation ofprisoner groups. The zone also includes thegallows.
This zone has been hard-surfaced for over
100 years. Archaeological investigations
under other sealed surfaces (e.g., the carparkat The Terrace) have demonstrated thatthe construction of such surfaces does notalways destroy earlier archaeology, and may
actually seal and protect it.
This zone demands a cautious approachto the management of the potential
archaeological resource.
In the 1850s, the Exercise Yards area ismostly open space (Figure 26). The core of
the Refractory building is marked on plans,in addition to a shed (ablution?) and a well.
The general location of the well is marked
on later plans as a ‘pump’ (Figure 27) but
there remains the potential for archaeologicalremains of the well to survive.

By the end of the nineteenth century
the Exercise Yards area had been much
disturbed for the construction of services(pipes and drains) (Figure 27), and had
been broken into distinct and divided yards.
However, the 1895 plan (Figure 27) also
records interesting features that are typicallyquite robust and have a high potential
for survival subsurface e.g., ‘urinals’ and‘pumps’. The 1895 plan also records features
annotated ‘old drain’. If they were ‘old’ in1895 they may date to the convict era andreflect past efforts at managing water run-off
and waste.
The 1895 plan (Figure 27) also records a
rectangular feature with central roundel,
indicated by dashed lines. Dashed lines arecommonly used in such plans to indicate
garden edges and it is possible that this plan
records a vegetable (or even ornamental)
garden that existed for a short period.
From 1900 the Exercise Yards are shown
as being furnished with sheds for shade
and recreation. Sheds still stand in theselocations today. These sheds are typicallylight-weight structures involving discrete andrelatively minor ground disturbance. They
may not have significantly impacted earlier
archaeology within the Exercise Yards.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

61

Figure 24. The Exercise Yards management zone indicated by the red dashed line. This zone excludes the Refractory
Block, which is managed as its own zone.

N
Previous Excavations

Eureka 2013

Figure 25. Approximate location of past excavations in the Exercise Yards management zone.

62

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Table 5. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Exercise Yards
management zone.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificance

Drains, pipes,
urinalsHigh

Moderate-toHigh

1850s

Well and fill

High

OUV

Recreationand food
growing garden

Late nineteenth
century

Kerbs, garden
beds reflectedin soil deposits,archaeobotanicalremains

Low-tomoderate

High

Prisonermanagement

Twentieth
century

Wall footings,
previous surfaces

High

Moderate-toHigh – earlytwentieth
century

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Services

nineteenth
century
includingconvict era

Watermanagement

Some-tomoderate(post WWII)
Services

Twentieth
century

Drains, pipes,
pumps

High

Some-toModerate

Boiler room
and kitchen,
includingchimney

Twentieth
century

Flues, services,
food refuse (inpipes, voids etc)

High

Some

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

63

Figure 26. The 1956 Block Plan of Fremantle Prison shows the location of the ‘Punishment Cells’, the structure that islater called the Refractory Block. However, there is no indication that the exercise yards have been constructed at thistime. A structure to the south of the zone, linked to Main Cell Block, is labelled ‘Ablution (?) Shed’ and ‘Well’.

Figure 27. The plan from c.1895 shows the Exercise Yards in detail. A pump located in the southwest of the pumpyard appears in approximately the location of the ‘Well’ in the 1858 plan and may be a continuation of that activity.

64

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 28. The sewerage plan from 1900 provides the first indication of the southern extension to the cook housearea and the division of the Trail Yard into two yards and the Hospital Yard into two yards. The division of the Trail Yard
will have impacted the shed and urinal that were previously located in the centre of the Trail Yard.

Figure 29. The 1987 plan showing the modern structure of the Exercise Yards.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone65

4.5 Female Division
The Female Division (sometimes referred
to as the Women’s Prison) is located in awalled section of the north-western cornerof Fremantle Prison. The Female Division isa key component of the post-convict era
development that also incorporated andadapted an earlier 1850s convict era services
building. This management zone includes ahighly evolved complex of buildings; however,it still retains its discrete separate andconfined character within the Prison whole.
Limited excavation was undertaken herein 1990 (three trenches). The excavations
demonstrated that some walls in thehistorical plans may have been planned but
not constructed. The fill contained poorly
contextualised nineteenth and twentiethcentury artefacts.
In 2013 a survey was undertaken of mostof the internal spaces within the Female
Division. This demonstrated that cells with
intact, original floorboards have higher
potential for significant archaeologicaldeposits while cells that have carpet and/or concrete flooring tend to have lower
potential. Further, it was observed that cells
located on the upper storeys have lower
archaeological potential within floor cavities
because those cavities have commonly been
compromised by the addition and removal ofservices (e.g., ceiling fans, lights and vents)
in the roof spaces of the lower floor cells.
Generally, there is low potential for significant
archaeology within internal spaces and under
their floorboards. However, if any were toexist it would probably be highly significant.

66

In the external spaces around the Female
Division, the potential for archaeologicaldeposits is higher. Monitoring and sondage
excavation in 2014/15 in the Female Division
courtyards exposed a mix of intact anddisturbed archaeological features datingfrom the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
including electrical services, wooden featuresof uncertain function, pits, a brick feature,
part of a flagstone path and two former
internal division walls. Artefacts were also
recovered from the introduced fill.
This zone has been subjected to multiple
periods of demolition and construction,some of which involved deep excavation forfootings and services. This will have impacted
archaeological remains of the nineteenth
century. Deep features (e.g., the wellindicated in Figure 32) have a higher potential
to have survived even aggressive demolitionand construction activities. Previous studies
suggest some potential for sub-floor deposits(but the level of potential is variable andgenerally low). Services (e.g., water pipes) areindicated on historic plans and are likely tosurvive.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 30. The Female Division management zone indicated by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Bavin 1990

Jackson 2015

Figure 31. Approximate location of previous excavations in the Female Division management zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

67

Table 6. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Female Division managementzone.

Archaeological ArchaeologicalPotential
Significance

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Well

Built c.1856
Used untilc.1880Cut into bedrock; probably
brick-lined; fill withpossible artefactsHigh

OUV (convict)

Underfloor
deposits

Convict toclosureUnderfloor deposits;
evidence of building
construction; casualdiscard; rat nests utilising
lost and discarded
artefacts; concealed
contraband; services(pipes, drains, wiring)Low-tomoderate

OUV (convict)

Electrical wiring, pipes,
drainsHigh

Services

Convict toclosureHigh (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Surfaces

Convict toclosureFlagstones; compacted
surfaces; bitumenHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Structuralfeatures

Convict toclosurePost holes; timberelements; brick wall
footings from former
internal division wallsHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Artefacts
in fill

68

Convict toclosureIsolated finds (glass,metal, ceramic etc) within
fill – poorly contextualisedHigh

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Low tomoderate.
Convict finds
possibly OUV.

Figure 32. The 1856 plan of the gaol shows the location of the convict structures in this zone. These structures may
have been proposed, and it is possible that not all were ultimately constructed. Note the ‘Well’ to the east of thestructure.

Figure 33. The 1858 plan of the gaol shows a similar site plan to that recorded in 1856, with the exception of someminor changes to the western walls. This plan also shows the convict era plumbing of the zone. No well is recordedin this plan and it may never have been constructed.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone69

Figure 34. By 1898 the ‘New Quarters for Women’ had been added onto the western side of the earlier building, overthe location of the earlier well.

Figure 35. This 1900 plan provides detail on the addition of services to the zone, as well as changes to the internal
wall locations in the western parts of the zone. The addition of these services will have caused considerable ground
disturbance and the destruction or disturbance of earlier archaeology in the location of the trenches.

70

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 36. The 1908 plan shows the internal cell structure of the division. Changes to the internal walls in the western
location of the zone are evident.

Figure 37. The 1921 plan shows changes to the Wash House in the western zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone71

Figure 38. By 1922 significant changes to the structures in the western area of the zone are evident. In particular, thechanged structure of the kitchen and Wash Houses. The modern satellite imagery indicates that the core buildings
still reflect this plan, but there has been significant additional development in many locations, which will have
impacted the potential for archaeology in this zone.

Above: Fremantle Prison Gatehouse and Entry Complex.

72

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.6 Gatehouse and Entry Complex
The imposing Gatehouse and associatedEntry Complex, located at the westernentrance to the Prison, is a key convict
era component of Fremantle Prison. This
management zone includes the Gatehouse,central court, Non-contact Visits building,Contact Visits building, Onvict Depot,
modern café, and sally port. The Gatehouseis remarkably intact and presents a design
intended to intimidate, reinforced by theguard houses and embrasures that flank theentry. The Entry Complex includes convict
era buildings that retain their visual andfunctional relationships with the Gatehouse,
Wray Gates, entry court, and Parade Ground.
Archaeological survey, excavations andmonitoring were undertaken in the area of
the Visitors Centre in 2008, in the locationof the modern café. The area had been an
open yard until the 1970s, with attachedbuildings. In five test pits excavated to adepth of 600 mm, the excavators exposeda number of nineteenth century features
including slate-lined drains, a brick paved
surface, a limestone floor showing evidenceof limewashing, water pipes and stratigraphic
sequences. This work demonstrated
that within this zone, notwithstanding aconsiderable amount of construction overmultiple phases, there remains the potential
for early archaeological features to havesurvived.

Within the reception courtyard, somenineteenth century pipes were exposed
during monitoring works under redeposited
fill, suggesting that this open space may
have lower potential for in situ significant
archaeology.
Within the buildings in this zone (those thatsurround the reception courtyard) there issome potential for underfloor deposits. For
example, 2019-2020 investigations within
parts of the Main Cell Block demonstrated
that under floor areas within the Prison havethe potential to contain large quantities ofartefacts, especially from the post-convictera.
The archaeological investigations describedabove illustrate the generally high potential
for archaeology in this zone but that thearchaeology was typically disturbed by the
introduction of later services and structures,
reducing its significance.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone73

Figure 39. The Gatehouse and Entry Complex management zone shown by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Eureka 2009

Jackson 2015

Figure 40. Approximate location of the past excavations in the Gatehouse and Entry Complex management zone.

74

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Table 7. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Gatehouse and Entry
Complex management zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Construction
andmodificationof built form;
prison uses;
modern cafe

In continuous
use since the1850sWall footings andtrenches; drains andpits; casual discard;
artefacts mixed
with introduced
fill; services (pipes,
wiring); previous
surfaces (e.g.,compact surfaces,
flagging, paving)ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceLow(Convict era)OUV (convict)High(nineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)High(post-WWII)High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Figure 41. The 1856 convict era plan illustrates how the reception area was, at an early date, a much larger
open space that has since been infilled. The core structures of the imposing gatehouse are already proposed orconstructed at this stage.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone75

Figure 42. The 1898 plan illustrates how much ground disturbance has been caused in this area by the excavation of
trenches for services (pipes, gully traps etc).

Figure 43. The 1899 plan showing the addition of the ‘Photography’ structure. The garden in the north of thereception area, that was built over in the 1970s, and then by the present café, is visible to the left. Archaeologicalinvestigations in this location exposed nineteenth century features including drains and paved surfaces.

76

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 44. By 1908 the Photography structure is no longer visible, and a Visitors Room has been added adjacent to
the Fire Engine.

Figure 45. By 1919, the Visitors Room has been divided to include the Reception. The satellite imagery underlying theplan demonstrates that significant development in the Yard, and adjacent to this structure, has been undertaken. Thisdevelopment will have reduced the potential for earlier archaeology in these areas.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone77

4.7 Hampton Road Reserve
The Hampton Road Reserve is located tothe east of the perimeter wall, adjacent toHampton Road. The Reserve is significant
for its historical relationship with the Prisonand makes an important contribution to its
aesthetic values. This management zone islocated outside of the Fremantle Prison walls
but has the potential to include historicalarchaeology relating to the Chief Warders’
Cottages, and shafts, drives, and bores
linking to features within the walls.
In 1851, six cottages were built by convictson the surrounding outskirts of land
designated for the permanent Convict Depot.
These cottages were built to house Warders,
three of which were located on what is now
the Hampton Road Reserve. In 1989, six test
pits were excavated in this zone, in an effort
to uncover potential archaeological remainsof the three cottages.
Two test pits, excavated at WarderTownsend’s (later Warder Lambert’s)quarters, the largest of the three structures,
revealed that demolition had been thorough,and that any reusable materials were likely
removed from the site. The excavations did
however reveal that the building foundations
had been formed from cut and worked
bedrock. There was also evidence of a bricklined internal wall face, corrugated iron or tin
sheeting (likely roofing material and possibly
for some rear walls), one ‘in-situ’ veranda
post and deposits of crushed limestone
remaining from demolition. A third test pit to
the rear of the cottage uncovered an intact
red brick paved footpath extending eastward.
Artefacts retrieved from these pits weresparse and consisted mostly of domestic
ware and structural elements of the building
such as painted mortar.

78

Presently, this area of Hampton Road
Reserve located on the corner of Hampton
Road and Knutsford Street (formerly Hill
Street), is covered by what appears to be aloose gravel carpark. It is unclear whether
or not this carpark existed at the time of
the 1989 excavations, however, any further
grading and levelling of this area is likely tohave impacted the archaeological remains
uncovered. There is moderate potential forarchaeological structural and artefactual
remains at the site of this former cottage,
the largest, and longest occupied of thethree residences built on the Hampton Road
reserve, built in the convict era and used until
the early to mid-twentieth century.
The other excavated test pits revealed ironwater piping related to water infrastructureon the other side of the Prison wall of which
modern alterations had made at the junction.
The subsurface features associated with the
Prison’s water management infrastructure
are robust and have been protected fromdisturbance by other activities.
It was concluded from the excavation of test
pit 4 that the remaining three structures on
Hampton Road Reserve, consisting of two
cottages and a Watchman’s Tower were likely
in the same State, at best, as Townsend’s
quarters.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

A structure is recorded in the southernpart of this zone in 1900, including stables(Figure 52). It does not appear to haveexisted for long. As noted above, only
limited archaeological evidence of the more
substantial buildings from the convict era
were identified in previous archaeologicalinvestigations. Therefore, there is only low-tomedium potential for archaeological evidenceof this structure to have survived. Given
that little is known about the function of thisbuilding, if archaeological feature survived
intact, they would be of high significance.
There is anecdotal evidence that Aboriginal
families visiting relatives in the Prison would
camp on this reserve in the later nineteenth
and early twentieth century.

This zone has been the subject of thoroughand controlled demolition of the earlier built
form, as well as a level of earth-forming
for landscaping purposes. Ephemeralarchaeology (such as surface finds andshallow deposits relating to temporary
occupation e.g., camping) would beparticularly vulnerable to destruction as aresult of these activities. Deeper structural
remains have a somewhat higher potential
for survival but previous archaeologicalinvestigation of Warder Townsend’s cottage
demonstrated that even these have beensignificantly disturbed.

Above: Brick path exposed during excavation of the Hampton Road Warders’ Cottages(c.1851-1853), McIlroy, 1989.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone79

Figure 46. The Hampton Road Reserve management zone is shown by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Mcilroy

Figure 47. Approximate location of the past excavations in the Hampton Road Reserve management zone.

80

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Table 8. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Hampton Road Reserve
management zone.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificancenineteenth Deposits indicating-twentieth campfires, isolated artefacts
reflecting casual discard
century(stone, glass, metal)

Low

High

Warders’
Cottages

Built
c.1850s

Sandstone wall footings;
internal brick-lined walls(although possibly highly
disturbed); refuse pits andcasual discard

Low-tomoderate

OUV (convict)

Building withstablesc.1900

Post holes, refuse, surfaces

Low-tomoderate

High

Watchman’s
tower

Built
c.1850s

Concrete or stone footings;
post holes

Low-tomoderate

Some

Water
management

Built
1854 andafter

Tunnels and associatedshafts, drives, bores and
pipes

High

OUV (convict)

Activity

PeriodAboriginal
occupation

Potential Remains

High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)

Figure 48. In the 1858 ‘Plan of Convict Grant Fremantle’ the Hampton Road Reserve management zone includes
three buildings, and an additional small structure.

Figure 49. The ‘Plan of Fremantle Gaol’ from c.1895 shows only one structure in the north easternmost cornerof the management zone, along with water management infrastructure associated with the Bath House in theadjacent zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone81

Figure 50. 1897 ‘Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan’ shows the drive, current main, and proposed new main, inthe management zone. The structure in the northeast is still visible but its form apparently altered.

Figure 51. The 1899 ‘Fremantle Water Supply Plan’ includes additional water supply infrastructure. The Prison wall at
the north of this zone is depicted as making a dog-leg into the Hampton Road Reserve. This may have been planned
to incorporate the structure in the north of the zone but did not eventuate.

Figure 52. The 1900 Fremantle Gaol Sewerage Plan shows three structures in the Hampton Road reserve.
The structure in the north remains visible, but once again in an altered form. Two additional structures are shownin the south of the zone, one of which has a section labelled ‘Stables’.

82

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 53. The 1908 ‘Plan of Fremantle Prison’ includes detail of the structure still located in the northeast of thezone. The structure is labelled ‘Mr Townsend’s Quarters’ consistent with the understanding that this was a residence.
This plan is the only historical plan where the structure is labelled. The structure that included a section labelled‘Stables’ is no longer visible.

Figure 54. The 1922 ‘Amended Plan’ shows detail of the structure in the north-eastern corner, as well as the locationof services through the zone to the Hospital. No other structures are visible in the zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone83

4.8 Hospital
The Hospital management zone is located in
the north-eastern corner of Fremantle Prison.
This management zone includes the Hospitalbuilding, garden and stepped terrace on
the western side, and stone concrete steps
on the south-west. The Hospital is a key
historical convict-built component of theFremantle Prison that was built in 1856. It
was used as a ‘women’s prison’ in 1888 and‘invalid depot’ in 1889. It was reconverted
to a hospital by 1904, at which time the yardlevels were altered (1903), a morgue wasadded (1903), and verandas added (in 1905).
Kitchen alterations were made in 1979.
The above modifications, and the additionof underground services, visible in historicalplans from the late nineteenth century, reduce
the potential for in situ archaeology under
and around the Hospital (e.g., Figure 58 and
Figure 59).

This zone has recently been the subject of an
AMS and archaeological investigation (Terra
Rosa Consulting 2020; Terra Rosa Consulting2021). Those investigations included visualinspection of the floors and underfloor deposits,
test pits under the floors in rooms G-04, G-03
and G-07, excavation in room G-07, and astudy of certain graffiti on the building’s external
walls. The excavations yielded artefacts fromall phases of the Hospital’s use, from theconstruction phase (1857-1859) through thetwentieth century. These included buttons andfragmentary clay pipes.
These recent archaeological investigations
indicate that although the potential for
undisturbed and significant archaeology
in the exterior locations in this zone is low,
within the walls of the building the potential
is high, and the archaeology is highly
significant. The building dates to the earliest
period of the Prison’s construction and if
archaeological material from that period
were to be exposed through future ground
disturbance, it would be highly significant.

Figure 55. The Hospital management zone is shown by the dashed red line.

84

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

N
Previous Excavations

Terra Rosa 2020

Figure 56. Approximate locations of the past excavations in the Hospital management zone.
Table 9. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Hospital management zone.

Archaeological ArchaeologicalPotential
Significance

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Hospital(and for abrief period,
FemalePrison)Convict

Underfloor deposits;
post holes fromearlier building
forms; wall footingsfrom earlier building
forms; refuse pits;
services; artefacts inintroduced fill; artefacts
in roof and wall
cavities; stratigraphy
illustrating construction
methodologies

Low

OUV (convict)(High forservices)

High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)

Early garden beds;
kerbing; paths andsurfaces; retaining
walls; steps; services(pipes and drains etc)

Low

OUV (convict)(High forservices)

High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)

Garden andlandscaped
areas

Used until
Prisonclosure (nonHospitaluses today)

Used until
Prisonclosure (nonHospitaluses today)

Some (later
twentieth century)

Some (later
twentieth century)

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone85

Figure 57. The 1958 ‘Plan of Convict Grant’ shows the approximate location of the Hospital structure and Perimeter
Wallls. The convict era structure footprint is visible in this plan.

Figure 58. The ‘Plan of Fremantle Gaol’ c.1895 shows the Hospital building in its current location, as well as the wall
separating the Hospital Yard from the Reservoir and Bath House structures.

86

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 59.The excavation of trenches for the services indicated in this 1900 plan will have caused disturbance ofearlier archaeology around the building’s footprint.

Figure 60. The 1908 Plan of Fremantle Prison clearly shows the hospital and morgue. The terracing separating thiszone from New Division is included in the plan, however, the wall separating the hospital from the East Reservoir is
not shown.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone87

Figure 61. The 1919 plan shows the first indication of the No.2 sentry post in the north-east corner of the zone.
Basic terracing is indicated, however, the wall separating the Hospital from the Underground Tanks is not visible.

Figure 62. The 1922 plan shows the internal structure of the hospital buildings at this time. The wall separating the
Hospital from the East Reservoir is not visible in this plan.

88

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.9 Main Cell Block
The Main Cell Block is the most prominent
built form on the site and is locatedcentrally within the Prison complex. The
Main Cell Block is a historical, convict-built
component of Fremantle Prison and is criticalto the place’s OUV. The Main Cell Blockmanagement zone incorporates the whole ofthe Main Cell Block, including the Anglican
Chapel, Catholic Chapel, Recreation Hall,
library, and cookhouse.
The Main Cell Block has undergone multiple
phases of alterations and additions. The
main structure and chapel were built
between 1855-56, with the north groundfloor converted to hospital uses in 1888. A
new cookhouse and bakehouse were added
in 1889 (at the south end) and extended in
1909. Many cells were enlarged between
1912-1929, and the library introduced in
1925. These activities will have impacted thepotential archaeological resource in thoselocations where they occurred, but the many
phases of activity will also be reflected in thearchaeological resource.

In 2012, under floor and roof cavity
assessments were undertaken within roomsin the Main Cell Block.
In 2019, investigations included thirty-four
upper-floor cells due to urgent conservation
works for failing lathe and plaster ceilings.
The archaeologists excavated 1400 kg ofdeposits from those cells, including a verylarge amount of written materials. In broad
terms, most of the material comprised
post-1900 artefacts, but these have
exceptional significance for the potential toinform on some 130 years of incarceration.
The potential for underfloor archaeologicaldeposits in the Main Cell Block is high. If any
are encountered during conservation or
ground disturbance works, they would behighly significant.

There have been some archaeologicalinvestigations within the Main Cell
Block. In 2010, discrete locations were
investigated under the floorboards within theCommissariat (in the Steward’s office andClerk’s office). Very little archaeology was
exposed: some modern rubbish and somestratigraphic evidence of ground preparation
for the building’s construction (a layer ofcrushed limestone).

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone89

Figure 63. The Main Cell Block management zone indicated by the dashed red zone.

Figure 64. Approximate location of previous excavations in the Main Cell Block management zone.**Note: The 2019 survey is not depicted given the difficluty in showing surveys across multiple levels.

90

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Table 10. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Main Cell Blockmanagement zone.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificance

Underfloor deposits (lostand discarded artefacts
including paper andtextiles); evidence ofbuilding construction;
rat nests utilising lostand discarded artefacts(roof and wall cavities);
concealed contraband;
services (pipes, drains,
wiring); earlier floor
surfaces (flagging, paving
etc)

High

OUV (convict)

Underfloor deposits (lostand discarded artefacts
including paper andtextiles); evidence ofbuilding construction;
rat nests utilising lostand discarded artefacts(roof and wall cavities);
concealed contraband;
services (pipes, drains,
wiring)High

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Ground floor

Convict toclosureUpper levels

Convict toclosureHigh (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Figure 65. The 1856 site plan shows the structure of the convict era Main Cell Block, which included the Prison Officeand Chapel.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone91

Figure 66. The site plan from 1898 shows the extension to the Hospital wing of the Main Cell Block.

Figure 67. The internal division of the offices and divisions within the Cellular Division are visible in the 1908 plan. No
significant structural changes are obvious, except that the extension to the south of the Exercise Yards has resulted inchanges to the Cook House and Bake House.

92

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 68. The 1922 plan shows additional internal details, but no significant structural changes are indicated.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone93

4.10 New Division
New Division is located to the west of the
Hospital, on the northern boundary of the
Prison complex. New Division is a key
historical development of the post-convict
era. This management zone includes theL-shaped plan of the New Division building,originally built for early-stage prisoners, andthe location of the demolished radial exercise
structure.
This area was largely vacant in the nineteenth
century but in the later nineteenth century
was being used to transit from the Parade
Ground to the Hospital area in the northeast of the Prison. Substantial roads/paths
with kerbing are recorded in Figure 70.
Such features are susceptible to ground
disturbance activities such as the earlytwentieth century construction of New
Division and terracing below the Hospital(e.g., Figure 72). There is generally low
potential for undisturbed archaeologicalevidence of these surfaces to have survived.
If they did, they would augment ourknowledge obtained from the historical plans
and would be of moderate significance.

94

The radiating exercise yards were situatedwithin the bend of the L-shaped New
Division building, at the beginning of thetwentieth century (Figure 74). The radiating
exercise yards were only in existence fora short period (under ten years) but they
were a distinctive feature of the Prison
and archaeological evidence of themwould enhance our knowledge about theirconstruction, use and layout. They were
removed through controlled demolition
which usually results in a thorough removalof building elements (posts etc), and which
lowers archaeological potential. However,
the area of the radiating yards has been
hard surfaced for over 100 years, which may
have sealed and protected evidence of theplacement of post holes, drains etc. There is
low-to-moderate potential for archaeologicalevidence of these radiating exercise yards tohave survive. If they exist, they would be ofhigh significance.
New Division shares certain features with
the Main Cell Block and Female Division
where it was concluded through previous
archaeological investigations that there
is generally low potential for significant
subfloor archaeological deposits to exist,
or for archaeology to exist within wall androof cavities. However, if it did exist it would
probably be moderately significant.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 69. The New Division management zone indicated by the dashed red line.
Table 11. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the New Division managementzone.

Archaeological ArchaeologicalPotential
Significance

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

New
Divisionbuilding

Built 1904

Underfloor deposits (lostand discarded artefacts);
evidence of building
construction; rat nests
utilising lost and discarded
artefacts (roof and wall
cavities); concealed
contraband; services (pipes,
drains, wiring); earlier floor
surfaces (flagging, paving etc)

Low

Post holes, original surfaces,
wall footings, drains andpipes

Low-tomoderate

High

Post holes

Low

Some

RadialExercise
Yard

Built 1906
Coal tarred
1907(High forservices andevidence ofearlier floor
surfaces)

Moderate (early
to mid-twentiethcentury)Some(services, later
twentieth century)

Demolished
1912
Two
WoodenShelter
Sheds

Built 1908

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone95

Figure 70. The c.1896 plan shows the first indication of activity in the New Division management zone. At this time
the zone appears to provide the main access route to the Hospital. The walls dividing the Hospital and New Divisionfrom the Women’s quarter and the Main Cell Block are visible in the plan.

Figure 71. The ‘Cellular Division’ building is first evident in the 1900 sewerage plan for the Prison. The terracing
separating this zone from the Hospital to the east is also evident in this plan.

96

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 72. The site plan from 1900 shows an additional structure that is not evident in previous or subsequent plans.
That building still stands.

Figure 73. The site plan from 1908 shows the Radial Exercise Yards at the centre of the New Division managementzone, including a central tower with multiple radiating yards.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone97

Figure 74. The Radial Exercise Yards are no longer visible in the 1919 plans. The earlier terracing separating the
Cellular division from the Hospital may have been replaced, or this plan may not provide an accurate representationof these features.

Figure 75. The 1922 plan provides confirmation that the Radial Exercise Yards were pulled down. A notation says:‘Exercise Yard Pulled Down Materials Stored R.W. 126/17’ indicating controlled demolition. However, there remains
potential for archaeological evidence of the footprint to survive.

98

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.11 Parade Ground
The Parade Ground, also known as theforecourt to the Main Cell Block, is located tothe east of the Main Cell Block. The primary
access from the Entry Complex to the Main
Cell Block is through the Parade Ground.
This management zone has survived asa largely undeveloped and unembellishedspace, however, it has included definedgarden and lawn areas, and pathways androads, since the convict era.
This area has not been significantly disturbed
by activities requiring ground disturbanceand even archaeological remains in shallower
deposits may survive.
A well dating to c.1852, and located in frontof the South Main Cell Block, is recorded inan early plan, excavated to a depth of 40ft.
Although 2008 excavations could not locate
it, excavations in 2013 may have found its
rim. If it was constructed, as appears to be
the case, there is high potential for the well’ssurvival, including fill dating to the convict era.
Archaeological investigations in 1991 and2008 found evidence of early road surfaces in
the Parade Ground, especially near the South
Main Cell Block below the modern path,taking the form of 200-300 mm of crushedlimestone. There remains high potential
for additional evidence of such surfaces tosurvive within the Parade Ground.
In 2017, DPLH undertook archaeologicalexcavations in the location of a sinkhole
which exposed a convict-era sewer. Threetrenches were excavated along the drain’salignment which demonstrated that the drain
extended on a roughly east-west orientationfrom the Main Cell Block to cess pits outside
the Prison. Parts of the vaulted and timberroofed sewers were cut into the bedrock,with others being of brick and limestone
construction (Archae-Aus 2020, 29).

Monitoring work for the installation of a
new fire service in the southern part of the
Parade Ground also exposed a cement blockthat may have been a footing for an earlier
structure (Archae-Aus 2020, 29).
Other excavations in discrete locations
across the Parade Ground have exposed
fill deposits to a considerable depth (only
150 mm in places but extending to 400 mm
and 1.7 m deep in others towards the south).
These fill deposits contained later nineteenth
and early twentieth century artefacts(including perishables like leather), althoughpoorly contextualised. Nevertheless, there
remains high potential for such artefacts
to survive in the fill that extends across the
Parade Ground. Given their lack of context
these are of generally low significance.
The kerbing that is presently visible in the
Parade Ground dates to the twentiethcentury. It encloses garden/lawn beds
likely to contain artefacts mixed with theintroduced fill. Such artefacts are generally
of low significance. It is possible that thevisible kerbing replaces much earlier, lessformal garden layouts that were not recorded
in historical plans and which may survive as
discernible soil deposits.
A ‘rotunda’ is recorded in 1920 further norththan its present position, possibly indicating
it was moved from its original location. If so,it has been demolished but there remains
the potential for evidence of its footings
to survive. The rotunda is dismantled but
remains on-site, currently stored in the East
Workshop. It is intended that it be reinstatedin the future.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone99

In historical plans from 1900 and 1920, there
is a small square structure labelled ‘clothes
store’ (Figure 86 and Figure 84). It later
appears to have been incorporated into thewestern end of the longer extant building at
the north of the Parade Ground (rather thandemolished). If not, and if it was demolished,
there is some potential for archaeologicalevidence of its footings to survive at thewestern end of the extant building.
The Parade Ground is criss-crossed withservices (pipes and drains) that date backto its earliest construction. Many will survive
as sub-surface features. Those from theearly periods are significant. Those fromthe twentieth century are generally of low
significance.

On the basis of these previous archaeologicalinvestigations this AMP assesses thearchaeological potential of the Parade
Ground as generally high. This is consistent
with the Archaeological Management
Strategy for the Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground (Archae-Aus 2020, 31) whichconcluded:• the removal of any paving or turf within
the southern part of the [Parade Ground]
has the potential to reveal archaeologicaldeposits;• it is likely that in most lawn areas acrossthe [Parade Ground], modern turf
overlays more recent soils initially, which
in turn overlay older nineteenth century
archaeological features, such as paths,
old drainage pipes, other drainage
features and rubbish deposits; and• the existing bitumen road is also likely tooverlay and correspond to the originallimestone Metalled Road alignment,
which the excavation has confirmed
remains in situ.

Above: Prison Parade Ground. Source UDLA 2020.

100

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 76. The Parade Ground management zone indicated by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Bavin 1990

DPLH 2017

Eureka 2009

UWA 2013

Figure 77. Approximate locations of previous excavations in the Parade Ground management zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone101

Table 12. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Parade Groundmanagement zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Metalled roads/
paths andsurfaces

Convict
and later

Crushed limestonelayer 20-30cm deep;
consolidated andcompact surfaces.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Grass and
Shrubs(Garden Beds)

twentieth
centurybut
possibly
earlier

Discernible soil deposits(stratigraphy), kerbing,archaeobotanical remains,artefacts in the fillHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Clothes Store(later Canteen)c.1911 –1919

Brick or stone footings,
stumps.

High

Some-toModerate

Rotunda

1911–
1919

If it was in an earlier
location, brick or stonefootings; discernible
deposits (stratigraphy)

High

Some

Services(pipes, drains)

Convict
and later

Metal, concrete and brickpipes; service trenchesHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Well

Convict

40ft deep; cut into
bedrock and/or bricklined; fill possibly
containing convict-era
artefacts

High

OUV

Fill

Convict
and later

Stratigraphy to depth of
1.7 m in places; poorly
contextualised artefacts
from all periods

High

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

102

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 78. The 1858 plan show the location of convict era Well and Main Drain in the southern end of the zone. The
northern end of the zone shows the location of the convict era Drain.

Figure 79. This plan from c.1895 shows the addition of other services, including gas and additional drains. The
two convict era drains are still visible, labelled as ‘drainage tunnels’. The early convict era well and its associatedinfrastructure are not visible. This plan also records that a shelter shed has been erected, which is likely to have beena temporary structure.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone103

Figure 80. The 1897 Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan shows the location of the mains services that crossthe northern section of this management zone. These services are also visible in the previously c.1895 plan, but
are shown at slightly different locations. The detail of the c.1895 plan suggests that it may be a more accurate
representation of these services.

Figure 81. The location of two new drains is shown in this 1897 plan, however, the locations of these drains are notshown in any subsequent plans, suggesting that they may have been proposed and not constructed. The existing
convict era tunnel drains are still visible in this plan.

104

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 82. In the 1899 plan both the convict era tunnel drains are still visible. The location of the previously
recorded mains services in the northern section of the zone is now labelled as a ‘surface drain’. Details of freshand foul water drains in the western and southern parts of the zone are shown, as well as the location of an‘old drain to be stopped’.

Figure 83. The 1900 sewerage plan shows the location of new sewerage works.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone105

Figure 84. The 1900 site plan shows the location of all additional services works that were proposed or constructedin the zone. Possible structures are visible on the western boundary of the zone. The north-western structure is in asimilar location to a structure labelled ‘Clothes Store’ in the 1919 plan.

Figure 85. The 1908 plan includes the locations of services in the zone, including one of the convict era drainage
tunnels, and the mains that were not visible in the 1900 site plan, one of which is labelled ‘not in use’. Other services
shown in the 1900 site plan are not shown in this plan, indicating they may have been planned but not constructed,
their use discontinued, or they were not considered necessary for this plan.

106

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 86. The 1919 plan shows the location of the No1. Sentry Post, the Clothes Store, and the Rotunda. Note thatthe location of the Rotunda on this plan is not consistent with the 2020 satellite imagery. This may indicate an earlier
location for it, or that it was not important enough to locate it accurately.

Figure 87. Site plan from 1922 shows the location of new and existing works in the zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone107

Figure 88. This plan, also from 1922, shows the location of a proposed printing shop, as well as asbestos piping.

Figure 89. The 1987 plan shows the zone in the modern era. Structures have been built in the northern and southwestern sections, which will have reduced the archaeological potential in those locations. The construction of roads,
paths, and landscaping in the zone may also have impacted the archaeological potential of the zone.

108

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.12 Refractory Block
The Refractory Block is located to the rearof the Main Cell Block and is surrounded by
the exercise yards. The Refractory Block is asingle storey limestone building that is a key
convict-era component of Fremantle Prison.
Constructed in 1855, the building retains
substantial physical evidence of its convictera construction and use.
In 2013, archaeological investigations against
the south wall of the Refractory Yard exposed
stratigraphy illustrating the development of theyard’s surfaces (bitumen, fill, limestone fill).
The Refractory Block is contemporary with
the Main Cell Block and shares certain
structural features. Based on archaeologicalinvestigations within the Main Cell Block it isreasonable to conclude in terms of underfloor
deposits within the Refractory Block that
there is high archaeological potential. For
example, salvage investigations in the Main
Cell Block in 2019 yielded large quantities ofartefacts, including fragile paper and textiles.
The potential for underfloor archaeologicaldeposits in the Refractory Block is high, andif any were to exist, they would be highly
significant.
The yard was concreted in 1862. This may
have sealed very early archaeology, but there
is low potential for significant archaeologicaldeposits to have accumulated under theyards since that date.

Figure 90. The Refractory Block management zone indicated by the dashed red line.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

109

Table 13. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Refractory Blockmanagement zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Incarcerationandpunishment

Convict
toclosureUnderfloor deposits;
evidence of building
construction; casualdiscard; rat nests utilising
lost and discarded
artefacts in wall androof cavities; concealed
contraband; services(pipes, drains, wiring);
earlier surfaces (paving,
flagging etc)

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Figure 91. The 1958 Plan of the Convict Grant Fremantle shows the convict structure in this location labelled as‘Punishment Cells’ and associated walled yard. The accuracy of this plan is not precise, however, the building shownin this plan forms the oldest core of this zone, and remains in this location through the following plans.

110

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 92. The c.1895 plan shows the Refractory Cells building and the addition of baths on the southern end of thebuilding. The water and sewerage drains associated with the building are also shown.

Figure 93. The 1898 plan shows no additional changes.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone111

Figure 94. The 1909 plan shows the Refractory Cells and associated baths are unchanged. The location of plumbing
associated with the structure has minor differences from the previous plans. In particular, the ‘Old Foul Water Drain’
appears to either be an addition after 1898 or the same drains shown previously, but in a different location.

Figure 95. The site plan from 1919 shows the ‘Triangle’ inclusion in the Refractory yard. This location has been
impacted by the expansion of the convict era building in modern times, as shown by the underlying satellite imagery.

112

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 96. The plan from 1987 shows the refractory cells building as the core convict era structure from 1854, andthe additions on the eastern and southern sides of the core building. The underlying satellite imagery shows the more
modern addition to the building on the western, southern and eastern sides of the core building.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone113

4.13 Southern Knoll, Prison Industries
and Southern Area
The Southern Knoll is a key componentof the convict-era of Fremantle Prison. It
includes the remnant of the natural landformof Church Hill, which was excavatedduring construction of the Prison and later
progressively terraced. This managementzone also includes the site of the brickvaulted underground Reservoir, and the siteof the Prison Industries buildings. This zone
is a large area of utility that has included
introduction and removal of buildings or otherdevelopments over time to serve various
Prison operations including the gardens, butwhich for most of its life was vacant land
dedicated to gardens.
Therefore, although the area has been thesubject of long-term use, and activities
requiring ground disturbance, these activities
have typically been less physically intrusive
than (for example) the construction of newbuildings, which require levelling of theground to considerable depth.
The historical plans record the Reservoir
close to the southern Prison wall (Figure
101 to Figure 104). The survival of thisfeature was confirmed by archaeologicalinvestigation in 1990. It was furnished withfeeder pipes and related services which arealso likely to survive subsurface.
Very early plans record a ‘Wooden Division’for 126 men on the eastern side of the area
(Figure 99 and Figure 100). It is recorded ashaving been of light-weight design, resting‘on plates’, and intended for only temporary
use. This was the timber building originallybuilt in 1853 at the temporary convict
establishment in the Fremantle townsite(located on the corner of Collie and Essex
Streets) and relocated to the Prison in1855 to provide urgent accommodation.
Archaeological remains deriving from thisfeature would be vulnerable to later ground
disturbance. This was demonstrated by
excavations in 2008 that found no evidenceof the Wooden Division.

114

The historical plans record a lot of terracing,including steps (presumably stone) between
some of the terraces. This is likely to have
involved some cutting into the underlying
sandstone shelf. Such archaeologicalfeatures are typically robust and have higher
potential for survival. The terracing reflected
the gardening activities undertaken in thisarea. These activities have been carried out
in this area since the earliest days of the
Prison. There is some potential for evidenceof these earliest activities (kerbing, deposits
reflecting garden beds, and less likely,
archaeobotanical remains) but later activities
are likely to have significantly disturbed or
destroyed it.
An incinerator is recorded in the 1900
(Figure 106). It was later demolished. In theearly 1990s this area was archaeologicallyinvestigated found no direct evidence of theformer Incinerator was identified, but rows ofearly machined bricks were exposed which
probably derived from its base.
After World War II, a number of buildings wereconstructed in this area. They mostly remain
in situ. Their services (pipes etc) are likely toremain below the present ground surface.
The area is also criss-crossed with services(water pipes, drains etc) including a featurelabelled ‘Barrel Drain’ in Figure 102 , dating to1876 and towards the end of the convict era(which will have been a large, probably bricklined, feature). There is high potential for it tohave survived. It would be highly significant.
Previous excavation in discrete locations
across the southern area have exposed
fill deposits to a considerable depth (only150mm in places but extending to 1.7m
deep in others). These fill deposits containedlater nineteenth and early twentieth century
artefacts (including perishables like leather),although poorly contextualised. Thereremains high potential for such artefacts
to survive in the fill that extends across theSouthern Knoll and south area but they will
generally be of low significance.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 97. The Southern Knoll, Prison Industries and Southern Area management zone indicated by thedashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Bavin 1990

DPLH 2017

Eureka 2009

UWA 2013

Figure 98. Approximate location of previous excavations in this management zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

115

Table 14. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Southern Knoll, Prion
Industries and Southern Area management zone.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceCisterns, feeder
pipes, related
undergroundinfrastructure

High

OUV

Post holes, stumps,
isolated discard

Low

OUV

Cuts in bedrock,brick or stoneterrace walls, stepsHigh

OUV (convict)

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Brick-vaulted
undergroundReservoir

Convict

Temporary
Barracks
aka Wooden
Division

Convict

Terraces andRevetment Wall

Convict andlater

Built 1855
Demolishedat unknown
date butprobablysoon afterHigh (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Incinerator

Built 1900.
Later
demolished.

Brick base, brickflue, ashy deposits
and clinker

High

Some-tomoderate.

Vegetable
Gardens andCompost Bins

Convict andlater

Garden soil
deposits, kerbing,archaeobotanicalremains

Low-to-high(depending ondate)

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Post WWII
buildings –shower block,
toilets, concrete
products
and helmet
industries
Workshops/
sheds, andloading bay

116

Post-WWII

Slabs, stumps,
services (pipes etc)

High

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Some

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Services (drains,barrel drain,
pipes)

Convict andlater

Metal, concrete andbrick-lined pipes;
service trenches.

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceHigh

OUV (convict)
High (latenineteenth andearly twentiethcentury)
Some (later
twentieth
century)

Fill deposits
including outof context
artefacts

Convict andlater

Stratigraphy todepth of 1.7m
in places; poorly
contextualised
artefacts from all
periods

High

Generally Low
but care to betaken if Convictera artefacts are
identified, even
if in later fill

Figure 99. The 1856 ‘Block Plan of New Prison’ plan shows the southern area as being largely vacant space in theearly convict period. The ‘Wooden Division’ for accommodating 176 men is indicated in the northwest of the zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

117

Figure 100. The 1858 plan showing the southern area as vacant space. The ‘Wooden Division’ appears to be marked
but struck through with a wavy line, perhaps indicating that it had already been removed (or was never erected).

Figure 101. The 1897 Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan showing the construction of the South Reservoir, withmains and feeder pipes.

118

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 102. The 1897 site plan illustrating the large amount of terracing that occurred at around this time, probably
requiring brick or stone retaining walls. Note the ‘barrel drain’ along the western edge of this zone. This will be a
substantial construction, probably of locally-made brick.

Figure 103. The 1898 plan showing that the earlier terracing had been formalised but largely retained in its originalform. With the exception of the earlier reservoir and associated infrastructure (pipes etc), the area remains largely
vacant at this time, although a ‘Store Shed’ had been added in the east. Note also the steps at the middle of the wall
forming the southern edge of this zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone119

Figure 104. The 1899 shows the location of water management infrastructure in the eastern section of the zone. The
remaining area of the zone appears to remain undeveloped, but the purpose of this plan is to show the new water
infrastructure, and little detail on the remainder of the site is included.

Figure 105. By 1900 the sewerage management plan shows a shed with toilets/showers attached in the easternsection of the zone, and a small structure of toilets is visible in the western section of the zone.

120

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 106. The site plan, also from 1900, shows greater detail on the services, terracing, and structures in the zone.
A laundry building is visible in the centre north of the zone, and a laundry and bath structure is visible in the west of
the zone. The shed in the east of the zone is visible, however, the associated toilets are in a different location fromthe 1900 sewerage plan. This plan also shows the South Reservoir and the location of an incinerator (archaeologicalinvestigations did not find evidence of the incinerator).

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

121

Figure 107. The 1908 plan shows the incinerator, South Reservoir and store shed, the locations of which are largely
consistent with previous plans. The laundry and bath structures shown in the north and west of the zone in the 1900
plan are not visible in this plan, and may have been temporary or not constructed, or may not have been relevant forinclusion in this plan.

Figure 108. The plan from 1919 shows the location of the South Reservoir, labelled ‘Underground Tanks’. The shed andincinerator are included in this plan, as well as the structural landscaping with some changes from previous plans.

122

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 109. The 1922 plan shows the location of additional services in the zone. The shed in the eastern section of thezone is included, but no other structures are shown. A new latrine is included near the western boundary of the zone.

Figure 110. The 1987 plan shows the addition of the new infrastructure and landscaping in the modern period.
The underlying imagery shows extensive disturbance in the eastern part of the zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

123

4.14 Sterile Zones(Note: the use of the word ‘sterile’ in relation
to the Sterile Zones is not a comment
on whether or not the zone may bearchaeologically ‘sterile’. Rather, ‘SterileZones’ was a term used historically to denoteareas within the Prison where prisoners
were not permitted to venture. The phrase iscommon prison vernacular used to describe
the space between the perimeter wall andinternal delineators (commonly a fence).
It is used in the Statement of Significancefor the Fremantle Prison entry in the State
Register of Heritage Places, and in the HMP
2019, and has been retained in the AMP for
consistency).
The Sterile Zones and associated spaces
are key representative components of
the historical planning and operations ofFremantle Prison. The components of thismanagement zone vary in size and location,and include narrow walled spaces between

buildings, as well as zones inside andoutside of the Perimeter Wall. These spaces
directly reflect the need for observation andsurveillance and reflect attitudes to the use of
lethal force.
By their nature, these discrete areas
experienced little development and there is
generally low potential for archaeology tosurvive in them. However, this absence ofdevelopment also increases the potential
for archaeological remains that predate thedesignation of the Sterile Zones to survive.
For example, in Figure 112, two structures
are recorded west of the West Workshops,
dating to before 1890. The area appears tohave been used for multiple types of storage
in subsequent years. There is high potential
for wall footings and associated structuralfeatures of these buildings to survive.
Depending on their date, they may be highly
significant.

.
Figure 111. Sterile Zones management zone indicated by the red line.

124

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Table 15. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of the Sterile Zones
management zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Nineteenth
centurybuildings

Unclear.
Pre-1890.

Wall footings, services(pipes and drains),
underfloor deposits,
artefacts in disturbed fill

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceHigh

High (if convict –OUV)Figure 112. The site plan from 1898 shows two structures on the western edge of this zone. The structures arelabelled as Stores, and the First Offenders Room. Later plans show this area has been variously labelled for storage,
with some divisions in the area shown, but no clear evidence that structures persist.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

125

4.15 The Terrace
The Terrace includes key convict-era
components of Fremantle Prison. The
Terrace management zone is locateddirectly adjacent to the Perimeter Wall, on
the Prison’s western side. The landscapeand buildings are the dominant façade andmain face of the Prison, as it presents on its
elevated site to Fremantle. This managementzone includes the individual terrace buildings
and their defined lots containing gardens andfences that housed senior Prison staff. The
Gatehouse and historic entry to the Prison
are also associated with this managementzone.
In 1998, an archaeological investigation offormer ground surfaces and features along
the western side of Fremantle Prison wascommissioned by Considine and Griffiths
Architects. The main objectives of the project
were to examine evidence of former verandah
structures and the original ground levels ofadjacent gardens.
Archaeological excavation on the westernside of No. 12 The Terrace (in 2009) exposedin situ timber joists from the original (or an
early) veranda, which had been built over by
the contemporary concrete veranda. Similarly,
in 2011, adjacent to No. 8 The Terrace (on its
southwest side), archaeological excavations
exposed an early surface with post holes andposts (belonging to a building not elsewhererecorded). These features were beneath the
mid-twentieth century carpark that is still inthis location, indicating that the carpark may
have sealed and preserved archaeologicalfeatures rather than destroyed them. Thismay be the case for all of the sealed surfaces(road and carparks) on The Terrace.

126

In 2009, archaeological investigations werecarried out on the south wall of the stables(in the carpark area south of No. 18 The
Terrace). These investigations exposed amixed fill containing nineteenth and earlytwentieth century artefacts, probably
deriving from outside the Prison, and of low
significance.
Excavations at the location of the Knutsford
Street Ramp (which is depicted in water
colours form 1859 and 1864) demonstrated
that archaeological remains of the original
surface survive 200-260mm below present
ground surfaces (up to 0.5-1m in places).
It comprises a 200-250mm thick layer ofcrushed limestone. Therefore, there is highpotential for archaeology related to theoriginal path/ramp and it is highly significant(OUV).
These archaeological investigations
demonstrated that The Terrace remains
an area with generally high potential for insitu archaeology from an early date. Given
the largely residential nature of The Terrace
there is the potential for such archaeologicalevidence as: services (pipes, drains, etc),
paths and road surfaces (e.g., compacted
surfaces, kerbing, crushed stone, roadbase), garden beds in front yards, posts andpost holes, and artefacts contained within
redeposited fill.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 113. The Terrace management zone indicated by the dashed red line.

N
Previous Excavations

Eureka 2009

Eureka 2010

Jackson 2015

Gibbs and Edwards

Figure 114. Approximate locations of previous excavations in the Terrace management zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

127

Table 16. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of The Terrace management zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificanceLand formingfor Prison
construction

Convict
andlater

Cuts and fill

High

Convict – OUVNineteenth
century – High
Other - Some

Roads andaccessConvict
andlater

Crushed limestone surface/base, compact surfaces,
sealed surfaces

High

OUV

Residential
development(cottages)

Convict
andlater

Refuse pits and dumps,
post holes, veranda posts,
brick and stone wall
footings, garden beds, paths
and surfaces (e.g., brickpaved or concrete), artefacts
in mixed fill, services

High

Convict – OUV

200-250mm thick layer ofcrushed limestone, being
the surface.

High

Knutsford
Street Ramp

Convict
andafter

Nineteenth
century – High
Other –
Moderate-toSome
OUV

Figure 115. The plan from 1856 shows the convict era layout of the terrace management zone. The imposing
gate house is evident, and the symmetry of the associated structures. However, at this date The Terrace is largely
undeveloped.

Figure 116. The 1858 plan shows the addition of convict era residences in the zone, a light sketch in the southernarea of the zone also appears to be the stables that are shown in later plans. The Knutsford Street Ramp is notrecorded but it is depicted in a water colour from 1859 (at the north end of this zone).

128

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 117. This plan from c.1890 shows the location of the key convict era structures in the zone, as well as
the location of water mains and drains. The residences are labelled, left to right, ‘Chaplain’, ‘Superintendent’,‘Magistrate’, and ‘Medical Officer’.

Figure 118. The plan from c.1895 includes detail of the main access tracks and road in the zone. In many cases
these follow the locations of the modern layout as indicated by the underlying 2020 satellite imagery. There is highpotential for the earlier surfaces to survive under the modern road/path surfaces.

Figure 119. The 1898 plan provides clear detail on the location and form of the convict era structures during thelate nineteenth century. Mostly they accord with the footprints of the extant buildings, although there have beenalterations and additions to the northernmost residence. This overlay illustrates how the modern carpark surface
overlies earlier archaeology. Investigations have demonstrated the high potential for archaeology underneath.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

129

Figure 120. The 1899 plan provides similar detail to the 1989 plan, but with slightly changed locations for services
that run through the zone. The trenches excavated for these pipes will have caused significant disturbance but only indiscrete locations.

Figure 121. The 1900 sewerage plan shows the location of sewerage infrastructure.

Figure 122. In 1919 the form of the structures in the north of the zone has been modified, and they now more clearlyreflect the modern form of these buildings.

130

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 123. The plan from 1922 shows the Post WW1 form of the structures in the zone.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

131

4.16 Watch Towers and Elevated Walkways
The watch towers and elevated walkways
do not satisfy a traditional definition of‘archaeology’. However, the order andmethods of their construction are discernible
from the above-surface fabric. These features

are relatively well-understood from othersources so although there is high potential
for built archaeology, it is only of somesignificance.

Figure 124. The Watch Towers and Elevated Walkways management zone indicated by the dashed red areas.
Table 17. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of The Watchtowers and ElevatedWalkways management zone.

132

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

Construction
andmaintenance

Twentieth
century

Fabric indicating order of
construction, methods ofconstruction

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificance

High

Some

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

4.17 West Workshops
For almost all of the nineteenth century, thiszone was vacant. No structures are recorded
except for drains and pipes. The 1900
sewer plan illustrates the construction of theneat rectangular structures comprising theNo. 1 Store, Printing Shop, Tailor’s Shop,
Bootmaker’s Shop and Mat Maker’s Shop.
It appears that they were constructed onotherwise undeveloped land (save the few

drains and pipes) and there is low potential
for nineteenth century archaeology to survive
under the existing floor surfaces.
This was confirmed by recent archaeologicalinvestigations in this location, as part of amonitoring exercise. Although disturbed
archaeology from the twentieth century wasobserved, it was not significant.

Figure 125. The West Workshops zone indicated by the dashed red areas.
Table 18. Summary of the archaeological potential and archaeological significance of The West Workshops
management zone.

Activity

PeriodPotential Remains

ArchaeologicalPotential

ArchaeologicalSignificance

Services

Nineteenth
century

Drains and pipes

High

Some-tomoderate(convict drains– OUV)

Workshops

Twentieth
century

Services, artefacts inmixed fill

Moderate

Some

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone133

Figure 126. The 1851 plan shows that this zone was vacant land at the start of the convict period.

Figure 127. In 1858, this zone was still vacant (although a ‘Drain’ crosses it). This would be a convict era structure.

Figure 128. In c.1895 the zone remains undeveloped, although still crossed by various drains and pipes for services.

134

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 129. In 1897 more pipes and drains are added.

Figure 130. By 1900 the sewerage has been installed as part of the construction of the workshops.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone135

Figure 131. The 1900 site plan indicates the layout of the workshops in general terms.

Figure 132. The 1908 plan reproduces the information in the 1900 plan.

Figure 133. In 1909 a ‘draining tunnel’ is indicated, forming a T-intersection within the workshops, following thealignment of earlier drains.

136

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

Figure 134. Plan showing the general arrangement in 1987.

Archaeological Potential and Significance by Management Zone

137

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES,
PRINCIPLES AND ACTIONS

5138

5.1 Policies from the HMP 2019
The following policies are taken from the 2019 HMP’s overarching policy on archaeology. The
full policy is provided in Appendix C. The full policy includes critical information concerning:• Management objectives in relation to the known and potential archaeological resource;• Risks to be avoided; and• Constraints and opportunities imposed by the known and potential archaeologicalresource.
Some of the practical implications of the policies are described in the column headed‘Commentary’ in the Table below. They should be read with the HMP 2019.
HMP 2019 Policy #Commentary

POLICY 8

This AMP has assessed the significance of the known
and potential archaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison. However, these assessments cannot be definitivein every circumstance. For example, there may becircumstances where a highly disturbed convict deposit,
or a convict artefact that is commonplace in Australia,
is less significant than a highly intact deposit or rareartefact from a later period. Use the historical thematic
framework and research questions in Appendix B tomake the final assessment. Apply the three Bickford and
Sullivan questions to assist.

The known and potential
archaeological resource
at Fremantle Prison will be
managed according to its
significance. Usually thiswill comprise its ‘scientificsignificance’ (i.e., its ability toaddress substantive researchquestions). However, thearchaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison may also
embody other heritage values(e.g., social significance).

Recall that if the archaeology is significant for its ability
to answer substantive research questions (‘scientificsignificance’), once the relevant data have been
extracted from the archaeology, it could be argued
that archaeology (artefacts, soil samples, wall footingsetc) does not need to be retained in the archaeologicalcollection. In these cases, the principal management
regime shifts from being this AMP to other documents in
the Management Framework such as the management
documents regarding the collections, interpretation etc.
Key indicators of whether or not the archaeology has met
its scientific potential include:(a) appropriate excavation methodologies were used, thatwere approved beforehand, and which are based on aproperly prepared Archaeological Research Design (Policy
9 below);(b) a post-excavation report has been prepared by the
excavators and other specialists, including detailed
artefact analysis (incorporating professional photographs,
measured drawings, and text) that describes the
excavation process and the results, and addresses
the research questions outlined in the ArchaeologicalResearch Design;

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

139

HMP 2019 Policy #Commentary

POLICY 8 cont.

(c) the excavators have indicated in writing that the
excavated material has met its research potential anddoes not need to be retained (e.g., in situ or in themuseum collection).
The post excavation report will have been in a highquality format and publicly accessible. Ideally, the results
will be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal(see Policy 14 below).
Prior to commencing any archaeological investigations,
all archaeologists must understand that their obligations
include the preparation of an Archaeological Research
Design, and a post-excavation report that includes
analysis of the research potential of the excavatedmaterial.
Where the archaeologist states that archaeologicalmaterial does not need to be retained for research
purposes, the Prison may nevertheless retain it forother purposes e.g., they may make engaging exhibits.
That decision would be made subject to collections
management and interpretation documentation.

POLICY 9
Archaeological excavation
at Fremantle Prison will be
underpinned by substantive
research questions expressedin an ArchaeologicalResearch Design preparedby an experienced historicalarchaeologist prior to works
commencing.
POLICY 10
Significant archaeologicalfeatures will not be damaged
or disturbed unless this isnecessary for overwhelming
research, safety or conservation
reasons. Fremantle Prison
will seek to retain significant
archaeology in situ.

140

The Archaeological Research Design (ARD) is a standard
requirement for archaeological excavations. An ARD
presents the proposed excavation methodology,
which will usually be tailored to respond to identified
research questions. The research questions presented
in Appendix B make a good foundation for an ARD.
The post-excavation report must also seek to address
relevant research questions. This maximises its researchpotential and respects the significance of the known andpotential archaeological resource.
The fundamental principle of archaeological heritage
management is that the archaeology should remain
undisturbed unless there is an overwhelming reason
not to. This is because archaeological excavation isinherently a physically intrusive exercise that does
damage to the archaeology itself. That damage it
mitigated by ensuring that its research potential is met(Policy 8 above).
Some appropriate reasons for disturbing thearchaeological resource through excavation include:
the research gains would be excellent, and sufficient tojustify the damage that the investigations would cause;or an unsafe or unhealthy situation has arisen that needs
to be rectified (e.g., plumbing has failed and needs to be
replaced or wall footings have failed and need repair),which requires ground disturbance.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

HMP 2019 Policy #Commentary

POLICY 10 cont.

Policy 10 also speaks of damage or disturbance ofarchaeological features being appropriate if there are‘overwhelming conservation reasons’. The Burra Charter(Article 1.4) defines ‘conservation’ as being ‘all theprocesses of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural
significance’. This includes the maintenance of heritagebuildings, heritage interpretation, and sometimes, newbuilt form. Therefore, Policy 10 envisages that damage
or disturbance of the archaeology (including throughexcavation) may be appropriate where there are otheroverwhelming heritage conservation advantages. For
example, it may be appropriate to cause some damage
or disturbance to the archaeological record in the Parade
Ground if this would assist to implement the Master Plan
(which has been assessed as having an overwhelmingly
positive outcome for Fremantle Prison’s heritage values).

POLICY 11

This AMP has assessed the significance of the known
and potential archaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison. However, these assessments cannot be definitivein every circumstance. For example, there may becircumstances where a highly disturbed convict deposit,
or a convict artefact that is commonplace in Australia,
is less significant than a highly intact deposit or rareartefact from a later period. Use the historical thematic
framework and research questions in Appendix B tomake the final assessment. Apply the Bickford and
Sullivan questions to assist. See commentary on Policy 8
above.

Where the investigation ofarchaeological features froman earlier period would require
the disturbance or destructionof archaeological material froma later period, the decision toproceed will be based on anassessment of the significanceof each cultural layer. In somecircumstances, the significanceof archaeological material fromlater periods will be higher thanthat from earlier periods.
POLICY 12
Fremantle Prison will seek toinvolve the public in programsof archaeological investigation
where this can be achieved
without compromising thearchaeological resource.

Archaeology can be a highly effective device for ‘tellingthe story’ of Fremantle Prison. This is an obligationof Fremantle Prison under the EPBC Act (see the
HMP 2019 – overarching policy on ‘Telling the Story’).
Involving non-specialists in archaeological investigations
is commonly referred to as ‘public archaeology’. Someappropriate locations for public archaeology at Fremantle
Prison include the Bath House and Flush Well in the East
Terrace zone, in the Parade Ground, and in the Southern
Knoll, Prison Industries and Southern area zone.
Note the important qualifier that public archaeology
should not be pursued at the expense of thearchaeological resource. There will be situations where
only specialists should undertake archaeologicalexcavation at the Prison (see also Policy 13 below).
The intersection of archaeological management andheritage interpretation is expanded on in Part 6 below.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

141

HMP 2019 Policy #Commentary

POLICY 13

This kind of archaeologist will have the ability tomaximise the research potential of the archaeologicalresource. Appropriate qualifications are a requirementof the HMP, which reflects the obligations of managers
under the EPBC Act and the World Heritage Convention.

Only historical archaeologists
with a demonstrated highlevel of knowledge andexperience will be engaged toinvestigate Fremantle Prison’sarchaeological resource (either
as part of impact assessment
processes or through fieldwork). These archaeologists
will also have sufficienttraining to identify Aboriginalarchaeological deposits andartefacts.
POLICY 14
The data generated byarchaeological investigation atFremantle Prison will be madepublicly accessible, ideallythrough publication in a peerreviewed academic journal but
at least as a quality synthesis of
the results as requested.
POLICY 15
Once artefacts recovered
through archaeologicalexcavation have been
documented and analysedsuch that their researchpotential has been met,
they should from that time
be managed according
to the ‘Moveable Heritage
Overarching Policy’ containedin the HMP

142

Qualified practitioners will be best placed to advise when
the archaeological resource has fulfilled its researchpotential such that responsibility for its management
passes to the managers of the Fremantle Prison
Collection.

See Policy 8 above. When publication has occurred, thisis a good indication that the archaeological material’s
research potential has been met.
Fremantle Prison should make this a requirement for all
archaeologists engaged to carry out investigations at the
Prison. It is by making the results of excavation publicly
accessible, in an informed report or through publication,that the adverse physical impacts of the ground
disturbance on the archaeology is mitigated.
This policy is critical to determining the point at whicharchaeological finds shift from being the management
responsibility of archaeologists, to being themanagement responsibility of the curatorial team.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

5.2 Actions from the HMP 2019
The HMP 2019 also included a number of recommended ‘actions’ for the managers ofFremantle Prison that were specific to the archaeological resource there. They are reproduced
below, with commentary on whether or not they have been addressed, or how they might be
addressed in the future.
HMP 2019 Action #Commentary

ACTION 7

This AMP satisfies Action 7

Prepare an updated ArchaeologicalManagement Plan.
ACTION 8
Engage an experienced archaeologist
to review for quality and digitise theresults of previous archaeologicalinvestigations at Fremantle Prison, andmake them publicly accessible.
ACTION 9
Maintain and enhance existing
links with students and teachers ofarchaeology at tertiary education
institutions involving them in research
projects where appropriate.

This AMP largely satisfies Action 8. Some hard
copy reports remain to be digitised. The historical
overlays underpinning this AMP have been
provided to Fremantle Prison as shape files.

By observing this action, Fremantle Prison will
maximise its access to qualified archaeologists
whose employment requires them to gather andpublish data (although commercial consulting
archaeologists are also specialists who willcommonly have equal abilities). The synergies
that exist between Fremantle Prison’s needs andthose of academic archaeologists can result inless costly excavations and outcomes for the
Prison.

ACTION 10

See ‘Policy 12 – Commentary’ above.

Should large-scale ground disturbanceworks be proposed within the Parade
Ground (or elsewhere at Fremantle
Prison) consider involving membersof the public in any archaeologicalexcavations as part of a ‘publicarchaeology’ program.

See Part 6 below.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

143

HMP 2019 Action #Commentary

ACTION 11

See ‘Policy 8 – Commentary’ above. See also
Appendix B.

Engage an experienced archaeologist
to assess the significance of those
artefacts in the Fremantle Prison
Collection that were recovered througharchaeological excavation. Thisshould be done having regard to theirresearch potential, in addition to otherdimensions of heritage significance.
Consider disposing of those artefacts
that have little or no research potential
or which do not otherwise embody
significant heritage values.
ACTION 12

Not addressed by this AMP

Include a consideration of the potential
Aboriginal archaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison in the consultation
underpinning the Fremantle Prison
Reconciliation Action Plan.

144

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

5.3 Appropriate Excavation Methodologies
A range of ground disturbance activities may
occur at Fremantle Prison at any given time –from the excavation of narrow service trenches
in previously disturbed deposits through tocontrolled open area research excavation.
The archaeological excavation methodologies
that should be employed will need to be
tailored to reflect a number of considerations
including:• Archaeological potential;• Archaeological significance;• The urgency of the project e.g., is it anemergency repair project or does it havelong timeframes;• Safety considerations; and• Physical conservation considerations.
These considerations will need to bebalanced, and decisions made, on a caseby-case basis. That is why Policy 9 of the
HMP 2019 states: ‘Archaeological excavation
at Fremantle Prison will be underpinned bysubstantive research questions expressed in
an Archaeological Research Design preparedby an experienced historical archaeologist
prior to works commencing’. ArchaeologicalResearch Designs consider the reason forproposed ground disturbance, the researchoutcomes that might be achieved (if any),
and the appropriate response in terms ofarchaeological methodologies.
Although the potential for significant
archaeology at the Prison varies across thesite, where archaeology is exposed, it is likely
to be of high significance, potentially evencontributing to the OUV of the ACS.
Therefore, a cautious approach must be
taken to its management. Where there isdoubt, the precautionary principle should
apply. The precautionary principle as it
applies to the potential archaeological record
at Fremantle Prison might be expressed asfollows (paraphrasing Principle 15 of the
1992 Rio Declaration): ‘Where there arethreats of serious or irreversible damage tothe archaeological record, lack of full scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to preventits disturbance or destruction’.

In other words, err on the side of caution,
having regard to Fremantle Prison’s
inscription on the WHL for its contribution to
the ACS OUV.
Future archaeological management at
Fremantle Prison may include the following
scenarios, which any ARD will need to be
responsive to:• Retention and conservation in-situ,
without archaeological investigation;• Test excavation to better understand thenature and extent of the archaeologicalresource;• ‘Open site’ or ‘bulk’ excavation to fully
understand the nature and extent of thearchaeological resource;• Salvage excavation;• Archaeological monitoring; and• Implementation of Chance Finds
Procedures if unanticipatedarchaeological artefacts are uncovered.
These management responses (which aresometimes employed as alternatives or in
combinations) are discussed in further detailbelow.
Standard recording forms for archaeologicalinvestigations are provided in Appendix F.
These may be modified according to thespecific requirements of a project. They
may also be replaced by digital recording
methods, as those technologies develop.
Decision-making flowcharts are provided in in
Appendix G to assist managers.
The management of artefacts is dealt with inAppendix H.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions145

5.3.1 Retention and conservation
in-situ
Where it is possible to carry out development
activities without disturbing or destroying thearchaeological resource, the archaeologicalresource should be left undisturbed.
Proposed development activities should bedesigned with that principle in mind. Seek to‘work around’ the archaeology.
If approved development cannot be
undertaken without the disturbance ordestruction of the archaeological resource, it
is imperative that its research potential is met.
Where possible, archaeological featuresthat are identified during approved ground
disturbance activities should be retained andconserved in situ on completion of the works.

5.3.2 Test excavation/sample
trenches
Archaeological test excavation is designed
to gather necessary archaeological data by
causing the minimum possible disturbance tothe archaeological record.
Archaeological test excavation is commonly
undertaken to:• identify the nature and extent of thearchaeological resource; and• design proposed development
to minimise disturbance to thearchaeological resource.
Test excavation may be undertaken by hand,mechanical excavator, or a combination of
both. The appropriate methodology must
be determined before commencing the
excavations and expressed in the ARD. It will
be dependent on assessed levels of potential
and significance.

5.3.3 Open site/bulk excavation‘Open site’ or ‘bulk’ archaeologicalexcavation involves systematic archaeologicalinvestigation across an area sufficient tocapture the entire archaeological resource,
or a significant sample of it. Typically, thismethod utilises larger trenches than test
excavation. Excavation of this scale isusually undertaken using a combinationof both mechanised and hand excavation
techniques.
Such excavation must be designed toanswer substantive research questions. Its
principal aim will be to realise the scientificsignificance of the archaeological resource.
The methodologies employed during open
site excavation must be expressed in the
ARD. The results must be published or madepublicly accessible in a high-quality postexcavation report.

5.3.4 Salvage excavation
Salvage excavation is not a preferredapproach to archaeological excavation. It
usually occurs when proposed development
cannot be redesigned to mitigate impacts
on the archaeological record. The purposeof a salvage excavation is to recoverarchaeological heritage before it is destroyed(i.e., when all or part of an archaeologicalsite is excavated, the objective is to ‘salvage’
as much information as possible in thecircumstances). The contextual information
and analysis of the material obtained throughthis recovery can be valuable as it adds toknowledge about and understanding of thepast.
Salvage excavation should be considered
the last option for managing archaeologicalvalues. Excavations should be conductedin the context of addressing clear researchquestions, even when conducting salvage
archaeology.
The methodologies employed during salvage
excavation must be expressed in the ARD.
The results must be published or madepublicly accessible in a high quality postexcavation report.

146

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

5.3.5 Monitoring
Archaeological monitoring (sometimes calleda ‘watching brief’) is commonly employed:• Where small areas of ground
disturbance are envisaged (e.g., for
the introduction of services) in areasof moderate to high archaeologicalpotential;• In areas assessed as being of low
archaeological potential where it
may serve to confirm that desktop
assessments of potential were accurate;• Adopting a precautionary approach,in areas of uncertain archaeologicalpotential; and• Adopting a precautionary approach, inareas of low archaeological potential but
where, if archaeology were to survive, itwould be of high significance.
Archaeological monitoring involves thearchaeologist observing ground disturbance
activities as they are undertaken, minimising
disruption to those activities. The objective is
to identify, recover, protect and/or document
archaeological artefacts, features anddeposits that may be exposed. Typically, thearchaeologist will monitor ground disturbanceworks undertaken by a machine excavator.
Their role is to observe, provide direction
from time to time, and pause works as
appropriate to investigate any features that
may be exposed. Monitoring requires close
liaison between the machine operator andthe archaeologist.
The number of monitors required for any
particular ground disturbance should bedetermined on a case by case basis.
The progress and results of the monitoringshould be recorded using archaeologicalbest practice including through photographs,
survey, measured drawings and in words.
Attempts should be made to observe
stratigraphic excavation, although thismay not be possible to the level of control
observed in standard excavation.

An ARD should still be prepared, although it
will be less detailed than for other excavation
methodologies. The results must be
professionally recorded and made publicly
accessible in a high-quality post-excavation
report, even where no archaeology is
exposed (this information can also be usefulfor future assessments of archaeologicalpotential at Fremantle Prison).
If an unexpected significant find is discovered
during monitoring works, the monitor will
have the authority to stop work immediately
in that area. Any unexpected or chance finds
must be reported and assessed following
the chance finds procedure of this AMP(Appendix E).

5.3.6 Chance finds procedures
Unexpected discoveries may occur at
Fremantle Prison.
A Chance Finds Procedure is provided inAppendix E. In summary:• If an unexpected find is discovered,work must stop in that area.
• A suitably qualified person will inspect
the unexpected find and assess its
significance (this may require a level ofmanual cleaning to determine conditionand extent).
• The significance of the find must be
communicated to the on-site manager
and advice given. When assessments
are being made, consider fencing,or otherwise demarcating the area,
to prevent accidental disturbance or
damage. Depending on the nature of thearchaeological find, it may be necessary
to cease work while appropriate
approvals are obtained. Otherwise,
works may proceed once the locationand nature of the feature has beenrecorded in words, photographs and by
survey.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

147

5.4 Specific Management Considerations
by ZoneIn addition to the general policy and guidelines in this part, the following zone-specificconsiderations are relevant. They include general summaries of Part 4 and observations
concerning appropriate methodologies for managing the potential archaeological resource. They
are couched in terms of ‘appropriate’ and ‘desirable’ actions while also identifying opportunities
for different forms of investigation, avoiding overly prescriptive language, to give the managers alevel of flexibility within the parameters established by the AMP:

148

Zone

Considerations

East Terrace (East
Bank), Reservoir,
Tunnels andPumping Station

Generally high potential for highly significant archaeology. The
construction of the Reservoir, and the Engine House in the zone’s
southeast corner, will have disturbed or destroyed archaeology
in these locations (low potential). The archaeological resourcein this zone is well-understood through previous archaeologicalexcavations. Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for lawn maintenanceor accessing services) would generally be appropriate with
monitoring. Test excavation to ascertain previous road alignmentand surfaces may be appropriate. Open area excavation of theBath House and Flushing Well may be appropriate for interpretation
purposes (‘public archaeology’).

East Workshops

Generally low-to-moderate potential for convict archaeology
subfloor, although pipes, drains, shafts etc related to industrial
uses will exist there and are significant. These are typically robust
archaeological features. Historic modifications to the structures inthis location might be evidenced through the building archaeology.
Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for repairs to services) in this zone
will typically be appropriate with an archaeological monitor.

Exercise Yards

Generally high potential for discrete archaeological features (drains,
a well, pumps, early surfaces etc) from the nineteenth century,
some of which may extend back to the convict period. The area
has been sealed with hard surfaces for over a hundred years
which may have sealed and protected early archaeology. This area
warrants a cautious approach to management of the potential
archaeological resource. Minor ground disturbance in the yards(e.g., for maintenance of services) would generally be appropriate
with an archaeologist monitoring the work. If the existing surfaces
are ever removed and replaced, this may present an opportunity fortest excavation, possibly even a research excavation (‘open area’).

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

Zone

Considerations

Female Division

Generally high potential for historical archaeology althoughprevious studies indicate high levels of disturbance (low integrity)
which reduces significance. Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for
repairs to services) in this zone will typically be appropriate with anarchaeological monitor. More significant ground disturbance might
be preceded by test excavation with subsequent decisions basedon the outcomes. Works which might impact the location of the wellrecorded in historical plans should be preceded by test excavation.
If a well exists, the aim should be to leave it in situ. The contents of
its fill might be the subject of research excavation.

Gatehouse andEntry Complex

Generally low potential for convict archaeology. Generally highpotential for post-convict archaeology although previous studies
indicate high levels of disturbance (low integrity) which reduces
significance. Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for repairs to services)in this zone will typically be appropriate with an archaeologicalmonitor. More significant ground disturbance might be preceded bytest excavation with subsequent decisions based on the outcomes.

Hampton Road
Reserve

The archaeology in this zone is relatively well understood due
to previous investigations. Generally low-to-moderate potential
for archaeology. High potential for water infrastructure, which
is typically robust. Evidence of warders’ cottages would besignificant and relatively robust (wall footings, cuttings in bedrocketc). Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for lawn maintenance) in thiszone will typically be appropriate with an archaeological monitor.
More significant ground disturbance might be preceded by test
excavation with subsequent decisions based on the outcomes.
Removal of the carpark provides opportunities for test excavationand possible open area excavation. There is low potential forarchaeological evidence of Aboriginal occupation but if any were
to exist it would be highly significant, requiring consultation with
relevant Traditional Owners.

HospitalThis is a small zone that has experienced significant ground
disturbance. However, investigation has demonstrated that there
is generally high potential for archaeology within the structure’s
walls, with lower potential outside them. If any were to exist, it
would be likely to have high significance (there is high potential forunderground services but these would be of lower significance, androbust archaeological features). Minor ground disturbance (e.g., forlawn maintenance or installation of services) in this zone will typicallybe appropriate with an archaeological monitor. More significant
ground disturbance might be preceded by test excavation withsubsequent decisions based on the outcomes.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

149

150

Zone

Considerations

Main Cell Block

Generally high potential for archaeology (especially subfloor andin roof and wall cavities). If any were to exist, it would be highly
significant. Cautious approach required. Minor disturbance in thiszone will typically be appropriate with an archaeological monitor(e.g., repair of services, minor repairs to floors or replacement offailed paving stones in discrete locations). More significant ground
disturbance might be preceded by test excavation with subsequentdecisions based on the outcomes. An assessment should bemade across the MCB toward identifying and mitigating ‘at-risk’archaeological deposits (e.g., failing lathe and plaster ceilings).
Where deposits cannot be left in-situ, retrieval of material will besupported by research questions and a detailed methodology as
defined in an appropriate research design.

New Division

Generally low potential for undisturbed nineteenth century
archaeology from the convict period. Some potential for previous
surfaces to exist, and for post holes etc from the radial exercise
yards. These were a striking feature of the Prison for a shortperiod in the early twentieth century. Archaeological evidence ofthem would have some research potential as well as potential
for interpretation purposes. Minor ground disturbance (e.g., for
repairs to services) in this zone will typically be appropriate with anarchaeological monitor. More significant ground disturbance might
be preceded by test excavation with subsequent decisions basedon the outcomes. The circle comprising the radial exercise yards
would form a good subject for public archaeology.

Parade Ground

Generally high potential for convict and post-convict archaeology,
although some areas have been impacted by subsequent ground
disturbance. Potential archaeology includes previous surfaces,
garden beds, the rotunda, other wall footings, a well, artefacts infill and historic services (pipes etc). The archaeological resource istypically highly significant. In situ retention of structural finds is highly
desirable. This zone might experience ground disturbance works
in the implementation of the Masterplan. If so, this would be an
excellent location for research through open area excavation, andfor heritage interpretation initiatives, including public archaeology (allthese things subject to an appropriate and considered ARD).

Refractory Block

Generally low potential for archaeology but recent investigationsin the Main Cell Block suggest that there is high potential forarchaeology within subfloor areas and in roof and wall cavities). If
any were to exist, it would be highly significant. Cautious approachrequired. Minor disturbance in this zone will typically be appropriate
with an archaeological monitor (e.g., repair of services, minor
repairs to floors or replacement of failed paving stones in discrete
locations). More significant ground disturbance might be precededby test excavation with subsequent decisions based on theoutcomes. In situ retention of structural finds preferred.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

Zone

Considerations

Southern Knoll,Prison Industries,
Southern Area

Generally low potential for significant archaeology with the exceptionof: the cistern and related underground infrastructure, services
generally, the barrel drain, and artefacts in deep fill deposits(high potential). Ongoing garden activities in shallow deposits
is appropriate without an archaeological monitor. Other minor
ground disturbance in this zone will typically be appropriate withan archaeological monitor. More significant ground disturbancethat could impact the cistern and related infrastructure, and thebarrel drain, might be preceded by test excavation with subsequentdecisions based on the outcomes. The preferred outcome forarchaeological evidence of past surfaces, retaining walls, industrial
archaeology is to retain in situ.

Sterile Zones

Generally low potential for archaeology, with the exception of
the sterile zone directly adjacent to the west walls of the West
Workshops. If ground disturbance is proposed in that discrete
location, it would be desirable to precede it with test excavation.

The Terrace

This zone is relatively well understood as a result of previous
archaeological investigation. Generally high potential for significant
archaeology. A cautious approach is warranted. Minor ground
disturbance in this zone will typically be appropriate with anarchaeological monitor (e.g., for garden maintenance, repairof services). More significant ground disturbance might bepreceded by test excavation with subsequent decisions basedon the outcomes. Removal of the carpark surface would provide
opportunities for test excavation and possible open area excavation.

Watch Towers andElevated Walkways

The archaeology of these built features presents some opportunity
to record an aspect of Fremantle Prison’s operation. However, they
are of limited significance in terms of the archaeology of the built
form.

West Workshops

Generally low potential for nineteenth century archaeology (althoughdrains and pipes from this period may survive under the current floor
surfaces). Ground disturbance works in this zone will generally beappropriate with an archaeological monitor.

Archaeological Management Policies, Principles and Actions

151

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN ARCHAEOLOGYAND HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

6

152

6.1 Preamble
Fremantle Prison provides an importantand valuable facility for the exhibition andinterpretation of archaeological material,
whether found at the Prison or at otherplaces that were once part of the greater
Convict Establishment, particularly theother sites around Fremantle. That materialpresents opportunities for ‘telling the story’ ofFremantle Prison.
‘Telling the Story’ is an overarching policy
contained in the Fremantle Prison HMP 2019,reflecting Australia’s obligations under theWorld Heritage Convention.
The ‘Telling the Story’ overarching policyin the HMP 2019 also overlaps with an
overarching policy on ‘Movable Heritage’.
The Overarching policies on ‘Archaeology’,‘Movable Heritage’ and ‘Telling the Story’should be read together.
Policy 83 of the HMP 2019 states that:‘Fremantle Prison will pursue an active andintegrated program of heritage interpretation.
It will ‘tell the story’ of the place in an
informative and engaging manner so that
Fremantle Prison remains a living part of thelocal and national community’.
Policy 12 of the HMP 2019 envisages thatthe site’s archaeology will be an importantcomponent of that. It states: ‘Fremantle
Prison will seek to involve the public inprograms of archaeological investigation
where this can be achieved withoutcompromising the archaeological resource’(see also Part 5.1, above).
Importantly, the HMP 2019 recognises thatthe convict story is only part of the Prison
story. Policy 87 states:

To assist to achieve that outcome, Action 50of the HMP 2019 states:
Fremantle Prison should revise and update
the document entitled ‘Fremantle Prison
Interpretation Policy’ (by Luke Donegan,2007) to reflect the place’s OUV and toconvert it into a site-wide Interpretation
Plan. A primary focus of the final IMP
should be (a) to present and interpret theplace’s OUV, emphasising its contribution
to the serial World Heritage listing, and (b)to give the place a function in the life of
the community.
In accordance with this action, ‘Fremantle
Prison Interpretation Management Plan (IMP)2020’ (draft) has been prepared. The draft
IMP reiterates that interpretation of Fremantle
Prison is influenced by objectives from theFremantle Prison Master Plan 2019-2029
and United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) valuesof authenticity and integrity. As articulated in
the Fremantle Prison Master Plan 2019-2029‘priority actions’ for interpretation are to:• Create a strong sense of arrival;• Reinforce the character of the Convict
Establishment;• Enthral with spectacular interpretation;• Refresh and expand the education
programs; and• Connect to Aboriginal experiences andstories.
Part 6.2 provides recommendations for
how these goals might be achieved by alsoutilising the Prison’s archaeology.

Fremantle Prison may pursue a programof interpretation in relation to the postconvict occupation of the site, even where
this may have an adverse impact on theability to tell the convict story in discrete
locations, provided (a) the interpretation
measures in those discrete locations
are temporary and reversible and (b) the
OUVs in those locations can be effectively
communicated through other means.

The Intersection between Archaeology and Heritage Interpretation

1536.2 The archaeological resource andheritage interpretation
6.2.1 Within the Prison
The draft IMP proposes five key heritage
themes for ‘telling the story’ of Fremantle
Prison:1. Convictism.
2. Punishment and reform.
3. People’s experience.
4. Architecture.
5. Living history.
Archaeology is particularly referenced in Key
Theme 5. Living History being ‘The way inwhich the site is understood, researchedand conserved is evolving through people’s
perspective and personal connection to theplace’. Interpretation of the Living History
theme in relation to archaeology includes:• Conservation (archaeology that occurs
on the site); and• Future research potentials(collaborations with universities including
students/academics/practitioners of
tourism, cultural heritage, archaeology,
landscape architects, architects, material
analysists, conservators, digital heritageand more).

With this in mind, the approach tointerpretation of the archaeological resourcein this AMP aligns with the key projects
outlined in the draft IMP 2020 in relation
to providing tours, multisensory and public
programs, and also to promoting knowledge
generation of specialist knowledge (Fremantle
Prison draft IMP 2020, 2). It also fits withthe policies/objectives of the draft IMP 2020
that align with the HMP 2019, in particulararound aspiring to high quality and authentic
interpretation for diverse audiences, andinterpretation that engages, provokes, isaccessible and fosters active links witheducation (Fremantle Prison draft IMP 2020,5). It also supports the recommendation thatan archaeologist is included in increased staff
resourcing for the Prison. (Fremantle Prison
draft IMP 2020, 35)
Fremantle Prison’s archaeological resource
should be an integral part of heritage
interpretation and public education strategies.
It should be integrated into, or extended
beyond, the exhibitions and displays of the
Prison Collection, the Prison’s guided tours,
and interpretative panels and signage aroundthe site.

Above: East facing wall of trench 4, excavation of the Engine House,
University of Western Australia, Discipline of Archaeology, 2014.

154

The Intersection between Archaeology and Heritage Interpretation

Fremantle Prison’s archaeologicalresource is an excellent vehicle for‘public archaeology’. Public archaeology
engagement programs can be developed
to coincide with or even inform new orexisting community events and/or could
be developed from and incorporated into
archaeological investigations. These cancomprise demonstration archaeologicalactivities as well as ‘student digs’, but also
actual archaeological excavations and evenpreliminary investigations and explorations of
the Prison being undertaken by professionalarchaeologists.
With few opportunities for the Western
Australian community to observe, let alone
participate in, archaeological excavations,the Prison provides an invaluable andunique source for this immersive type ofengagement, experience and learning. Thesetypes of activities will also be attractive tointernational and interstate tourists.
These types of public archaeology
events would promote awareness andunderstanding of the known and potential
archaeology of the Prison, reinforce its
heritage values, provide training and skills
development opportunities for students
and early career professionals in both themuseum and archaeology sectors, and foster
an appreciation and understanding of thepractice and discipline of archaeology in the
broader community.
They can be based on observation only
and/or participation in the excavations or
certain aspects of the excavation work
(such as recording, measuring, artefact
conservation). There is potential to interact
with archaeologists, ask questions andwatch them at work. For demonstration
excavations, archaeological material
previously excavated that is determined as
being for interpretation value only can beutilised, which still lends a level of authenticity
to the experience.

Documenting these events throughvideography gives them additional lifeand potential beyond the excavation. Thisis also a valuable tool to consider when
it is not possible to have public viewing
and participation. Footage can provide
an additional resource for special or
temporary exhibitions, for the developmentof 3D experiences, for general educational
programs and resources for Prison visitors,
as well as for material that can be utilised on
the website and social media platforms forpromotional and educational purposes. They
can be viewed in real time or using time lapse
methods.
Archaeological features that are exposed
through such programs may be conserved insitu and become open-air ‘exhibits’, e.g., wall
footings, wells and the like. Therefore, even if
public access is limited during the excavation
phase, opportunities in which the public canbe invited to view an excavated site while still
exposed can also provide valuable insights
into how archaeological investigations are
done, what they can reveal, as well as more
broadly into the many layers of the history of
the Prison complex. Locations around thePrison where archaeological excavations canbe permanently exposed—under protective,
clear coverings where appropriate—also
complements and interprets archaeologicalactivity.
Engagement and participation in the
Prison archaeology can also be integrated
into public talks, walks (especially wherepermanent or temporary excavation areas
are available) and workshops (such as
hands-on documentation and handling ofarchaeological material).

The Intersection between Archaeology and Heritage Interpretation

1556.2.2 Outside of the Prison: General
Because of the larger Convict Establishmentthat developed in Fremantle there is potential
archaeology connected to the Convict Period(1849-1886) outside of the Prison boundaries
and even beyond the WHL and NHL areas in
the entire grant and leased areas. Artefacts
have been found at the other sites/buildings
constructed around Fremantle that were partof the Convict Establishment. As well, there
are other sites that the prisoners were sent
to for work, or which were visited by them,such as St Patrick’s Church in Fremantle
which was used until the Prison Chapel had
been built. There have been some artefacts
also found through serendipity e.g., duringbuilding excavation works at private houses.
Some examples of these found artefacts arein the Fremantle Prison Collection. (Heritage
TODAY and Fremantle Prison Heritage Team2017, 50)5
An integrated or at least consistent approachto the interpretation of these places andFremantle Prison, and to the management of
their respective collections and archaeology,
could be an area for further consideration.
(Brass 2012, 25) For example, the Fremantle
Prison Collection Archaeology Procedures
could be applied at these other sites by theowners and agencies responsible, and similaror even collaborative public engagement
activities involving archaeologicalinvestigations could be developed inpartnership.

It is for this reason that Policy 89 of the HMP
2019 states: ‘Fremantle Prison will seek tore-establish and/or enhance the physicaland historical relationships between the
Prison, The Knowle, the Fairbairn Street
Ramp, the Henderson Street Warders’
Cottages, the former Rottnest Island Prison,
the former Fremantle Lunatic Asylum andthe Warders’ Terrace on Holdsworth Street
through a program of interpretation andin consultation with the City of Fremantle
and WA Department of Health (and private
owners where practicable)’. Looking beyond
the Prison Walls would also include the areaof the former Convict Garden (now part ofFremantle Social) and where the temporary
Convict Depot was established at Captain
Daniel Scott’s premises. The draft IMP
2020 also supports interpretation as being
important both within the prison perimeterand beyond and acknowledges thatarchaeology is part of the research potentialof the site both within the prison boundary as
well as the broader Fremantle area.

Above: Henderson Street Warders’ Cottages.

5

156

A round punishment weight in the Fremantle Prison Collection (1978.29) was originally found in the ground of a house in Pier
Street, Fremantle, in 1941 when the occupant was digging an air raid shelter in his garden. It was donated to the Fremantle
Prison Museum in 1978.

The Intersection between Archaeology and Heritage Interpretation

6.2.3 Archaeological investigations
at the Former Warders’ Cottages
and Convict Garden
Productive archaeological investigations havepreviously been undertaken at the former
Warder’s Cottages in Henderson Street aswell as the nearby site of the former Convict
Garden where the Artillery Drill Hall wasconstructed, the site now called Fremantle
Social and owned by the National Trust ofAustralia (WA).
The Warders’ Cottages formed the westernboundary of the Prison complex and arewithin the buffer zone of the World Heritage
Listing and included in the National Heritage
Listing curtilage of the Fremantle Prison.
In 2015 an Archaeological Management
Strategy was prepared for the Cottages(Gavin Jackson 2015). A recommendationfrom this was that any archaeological material
uncovered at the Warders’ Cottages bedeposited with the Fremantle Prison, in
consultation with curatorial and management
staff and the opportunity to develop
an exhibition of archaeological material
excavated at the Warders’ Cottages at the
Prison explored further. (Brass 2012, 25)
From 2017, the Warders’ Cottages were puton the market by the State Government after
undergoing extensive conservation works
and are all now privately owned, mostly
operating as accommodation.
The former Convict Garden site, Holdsworth
Street, sits outside of the World, Nationaland State Heritage Listings for the Prison,but is a State Registered place as the Artillery
Drill Hall (former) within the Fremantle Court
House and Police Station Complex. (InHerit
Place No. 878) The garden was originallysurveyed in 1850 as part of the Fremantle
Convict Establishment. Located near to
the Warders’ Cottages, it was the main
Convict Garden from the 1870s-1880s.
(Winterbourne Heritage Consulting 2017, 6)

Subfloor archaeological investigations of
the Drill Hall in 2016/17 revealed artefacts
and other deposits believed to be related tothe period when it was the Convict Garden
and prior to the construction of the hall.
These deposits included humic material,charcoal, root tracks, seeds, wooden stakes
and other organic material. (Winterbourne
Heritage Consulting 2017, 16) Althougharchaeological investigations so far have
only been focused on the main hall, thearchaeologists for this excavation observedthat the volume and quality of archaeologicalremains already recovered suggests thatsimilar archaeological deposits would befound in other parts of the site and theConvict Garden contexts will have maintained
good integrity and be of high significance.
It is expected that archaeological deposits
dating to the Convict Garden period ‘will
underlie the entire building both internallyand externally, and should be considered of
the highest possible significance’ with theirclear connection to the World Heritage listing.
(Winterbourne Heritage Consulting 2017, 24)
Although the former Artillery Drill Hall isowned by the National Trust of Australia (WA)and therefore any material recovered falls
under their ownership, it would be beneficial
for a channel of communication between the
Trust and the Prison to be formed to facilitate
the sharing of information and knowledge,
to support interpretive outcomes and ensure
consistent messaging in relation to thearchaeology of the Convict Establishment
and the Convict Period in Western Australia
generally.

The Intersection between Archaeology and Heritage Interpretation

157

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN ARCHAEOLOGYAND THE FREMANTLE PRISON COLLECTION

7

158

7.1 Preamble
Appendix H includes minimum standards for artefact management. It is written from anarchaeological perspective, having regard to the needs of excavators and the archaeologists
who will analyse any artefact assemblages that have been recovered. However, artefacts
recovered through archaeological investigation are also a crucial part of the Fremantle Prison
Collection, where they will be stored, conserved and possibly exhibited. The two management
systems are different but overlap and it is imperative that they integrate neatly.

7.2 The Fremantle Prison collection
The Fremantle Prison Collection (theCollection) spans the entirety of the Prison’s
operational life from 1851-1991. In line with
the World Heritage listing, all objects in theCollection dated to the convict era, and withprovenance to the site, are potentially ofoutstanding universal value:
From the mundane and every day, tothe overarching system of rule andpunishment, the convict era artefacts in
the Fremantle Prison Collection cover all
facets of life within the Establishment,
and as such hold very high social andhistorical significance (Heritage TODAY
and Fremantle Prison Heritage Team2017, 26).
These convict items are also rare examples
in Australia owing to their fragile nature,with few surviving today. This enhances thesignificance of the convict era part of theCollection.
That is not to say that artefacts that postdate the convict era are not significant.
In fact, even artefacts from quite recent
times can have exceptional research value,
having the ability to shed light on aspectsof Prison life. This is reflected in the policiesof the HMP (e.g., Policy 8). So too, any
artefacts that may be discovered througharchaeological excavations that relate to the
Aboriginal use and occupation of the Prisonsite prior to British colonisation and prior to
the Prison being built, and to activities at thesite relating to the early colonial period in
general prior to the Prison being built, mayalso hold significance, although they may
not be appropriated into the Collection but
moved to another relevant repository.

An updated Fremantle Prison Collection
Policy (CP) was prepared in 2019 byFremantle Prison staff. The CP sits
directly under the HMP (as a second-tiermanagement document) and provides forthe consistent and effective managementof the Collection according to best practicestandards and in line with the key themes
reflected in the OUV, the National Heritage
Values and the WA Statement of Significance.
The CP reinforces that conservation andmaintenance of the Collection supports
academic and curatorial research of thehistory of Fremantle Prison specifically as wellas the penal and carceral history of Western
Australia more broadly. The operational
management of the Collection is the
responsibility of the Curatorial team under the
Heritage Conservation branch of Fremantle
Prison.
The Collection mainly derives from items
left behind by the Department of Corrective
Services on the Prison’s de-activation in
1991, augmented with material donatedsince the Prison closed in 1991. These
objects were amalgamated with theCollection in the possession of the originalPrison Museum established in 1979. The
Collection is recorded in the collections
management database MOSAiC, whichallows accurate tracking and searchability.

The Intersection between Archaeology and the Fremantle Prison Collection

159

A considerable part of the Collection also
derives from archaeological excavations
carried out in locations across the Prison,
beginning in 1989, when Prison operations
took place starting to be transferred to the
new facility. Two notable early archaeologicalexcavations were in the basement of theMain Cell Block 4 Division in 1993, andthe cellar of No. 14 The Terrace in 2009
(Fremantle Prison Collections Policy, 2019).
A number of the items discovered througharchaeological investigations such as thesehave been accessioned into the Collection
and some are also on display. More recently,
underfloor archaeological investigations of theMain Cell Block in 2019 have yielded material
dating back to the convict era through to thelater twentieth century, including clay pipes,
handwritten letters, slate etchings, drawings,
photographs, clothes, knives, smoking
paraphernalia, photographs, tattoo devices
and tattoo designs. These artefacts are of
exceptional significance, both convict andpost-convict.
To date, the artefacts found througharchaeology represent post-colonisation.
No earlier Aboriginal archaeology has yet
been discovered through archaeologicalinvestigations.

The archaeological excavations undertaken
at the Prison since 1989 are summarised inAppendix D. Some of those investigations
were reactive (e.g., responding tomaintenance needs) while others wereplanned as part of a research program. The
result has been that a large collection ofarchaeological material has accumulated instorage that, apart from some exceptions,has not been accessioned into the Collection.
The Archaeological Collection is currently
stored in various locations including West
Workshops (Tailor’s), Refractory, East
Workshops and Visible Storage. Artefacts
that have been catalogued into MOSAiC(and have therefore been accessioned into
the Collection) are stored in the relevant
curatorial spaces (e.g., Tailor’s). The bulk of
the Archaeological Collection that has notbeen sorted or catalogued is housed in the
East Workshops and Refractory.
The cataloguing and analysis of this material
into MOSAiC (for artefacts that meet thecriteria for adoption into the Collection), andthe archaeology database (for all artefacts
in the archaeology collection), should be apriority for the Prison.

Above: Sample of animal bone retrieved from excavations of No. 14 The Terrace cellar, Eureka, 2009.

160

The Intersection between Archaeology and the Fremantle Prison Collection

7.3 Fremantle Prison collection andarchaeology procedures
The CP identifies the Collection ascomprising Primary and Secondary
Collections, with the archaeology ofFremantle Prison identified as the“Archaeological Collection” being material
recovered during archaeological excavations.
These Collection categories, however, areboth distinctive as well as overlapping. For
example, artefacts in the ArchaeologicalCollection may be accessioned into thePrimary Collection or become part of theSecondary Collection (i.e., utilised forresearch, educational or public program
activities or as an object that can be useful in
displays/exhibitions).
As well providing guidelines and principles
relating to the documentation, preservation,
retention and management of the Collection
as a whole, there are specific policies in the
CP relating to the Archaeological Collection
including acquisition, deaccessioning anddisposal. These policies also align with thepolicies in the HMP.
Initially, artefacts in the ArchaeologicalCollection are treated as an ‘archaeologicalassemblage’ that must be documented
and analysed for archaeological purposes.
Only after this process may artefacts beselected to be accessioned into the Primaryor Secondary Collection. However, it is notedthat Preservation Conservation Policy 36 of
the CP states that objects from the PrimaryCollection are always given priority overarchaeological assemblages and Secondary
Collection objects when competing forresources (Fremantle Prison CP 4.2, 41). For
this reason, better documentation of artefacts
recovered in future excavations, especiallyat the time of excavation, from hereon isimperative (e.g., Appendix H).

The document entitled ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection Archaeology Procedures’,
drafted by the Fremantle Prison staff,
provides guidance on this matter, settingout an approach that is consistent with theCollection management procedures in the
CP. These procedures assist the Heritagr
Conservation Team in accessioning both newarchaeological acquisitions and the backlogof archaeological material currently in storage
that was not assessed or evaluated at thetime of excavation. They could also apply toitems that may have been found off-site but
which have provenance to the Prison or thelarger Convict System. See Appendix H for
more detail in this regard.
The fundamental objective of management of
the Archaeological Collection is to document
it such that it can be analysed for research
purposes. As a general principle, once anassemblage has met its research potential,or has been assessed as having no researchpotential, its ongoing management is guided
by the policies within the CP. Artefacts will
either be accessioned into the PrimaryCollection or artefacts that are assessed ashaving low or no archaeological significancemay still retain values that merit their inclusionin the Secondary Collection. Alternatively,
artefacts may be disposed of.

The Intersection between Archaeology and the Fremantle Prison Collection161

7.4 Fremantle Prison archaeological
database
The Fremantle Prison Archaeological
Database is currently in development. This
provides a platform to capture all relevant
data from archaeological investigations thatcannot be captured within the parameters of
the MOSAiC database.
The evolving database includes a range offields as well as the ability to link to relevantmaps, plans, images and report.

It is envisaged that the ongoing managementof Fremantle Prison’s archaeological resource
will rely heavily on GIS. This database willassist in that regard.
The kinds of information that archaeologists
will need to provide to the Prison postexcavation are described in Appendix H.

Above: Excavation of underfloor space in the Main Cell Block, 2019.

162

The Intersection between Archaeology and the Fremantle Prison Collection

7.5 Acquisition, deaccession and disposal
Policies specifically guiding acquisition anddeaccession of archaeological material in the
Archaeological Collection are covered in the CP.
Specific policies governing the acquisition ofarchaeological material (Fremantle Prison CP
3.1.5, 21) are as follows:
Policy 14: Materials recovered fromarchaeological excavations within the site
are handed over to the Curatorial Team andstored at Fremantle Prison.
Policy 15: Archaeological collections arerecorded in Fremantle Prisons Electronic
Records Management System (EDRMS),
following the data entry guidelines forarchaeological material.
Policy 16: The excavation reports relating
to the excavations are deposited in theFremantle Prison Research Library and
EDRMS.
Policy 17: During the recording procedure
the artefacts within the archaeologicalcollections are assessed for theirsignificance. If the artefacts meet thecriteria for inclusion into the Collection,
they are recorded in the MOSAiC databaseand are stored with the Fremantle Prison
Collection.
Following are the specific policies in the
CP governing the deaccessioning ofarchaeological material (Fremantle Prison CP
3.2.2, 24):
Policy 30: The following items are
considered to have low potential for future
research and may be deaccessioned after
a minimal level of recording:•Materials that have lost their original
provenance relating to specificarchaeological sites within theFremantle Prison complex, provided
the individual object is not considered
individually significant•

Bulk/soil samples•

Material that is unable to be identified
past base identification of fabric.

Policy 31: A ranking system is outlinedin the data entry guidelines (2015). Eacharchaeological find should be ranked using
this system which attributes a ranking of
1-5 to the material. A low ranking (1 to 2)
and sometimes an average ranking (3) will
result in deaccessioning of the material.
Policy 32: Deaccessioned material is tobe recorded as such in all records which
mention the material.
Policy 33: Once the material has
been formally deaccessioned it should
be disposed of in accordance with thedisposal procedures (policies 23-29).
As noted above in Policy 33, disposal
procedures for artefacts in the ArchaeologicalCollection defers to the general Disposal
Policies 23-29 in the CP. However, thedisposal of archaeological material, whether
accessioned or not, presents different
challenges and is fundamentally premisedon the research potential of the material, as
noted in the CP, rather than its condition andcompleteness. Establishing research value
should be guided by a specific decisionmaking process.
A decision-making flowchart is presented
in Appendix G. The flowchart simplifies acomplex decision-making process and there
is some flexibility in its application. If in doubt,
decision-makers should err on the side of
caution and not dispose of an artefact. The
flowchart is focussed on whether or not tomove an artefact from the ArchaeologicalCollection to the Collection (to the right of theflowchart). Applying the flowchart, it may bepossible to conclude that an artefact neednot be retained (for archaeological reasons),
but the artefact is, in fact, retained anyway
because the Collections management
documents favour retention. This is because
an artefact may still have value in the Primaryor Secondary Collections.

The Intersection between Archaeology and the Fremantle Prison Collection

163

BIBLIOGRAPHY

8Above: Inside the main cell block164

Primary references

Archaeological Reports: Fremantle Prison

Australia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter:
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places ofCultural Significance, 2013. Burwood, Vic:
Australia ICOMOS.

Archae-aus Pty Ltd. 2020. ‘ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy for Fremantle Prison
Parade Ground’. Unpublished report
prepared for Department of Planning, Lands
and Heritage. PDF file.

Government of Australia, Australian Convict
Sites, World Heritage Nomination, 2008.
UNESCO. 2015. ‘The Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention’. UNESCO (website). Last
modified 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/
guidelines/.

Fremantle Prison resources
Fremantle Prison. 2009. ‘Building the Convict
Establishment’.
Fremantle Prison. 2012 (revised 2020).
‘Fremantle Prison Collection Policy’.
Fremantle Prison. 2013. ‘Fremantle Prison:
Heritage Management Plan’.
Fremantle Prison. 2019. ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection: Archaeology Procedures’, 2019.
Fremantle Prison. 2019. ‘Fremantle Prison
Master Plan 2019–2029’.
Fremantle Prison. 2020. ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection Preservation Needs Assessment’.
Unpublished report prepared by G Manzie,
C Littlefair, and Fremantle Prison Curatorial
Team. PDF file.
Fremantle Prison. 2020. ‘Interpretation
Management Plan (draft)’.
Fremantle Prison. ‘Australian History
Curriculum Links for Year 10: The Modern
World and Australia—Rights and Freedoms’.
Fremantle Prison. 2007. ‘Fremantle Prison
Interpretation Policy’, prepared by Luke
Donegan, Interpretation Manager, Fremantle
Prison.
Heritage TODAY and Fremantle Prison
Heritage Team. 2017. ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection Significance Assessment’.
Unpublished report. PDF file.

J McIlroy. 1989. ‘Fremantle Prison
Archaeology: Historical Archaeologicalassessment of Hampton Road Reserve andthe rear of Henderson Street Cottages’.
Unpublished report prepared for Building
Management Authority of Western Australia.
PDF file.
L Bavin. 1990. ‘Fremantle Prison:
Conservation and Future Use: Archaeological
Excavations in the Prison Ground’. Report
prepared for the Building Management
Authority of Western Australia and for Centre
for Prehistory, University of Western Australia.
PDF file.
J McIllroy. 1990. ‘Outside the Walls, Historical
Archaeological Assessment of Parry Street
Carpark’. Unpublished report prepared for
Building Management Authority of Western
Australia by J McIlroy. PDF file.
Burke, S. 1998. ‘Analysis of the “Public” and“Private” Areas Within Fremantle Prison Using
Spatially Distinct Artefact Assemblages’.
Honours thesis., Centre for Archaeology,
University of Western Australia.
M Gibbs and K Edwards 1998 Report on
Archaeological Investigations: Terrace Houseand Gardens Project Fremantle Prison.
Report prepared for Considine and Griffiths
Architects.
Terra Rosa Consulting. 2021. ‘Fremantle
Prison Hospital Heritage Assessment andArchaeological Excavations’. Unpublishedreport prepared for Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage. PDF file.
Terra Rosa Consulting. 2020. ‘ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy: The Hospital’.
Unpublished report prepared for Department
of Planning, Lands and Heritage. PDF file.

Bibliography

165

Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2005. ‘Report and Catalogue of Artefacts,
Fremantle Prison tunnels, Fremantle, WA’.
Unpublished report prepared by S Bolton for
Department of Housing and Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2005. ‘Comments on the artefacts for display
at the Fremantle Prison tunnels, Fremantle,
WA’. Report prepared A Paterson for
Department of Housing and Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western
Australia. 2005. ‘Report on the Resultsof Archaeological Monitoring of Ground
Disturbance, Fremantle Prison, Fremantle,
Western Australia’. Unpublished report
prepared by S Bolton for Palassis Architects
and Fremantle Prison. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2008. ‘Report, Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground, Historical Research Targeting Areas
for Archaeological Excavation (Stage Two)’.
Unpublished report prepared by K Fleming,
A Paterson, S Burke, and K Morse for
Palassis Architects. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2009. ‘Fremantle Prison Parade Ground
Archaeological Test Excavation Results(Stage 3)’. Unpublished report preparedby S Burke, A Paterson, and K Flemingfor Palassis Architects and Department of
Housing and Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2013. ‘Fremantle Prison, Refractory Block
Exploratory Excavation—Investigation of
Paint on Yard Wall’. Unpublished report
prepared by A Gow for Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting, University ofWestern Australia. PDF file.

166

Bibliography

Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2009. ‘Fremantle Prison Visitors Centre
Café Development Archaeological Test
Excavations’. Prepared by K Fleming,
S Winter, K Morse, and S Burke for Philip
Griffiths Architects and Department of
Housing and Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2009. ‘Archaeological Assessment ofTimber Feature, Fremantle Prison No. 12
The Terrace’. Unpublished report prepared
by K Fleming and S Burke for Philip Griffiths
Architects and Department of Housing andWorks. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2009. ‘Archaeological BackgroundManagement Advice: Knutsford St Ramp
Fremantle Prison’. Unpublished report
prepared by S Burke for Philip Griffiths
Architects. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2009. ‘Fremantle Prison Visitors Centre
Café Development Archaeological Test
Excavations’. Unpublished report prepared
by K Fleming, S Winter, K Morse, and S
Burke for Philip Griffiths Architects andDepartment of Housing and Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2010. ‘Archaeological Assessment of
the Sub-Floor Potential, Commissariat
Building, Fremantle Prison, Western
Australia’. Unpublished report prepared forPhilip Griffiths Architects and Building andManagement Works. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2010. ‘Fremantle Prison, Western Australia,
Archaeological Test Excavations of theStables Building (Stage 2)’. Unpublishedreport prepared by S Winter, J Stedman, and
K Morse for Philip Griffiths Architects andBuilding Management and Works. PDF file.

Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2011. ‘Fremantle Prison, Knutsford Street
Ramp, Archaeological Watching Brief andExcavation Results’. Unpublished report
prepared by J Fyfe for Philip Griffiths
Architects and Fremantle Prison. PDF file.
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting, University of Western Australia.
2011. ‘Archaeological Watching Briefand Rescue Excavations for Soakwell
Construction Between Buildings 8 and 10
The Terrace, Fremantle Prison’. Unpublishedreport prepared for Peter Griffiths Architects.
PDF file.
Gavin Jackson Cultural Resource
Management. 2015. ‘The Report of an
Archaeological Watching Brief Undertaken
Within the Female Division, West Workshops,
and The Terrace Sections of Fremantle Prison,
Fremantle, Western Australia’. Unpublishedreport prepared by Simon Colebrook and Tony
Bartlett for YHA WA Inc. PDF file.
Gavin Jackson Cultural Resource
Management. 2015. ‘ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy Warders’ Cottages(fmr) 7–41 Henderson Street, Fremantle, WA’.
Unpublished report prepared by J Marrell and
T Bartlett for the State Heritage Office.
PDF file.

Haast, A, and K Robertson. 2013 ‘Reporton Archaeological Survey of the Fremantle
Prison Women’s Prison’. Unpublished report
prepared for the University of Western
Australia. PDF file.
Nayton, G. 1998. ‘Report of Archaeological
Investigations Associated with the Fremantle
Prison Cell Reconstruction Project’.
Unpublished report prepared for the
Department of Contract and Management
Services, and Fremantle Prison Trust. PDF file.
Van Beek, J, S Wells, and R Bertinshaw.
2014. ‘Fremantle Prison Bath House
Excavation Report’. Unpublished report
prepared for MA Professional Archaeology,
Archaeology Department, University ofWestern Australia. PDF file.
Van Beek, J, S Wells, and R Bertinshaw.
2014. ‘Fremantle Prison Engine House
Excavation Report’. Unpublished report
prepared for MA Professional Archaeology,
Archaeology Department, University ofWestern Australia, Crawley. PDF file.
WA Maritime Museum, Department ofMaritime Archaeology. 2004. ‘Watercraftin the Old Fremantle Prison Tunnels,
Maritime Heritage Site Inspection Report’.
Unpublished report prepared by B Coley,
M McCarthy, and V Richards. PDF file.

Haast, A, K Robertson, P Hunter, and V
Boyadjian. 2013. ‘Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground Excavation Report’. Unpublishedreport prepared by MA Professional
Archaeology, Archaeology Department,
University of Western Australia. PDF file.

Bibliography

167

AEC Group Ltd. 2016. ‘Fremantle Prison:
Economic and Social Impact Assessment’.
Unpublished report prepared for the State
Heritage Office. PDF file.

Heritage and Conservation Professionals.
2005. ‘Artillery Drill Hall, Fremantle,
Conservation Plan’. Unpublished report
prepared for National Trust of Australia (WA).
PDF file.

Bickford, A, and S Sullivan. 1984. ‘Assessing
the Research Significance of Historic
Sites’. In Site Survey and Significance
Assessment in Australian Archaeology, edited
by S Sullivan and S Bowdler. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research Schoolof Pacific Studies, ANU.

Heritage Council of Western Australia, 2019.
Archaeological Management Strategies.
Perth: Department of Planning, Lands
and Heritage. https://www.dplh.wa.gov.
au/getmedia/b14d87ec-ff8e-4873-bf18b1086551fb1e/HER-ArchaeologicalManagement-Strategies.

Brass, L. 2012 ‘Archaeological Scoping
Document for Fremantle Warders’ Cottages(fmr)’. Unpublished report prepared for
National Trust of Australia (WA). PDF file.

Heritage Council of Western Australia. 2019.
Development Assessment Framework.
Perth: Department of Planning, Lands
and Heritage. https://www.dplh.wa.gov.
au/getmedia/2d21a838-8b5e-4c7f8781-be7eddd56acc/HER-DevelopmentAssessment-Framework-2019.

Other Reports and References

Campbell, RM. 2011. ‘Building the Fremantle
Convict Establishment’. PhD thesis,
University of Western Australia.
Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin
University of Technology. 1992. ‘Fremantle
Prison Significance to Aboriginal People’.
Report prepared for the Building
Management Authority of Western Australia.
PDF file.
City of Fremantle. n.d. ‘Walyalup (Fremantle)
Aboriginal History’. City of Fremantle(website). Last accessed 19 March 2021.
https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/
default/files/Walyalup%20Aboriginal%20
History.pdf.
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.
2021. ‘Reserve Report for 24042’.
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.
2020. ‘Documentary Evidence: Fremantle
Prison Parade Ground’.
Government of Western Australia.
2019. ‘Urgent Conservation Works at
Fremantle Prison to Proceed’. Media
statement. 4 October 2019. https://www.
mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/
McGowan/2019/10/Urgent-conservationworks-at-Fremantle-Prison-to-proceed.aspx.

168

Bibliography

Kerr, JS. 1998. (revised edition). ‘Fremantle
Prison’. Revised edition. Unpublished report
prepared for the Department of Contract andManagement Services. PDF file.
Lovell Chen and Extent Heritage. 2019.
‘Fremantle Prison Heritage Management
Plan’. Unpublished report prepared for the
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.
PDF file.
Mein, E. 2012, ‘Inmate Coping Strategies
in Fremantle Prison, Western Australia’.
Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, Department ofArchaeology, University of Western Australia,
Crawley.
Palassis Architects and Godden Mackay
Logan Pty Ltd. 2008. ‘Fremantle Prison
Conservation Management Plan’.
Unpublished report prepared for the
Department of Housing and Works. PDF file.
Palassis Architects and Godden Mackay
Logan Pty Ltd. 2010 (Revised). ‘Fremantle
Prison Conservation Management Plan’.
Report prepared for Department of Treasury
and Finance – Building Management andWorks Division. PDF file.

Palassis Architects. 2003. ‘Fremantle Prison
Heritage Precinct, The Convict Establishment
Master Plan’. Report prepared for the
Department of Housing and Works. PDF file.
Rosemary Rosario and Philip McAllister
Heritage and Conservation Professionals.
1994. ‘Conservation Plan, Artillery Drill
Hall, Holdsworth Street, Fremantle, WA’.
Unpublished report prepared for Building
Management Authority of Western Australia.
PDF file.

Published monographs
Appleyard, RT, and T Manford. 1979. The
Beginning: European Discovery and Early
Settlement of Swan River Western Australia.
Nedlands, WA: University of Western
Australia Press.
Stannage, CT. 1979. The People of Perth:
A Social History of Western Australia’s
Capital City. Perth: Perth City Council.

Newspapers

TPG. 2015. Rottnest Island/Wadjemup
Cultural Landscape Management Plan.
Unpublished report prepared for the Rottnest
Island Authority. PDF file.

Canberra Times, 5 January 1988, p. 1.

Uniquest Pty Ltd. 2011. ‘Collecting AboriginalArchaeological Material: A Model for
Assessing Significance’. Unpublished report
prepared by Dr I Schacht, and Dr A Sneddon
for Australian Museum. PDF file.

The Perth Gazette and Independent Journalof Politics and News. 5 July 1850, 2;
1 August 1851; and 30 August 1850, 2.

Winterborne Heritage Consulting. 2017.
‘Report on Archaeological Work at theArtillery Drill Hall, Fremantle’. Unpublishedreport prepared for National Trust of Australia(WA). PDF file.

Tribune, 19 June 1968, 4.

Daily News, 26 December 1911, p. 2.
Inquirer, 6 November 1850, p. 1.

Sunday Times, 24 August 1941, 3.

West Australian, 24 December 1898, 3;
8 November 1919, 7; 19 February 2018.

Graphic Material
J Currie,1830 ‘Panorama of the Swan River
Settlement’, watercolour, 1830-1832,
Mitchell Library Call Number: ML827,
Reference Code: 404727.

Bibliography

169

APPENDICES

9

Above: Excavation of the underfloor space in the Hospital, Terra Rosa Consulting, 2019170

Appendix A – Terms and Abbreviations
Term / Abbreviation

Definition / Interpretation

AHA

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)AMP

Archaeological Management Plan

AMS

Archaeological Management Strategy (as defined in Heritage
Council 2019)Archaeologist

See Project Archaeologist

Archaeological Site

A single place or group of places where evidence of past humanactivity remains, in any form of preservation, which may beinvestigated by the disciplines of archaeology.

ArchaeologicalPotential

The possibility that archaeological deposits or remains exists withina specified site.

ArchaeologicalSignificanceThe scientific and cultural value of archaeological remains, usually
decided by archaeologists based on the implementation ofassessment models, frameworks, and industry guiding principles.

Artefact

Any object, made, used, modified or affected in some way byhuman activity.

Assessment

The professional observation, interpretation and opinion formed inconjunction with available knowledge at the time.

DPLH

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage - Includes former
State government bodies of the State Heritage Office and theDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs.

EPBC Act

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Excavation

The scientific process by which a site is dug, either by hand tool or
machine, in the exposure, recording and recovery of archaeologicalartefacts and/or features, as a means of obtaining data about pasthuman activity.

FeatureA non-movable, distinctive element of an archaeological site thatprovides evidence of past human activity, such as changes insoil deposition, post holes, structural footprints, drainage pipes,
hearths etc.

Find

Individual artefacts. Also known as ‘loose find’.

Ground DisturbingWorks

Any work, operation or activity that results in disturbance of theearth, including excavating, digging, trenching, cultivating, drilling,tunnelling, auguring, backfilling, blasting, topsoil stripping, landleveling, peat removing, quarrying, clearing, and grading.

HA

Heritage Act 2018 (WA)

Heritage site / place

See ‘Archaeological site’

HMP

Heritage Management Plan

Appendices

171

172

Term / Abbreviation

Definition / Interpretation

Monitoring

When an archaeologist is present to observe works that may cause
disturbance to subsurface, underfloor or subfloor spaces, ensuring
the proper identification, recovery, protection, and documentationof any archaeological remains or site information. Also referred toas an Archaeological Watching Brief.

Project Archaeologist

The appointed archaeologist who manages and oversees aproject, responsible for addressing all archaeological and heritage
concerns.

Salvage

The retrieval and recording of as much archaeological information
and artefacts as possible from a site before it is impacted on or
destroyed by development.

Scope of WorkThe entirety of work set out by the proponent or developer.

Subfloor deposits

The space between the foundational surface of a building and theoverlying finished floor in which artefacts may be unintentionallyor intentionally deposited. Such spaces may be present on the
ground level and between floors. This term is used interchangeably
with ‘Underfloor’.

Underfloor deposits

The space between the foundational surface of a building and theoverlying finished floor in which artefacts may be unintentionallyor intentionally deposited. Such spaces may be present on the
ground level and between floors. This term is used interchangeably
with ‘Subfloor’.

AppendicesAppendix B – Historical Thematic
Framework
Heritage practitioners commonly employ
a historical thematic framework to assess
the significance of heritage places. For
historical archaeologists, such a framework
is particularly useful for assessing the ways
in which the archaeological resource canbe used to address substantive researchquestions (which is critical to establishing thescientific significance of any archaeology).
When archaeology is encountered at
Fremantle Prison, it should be assessed for
its ability to contribute knowledge about
the historical themes presented below. The
illustrative research questions below willassist to make this determination.
The themes and questions reflect current
trends in Australian historical research, aswell as the reasons for Fremantle Prison’s
inclusion on the World Heritage List,
National Heritage List, and State Register of
Heritage Places. They cannot be definitive
because trends in historical research areconstantly evolving. However, they are auseful framework for assessment that may be
added to or modified.
The inscription of Fremantle Prison on theWorld Heritage List does privilege convictarchaeology to a degree. However, the postconvict use of Fremantle Prison is also ofgreat historical importance. This is reflectedin the policies contained in the HMP 2019,and in the themes and research questions
presented below.
Policy 9 of the HMP 2019 requires that:‘Archaeological excavation at Fremantle
Prison will be underpinned by substantive
research questions expressed in an
Archaeological Research Design preparedby an experienced historical archaeologist
prior to works commencing’. This Appendix
provides research questions for use in sucha research design, although others may
emerge as knowledge about the Prison
develops.

Theme 1: Convictism
Theme 1 reflects the criteria for which
Fremantle Prison is inscribed on the World
Heritage List. The Statement of Universal
Value for the Australian Convict Sites,
including Fremantle Prison, emphasises thefollowing attributes, which might be regarded
as sub-themes of the theme of ‘Convictism’:• Forced labour;• The transformation of national prison
systems in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries;• Deportation;• The use of convicts to serve the material
needs of new colonies;• Severe punishment as a deterrent;• Severe punishment as part ofrehabilitation;• The imprisonment of criminals,
delinquents and political prisoners;• Convictism as part of the occupation ofcolonial lands; and• Social integration of convicts.
Archaeology that contributes to a better
understanding of these attributes will be of
exceptional significance because it will becontributing to the Prison’s contribution to
the ACS’ OUV.
Some relevant research questions areprovided below.
• What evidence of coercive labour isevident in the archaeological record?
Does it accord with representationsof convict labour in historical sourcesfrom the period (e.g., sketches, water
colours, journals, official documents)?
• Conversely, is there evidence of personalagency within the Prison population?
Or evidence of coping mechanisms
e.g., recreational activities, alcohol
consumption, defiance? How did
convicts express themselves? What
examples of expressions of individuality
have survived in the archaeologicalrecord?
Appendices173• What evidence is there of convict labourin the manufacture of the fabric used in
the construction of the built form at the
Prison (bricks, stone masonry, timberworking)? Is there anything to indicate
convict labour in the construction
methodologies used (e.g., graffiti, level ofskills and workmanship)?
• How was the convict population used
to make the Prison self-sufficiency e.g.,food production, clothes manufacturing
and repair?
• Is there anything in the archaeologicalrecord that illustrates the origin of theconvict population, including links
with ‘home’? Is there evidence ofhomesickness? What evidence is thereof the isolation the convict population
experienced?
• What does the form and layout of theearly Prison, as evidenced by both
written sources and the archaeology, tell
us about punishment as a deterrent andas a force for rehabilitation? What does
the archaeology say about the upskillingand education (moral and otherwise)of convicts as part of their intended
reintegration with society?
• What evidence is there of interactions
between the convict population andthe general population (in Fremantle, inWestern Australia, Australia generally,
and with Britain)? Were relationships
being formed between the Prison
population and the general population(physical, personal, through trade andexchange)? Conversely, in what ways
was the Prison self-sufficient e.g.,through growing its own food, making its
own things?
• Were health and hygiene used as an
instrument of punishment? What were
the sanitation facilities? What evidence isthere for convict diet?
• Is there any evidence in thearchaeological record of politicalprisoners e.g., the Irish, Catholicism?
What does it say about the
preoccupations of those prisoners?

174

Appendices• What does the archaeological record,
read with the other sources, say about‘delinquents’ at the Prison, including thetreatment of those with mental healthconcerns? Was rehabilitation a genuine
objective for ‘delinquents’? What was
the north east hospital building’s role isan invalid depot in the late nineteenth
century? Was this connected to theFremantle Asylum?
• How does the form and layout of
Fremantle Prison, as reflected in thearchaeological record and other sources,
differ from places of incarcerationelsewhere in Australia and the British
Empire? What similarities are there?
• Is there archaeological evidence thatthe system of ‘punishment as partof rehabilitation’ works? Or is there
evidence that violence, alcohol abuse,illegal trade, and delinquent behaviour
continued within the Prison walls?

Theme 2: Incarceration in the postconvict era
For most of its life, Fremantle Prison was nota convict prison. However, it remained an
iconic and influential presence in Fremantle,
and Western Australia generally. This isreflected in its listing on the NHL and Stateregister. Sub-themes include:• Evolving philosophies to reform andpunishment;• Race and gender;• Relationships – within the walls andoutside them;• Punishment;• Living conditions – health, diet,sanitation, self-sufficiency anddependency;• Defiance and coping; and• Hierarchies and power.
• Some relevant research questions
include:• What evidence is there of continuity andchanges in attitudes to prisoners, and ingeneral philosophies, over time?

Are these reflected in such things aschanges in function of specific buildings(e.g., conversion of buildings from one
function to another), improvements
or decline in physical conditions asevidenced by the archaeology, evidenceof facilities for rest and recreation,
including religion?
• Does the archaeological record indicate
significant differences in the ways inwhich female and male prisoners weretreated? Is there archaeological evidenceof differences in the responses of males
and females to the prison system? Is
there evidence of exchange between themales and females at the Prison e.g.,contraband?
• What evidence is there of interactions
between the post-convict prison
population and the general population (inFremantle, in Western Australia, Australia
generally)? Were relationships being
formed between the Prison populationand the general population (physical,
personal, through trade and exchange)?
Conversely, in what ways was the Prison
self-sufficient e.g., through growing its
own food, making its own things?
• Is there evidence of physical andemotional relationships forming between
prisoners? Between prisoners andwarders? Between the male and females
quarters?
• What does the placement of towers
and sterile zones, and other symbols of‘discipline’, and their changes over time,tell us about attitudes to the use of lethal
force at the Prison?
• What evidence is there of conformity anddefiance within the Prison over time? Is
there evidence of personal agency within
the Prison population? Or evidence of
coping mechanisms e.g., recreational
activities, alcohol consumption, andreligion? What examples of expressionsof individuality have survived in thearchaeological record?
• What evidence is there of violence,
alcohol abuse, illegal trade, anddelinquent behaviour within the prison
walls?

• What does the quality of the buildings(including their services) tell us about thebudgetary priorities of the government
relative to Fremantle Prison?
• Is there evidence of adaptive
responses to changing conditions e.g.,
overcrowding? Is there archaeologicalevidence of the WWII wartime prisoners?
Were physical changes made to the
Prison to accommodate them? Were
they treated differently?
• What evidence is there of subversion
and defiance e.g., contraband, drugs,
alcohol, violence?
• How did the physical environment
reflect prevailing attitudes towards
the prisoners, and of the prisoners?
What efforts were made to improve theappearance of the site for the benefitof prisoners e.g., through landscaping,artwork? What efforts were made byprison administrators to intimidate?
How was personal privacy valued
by prisoners, feared by warders,and managed generally? How were
hierarchies reflected in the built form?
• What were living and working
conditions like for the warders andprison administrators? What does
the archaeology say about power
relationships (warder-prisoner, warderadministrators, prisoner-prisoner)?
Does the archaeological evidence forthe warders’ cottages in the Hampton
Road Reserve and residences on The
Terrace shed light on social stratificationin Fremantle in the colonial era andtwentieth century? Is there archaeologicalevidence indicating power hierarchies
within the prison population?
• What does the archaeological evidence
from the hospital buildings say about
medical treatments and technologies at
the time? Does it shed light on known
and likely health outcomes?
• What does the archaeological record tell
us about changing attitudes to the useof the prison population for forced labour
after the convict period? Is this reflectedin the built form and the fabric used?

Appendices175• In what ways did the female and maleexperience differ at the Prison? Was
space arranged differently? Were there
different attitudes to sanitation, privacy,
the use of lethal force or physicalpunishment for discipline? Are thesethings reflected in the archaeologicalrecord? Is the presence of children at
the Female Division reflected in thearchaeology?

• Is it possible to assign parts to specificdesigners and engineers of note i.e.
the royal engineers including Jebb
(surveyor general of the [English]
prisons), Henderson (comptroller generalof convicts), Wray (acting comptroller
general), Manning (clerk of works in theroyal engineers), and to the work of thesappers and miners, artisan pensioners
and, not least, the prisoners?

• Are cultural differences reflected in thearchaeological record e.g., Protestantand Catholic, Indigenous, Jewish
and Chinese prisoners? Are there
expressions of personal identity on
racial, religious or ethnic grounds?
Do these things tally with the written
sources of the period?

Theme 4: The Indigenous experience

Theme 3: Industrial archaeology
Parts of Fremantle Prison incorporate
Victorian-era machinery and technologies
that were employed in an isolated part of the
British Empire. They are rare examples of insitu industrial features from the nineteenth
century that should be conserved andrecorded in detail. The following researchquestions are relevant:• Is there evidence of unique or innovativetechnologies being used, as a response
to local conditions and requirements?
Were the technologies and materials
that were used, sometimes modified torespond to local conditions, shortages
or the challenges of isolation? What dothese things tell us about the movementof ideas and knowledge in the period
and in the British Empire (especially toWestern Australia from elsewhere)?
• Were the parts imported or locallymade? What is their provenance andwhat does that tell us about trajectoriesof trade in the Victorian era? What doesit tell us about Western Australian selfsufficiency?
• How did the industrial elements within
the Prison function in engineering terms?
How were they manufactured andconstructed?

176

Appendices

During the period of its use as a prison,
Fremantle Prison accommodated large
numbers of Aboriginal people. They werecommonly taken far from their homes andtraditional cultures and will have faced
particular challenges. Some relevant researchquestions include:• What physical evidence of the Aboriginal
presence is there in the Prison (e.g.,murals, graffiti, traditionally manufactured
tools and traditional behaviours)?
• Is there archaeological material within
the Hampton Road Reserve to support
the anecdotal evidence that the families
of Aboriginal prisoners would camp
there when visiting?
• Did the living conditions of the Aboriginal
prison population differ from those of
the general prison population? Is there
evidence of prejudicial treatment? Is it
possible to reconstruct these mattersusing the archaeological evidence orwere the Aboriginal prisoners integrated
so effectively within the prison that theirpresence cannot be archaeologicallydiscerned?
• What evidence is there of traditional
Aboriginal culture? What evidence isthere of cultural crossovers?

Appendix C – Overarching Policy for‘Archaeology’ from the HMP 2019archaeology

Objectives
Our objectives are as follows:•

to minimise disturbance of the archaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison•

to retain the archaeological resource at Fremantle Prison insitu unless this is precluded by overwhelming research, safety
or conservation considerations•

within the parameters of the above objectives, to maximise
the research potential of the archaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison•

to balance the conservation needs of the layered heritage
values at Fremantle Prison, including where those values areembodied by archaeological material from different periods•

to investigate the archaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison using ‘best practice’ archaeological methodologies andexperienced practitioners•

to harness the potential of archaeology to engage the public’s
interest in Fremantle Prison

risks to avoid
We have identified the following risks to be avoided:•

disturbance or destruction of highly significant built form orarchaeological features in order to expose archaeologicalfeatures of lower significance•inadvertent disturbance or destruction of the archaeologicalresource due to lack of prior research or inadequate impacts
assessment•

damage to the archaeological resource because investigations
were undertaken by inexperienced or inexpert practitioners•

failure to make the data generated by archaeologicalinvestigation publicly accessible•

disturbance or destruction of Aboriginal archaeology without
appropriate consultation taking place because its significanceis not recognised relative to the site’s non-Aboriginal heritage
values•loss/damage due to an under-resourced collection area andlack of post-excavation analysis

statutory framework
The EPBC Act governs ‘actions’ that have, or are likely to have,a significant impact on a matter of ‘national environmental
significance’. Places on the WHL and NHL (such as Fremantle
Prison) are matters of national environmental significance. An‘action’ may include a project, a development, an undertaking, anactivity or a series of activities. It can include ground disturbanceworks that might impact the archaeological resource. Before taking
an action that could have a significant impact on the heritage
values of Fremantle Prison, the action must be ‘referred’ to the
FREMANTLE PRISON // Overarching Policy Areas

Australian Minister for the Environment and Energy. The Minister
will determine whether or not further and more formal assessment
and approval is required, i.e. a ‘controlled action’.
The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has prepared adocument entitled ‘Section 79(2) Permit Archaeological Excavation
Form’ for applications to excavate places on the State Heritage
Register.
Section 79 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 makes
it an offence to ‘damage or despoil’ or ‘remove any thing from’ aplace on the SRHP, which can include damage or despoliation of
the archaeological resource. However, an application can be madeto the Heritage Council for a permit to carry out archaeologicalworks under Section 79(2) of the Act.
The Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 governs
Aboriginal ‘places’, which includes archaeological sites (Section
5). If Fremantle Prison encounters Aboriginal archaeology it
must notify the WA Registrar of Aboriginal Sites (Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage)(Section 15). It is an offence to
excavate an Aboriginal archaeological site without the approvalof the Registrar of Aboriginal Sites (Section 16). Such consent
will only be given after an assessment is made of the nature andsignificance of the site (Section 18).
Schedule A, Clause 13B of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning
Scheme No. 4 states that where planning approval is granted in
respect of a place on the Fremantle Heritage List, the Council
may impose a condition on that planning approval which requires
an archaeological investigation of the place. The same condition
may be imposed where the Council has reasonable evidence
to indicate that the place may include ‘contents, materials or
objects’ (which would include archaeological remains) that haveaesthetic, historic, scientific, or social significance (see also Cityof Fremantle Local Planning Policy 2.7). However, the City ofFremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 zones Fremantle Prison
as a Regional Reserve. By Section 2.2 of Local Planning Scheme
No. 4 Council approval is not required for the commencement or
carrying out of any use or development on a Regional Reserve.
Approval is required from the Western Australian Planning
Commission (which will include input from the Heritage Councilof Western Australia).

Non-Statutory Framework
A Practice Note supplementing the Burra Charter entitled ‘The
Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice’ states that thefundamental principles contained in the Burra Charter apply toarchaeological sites.
Article 13 of the Burra Charter states: ‘Co-existence of culturalvalues should always be recognised, respected and encouraged.
This is especially important in cases where they conflict.’ This will
be relevant (a) where archaeological features from the convictera underlie post-convict archaeological features of national,
state or local significance, and (b) where they overlie Aboriginalarchaeological remains.
The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has prepared
Extent Heritage / Lovell Chen // 49

Appendices177archaeology

a document entitled ‘Heritage Impact Statement – A Guide’. It
includes reference to the assessment of archaeological impacts.
State governments around Australia have produced guideline
documents on how to assess the significance of historicarchaeological sites. They usually emphasise the researchpotential of such places assessed having regard to (a) researchpotential relative to other sites, (b) research potential relative toother sources, and (c) the ability to otherwise address substantive
questions about human behaviour (see: A. Bickford and S. Sullivan[1984], ‘Assessing the Research Significance of Historic Sites’, in
S. Sullivan and S. Bowdler (eds), Site Surveys and Significance
Assessment in Australian Archaeology, Proceedings of the 1981
Springwood Conference on Australian Prehistory, Canberra,
pp. 23–24).

constraints
Works requiring ground disturbance at Fremantle Prison will
require an assessment of potential archaeological impacts. In
some cases, this may require re-location of proposed ground
disturbance works.

opportunities
Where archaeological investigation is necessary at Fremantle
Prison this may present an opportunity to involve the community ina program of ‘public archaeology’ – a form of interpretation.
The archaeological resource at Fremantle Prison comprises a
valuable teaching and learning resource. Fremantle Prison may
pursue opportunities to collaborate with students and teachers ofarchaeology from tertiary education institutions.
Archaeological investigation can augment the collection of movable
heritage currently curated by Fremantle Prison.

Overarching Policy Framework
POLICY 8
The known and potential archaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison will be managed according to its significance. Usually thiswill comprise its ‘scientific significance’ (i.e. its ability to address
substantive research questions). However, the archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison may also embody other heritage
values (e.g. social significance).
POLICY 9
Archaeological excavation at Fremantle Prison will be underpinned
by substantive research questions expressed in an ArchaeologicalResearch Design prepared by an experienced historicalarchaeologist prior to works commencing.
POLICY 10
Significant archaeological features will not be damaged or
disturbed unless this is necessary for overwhelming research,safety or conservation reasons. Fremantle Prison will seek toretain significant archaeology in situ.
POLICY 11
Where the investigation of archaeological features from anearlier period would require the disturbance or destruction ofarchaeological material from a later period, the decision to proceed
will be based on an assessment of the significance of each culturallayer. In some circumstances, the significance of archaeologicalmaterial from later periods will be higher than that from earlier
periods.
POLICY 12
Fremantle Prison will seek to involve the public in programs ofarchaeological investigation where this can be achieved withoutcompromising the archaeological resource.
POLICY 13
Only historical archaeologists with a demonstrated high levelof knowledge and experience will be engaged to investigate
Fremantle Prison’s archaeological resource (either as part of
impact assessment processes or through field work). Thesearchaeologists will also have sufficient training to identify Aboriginalarchaeological deposits and artefacts.
POLICY 14
The data generated by archaeological investigation at Fremantle
Prison will be made publicly accessible, ideally through publication
in a peer-reviewed academic journal but at least as a quality
synthesis of the results as requested.
POLICY 15
Once artefacts recovered through archaeological excavation havebeen documented and analysed such that their research potential
has been met, they should from that time be managed according tothe ‘Moveable Heritage Overarching Policy’ contained in this HMP.

FREMANTLE PRISON // Overarching Policy Areas

178

Appendices

Extent Heritage / Lovell Chen // 50

archaeology

proposed actions
ACTION 7
Prepare an updated Archaeological Management Plan.
ACTION 8
Engage an experienced archaeologist to review for quality anddigitise the results of previous archaeological investigations at
Fremantle Prison, and make them publicly accessible.
ACTION 9
Maintain and enhance existing links with students and teachersof archaeology at tertiary education institutions involving them in
research projects where appropriate.
ACTION 10
Should large-scale ground disturbance works be proposed within
the Parade Ground (or elsewhere at Fremantle Prison) consider
involving members of the public in any archaeological excavations
as part of a ‘public archaeology’ program.
ACTION 11
Engage an experienced archaeologist to assess the significanceof those artefacts in the Fremantle Prison Collection that wererecovered through archaeological excavation. This should bedone having regard to their research potential, in addition to otherdimensions of heritage significance. Consider disposing of those
artefacts that have little or no research potential or which do not
otherwise embody significant heritage values.
ACTION 12
Include a consideration of the potential Aboriginal archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison in the consultation underpinning theFremantle Prison Reconciliation Action Plan.

FREMANTLE PRISON // Overarching Policy Areas

Extent Heritage / Lovell Chen // 51

Appendices179

Appendix D – Summary of Previous
Archaeological Investigations
This Appendix summarises previous
archaeological work at Fremantle
Prison, including archaeological surveys,
excavations, monitoring under watchingbriefs, geophysical survey, and predictivemodelling. As the place was in use as aworking prison until 1991, the majority of
past archaeological work within the Prisonhas been undertaken since the Prison was
decommissioned.
Initial archaeological work within the Prison
proceeded in 1989 under a programme ofarchaeological investigation, known as theFremantle Prison Project commissioned by
the Building Management Authority on behalfof the Western Australian Government. This
work was both proactive (in establishingappropriate site management tools andresearch themes) and reactive (driven
by requirements to manage proposeddevelopments and required conservation
works). Over the years, the developmentof a series of Master Plans, Conservation
Plans and Management Plans for the site has
influenced the aims of archaeological inquiry
and research agendas.
According to the relevant zone, maps
showing the location of the works described
below are included in the body of theArchaeological Management Plan.

McIlroy 1989 – Hampton Road
Reserve and Henderson Street
Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia, Fremantle Prison
Project. 1989. Fremantle Prison
Archaeology, Historical Archaeologicalassessment of Hampton Road Reserveand the rear of Henderson Street
Cottages. Report prepared by J. McIlroy.
Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia.
As part of the Fremantle Prison Project,
McIlroy conducted archaeologicalexcavations at four Warder’s cottages within
the Hampton Road Reserve (Reserve 28226)

180

Appendicesand behind the cottages on Henderson Street(within Reserve 35456). Six test pits wereexcavated within the Hampton Road Reserve,
particularly the Chief Warder’s quarters,
to determine the presence of remnant orconcealed elements from the cottages. In
addition, eight test pits were excavated inlaneways and gardens behind the Henderson
Street Warder’s cottages to investigate
locations where communal closets, laundries/
wash houses and an open-drain had existed.
The demolition of the Warder’s cottages on
the Hampton Road Reserve was found tohave been thorough, with the former site ofWarder Townsend’s cottage (later Warder
Lambert’s cottage) razed to bedrock withlimited elements of footings remaining.
Nevertheless, the footings were observed
to have been formed with cut and worked
bedrock. Evidence indicated that the internal
walls may have been brick-lined. One veranda
post was located in situ outside the northwest
corner of this cottage.
McIlroy constructed a sequence of wall paints
in parts of the quarters from the recoveryof painted mortar fragments. A brick-paved
footpath leading to the southeast corner of thecottages was uncovered as well as a depositof crushed limestone over the site of WarderTownsend’s quarters.
Following test pitting, McIlroy establishedzones of archaeological significance over the
excavated areas. The Warder’s cottages on
Hampton Road were considered of medium
archaeological significance and identified as aZone B area.
The rear gardens and archaeological remains
in the laneway behind Nos 7 to 17 Henderson
Street were also considered to be of medium
archaeological significance and identified
as Zone B areas. The laneway behind theHenderson Street cottages was primarilyfound to contain sewerage pipes and wasassessed to be of minimal archaeologicalsignificance and identified as a Zone C area.

McIlroy 1990 - Parry Street Carparkand Knutsford Street Ramp
Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia. 1990. Outside
the Walls, Historical Archaeological
Assessment of Parry Street Carpark.
Report prepared by J. McIlroy. Building
Management Authority of Western
Australia
Continuing his work under the Fremantle
Prison Project, McIlroy conducted test
excavations in the Parry Street Carparkand Knutsford Street Ramp areas in 1990.
Knutsford Street Ramp is visible in two
watercolours, dated to 1859 and 1864 (Kerr
1998). It is a surviving element of Fremantle
Prison’s early convict period.
Two trenches were excavated along thewestern margin of the Knutsford Street
Ramp, and one trench was excavatedon the embankment to the west of theKnutsford Street Ramp. These excavations
encountered a layer of crushed limestone,
thought to be the original surface of theramp, approximately 0.5 to 1 metre below
the existing ground surface.
A large drainpipe (6ft x 3ft) is drawn onto
early maps in the vicinity of the test trenches.
However, McIlroy was unable to locate
the pipe. Test excavation on the sloping
embankment west of the ramp was foundto contain refuse deposits that may be
associated with early use of the former Police
Stables and Cess Pit areas.

Bavin 1990 - Southern Knoll, Female
Division and Parade Ground
Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia. 1990a. Fremantle
Prison: Conservation and Future Use:
Archaeological Zoning Plan of the Prison
Compound. Report prepared by L. Bavinfor the Centre for Prehistory, University ofWestern Australia.

Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia. 1990b. Fremantle
Prison: Conservation and Future Use:
Archaeological Excavations in the Prison
Ground. Report prepared by L. Bavinfor Centre for Prehistory, University ofWestern Australia.
Together with the development of an
Archaeological Zoning Plan (Bavin 1990a),
Bavin conducted a series of archaeologicaltest excavations in various areas of the
Prison (1990b). These excavations sought toestablish the presence and extent of features
identified through documentary research.
Four of the 17 areas that were classified as
being either zone A (high priority) areas orZone B (medium priority) areas were selected
for archaeological excavation and analysis:• the Southern Knoll;• the Female Division Yards;• the Eastern Lawn (Parade Ground); and• the Front of South Main Cell Block(Parade Ground).
A total of 16 test trenches (ranging in size
between 1 m2, 0.5 x 2 m and 1 x 4 m) wereexcavated over a relatively short period
consisting of eight on the Southern Knoll,
three in the Female Division Yards, four on
the Eastern Lawn, and one in front of South
Main Cell Block.
Excavations identified two substantial
structures: Cisterns (c.1857) on the Southern
Knoll and a Bath House and Flush Well(c.1856) on the Eastern Lawn. A secondary
metalled road in front of the South Main Cell
Block thought to overlie the original metalled
road was encountered. Potential remains of
the former Incinerator were also exposed.
Several walls recorded in historic plans of theSouthern Yard of the Female Division were
not located, leading Bavin to suggest thatthe walls may have been planned but neverconstructed. Bavin was also not able toidentify any remains that could specifically be
associated with the Wooden Division.

Appendices181

Bavin suggested that information resulting
from her excavations could be used toaddress a number of the research questions
that were proposed with her Zoning Plan, inparticular, those that relate to:• Institutional self-sufficiency in terms ofimports and prison products;• Diet and health; and• Structural developments andoccupational phases associated withparticular buildings.

• Doorway in the lowest level of northernend of Main Cell Block – This area ofinvestigation appears to have been in
The Commissariat. It is described in thereport as follows:

The trenches excavated by Bavin were
not extensive and had limited success in
identifying archaeological features. However,they did lead to a more comprehensive
archaeological investigation of the Prison
through the Fremantle Prison Project.

This sunken area ultimately joins location‘A’ on the northern end of the building
and is clearly shown on old plans. Before
excavation, the reinforced concrete
flooring above the fill was chiselled away
so that sediment removal could take place
without fear of collapse from above.

Bindon and Raynal - 1993
Excavations in Fremantle Jail

The excavations exposed, under a layerof concrete, poorly compacted, grey,
silty sands containing numerous culturalobjects including broken roof slates, handforged roofing nails, green alcohol bottle
glass, other broken bottle glass, and burnt
shell believed to be the product of lime
mortar production.

Building Management Authority ofWestern Australia. 1993. Excavations
in Fremantle Jail. Report prepared by P.
Bindon and J.P. Raynal. Anthropology
Department, University of Western
Australia.
In 1993 archaeologists Peter Bindon andJean-Paul Raynal were commissioned toundertake a watching brief of excavationsof historical fill deposits in various areas at
the Fremantle Prison. The deposits were
removed through vacuum excavation. The
reports on the results did not include analysisof the artefacts recovered, and the precise
locations of the trenches is often unclear.
The following locations were investigated:• Area ‘A’ - ‘Cellar Area’ Four Division
Main Cell Block – It is not clear
from the reports but the first area
examined appears to have been in theCommissariat. Within different locations,the excavations exposed possible burnt
building remains, fill containing building
rubble, a heavily used and compacted
crushed limestone trackway or accessramp into the lower rooms, and deposits
indicating bioturbation by termites.

182• Earthing Trench – Excavations exposeda thick, iron lightning rod attached to thenorth wall of the cell block, adjacent thesouthern side of the cistern. Scrap iron,axe heads, and blacksmiths’ tools wereused, as well as salt to enhance theconductivity of the rod.

Appendices

A location where stone had been quarried
was exposed at approximately three
metres depth, still bearing chisel marks.
The investigations also identified thelocation of the former entrance ramp
and several early brick-lined stormwaterdrains.
• Tunnels - Bindon and Raynal’s report
describes the tunnels in detail, inparticular their construction and aspectsof their likely former use. Two distinct
strata characterised the deposits:
fine grey sandy-silt overlying calcified
limestone. Artefacts observed within the
excavated deposits, and in wall cavities,
included intact glass bottles, glassfragments, clay pipes, sheep bone,
metal chain links, and broken brick. In
the tunnels, a series of ad-hoc ‘risers’
were noted, often containing artefact
concentrations at the bottom of eachone.

Nayton 1998 – Fremantle Prison Cell
Reconstruction Project
Department of Contract and Management
Services. 1998. Report of archaeologicalinvestigations associated with theFremantle prison cell reconstruction
project. Report prepared by G. Nayton
for the Department of Contract andManagement Services and the Fremantle
Prison Trust.
Commissioned in response to the Fremantle
Prison Cell Reconstruction Project, Nayton
conducted an archaeological investigationof various cells in Division 3. This project
aimed to reconstruct the cell as authenticallyas possible. Archaeologists monitored
the physical interventions necessary. The
investigation, which fell into three parts,
involved monitoring removal of accretions incells A20 and A21, investigating fixtures andfittings in cells D38 and B37, and excavating
underfloor deposits in cell A20.
These investigations provided insight into theoriginal construction of the cell, modification
over time, layout until c.1910 and its usage
by prisoners from the nineteenth century. The
archaeological evidence of the transformationof cells over time suggests variation rather
than standardisation, probably highlighting thePrison’s economic reality in an isolated colony.
In addition, artefacts cached by prisoners
were recovered.

Burke 1998 – Analysis of the ‘Public’and ‘Private’ Areas Within Fremantle
Prison Using Spatially Distinct
Artefact Assemblages (BA Hons)
Burke, S. 1998 Analysis of the ‘Public’and ‘Private’ Areas Within Fremantle
Prison Using Spatially Distinct Artefact
Assemblages. Unpublished BA (Hons)thesis, Centre for Archaeology, University ofWestern Australia, Crawley.

To understand Prisoner activity within ‘public’and ‘private’ domains, Burke analysed
two spatially distinct artefact assemblages
recovered from outside prison spaces by
Bavin (1994) and within cell A20 by Nayton(1998). Burke found that in public spaces
prisoners tended to be bound by institutionalrules. In contrast, prisoners had greater
personal freedoms in private spaces, engaging
in behaviours that were not typically permitted.
Burke also noted differing interpretations
about prisoner life at Fremantle Prison:• Bavin – artefacts within the Prison were
designed for ‘purpose or utility rather than
the stimulation or the display of fashion,
personal symbols, or preference’, and• Nayton – variation rather thanstandardisation among the assemblage
is an indication that a degree of personal
freedom was condoned or unavoidable.
Burke recommends that further excavations
around the Prison within areas varying in theirdegree of surveillance should be conducted
and compared.

Gibbs and Edwards 1998 – Reporton Archaeological Investigations:
Terrace House and Gardens ProjectFremantle Prison
M Gibbs and K Edwards 1998 Reporton Archaeological Investigations: Terrace
House and Gardens Project Fremantle
Prison. Report prepared for Considine andGriffiths Architects.
In 1998, an archaeological investigation offormer ground surfaces and features along
the western side of Fremantle Prison wascommissioned by Considine and Griffiths
Architects. The main objectives of the project
were to examine evidence of former verandah
structures and the original ground levels ofadjacent gardens.

Appendices183

Coley et al. 2004 – Watercraft in
the Old Fremantle Prison Tunnels,
Maritime Heritage Site Inspection
ReportWA Maritime Museum, Department ofMaritime Archaeology. 2004. Watercraftin the Old Fremantle Prison Tunnels,
Maritime Heritage Site Inspection
Report. Report prepared by B. Coley, M.
McCarthy, and V. Richards.
Prior to opening the tunnels for visitors
in 2004, an inspection was carried out inthe tunnels by Prison and WA Maritime
Museum personnel to determine the natureof various ‘Watercraft’ reported to exists
by prison staff. During the inspection, four
craft were identified, one identified as being
related to fuel spill clean-up in the 1990s,
two described as early twentieth century
iron ‘coracles’, and one wood and iron craft
originating from the late convict period.
A number of structural and artefactual
remains were also identified as significant,visible due to the unusually low water level inthe tunnels at the time. It was decided that
Alistair Paterson and students from the UWA
would be involved in conducting terrestrial
archaeological investigations in unsubmergedareas of the tunnels in the lead up to the
public opening of the tunnels.

Eureka 2005 – Report and Catalogueof Artefacts from Fremantle Prison
Tunnels
Department of Housing and Works.
2005. Report and Catalogue of Artefacts,
Fremantle Prison tunnels, Fremantle, WA.
Report prepared by S. Bolton for Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
UWA.
This report details the classification andcataloguing of artefacts collected from inand around the tunnels that had been stored
but never before catalogued. The artefacts
catalogued were retrieved during Bavin’s
1990 excavations, a 1993 excavation by
unknown persons, a visiting school group in
2001, and during 2004 preparation works
for the opening of the tunnels for heritage
tourism. Eureka archaeologist Bolton
compiled the catalogue in late 2004 andthe subsequent report followed in 2005.
The catalogue is an extrapolation of raw
data relating to each artefact’s associatedattributes, including findspot, age, and object
form. In addition, the artefact’s function
and sub-function based on material andcharacteristics are listed, informing primaryand secondary object use. The catalogue
consists of 287 artefacts most of which
are metal (158) or glass (66) and range indate from 1820 to time of collection (2004).
The category of ‘Hardware’ dominates thecatalogue (150) followed by ‘Food’ (43), butother notable categories include ‘Personal’,‘Alcohol’, ‘Recreation’, ‘Pharmaceutical’ and‘Household’ artefacts.
The artefacts catalogued were noted by
Bolton to have research significance forbroader Prison material culture studies in the
future. Several artefacts also had research
and museum display potential, in particular,a range of nineteenth century axe heads
marked with the broad arrow, inscribedwhole glass medicine and alcohol bottles, aninscribed bone toothbrush, a lead teardrop
shaped plumb bob, and metal buckets
modified for a secondary function, perhaps
to shower. These artefacts were further
analysed by Alistair Paterson.

184

AppendicesEureka 2005 – Comments on
the Artefacts for display at theFremantle Prison Tunnels
Fremantle Prison, Department of Housing
and Works. 2005. Comments on theartefacts for display at the Fremantle
Prison tunnels, Fremantle, WA. Report
prepared A. Patterson for Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
UWA.
Following Bolton’s functional analysis of the
Prison Tunnels artefacts, Alistair Paterson of
Eureka further analysed specific artefacts,
including those assessed as having museum
potential. Paterson described the attributes
used for determining manufacture, subfunction, and date of artefacts (such as
bottles and clay pipes) and provided
his opinion on the function of a range ofpreviously unidentified metal artefacts:‘handles for flue vent’, ‘weapons or anauger’, and ‘pry bars’ (in consultation withother archaeologists Wayne Johnson, Martin
Carney, and Paul Rheinberger).

Eureka 2005 – Area between the
Carpenter’s Workshop and theEngine House
Palassis Architects and Fremantle
Prison. 2005. Report on the results ofarchaeological monitoring of ground
disturbance, Fremantle Prison, Fremantle,
Western Australia. Report prepared by
S. Bolton for Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting UWA.
In 2005, Eureka monitored the removal ofsoil built up during heavy rains between
the Carpenter’s Workshop and the Engine
House, resulting in moisture seepage
through the walls around the entrance tothe Prison tunnels. Subsequently, the soil
was determined to contain subsurface
archaeological material related to nineteenth
century Prison operations.

The soil was removed to a depth ofapproximately one metre below the original
surface. The remains of a concrete floor andbrick base of a dividing wall and woodenthresholds were identified in the western
portion. In addition, evidence of a smalllean-to building against the wall (suggested
to be a machinery shed such as a pumphouse or boiler) was noted. Immediately
beneath the concrete flooring was a layer ofsand containing machine-pressed brick andlimestone rubble.
The soil at the eastern end was dark andhumic, indicating organic material such as
wood. Lenses of charcoal and pieces ofmetal slag were also present. No features
relating to the construction of surrounding
buildings were encountered. The excavatedarchaeological material dated from mid tolate twentieth century. Eureka considered
the excavated material to be of low
archaeological significance. However, theexcavations did not reach culturally sterile orbasal layers and unexcavated lower levels
were still considered to have the potential tocontain evidence relating to the constructionof the Carpenter’s Workshop and Engine
House walls as well as the construction anduse of the wells and tunnels nearby.

Eureka 2009 – Visitors’ Centre
Philip Griffiths Architects and Departmentof Housing and Works. 2009. Fremantle
Prison Visitors Centre Café Development
Archaeological Test Excavations. Preparedby K. Flemming, S. Winter, K. Morseand S. Burke for Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting UWA.
Archaeological investigations wereconducted within the Visitor’s Centre areain 2008, following the discovery of a latenineteenth to early twentieth century brickfloor and associated infrastructure during
construction works for the Visitor’s Centre
Café development.

Appendices185

Through the review of a series of historicalplans, Eureka established that the area
was enclosed in the 1890s and until the
1970s was described as a yard or garden,
likely associated with the gatekeeper orSuperintendent’s quarters. By 1900 a seriesof tubs had been situated along the northernwall and by 1921 the yard included rainwatertanks, concrete troughs, a ‘copper’, possible
veranda and a small room in the northwest
corner, used as a store. A fence, watercloset, laundry and veranda were installed
along the western wall around 1930 and tubs
were also installed along this wall by 1935.

The Courtyard/Kitchen/Garden
Test pits in the eastern end of the courtyard
encountered a dark organic unit with remnant
timbers from either a degraded wooden flooror deposition through floor boards of theformer veranda and woodshed. A slate-lined
drain, rectangular brick soak and brick paving
encountered adjacent to the west wall were
found to be directly associated with a bricklined spoon drain running along the southernedge of the brick paved area. A paved areawith wooden/organic remains from the c.1950
veranda were encountered south of the spoon
drain against the southern wall.

Plans from the 1950s indicate that thequarters area then consisted of roughbrick and concrete paving with the copper,
troughs and water closet still present. Other
developments by that time included a woodshed in the northeast corner, a veranda
along the north wall and a roofed sectionin the southwest corner. The Store was inuse by 1973 and the Superintendent andgatekeeper quarters were being used as
offices. The small room in the northwest
corner of the courtyard was part of a firing
range area during the 1980s and the former
courtyard was in use as office space by1990.

A limestone floor with evidence of lime wash
was uncovered in the southeast corner.
Eureka noted that the practice of lime washingfloors was characteristic of late nineteenth
century to early twenthieth century use, tosterilise surfaces, and suggested that thearea may have been used for butchering. The
southern wall was subsequently removed tofit a doorway and the evidence of lime wash
against the southern face beneath the current
floor was destroyed, however, test pitting
established that the limestone floor is likely toextend the entire length of the southern wall.

In 2009, a total of five test pits wereexcavated to an approximate depth of 60 cm(depth of trenching). Three sample squares
were situated within the Former Courtyard
and two sample squares, subsequently
connected to form a single trench, weresituated within the Store. The purpose of
the excavations was to determine whether
significant archaeological deposits or features
were present in these areas. As the test
pits were only excavated to the depth ofthe proposed service trench and not tobasal levels, some features were not fully
investigated. Excavations revealed differing
stratigraphic sequences in the kitchen andstore room areas.

186

Appendices

Two small pits that appeared to have been cut
into the limestone were identified with a small
hollow metal pipe protruding from the centreof the southern-most pit. Eureka suggested
that this feature was related to a water pipeshown to lead through the courtyard on a plan
dated 1899.
The Former StoreA trench was placed between the twotest pits. It exposed a reasonably uniform
stratigraphy at the southern end of theStore Room. The oldest layer, consisting ofredeposited limestone sand, was found tocontain a small number of artefacts including
ceramic, glass and nails, which may provide
a date for this deposit. A layer of quitefragile, degraded wood containing numerous
nails encountered above the limestone wasthought to be the remains of flooring. Twolayers of redeposited building material andrubble were encountered above the flooring
remnants. A relatively uniform layer of modernbuilder’s sand was present at the top of the
excavated profile.

Two intrusions were identified within the
trench – one pit near to the west wall of
the store room found to contain modern
artefacts and a second pit that extended
outwards from the north side of the trenchthat was found to contain a large number ofused bullets. The bullets were presumed to
be associated with use of the area as a firing
range.

A brief site survey also located a further eighttimber joists underlying the northern portionof the veranda and miscellaneous building
rubble, including limestone rubble and bricks,
some with features indicating they weremade c.1900. The archaeological evidence
led Eureka to suggest that other buildings
along the front of the Prison have potential tocontain subsurface archaeological features.

The excavation to investigate the wall andits foundations indicated that a doorway had
been cut through the existing wall and theoriginal wall and its foundations were still insitu. A section of the wall and foundations
were demolished following recording toenable access for a proposed service trench.

Eureka 2009 – Parade Ground

Eureka 2009 – No. 12 The Terrace
Philip Griffiths Architects and Departmentof Housing and Works. 2009.
Archaeological Assessment of Timber
Feature, Fremantle Prison No. 12 The
Terrace. Report prepared by K. Flemmingand S. Burke for Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting UWA.
In 2009 Eureka was asked to inspect atimber feature that had been exposed during
excavation of a drainage trench along thewestern wall of No. 12 The Terrace. The
timber was suspected to be part of theformer veranda (c.1900) that had beenpreviously identified by Bavin (1990).
The extremely fragile timber that lined thebottom of the trench was determined to
be a ‘sacrificial’ plank and not part of theveranda structure. This feature was removed.
The timber sections exposed in the westernface of the trench were determined to bein situ joists of the former timber veranda
that had once extended outwards from themain building and were now covered by theexisting concrete veranda. The joists were left
in situ and Eureka recommended that they
be reassessed if any further development or
removal of the concrete veranda occurs.

Palassis Architects and Department of
Housing and Works. 2009. Fremantle
Prison Parade Ground Archaeological
Test Excavation Results (Stage 3). Report
prepared by S. Burke, A. Patterson and
K. Flemming for Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting UWA.
Eureka conducted archaeological researchand excavations within the Parade Ground in2008 following development proposals undera master plan to develop parts of the Parade
Ground to improve the functionality of space
while enhancing and conserving the historicalintegrity of the place. The archaeologicalassessment aimed to determine the absenceor presence and depth of these features
for future planning and development
considerations.
Following desktop research and constructionof a GIS predictive model, a series of fourtargeted trench locations were selected
for investigation based on proposeddevelopment locations. The four trenches
were situated within:• the northern and southern extents of the
Wooden Division (c.1856);• the Well in front of the South Main Cell
Block (c.1852); and• the Metalled Road (c.1862).
The Wooden Division
Documentary evidence indicated that
the Wooden Division, which functioned
as the site hospital until the Hospital wasconstructed in 1859, was a temporary
structure that had been placed ‘on plates’
for easy removal and that limited physicalevidence would remain.

Appendices187

Eureka’s excavations involved a targeted
search in locating evidence of the Wooden
Division after Bavin was unable to locate any
evidence during her excavations in 1990.
Two excavation trenches, measuring 1 x 4
metres and 1 x 5 metres, were positioned
in an attempt to locate the northern andsouthern extent of this structure.
Excavated layers in the northern section
were found to contain refuse deposits(0.15 to 1.7 metres in depth) with a varied
range of artefactual material, including slate
pencils, glass, ceramic, metal buttons,
bone, a tooth, leather and glass light bulbs.
No evidence was found relating to the use
and construction of the Wooden Division,
and Eureka considered that any remaining
evidence for the Wooden Division, if any,
is most likely to occur within the southern
extent of the Terrace (from a depth of 10 – 40cm). The southern extent may also have thepotential for in situ archaeological material
relating to when the Wooden Division was
occupied.
The northern extent of the trench revealed
several layers of early twentieth century
artefactual deposits, identified as successive
episodes of rubbish dumping off the edgeof the Terrace (between a depth 15 – 170cm). The southern extent of the trench wasmuch shallower than the northern extent andrevealed a silty grey deposit, c.1950’s, and alayer of mixed crushed limestone, at a depth
15 - 35 cm below the surface.
The Deep Well
Documentary research and process of
elimination had indicated that the Well in
the Parade Ground development area was
the original Deep Well c.1852 (40 ft deep).
Unfortunately, remote sensing had located anunderground electrical cable at the preferredtarget location and so a second location was
selected.

188

Appendices

Excavation of a 2 x 5 metre trench
encountered deposits down to bedrock at
a depth of 0.66 metres. A range of artefacts
were recovered, primarily structural material,
timber, modern wiring, bone, slate, and nails.
The artefactual material is mostly recent, withsome older artefacts thought to have been inlayers that were redeposited through twentiethcentury construction and demolition activity.
The Deep Well was not located during
excavations; however, a crushed limestonelayer was encountered at a depth of 0.41
metres in the far northern end of the trenchand identified as a possible path or other
hardened surface. Eureka advised that if
any construction was to occur in the area, it
should not go below a depth of more than
40 cm below the existing surface. Ground
disturbance below this depth could potentially
impact archaeological remains (i.e. the Well).
Metalled Road
The final trench, measuring 2 x 6 metres insize, was positioned partially over the current
bitumen road and partially over the adjacentgrassed area to attempt to locate thealignment of the original limestone metalledroad.
Excavation revealed a compact layer ofcrushed limestone, approximately 20
to 30cm thick, identified as the originalroad surface. This limestone surface isapproximately 10 to 12 cm below themodern bitumen surface and appeared tofollow the path of the current road.
Between the limestone deposit and bitumen
surface were layers of redeposited soils
containing a variety of artefactual materials,
including ceramic, glass, bone, boot heels,slate fragments, nails, bottle glass, and lightbulb fragments.
Situated adjacent to the crushed limestonelayer was a nineteenth century refuse pit.
The refuse pit contained large amounts ofanimal bone (primarily cattle) and a range ofartefacts, including ceramic, glass bottles,
charcoal and clothing parts such as metalheels, buckles and eyelets.

Eureka 2010 – The Commissariat
Philip Griffiths Architects and Building andManagement Works. 2010. Archaeological
Assessment of the Sub-Floor Potential,
Commissariat Building, Fremantle Prison,
Western Australia. Report prepared by
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting UWA.
Proposed floorboard repairs in The
Commissariat prompted the commission of
Eureka Archaeological Consulting to assess
the potential impact and archaeologicalsignificance of the underfloor deposits.
Subsequently, excavation of two key-holeslots within the Steward’s and Clerk’s
offices utilising existing floorboard damage
informed the assessment. As a result,Eureka determined that the proposed
works would have no significant impact on
the archaeological integrity of any subfloor
deposits in these areas.
Steward’s Office
Two broken floorboards in the southern endof the room exposed the underfloor spaceenabling the excavation of a 1.55 m x 0.40 m
test pit. The excavated deposits comprised
120 mm grey, sandy silt, broken floorboard
pieces, modern structural implements, andrubbish (e.g., brick, linoleum, Styrofoam balls,
plastic conduit, electrical wire, and asbestos
screws, nails, an aluminium safety razor andother ferrous metals).
Some possibly ninetheenth century nails werealso recovered, believed to have derived fromthe broken floorboards. The entire deposit
was interpreted as predominantly consistingof a modern rubbish layer, accumulated post
floorboard breakage. The underlying layer
comprised degraded limestone and wasinterpreted as a levelling layer deposited overbedrock.

Clerk’s Office
A section of three broken floorboards
measuring 0.65 m x 0.50 m against thesouthern wall of the Clerk’s Office exposed asmall section of the underfloor deposits andallowed for test excavation. The deposits inthis location did not contain the same grey
silt layer as encountered in the Steward’s
Office, instead only containing the degradedlimestone layer, meaning that excavation wasless extensive. Consequently, archaeologicalfinds recovered from this excavation
comprised even fewer and less significant
than those recovered from the Steward’s
Office.

Eureka 2010 – Prison Stables
Philip Griffiths Architects and Building
Management and Works. 2010. Fremantle
Prison, Western Australia, Archaeological
Test Excavations of the Stables Building(Stage 2). Report prepared by S. Winter,
J. Stedman and K. Morse for Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
UWA.
Archaeological assessment within the Prison
Stables building was undertaken in 2009prior to the commencement of maintenanceand restoration works. The soil had been
deposited against the southern limestone
wall of the building to a height of 2 metres
during levelling for the carpark, which wascausing degradation of the wall throughseepage. A trench was sunk along the wall
to remove the soil and enable inspectionof remnant timber joists and a number ofsignificant historic artefacts were recovered(including pre-1920 bottles and a hollow, castiron ball initially thought to be from a convictball and chain).
Eureka was then engaged to investigate
the nature of the deposit and attempt todetermine how nineteenth century artefacts
were found within soil deposited mid tolate twentieth century. The investigations
also sought to recover any other nineteenth
century artefacts present within the deposit
and determine the function of the timber
joists attached to the wall.

Appendices189

A single trench measuring 3 metres in lengthand 1 metre in width was excavated along
the southern wall, to a depth of 60 cm at thewestern end (halted due to time and safety
restrictions) and a depth that was level withthe existing floor of the Stables at the easternend.
The Stables excavation established that alevelling deposit containing a mix of artefacts
dating from the 1830s to the 1950s andpotentially originating from outside thePrison, was placed to the south of theStables building between the 1950s to 1970s
during construction of a car park. A trellistype structure supporting a grapevine wassituated along the outside of the southernwall prior to this, which may be associatedwith a low brick wall structure that was also
encountered. The brick structure was not
fully investigated, and further excavation
would be required to expose its full extent toconfirm its function.
The brick feature overlies a layer of crushedlimestone, thought to be a levelling layerfrom the original construction of the Stables(c.1870), the only convict era feature locatedduring the investigation.
Excavation of a small trench measuring 70
x 30 cm placed across the threshold of theexisting western doorway established thatthe west doorway of the Stables is an original
feature of the building dating back to its
construction in the 1850s.

Eureka 2011 – Knutsford Street
Ramp
Philip Griffiths Architects. 20011.
Archaeological Background Management
Advice – Knutsford St Ramp Fremantle
Prison. Advice prepared by Sarah Burke
for Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting UWA.
While monitoring under a Watching Brief
in 2011, Eureka established the presenceof sections of the original ramp surface,
overlaying a layer of compact, yellowish-whitesand with limestone inclusions. Subsequent
test excavation revealed the full extent of
the original surface of the path across a

190

Appendicesmid-section and identified that the surface
is approximately 200 – 250 mm in average
thickness. The surface was found to be a flat,compact, well-drained surface consisting of
medium sized limestone cobbles with welldefined eastern and western margins.
The depth of the limestone surface ranged
between 200 to 260 mm below current
ground level, with the eastern edge 30 to
40mm deeper than elsewhere. This depth
was substantially shallower than the depthof the limestone surface encountered by
McIlroy.

Eureka 2011 – No. 8 The Terrace
Philip Griffiths Architects. 2011.
Archaeological Watching Brief and Rescue
Excavations for Soakwell Construction
Between Buildings 8 and 10 The Terrace,
Fremantle Prison. Advice prepared by
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting UWA.
Eureka completed an archaeologicalwatching brief and rescue excavations within
two machine-excavated trenches situated
immediately to the south of the building
front at No. 8 the Terrace. Excavationscommenced following the discovery of green
glass bottle and roof slating fragments and ahistoric surface cut by postholes.
Working under time constraints,
archaeologists were only able to investigate
an area within one of the trenches. This work
revealed several archaeological features,
including four postholes for wooden uprightelements, a small pit, and a shallow trench.
Eureka was not able to determine thenature of the structure associated with thepost holes and advised that they were notable to locate any record of a building at
this location; however, further review of the
documentary record or excavation may
resolve the issue. The historic surface wassituated beneath a mid-twentieth century
carpark and it was suggested that thissurface may date to early periods of prison
occupation and potentially to the period oforiginal Prison construction.

Eureka 2011 – No. 14 The Terrace,
Archaeological Watching Brief andExcavation Results
Philip Griffiths Architects. 2011. Fremantle
Prison, Number 14, The Terrace,
Archaeological Watching Brief andExcavation Results. Advice prepared by
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting UWA.
In 2011, Eureka completed an archaeologicalwatching brief and the rescue excavationof a refuse privy at No. 14 The Terrace,
constructed as the Deputy Superintendents
living quarters (1855). The privy was
excavated and recorded using single context
methodology which included the analysis
and dating of diagnostic structural elements
during the process. Deeper deposits within
the privy contained mid to late nineteenth
century cultural deposits including sets ofdomestic ceramicware, toys and clothing.
These artefacts were later analysed in depth
by Alice Haast of UWA for her Master ofProfessional Archaeology, in assessing the
economic impact of penal transportation toWA.

UWA 2013 – Parade Ground
Haast, A, K. Robertson, P. Hunter, and V.
Boyadjian. 2013. Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground Excavation Report. Unpublishedreport prepared for MA Professional
Archaeology, Archaeology Department,
University of Western Australia, Crawley.
Archaeological investigations by students
from UWA’s Master of Professional
Archaeology Program in 2013 were
undertaken with the primary aim of following
up on Eureka’s (2009) search for the Deep
Well (c.1852). Following careful mapping, a
3 x 1m trench was placed approximately 1meast of the Eureka’s 2008 excavation trench.
Excavation occurred through four spits,
encountering an increasingly dense, heavily
mixed artefactual assemblage including
plastic cutlery, coins dated to post prison
closure, and glass, metal, and bone
fragments. The excavation also identified
a relatively recent cut made during the
installation of modern plumbing and two

historical features thought to be occupational
refuse pits. One of the refuse pits was semicircular in shape and considered likely to be
the top limestone capping of the Deep Well.
Due to time constraints, neither feature was
fully excavated, and further archaeologicalinvestigation is necessary to confirm that
the Well has been located and that the two
features are associated with the historicalplacement of refuse at the well location.

Eureka 2013 – Refractory Yard
Palassis Architects. 2013. Fremantle
Prison, Refractory Block Exploratory
Excavation – Investigation of Paint on
Yard Wall. Advice prepared by A. Gow
for Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting UWA.
Eureka archaeological excavation in theyard of the Refractory Block attempted toestablish the date of pink/red render visibleon the walls of the Refractory Block yard. A
trench measuring 1.40 x 0.65 metres was
excavated parallel to an existing section of
the render on the south yard wall, to locate
the lower limit of the render on the wall.
The excavation passed through different
strata, including painted bitumen, aconcreted yard surface, degraded limestone,sand levelling layers and backfill deposits.
The lower limit of the render was locatedapproximately 200 mm below current groundlevel. After considering the location of thelower limit in relation to a rich excavatedassemblage within backfill deposits, Eureka
determined that the render was applied
towards the end of the nineteenth century
and was not likely to have been applied at
the time that the Prison was constructed.

UWA 2013 – Women’s Division
Haast, A. and K. Robertson 2013 Reporton Archaeological Survey of the Fremantle
Prison Women’s Prison, conducted
September 2013. Unpublished report
prepared for the University of Western
Australia.

Appendices191

Archaeology students from the Universityof Western Australia (UWA) conducted asurvey of various cells within the Women’s
Division in 2013. The survey was undertaken
as part of an assessment of the condition of
the Prison’s ceilings, floors and underfloor
deposits within cavities in order to identify
areas of archaeological potential. The work
was undertaken as a training exercise
under the UWA Undergraduate Field School
Programme and followed up on Mein’s study(2012) which sought to identify cells in theMain Cell Block of the Prison with the highest
potential for in-floor deposits to containarchaeological materials.
The quantity of graffiti within surveyed cells
was also assessed on a four-point scale as
Mein had previously found that the presenceof graffiti in a cell correlated with reduced
archaeological potential.
Of the 52 cells surveyed, 29 were found tocontain graffiti and five cells, all located within
the original c.1850 division of the Women’s
Prison, were recorded as having high to very
high levels of graffiti. These results broadly
correlated with under floor assessmentsof archaeological potential – cells in theoriginal division were found to contain original
floorboards that were both exposed andconsisted of mostly intact original surfaces,indicating higher archaeological potential ofsignificant deposits. Other surveyed spaces
contained a combination of carpet andconcrete flooring, resulting in lower potentials
for archaeological deposits.
The majority of surveyed spaces werealso found to have altered ceiling cavities,
resulting from the addition and removal ofservices, including ceiling fans, lights, andvents. These changes were suspected tohave impacted the integrity of floor cavities
in the rooms above them and as such werelikely to have reduced the potential andsignificance of deposits within first floor
rooms.
However, the correlations that Mein
identified between archaeological potential
and these other factors have been more
recently been brought into question.

192

Appendices

The investigation of underfloor deposits
within parts of the Main Cell Block in2019 demonstrated that there is generallyhigh potential for underfloor deposits incells displaying ranges of floor and ceilinginterventions.

Fremantle Prison and WA Museum2014 – Coracles Extraction
In 2014, the two watercraft previouslyinterpreted in 2004 as ‘coracles’ weresuccessfully extracted from the Prison
Tunnels to undergo cleaning, conservationand further evaluation. The recovery was
undertaken by the Fremantle Prison incollaboration with the WA Museum, with thecraft being transported the WA Museum lab
for analysis. The entire process was also
documented photographically.

UWA 2014 – Bath House
Van Beek, J, S. Wells, and R. Bertinshaw.
2014. Fremantle Prison Bath House
Excavation Report. Unpublished report
prepared for MA Professional Archaeology,
Archaeology Department, University ofWestern Australia, Crawley.
Students from UWA conductedarchaeological excavations to investigate theeastern and western walls of the Bath House,
and to confirm the presence of the ‘Ash Pit’recorded adjacent to it. These features had
previously been identified by Bavin (1990) as
highly significant features. Trench locations
were selected following a review of historical
documents and maps and Bavin’s previous
investigative work.
The Bath House excavations located a seriesof baths and associated pipes. Remains of
the western wall were encountered; however,
the remains of walls exposed in the easternsection of the investigation area were notconsidered to be part of the eastern BathHouse wall.
A feature with charcoal and a variety ofassorted artefacts was encountered,however, the feature was identified as aninterim ash deposit and may not be the Ash
Pit previously identified by Bavin.

UWA 2014 – Engine House
Van Beek, J, S. Wells, and R. Bertinshaw.
2014. Fremantle Prison Engine House
Excavation Report. Unpublished report
prepared for MA Professional Archaeology,
Archaeology Department, University ofWestern Australia, Crawley.
Undergraduate and Masters students from
UWA conducted archaeological excavationsof the Main and South Yards of the Engine
House as part of a joint field project. Threetrenches were excavated in the Main Yard,and one trench was excavated in the South
Yard. The investigations aimed to locate theremains of the chimney structure and flue,
examine the technology and processes
involved with the chimney and the Engine
House, locate the remains of the guardhousein the Main Yard, and locate the well recorded
in historical plans in the southeast corner of
the South Yard.
The southeast corner of the chimney
structure and part of the base of the chimney
column were located. The remains of anarched-brick flue leading out of the northernwall of the Engine House to connect with thechimney structure were also located. The
Well in the South Yard and Intact remains of
the Guard House were not located; however,an abundance of excavated window glassand burnt timber beams indicated that theoriginal location of the guardhouse had
been found. A previously unknown set ofstairs leading up from the Main Yard into theSouth Yard was also encountered during the
excavation of the guardhouse.

Haast 2014 – The Economic Impact
of Convict Transportation on theWestern Australian Economy
1850 – 1900: An Archaeological
Investigation (MA)Haast, A. 2014 The Economic Impact ofConvict Transportation on the Western
Australian Economy 1850 – 1900: An
Archaeological Investigation.
Two previously excavated artefact
assemblages from Fremantle Prison were
sampled and analysed for research into theeconomic impact of penal transportation

to Western Australia. The analysedassemblages were from the 2008 Parade
Ground excavations (to locate the c.1862
Metalled Road), and from an excavated privy
at No. 14 The Terrace (formerly occupied byadministrative officers and their families).
In analysing these assemblages, Haast’s
primary intention was to provide an indicative
sample of economic variety on the micro
scale, which may then be used in further
investigating impact on the broader economy.

GJCRM 2015 – Women’s Prison,West Workshops, and the Terrace
Gavin Jackson Cultural Resource
Management. 2015. The report of an
Archaeological Watching Brief undertaken
within the Female Division, West
Workshops, and The Terrace sectionsof Fremantle Prison, Fremantle, Western
Australia. Report prepared by Simon
Colebrook and Tony Bartlett for YHA WA
Inc.
Gavin Jackson Research Management was
engaged to assist with ground disturbancework proposed for the installation of utility
and fire service pipes in 2014/2015. Thiswas part of the development of the Youth
Hostel. Two shovel test pits and 26 service
trenches were located in the Women’s Prison
courtyards, at the interior and exterior of
the West Workshops, and in The Terrace
carpark beyond the western Perimeter Wall.
In addition, six test sondages were excavatedwithin the former Women’s Prison and West
Workshops.
A total of twelve archaeological features wereidentified: two electrical conduit features,
two wooden features, four pits, one brickfeature, a flagstone path and two former
internal division walls were located within
the courtyards of the Women’s Prison. A
brick feature was also exposed inside theWest Workshops. A large assemblage ofartefacts was recovered and recorded fromwithin some of the features and trenches.
All features were identified as relating tonineteenth and twentieth century occupationof the Prison.

Appendices193

Romano 2015 – What You Lookin’
At?: An Archaeological Analysis of
Graffiti and Inscription at Fremantle
Prison, Western Australia (BA Hons)

This investigation was conducted andreported by archaeologist Kelly Flemmingof the Department for Planning, Lands andHeritage.

Romano, B. 2015 What You Lookin’ At?:An Archaeological Analysis of Graffiti andInscription at Fremantle Prison, Western
Australia. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis,
Department of Archaeology, University ofWestern Australia, Crawley.

DPLH 2017 Parade Ground Sink Hole
Extraction – Fremantle Prison Fire
Services Pipeline Archaeological
Monitoring Strategy

Romano recorded a total of 773 motifs andinscriptions within various cells throughout
the Main Cell Block and associated yards. By
analysing the degree of visibility of graffiti for
Prison guards and the level of subversivenessof the motif or inscription, Romano wasable to hypothesise about prisoner agency
in terms of institutional resistance, coping
mechanisms, identity retention, expression
and catharsis, messaging systems, thediscrediting of authority and the alleviationof boredom. Romano paid particularattention to types of graffiti in ‘public’ and‘private’ spaces (determined by the level ofsurveillance). Where ‘public’ graffiti tended
to be highly inflammatory, transgressive
and resistant to authority, graffiti in ‘private’
spaces was less so. There was an increase insubversive and ‘inflammatory’ written graffiti
in 1991 coinciding with recommendations
by the authorities to allow graffiti to placate
inmates after the 1988 riots (though thismay also have been a means of intelligencegathering).
Romano’s investigation highlights the value ofthe more recent archaeology at the Prison.

DPLH 2017 – Fremantle Prison
Archaeological Investigation ofc.1856 Sewer
Flemming, K. 2017. P1014 Fremantle
Prison Archaeological Investigation ofc.1856 Sewer Final Report. Unpublishedreport prepared for the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage, Western
Australia.
In 2017 the chance opening of a sink hole in
the Fremantle Prison Parade Ground enabled
the investigation of the c.1856 sewer there.

194

Appendices

Artefacts recovered from the exposed sinkhole artefacts were recorded by Moss
Wilson.

Archae-aus 2020 – ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy for Fremantle
Prison Parade GroundDepartment of Planning, Lands
and Heritage. 2020. ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy for Fremantle
Prison Parade Ground. Unpublishedreport prepared by Archae-aus Pty Ltd,
Fremantle, Western Australia.
In 2020 Archae-aus was commissioned todevelop an Archaeological Management
Strategy for the Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground. It considered the evidence for:
1852 Well, 1854 Drains and Tunnels, the1862 proposed Metalled Roads, the 1862
Parade Ground and grassed areas, the1908 Officers’ shelter shed, c.1919 Clothes
Store (Old Canteen post -1948), the c.1909
Rotunda, the 1919 Sentry Box, and the 1964
Laundry and Ablution Block.
Archae-aus assessed the archaeologicalpotential of the Parade Ground as high.
Archae-aus divided areas of the Parade
Ground up into zones of significance inline with Bavin’s (1990a) zoning plan,
incorporating more recent archaeological
data. Those zones have been superseded by
the 2021 AMP.
The AMS incorporated management
strategies aligned with the HMP’s Guiding
Principles and Overarching Policies (Extent2019). In addition, Archae-aus provided
policy and procedure documentation formonitoring works, archaeological discoveries,
contractor engagement, and recording andcollections of archaeological finds.

These have also been superseded by the2021 AMP.

Archae-aus 2020 – The Commissariat– Archaeological Management
Strategy
Department of Planning, Lands,
and Heritage. 2020. ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy for Fremantle
Prison Commissariat. Unpublishedreport prepared by Archae-aus Pty Ltd,
Fremantle, Western Australia.
In 2020 Archae-aus was commissioned todevelop an Archaeological Management
Strategy for The Commissariat.
It was noted that past excavations in the
Steward’s and Clerk’s offices though limited,confirmed some potential for archaeologicaldeposits in the Commissariat. Other subfloor
investigations in other areas of the Prison
have further confirmed this potential. Recent
underfloor excavations in Western Australia
and experimental archaeology conducted byWinter et al. (2020) found that accumulationof underfloor deposits is typically moresignificant within doorways and, in theabsence of skirting, forms a battleship
distribution around the outer limits of rooms.
Archae-aus determined that this potential
has yet to be realised in The Commissariat
due to limited excavation. Works involving the
disturbance of these deposits pose a risk tothis potential archaeological resource.
In consideration of Bavin’s (1990a) zoning
plan, and Extent’s (2019) HMP Zones ofSignificance, Archae-aus reiterate the highsignificance and potential for archaeologicalremains in The Commissariat, and further
present Bavin’s, still relevant, researchquestions.
Management strategies aligned with the
HMP’s Guiding Principles and Overarching
Policies (Extent 2019) are provided, informing
recommendations for future works. In
addition, Archae-aus provide policy andprocedure documentation for monitoringworks, archaeological discoveries, contractor
engagement, and recording and collectionsof archaeological finds.

Terra Rosa 2020 – The Hospital
Archaeological Management
Strategy – Heritage Assessment
and Excavations and Terra Rosa
2021 – Heritage Assessment andExcavations
Department for Planning, Lands andHeritage. 2020. Fremantle Prison Hospital
Heritage Assessment and Archaeological
Excavations. Unpublished report preparedby Terra Rosa Consulting, Fremantle.
Department of Planning, Lands
and Heritage. 2021. ArchaeologicalManagement Strategy the Hospital.
Unpublished report prepared by Terra
Rosa Consulting, Fremantle.
In 2020 Terra Rosa was commissioned todevelop an Archaeological Management
Strategy for the Fremantle Prison Hospital.
On completion of the AMS archaeologicalinvestigation was undertaken. Thoseinvestigations included visual inspection of
the floors and underfloor deposits, test pits
under the floors in rooms G-04, G-03 andG-07, excavation in room G-07, and a studyof certain graffiti on the building’s external
walls. The excavations yielded artefacts fromall phases of the Hospital’s use, from theconstruction phase (1857-1859) through thetwentieth century. These included buttons
and fragmentary clay pipes.

Fremantle Prison – ‘What We
Found Under the Floor’ Underfloor
Excavations 2019/2020
The lifting of floorboards during 2019/2020
conservation works within the Main Cell
Block permitted archaeological investigationof underfloor spaces within various cells.
They proved to be highly productive,
confirming the high archaeological potentialof these locations. The artefacts recovered
dated from the convict era to more
recent times and included of clay pipes,
handwritten letters, slate etchings, drawings,
photographs, tattoo devices and tattoo
designs. Some of the finds were vulnerable
organic materials such as paper and textiles.

Appendices195

Appendix E – Chance Finds Procedure
Introduction
This archaeological Chance Finds Procedure
has been designed as a guide to be used if
unexpected discoveries occur.
Fremantle Prison staff should familiarise
themselves with the Chance Finds
Procedure.
It should also be incorporated into the
induction process of any employee orcontractor involved in ground disturbance orbuilding works within Fremantle Prison.

It applies to historical archaeology and to
Aboriginal archaeology (both pre- and postinvasion).
Failure to comply with the chance finds
procedures could result in a breach of theWestern Australian Heritage Act 2018 or the
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
In the case of human remains, there are also
specific requirements under the Coroners
Act 1996 (although there is low potential
for human remains to be encountered at
Fremantle Prison).

Key contacts
When unexpected archaeological finds are exposed, some key contacts include:
Institution

Contact

Fremantle Prison

Heritage Conservation Manager
Fremantle Prison
1 The Terrace, Fremantle, 6100
Phone: (08) 9336 9200

Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage

Heritage Assessment & Registration | Heritage Services
140 William Street, Perth WA 6000
Phone: 6552 4000

196

The Western Australian
PolicePhone: 131 444

The Registrar of
Aboriginal Sites

Phone: (08) 6551 8000

South West Aboriginal
Land and Sea Council(SWALSC)

reception@noongar.org.au

Appendicesregistrar@dplh.wa.gov.au
Phone: (08) 9358 7400

Contingency processes for discovery ofpotential archaeology
The Archaeological Management Plan has
assessed Fremantle Prison as having variablearchaeological potential. The potential forhistorical archaeology in most areas has beenassessed as low.
Even where the assessed potential is ‘low’
there remains the possibility of unexpectedarchaeological finds.
These might include:• Brick or stone wall footings;• Refuse dumps and refuse pits;• Historic services (pipes, drains etc);• Wells;• Retaining walls;• Garden beds, kerbing, paths andsurfaces;• Underfloor deposits;• Roof cavity and wall cavity finds;• Industrial archaeology (shafts, drives,
wiring etc);• Isolated finds within fill contexts (e.g.,bottles, buttons, cutlery, horseshoes,
nails etc); and• In the case of Aboriginal archaeology,
flaked stone artefacts or stone artefacts
with a ground edge.
The following actions should be observed
where suspected archaeology is exposed:• Immediately cease any work or activity
being undertaken in that area and informthe Site Supervisor. Consider fencing off
or otherwise demarcating the location to
avoid accidental damage or disturbance.
• The Site Supervisor must contact therelevant Project Manager who must beaware of the Chance Finds Procedures
and the content of the AMP. They willkeep the Director, Fremantle Prison
informed. Use the Key Contact details
provided above.
• A suitably qualified archaeologist should
be consulted. This will probably requirea site visit by that archaeologist. The
archaeologist will assess the find using
the AMP as a guide and advise whether
or not the find constitutes significant
archaeology.

• If not, the works may recommenceon the advice of the archaeologist.
In any event, before recommencing
work, make a record of the find andthe process that was followed, todemonstrate compliance with policies
and management requirements.
• If the unexpected find is ofarchaeological significance, observe thestatutory requirements presented in Part
1.3 of this AMP. This may include theneed for an application for approval toproceed, on advice from the Heritage
Council. In some circumstances, areferral to the Australian Minister for
Agriculture, Water and the Environment
may even be necessary. This is atime-consuming process and theexposed archaeology may need to besafeguarded in the meantime (e.g.,through reburial). However, the preferred
position is usually to avoid impacts tothe archaeology through redesign of theworks program.
• In the case of identified Aboriginalarchaeology, the archaeologist must
advise on the need for Aboriginalcommunity engagement. This is a criticalstep in the management of Aboriginalarchaeology.
• In the case of suspected humanremains, the Western Australian Police
must be informed immediately, and prior
to contacting the archaeologist.
In summary:• Observe.
• STOP and protect.
• Report.
• Seek advice.
• Act on advice.
• Consider avoidance through redesign.
• Seek necessary approvals where
avoidance through redesign is notpossible. Protect the archaeology in theinterim.
Do not speak to the media or discuss withother third parties outside the project team.

Appendices197

Appendix F – Standard Recording Forms
The following recording forms reflect archaeological standard practice. They may be modified tosuit the needs of individual archaeological projects.
Project

Area

RecorderDate

Context No.

Context Description

 (Deposit/Fill/Layer)
1.
2.
3.
4.

Compaction
Composition
ColourInclusions

5.

Dimensions

5.
6.
7.

Sides
Base
Fill
Numbers
Dimensions

 [Cut]
1.
2.
3.
4.

Shape in plan
Orientation
Break of
Slope
(Top/Bottom)
Corners8.

 <Structure>
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Materials
Form
Bonding
Rows/Courses
AssociatedContexts
Part of Larger
Structure?

7.
8.
9.

Shape inplan
Orientation
Dimensions

Interpretation

Suggested Phasing:

Suggested Significance:  High Moderate

 Low

Records & Registers
Levels (add to sketch)

Photo No(s)Plan No(s)Section No(s)Sample No(s)Special Finds No(s)Highest:Lowest:Artefacts & Finds
No. of Artefact Bags

198

Appendices None  Ceramic  Glass  Bone  Stone  Organic Building Materials  Metal  Other …………………………….

Finds for conservation?

 N/A  Yes…………...
……………………………...

Significance & Check
Checked byDatePhasing

Significance High Moderate

 Low

Additional notes:

SKETCH PLAN (include north arrow, associated contexts, measurements, levels and scale if applicable)

Appendices

199

CONTEXT REGISTER

Page

/

Project Name:

200

Area

Appendices

Description & Location(e.g. cesspit, subfloor, internal, external)

This
Context
isAbove:

This
Context
is
Below

Same
As

Phasing

Context
No.

SIGNFICANCE: HIGH =H, MED =M, LOW = L

Significance(FILL) [CUT] <STRUCTURE>

LEVEL REDUCTION SHEET

Page

/

Site/Project Name:

IH – FS = RL

TBM + BS = IH
Date &

Datum/

Surveyor

TBM

BS

IH

FS

Level
No.

Description

RL

Appendices201

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD FORM
Project Name:CAMERA DETAILS: ____________________________________________
Date

202

By

Appendices

Photo #

Image #

FacingDescription

Page

/

PLAN REGISTER

Page

/

Project Name:

Plan #Date

By

Description

Appendices203

SOIL SAMPLE REGISTER

Page

/

Project Name:

204

Context
No.

Appendices

Area/Location

Description & Notes(e.g. colour, pH, inclusions, etc.)

Initials

SampleNo.

SIGNFICANCE: HIGH =H, MED=M, LOW =L

Significance(FILL) [CUT] <STRUCTURE>

SPECIAL FINDS REGISTER

Page

/

Site/Project Name:

Context
No.

Area/Location

Description & Notes(material, form and context, e.g. green glass wine bottle,
subfloor context)

Initials

Find No.

SIGNFICANCE: HIGH =H, MED=M, LOW =L

Significance(FILL) [CUT] <STRUCTURE>

Appendices205

Appendix G – Decision-Making Flowcharts

206

Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan
Appendices211

Managing artefacts

When to retain and when to dispose
Is the artefact provenanced? That is, do
you know exactly where it came fromwithin the Prison?
Yes. Has the artefact
been the subject ofarchaeological recording
applying the minimum
requirements in Appendix
H of the AMP?

No. This will usually meanthat the artefact has low
archaeological researchpotential.

Consider disposal
subject toFremantle Prison
Collection Policy.

No. Have it recorded bya qualified archaeologist(see Appendix I in the
AMP on appropriatequalifications).

Ask: Has the artefact beenassessed for archaeologicalresearch potential by aqualified archaeologist (seeAppendix I on appropriatequalifications)?

Retain for
future research,education, andinterpretation.

Retain for
future research,education, andinterpretation.

Yes, and thearchaeologist concluded
that the artefact is an
important researchresource.

No. Have the artefact
assessed by a qualified
archaeologist applying
the historic themes
and research questions
provided in Appendix Bof the AMP. Ask: Is theartefact an importantresearch resource?

YES

Yes, and the archaeologist
concluded that it has low
or nil research potential
applying the themes andresearch questions inAppendix B of the AMP.

NO

Consider disposal
subject toFremantle Prison
Collection Policy.

Consider disposal
subject toFremantle Prison
Collection Policy.

Ask: Has a qualified archaeologist indicatedthat the artefact has been sufficiently recorded,
applying the minimum requirements inAppendix H of the AMP, such that the physicalobject no longer needs to be retained to meet its
research potential?
Retain for
future research,education, andinterpretation.

NO

YES

Consider disposal
subject toFremantle Prison
Collection Policy.

Ask: Has the research potential of the artefact
been realised through, for example, publication
in a peer-reviewed journal or high-quality,
publicly-accessible report?

Retain for
future research,education, andinterpretation.

NO

YES

Consider disposal
subject toFremantle Prison
Collection Policy.

Appendices207

Is it an action under
the EPBC Act?

Yes

No

Submit referral
under EPBC Act

Is it an action that
requires referral
under the P&D and
Heritage Acts?

Research

Development

Maintenance

UnsureWill works impact onarchaeology?

Submit research
design to HCWA

Yes

Consult AMP

Proceed once
approved andadvice given (e.g.
section 79 permit)

Yes

UnsureSubmit final report
to Fremantle
Prison/HCWA
libraries

Consult historicalarchaeologist.
Prepare AMS if
necessary

Consult historicalarchaeologist

Will the maintenanceactivity impact onarchaeology?

No

UnsureContact HCWA

Consult AMP
Submit DA
Yes

UnsureNo

Consult historicalarchaeologist

Proceed

Are investigative
strategies (e.g. test
pitting)
recommended?

Yes
No

Ensure AMS has
research design (seeAMP) or have one
separately prepared
Do you plan tocomplete investigative
strategies prior toworks?

Yes (recommended)

No

Submit DA with AMS.
Adhere to advice.
Implement AMS
strategies.

208

AppendicesContact
HCWA/WAPC

Appendix H – Minimum Standards
for Artefact Management Including
Recording
A copy of this Appendix should be provided
to all archaeologists proposing to undertakearchaeological excavation at Fremantle
Prison. Any Archaeological Management
Strategy (AMS), including the ArchaeologicalResearch Design (ARD) that it contains,must be consistent with the contents ofAppendix F and this Appendix.
Where fee quotes or tenders are requested
for archaeological works at the Prison, thesupplier of the services should familiarise
themselves with this Appendix before
submitting their offer of services.
Archaeologists who carry out investigations
at Fremantle Prison are required to adhere to‘best practice’ archaeological methodologies.
This includes:• In-field site recording (see Appendix F);• In-field artefact management including
recording, labelling, preliminaryconservation and storage;• Post-excavation artefact recording; and• Post-excavation reporting.
Prior to commencing field work, allexcavation directors are to be provided witha copy of the document entitled ‘Fremantle
Prison Collection: Archaeology Procedures’.
It is the excavation director’s responsibility toensure that in-field recording, conservationand storage of artefacts meets therequirements expressed in ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection: Archaeology Procedures’.

In-field artefact management
During fieldwork, it is the excavation director’s
responsibility to ensure that artefacts areappropriately managed on site. This includes:• Annotations using high quality pens,
notebooks, labels (digital recording ofdata in the field may be appropriate,on agreement with Fremantle Prison,provided appropriate fail safe’s areincluded);• Artefact labels;• Artefact bags and boxes;• Storage boxes and labels; and• The use of adhesives (if any).
During excavations, it is the responsibilityof the excavation director to liaise with
Fremantle Prison Curatorial Team to identify
artefacts that require urgent, specialists
conservation (e.g., paper, textile, leather ormetal artefacts). As a general rule (borrowing
from the Victorian State Government
guideline document entitled ‘Guidelines
for Investigating Historical Archaeological
Artefacts and Sites’ (Heritage Victoria 2015):• Any aqueous cleaning of artefacts
should be done with water only; do
not use detergents or solvents. Allow
artefacts to then air dry completely
before packing into polyethylene bagswith their labels.
• Used toothbrushes and sturdy bristle
brushes make the best cleaning
brushes; do not use wire brushes on any
artefact.
• Glass and ceramic artefacts that havestable (unweathered, non-degraded)surfaces can be washed in water;
however, interiors of bottles should not
be washed as residues can potentiallybe identified through analysis (seeAppendix D.2.5).
• Shell, bone, and ivory can undergo
basic cleaning, including washing (seeAppendix D.2.6 for further information).
• Metal can be gently cleaned with the useof a soft bristled brush (see Appendix
D.2.4).
• The cleaning of corroded coin surfaces
should be carried out by a qualified
conservator; there may be inscriptions
which can be saved through proper
treatment.

Appendices209• Do not attempt to clean archaeologicalwood, cork, textile, leather, paperor other organic materials; seek aconservator’s advice about cleaningthese materials.

archaeology, is to audit the project andprovide ‘sign off’ to indicate that the fieldwork
has been completed to an appropriate
standard.

• All artefacts must be provided toFremantle Prison at the close of
excavations appropriately cleaned,labelled and boxed. Following the‘Guidelines for Investigating Historical
Archaeological Artefacts and Sites’(Heritage Victoria 2015):

Post-excavation recording and reporting• Artefacts should be sorted and boxedby material, then by context and type.
• A minimum requirement for packing
is that all dry artefacts are placed intransparent polyethylene bags (forexample, Zip-lock™ bags). The bags
should be placed into corrugatedpolypropylene boxes. All bags clearlylabeled.
• Care should be taken when packing
fragile artefacts. Alternative containers
could be used with extra padding,such as rigid plastic boxes with press
seal lids. Consultants are encouraged
to seek advice from Fremantle Prison
Curatorial Staff about packing fragile,
wet/damp artefacts, or organic items.
• Do not over-pack boxes, or pack small
fragile items with large heavy ones.
Artefacts will sustain damage if packed
together too tightly. The box lid should fit
tightly on the base with no protrusions in
the lid surface.
The artefacts must be appropriately labelledusing Tyvek waterproof labels and pens usingarchivally stable ink.
Consult with the Fremantle Prison Curatorial
staff on the appropriate fabric anddimensions of the bags and boxes. Typically,bags should be resealable polyethylenebags and the boxes should be twin-walled
polypropylene (e.g., corflute).
Archaeological fieldwork is considered
incomplete where these basic requirements
are not met. At the close of physicalexcavations on site, a member of staff from
Fremantle Prison, with experience in historical

210

Appendices

On completion of any archaeologicalexcavation at Fremantle Prison (and ideallywithin 6 months of its completion) an‘Archaeological Post-Excavation Report’must be prepared that presents the results ofthe excavation. It must include:• An electronic database that records thefundamental artefact data as an ‘artefact
catalogue’.
• A written and illustrated ‘Archaeological
Post-Excavation Report’ that presents
the results of the fieldwork and artefact
analysis.
Until the artefact catalogue andArchaeological Post-Excavation Report haveboth been received, it cannot be said thatthe research potential of the archaeology has
been realised.
In that circumstance, it would usually beinappropriate to dispose of the artefacts.
An Archaeological Post-Excavation Report
can be succinct (e.g., where the excavation
yielded few, if any, artefacts) or long andcomplex.
It will usually be necessary to seek a separate
fee quote or tender for the preparation of
the Archaeological Post-Excavation Reportand artefact catalogue. Often, the successful
supplier will have been responsible for thefieldwork, but that need not necessarily be
the case.

The artefact catalogue (electronic
database)
Artefact analysts use a range of database
forms to record assemblages. Fremantle
Prison understands that a level of flexibility
is appropriate in this regard. However, thedatabase used must be able to integrate with
the Fremantle Prison Collection database(MOSAiC), including consistent use ofterminology.

The basic fields are described in theFremantle Prison guideline document entitled‘Fremantle Prison Collection: Archaeology
Procedures’. At a minimum, sufficient data
should be recorded for the artefact catalogue
to be searchable by:• Unique identifier (consistent with theFremantle Prison Collection database);• Site;• Trench;• Context/Spit;• Date of excavation;• Form e.g., window, nail, plate, bowl, pin,button;• Function e.g., architectural, hardware,sewing, kitchen, and sub-function if
relevant;• Material (e.g., ceramic) and sub-material(e.g., porcelain), including fields forcomposite objects;• Manufacturer;• Manufacturing technique;• Provenance (place of manufacture);• Date created (absolute, earliest date,latest date);• Condition;• Integrity of find context;• Colour/s;• Decoration including technique (e.g.,transfer print, embossing, rouletting,inscribing) and patterns;• Colour – surface, fabric and decoration;• Inscription;• Surface treatment;• Maximum dimensions;• Weight;• Portion of object represented;• percentage of complete object
represented;• Modifications (where relevant) e.g.,
repairs;• MNI and MNV; andThe Archaeological Post-Excavation
ReportThe Archaeological Post-Excavation Reportmust include the following at a minimum:• Executive summary describing
the context for the archaeologicalinvestigations, the location, researchgoals, and summary outcomes.
• Acknowledgement of relevant personnel,
including a clear statement of authorship(including multiple authors where
relevant).
• Accurate plans and section drawings
generated through survey and/or
measured drawing showing the locationof the site, the relevant work area/s, finds,
topography and stratigraphy. All plans
must include a scale, north arrow, clear
annotations and labels, and authorship.
They must indicate survey levels taken onsite which must be reduced to Australian
Height Datum (AHD) for all archaeologicaland topographical strata exposed as well
as relevant modern ground levels (e.g.,
next to trenches, limits of excavation).
Where appropriate, they should begeoreferenced having regard to historicalimages. It is desirable that a separate GIS
file is provided with the written report forinclusion of relevant data in the evolving
Fremantle Prison spatial database.
• Historical research to provide the context
for the report’s analysis, includingreferences and bibliography.
• A comprehensive presentation of the
excavation including its objectives, thecontext for the excavation (e.g., salvage,
open area, research, development),
excavation methodologies, treatment ofartefacts (cleaning, conserving, sorting,cataloguing, labelling, scale photographs
and/or measured drawings).
• Analysis of the data obtained, including
the results of the excavation of structural
remains (building techniques, fabric etc),
artefact analysis, archaeobotany, faunal
remains, dates and site development.

• Inscriptions: Makers’ marks, written text.

Appendices211• Comprehensive responses to theresearch questions posed by theArchaeological Research Design (usuallycontained in a related AMS).
• The nominated repository for retained
artefacts.
• Conclusions. This should include areassessment of the significance of
the area of the excavation. It should
include conclusions about whether
or not the area continues to havepotential for significant archaeology,
with recommendations for its ongoing
management.
• The artefact catalogue presented as anelectronic searchable database that is
consistent with the MOSAiC databaseused for the Fremantle Prison Collection.
• A clear statement by the principal author
concerning: (a) whether and which
artefacts have reached their researchpotential such that consideration may be
given to their disposal, (b) those artefacts
that should be retained in the Fremantle
Museum Collection on archaeologicalgrounds, and (c) those archaeologicalremains that warrant retention in situ onarchaeological grounds.
In relation to the final bullet point above, thisconclusion will require the archaeologist toassess the significance of the assemblage.
This will require a consideration of a range offactors. The following draws on the Victorian
State Government guideline document
entitled ‘Guidelines for Investigating Historical
Archaeological Artefacts and Sites’ (Heritage
Victoria 2015). The matters to consider whenassessing the significance of the assemblage
as a research tool include:• Integrity of the site and its deposits.
• Percentage of the site (or relevant part)that was excavated.
• Condition of the artefacts in theassemblage (for example intactness,preservation of organics, postdepositional damage).
• Size and diversity of the assemblage.
• Potential for further analysis of theassemblage, especially as technologies
advance.

212

Appendices• Potential for archaeologists to conduct
future work at the site.
• Ability of the assemblage to enhance thesignificance of the site.
The aesthetic or social values of individual
artefacts in the assemblage may also be
relevant, as well as their value for exhibitionor educational purposes. These mattersare better covered by the Management
Framework established for the managementof the Fremantle Prison Collection.
All assemblages do not have equal potential
for further research. The level of significancewill dictate the assemblage’s suitability for use
and curation. For this reason, the assemblage
Statement of Significance must be as
informed, detailed and accurate as possible.
In the event that individual artefacts within an
assemblage have a higher level of significancethan the rest of the assemblage, the artefacts
should be specified in the Statement of
Significance. The assemblage’s Statement of
Significance should include recommendations
for its future retention and management.
Where it is recommended that all or part of
the assemblage be discarded, the reasonsand the circumstances of discard must be fully
documented in the report. The final catalogue
should retain the information (including
representative photographs) about thediscarded artefacts and clearly indicate thatthey are no longer part of the assemblage.
The post-excavation report should beappropriately illustrated with measured
drawings and photographs.
The report should be submitted with folders
containing high resolution photographsof diagnostic artefacts, observing therequirements for photographs in the Fremantle
Prison document entitled ‘Fremantle Prison
Collection: Archaeology Procedures’.
Photographs should include a relevant
contrasting background (black or white)with acceptable scale and each photographlabelled according to the artefact’s catalogue
label entry.

Appendix I – Recommended Qualifications
and Experience
Only ‘suitably qualified and experienced
historical archaeologists’ may conductarchaeological surveys (e.g., excavations,watching briefs etc) at Fremantle Prison.
Archaeologists employed at the Prison
may be commercial consultants, universityemployed archaeologists and/or others
undertaking research investigations ofhistoric sites (e.g., academics, post-graduate
students under supervision etc).
The relevant qualifications and experience
will be commensurate with the type of work
being conducted on-site. As a general guide,a suitably qualified and experienced historicalarchaeologist will ideally have:• A tertiary degree (honours or above)in historical archaeology or related
discipline OR tertiary degree (pass)with subjects relating to historicalarchaeology and at least three years’
professional experience in historicalarchaeology; and• Demonstrated experience on historicalarchaeological sites, ideally those ofsimilar history and complexity as the
Prison where excavation, identificationand treatment of finds was a componentof the work; and• Demonstrated experience producing
quality synthesis of archaeologicalsurveys (e.g., reports), which includes
an ability to assess the significance ofsites and finds and provide appropriate
recommendations; and• Demonstrated understanding of thelegislative framework surrounding
historical archaeology in Western
Australia.

‘Excavation directors’ – personnel who
coordinate archaeological excavation – areconsidered at the top of this hierarchy andtherefore will need to meet stricter criteria toensure the archaeological resource is dealt
with appropriately.
The following criteria must be met by
excavation directors at Fremantle Prison(drawing on the NSW Heritage Council
document entitled ‘Criteria for Assessing
Excavation Directors’):• A tertiary degree (Honours, Masters
or PhD) and three years relevant andcumulative professional experiencein historical archaeology or a relatedarchaeological field, OR a tertiary passdegree with subjects in archaeology
or a related discipline and four years
professional experience in historicalarchaeology or a related archaeologicalfield; and• Demonstrated understanding of theAustralian and Western Australian
heritage legislation (EPBC Act, Heritage
Act 2018, Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972)
significance assessments under thatlegislation, and all relevant government
policy and guideline documents, and• Demonstrated experience in theinvestigation of comparable or relevant
historical archaeological sites (especially
Australian historical archaeology),
project management, archaeologicalassessments (e.g., the preparation ofArchaeological Management Strategies),and site management.

Appendices213

Appendix J – Historical Overlay Plans
A number of historical and modern plans were georeferenced for this report. These plans areincluded in the geodatabase that accompanies the report. The details of the plans are provided
in the table below, and the plans used in this report are provided as a series of figures in thisappendix.
File Name in
GIS Database214

Description and reference

T1_1851

Plan Shewing Addition to Convict Depot Fremantle, PD 1329; Cons 648626

T2_1851

Plan Shewing Addition to Convict Depot Fremantle. Cons 3850 Item 17A.
Copy of plan T1.

T3_1856

Block Plan of New Prison Fremantle, Western Australia. Convict Transp
Papers 2.

T4_1858

1958 Plan of the Convict Grant Fremantle. PWD WA 105; Cons 1647105.

T5_1890c.1890 Fremantle Prison Plan, PWD Ref XXXXX 8/5/1905. ATT TO 32/2/0
BK8, CONS 6408-01. Date uncertain.

T56_1895

c.1895 Plan of Fremantle Gaol, PWD 8171, Early Plan 000425e, ATT TO
32/3/0 BK8, CONS6272-01. Date uncertain.

T7_1896

1896 Proposed Stormwater Drain Fremantle, Early Plan 0003fba9; ATT
TO 32/2/0/BK8; Cons 6451-22.

T8_1897

1897 Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan. Cons 1867, Item 13436,
page 1.

T9_1897

1897 PWD WA 5613, Site plan 1897, Doc 751009, ATT TO 32/2/BK8,
CONS6486-23.

T10_1898

1898 Fremantle Gaol Plan No. 1, 1899 Penal Commission Report V&P.
Plan showing conditions at date of appointment of Commission.

T11_1909

1909 Fremantle Prison Drainage, PWD 6194, Early Plan 000425e4,
CONS 6727-05. Date is unclear.

T12_1899

1899 Fremantle Water Supply Plan, CONS1867, Item13436 Page 3.

T13_1899

1899 Penal Commission Fremantle Gaol New Sewerage and Drainage
Plan, Early plan 0003fb48, CONS6448-12.

T14_1899

1899 Penal Commission Fremantle Gaol New Sewerage and Drainage.

T15_1899

Copy of T14. 1899 Penal Commission Fremantle Gaol New Sewerage
and Drainage.

T16_1900

1900 District of Fremantle Sewerage System Fremantle Gaol, plannumber 1866.

T17_1900

1900 Fremantle Gaol Site Plan, CONS6548-08, DOC 750753. ATT
32/2/0/BK12.

T18_1908

1908 Plan of Fremantle Prison, CONS1636, Item 2143.

AppendicesFile Name in
GIS Database

Description and reference

T20_1922

1922 Fremantle Gaol Amended Plan, PWD29807, CONS1647. Plan
showing portion of Fremantle Prison to be declared an army detention
barrack. Traced from print supplied by superintendent of prison. May becopy of PWD 27887.

T21_1922

1922 Fremantle Gaol Amended Plan, Cons 6447-02; Doc 986629; ATT
32/2/0E/BK2. Plan showing portion of Fremantle Prison to be declared anarmy detention barrack. Traced plan. May be copy of PWD 27887.

T22a_1942

1922 Fremantle Gaol Amended Plan, PWD 29807; Doc 751268.
Cons6418-09. Plan showing portion of Fremantle Prison to be declaredan army detention barrack. Traced from print supplied by superintendentof prison. May be copy of PWD 27887. Likely duplicate of plans 20 and
22a, 22b.

T22b_1942

1922 Fremantle Gaol Amended Plan, PWD29807, CONS1647. Plan
showing portion of Fremantle Prison to be declared an army detention
barrack. Traced from print supplied by superintendent of prison. May becopy of PWD 27887. Likely duplicate of plans 20 and 22a, 22b.

T23_1948_Aerial

1948 historical aerial image of Fremantle Prison.

T24_1987

1987 Fremantle Prison Site Plan, CONS6421-03, Doc 985214, ATT
32/2/0/BK8, CP 26410/7/87.

T25_1990

Electrical site plan.

T26_1999

1999 Sewer Stormwater Plan.

T27_1999

1999 Gas, Water and Fire Plan.

T28_2006

Visitors Center Construction Plan.

T29_2007_Aerial

2007 December Fremantle Prison Aerial.

T31_1993

1993 Fremantle Prison Site Plan.

T19a_1919

1919 Fremantle Prison Government Electrical Engineer's Plan, PWD
21092, Doc 984685, ATT 32/2/0/BK8, CONS 6408-04.

T19b_1919

1919 Fremantle Prison Government Electrical Engineer's Plan, PWD
21092, Doc 984685, ATT 32/2/0/BK8, CONS 6408-04.

Appendices215

1851 Unidentified Site Plan SROWA Cons 3850 Item 17(c)Above: Western
1851 Unidentified
Site PlanTransport
SROWA Papers
Cons 3850
1856 Block Plan of New Prison, Fremantle,
Australia Convict
2 Item 17(c)Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: 1856 Block Plan of New Prison, Fremantle, Western Australia Convict Transport Papers 2
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

216

Appendices1858 Plan of the Convict Grant Fremantle Cons 1647-105

1896 Proposed Storm Water Drain Fremantle
PWDWA
Above: 1858
Plan of the Convict Grant Fremantle Cons 1647-105
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: 1856 Block Plan of New Prison, Fremantle, Western Australia Convict Transport Papers 2
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Appendices217

1897 Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan Cons 1867 Item 13436 Page 1

Above: 1897
Fremantle Water Supply Locality Plan Cons 1867 Item 13436 Page 1
c.1897 Unidentified Site Plan PWDWA
doc 751009
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: c.1897 Unidentified Site Plan PWDWA doc 751009
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

218

Appendices1898 Fremantle Gaol Plan No.1 Conditions in 1899 Penal Commission Report V&P

Above: 1898 Fremantle Gaol Plan No.1 Conditions in 1899 Penal Commission Report V&P

1898 Fremantle Prison Drainage PWD 6194

Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: 1898 Fremantle Prison Drainage PWD 6194
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

231

Appendices219

1899 Fremantle Prison Water Supply Plan Cons 1867 Item 13436 p 3

Above: 1899 Fremantle Prison Water Supply Plan Cons 1867 Item 13436 p 3
1899 Penal Commission Fremantle Gaol New Sewerage & Drainage

Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: 1899 Penal Commission Fremantle Gaol New Sewerage & Drainage
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

220

Appendices1900 Fremantle Gaol Site Plan

1908 Plan of Fremantle Prison Cons 1636 Item 2143

Above: 1900 Fremantle Gaol Site Plan

Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Above: 1908 Plan of Fremantle Prison Cons 1636 Item 2143
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

Appendices2211922 Fremantle Gaol, PWDWA Cons1647 29807

Above: 1922 Fremantle Gaol, PWDWA Cons1647 29807

1987
Fremantle
PrisonSite
Plan BMACons 6421-03
32/2/0 Bk 8
Extent Heritage| Fremantle
PrisonArchaeologicalManagement
Plan

Above: 1987 Fremantle Prison Site Plan BMA Cons 6421-03 32/2/0 Bk 8
Extent Heritage | Fremantle Prison Archaeological Management Plan

222

Appendices236

Appendices