Archaelogical management strategy
for fremantle prison parade ground
By Archae-aus Pty Ltd | For The Department of Planning, Lands and HeritageFEBRUARY 2020

DOCUMENT INFORMATION
14 February 2020
Version: 1.1
Prepared by: Archae-aus Pty Ltd for the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Version

Effective Date

Prepared By

Reviewed By

1.0

24/01/2020

1.1

14/02/2020

1.2
1.3

Approved Date

Monica JimenezLozano
Monica JimenezLozano

18/02/2020
19/02/2020

Kate Edwards and Jim
StedmanKate Edwards and Jim
StedmanMonica Jimenez-Lozano
Monica Jimenez-Lozano

VersionDate Issued

Media

Issued to

1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3

28/01/2020
14/02/2020
18/02/2020
18/02/2020
19/02/2020
19/02/2020

PDF
PDF
PDF
Microsoft Word
PDF
Microsoft Word

DPLH
DPLH
DPLH
DPLH
DPLH
DPLH

28/01/2020
14/02/2020
18/02/2020
19/02/2020

Archae-aus Project Code: DP19FP1a
CITATION: Archae-aus (2020) Archaeological Management Strategy for Fremantle Prison Parade Ground.
Prepared for the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage by Archae-aus Pty Ltd, North Fremantle.
February 2020.

Archae-aus Pty Ltd
1/107 Stirling Highway
North Fremantle WA 6159
PO Box 742
Fremantle WA 6959
T: 08 9433 1127
E: office@archae-aus.com.au
http://www.archae-aus.com.au

Acknowledgement of Country
The Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage recognises the diversity of the
Aboriginal peoples of Western Australia andacknowledges the Traditional Owners andcustodians and their connection to this land
and its waterways. We pay our respect toElders past and present and those who will
follow in their footsteps.

Project Manager: Jim Stedman
Email: jims@archae-aus.com.au

ii• ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDCOPYRIGHTThis report and the information contained
herein is subject to copyright and may not be
copied in whole or part without the writtenconsent of the copyright holders being
Archae-aus Pty. Ltd. and the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage.
DISCLAIMER
The authors are not accountable foromissions and inconsistencies that may
result from information which may come tolight in the future but was not forthcoming at
the time of this research.
The information contained in thisArchaeological Management Strategy relates
only to the works detailed in the Scope ofWorks, which is outlined in Section One.
AUTHORSHIPThe contributing authors were Kate
Edwards (BA Archaeology (Hons) Universityof Manchester, MA Osteoarchaeology
University of Southampton) and Jim Stedman(BA (Hons) University of Manchester,
MMarArch University of Western Australia).
Editorial assistance was provided by Monica
Jimenez-Lozano (BA (Hons) University ofWestern Australia).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge theassistance of Daniel Holland and Dr Kelly
Fleming from the Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage in the production of thisreport.
STRUCTURE AND FORMATThis Archaeological Management Strategy(AMS) was drafted in accordance withguidelines set out by the Heritage Councilof Western Australia (Heritage Council ofWestern Australia 2019).
Section 1 includes an introduction andbackground to the project with details of
the scope of works. Section 2 includes ahistorical background of the Fremantle Prison
Parade Ground Project Area. Section 3
describes the archaeological context of the
Project Area and provides a summary ofprevious archaeological work undertaken
there. Section 4 includes assessmentsof the Project Area’s archaeologicalsignificance. Section 5 outlines proposed
heritage management strategies andSection 6 concludes the report and provides
recommendations for the future managementof the Project Area’s archaeological values.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND •iii

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term /
Abbreviation
AHA
AMS
AMP
Archaeologist

Meaning / Interpretation

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)Archaeological Management Strategy
Archaeological Management Plan
See Project Archaeologist.
A place (or group of places) where evidence of past human activity is
Archaeologicalpreserved (either prehistoric, historical or contemporary), and which has
Sitebeen, or may be, investigated using the discipline of archaeology.
Artefact
Any object made, affected, used, or modified in some way by humans.
Professional opinion based on information that was forthcoming at theAssessment
time of consideration.
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. Comprises the former
DPLH
WA State government bodies of the State Heritage Office and theDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs.
EPBC Act
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The systematic and scientific recovery of archaeological material as a
Excavationmeans of obtaining data about past human activity.
A non-moveable element of an archaeological site such as a pit, ditch
Featureor hearth. A feature is evidence of past human activity.
Find
Individual artefacts. Also known as ‘loose find’.
These are defined as any activity that disturbs the ground surface. This
Ground Disturbing can include activities such as topsoil clearing, grubbing, geotechnicalWorks
testing, grading, cutting, trenching, potholing pits, deep excavation anddirectional drilling (launch and retrieval pits).
HA
Heritage Act 2018
Heritage site /See ‘Archaeological site’
place
HMP
Heritage Management Plan
Loose Find
See ‘Find’.
Monitoring, sometimes called an Archaeological Watching Brief, is when
Monitoringan archaeologist monitors ground disturbing activities to ensure thatarchaeological material is not adversely impacted.
Project
The archaeologist appointed to manage the archaeological and heritage
Archaeologist
concerns of a project.
Process of the retrieval of as much cultural information as possible
Salvagefrom an archaeological site before it is damaged or destroyed bydevelopment.
SHO
State Heritage Office, now amalgamated into the DPLH.
The nature of the work undertaken as requested by the proponent or
Scope of Worksdeveloper.

iv

Terms and Abbreviations • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDCONTENTS
SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION
AIMS AND SCOPE OF WORKBACKGROUND AND SITE LOCATIONLEGISLATION AND GUIDING DOCUMENTS
The Burra Charter
The World Heritage Convention 1972
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
Noongar Standard Heritage Agreement / Indigenous Land Use Agreement
The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (repealed)
Heritage Act 2018
The Planning and Development Act 2005
HERITAGE LISTINGSHistorical Heritage listings

9
9
10
12
12
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
18
18

SECTION TWO – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTSITE HISTORYHISTORY OF THE PARADE GROUND
Well 1852
Drains / Tunnels 1854
Proposed Metalled Roads 1862
Parade Area & Grassed Area 1862
Officers’ Shelter Shed 1908
Clothes Store c. 1919 / Old Canteen post-1948
Rotunda c.1909
Sentry Box 1919
Laundry and Ablution Block 1964
PAST ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK
Bavin 1990 excavations

20
20
22
22
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27

SECTION THREE – ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE
Eureka 2008
UWA 2013
DPLH 2017 (in press)
DPLH 2018
ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIALRISK ASSESSMENT

27
28
28
29
29
31
31

SECTION FOUR – ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCEARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Zones of Archaeological Sensitivity
Zones of SignificanceRESEARCH QUESTIONS

34
34
34
36
37

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Contentsv

SECTION FIVE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES	INTRODUCTIONGUIDING PRINCIPLESThe Opportunities
Overarching Policy Framework
OBLIGATIONS
Statutory Framework
Non-Statutory Framework
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

38
38
38
38
38
39
39
40
40

SECTION SIX – RECOMMENDATIONS	RECOMMENDATIONS

42
42

REFERENCES	43vi

APPENDIX ONE – ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING PROCEDURE

44

APPENDIX TWO – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL ARTEFACTS
Surface Finds
Sub-Surface Material / Sites
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL FEATURES/FINDS
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

45
47
47
47
48
48

APPENDIX THREE – FIND RECORDING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES	LOOSE FIND RECORDING PROCESSFEATURE RECORDING PROCESSCOLLECTION PROTOCOLSSTORAGE PROCESS

50
50
50
50
50

APPENDIX FOUR – CONTRACTOR PROCEDURE HANDOUTPROCEDURE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS DISCOVERY51
51

APPENDIX FIVE – REFERENCE MATERIAL

53

Contents • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDLIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.

Zoning Plan – Bavin 1990a
Project Area map, as per scope of works
1856 Block Plan
1856 Plan as per Bavin 1990b, Figure 5.8
1862 Construction Plan as per Bavin 1990b
1907 – 1908 Construction Plan as per Bavin 1990b
1919 Electrical Engineer’s Plan
1987 Site Plan
Bavin Feature Plan – Bavin 1990a1935 Aerial Imagery (SLWA Call No 031598PD)
1948 Aerial Imagery
1909 Photograph across the Parade Ground Project Area
(date provided by Eureka 2009a)
Bavin 1990 Excavation Trench Location (Bavin 1990b Figure 7)
Eureka 2008 Excavation Trench Location (Eureka 2009a, Figure 4)
UWA 2013 Trench Location (Haast et al. 2013, Figure 7)
DPLH 2017 Trench Locations (Flemming, in press)
DPLH 2018 Trench Location (Wilson 2019)

34
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
64
65

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1.
Map 2.
Map 3.

Fremantle Prison Parade Ground Project Area
Past archaeological works in the Parade Ground Project Area
Archaeological and historical features within the Project Area

11
30
33

LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1.
Plate 2.
Plate 3.
Plate 4.
Plate 5.
Plate 6.
Plate 7.
Plate 8.
Plate 9.
Plate 10.
Plate 11.
Plate 12.
Plate 13.
Plate 14.

Aboriginal flaked artefact (quartz)
Aboriginal ground-edge axe (dolerite)
19th Century pottery sherds
Clay tobacco pipes
Historical clear glass bottle
Historical brickHand forged nails
Buttons
Historical limestone wall footings
Historical brick surface
19th Century well and drain
Cross section of Metalled Limestone Road (Eureka 2009)
Storage tubs
Storage tubs

45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
46
47
47
50
50

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.

Appendices for Management Procedures

41

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Contents

vii

1

INTRODUCTION

AIMS AND SCOPE OF WORK

Fremantle Prison is listed on both the World Heritage List (WHL) and National Heritage
List (NHL) for embodying a range of heritage values. It is also included on the Western
Australian State Register of Heritage Places (SRHP) for meeting a broader range ofheritage assessment criteria (Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, 2019). The
Prison is one of 11 historical sites that together form the Australian Convict Sites World
Heritage Property and is the only World Heritage Listed building complex in Western
Australia. With regard to the management of archaeology at the Prison, the Fremantle
Prison Heritage Management Plan (Extent Heritage Advisors 2019) identifies objectives
as:• to minimise disturbance of thearchaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison;• to retain the archaeological resource at
Fremantle Prison in situ unless this isprecluded by overwhelming research,safety or conservation considerations;• within the parameters of the above
objectives, to maximise the researchpotential of the archaeological resource
at Fremantle Prison;• to balance the conservation needs ofthe layered heritage values at Fremantle
Prison, including where those values areembodied by archaeological material
from different periods;• to investigate the archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison using ‘bestpractice’ archaeological methodologies
and experienced practitioners; and• to harness the potential of archaeology
to engage the public’s interest inFremantle Prison.
The Heritage Council of Western Australia
describes an Archaeological Management
Strategy (AMS) as a document designed
to provide practical strategies for the
management of the archaeologicalcomponents of a place (Heritage Councilof Western Australia 2019). An AMS
should largely be used to supplement an
Archaeological Management Plan (AMP),
which provides a comprehensive assessmentof the archaeological potential andsignificance of a site, as well as guidelines forappropriate management.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

9

The policies and management
recommendations provided in an AMP may
require some further practical strategies
for their implementation to be outlined
prior to the commencement of works that
may adversely impact the archaeologicalpotential of a place. In addition, proposed
works or unanticipated events may also
reveal information / sites that have not beenaddressed in the AMP, or considerable time
may have passed since its completion.
An AMS aims to address the specifics
of a proposed or potential impact to thearchaeology of a place, with reference to thepolicies and research design in the AMP.
In summary, the objectives of an AMS are to:• summarise the study area and its history
as outlined in the AMP;
• analyse the research strategy andmanagement recommendations
provided in the AMP with regard to thesite’s current context;• develop a practical guide toinvestigations which ensures adequate
protection of the resource and produces
maximum research benefits from thearchaeological resource; and• to outline how the archaeologicalevidence will be handled.

10

BACKGROUND AND SITE LOCATION
Fremantle Prison is located at 1 The Terrace,
Fremantle, Western Australia. It comprises
Crown Land Reserve 24042. The Prison siteextends for approximately 6 hectares, andis bounded by Hampton Road to the east,
Fothergill Street to the south, The Terrace tothe west and Knutsford Street to the north.
The Fremantle Prison Parade Ground is an
open area inside the main perimeter wall that
dates to the earliest phases of the site’s use.
For the purposes of this AMS the Parade
Ground (the Project Area) is defined by thearea shaded in red on Map 1. Upgrade works
are proposed across the Parade Ground.
These include the removal of all concretecurbing and bitumen, installation of new
sub-surface infrastructure (e.g. soak-wells)
and replacement of current infrastructure(e.g. fire services), and lowering of lawn beds
and associated features close to the original
ground surface level (250-300 mm lower thanthe current level).
Owing to the fact that these works arelikely to have an impact on sub-surface
archaeological deposits, Archae-aus wascontracted by the Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage (DPLH) to draft this AMS
in order to minimise and manage the impact
to the Parade Ground’s archaeologicalresource during the upgrade works.

Introduction • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Map 1. Fremantle Prison Parade Ground Project Area

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

11

LEGISLATION AND GUIDING DOCUMENTS
The following section summarises the relevant legislation and guiding principles that may relate
to the Project Area.
The Burra Charter
The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance) is the key
document for conserving Australia’s cultural heritage. The Charter encapsulates two important
aspects in conserving heritage places. First, it establishes the best practice principles andprocesses for understanding and assessing a place’s significance, as well as developing andimplementing a conservation plan. Second, the Charter defines and explains the four primarycultural values that may be ascribed to any place: aesthetic, historic, social or spiritual andscientific. These values are essential as they delineate the types and quality of informationneeded to accurately determine a heritage place’s significance1.
The following articles of the Burra Charter (Burra Charter 2013) have relevance for theassessment of risk and the management of heritage:
Article 2. Conservation and management• Places of cultural significance should beconserved.
• The aim of conservation is to retain thecultural significance of a place.
• Conservation is an integral part ofgood management of places of cultural
significance.
• Places of cultural significance should besafeguarded and not put at risk or left ina vulnerable state.
Article 3. Cautious approach• Conservation is based on a respect for
the existing fabric, use, associations
and meanings. It requires a cautious
approach of changing as much asnecessary but as little as possible.
• Changes to a place should not distortthe physical or other evidence it
provides, nor be based on conjecture.

1

12

Article 7. Use• Where the use of a place is of cultural
significance it should be retained.
• A place should have a compatible use.
Article 8. Setting• Conservation requires the retentionof an appropriate setting. This
includes retention of the visualand sensory setting, as well as theretention of spiritual and other cultural
relationships that contribute to thecultural significance of the place. New
construction, demolition, intrusions orother changes which would adversely
affect the setting or relationships are notappropriate.

https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf

Introduction • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Article 9. Location• The physical location of a place is partof its cultural significance. A building,work or other element of a placeshould remain in its historical location.
Relocation is generally unacceptable
unless this is the sole practical means of
ensuring its survival.
• Some buildings, works or otherelements of places were designed tobe readily removable or already havea history of relocation. Provided suchbuildings, works or other elements
do not have significant links with theirpresent location, removal may beappropriate.
• If any building, work or other element
is moved, it should be moved to an
appropriate location and given an
appropriate use. Such action should
not be to the detriment of any place of
cultural significance.
In addition, based on the Burra Charter’s
guiding principles around Indigenous Cultural
Heritage Management (Australian ICOMOS
2013), the following considerations andapproaches should be made:• That the definition of ‘place’ is broadwhen applying it to Indigenous placesof cultural significance and can include
locations that embody spiritual value,sacred landscapes, places of social andhistorical value, archaeological sites with
scientific value, and even single artefacts
in some cases. It can also include
several related locations that combine
to form a single ‘place’ (i.e. a Songline),or several sites that form a culturallandscape or route.
• That the concept of ‘Cultural
Significance’, as defined by the Burra
Charter, includes Indigenous places ofcultural significance which can include
intangible heritage. The values that areused to assess this significance must
consider Indigenous perspectives. In
some cases, places may have both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous values.

• That heritage practitioners should listen
carefully to Indigenous views and include
those views in significance assessments
in an unbiased and objective manner.
• That the appropriate people should
be consulted with and it must berecognised that there are different types
of Indigenous connections to places– including ancestral, traditional andhistorical.
• That generalisations should be avoided
when identifying and assessing
Indigenous heritage places and it should
be recognised that Indigenous culture
is multidimensional. The location andextent of places of cultural significanceshould be clearly defined.
• That Indigenous heritage values canchange over time, in some cases
resulting in the change in cultural
significance of a place over time.
• That intangible heritage can play a key
part of the significance of a place.
• That there is an awareness thatIndigenous cultural protocols may limit
the information that is able to be sharedand used for significance assessments.
This should be respected, and anassessment of significance should
acknowledge where there may be any
limitations in the sharing of information.
• That consent should be obtained fromthe Traditional Owners if material cultural
is to be removed from its original setting
for scientific analysis or exhibition. This
would include materials that have beensalvaged from the surface or retrieved
from excavations – including materials
that are sent for dating analysis.
• That the significance assessment of aplace should include an analysis of theobjects that are associated with thatplace.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

13

The World Heritage Convention 1972
The World Heritage Convention (theConvention) was adopted at the General
Conference of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) meeting inNovember 1972. In recognition of thethreats to natural and cultural heritage,
the Convention “links together in asingle document the concepts of nature
conservation and the preservation of culturalproperties. The Convention recognizes theway in which people interact with nature,and the fundamental need to preserve thebalance between the two.”2
The Convention is a global instrument for theprotection of cultural and natural heritage.
The World Heritage Convention aims topromote cooperation among nations toprotect heritage around the world that isof such outstanding universal value thatits conservation is important for current
and future generations. To be included on
the World Heritage List, the host country
must have ratified the Convention and thenominated sites must be of outstanding
universal value to meet at least one outof ten selection criteria.3 Management
arrangements are required for each Australianproperty included on the World Heritage
List. The Commonwealth considers suchplans as vital in implementing Australia’s
obligations under the World Heritage
Convention. Importantly, all of Australia’s
declared World Heritage properties are also
on Australia’s National Heritage List and arealso considered National Heritage places. As
a result, an action may result in a significant
impact on both World Heritage values andNational Heritage values of a declared World
Heritage property/National Heritage place.

2
3
4

14

Since the criteria and processes for National
Heritage listing differ from those for World
Heritage listing, the National Heritage
values protected under section 15 of theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) usuallydiffer from the World Heritage values
protected under section 12 of the EPBC Act(see EPBC Act description in section below).
The boundary of the National Heritage place
may also differ from the boundary of thedeclared World Heritage property, so it isimportant to check the National Heritage
listing(s) relevant to a particular declared
World Heritage property. Several AustralianWorld Heritage properties are also home
to or overlap with other matters of National
Environmental Significance (NES) such as
migratory species, Ramsar wetlands or the
Commonwealth marine environment.4 It is
important to note that the buffer zones ofAustralian World Heritage properties are
not protected under the World Heritage
Conventions; rather the buffers are managed
by State and Local legislation.

https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/
https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world/management-australias-world-heritage-listed/managing-worldheritage-australia/protecting-world-heritage

Introduction • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) is
the Australian Government’s central pieceof environmental legislation. It provides alegal framework to protect and manage
nationally and internationally important flora,
fauna, ecological communities and heritage
places — defined in the EPBC Act asmatters of national environmental significance– including Australia’s World Heritage
Properties.
The EPBC Act enhances the management
and protection of Australia’s heritage places- natural, historic or Indigenous places - thatare of outstanding national heritage value
to the Australian nation as well as heritage
places on Commonwealth lands and waters
or under Australian Government control.
A declared World Heritage property is an areathat has been included in the World Heritage
List or declared by the Minister to be a World
Heritage property. The National Heritage List
includes natural, historic and Indigenous
places of outstanding heritage value. The
Commonwealth Heritage List comprises
natural, Indigenous and historic heritage
places on Commonwealth lands and waters
or under Australian Government control.
Once a heritage place is listed under the
EPBC Act, special requirements come into
force to ensure that the values of the place
will be protected and conserved for future
generations. The EPBC Act provides for the
preparation of management plans which set
out the significant heritage aspects of theplace and how the values of the site will be
managed.

5

World heritage properties and national
heritage places are recognised as a matter ofnational environmental significance under the
EPBC Act. Consequently, any action that is
likely to have a significant impact on heritage
properties and places must be referred to
the Minister and undergo an environmental
assessment and approval process. 5
The EPBC Act also regulates actions that
may have a significant impact on the World
Heritage values of declared World Heritage
properties. Section 12 of the EPBC Act
provides that a person must not take anaction that has or will have or is likely to havea significant impact on the World Heritage
values of declared World Heritage properties.
Significant impact guidelines have beendeveloped to provide overarching guidanceon determining whether an action is likely
to have a significant impact on a matter
protected under national environment law.
Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
Western Australia’s Aboriginal Heritage
Act 1972 (the AHA) is the main legislative
framework for Aboriginal heritage in
the State. All important and significant
Aboriginal heritage sites and objects areprotected under it. The AHA protects sites
and objects that are significant to living
Aboriginal people as well as Aboriginal sitesof historical, anthropological, archaeologicaland ethnographic significance. The AHA iscurrently administered by the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage in Perth.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what-is-protected/world-heritage

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

15

For archaeological places, the primarysections of the AHA that need to beconsidered are section 5 which defines theterm ‘Aboriginal Site’ and section 39 (2)which details what the Aboriginal Cultural
Materials Committee (ACMC) should haveregards to in considering the importance ofobjects and places.
A registered Aboriginal site is a place that
fulfils the following definitions for protection
under section 5 of the AHA:
• Any place of importance andsignificance where persons of Aboriginaldescent have, or appear to have, left
any object, natural or artificial, used for,or made or adapted for use for, any
purpose connected with the traditional
cultural life of the Aboriginal people, pastor present.
• Any sacred, ritual or ceremonial sitewhich is of importance and special
significance to persons of Aboriginaldescent.
• Any place which, in the opinion of
the Committee, is or was associatedwith the Aboriginal people and which
is of historical, anthropological,
archaeological or ethnographical interestand should be preserved because of
its importance and significance to thecultural heritage of the State.
• Any place where objects to which thisAct applies are traditionally stored, orto which, under the provisions of thisAct, such objects have been taken or
removed.
• Section 17 of the AHA states that it
is an offence to: alter an Aboriginalsite in any way, including collecting
artefacts; conceal a site or artefact; or
excavate, destroy or damage in any way
an Aboriginal site or artefact; without
the authorisation of the Registrar of
Aboriginal Sites under section 16 or
the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs under
section 18 of the AHA.

16

Noongar Standard Heritage Agreement /Indigenous Land Use Agreement
The intention behind the Noongar Standard
Heritage Agreement is the establishmentof a proactive rather than reactive heritage
management system across the southwestof Western Australia. It is called the Noongar
Standard Heritage Agreement because it
is a template agreement for each of thesix Noongar Regional Corporations and its
aim is for heritage matters in a region to be
managed through the respective Noongar
regional corporation. The Agreement sets out
the procedures for the conduct of heritage
surveys when a proponent (government or
non‐government) is undertaking ground‐
disturbing activities.
The Heritage of Western Australia Act
1990 (repealed)
In July 2019, the Heritage of Western
Australia Act 1990 (the HWAA) was repealed
and replaced by Heritage Act 2018. Any
heritage agreements entered into under
Section 29 of the HWAA that were in effecton the commencement day of the Heritage
Act 2018 continue to have effect as if itwere certified under the new legislation.
The municipal heritage inventories that werecompiled and maintained under the HWAA
are still a maintained repository of information
for local governments today. Indeed, thecollation of local heritage information is stillrequired under Part 8 of the Heritage Act
2018, now referred to as Local Heritage
Surveys.

Introduction • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Heritage Act 2018
The purpose of the Heritage Act 2018 (theHA) is to recognise and promote Western
Australian cultural heritage by defining
principles for conservation, use, development
or adaptation for heritage places. In repealing
the HWAA, the HA serves are the main
legislative framework for historical heritage,sometimes referred to as European heritage,in the State and the main purpose of this Act
is to identify, conserve and enhance places
which are of cultural heritage significance.
The Act sets out processes for the
management of the State Register of
Heritage Places, including the establishmentof a Heritage Council. The purposes of thisCouncil include the assessment of placesof significance, advising the Minister for
Heritage, guiding public authorities on bestpractice, promoting public awareness andadministration of the Register of Heritage
Places. The Heritage Council of Western
Australia is Western Australia’s advisory
body on heritage matters and focuses onplaces, buildings and archaeological sites,with a mission to provide for and encourage
the conservation of places significant to thecultural heritage of Western Australia under
the jurisdiction of the HA.
The HA requires the keeping of a Register of
Heritage Places for places that are protectedby the provisions of the Act. Heritage places
generally gain registration under the HA
by being shown to be of cultural heritage
significance or possessing special interest
relating to or associated with cultural
heritage. Section 38 outlines relevant factors
in determining the significance of heritage
places. This section uses definitions andvalues like those of the Burra Charter (seeabove): The Council are to consider values
such as aesthetic, historical, scientific,
social or spiritual, and characteristics suchas fabric, setting, associations, use andmeaning.

Part 5 outlines the responsibilities of publicauthorities to consider heritage matterswithin development planning. Under Section
73 of the HA, public authorities must refer adevelopment proposal to the Council when
the proposed works have potential to impacta registered place. The advice provided by
the Council in response to a referred proposal
may consider the restoration, maintenanceand interpretation of the heritage place inquestion.
Part 8 introduces the term ‘Local Heritage
Survey’ which is defined as a surveyof places that are, or may become, ofcultural heritage significance. Section 103(i) stipulates that local governments must
prepare a Local Heritage Survey of places
within their district. This survey serves as apublic record or places of significance andassists local government in development
planning and in the implementation of its local
planning scheme.
Part 11 outlines the definitions and penalties
for offences and contraventions of the Act.
Under section 129 of the HA, unauthorised
impact to registered heritage places issubject to penalty. Section 129 defines
damage as including altering, demolishing,removing or despoiling any part of, or thingin, a registered place. The penalties forcontravention of the Act are severe, includinga $1 million fine, imprisonment for one year
and a daily penalty of $50,000. Applications
to develop, disturb or alter any place enteredon the Register can be made under Part
5 Division 2 of the HA. The HA is currently
administered by the Department of Planning,Lands and Heritage in Perth.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

17

The Planning and Development Act 2005
The purposes of the Planning andDevelopment Act 2005 (the PDA) are toconsolidate the provisions of the Acts
repealed by the Planning and Development(Consequential and Transitional Provisions)
Act 2005 (i.e. the Metropolitan Region
Town Planning Scheme Act 1959, the Town
Planning and Development Act 1928 and theWestern Australian Planning Commission Act
1985). The PDA is intended to provide for
an efficient and effective land use planningsystem in the State, as well as promoting thesustainable use and development of land in
the State.
The PDA requires that the advice of the
Heritage Council (within the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage) be sought incases relating to places listed on the State
Register of Heritage Places under the HA
2018 section 35(1) or in any local heritage
survey prepared under section 103(1) (i.e.
a Local Government / Municipal Inventory).
In such instances the local government
in preparing or amending a local planningscheme is to refer the proposed schemeor amendment to the Heritage Council foradvice and is not to proceed without theconsent of the Minister for Heritage.

HERITAGE LISTINGSHistorical Heritage listings
There are several registers and inventories
for historical heritage places in Australia.
InHerit is an online database for information
about heritage places and listings in Western
Australia, containing detailed information
about cultural heritage places entered in
the State Register of Heritage Places, local
government inventories and other lists, theAustralian Government’s heritage list, andother non-government lists and surveys6.
A summary of the heritage registers andinventories that Fremantle Prison is listed on
is provided below.

618World Heritage Listing
Fremantle Prison is one of eleven Australiansites that comprise the Australian Convict
Sites Serial Listing on the World Heritage
List. These sites were inscribed on theWorld Heritage List by UNESCO on 31
July 2010 in recognition of their significant
heritage and representation of the forced
migration and penal transportation ofprisoners across the world. Fremantle Prisonis the most intact convict establishment
in Australia. As an international signatory
to the World Heritage Convention 1972,
the State Government (representing theCommonwealth Government as the State
Party to the Convention) has agreed toprotect and conserve the heritage values of
the Prison, and to present these values tothe community. The Government is required
to report to UNESCO every five years on
progress, action and risks for the protection,conservation and presentation of thesevalues. Management of Fremantle Prison is
also required to meet the core objectives of
the Australian Convict Sites Strategic Plan
2017-2020, which seeks to:• collaboratively manage the values of thenominated Australian Convict Sites;• conserve and protect the values ofthe properties for current and future
generations;• present and interpret the values of theproperties, emphasising each site’scontribution to the whole; and• give each of the properties a function in
the life of the community.

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about-inherit

Introduction • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

State and National Heritage Listing
Fremantle Prison’s heritage significance has
also been recognised by its inclusion in the:• State Register of Heritage Places –Heritage Council of Western Australia(10 January 1992) – Items 1014, 24674
and 3226;• National Heritage List – AustralianGovernment (1 August 2005) – Item
105762;• Register of the National Estate –Australian Heritage Commission (March
23, 1978);• Classified List – The National Trust (WA)
(October 3, 1960); and• Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places –City of Fremantle (February 22, 2000).
Governing Legislation
The ongoing conservation and interpretationof Fremantle Prison’s State, National andWorld Heritage values are governed by
the statutory requirements of the Western
Australian Heritage Act 2018, the Federal
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999, as well as the
UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • Introduction

19

2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDAND CONTEXTSITE HISTORY

Fremantle Prison, originally named the Convict Establishment, was established as aconvict depot by the British government following a decision to transport convicts
to Western Australia. It was designed by the first Comptroller-General, Edmund
Henderson, and built in the period 1852 to 1859. When the convict system officiallyended in Western Australia in 1868, the Prison was taken over by the colonial
government and continued to operate as a State prison until its closure in 1991.
The following timeline is summarised from the Fremantle Prison Heritage Management Plan
(Extent Heritage Advisors 2019).
The Convict Period (1850–1886)
1849 The Colony of Western Australia is declared a penal colony.
1850 The first ship, carrying seventy-five male convicts and fifty pensioner guards
and families, arrived in Fremantle. An elevated site for a permanent Convict
Establishment was selected.
1852–53 Construction of the southern wing of the Main Cell Block, Terrace houses andthe Warders’ Cottages began. East Workshops were constructed.
1854–55 The Entry Complex – including the Gatehouse, entry court, military and civil
guard houses flanking the inner gate – were constructed. Southern wing of Main
Cell Block was constructed, and the first convicts were transferred to the site.
Perimeter Walls were completed.
1857–59 Guard room, Hospital and Carpenter shop were constructed. Northern wing ofMain Cell Block was completed.
1859 Convict Establishment was officially opened on 31 December.
1867 Convict Establishment was renamed Fremantle Prison.
1868 Transportation of convicts to Western Australia officially ceased. Nearly 10,000
convicts were transported to the Colony.

20

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDThe Colonial / Early State Period (1886–1918)
1886 Control of Fremantle Prison was transferred to the Western Australian Colonial
Government.
1888 Prisoners were relocated from Perth Gaol to Fremantle Prison. Gallows were built
at the Prison, which was by then the only legal place of execution in the Colony.
A tunnels system for water supply was constructed.
1889 Female Division (Women’s Prison) was constructed in the northwest of the site.
1898 A Royal Commission was undertaken into the operation of the penal system.
1900s The West Workshops were constructed in 1900–1901; alterations were madeto the Main Cell Block and Exercise Yards. The New Division with radial exercise
yards was constructed in the northeast of the site.
1911 A Royal Commission into Fremantle Prison saw the implementation of additional
reforms.
Post–World War I (1918–present)
1920 A portion of the Prison was set aside as a reformatory prison.
1940–45 A part of the Prison was occupied by the Department of Defence during WorldWar II and was returned to civil use after the War.
Post-1945 A variety of structures were constructed on and below Knoll terraces.
1964 Eric Edgar Cooke was the last man hanged in Western Australia.
1968 Prisoners rioted over poor conditions.
1970 Inmates of Female Prison and staff were transferred to Bandyup Women’sTraining Centre, and Female Prison buildings become part of the male prison.
1979 Fremantle Prison Museum was established.
1988 A fire occurred during a riot at the Prison.
1991 Inmates were transferred, and Fremantle Prison was closed as a penal institution.
1992 Fremantle Prison opened to the public as a museum and cultural attraction.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

21

HISTORY OF THE PARADE GROUND
The Parade Ground (or forecourt to the Main
Cell Block) is a key historical component ofFremantle Prison. Identified historical andarchaeological features within the Parade
Ground Project Area comprise (see Map 2):• Well• Drains / Tunnels• Proposed Metalled Roads• Parade Area
• Grassed Area
• Officers’ Shelter Shed
• Rotunda• Clothes Store / Old Canteen• Sentry Box• Laundry and Ablution Block
The following descriptions of these featuresare summaries, quotes and extracts fromthe background research section of Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
UWA’s (Eureka) report on their 2008archaeological excavation program in the
Parade Ground (Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting 2009a).
Well 1852
Historical plans and written records indicatethat there have been at least three wells sunkwithin the Prison compound. Eureka pieced
together the scattered references to theselocations in an effort to narrow down the date,location and nature of the well thought to be in
the Parade Ground. The following information
serves as a summary of their findings.
In 1852, a report by Wray details
works carried out in the preceding half
year, including a description of a wellapproximately 40 feet deep having been
‘sunk through the rock at the permanent
depot site, requiring little or no steening,
and affording a plentiful supply of water for
the works and for drinking, and will, I havelittle doubt, be nearly sufficient for the supplyof the intended establishment’ (Le Page
1986: 70; Royal Engineers’ Office Fremantle-Lieutenant R.E [Wray] 1853: 213, cited in
Eureka 2009). However, there is no mentionof where the well was actually positioned.

22

A plan of the Prison dated to 1856 shows
three wells within the boundary walls (Figure
3, Appendix 5). One of these wells (Well 2) islater described as being sunk in June 1855
in the rear of the prison, confirming that thiswell is not the one referred to in 1852 (Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
2009b). Eureka found additional reference
to the bath house and workshop wells thatwere ‘each in the vicinity of the building they
are intended to supply’ (Royal Engineers’
Office Fremantle - Clerk of Works [Manning]
1857: 63, cited in Eureka 2009). Althoughthese wells are not indicated on plans at thistime, their locations can be assumed to be
in spatial association with known buildings.
For example, the well sunk ‘for the use of thenorth wing of the prison’ (Royal Engineers’
Office Fremantle - Clerk of Works [Manning]
1857: 63, cited in Eureka 2009) is assumed
to be the only northern well shown on the1856 plan (Well 3).
That leaves only one of the three wellunaccounted. The secondary source Water,
Walls & Yards also states that the first wellis believed to have been in the southwest
area of the Parade Ground (Fremantle Prison
Conservation & Future Use [Project] 1990b:2.2.01, cited in Eureka 2009). Therefore,
Eureka suggested that the remaining well,that in the Parade Ground, was the 1852
Well referred to by Wray. Using this location
for the first well would have been practical,
given that it would have been central to themajor works at the time. A well in this location
appears on plans for 1855 and 1856 but not
on any dated c.1890 so it may have been
capped or redundant by this time (Eureka
Archaeological Research and Consulting
2009b).
Attempts to ground truth the 1852 Well
position using the location indicated bygeoreferenced historical maps have, so far,been inconclusive.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDDrains / Tunnels 1854
Over the course of the last 160 years, thedrain, sewer and water supply systems thatserve the Prison have undergone many
upgrades and revisions. The Parade Groundis known to be laced with services, somemodern and some historical. It is often
unclear whether historical layouts that are
depicted on plans were removed or left insitu. Historical plans are provided in Appendix
5 (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Therefore, thenature of the archaeology that remains is
unknown. Eureka summarise the historicalevidence of the drain system as follows.
The half yearly report of works in theFremantle District for the six months ending
30th June 1855 states ‘tunnels of the drainscommenced last year have been driven up to
the prison….cesspits in the flats have been
made good…… [and have been] purposely
sunk into rock, to avoid the expense of lining
them with masonry’ (Royal Engineers’ OfficeFremantle - Capt. R.E [Wray] 1856: 207,cited in Eureka 2009). These are the main
drains shown on the earliest plans runningfrom each end of the Main Cell Block under
the west wall of the prison. Although theiractual depth is not documented, they aredescribed as ‘tunnels’ so are presumably
at a reasonable depth beneath the surface
and excavated into bedrock. A Penal
Commission Report published in the Votes
and Proceedings 1899 includes a planshowing the drainage and sewage conditions
in Fremantle Prison on 7th September 1898
and proposes a new system to stop andreplace the old 6’ x 3’ drainage tunnels (Penal
Commission 1899: Plan No. 2). It is not clear
if the old drainage pipes have been removed
but the engineer, Bedforth, did suggest that
surface drains should be avoided wherever
possible (Penal Commission 1899: 78-79,
cited in Eureka 2009).

Eureka also note that, by 1879, prisoners
were pumping water for a large tank tosupply the Port so the cisterns on thesouthern knoll, possibly another tank, andpipes to the port had been constructed bythis time (Superintendent Fremantle Prison[Unknown] 1879: 583, cited in Eureka 2009).
Again, the depth of this infrastructure is
unknown but plans show a 4” iron ‘scour
pipe’ leading from the reservoir on thesouthern knoll (Penal Commission 1899:
Plan No. 1, cited in Eureka 2009) and cutting
across the former location of the Wooden
Division, which was located immediately
outside the southern boundary of the Parade
Ground Project Area.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

23

Proposed Metalled Roads 1862
Historical photographs suggest that thecurrent layout of the roads through theParade Ground was in place by c.1909(Figure 12). However, the layout andconstruction of the roads prior to this are
not recorded and Louise Bavin’s workin 1990 highlighted the possibility of analternative alignment. Eureka augmented
Bavin’s research with their own to provide thefollowing synopsis.
Primary and secondary documents indicatethat limestone rubble resulting from quarrying
stone at the Fremantle Prison site was usedin road building (Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting 2009b, 2009a).
The Foreman of Works, Fremantle, suggests
stone (limestone presumably) from the
excavation of the rifle range was brought
to the Prison to be broken into road metal(Superintendent Fremantle Prison [Unknown]
1879: 583, cited in Eureka 2009). Wraysuggests the same is used for constructing
the main approach to the prison with tips (ofstone) at the back and front of the Chaplain’s
house to be used for the road along thefront of the buildings (Royal Engineers’
Office Fremantle - Lieut. Royal Engineers[Wray] 1854: 253, cited in Eureka 2009).
Photographic evidence suggests the roads
were similarly positioned to their present
routes and metalled (surfaced) with limestone
by c.1909 and remained in this state until
1935, after which sections of the road began
to be bitumised. This is corroborated byan aerial photograph from 1948 (Landgate
1948, cited in Eureka 2009).
Eureka conclude that the roads within
the Parade Ground were initially metalledusing limestone rubble and that, when the
Parade Ground was being ‘reformed’ inapproximately 1862, roads were includedin this process (Superintendent Fremantle
Prison [Lefroy] 1862a: 305, cited in Eureka2009). A reference to road construction in1862 suggests the principal road was placed‘make a wide metalled road along andlevelled to the entire front of the Prison, andsweeping around the north and south [ends?]

24of it to the Hospital and the Blacksmith’sshop respectively ’..to make two othershort roads leading at right angles from theabovementioned principal road to the woodstack and to the cookhouse respectively’(Superintendent Fremantle Prison [Lefroy]
1862b: 179, cited in Eureka 2009 and Bavin1990b). Besides this quote, Eureka reported
that no other evidence, i.e. plans, werelocated to support the parallel alignment of
the southern end of the main central roadas shown in Bavin’s archaeological zoning
plan (Bavin 1990b) and it is probable she
depicted it on plans in the 1990 report due
to the interpretation of it being ‘levelled’ tothe front of the Prison. Eureka suggested
that the part of the quote that referred to theroad ‘sweeping around to the south’ actuallyagreed better with the current physicalevidence and so they concluded that it ismore probable that the main internal road of
the Prison maintained a similar route to thatof today.
Parade Area & Grassed Area 1862
Today, the area referred to as the Prison
Parade Ground encompasses the large
open space between the Main Cell Block inthe east and the Entrance Gate complex to
the west. However, there is evidence of aconvict-era ‘Parade Area’ along the front of
the northern wing of the Main Cell Block. Thechanging use of forecourt to the Prison was
discussed by Eureka (2009a).
The Fremantle Prison Superintendent’s letterbook refers to prisoners being ‘employedduring the last month in raising and breaking
stone to reform the Prison parade ground’(Superintendent Fremantle Prison [Lefroy]
1862a: 305, cited in Eureka 2009) and an
earlier letter states that…
‘…both of the smaller Division yards and thegreat yard of this Establishment [remain in an]
an unfinished state…the levelling, flooring,concreting, road making, grass and shrub
planting which are all requisite or desirable indifferent portions of the yards…[he suggests
these] improvements of our internal state
and appearance might be gradually affected

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

in an (?) manner, and without detriment
to the supply of labour for the public
works generally,….. [Prisoners could be
employed] in the gradual accomplishmentof these improvements…..The particularimprovements which I solicit authority to carryout in this way are the following…..‘plant withgrass and shrubs the whole of the remaining
portions of the front yard, except a portion
north, north side of the chapel and contained
between the line of the proposed principal
road and the northern half of the prison,
which will be required for (assembling?) andparading the prisoners on’ (Superintendent
Fremantle Prison [Lefroy] 1862b: 178-179,
cited in Eureka 2009).
Although the above quote suggests thatthe area directly in front of the north Main
Cell Block is included, it takes in a greater
proportion of the area for both the Parade
Ground and the Garden and Shrubs. A planin Water, Walls & Yards (Fremantle Prison
Conservation & Future Use [Project] 1990b)
suggests that garden areas were establishedat either side of the parade area’s main entry
gate by 1930 and the parade area is shown
to be more centrally located i.e. in the roaditself. This is partly corroborated by the c.
1909 photograph which shows shrubs justinside and to the north of the parade gate
(Bosworth 2004: 71, cited in Eureka 2009).
No plans located to date show a garden
area in front of the south Main Cell Block andphotographic evidence from both c.1909(Bosworth 2004: 71) and 1935 (Gore 1935)
demonstrate that this area was clear. Subsurface archaeological evidence may still belocated to support the existence of thesefeatures, however it is also possible thatthe proposed garden and shrub planting of
the larger part of the great yard was neverundertaken and the ‘parade area’ was simply
left clear rather than constructed for thispurpose. The current state of the Parade
Ground appears to have been constructed
after 1963. The roads were bitumised atsome point after this and the grass areas,as they appear today i.e. raised and linedwith modern bricks, are likely to have been a
post-c.1970/80 event. The photograph from1935 (Gore 1935) indicates that the Grassed
Areas are level with the road or only slightly
raised. Further research, and an examinationof the physical evidence, will likely resolve thedate for the raised grass bed construction.
Officers’ Shelter Shed 1908
Construction of a timber, glass and cement
shelter shed on the Parade Ground in 1908
was confirmed (Superintendent Fremantle
Prison [Jarvis] Officer in Charge of Works
1908: 118, cited in Eureka 2009) but the
specific location of the one mentioned in thissource is unknown. A c.1909 photograph of
the Parade Ground shows two shelter sheds
and a rotunda west of the main roadway(Figure 12). Eureka concluded that the shelter
shed described by Bavin, and referred toin the primary documents, is probably oneof those in the photograph. Therefore, thelocation of the Officers’ Shelter that Bavinincludes on the Construction Sequence Plan
(Figure 6, Appendix 5) may not be in thecorrect location. It is not shown on a 1919
plan (Figure 7, Appendix 5).
Clothes Store c. 1919 / Old Canteen
post-1948
The 1919 Electrical Plan depicts a ‘Clothes
Store’ in the north-west corner of the Parade
Ground Project Area. The 1909 photographacross the forecourt area also shows abuilding of similar proportions in this location
as does aerial imagery from 1935 and 1948
(Figure 10 and Figure 11, see Appendix 5).
A Prison Site Plan dated to 1987 shows
structure in the same spot but with a different
footprint – it is much longer and narrower
than the one shown by the records dated to1909 - 1948. This altered footprint matches
that of modern plans and of that shown by
the recent Heritage Management Plan whichlabels it as “Old Canteen (Toilets)” (Extent
Heritage Advisors 2019).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

25

Rotunda c.1909
A c.1909 photograph of the Parade Groundshows a rotunda in the northern part of the
Project Area, west of the main roadway(Figure 12, Appendix 5). It is also shown
on a 1919 plan (Figure 7, Appendix 5). The
georeferenced historical plan and the 1909
photograph suggest that this Rotunda
might be further to the north than that of
the modern rotunda; however, the lack of
documentation of this feature makes thisdiscrepancy difficult to investigate.
Sentry Box 1919
A small Sentry Box is shown in the northwest
corner of the Parade Ground on a plan dating
to 1919 (Figure 7, Appendix 5). Modern
aerial photography shows that the adjacentbuildings have been extended and theroofline now covers where this feature would
have been.
Laundry and Ablution Block 1964
Plans for a new laundry / ablution block first
appear in 1950. The structure was locatedjust inside the Parade Ground, south of themain reception complex as it appears in
Bavin’s archaeological zoning plan (Bavin1990b; Chief Secretary’s Department
1949, cited in Eureka 2009). Constructionof this timber, iron and asbestos building
was completed in September 1964 (Chief
Secretary’s Department 1949; 1963, cited in
Eureka 2009).

26

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

3

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE

PAST ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK
Bavin 1990 excavations
In 1990, Louise Bavin undertook a targetedarchaeological excavation program in the
Prison compound. In preparation, Bavincompiled historical plans and records intoa map of past and existing structures, fromwhich zones of archaeological sensitivity
were delineated (Bavin 1990a, 1990b). Bavinoutlined zones of archaeological sensitivity
across the Parade Ground which related to
the location of the original Metalled Road
that traversed the compound, the original
Parade Ground area and historical gardens
along the frontage of the southern Main Cell
Block (Figure 1, Appendix 5). The alignmentof the original metalled road is not entirely
known because it was not depicted on
historical plans; only a written descriptionof the proposed road system is available asevidence of its initial construction. Bavin’sreport depicts ‘proposed metalled roads’
in the construction sequence plans basedon historical descriptions of the proposedroad plans. However, the zone of sensitivity
for the metalled road follows the current
road alignment, not that of the historicaldescription.

As part of the 1990 excavation program,
Bavin explored the nature of the stratigraphy
across the Parade Ground, excavating a
1 m x 1 m trench in the lawn area to the eastof the Main Cell Block (Figure 13).
This trench was placed just on the edgeof the modern road in the location of the
proposed original Metalled Road, as per
the historical description. The excavation
indicated that inthis area the bedrock is approximately 0.6 m
below the modern raised lawn surface level,
which is 0.3 m above the current bitumisedroad level. Having not found evidence of ametalled road surface in the remaining 0.3 mof deposit, Bavin concluded that the original
metalled road alignment was the same as theoriginal one (built in 1862), following repairs
and resurfacing (Bavin 1990a). The recovered
cultural assemblage included many nails,
screws and bolts, a boot heel cap, scrap
metal fragments, ceramics, window andbottle glass fragments and handmade bricks.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE

27

Eureka 2008
In 2008, Eureka Archaeological Researchand Consulting UWA targeted five areas for
excavation, two of which were in the Parade
Ground Project Area: Trench A2 and Trench
A5 (Figure 14, Appendix 5).
Trench A5 was excavated just to the east of
Bavin’s 1990 trench to continue exploration
for the original metalled road surface. Trench
A5 measured 2 m x 6 m was excavatedpartly over the lawn and partly over the
existing bitumen road. Eureka concluded thatthe crushed, hard-packed limestone layer justbelow the bitumen was the original Metalled
Road and that it followed a similar alignment
to the current road. The excavation continued
down to bedrock which was reached at a
maximum of 0.9 m below the then current
ground surface.
A second trench (A2) was positioned in thelawn area to target the possible location of
the 1852 well. The trench was excavateddown to bedrock, achieving similar depths
below surface as Bavin’s work (c. 0.6 m).
In the upper 0.5 m of deposit, the culturalassemblage included ceramics, nails, bolts,boot heels, slate fragments, clear bottle
glass, limestone rubble, bottle glass, building
material, brick and animal bone. The lower
deposits contained similar cultural material,
but also timber fragments, shoe eyelets, apipe fragment, oyster shell fragments andplastic.
There is very little information about thelocation of the Well, except for some
1850s historical plans and records noting
its presence early in the planning andconstruction of the prison. Later plans
do not plot the location of the well, whichsuggests that it was only in use for a shortperiod of time. The 2 m x 5 m trench wasplaced in a lawn area in front of the southernwing of the Main Cell Block, near to where
the georeferenced historical plan plots theWell. The presence of electrical services
in the preferred trench location meant thatexcavation had to be moved to the nearest
service-free position. No well was found;28

however, a hardened limestone surface was
encountered at approximately 0.4 m below
the surface which Eureka interpreted as an
undocumented path, but not that of thealternate route of the original Metalled Road.
However, this depth does, in fact, correspondwell with the confirmed Metalled Road thatwas uncovered in trench A5 and it could bespeculated that this corresponds with thealternative proposed road alignment, as per
Bavin’s construction sequence plan (Figure 5,
Appendix 5). According to Figure 3 of Bavin’s
1990 Stage One work at the Prison, a subsurface road structure runs parallel to themain prison building, unlike the current roadalignment where the section to the southof the chapel entrance veers in towards thesouthwest corner of the building insteadof continuing parallel to the frontage. This
alternative alignment of the original Metalled
Road is discussed in Eureka 2009 Excavation
report, but they ultimately concluded thatthat original road was likely to have followed
a similar route to that of today. However, thisconclusion is based upon interpretation of
the historical description of the road. Eureka
speculated that Bavin mapped the road ina parallel position due to a description of
the original road as being ‘levelled along
the entire front of the Prison’ but the fuller
description could be interpreted anotherway (Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting 2009b). Bavin appears to havecome to the same conclusion, given that her
Zoning Plan does not factor it in.
UWA 2013
In 2013, the University of Western Australia’s
Masters of Professional Archaeology program
excavated a 3 m x 1 m trench in the lawn
area in an attempt to locate the missing well
(Figure 15). According to the maps provided
in the report, the trench was placed justto the east of Eureka’s 2009 Trench A2;
however, there is some spatial discrepancy
between the Eureka mapping and that of the
UWA maps which makes it difficult to be sure
about the exact spatial relationship between
the two excavations, especially given thelack of coordinates provided in the reports.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

However, it seems likely that they bothtargeted approximately where historical plansplot the 1852 Well.
The UWA trench yielded a mixed culturalassemblage of both modern and historicalfinds including window glass, buttons, faunalbone and a 1920s ketchup bottle. They also
identified two archaeological features, oneof which (Feature 1) could possibly relate torefuse-fill of the Well. This feature cut throughthe southwest corner of the trench and wasthought to continue beyond the excavation
area. Due to time constraints, excavation was
stopped before fully exploring the feature andbefore reaching bedrock.
DPLH 2017 (in press)
An archaeological investigation was launchedby the DPLH after a sinkhole in the Parade
Ground revealed a historical sewer (Fleming2017). Three trenches were excavatedalong the line of the Convict-era drain andsewer system that passes under the Parade
Ground on a roughly east / west alignment
from the Main Cell Block building to cesspits outside the prison grounds (Figure 16).
Vaulted and timber roofed sewers were
uncovered that confirm the historical plans of
the original 1850s Drains. The results indicatethat sections of the prison’s drain systemwere cut into the bedrock, whilst others
were constructed using bricks, limestone
and mortar. Presumably this was due tothe irregular upper surface of the natural
limestone cap rock.

DPLH 2018
In 2018, the installation of a new fire service
line required the mechanical excavation of
a 2.6 m long channel in the southern partof the Parade Ground (Figure 17) and an
archaeological monitoring program wascarried out by the DPLH (Wilson 2019).
The upper 0.25 m of deposit was moist,
black loamy soil, consistent with the natureof the raised lawn layer. Below this was 0.1 –0.15 m of mixed soil and crushed limestone
on top of 0.4 m of crushed limestone down
to the excavated feature (services line), orbase of trench. The east end of the trench
was excavated to a maximum depth ofapproximately 1 m without reaching naturalsoil or bedrock.
A roughly square cement block was
uncovered at c. 0.6 m below the surface.
This feature measured approximately
0.9 m x 0.9 m and is composed of grey
Portland cement. The presence of crushedlimestone in the surrounding matrix suggeststhat limestone may have been used in its
construction. It was concluded that thefeature and associated rubble was a footing
for a past structure, or possibly a concrete
plug for a deeper structure. It was reburied
and remains in situ.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE

29

Map 2. Past archaeological works in the Parade Ground Project Area

30

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
The past archaeological works haveconfirmed that:• the removal of any paving or turf within
the southern part of the Project Area has
the potential to reveal archaeologicaldeposits;• it is likely that, in most lawn areas acrossthe Project Area, modern turf overlays
more recent soils initially, which in turnoverlay older 19th century archaeologicalfeatures, such as paths, old drainage
pipes, other drainage features andrubbish deposits;• the existing bitumen road is also likely tooverlay and correspond to the originallimestone Metalled Road alignment,
which the excavation has confirmed
remains in situ (Eureka ArchaeologicalResearch and Consulting 2009a).
The past archaeological works have not yet
confirmed:• the location of the 1852 Well excavations in 2013 revealed a featurethat could relate to the Well but the
excavation was terminated prior toconfirming this.
• the proposed alternative route forthe original Metalled Road – whilst
excavations concluded that thecurrent bitumen road matches thatof the original layout, the position of
the trenches and the presence ofcompacted limestone rubble in one
does not rule out the possibility that
another metalled road surface was first
constructed in the alignment proposedby Bavin (1990b).
• the archaeological signature of the 1862
Parade Ground, 1908 Officers’ Shelter,
the historical Grassed Area / Gardens,
the c. 1909 Rotunda and the Clothes
Store / Old Canteen – the projected
locations of these features are known
only from historical plans or scant
descriptions and photographic evidence.
The northern end of the Project Area has
not been subject to much archaeologicalinvestigation.

In addition to the historical cultural heritage
discussed above, Aboriginal cultural material
such as flaked stone artefacts may also bepresent within the Project Area (see Appendix
2 for further discussion).

RISK ASSESSMENT
Following their excavation, Eureka
recommended that ground disturbanceworks in bitumen areas should not exceed
a depth of 10 cm below the surface and in
grassed areas ground disturbance works
should not exceed a depth of 30 cm
below the surface, owing to the potential
for archaeological material below theselevels (Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting 2009a). Excavation works sincethen have corroborated this. Therefore,ground disturbance works pose a risk to thearchaeological resource of the Prison.
The Fremantle Prison Heritage Management
Plan identified the following risks:• disturbance or destruction of highly
significant built form or archaeologicalfeatures in order to expose
archaeological features of lower
significance;• inadvertent disturbance or destruction of
the archaeological resource due to lackof prior research or inadequate impacts
assessment;• damage to the archaeologicalresource because investigations were
undertaken by inexperienced or inexpert
practitioners;• failure to make the data generated byarchaeological investigation publicly
accessible;• disturbance or destruction of Aboriginalarchaeology without appropriate
consultation taking place because its
significance is not recognised relative tothe site’s non-Aboriginal heritage values;and• loss/damage due to an under-resourced
collection area and lack of postexcavation analysis

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE31

In addition to these broad themes, thefollowing specific risks associated with works
in the Project Area will be addressed in the
management strategies of this AMS:
• the margin of error in predicting
locations of archaeological features- much of the current knowledge ofthe potential archaeological features
is gleaned from scant documentary
evidence and georeferencing of historicalplans.
• the historical metalled road surface
could be encountered immediately
below the bitumen surface and, given
likely repair and resurfacing that may
have taken place, the thickness of the‘modern’ (bitumen) surface cannot beassumed to be a set thickness. Thus,
any disturbance to the bitumen surface
poses a risk to the historical roadsurface.
• whilst the lawn areas are raised
approximately 30 cm above the levelof the roads and historical features,archaeological materials were recoveredfrom this layer. Therefore, ground
disturbance in the top 30 cm of the lawn
areas is highly likely to uncover cultural
materials but at low risk of encountering
sensitive archaeological structures.
Ground disturbance below the humic
soils of the lawn layer pose a high risk toarchaeological structures.
• the possibility of Aboriginal artefacts
cultural material such as flaked stone
artefacts being present within the Project
Area (see Appendix 2).

32

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Map 3. Archaeological and historical features within the Project Area

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLACE

33

4

ARCHAEOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCEARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Zones of Archaeological Sensitivity
Louise Bavin’s archaeological zoning planof the Fremantle Prison compound (Bavin1990b) is essentially what is termed today
an Archaeological Management Plan (AMP)
for the site (see Figure 1). The purpose of
the archaeological zoning plan is to classify
sites according to their level of archaeologicalsensitivity. To assist managers in site
development decisions the plan includes

basic management recommendations. Areasin which material remains of historical orarchaeological research interest are likely tohave survived and seem to be highly sensitive
to development activities which would disturb
sub-surface deposits are allocated the top
zoning category to protect them. Conversely,
areas which are not likely to containarchaeological remains are given the lowest
zoning category (Pearson 1984 quoted in
Bavin 1990b).

Figure 1. Zoning Plan – Bavin 1990a

34

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Zone A: Areas of High Archaeological
Sensitivity
Areas zoned A are suspected of containingarchaeological remains in the form of building
foundations, stores, amenities and services
where associated artefacts are likely to
be found, thematically and functionallyunique structures which are of historical orarchaeological research value, and othersites which may be reactivated to reinforce
historical integrity of the prison.
In Zone A areas it is essential that no
development activities take place before
thorough archaeological investigations havebeen carried out. If it is found, from test
excavations, that a proposed development
will threaten a significant archaeologicalresource, it is strongly recommended thatthe development be re-designed to avoid
that resource. The following parts of the
Parade Ground have been allocated Zone A
classification:• Section along west side of southern cellblock
• Small section on west side of north cell
block.
Bavin recommended that areas classified
as Zone A be thoroughly tested and defined
before development works are undertaken.
Based on archaeological assessments of thesites discussed above, feasible options might
be to:• proceed with development works;• salvage remains;• redesign development works to
avoid destruction of an unexcavatedarchaeological resource; and• expose and display remains.
Zone A areas within the Parade Ground
Project Area include the original Metalled
Road.

Zone B: Areas of Medium Archaeological
Sensitivity
Areas zoned B are suspected of containingarchaeological remains of less researchpotential and significance than those in Zone
A sites. Remains may include evidenceof minor structures adjoining substantialbuildings, artificial landfill, garden plots andless predictable deposits within yards andparade areas. There is still a reasonablechance of locating remains of highresearch or display value in Zone B areas.
Consequently, development works which
will disturb subsurface deposits should be
preceded by archaeological testing. The
following parts of the Parade Ground havebeen allocated Zone B classification:• An area in front of the Main Cell Block. The
specific of the proposed metalled road is
uncertain. Excavations in this area may
define the original road boundaries. The
old road may eventually be reactivated toreinforce historical integrity in the prison.
• According to Prison Department
documents (PD 205), grass and shrubs
were planted in front of the southern wingof the Main Cell Block. This area may be
examined to determine the boundaries
and contents of the garden, if indeed it
was a garden.
• The boundaries and surface materialof the Parade Ground may also be
determined by test excavations. This site
is located in front of the North Main Cell
Block.
Bavin recommended that areas classified
as Zone B be sufficiently archaeologicallytested to locate any major remains which
may necessitate redesigning development
works. Development works proceeding on
the basis of test excavation results should beaccompanied by archaeological surveillance.
During such works contracts should allow for
proper salvage of remains.
Zone B areas within the Parade Ground
Project Area include the Parade Area 1862,
Grassed Area 1862 and Officers’ Shelter
Shed 1908.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

35

Zone C: Areas of little or noarchaeological sensitivity.
Areas zoned C would appear to have little
or no potential for archaeological remains.
This conclusion is based on documentaryresearch. Zone C areas were not places ofconcentrated activity nor were substantialbuildings constructed in these areas.
However, 19th century prison plans indicatethat shallow drains dissect various areas
within the compound. Contractors should be
briefed on the possibility of uncovering suchremains. Should archaeological remains be
uncovered during the course of development
works it is recommended that contractors
cease work until the remains have beeninspected and assessed by an archaeologist.
Zone C areas within the Parade Ground
Project Area include the 1852 Well, 1854
Drains / Tunnels, Clothes Store c. 1919 / Old
Canteen post-1948, c.1909 Rotunda, 1919
Sentry Box and 1964 Laundry and Ablution
Block.
Zones of SignificanceThe Fremantle Prison Heritage Management
Plan (Extent Heritage Advisors 2019)is a comprehensive management andassessment document for the heritage
values of the entire Prison compound. The
HMP identifies Parade Ground (or forecourt
to the Main Cell Block) is a key historicalcomponent of the convict-era planningand development of Fremantle Prison. It
has survived as a largely undeveloped andunembellished space – save for definedgarden and lawn areas or beds – since the1850s. It has also acted as the significant
setting to the Main Cell Block allowing foruninterrupted views of the imposing west
façade and Chapel wing. Other views ofnote from and within the Parade Groundinclude the view of South Knoll, north-south
views along the length of the space, views

36

out over the tops of the perimeter walls andPrison buildings, and the axial east-west
view between the central entrance to theChapel wing of the Main Cell Block and Wray
Gates (which extends beyond the Parade
Ground). Aesthetically, the overall characterof the Parade Ground is one of austerity
and simplicity, with the dramatic and overscaled space first encountered after entering
through the Wray Gates. Of the various
paths and roadways, the largest and mostprominent, and the one which is evident fromthe 1850s, runs from north to south, andturns east at the south end of the Main Cell
Block. This has historically provided accessto the East Workshops which, although
important operationally, were otherwise
largely isolated from the remainder of the
Prison in its early decades.
Those parts of the Parade Ground, as
defined in the HMP, that are relevant to thisAMS and of exceptional significance are:• convict-era Parade Ground• convict-era north-south road alignment
The part of the Parade Ground that is of
considerable significance is as follows:• Old Canteen (possibly overlying an older
Clothes Store structure)
The part of the Parade Ground that is ofsome significance is as follows:• general form and alignment of thedefined lawn areas and garden bedsThose parts of the Parade Ground that are oflittle or no significance are as follows:• office addition to Old Canteen• sentry box to Old Canteen• current surface and edging materials
including bitumen, brick and concrete• all other modern fabric

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDRESEARCH QUESTIONSBavin’s archaeological zoning plan (Bavin1990b) notes that the archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison has a highpotential of yielding cultural material which
may be to address significant researchquestions. Major research questions which
may be addressed concern:• technological developments, such as
the unique 19th century water systemdesigned to flush human waste fromselected areas;• structural developments andoccupational phases associated withparticular buildings;• an accuracy assessment of early Prison
plans based on location of structural
remains uncovered during excavation;• change in social values, including notionsof contamination, punishment and reform
inherent in the Separate System;• institutional self-sufficiency in terms ofimports and prison products;• gender relations; and• diet and health.
In addition to these research questions
identified by Bavin, the archaeology of the
Parade Ground also has the potential toprovide significant information about specifichistorical features and buildings, including thewell, drains / tunnels, metalled road surface,parade area and officers’ shelter etc. This
information could be incorporated into futureinterpretative signage or exhibits, engaging
visitors to the Prison with its archaeology andadding to the site’s value as an important
historical and cultural tourist attraction.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

37

5

ARCHAEOLOGICALMANAGEMENT STRATEGIESINTRODUCTION

The exceptional national and international heritage significance of Fremantle Prison
demands that the archaeological values of the place are managed conservatively. The
Parade Ground Project Area is of high archaeological sensitivity so any risks associatedwith ground disturbance works must be mitigated.
In the following pages, we will discuss the guiding principles used in the construction of ourManagement Strategy.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Overarching Policy Framework

The following principles are taken from theFremantle Prison Heritage Management Plan
(Extent Heritage Advisors 2019):

POLICY 8
The known and potential archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison will be managed
according to its significance. Usually thiswill comprise its ‘scientific significance’ (i.e.
its ability to address substantive researchquestions). However, the archaeologicalresource at Fremantle Prison may also
embody other heritage values (e.g. social
significance).

The Opportunities
Where archaeological investigationis necessary at Fremantle Prison thismay present an opportunity to involvethe community in a program of ‘publicarchaeology’ – a form of interpretation.
The archaeological resource at Fremantle
Prison comprises a valuable teaching andlearning resource. Fremantle Prison may
pursue opportunities to collaborate withstudents and teachers of archaeology fromtertiary education institutions.
Archaeological investigation can augment
the collection of movable heritage currently
curated by Fremantle Prison.

38

POLICY 9
Archaeological excavation at Fremantle
Prison will be underpinned by substantive
research questions expressed in an
Archaeological Research Design prepared by
an experienced historical archaeologist prior
to works commencing.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDPOLICY 10
Significant archaeological features 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.
POLICY 11
Where the investigation of archaeologicalfeatures from an earlier 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
cultural layer. In some circumstances, thesignificance of archaeological material fromlater periods will be higher than that fromearlier periods.
POLICY 12
Fremantle Prison will seek to involve thepublic in programs of archaeologicalinvestigation where this can be achieved
without compromising the archaeologicalresource.
POLICY 13
Only historical archaeologists with ademonstrated high level of knowledge andexperience 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 Aboriginal archaeological deposits
and artefacts.
POLICY 14
The data generated by archaeologicalinvestigation at Fremantle Prison will bemade publicly accessible, ideally throughpublication in a peer-reviewed academic
journal but at least as a quality synthesis of
the results as requested.

POLICY 15
Once artefacts recovered througharchaeological excavation have been
documented and analysed such that theirresearch potential has been met, they shouldfrom that time be managed according tothe ‘Moveable Heritage Overarching Policy’
contained in the HMP (Policy also statedin the ‘Fremantle Prison Collection Policy’(2019)).

OBLIGATIONS
The following section is taken from theFremantle Prison Heritage Management Plan
(Extent Heritage Advisors 2019).
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 mattersof national environmental significance.
An ‘action’ may include a project, adevelopment, an undertaking, an activity ora series of activities. It can include ground
disturbance works that might impact thearchaeological resource. Before taking anaction that could have a significant impact
on the heritage values of Fremantle Prison,
the action must be ‘referred’ to the Australian
Minister for the Environment and Energy. The
Minister will determine whether or not further
and more formal assessment and approval isrequired, i.e. a ‘controlled action’.
The Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage has prepared a document entitled‘Section 79(2) Permit Archaeological
Excavation Form’ for applications to excavate
places on the State Heritage Register.
Section 129 of the Heritage Act 2018 makes
it an offence to damage a registered place,including altering, demolishing, removing or
despoiling any part of, or thing in, a registeredplace. The penalties for contravention of the
Act are severe, including a $1 million fine,
imprisonment for one year and a daily penalty
of $50,000

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

39

Section 79 of the Heritage of Western
Australia Act 1990 ‘damage or despoil’or ‘remove any thing from’ a place on
the SRHP, which can include damage ordespoliation of the archaeological resource.
However, an application can be made to the
Heritage Council for a permit to carry out
archaeological works under Section 79 of theAct.

Non-Statutory Framework
A Practice Note supplementing the Burra
Charter entitled ‘The Burra Charter andArchaeological Practice’ states that thefundamental principles contained in the
Burra Charter apply to archaeological sites.
Article 13 of the Burra Charter states: ‘Coexistence of cultural values should always berecognised, respected and encouraged.

The Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage
Act 1972 governs Aboriginal ‘places’, which
includes archaeological sites (Section 5).
If Fremantle Prison 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 consent will only be given after
an assessment is made of the nature andsignificance of the site (Section 18).

This is especially important in cases where
they conflict.’ This will be relevant (a) wherearchaeological features from the convict era
underlie post-convict archaeological featuresof national, state or local significance, and (b)where they overlie Aboriginal archaeologicalremains.

Schedule A, Clause 13B of the City ofFremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No.
4 states that where planning approvalis granted in respect of a place on theFremantle Heritage List, the Council may
impose a condition on that planning approval
which requires an archaeological investigationof 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 have aesthetic, historic, scientific, orsocial significance (see also City of Fremantle
Local Planning Policy 2.7). However, theCity of Fremantle 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 carryingout of any use or development on a Regional
Reserve.

State governments around Australia
have produced guideline documents on
how to assess the significance of historicarchaeological sites. They usually emphasise
the research potential of such places
assessed having regard to (a) researchpotential relative to other sites, (b) researchpotential relative to other sources, and (c)the ability to otherwise address substantive
questions about human behaviour.

Approval is required from the Western
Australian Planning Commission (which will
include input from the Heritage Council ofWestern Australia).

40

The Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage has prepared a document entitled‘Heritage Impact Statement – A Guide’. It
includes reference to the assessment ofarchaeological impacts.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The proposed upgrade works to theFremantle Prison Parade Ground willaddress important drainage issues and areconsidered a necessary part of the site’s
upkeep and maintenance. Provided that a
conservative approach is taken, disturbanceto any sub-surface archaeological material
will be minimised.
Given the scope of the previous
archaeological excavations that have been
undertaken, particularly in the southern partof the Project Area, archaeological evaluation
trenching / test pitting is not considerednecessary prior to the works commencing.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Instead, archaeological monitoring ofworks (an archaeological watching brief)is considered appropriate. By adopting aproactive but cautious approach, the in-situ
preservation of all archaeological features willbe the primary goal. The following statements
underwrite the recommendations provided in
the next section of this AMS.
• All contractors working on the project
should be made aware of the heritage
significance of the Project Area andunderstand their obligations under the
relevant heritage legislation. This may beachieved by running a heritage-specificinduction and providing the team withaccess to this AMS, along with theguiding Procedures provided in the
Appendices.
• The Recommendations provided in thefollowing Section and the Procedures
provided in Appendices set out theworkflows necessary to fulfil obligations
and best practice principles.
• Monitoring of all ground disturbing works
by a suitably qualified and experienced
archaeologist is considered necessary
across the Project Area as there is a highlikelihood of sub-surface archaeologicalmaterial being present.

• The lens of natural sands that sit atop
the bedrock, below the constructionlevels of the Prison, have the potential
to yield Aboriginal cultural materials
dating to the pre-contact period.
Once a detailed works programis established, the DPLH should
consider the engagement of Aboriginal
representative(s), as nominatedby SWALSC, to monitor ground
disturbance, especially where deeper
trenching is required.
• All historical loose finds that are
discovered during the works should beappropriately recorded, salvaged andstored.
• Given the exceptional significance of thearchaeological resource, the outcomesof the archaeological monitoring should
be appropriately documented in a
detailed report and, where possible,used for interpretation within the Prison
Compound.

Table 1. Appendices for Management Procedures
Appendix
One
Two
Three
Four

Contents
Archaeological Monitoring Procedure
Archaeological Discovery Procedure
Find Recording and Collection Procedures
Contractor Procedure Handout

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

41

6RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTo ensure best-practice management of the archaeological resource of the Fremantle Prison
Parade Ground, it is recommended that during the proposed works:• all ground disturbing activities aremonitored by a suitably qualified andexperienced archaeologist;• all contractors working on site should
undertake a heritage-specific induction,
to be produced by the archaeologist, tointroduce them to the heritage values
and potential sub-surface archaeologyof the Project Area;• all contractors working on site should begiven access to this AMS and provided
with copies of the Archaeological
Monitoring Procedure (Appendix 1),
Archaeological Discovery Procedure(Appendix Two) and Contractor
Procedure Handout (Appendix Four);• the works program should be preparedto allow for alterations / amendments
to the locations / alignments of service
trenches and / or soak wells, if required;• the DPLH should consider
the engagement of Aboriginal
representative(s), as nominatedby SWALSC, to monitor ground
disturbance, especially where deeper
trenching is required;42• the works program should be preparedto allow time for the archaeologist toassess and record any archaeologicalfeatures or artefacts that may be
encountered during the works; andon completion of the works thearchaeologist should draft a reporton the conduct of the archaeologicalmonitoring for submission to the DPLH.
The report should include: and• background archaeology and historyof the site and surrounding area;• methods;• personnel and qualifications;• descriptions of archaeological featuresand finds;• significance assessments;• detailed site plans, stratigraphic
sequences and photographs of thework, archaeological features andfinds;• conclusions and a discussion of theidentified archaeological material interms of the research questions; and• guidance for the interpretation of
the results and any display or safe
keeping of the archaeological material
recovered during the development.

RECOMMENDATIONS • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

REFERENCES

Australian ICOMOS. 2013. “The Burra
Charter and Indigenous Cultural Heritage
Management.” Melbourne.
Bavin, L. 1990a. “Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use.
Archaeological Excavations in the Prison
Compound.”Bavin, L. 1990b. “Fremantle Prison
Conservation and Future Use.
Archaeological Zoning Plan of the Prison
Compound. Version 2.”
Burra Charter. 2013. “The Australia ICOMOS
Charter for Places of Cultural Significance2013.” Burwood.
Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.
2019. “Draft Fremantle Prison Master
Plan 2019-2029.”
Eureka Archaeological Research andConsulting. 2009a. “Fremantle Prison
Parade Ground: Archaeological Test
Excavation Results (Stage 3).”––––. 2009b. “Fremantle Prison Parade
Ground Historical Research Targeting
Areas for Archaeological Excavation(Stage Two). Report Prepared for Palassis
Architects.”

Extent Heritage Advisors. 2019. “Fremantle
Prison. Heritage Management Plan.”Fleming, Dr Kelly. (in press). “P1014
Fremantle Prison Archaeological
Investigation of c.1856 Sewer. Final
Report.”Haast, Alyce, Kate Robertson, Philippa
Hunter, and Varteny Boyadjian. 2013.
“Fremantle Prison Parade Ground
Excavation Report. Masters ofProfessional Archaeology, UWA.”
Heritage Council of Western Australia. 2019.
“Archaeological Management Strategies.”
Pearson, M. 1984. “Report of an Investigation
into the Historical Archaeological
Resources of the Arthur Head Area,
Fremantle. Centre for Prehistory,
University of Western Australia.”
Wilson, M. 2019. “Report of Archaeological
Monitoring, Trenching for Fire Services,
Fremantle Prison. Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage File Note.”

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • REFERENCES

43

APPENDIX ONE – ARCHAEOLOGICALMONITORING PROCEDURE
During all ground disturbing works within the Project Area the following should be undertaken:
1) The Project archaeologist is provided with
sufficient scope to closely monitor works.
2) It is the responsibility of the Department ofPlanning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) and/ or the contractor in charge of the projectto ensure that the Project archaeologist
is briefed and provided with at least two(2) days notice of commencement of any
ground disturbing works.
3) The DPLH / contractor should provide theProject archaeologist with accurate maps
and, where possible, digital GIS location
information of the areas of proposed
ground disturbance.
4) Continued monitoring of the works will
occur at the discretion of the Projectarchaeologist. In certain instances/ situations the archaeologist may
decide that their on-site attendanceis not required. In such instances ifarchaeological finds or features are
identified during the works then the
Archaeological Discovery Procedure
should be followed.

445) The Project Archaeologist should becontacted immediately in the eventof archaeological finds or features
and works should cease as per theArchaeological Discovery Procedure in
Appendix Two.
6) The Project Archaeologist has the rightto stop works to sufficiently analyse
any identified archaeology as per theArchaeological Discovery Procedure in
Appendix Two.
7) Once all ground disturbing works arecompleted the Project archaeologist shalldraft a detailed report for submission to
the DPLH.

APPENDIX ONE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDAPPENDIX TWO – ARCHAEOLOGICALDISCOVERY PROCEDURE
1) Contractors should familiarise themselveswith this Archaeological Management
Strategy and be aware of the significant
archaeological potential of the ProjectArea.
2) The Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage is the primary custodian of any
archaeological finds and features that
may be encountered during the works.
3) The contactor’s works program shallbe sufficiently flexible to allow for
the implementation of the following
Archaeological Discovery Procedureacross the Project Area.

4) A variety of archaeological material may
be encountered during ground disturbing
works, including but not limited to:a) flaked and ground Aboriginal stone
artefacts (Plate 1 and Plate 2);b) historical artefacts including, but notlimited to:• glass from bottles or windowpanes;• ceramics from pottery, tobacco
pipes etc.
• metal items such as fastenings(nails) etc. (Plate 3 to Plate 5); and• historical building footings or
surfaces, these may be of stone orbrick (Plate 6 to Plate 10).

Plate 1. Aboriginal flaked artefact(quartz)

Plate 2. Aboriginal ground-edge axe(dolerite)

Plate 3. 19th Century pottery sherds

Plate 4. Clay tobacco pipes

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX TWO

45

46

Plate 5. Historical clear glass bottle

Plate 6. Historical brick

Plate 7. Hand forged nails

Plate 8. Buttons

Plate 9. Historical limestone wall
footings

Plate 10. Historical brick surface

APPENDIX TWO • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Plate 11. 19th Century well and drain

Plate 12. Cross section of Metalled
Limestone Road (Eureka 2009)

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF ABORIGINAL ARTEFACTS
Aboriginal cultural material may be identified during the works, which may include Aboriginal
artefacts such as stone, or less commonly, wooden or bone tools.
Surface Finds
Should surface Aboriginal artefacts or cultural
material be found during works, the following
procedures should be implemented:

Sub-Surface Material / Sites
In the event that Aboriginal cultural material isfound in a sub-surface context , the following
should occur:1) all works in the immediate vicinity of
the find must cease and the projectarchaeologist should be notified
immediately (if not on site);2) the find should not be removed or
disturbed further, and barriers or
temporary fences may be erected aroundthe area if required;
3) the project archaeologist will create
accurate records, including GPS
coordinates and photographs of thearchaeological material, including an insitu evaluation of the find;4) work may be permitted to continue at anagreed upon distance from the find;5) a written statement of the archaeologist’s
assessment and recommendations
will be provided to the DPLH for theirconsideration; and6) based on the recommendations of thearchaeologist, decisions regarding thetreatment of the find shall be made in
consultation with the archaeologist,
Whadjuk Noongar Traditional Owners andthe DPLH.

all works in the immediate vicinity of the findmust cease and the project archaeologist
should be notified immediately (if not on site);the find should not be removed or disturbed
further, and barriers or temporary fences may
be erected around the area if required; andan archaeological assessment should bearranged with the consent and involvementof Whadjuk Noongar Traditional Owners,
through the South West Aboriginal Land and
Sea Council.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX TWO

47

48

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF
HISTORICAL FEATURES/FINDS

PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF
HUMAN REMAINS

1) If historical features / finds areencountered during the works, theyshould not be moved, and works should
be halted immediately in the immediate
vicinity of the find and the Project
Archaeologist notified.
a) If the Project Archaeologist is notpresent, they should be informed atonce. Depending on the nature of thefind and discussion with the Project
Archaeologist, work may be permitted
to continue at an agreed upon distancefrom the find.
b) Once the archaeologist is present,
they may decide to undertake further
hand excavation / cleaning around thecultural material to assess its size /
extent and determine its provenanceand potential cultural significance.
c) At this stage, if considered necessary,
the archaeologist will inform the
Department of Planning, Lands andHeritage (DPLH) of the cultural material.
d) If the cultural material is assessedby the archaeologist as not in its
primary context, at the discretion of
the archaeologist, works may proceedwith caution and with direction from thearchaeologist after the cultural material
has been recorded, bagged andremoved from the work area.
e) In the unlikely event that the historicalcultural material is assessed by the
project archaeologist as a significant
historical in-situ feature, in consultation
with the DPLH, options for therecording, preservation or salvage ofthe feature will be determined. This
may involve further archaeologicalexcavation to determine the precise
nature and extent of the feature.
f) After recording, all salvaged finds will
be recovered by the archaeologist,
bagged and removed from work area.
g) The Archae-aus Finds Management
Process should be followed forappropriate storage or use of thesefinds.

1) There is the possibility that humanremains could be found during the projectworks.
2) Should human remains be found during
works, the following legislation becomesapplicable:a) Coroners Act 1996 – all humanremains;b) Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 –Aboriginal remains; andc) Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act
1984 - Aboriginal remains.
3) Should human remains be found during
works, the following procedures shouldbe implemented:a) all works must cease immediately,and personnel must comply with
the instructions of the projectarchaeologist. The remains should not
be removed or disturbed further, andbarriers or temporary fences may beerected around the area if required;b) Fremantle Prison authorities and DPLH
should be notified immediately;c) under section 17 of the Coroners Act
1996 the local police and Coroner’s
office must be notified;d) if the human remains are thought tobe Aboriginal then the Registrar of
Aboriginal Sites at the DLPH must be
informed. The Registrar of Aboriginal
Sites will inform the Federal Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs; ande) in consultation with the police,
Coroner and DLPH, steps to identify
the remains must be taken. This
may necessitate engaging a physicalanthropologist to complete this task on
site.

APPENDIX TWO • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

4) If the human remains are determined to
be of Aboriginal (or undetermined) origin:a) Traditional Owners should be consulted
as to the management of the remains;b) no further work at the location should
be undertaken until all parties havebeen consulted and an agreement has
been reached. Once an agreement has
been reached, works may continue
at an agreed distance away from thehuman remains; andc) if left in situ, the location of the remains
should be recorded in sufficient detailfor their future protection.
5) If the human remains are determined to
be of Aboriginal (or undetermined) origin,and in situ preservation is not a practicalsolution, provided all parties agree to therelocation of the remains:a) approval to disturb the remains under
section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage
Act (AHA), and/or a permit to excavate
the remains for archaeological
purposes under section 16 of the AHA
should be sought;b) an archaeological excavation planshould be developed and implemented
in consultation with the Traditional
Owners and the DLPH; andc) provision be made for the return of theremains to the Traditional Owners fortheir repatriation at a safe location.

6) If the human remains are non-Aboriginal
and are of a historical nature and cannot
be avoided:a) The Heritage Council of Western
Australia and the Western AustralianMuseum will be consulted regarding
the proposed disturbance.
b) A data recovery programme, plannedin consultation with DPLH / Western
Australian Museum and a historicalarchaeologist and osteoarchaeologist,
may be developed and implemented.
c) The curation / collection of any
excavated remains will be discussed
between the City of Fremantle and
DPLH.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX TWO

49

APPENDIX THREE – FIND RECORDING
AND COLLECTION PROCEDURESLOOSE FIND RECORDING PROCESS
1)
2)
3)
4)

Find is photographed in situ
Location of find recorded on site plan
Loose Find recording form completed
Find placed into a storage bag using thecorrect conservation collection technique5) Find labelled with find number, location,collectors name and date collected
6) Finds stored in durable plastic tubs (seePlate 13)
7) Data entered into a digital database

Plate 13. Storage tubs

Plate 14. Storage tubs

FEATURE RECORDING PROCESS
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Feature is photographed
Location of feature recorded on site plan
Feature recording form completed
Data collated on completion of works
Depending on the type of feature,in consultation with DPLH specificprocedures will be required to either
preserve in situ or remove and conserve.

COLLECTION PROTOCOLS
Careful collection of finds is required and if
finds conservation is required, conservators
at the Western Australian Museum need tobe consulted immediately.
1) Any finds recovered from a waterlogged
context need to be kept wet in the samewater from which they were collected.
2) Organic finds should be wrapped andkept away from direct sunlight, thenstored at between 4° – 5° C.

503) Glass, ceramics, brick and stone should
be carefully collected, dry brushed andstored separately in labelled plastic bags.
4) Metal items should be carefully collected,
dry brushed and stored separately
in labelled plastic bags. If metals arerecovered from a wet environment theyneed to be stored wet. Fresh water ispreferable to salt water except for leadand lead alloys, such as pewter. Only
store like metals in the same container.
Retain any adherent concretions. Do notstore metals in the same container asorganic materials unless they are part ofan inseparable, composite object.

STORAGE PROCESS
Once initial recording and reporting on finds
is complete, all cultural material should behanded over to the DPLH for appropriate
long-term management and storage. Copiesof all databases, recordings and analysis
should also be provided to the DPLH.

APPENDIX THREE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDAPPENDIX FOUR – CONTRACTORPROCEDURE HANDOUTPROCEDURE - ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS DISCOVERY
Archaeological potential occurs across the entire Project Area, this procedure should be
followed if suspected archaeological material is uncovered and the archaeologist is not present.
During ground disturbing works7 the following must occur if objects such as thefollowing are found:
1) Historical artefacts such as bricks, concrete, dressed stone blocks, timber, roadsurfaces, bottles, ceramics, metal and bone2) Aboriginal artefacts including flaked stone and glass, shell, animal bone and metal,
ground stone tools
ActionProcess

Personnel

When1) Stop Work
Immediately

The discoverer will notify machine
operators working in the vicinity to stop
work to avoid further disturbance of thestructure or object.

Discoverer

Immediately
upon discoveryof any object

Do not move or touch the found item.
Discoverer,
2) Notify the Site Discoverer informs the Site Supervisor.
Site
Supervisor and
The
Site
Supervisor
informs
theManaging
Supervisor
the Managing
Contractor.
Contractor
3) Protect the
Find

If possible, fence off the affected area with Siteas large a buffer as possible to protect the Supervisor
find.

Immediately

ASAP

Keep all work away from the area until it
has been assessed by the Archaeologist.
4) Document

Site
Take at least two photographs (using
mobile phones) of the find with something Supervisor
for scale (pens, hands, ruler, people)

ASAP5) Notify theArchaeologist

The Managing Contractor contacts theArchaeologist to advise of the find.

Managing
Contractor

ASAP

The Managing Contractor emails thephotographs to the Archaeologist andprovides details of where the find islocated (including depth, if possible).

7

These are defined as any activity that disturbs the ground surface. It can include activities such as topsoil clearing, grubbing,geotechnical testing, grading, cutting, trenching, potholing pits, deep excavation and directional drilling (launch and retrievalpits).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FOUR

51

ActionProcess

Personnel

6) Initial
Assessmentof the Find

The Archaeologist views the photographs
and advises the Managing Contractor onwhether a site visit is required.

Project
ASAP but
Archaeologist within 24 hours
to minimise
delays7) On-Site
Assessmentof the Find

If a site visit is required, the Managing
Contractor will notify the Site Owner.

8) Recording /Salvage

The Archaeologist to follow the Project
Archaeological Management Plan.

Archaeologist ASAP

9) Clearance

Once salvage is complete theArchaeologist informs the Managing
Contractor that the area is clear.

Archaeologist Following
assessment

10) Resume Work

52

When

ASAP
Managing
Contractor,
Project
The Archaeologist assesses the find and in Archaeologist
consultation with the Managing Contractor
will arrange the recording of the objects
and possible salvage.

Archaeologist informs the Managing
Contractor if additional conditions forcontinued work are required.
Managing Contractor informs the Site
Supervisor.

Managing
Contractor

APPENDIX FOUR • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUNDASAPAPPENDIX FIVE – REFERENCE MATERIAL

Figure 2. Project Area map, as per scope of works

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

53

Figure 3. 1856 Block Plan

54

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 4. 1856 Plan as per Bavin 1990b, Figure 5.8

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

55

Figure 5. 1862 Construction Plan as per Bavin 1990b

56

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 6. 1907 – 1908 Construction Plan as per Bavin 1990b

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

57

Figure 7. 1919 Electrical Engineer’s Plan

58

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 8. 1987 Site Plan

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

59

Figure 9. Bavin Feature Plan – Bavin 1990a

60

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 10. 1935 Aerial Imagery (SLWA Call No 031598PD)

Figure 11. 1948 Aerial Imagery

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

61

Figure 12. 1909 Photograph across the Parade Ground Project Area (dateprovided by Eureka 2009a)

Figure 13. Bavin 1990 Excavation Trench Location (Bavin 1990b Figure 7)

62

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 14. Eureka 2008 Excavation Trench Location (Eureka 2009a, Figure 4)

Figure 15. UWA 2013 Trench Location (Haast et al. 2013, Figure 7)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

63

Figure 16. DPLH 2017 Trench Locations (Flemming, in press)

64

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND

Figure 17. DPLH 2018 Trench Location (Wilson 2019)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND • APPENDIX FIVE

65

NOTES66

APPENDIX FIVE • ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - FREMANTLE PRISON PARADE GROUND