Brewery to bonded store (or a tale involving beer, misfortune and the casualties of long distance trade)

From Staffordshire pottery to American made glass-ware, we’ve come across artefacts from all over the world on archaeological sites here in Christchurch. This prevalence of internationally made artefacts, and what it means for the city’s history, is something that’s come up frequently in previous posts on this blog. Today’s post continues to discuss that theme, albeit from a slightly different perspective – that of the importer.

Over the last little while, we’ve been looking at the artefact assemblage from a site in the central city that was associated with a bonded store from the 1860s onwards. Bonded stores (also known as bonded warehouses) were buildings in which goods could be stored and remain exempt from customs duties. They were usually used to store goods and bulk merchandise until they were distributed for retail, at which time those duties and taxes would have to be paid.

We found numerous archaeological features (mostly rubbish pits) on the site, almost all of which contained artefacts. Many of these rubbish pits contained a large number of alcohol bottles. This is not particularly unusual. What is unusual is that within each feature most of the alcohol bottles were identical and almost all of the bottle tops found were still sealed – with cork, wire seal and metal capsule.

One of the rubbish pits found at the site, containing a large number of J & R Tennent sealed bottles.

One of the rubbish pits found at the site, containing a large number of J & R Tennent sealed bottles. Image: J. Hughes.

One rubbish pit contained a total of 130 artefacts (in 454 fragments), 126 of which were black beer bottles. Although the bottles were broken, the tops and bases were almost equal in number. More significantly, all of those black beer bottles were still sealed, or found in association with their corks and capsule seals, and every single seal bore the distinctive trademarks of J & R Tennent’s Pale Ale, brewed at the Wellpark Brewery, Scotland. Most of the capsules were also stamped with the mark of Betts & Co, the company who patented and manufactured this type of metal capsule seal for bottles. Similarly trademarked bottle capsules have been found at other 1860s-1880s sites throughout New Zealand, although not in such large quantities (Petchey and Innanchai 2012).

A couple of the J & R Tennent sealed tops found in the rubbish pit. The side of the seal reads: "Bottled by J & R Tennent" and (not pictured) "Betts & Co/Patent/Patent/ Trade Mark/ London."

A couple of the J & R Tennent sealed tops found in the rubbish pit. The side of the seal reads: “Bottled by J & R Tennent” and (not pictured) “Betts & Co / Patent / Patent / Trade Mark / London.” Betts & Co were the original patentees and manufacturers of metal bottle capsules like these. They were founded in 1804, but weren’t established in London until 1840. The company continued to manufacture bottle capsules until the 1960s: these particular seals were probably made between 1860 and 1915 (Nayton 1991). Images:  J. Garland.

J & R Tennent capsule drawing

A drawing of one of the J & R Tennent bottle capsules found at this site. Note that the beer is a pale ale, and the reference to Wellpark Brewery in Glasgow. Image: J. Garland.

John and Robert Tennent were Glaswegian brewers and bottlers who began operating in the 1770s. Their business continued to be run by their descendants throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, right up until the present day (Petchey and Innanchai 2012). By the end of the 19th century they were increasingly known for the quality of their beer and were a relatively large presence in the export market for bottled beer throughout the English speaking world (Hughes 2006). In Christchurch, Tennent’s Pale Ale was sold in large quantities from the 1850s onwards by a number of Christchurch merchants such as Robert Symington, Charles Wesley Turner (my great great grandfather!), Longden & Le Cren, Robert Wilkin & Co, and Tonks, Norton & Co, among others (Lyttelton Times 6/11/1852: 312/8/1865: 1Star 22/10/1869: 4; Press 18/9/1879: 3,14/1/1891: 8).

A second rubbish pit at the site contained a similar assemblage: 125 artefacts, 88 of which were identical dark green beer bottles. Like the Tennent bottles, almost all of these were still sealed or found in association with metal capsules, wire seals and corks. Unfortunately, the seals from this feature weren’t in the best condition: only eight of them could be definitively identified to the bottler, T. B. Hall & Co, Liverpool. It seems likely, however, given the similarity of the bottles (a handful of which still had the remnants of T. B. & Hall labels on the glass), that all 88 were originally T. B. Hall & Co products.

Some of the T. B. Hall & Co bottle capsules found in the second rubbish pit. Image: J. Garland.

Some of the T. B. Hall & Co bottle capsules found in the second rubbish pit. Image: J. Garland.

This drawing of one of the T. B. Hall & Co metal capsules shows the distinctive boar trademark used by the company. Image: J. Garland.

This drawing of a T. B. Hall & Co bottle seal shows the distinctive boar trademark used by the company. Image: J. Garland.

T. B. Hall refers to Thomas Bird Hall, who operated an export bottling company in Liverpool in the latter half of the 19th century. The company became well known for their ‘Boar’s Head’ brand, which we see on the bottles found in Christchurch.  They started bottling beer under this brand in 1874, much of which was exported to British colonies, including Australia and New Zealand. They bottled a range of beers, spirits and liqueurs, including the well-known Bass and Guinness ales and stouts (Hughes 2006: 131). We have evidence for the brand being sold in Christchurch from at least 1878 until the late 1890s (Press 22/4/1878: 2; Press 23/10/1899: 4).

Interestingly, during the excavation of this rubbish pit, it was noted that most of the bottles were complete, but cracked, while they were still in the ground. Many of them fell apart as they were lifted out, suggesting that they had broken or cracked from the impact of being thrown – complete and still sealed – into the pit.

The partially excavated rubbish pit containing numerous T. B. Hall & Co sealed bottles. A couple of complete bottles are visible, sticking out of the top of the feature: one of these fell apart as it was lifted, due to the cracks already present in the glass. Image: J. Garland.

The partially excavated rubbish pit containing numerous T. B. Hall & Co sealed bottles. A couple of complete bottles are visible, sticking out of the top of the feature: one of these fell apart as it was lifted, due to the cracks already present in the glass. Image: J. Garland.

As archaeologists, we’re used to finding old or broken artefacts in archaeological assemblages  – objects that have clearly been used and discarded, due to damage, age, changes in fashion or simply because they’ve reached the end of their uselife. The fact that two rubbish pits at this site contain artefacts that have clearly not been used and, in one case, were complete when they were discarded, indicates that there must be another reason for their disposal.

Given the association of the site with a bonded store, it seems likely that these bottles were originally imported and stored at the warehouse with the intention of being distributed to local retailers and consumers. The question then remains: why were they thrown out? There are numerous potential answers to this, from damages incurred during transport to a bad quality batch of beer, a lack of demand or old, unsaleable stock. Bottled beer was a hell of a lot more unpredictable – both in quality and preservation – during the 19th century than it is now, and it wasn’t uncommon for batches to go bad, or simply be bad.

This extract from a legal case involving the supply and sale of bad beer lists just a few of the ways beer could go bad in the 19th century. Image: Colonist 26/07/1911

This extract from a legal case involving the supply and sale of bad beer lists just a few of the ways beer could go bad in the 19th century. Image: Colonist 26/7/1911: 4.

It’s easy to forget, in this age of air freight and controlled temperatures, that these goods had to come a very long way in relatively difficult conditions in order to reach our shores (and our stomachs) in the 19th century. British export beers travelled to colonies like Australia and New Zealand by ship, a journey that could take anything upwards of 100 days (by clipper, the fastest non-steam powered ship at the time). These voyages often encountered rough seas and extreme temperatures, both of which could damage cargoes of bottled beer (Hughes 2006). High temperatures (when sailing through the tropics, for example) could cause the beer itself to go off: sometimes, if it caused rapid fermentation, the bottles would explode (my personal favourite). On top of the sea voyage, of course, the bottles had to survive loading and unloading as well as transport over rough roads to their final destination. It’s hardly surprising that breakages occurred!

There were also issues with supply and demand: agents in New Zealand would have been ordering the stock well in advance (remember, 100 days or more to get here), based on predicted demand. If their predictions were wrong, products might not sell and be left, instead, to age to the point where they were both undrinkable and unsaleable, and had to be discarded. All of which leads to rubbish pits such as these, containing the physical casualties and failures of the 19th century import/export trade.

Analysis of this site is continuing but, as you can see from the small part of it that I’ve discussed here, it has the potential to provide us with a window into the realities of the goods trade in Christchurch – internationally and locally. It’s also an excellent example of the importance of archaeological context in the interpretation of artefacts and archaeological features.  Just one of these bottles, out of context, wouldn’t have nearly such an interesting story to tell.

Jessie Garland

References

Colonist. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Hughes, David. 2006. “A Bottle of Guiness Please”: the Colourful History of Guiness. Phimboy: Berkshire, England.

Lyttelton Times. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Nayton, G., 1992. Applying frontier theory to a Western Australian site: the problem of chronological control. Australasian Historical Archaeology 10: 75-91.

Petchey, P. and Innanchai, J., 2012. Bottle top capsules in New Zealand historic archaeological sites. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3 (2): 1-16.

Press. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Star. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Public faces and private spaces: domestic pride and hygiene in the 19th century

Today’s post continues the theme of the last one (a little), in terms of exploring the relationship between products and industries in the past and their connection with our lives today. It’s easy to scoff at some of the things we learn about the 19th century – like how backward the ideas were – but there are certain aspects of history that remind us how some human traits transcend time and generations. One such aspect of human behaviour that’s come to my attention recently, thanks to some artefacts we’ve found in Christchurch, is to do with cleaning the house, of all things. Specifically, how we can see delineations between public and private spaces in the products used by a 19th century household as much as we can see it in the actual physical structure of the house itself.

The object that triggered this train of thought was found recently, on a site in the Christchurch CBD. It’s a small ceramic pot, similar to others that we’ve come across before, that has the useful distinction of still having its label attached. This label identifies the original contents of the pot as Joseph Pickering & Sons’ “celebrated polishing paste”, for “cleaning and beautifying” a range of metal objects. The significant word here, I think, is ‘beautifying’. Products like this polishing paste had a very specific purpose, and that purpose had everything to do with appearance. After all, something is polished so that it can be seen, is it not? Shiny harness ornaments, gleaming silver and brass, burnished copper – they’re there to look good, and to make the people associated with them look good in the eyes of others. The virtue of keeping a clean house, and the reflection of that virtue on a person’s character, is not a new concept to any of us (even if we don’t always follow through as much as we should). Pickering’s polishing paste is a product that has everything to do with this concept, with that public face of a household or business and the social construct of domestic pride.

This pot of Pickering & Son's polishing paste was found on a site in Christchurch's CBD. The label reads:

This pot of Pickering & Sons’ polishing paste was found on a site in Christchurch’s CBD. Often, ceramic pots like this are identified as toothpaste pots. However, the  attached label on this one reads: “JOSEPH PICKERING & SONS / CELEBRATED POLISHING PASTE / For cleaning and beautifying brass, copper, tin, German Silver, Brittania metal goods, harness ornaments, carriage glasses, windows.” Another piece of the label was found inside the pot. Not all of it was legible, but what we could make out reads: “Directions of Use / Take piece of wet flannel or woolen cloth with  little of the …tion and rub well on the article to best… afterwards polish….cloth for ornamental….” Image: J. Garland.

It got me thinking about the other household products we find in archaeological sites and how they fit within this notion of public and private space in the home. With the exception of polishing paste, almost all of the other cleaning products we find are disinfectants. Products like Kerol, Jeyes Fluid & Lysol were all advertised primarily as disinfectants for the home (and on the farm, in some cases), although they also claimed medicinal properties among their applications. Kerol was advertised as a remedy for infantile paralysis (polio), due to its germ-killing properties (Wanganui Chronicle 24/03/1916: 6), while Lysol had some interesting (and disturbing) alternative uses (Evening Post 4/10/1930: 27). In the early 20th century, along with causing a number of deaths, it was marketed and used as a form of birth control and feminine hygiene product (Sanger 1917). Unfortunately for women, the extremely caustic and highly toxic disinfectant, which was applied by douching, created all manner of disastrous and highly painful health problems rather than solving them (Palmer & Greenberg 1936:142-146).

These astoundingly sexist advertisements for Lysol claim "in easily understood language", that good feminine hygiene can protect a woman's youth & vigor and save her marriage. Clockwise

These astoundingly sexist advertisements for Lysol claim “in easily understood language”, that good feminine hygiene can protect a woman’s youth & vigor and save her marriage. Clockwise from left: 1934 advertisement for Lysol; Lysol bottle base found in Christchurch; Lysol advertisement from 1930. Images: Museum of Women’s Health;  J. Garland; Evening Post 4/10/1930.

All of these disinfectants are associated with the gradual acceptance of germ theory during the late 19th century, along with the new understanding that personal and household hygiene formed an important aspect of individual health. For that very reason, as cleaning products, they form something of a contrast to Pickering’s polishing paste as products that sit firmly within the private sphere of household cleaning. Their ability to kill germs notwithstanding, disinfectants like these would have little to contribute when it came to presenting the public spaces of the household to guests and visitors. In fact, horrifying feminine hygiene aside, their use in the home hasn’t really changed during the past 100 years.

Kerol bottle found in Christchurch, along with 1920s poem singing the praises of the disinfectant. Images:  Colonist 24/02/1920; J. Garland.

Kerol bottle found in Christchurch, along with 1920s poem singing the praises of the disinfectant. Images: Colonist 24/02/1920; J. Garland.

This is what I’m getting at, really. The products themselves may have uses that seem barbaric (douching with disinfectant, ouch), or ingredients that we wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole, but the driving force behind their use hasn’t changed so much. The average household today might not have a lot of silver and saddlery to polish (to be fair the average household then probably didn’t either) but a bottle of furniture polish wouldn’t be unusual in most cleaning cupboards. Nor would glass cleaner, starch, or shoe polish, all of which are used more for the presentation of a clean house (or footwear) than for hygienic reasons. At the same time, although many solely ‘private’ products, like bleach or disinfectant, are common in modern households, so too are products that combine the appearance-based cleaning with the hygienic side of things. Anti-bacterial Spray & Wipe is an excellent case in point.

Perhaps that’s the real difference between then and now. There’s still the same drive to have a clean house, the same kind of domestic pride and same wish to be free from illness or disease: it’s just easier to fulfil now. More convenient. The people haven’t changed, not so much, but we’ve changed the world around us, one product at a time.

Jessie Garland

References

Colonist. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz.

Evening Post. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz.

Museum of Menstruation and Women’s Health, 2014. [online] Available at http://www.mum.org/

Palmer, R. L. & Greenberg, Sarah K., 1936. Facts and Frauds in Women’s Hygiene: A Medical Guide Against Misleading Claims and Dangerous Products. Vanguard Press. 

Sanger, M., 1917. Family Limitation. [online] Available at http://archive.lib.msu.edu.

Wanganui Chronicle. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz.

Food, glorious food!

Food, in all its myriad forms, can be one of the most intrinsic and expressive aspects of culture and society – throughout time and across the world. From the customs surrounding the preparation and consumption of food to the ingredients themselves, we are, as they say, what (and how) we eat. Looking at the nature of food in past societies and cultures can be a rewarding exercise in finding both the strange and the familiar in the lives of those who’ve gone before us. After all, what is more universal yet more varied than food?

From a purely archaeological perspective, our impressions of past meals and culinary traditions are limited by what survives in the archaeological record. In the case of 19th European century sites, this usually consists of animal remains and glass, metal or ceramic food containers: the only physical remnants of a much broader, much more varied array of food and drink. Ceramic or glass serving dishes and table wares can also provide information, usually on the how, rather than the what, of food consumption, but often prove difficult to interpret. Animal remains – the butchered bones of cattle, sheep, pig and poultry – are the most common evidence of food itself that we find, but I’m going to leave them for another post and focus here on what we can learn from the food containers we’ve found in Christchurch.

Unfortunately, because we’re limited to food containers, as the durable remnants of 19th century culinary habits, our understanding of food types is skewed towards long-life items (i.e. preserves), condiments, and packaged foods rather than fresh ingredients. As a result, we see a lot of foods that are additives to meals (like condiments) rather than meals or major ingredients themselves. Even more than that, we’re restricted by what we can identify: distinctive containers used for specific food types or those labelled with the identity of their contents.

Examples of commonly found food containers from 19th century Christchurch sites. Left) A salad oil bottle. Middle) Embossed base from jar of W & W's table salt. Right) Still labelled bottle of Mellor & Co's Worcestershire sauce, a competing product to Lea & Perrins. Images: J. Garland.

Examples of commonly found food containers from 19th century Christchurch sites. Left: A salad oil bottle. Middle: Embossed base from jar of W & W’s table salt. Right: Still labelled bottle of Mellor & Co’s Worcestershire sauce, a competing product to Lea & Perrins. Images: J. Garland.

DSC_0073ed1

19th century Lea & Perrins bottle found in Christchurch. Image: J. Garland.

Many of these are products that wouldn’t be unusual to find in the modern pantry and, in fact, some of them are still made today. Commonly found items like salad oil, table salt, pickles, sauces or flavoured essences are all familiar additions to modern cuisine, albeit in slightly different packaging than their Victorian counterparts. Other products, like Lea and Perrin’s Worcestershire sauce have persisted in popularity under the same brand for over a century: in the case of Lea and Perrins, it’s been over 170 years since its introduction. Similarly, foodstuffs like anchovy paste continue to appeal to the same subset of people who like really salty fish puree as they did in the 1800s. As a side note, my favourite 19th century use for anchovy paste involves spreading it on fried bread and topping with a generous helping of whipped cream (Otago Witness 17/08/1904: 67). Takers, anyone?

 

An Anchovy Paste jar found in Christchurch and accompanying recipe from 1904. Image: J. Garland, Otago Witness 17/08/1904: 67.

An anchovy paste jar found in Christchurch and accompanying recipe from 1904. Image: J. Garland, Otago Witness 17/08/1904: 67.

As well as the more ordinary foods, however, we do come across a few weird and wonderful items during our investigations. Some of these only seem unusual at first glance, but wow, is it a strange first glance. Crosse & Blackwell’s calves’ foot jelly, for example, sounds less than appetising until you remember that gelatine (even modern gelatine) is derived from the bones, tendons and skin of various animals. Unlike modern gelatine products, though, calves’ foot jelly has no compunctions about promoting its ingredients: recipes for the jelly involved boiling calves feet in a stewing pan, removing the fat and straining before flavouring the mixture, usually with citrus (Auckland Star 26/10/1929: 4). In this sense, the jelly is an interesting reminder of how our attitudes towards the consumption of animal products have changed since the 19th century. We now produce and consume animal products on a colossal scale, yet are, thanks to the packaged nature of the food industry, more removed from the origins and preparation of those products than we’ve ever been. As the calves foot jelly reminds us, this was far less true of the 19th century.

Calves foot jelly

Left: Labelled bottle of Crosse & Blackwell’s calves foot jelly found in Christchurch. Right Advertisement from 1898. Calves’ foot jelly was frequently listed as a flavour of jelly in its own right by retailers in 19th century newspaper advertisements, right alongside raspberry, blackcurrant and orange. Images: J. Garland and Feilding Star 9/04/1898: 2.

In contrast to the honest marketing of the calves’ foot jelly, products like Virol bone marrow paste elicit our revulsion (well, for me they do) thanks to the use of ingredients that have long since been replaced with more palatable alternatives. Virol contained a mixture of bone marrow, malt extract, eggs, lemon syrup, lime salts and iron salts. Bone marrow is still eaten today (it’s something of a delicacy in some places), but it’s the combination of the fatty, spongy marrow with the lemon syrup and malt extract that makes my taste buds shrivel in horror. It was advertised as a health food for infants and invalids, in order to “build sturdy limbs, good teeth and a strong constitution”, so maybe it wasn’t really about the taste (Auckland Star 25/06/1925: 9).  Nowadays, of course, such results would more often be obtained from calcium rich, often dairy-based, foods rather than bone marrow.

Stoneware bottle of Virol bone marrow paste found in Christchurch and a modern bone marrow dish. Yum? Images: J. Garland and Flavour Boulevard

Stoneware bottle of Virol bone marrow paste found in Christchurch (left) and a modern dish of roasted bone marrow (right). Erm, yum? Images: J. Garland and Flavour Boulevard.

Other unusual foodstuffs stand out as much for their innovation and unexpectedly early existence as for their probable bad taste. We tend to think of processed foods as being something of a recent invention, yet the 19th century had its fair-share of such products (Wood 1974: 20). One such example found in Christchurch was Maclaren’s Imperial Cheese, a Canadian-manufactured ‘spreadable cheese’ from the early 1900s (next week’s post is going to look at this product in more detail; Badgely 1998). Maclaren’s, which is still produced by the Kraft Foods Group, was initially made from ground cheddar, and enjoyed immense popularity. It’s described in turn of the century advertisements as the “cheese of the hour” (Hawera & Normanby Star 16/12/1904: 3) and “one of the most appetising luxuries [that] the world produces” (Press 5/01/1907: 10). That last one may have been a slight exaggeration…

Maclaren's Imperial Cheese: then and now. Images: J. Garland & Clockwork Lemon blog.

Maclaren’s Imperial Cheese: then and now. Images: J. Garland & Clockwork Lemon blog.

Although they provide an incomplete picture of Victorian tastes, the types of food-related artefacts I’ve mentioned here can still offer us fascinating insights into the lives of 19th century people and the relevance of those lives – and eating habits – to the modern world. Despite their ability to make us (well, me) recoil in disgust, these products can still challenge our preconceptions of food in society and culture, our own included. Most of all, though, these artefacts offer us an almost tangible taste connection between our own experiences and those of our forebears in this city, and the rest of the world. It may be a foul tasting connection, but it’s a connection nonetheless.

Jessie Garland

References

Auckand Star. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Badgely, K. 1998. Maclaren, Alexander Ferguson. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. [online] Available at www.biographi.ca

Feilding Star. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Hawera and Normanby Star. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Otago Witness. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Press. [online] Available at www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz

Wood, J. A. 1974. Victorian New Zealanders. A. H. & A. W. Reed Ltd, Wellington.

The difficulties of dating #3: the bigger picture

The stone synagogue built in Christchurch in 1881. Prior to this a wooden synagogue had been built in the same location in the 1860s. Image: New Zealand Electronic Text Collection.

The stone synagogue built in Christchurch in 1881. Image: New Zealand Electronic Text Collection.

Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve looked at some of the methods we use to date archaeological objects found in Christchurch. This week, we’re going to look at how artefacts, documentary evidence and archaeological context can be used to date a site. To do this, we’re going to use the example of a site on Gloucester Street that came to be associated with the first synagogue  in Christchurch.

In the case of this site, we initially focused our efforts on old maps and deeds, followed by more extensive research in local newspapers of the time. In Charles Edward Fooks’ 1862 map of Christchurch, we found that there was at least one building on the site at this time (originally known as Town Section 398). That same building is also visible in Frederick Strouts’ 1877 map of the area. From the old deeds index, we were then able to find that Town Section 398 (and the adjacent 397) was bought by Ann Elizabeth Leslie, spinster (not an occupation you’d find listed today!), in 1851 and remained in her ownership until 1885, when the section (and building) was sold to someone by the name of Zachariah.

Unfortunately – and this is how documentary research can be as frustrating as artefact dating – we couldn’t find much information about Ann Leslie in the newspapers or any other resources. However, thanks to Papers Past, we were able to find out that Zachariah was a rabbi by the name of Isaac Zachariah, who moved with his family from their Hereford Street home to the Gloucester Street site in 1885, staying there until his death in 1906 (Clements n.d., Press 4/11/1881:3). During this time, he was the rabbi for the nearby synagogue, constructed in 1881 (replacing the initial wooden synagogue built in the 1860s). We know from newspaper accounts and obituaries that Zachariah arrived in New Zealand from his home in Palestine in the 1860s and worked as a rabbi during the gold rush on the West Coast before moving to Christchurch in the 1870s (West Coast Times 4/4/1868: 2). He had three sons with his wife, Eve, who would have been 3, 14 and 18 years old when the family moved to Gloucester Street (Star 13/12/1882: 2).

An obituary for the Reverend Isaac Zachariah, who died in 1906. Image: The Star 27/01/1906.

An obituary for the Reverend Isaac Zachariah, who died in 1906. Image: Star 27/01/1906.

The excavation of the site revealed a number of rubbish pits, well outside the footprint of the 1862 and 1877 buildings. If the pits had been in the same part of the section as the buildings, we could have dated them to before the construction of those structures or after their demolition. Since they weren’t, we turned to the artefacts to help narrow down the dates.

A photograph of the site showing the approximate location of the various rubbish pits and features uncovered during excavation. Image: L. Tremlett.

The approximate location of the various rubbish pits and features uncovered during excavation. Image: L. Tremlett.

The base of a Thomas Raines torpedo shaped soda water bottle found at this site.  This bottle can be dated to between 1859 and 1871 by matching the embossed mark to corresponding changes in the name and location of Raine's soda water business in Christchurch.

The base of a Thomas Raines torpedo-shaped soda water bottle found at this site. This bottle can be dated to between 1859 and 1871 by matching the embossed mark to corresponding changes in the name and location of Raine’s soda water business in Christchurch. Image: K. Bone.

Going by their manufacturing marks, the objects from the four pits were all made during the same period, between the early 1850s and mid 1880s. The earliest possible date of manufacture is from a Copeland/Late Spode chamberpot, with a manufacturing range of 1847-1867, while the latest is from a Bridgwood & Co bowl made after 1885 (Godden 1991: 102). Those artefacts that didn’t have specific maker’s marks, especially the bottles, all had manufacturing evidence that could easily fit within the 1850s-1880s date range (which is quite broad, really).

Photograph of the Copeland/Late Spode bowl found at this site, manufactured between  1847 and 1867. We know this thanks to the manufacturing mark on the back, which was only in use during this period of time. Image: K. Bone.

The Copeland/Late Spode bowl found at this site, manufactured between 1847 and 1867. We know this thanks to the manufacturing mark on the back, which was only in use during this period of time. Image: K. Bone.

Without taking into consideration the issues of time lag or bottle reuse, and knowing that these assemblages hadn’t been disturbed since they were first deposited (this is something we can tell from the state of the ground around and within the deposit), these dates give us a terminus post quem or TPQ of 1885.  TPQ (which means ‘limit after which’) refers to the earliest date at which an archaeological deposit could have been put in the ground. It’s usually taken from the date of the youngest artefact in an assemblage – in this case, the 1885+ Bridgwood bowl – since, if that assemblage was all thrown out at the same time, it can’t have been discarded before the bowl was made. We know that it was probably thrown out at the same time or over a very short period of time because of the lack of stratigraphy, or changes in the soil layers, in the deposit itself.

TPQ goes hand in hand with another acronym, TAQ, or terminus ante quem (limit before which), the latest point in time at which an assemblage could have been chucked out. At the Gloucester Street site, we know that a large brick building was built there, directly above the archaeology we found, in 1928. Obviously, this means that those deposits have to have been there before that building was constructed, making 1928 our TAQ. Consequently, the material has to have been buried between 1885 and 1928.

Part of a 1928 plan of the Gloucester street site, showing that a brick building had been constructed on the section by this year. Image: LandOnline.

Part of a 1928 plan of the Gloucester street site, showing that a brick building had been constructed on the section by this year. Image: LINZ 1928.

If we then take into account the questions of bottle reuse, ceramic uselife and time lag that we’ve discussed in the last two blog posts, there’s a good chance that our actual date of discard is a bit later than 1885. Our dates of use are almost definitely later than the 1847-1867, 1851-1862  and 1862-1882 dates of manufacture of the ceramic artefacts. The problem, though, is figuring out how much later. If we go with the American estimate of a 15-25 year time lag for ceramic artefacts (Adams 2003), we’re looking at a discard date of 1900-1910 for the Bridgwood bowl and a period of use for most of the objects spanning the 1880s and 1890s.

Fragments of a Pinder Bourne & Hope plate found at the site. Even though this plate must have been manufactured between 1847 and 1862, it was probably discarded much later than that. In the case of this site

Fragments of a Pinder Bourne & Hope plate found at the site. Even though this plate must have been manufactured between 1851 and 1862, it was discarded at a much later date and provides a good example of how dates of manufacture may not necessarily match up with dates of use and discard. Image: K. Bone.

A pudding doll, or 'frozen charlotte' found at the site, suggesting the presence of children. Image: K. Bone.

A pudding doll, or ‘frozen charlotte’ found at the site, suggesting the presence of children. Image: K. Bone.

 

These dates fit in pretty clearly with the dates for the Zachariah family’s occupation of the site. Even if the 15-25 year time lag estimate isn’t quite right for a New Zealand site and we’re looking at a shorter period of time between manufacture and discard, these artefacts still can’t have been thrown out before the mid-late 1880s, after Isaac Zachariah and his family moved in. To add to this, we found a bunch of children’s artefacts in the assemblages – including a  ‘pudding doll’ and multiple children’s shoes – that suggest the artefacts belonged to a family, and we know that Zachariah had children from the ages of 3 to 18 when he moved in.

It seems clear, then, that the artefacts we found at 72 Gloucester Street are related to Isaac Zachariah and his family. Using their archaeological context and historical records, we’re able to take these objects and put a face and a name to the people who used them through the likely dates of their manufacture, use and discard. By themselves, those dates don’t necessarily tell us much about Isaac Zachariah and his family, but they do let us build a bridge between the historical record of their lives and the material remains of their time in this location. Without that bridge, this assemblage would be just another discarded collection of objects, rather than a window into the experiences of people in the past.

Jessie Garland

References

Adams, W. H., 2003. Dating Historical Artefacts: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use, and Disposal of Artefacts. Historical Archaeology 37(2): 38-64.

Clements, M., n.d. [Online] Available at: http://www.nzjewisharchives.org/history.htm

Donaldson, B., Hume, G. and Costello, S., 1990. Antique Bottle and Containers of Christchurch and District. Christchurch Antique Bottles and Collectibles Club, Christchurch.

Fooks, C. E., 1862. Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, 1862. Cartographic material. Christchurch [N.Z.]: C.E. Fooks. File Reference: CCLMaps 212667.

Godden, G.A., 1991. Encyclopaedia of British Pottery and Porcelain Marks. Barrie and Jenkins Ltd, London.

LINZ, 1928. DP 9042, Canterbury. Landonline.

Star. [Online] Available at: www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz.

Strouts, F.S., 1877. Christchurch, Canterbury, 1877. Compiled from data supplied to City Council and District Drainage Board by Frederick. Strouts. Cartographic material. Christchurch, NZ: Ward and Reeves. File Reference: ATLMAPS ATL-Acc-3158

The Potteries, n.d.. A History of Stoke-on-Trent. [online] Available at http://www.thepotteries.org.

West Coast Times. [Online] Available at: www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz.

Wises New Zealand Post Office Directory. 1872-1979. Dunedin: H. Wise & Co.

The difficulties of dating #2: good things take time

Following on from last week’s blog, today’s post takes a look at how we date ceramic artefacts, specifically the plates, cups, bowls and saucers we find so often in Christchurch. Many of the issues I mentioned last week with regard to glass bottle dating also apply to ceramics (and all artefacts, really), but there are some that we encounter more frequently depending on the type of material we’re looking at. With 19th century pottery, one of the more common obstacles is the difficulty of dating artefacts from the style of their decoration, along with the ever-present problem of ‘time lag’ (more on this later).

Ceramics are an interesting challenge when it comes to artefact dating, since it’s quite difficult to use details of manufacture to figure out when they were made. Some vessels have maker’s marks or ‘backmarks’ stamped or printed on the back with the name of the pottery manufacturer (and these are subject to all the same problems as with bottle marks), but often we may not actually find that piece of the plate or teacup. Other times, frustratingly, we find artefacts without any mark at all.

Examples of maker's marks found in Christchurch.

Examples of maker’s marks found in Christchurch. Left to right: P B & H, or Pinder Bourne & Hope, a company operating out of Burslem, Staffordshire, from 1851-1862; P B & Co or Pinder Bourne & Co, the successors to Pinder Bourne & Hope, who were in business from 1862-1882; J & G Meakin, who were manufacturing earthenware from the 1850s until 2000, although this particular mark was in use from 1912 onwards. Images: J. Garland.

In these cases, dating the fragments of pottery that we have is tricky, since many 19th century ceramics don’t have very much visible evidence for dateable changes in manufacturing technology. This is thanks to the actual methods of manufacture as well as the fact that most of the notable developments in ceramic manufacturing occurred in the late 1700s and early 1800s, leaving production techniques largely unchanged for most of the 19th century. Unfortunately for the archaeologist working with material from the 1850s onwards (as in Christchurch), a date range of 80 to a 100 years for a site is pretty much the same as no date at all.

khoi

Most of the developments in ceramic production that occurred prior to the 1820s and 1830s were to do with refining the mixture of the clay and gradually moving from cream coloured wares (left) to whiter pieces (middle). By the middle of the 19th century, almost all earthenware ceramics were white, not cream. Other distinctive types of pottery, such as pearlware (right), which used a tinted glaze to imitate Chinese porcelain, fell out of fashion in the early decades of the 19th century. By the the time of Christchurch’s European settlement in the 1850s, ceramic production was dominated by relatively cheap white bodied, transfer print (e.g. Willow pattern) decorated pottery – the type we still use today. Not so useful for dating! Images: J. Garland.

Floral patterns like this Bouquet plate, found in Christchurch, with decoration in the center of the plate as well as on the rim (or marly, as it's known)

Floral patterns like this Bouquet plate, found in Christchurch, with decoration in the centre of the plate as well as on the rim (or marly, as it’s known) were produced from 1784 until 1869, with a peak in popularity from 1833 to 1849 (Samford 1997).  Although the maker’s mark on this plate tells us that it was made between 1851 and 1862, we’d be hard pressed to get that manufacturing date from the pattern alone. Image: J. Garland.

Alternatively, we can try to use changes in decoration and style to date artefacts to specific decades. Of course (because an archaeologist’s job is never easy!) there are problems with this as well. Although there are documented changes in the popularity of different types of decoration and different styles of pattern over time, many of these fashion trends also occurred in the first half of the 19th century (Samford 1997). For those of us working in Christchurch, that’s not really that helpful. Much of the information about ceramic fashions is also specific to Britain or America and those fashions weren’t necessarily popular at the same times or even at all in New Zealand (although there are some exceptions; Woods 2011). This is especially relevant when we take into account the time it would take for new patterns and styles to not only make it to New Zealand, but become popular here, particularly when we consider the distances they had to travel.

Left to right: a plate decorated with the Asiatic Pheasant pattern, fragment of a plate decorated with the Rhine pattern, and pieces of Cable and Willow pattern bowls.

Left to right: a plate decorated with the Asiatic Pheasants pattern, fragment of a plate decorated with the Rhine pattern, and pieces of Cable and Willow pattern bowls. Artefacts decorated with popular patterns like these, some of which have been used continuously for roughly 200 years (Willow), are almost impossible to date from the pattern alone (unless there are variations on the pattern or imperfections in the transfer itself), particularly in the context of post-1850 sites. Images: J. Garland.

As with glass bottles, almost all the ceramic artefacts found on 19th century archaeological sites in Christchurch (and New Zealand) were made in England and Scotland and imported into New Zealand (mostly from Staffordshire in England). As I mentioned last week, this means that when we’re figuring out a date for these artefacts, we have to take into account the time it would have taken for these objects to reach New Zealand in the first place. This ‘import delay’ (the time involved in the storage and transportation of goods from overseas manufacturers to Victorian Christchurch) is just one of the components of a broader issue in archaeological dating known as ‘time lag’, which I touched on briefly last week with the discussion of bottle reuse and an artefact’s ‘uselife’.

Sketch of Josiah Wedgwood's first pottery factory in

Sketch of the Ivy House works, the first pottery factory opened by Josiah Wedgwood, in 1759, in Burslem, Staffordshire, along with a portrait of the man himself. Josiah Wedgwood (the grandfather of Charles Darwin) is probably the most famous Staffordshire potter and his brand the most well known, but some of you may be familiar with other names from the region, such as William Copeland, Josiah Spode, John Doulton or William Adams. Image: (left) The Potteries, (right) Wikimedia Commons.

Time lag is a phrase used by archaeologists to encompass every stage in an artefact’s life, from its manufacture to its eventual disposal (and entry into the archaeological record).  One archaeological model for time lag includes the amount of time an item might spend sitting on a shelf at a wholesaler and/or retailer and transportation between these places, along with the actual uselife of the object and the potential for the curation (i.e. heirlooms) and recycling (Adams 2003: 41).

As well as coming from overseas, with all of the delays involved in that, many ceramic vessels are intended to be used over and over again for an indefinite period of time. To add to this, many people in the past may have kept ceramic vessels as heirlooms or display pieces for a very long time. I know that my family still owns plates and teacups that originally belonged to my granny – if we were to throw them out now, in 2013, their original date of manufacture would have absolutely nothing to do with the date at which they were discarded, or the period for which they were in use.

A discarded ceramic plate, discovered in situ at a site in Christchurch. Image: K Webb.

A discarded ceramic plate, in situ at a site in Christchurch. Image: K Webb.

It’s not all hopeless though. As with the bottles, manufacturer’s marks are a good place to start and some archaeologists have come up with estimates for the amount of time we should be accounting for when we date the table wares and tea wares we find on 19th century sites. The discussion and method behind those estimates is way, way too detailed to go into here, but, in an American context, the average duration of time between an object’s manufacture and discard has been calculated to be anything from 15-25 years (Adams 2003). Potentially more or less, depending on the characteristics of the site in question and a wealth of different variables. Unfortunately, this is an American estimate, so we have to be careful applying it to New Zealand sites, but it certainly makes apparent the caution that’s necessary when using the date of artefact manufacture to determine the age of an archaeological site or assemblage.

Although I’ve focused on ceramics in the post, the issues I’ve mentioned are ones that apply to all material culture recovered from archaeological sites – shoes, clay pipes, stoneware jars, nails, bolts, matchboxes, etc. It’s never just as simple as looking at an object and knowing where it came from and when it was made. As I mentioned last week (and will mention again, because it’s important), the when and the where are only truly useful and interesting when they’re joined by the how and the why and the who.

Jessie Garland

References

Adams, W. H., 2003. Dating Historical Artefacts: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use, and Disposal of Artefacts. Historical Archaeology 37(2): 38-64.

Samford, P., 1997. Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2): 1-30.

Woods, Naomi. 2011. Pakeha Ceramics as Dating Tools. Archaeology in New Zealand 55(2).

The Potteries, n.d.. A History of Stoke-on-Trent. [online] Available at http://www.thepotteries.org.