Putting The Pieces Together

Today on the blog we are discussing my favourite site of 2019. We already talked about part of the site’s history last fortnight on the blog- that it contained the store and offices for Walton, Warner and Co. and their later businesses. Today we’ll go a bit more in depth on both the history and the archaeology of the site (so if you haven’t read last fortnight’s blog then I recommend you do before reading this, otherwise this won’t make as much sense). But first, let me explain why it was my favourite site. This site was a perfect combination of a very complicated site history, super complicated archaeological features and excavations, and a very large artefact assemblage that contained a lot of unusual artefacts. Which meant it was very confusing to try and work out what was going on, but it was very satisfying when I did. This site is really complicated, so this isn’t going to be a short blog post (double the length of our normal blogs), but it’s a great way of sharing how, as archaeologists, we draw together multiple lines of evidence to work out what was happening in the past.

The History of the Site

The section of the site we’re going to be focusing on consisted of two town sections, TS 853 and TS 855. They’re highlighted in red on this 1850 map of Christchurch (ignore 857 and 858 as we’re not going to talk about them). Also shown on this map, in blue, is a creek bed. Large natural streams transversed swampy Christchurch and acted as tributaries and overflow channels for the Avon. Remember that there was a creek running through the site- it’s going to be important later on. Image: Jollie 1850 Plot of Christchurch.

Here’s the site in 1877. Those black shapes on the map represent buildings. No buildings were present on the site in the Fooks 1862 map, indicating all these buildings were constructed between 1862 and 1877. If you’ve read last fortnight’s blog, then you’ll remember that the front building on the TS 855/853 border was Walton, Warner and Co.’s store and the centre building on TS 855 was their office and that these buildings were built in 1864. The other building at the front of TS 855 also likely belonged to them, whilst the back building was a house. The buildings on TS 853 were offices that were occupied by a variety of businesses, including architects, accountants, solicitors and insurance brokers. Image: Strouts 1877.

This map, based on the recorded leases in the Deeds indexes from 1860-1872, gives some indication of how complex the history for this site was and how many different businesses were run out of the buildings on the site. We’re going to be focusing on Walton, Warner and Co., but it’s important to know that there were other businesses operating on the site. Image: A. Gibson.

And if you thought the above map was complicated, then check this one out. This is a 1909 plan, with this buildings on the site outlined in red (the blue lines are the property boundaries and the yellow shading is just our excavation are). Comparing it to the 1877 map, we can see that many of the building shown on the 1877 map were still standing in 1909, and that they are described as old and made of wood. What’s most important in this map is that is shows an old wooden building at the back of TS 853, that wasn’t there in the 1877 map, but is described as old suggesting it was probably constructed just after the 1877 map was made. Image: LINZ 1909.

So, to summarise, we’re interested in two town sections: TS 853 and TS 855. These town sections originally had a creek running through them and had buildings constructed on them after 1862, with more buildings added over the course of the 19th century. One of the occupants was Walton, Warner and Co. (later known as Wood, Shand and Co.,  who were general merchants and importers if you didn’t go back and read last fortnight’s blog). The other occupants were architects, insurance brokers, accountants and other businesses that had offices on the site.

The Archaeology

We found 19 different archaeological features during the excavation of the site. This site plan shows that most of the features were clustered at the back of the site. We’re not going to talk about every single feature from the site, but I’ve included t just to give an overview of where most of the archaeology was encountered. Image: M. Healey.

But before we go into more depth with the archaeology, there’s one more thing we need to mention. Before the archaeologist got to site, a large trench was excavated through the site (shown on the left). This trench disturbed archaeological features from the site and is easily comparable to the giant trench Heinrich Schliemann dug through the archaeological site Troy (shown on the right). Image, left: A. Trendafilov, right: C. Watson.

We’re going to break down the features we’re going to talk about into three groups. The first group consists of four features that were brick gully traps. These gully traps were located at the boundary of TS 855 and TS 853 and roughly corresponded to form a rectangle. They were also all found at a depth of approximately 200 mm below the modern surface Image: C. Watson.

One of the gully traps, exposed during excavation. This one also had earthenware pipes connecting into it. These gully traps included bricks manufactured by John Brightling between ca. 1880 and 1898, William Neighbours between 1868 and 1886 and Henry Kirk between 1885 and 1898. Image: A. Trendafilov.

The second group of features are a little more complicated. They consist of a series of deposits found running north to south along TS 853. These were deposits of artefacts in what we think was a tributary stream to the large creek shown on the 1850 map. Image: C. Watson.

This is Feature 3. It was found at a depth of 200 mm and extended down to a depth of 1400 mm and as we can see from this photo, was truncated by the unmonitored trench that was dug through the site. This photo is looking north and shows that the feature had a sloping base and consisted of several deposits. Image: A. Trendafilov.

Looking at the above photo and map, you’ve hopefully worked out that if Feature 3 was truncated by the trench then Feature 2 was located within the trench. We’ve got no idea how much of Feature 2 had been disturbed before we got to site, but we found it at a depth of 1200 mm and it extended down to a depth of 1900 mm. Also disturbed by the trench was Feature 4, which similar to Feature 3, had been truncated by the trench. What this means, is that Feature 2, 3 and 4 may all have been individual deposits within one larger deposit, but because the trench went through the middle of it, we’ll never know for sure. Image: A. Trendafilov.

And now we have Feature 5. Feature 5 was divided into six separate sub-features (told you this site was complicated). One of those, Feature 5d, was the brick gulley trap shown above. Another was a deposit of bricks that were possibly from a destroyed gully trap, as they also contained William Neighbours bricks. Two of the deposits contained 20th century material, and were found at the top of the feature, whilst the others found at a deeper depth contained 19th century material. And finally, there was Feature 15, which was a deposit of artefacts within a large metal bucket, that was found underneath Feature 5d, the brick gully trap. Image: A. Trendafilov.

Getting confused? Here’s a diagram to summarise. Essentially, we found different deposits of artefacts ranging from Feature 3 in the north to Features 5A and B in the south. These deposits extended to a depth of 1.2 m to 1.9 m (in the case of Feature 2). Feature 5D was the brick gully trap and Features 5E and 5F both contained 20th century material. Image: A. Trendafilov.

And finally, we have these features, which were located just west of the Feature 2-5 complex. These features were all rubbish pits or other types of deposits that contained artefacts dating to the 19th century. I’m not going to go into too much detail about them, as they’re a lot simpler to understand than the other features on the site, but just remember where they’re located. Image: C. Watson.

An example of what the other features looked like. This is Feature 13, a large rubbish pit that was dug into the ground. The pit is clearly able to be distinguished from the natural sandy clay that it was dug into. Image: A. Trendafilov.

The Artefacts

I’m not going to go into that much detail about the artefacts here, as that would be a whole blog post in itself (immediately starts drafting a post on them for next fortnight). Instead I’ll just make a few points.

  • A large artefact assemblage was recovered during the excavation, over 2000 artefacts in total.
  • Some of the artefact deposits clearly related to commercial activity. These included artefacts like the large deposit of identical clay pipes (pictured in last fortnight’s blog) that were found in Feature 16.
  • Some of the artefacts seemed to be related to domestic activity. These included things like food waste and worn shoes.
  • Ceramic artefacts found in the Feature 2-5 complex were highly fragmented, and sherds from one vessel were found spread across multiple features within the complex.
  • With the exception of the brick gullies and the 20th century sub-features from Feature 5, the artefact manufacture dates ranged from the 1850s through to the 1870s, with most of the artefacts likely manufactured before 1880.

A few of the many artefacts found at the site. To give you an idea of how many of the ceramic artefacts from different features conjoined, the fragments from the ceramic plate in the bottom right corner of this image were found spread across four different features in the Feature 2-5 complex. Image: C. Watson.

Bringing everything together

Now comes the fun part of archaeology (or at least I think that it’s the fun part). We consider the archaeological features we uncovered, the artefacts they contained, and the history of the site, to try and determine which site occupant likely deposited the artefacts, and from there, when and why they threw things away.

Let’s start with the ‘who’. In the case of this site, if we look at the occupants then we can see that Walton, Warner and Co. (or later iterations of the business) are most likely responsible for depositing most of the material. This is because the other occupants of the site, the insurance, accountant, architect etc offices that we haven’t really talked much about, were unlikely to be generating large volumes of rubbish, and certainly not rubbish that was obviously related to commercial practices such as the large deposit of identical clay pipes. When we compared the artefacts to those found during the excavation of Walton, Warner and Co.’s warehouses on Oxford Terrace, we found identical objects, such as the seltzer water bottles and blue dyed-body ware chambersticks (shown in last fortnight’s blog), confirming to us that the artefacts we had found were likely related to the commercial business of Walton, Warner and Co. But, (there’s always a ‘but’ in archaeology), we also found some artefacts that didn’t quite fit. These included large deposits of leather off-cuts in Feature 3 (you can see a pile of them in the artefacts photo) and lots of faunal remains. The leather off-cuts clearly looked to be from a cobbler, but there was no evidence for a cobbler occupying the site. This suggests then that some of the artefacts may have been disposed on the site from non-occupants. The leather off-cuts were clearly clustered together, meaning this may have been a one-off event, but it means we can’t say for sure that every single artefact found on the site related to Walton, Warner and Co. The faunal material is more typical of a domestic assemblage, relating to the disposal of daily food waste. There was a house located at the rear of TS 855 (you can see it in the 1877 map), so it may be that they were throwing their food away into pits shared with Walton, Warner and Co. Unfortunately, the house appears to have been leased and given how complicated the history of the site was, we’re not too sure exactly who was living in it.

Now let’s go to the ‘when’. From the artefacts, we know that most of the features contained material dating between 1850 and the late 1870s, with the exception of the brick gully traps that dated to the 1880s, and some of the deposits in the top of Feature 5 that dated to the 20th century. Those 20th century deposits contained plastic, indicating that they dated to the mid-late 20th century and despite being in the stream complex, weren’t connected to it. But we don’t have to just go off the artefacts to work out when features were deposited. We can also use information from the historical record, like maps.

This ‘map’ is showing the 1909 plan of the buildings on the site overlaid on the Strouts 1877 map, with the location of the 1850 gully also drawn onto it. Overlaid on top of that are the features we’ve been looking at, with red showing the gully trap, purple the stream features and yellow the general rubbish pit features. Image: C. Watson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, let’s have a look at the creek bed. The creek bed that was present in 1850 appears to have been filled in by 1877, as it has buildings over it. We didn’t find any archaeological evidence of this infilling, but that’s not surprising because the building that was on the site prior to the earthquakes had a deep basement, and the construction of it likely removed any archaeology. We can see our stream bed features, shown in purple, running north to south. The depth of these features, combined with the curving shape of them, which looks to follow natural contours in the grounds surface, suggests that there was a tributary stream or ditch that flowed into the main creek bed, and that it was used to dispose of rubbish in. The layering of artefacts that we saw in features from this complex confirmed this to us.

All of the features we have been looking at are within the footprint of the building shown on the 1909 map, indicating they were definitely deposited before then (with the exception of the 20th century deposits, which were probably created after that building had been demolished). The 1909 map describes the building as old- the same descriptor it used for other buildings on TS 855 that align with buildings shown on the 1877 map. This would suggest then that this building was probably built at a comparable time. If we look at the gully trap locations, three of the four line up approximately with the edges of the building, suggesting they probably relate to that building and were located at the base of down pipes. Looking at the manufacture dates for the different bricks used in the gully traps, it is pretty likely that the building was built by 1885.

For the building to be constructed, first the stream bed would have had to have been filled in. When we looked at the date of artefacts found at the base of the stream bed features, compared to those found at the top, we found 1874 material at the base and 1876 material at the top, as well as artefacts that could be refitted, but came from different depths. This suggests that the deposition of material into the stream bed appears to have taken place over a relatively short time period, probably both to infill the stream bed so that the land could be developed, but also taking advantage of the natural depression.

The other rubbish features also contained material dating to the 1870s that was consistent with a pre-1885 deposition date. Looking then at the history of Walton, Warner and Co. we can see that the material found at the site likely relates to the Wood, Shand and Co. phase of the business.

So, to summarise, Wood, Shand and Co. built their office buildings and warehouse on the site in 1864 and probably used the empty space at the rear of TS 853 and TS 855 to dispose of commercial rubbish. In the late 1870s they decided to develop that portion of the site and infilled the tributary steam with broken and damaged stock, as well as waste imported from other businesses not operating on the site. In the early 1880s they constructed a building, and added gully traps to the building in the mid-1880s. Some time in the 20th century the buildings were demolished and a new building constructed, which was later damaged by the earthquakes and removed, leading to us excavating at the site and working this all out.  And there you go folks, that’s how we do archaeology (in an extremely condensed version)

Clara Watson

References

LINZ. 1909. DP 2713, Canterbury. Landonline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Walton, Warner and Co.

In yet another segue (there’s clearly a theme to my blogs this year), today on the blog we’re going to go into more detail on something we touched on in last fortnight’s blog. Last time on the blog we broke down the different types of companies that were involved in exporting beer to New Zealand. One of those that we mentioned, but didn’t go into too much detail on, was the agent. To recap from our last blog:

“The agent was essentially the middleman between the export bottler in England, and the seller in New Zealand (or they were the seller themselves). Typically based in New Zealand, agents ordered stock from exporters and sold it to local hotels, storekeepers and grocers (depending on what the stock was). They could sell stock by auction or sell directly to other businesses and consumers.”

In this blog we are going to talk about a site we excavated on Hereford Street last year (everyone lets out a sigh of relief that we’ve moved on from Akaroa and bottles), that was occupied in the 19th century by Walton, Warner and Co. Richard Walton, George Warner and James Shand partnered together in 1863 to form the general merchant business, Walton, Warner and Co. By 1864 they had offices on Hereford Street and a bonded warehouse on the corner of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace. In 1870 Richard Walton left the business, leaving George Warner and James Shand operating under the name George Warner. In 1872, George Warner passed away and James Shand partnered with William Wood and John Beaumont to become Wood, Shand and Co. In 1874, the business built a new bonded warehouse on Oxford Terrace, behind their 1864 warehouse. The partnership continued until 1896, when the company filed for bankruptcy. James Shand bought out his partners and continued under the name James Shand and Co. James Shand and Co., continued operating from Hereford Street until 1922, when they moved to a new premise further along Hereford Street. The business continued up until at least the 1940s (Garland et al. 2014; Trendafilov et al. 2019).

The corner of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace from Strouts 1877 map. Outlined are the locations of Walton Warner and Co.’s store, offices and warehouses. Image: Strouts 1877.

A view of Hereford Street in 1884. Walton and Warner’s store can be seen near the centre of the image. Also note the location near Shand’s Emporium, now located in Manchester Street. Image: Hereford Street, Christchurch, Dunedin, by Burton Brothers studio. Te Papa (C.011593).

When researching businesses like Walton, Warner and Co., old newspaper advertisements are one of the best resources we have for determining what products the company was selling. The business imported alcohol, farm machinery, groceries and nearly anything else you could think of. They also purchased grain and wool from local farmers and exported those overseas. Walton, Warner and Co. (and later iterations of the company) organised the shipping of overseas goods to Lyttelton, with advertisements often mentioning the ship they arrived on in the title. Goods were stored in their bonded warehouse on Oxford Terrace. The designation of their warehouse as a ‘bonded warehouse’, meant Walton, Warner and Co. paid a customs bond to the Provincial Council, meaning the goods stored in the warehouse were exempt from duty. Duty was paid on them only when they were withdrawn from the warehouse and sold. Auctioning appears to have been a common selling method, with Walton, Warner and Co. often employing local auctioneering firms to sell their goods. Goods were also likely for sale at their store on Hereford Street, and probably through private agreements.

Advertisements, such as these, list the range of goods available to purchase from Walton, Warner and Co., and Wood, Shand and Co. They also provide helpful information to us as archaeologists as they tell us the range of products that were readily available in the 19th century. Long-time followers of the blog might recognise names of bottles that we’ve posted about before, like Hennessey’s brandy, castor oil, Crosse and Blackwell, JDKZ gin, hock wine, salad oil, Lea and Perrin’s, and Old Tom gin among others. Image: Press (clockwise from top left): 07/08/1893: 1, 08/09/1891: 1, 06/11/1863: 2; 25/11/1865: 1; 22/02/1866: 3, 07/10/1869: 4).

Walton, Warner and Co., Wood, Shand and Co., and James Shand and Co. were agents for a variety of products, everything from scotch whisky to sheep dip to fire insurance. Image: Press (top to bottom, left to right): 14/02/1891: 7, 05/10/1863: 3, 15/10/1864: 3, 03/03/1922 : 1, 14/02/1891: 7, 24/02/1894: 5, 27/05/1895: 4, 28/04/1894: 6, 15/05/1924: 18, 21/12/1936: 3, 22/12/1888: 2).

I love literally any excuse to include alcohol advertisements in blogs (they’re the crème de la crème of ads). James Shand and Co. were agents for Robert Porter and Co.’s Guinness Stout, who liked to target nursing mothers and the elderly in their ads. Isn’t it interesting how much things change over the course of one hundred years? Image: Press 07/02/1924: 6 and 11/12/1923: 4.

As well as advertising the sale of products, Walton, Warner and Co. and Wood, Shand and Co. also acted as exporters, purchasing wool, grain, flax, hides, tallow and other produce and selling it overseas. Image: Press (clockwise from left): 06/05/1867: 1, 13/10/1873: 1, 14/08/1863: 4, 18/04/1870: 3).

Advertisements are one way to see the range of products for sale by merchant businesses such as Walton, Warner and Co. Another is through archaeology. In 2013, Underground Overground monitored the excavation of the site of Walton, Warner and Co.’s warehouses on Oxford Terrace, and in 2019 we excavated the site of their store and offices. Both sets of excavations resulted in large assemblages of artefacts being recovered, and through those we can see some of the products available for purchase from the store.

The artefacts we found at the site likely represent goods that were dropped or damaged during the shipping and handling process. These broken artefacts were unable to be sold, and so were discarded on site. These clay pipes are a perfect example. A total of 238 fragments, representing at least 49 pipes, were found in a rubbish pit on the site. They were all identical, suggesting that Wood, Shand and Co. had placed an order for clay pipes, but they broke before they could be sold. Image: C. Watson.

One of the pipes refitted. All the pipes had a moulded finger rest at the junction between the bowl and the stem, and the number “312” stamped at the top of the stem. This number was probably a mould number. Image: C. Watson.

During the excavation of the bonded warehouse, we found evidence for bottles of alcohol being thrown away, presumably because the contents had spoiled on the journey to New Zealand. In one rubbish pit we found 126 black beer bottles that were still sealed with metal capsules identifying the contents as J. and R. Tennent’s Pale Ale, and indicating they were never opened and drunk. Deposits such as these show the risks that importers and exporters took in the 19th century. Image: Garland et al. 2014: 184.

We found these stoneware seltzer water bottles during both excavations. They were imported from Germany and were marked with “O. SELTERS/NASSAU”, referencing the Ober Selters spring in Nassau, Germany. The waters from the springs were believed to have healing properties and were consumed for their supposed medicinal benefits. Image: C. Watson

Three identical blue dyed-body ware chambersticks were found at the site, two in a rubbish pit associated with the store and office, and one in a rubbish pit associated with the warehouse. Whilst not rare by any means, these artefacts are distinctive enough that finding multiple vessels across the two sites suggest they likely relate to the business of Wood Shand and Co., and give an indication of the types of ceramic vessels available for purchase. Image: C. Watson.

Just a few of the many bottles found at the site. Given Walton, Warner and Co. advertised themselves as spirits merchants, it should be of no surprise that we found so many bottles during our excavations. Image: C. Watson.

We posted this artefact last year in our 2019 best of the best blog. This hock wine bottle was found during our excavations of the store and office and was interesting for two reasons. The first was that the bottle had a vinegar label on it, when the shape of the bottle is typically associated with wine. The second, and more relevant in this case, was that we found advertisements for the brand of vinegar, Sir Robert Burnett and Co., referencing George Warner as being the sole agent for the product. I love this bottle because it provides a perfect example of the archaeological record and the historical record coming together to illustrate the various points we’ve talked about in all of our blogs so far this year. Image: C. Watson and Lyttelton Times.

The artefacts we found from both sites are able to provide a deeper understanding of what it was like to run a merchant business in Christchurch in the 19th century. Whilst newspaper advertisements probably give a better idea of specifically what products were available for sale (we’ve yet to find tinned lobster at a site) they don’t provide much more than that. Through the archaeological record we’re able to see the struggles that businesses like Walton, Warner and Co. faced, with spoiled or damaged goods having to be thrown away. I might be being a little bit sentimental here (having just written four blogs on the topic, and given the exact same thing happens today and we don’t think twice about it), but it’s sad to think of all the effort that went in to manufacturing and exporting products to New Zealand, only to have them thrown away on arrival. The archaeology of merchant businesses, like Walton, Warner and Co., also give us a greater understanding of the archaeology of wider Christchurch. These merchant companies were responsible for providing goods to the occupants of Christchurch and studying the objects that they were importing helps us to understand if the products we find on domestic sites were readily available, or if they might have been hard to come by.

Clara Watson

References

Garland, J., M. Carter and R. Geary Nichol. 2014. The Terrace, M35/1050, Christchurch: Report on Archaeological Investigations. Volume 1. Unpublished report for Hereford Holdings.

Trendafilov, A., A. Gibson and C. Watson. 2019. 92 Hereford Street, Christchurch- Volume I. Final report on archaeological work under authority 2019/006eq. Unpublished report for The Terrace Carpark Ltd.

 

 

 

The Risky Business of Exporting Beer in the 19th century.

During excavations under the floor of a house in Akaroa, we found a large assemblage of labelled bottles. Labelled bottles are always an exciting find, firstly because they tell us what the bottle held at the time of its disposal, and secondly, because they’re not very common (paper doesn’t survive well when it’s buried in the earth for over 100 years). At our site in Akaroa we found over 30 bottle labels, making it one of the largest assemblages of labelled bottles we’ve recovered. These bottle labels were mostly for alcoholic products, typically beer, and were found on bottle types normally associated with alcohol, such as ring seal bottles and spirits bottles. Over the next few blog posts we’re going to focus on this assemblage of labelled bottles and explore the stories they were able to tell- starting with the risky business of exporting beer in the 19th century.

One of the many labelled bottles we found under the floor. Image: C. Watson.

You might have noticed the bottle pictured above has two labels (there’s also a third on the back). That’s because the beer contained in this bottle was imported from Britain. Whilst the British export beer market was not a large one, only 3% of British manufactured beer was exported in the 19th century, it was far-reaching with beer exported globally (Hughes 2006: 85). The bottom label- the Guinness one- is for the manufacturer of the beer. The top one- for Robert Porter and Co.- is for the bottler of beer. Bottling companies would purchase beer from the brewer, bottle it and then export it to different countries. We found bottle labels for two brands of British and Irish beers: the infamous Irish brand Guinness and the English Bass & Co.

 

Still famous today, Guinness’s history dates back to the 18th century when Arthur Guinness signed a lease for the St. James’s Gate Brewery in Dublin in 1759 (Guinness Storehouse 2019). At the beginning of his career Arthur Guinness was not brewing the dark stout we associate with Guinness today, but instead was making ale. From the 1770s onwards Guinness began brewing porter, with much success, and in 1799 they stopped brewing ale and instead focussed solely on porter and stout (Hughes 2006: 21). Porter kept longer than ale, making it ideal for the export market. Guinness began with exporting their stout to England and over the course of the 19th century expanded globally. Guinness did not bottle their beer, instead they exported in bulk hogsheads, barrels and half barrels to bottling companies, who were responsible for the bottling, export and sale to the consumer (Hughes 2006: 21). The success of Guinness is apparent, with the brand still in operation today. Image: C. Watson.

Whilst the Guinness brand focused on dark beers, the Bass and Co. brand was synonymous with pale ales. William Bass founded the brewery, based in Burton-on-Trent, in 1777 (Holl 2019). The brand had immediate success, and was exporting ale to Russia by 1784 and North America by 1799 (Holl 2019). This success continued until the 1880s, after which time they saw a drop in sales in export markets, as an increase in colonial brewing operations meant locally produced beer was more readily available and affordable than imported beers (Hughes 2006: 90). Bass ale continues to be brewed today, although the company itself has seen a variety of sales, mergers, more sales and more mergers throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Image: C. Watson.

Guinness and Bass & Co. were the two big brands in the world of 19th century export brewing. For most British (and Irish) breweries, the demand of the internal market combined with the risk of the export market meant there was little desire to export. Exporting beer was a risky market. Beer has a shelf-life, and factors such as the long-shipping times, unpredictable weather conditions and potential for contamination meant it was common for beer to spoil. Breweries did what they could to alleviate these issues. Only beers with a long shelf-life and high quality were exported, and Bass & Co. even restricted the months in which their beers could be bottled and shipped to try and prevent spoiling (Hughes 2006: 93).

For the most part though, brewers avoided the losses associated with the export market by not bottling beers themselves. Instead, they sold their beer in bulk to bottling firms. These bottling firms were responsible for bottling the beer, shipping it overseas, and selling it to retailers, and as-such took on all the risks involved with that process. They were often ordering beer from the brewer for export a year in advance, meaning overstocking and spoilage was common, with these problems further compounded by delays in shipping and even shipwrecks. To make up for this, export beer was sold at a high price. There was no set price, as different bottling companies selling the same product competed in the same markets, but it was higher than locally produced beers, with bottlers targeting well-to-do people (Hughes 2006: 88). Whilst we only found two brands of export beer, Guinness and Bass, we found labels for a variety of export bottlers.

Robert Porter and Co. bottled both Guinness and Bass Ale. The London based firm was founded in 1848 by Robert Porter and was well known for their Bull Dog brand (proving that doggos are always a popular marketing technique; Yenne 2007). They traded across the world and won medals for their bottled beer in Melbourne in 1880, in Adelaide in 1881 and in Calcutta in 1883 (Hughes 2006: 119). In 1950 the company was amalgamated. The bottles found at the site showed that as well as having their name in the beer brand label, they also labelled bottles with their bulldog brand, and in some cases with a label boasting of their award wins. Image: C. Watson.  

John Walter Read, originally an associate in Robert Porter and Co., set up the Read Brothers with William Thomas in 1871. The firm was based next door to Robert Porter and Co., and the use of the Bull Dog Head brand shows great similarities to Robert Porter and Co.’s bulldog brand (lots of good doggos in the export bottling world). The firm produced 50,000 bottles a week in the late 19th century and by 1906 were the largest buyers and bottlers of Bass Ale in the world (Hughes 2006: 121). Read and Porter eventually amalgamated to form the Export Bottlers Ltd in 1939 (Hughes 2006: 122). Image: C. Watson.

Unlike the previous two bottling firms, Daukes was never a major player in the export bottling business (probably the lack of doggos in their branding), with most of their business focused on the home market. The company was based in London and in operation from around 1864 to the 1920s (Hughes 2006: 138, 288). This label features the Ship brand, which was used from 1902 onwards (Hughes 2006: 138). Image: C. Watson.

The British export beer market peaked in 1859 at 614,000s barrels exported (that’s approximately 100,696,000 litres!). The decline was due to a myriad of reasons, one of which was increased competition with local brewers who could under-cut the price of export beer. New Zealand brewers differed to British export brewers in that they both brewed and bottled their own beer, as is evident in their bottle labels.

The Crown Brewery Company was located on the corner of Antigua and St. Asaph Streets in Christchurch and was first established in 1855 by William May (Donaldson et al 1990:221). However, the name Crown Brewery Co. was not used until William White took over the business in 1875, with the Louisson Brothers acquiring the brewery the following year (Cylcopedia Company Limited 1903:290). By the start of the 20th century, the company was capable of producing up to 50 hogsheads a day and were responsible for bottling their own beer. Image: C. Watson

Manning and Co. were another Christchurch brewery, established in 1860 by Samuel Manning (Donaldson et al 1990: 246). Manning established the brewery when he was only 19 years of age, having learnt the brewing trade by working alongside his father at the Suffolk Brewery in Barbadoes Street. The company brewed and bottled their own beer and were in operation until 1923, although Manning left the firm in 1889 (Donaldson et al. 1990: 246). Image: C. Watson.

McGavin and Co.’s Union Brewery was established in 1882 by George McGavin, Alexander McGregor and W H. Smith (Cyclopedia Company Ltd 1905:292). Their factory was located on the corner of Duke and Great King Streets, Dunedin, and the firm both brewed and bottled beer.

One of the most interesting things about the assemblage of labelled bottles was the variety of different brands and exporters present. It showed that the occupants of the house were consuming beer brewed in Christchurch, Dunedin, England and Ireland, and that there seems to have been no great preference for one type over another. Whilst we know from newspaper advertisements of the time that consumers had a wide range of products available to them, it is only when we find assemblages such as this that we can actually see what consumers were choosing to purchase, and from there begin to try and understand why they were purchasing the brands they were.

Fun fact to end the blog on (because I couldn’t find anywhere else to fit it in), the world record for drinking a pint of beer is 0.45 seconds, and 6 seconds for drinking it upside down (Record Holders Republic 2020)

Clara Watson

References

Cyclopedia Company Ltd. 1905. The Cyclopedia of New Zealand [Otago & Southland Provincial Districts]. The Cyclopedia Company of New Zealand.

Cylcopedia Company Limited. 1903. The Cyclopedia of New Zealand [Canterbury Provincial District]. The Cyclopedia Company of New Zealand.

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

Guinness Storehouse. 2019. Archive Fact Sheet: The History of Guinness The 18 Th Century and Arthur Guinness. Available: https://www.guinness-storehouse.com/content/pdf/archive-factsheets/general-history/arthur-guinness.pdf

Holl, J. 2019. Bass & Company | Craft Beer & Brewing. Available: https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/28hc1iTi5P/

Hughes, D. 2006. A Bottle of Guinness Please The Colourful History of Guiness. Berkshire: Phimboy.

Record Holders Republic. 2020. World Record Holders and Breakers – Peter Dowdeswell. Available: http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/world-record-holders/131/peter-dowdeswell.aspx

Yenne, B. 2007. Guinness. The 250-Year Quest for the Perfect Pint. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons.

 

Hats Off to the Past. Coats off to the Future. 2019: A Year in Review

And just like that, another year is over. This year’s been a big one for us. We’ve excavated some large sites, found some cool artefacts, and on top of all that we moved offices. This fortnight on the blog we’re looking back on the year that was 2019. The blog will be back at the start of February next year. Until then, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.

Probably the biggest thing to happen for us as a company in 2019 was moving offices. If we flash back to the start of the year, the photo on the left shows the lab in our old office and the photo on the right is the lab in our new office. The question, “when are we moving?” was asked at least daily for the first few months of the year.

It took a bit longer than we thought but come May we finally made the big move. Here’s some photos showing the office just before we moved, versus how it is today. There’s still some more shelving and minor bits and pieces to go, but it’s great to have 80% of our artefacts now stored on shelves and a purpose-built artefact washing area.

One of the best things about our new office is that it’s big enough for us to hold exhibitions in. For Heritage Festival this year we held an open office night complete with talks about being an archaeologist and displays on some of our best sites (top photos). 2019 was a busy year for us in terms of public events. We gave talks at the Teece Museum and to the Workers Education Association, along with being part of Pecha Kucha Night for Archaeology Week (pictured bottom left). We’ve also been lucky enough to work with the Ng King family and their restoration works at the Ng King Brothers Chinese Market Garden Settlement (shoes from the settlement pictured bottom right).

The other perk of the new office is that it’s big enough for office badminton.

It wasn’t all badminton and moving. We did also do some archaeology! The best feature of 2019 by far would be this one. What you’re looking at here is an old creek bed or gully that was infilled during the 19th century, had 20th century features cutting into 19th century features, and a 21st century trench dug through the middle. The complexity of the feature made it both challenging and rewarding to record and interpret.

A few of the many, many features we excavated this year. See Hamish’s blog from a few months back for even more!

Of course, with features comes artefacts. We already did a wee summary of some of our best finds this year, and have also shared cool artefacts throughout the year. Whilst we love finding pretty things (we’re a bit like magpies), we also like thinking about what the social context the artefact existed in was (something we did in a more abstract way with our Life Before Plastic blog series).

And with archaeology, comes animals. For an office of cat lovers, I’m disappointed that nobody shared their site cat photos with me. Looks like birds and dogs won our hearts this year (#moaforbirdoftheyear2020).

And with archaeology at the Underground Overground office comes Malaise. A few of our funnier moments caught on camera.

That’s all for now folks. Merry Christmas!

Seize the means of production! The archaeology of tools and labour.

For a lot of us, Labour Day is celebrated in the same way as a lot of public holidays: not thinking about work, catching up the gardening and odd jobs around the house, going away for a long weekend, having a barbie, that sort of thing. But unlike say, New Year’s Day, or Boxing Day, or The Day After New Year’s Day, or Queen’s Birthday (Down with the Monarchy!), Labour Day is a public holiday with actual historical and national significance beyond an excuse for a day off. Labour Day is among our oldest holidays and was first celebrated on 28 October 1890, a year after the establishment of the Maritime Council, a collection of transport and mining unions (Atkinson, 2018).

Union members march in the first Labour Day, Dunedin, 1890. Generally, I try and avoid a large group of people wearing white, but these guys seem alright. Derby, 2016.

The day was not yet a public holiday enshrined in law, but instead a day of collective action.  In Christchurch, newspapers report that “the crowds of merry-making children were scarcely happier than parents and elder relations” (Star, 29/10/1890: 2). The Star described it as “the greatest popular demonstration seen in Christchurch since the day when the people of Canterbury assembled in thousands to demand the West Coast Railway” (Star, 29/10/1890: 4). There was a procession of unions, too many to list, but including carpenters, joiners, plasterers, tailors, butchers, labourers, bookbinders, shipwrights, shop assistants, bricklayers, carriers, bakers, boilermakers, engineers, plumbers, gasfitters, and bootmakers. The annual parades and recognition of Labour Day were political in nature, with workers and unionists lobbying for the enforcement of a universal eight-hour working day (among other advances), a right that workers in some industries already enjoyed, while others did not. Though the eight-hour working day never made it into the legislation, Labour Day was made a public holiday by act of parliament in 1899 (Atkinson, 2018).

Eventually ‘Mondayised’ to make everyone’s lives easier.  (Evening Post, 2/11/1899:2).

As Christchurch archaeologists, most of the material culture we find is domestic, and related to consumption- both the commercial consumption kind, and the ‘nom nom nom’ kind. When excavating a domestic Pākehā site in Christchurch, we’re most often faced with a bevy of teacups, plates, platters, bottles and other refuse in a rubbish pit; all products, all artefacts of consumption. In contrast, the reverse is true of Māori archaeological sites, where the majority of artefacts we find are by-products from the manufacture of tools. In the case of Pākehā sites, it can seem a stretch to reconnect these products to their production, and to the hands, machine, and labour that created them. Today’s blog attempts, in honour of good old Labour Day, to reconnect artefacts to labour and production (the first step in the life-history of an artefact), by looking at some of the common tools we find in Pākehā archaeological sites in Christchurch. I won’t be talking about the processes of artefact manufacture per se (but if you’re interested in that, check our earlier blogs here and here).

I’m of the opinion that no shed is complete without a spade, a shovel, a family of spiders that refuse to give you their name or say a polite hello in the mornings, a rake, and a jar of snake specimens in formaldehyde that you stole from your last job (don’t worry, they won’t read this). Digging tools are crucial for construction, agriculture, and household chores, and would’ve been the tool of choice for digging the rubbish pits that are our bread and butter here at Underground Overground Archaeology. Canterbury’s first industry was agriculture, and many of the suburbs surrounding the central city have been converted from market gardens, orchards, and farms (Wilson, 2005). Even as the residential area spread, many people kept animals and gardens, and it’s no surprise that some of the most common tools or implements we find are representative of the agricultural labour that formed early Christchurch’s backbone, the construction associated with the city’s gradual expansion, and the conversion of the surrounding farms. Just as the last eight years have seen a construction boom in Christchurch, construction was a burgeoning industry in the early decades of settlement thanks to steady growth, as the Pākehā population grew from stuff-all to over 50,000 over the course of six decades (Thorns and Schrader, 2010).

Truly ground-breaking tools. Spade and shovel blades from the Justice Precinct, F38. Ca. 1860s-1870s. Williams, et al., 2017.

A very toothless rake from a site in Johns Road, Harewood. Bradley et al. 2016.

Stop.

Hammer time. Also, a sweet pair of pliers. Both from a site on Oxford Terrace,, F45. Ca. late 1860s-early 1870s. Garland et al. 2014.

Of course, not all labour is hammers and shovels. In the first decades of Christchurch settlement, ‘industry’ largely involved small-scale manufacture of products like beer, soap, shoes, and dairy-products (Burnard, 2000; Pickles, 2000). Many of the commercial and/or industrial sites we encounter in Christchurch reflect this small scale, often being small businesses and the homes of their operators. To contrast with picks and spades, we also find the archaeological remains of planning, drafting, and other sketchy workplace behaviours (you’ll see what I did there when you get to the photos). We also often find artefacts commonly  associated with the manufacture of clothing, like scissors, bobbins, pins, sewing machine fragments, and off-cuts of cloth and leather. Sometimes these are from sites of professional tailors and dressmakers, but often they are from households of other occupations, and represent the often-unrecorded, unpaid, and underappreciated labour of the domestic sphere, largely done by women. These are a helpful reminder that even though the majority of artefacts we find are associated with consumption of the ‘nom nom nom’ type, they also represent the uncredited labour of those who prepared food and drink throughout the past.

Left:  A hinge from a folding ruler, Tuam Street. Right: a set of “Studley” (I’ll say) callipers from the Justice Precinct.  Ca. 1860s-1870s. Williams, et al., 2017.

A drawing compass, and a protractor, complete with measurements incised on the surface, St Asaph St, c. 1860s-1870s. Dooley et al. 2016.

A feature of leather off-cuts from shoe manufacture. Ca. 1860s-1870s.  Williams et al. 2017.

Half of a pair of scissors (a scissor?), from a site on Kilmore Street. Williams and Watson, 2019.

Tailoresses at work, clothing factory, Christchurch. Ref: 1/1-008930-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22763367.

Of course, Christchurch was founded during the western industrial revolution, with artisanal and  small-scale manufacture gradually giving way to larger factories, like that shown above, and increasing mechanisation of what had previously been handmade (Pickles, 2005). We’ve excavated sites of smithies, workshop and foundries in central Christchurch, places where tools and machinery were forged, perhaps including some of those shown above.  Initially, most of the city’s tools were imported from the UK, but the development of local foundries soon filled the gap, and between the late 1800s and early 1900s, Christchurch was New Zealand’s major manufacturing centre (Williams, 2005: 131). Foundry workers forged the agricultural implements and machinery that farmers used to produce the food that fed the labour force and drove a major portion of the economy. The foundries and workshops also produced and assembled the carriages and locomotives that formed the backbone of New Zealand’s early transport network, making vital connections to distant towns. On foundry sites, we not only find rubbish pits chocka with scrap metal, off-cuts and extras from the manufacturing process, but we’ve also been lucky enough to find the remains of furnaces, factory floors, and other structural features that help to bring these workplaces to life, and to illustrate the lives of the workers that produced the tools and machinery that ran the colony.

Foundry workers at the firm of P. & D. Duncan, Christchurch, possibly their Tuam Street premises. Webb, Stefano, 1880-1967: Collection of negatives. Image: Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Ref. 1/1-019285-G. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/23193943.

Two of a row of five brick features surrounded by ash and charcoal-stained soil,  likely representing furnaces, at the site of the P. and D. Duncan foundry. These may be the same furnaces shown in the photo above. Dooley et al. 2018.

A rubbish pit filled with scrap metal, from a central city foundry site.

Remains of farming machinery from a central Christchurch foundry site.

One of the challenges in archaeology is trying to connect the artefact to the person that made or used it. It’s a little easier in historical archaeology, where we can use documents to roughly equate the dates of features to the occupants of a property at that time, but it’s an imprecise process. Rarely do we get an artefact that we can directly infer, rather than suggest, a connection with a particular individual. Well, if you didn’t think the previous sentences were a lead-up to a picture of an artefact with a specific person’s name on it, YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN AND BAD AT READING FORESHADOWING.

Boom. Check this out. A broken file with an embossed handle reading “J. GILL” and a second illegible word reading “B(or R)OW..S..”. Williams and Watson, 2019.

A carpenter’s tool associated with a particular named carpenter! There is a 1909 reference to J. Gill from Christchurch who was a carpenter and joiner, but there is no known association between Gill and the site where this was found (Star, 05/08/1909: 3). The file was part of an underfloor deposit at St Luke’s Vicarage on Kilmore Street, and it is possible that Gill lost or discarded the file between the floorboards while at work at the vicarage. We may not know much about Gill, but this file is a tangible remnant of the man and his work. When we talk about putting all our ability and effort to a task, we talk about putting all our “blood, sweat, and tears” into it. Though these things leave no (or little) trace behind to tell of the labour and effort we expend over our lifetimes, many of the physical remains of this labour remain, as do the tools we use to produce them. The archaeological record preserves these remains, and can give us an insight in to the labour that went into the formation of Christchurch, and the lives of its inhabitants.

Here are a couple of my favourite tools: a sickle that I liberated from my Grandad’s when we cleared it out, and my trusty trowel.

Possibly been in the family for generations. I primarily use this now to take the heads off of thistles.

An archaeologist’s best friend.

Finally, I wish you good weather, good company, good food, and good times for the Labour Day weekend. I leave you with a photo of some folks celebrating Labour Day the way many New Zealander’s have for decades, and a poem from the first Labour Day.

“Farmers and friend, having a beer at the end of the day (note the beer being poured from a glass half gallon jar) Labour Day, Southbridge, 1949, at an agricultural fair.” Source: Kete Christchurch.

Tristan Wadsworth

References

Atkinson, N., 2018. ‘Labour Day’, URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/labour-day, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 19-Jun-2018. Accessed 23 October 2019.

Bradley, F., Webb, K. and Garland, J., 2016. 448 Johns Road, Christchurch: report on archaeological monitoring. Unpublished report for the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Burnard, T. 2000. ‘An Artisanal Town – The Economic Sinews of Christchurch’ in Cookson, J. and Dunstall. G. 2000. Southern Capital – Christchurch: Towards a city biography 1850-2000. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.

Derby, M. 2016. ‘Strikes and labour disputes – Early labour disputes’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/artwork/20469/first-labour-day-procession-dunedin (accessed 24 October 2019).

Dooley, S. Haley, J., and Dickson, C. 2018. Laneway area, 93, 103, and 105 Manchester Street, 196, 204, and 206 Tuam Street, 221 and 227 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (M35/1132): report on archaeological monitoring. HNZPT authority 2016/701eq. Unpublished report for Ōtākaro Ltd.

Dooley, S., Whybrew, C., Garland, J. and Mearns, L. 2016. 150 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (M35/1164, M35/1165, M35/1166): report on archaeological monitoring. HNZPT authority 2016/435eq. Unpublished report for Southbase.

Evening Post, 2/11/1899:2. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/.

Garland, J., Carter, M. and Geary Nichol, R., 2014. The Terrace, M35/1050, Christchurch: Report on Archaeological Investigations, Volumes 1-2. Unpublished report for Hereford Holdings.

Pickles, K. 2000. ‘Workers and workplaces – industry and modernity’ in Cookson, J. and Dunstall. G. 2000. Southern Capital – Christchurch: Towards a city biography 1850-2000. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.

Star, 29/10/1890: 2. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/.

Star, 29/10/1890: 4. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/.

Star, 05/08/1909: 3. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/.

Thorns, D. and Schrader B., 2010., ‘City history and people – The appeal of city life’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/graph/23512/population-of-the-four-main-cities-1858-2006. Accessed 23 October 2019.

Williams, H., Garland, J. and Geary Nichol, R., 2017. Christchurch Justice and Emergency Services Precinct, Volumes 1-3. Archaeological Report.  Unpublished Report for the Ministry of Justice by Underground Overground Archaeology Ltd.

Williams, H., and Watson, C. 2019. St Luke’s Vicarage (former), 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch: report on archaeological work under HNZPT authority 2017/757eq. Unpublished report for Maiden Built Ltd.

Wilson, J. 2005. Contextual historical overview for Christchurch City final draft report for comment. Christchurch; Christchurch City Council.