Advertisement

Sanitary Reform and Comparative Assemblage Analysis: Methodology

  • Tim Murray
  • Penny Crook
Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Global Historical Archaeology book series (CGHA)

Abstract

In this chapter we examine the historical context of the backfilling of decommissioned cesspits and privies with domestic waste. This is a practice known throughout the modern world in metropolitan cities throughout the Anglophone world. Like many aspects of urbanisation, it was one subject to increasing regulation in the Victorian era as population densities increased and politicians, councillors, engineers and entrepreneurs worked to solve the many problems linked to the management of services and waste.

Keywords

Sewerage Cesspits Urban archaeology and material culture City sanitation 

References

  1. Adams, W.H. 2003. Dating Historical Sites: The Importance of Understanding Time Lag in the Acquisition, Curation, Use, and Disposal of Artifacts. Historical Archaeology: 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aird, W.V. 1961. The Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage of Sydney. Sydney: Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board.Google Scholar
  3. Brighton, S.A. 2001. Prices That Suit the Times: Shopping for Ceramics at the Five Points. Historical Archaeology 35: 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnes-McNaughton, L.F., and T.M. Harper. 2000. The Parity of Privies: Summary Research on Privies in North Carolina. Historical Archaeology 34: 110–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, W. 1877. Sydney Water Supply: Report to the Government of New South Wales on Various Projects for Supplying Sydney with Water, 16 May 1877. In Votes and Proceedings of Legislative Assembly of New South Wales 1876–77, vol. 3, 789–840. Sydney: Government PrinterGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, D. 1978. “Worse than Psychic”: Sydney’s Water Supply 1788–1888. In Nineteenth-century Sydney: Essays in Urban History, ed. Max Kelly, 54–65. Sydney: Sydney University Press, in association with the Sydney History Group.Google Scholar
  7. Crane, B.D. 2000. Filth, Garbage, and Rubbish: Refuse Disposal, Sanitary Reform, and Nineteenth-Century Yard Deposits in Washington, D.C. Historical Archaeology 34: 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crook, P., L. Ellmoos, and T. Murray. 2005. Keeping Up with the McNamaras: A Historical Archaeological Study of the Cumberland and Gloucester Streets site, The Rocks, Sydney. Archaeology of the Modern City Series 8. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  9. Crook, P., L. Ellmoos, and T. Murray. 2006. People+Place: A guide to using the database. Archaeology of the Modern City Series 9. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  10. Cumberpatch, C.G., and P.W. Blinkhorn. 1997. Introduction. In Not So Much a Pot, More a Way of Life: Current Approaches to Artefact Analysis in Archaeology, Oxford Monograph 83, ed. C.G. Cumberpatch and P.W. Blinkhorn, v–vi. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  11. Davison, G. 2003. The Archaeology of the Present: “Excavating” Melbourne’s Postwar Suburbs. In Exploring the Modern City: Recent Approaches to Urban History and Archaeology, ed. T. Murray, 41–63. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of NSW.Google Scholar
  12. Dobraszczyk, P. 2012. History of Consumption and Waste, World, 1800s. In Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, ed. C.A. Zimring and W.L. Rathje, 378–381. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Ellmoos, L., and P. Crook. 2006. People+Place database. In EAMC Databases, Version 1.0, ed. Penny Crook, Laila Ellmoos, and Tim Murray, Compact Disc. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of NSW.Google Scholar
  14. Fitts, R.K. 1999. The Archaeology of Middle-Class Domesticity and Gentility in Victorian Brooklyn. Historical Archaeology 33: 39–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2001. The Rhetoric of Reform: The Five Points Missions and the Cult of Domesticity. Historical Archaeology 35: 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald, S. 1987. Rising Damp: Sydney 1870–90. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Geismar, J.H. 1993. Where is Night Soil? Thoughts on an Urban Privy. Historical Archaeology 27: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godden Mackay, and G. Karskens. 1994. The Cumberland/Gloucester Streets Site, The Rocks: Archaeological Assessment and Research Design. Godden Mackay Heritage Consultants for the Sydney Cove Authority and the Heritage Council of NSW.Google Scholar
  19. Godden Mackay Logan, Austral Archaeology & La Trobe University. 2004. Casselden Place, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Archaeological Excavations Research Archive Report – Volume 1: Introduction and Background. Sydney: Unpublished Report Prepared for ISPT and Heritage Victoria.Google Scholar
  20. Halliday, S. 2001. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis. Phoenix: Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, S., and B. Minchinton. 2016. Cesspit Formation Processes and Waste Management History in Melbourne: Evidence from Little Lon. Australian Archaeology 82: 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Health Board. 1875a. Sydney City and Suburban Sewage and Health Board Second Progress Report, 25 June 1875. Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 4: 369–418.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1875b. Sydney City and Suburban Sewage and Health Board First Progress Report. Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 4: 335–368.Google Scholar
  24. Jeffries, N. 2006. The Metropolis Local Management Act and the archaeology of sanitary reform in the London Borough of Lambeth 1856–86. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40: 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffries, N., R. Featherby, R. Wroe-Brown, I. Betts, S. Harrington, and B. Richardson. 2014. ‘Would I Were in an Alehouse in London!’: A Finds Assemblage Sealed by the Great Fire from Rood Lane, City of London. Post-Medieval Archaeology 48: 261–284.  https://doi.org/10.1179/0079423614Z.00000000057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jervis, B. 2014. Middens, Memory and the Effect of Waste. Beyond Symbolic Meaning in Archaeological Deposits. An Early Medieval Case Study. Archaeological Dialogues; Cambridge 21: 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jevons, W. S. 1929. Remarks Upon the Social Map of Sydney, 1858. Sydney Morning Herald, November 6.Google Scholar
  28. Jones, S. 1984. Cleanliness Is Next to Godliness: Personal Hygiene in New South Wales 1788–1901. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of New South.Google Scholar
  29. Jørgensen, D. 2012. History of Consumption and Waste, Medieval World. In Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, ed. C.A. Zimring and W.L. Rathje, 348–351. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Joyce, R.A., and J. Pollard. 2010. Archaeological Assemblages and Practices of Deposition. In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, ed. D. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Karskens, G. 1999. Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighbourhood. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.Google Scholar
  32. Klein, T.H. 1991. Models for the Study of Consumer Behavior. Historical Archaeology 25: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, M. n.d. Australian Building: A Cultural Resource.Google Scholar
  34. Lydon, J. 1995. Boarding Houses in The Rocks: Mrs Ann Lewis’ privy, 1865. Public History Review 4: 73–88.Google Scholar
  35. Matthews, K. 1999. Familiarity and Contempt: The Archaeology of the “Modern”. In The Familiar Past? Archaeologies of Later Historical Britain, ed. S. Tarlow and S. West, 155–179. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Mayne, A.J.C. 1982. Fever, Squalor and Vice—Sanitation and Social Policy in Victorian Sydney. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  37. McCarthy, J. 1989. Archaeological Investigation: Commonwealth Offices and Telecom Corporate Building Sites, The Commonwealth Block, Melbourne, Victoria, Volume 1: Historical and Archaeological Report. Unpublished Report. Austral Archaeology for the Department of Administrative Services and Telecom Australia.Google Scholar
  38. McCarthy, J.P., and J.A. Ward. 2000. Sanitation Practices, Depositional Processes, and Interpretive Contexts of Minneapolis Privies. Historical Archaeology 34: 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, G.L. 1980. Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 1991. A Revised Set of CC Index Value for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Otto, J.S. 1977. Artifacts and Status Differences: A Comparison of Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites on an Antebellum Plantation. In Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, ed. S. South, 91–118. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Owens, A., and N. Jeffries. 2016. People and Things on the Move: Domestic Material Culture, Poverty and Mobility in Victorian London. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 20: 804–827.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-016-0350-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearce, J. 2000. A Late 18th-Century Inn Clearance Assemblage from Uxbridge, Middlesex. Post-Medieval Archaeology 34: 144–186.  https://doi.org/10.1179/pma.2000.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peña, E.S., and J. Denmon. 2000. The Social Organization of a Boardinghouse: Archaeological Evidence from the Buffalo Waterfront. Historical Archaeology 34: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Praetzellis, M. & A. Praetzellis (eds). 2004. Putting the “There” There: Historical Archaeologies of West Oakland, 1-880 Cypress Freeway Replacement Project. California: Report Prepared by Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University.Google Scholar
  46. Samford, P. 2007. Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  47. Select Committee. 1854. Final Report from the Select Committee on the Sydney Sewerage and Water Appropriation Bill with Minutes of Evidence. In Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Council.Google Scholar
  48. Sewerage and Water Supply, 10th report, 1866. 1867. In Votes and Proceedings of Legislative Assembly of New South Wales 1866, 4–5:30–31.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M.L. 2012. History of Consumption and Waste, Ancient World. In Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, ed. C.A. Zimring and W.L. Rathje, 346–348. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Starr, F. 2001. Convict Artefacts from the Civil Hospital Privy on Norfolk Island. Australasian Historical Archaeology 19: 39–47.Google Scholar
  51. Wall, D. diZerega. 1991. Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Domesticity in Mid–19th-Century New York. Historical Archaeology 25: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ———. 1999. Examining Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Nineteenth-Century New York City, Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 33: 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wheeler, K. 2000a. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for Excavating Privies. Historical Archaeology 34: 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ———. 2000b. View from the Outhouse: What we can learn from the excavation of privies. Historical Archaeology 34: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williamson, I.P. 1984. Coordination of Cadastral Surveys in New South Wales’ The Australian Surveyor. The Australian Surveyor 32: 274–292.Google Scholar
  56. Wong, A. 1999. Colonial Sanitation, Urban Planning and Social Reform in Sydney, New South Wales 1788–1857. Australasian Historical Archaeology 17: 58–69.Google Scholar
  57. Yamin, R. 2001. Becoming New York: The Five Points Neighbourhood. Historical Archaeology 35: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Murray
    • 1
  • Penny Crook
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Arts, Social Sciences and CommerceLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Archaeology and HistoryLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations