SEEING SLUMS THROUGH

ROSE-COLOURED GLASSES:
The Mountain Street Site, Sydney and its Limitations
in the Search for Vanished Slum Communities
Andrew Sneddon
Abstract
In recent years there has been a tendency in some quarters
to use the archaeological record uncritically to argue for a
level of comfort and disposable wealth in nineteenth century
Australian slums that rarely, if ever, existed there. The Mountain
Street excavation, in what was once the Blackwattle Creek
slum but which is now the fashionable inner-Sydney suburb
of Ultimo, has demonstrated that site formation processes can
seriously distort our perceptions of nineteenth century slum
life. It demonstrated that even on sites where site formation
processes could be expected to exaggerate the levels of
poverty, the appalling living conditions and deprivation in
these places were actually understated in the archaeological
record. Thus, although some general observations could be
made about the ways in which people lived in the area in the
nineteenth century, the excavation data also demonstrated that
slum excavations should only be used with extreme caution
in the so-called slum debate, which is presently occupying
some sections of the Australian archaeological community.

Introduction
In May 1890 the Sydney City Health Officer reported on one
of the streets in the slums along Blackwattle Creek (now the
fashionable Ultimo area):
There had been a heavy storm the evening before my visit to this
street, and the water marks were plainly visible. The water was six
inches above the floor in a few of the houses on the north side
From No. 11 to 27 there were the most offensive cesspits it has
ever been my lot to come across. The yards were ill-drained and
very damp, the open drain from one house running through the
yard of the next, and so on At No. 33 there is a cellar, which
had 2 feet of stinking water in it. The tenants in this case have had
constant ill-health, but have continued living here for ten years.
There has been sickness in almost every house, typhoid fever and
diarrhoea have been very prevalent (Clay 1890:4).

In other words, the Blackwattle Creek slums were awful. They

flooded in the rain, they reeked of cess, and the average death rate
(as evidenced by statistics presented by the City Health Officer)
was substantially higher than the average for the city as a whole
(22.758 per thousand as opposed to 15.222 per thousand, but
probably closer to 30 per thousand when other factors were
considered) (Clay 1890:1). By any objective standard these slums
were not the sort of place that the average Sydneysider would
have cared to live in, if they could have avoided it at all.

Godden Mackay Logan, 78 George Street, Redfern, NSW 2016, Australia

However, against the observation of the City Health Officer

we may read the following:
Slums are a construction of the imagination: a stereotype that
was fashioned in the early nineteenth century by bourgeois
entertainers and social reformers, and that obscured and
distorted the varied spatial forms and social conditions to which
it was applied (Mayne and Murray 2001a:1).

How to tell a typhoid victim they are dying of a stereotype!

But I have done Mayne and Murray a disservice. I have
deliberately taken the above quote out of context and presented it
as a self-contained argument. It is not. In fact, Mayne and Murray
have developed a nuanced and sophisticated argument over the last
decade in favour of the collaboration of historians and historical
archaeologists, to ensure that a balanced and multifaceted
depiction of the vanished communities from slums be recovered.
They have never argued that life in places like Melbournes Little
Lon in the nineteenth century was anything other than tough,
acknowledging that children there died young, and poverty was rife
(Mayne and Murray 2001b:101-102). Similarly, and importantly,
they recognise the need to appreciate the site formation processes
at work at such sites (e.g. Mayne and Murray 2001b:103). However,
unfortunately, in some quarters there has been a tendency to
see only the decontextualised quote. As a result, there has been
something of a rush towards a revisionist archaeology of the
slums (perhaps over-revisionism), a keenness to hunt down
those isolated pieces of material culture in the archaeological
record that reflect the brighter side of living in abject poverty, or
even to argue a level of comfort that understates the difficulties
experienced by the inner-city poor during the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Take, for example, the observations of
an archaeologist recently interviewed while excavating part of the
Cumberland Street site at the Rocks, Sydney (a former slum area).
They are quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald (17 March 2006)
as saying, Were finding things like quality china, childrens toys,
gravy boats and lots and lots of sauces and pickles It means that
people had enough money at the end of the week to buy extras
It means people were well off . Mayne has acknowledged this
problem himself elsewhere (Mayne 2003:77).
This article is a reaction against this trend. It presents, in
summary form, the results of an excavation of an inner-city
slum, dating to nineteenth century Sydney, and tests its value
to the slum debate (for the full excavation report see Godden
Mackay Logan 2005). The so-called slum debate has seen some
lively exchanges between its protagonists (see, for example,
Casey 2003 and Murray et al. 2004, which together also provide
an excellent summary of the arguments and methodologies
used by all parties). As an historical archaeologist I am aware

Number 63, December 2006

Seeing Slums through Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney

Figure 1 Map showing the location of the Mountain Street site in

Ultimo, Sydney (shaded).

that this article to some degree will provide ammunition

to those who question the value of historical archaeology,
undermining Mayne and Murrays sensible observation that we
must engage our sceptics (Mayne and Murray 2001a:1). In fact,
the article agrees with the optimistic attitude taken by Mayne
and Murray to the value of archaeology to the slum debate and
argues that historical archaeology, used with historical research,
can and does make a very significant contribution to the study
of history, as it has done at places like The Rocks in Sydney
and Little Lon in Melbourne (e.g. Godden Mackay Logan et
al. 2004; Karskens 1997, 1999). However, it also warns of the
limitations of archaeology when the site formation processes
are not adequately appreciated.
Further, it is a cautionary note to even the cautious, including
Mayne who has used the historical archaeological record (with
qualifications) to argue that the slum-dwellers of nineteenth
century Australia demonstrated a surprising agency and
adaptability within the constraints of their condition (Mayne
2003:77). Similarly, others have found (again with qualifications)
a richness and variety of life in the slums represented in the
archaeological record (Murray et al. 2004:94). However, the
results from the Mountain Street excavation suggest that site
formation processes can give a very false impression of life in
the slums, masking poverty and discomfort and suggesting an
agency, adaptability and variety of life that may rarely have been
2

Figure 2 Site plan showing the Mountain Street site at the close of
excavations. Blackwattle Lane follows the line of the former Blackwattle
Creek. The numbered Areas refer to excavation areas. The grey eastwest oriented rectangles were modern concrete piers.

there. In searching for the multidimensional nature of slum

life and relying too heavily on the archaeological record to do
it, we run the risk of forgetting that many of the inhabitants of
places like the Blackwattle Creek slum would have felt that their
lives were in fact overwhelmingly limited and one-dimensional,
the agency, adaptability and variety there having been severely
curtailed by poverty and appalling living conditions.
This article began with a quote from the City Health
Officer and I have taken at face value his general assertion that
the Blackwattle Creek slums were diseased, unsanitary and
uncomfortable. Of course, this source might be accused of
being a bourgeois social reformer perpetuating a stereotype. It
is possible that he stood to profit from a clearing of the slums
and therefore exaggerated the living conditions at the site. It
is also possible that, as a salaried employee of the municipal
authority that wished to clear the slums, he chose to depict the
living conditions there in a particularly bad light. However, his
report was just one of many similar ones over several years and
his observations are generally supported by the sites topography
(the excavated site still flooded during rains) and the high death
rates and incidence of typhoid, diarrhoea etc officially recorded
for the area. While accepting the possibility that the conditions
in the slums may have been exaggerated to a degree in the City
Health Officers report, this article for the most part accepts the
claims made in it.

Number 63, December 2006

Andrew Sneddon

Figure 3 Looking north on Athlone Place in the Blackwattle Creek

slums, prior to resumption in 1906, showing typical dwellings in and
around the site (Photograph: Council City of Sydney Archives).

Figure 4 Looking along the open sewer at the rear of properties

on Howard Street prior to resumption in 1906 (Howard Street
bisected the site from north to south) (Photograph: Council City of
Sydney Archives).

The Mountain Street Site

began to pose a different question: If we did not know that the

Mountain Street site had been a slum, would the archaeology
alone have identified it as such? Before a summary of the results
of the excavation are presented, it is therefore worth considering
what the site did not tell us, and why.

In 2003 the heritage consultancy Godden Mackay Logan

excavated the Mountain Street site prior to bulk excavation
for residential and commercial development by Multiplex
Constructions Pty Ltd. The Mountain Street site once formed
part of a nineteenth century slum area, along what was formerly
Blackwattle Creek, in the inner-city suburb of Ultimo (Figures
1-4). It is now on the corner of Mountain and Smail Streets,
Ultimo. It was occupied for a brief period from the c.1840s to
19061907, when the land was resumed by the government, the
buildings were demolished and the site was covered in fill.
In the first half of the nineteenth century the Mountain Street site
was low-lying swampy land exploited for oysters, rushes and timber.
By the middle of the century, the intermittently flowing Blackwattle
Creek was being used by early industry and the area came to be
dominated by noxious activities such as slaughterhouses. From
the 1860s levels of urbanisation began to increase. Noxious trades
began to move to other parts of the city to be replaced by (initially)
a small amount of residential development. The latter decades of
the nineteenth century saw the last of the noxious industries leave
the area and residential development dominate, in spite of the
dreadful living conditions, regular flooding and disease.
A series of reports in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century identified the slum as a health hazard. Forced resumptions
began in 1906 as the government took steps to clear the area of
its former inhabitants and eradicate what the city saw as a major
health concern. The houses in the area were demolished and the
site was covered with up to 2m of fill.
At the close of excavations the remains of a dozen houses had
been exposed (Figures 2-8) in addition to almost 16,000 artefacts.
However, in addressing the research questions posed in the
Archaeological Research Design underpinning the excavation, it
became clear that surprisingly little could be said about the site
without heavily qualifying our observations or couching them
in only the most general terms. Those questions devised to make
a contribution to the slum debate bore particularly little fruit. I

Limitations on the Relics for Dating Purposes and

Spatial Analysis
The Mountain Street site was occupied for about half a century
before it was sealed under a deep deposit of fill. Indeed, the
settlement of the Blackwattle Creek area, including the
construction of many of its structural features (houses, roads,
services), has been precisely dated by reference to historical
sources. It therefore provided an excellent opportunity to test
the value of the artefacts for fine-level chronological analysis.
In fact, the value of the artefacts as a dating tool proved to
be highly questionable. It was rarely possible to date individual
deposits (for example, under-floor deposits and cesspit fill) to
anything more refined than a broad mid-to-late nineteenth
century date range. In other words, the artefacts were of limited
value in refining the dates already obtained through historical
research. This problem was partly owing to the fact that many
of the artefacts from the nineteenth century that are most useful
for dating purposes are also the kind of artefact that people and
families use for long periods, subjecting them to repair when they
are damaged and passing them down through generations (for
example, imported table wares, decorative pieces etc). Therefore,
an artefact that might be dated by manufacturers mark or
decorative technique to an early period may not have entered
the archaeological record for decades after its manufacture. In
other words, a deposit containing early artefacts could not be
assigned an early date without additional supporting evidence
(stratigraphy, historical plans etc). For example, a large pit in
Area 6 (6.105) was sealed by the foundations of a building dated
by historical records to 1865 (possibly 1854). The fill contained
a high proportion of artefacts dating to decades before it was

Number 63, December 2006

Seeing Slums through Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney

Figure 5 View facing east of 1850s house excavated at the Mountain

Street site. This was one of the earliest structures exposed during
excavations, belonging to a period when slaughterhouses operated
in the area. A hallway is visible at the top right (with piers for timber
floor joists), with two small rooms to its left and a well (pre-dating
the house, at least its later phases) in the foreground (Photograph:
Godden Mackay Logan).

Figure 6 Numbers 38 (right) and 40 (left) Owen Street, looking south

(Owen Street bisected the northern part of the site, running east-west).
Note the large sandstone wall footings, which would not be out of
place in wealthier suburbs (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).

sealed, with the bulk of datable artefacts belonging to the 1820s

to 1860s (Godden Mackay Logan 2005:Part B, 79). Similarly,
secure underfloor deposits from a house in Area 3 (dated by
records to c.1865, possibly 1854, and demolished 19061907)
contained artefacts spanning almost the entire nineteenth
century (1820s to c.1900) (Godden Mackay Logan 2005:Part
B, 56). Thus, features such as cesspits which could not be dated
by reference to historical records could not be accurately dated
using the artefacts within the fill. For example, cesspit fill 1c.026
contained datable artefacts from the 1840s to c.1900 (Godden
Mackay Logan 2005:Part B, 56). This is of limited value in
establishing a meaningful date for the cesspits construction.
Nevertheless, it was possible to date some deposits through
a combination of artefact analysis and stratigraphic analysis,
to a broad early or late period in some circumstances. This
allowed for some general observations to be made about
changes at the site and in the areas population, from the early
slaughterhouse period to the later more urbanised period in
the lead up to resumption. However, for the site as a whole the
limits on the artefact assemblage as a dating tool were more
noticeable than their potential.
The site formation processes operating at the site also hindered
meaningful spatial analysis based on the artefact assemblage
alone. Historical sources established that the site was subjected
to frequent flooding in the mid-nineteenth century. This is likely
to have displaced many artefacts from their contexts of original
deposition (although heavier and less buoyant artefacts will
have been less affected in this regard). As a result, many deposits
identified as under-floor deposits might have been contaminated
by artefacts deposited by the pooling of water under homes, while
the recovery of individual artefacts from within particular rooms
within houses (for example, clothes-making accoutrements)
could not necessarily be used to identify activity areas (such as
sewing rooms).

Similarly, given the areas reputation for poor sanitation and

inefficient garbage disposal, it seems likely that the area in the
nineteenth century was characterised by ad hoc garbage disposal
(in vacant lots, over back fences, in the street etc). This was
certainly the case in inner-city Melbourne in 1890, when that
citys Health Officer observed:

(rubbish) being thrown deliberately on to the back yard, over

the boundary fence, or on to some near vacant land, or being
swept from the house or shop direct into the street-channel. This
littering is a common feature of almost all low-rented localities,
where, in fact, but few blocks of buildings and vacant allotments
are free from it (Gresswell 1890).

Therefore, it would be dangerous to assume that an artefact

found in a particular yard or cesspit derived from the home to
which that yard or pit belonged. This made spatial analysis at
the Mountain Street site very difficult and many observations
about the assemblage had therefore to be couched in only the
most general terms about the area. In a similar way, the value
of the cesspits at the Mountain Street site was limited by site
formation processes. The subject of the limitations of cesspits
has been dealt with in detail by others (see, for example, Crook
and Murray 2004). Importantly, in the Blackwattle Creek area,
the City Health Officer noted that cesspits would be emptied by
inhabitants, before being reused. This may explain the relatively
low quantities of early period artefacts in the assemblage.

Processes Potentially Exaggerating the Areas

Slum Conditions
The Mountain Street site was peculiar in that it was the subject
of a government-organised depopulation in the early twentieth
century when the resumption of properties took place and the
area was buried under fill. This has an identifiable effect on

Number 63, December 2006

Andrew Sneddon

Figure 7 The disturbed remains of Number 10 Adelaide Street

(bottom of picture) and the shadows of the foundations for Numbers
1214 Adelaide Street (top of picture), facing east (Photograph:
Godden Mackay Logan).

artefact assemblages (Tomka 1993; Webb 1995). People leaving

their homes for a new place, knowing that they will not return
and knowing that their old homes will be demolished, do a
number of predictable things:

They carefully collect the most valuable items in their

possession first and move them to the new property.
They clear the house and surrounding area of any items that
may be of assistance to them in their new home.
They strip their houses of all materials that might be used
in the furbishing of the new home. They may systematically
demolish the old home, selling construction materials for
reuse in other structures.

As a result, archaeologists should expect that assemblages from

such sites will contain very few valuable, complete, functional
or unusual artefacts. Conversely, the assemblages recovered
from such sites will be dominated by broken and poor quality
items. In other words, the assemblage may give an exaggerated
impression of poverty and need, an important issue in the
context of the slum debate. As a result, any attempt to argue
from the Mountain Street assemblage that the evidence clearly
demonstrates the poverty of the area during the nineteenth
century must be, at the least, qualified. It is impossible to
know what items indicative of economic stability, even wealth,
may have been taken from the area in 1906.

The Archaeological Understatement of Poverty in

an Inner-City Slum
However, in spite of the effects of curation on the assemblage
and the potential for it to exaggerate the poverty in the area,
there was still little in the results to suggest the extreme poverty
suffered by the Mountain Street inhabitants. The assemblage
contained a relatively large number of repaired shoes and
low quality ceramics were found in relatively high (though

not extraordinarily so) numbers. The large amount of sewing

paraphernalia suggested a great deal of clothing repairs. The bone
assemblage suggested a small preference for the cheaper cuts of
meat, based on taxonomy, age at death, butchery patterns etc
(Steele 2005:Part B, 89-110; see also Godden Mackay Logan et al.
2004:435-451 for comparable results at the Casselden Place site
in Melbourne). However, this cannot be treated as evidence of
poverty. Rather, it demonstrates the frugality of the era, evident
not just in slums but in almost every historical site from the
period, rich and poor. In other words, even allowing for factors
that might exaggerate the horrors of slum life, those horrors are
inadequately represented in the assemblage. This in turn makes
it easier, for those who wish to, to find evidence of the brighter
side of slum life, or inadvertently to misrepresent the grinding
poverty that prevailed there, or to place too much emphasis on
the agency and adaptability of those who lived there.
This problem is compounded by any willingness to see
artefacts that suggest a degree of comfort, disposable income or
middle class aspirations as being definitive of these things. In
fact, it has long been demonstrated through a study of mortuary
archaeology that the urban poor in nineteenth century Britain
commonly expended considerable sums of money on the burial
of their dead, in a display of conspicuous consumption (an effort
to keep up with the Joneses) and resulting in an inversion of
the symbolism of rank (Pearson 1982; see also Wason 1994). As
a result, expensive grave goods and funeral paraphernalia we
might expect to find in middle class or even upper class graves,
can turn up in the graves of the poor. The same principle
would apply equally outside the mortuary sphere, in everyday
life, with even the poorest city-dwellers at times expending
disproportionately large sums of money to acquire fine china,
porcelain dolls and gold jewellery. In other words, the urban
poor are likely to have worked hard themselves to subvert the
stereotype that prevailed with respect to their communities.
They were certainly not oblivious to those stereotypes. The
City Health Officer noted in 1890 that when he asked residents
about the prevalence of illness in the Blackwattle slums area,
he was often told in a most unhesitating manner that there
had never been any illness there, even though he was aware of
cases of typhoid just up the road! This is hardly surprising given
that rumours of property resumptions had been circulating
and people feared they would lose their homes. But it also
demonstrates that in seeking to find the multiple facets of life
for the inner-city poor, it is often those very people who have
sought to disguise their limiting living conditions.
The Mountain Street site provided a number of more concrete
examples of how the archaeological record can understate the
suffering and deprivation experienced by the inhabitants who lived
there. This can be demonstrated by searching the archaeological
record for evidence of known examples of slum poverty that
were not actually represented in the archaeological record.
For example, in 1890 the City Health Officer made the
following observations:

There were high levels of disease at the site including higher

than average levels of typhoid and diarrhoea. This was
reflected in a higher than average death rate.
The area flooded in wet weather, with some yards inundated
to a depth of 18 inches (50cm) and some house interiors also

Number 63, December 2006

Seeing Slums through Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney

Figure 8 View of Numbers 17 Howard Street after completion of excavation. Note Pit 6.105 at the top of the picture under the wall footings.
Adelaide Street is visible to the left (north) of the wall footings and Howard Street is visible at the top of picture (east) with cut 6.058 in it (for a
drain) (Photograph: Godden Mackay Logan).

flooding. This caused disease as the cesspits in the area were

flooded also.
Many inhabitants reared poultry in their yards in close
proximity to the houses resulting in filthy yard areas.
Although some homes were serviced with in-ground drains
etc, the area was still dominated by cesspits and open drains
in 1890.

Similarly, we know from other historical sources that the area

was once dominated by noxious trades, living cheek-by-jowl
with residences for 20 years, including eight slaughterhouses by
the 1840s.
And yet, none of these things was unambiguously represented
by the exposed archaeology at the Mountain Street site. It is
virtually impossible to identify disease in a population without
access to human remains, none of which was present in the
assemblage, dating as it does to a time of efficient disposal of
human remains. There was no clear evidence of high water
levels at the site either, such as clear silt lamination and grain
size sorting in the corners of subfloor spaces. Some strata within
underfloor deposits were silty and finely sorted, suggestive
of water deposition but certainly nothing to suggest the levels
of flooding reported by the City Health Officer. Without his
report, the stratigraphy would not have suggested flooding at all
(though it may have been suspected from a study of the sloping
topography around the site and the accumulation of water during
6

the actual excavation). There was no evidence of chickens being

kept in the area, with the exception of a ceramic egg possibly
used to encourage hens to lay. There was no preponderance of
chicken bones in the faunal assemblage and no concentration
of egg shells in the cesspit deposits. No parasitological studies
or chemical analysis of soils was undertaken, which may have
yielded such data. However, given the historical evidence for
overflowing cesspits it is unlikely that this would have yielded
unambiguous results either.
Similarly, although the remains of around 12 homes were
excavated, only four (possibly five) cesspits were exposed. It is
possible that the many other recorded cesspits were removed
as soon as proper services were installed to prevent these now
defunct pits from flooding during rains (some of those that
were exposed appear to have been sealed with clay or bitumen).
This would have occurred in just the last 1015 years of the
sites life, when most of the services were introduced. Finally,
with the exception of one concentration of large bones in a
pre-settlement deposit, the slaughterhouses remained entirely
unrepresented in the assemblage (even the concentration
of bones did not definitively demonstrate the presence of
a slaughterhouse).
It is also important to note that the remains of houses
excavated in the area did not stand out as being of particularly
poor quality. In fact, they would not have been out of place in
the wealthier parts of the city. Some incorporated substantial

Number 63, December 2006

Andrew Sneddon

sandstone footings (Figure 6) and apparently good workmanship

(the remains of houses are described further below).

What the Archaeological Record Did Tell Us

Notwithstanding the many obstacles to interpretation noted
above, the Mountain Street excavation yielded a great deal of
information about the area and the lives of the inhabitants of
the slum.
The archaeological remains of around a dozen houses were
exposed during the excavation (Figure 2). The archaeology
demonstrated that the people inhabiting the Mountain Street
site in the mid-to-late nineteenth century lived either in small
detached houses with an open rear yard or in narrow terrace
houses, also with small yard areas, if only to accommodate the
outdoor toilet and laundry facilities. The houses were usually
made of rendered brick on substantial stone footings with
slate, tile or corrugated metal roofs. The rooms were small and
not numerous, suggesting a degree of crowding. They were
heated with fireplaces. Some people made an effort to beautify
their rather drab surrounds with flowerpots, ceramic figurines,
expensive tea sets etc. Most toilet facilities were rudimentary
(cesspits). However, the remains of in-ground services dating to
the late nineteenth century were also exposed.
Few glass and ceramic artefacts dating to the early nineteenth
century were recovered from the site. Most of the artefacts
belonged to the second half of the nineteenth century when
residential development had expanded in the area (Harris 2005).
There was some evidence that the residents along Blackwattle
Creek purchased cheaper varieties of ceramic and glass serving
and storage pieces. However, there was also evidence suggesting
that at least some houses made the choice to purchase extras,
with some more expensive artefact types also being present in
the assemblage (although these may also have found their way
into the area as recycled second-hand pieces, parts of incomplete
sets and so on, and therefore may also be interpreted as evidence
of frugality and economic constraint). Most of the domestic
ceramic assemblage was manufactured in England, with many of
the manufacturers involved in the export trade being represented.
Glass bottles from Britain, the USA and Australia dominated the
glass assemblage.
Footwear worn by babies, children and adults dating between
c.1790 and c.1880 was found in many contexts (Stocks 2005).
Sturdy shoes and boots suitable for outdoor or heavy work were
the main type of wear. Most footwear was hand-stitched. To
judge from the shoe remains at the site, other techniques and
machine methods were used only to a limited extent during the
later half of the century. There was also evidence to suggest that
at least some of the recovered footwear may have been made or
repaired by a resident shoemaker from c.18201860.
The Mountain Street animal bone and shell assemblage
displayed a limited range of meat products (Steele 2005). The
bone assemblage, for example, was dominated by sheep elements,
followed by cattle and pig. Fish, bird and rabbit, by comparison,
were generally poorly represented. Few other edible species were
present. The cuts of meat evidenced by the bones recorded suggest
a small preference for cheaper cuts. The shells consisted largely
of rock oyster remains, followed by mud oyster and cockle. Shells
of deep water and/or open beach and rock platform species were
largely absent. Evidence of the slaughter house phase of land use

may have been visible in a number of bone dumps, pit fills and
bones scattered across the site, but this is not certain.
The inhabitants of the area also supplemented their diet with
eggs, often (the written sources tell us) keeping their own chickens.
The ceramics and glass artefacts at the site indicate that the residents
also ate pickles, chutney, olive oil, vinegar and jam. A wide variety
of nuts and fruits was also eaten including hazelnuts and walnuts,
and dates, passionfruit, watermelon, figs, cherries, plums, apples,
pears, peaches and grapes (Fairbairn 2005). Grains would also
have featured heavily in their diets but are not represented in the
archaeological record. They drank tea, aerated water, beer, wine,
champagne, ginger beer, gin and schnapps.
The artefacts recovered from under-floor and yard deposits
during the excavation plainly reflected the presence of children,
and male and female adults at the site from an early period.
In other words, the artefact assemblage strongly suggests the
presence of family units from the earliest phases of settlement.
The size and configuration of the structures there were also
consistent with family accommodation.
No unambiguous evidence of the elderly was recovered.
However, the numerous artefacts related to medicinal remedies
were at least consistent with the elderly being represented in
the area.
The artefacts recovered from all periods of the sites
development were consistent with a working class population
(although it is important to recall that white collar workers
such as a clerk will generate fewer artefacts likely to survive
in the archaeological record that unambiguously reflect their
occupation, and conversely that a manual labourer will not
necessarily bring home the tools of their trade). The occupations
possibly represented by artefacts were almost exclusively related
to manual labour, including barrel pieces, brackets, a shovel
head, the tine of a pitch fork, a file/rasp, metal funnel and solder
pans; that is, the artefacts related principally to male occupations.
However, needlework artefacts also establish the importance
of clothes-making and repair to women, and may indicate the
presence of small cottage industries. It is also important to note
that the artefacts listed above as possibly representing working
class residents would not be out of place in wealthy suburbs of
the same period.
There were no artefacts that unambiguously pointed to the
presence of any particular ethnic group at the site (for example,
the Chinese, Jews or Syrians). Rather, the assemblage suggests a
strongly Anglo-Irish population.
The assemblage did not contain overtly religious artefacts.
However, the small quantity of moralising china found at the
site had Christian overtones. The artefacts did not shed light on
whether the inhabitants of the area were Catholic, Protestant or
another religion.
At the individual level, people decorated themselves with jewellery,
watches and silk-lined shoes. Attempts were made to keep up with
fashions and, seemingly, to maintain an air of respectability.
At least some residents seem to have been literate, at least in
the later period, as evidenced by the slate pencils, ink bottles and
alphabet plates recovered during the excavation.
Adults and children indulged in recreation from time to time.
The men (and possibly the women) smoked a relatively large
amount of pipe tobacco to judge from the pipes found there. A
number of gaming pieces and a domino piece hint at some of the

Number 63, December 2006

Seeing Slums through Rose-Coloured Glasses: The Mountain Street Site, Sydney

games that were played. Women probably engaged in a great deal

of needlework as both leisure and essential housework. Children
played marbles and had dolls, toy tea sets and other playthings.
Pieces of a harmonica and mouth harp reflect musical tastes.
Clothes were fixed with buttons, studs, hooks and garter snaps,
and were embellished with jewellery in some cases. Attention
was paid to personal appearance and hygiene in at least some
households. Toothpaste, perfume and decorative hair combs
were found in some contexts. The presence of a lice comb in one
context hints at the hygiene problems faced by the inhabitants of
the area (although lice of course are not a problem restricted to
the nineteenth century poor).

Conclusions
The Mountain Street site yielded a considerable quantity of
data and allowed researchers to make a number of important
observations about the Blackwattle Creek slum. However, the
conclusions that could be reached, based on the archaeology
alone, could generally be expressed only in broad and heavily
qualified terms. This is because the site was affected by a
number of formation processes common to inner-city historical
sites, which distorted the realities of life in the slums. This is
particularly important in the context of the so-called slum debate,
which has seen some participants use the archaeological record
uncritically to argue for a level of comfort and disposable wealth
that rarely, if ever, existed there. Even those who have combined
the archaeological data with rigorous historical research, to reach
cautious conclusions regarding the multidimensional lives of
the slum inhabitants, will find the results of the Mountain Street
excavation sobering. It demonstrated that even on sites where site
formation processes could be expected to exaggerate the levels of
poverty, the appalling living conditions and deprivation in these
places were actually understated in the archaeological record. We
must take extreme care to ensure that the struggling poor of the
nineteenth and early twentieth century are not misrepresented in
our conclusions. There is little doubt that slum stereotypes mask a
multilayered and complex world, and that historical archaeology
and history can work together to create a more complete picture
of these vanished communities. However, we must not forget
that there were also many within those multilayered worlds who
found their horizons limited by the dreadful living conditions
and poverty characterising their lives.

Acknowledgements
Godden Mackay Logan allocates budget hours to all its
professional staff for professional development, including for
research and preparation of articles. This article was prepared
with the full support and assistance of Godden Mackay Logan.
I am grateful to Graham Wilson (Consulting Archaeologist),
Richard Mackay and Anne Mackay (Godden Mackay Logan) for
providing comment on an early draft of this paper.

References
Casey, M. 2003 Review of The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations
in Slumland edited by Alan Mayne and Tim Murray. Australasian Historical
Archaeology 21:85-87.
Clay, W.R. 1890 Report of the City Health Officer, on the Sanitary Condition of the
Portion of the City Bounded by George Street West, Bay Street, Black Wattle Creek,
and William Henry Street. Report prepared for the City of Sydney, 9 May 1890.

Crook, P. and T. Murray 2004 The analysis of cesspit deposits from The Rocks,
Sydney. Australasian Historical Archaeology 22:44-56.
Fairbairn, A. 2005 Archaeobotanical analysis. In Godden Mackay Logan, 22-36
Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological
Excavation Report, Part B, Section 5.0. Unpublished report to Multiplex
Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Office, October 2005.
Godden Mackay Logan 2005 22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo
(NSW) Archaeological Excavation Report. Unpublished report to Multiplex
Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Office, October 2005.
Godden Mackay Logan, La Trobe University (Archaeology Program) and Austral
Archaeology (eds) 2004 Casselden Place (50 Lonsdale Street), Melbourne
Archaeological Excavations: Research Archive Report. Unpublished report to
ISPT and Heritage Victoria.
Gresswell, D.A. 1890 Report on the Sanitary Condition and Sanitary Administration
of Melbourne and Suburbs. Paper presented to parliament (Vic) No. 205.
Harris, E.J. 2005 Glass, ceramic and general artefacts. In Godden Mackay Logan,
22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological
Excavation Report, Part B. Unpublished report to Multiplex Constructions Pty
Ltd and the NSW Heritage Office, October 2005.
Karskens, G. 1997 The Rocks: Life in Early Sydney. Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
Karskens, G. 1999 Inside the Rocks: The Archaeology of a Neighbourhood.
Sydney: Hale and Ironmonger.
Mayne, A. 2003 A Road to Nowhere? In T. Murray (ed.), Exploring the Modern
City: Recent Approaches to Urban History and Archaeology, pp.65-87. Sydney:
Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.
Mayne, M. and T. Murray 2001a The archaeology of urban landscapes:
Explorations in slumland. In A. Mayne and T. Murray (eds), The Archaeology
of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, pp.1-7. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayne, M. and T. Murray 2001b Imaginary landscapes: Reading Melbournes
Little Lon. In A. Mayne and T. Murray (eds), The Archaeology of Urban
Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland, pp.89-105. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Murray, T., G. Karskens and A. Mayne 2004 Explorations in slumland: A reprise.
Australasian Historical Archaeology 22:94-97.
Pearson, M.P. 1982 Mortuary practices, society and ideology: An
ethnoarchaeological study. In I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology, pp.99-113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steele, D. 2005 The faunal assemblageBone artefacts. In Godden Mackay Logan,
22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW) Archaeological
Excavation Report, Part B, Section 6.0. Unpublished report to Multiplex
Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Office, October 2005.
Stocks, R. 2005 Footwear and miscellaneous leather artefacts. In Godden Mackay
Logan, 22-36 Mountain Street and 16-20 Smail Street, Ultimo (NSW)
Archaeological Excavation Report, Part B, Section 3.0. Unpublished report to
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd and the NSW Heritage Office, October 2005.
Tomka, S.A. 1993 Site abandonment behaviour among transhumant agropastoralists: The effects of delayed curation on assemblage composition.
In C.M. Cameron and S.A. Tomka (eds), Abandonment of Settlements and
Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, pp.11-24.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wason, P.K. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Webb, J.M. 1995 Abandonment processes and curate/discard strategies at MarkiAlonia, Cyprus. The Artefact 18:64-70.

Number 63, December 2006