HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Dr Robert V. J. P. Varman" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:47:18 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Dear Folks - loved the movement of privies discussion,

Regarding a large 1840s privy which I excavated (connected double chamber
privy, stone lined, about two metres deep) I was surprised at the
distribution of some of the ceramic shards. There was evidence of about 70
years of continual use. The bulk of the material did conform to the lowest
is oldest rule but many items (fragmented) were found to have significant
depth variations and spread from one end of the pit to the other. Have any
others experienced this phenomenon in large pits?

Of the above pit I was able to reconstruct several generations of dinner
services. The householders had been very neat and the shards all carefully
swept up and thrown down the hatch. A privy pit I am now busy with has
whole items (when reconstructed) but a large proportion of the original
items are only partially represented. Were they simply untidy and had
several means of rubbish disposal or did they know in those days that an
archaeologist would be pouring over the contents of their toilet and so
they decided to throw half of their broken crockery over the fence?
Anyway, at the latter site (Sydney), there was evidence of converting pit
privies into flushed sewered ones (1870s/1880s). In most cases the pits
were emptied when converted but luckily in one case the pit deposit was
left intact. At least ten chamber pots are represented in the intact privy.
One of the privies (early 1850s upper class house) was constructed so that
the pan could be removed, after pushing away a slab of stone.

Denis Gojak is quite right about the general lack of taboo regarding
anything privy-related in Australia (we were raised in Sydney suburbs a few
miles apart). During the late 1950s - my area was considered 'in the bush'
and the dunny carters wouldn't extend themselves to our area despite
father's protests. My brother and father had to dispose of the 'full' can.
A deepish hole was dug and the contents thrown therein and covered over
(wonderful for roses). Dreaded time when the can began to reach capacity. A
sort of hilarity broke out when the task had been completed without mishap
and the inevitable stories of past adventures. Always had to be done at
night which resulted in some sorry misadventures, especially since it was a
long way from the house (no light). When I reached 9 I was told that I was
old enough to help my brother with the can... robbed me of the pleasure of
laughing at my father and brother when they were about to attend the
terrible duty. We changed to in-house flush in 1960 (septic tank) and the
sewage was put on in the early 1970s.

Regards,

Robert

 FAMILIE: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6559/scc17.html O    O
   31 Wombat Street Berkeleyvale CentralCoast NSW Australia 2261 | \__/
          Fax:+61 2 43898450 Email: [log in to unmask]    ____/-(..)
            1800s ceramics etc illust! Norfolk Island _/_____________/
  Archaeology: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6559/scc18.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2