There are a lot of artefacts in the Christchurch assemblage. We don’t have an exact count, but I’d estimate there’s somewhere between 300 000 and 400 000 objects represented. Each of these artefacts has a story, but not all of those stories are fully known. In some cases, we know where an artefact came from, who made it, who sold it, who owned it, what it was used for, how it came to be here and why it was thrown away. In other cases, we may only know the answer to one of these questions or, as is typical of archaeology, the answers to these questions only raise other questions that we don’t have answers to. Sometimes there are so many possible answers that we may never be able to narrow it down to the correct option. It’s an aspect of archaeology that gets lost a little bit in light of the attention on the information and the things we do find out – there’s still a lot of mystery in the past and sometimes that mystery, that uncertainty about how something came to be here, why it was made or bought or thrown away, becomes as much the part of an artefact story as the things we know to be true. For today’s blog, then, I’ve decided to put together a little showcase of some of the artefacts from the Christchurch assemblage whose stories are still missing a few details.
This small dish was found on a mixed commercial and residential site in Christchurch’s CBD. It’s made from porcelain, decorated with a brown slip glaze, through which another design has been etched. This style of decoration, found on porcelain, was popular in the 1720s when it was known as Batavian ware, in reference to the port of Batavia, now known as Jakarta, through which some Chinese export porcelain was transported. Some of this porcelain, which had distinctive blue and white painted decoration, was then covered with a dark brown glaze and decorated by European engravers, who etched out windows in the brown glaze to the original design or created bird and branch motifs like the one here. Here’s where the mystery starts – this dish, while it has the brown glaze and etched design, does not appear to be Chinese export porcelain, nor is there any blue hand painting visible beneath the glaze. The decoration is quite crude, not nearly as refined as some examples from the 1720s. It was also found in an 1850s-1860s context in Christchurch, and we have to wonder how it came to be there. There was something of a revival in the style in the early 1800s, but even that is too early to for the dish to have been purchased in New Zealand or even purchased in Europe and then brought over with the early European settlers. It’s most likely that it was an inherited piece, something sentimental or valuable enough to be held onto, passed down through a family and brought to Christchurch by whoever owned it. But it’s still unclear who made it and when – is it less-refined original or a later imitation of the original Batavian ware and, if so, who made it?
Image: J. Garland.
This wee gem of an artefact was found in association with an 1860s shop and residence on Colombo Street. The Younghusband family occupied the site, with John Younghusband running a stationer’s and fancy goods store at the front, while his family resided to the rear of the section. This cutlery handle, likely from a knife, has “FOR A GOOD BOY” hand carved into the side. It’s a phrase that’s not uncommon to find on children’s artefacts from the time – we find a lot of christening cups, in particular, that say things like “a present for a good girl”, usually printed or hand painted in gilt lettering. This is the only example I’ve seen of the phrase used on a knife handle and I’m curious to know how it came to be there. Was it a gift from one of the Younghusband parents to one of their sons? Was it a reminder to the child to mind their manners at the dinner table? Could it have been something carved by the boy himself, for some reason obvious to him? Was it treasured? If so, why was it thrown away? Were there accompanying forks and spoons with similarly carved handles? I will never know.
Image: J. Garland.
This chamber pot base bears the mark of Sampson Bridgwood and Son and was found on a site on Gloucester Street in central Christchurch. What’s interesting about this mark is that the name “S. Bridgwood and Son” has been painted over, for no immediately obvious reason. It may have been a piece that the manufacturer didn’t want to claim as theirs? Perhaps it was resold by someone else who pretended to be the manufacturer? Was the mark printed on the base by accident (this seems unlikely!) and subsequently covered up? Was it produced by the pottery during a period when it was unable to trade as Sampson Bridgwood and Son? I wish I knew!
Image: K .Bone.
In the nineteenth century, retailers and distributors of ceramics would sometimes stamp their own mark on the vessels they sold or exported, advertising their business and asserting their status as reputable merchants through their wares. We have a few examples of this from nineteenth century Christchurch businesses – not just on ceramics, but also on clay pipes. What’s unusual about these two pieces is that the marks refer to merchants based in Chile and Indonesia. Rogers Y Ca, or Rogers and Co., were an importing firm based out of Valparaiso, Chile from the 1880s, while Herman Salomonson was a Dutch merchant linked to the port of Semarang in what was then the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia. Neither of these were big trading ports for the import/export of domestic ceramics to New Zealand specifically, although they were part of the more general global trade network in which New Zealand (and the nineteenth century British empire) participated. How did these artefacts come to be in Christchurch? Were they picked up by a sailor or merchant at some point and eventually discarded in the city when broken or no longer wanted? Are they evidence of indirect trade with these two merchants or ports – items that were sold or distributed from Valparaiso or Semarang to somewhere else - London, maybe - to Christchurch? I have theories, but no certainties, unfortunately.
Image: J. Garland
Found underneath an 1880s house in Christchurch, this message in a bottle remains one of the most simultaneously exciting and disappointing artefacts I’ve ever worked with. The excitement was in the mystery of the artefact as it was found, with the message visible in the bottle but still unknown, not to mention the thrill of unrolling it when it had been extracted, knowing that we were reading words that had been hidden for more than a century. The disappointment was in the utter mundanity of the message, which simply states that the bottle had been put under the house on this day in this year by this person. No reason is given, there is no indication of who the culprits were in relation to the house (and no secrets to be revealed!). Maybe it was put there to commemorate something (but what!?), maybe it was put there out of sheer boredom. Who were these people? Why was it witnessed? Could it have been a hoax? I still have questions.
Image: J. Garland.
Not actually from Christchurch, this one. This book, which, despite its apparently salacious title, is actually a novel with temperance themes (the man trap is a pub, get it?), was found in the walls of a nineteenth century house in Ashburton. We know who wrote it, when it was published and even what the story was – I believe the text is freely available online if anyone wants to read it. What I’m still curious about, however, is how it came to be inside the wall of a house. We know people sometimes used paper as (very flammable) insulation, but if this book was meant to have the same purpose, it would likely have been found with many more books or pieces of paper than it was. Was it secreted away by someone whose tendency towards temperance was frowned up by other people in the house? Was it lost? Why, oh, why was the book in the wall.
Image: J. Garland
-Jessie