Randell Park - Flinders University · Randell Park A survey of the ... This project was carried out as part of the ARCH 8511 Directed Study in ... in this case the Mitcham Heritage

Randell Park

A survey of the history and

archaeological potential of Randell

Park, Mitcham, South Australia

Will Hocking

7th

of June 2010

This report has been produced as a part of the assessment for the

ARCH8511 Directed Study in Archaeology graduate topic in the

Department of Archaeology, Flinders University

Executive Summary

The aim of the project was to assess the archaeological of Randell Park in the suburb of Mitcham,

South Australia. Archaeological potential is the likelihood of a site containing features of an

archaeological nature. This project was carried out as part of the ARCH 8511 Directed Study in

Archaeology topic for the Flinders University of South Australia. It was carried out with the help and

guidance of Maggie Ragless and the Mitcham Heritage Research Centre.

The project contained two major components: archival research and primary resource analysis and

a fieldwork component. The archival research involved establishing a history of occupancy of the

land that is now Randell Park by following the transfers of certificates of title at the Land Services

Offices on Grenfell Street in Adelaide. It also involved researching the activites of Samuel Saunders,

who was an individual who operated a quarry out of the hillside within Randell Park. The fieldwork

was undertaken on the 11th

and the 12th

of May 2010, and involved conducting two transects of

areas that were systematically selected. When features were located during each transect, they

were flagged, and then photographed. Their GPS positions were also recorded, and this was later

turned into a map.

It was found that there has been a continuous European occupancy of the site since it was first

settled around 1854. It was also found that Samuel Saunders was a particularly active individual,

who worked all around the Adelaide area. He was also an active member of the Mitcham

community; delivering stone for local roads and acting as licensee to several local hotels. It was

Saunders who constructed the house known as Rockness Hill, which is located within Randell Park.

The fieldwork revealed that there is a considerable amount of archaeological potential, as there are

remnants of stone structures, old fruit trees and artefact scatters throughout the sites surveyed.

There is scope for further study, as it is not certain what two of the structures, located in the

Transect 2 grid, were used for. Furthermore, not a great deal is known about the Rockness Hill house

built by Saunders. Further archaeological investigation, whether it is geophysical analysis or

excavation, would prove to be beneficial with regards to finding out more about these structures.

Further archaeological investigation would be wise when also considering the threats posed to the

archaeological record, as recording the sites before they deteriorate further would maximise the

amount of information that could be gained from such analyses.

The sites identified in this project are a significant part Mitcham’s cultural heritage. They not only

have a historical significance, but, due to the individuals who occupied the area, also have a great

deal of social significance. Therefore, it is recommended that further study be undertaken so that we

can find out more about these sites and further flesh out the story of the suburb of Mitcham, and

Adelaide.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1

2.0 Literature Review......................................................................................................................4

2.1 History of Mitcham...........................................................................................................................4

2.2 History of Quarrying in Adelaide.......................................................................................................5

2.2.1 Working Conditions.......................................................................................................................6

2.3 Archaeological Potential Assessment...............................................................................................7

3.0 Methods....................................................................................................................................7

3.1 Historical/Archival Research.............................................................................................................7

3.2 Site Surveys.......................................................................................................................................8

4.0 Results......................................................................................................................................9

4.1 Occupation History of the Site..........................................................................................................9

4.2 Samuel Saunders............................................................................................................................11

4.3 Site surveys.....................................................................................................................................17

4.3.1 Transect 1....................................................................................................................................17

4.3.2 Transect 2....................................................................................................................................25

5.0 Discussion...............................................................................................................................40

5.1 Limitations of Research...................................................................................................................40

5.2 Significance.....................................................................................................................................40

6.0 Recommendations...................................................................................................................41

6.1 Further Research............................................................................................................................41

6.2 Threats............................................................................................................................................42

6.3 Management..................................................................................................................................42

7.0 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................43

References....................................................................................................................................44

Appendices

Table of Figures

Figure 1...................................................................................................................................................2

Figure 2...................................................................................................................................................3

Figure 3.................................................................................................................................................12

Figure 4.................................................................................................................................................14

Figure 5.................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 6.................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 7.................................................................................................................................................19

Figure 8.................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 9.................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 10...............................................................................................................................................21

Figure 11...............................................................................................................................................22

Figure 12...............................................................................................................................................22

Figure 13...............................................................................................................................................23

Figure 14...............................................................................................................................................23

Figure 15...............................................................................................................................................24

Figure 16...............................................................................................................................................24

Figure 17...............................................................................................................................................26

Figure 18...............................................................................................................................................26

Figure 19...............................................................................................................................................27

Figure 20...............................................................................................................................................27

Figure 21...............................................................................................................................................28

Figure 22...............................................................................................................................................28

Figure 23...............................................................................................................................................29

Figure 24...............................................................................................................................................29

Figure 25...............................................................................................................................................30

Figure 26...............................................................................................................................................30

Figure 27...............................................................................................................................................31

Figure 28...............................................................................................................................................31

Figure 29...............................................................................................................................................32

Figure 30...............................................................................................................................................32

Figure 31...............................................................................................................................................33

Figure 32...............................................................................................................................................33

Figure 33...............................................................................................................................................34

Figure 34...............................................................................................................................................34

Figure 35...............................................................................................................................................35

Figure 36...............................................................................................................................................35

Figure 37...............................................................................................................................................36

Figure 38...............................................................................................................................................37

Figure 39...............................................................................................................................................37

Figure 40...............................................................................................................................................38

Figure 41...............................................................................................................................................38

Figure 42...............................................................................................................................................39

Figure 43...............................................................................................................................................39

1

1.0 Introduction

The aim of this project is to investigate the Randell Park reserve by constructing a history of the area

and documenting the archaeological landscape in order to assess the archaeological potential of the

reserve. Archaeological potential is the likelihood of an area containing the remnants, above or

below the surface, of a site that had previously existed in that area. This project was carried out as

part of a Directed Study at Flinders University. Directed Studies are conducted in conjunction with an

Industry Partner, and allow students to focus on one area of study in order to develop a major piece

of work as well as producing information that is relevant outside the boundaries of the university.

Therefore, another important aim of this project is to carry out this analysis in association with an

industry partner, in this case the Mitcham Heritage Research Centre.

Randell Park is a reserve that is located in what is now the suburb of Mitcham, near the suburb of

Torrens Park in Adelaide, South Australia. It runs from Parkers Road and Anderson’s Avenue in the

west to Brownhill Creek Reserve in the east and from Old Belair Road and James Road in the south

to Weemala Drive and Mitcham Cemetery in the north. It is stretched across sections 247E, 1140

and 1141 of the original Hundred of Adelaide.

2

Figure 1. A satellite image of the study area at Randell Park (shown here as Torrens Park Reserve).

3

Figure 2. A map of Randell Park (highlighted in red) detailing the quarries and some of the older structures found in the

area (Courtesy of Mitcham Local History Servic and Heritage Research Centre 2004).

This study is focused on the western section of the Park, which is an area that gently slopes to the

west, and is dissected by an old creek. The slope of the land becomes greater in the eastern section

of the Park as you head up into the hills. A dirt road runs through the site, hugging the creek line,

eventually making its way up to the old Saunders Quarry. There are a number of disused quarries in

the reserve; including Saunders and Sugar Loaf Hill. There are also some notable indigenous

vegetation, including Grey Box, Drooping Sheoak and Golden Wattle. The eastern section of the

Park, along with being much steeper, is more heavily forested than the western section. The native

4

species in the western section are also interspersed with old almond trees (Mitcham Heritage

Research Centre 2004: 1).

The help and guidance of Maggie Ragless and the rest of the staff at the Mitcham Heritage and

Research Centre must be acknowledged, as it has proved to be extremely helpful.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 History of Mitcham

There are numerous publications regarding the history of the Mitcham area since colonisation

(Norman 1954; Aeuckens 1989; Preiss and Oborn 1991; Smith, Pate and Martin 2006), and all of

them do a satisfactory job of outlining how the area was settled by Europeans and where they

settled first within the Mitcham region. However, some (Norman 1954; Aeuckens 1989) do not go

into quite as much detail as the others, and are focussed on detailing a more general history of the

Mitcham area. One publication (Norman 1954) seems to be a little outdated, and there are some

sections where the author appears to include information which he then goes on to regard as

possibly false. This does not mean that they are not as useful, though, as they still contain

information that is relevant and helpful in guiding you in the correct direction.

The other publications mentioned above (Preiss and Oborn 1991; Smith, Pate and Martin 2006) are

more focused on detailing the history of a particular area. This means that the research in these

publications appear to be more thorough, particularly in Preiss and Oborn. This publication focuses

on the social and physical history as well as the architecture of the Torrens Park Estate, which is in

close proximity to the study area. This smaller focus area of research means that the authors can go

into much greater detail with respect to the research. This is useful, as it does not generalise or omit

pieces of information that have the potential to be very useful. It must also be pointed out that the

publication is a social history of the area, so it goes into great detail describing the people who lived

5

in and around the Torrens Park Estate; this is important, because it details inter-personal

relationships in the area which helps comprehend data such a title histories and it also draws you in

to the text on an emotional level.

This quality is shared by Smith, Pate and Martin’s 2006 publication Valleys of Stone. This book does

not just outline the history of the Adelaide Hills Face Zone, but details such things as working

conditions within the quarries and the construction of the railways through the Adelaide Hills.

Another favourable attribute that this publication has is that each chapter in the book was written

by a different author or different group of authors. This strengthens the usefulness as well as the

credibility of the book, as each chapter is authored by someone who specialises in that particular

field of research.

2.2 History of Quarrying in Adelaide

Norman’s History of the City of Mitcham does outline the importance of the quarrying industry in

the development of not only Mitcham, but of Adelaide in general. However, it does not go into much

detail in that it provides only a brief history of some of the larger quarries in the Mitcham area.

Annely Aeuckens’ More About Mitcham does not even discuss the quarrying industry.

Most of the information regarding the quarrying industry in Mitcham and in Adelaide was found in

Smith, Pate and Martin’s Valleys of Stone, and Christine Bender’s 2004 Honours thesis entitled Rock

of Ages Stonyfell Quarry. These publications also provided a methodological and theoretical

guideline for the study. Chapter Two of Valleys of Stone, entitled ‘Quarries and quarrymen of the

foothills’, described the working conditions experienced by the labourers of the quarries, which is an

important aspect to acknowledge because it weighed so heavily on the lives of the labourers.

Another attribute of this chapter which was helpful in the planning and undertaking of the study was

the chapter’s layout. For each quarry site discussed, the authors outlined the sites history, the

6

method of operation to remove the stone at each site and then examined the sites archaeological

landscape.

Quarrying was a crucial industry for the establishment of European settlements throughout Australia

during the nineteenth century. The stone was initially used for buildings, walls, culverts, kerbing and

road guttering, however, it was later crushed and used as metal for roads and as ballast for tram and

rail lines. In 1843, there were four stone quarries operating in South Australia, but by 1867, this

number had increased to 140 (Bender and Piddock 2006: 30).

2.2.1 Working Conditions

Quarrying was a dangerous occupation, especially for powder monkeys and their assistants whose

job it was to lower themselves down the rock face in order to bore holes in the rock for blasting.

Workers also risked injury from rock fall due to a blast or water infiltrating and loosening the rock

face after rains (Bender and Piddock 2006: 33). Workers also risked contracting silicosis, a disease

caused by the inhalation of dust particles from the rock crushing process. The inhaled particles of

silica scar the lungs and reduce the lungs elasticity, making breathing laboured; the constant

shortness of breath weakened the lungs, making them less resistant to respiratory diseases like

bronchitis or tuberculosis (Bender and Piddock 2006: 34).

In 1849, a migrant worker employed in the quarry industry was said to earn between twenty one

and thirty shillings per week; however, by 1851 there were about 1,500 men unemployed in

Adelaide. This unemployment issue was relieved as workers were drawn east towards the Victorian

goldfields. This shortage of workers resulted in a higher demand for labour and drove wages up;

labourers in 1853 were earning nine shillings a day, which was twice as much as what they were

payed in 1851 (Bender and Piddock 2006: 35-36).

7

2.3 Archaeological Potential Assessment

There was a significance assessment taken out on Saunders’ Quarry by the Mitcham Council in 1999.

Out of a rating of one to four with one being none and four being highly significant, it was rated as a

three or significant based on the fact that the quarry was an early one and that Saunders was a

builder of note (Mitcham Council 1999).

Shane Lyon’s 2005 Masters Thesis entitled The Lighthouses of Kangaroo Island: A survey of the

archaeological potential on historic lighthouse sites was consulted when developing the

methodology for the fieldwork undertaken in this study. In Lyon’s methodology, he stated that sites

were systematically selected before field walking was undertaken in search of cultural material

remains (2005: 16), but it was not explicitly verified how these walks were undertaken. The nature of

Lyon’s research was similar to this study, in that the aims were relatively similar and the fieldwork

was undertaken by one person; however, there was a difference in that the area covered for this

study was a lot smaller. Nevertheless, because of the similarity between the two studies, Lyon’s

publication proved to be very helpful in constructing a fieldwork methodology for this project.

3.0 Methods

This study involved several tasks:

- Historical/Archival Research

- Site Surveys

3.1 Historical/Archival Research

Publications relating to the history of the Mitcham area were consulted first; these books were

found at the Flinders University Library and the Barr Smith Library. The collection held at the

Mitcham Heritage Research Centre was also consulted. The nature of the subject of the study meant

8

that there was not a great deal of information explicitly regarding Randell Park and Samuel

Saunders.

To establish a detailed occupational history of Randell Park, the Land Services Offices on Grenfell

Street in the city of Adelaide were consulted. Prior to this though, the Old System offices were

consulted and a Certificate of Title volume and folio number was found for section 1140. Certificate

of Title numbers for the other sections that make up the Randell Park area today were found at the

Mitcham Heritage and Research Centre. From here it was possible to follow the transfer of titles

from the original Certificate of Title numbers up until the present, and to therefore establish an

occupational history of the Randell Park area.

The next task was to find out where the stone from Samuel Saunders’ quarry went to while he was

operating it. It had been stated in the literature that Saunders did some contractual work for the

Central Roads Board, so the State Archives were consulted. Press clippings published in newspapers

detailing the meetings and activities of the Board were viewed. These clippings displayed successful

tender applications, and included the work that the tenders involved, where the work was located

and who the successful contractors were. The press clippings from 1859 to 1885 were consulted,

and for each tender application where Saunders was the successful contractor, the details of the

work were recorded.

Another resource consulted to detail the work that Saunders did were the Mitcham Council Cash

Books. These accounts books displayed how much was paid to each contractor, as well as the

location of the work. Volumes 1-3 of these accounts were consulted; these books had a date range

from 1867 up until 1885.

3.2 Site Surveys

It was possible to make the methodology of this study more systematic than Lyon’s by conducting

transects of systematically selected areas of the Randell Park site. The site surveys of Randell Park

9

involved transects of two areas within the Park. These two areas were systematically selected based

upon archival photographs, and old maps of the area.

For Transect 1, a 50x40m grid was set up. Bearings were taken along each of the grid boundaries,

and GPS coordinates (GDA 94 datum) were taken at each corner of the grid. Transects of the site

were walked at two metre intervals, and when any material cultural remains were intercepted, they

were marked by a flag. This was repeated until the whole grid had been covered.

Next, photographs were taken of each cultural feature that had been marked by a flag. The GPS

coordinates (GDA 94 datum) were also taken at each feature and recorded onto a photographic

proforma, along with exposure number and the contextual information of the feature.

Another difference between Lyon’s project and this project was the mapping of the sites. Given the

tighter time constraints for this project, GPS locations were taken at each feature along with

photographs of each feature, as opposed to Lyon’s method of mud maps using compass bearings

and baseline offset surveys (2005: 16).

The same method outlined above was used for Transect 2; however, the grid for this transect was

larger, measuring 50x110m.

4.0 Results

4.1 Occupation History of the Site

The land that is now known as Randell Park is comprised of Sections 1140, 247E and Allotment 118

of Section 1141 of the original Hundred of Adelaide. These sections of land were originally granted

to Alfred Watts (Section 247), John Grainger (Section 1140) and John Grainger the Younger (Section

1141) on the 20th

of August 1849 by Sir Henry Edward Fox Young, Lieutenant Governor of the

Province of South Australia.

10

Section 1140, which was comprised of eighty two acres of land, was purchased from John Grainger

by Charles Anderson and Samuel Saunders for £1,085 on the 5th

of July 1854. Anderson and

Saunders became partners in a quarrying business until 1857, when Anderson and Saunders decided

to split their operation. Anderson took forty four acres in a steep gully on the eastern side of the

section, while Saunders retained the remaining thirty eight acres of land which ran down the

western side of the section to the boundary of the West Mitcham subdivision (Preiss and Oborn

1991: 564). Upon Saunders’ death on the 1st

of March 1885, the title was transferred to John

Waterman and George Lindsay Cooper, who were named as executors in Saunders’ will dated the

30th

of March 1875. This land was transferred by Waterman and Cooper to George Doolette on the

21st

of July 1890. John Maslin then bought the land from Doolette on the 30th

of November 1899

before transferring title to himself and Jane Scott on the 14th

of December 1900. The land was then

sold to Edith Emily Trenoweth on the 14th

of August 1901, who married Oliver Flavel on the 28th

of

October 1909, and subsequently changed the title to include Oliver on the 8th

of February 1912. On

the 6th

of July 1923, Edith and Oliver Flavel sold the land to Lucy Anderson, wife of Alfred Anderson

who was the grandson of Charles Anderson. Lucy Anderson then sold the land to Quarries Limited on

the 15th

March 1946. Quarries Limited changed their name to Glen Osmond Quarries Limited on the

22nd

of April 1948, before selling off a portion of land to Thomas and Marjorie Steel on the 23rd

of

August 1957. This portion of land was then sold to Geoffrey and Jean Dixon on the 4th

of December

1959; Jean Dixon passed away on the 16th

of February 1971. Glen Osmond Quarries Limited sold a

portion of the land to the Electricity Trust of South Australia. The remaining land then came under

the Crown on the 23rd

of March 1962 before being acquired by the Corporation of the City of

Mitcham on the 23rd

of February 1973.

Section 247E, a piece of land comprising nineteen acres and thirty seven perches, was purchased by

Samuel Saunders on the 29th

of April 1865 from Robert Barr Smith. Saunders operated another

quarry out of the northern section of this area. On the 22nd

of April 1882, Saunders sold off an eight

acre piece of this land to John Prince the Younger. This piece of land went through a number of

11

owner’s hands until it was purchased in 1940 by Charles Norton and his wife, who built their home

Bryn Athyn on the hillside above the quarry (Preiss and Oborn 1991: 564).

On the 26th

of August 1857, Saunders purchased allotment 118 of Section 1141 from Henry Mildred

Esquire for £10. On the 16th

of August 1883, Saunders sold a portion of the land within allotment 118

to his son-in-law Nathan Horner, who on the 22nd

March 1886, transferred title to his wife Mary

Anne Horner. On the 4th

October 1886, Mary Anne Horner sold the land to George and Elizabeth

Taylor, who then sold it on to Oliver Flavel on the 2nd

of June 1915. Flavel sold the land to the

aforementioned Lucy Anderson on the 6th

of July 1923, who then sold it to Quarries Limited on the

15th

of March 1946. On the 23rd

of February 1973, the land was acquired from Glen Osmond

Quarries and vested in the Corporation of the City of Mitcham.

4.2 Samuel Saunders

Samuel Saunders arrived in South Australia with his wife Harriet in 1850 aboard the Stag(Preiss and

Oborn 1991: 564). A marriage registration shows that his age in 1874 was 50, so he was probably

born some time in 1823 or 1824 (SAGHS 2010). As mentioned above, he went into business with

Charles Anderson, quarrying, in 1854. It was also in this year that he built his house, Rockness Hill. It

was built out of bluestone, and supposedly had five rooms (Preiss and Oborn 1991: 564). In an 1859

mortgage payment, Saunders signed his name with an X, so he was most probably illiterate.

However, a later mortgage payment dating from 1873 stated that Saunders could now sign his own

name.

12

Figure 3. Rockness Hill during the 1910s. Oliver Flavel, a later owner of the home, is standing on the veranda (Image

courtesy of the Mitcham Heritage Research Centre).

According to Preiss and Oborn, Samuel and Harriet had four children, one of whom (Mary Anne)

married Nathan Horner (1991: 564). However, the South Australian Births 1842-1906 records show

that of the four children that Samuel and Harriet had, there was no child called Mary Anne (SAGHS

2010). The records do show the following births: Harriot Saunders born on the 1st of January 1855;

Henry James Saunders born 17th

of February 1858; Elizabeth Saunders born 22nd

of March 1863;

Samuel Saunders born 30th

of April 1867. Preiss and Oborn say that the wedding of Mary Anne

Saunders and Nathan Horner took place in 1865 (1991: 564), so it is probable that Mary Anne was

born before the Saunders’ arrival in South Australia, which then would explain her absence from the

South Australian birth records. Therefore, it appears that Samuel and Harriet had five children,

instead of four.

13

Consultation with the South Australian Marriages, Registrations 1842-1916 shows that Samuel

Saunders married a second time. On the 5th

of July 1874, Saunders (aged 50) married Ellen Baker

(aged 33) the daughter of Job Baker.

As a contractor, Saunders did work around Mitcham and the greater Adelaide including contractual

work with the Central Roads Board. In 1859, Saunders began several contracts for the Central Roads

Board that included cutting road and building bridges and culverts at Bull’s Creek for the eastern

branch of South Road.

In 1861, took on a contract to cut and metal approximately two and a half miles of road between

Nairne and Scott’s Creek. This work progressed slowly due to the inclemency of the weather and

Saunders was forced to write to the Central Roads Board and request an extension on the contract,

to which they obliged.

In 1862, Saunders and another contractor named John Prince the Younger accepted a contact for

forming and metalling around forty chains of road opposite section 402 of the Hundred of Adelaide,

between Freeling and Nain. This work too progressed slowly due to rains, with Saunders and Prince

requesting a one month extension on the work. This request was not accepted by the Board, but the

Board did state that if the time did run out, a re-application would be looked on favourably. 1862

also saw Saunders and Prince accept two other contracts for metalling the newly cut road at

Mitcham Hill and for repairs between Belair and Coromandel Valley.

In 1863, Saunders took on a contract for cutting and embanking a portion of the Bull’s Creek Road

between Belair and the foot of Mitcham Hill, along with constructing culverts and retaining walls.

Saunders also sold 300 yards of surplus stone to the Central Roads Board.

In 1864, Saunders accepted contracts for cutting and metalling approximately fifty five chains of

road at Mitcham Hill; making about seven chains of road on the northern side of the new bridge over

the Bremer River in section 1275 Hundred of Strathalbyn; making a deviation in the South East Road

14

at Glen Osmond Gully and for fencing approximately 1,320 rods of road and metalling about 106

chains of road along with cutting and metalling eight chains of the road between Lower Mitcham

and Belair. Saunders also took on a contract embanking Piggott’s Hill near Clarendon.

In 1865, Saunders accepted contracts for building the abutments and wing walls for a bridge over

the Bremer River near Callington and for cutting, forming and metalling with four inch stone about

seventy chains of the Bull’s Creek Road in sections 1089, 1040, 1200, 863 and 862 in the Hundred of

Adelaide and for forming and metalling about fifty chains of the Bull’s Creek Road between the then

already metalled road at the top of Shepley’s Hill and the end of the tableland road at section 1040

in the Hundred of Adelaide.

After Nathan Horner’s marriage to Saunders’ daughter Mary Anne in 1865, Horner and Saunders

became joint contractors and constructed many bridges for the Central Road Board and for district

councils, chiefly in the Mount Barker, Reynella and Coromandel Valley areas. Of particular note is

Horner’s Bridge built over the Sturt River at Coromandel Valley, which was built in 1866 as a part of

the main route between Adelaide and Goolwa and named after Nathan (Preiss and Oborn 1991:

564).

Figure 4. A sketch of Horner’s Bridge at Coromandel Valley by Michael O’Shea (1979).

15

A report from 1865 presented to the Central Roads Board by a Mr Hargrave with respect to

Saunders’ work at Piggott’s Hill offers a glimpse of the nature of Saunders’ line of work:

“As regards the cause of delay in the completion of Mr Saunders’ contract at

Piggott’s Hill, I have the honour to report as follows, in accordance with minute

No. 5080: - The contract was signed on the 28th

of December, 1864, but the

contractor did not commence work until the 13th

of January following, after which

date he had usually 15 or 16 men, being about as many as he had room for and

three horses and four dobbins in the large cutting. The preparation of the metal,

some masons work, and the forming, & e., of the upper portion of the contract

was being carried on at the same time as the cutting, when the latter received a

check be a seam of rock nearly a chain through being met with, and this having to

be blasted out delayed the work considerably.

Early in May the rains began to retard operations, the heavy rainfall of the 8th

of

the next month saturating the high embankment at the Clarendon end of the

contract; upon which the contractor asked for an extension of time of one month,

which, for the stability of the work, I agreed to recommend the Boards to grant.

The contractor has not been at work for more than three weeks since May, on

account of the rains and consequent state of the embankments. About three-

fourths of the whole work has been up to the present satisfactorily carried out, but

the contract time expired on the 26th

of May. To recapitulate, the causes of the

delay are: - Allowing three weeks to elapse before commencing the work, meeting

with rock, and from these causes being thrown into the winter.”

16

In 1870, Saunders took on two contracts for the Central Roads Board for cutting road and building a

culvert at McHarg’s Creek at Lower Meadows on the Willunga Road, and metalling road at Piggott’s

Hill for the southern branch of Bull’s Creek Road.

In 1871, Saunders accepted two contracts for the Board. One for providing and carting 1,000 yards

of metal for repairs of the road between Green Dragon and the 4th

Mile Post, the other for providing

and carting 1,200 yards of metal to the corner of South and West Terrace for the Glenelg Road.

It must be noted that Central Roads Board press clippings after 1875 fail to explicitly reveal who

were the successful applicants for each tender advertised. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained

whether Saunders was still accepting contracts for the Board after the last mention of his name in

1871.

Apart from his work with the Central Roads Board, Saunders also supplied stone for other roads

around the Mitcham area. In 1868, he supplied stone to West Mitcham; in 1871, he supplied stone

to Springbank and Daws Roads, West Mitcham, Blythewood Road, Fullarton Road, Lower Mitcham,

Mitcham Proper, Brownhill Creek and Torrens Arms Road; in 1972, he supplied stone to Mitcham

Proper, Blythewood Road, West Mitcham, O.G and Bay Roads, Lower Mitcham, Torrens Arms Road;

in 1873, he supplied stone to Blythewood Road and Coromandel Ward; in 1874, supplied stone to

West Mitcham; in 1876, he supplied stone to Mitcham and West Mitcham; in 1877, he supplied

stone to Mitcham and West Mitcham; in 1878, he supplied stone to Blythewood Road, South Road

and West Mitcham; in 1879, he supplied stone to Blythewood Road, Mitcham Village, Fullarton Road

and the Government Farm Roads; in 1880, he supplied stone to Lower Mitcham, Mitcham Village,

Blythewood Road and West Mitcham; in 1881, he supplied stone to Springbank and Daws Roads,

Mitcham Ward and Goodwood Ward; in 1882, he supplied stone to Mitcham Ward; in 1883, he

supplied stone to Mitcham Ward and Goodwood; in 1884, he supplied stone to Mitcham Ward and

Goodwood.

17

Norman stated that it may be entirely possible that the Saunders identified as the hotel licensee was

in fact the same Saunders who was the contractor (1954: 245). From the 2nd

of April 1863 to the 27th

of March 1867, Saunders was the licensee of the Blythewood Inn in Mitcham (Hoad 1986: 56). From

1858 to 1859, and again from the 12th

of December 1870 until the 13th

of September 1874, Saunders

was the licensee at the Torrens Arms (Hoad 1986: 628). Saunders was also a licensee at the

Hawkestone Arms in Lower Mitcham in 1858 (Hoad 1986: 284). Consultation with the South

Australian Directory for Mitcham shows that Saunders was included in the directory in 1864 as the

licensee for the Blythewood Inn, and later on as a contractor.

4.3 Site Surveys

The fieldwork component of this project was undertaken between the 11th

and the 12th

of May 2010.

A map of the locations of the features recorded during Transect 1 and 2 is supplied as Appendix 1.

The photographic proforma detailing the co-ordinates of each feature is supplied as Appendix 2.

4.3.1 Transect 1 (Rockness Hill)

This transect was conducted over the ruins of Saunders’ house which was known as ‘Rockness Hill’

on the 11th

of May 2010. The features identified during Transect 1 were categorised as being

biological, artefact or structural remains.

Biological Remains

Biological or Floral remains were categorised as being introduced species of tree, which could

indicate European settlement in the area. Located in the eastern section of the grid were old almond

trees which appeared to be arranged in rows running east-west. There were also a number of

introduced species of tree located around the platform area where the house used to stand. One

tree in particular can be seen in a photograph of the house dating back to 1910.

18

Figure 5. Almond trees on the western most side of Transect 1 (Exposure 1 Transect 1).

Figure 6. Almond trees on the western most side of Transect 1 (Exposure 2 Transect 1).

19

Figure 7. A view looking east, up to where Rockness Hill once stood (Exposure 22 Transect 1).

Artefact Remains

These features were categorised as being objects that show obvious signs of being modified or

manufactured by humans. Objects like pottery or ceramics, glass, plastic and metallic objects were

included in this category. There was not an abundance of artefacts located in this transect, but there

were sheets of tin and some ceramic objects recorded.

20

Figures 8 and 9. A sheet of tin along with a fragment of shaped stone (above) and a fragment of green ceramic found

amongst some stone fragments (below) (Exposures 7 & 19 Transect 1).

21

Structural Remains

Structural remains were categorised as being associated with or part of the structure of old buildings

or other structures. However, for the ease of interpretation, it was decided that any features

identified which were made from stone or were in fact stone themselves were included in this

category. There was an abundance of structural remains located at the Transect 1 site. Not only

were there stone scatters spread throughout the site, but there were also remnants of old walls and

on the western side of the transect grid there was a circular structure that appears to have been

some kind of well or pit.

Figure 10. A stone scatter (Exposure 6 Transect 1).

22

Figure 11. An arrangement of stone creating a border or an edge (Exposure 8 Transect 1).

Figure 12. A section of stone wall facing west (Exposure 10 Transect 1).

23

Figure 13. A corner section of stone (Exposure 12 Transect 1).

Figure 14. A section of stone wall on the southern side of where Rockness Hill used to stand (Exposure 14 Transect 1).

24

Figure 15. The stone pit/well, characterised by the stone rim located to the right of the range pole and north arrow

Exposure 18 Transect 1).

Figure 16. A red brick scatter (Exposure 20 Transect 1).

25

4.3.2 Transect 2 (Parkers Road)

This transect was conducted in the south west of Randell Park, along Parkers Road on the 12th

of

May 2010. It was selected due to two building being identified there in historic maps of the area.

Again, the features identified during Transect 2 of this area will be categorised into biological,

artefact and structural remains.

Biological Remains

Similar to the eastern section of the first transect grid, there were a number of old almond trees

found in this area.

Artefact Remains

There was a greater abundance of artefacts found in this area compared to the area surveyed during

transect 1. Ceramic and pottery objects identified included earthen ware shards and scatters, a

terracotta shard and a porcelain scatter. Glass objects included individual glass shards, glass shard

scatters, bottle bases and a glass bottle stopper. Plastic object found included a plastic button and a

plastic bottle stopper. Metallic objects identified included metal straps and brackets, a pair of metal

rod ends for curtain rods or fence rails, a horse shoe and other metallic objects that could not be

properly identified.

26

Figure 17. A white ceramic shard (Exposure 5 Transect 2).

Figure 18. A terracotta shard (Exposure 7 Transect 2).

27

Figure 19. A white ceramic shard (Exposure 16 Transect 2).

Figure 20. A white earthenware ceramic shard (Exposure 21 Transect 2).

28

Figure 21. A blue and white painted ceramic shard (Exposure 40 Transect 2).

Figure 22. A white porcelain scatter (Exposure 36 Transect 2).

29

Figure 23. A green coloured shard of moulded glass with an indeterminate embossed motif (Exposure 14 Transect 2).

Figure 24. A clear coloured glass fragment, probably a bottle base (Exposure 18 Transect 2).

30

Figure 25. A shard of green coloured glass (Exposure 19 Transect 2).

Figure 26. A light green coloured glass stopper (Exposure 20 Transect 2).

31

Figure 27. An aqua coloured glass shard with embossed leaf and fruit motif (Exposure 27 Transect 2).

Figure 28. A clear shard of pressed glass (Exposure 32 Transect 2).

32

Figure 29. A clear shard of glass (now iridescent)(Exposure 33 Transect 2).

Figure 30. A piece of partly submerged iron (Exposure 12 Transect 2).

33

Figure 31. A indeterminate piece of iron (Exposure 17 Transect 2).

Figure 32. An iron bracket (Exposure 24 Transect 2).

34

Figure 33. A pair of cast iron ‘rod ends’ (Exposure 30 Transect 2).

Figure 34. A sheet of partly submerged tin and a buckle like piece of indeterminate metal (Exposure 34 Transect 2).

35

Figure 35. An iron horse shoe (Exposure 38 Transect 2).

Figure 36. A plastic button with a mother-of-pearl finish (Exposure 29 Transect 2).

36

Figure 37. A dark grey plastic bottle stopper with threads (Exposure 37 Transect 2).

Structural Remains

The structural remains found during Transect 2 included red brick scatters, collapsed brick walls,

stone scatters and remnants of stone walls. These features were located in two distinct areas of the

site.

37

Figure 38. A red brick scatter (Exposure 3 Transect 2).

Figure 39. A stone and red brick scatter (Exposure 9 Transect 2).

38

Figure 40. Remnants of a bluestone structure (Structure 1) (Exposure 11 Transect 2).

Figure 41. A stone scatter resembling a pathway (Exposure 23 Transect 2).

39

Figure 42. A collapsed section of brick work (Exposure 25 Transect 2).

Figure 43. A view facing east showing the collapsed brick work from Figure 38 in the middle of the frame (Structure 2)

(Exposure 26 Transect 2).

40

5.0 Discussion

5.1 Limitations of Research

Archival Research

Archival research is time consuming, and because of the time constraints of the project, not all of

the potential leads could be followed up with regard to the archival research. Therefore, only a

relatively small amount of the information could be gathered and it must be made clear that the

information presented in this report is not the only information regarding either Randell Park or

Samuel Saunders to be found and there is scope for further research.

Fieldwork

There are also a number of limitations regarding the fieldwork conducted. Only two areas of Randell

Park were surveyed, so the results presented here do not account for the entire Park, but just the

two areas defined above. There was another limitation identified with the fieldwork, which was the

fact that there was a heavy layer of clover covering the ground at the time, which heavily obstructed

the view of the ground and therefore obstructed the view of the material cultural features. It is

therefore possible that many of the features present at the two sites were not recorded, as they

could not be seen during transects. This identifies another limitation with the fieldwork, that being

the potential for subsurface archaeological activity. Geophysical surveys were ruled out for this

project because of time constraints and a lack of interpretive know-how, but there is definitely scope

in the future for a geophysical survey of both areas included in the transect.

5.2 Significance

It was stated by Preiss and Oborn that Saunders built his house ‘Rockness Hill’ sometime in 1854,

which makes it one of the older houses in the Mitcham area (1991: 564). In addition to the houses

age, it must be taken into account that the remains of the house and the area in general have a great

41

deal of social significance, in that it was built by Samuel Saunders, who was an incredibly active

member of the local community during its infancy. The area also sets itself apart from the

surrounding neighbourhood by being an open stretch of undeveloped and uncultivated land that is

still very much within the metropolitan area of Adelaide, and with Adelaide’s rapid expansion, this

fact will grow in significance over time.

6.0 Recommendations

6.1 Further Research

Further research regarding Randell Park and the two areas covered by the two transects is indeed a

possibility. Despite the presence of photographs of ‘Rockness Hill’, not a lot is known of the house

apart from the literature telling us that it was built out of bluestone and had five rooms (Preiss and

Oborn 1991: 564). One recommendation for the area of Transect 1 and especially for the area where

Rockness Hill used to stand is a geophysical investigation. An investigation of this nature would

hopefully reveal, without too much disturbance to the site, if there are any foundations that are still

present below the surface. If the dimensions of the foundations can be ascertained, then it may be

possible to determine the dimensions of the original structure.

Furthermore, not a lot is known about the two structures identified in the transect grid near Parkers

Road. A neighbouring land owner stated that the structures were the remnants of a dairy, operated

by local farmers who grazed their cattle on the western most parts of the park. This is doubtful, as

the structures appear to be too small, and there are no signs of dairy activity such as cooling gutters

around the perimeter of the structures and stoneware artefacts. The map on the back of the Randell

Park information brochure prepared by the Mitcham Local History Service and Heritage Research

Centre does display two structures in the area of Transect 2 and labels them as ‘Cottage Ruins’(2004:

3). Moreover, the artefact remains do not hint at the structures being used as a dairy. The artefact

scatters are predominantly glass and ceramics, not the more robust stoneware.

42

An archaeological excavation is definitely a possible way of finding out more about both ‘Rockness

Hill’ in Transect 1 and the two unidentified structures identified in Transect 2. Another benefit of

excavating at these sites is that they are subject to a number of threats, and the more information

that can be ascertained about both areas now, the better. It would also be an effective way of

getting the community to interact with their own heritage, and would prove popular going by the

amount of interest shown by the owners of the neighbouring properties during the fieldwork

component of this study. Recording oral histories is also another recommendation, as local resident

may have valuable information regarding the history of Randell Park.

6.2 Threats

As the areas of Transects 1 and 2 are located on council and public property, there are a number of

threats to the archaeological record of Randell Park. The park is a popular recreational area, and it

has a number of walking and mountain bike trails running throughout it. This poses as a potential

threat to exposed features, as they may be knowingly or unknowingly disturbed or removed by the

patrons of the park. There is also vehicle access into the park, which may also pose as a significant

threat to the archaeological record. The western area of Randell Park, the focus of this study, is

bounded by a number of residential properties. There is evidence that the area of Transect 2 has

been used as a play area for some of the local children, due to the presence of wooden pallets that

have been arranged to form some kind of cubby house. The nature of the park as an area free for

the public to use also possesses the threat of archaeological contamination, especially for the

surface artefacts found throughout the area of Transect 2.

6.3 Management

Interpretive signage is the only management recommendation. It would vastly improve the amount

of information the patrons of the park would gain regarding the area’s history, as there are no

interpretive signs currently present at the park. It is the only management recommendation as the

43

conditions of the structures found in Transects 1 and 2 have suffered over time and are heavily

deteriorated. The structural features are so heavily deteriorated that measure taken to preserve or

restore them would prove to be a costly and futile. It is because of the deteriorated state of the

structures that an investigation of that nature would be a rather wise idea.

7.0 Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that Randell Park has been continuously occupied by Europeans for the

majority of the past 160 years. Of its many residents and owners, Samuel Saunders is of particular

note, having completed many projects for the Central Roads Board while also being an active

member of the Mitcham community by supplying stone for roads and being a licensee at several

local hotels. It is this extensive history of European occupation combined with the social aspect of it

past residents that makes Randell Park a significant site within the Mitcham area.

The fieldwork has shown that there is a considerable amount of archaeological activity within

Randell Park, even though the conditions of the old structures identified during the survey are

deteriorating. As the site is used a public recreation area, it is subject to more threats than would be

normally subjected to a private property. The only management consideration recommended is the

introduction of interpretive signs to the site, as they will alert the patrons of the park as to the

history and the significance of the area, while also deterring them from the more susceptible

archaeological features.

Unfortunately, there is still not a great deal of information regarding the two structures identified in

Transect 2; however, this gives all the more reason to suggest a more thorough archaeological

investigation by undertaken compared to the investigation conducted for this project. This will

involve either a geophysical analysis, an excavation of the structures and recording oral histories of

local residents, or a combination of all three.

44

References

Aeuckens, A 1989 More About Mitcham. Torrens Park, South Australia.

Bender, C 2004 Rock of Ages Stonyfell Quarry: An archaeological investigation into Stonyfell Quarry’s

contribution to a changing South Australian landscape. Adelaide: School of Humanities, Flinders

University of South Australia.

Bender, C. and S. Piddock 2006 Quarries and Quarrymen of the foothills. In P. Smith, D. Pate and R.

Smith (eds), Valleys of Stone, pp.29-55. Kopi Books, Belair, South Australia.

Hoad, J. L 1986 Hotels and Publicans in South Australia 1836-1984. Australian Hotels Association

(South Australian Branch) and Gould Books, Adelaide.

Lyons, S. P. 2005 The Lighthouses of Kangaroo Island: A survey of the archaeological potential on

historic lighthouse sites. Adelaide: Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South

Australia.

Mitcham Council 1999 Quarries. The City of Mitcham.

Mitcham Heritage Research Centre 2004 Randell Park (pamphlet). Mitcham Local History Service and

Heritage Research Centre.

Norman, W. A 1954 The History of the City of Mitcham. The Corporation of the City of Mitcham.

O’Shea, M. 1979 Old Coromandel. Investigator Press. Hawthorndene, South Australia.

Preiss, K. and P. Oborn 1991 The Torrens Park Estate: A Social and Architectural History. Published by

the authors. Printed by Gillingham Printers Pty Ltd, Underdale, South Australia.

SAGHS South Australian Births 1842-1906. Accessed through Digger on the 5th

of April 2010.

SAGHS South Australian Marriages, Registrations 1842-1916. Accessed through Digger on the 5th

of

April 2010.

45