Piddock, S (2011) To Each a Space: Class, Classification and Gender in Colonial South Australian...

89

Susan Piddock

To Each a Space: Class, Classification, and Gender in Colonial South Australian Institutions

ABSTRACT

In South Australia government authorities in a fledging colony were required to build institutions to care for the poor and the pauper insane, and they drew on designs from England, where workhouses and county asylums were being built in response to new laws. From a simple glance at the plans of the Destitute Asylum, which was built to house the deserving poor, and of the Adelaide and Parkside Lunatic asylums, it would appear that gender divisions dominated life in these institutions. A study of the material culture of the asylums, however, indicates a complex range of factors was, in fact, informing the experience of the asylum for the inmates. Gender, classification, social class, and the organizational purpose of the particular institution were all to play a role in determining the access to and use of the space and rooms of the asylums.

Introduction

In 1995 Lu Ann De Cunzo was one of the first historical archaeologists to offer a new view of institutional archaeology with her work centered on the Magdalen Asylum of Philadelphia (De Cunzo 1995). De Cunzo showed the value of archaeological analysis in exploring the world of the Magdalen Asylum. Since then other historical archaeologists have gone on to widen the field of institutional archaeology and explore in depth a range of topics including, that most difficult of issues, methodology (Piddock 1996, 2001, 2003, 2007; De Cunzo 2006; Beisaw and Gibb 2009).

Following on from the work begun by De Cunzo, who recreated the material world of the asylum and explored how this material world was used to serve the purposes of the Magdalen Society, this article will look at the role of clas-sification, gender, and social class in the lives of patients in colonial South Australian institu-tions. The gender aspect of the research draws on what Spencer-Wood (2007:76) has called the

third wave of postmodern feminist theory and gender research, which sees gender as a diverse, complex, fluid performance in which class and social dimensions intersect with gender identities and roles.

In the institutions discussed here gender and class roles are determined by the white, middle- and elite-class men who were given charge of the Destitute Asylum, and the white, professional male resident medical officers and official visitors who controlled life within the lunatic asylums. It was these people who would make the decisions about the class and nature of the inmates and the gender roles they fulfilled within these institutions. They sought to organize the inmates along moral and class lines, and to provide work and recre-ations suitable for them based on these judgments.

Both the Destitute Asylum and the two lunatic asylums were constructed with the poor in mind, although the lunatic asylums would admit those of a “higher” class. The Destitute Asylum was to be the means by which the deserving and undeserving poor would be separated, while the lunatic asylums provided both a place of custody and cure for those afflicted with insanity. Both institutions followed the English practices of the institutionalization of groups that presented prob-lems within society (Scull 1979; Driver 1993).

The Adelaide Lunatic Asylum was demolished in 1938 leaving only the Superintendent’s House and the Dead House. The area is now mostly covered by the Adelaide Botanic Gardens. The Parkside Lunatic Asylum continues to function as the Glenside Mental Hospital, with the main build-ing, chapel, dining rooms, women’s block, and criminal ward still surviving. The Destitute Asylum was largely demolished in the early 19th century, and only one small area with its handful of build-ings survives today as the Migration Museum of South Australia. In 1983 building maintenance revealed what was later identified as a furnace room and an adjoining corridor that serviced the laundry and drying room of the Destitute Asylum. Subsequently, an 18-day rescue excavation of this area was undertaken to record what was visible before demolition (Piddock 2001:74–77). While some artifacts were recovered, excavation notes

Historical Archaeology, 2011, 45(3):89–105.Permission to reprint required.

90 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 45(3)

have been lost, and it is unclear from where the artifacts came. They offer a small glimpse into life within the asylum, however.

The sherds of willow-pattern plates, the bowl fragments, soup cup, enamel mug, spoon, knife, large white porcelain cup, and wine- and small-bottle fragments are indicative of food and drink consumption in the asylum. The ceramics indicate that a diverse range of dinnerware was used in the asylum, and include pieces with seven dif-ferent patterns and one plain white cup. Other excavations in Adelaide have revealed a similar predominance of patterned over plain white or cream-colored pieces in houses associated with the working class (Austral Archaeology 1992:100,120). It is possible that the pieces were brought in as small sets or individually as needed by the Destitute Asylum inmates.

A eucalyptus-oil bottle (used as an antiseptic and for inhalation), a bottle with “Clements Tonic” written on it, what appears to be a glass eye bath, and a ceramic lid from an embrocation pot reflected the health needs of the inmates who were predominantly elderly and in poor health; while the 10 decorative and plain clay-pipe bowls, the buttons, belt buckle, leather boot, a child’s or small woman’s shoe, ink bottles, and a small pair of scissors are more personal items. Although the Destitute Asylum regulations indi-cate that the inmates were not allowed to bring any boxes or bundles with them to the asylum’s wards beyond a change of linen (Destitute Poor Board Regulations 1866–1867, 1872), it is likely that small items were kept by inmates on their persons. Inmates were required to wear asylum clothing while in residence and on day leave (Destitute Poor Board Regulations 1866–1867, 1872). The buttons and shoes recovered in 1983 may have been part of this uniform or alterna-tively part of the new inmates’ own clothes that were incinerated.

It is usually impossible to associate material culture at asylums with individual inmates, and they were often too ill (mentally and physi-cally) or frail to modify items to create per-sonal belongings, as archaeological studies have revealed inmates did in female factories and prisons (Casella 2001:60,64; Bush 2009:169). It is much harder, then, to find evidence about responses to imposed gender and class systems within the asylums, which feminist historical archaeological studies have used in the past to

understand women’s reactions to gender roles, nor is it possible to access the inmates’ orga-nization of rooms, as each institution imposed rules about the use of spaces (Spencer-Wood 2007:77–79,81–82).

Understanding the Destitute Asylum, Adelaide and Parkside Lunatic Asylums

Buildings are as much artifacts as the mate-rial culture discovered during a dig. As James Deetz (paraphrased by De Cunzo) notes: “Every aspect of the environment that people have pur-posely shaped according to cultural plans com-prises material culture” (De Cunzo 2001:16). As archaeologists we ask questions first of material culture, then look for answers in the documents, photographs, and plans available to us to find answers to these questions (Piddock 2007:19–29). We can ask questions of the asylum buildings such as: why was this building laid out in this particular way? what factors affected which rooms and spaces were provided, and how they were used? and, importantly, from where did the colonists of South Australia derive their ideas about the sort of buildings to be provided for these groups of people (Piddock 2007)? In this article these questions center on the roles played by gender, social class, and the organizing prin-ciple of classification in the patients’ experience of the asylum space.

Asylums were not simply buildings in a par-ticular architectural style. The rooms, spaces, layouts, and designs all have a meaning beyond their physical fabric––a meaning that can change constantly over time and with the viewer, whether they were the inmates/patients, staff, visitors, or society as a whole. They represent a complex set of ideas about the treatment of the poor and insane that we can begin to understand by looking at the evidence provided by plans, documents written about the asylums, and records of building works undertaken at these places.

The core role of many institutions was to modify the behavior of those who would become inmates, whether the person went willingly or unwilling into the building. The goal was to remove the poor from society and its negative influences in order to reform them into fit and industrious citizens (Spencer-Wood and Baugher 2001:7). The original intention of the Destitute Asylum was to test whether a person genuinely

91SuSan Piddock—To Each a Space

needed relief by offering relief within its walls. The board in charge of the asylum saw it in light of an English workhouse, where the principle of “less-eligibility” determined that a recipient of poor relief would be no better off in the workhouse than the deserving poor outside; task work would be a part of life inside its walls, and relief to a man or woman would require the inmate’s whole family to enter the workhouse, consequently workhouse areas were classified along gender lines for men and women, and age and gender lines for children (Piddock 1996:93). They would have their own living, working, and sleeping places physically and visually separate; for a discussion of the rooms found in a work-house, see Piddock (2001:81–82).

In contrast, the lunatic asylums of the early to mid-19th century were seen as places where a person would be brought back to sanity through moral therapy, which re-educated them and allowed them to become useful members of society again; a curative rather than punitive role. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries two new forms of treatment for insanity were introduced that were to focus on the use of the lunatic asylum as an essential tool in the cure of insanity. These new treatments focused attention on the built environment of the asylum in a new way. The asylum or madhouse was no longer to be just a place of custody for those inflicted with lunacy, its spaces and arrangement would support the new curative regimes of moral treatment and nonrestraint (Piddock 2007:chap. 4).

The Destitute Asylum, Adelaide

The Destitute Board was created in 1849 and was charged with providing assistance to those newly arrived in the colony and the destitute poor who often had no relatives in the new colony to support them. The colony lacked any benevolent organizations that might provide assis-tance to the poor, orphans, sick, and aged, and consequently the board, over the years, found it had to accommodate a diversity of groups that were not always compatible with one another and required some kind of physical separation from each other.

Initially the board used a number of cottages in Adelaide to accommodate a handful of people (Dickey 1986:15–16). But in 1850 they recog-nized the need for proper accommodation: “[W]

here salutary rules might be enforced and where due distinction can be drawn between deserving and undeserving characters––many cases of real distress have been but partially relieved owing to such want of accommodation” (Bi-Annual Reports of the Destitute Board of South Australia [Bi-ARDB] 1850:45).

In 1851 the board rented a former military barracks on Kintore Avenue. This was to become the site of the new Destitute Asylum. Close to this building were the Native School and Female Immigration Depot as well as the Colonial Store and Armoury. Over the next few years these buildings were given over to the Destitute Board to use as asylum buildings. Additional buildings or rooms were added to these existing buildings, and the Destitute Asylum became a collection of buildings spread over four quadrangles, where the buildings provided were always “smaller than what was needed or asked for: making no pro-vision for the future” (Bi-ARDB 1867:747–748) (Figures 1 and 2).

The Destitute Asylum was a scattered “irregu-lar and inconvenient pile of buildings” with no regular plan, which rendered “classification and economical arrangement” impossible, accord-ing to the Destitute Board (Figure 2) (Piddock 1996:309). The history of the Destitute Asylum was one of the constant battle by the Destitute Board to accommodate all the groups it needed to in the face of a lack of government funding, and the government’s habit of resuming buildings for other uses over time, such as, for accom-modating the military on several occasions and using the chapel for coronal inquests in 1882 (Piddock 1996:310; Piddock 2001:89,90). There was to be a cycle of requests on behalf of the Destitute Board for more accommodation at the asylum, and the failure on the government’s part to recognize the needs for an effective welfare system, including the provision of specialized hospital care (Bi-ARDB 1858, 1872, 1874, 1875, 1877, 1901). While plans were drawn up for a purpose-built Destitute Asylum, funding was never to appear, and over the years the Destitute Board became resigned to the fact that it had to use the Kintore Avenue site to the best of its abilities, until 1917 when the Magill Old Folks Home was opened and the remaining residents moved out (Piddock 1996:330); for a discussion of space use and room organization at the asylum see Piddock (2001).


FIGURE 1. Male Quadrangle D looking east: dining room, baths, and boot and tailors workshops, 1918. (Photo courtesy of the State Library of South Australia.)

FIGURE 2. Destitute Asylum block plan, post-1895. North is to the right. The surviving plan is a photocopy, the original plan is lost. (Plan courtesy of the State Records of South Australia, GRG 27/32.)


In 1857 the Destitute Board reported that for every male case requiring accommodation “the necessity of aid, has, arisen either from bodily accident, old age and infirmity, or from protracted illness” (Bi-ARDB 1857:564). With regard to female destitution, in contrast, most sought aid from the board as a result of deser-tion by their husbands, widowhood, or having a husband unable to work due to illness (Bi-ARDB 1857:564). These people were seen as appropriate recipients of care within the Destitute Asylum. Just a year later, however, the board reported that “an unusually large number of incurable patients” had been transferred from the hospital to the asylum. The asylum, the chairman reported, “was considered a more suitable place for such cases, as well as a less expensive one as regards the cost of maintenance” (Bi-ARDB 1858:602). The board felt its hands were tied: it could not accommodate the hospital cases and still provide for the destitute, but often its own compassion and beliefs about who needed care led to groups such as the terminally ill and lying-in women becoming residents of the asylum. As well as these groups the Destitute Asylum was to house a group of men (often shepherds, stockmen, and sailors) who required one or two night’s accommodation and were known as casuals; and at the government’s insistence reformatory boys and girls, and male and female orphans (Piddock 1996:257–262).

Overcrowding and the pressing need to accom-modate a wide range of groups made life difficult for the Destitute Board. It sought to organize the Destitute Asylum along gender lines and to classify the groups received so as to limit contact between them, however, and prevent what they perceived as the biggest danger—the mixing of groups—which would allow moral contamination to occur.

Gender, Class, and Classification in the Destitute Asylum

While there is no evidence of a class system within the Destitute Asylum, with divisions such as lower-, middle-, and higher-class inmates the Destitute Board saw class in terms of the respectable poor and the undeserving poor who brought misfortune on themselves. If its own compassion required the Destitute Board to admit people it felt were morally undeserving of relief,

it still believed that the morally worthy should be separated from those who brought their des-titution on themselves as a consequence of their behavior. In 1854, and then again in 1864, the board expressed a wish for sufficient room to apply rules of classification so that the more respectable inmates might be separated from those admitted suffering the effects of alcoholism. This division of the poor into the morally fit and unfit was echoed in parliamentary debates about providing for the poor (Piddock 1996:208,214). This attitude was still in place in 1898 when the Aged Poor Royal Commission echoed the Des-titute Board’s often-expressed views: “There is a pressing necessity for some means whereby the inmates generally may be classified, and receive treatment more in accord with their mental and moral requirements (South Australian Parliament 1898–1899:ii). Reflecting the ideological beliefs that had informed the development of the New Poor Law in England, work with its redeeming qualities, which prevented the perceived laziness of the poor, was to play a central role in the Destitute Asylum. It prevented the respectable worthy poor from being stigmatized by accept-ing relief, as they would be contributing to their own maintenance (Piddock 1996:222). Women were employed in the laundry and made clothes and linen. The bedridden or physically frail men prepared ore bags, did hair picking and almond shelling, while the more physically able tailored, made boots and repaired furniture, and made boxes for boarded-out children (Piddock 1996:221).

The focus on the separation of men and women and the emphasis on work saw the development of the male and female quadrangles as self-contained areas. For example, Male Quadrangle D provided its inmates with ward accommodation, dining rooms and baths, and a variety of workshops. The inmates could thus eat, sleep, work, and exercise in the one area. A similar pattern can be found in Female Quadrangle C, where there were wards and rooms for the women to care for their babies, bathrooms, a laundry, and needle rooms for their employment. The Male Quadrangle A, which housed the infirmary wards, provided no work areas reflecting its nature. The cobbled-together nature of the quadrangles, however, meant that men and women could not always be kept separate. The kitchens were situated


in the women’s area and the food had to be carried to the dining rooms in Quadrangles A and D. Similarly, the dispensary was located in Quadrangle A, while the chapel and library were only accessible from Quadrangle A.

While gender and moral status were used to classify inmates, concepts of health (those with physically unpleasant diseases from other medi-cal conditions) and bodily cleanliness, religion and observance of the rules, and separation of the aged from the physically ill were mentioned in the primary sources as desired further means of classifying inmates of the asylum (Piddock 1996:324,314,334, 2001:89).

Children were also to be inmates of the Des-titute Asylum, and the Destitute Board had to find a way of separating the orphans from the adults, because their exposure to the undesirable language and behavior of the adults who cared for them and their close contact with pauperism did not have an elevating influence (Bi-ARDB 1866:715; Piddock 1996:282). Rooms, such as playrooms and schoolrooms, came and went at the asylum as the board juggled to manage the space and the needs of the military, which took over the children’s section (Piddock 1996:289, 290). An industrial school rather than an orphan-age was built in 1867 to accommodate the orphans, and on and off the reformatory girls and boys who were also housed in the asylum at various times (Piddock 1996:300,305,307). Interestingly, reflecting the overall moral tone of classification within the asylum, the board was concerned about how, with such limited accom-modation available, it could separate the hard-ened-criminal girls from those who were admitted on their first offence (Piddock 1996:109).

If classification were a problem among the general asylum population as the Destitute Board sought to provide accommodation for a diverse range of groups, it was seen as a major need among lying-in mothers. The Adelaide Hospi-tal did not provide beds for women who were enceinte and due to give birth, even though the colonial surgeon recognized the need for special accommodation for pregnant women (Minutes of the Destitute Board 1851; Destitute Board Letter Book 1858–1860). The Destitute Board recognized a need and provided accommodation for pregnant women, whether single, married, or widowed.

The Destitute Board believed that single women chose to immigrate on discovering they

were pregnant, rather than face shame at home. As single female immigrants coming to the colony they fell under the charge of the Des-titute Board (Bi-ARDB 1854:569). The board’s caregiver role was to expand, however, as in July 1857 the Destitute Board indicated that women were coming to the asylum from all over the colony, arriving homeless and friendless. The board had admitted 28 such cases over the pre-vious six months (Bi-ARDB 1857:564). Single women working in the country may have found themselves subject to an employer’s desires and may have been turned out when their pregnancies were discovered. In 1883, 68 of 77 single women admitted to the Lying-In Home were domestic servants (Jones 1994:37).

Interestingly, the board believed that pregnant single women were not undeserving of sympathy; they were to be pitied for their misfortune rather than censured for their folly. It was concerned, however, that respectable women were being confined in the asylum with diseased prostitutes. The board believed respectable but unfortunate girls were in moral danger, being confined with these prostitutes who might seduce other women into a life of infamy (Bi-ARDB 1864:699, 1867:273; Jones 1994:25,36; Piddock 2001:293). While the word prostitute implies a woman selling her body, to the Destitute Board and to members of the South Australian Parliament it meant any woman bearing her third child or subsequent children outside of marriage (Piddock 1996:252). Those having their first child out of marriage were seen as having made a mistake but were still morally redeemable as they had been “misled once but were not abandoned in character” (Piddock 1996:104).

The Destitute Board held hopes that a lying-in ward would be established in the new wing of the Adelaide Hospital in 1867. Since this failed to occur, in 1877 plans were drawn up for a Lying-In Home, which was built in 1882 in Quadrangle B (Figure 3). The ground floor would have one large lying-in ward, kitchen, and three rooms for the matron. The first floor had three wards.

While the Lying-In Home was seen by the Destitute Board as a refuge for the women, they were also concerned that there was no place for single women to go after leaving the asylum. They had hoped private benevolence would pro-vide for these women. With growing concerns


over the high rate of infant mortality among illegitimate children cared for in baby farms, the board in 1880 decided to make it compulsory for a woman to reside in the home for six months after giving birth. Baby farms were operated by women working as wet nurses, who could breastfeed the babies in their care, but were often negligent and had little understanding of hygiene, leading to the death of babies from dehydra-tion, diarrhea, and disease (Jones 1994:37–38). Under the Destitute Persons Act of 1881 foster mothers and wet nurses were to be licensed and inspected, and the stay in the home enacted in legislation (Jones 1994:39).

The lying-in mother was required to nurse and care for her own child to encourage the development of maternal affection, as the board reported in 1890 that “the affection engendered through the mother and child being so long together is most marked” (Bi-ARDB 1890:540). This moral judgment simplified the realities of life as a single parent in colonial society to one cause––lack of a maternal bond. Women were

forced to use baby farms if they were to survive economically and provide for themselves and their children.

After six months a baby could be left with the Destitute Board, with the mother paying 2 s. 6 d. per week for its support. The mother was required to visit the child once a month. In time the mother could remove the child if the board were satisfied with regard to the mother’s circum-stances. Alternatively the child would be trans-ferred to the Industrial School when it reached an appropriate age (Piddock 1996:105,255). Interestingly, if a woman defaulted on payment or visiting, the child would be returned to her care, and its safekeeping and maintenance would be in her hands, compounding the problem. This move equally failed to recognize the economic reality for single or widowed women. Women could leave earlier if they found employment that allowed them to bring up their children themselves (Piddock 1996:105,255).

The Destitute Board sought to provide the Lying-In Home with as much isolation as

FIGURE 3. Public facade of the Lying-In Home, Kintore Avenue. (Photo by author, 1995.)


possible from other inmates and from the view of the general public. The isolation was reinforced by the fact that the front of the Lying-In Home faced into the yard, with the solid-stone first-floor rear facade facing Kintore Avenue, and windows only on the second floor. The balcony gave those in the lying-in ward a chance to sit in the open air, without being visible from the street. The absence of windows on the ground floor both prevented people looking in or out, and reinforced the sense of being a refuge from the outside world. The Lying-In Home was to be a true refuge, and privacy concerns meant that only mothers and sisters could visit the women. The language used by the board: “so as to conceal, as far as possible, this portion of their life, from those outside” (Minutes of the Destitute Board 1881), indicates a shame aspect to unmarried pregnancy, however, and the refuge becomes a place to hide or conceal one’s mistake, reflecting a dominant patriarchal ideology which blames women rather than men for the consequences of sexual relationships (Spencer-Wood 2007:73).

The Lying-In Department was one of the few areas of the asylum where the Destitute Board was able to create a built environment to comply with their beliefs as to the management of the destitute. Lying-in women of the first class: “Those who have fallen once” and married women, lived in the Lying-In Home in Quadrangle B. The second class: “Those who have had children previously,” lived in the female quarters bounding Quadrangle C, which from 1882 included a ward for dis-eased prostitutes; while the third class: prostitutes, occupied the cottages off Quadrangle A (Piddock 1996:311–312); this way the Destitute Board could maintain moral divisions.

For the Destitute Board separation of the inmates along moral and physical lines was to be a major concern that was repeatedly raised in the primary documents; sometimes this was combined with practical concerns. The reforma-tory girls were housed in the building that was sometimes a chapel and a school in the Lying-In Home quadrangle. Here the girls were exposed to the cries of childbirth, and the lying-in women were exposed to the noise and mischief of the girls, which eventually led to the construction of cells at the rear of the school building. The girls were eventually moved to the Industrial School at Magill and their rooms given over to the Lying-In Department (Piddock 1996:307).

Overcrowding was such a constant that there appears to have been little physical modification of rooms to particular purposes, and room func-tion was decided by physical size. Rooms such as dining rooms became dormitories at night (Piddock 2001:90).

If the Destitute Board had problems classifying patients along gender and moral lines, they were not alone. Those in charge of the lunatic asylums had similar problems, although their desire for classification rose not from moral divisions but as a means of organizing and treating the insane.

The Adelaide and Parkside Lunatic Asylums

In March 1852 the Adelaide Lunatic Asylum accepted its first patients. Situated in the park-lands that surrounded the center of the city, the asylum was located just to the west of the Colonial Hospital. The asylum quickly became overcrowded, and over the years a number of parliamentary select committees and a com-mission were held to investigate the treatment of the patients and the possibilities of build-ing a new asylum or making additions to the existing asylum; for more details see Piddock (2007:108–125). Both options were taken up, and in May 1870 the new Parkside Lunatic Asylum was opened. Originally the asylum was to have three pavilion blocks (male and female blocks and a center administrative build-ing with limited patient rooms), but when the first patients began moving in only one block had been completed. The women’s block was finally added in 1881, and the men’s block was never built. While Parkside Lunatic Asylum was intended to replace the Adelaide Asylum, the latter remained open until 1902 when the final patients were transferred to Parkside.

The Adelaide Asylum was initially composed of a single linear building with the kitchen and laundry forming an attached annex to the rear of the main building. The ground floor was composed of two wards on either side of the central administrative room, a series of rooms for refractory patients, and one for incontinent patients. The first floor consisted of two wards each composed of four dormitories (in each case a large room); a corridor ward (from which the other rooms were accessed), which occupied the room used as extra day space on the ground


floor; and a dayroom. In the center space were two infirmary rooms and staff rooms.

This main building was added to in 1856 with a building consisting of two wards built at right angles to the main building; these wards were to accommodate the male patients. A second male dormitory was constructed abutting the first addi-tion in 1861, which provided a further 18 single rooms and 2 dormitories. In 1866 a new female dormitory in the grounds, consisting of a few rooms, was added (Figure 4).

The Parkside Asylum was opened 18 years after the Adelaide Asylum, and interestingly it shares many of the limitations of the latter in terms of the possibilities for classifying and separating the patients from each other physi-cally, even though it was designed with the aid of the resident medical officer, Alexander S. Patterson, who had previously worked at the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum (Piddock 2007:198). It was T-shaped in plan with a courtyard in the

center. Of its three stories, the first floor was devoted mainly to administrative rooms, with the addition of two large dayrooms (Figure 5). The second and third floors were given over to a range of sleeping accommodation, including single rooms, dormitories, water closets, and staff rooms (Figure 6).

Although not clearly forming wards, it appears that these rooms on the second and third floors divided to allow three classifications of the patients. The small blocks at the end of the first-floor corridor wards allowed noisy patients to be separated from the others, with the toilet and wall acting as a sound barrier; while the front rooms (Figure 6, No. 29) were separated from those along the corridors (Figure 6, No. 30) by the staff bedrooms (Figure 6, No. 32). There was insufficient space to allow any real classifica-tion as achieved in British asylums, however, as patients would remain in contact with each other. There was only one dayroom for each sex in the

FIGURE 4. Plan of the Adelaide Lunatic Asylum. The original building is aligned east–west, with north at the top of the plan. Legend: (1) Shed, (2) Women’s Yard, (3) Washhouse, (4) Laundry, (5) Drying Yard, (6) Kitchen, (7) Day Room, (8) Male Dormitory, (9) Keeper’s Room, (10) Men’s Yard, (11) Women’s Dining Room, (12) Refractory Cells, (13) Men’s Bedroom, and (14) Men’s Dining Room. (Plan courtesy of the State Records of South Australia, GRG 38/52/1–13; tracing by author, 1994; redrawn by J. Gibb.)


main building, again allowing no separation of the patients along classificatory lines. Dayrooms like at Adelaide were later added to the Parkside airing courts.

FIGURE 5. Plan of the first floor of the Parkside Lunatic Asylum. The original building is aligned east–west, with north on the left side of the plan. For purposes of scale, the building was 248 ft. in “depth” and 232 ft. in “breadth.” Legend: (1) Day Rooms, (2) Work Room, (3) Billiards Room, (4) Water Closets and Lavatories, (5) Senior Attendant’s Rooms, (6) Visitor’s Rooms, (7) Consulting Room, (8) Hall Porter’s Room and Bedroom, (9) Medical Officer’s Room, (10) Matron’s Dining Room, (11) Matron’s Bedroom, (12) Clothing Store, (13) Flour Store, (14, Bakery, (15) Oven, (16) Bread Store, (17) Cook’s Dining Room, (18) Store, (19) Pantry, (20) Female Attendant’s Dining Room, (21) Visitor’s Room, (22) Male Attendant’s Dining Room, (23) Pantry, (24) Scullery, (25) Steward’s Office, (26) Dispensary, and (27) Officer’s Dining Room. (Plan courtesy of the State Records of South Australia, GRG 34/138, tracing by author, 1994.)

While the plans would suggest a fairly simple separation of males and females, with each having one side of the asylum, the reality of room and space use, combined with the dedicated


FIGURE 6. Plan of the second floor of the Parkside Lunatic Asylum. The original building is aligned east–west, with north on the left side of the plan. For purposes of scale, the building was 248 ft. in “depth” and 232 ft. in “breadth.” Legend: (1) Day Rooms, (4) Water Closets and Lavatories, (29) Dormitories, (30) Single Rooms, (31) Attendant’s Rooms, and (32) Officer’s and Matron’s Bedrooms. (Plan courtesy of the State Records of South Australia, GRG 34/138, tracing by author, 1994.)

rooms provided, was more complex. Several forces were at work in determining the use of these rooms and affecting the experience of the asylum world for the patient. These forces were, firstly, classification, which arose from the new treatment regimes of nonrestraint and moral treatment; secondly, gender roles, which directly effected the experience of the asylum spaces for both men and women; and thirdly, social class, which also fed into the experience of asylum life.

Gender, Class, and Classification at the Adelaide and Parkside Lunatic Asylums

Classification was central to the organization of the lunatic asylum as a part of the treatment regimes of moral therapy and nonrestraint. It had a second function of trying to limit sexual relationships between inmates, although women did become pregnant, having found illicit means of contact or being assaulted by male attendants


(Piddock 2007:145). In England the use of sepa-rate buildings for each sex and the division of space through the placement of a central admin-istrative building prevented contact more readily (Piddock 2003:99,135).

Classification allowed the different types of patients to be separated, aiding treatment. This, in turn, allowed those patients who were recovering their sanity to demonstrate through their behav-ior that they were in control of themselves. The number of classes was determined by each treat-ing doctor (Jacobi 1841:61; Conolly 1847:18). Classification was used also as a reward or a punishment, with appropriate behavior leading to a person being moved to the quieter wards, and inappropriate behavior leading to a return to the noise of the refractory wards (Digby 1985:67–69,74). Refractory, in this context, was a label applied to those whose insanity was not under control; new patients (acute cases) usually entered this ward initially.

From the documentary record, it can be seen that while the Adelaide Lunatic Asylum began as a place where restraint was used, by 1858 there was evidence of nonrestraint and the possible use of moral therapy (Piddock 2007:227–228). The possibilities for classification as part of the treat-ment regime were limited, however. The original design of two wards for each sex, with their associated dayrooms on the main floors, meant only two classifications were possible during the day: acute and convalescent. The two refractory rooms on each side allowed some separation at night, unless the refractory patients spent their entire time in the rooms. Again, the four second-floor dormitories offered further classification at night. The limited dayroom space prevented any real separation of the patients, however. Airing-court space was equally limited, with initially only one yard available, which was used alter-natively by men and women. Later men and women had one airing court each, and in 1864 men had access to two airing courts because there was no employment for them, and conse-quently they spent the day in the airing courts.

In these airing courts dayrooms were created out of shelter sheds to meet the need for addi-tional living space, again allowing some limited separation of the patients (Piddock 2007:113). While the later addition of the male and female wards allowed for greater classification, the documentary evidence indicates that, due to

overcrowding, even the separation of acute and convalescent was impossible at various times (Piddock 2007:128). Consequently while it was intended that classification should be the guiding principle for the arrangement and use of particu-lar rooms and spaces of the asylum, these efforts were to be directly affected by the design of the asylum and overcrowding; for a full discussion, see Piddock (2007).

Effectively there were not enough wards and those provided were small and inflexible. The impossibilities of separating those who presented a danger to themselves because of their illness from those who were convalescent led to knives and forks being removed and spoons replacing them (Piddock 2007:139). While a small indicator of one’s recovery and returning self-control for the patient, the importance of the use of knives and forks cannot be overstated for the patient. The reality of overcrowding, however, meant cramped sleeping accommodations with two patients housed in a cell 7 ft. 4 in. wide and 10 ft. long, and no means of providing different treatments for differ-ent types of insanity (Piddock 2007:139). In 1884 there were only two airing courts for 113 men, leading to the mixing of acute and violent patients with chronic and quiet ones, which caused prob-lems for the attendants. Originally classification had been extended to the two male airing courts. Airing court No. 2 was a nicer court, having a garden and fountain. Access to this court had been a reward for appropriate behavior. The plainer airing court was used for acute and refractory patients (Pid-dock 2007:139). Classification, while central to the curative regime, then played a central role in the patient’s experience of the asylum. The breakdown of classification at the Adelaide Lunatic Asylum made life more difficult and unpleasant for those recovering from their illnesses.

Parkside Asylum offered limited opportuni-ties for classification similar to those of the old asylum. The design problems may have arisen because only one of the three intended pavil-ions was completed. The other two pavilions would have provided separate male and female wards, and the central building may have been intended to house convalescent or chronic (incur-able) patients only. If classification was to be an important factor in the layout of the lunatic asylum, gender roles were also to affect the pro-vision of rooms and spaces as well as activities for both men and women.


Under the regimes of moral treatment and nonrestraint, activities and employment were seen as an essential part of treatment, but work done by patients was also of economic value to those administering the asylum. At one of England’s largest asylums, Middlesex Asylum at Colney Hatch, the work done by 503 women was valued at £500 a year in 1857 (Article III 1857:372). The association of women with domestic-ity ensured that they were almost constantly employed. At the Adelaide Asylum they worked in the asylum laundry and sewed and knitted. The placement of the laundry at the end of the sole women’s airing yard at the Adelaide Asylum, and the lack of a separate workroom led to women working on the ward or in the dayroom, which meant that the women were constantly reminded of work and had little variety in their daily routine. In the world of the asylum, work for women was defined as being purely domestic, despite the range of work women did outside the asylum (Perkin 1995:169–201). In fact John Conolly, who was a leading lunacy reformer, was to note: “The importance of the duties of the laundry being regularly performed may be productive of some disposition to overwork the patients employed in it” (Conolly 1847:88).

For those housed in the Adelaide asylums, there was to be little distance from the cares of everyday life and the world of work, which may have contributed to their insanity. A separation was needed, which John Arlidge (1859:143) was to state emphatically while writing about the association of women with laundry work that had led to the placement, in English county asylums, of sleeping wards above the laundry and meals taken in an adjoining room:

Instead of being thus scarcely allowed to escape the sphere and atmosphere of their toil, they should have their condition varied as far as possible, be brought into new scenes, mixed with others who have been otherwise engaged, and made to feel themselves patients in an asylum, not washerwomen.

While there were women’s sleeping cells next to the laundry at the Adelaide Asylum, it appears that incontinent women were accommodated in these cells rather than the women working in the laundry. The only women’s airing court included the laundry and its adjoining drying ground as part of its landscape, however (Piddock 2007:145). Reflecting perhaps the more constant employment

of the women, or a perception of women as being less active, their airing court was a quarter of the size of the men’s two courts. Even when additional dormitories were built for the women, their exercise space was apparently not expanded. The 19th century had seen the rise of the cult of domesticity with its association of women with the home and passive activities, and the women patients themselves showed reluctance to participate in exercise outside the wards, accepting the role given to them (Welter 1966:159,162,165; Showalter 1981:320).

The original plan of the Parkside Asylum reinforced the separate experiences of men and women. In the original plans the men were provided with a dayroom and billiards room, the women with a dayroom and adjoining work-room. Again, women were considered workers, while the men pursued a leisure activity. Dr. Bayer had noted in 1864 that the women had no amusements apart from hard physical labor in the washhouse and kitchen, some knitting and sewing, and only a small yard to walk in, while the men, from as early as 1856, certainly had access to playing cards, dominos, board games, books, and papers (Piddock 2003:303,304).

Access to the formal gardens in the front of the Adelaide Asylum was, by 1864, determined by gender. The separation of the sexes meant that the women could not go into the main garden at the same time as the men, who had general access. Consequently Sunday afternoon was the only time they were permitted access, and this came to be seen as a privilege rather than a right (Piddock 2007:145).

It is unclear why women did not have the same access to the same indoor recreations as men, although it may have rested with percep-tions of suitable activities for women. Another factor coming into play may have been social class. There is documentary evidence that wom-en’s work was class based with the “coarser [emphasis in original]” class of women being employed in the laundry and the more refined in sewing (Piddock 2007:144). There is no infor-mation, however, about how these classes were assigned. The women may have been judged as unable to read or participate in games based on their social class or professions.

Male employment was to be an ongoing prob-lem at both the Adelaide and Parkside asylums. Throughout the second half of the 19th century


there were constant references to the lack of male employment (Piddock 2003:282), but little effort seems to have been made to correct this. In the English asylums of the same period male employment had not been a problem. Men were employed in carpenter’s, tailor’s, cobbler’s, smith’s and even upholsterer’s shops. They were also employed in the bakehouse, some in ward cleaning, and in the garden producing food for the asylum (Conolly 1847:52). They carried out maintenance work such as painting and general laboring, and were allowed to pursue hobbies such as woodworking (Article III 1857:371). In 1864, of 110 male patients in the Adelaide Asylum, only 20 were capable of outdoor work. It appears that mat-making and sewing bags had been done in the past, but supplies of materials had not been regular. Many patients could not be encouraged to do anything, and none was forced to work. (Piddock 2003:304,305). Male patients, then, were often confined to the airing court for the day, eating in shelter sheds that were con-verted to dining rooms.

Parkside Asylum, when it was built, again did not provide workshops for the men. There is no clear reason for this omission, but it may have partly drawn on assumptions about the social class of the male patients. Most were seen as unskilled “pick and shovel” laborers, in contrast to the perceived nature of the patients of the Eng-lish asylums who were believed to be from the educated or middle classes and capable of trades and complex activity (Piddock 2003:309, 2007:42).

The plans of the Adelaide and Parkside asy-lums then reveal the different worlds of men and women within them. For the women life focused on work with little provision for them to exercise or to leave the enclosed world of the asylum. The men’s experience was focused primarily on the airing court with little employment, but with opportunities for recreation (not offered to the women), as exemplified by the provision of the billiards room against the women’s workroom at Parkside, and outside games such as cricket.

In 1869 under a new superintendent things had slightly improved, with walking expeditions for both men and women. The men had board games, books, and newspapers available to them. Dr. Paterson found it was more difficult to find amusements for the women, however; they had walking expeditions, the Illustrated News, and “a great deal of needlework.” Again the borders

between amusements and work were blurred, as they had to produce all the clothes for the asylum patients, repair clothes, and make mattresses and bazaar goods if Paterson wanted to hold a bazaar (Piddock 2003:308).

If class divisions affected work provisions for men and women, it also led to separate experi-ences within the gender groups. Those who were of a better class (which is not defined within the documents) were given some privileges within the Adelaide Asylum. They were allowed to sit up until 10 P.M., generally used No. 2 yard, and were allowed certain comforts. Those of a lower class had to wait until around 1869 for an extended retirement time of 8 P.M. (Piddock 2003:307–308).

It is not clear whether class here applied to pauper versus paying patients, or some division within the pauper class. Each of the 23 private paying patients in the asylum in 1872 had a single room, but still had to mix with pauper patients in the airing court. Resident Medical Officer Alexan-der Paterson noted that their objections to mixing with lower-class patients should be respected and better provisions made for them (Piddock 2003:294). Eleven years later, the then 50 paying patients had carpets in their rooms and better furniture, access to a separate dayroom, a better diet, wine, and medical extras (Piddock 2003:298).

Interestingly there was no provision for nurser-ies in the designs of the asylums, denying the women their role as mothers, despite postnatal depression being recognized along with other mental illnesses and pregnant women being admit-ted to asylums (Burrows 1828:146–148; Hunter and MacAlpine 1974:98; Skultans 1975:32). Both men and women were denied their role as family members by the apparent lack of visiting rooms for family and friends at the Adelaide Asylum, though the rooms had existed when the asylum was originally opened and before the rooms were reassigned. Parkside Asylum did appear to have visiting rooms on each side of the asylum for gender separation, although it may have been the case that the reception and visiting rooms were used for purely official business and were not available for family visits.

Discussion

Class, classification, and gender were to play significant roles in the use of space within both


the Destitute Asylum and the Adelaide and Parkside lunatic asylums. Both were divided along gender lines that were intended to keep men and women physically separate; there was no provision for families to be kept together in the Destitute Asylum, and married couples were separated whatever their age. Within the Desti-tute Asylum classification was based on gender and age initially, with the different types of inmates to be kept separate, although the nature of the asylum buildings, overcrowding, and ever-increasing groups requiring accommodation led to the mixing of groups, to the distress of the Destitute Board. The second level of classifica-tion was moral. Throughout the documents there are references to the deserving and undeserving poor. Admission to the Destitute Asylum was for the deserving poor, but pressing needs meant that those who were “undeserving” were admitted, and references to classification began to require conditions suitable for the moral level of the individual. In the lunatic asylum classification had a second role––that of separating individu-als to support targeted treatment and to provide a means of punishing or rewarding appropriate behavior. Appropriate behavior would indicate a return to sanity and the right to return to society. But as with the Destitute Asylum the constant lack of sufficient space and buildings meant this was impossible.

In both types of asylum gender roles reflected on the activities and work one could do, and in both the role of work was to be important. In the Destitute Asylum work was linked to respectability and worth, if you worked you were not receiving charity with its associated stigma. The new treatment regimes for lunacy required patients to work to distract the mind and to instill self-discipline. Workrooms and workshops were a part of designs for new lunatic asylums described in the early 19th century (Piddock 2007:chap. 5), but both asylums were to lack workshops for men, although Parkside had a workroom for women.

While the Adelaide and Parkside lunatic asy-lums were primarily for the poor insane (under South Australian law they were to be given priority for admission), in reality the colonial surgeon or resident surgeon at the asylum did not have the authority to discharge private patients in order to make way for paupers. In 1853 a comment in the visitor’s book indicated that two

respectable females had gained admittance to the asylum, causing other patients to be placed in the common gaol. Presumably these women were paying patients, and it appears that economics were more important than patient treatment, as conditions in the gaol were far from ideal. The lack of any other private care options for the insane saw plans for a new lunatic asylum that included partly detached buildings at the ends of the wings that would house wards for patients of a “superior class” (Colonial Secretary of South Australia 1854).

Class divisions allowed for a better quality of life for some, and the perceived class of the male inmates limited work and activities that might have alleviated the boredom and routine of daily life spent in the airing courts during the day and the wards at night. Similarly gender-based activities saw women as workers contributing to the economy of the asylum while limiting attempts to provide activities for women. As with the Destitute Asylum, the poor inmates who occupied the lunatic asylums were seen as coming from a particular segment of society, the “laboring class,” and views about the causes of insanity—such as drunkenness and hereditary weakness—can be found in the resident medi-cal officers’ annual reports, reflecting changes in worldwide beliefs about insanity in the second half of the latter part of the 19th century, rather than a colonial view.

Both the Destitute Asylum and the Adelaide and Parkside lunatic asylums inherited ideas about how they were to be organized and oper-ated from the English experience of the colo-nists (Piddock 2001, 2007). The architects and administrators of these places drew on the ideas about the workhouse and lunatic asylum, includ-ing their purposes as places to control groups within society.

The Destitute Board was to select and modify the principles of the New Poor Law to create a system of poor relief that was particular to the needs of a colonial society (Piddock 1996:chap. 5). Of fundamental importance to this develop-ment of a colonial system of poor relief was the belief that pauperism was not a feature of South Australian society. This belief appears to be the main reason why a purpose-built institu-tion was not constructed in the 1850s, and why the Destitute Board often found itself without appropriate accommodation for those within its


care. There was thought to be no need to pro-vide a workhouse in the new colony. The board had not been established to care for paupers, a well-defined class in England, rather, it provided care for colonists in times of need, sickness, or financial distress. This was a fundamental differ-ence of considerable importance. The colonists clearly distinguished between pauperism and periods of distress arising from circumstances beyond one’s control. Pauperism was associated with a particular class of individuals in England and, as was indicated earlier, some South Aus-tralian parliamentarians were of the belief that it was an inherited condition (Piddock 1996:208). There is no evidence to suggest that class-based views played a part in the built provisions made for the insane, however; a fuller discussion can be found in Piddock (2007:chap. 9).

This understanding of the forces affecting and determining room and space use at the asylums arose initially from questions that were asked of the plans of these buildings. By asking questions such as, what factors determined this arrangement of rooms and this particular layout? and how did these rooms and spaces affect life within the institution? the archaeologist can access life within an institution and explore the untold story of the inmates, which is often missing from his-tories. By treating buildings and plans as material culture and considering them from the perspective of the archaeologist rather than the historian, it is possible to gain new insights into life within an asylum.

References

Arlidge, John T. 1859 On the State of Lunacy and the Legal Provision for

the Insane, with Observations on the Construction and Organization of Asylums. John Churchill, London, UK.

ArTicle iii1857 Response to Several Committee Reports with

Regard to Lunacy. Quarterly Review (England) 101(202):353–393.

AusTrAl ArchAeology 1992 Archaeological Report on the Rookery Site, Vols. 1–3.

Report to the Corporation of the City of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, from Austral Archaeology, Adelaide, Australia.

BeisAw, April, And JAmes giBB2009 The Archaeology of Institutional Life. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Bi-AnnuAl reporTs of The desTiTuTe BoArd of souTh AusTrAliA (Bi-ArdB)

1850–1901 Bi-Annual Reports of the Destitute Board of South Australia. South Australian Government Gazette. Adelaide, Australia.

Burrows, george mAn1828 Commentaries on the Causes, Forms, Symptoms and

Treatment of Insanity. Thomas and George Underwood, London, UK. Reprinted 1976 by Arno Press, New York, NY.

Bush, dAvid2009 Maintaining or Mixing Southern Culture in a Northern

Prison: Johnson’s Island Military Prison. In The Archae-ology of Institutional Life, April Beisaw and James Gibb, editors, pp. 153–171. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

cAsellA, eleAnor c. 2001 To Watch or Restrain: Female Convict Prisons in 19th-

Century Tasmania. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(1):45–72.

coloniAl secreTAry of souTh AusTrAliA1854 Colonial Architect to the Colonial Secretary of South

Australia. Letter No. 2506, GRG 24/6 and 24/4, Letters Received and Sent 1837–1976, State Records of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

conolly, John1847 The Construction and Government of Lunatic Asylums

and Hospitals for the Insane. John Churchill, London, UK. Reprinted 1968 by Dawsons of Pall Mall, London, UK.

de cunzo, lu Ann1995 Reform, Respite, Ritual: An Archaeology of Institu-

tions; the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, 1800–1850. Historical Archaeology 29(3):111–168.

2001 Comments on “Historical Archaeology Adrift/A Forum.” Historical Archaeology 35(2):14–19.

2006 Exploring the Institution: Reform, Confinement, Social Change. In Historical Archaeology, M. Hall and S. W. Silliman, editors, pp. 167–189. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

desTiTuTe BoArd leTTer Book1858–1860 Destitute Board Letter Book 1858–1860. Manu-

script, GRG 28/30, State Records of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

desTiTuTe poor BoArd regulATions 1866–1867 Destitute Board Regulations 1866–1867.

Parliamentary Papers of South Australia, No. 27. Adelaide, Australia.

1872 Destitute Poor Board Regulations. Parliamentary Papers of South Australia, No. 41. Adelaide, Australia.

dickey, BriAn1986 Rations, Residence, Resources. A History of Social

Welfare in South Australia since 1836. Wakefield Press, Netley, Australia.


digBy, Anne1985 Madness, Morality and Medicine. A Study of the York

Retreat 1796–1914. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

driver, felix1993 Power and Pauperism. The Workhouse System 1834–

1884. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

hunTer, richArd, And idA mAcAlpine1974 Psychiatry for the Poor. 1851 Colney Hatch Asylum-

Friern Hospital 1973. Dawsons of Pall Mall, Folkstone, UK.

JAcoBi, mAximiliAn 1841 On the Construction and Management of Hospitals for

the Insane, John Kitching, translator. John Churchill, London, UK.

Jones, helen1994 In Her Own Name. A History of Women in South

Australia from 1836. Wakefield Press, Kent Town, Australia.

minuTes of The desTiTuTe BoArd1850–1890 Minutes of the Destitute Board of South Aus-

tralia. Manuscript, GRG 28/1, State Records of South Australia. Adelaide, Australia.

perkin, JoAn1995 Victorian Women. New York University Press, New

York, NY.

piddock, susAn1996 Accommodating the Poor. An Historical and

Archaeological Consideration of the Destitute Asylum of Adelaide. Master’s thesis, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

2001 “An Irregular and Inconvenient Pile of Buildings”: The Destitute Asylum of Adelaide, South Australia and the English Workhouse. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(1):73–95.

2003 A Space of Their Own: Nineteenth Century Lunatic Asylums in England, South Australia and Tasmania. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

2007 A Space of Their Own. The Archaeology of Nineteenth Century Lunatic Asylums in Britain, South Australia and Tasmania. Springer, New York, NY.

scull, Andrew1979 Museums of Madness. The Social Organization of

Insanity in Nineteenth-Century England. Allen Lane, London, UK.

showAlTer, elAine1981 Victorian Women and Insanity. In Madhouses, Mad-

Doctors and Madmen, Andrew Scull, editor, pp. 313–336. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

skulTAns, veldA1975 Madness and Morals. Ideas on Insanity in the Nineteenth

Century. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, UK.

souTh AusTrAliAn pArliAmenT1898–1899 Aged Poor Royal Commission Report, together

with Minutes of Proceedings, Evidence and Appen-dices, both of Select Committee and Royal Commis-sion. South Australian Parliamentary Papers 2(54). Adelaide, Australia.

spencer-wood, suzAnne2007 Feminist Theory and Gender Research in Historical

Archaeology. In Women in Antiquity: Theoretical Approaches to Gender and Archaeology, S. M. Nelson, editor, pp. 59–87. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

spencer-wood, suzAnne, And sherene BAugher2001 Introduction and Historical Context for the Archaeology

of Institutions of Reform. Part I: Asylums. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(1):3–17.

welTer, BArBArA1966 The Cult of True Womanhood 1820–1860. American

Quarterly 18(2.1):151–174.

susAn piddock49 old honeypoT roAdporT noArlungA, souTh AusTrAliA5167 AusTrAliA

Piddock, S (2011) To Each a Space: Class, Classification and Gender in Colonial South Australian...

Documents

Transcript of Piddock, S (2011) To Each a Space: Class, Classification and Gender in Colonial South Australian...