Introduction

This paper investigates the second-hand glass bottle trade of Melbourne, which arose from a need to extend the use life of bottles through multiple instances of washing and reuse. Bottle merchants and marine store dealers carried out this trade, collecting and washing bottles in order to sell them on to manufacturers. Through analysis of the historical and archaeological records for 35–37 A’Beckett Street - the location of four bottle merchants businesses between 1875 and 1914 - this paper explores the activities of bottle merchants and marine store dealers, and attempts to identify an archaeological signature for these businesses through comparison with cesspits at two other contemporary Melbourne sites: 21–23 A’Beckett Street, and 25 Little Lonsdale Street (Fig. 1). The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of bottle reuse in archaeological assemblages, a topic that has not previously been researched in great detail.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of the 19–37 A’Beckett Street and 25 Little Lonsdale Street sites

Full size image

The Victorian Bottle Merchant Industry

Glass bottles were commonly used by manufacturers to package their products, with bottles being seen as highly valued property rather than simply disposable containers (Busch 1987; Carney 1998: 87–89; Hill 1982: 293). Bottles were considered the property of the manufacturer, and in some cases empty bottles were accounted for in wills, estate evaluations and bankruptcy statements (Busch 1987: 68, Carney 1998: 82). Bottles were loaned to customers, with the expectation that they would be returned for reuse after being emptied (Busch 1987: 67–68; Lucas 2002: 31). This was particularly the case in Australia: ‘Branded casks and bottles are never sold by Colonial manufacturers; they are simply lent, and should be returned when empty’ (ABJ April 20, 1883: 91).

Importation of Bottles to Australia (1788–1920s)

Most products arrived in the colonies in bulk quantities and were repackaged for consumers in merchants’ stores (Karskens 1999: 73, 163; Lawrence and Davies 2010: 77). In his study of glass bottles recovered from the 1841 wreck of the William Salthouse, Morgan (1990: 174–177) found that beverages were predominantly transported in bulk: approximately 11% of alcoholic beverages were shipped in bottles (champagne and liqueurs were always transported in bottles), while draught ale, rum and “spirits” were always shipped in bulk. Bottles were needed to repackage these products for customers, as well as for manufacturers to sell their products (Busch 1987: 67; Carney 1998: 87; Lucas 2002: 14). Victorian manufacturers purchased bottles from England and the rest of Europe, or other Australian colonies. European bottles were seen as superior as they were thicker and more resistant to breakage under pressure; however these were more costly to import, took time to arrive, and were at risk of loss through transport accidents (Busch 1987: 70; Morgan 1990). Between 1850 and 1880, the cost of an “egg” (torpedo) bottle was two-thirds to double the cost of the beverage it contained (Carney 1998: 91), while beer bottles cost three pence to produce, and when full of beer cost the customer six pence (Best 1990: 52).

Bottle Production in Victoria (1870s–1920s)

While several small glass manufacturers were set up in Victoria between 1837 and the 1870s, none survived more than a few years, and most were focused on window and other glass production rather than bottle production (Arnold 1983: 236, 1987: 8–12, 1990: vii, xi). Felton and Grimwade was the first long-term bottle manufacturing company in Victoria. Originally pharmaceutical importers and manufacturers, they needed a constant supply of bottles for their products, and in 1872 began to manufacture their own (Moloney 2012: 1). Felton and Grimwade soon expanded their business and began manufacturing bottles for other companies. The glass-making section of their company was initially known as the Melbourne Glass Bottle Works, becoming the Australian Glass Manufacturers in 1915 (Arnold 1983: 236, 1985: 25, 1987: 10; Boow 1991: 176, 180; Vader and Murray 1975: 14).

The “Bottle Reuse Cycle” and Bottle Washing Trade

A shortage of bottles and the consequential high demand meant that reusing bottles was an important part of manufacturers’ activities in Melbourne. Bottle reuse can be defined as the recycling of bottles without modification, in order for their use-life to be extended (Schiffer 1987: 36). The process by which the bottles were made, filled, used, washed, refilled and reused - termed the “bottle reuse cycle” by Woff (2014) - ensured that bottles were used to their full potential before being discarded (Fig. 2). The need for such a system arose from a low return rate by customers, a lack of local glass manufacturers, and the illegal use of bottles by rival manufacturers.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The bottle reuse cycle

Full size image

From the initial settlement of Melbourne in 1835, an ad-hoc bottle reuse system would have been in place for the return and reuse of bottles. Individual manufacturing businesses would have collected bottles for their own purposes, and bottle merchants and marine store dealers also carried out the task of collecting and washing bottles. Following the introduction of The Victorian Aerated Water Trade Protection Society in 1883 (ABJ December 20, 1883: 33), it became common for Melbourne beverage manufacturers to charge customers for their bottles, adding this cost to the price of their products when sold in bottles (ABJ 1883–85). By 1904 The Manufacturers Bottle Company of Victoria organised a bottle collection system for “the supply, collection and safeguarding of the bottles of brewers” (Best 1990: 196; Dunstan 1987: 48; Lucas 2002: 15). The bottle reuse cycle was in place commercially from this time into the 1930s, when - following the introduction of machine manufacture in the 1920s - bottles became cheaper to produce (Arnold 1990: viii; Boow 1991: 70).

Bottle washing was carried out by hand to remove any contamination or products left behind from previous use. This involved soaking the bottles in water, then using brushes with hogs-hair or other bristles to clean the inside of the bottles. Brushes were also used to remove exterior labels and other debris. Lead shot was sometimes used to clean bottles by placing it inside the bottle and shaking. However, this method was not preferred as the shot could become lodged in the bases of bottles and was known to poison customers; the lead shot also left behind a smeary residue, particularly on translucent bottles. The bottles were then rinsed, left to drain and stored. Chemicals such as hydrochloric acid (muriatic acid) were sometimes added to the soaking stage so as to loosen material inside the bottle. Foot-peddled and steam-driven machines were later used to increase the efficiency of the process, and hot water was used to soak the bottles (The Argus January 23, 1880: 7; Sulz 1888: 366–374).

The path of a bottle through the reuse cycle had the potential to become very complicated, with bottles changing hands and being washed and refilled many times. The simplest of these paths through the cycle was where bottles were filled by their owners, used by customers and then returned to be refilled and reused. However, individual agency influences these paths, and many options existed for the bottle. Once emptied, bottles could simply be thrown out – into rubbish and cesspits, into the street or otherwise discarded. This could remain their final resting place, or they could be picked up by bottle collectors, known as “bottle-oh’s,” and taken to a bottle merchant, a marine store dealer or a manufacturer to be washed and reused. Once empty the customer could also return the bottle to a shop to be refilled, exchanged for a full bottle, or reimbursed. The option was also available to return the bottle directly to either a bottle merchant, marine store dealer, or to the manufacturer. Throughout this cycle bottles could be filled with various products, not only the product that the original owner intended (Busch 1987: 67–69; Lucas 2002: 14–18, 33, 42; Strasser 1999: 13).

“The Bottle Question”

Despite the bottle reuse cycle being in place, many manufacturers complained that their bottles were not returned. This was referred to by manufacturers as “The Bottle Question,” whereby bottles were discarded, lost or broken by customers, or used by other manufacturers (ABJ 1883–85). These issues, combined with a lack of bottle manufacturers in Melbourne, meant that bottles were in high demand. Various manufacturers discussed the issue in journals at the time, with one particularly frustrated owner lamenting: ‘No man in his senses annexes his neighbour’s new hat or coat; then why should he take his bottles?’ (ABJ October 20, 1888: 15).

Many solutions to this problem were sought by manufacturers, including having their bottles embossed with the company name or trade mark. While embossing became popular after the 1860s, archaeological examples where these ownership statements have been purposefully removed indicate that these were sometimes wilfully ignored (Hutchison 1981: 158; Stuart 1993: 19). From the early 1880s, in reaction to court cases taking place in England and laws relating to bottle ownership being debated, Victorian companies began taking legal action against rival companies for the illegal use of their bottles (ABJ 1883–85). Some factories installed a system of bins for the collection and redistribution of other companies’ bottles (ABJ September 20, 1887: 8), and advertisements were placed in newspapers whereby manufacturers warned against the use of their bottles by others, advertising payment for returned bottles or asking for them to be returned (The Sydney Morning Herald October 29, 1853: 2; The Argus February 3, 1857: 1; January 12, 1858: 1; August 25, 1859: 1; October 27, 1882: 3). Some manufacturers had departments dedicated to collecting and washing bottles, as indicated on an 1888 plan of McCracken’s City Brewery and mentioned in a contemporary newspaper article (Fig. 3; e.g., The Argus January 23, 1880: 7).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Mahlstedt & Gee (1888) Standard Plans of the City of Melbourne - detail view showing the designated bottle washing department at McCracken’s City Brewery [Maps Collection, State Library Victoria]

Full size image

Bottle Merchants and Marine Store Dealers

Both bottle merchants and marine store dealers traded in second-hand goods, acting as middlemen between manufacturers, shopkeepers and customers. While bottle merchants dealt nearly exclusively in bottles, marine store dealers also traded in ships’ paraphernalia (e.g., anchors, cables, sails), rags, bones and scrap metal. However, it is worth noting that these job descriptions appear to have been used interchangeably in Victoria during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries; while distinctions were made between different second-hand wares, bottles fell within the catch-all term “marine stores” (Table 1; The Prahran Telegraph January 27, 1912: 5 - refusal to grant a dealer’s licence solely for the trade of bottles, as “[b]ottles were marine stores”).

Table 1 Legislative definitions of second-hand traders and their wares (1876–1915)
Full size table

Second-hand dealers became the subject of increasing scrutiny during the early 1870s, with newspapers and parliamentarians calling for regulatory action to discourage traffic in stolen goods and juvenile offending (Wilson 2008; Sleight and Nelson 2013: 93–94; The Argus December 10, 1873: 4; August 31, 1876: 6). Legislation enacted between 1876 and 1915 provided a framework for greater supervision of dealers and collectors, including: licencing requirements with an annual fee; registration with the police; regular police inspections of account-books and premises; restriction of business hours, with premises to be closed on Sunday and all public holidays; requirement for collectors to wear tin badges displaying their licence number, and their hand-carts to display the owner’s name and address; and age restrictions for individuals engaged in such trades (The Old Metal Dealers Act 1876; The Marine Stores and Old Metals Act 1888; Marine Stores and Old Metals Act 1890; Marine Stores and Old Metals Act 1907; Marine Stores and Old Metals Act 1912; Marine Stores and Old Metals Act 1915).

In 1888, Victorian MP Henry John Wrixon estimated the number of marine stores as “30 or 40,” who “employed some 700 or 800 young persons […] as gatherers or collectors of marine store wares […] with the object of purchasing different articles of refuse, such as bottles, rags, bones, or almost anything else” (VPD 1888: 493–494). Given that the thrust of his argument was that “many of [the youths] were being regularly trained in crime,” these numbers should be viewed with caution; indeed only 18 bottle dealers and marine stores are listed in the “trades and professions” section of the 1888 Melbourne and Suburban Directory (Fig. 4; VPD 1888: 494; Sands & McDougall 1888: 938, 1017).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Bottle dealers and marine stores listed in the ‘trades and professions’ section of Sands & McDougall's Melbourne and Suburban Directory, 1875–1915 [N.B. many individuals and companies listed themselves under both headings; "marine stores" were not listed in the 1877 Directory]

Full size image

Bottle merchants at 35–37 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne

Between 1875 and 1914, 35–37 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne, was successively occupied by four separate businesses dealing in the trade of second-hand bottles: Kruse & Co. (1875–82), Charles H. Evans & Co. (1883–90), Martin Ratz (1891–1911), and John R. Tweedie (1912–14) (City of Melbourne 1845-1900; Sands & McDougall 1862–1974). Contemporary newspaper accounts indicate that, despite the new legislation, they generally operated in only a quasi-legal fashion.

Businesses (1875–1914)

Kruse & Co. (1875–82)

John Kruse and Charles Henry Evans (Kruse & Co.) advertised heavily between 1875 and 1878, claiming that they would pay the ‘highest prices’ for second-hand goods, including bottles, and offering steady employment for bottle washers (Advocate Jananuary 30, 1875 – May 18, 1878; The Age May 11, 1876 – August 17, 1876; The Argus May 3, 1876 – August 24, 1876, June 29, 1878 – November 21, 1878). Accused of “letting their trucks out to young thieves” in 1876, it seems that Kruse & Co. may have later reformed their business practices, when they were reported in 1882 as returning stolen goods to the police (The Age March 17, 1876: 2; The Argus June 21, 1882: 7).

Following a rash of “beer poisoning cases” attributed to recycled bottles that had been improperly cleaned, Kruse & Co. penned a letter to the editor of The Age on January 20, 1880, noting that they used a solution of muriatic acid to wash the 700–800 gross (100,800–115,200) of bottles sold by their business every month, and that “we have been informed upon reliable authority that our present method of washing bottles will effectually remove any poison, even though it has become crystalised, which may not be soluble in water” (The Age January 22, 1880: 6). However, a newspaper article published the following day noted that there were only “two or three tubs” at the Kruse & Co. A’Beckett Street premises, and that “the upper rows of bottles in soak were not under water” (The Argus January 23, 1880: 7).

Charles H. Evans & Co. (1883–90)

Following the mutual dissolution of Kruse & Co. on September 8, 1882, Charles Evans continued to operate as a second-hand dealer from 35–37 A’Beckett Street (The Argus September 9, 1882: 7). Police detectives retrieved stolen goods from the Charles H. Evans & Co. premises in May 1885, and suggested that he be prosecuted for purchasing less than the minimum weight allowed by The Old Metal Dealers Act 1876. However, Evans had purchased 28 lbs. (12.7 kg) of copper, which - while still stolen goods - was the minimum quantity allowed under the Act, rather than the 30 lbs. (13.6 kg) erroneously cited by the police inspector (The Argus May 25, 1885: 3). The fact that Evans reported an attempted sale of what he suspected was stolen antimony to the police in June 1885 suggests that he was operating his business in a lawful manner - or perhaps attempting to ingratiate himself to the police after the events of the previous month (The Argus June 29, 1885: 10).

Martin Ratz (1891–1911)

Only two references to Martin Ratz have been indentified for the period he occupied 35–37 A’Beckett Street: he was penalized for opening his marine store and bargaining with “the industrious ‘bottle-oh’” on a public holiday in January 1898; and the contents of his “office, store and yard were severely damaged” by a fire in May 1906 (The Argus January 17, 1898: 7; The Age May 15, 1906: 8). Earlier references to Ratz, who appears to have been operating a marine store in either Fitzroy or Collingwood at that time, include the purchase of stolen goods and conducting business without a licence (Mercury and Weekly Courier February 3, 1888: 3; The Argus June 18, 1890: 5).

John R. Tweedie (1912–14)

No additional information regarding John R. Tweedie’s business at 35–37 A’Beckett Street has been located, likely due to the brevity of his occupation of the site.

Structures (1875–1914)

From 1875 the Melbourne Rate Books describe 35–37 A’Beckett Street as a marine yard, with plans dating to 1894 and 1895 depicting the site as encompassing four wooden structures (an office and sheds), three areas of staging, a sink, and copper (Figs. 5 and 6). This layout appears to conform to the description of marine store yards described in an 1880 newspaper article, which specifically mentions Kruse & Co.’s business at A’Beckett Street:

A marine store yard can readily be recognised by the dilapidated character of the buildings by which it is enclosed, and by the groups of street arabs and handcarts usually to be found at the gate. The bottles as they come in are stacked in sheds until wanted by the cleaners. Tubs or square tanks, filled with water and bottles in soak, stand in corners […]. Except in a few instances all the work is done in the open air […] (The Argus January 23, 1880: 7).

A plan dating to ca. 1910–15 shows a similar layout to those of 1894 and 1895 - a small office to the northeast, and a larger structure(s) in the southwest (Fig. 6; MMBW 1894, 1895). While it seems likely that the alteration to extant structures relates to the 1906 fire at 35–37 A’Beckett Street (see previous section), it is possible that the ca. 1910–15 plan is simply less detailed. By 1925, 35–37 A’Beckett Street had been subdivided and encompassed two large brick structures extending across the majority of the site (Fig. 7).

Fig. 5
figure 5

MMBW (1895) City of Melbourne: Detail Plans No.s 1022, 1023 - detail view showing structures and features at 19–37 A’Beckett Street [Maps Collection, State Library Victoria]

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

G. Mahlstedt & Son (ca. 1910–15) City of Melbourne Detail Fire Survey: Section 2, Map 13A - detail view showing structures at 19–37 A’Beckett Street [University of Melbourne archives]

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Mahlstedt’s (1925) City of Melbourne Detail Fire Survey - detail view showing structures at 19–37 A’Beckett Street [Maps Collection, State Library Victoria]

Full size image

Archaeological Evidence

The 2009 excavations associated with the redevelopment of 19–37 A’Beckett Street (measuring 829 m2), revealed well-preserved architectural remains, metal-working complexes, cesspits, rubbish pits and numerous in situ occupation deposits interpreted as pre-dating 1925 (Fig. 8; Dolling et al. 2011a: 66–82, 196–222). Consistently occupied from ca. 1854 until 2006, the project area was used for both residential and commercial purposes by a wide range of individuals and businesses (Sands & McDougall 1862–1974; City of Melbourne 1845–1900).

Fig. 8
figure 8

19–37 A’Beckett Street, Melbourne: nineteenth-century archaeological features and deposits

Full size image

The 35–37 A’Beckett Street site provides a rare opportunity to study the archaeological signature of the trade in second-hand bottles. While at least one other bottle merchant site has been excavated in Victoria, at 280–286 Little Lonsdale Street, the archaeological evidence for bottle merchant activities at 35–37 A’Beckett Street is currently the most extensive and stratigraphically secure (cf. O’Connor et al. 2014: 36–38, 98–106, appendix 2, appendix 5).

The nineteenth-century features and deposits uncovered within 35–37 A’Beckett Street, including postholes, drains, several rubbish pits, and a cesspit, most closely correspond with the 1894 and 1895 plans (see Figs. 5 and 8; MMBW 1894, 1895; Dolling et al. 2011a: 77-78, 80-82). Given that their layout differs significantly from plans dating to 1866 and 1871, it seems likely that the majority of these features post-date 1872 (De Gruchy and Leigh 1866; Cooke 1871). The majority of objects recovered from 35–37 A’Beckett Street are bottles (MNI = 1108; 51.56%) and bottle stoppers (MNI = 462; 21.50%), strongly indicating an association with the trade of second-hand bottles that occurred at the site between 1875 and 1914. In comparison, bottles represent only 12.92% (MNI = 169) of the assemblage recovered from 19–23 A’Beckett Street (Dolling et al. 2011a: 157; Dolling et al. 2011b).

The fill of cesspit 114 - identified at the southwestern corner of 35–37 A’Beckett Street - has been interpreted as being associated with the occupation of the site by bottle merchants (see Fig. 8). Recent research by Hayes and Minchinton (2016: 20) into the waste management history of Melbourne suggests that the fill of cesspit 114 likely predates 1880, and - with only one (intrusive) exception - the date ranges of the recovered artefacts support this view (Fig. 9). The artefacts recovered from within cesspit 114 are predominantly bottles (MNI = 188; 38.76%) and bottle stoppers (MNI = 106; 21.86%), providing further evidence of an association with Kruse & Co. and possibly Charles H. Evans & Co. (Dolling et al. 2011a: 218; Dolling et al. 2011b). While it is possible that these large numbers of bottles and bottle stoppers relate to a major rubbish disposal event prior to closure of the cesspit, this could not be confirmed from the stratigraphic evidence or examination of intactness.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Date ranges of dateable artifacts from the fill of cesspit 114

Full size image

Although the vast majority of bottle stoppers recovered from cesspit 114 were complete/near complete (MNI = 103), all of the bottles were less than 50% intact; these findings suggest the deliberate disposal of broken bottles (including those with in situ stoppers), and damaged stoppers. These broken or unusable stoppers likely represent refuse from the activities of the bottle washers, but - given their relatively small size - may also have been accidentally discarded with other broken bottles or yard sweepings.

The Archaeological Signature of Bottle Merchants

In an attempt to determine an archaeological signature for bottle merchants, the artefacts from cesspit 114 were compared with those from two other contemporary Melbourne sites: cesspit 478 - associated with working-class residential (possibly in combination with light industry) occupation at 21–23 A’Beckett Street; and cesspit 1.400 - associated with working-class residents at 25 Lonsdale Street (Table 2; see Figs. 1 and 8). There are two potential issues with the comparative analysis: cesspits 114 and 478 were both truncated by subsequent building works, which has undoubtedly resulted in their lower numbers of artefacts in comparison to cesspit 1.400; and MNI values were not calculated for the architectural and faunal (diet, wildlife) artefacts recovered from cesspit 1.400 (EAMC Archaeology Database 2016). Despite these drawbacks, the results indicate that it is possible to identify bottle merchant activities from the archaeological record.

Table 2 Summary of cesspits 114, 478, and 1.400
Full size table

As previously discussed, 60.62% of the artefacts recovered from within cesspit 114 are bottles (MNI = 188) and bottle stoppers (MNI = 106) (Table 3; Dolling et al. 2011a: 218; Dolling et al. 2011b). Although cesspit 114 also contained objects generally associated with domestic occupancy, such as buttons, shoes, a smoking pipe, and diet-related animal bone, these likely relate to the disposal of rubbish in the workplace, while the 20 small lead shot (sizes 5, 6, 7 and 8) appear to relate to the bottle washing conducted at this location (Woff 2014: 35).

Table 3 Artifacts recovered from cesspits 114, 478 and 1.400
Full size table

In contrast, the majority of artefacts from cesspit 478 are diet-related faunal remains (47.52%), with bottles comprising only 24.79% of the assemblage (Table 3; Fig. 10). Bottles also make up a significantly smaller proportion of the assemblage from cesspit 1.400 (likely less than 20%), which appears to be dominated by architectural and diet-related faunal artifacts (see Table 3). While MNI values have not yet been calculated for either of these two functional groupings, the MNI ratios for cesspit 1.400 shown in Table 3 appear to be relatively sound; only very minor changes are evident when fragment counts are used in lieu of MNI values for the architectural and faunal artefacts from all three cesspits.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Percentage of bottles and bottle stoppers from cesspits 114, 478, and 1.400

Full size image

Bottle stoppers make up an even smaller proportion of the comparative cesspit assemblages: 0% (MNI = 0) from 478, and <1% (MNI = 6) from 1.400. While soil conditions or other site formation processes may be responsible for the low numbers of cork stoppers from 478 and 1.400, it seems likely that the high percentage (21.86%) of bottle stoppers from cesspit 114 relate to bottle merchant activities.

Glass “beer/wine” bottles were the most frequent bottle form recovered from cesspit 114 (52.72%), indicating that such bottles were commonly washed and resold by the bottle merchants at 35–37 A’Beckett Street, and suggesting an active second-hand trade in this bottle form. However, glass “beer/wine” bottles were also the most common bottle form recovered from the comparative cesspits - 478 (76.67%), and 1.400 (71.83%) - suggesting that they were also regularly used and reused within domestic settings. While other bottle types from cesspit 114 may have formed part of the bottle merchants’ stock in trade, this would not have been to the same extent as “beer/wine” bottles (Table 4).

Table 4 Bottles and bottle stoppers recovered from cesspits 114, 478 and 1.400
Full size table

Although the aim of bottle merchants and marine store dealers was to retain bottles in order to sell them on to manufacturers, accidental breakages were bound to occur on the site. The collection of bottles excavated from cesspit 114 is representative of these accidental breakages, and may also indicate the deliberate breakage of bottles too soiled to wash; for example, those that had contained poisons or similar products. Broken bottles were of no use to the bottle merchant or marine store dealer, and so were discarded by the occupants and staff. As 35–37 A’Beckett Street is a commercial (rather than residential) site, and the contents of cesspit 114 relate to the activities of at least one bottle merchant, it seems reasonable to assume that the bottles recovered from cesspit 114 are associated with bottle reuse rather than the everyday consumption of occupants and staff.

The Implications of Bottle Washing and Reuse

Material culture and consumption analyses generally use bottles as a staple in the interpretation of sites, representing the products people used and consumed, using a form-equals-function relationship. However, when we consider that bottles were often washed and reused multiple times and for various products throughout their use lives, we can no longer rely on a relationship between bottle form and bottle function, and it is clear that misinterpretations may occur in analyses which do not take the activities of bottle merchants and marine store dealers into account (Busch 1987: 67; Stuart 1993). Although the intention of manufacturers was to reuse their bottles for the same product at every instance of reuse, this was not always the case, as seen by the actions of bottle merchants and marine store dealers trade in bottles. Bottles should be treated as containers for products, rather than products themselves (Morgan 1990: 10–11; Thomas 1991: 4). It is therefore important to understand the trade of second-hand bottles, the processes involved, and to take reuse into account, so that assumptions are not made based on stereotyped bottle forms.

Conclusion

Bottles were an important and highly sought after resource for manufacturers in early Melbourne, due to a lack of availability (the result of low return rates), a deficiency of local production, and “theft” by rival companies. Bottles were washed and reused multiple times in order to increase their potential as containers and to recoup the high cost involved in their manufacture and import. The 35–37 A’Beckett Street site provides a unique opportunity to study the archaeological evidence of bottle merchants and marine store dealers, who were important middlemen in the bottle reuse cycle. Comparison of cesspit 114 - interpreted as relating to the occupation of the site by bottle merchants - with cesspits associated with residential occupation suggests that in addition to high proportions of bottles, bottle merchant sites are also likely to exhibit significantly larger numbers of bottle stoppers. “Beer/wine”-style bottles were the most frequently occurring bottle form at all three cesspits, indicating that this type was commonly washed and resold by the bottle merchants at 35–37 A’Beckett Street, and that they were also regularly reused within domestic settings.

This examination of the activities and archaeology of bottle merchants and marine store dealers provides a better understanding of the processes bottles went through before entering the archaeological record, and presents a catalyst for further discussion and research regarding these topics. Bottle reuse and the activities of second-hand bottle dealers should not be disregarded when exploring the form and function of bottles in artefact analyses, and many opportunities exist for further study of bottle reuse and the activities of second-hand bottle dealers.