Cross City Tunnel – Archaeological Report

Executive Summary

The route of the Cross City Tunnel was in the vicinity of several archaeological sites. These were identified in the archaeological assessment covering the route.

This report discusses the results of the archaeological program in each area. The areas investigated were:

1. Barker’s Mill 2. Steam Mill Street housing 3. Bathurst Street / Druitt Street 4. Bourke Street / BOOS branch 5. Bourke Street Ramp (John Palmer’s Farm and terrace housing) 6. Riley Street / Woolloomooloo stormwater drain 7. Craigend Street

Of these areas, only the remains of Barker’s Mill were substantial, although only a small section of the mill building was impacted by the works. The other main area of interest, the nineteenth- century workers’ housing centred around Steam Mill Street adjacent to the mill, turned out to have been severely disturbed by later buildings and the creation of modern day Darling Harbour.

The archaeological program in Darling Harbour was completed with a Public Open Day, allowing access and explanation of the remains of Barker’s Mill.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program

Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Background 1.1 Cross City Tunnel 1 1.2 Archaeological Assessment 1 1.3 The Present Report 2 1.4 Author Identification and Acknowledgements 2 1.5 Terminology 2

2.0 Sites Investigated 2.1 Barker’s Mill 5 2.1.1 Background and History of Barker’s Mill 5 2.1.2 Archaeological Recording of Barker’s Mill 9 2.1.3 Artefacts 13 2.1.4 Barker’s Mill Open Day 19 2.1.5 Sands Lane Drain 20 2.2 Steam Mill Housing 21 2.3 Bathurst / Druitt Street 22 2.4 Bourke Street / BOOS branch 22 2.5 Bourke Street Ramp (John Palmer’s Farm and terrace housing) 23 2.6 Riley Street / Woolloomooloo stormwater drain 26 2.7 Craigend Street 26 2.8 Domain Walling 28 2.9 Other Sites 28

3.0 Response to Research Questions 3.1 Barker’s Mill 30 3.2 Nineteenth-Century Housing 30 3.3 John Palmer’s Farm / Woolloomooloo House 31 3.4 Drains 32 3.5 Review of Heritage Significance 32

4.0 Conditions of Consent 4.1 Actions re Conditions 32 4.2 Domain Walling 37

Appendices Appendix 1: Barker’s Mill Open Day Leaflet Appendix 2: Progress Reports Appendix 3: Assessment of Archaeological Potential and Impacts (from Archaeological Assessment) Appendix 4: History of Barker’s Mill (Extracted from Cross City Tunnel Archaeological Assessment) Appendix 5: Assessment of Heritage Significance of Items Potentially Affected by CCT Works

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program

Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program Cross City Tunnel Route - Darling Harbour to Kings Cross

1.0 Background

1.1 Cross City Tunnel The Cross City Tunnel (CCT) is a twin tunnel crossing under the Sydney CBD from Darling Harbour in the west to the Kings Cross Tunnel in the east (Fig. 1). Works in Riley Street and between Bourke and Palmer Streets provided connections to the existing Eastern Distributor tunnels. Various streetworks also impacted on existing road surfaces. Archaeological investigation and recording was required in those locations where roadworks and cut and cover tunneling meant substantial reduction in levels in areas of archaeological potential, particularly in Darling Harbour. For obvious reasons the areas beyond the driven tunnel portals had no archaeological potential.

The main focus of the archaeological program was the area in Darling Harbour from Harbour Street to the driven tunnel portal in Bathurst Street. This area had the most potential for archaeological remains. The roadworks connecting Harbour Street to the driven tunnel portal in Druitt Street, the roadworks in Riley, Bourke and Palmer Streets and the works at the eastern end of the Kings Cross Tunnel were considered to have lower level of archaeological potential.

This report is a requirement of the archaeological excavation permit obtained for the works (Permit no. 2002/S140/115). The client for the works and this report was Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger Berger (BHBB) Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture.

1.2 Archaeological Assessment The main archaeological assessment of the route was:

Casey & Lowe, Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment, Cross City Tunnel Route - Darling Harbour to Kings Cross. Report to CW-DC Pty Ltd on behalf of BHBB Pty Ltd, Revision No. 1, September 2002.

This assessment supplemented an earlier assessment of the CCT route by Godden Mackay Logan, prepared as part of the EIS documentation. This report dealt in some detail with the archaeological resource along the southern side of William Street, which would be impacted by proposed tunneling in this area. The route as adopted traveled under William Street, emerging on the eastern side of the Kings Cross Tunnel. To update the EIS, Godden Mackay Logan completed a Heritage Impact Statement which looked at various aspects of the adopted route in terms of potential or known historic archaeological remains. These reports were:

Godden Mackay Logan, Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment, Cross City Tunnel Paper 14, prepared for PPK Environment and Infrastructure and RTA, May 2000.

Godden Mackay Logan, Cross City Tunnel - EIS Update: Woolloomooloo Drain, BOOS Branch and Palmer’s Farm, Heritage Impact Statement, May 2002.

1.3 Aims of Report This report details the results of the recording of the archaeological remains encountered during the civil works associated with the CCT.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 2

The main areas examined during the archaeological program were:

Of these components, Barker’s Mill required the most archaeological input.

1.4 Author Identification and Acknowledgements This report has been written by Tony Lowe and reviewed by Dr Mary Casey, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd.

The archaeological program was expedited by the staff of the BHBB Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture who ran the civil side of the works. Colin Calder and David Packer were particularly helpful in organising access to the Barker’s Mill archaeological site as well as expediting testing in Darling Harbour generally. Susette Dixon and her team in the environmental unit were always available and helpful.

Yvonne Kaiser-Glass, Heritage Office archaeologist, made herself available to discuss statutory issues and general compliance.

Wayne Johnson, Sydney Cove Authority archaeologist, assisted with the relocation of the millstone from Barker’s Mill.

Franz Reidel and Glen Suey assisted with the monitoring of works, archaeological testing and the excavation and recording of Barker’s Mill. Franz Reidel planned the Barker’s Mill remains exposed in Harbour Street. Robert Stanton Excavations assisted with machine testing in the Bourke Street Ramp area.

1.5 Terminology

Archaeological Potential Archaeological potential is here used and defined as a site’s potential to contain archaeological relics which fall under the provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 (amended). This potential is identified through historical research and by judging whether current building or other activities have removed all evidence of known previous land use.

Archaeological Site A place that contains evidence of past human activity. Below ground sites include building foundations, occupation deposits, features and artefacts. Above ground archaeological sites include buildings, works, industrial structures and relics that are intact or ruined.

Archaeological Investigation or Excavation The manual excavation of an archaeological site. This type of excavation on historic sites usually involves the stratigraphic excavation of open areas.

Archaeological Monitoring

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 3

Archaeological monitoring is recommended for those areas where the impact of the works is not considered to mean the destruction of significant archaeological fabric. Nevertheless the disturbance of features both suspected and unsuspected is possible. In order to provide for the proper assessment and recording of these features an archaeologist should inspect the works site at intervals they consider to be adequate and to be ‘at call’ in case the contractor uncovers remains that should be assessed by the archaeologist. The discovery of unexpected significant relics would require additional Heritage Office approval.

Monitoring is a regular archaeological practice used on many building and development sites.

Excavation Permit A permit to disturb or excavate a relic issued by the Heritage Council of New South Wales under Section 60 (for sites on the State Heritage Register) or Section 140 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

Research Design A set of questions which can be investigated using archaeological evidence and a methodology for addressing them. A research design is intended to ensure that archaeological investigations focus on genuine research needs. It is an important tool that ensures that when archaeological resources are destroyed by excavation, their information content can be preserved and can contribute to current and relevant knowledge.

Research Potential The ability of a site or feature to yield information through archaeological investigation. The significance of archaeological sites is assessed according to their ability to contribute information to substantive research questions, although some archaeological remains may be significant for other reasons, including on aesthetic, historic and/or social grounds.

Sampling Sampling of the archaeological resource is an excavation strategy that is adopted when there is a large area that contains a similar resource and it is not considered warranted to fully excavate everything as the sample can be extrapolated to stand for the whole of the resource. The sample taken should be considered representative of the whole related resource and should be chosen only after detailed consideration of the various alternatives.

Testing The usual intention behind archaeological testing is to have a look in the ground to confirm the archaeological potential of the site identified in the archaeological assessment. It can be an integral part of the process of confirming the presence or absence or integrity of the archaeological resources. It is important to have a testing strategy that addresses the predictive model rather than just looks for structures. Determining the location of significant remains can identify development constraints and allow for informed development decisions.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 4

Fig. 1.1: Key Plan. The sites are listed in Section 1.3. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 5

2.0 Sites Investigated

2.1 Barkers Mill

2.1.1 Background and History of Barker’s Mill1 The route of the CCT on-ramp in Harbour Street was known to cut through the site of Barker’s Mill. Considering the location of the mill site within Harbour Street it was not feasible for any testing to occur prior to the commencement of civil works in this area. Several weeks were therefore set aside to record the remains prior to their removal. This recording took place once both sides of the ramp had been piled (i.e. to retain the existing traffic lane on both sides of the ramp), the existing road pavement removed and fill above the remains excavated.

It was thought that the mill’s walls might stand several metres tall in this area, a surviving section of the mill having been demolished in 1986 for the construction of the existing roadway. Along with the basement floor, a range of machine bases, machinery and general debris was expected. The areas to the north and south of the mill were also expected to retain remains, such as evidence of the mill pond to the south of the mill buildings.

The mill, later known as Barker’s Mill, was founded by the businessmen Cooper and Levey in 1825, when they imported a 14 horse-power steam engine and began to build a mill on the eastern shore of Cockle Bay, with the intention of grinding grain. At the time it was the second steam mill established in the colony, the first being John Dickson’s just to the south. Cooper and Levey’s mill was close to wharfage and fresh water supply. The steam engine was operational by December 1825 and by 1826 the firm had a large wharf at Cockle Bay near the steam engine and had also built a five-storey grain store.

In 1827 Thomas Barker bought Cooper and Levey’s flour mill (Fig. 2.1). Barker had been at one time Dickson’s apprentice. The price for the ‘capital building and steam engine with other machinery and apparatus for the purpose of grinding corn’ was £6,000, with a mortgage of £5,000 to Cooper & Levey. By 1828, Barker was a substantial employer, his Sussex Street enterprise consisting of John Dickson superintendent; Alexander Dyers millwright; Joseph Kendall clerk; William Lowe engineer; Dennis Murray cook; George Payne groom; Charles Bones and James Burbridge millers; James Browne gardener; seven labourers; two carters; two housemaids and a waterman.

By about 1830 the main elements of Barker’s property were two large stone buildings, one an additional mill building constructed in the late 1830s, steam engine and boilers, two mill ponds fed by a stream running from the east under Sussex Street and some smaller buildings close to the southern boundary (Fig. 2.2). The main mill buildings were five storeyed, with cellars, making them very substantial structures.

In the mid-1840s, Barker diversified into cloth milling (Fig. 2.3). This required rearrangement of the flour mill to accommodate the new machinery. In 1852, Barker’s Tweed Factory was one of the two largest cloth factories in New South Wales. In 1871, a description of the flour mill in the Town & Country Journal reported that it was of freestone, five stories high with a verandah along the whole length of the building, raised about four feet from the ground for ease of loading wheat and flour (Fig. 2.4). In the mill six pairs of stones, three 4ft 10in and three 4ft 6in of the finest French burr, ground 130 tons of flour per week. The engine-room and boiler-shed at the back of the mill housed a low-pressure 70 hp beam engine and two tubular boilers, supplied with water from a tank 40ft wide by 60ft deep. Adjoining the mill was a large flour store capable of holding 800 tons and at the other side of the yard were carpenters’ and millwrights’ shops.

1 See the comprehensive history of the Barker’s Mill site written by Rosemary Annable for the Casey & Lowe archaeological assessment. It is reproduced in Appendix 4 of this report and on Casey & Lowe’s webpage: www.caseyandlowe.com.au. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 6

In May 1872, Barker and Co’s Tweed Manufactury, which was housed in the older mill building, was destroyed by fire, although the flour mill survived. The old mill building was replaced by a single-storey stone building with saw-tooth roof and basement (Fig 2.5).

In 1879 Barker & Co. sold the mill, it being described as ‘large steam flour mill with capacious store attached, boiler house, stables (10 stalls) coach-house, &c. The mill is an extensive stone building, substantially and faithfully built, having walls 3 feet in thickness at the base, and 2 feet at the upper portions. The walls are 50 feet high, and the building contains 5 floors built in the strongest possible manner, with hardwood timber’. The mill contained 6 pairs of stones, a smut machine and 4 silk flour-dressing machines, driven by a 70 hp condensing engine with two boilers but, the auctioneers noted, could be “easily adapted to other manufacturers’ purposes”. The new owners, Robert Harper & Co., were ‘importers of coffee, pepper, spices, rice, sago, tapioca &c.’ and millers and dressers of coffees, peppers, spices, rice, cocoa, oatmeal, groats and maize meal. The new activities required new structures such as circular roasting kilns.

Although the mill functioned into the middle of the twentieth century, the old buildings were whittled away by new development and new roads. Two walls were identified as belonging to the old mill in 1986 during the planning for the redevelopment of Darling Harbour and were recorded at that time (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.1: Thomas Barker’s land in 1828. Surveyor General’s Sketchbook Vol. 1, fol. 27, State Records Reel 2778, #750A.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 7

Fig. 2.2: Surveyor’s Fieldbook plan showing the mill. The 1830 addition is clearly visible on the southern side of the 1825 building. North to top. A. Hallen [1828-1830], FB 347, SR Reel 2628.

Fig. 2.3: c1847 plan of Barker’s Mill. North to top. Sydney University Archives. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 8

Fig. 2.4: Barker’s Mill in c1870, looking from Sussex Street. The main building shows at least three phases of construction. ML SPF/484 (PICMAN).

Fig. 2.5: Dove’s 1880 plan showing the surviving part of the original mill building (arrowed) with the new north-south building, ‘Vicar’s Tweed Factory’, to the east. North to top.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 9

Fig. 2.6: City of Sydney Plan showing the site in c1960. The surviving walls of Barker’s Mill, standing two storeys in height, are indicated. These were recorded and demolished in 1986. North to top.

2.1.2 Archaeological Recording of Barker’s Mill Civil works in the vicinity of Barker’s Mill mainly comprised the construction of an on-ramp into the Bathurst Street tunnel (Fig. 2.7). Initial works involved looking for and relocating services and the excavation of a slot either side of the ramp so that the sides of the excavation could be concrete piled, thereby retaining the roadway while the ramp was being bulk excavated. These works were monitored by the archaeologist so that elements of the main mill building could be recognised.

Overlays of the route onto historic plans showed that the ramp would cut through the old mill building, as well as areas of housing to the north (see Section 2.2 below, Steam Mill Housing) and the north-south oriented Vicars Tweed Factory that replaced the burnt out section of the old mill (Fig. 2.7). The archaeological recording of the section of Barker’s Mill impacted by the ramp occurred from 1 March to 16 March 2004.

Although standing walls of the mill’s cellar were predicted, the archaeological remains found were not as substantial as expected. The excavated area, being only seven metres wide, gave only a narrow sample of the site and of the main mill building (Fig. 2.7). The remains recorded were sections of the one metre thick northern, middle and southern wall of the mill building (Fig. 2.8, 2.9, 2.10). These walls correspond to the original 1820s mill, with the 1830s addition on its southern side. The interior of the northern building was partly sandstone flagged, with an internal machine-brick cross wall, presumably a rebuilding of an earlier cross wall (Fig. 2.9). A ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 10

timber-lined pit was located in the western half of the northern mill building, presumably associated with cloth manufacturing. The pit had been cut through by the brick wall (Fig. 2.9, 2.30).

Fig. 2.7: Route of CCT on-ramp overlaid on 1886 survey and 1847 plan (green). The arrow points to the cut & cover portal, immediately to the north of the main mill building. North to top.

The southern building had fewer structural elements, with a small rectangular room with brick and stone walls and some remnant sandstone stone flagging, although most of the ground surface in this area was natural clay. A segment of millstone was found adjacent to the rectangular room (Fig. 2.9, 2.21). Concrete pads and machine-made brick walls from later buildings were evident on both sides of the mill.

On the northern side of the mill the removal of the rubble covering the area revealed weathered bedrock. A row of postholes against the face of the wall and others further out with timber pads in their base were probably remnants of the verandah that is shown in illustrations of the mill.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program

Casey & Lowe Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program

Casey & Lowe 12

On the outside of the southern wall was a square pit constructed of sandstock bricks. An iron pipe ran into the pit through the western wall of the pit (Fig. 2.27), implying that it housed a pump, probably supplying water for the clothmaking process or for the steam engine. A drain constructed from machine-made brick ran along the western half of the southern mill wall.

To the south of the mill building was half of a machine-brick built water tank and the corner of a sandstone footing (Fig. 2.8, 2.25, 2.26). The ground surface in this area was mainly ash deposits over natural clay. No evidence for the mill pond was found.

Fig. 2.10: Extrapolated plan showing the section of the mill excavated. The southwest corner had been recorded in 1986 prior to its demolition.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 13

Apart from the timber-lined pit, the pump pit, and the millstone segment, there was no evidence of machinery or other apparatus that could be linked with mill operations, whether flour or cloth mill.

2.1.3 Artefacts No artefacts were recovered from the Barker’s Mill excavation other than the millstone segment and stone from sections of the flooring and walls. Several pallets of these elements were taken to SHFA’s storage area at the White Bay Power Station site.

Fig. 2.11: Monitoring works in Harbour Street, Fig. 2.12: Concrete slab under Harbour Street to 28/4/03. north of Barker’s Mill, 28/5/03.

Fig. 2.13: Section of Darling Harbour worksite, Fig. 2.14: Piling in vicinity of Barker’s Mill, 5/8/03. 11/7/03.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 14

Fig. 2.15: Clearing debris from above mill Fig. 2.16: Clearing debris from above mill footings, footings, 1/3/04. 1/3/04.

Fig. 2.17: Looking south from cut and cover portal, Fig. 2.18: Working to south of northern mill wall, 2/3/04. 2/3/04

Fig. 2.19: Clearing by hand and machine back from Fig. 2.20: Clearing inside mill building. Note northern wall of mill, 2/3/04. bedrock in foreground, 3/3/04.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 15

Fig. 2.21: Segment of millstone in situ. Scale 1m. Fig. 2.22: Information signage attached to overhead 12/3/04. walkway to north of mill site, 17/2/04.

Fig. 2.23: Sandstone footings and flooring in mill, Fig. 2.24: Looking south over mill remains from cut looking towards cut and cover portal, 10/3/04. and cover portal, 12/3/04.

Fig. 2.25: Looking north over extent of remains, Fig. 2.26: Water tank to south of mill, 12/3/04. 12/3/04.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 16

Fig. 2.27: Pump pit adjacent to southern wall of Fig. 2.28: Southern wall of mill looking west, mill, 12/3/04. 12/3/04.

Fig. 2.29: Northern wall of mill looking east, Fig. 2.30: Brick and timber-lined pit, looking east, 12/3/04. 15/3/04.

Fig. 2.31: Removing millstone segment, 15/3/04. Fig. 2.32: Transporting millstone and other stones, 16/3/04.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 17

Fig. 2.33: Survey data courtesy of BHBB showing location of remains in relation to standing walls recorded in 1986.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 18

Fig. 2.34: Standing walls of mill recorded in 1986. Courtesy Andrew Wilson.

Fig. 2.35: Reconstruction of section of wall recorded in 1986. Courtesy Andrew Wilson. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 19

Fig. 2.36: Interpretive plan showing how the remains recorded within the CCT ramp in 2004 correspond with the standing walls recorded in 1986, and how they fit with the mill layout as shown in 1847.

2.1.4 Barker’s Mill Open Day A Public Open Day was held on Saturday 13 March 2004 to give interested persons a chance to see the archaeological remains. Access to the site, safety, viewing areas and guides were organised by BHBB Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture. Some 300 people attended. There were interpretation panels around the ramp giving the history of the mill, including a labeled plan of the remains (Fig. 2.37). Personnel were on hand from the environmental section of BHBB to answer questions and each person was given a handout explaining the site and its importance (Appendix 1). Archaeological work continued during the Open Day so the public could see the site in operation (Fig. 2.38).

Of particular interest was the attendance of several descendants of Thomas Barker and his brothers. Some of them had worked in the family business at other locations in the city area.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 20

Fig. 2.37: Open Day interpretation panel explaining Fig. 2.38: Public at Barker’s Mill Open Day, 13/3/04. the site and remains, 13/3/04.

2.1.5 Sands Lane Drain During service relocation, a sandstone slab drain was uncovered in Sands Lane, immediately off Sussex Street (Fig. 2.39, 2.40, 2.41). This drain appears to be the one shown on the 1847 plan (Fig. 2.3), draining under the laneway and into the mill pond. Undisturbed sections of the drain should be present further west along the laneway.

Fig. 2.39: Excavating in Sands Lane, 30/5/03. Fig. 2.40: Recording drain in Sands Lane, 30/5/03.

Fig. 2.41: Detail of the Sands Lane drain, 30/5/03.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 21

2.2 Steam Mill Street Housing In the area to the north and west of Barker’s Mill were nineteenth-century workers’ terraces, mostly housing mill employees (Fig. 2.42). It was envisaged that these houses would the second focus of the CCT archaeological program, requiring careful sampling of several of the houses, leading to comparison of the results with similar period sites in Sydney.

Fig. 2.42: Route of CCT Darling Harbour on-ramp through nineteenth-century housing adjacent to Barker’s Mill (bottom right). The houses highlighted in yellow represented houses proposed to be sample excavated.

The length of the CCT works north of Barker’s Mill were monitored and areas tested. This showed that most of the area had been severely impacted by Darling Harbour works. Most of the area was fill under the existing roadway surfaces, deposited over bedrock (Fig. 2.43, 2.44). No remains of the nineteenth-century housing were found.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 22

Fig. 2.43: Testing area to north of Barker’s Mill, Fig. 2.44: Testing area to north of Barker’s Mill, 23/4/03. 28/5/03.

2.3 Bathurst Street / Druitt Street The area off Bathurst Street to be impacted by the CCT works was to be archaeologically tested and sampled if substantive remains were present. The remaining area and the works in Druitt Street was to be monitored by the archaeologist. The external sandstone and machine-made brick footings of a hotel on the northwest corner of Bathurst and Day Streets were uncovered and noted (Fig. 2.45, 2.46). They belonged to a later nineteenth-century hotel on this site and had limited archaeological potential.

The relocation of services in Druitt Street (Fig. 2.47) exposed older services but nothing of importance. The finding of a brick pit was notified to the archaeologist as the brick was thought to be handmade but, on inspection, they were seen to be extruded clay bricks and so likely to be associated with an electrical pit (Fig. 2.48).

Fig. 2.45: Brick and sandstone footing on NW Fig. 2.46: Sandstone footing on NW corner of corner of Bathurst and Day Streets, 4/6/03. Bathurst and Day Streets, 4/6/03.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 23

Fig. 2.47: Monitoring service relocation in Druitt Fig. 2.48: Machine-made bricks from electrical pit in Street, 14/8/03. Druitt Street, 14/8/03.

2.4 Bourke Street / BOOS branch The works on the in Bourke Street were thought likely to disturb nineteenth-century drainage structures, probably mainly brick oviform in nature and possibly remnant features associated with Palmer’s farm. These should be recorded by the archaeologist.

When the Bourke Street area was inspected, the existing road surface was found to sit in weathered bedrock and natural sub-soils (Fig. 2.49, 2.50). There was no sign of structural items such as drains. The branch of the Bondi Ocean Outfall Sewer (BOOS) was not exposed by the works. No soil features that could be related to Palmer’s farm were observed.

Fig. 2.49: Works in Bourke Street, 30/10/03. Fig. 2.50: Works in Bourke Street, showing depth of bedrock and subsoil, 30/10/03.

2.5 Bourke Street Ramp (John Palmer’s farm and terrace housing) The area of the Bourke Street ramp had the potential to retain features belonging to John Palmer’s farm, including walls, fencelines and footings of outbuildings (Fig. 2.51), as well as archaeological features belonging to the 1860s terraces in this area. It was proposed that the area, including the area of the works shaft off William Street, would be tested prior to the commencement of civil works.

The site of a terrace fronting Bourke Street shown on the 1865 survey plan was tested (Fig. 2.52). A thin layer of crushed fill over natural clay strata or bedrock was found (Fig. 2.53). Towards ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 24

William Street, in the area to be impacted by the works shaft, a number of trenches were excavated (Fig. 2.54 - 2.58). The area was found to contain machine-made brick footings which had disturbed earlier sandstone footings, both footings representing commercial buildings along William Street. Apart from the footings, no archaeological deposits were encountered, the strata comprising building debris over natural soil. The western side of the area was fill, having been apparently excavated as part of the Eastern Distributor works. No evidence of earlier features, including sandstock brick debris or artefact deposits, was found.

Fig. 2.51: 1842 plan showing location of ‘Wolomoloo House’ (c1800), its outbuildings and fencelines in relation to the proposed road alignments. ML M4 811.18112/1856/1. This plan indicates that fencing and yards were once present in the area of impact (shown in blue), between Palmer and Bourke Street.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 25

Fig. 2.52: Area of Bourke Street Ramp affected by excavation overlaid on 1865 plan. The solid yellow box shows a terrace that was tested. An area to the west of the shaft was also tested.

Fig. 2.53: Testing for remains of terrace off Bourke Fig. 2.54: Testing between Bourke and Palmer Street, 17/12/02. Streets, 17/12/02.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 26

Fig. 2.55: Testing between Bourke and Palmer Fig. 2.56: Testing between Bourke and Palmer Streets, 16/12/02. Streets, 17/12/02.

Fig. 2.57: Testing between Bourke and Palmer Fig. 2.58: Testing between Bourke and Palmer Streets. Fill over concrete slab, 17/12/02. Streets. Fill over natural soil, 17/12/02.

2.6 Riley Street / Woolloomooloo stormwater drain Initial work options may have seen the branch of the CCT tunnel in Riley Street open cut. This would have potentially exposed a range of remains. The option chosen, however, was to bore the tunnel under Riley Street. Excavation works in Sir John Young Crescent involved removal of the roadbase but no structural features were found. There were no archaeological issues in this area.

2.7 Craigend Street A 1903 plan showed that the new CCT tunnel on the southern side of the existing Kings Cross Tunnel might impact on two house sites (Fig. 2.59). In the event, the tunnel intersected the corner of the cellar of one of these houses, or another house entirely (Fig. 2.60, 2.61). The house itself was situated under the road to the south of the tunnel. There was no evidence of house sites elsewhere within the area excavated for the new tunnel.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 27

Fig. 2.59: The CCT route on the southern side of the Kings Cross Tunnel, overlaid by 1903 plan, showing two house sites.

Fig. 2.60:Corner of building cellar under Craigend Fig. 2.61: Detail of cellar, 11/9/03. Street, 11/9/03. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 28

2.8 Domain Walling The temporary removal of sections of the old Domain estate sandstone walling along the western side of Sir John Young Crescent was also managed in terms of their careful removal and storage, so as to minimise damage to the stone. The removal of the walling required a Section 60 application to the Heritage Council as the area is listed within the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain which is on the State Heritage Register.

Two sections were removed. The first (approval Q2/S60/161, dated 30 October 2002) allowed for the permanent removal of up to 5m of the Boundary Fence at the entrance driveway to the ESR Maintenance Depot in Sir John Young Crescent. The stonework from this section of wall was given to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust for possible reuse elsewhere within the Domain curtilage, in accordance with Condition 4 of the approval.

A section S65A application (approval 02/S60/161, dated 4 April 2003) was gained to temporarily remove a further 10.5m section of the boundary wall to permit turning vehicles access and egress to and from RIC yard. This section of wall has now been replaced.2

2.9 Other Sites Monitoring of other site works included monitoring of preliminary service and geotechnical investigations in Harbour Street in December 2002, and monitoring of geotechnical core drilling on the northern side of the Sydney Town Hall. This latter area was part of the Old Sydney Burial Ground (1792-1820) and it was possible that grave fills might be recognised in the cores retrieved (Fig. 2.62). In the event, inspection of the cores showed no sign of fill that could be interpreted as graves (Fig. 2.63).

Fig. 2.62: Monitoring core-drilling on northern side Fig. 2.63: Inspecting core for evidence of grave cuts of Sydney Town Hall, part of Old Sydney and fill, 12/10/02. Burial Ground (1792-1820), 12/10/02.

Works along Wisdom Lane on the southern side of William Street were inspected but no remains were sighted (Fig. 2.64).

2 Pers. com. Susette Dixon, BHBB Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture, 24/2/06. ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 29

Fig. 2.64: Inspection of Wisdom Lane work site, 30/10/03.

Tram tracks and tramway sleepers were found in various locations, including in Kings Cross Road and in William Street. These remains are usually regarded as being of low significance because they can be found in roadways throughout Sydney. Their presence was noted but active recording was not seen as being warranted.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 30

3.0 Response to Research Questions

Any archaeological program should be conducted within a research agenda, meaning that the purpose and intent of the program should be able to be clearly articulated. This is required as part of the excavation permit application process to the Heritage Office. The research questions posed for the identified resource were:

3.1 Barker’s Mill 1. Nature of the evidence for the construction techniques and materials of this major mid nineteenth-century industrial complex. Is there evidence for the modification, burning and demolition of these buildings? Extent or reclamation in this area associated with the construction of the buildings. 2. Nature of the evidence for the early steam technology used in the building. Does it conform to the assumed pattern of upgrading technology throughout the nineteenth century?

Only a small proportion of the main mill building was sampled. This did not allow for an in- depth analysis of the building and its various alterations, although machine-made brick additions were obvious. Certain expected remains, such as the cellar with resultant standing walls, did not eventuate. No machinery was present and only limited infrastructure such as piping, although this could have been introduced at a later stage of the buildings life, rather than when it was used as a mill. There was no obvious evidence for the 1870s fire that destroyed much of the original mill or for reclamation indicating that the land had originally been part of Cockle Bay.

The mill site is considered to be of high heritage significance because of its place in the industrial and manufacturing history of NSW. The physical remains of the mill, at least in the location of the CCT works, did not contribute a great deal to furthering our understanding of the place and its use, apart from verifying substantial remains of the mill building would be present elsewhere in the area.

3. Do these remains challenge our understanding of workers lives, especially women and children in urban Sydney?

The remains did not contribute to answering this question.

3.2 Nineteenth-Century Housing The following questions were aimed at the expected remains of workers’ housing adjacent to Barker’s Mill, the Steam Mill Street housing.

1. What evidence survives of the earliest housing in this part of the city? Does the archaeological evidence support the contention that a high proportion of the dwellings in the area would be “structurally deficient, unventilated, poorly roofed, lacking in even the most basic sanitary conveniences, and with rubbish-accumulated and rat-infested basements and yards”.

2. How does the material culture recovered from the excavation of nineteenth-century housing amend or challenge the nineteenth-century view of male middle-class inspectors who reported on the poor housing and living conditions of this part of the city? 3. How does the archaeology challenge or amend the proposition that ‘Sydney in the second-half of the nineteenth century was a prosperous and egalitarian society’?

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 31

4. An important aspect of the analysis of the archaeological remains from this study area is the opportunity it provides for a comparative examination of the sets of archaeological evidence from individual households and the houses as part of a neighbourhood. This will be a focus of the overall analysis. It requires a comparative analysis of each house or dwelling lot to each other.

Does the archaeological evidence shed light on the lives of women and the way in which their lives were structured and organised within nineteenth- century life and how their gender identities were formed?

5. What evidence is there for the standard of living enjoyed by the various residents, especially those who worked in the adjacent to Barker’s and Vicars’ mills?

6. Where houses are connected with the same family for extended periods are there discrete domestic assemblages which can be attributed to their occupation, which can then be used to reconstruct the family’s standard of living?

7. Is there evidence for cottage crafts or other unrecorded professions or works in these houses?

The above questions were focused on the remains expected in the area referred to as Steam Mill Street. As set out in the description of the archaeological program, it was expected that remains of the workers’ nineteenth-century housing to the north of Barker’s Mill would contribute to addressing these questions. In the event, no remains of this housing had survived the subsequent industrialisation of the area and the creation of Darling Harbour. Consequently, no archaeological cultural deposits or features that could be analysed and which would contribute to these questions were found.

3.3 John Palmer’s Farm / Woolloomooloo House 1. Nature of evidence found relating to John Palmer’s farm. • Does it amend our understanding of the layout of early farms, • Evidence relating to the various activities on the farm such as brick making, dairying, growing of crops, etc. 2. How does it add to our understanding of early colonial life, by challenging or supporting assumptions of elite living standards and wider access to markets through their purchasing power and contacts? 3. Palmer and Riley were well-known individuals in colonial Sydney. Does the archaeological evidence shed light of their lives or their lives of their families and servants?

As set out in the description of the archaeological recording, the worksite was adjacent to Palmer’s Woolloomooloo House and within its grounds. Part of the area, the area closest to the house, had been disturbed by previous works. No remains or features that could be linked to the house, its outbuildings or the farm generally were identified. The testing in the area showed impacts from extensive rebuilding of the commercial buildings fronting William Street and from the demolition of the terraces along Bourke Street.

3.4 Drains 1. Record and analyse drainage construction and function where early drains are encountered.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 32

At the beginning of the project, two large drains were possibly to be impacted or exposed – a branch of the BOOS and part of the Woolloomooloo stormwater drain. In the end, both items were not exposed due to works redesign and therefore no recording was possible. The only drain recorded was the sandstone box drain in Sands Lane which would have been part of the Sussex Street drainage, and took stormwater down into the mill pond to the south of Barker’s Mill. Although these structures are difficult to date, it is probably from the first half of the 1800s, being shown on the 1847 plan of the area. It was a well-built structure and is likely to have operated for some years before silting up. An unknown length of the drain is likely to survive further to the west within the laneway.

3.5 Review of Heritage Significance An assessment of the heritage significance of elements that were potentially to be impacted by the CCT works was undertaken as part of the archaeological assessment. Generally, most of the assessed items had limited impacts or no archaeological remains were present (such as in the Steam Mill area).

In terms of Barker’s Mill, the statement of heritage significance contained in the archaeological assessment, read:

Barker’s Mill The Barker’s Mill site should retain substantially intact archaeological remains associated with the second steam mill built in the colony. These remains were part of a large industrial complex involved in important economic activities in the life and development of Sydney and the Colony. The steam technologies of the mill were adapted and replaced as the use and efficiency of the mill increased and was amended over time. These remains have potential to answer a variety of research questions of relevance to Australian history: early industrial building technology, changing attitudes to industrial building technology, and relationships between workers and employers and working conditions in large industrial complexes. These remains have a State level of heritage significance.

While the State level of significance of the Barker’s Mill remains and its place in the beginning of manufacturing in NSW is clear, the uncovered remains were restricted in size and aspect and did not exhibit the massive qualities expected. Nor were the remains as found capable of contributing to the research questions posed above.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 33

4.0 Conditions of Consent

4.1 Actions re Conditions The Archaeological Excavation Permit covering the route (2002/S140/115) had a number of conditions. These are listed below and the response to each given. The Applicant refers to BHBB Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture. The nominated Excavation Director was Tony Lowe, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd.

Condition Requirement Casey & Lowe Comments Condition 1 The Applicant must ensure that the possibility of an Testing in the area of the Steam alternative route for the CCT in the Steam Mill Street area is Mill housing revealed no considered because, if adopted, it would significantly reduce remains had survived. the impact on the 19th century housing to the north of the Barker’s Mill site; Condition 2 The permit is valid for three years from the date of approval. The archaeological works were Requests for extension after this time will only be completed within three years. considered in writing; Condition 3 The Heritage Office must be informed of the The Heritage Office was sent commencement and completion of the archaeological copies of the progress reports. program at least 5 days prior to the commencement and within 5 days of the completion of work on each site; Condition 4 The Applicant must ensure that if substantial intact No unexpected remains were archaeological deposits and/or State significant relics not found. identified in Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment: Cross City Tunnel Route - Darling Harbour to Kings Cross (Revision No.1, September 2002) by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd are discovered, work must cease in the affected area(s) and the Heritage Office contacted for advice. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery; Condition 5 The Applicant must ensure that the nominated Excavation The archaeological program Director carries out the excavation and public interpretation was conducted by Tony Lowe, in accordance with the approved research design, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, in methodology and recommendations outlined in the report accordance with the approved titled Excavation Permit Application Cross City Tunnel: conditions. Archaeological Methodology and Research Design (November 2002) by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, Non- Indigenous Archaeological Assessment: Cross City Tunnel Route - Darling Harbour to Kings Cross (Revision No.1, September 2002) by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd and in the stated conditions of consent; Condition 6 The Applicant must ensure that recording of archaeological No remains of the housing in resources in the Steam Mill Street area includes photographs Steam Mill Street were found. and elevation drawings as well as survey data to allow computer mapping of the remains along the route, which will be used complement the reporting process Condition 7 The Applicant must ensure that prior to the removal of any No substantive remains were archaeological resources in the vicinity of Bathurst Street / found in this area. Druitt Street, any archaeological resources located or likely to be disturbed are recorded photographically, through the preparation of detailed elevation drawings and in plan; Condition 8 The Applicant must ensure that the nominated Excavation The sewer was not exposed or Director is present to monitor CCT excavation-based civil impacted by the civil works. works likely to impact archaeologically sensitive areas in the vicinity of the Bourke Street Branch of the Bondi Ocean Outfall Sewer; Condition 9 The Applicant must ensure that prior to the removal of any No significant archaeological non-State significant archaeological resources in the vicinity remains were found. of the Bourke Street Branch of the Bondi Ocean Outfall Sewer, the Heritage Office requires that any archaeological resources located or likely to be disturbed are recorded photographically, through the preparation of detailed elevation drawings and in plan; Condition 10 Should any State significant relics associated with John No remains that could be ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 34

Palmer's farm be located in the vicinity of the Bourke Street associated with Palmer’s farm Branch of the Bondi Ocean Outfall Sewer, the Applicant were found. must ensure that the Heritage Office is consulted prior to their removal. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery. Should the demolition of such State significant relics be endorsed by the Heritage Office, the Applicant must ensure that detailed recording is undertaken which must include photographs and elevation drawings as well as survey data to allow computer mapping of the remains, which will be used complement the reporting process; Condition 11 Should any State significant relics associated with John No remains that could be Palmer's farm be located in the vicinity of the Bourke Street associated with Palmer’s farm Ramp and works shaft off William Street, the Applicant were found. must ensure that the Heritage Office is consulted prior to their removal. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery. Should the demolition of such State significant relics be endorsed by the Heritage Office, the Applicant must ensure that detailed recording is undertaken which must include photographs and elevation drawings as well as survey data to allow computer mapping of the remains, which will be used complement the reporting; Condition 12 The Applicant must ensure that a copy of any recorded data The Woolloomooloo associated with the Woolloomooloo Stormwater Drain, and Stormwater Drain was not interpretative material if applicable, is provided to the impacted by the civil works. Sydney Water Corporation; Condition 13 Should any State significant relics associated with John The works option chosen for Palmer’s farm be located in the vicinity of Riley Street, the Riley Street was bored tunnel Applicant must ensure that the Heritage Office is consulted rather than open cut trenching, prior to their removal. Additional assessment and approval so no remains were identified. may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery. Should the demolition of such State significant relics be endorsed by the Heritage Office, the Applicant must ensure that detailed recording is undertaken which must include photographs and elevation drawings as well as survey data to allow computer mapping of the remains, which will be used complement the reporting process; Condition 14 The Applicant must ensure that prior to the removal of any The remains in Craigend Street archaeological resources in the vicinity of Craigend Street, were minor and were any archaeological resources located or likely to be adequately recorded. disturbed are recorded photographically, through the preparation of detailed elevation drawings and in plan; Condition 15 The Director of the Heritage Office must approve any No substantial deviations from substantial deviations from the approved research design the approved research design (including extent and techniques of excavations) as an occurred. The nominated application for the Variation or revocation of permit under Excavation Director was section 144 of the NSW Heritage Act, 1977. If the present for at least 90% of the nominated Excavation Director will be absent from each site archaeological activity covered for more than 50% of the archaeological activity, the by the works. Applicant must forward for the approval of the Director of the Heritage Office the details of the Site Director in charge for this period; Condition 16 The Applicant must ensure that the nominated Excavation This was achieved. Director takes adequate steps to record in detail relics, structures and features discovered on the sites during the archaeological works in accordance with the approved research design and current best practice guidelines. This work must be undertaken in accordance with the Heritage Office guidelines, How to Prepare Archival records of Heritage Items and Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Sites, Buildings and Structures (2001); Condition 17 The Applicant must ensure that the unexcavated artefacts, The extent of impact on those structures and features are not subject to deterioration, archaeological features ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 35

damage or destruction; described in this report is clear. No other impacts are known. Remains of Barker’s Mill will be present elsewhere under Harbour Street and adjacent footpaths. Condition 18 It is essential that the opportunity for interpretation, public A Public Open Day for the education and public access to the results of the Barker’s Mill site was held, as archaeological investigation is allowed for in the works described in this report. program. A Public Day for the Barker's Mill site must be Use of volunteers was not organised. Details of a Public Day and use of volunteers possible because of safety during the excavation program must be submitted to the considerations. This was Director of the Heritage Office for approval prior to the discussed with the Heritage commencement of works on the Barker's Mill site; Office. Condition 19 Final design details of on-site interpretation strategies for On site interpretation of the the Palmer's Farm site and Barker's Mill site, including Barker’s Mill site was information on the display and housing of artefacts, is to be determined to be too difficult submitted to the Director of the NSW Heritage Office for because of the limited nature of approval within one month of the completion of the the remains found and the excavation program. The on-site interpretation is to be design of the area. Liaison was completed and implemented prior to the opening of the held between the Applicant, Cross City Tunnel; SHFA and the Heritage Office concerning their requirements. Condition 20 Final design details of the complete interpretation strategy is Remains from the Barker’s Mill to be submitted to the Director of the NSW Heritage Office site, including stone and the for approval within six month of the completion of the millstone segment, were excavation program. Implementation of any off-site removed to SHFA’s White Bay interpretation strategies is to be completed within one (1) Power Station storage yard year of the conclusion of the project unless an extension of where they are being stored time is approved by the Heritage Council of NSW; with other stone retrieved from the site in 1986. Any use of this material would need to be approved if not instigated by SHFA. Condition 21 Throughout the excavation works at the Barker's Mill Site A Public Open Day was held. and post-excavation analysis: - a Public Open Day, including advertised public tours is to Information about the be implemented during the works program; archaeological program was put - a public information program must be implemented onto the project’s website and including regular press releases to ensure the public is on radio and in the press. informed about the project and its outcomes; - the services of a conservator must be utilised for No artefacts requiring conservation of significant artefacts; conservation were found. - the Heritage Office is to be notified weekly, in writing, of the progress of work during excavation and monthly during Due to the length of time post excavation analysis; required to record the Barker’s - Identified key archaeological site areas are to be signed Mill remains, weekly reports off, by the Heritage Office, prior to commencement of were not required. Heritage bulk excavation in those identified locations. Office archaeologists attended the Open Day, immediately before the bulk excavation of the mill area. The Applicant received written approval from the Heritage Office to commence civil works in the Barker’s Mill area. Condition 22 The Applicant must ensure that the Excavation Director and The archaeological program team are given sufficient time, resources and access to the was given all required access sites to complete their work to the satisfaction of the and assistance. Heritage Council. Where necessary, conflicting work schedules shall be adjusted to accommodate the archaeological excavation works; Condition 23 The Applicant is responsible for the safe-keeping of all Apart for the millstone which is relics recovered from the sites; being stored by SHFA, no artefacts were recovered. Condition 24 The Applicant must ensure that the nominated Excavation No artefacts were recovered. Director cleans, stabilises, identifies, labels, catalogues ______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 36

and stores any artefacts uncovered from the sites in a way that allows them to be retrieved according to both type and provenance; Condition 25 The Heritage Council and the Heritage Office reserve the Staff from the Heritage Office right to inspect the sites and records at all times and access attended the Barker’s Mill Open any relics recovered from the sites; Day. Condition 26 The Applicant must ensure that a copy of any recorded data No remains of the Steam Mill and interpretive information associated with the Steam Mill Street housing was found. Street housing area is provided to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. Condition 27 In accordance with section 146(b) of the NSW Heritage Act, This report represents the final 1977, the Applicant must ensure that the final archaeological report of the archaeological report is prepared by the nominated Excavation Director, to program. Copies will be publication standard, within one (1) year of the conclusion forwarded as appropriate. of the project unless an extension of time is approved by the Heritage Council of NSW. Two copies of this report must be submitted to the NSW Heritage Office. At least one electronic copy should also be submitted to the NSW Heritage Office. A further copy must be lodged with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, Sydney Water Corporation and in the local libraries or other appropriate local repositories in the City of Sydney and South Sydney Council areas; Condition 28 The Heritage Council of NSW requires that the final report This report complies with these shall include: requirements. - An executive summary - Due credit to the client paying for the excavation on the title page - An accurate site locations and site plans - Historical research, references, and bibliography - An archival photographic recording of the sites prior and during the archaeological investigation. - Detailed information on the excavation including the aim, the context for the excavation, procedures, post- excavation analysis, treatment of artefacts (cleaning, conserving, sorting, cataloguing, labelling, scale drawings) - Nominated repository for the items - Detailed response to research questions - Details of how this information about the excavations have been publicly disseminated; Condition 29 Should any Aboriginal objects be uncovered, excavation or No Aboriginal objects were disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the recovered. National Parks and Wildlife Service is to be informed in accordance with Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.

4.2 Domain Walling As set out in section 2.9 above, two sections of old Domain estate sandstone walling on the western side of Sir John Young Crescent were removed.

A 5m section was temporarily removed under permit Q2/S60/161, dated 30 October 2002. As per condition 4 of the approval, the stonework from this section of wall was given to the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust for possible reuse elsewhere within the Domain curtilage.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program 37

A section S65A application (approval 02/S60/161, dated 4 April 2003) was gained to temporarily remove a further 10.5m section of the boundary wall to permit turning vehicles access and egress to and from the adjacent RIC yard. This section of wall has now been replaced.

The removal of both sections of walling had no archaeological implications and no monitoring or other participation was undertaken.

______Casey & Lowe Cross City Tunnel Report on Non-Indigenous Archaeological Program