BRICKENDON Longford, Tasmania
Conservation Management Plan
Prepared for: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Prepared by: Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners Pty. Ltd. with Austral Archaeology Pty. Ltd. and Gwenda Sheridan, historic landscape consultant 155 Brougham Street Kings Cross, Sydney, 2011 Telephone: (02) 9357 4811 Facsimile: (02) 9357 4603
Issue: Revised 9th January 2008
© Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners Pty. Ltd., 2008
CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Brickendon is a 458-hectare mixed farming property located on the alluvial soils of the Macquarie River flood plain, approximately 2 km from the centre of Longford, Tasmania.
Two precincts have been identified within the study area: the House Precinct containing a set of pre- 1850s estate buildings, including the main house in its garden setting, stables, coach house, coachman’s cottage and gardener’s cottage; and the Farm Village Precinct, containing a large group of colonial farm buildings in timber or brick, built in the vernacular style, as well as some modern structures. The two Precincts are located about 500 metres apart on opposite sides of what is now a public road known as Woolmers Lane. The paddocks surrounding the main groupings of buildings were also included in the study. A separate volume dedicated to the assessment and management of the landscape elements accompanies this report.
Brickendon is recognised by the Tasmanian Heritage Council for its cultural heritage significance. Brickendon has been entered in the National Heritage List and, together with ten other convict sites in Australia, Brickendon is part of a serial nomination to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for inscription on the World Heritage List. This management plan has been prepared in accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles.
The property is a privately owned farming property and is wholly owned and managed by Richard and Louise Archer. Parts of the property are open to the public as a tourist attraction, and two of the 19th century buildings are available for overnight guest accommodation.
The official National Heritage Values of the place are set out in Sections 4 and 5, while a more general statement of significance of the place is formulated in Section 5, as follows:
Brickendon is of outstanding cultural heritage significance as a remarkably intact Colonial rural estate. Associated for its entire history and to the present day with the Archer family, prominent settlers in northern Tasmania, the property contains all the things one associates with a country estate, including a quintessential Colonial house and garden, as well as a village arrangement of early farm buildings, set some distance from the main house in an early Colonial landscape of paddocks and drives lined with hedgerows, all of which is little different from its original configuration. Brickendon is a classic example of an early Colonial, pre-1840, country property.
Developed principally during the period of convict transportation to Van Diemen’s Land (prior to 1852), Brickendon is historically associated with the convict assignment system; documentary records indicate that in the 1840s, about half of the occupants of the estate were convict assignees. The archaeological resource at the property has the potential to contribute to the understanding of the convict assignment system.
Brickendon contains a set of timber farm buildings dating from the 1820s which are unique in Australia. In addition to the two Dutch barns and pillar granary, the place contains a set of farm buildings arrayed in a strict village arrangement which is rare in Australia.
Brickendon is of aesthetic significance as an evocation of rural England, for which the northern midlands of Tasmania is well known. The architectural qualities of the main house, brick coach house,
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmainia Conservation Management Plan Executive Summary CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD chapel, fowl house, and the vernacular farm buildings demonstrate that the estate was laid out and built as a place of high quality from the outset.
The constraints arising from the significance of the place, its statutory obligations, and an assessment of the current pressures and owners’ requirements for the place are discussed in Section 6.
The Conservation Policies (Section 7) provide a framework of guidelines for decision making about the place. Key recommendations include
• A maintenance schedule including an identification of urgent maintenance works • Guidelines for when to involve tradesmen and professional heritage advice • Recommendations for ameliorating the current interpretation measures and for managing the impact of visitors, with regard to avoiding intervention in significant fabric • Policies for archaeological management and unforeseen discoveries • Recommendations for compatible uses of the place • Identification of reconstruction/restoration opportunities.
The Implementation section (Section 8) revisits the National Heritage Management Principles and recommends methods for adopting the principles and carrying out the recommendations of the Management Plan.
Issue:
Draft: 4th September 2007 Revised following comments 22nd November 2007 Revised following further comments 9th January 2008
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmainia Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Contents
Contents
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Objectives 1 1.2 Definition of the Place and Features 1 1.3 Methodology 1 1.4 Limitations 2 1.5 Study Team 2 1.6 National Heritage Management Principles 3 1.7 Acknowledgments 4 1.8 Copyright of Images 4 1.9 Terminology 5
2. Historical Background 9
3. Physical Description 47 3.1 Description of Overall Property 47 3.2 House Precinct 49 3.2 Farm Village Precinct 59 3.4 Description of the Archaeological Resource 85
4. Assessment of Significance 95 4.1 Heritage Assessment Criteria 95 4.2 Heritage Assessment of Brickendon 96 4.3 World Heritage Significance 109
5. Statement of Significance 111 5.1 Statement of Significance 111 5.2 Areas of Significance 113
6. Constraints and Opportunities 117 6.1 Obligations and Opportunities Arising from Significance 117 6.2 The Burra Charter 117 6.3 Present Condition 119 6.4 Integrity 120 6.5 Interpretation and Promotion of Heritage Values 121 6.6 Owners’ Requirements 124 6.7 Statutory Heritage Constraints 125 6.8 Non-Statutory Heritage Constraints 131
7. Development of Conservation Policies 133 7.1 Background to the Conservation Policies 133 7.2 Conservation Approach 133 7.3 Identifying the Place and Setting 134 7.4 Treatment of Fabric 137 7.5 Use 139 7.6 Interpretation 142 7.7 Management 144 7.8 Intervention, Adaptation, and Future Development 149 7.9 Community Involvement 153 7.10 Review 153
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Contents CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
8. Implementation 155
Appendices Appendix 1: Inventory Sheets Site No: 01 Main house and courtyard Site No: 02 Coach house and stable Site No: 03 Underground water tank Site No: 04 Coach house and stable outbuildings Site No: 05 Underground water tank Site No: 06 Coachman’s Cottage Site No: 07 Underground water tank Site No: 08 Site of rubbish pit Site No: 09 Greenhouse site Site No: 10 Cellar Site No: 11 Cellar stumps Site No: 12 Gardener’s Cottage Site No: 13 Disturbed ground west of gardener’s cottage Site No: 14 Potting shed site Site No: 15 Septic tank and rubble scatter Site No: 16 Pit Site No: 17 Earth mound Site No: 18 Privy Site No: 19 Privy Site No: 20 Sump Site No: 21 Sump Site No: 22 Piggery site Site No: 23 Cart shed Site No: 24 Pig slips’ yard site Site No: 25 Hay shed and milking shed site Site No: 26 Hay shed and stable shed site Site No: 27 Stack yard Site No: 28 Suffolk barn (west) Site No: 29 Suffolk barn (south) Site No: 30 Pillar granary Site No: 31 Water tank Site No: 32 Smokehouse Site No: 33 Bread oven Site No: 34 William Archer’s cottage Site No: 35 Farm cottage Site No: 36 Privy Site No: 37 Fowl house Site No: 38 Cookhouse Site No: 39 Cottage site Site No: 40 Men’s quarter’s site Site No: 41 Carpentry shop site Site No: 42 Water tank Site No: 43 Blacksmith Site No: 44 Chapel Site No: 45 Stables and shearing shed Site No: 46 Water tank Site No: 47 Slaughterhouse and dipping shed Site No: 48 Granary Site No: 49 Sheep wash site
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Contents
Site No: 50 Sheep wash site Site No: 51 Surface and underground drain Site No: 52 Claypit site Site No: 53 Claypit site Site No: 54 Flood flaps Site No: 55 Water collection point Site No: 56 Drain feature Site No: 57 Shed site Site No: 58 Unidentified building site Site No: 59 Possible rubbish pit Site No: 60 Possible site of Jacob Mountgarrett’s cottage
Appendix 2: Tasmanian Heritage Council Practice Note No.2 Appendix 3: Documents held at Brickendon Appendix 4: Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter) Appendix 5: Technical Terminology Appendix 6: Copies of Heritage Lists Appendix 7: Maintenance Plan for Buildings Appendix 8: Building Condition Report Appendix 9: Site Index Catalogue Appendix 10: Archaeological Recording Form
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Contents CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 1. Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Objectives
This Conservation Management Plan (CMP) was commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts in order to identify and provide guidelines for the conservation of the heritage values of Brickendon at Longford, Tasmania.
Brickendon is one of eleven Australian convict sites nominated for UNESCO World Heritage listing. The Conservation Management Plan takes into consideration the National and potential World heritage values of the place, and conforms with the National Heritage Management Principles as set out in the Regulations to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The primary objective of this report is to prepare a Conservation Management Plan for Brickendon and its components. The CMP aims to provide a clear philosophy to guide decision making about the place, based on a thorough understanding of the significance of the site, its components, and contents.
1.2 Definition of the Place and Features
The study area includes the entirety of Brickendon, comprising 458 hectares defined as Lot 1 Title Reference 27652. (See Figure 1. 1)
Two precincts of buildings are identified within the study area, the House Precinct and the Farm Village Precinct. These two areas are located about 500 metres apart from one another on opposite sides of what is now a public road known as Woolmers Lane. The paddocks surrounding the main groupings of buildings were also studied. See Figures 1. 2 to 1. 4.
1.3 Methodology
The form and methodology of this report follows the general guidelines for conservation management plans outlined in J S Kerr, The Conservation Plan, The National Trust of Australia (NSW), sixth edition, 2004, the guidelines to the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), and the National Heritage Management Principles (see below).
In addition to the Burra Charter, the standards of the ICOMOS International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) Charter and the ICOMOS-IFLA International Committee for Historic Gardens (The Florence Charter) have been adopted in the preparation of this plan.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 1 1. Introduction CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
1.4 Limitations
This report addresses only the European cultural significance of the place. The natural and man-made landscape elements of the place are addressed in a separate volume.
This report does not address Indigenous heritage significance, which can take the form of archaeology of Indigenous pre-history, post-contact history, or present-day associations or spiritual attachments.
The brief for this report excludes the modern farm buildings and farm infrastructure, and modern cottage accommodation within the Farm Village precinct. Internal access was not available for the Farm Cottage, therefore the consideration of its significance and the recommendations for its management refer only to what was readily visible from the exterior of the building. Likewise, although the interior of the Main House was examined in order to come to an understanding of the age and evolution of the building, recommendations in this report are confined to managing the significant aspects of the exterior of the Main House.
A detailed examination of the documentary evidence relating to the history of Brickendon contained in the papers held by the Archer family was not possible within the scope of the present report, however readily available documents were consulted. It is likely that further research into the Archer family papers will reveal more precise dates of construction for several of the buildings and features at the site. While such new findings are not anticipated to substantially alter the recommendations of this Management Plan, the information should be incorporated in future revisions of the Brickendon Management Plan.
The contents of the buildings were excluded from consideration in this report, however, in some instances particularly noteworthy contents have been recorded.
Brickendon has not been surveyed since the late 19th century. The site diagrams produced for this report were drawn manually, based on recent aerial photography of the site, and checked on the ground. The diagrams are intended to illustrate the general layout of the buildings and features of the place for the purposes of this report, and should not be relied upon as surveyed drawings for purposes where the detail of a survey is required, eg. conveyancing or building work.
The north point in all of the diagrams has been taken from the aerial photographs and maps used in the production of the diagrams, the limitations of which are described above.
1.5 Study Team
The study team for the preparation of the Management Plan is led by head consultants, Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners, Pty. Ltd., architects and heritage consultants. Justin McCarthy of Austral Archaeology carried out an analysis of the archaeological significance of Brickendon and contributed to the description, constraints, and management policies as a sub-consultant. Gwenda Sheridan, historic landscape consultant, together with advice from Stuart Read, horticultural botanist and landscape architect, prepared the separate landscape volume of this report, and contributed to the management policies of this volume. Lindy Scripps, historian, prepared the history section of this report.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 2 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 1. Introduction
1.6 National Heritage Management Principles
The Regulations of the EPBC Act include a series of seven National Heritage Management Principles which have been adopted as the standard for looking after the National Heritage values of a place. One of the tools used in managing a National Heritage place is a management plan which is consistent with the National Heritage Management Principles.
Listed in the table below are the National Heritage Management Principles with a comment as to how each principle is addressed by this CMP. A more detailed table is contained in the preface to the section on Implementation (Section 8), providing a concordance of where each policy/ recommendation meets the relevant Principles.
National Heritage Management Principles How this CMP applies
Principle 1: The objective in managing - Detailed historical background (Section 2) National Heritage places is to identify, - Descriptions of individual elements and precincts protect, conserve, present and transmit, to (Section 3) all generations, their National Heritage - Outline of the existing management framework values. (Section 6) - Policies for conserving and interpreting the values (Section 7)
Principle 2: The management of National - Description of the applicable legislation (Section 6) Heritage places should use the best - Outline of appropriate conservation practice (Section available knowledge, skills and standards 7) for those places, and include ongoing - Policies for training of individuals involved with the technical and community input to decisions management of Brickendon (Section 7) and actions that may have a significant - Suggestions for future research priorities (Section 7) impact on their National Heritage values. - Identification of activities which require professional/technical expertise (Section 7)
Principle 3: The management of National - Identification of different types, or levels, of Heritage places should respect all heritage significance (Section 5) values of the place and seek to integrate, - Description of the applicable legislation (Section 6) where appropriate[…]State[…]and local - Advice regarding statutory requirements (Section 6) government responsibilities for those - Recommendations for managing statutory reporting places. and other requirements (Section 7) - Recommendations for decision-making procedures (Section 7)
Principle 4: The management of National - Policies for assessing proposals for changes to the Heritage places should ensure that their use fabric and changes of use(Section 7) and presentation is consistent with the - Policies for planning and managing future work conservation of their National Heritage (Section 7) values. - Identification of activities which require professional/technical expertise (Section 7) - Description of current interpretation and promotion of the place (Section 6) - Recommendations for future interpretation and promotion of the place (Section 7)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 3 1. Introduction CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
National Heritage Management Principles How this CMP applies
- Description of known/anticipated pressures on the values of the place (Section 6) - Identification of other constraints on the management of the place (Section 6)
Principle 5: The management of National - Recommendations for public consultation (Section 7) Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provisions for community involvement, especially by people who: a) have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place; and b) may be affected by the management of the place.
Principle 6: Indigenous people are the Not applicable to Brickendon at this time. primary source of information on the value of their heritage. The active participation of Indigenous people in identification, assessment, and management is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values.
Principle 7: The management of National - Recommendations for ways to implement the Heritage places should provide for regular conservation policies (Section 8) monitoring, review and reporting on the - Policies for regular review of the management plan conservation of National Heritage values. (Section 7) - Pro forma documents for monitoring and reporting on actions at the place (Appendices)
1.7 Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following:
• The Archer family • Ms Melinda Percival, Department of Tourism Arts and Environment
1.8 Copyright of Images
The images and photographs (except those of the authors) used in this report have been reproduced for this report only. Copyright continues to reside with the copyright owners and permission must be sought for their use in any other document or publication.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 4 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 1. Introduction
1.9 Terminology
This report adheres to the use of conservation terms as defined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (see Appendix 4).
Additionally, definitions for the technical terminology used in this report are provided in Appendix 5.
N
Figure 1. 1: Map showing the study area and approximate property boundary of Brickendon. (Source: Base map © Google)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 5 1. Introduction CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 1. 2: Plan of the place showing the two precincts of buildings identified in this report. Not to scale.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 6 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 1. Introduction
Figure 1. 3: Plan of the House Precinct showing the main components. Not to scale.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 7 1. Introduction CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 1. 4: Plan of the Farm Village Precinct showing the main components. Not to scale.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 8 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
2 Historical Background
Norfolk Plains European settlement in Tasmania dates from September 1803 when a party led by Lieutenant John Bowen established a camp on the Derwent River. The following year a settlement was established in the north of the island at Port Dalrymple. Settlement was initially confined to the immediate environs of the camps but as new settlers arrived with entitlements to land, it spread along the adjacent river systems into the hinterland.
On 12 December 1811 Governor Lachlan Macquarie on a tour of inspection of the colony set off to
interior parts of the country situated between Launceston and the River South Esk; my principal motive in so doing being to select and fix upon an eligible and good part of the country, not too far from this settlement, for giving farms to the Norfolk Island settlers … We rode over several fine verdant hills and vallies [sic], fit both for tillage and pasturage …. till we came to very fine extensive rich plains, hitherto without any name and which I have now christened Norfolk Plains, conceiving this fine rich tract of country to be a most eligible and convenient situation for accommodating the Norfolk Island settlers with farms, on that settlement being entirely withdrawn. This fine rich tract of country extends for 5 or six miles along the bank of the river South Esk, the eastern extremity of them commencing about half a mile below where the Macquarie River (formerly known by the name of the Lake-River) falls into the South Esk, and extending for about two miles to the foot of the hills in the centre part of them; the hills themselves having excellent pasturage and the river flowing along these fine plains, render them highly advantageous for small settlers, as the distance from Launceston, by which a good cart road might be made, does not exceed nine miles. The plains facing them on the left bank of the South Esk appear equally good and fit tillage and grazing.
Macquarie subsequently ordered farms of 40-80 acres to be marked out for the Norfolk Island settlers.1
The earliest grants on Norfolk Plains were made in 1813 the small farms taken up by the Norfolk Island settlers spreading out along the South Esk and Macquarie Rivers around what is now the town of Longford. Other free settlers were eligible for free grants of up to 2560 acres, depending on their means to develop the property. They had begun to move into the Norfolk Plains district by 1817.
Six farms originally located to settlers between 1817 and 1821 now comprise Brickendon.
1. 500 acres located to William Whyte by Governor Macquarie shortly after his arrival in the colony in 1817. In 1819 he reported to the general muster in Port Dalrymple that 438 acres were under pasture and 62 acres in wheat, his stock comprised 12 cattle and 720 sheep, and he had 50 bushels of grain in hand. His wheat stack was maliciously set on fire in 1820 and he lost 250 bushels, some of which seems to have been intended for seed. A substantial drop in wheat prices in 1823 ruined him financially, as it did a number of others in the neighbourhood. He
1 Historical Records of Australia III I Macquarie to Gordon 12 June 1812
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 9 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
spent two years in the debtor’s prison, during which time the property was seized by the Sheriff to pay off Whyte’s debts and sold to Thomas Archer.2
Figure 2. 1: Detail from DPIW Plan Cornwall 5 ‘Norfolk Plains, Port Dalrymple’ c.1820. The area shaded pink now comprises part of Brickendon.
2. 300 acres located to Joshua Ferguson by Governor Macquarie on 31 December 1820. According to the report of the Land Commissioners, the property was subsequently held by Dr Mountgarrett but in William Archer’s 1837 grant application it is stated that Ferguson sold the land to Thomas Archer on 17 April 1827.3 3. 130 acres located to Jacob Mountgarrett (formerly the Colonial Surgeon). There are two versions of his title to the land – one suggesting that he received it on his retirement in 1821 from Governor Macquarie, the other that he was given it in 1825. However he came by it, he was soon in financial difficulties and the land was seized to pay off a debt and sold to William Field on 20 December 1827.4 Thomas Archer then purchased the land, conveying it to William Archer on 27 April 1829. The contract between Field and Thomas Archer for the sale of the land was not registered until July 18315 – Con 1/1126 records that Thomas paid
2 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary CS1/92/2162 Sworn evidence by William Lawson and William Whyte 30 September 1820 and petition by William Whyte to Lieutenant Governor George Arthur 24 February 1829 3 Archives Office of Tasmania, SC285/23 William Archer: Grant application for 300 acres 4 Archives Office of Tasmania, SC285/22 William Archer: Grant application for 130 acres 5 Many early sales of land were not registered at all and information about changes of ownership come almost solely from William Archer’s grant applications made in 1837. Where there was any doubt about ownership, evidence would be collected in the form of sworn declarations from neighbours or community leaders.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 10 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
£157 for the land. When the land was granted to William Archer in 1837 it was calculated at 95 acres. 4. 30 acres located to William Able by Governor Macquarie. This may also have been sold to or occupied by Mountgarrett at one time, since the Land Commissioners reported that he had occupied the ‘small farms adjoining’ and sold them to Thomas Archer prior to his death in January 1828.6 5. 30 acres located to William Porter by Governor Macquarie on 1 January 1817. Porter sold it to John Smith, who sold it to Jacob Mountgarrett 31 March 1827. Mountgarrett sold the land to Thomas Archer on 18 April 1827.7 6. 30 acres located to Robert Cornish by Governor Macquarie. The date of his original grant is unclear but he was on the land by 1819 when the muster records that he had 14 acres under wheat and the rest in pasture, and owned four cattle. No servants or family are recorded.
By 29 April 1829 Thomas Archer owned all six parcels of land, which were transferred to William Archer in a series of transactions:
• An Indenture of 29 April 1829 (held at Brickendon) This also refers to ‘a certain Indenture of Release already prepared’ which is the following document: • A contract dated 29 and 30 April 1829 but registered 1 June 18308, which appears to be a marriage settlement. • A conveyance dated 8 August 1831 when William Archer paid £1800 to Thomas Archer for the six parcels of land.9
The six parcels of land were individually granted to William Archer Junior in 183710 He originally called the property Wattle Park11 – perhaps this was a pre-existing name - but by early 1831 it was known as Brickendon.
Very little evidence of the original boundaries remains but the southern boundary of Longshot paddock coincides with part of the boundary between the Whyte and Ferguson properties, and the boundary between the former Able and Cornish Farms coincides with the boundary between Bush/River and Little Bush/Mountgarrett paddocks (allowing for minor discrepancies in the original plans).
6 Anne McKay, ed. Journals of the Land Commissioners of Van Diemen’s Land 1826-8, Hobart, University of Tasmania/THRA, 1962, pg. 76. 7 Archives Office of Tasmania, SC285/22 William Archer: Grant application for 30 acres 8 Department of Primary Industries and Water, Con 1/579 9 Department of Primary Industries and Water, Con 1/1137 10 Archives Office of Tasmania Land Grants Book RD1/4 1/114, 1/115, 1/116, 1/117, 1/120, 121. 11 Archer Papers, Brickendon: Letter William Archer Senior to William Archer Junior 23 March 1830.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 11 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 2: Detail from DPIW Plan Westmoreland 16 showing the six parcels of land that comprise Brickendon. The plan is undated but dates between 1832 when Felix Wakefield (see amended western boundary) joined the Survey Department and 1837 when the grants were made out to William Archer.
William Archer In August 1820 William Archer Junior was granted permission to proceed as a free settler to Van Diemen’s Land, where his brothers Thomas and Joseph had already settled. He was delayed in England ‘on business of importance’12, however, and did not arrive in the colony until February 1824 bringing with him 33 merino sheep.13 In the meantime his brother Joseph applied for a grant of land on his behalf, Governor Brisbane awarding him 2000 acres near Launceston in 1823. William Archer joined his brother Thomas at Woolmers and appears to have lived there for several years, perhaps until his marriage in 1829. In 1827, while William was still living with Thomas at Woolmers14, their father
12 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary’s Office 1/147/3608 Goulburn to Sorell 3 August 1820; Joseph Archer to Colonial Secretary April 1824 13 Hobart Town Courier 13 February 1823
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 12 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
William Archer Senior arrived in the colony with the intention of setting up a mill15 near Launceston in partnership with William Junior. After some months they were forced to change their plans;
… in consequence of our inability to procure a Water Power for propelling our machinery, in a suitable situation there, we have commenced building here [at Norfolk Plains] with a view to forming our permanent establishment.16
This was in August 1828 and the land at Norfolk Plains was still owned by Thomas Archer. The new venture was a joint one involving both William Senior and William Junior. William Senior had his own grant but appears not to have developed this, perhaps due to old age and frailty – he was already in his seventies. To assist with developing their ‘permanent establishment’ the Archers applied for the loan of a carpenter and a couple of sawyers from the Public Works gang and an extension to the time they were allowed to keep the wheelwright and bricklayer. Although the request was largely approved, they were still waiting for the workmen to arrive the following January, together with a blacksmith and mason. They were also short of men to bring in the harvest – they had more than 300 acres of grain, principally wheat, ready to be cut.17
Convict workers at Brickendon The workers that the Archers so depended on at this early stage were largely assigned convicts.
Between 1803 and 1853 some 75 000 convicts, men and women, were transported to what was then known as Van Diemen’s Land, representing about 45% of those shipped to the Australian colonies and up to 20% of those transported within the British Empire between 1615 and 1920. To the British authorities of the time transportation as a system of punishment offered many supposed advantages: it would reduce overcrowding in British prisons; it was relatively cheap; the fear of exile to a remote part of the world would act as a deterrent; it would remove criminals from Britain; it would provide the colonies with a cheap labour force; and a new environment might provide opportunities for the reform of the convicts. The Molesworth Committee found in 1838 that in fact transportation was an ineffective solution, in part because the existing system was so arbitrary, but attempts to rectify the situation resulted in failure.
The management of convicts in Van Diemen’s Land is divided into two distinct phases. The assignment period operated until 1840 and under this system newly arrived convicts not required for public works were assigned to private individuals. The skills and trades of each convict were carefully recorded and this became the determining factor in his or her disposal. The public service had first pick of the ‘mechanics’ or skilled men but these might be lent to private settlers from time to time – hence William Archer’s request for sawyers and other skilled workers. The majority of convicts were assigned to settlers and those with agricultural or other skills were most in demand in rural areas. Settlers to whom convicts were assigned were responsible for their accommodation, food, clothing and spiritual welfare. Convicts under the assignment system enjoyed a degree of freedom and it was in their interests to behave well, to avoid punishment and perhaps the extension of their sentence. The
14 William Archer Junior’s correspondence is addressed from Woolmers but the term may also have included Thomas ‘ land on the other side of the river that included the later Brickendon. It is possible that William lived in another building on the estate. 15 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary CS1/ 214/5133 William Archer Senior to Colonial Secretary 24 November 1827 16 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary CS1/214/5133 William Archer Junior to Colonial Secretary 18 August 1828 17 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary CS1/214/5133 William Archer Junior and William Archer Senior to Colonial Secretary 26 January 1829
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 13 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD system was designed to encourage and reward good conduct but subject recalcitrants to progressively more severe punishment. Convicts who misbehaved could be taken before the local magistrate for punishment but this sometimes proved to be a hindrance to the master who might lose the services of his servant. Complaints by convicts against their masters could also be taken to the magistrates but vexatious complaints were severely dealt with. The convict was absolutely in the power of the master and instances of harsh and unjust treatment highlighted the fact that the experience of assignment could be something of a lottery. Critics saw the system as little more than slave labour. The system was not entirely satisfactory for the settlers either – unskilled and reluctant workers could be more trouble than they were worth and maintaining discipline was a constant problem for many.
The House of Commons set up a Select Committee in 1837 - the Molesworth Committee - to investigate transportation. The Committee concluded that transportation was an ineffective instrument of reform and recommended the abolition of the assignment system.
In order to address the inequities of the assignment system and with the aim of providing equal and just treatment for every convict, the probation system was introduced in 1840. Under this system all convicts were obliged to serve a fixed period in a probation gang employed on public works. Once their probationary period was completed the convicts were issued with a pass and available for hire by private settlers via hiring depots established in the main population centres. The new system required the construction of a number of probation stations around the colony, some of them accommodating hundreds of convicts. In the early 1840s, as the system was first implemented, there was a dramatic drop in the amount of cheap convict labour available to free settlers. This occurred at a time of severe economic depression and many blamed it as a contributing factor. The period was one of great hardship for many in business and on the land, and the Archers at Brickendon did not escape the effects of this depression.
The probation system was an expensive failure almost from the beginning, achieving none of the aims originally promoted. Inevitable problems soon arose as the congregation of large numbers of men in poorly planned and funded probation stations promoted idleness, corruption and degradation. Numbers of convicts transported to the colony increased rapidly during the 1840s at a time when settlers were looking towards establishing a more mature society and, to many, the economic advantages of convict labour were outweighed by the stigma of a penal colony. The anti-transportation movement became a potent socio-political force from the mid-1840s and was a contributing factor in the decision to end transportation to Van Diemen’s Land in 1853.18
It was during the assignment period that Brickendon took shape, the buildings and landscape is a legacy of the convict work force. During this period twenty convicts or more were employed at Brickendon at any one time; building, fencing, digging drains, sowing and harvesting crops, tending to the livestock, working in the tannery or the forge, cutting timber, brick-making, and taking produce to market. Others, including female convicts, would have been employed as house servants. The size of the work force and the mix of skills, together with accommodation and workshops, and a wide range of produce, allowed the property to be self-sufficient in many respects and Brickendon could operate much like a small village under the supervision of William Archer.
18 Summary of the convict system drawn from A. G. L. Shaw, Convicts and the colonies, London, Faber & Faber, 1966; ‘Prisoner discipline’ in The Van Diemen’s Land Annual for the year 1834, Hobart, H. Melville, 1833; Ian Brand, The convict probation system; Van Diemen’s land 1839-1854, Hobart, Blubber Head press, 1990; Alison Alexander ed., The companion to Tasmanian history, Hobart, Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania, 2005.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 14 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Construction begins William Archer’s application for skilled men does not reveal the nature of the works but it is known from several sources that construction of the main house at Brickendon was under way in 1829. William Archer Senior’s 1829 farm diary makes only a couple of references to the construction, noting on 9 November that the wagons were unloaded at the ‘Cellar Store of the New House’, and on 8 December that sacks were sewn together to cover the stairs of the new house. In his application for another land grant, William Archer Senior wrote in June 1830, that on the land at Norfolk Plains jointly occupied with his son William ‘a substantial Brick House and Offices adjoining, are now erected and nearly completed as a residence for the Owner.’19 By April the following year the house was finished; in support of another grant application William Archer Junior described the improvements he had erected at Brickendon as:
1. A capital brick built dwelling, two stories high, with cellar under. 50 feet by 24 feet, also substantial brick built offices attached, consisting of a kitchen, store rooms, laundry and servants rooms; of the value of Fifteen hundred pounds [the offices attached presumably comprising the northern wing]. 2. An overseers’ house, and cottages for thirty men, a large barn and granary, and a stable, all substantially built of timber, of the additional value of Four Hundred Pounds.
I have completed thereon eight and a half miles of Post and Rail fence; that I have employed and maintained during the past year twenty Convict Servants also two Overseers and further that I have erected Stock and Stackyards, and garden fences of posts, rails and paling, enclosing Nine acres of Garden and Orchard planted throughout with Fruit Trees of the best descriptions, and ditched and planted round with a thriving double hedge of Quick [ie. hawthorn].
I possess Farming Implements fully worth Four hundred pounds.20
He was anxious for additional land for depasturing his stock, which he was unable to sell because of the state of the market. His application was, however, unsuccessful.
There were almost certainly several buildings that dated from before Archer’s ownership on the six parcels of land now making up Brickendon. In 1947, Dr W. E. L. H. Crowther wrote the following tantalising reference to Mountgarret’s house:
Mr. Thomas Archer, whose family have resided here since the early twenties of last century, tells me he believes that it was acquired by his grandparent before Mountgarret's death. I quote from a letter of his: ‘I do know he had a part of 'Woolmers'. The situation was overlooking a bend of the South Esk, and this part of the property is still known as 'The Doctor's Bend'. A small hut in the woodyard near the homestead was moved from the Doctor's Bend, and after being modernized, was re-erected where it is now.’ Mr. Archer states that his uncle believed that this hut was once occupied by Mountgarret; this belief was shared by an employee named Keltie [sic], who was born on the estate and died there some twenty years ago, being then aged ‘ninety and a bit’. He continues: ‘I have at different times studied the ground carefully to see if I could locate the exact spot on which the hut stood. I found what I considered one or two likely ones, but could not locate
19 Archives Office of Tasmania, Lands and Survey’s Department LSD1/56 p. 192 20 Archives Office of Tasmania, Colonial Secretary CS1/147/3608 Application 23 April 1831
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 15 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
anything really definite. The story goes, of course, that he attended members of my family here when he was in residence or shall I say retirement.’21
William Senior mentions ‘Whyte’s House’ twice in his 1829 diary. On 15 August he refers to ploughing ‘upon the long shot near Whyte’s house’ and on 22 August he refers to giving directions ‘for the building of a Porch at Whyte’s house’. It is known from other sources that Whyte lived on his farm at least by 1820. The reference to building a porch suggests that the existing house was being improved for occupation. Later on, William Senior refers to ‘my house’ that is clearly at the farm:
Welsh petitioned W[illiam] A[rcher Junior] to be moved from the Hut at the farm. He was allowed to go to the Sawyers Hut where Morgan was lodged. To be there for a time, told him I must have all the farming Men together near my House.22
On 4 January 1830 Palmer ‘whitewashed my house and repaired the fireplace and of the men’s huts too.’ The present building known as ‘William Archer Cottage’ may be the original house built by Whyte or the house referred to by William Senior as ‘my house’, or both – it is also thought that William Junior may have lived in the house on his arrival in 1824. The overseer’s house, part of the present ‘Farm Cottage’ is another candidate for Whyte’s house since it is built of brick and William Archer stated in 1831 that the buildings he had erected at the farm, including the overseer’s house, were of timber.
The Sawyers Hut is only one of several huts mentioned in the diary, some apparently at the main complex of farm buildings but others such as the Sawyers Hut and ‘a hut which had been occupied by Clayton’s men’23 clearly some distance away.
William Archer Senior seems to have acted as farm manager for his son. His diary records in some detail the improvements carried out at Brickendon and the employment of the assigned men.
The building materials for the construction work were largely sourced on-site. There are numerous references in William Senior’s diary to the sawyers and splitters and to trees of size being brought to the farm. Clay was also found on site for the manufacture of bricks: unfortunately the diary refers to the Brickfield only once, when on 8 January 1830, Paget and Welsh ‘mowed the remaining of the white clover by the Brickfield.’ A paddock to the south east of the farm village is still known as the Brickfield and, near the river, pits where clay was excavated can still be seen. There was a forge at the farm at an early period – the diary refers to plough shares being made or repaired at the forge or smith’s shop on several occasions24.
Tanning was also practised as early as November 1829 when the dairy records ‘put the first two hides and some Sheep skins into the Lime pickle’. The first attempts at tanning seem to have been a bit hit- and-miss: ‘of the Six [hides] had of Brumby which were put into the Lagoon to soak25 it seems that two of them were entirely spoiled. And the others damaged, they appear to have been eaten by some animal.’ During December however, they began to establish a tannery:
21 W. E. L. H. Crowther, ‘Mr Jacob Mountgarret, R. N.: The Pioneer Surgeon of Van Diemen’s Land, 1803- 1828’ in Medical Journal of Australia 22 March 1947, p. 11 [reprint at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery] 22 Farm diary 21 November 1829 23 Farm diary 4 January 1830 24 e.g. Farm Diary 12 and 24 November 1829 25 They were presumably dried hides.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 16 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
2 December: Luck and Leach … began to open the Ground within the NE Corner of the Stack Yard to Fix the Tanning Tubs in, found about 3 feet Gravel and thin clay fit for the purposes of puddling the Tubs.
3 December : Luck finished opening the Trench to place the Tubs in and puddled the bottom 10 inch thick
8 December: Jones collected and [brought] home a cart load of Wattle bark and prepared to change [?] that now in[to] steep.
The tubs were fixed and puddled and ready to receive the first skins on 12 December. When William Senior inspected the tannery on 11 January he found that one calf skin and twelve sheepskins had gone missing since 2 January; ‘These were all nearly tanned and 34 sheepskins from the 12th to the 26th September.’ The local constable came and searched all the huts but found no trace of the missing skins; William had no doubt however that Jones was the guilty party.26
Water A number of the assigned men were engaged in the construction of drains during 1829. William Archer Senior recorded on 11 August that Burrows was employed clearing out the first ploughing of the main drain in the long swamp, while Paget and Fetton were working on the new main drain opposite Woolmers House, Jones throwing the earth back from the edge to prevent it falling in again. Later in the month another furrow was ploughed in the main drain opposite Woolmers with Paget, Fetton and Luck throwing out the earth, and the water following.27 The earth excavated from the drain was used to fill up the low ground around it. On 18 August, Paget, Fetton and Foster began the ‘main drain through the swamp adjoining toward the end of the long circular swamp which continues to the north at Lyttleton’s with the view of dividing the water contained in it at the retreat of the flood, providing two very large outlets to empty it.’ The ‘left hand drain’ was opened a few days later, ‘leading towards the south angle of the first swamp from the mouth of the principal drain opposite Woolmers.’ During September the men worked on the main drain through the ‘second swamp’. It is not clear if all the drains at Brickendon were constructed during this time. The 1841 plan is unclear but the 1882 and 1895 plans show fewer drains than one drawn up in 1926. The 1829 diary makes no mention of lining the drains or installing pipes so it is not clear when this was done – in 1895 the fields were described as having been ‘ underdrained at great cost with tile pipes.’28
Apart from the river there was no natural supply of water on Brickendon. Initially, water was drawn from the river near the northern boundary where a pump was located before the windmill was installed – in 1895 the pump was described as being not in use. At the farm, water was collected from the roofs of the various buildings and fed into a series of wells. The top well was beside the roadway near the barns, the next one behind the stable at the end of the shearing shed and the lowest well, which received water from the other two, was located beside the former men’s quarters. It is not known when this system of wells was constructed, although one of the convicts assigned to William Archer in 1830 was described as a miner and well-sinker. However, the system relied on water collected from iron roofs and the buildings at the farm were originally shingled. The wells were described in 1895 as ‘three large brick and cement tanks holding 30 000 to 50 000 gallons of water.’ By 1895 too the house was supplied by a number of underground tanks, a brick and cement 1000 gallon tank under the courtyard, the water collected from the house roof also supplying five galvanised iron tanks of 2050
26 Farm diary 11 January 1830 27 Farm diary 17 August 1829 28 Description, particulars, and plan of the Brickendon Estate, Longford, Tasmania, the property of WHD Archer, Esq. Launceston, Tasmanian Permanent Executors and Trustees Association Ltd., p. 7
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 17 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD gallons, a 6000 gallon underground tank at the back of the fernery and a 10 000 gallon brick and cement tank in the wood ground outside the second yard. A force pump in the inner yard raised the water to the lead cistern inside the house roof. The water collected from the stable and coach house roofs was collected in a 15 000 gallon underground brick tank. In the front garden was another brick reservoir holding 30 000 gallons. The property was also connected to the Longford water supply by 1895, with standpipes all over the orchard and flower garden. There were also several waterholes on the property to serve the areas most remote from the river.
The family grows William Senior’s diary ends in February 1830 and he died in October 1833 after being thrown from a horse at Brickendon. The 1830s saw further development at Brickendon. The southern wing of the main house was presumably built at this time as the house was extended to accommodate the growing family and attendant domestic staff and, by 1841, as a contemporary plan shows, the two wings at the main house were complete. The brick stable appears to have been built by this time and also the Gardener’s Cottage in the orchard: the plan shows a couple of other buildings near the house but not the Coachman’s Cottage. By this time too, there were more buildings at the farm. William Archer’s 1831 description of the buildings he had erected at the farm includes only timber buildings but by 1841, there were a number of other buildings made of brick - these correspond to the buildings now known as the Farm Cottage, the brick granary, and fowl house, smokehouse and oven - and additional timber barns.
Figure 2. 3: The farm precinct in 1841 (Detail from an original plan at Brickendon)
The Chapel is not shown on the plan, suggesting that it was built later and not in 1836 as widely believed. The erection of the Chapel was not only a reflection of the Archers’ religious devotion but also a reflection of the society which saw religion as an essential agent in the reformation of convicts and the guidance of the working classes.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 18 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Figure 2. 4: The chapel (from the original photograph at Brickendon, undated but possibly c. 1870s)
William Archer Junior had married Caroline Harrison on 1 May 1829 at St John’s Church in Launceston. They were to have ten children, of whom three died in childhood.
Eliza Caroline 21 March 1831 Robert Joseph 19 December 1832 Daniel Thomas 22 October 1834 (died 1843) William Henry Davies 13 November 1836 Mary 9 December 1838 Rowland 11 September 1840 (died 1843) Ellen 3 May 1843 Alfred 16 July 1844 Raymond Kensey 11 August 1846 (died 1846) George Frederick 20 July 1848
When the census was taken in January 1842 there were 53 people in residence on the estate. Apart from William and Caroline and their six children, there were:
• Seven ‘mechanics and artificers’, six of whom were single and one a married man; these were people with trade skills and would have included the blacksmith, carpenter etc. • One shepherd, unmarried.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 19 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
• Twenty-three men described as ‘gardeners, stockmen and persons employed in agriculture’, of whom three were married men and the rest single. • Ten domestic servants who comprised four single men, one married woman and five single women. • There were six other people who fitted into the ‘All other persons’ category
Eight of the workforce were holding tickets of leave and 22 were convicts on private assignment.29
The residents at Brickendon on the day that the census was taken probably included Keziah Hayter who was at Brickendon, apparently as a visitor before returning a few weeks later as governess to the younger Archer children. She kept a diary throughout 1842 as she waited for her fiancé to return to the colony so that they could be married. Keziah, known as Lizzie, was an ardently religious young woman and as such fitted in well with the household. As a governess she was in a somewhat ambiguous position but she joined in on some family outings and she dined with the family. Keziah enjoyed the privacy of her bedroom that overlooked the garden, and walked often around the lovely gardens at Brickendon. The extent of her teaching duties is not clear: they seem to have been heavily scripture-based and Keziah took her responsibility for the spiritual well-being of her pupils very seriously: ‘I see the works of grace progressing much in the hearts of my dear little charges … Alas with my adult pupils I have no encouragement now’.30 It is not clear whom she means by her adult pupils.31 Keziah enjoyed a sympathetic relationship with Mrs Archer, though not entirely on an equal footing. Not quite one of the family but certainly not one of the domestic staff, Keziah seems to have little to do with the servants. However, the diary also refers briefly to the courtship and marriage of one of the house servants, Maggie Miller, ‘honest’ and ‘industrious’ to the coachman, Whiteley, ‘a steady and good tradesman’.32
Trials and tribulations The 1840s was a time of some anxiety for the Archers. William Archer was one of six partners in the Archer, Gilles & Co. Bank, which was established on 1 August 1840. It was more of a trading bank than a savings bank and traded in produce, particularly wool, and imported goods such as sugar. There is a number of letters from William Archer to the bank manager, Lewis Gilles, about the price of wheat and wool, which fell steadily during the early 1840s, a time of wide spread economic depression in the colony. By 1843, the situation was so bad that Archer was moved to write ‘I wonder if these low prices are to last whether starch-making on an extensive scale might not help as well as sheep boiling. I wish some new light might dawn upon us to mend our prospects.’33 The bank collapsed in 1844 and its business was taken over by the Union Bank.
Notwithstanding the financial prospects, Brickendon was praised by Count Paul Strzelecki c. 1843 for its advanced state and ranked it with ‘the best farms in England’ for the ‘rotation of crops and mode of working the land.’34 Strzelecki’s analysis of soil samples taken at Brickendon also explained Archer’s varying success with crops on different parts of the farm:
This soil is taken from Brickendon; an estate belonging to William Archer, Esq., of Norfolk Plains, situated in the most advantageous position for effecting improvements in
29 Archives office of Tasmania Census returns CEN 1/30 p. 7 30 Archives Office of Tasmania NS202/1 Dairy of Keziah Hayter p. 203 31 Before going to Brickendon she had been a confidante of Lady Jane Franklin and a visitor to the Cascade Female Factory where she had given classes to the women convicts 32 Archives Office of Tasmania NS202/1 Dairy of Keziah Hayter p. 250 33 University of Tasmania Archer papers L1 C/148 Archer to Gilles 4 August 1843 34 Strzelecki p. 386
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 20 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
agriculture, and, from those which have already taken place, entitled to be classed among the best of the Australian settlements. … The sample of soil was taken from one of the largest fields….When worked, it requires a strong team. It has been manured, but not 1 irrigated; it produces of wheat 35 bushels per acre, for 1 /2 of seed; it is fallowed, and receives wheat every three years. The subsoil is gravel and clay. Mr. Archer looks upon this soil as possessing the highest productive power.
From the same farm as the preceding, but situated somewhat higher, and more on an inclined plane. It is a light brown soil of a fine texture, rather loosely cohering; feels gritty when rubbed between the fingers; is porous, and subject to denudation and renovation of the surface; was never manured nor irrigated. Wheat, barley, and oats have been tried with little success. The crops failed, and the field has been abandoned. Mr. Archer pronounces it to be the soil of the least productive power upon the farm, and subject to frost. It rests on a bed of brown clay.35
In November 1845, one wing of the house was damaged by fire:
…and the preservation of the remainder seems almost miraculous … the flames had attained great power when first discovered and the wind was strong toward the main parts of the building … it was subdued by … Providence and the large assemblage present.36
The fire had started in the kitchen causing damage estimated by William Archer at £500. Work may not have begun on the repairs immediately. The front cover of Archer’s 1846 pocket diary contains information about the size and manufacture of bricks:
The statute size for a Brick Mould is 10 inches long, 5 wide and 3 thick. 1 4 8 Mr Thos Archer’s Bricks now using at Woolmers are 9 /10 x 4 /10 x 2 /10. 1 yard of clay – 700 bricks Price making 7/1 per thous’d. 1 3 /2 bus. Lime and half a Load of Lime will lay 1000 Bricks. The Brickmakers here say 1 yard of Clay 500 Bricks only.37
In June 1846 William Archer applied to Mr Nickolls for a bricklayer for one month, required immediately. Archer’s 1847 diary contains notes for a new roof:
For new Roofing the House at Brickendon Mr J. Smith says it will require about 1400 3 feet of /4 deal – also abt. 400 feet of deal in plank for facing boards – about 10 square Slating.
And for new floors in the cellar:
The Cellars require 1000 feet of Flagging – say 140 pieces of average contents 1 7 /2 feet each which will be about six Waggon or Dray Loads 1 28 /2 by 8.1 – the Passage 1 21 /2 ft by 15.3 - each Cellar
35 Strzelecki pp 404-406 36 University of Tasmania Archer papers L1 C/148 William Archer to John Leake 17 November 1845 37 Archer Papers, Brickendon, Pocket diary 1846
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 21 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
There are few other references to repairs and maintenance of the buildings. In 1859 William’s diary includes an estimate of the quantity of shingles required to re-roof the barns:
Peppermint shingles 16 to 18 inches long, about 700-800 required per square: 1 Old Barn 20 /4 sq. The other 25 sq. 36 000 required. Say, 50 000 for all purposes.38
It was probably about this time that the porch was erected at the front of the house. Designed by William Archer, son of Thomas of Woolmers and nephew of William of Brickendon, the porch was manufactured by Cottam & Hallam's of London in 1857.39
Managing the farm During the 1850s, William’s eldest son Robert appears to have been largely responsible for the day-to- day running of the farm. In a letter to Alfred, then at school, his mother wrote ‘we seldom see Robert, he is out a little after 5 and not home till after ten – so many men require much watching…’40 Robert was given one of William’s properties, Saundridge, as a wedding present in 1859.
William Archer’s pocket diaries briefly record the annual round of life on the farm and the challenges faced. In May 1852 he complained that grubs and caterpillars were doing ‘great mischief’ to the rye grass and grain crops. Bushfires threatened in 1855 and 1858 but did little damage at Brickendon. In January 1858 he also recorded that there had been no rain for nine weeks and the grass was all withered. There were no garden vegetables except for beans, carrots and potatoes and the apples were falling from the trees.41 A decade later the sheep and lambs were suffering a great deal and some dying due to the frosty weather and lack of grass, The same year William reported that the oat crop on the Middle Plain was so foul with wild oats that they would all be cut for hay.
The names of the paddocks provide a constant reference point to the management of the land. Many of the paddock names date back to the beginning of Brickendon – names such as Long shot, Cockatoo and Brickfield were familiar to William Archer Senior, and are still in use. Other names such as Windmill Paddock have become established over time, reflecting developments at the farm while Hill Paddock was measured and named in 1901.42
Woolmers Lane was originally a private road although used as a thoroughfare for many years before it became a public road. This created problems in itself. In June 1842 William Archer placed a notice in the Cornwall Chronicle prohibiting teams and livestock being driven through Brickendon due to the damage done to the road and injury to his freshly planted hedges: gates would be placed at the boundaries and the road closed to all except those who had permission to pass through on horseback or in carriages. Foot passengers were also cautioned to keep to the road and not trespass across the fields and fences.43 Although the road remained closed, the problem did not go away. In 1868 William Archer reported:
38 Archer Papers, Brickendon, Pocket diary 1859, undated entry 39 ‘Notes compiled for the Association’s excursion to Mona Vale in September 1963’ in Papers and Proceedings, Tasmanian Historical Research Association vol. 14 No. 3, p. 123 40 University of Tasmania Archer papers L1 C/148 Caroline Archer to Alfred Archer 12 February 1857 41 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Pocket diary for 1858 January 42 Archer papers, Brickendon, Farm diary 1901-2 24 August 1901 43 University of Tasmania Archer papers L1 C/148 Manuscript notice 14 June 1842
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 22 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Stopped wood carting through Brickendon by locking the gates and turning back several teams which have done much injury to the road constructed and maintained by me for many years – with occasional assistance from Woolmers only – the bridge at Woolmers having been constructed for the sole use of our respective families and private friends but not for heavy traffic or passing of livestock without special permission from our two families – as was notified by printed boards put up at the bridge and farm gates. Mr Noake paying for permission to pass.44
Figure 2. 5: Traditional paddock names at Brickendon (from an original plan at Brickendon).
Workers at Brickendon The 1842 census (see above) probably represents the establishment at Brickendon at its largest extent. Properties such as Brickendon had relied on cheap convict labour to bring them to a high state of development, particularly during the assignment period that lasted until the early1840s. In following years there were probably fewer and fewer employees as labour shortages hit, wages increased and labour saving devices were introduced. In January 1853 William complained that a ship laden with some of his wool was delayed due to an inability to get the rest loaded because of the difficulty in getting labourers to work with any regularity ‘even at the enormous rate of ten shillings a day.’ Many of Tasmania’s workforce had of course gone to the diggings in Victoria, and there was a shortage of
44 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Pocket diary for 1868 30 January 1868
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 23 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD labour in many parts of the colony. The bounty system was introduced to encourage migrants, particularly farm labourers and skilled tradesmen, to come to Tasmania. It was a kind of sponsored migration and Brickendon benefited from the arrival of several German shepherds in 1856. In the meantime, William recorded that ‘Reaping machines getting into use here in consequence of the exorbitant demand of the labourers – 20 shillings and upwards per acre.’45
The labour shortage probably also meant that bad behaviour had to be tolerated to some extent – no longer could the miscreant be taken to the local magistrate for 50 lashes. In January 1853, for example, Thomas Norris was too drunk to bring in dinner and less than a fortnight later returned drunk from the races and retired to bed at 6 pm. He was finally discharged in March 1855. Still, in 1857 William was able to write to his son Harry in England, ‘we are better provided with servants than many others are, the Gardens, Pleasure Grounds and Farm are kept in very good order.’46 It was one thing to obtain good servants, quite another to keep them: in 1863 William wrote that Lyons and his wife had left after one quarter’s service as cook and housemaid: ‘They are very good servants but like the rest, fond of change.’ Following this, it was arranged that his daughter Ellen, then aged 20, should ‘take the whole direction and management in the House’ and that Harry (W. H. D. Archer who had returned from England the previous year) should manage the outdoor servants entirely47 as William’s wife Caroline had died the previous year.
Quarters were provided for indoor and outdoor staff, the domestic staff living at the house, and the farm labourers living at the farm. In 1856 an inventory of the men’s cottages suggests that far fewer were employed than in 1842; furniture in the cottages comprised twelve bedsteads, ten forms and four tables.
W. H. D. Archer William Archer retired from running the farm in 1869, leasing ‘the Farm portion’ of Brickendon and the whole of Munden to his son William Henry Davies Archer (Harry) for £500 a year from 1 April. £260 of this was for Brickendon and Harry also bought the stock at valuation. When William Archer died ten years later, W. H. D. Archer inherited Brickendon.
In Spring 1883, a Tasmanian Mail correspondent visited the wealthy district of Longford, highlighting some of the larger properties ‘which bring in a princely sum to their owners’:
Brickenden [sic] is the home of Mr. William Henry Davies Archer, M.H.A. for Norfolk Plains. The house is a singularly old-fashioned and spacious one, in an enclosed garden of 11 1/2 acres, laid out as a miniature park, lawn, landscape, and fruit and kitchen garden. It was built before the colony had attained its majority. It is about contemporaneous with Cressy house. In the grounds it has many venerable companions in the large pines and holly bushes, perhaps the largest and oldest in Tasmania.
The entrance to Brickenden grounds, and in fact, the whole place is so like some I knew in old England that whilst within its fences I did not like to destroy the illusion. There are pines, cedars, cypresses, yews, junipers, araucarias, etc., in many varieties, a regular forest of them. The horse chestnut is within a week of full leaf and flower, oaks, elms, etc., are equally forward. A vine and fig tree are trained up the side of the house, which faces the east. Mr. Archer tells me he gathered about 500 figs off the latter last year.
45 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Pocket diary for 1853 2 January , 10 January and 18 January: Pocket diary for 1855 February 46 Archer Papers at Brickendon, William Archer to WHD Archer 10 July 1957 47 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Pocket diary for 1863 27 August
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 24 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Almost every tree in the grounds has a history or association which makes the plantation and garden more like an intelligence one can communicate with than a mere pretty development of the second kingdom's treasures, while on the subject of trees, I will mention several gnarled and ancient hawthorn trunks, throwing out abundant shoots, now coming into leaf, and also some younger ones. They are single and double, white, pink, rose, and dark crimson flowered; some brought all the way from the old country. One pink one is from Lodidge Cottage, Hackney. There is an English weeping ash (a tree I have most tender remembrances of. One grew by our door), and a cypress grown from a seed obtained in Caesar's garden at Rome. A boronia in full flower is over 7ft. high. The lily of the valley—the genuine thing, not the snowflake—grows all over one shady corner of the house. There is a tree I have not seen before down the paddock—a weeping gum. Mr. Archer is a rare lover of flowers and ornamental shrubs. ….
About 1,000 sheep are shorn at Brickenden now, which are depastured mainly at Brickendon and Woolmers. Mr. W. H. D. Archer is like his brother, Mr. R. .J. Archer, of Saundridge, fond of agriculture, and lays out annually here and at Munden, a. farm near Hythe, something like 600 acres for various crops. He goes in largely for labour saving implements. On Brickenden 52 bushels of wheat has been grown to the acre without manure, 51 bushels English barley.48
Figure 6. Brickendon c. 1870 (from the original photograph at Brickendon).
The amount of stock carried by the farm varied considerably over the years. Seventeen horses, 16 cattle, 20 Pigs and 608 sheep were recorded on 31 December 1856. On 1 March 1901 the inventory included 17 horses, 50 cattle, 94 pigs and 1261 sheep. The horses were used for a variety of purposes on the property and included cart horses and carriage horses.49
48 Tasmanian Mail 20 October 1883 p. 28 49 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Inventory 31 December 1856 and Farm diary 1901-2, ‘Stock at Brickendon 31 March 1901.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 25 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
W. H. D. Archer had a great many other commitments beside the farm, taking a keen interest in public affairs as an MHA and warden of the Municipality of Longford. Perhaps because of these varied commitments he became much less of a hands-on farmer. In 1895 he advertised several properties for lease but although a brochure was drawn up for Brickendon it appears not to have been advertised in the local press as was Munden.
The house in 1895 The brochure describes the house in some detail:
No.1, the front part of the house contains Dining and Drawing Rooms, with Hall between them; on the Ground Floor Large Pantry and Store-room. On the First Floor three Bedrooms and Bathroom, with water laid on. Cellars below Dining and Drawing Rooms flagged and ceiled and thoroughly drained and ventilated. The Drawing Room is probably the handsomest room of its kind in Tasmania. Decorated by Mr Edmunds. This requires to be seen to be appreciated.
No. 2 or left wing of the house contains a ground Floor, Breakfast Room, Store-room and Office, Store-room or Dairy. Communicating with enclosed yard through a Lobby.
On the First Floor. Library and three Bedrooms, with Bathroom (with water laid on) opening into a corridor looking out into enclosed yard mentioned above.
The Corridor mentioned runs through front part of House and communicates with No. 3 or right wing of House. From this part of Corridor also opens a large bedroom, and there are also large linen presses and communication with front and back staircases.
No. 3 or right wing of House, on Ground Floor contains Kitchen, Scullery, Wash-house, Laundry, Larder, and Staircase communicating with Servants’ Rooms on the First Floor.
On the First Floor are four servants’ Rooms, Nursery (large) and Ante-room, from which open out Bathroom and WC.
Above the First Floor is 1000-gallon lead cistern supplying House with water for Baths, also small Cistern for WC. Everything in the House is in excellent order, with best sanitary arrangements as regards ventilation, drains, and WC. Grease box, to prevent grease passing down drains, and water laid on all over the House.
In the vicinity of the house were
… a most comfortable gardener’s cottage of brick with convenient store-rooms and shed for fruit, vegetables etc. … of brick roofed with iron, of four rooms and small hall.
Large Stable and Coach Houses with every convenience. Harness Room with two rooms upstairs for groom, and two fine lofts, most suitable for granaries, floored with pine.
At back of Stables fowl yard and house (of brick) with dog houses. Earth Closets about garden.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 26 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
At the back of residence there is a first-class cottage of brick of two storeys, roofed with iron, containing six rooms.
Across at the farm:
The farm buildings consist of overseer’s cottages (2), slaughterhouse, smokehouse for hams, bacon etc., chapel of brick (suitable for a good store), range of stables and loose boxes. Shearing shed, wool loft, sheds for sheep during shearing for night housing or against rain, brick granary with every convenience for storing 7000 or 8000 bushels of grain, cook house and double cottage for labourers, range of labourers cottages, carpenters and wheelwright’s shops, blacksmith’s shop (with every convenience for farm work)…. Range of stables, chaff house, long ranges of milking, root, cattle, and implement shed, all roofed with iron.
Large granary of three storeys of wood, roofed with iron, divided into stores and bins for grain, with every convenience for raising, delivering and storing grain.
Most convenient shed, divided into two compartments, brick paved, with dip for sheep.
Large boiler in brickwork, for supplying dip.50
Figure 2. 7: The farm village c. 1870 (from the original photograph at Brickendon).
50 Description, particulars, and plan of the Brickendon Estate, Longford, Tasmania, the property of WHD Archer, Esq. Launceston, Tasmanian Permanent Executors and Trustees Association Ltd.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 27 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 8: The barns at the farm c. 1870, the Stack Yard on the right. (from the original photograph at Brickendon).
At that time the property comprised 1120 acres 3 roods 23 perches and included a piece of land of 8a 3r 30p located on the other side of Brickendon Street. The property was divided into 35 paddocks of which 25 were cultivated. There were 195 acres in wheat, 60 acres in oats, 35 acres in rape, and three or four acres in mangolds and sugar beet. The livestock on the property then included 1400 Merino sheep, about 50 cattle and 25 horses.
W. F. Archer During the early 1900s Brickendon was managed for W. H. D. Archer by Robert Kelty. Kelty, who lived in Farm Cottage, had begun working on the farm in c. 1900 with his sons John and James. By 1911 the situation had changed again as shown in a letter to W. H. D. from his cousin H. W. A. Kilgour:
I had not previously heard of your leaving Brickendon, and its seems strange to hear of you and Uncle Joseph as lodgers. Still, as you say, with Will managing the property, it seems useless for you to keep open such a large house, and I daresay now that Joan and Aphie are married the place would seem rather dull to live in.51
Joan and Aphra were W. H. D. Archer’s two daughters. It seems that W. H. D. was now living permanently in Launceston. The youngest child Roy Arthur Sherry Archer had died when only three days old, and it was the only surviving son William Fulbert Archer, now aged 28, who had taken over management of the farm. W. F. Archer, like his father before him, had studied in England and qualified as a barrister before returning to take over the farm. Although W. F. was now in charge of Brickendon it seems that the day to day running of the farm was still in Kelty’s hands as W. F. divided his time between various properties. It was not until the late 1920s following his marriage to Phyllis Bisdee in 1926 and the death of W. H. D. in 1928 that W. F. concentrated his attention on
51 Archer Papers at Brickendon, Letter HWA Kilgour to WHD Archer 25 June 1911
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 28 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Brickendon.52 The absence of a resident owner appears to have been reflected in the state of the farm in the 1920s. A valuer for the Taxation Department wrote in 1926:
I considered much more might be done with the property than is at present the case. The buildings are extensive but generally speaking in bad order, too much building. Fences only fair, many of the hedges going out.53
Transition During W. F.’s management of the farm, operations became more mechanised although horses were still used up until the end of the World War II. During the war the property was often short-handed with only four men employed, and Kerry Archer, then still a child, also did his share of labour on the farm:
And I, as a child, had to operate those horses during the war, driving mowers for mowing peas and other work, driving horses on wagons and carting the oaten hay in on the wagons to the barns and to the haystacks. So it was child labour, and I recognised the fact that I had to help and I was enthusiastic, but I’m afraid at the end of the day, around about five o’clock I was just wishing that that clock would go a bit faster. And of course I had to try and keep up with men of fifty-six, fifty-eight; and as a child of twelve, thirteen, fourteen I did find it pretty tough at times.54
When Kerry Archer left school in about 1949, he took on more responsibility on the farm, his father being in ill-health:
But I was in the position where it was very difficult because I had about four men here at the time, I think the workforce had reduced by about one man, and I was at the age of about nineteen or twenty, twenty-one. I had to try and instruct men of fifty-eight or sixty and tell them what to do. And it’s a bit hard when you tell somebody that’s been involved in farming for all that period of time, to tell them what to do. So you’ve got to be pretty tactful. You’ve got to go to them and you say, ‘Now what do you think? Should we do this or do that?’ That was my role for the first few years, I had to tread carefully in a way. Now these men that I had when I took over, they worked with me for the rest of their working life. They stayed on and they were loyal, and I worked with them. They eventually retired at sixty-eight or something like that, and I was able to keep them on the job and handle them over that period of time. But it was difficult. As well as that of course I had my mother in the background, and I had to be aware that she was there and looking over my shoulder all the time.
Anyway the farm continued almost in the same fashion. We were a mixed farm, we ran Corriedale sheep. I had a Corriedale stud here, and I suppose we had about three thousand Corriedale sheep. We had about twenty-five or thirty breeding cows, Shorthorn breeding cows. We stuck with the Shorthorns for many years, partly through sentimental reasons; I’d grown up with the Shorthorns. And I tried to look after the sheep stud, and that was part of my early farming, looking after the sheep stud. I had to keep bringing in rams into the stud to improve the flock all the time. That was another thing, I had to go over to Melbourne to ram sales and buy rams. So that was a part of the farming.
52 Jill Cassidy, Transcript of Oral History Interviews with Kerry Archer, Interview 1, 24 April 2007 53 National Archives of Australia Valuer’s Field Book 54 Jill Cassidy, Transcript of Oral History Interviews with Kerry Archer, Interview 1, 24 April 2007
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 29 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Then on top of that we did cropping. Blue peas was one of the crops we grew, which is a crop you grow without the assistance of irrigation. It was a dry land crop. And all our cropping at that stage was dry land cropping because we didn’t have irrigators. We had that water running past our boundary and I looked at it and kept thinking, ‘Should I use that water in some way?’ But we proceeded with dry land farming; the blue peas, the grey peas, some wheat, barley and oats.
And then very early on I got interested in poppies [c. 1970] and I bought one of the first moving irrigators, it was self… it was called an Upton irrigator. I think about three came into the state and I bought one of them for irrigating the poppies. And this was a bit of a failure because we couldn’t get the poppies to germinate properly. We went out of poppies for a few years and then got back into them when I think they improved the strains of poppies and they overcame this problem of germination, which is still there today actually, the problem of germination. Because if you let the land dry out too much when you sow them you get a crust on them and they just won’t come through the crust.
Of course these days they’ve got these irrigators like centre pivots, they can keep the ground moist all the time. If you can keep the ground moist the poppies will grow. Another thing is of course you’ve got to get them in early; you’ve got to plant them before the sun gets too hot to crust the ground on top. So a lot of poppies these days are actually planted in the winter itself, in about July when the ground doesn’t dry out too much. So that was the start of our irrigation, when I bought that Upton irrigator. …
So that was the start of the irrigation, but before all that it was dry land cropping. You’d let the crop ripen, and under normal conditions then you’d harvest it.55
The house also underwent some changes under the supervision of Mrs W. F. Archer. The conservatory at the front of the house was demolished during the 1930s and a new loggia built against the southern wing to a design by highly regarded Sydney architect John Berry, who had become a friend of Mrs Archer since retiring to Launceston. At about the same time a new sun-room was built at the north- east corner of the house and became the family living room. This has since been extended. Mrs Archer was also responsible for flagging the courtyard:
that was originally brick with a drain down the middle, and it was cemented over but it was all breaking up. Now she – I did a lot of this myself – but she decided to take all the flagstones out of the cellars. The cellars were all flagstone and she thought the flagstones down there were wasted, so all the flagstones came up and we paved the courtyard. And when these flagstones came up of course you had to consolidate the cellar, so a concrete strip was put all the way round the wall so that there was no movement. It was sort of a reinforcing because the flagstones had gone. And that’s still there today, the concrete round it. And then the middle was filled in with brick. So that was one thing she did: she paved the [courtyard]. And I had to work with the chap that did it.
Some other alterations were carried out by Launceston builder Tom Orr:
in the front room there was a big marble mantelpiece and my mother didn’t like it, and she got Tom Orr to replace it with a cedar mantelpiece. Today you can see that cedar mantelpiece. He made it in line with a mantelpiece probably in an era going well back, made it look like an antique mantelpiece. And he did a very fine job of it. So that room was furnished – it was to compete with Woolmers, I think – it was furnished in a
55 Jill Cassidy, Transcript of Oral History Interviews with Kerry Archer, Interview 1, 24 April 2007
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 30 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Victorian style with a marble mantelpiece and golden drapes. Anyway she didn’t like this Victorian. She wanted to put it back into a pre-Victorian period, like a lot of the rest of the house is. It’s back in the 1830s more, rather than that flash Victorian period later.
Figure 2. 9: The new sunroom at Brickendon (Australian Home Beautiful June 1950 p. 30.)
It was decided when Kerry Archer married Angela Fulton, that the couple would live in one wing of the house and his mother live in the rest of the house:
It was decided when we were married that we’d live in this wing, and to make it self- sufficient and separate from the rest of the house a staircase was put in to join the ground floor to the next floor, and that was put in by Tom Orr. He got it from another house that had been demolished; he tried to keep it in keeping with the style. And he put that in for access from the ground floor to the second floor.
In 1970, Mrs Phyllis Archer decided to open the house to visitors in order to raise money to preserve the now decaying farm buildings. The dining and drawing rooms were open for inspection, and a display of old farm implements and other artefacts was set up in a museum display in the stables. For a time the house was open every day and Mrs Archer served afternoon tea in the courtyard.56
Some of the old buildings such as the carpenters shop and the men’s quarters were demolished in the 1950s. Not only were they in a poor condition but the men’s quarters interfered with the operation of the new dairy. Other buildings needed extensive repairs:
The entrance barn … Actually we had a Dutchman here, he took the shingles off that one and put the iron on which we’d got from one of the other buildings. That was in about the 1950s. I did other work on that. It got a lean on it and I put stay-wires on it so that it
56 Sunday Examiner Express 27 November 1971 p. 6 and Examiner 1 November 1972 p. 29.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 31 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
wouldn’t go any further. Later on Richard got a machine in to straighten the building up and strengthen it, and he took the stay-wires off. Similarly I put a stay-wire on the shearing shed because that started to move and got a lean on it. He stabilised it from the inside and took the stay-wire off.
As early as the 1970s it was understood that unless a new use could be found for the old buildings they might not warrant their upkeep on a working farm, and that tourism might provide the answer. The exploitation of the heritage values of the property has seen the buildings preserved and upgraded. The chapel that had become a store, the stained glass windows dispersed to other sites, has been restored and the Coachman’s and Gardener’s Cottages, empty for decades, have been restored for paying guests.
Disturbance history The present buildings at Brickendon have a history dating back in some cases to 1829 and their functions have remained consistent for much of that period. In very few cases is there any evidence of more than one generation of buildings on the same site. The locations of buildings that pre-date the Archer family’s occupation of the property are not known.
There are several instances of buildings or features known to have been on the site at various times but since demolished. Foundations of some of these buildings have been visible in recent times and they represent areas of archaeological sensitivity.
House precinct: 1. Conservatory. Nineteenth century photographs of the main house at Brickendon show a conservatory in the front garden of the house. It is shown on photographs that are thought to date from the 1870s and the building appears in the 1882 plan of the property. However, it was not mentioned in the 1895 sale description although it survived at least until 1936. The conservatory was heated, as indicated by the chimney. There is known to be subsurface remains of the fireplace.57 2. Old Tennis court. The 1895 sale description refers to a full sized lawn tennis court on the front lawn, surrounded by an eight-foot fence of wire netting, surrounded with roses and with a summerhouse at each end. This was located to the left of the path leading from the house to the orchard. 3. Adjacent to the Gardener’s Cottage was a brick and timber potting shed and seedling shed. The brick foundations are still under the ground. 4. Alexander Clerke’s 1882 plan shows a structure adjacent to the driveway and surrounded by an enclosure. There is no indication of the function of this structure.
57 Pers. comm. Richard Archer
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 32 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Figure 2. 10: The location of the conservatory c. 1870 (from the original photograph at Brickendon).
Figure 2. 11: The front of the house c. 1936 showing the location of the conservatory (from the original photograph at Brickendon).
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 33 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 12: Detail from Clerke’s 1882 plan of Brickendon (from the original plan at Brickendon)
Figure 2. 13: House precinct: The location of features no longer extant.
Farm Precinct Several structures have been demolished at the Farm Precinct, most of them since 1950. The buildings reflected a former way of life, when the hands lived on the farm, when horse transport was the norm,
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 34 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background and the property was self-sufficient in most things. Apart from the tannery, all of these buildings appear on the 1841 plan.
1. The tannery. During December 1829 the assigned men began to establish a tannery: On 2 December Luck and Leach … ‘began to open the Ground within the NE Corner of the Stack Yard to Fix the Tanning Tubs in, found about 3 feet Gravel and thin clay fit for the purposes of puddling the Tubs’. And the following day ‘Luck finished opening the Trench to place the Tubs in and puddled the bottom 10 inch thick’. The tubs were fixed and puddled and ready to receive the first skins on 12 December 1829. There is no documentary evidence of the tannery being used after 1830. Sub- surface remains of the tubs might be expected to have survived. However the site of the tannery – the north east corner of the stack yard - may have been impacted by the site of one of the Dutch barns, if the latter was built subsequent to the tannery. 2. The stable adjacent to the Cattle Yard on the western side of the roadway through the Farm Village. This have been the timber stable referred to in William Archer’s 1831 grant application. 3. The Hay Shed and Milking Shed which formed an L-shape with the surviving Cart/Implement Shed.
Figure 2. 14: Barns at the Farm Precinct c. 1950. The Hay Shed and Milking Shed (Site No. 25) at far right (Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery photo 1983-P-1772A).
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 35 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
4. Men’s Quarters. This was a timber building with two rooms. You stepped into a square, and you had a door on the right and a door on the left and a bare wall in front of you. I can vaguely remember there was a type of bed there [on the left hand side]. It was the length of the bed with the sides and the legs, and where the mattress would be was bagging. A hessian bag. And this was probably the original system of beds in there; yes sort of a hessian type. Yes like a hammock, with hessian bagging down the centre of it. There could have originally been padding, but you see I just saw it probably in its bare state. They could have had some sort of mattress or something on it. It would have only been wide enough to take the shape of a man I would think, which would probably be two foot six. Well, they were stripped; there wasn’t any furniture. There was just that one bed I think I can remember in there, but otherwise they were pretty bare.58 5. The Carpenter’s Shop which was: very low, you had to lean to get into it. It had the hole in the middle of it where the pit was, where they used to do the pit sawing. A man would get in the bottom of the pit and a man on the top with a two-handed saw. Most of the timber in this house was pit sawn of course. That didn’t have any function at the time of course, it was just a hole in the ground which collected water. I suppose it was about three feet wide and I suppose it was about eight feet long. Just a hole in the ground. There’s evidence of it today. There’s a hawthorn growing in it I think. The actual carpenter’s shop was one long room, but on the southern end was a storage room. There were benches in the carpenter’s shop, along the western wall. A bench along there. There were the old wooden hand drills, there were wooden planes for planing. That’s about all I can remember. It wasn’t really operational in my day. I think most of the tools and things had been taken out and moved elsewhere. It definitely wasn’t operational, so there wasn’t much equipment in it I don’t think at that time.
The carpenter’s shop had an earth floor while the storeroom at the end had a wooden floor.59
6. A cottage adjacent to the Carpenter’s Shop.
There are three wells at the Farm Village Precinct, which were part of the old water supply system that collected rainwater from the roofs of the various buildings. The wells are said to have been up to 4 metres deep but are now filled with debris. The lower well near the site of the former Men’s Quarters was excavated by university students to a depth of one metre a few years ago when artefacts from the 1960s and 1970s were recovered. Former residents of Farm Cottage had used it to deposit rubbish.60 At lower depths in this and the other wells, there may be artefacts relating to earlier phases of activity.
58 Jill Cassidy, Transcript of Oral History Interviews with Kerry Archer, Interview 2, 27 April 2007 59 Jill Cassidy, Transcript of Oral History Interviews with Kerry Archer, Interview 2, 27 April 2007 60 Pers. comm. Richard Archer
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 36 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Figure 2. 15: The northern end of the Farm Precinct c. 1950. The Fowl house (Site No. 37) on the left, the derelict cottage (Site No. 39) later demolished on the right (Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery photo 1983-P-1779).
Figure 2. 16: The Farm Village Precinct in 1882, buildings identified have since been demolished (from the original plan at Brickendon).
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 37 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 17: The Farm Village Precinct in 1947 showing buildings since demolished (Archives Office of Tasmania aerial photo overlaid with modern site plan).
Other Features Outside the House and Farm precinct are the locations of some past historical features:
1. At the river near the northern boundary is the watering place where water was collected in water carts for distribution on the estate when water from other sources was not available. 2. The 1841 plan records the site of a sheep wash at the south eastern corner of the Pump Paddock 3. The 1882 plan records a sheep wash at the south western corner of the Upper Plain River Paddock.
In the 1870s or 1880s W. H. D. Archer investigated the possibility of buying an ‘Improved Sheep Washing Plant’. Whether he purchased the plant or merely adapted it for Brickendon is not clear. However at the site of the (later?) sheep wash there remains a piece of machinery that corresponds to the delivery pipe shown on a brochure advertising the plant together with a brick well or tank.61
4. A paddock at Brickendon was known as the Brickfield from 1829 suggesting that bricks were being made there or had been made there in the past. There are two pits in the paddock where clay has been excavated for the manufacture of bricks.62
61 Pers. comm. Richard Archer 62 Pers. Comm. Richard Archer
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 38 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Figure 2. 18: Advertising leaflet for Improved Sheep Washing Plant c. 1870s ? (from the original plan at Brickendon)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 39 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 19: Brickendon in 1947 showing the location of historical features (Archives Office of Tasmania photo).
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 40 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Notes on historical plans
Figure 2. 20: 1841 plan, digital photograph of original plan held by Archer family
Buildings shown in 1841 plan: House precinct: • Fowl house – possibly not the existing fowl house; position is not • Main house (all wings. Note small exactly correct structure in position of later • William Archer’s cottage conservatory.) • Smoke house • Stable • Cook house – possibly not the • Timber coach house (Note: Timber existing cook house; position is not coach house has an adjoined exactly correct building in location of hen house.) • [Men’s quarters and cart shed] • Gardener’s Cottage • [Cottages 2no.?] Farm Village precinct: Not shown in 1841 plan: • Dutch barn south House precinct: • Dutch barn west • Pillar granary • Coachman’s Cottage • Implement shed Farm Village: • [Hay sheds 2no.] • Blacksmith’s shop • Brick granary • Chapel • Draught horse stable • Dipping shed/slaughter • Shearing shed house • Farm cottage
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 41 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 21: 1882 plan, digital photograph of original plan held by Archer family
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 42 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Buildings shown in 1882 plan House precinct:
• Main house (all wings, incl. conservatory) • Stable • Timber coach house (Note: Hen house not shown adjoined to timber coach house but an addition is shown to south of east end.) • Gardener’s Cottage (and raspberry cage?) • Coachman’s House
Farm Village precinct:
• Dutch barn south • Dutch barn west • Pillar granary • Implement shed • [Hay sheds 2no.] • Brick granary • Draught horse stable • Shearing shed • Farm cottage • Fowl house • William Archer’s cottage • Smoke house • Cook house • [Men’s quarters and cart shed] • [Cottage 1no.] • Blacksmith’s shop • Chapel • Dipping shed/slaughter house
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 43 2. Historical Background CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 2. 22: Diagram of the House Precinct showing the key building and development periods of Brickendon
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 44 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 2. Historical Background
Figure 2. 23: Diagram of the Farm Precinct showing the key building and development periods of Brickendon.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 45 CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
3 Physical Description
3.1 Description of Overall Property
Brickendon is a 458-hectare mixed farming property located on the alluvial soils of the Macquarie River flood plain. The property is bounded by the Macquarie River to the east and partly to the south, and retains close to the original boundaries defined in the 1820s land grant. The north and west boundaries are defined by hawthorn hedges.
The ‘homestead area’ (House Precinct) is located approximately 500 metres from the farm village, separated by a public road, Woolmers Lane. It contains set of pre-1850s estate buildings, including the main house in its garden setting, stables, coach house, coachman’s cottage and gardener’s cottage. The House Precinct is accessed by a pair of curved semi circular carriage drives, one from the north and the other from the south (leading from other former Archer properties, Woolmers and Panshanger), meeting at an elliptical carriage circle in front of the main house. Each is lined with either hawthorn hedges or plantings of Eucalyptus, Blackwoods, Pinus pineas, and Conifers, intercepted with Laburnum shrubs. A series of paths and access roads lead off the carriage drives, providing road entry to the stables, coach house, coachman’s cottage and gardeners cottage, and rear entry to the main house.
The farm village (Farm Village Precinct) is located on level ground, separated by a paddock from the Macquarie River, and comprises a large group of colonial farm buildings in timber or brick, built in the vernacular style. Some modern structures have been added to the site, clearly separated from the original farm village layout. A working drive leads from the Farm Village Precinct, which meets the northern carriage drive.
The property retains its early 19th century geometrically aligned field system, delineated by over thirty kilometres of maintained hawthorn hedges. Views across the farmed landscape to neighbouring properties, including Woolmers across the river to the east to Ben Lomond and the Great Western Tiers mountain range to the west, can be seen across the property through gaps in the hawthorn hedges and gateways.
Brickendon continues to function as a mixed farm, growing a variety of relatively new and old agricultural produce of poppies, grass seeds, barley wheat, oats, triticale and vegetables, including peas and beans, and running approximately 4,000 medium/fine merino and corriedale sheep, a few cattle and other animals.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 47 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Views east toward the Macquarie River showing a Woolmers buildings stand out in the twilight in distant hawthorn edged paddock. views across Brickendon’s paddocks.
View from the front of the main house to the mountains in the distance.
View from the front door of the main house across the garden and paddocks. Woolmers is visible in the distance.
View of Brickendon from Woolmers. The main house Detail from Figure 3.5. The steep roof and bellcote of stands out at the centre and to the right hand side, the the Brickendon chapel stand out in views from brick granary/shearing shed/stables are visible. Woolmers.
Figure 3. 1: Views to and from Brickendon
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 48 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
3.2 House Precinct
Main House The main house is a quintessential Colonial Georgian house such as was built in Tasmania in the first period of Colonial settlement. Raised on a semi-basement it is three bays wide and of a single pile plan. The hipped roof has a bell cast which gives the house a Regency air and although the portico dates from the 1850s it continues this Regency character. The main block is flanked at the back by two wings which date to the 1830s. The kitchen wing is slightly the earlier. These wings are brought together at the back with a courtyard wall and set of gates. The whole thing is symmetrical and linking the wings is a rear skillion, now two storeyed but originally probably only one, which provides the main internal circulation route and a set of servants’ back stairs.
The house faces east and of the two back wings the south wing has been built as part of the main house, whereas the north wing contains family rooms above kitchens and domestic offices.
The house is painted face brick, but may originally have been unpainted. The roof is now covered in Morewood & Rogers tiles, except for the south wing which is slated.
The strong symmetry was broken in the nineteenth century by a garden wall in front of the southern pavilion against which there was originally a glasshouse. This was taken down between the wars and re-configured to form a loggia by the architect, John Berry.
The portico was put on the house under the supervision of the family architect, William Archer. Otherwise no other architects are known to be connected to this extraordinarily architectural building.
A sunroom was added to the north in the 1930s and has recently been extended by another glazed pavilion. At the back of the south wing there is similarly a glazed extension to gain sun. The south wing was converted to separate accommodation in the 1950s and the cedar staircase was brought in from another site in Launceston.
Of considerable interest is the cedar joinery in the south wing, the front stair and the prefabricated cast iron portico specially imported from England.
It is the sort of house that Jane Austen may well have stepped out of.
East elevation South elevation
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 49 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
North Elevation West Elevation Figure 3. 2: Main House
Coachman’s Cottage This is an archetypal double pile painted brick built Colonial cottage, three bays wide, centred on an entry door. The house is unusual for having such a steep roof and has overtones of the picturesque despite its formal plan. The chimney breasts on the outside of the house also add to its picturesque Gothic quality. The porch is modern and the rear skillion has been much adjusted.
East Elevation North Elevation
Living Room Dining Room Staircase Figure 3. 3: Coachman’s Cottage
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 50 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 4: Plan of Coachman’s Cottage
Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: East elevation Living Room Wa: English bond brickwork walls, pudding Wa: Boxed out in plasterboard, wallpaper. stone base, and window apertures, original. Masonite (or plywood) dado. Chair rail. Modern porch. C: Beaded boarded, original R: Corrugated iron; would have originally F: Hardwood, various widths been shingled. W1: Sash window, original W2: Top hung casement, date? North elevation D1: 6-panel external front door. Leaf not English bond brickwork walls, including brick original to house but relocated from elsewhere windowsills. Relieving arches over windows. and added to at top and bottom to fit original Two buttresses, possibly structural. frame. Old lock not original to door. Skillion addition at back, modern construction D2: Ledged & sheeted leaf, original; with reusing old fabric original latch, hinges, cloakpins. Original Bargeboards and finial, early 20th century frame. Chamfered external chimneybreast Other features: Timber chimneypiece, original.
West elevation Ground floor bedroom – all original Modern construction reusing old bricks. Brick Wa: Painted brickwork steps to sunroom. C: Beaded boarded F: Hardwood South elevation W1: Sash window Curvaceous bargeboard, early but not original. W2: Top hung casement, built with relieving Finial missing. arches Beaded boarded eaves lining Sk: Chamfered Morewood & Rogers tile roof to baker’s oven Co: Square Relieving arch to first floor Other: Timber chimneypiece
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 51 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Dining room – originally the kitchen Bathroom Wa: Painted brickwork, original; 150mm Modern (1980s) bathroom fitout except back feathered edge weatherboard wall behind stair, wall of house (painted brickwork) evident in original lavatory. C: not visible; cloth scrim, modern F: 100mm boards, post-WWII (floor might Stairwell have originally been stone) Wa: Ledged partition to north, south, and east. W1: Sash window, original West wall and ceiling are of a modern sheet D1: Original frame, latch and bolt fixings material. visible. French doors are of some age but relocated from elsewhere. First Floor Bedroom 1 Sk: Quad, modern C: Beaded, modern Other: Kitchen hearth and baker’s oven, Wa: South wall - Boxed out, hessian and original. wallpaper. Probably originally plastered. North Staircase – Baltic pine, original; some repairs wall – ledged Baltic pine partition, original. to balustrade. Understair cupboard, original. East & west walls – ashlar, modern. Kitchen Sk: original skirtings to south, east, and west. Wa: Split weatherboard, original F: 210mm Baltic pine, original. (Same boards F: Quarry tile, modern as used in partition wall to stairwell) D1: Ledged & sheeted leaf, thumblatch, W1: Sash window, original original. D1: Ledged leaf, original. Cut-in fanlight, W1: Casement, no relieving arch, modern. An unknown age original window opening in west wall now blocked up. First Floor Bedroom 2 Sunroom Wa: South wall – ledged partition, original. C: Scrim, modern Other walls – boxed out. Wa: Back wall of house, original. Two end C: V-jointed boards, 1920s. Sloping ceilings walls, brick, date unknown. Timber doorframe modern. and various bits of ironmongery (holdfasts) F: 210mm Baltic pine, original. embedded in walls. Possibly an early opening W1: Sash window, original bricked up. Stud partition to bathroom, D1: Colonial 6-panel door, c1830s, relocated modern. from elsewhere. Fl: Modern tile D1: Modern door to old pattern Other: Glazing to back of house, modern.
Gardener’s Cottage An apparently archetypal Colonial painted brick built verandahed cottage with a roof now covered in Morewood & Rogers patent English iron tiles. The house is three bays wide and of a single pile plan. However, the plan is unusual having a central lobby and spine wall. It seems to be a plan which is based on estate cottages such as they appeared in endless architectural pattern books of the early nineteenth century. The skillion has been much changed but otherwise the main house is intact resulting from its quite recent (1991) restoration. Most of its fine details such as the timber balustrade to the verandah appear to be based on surviving fabric.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 52 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
East Elevation West Elevation
Kitchen looking north Bedroom Figure 3. 5: Gardener’s Cottage
Figure 3. 6: Plan of Gardener’s Cottage
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 53 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Exterior fabric: W2 (side): Original sash window with original Roof: Morewood & Rogers iron tile roof over roller blind fittings. shingles. Other: Original clear pin chimneypiece. Outer Timber gutter empties into old boiling down hearth and firebox, original. pot Lobby North elevation C: Baltic pine, unpainted; possibly relocated Eaves soffit, fascia, modern from elsewhere. ‘Barfort & Perkins Peterborough’ drain plate Wa: Painted brickwork. Beaded Tasmanian on wall oak hat and coat board with handmade spikes. New timber window sashes in old apertures D1 (front door): Original frame. Hinges and lock relocated from elsewhere. Modern leaf. West elevation D2 (to bedroom): 6-panel bead butt Baltic Timber window sills, original pine, original. 8-inch Georgian rimlock, Double door – evidence that a smaller sash original. was reused from elsewhere and let into a larger sash to fit opening Bedroom C: Boarded and battened, original South elevation Wa: Painted brickwork, original Timber sill at west end is a different pattern to F: Pine, modern others and probably more recent Sk: Modern Pudding stone footings Other: Door case and 2no. window cases, Interesting ventilator original with original sash fasteners. Firebox in west wall, original; no Verandah chimneypiece. C: Exposed rafters, original. Shingles visible Hat and coat board. under Morewood & Rogers tiles. Wa: Ledged partition to south. Brick wall / Kitchen French arches, original. C: Modern split paling Verandah plate original, but posts and Wa: Rebuilt using old bricks dowelled balustrade are a 1991 reconstruction. F: Timber, 1991 Timber window sills W1 (south): Sash window, 1991 F: Timber, 1991 W2 (west): Small casement, date? D1 (south): Opening 1991. Sashes appear to be Interior fabric: old, possibly from the conservatory. Living room D2 (to bathroom): Ledged & sheeted leaf, C: Boarded and battened, original probably original back door to cottage. Same F: Pine, modern blacksmith’s T-hinges as living room door. Wa: Painted brickwork, original Other: Bakers oven and fireplace, original Sk: Beaded 200mm, modern D1 (to vestibule): Butt & mitred architraves, Bathroom beaded, original, suggesting a date pre-1830. C: Baltic pine similar to lobby. No leaf Wa: Lined out in Baltic pine D2 (to kitchen): Butt & mitred architraves, F: Brick, laid 1991 beaded, original. Original ledged & sheeted W1 (north): 1991 sash leaf with original blacksmith’s T-hinges, latch. W2 (west): 1991 casement W1 (front): Original sash window with Other: Bathroom fitout, 1991 original sash fasteners. Butt & mitred architrave.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 54 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Coach House & Stable An archetypal Colonial limewashed brick built coach house and stable distinguished by a gabled breakfront and fanlit loft door. The windows are twelve paned and although apparently sash windows are in fact fixed bottom sashes with a pivot hung top sash. The sash window on the first floor amongst otherwise louvred windows marks the groom’s bedroom. The corner fireplace in the carriage house is unusual. While the exterior is almost completely intact to the time of its construction the interior particularly the horse stalls have been somewhat altered. The roof is still covered in the Morewood & Rogers tiles which appear to be the original roofing which would help date the building.
East Elevation West Elevation
Stable bay with original manger
Stable door Figure 3. 7: Coach House & Stable
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 55 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 8: Plan of Coach House & Stable Exterior fabric on top of mangers in two bays joined by Ground floor windows: glazed, bottom sash missing partition. fixed, top pivoted. Internal bars. F: Brick, original. Urine drain, original. First floor windows: all louvred except one Attic stair: Location immediately in front of glazed at northern end. door required a beam to be removed, Roof: Morewood & Rogers tile roof. suggesting the stair is a later insertion and that Central pediment has boxed eaves with the attic would have been reached by just a decorative brackets. Evidence that such eaves manhole. and brackets carried through the whole roof. Carriage house (ground floor north room) West elevation Ce: Exposed joists and underside of floor All windows in this elevation were let in boards, limewashed subsequent to original construction but early. Wa: Brick, limewashed or painted. North wall Stone sills. white, the remainder cream. Eaves, probably original. Remains of brackets? Fl: Timber Original ventilators. Other: Fireplace in corner with painted dado Pudding stone base on chimney breast. Timber stair to attic. D1: Original carriage doors, staple missing Interior fabric from south leaf Stable (central room) D2 (into stable): Ledged & sheeted door leaf C: Exposed joists, original. Beam and post with pivoted fanlight. Has previously been structure, original. hung on other side. Wa: North wall – modern partition. Other Window: Sash window in west wall with bars walls, painted brickwork, original. Three on bottom (fixed) sash. surviving original stable partitions, one missing. Original mangers survive in two northernmost stable bays. Workbench formed
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 56 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Stable (ground floor south room – adjacent W3: Original fanlight modern workshop structure) D2: Ledged, framed & braced beaded loft As for central room. 2no. stable partitions, one door, original, in original frame. is wider than other. Door let into west wall subsequent to Room 2 As for Room 1 but with rafters across construction, later closed off. for storage. 5no. casements from conservatory stored inside. Workshop Modern timber framed shed with corrugated Bedroom (above coach house) iron roof, roller shutter door, and corrugated Ce: Sarking boards above rafters, whitewashed iron walls which in some places (e.g., south Wa: Whitewashed brick walls except partition wall) reuses old material. wall – lined with split boards which stop at door head. Attic Fl: Timber, original Partitioned in line with breakfront Sk: Beaded, original Room 1 (south) Window: Sash window, top sash fixed, bottom C: Pit sawn battens. Spaced closely as if for sliding, original shingling but unpunctured suggesting Morewood & Rogers tiles are the original roof Living room (above coach house) material, not shingles. Original roof structure. Ce: Sarking boards above rafters, whitewashed Wa: North – Boarded and battened partition. Wa: Sawn weatherboard partition wall up to Remainder – painted brickwork. ceiling height, previously whitewashed. Other F: Timber boards, original. walls, whitewashed brick D1 (to Room 2): Originally a larger door, filled Window: Louvre in with timber. Other: Chimney flue in corner. Timber stair, W1 & W2: Louvres no balustrade
Timber Coach Houses and stable This is an unusual stud and weatherboarded structure because of its scale and un-architectural character. It originally had four carriage houses as well as a stable with horse stalls. The main elevation conceals a long sloping skillion roof, which was originally covered in shingles. The skillion roof comes down onto a long verandah on stop chamfered posts. There is a brick skillion roofed building at right angles which is thought to have been a fowl house or kennels. The building had a loft but it is not clear how it would have worked. At the moment it is in very bad order and the brick skillion structure has been used as a quarry for bricks for other repairs on the property.
North elevation South elevation
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 57 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Carriage house 1 Stable stall Figure 3. 9: Timber Coach House & Stable
Figure 3. 10: Plan of Timber Coach House & Stable
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 58 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Exterior fabric Wa: East – studwork of partition to Carriage Timber framed with rear verandah and return house 2; West – boarded and battened partition in brickwork. Weatherboard walls. Stop to ceiling height. chamfered posts. Iron roof. Carriage house 4 Interior fabric: Has been extended Carriage house 1 (easternmost) Wa: East – studwork of partition to Carriage Has been extended to full depth of verandah house 3; West – sawn weatherboards, beaded Fl: earth, possibly originally timber on earth? saddle rack (four posts extant, two missing) Ce: close-battened corrugated iron roof This space is connected at south end into Doors: low doors in east wall at verandah end Carriage house 3 but not into stable. Wa: Timber stud partition, lined in sawn boards. Beaded mackintosh board. Stable Ce: Boarded and battened, whitewashed. Carriage house 2 (central) Chutes for dropping hay into mangers from Has not been extended. Most intact of all the upper level, but no evidence for access to rooms. upper level. Wa: East – studwork of partition to Carriage Wa: Boarded and battened, whitewashed. house 1; West – sawn boards Stable partitions (one missing), mangers. At Fl: earth, possibly originally timber on earth? west end – battened partition into loose box, Door cut into rear verandah later used as motor garage. Door into workshop: Original fanlighted Carriage house 3 doorway, originally accessed horse yard or Has been extended but header remains at dairy? original extent of room Fl: earth, possibly originally timber on earth?; Doors to all spaces: Timber framed, ledged. brick threshold Modern metal sheeting.
3.3 Farm Village Precinct
Blacksmith’s Shop This well built intact brick building with a simple hip roof is distinguished by the early corrugated iron roofing which must date the building to the 1850s when such iron became available. Like a lot of early iron it is quite large in scale. The north slope of the roof, which old photographs show shingled, would suggest that the amount of iron available at the time of construction was inadequate. The building retains all of the original details associated with the shoeing of horses. One chimney, however, appears to have been removed.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 59 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
East elevation South and west elevations
Smithy
Horseshoeing area Figure 3. 11: Blacksmith’s Shop
Figure 3. 12: Plan of Blacksmith’s Shop
Exterior fabric: Roof: Corrugated iron, broad (5-inch) pitch, Face brick with unusual single-ring arches, screwed down, no washers. Very rare. North lime washed. face of roof has modern iron at a 3-inch pitch; Beaded timber door lintel originally shingled. Sandstone window sills and threshold Original ridged with lead, now replaced. 1no. intact chimney, 1no. missing chimney.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 60 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Interior fabric Wa: Face brick, English bond Horseshoeing area Windows: 2no. original windows with ledged C: Exposed roof structure, original & sheeted doors, original strap & gudgeon Wa: English bond face brick. 4no. eyes for hinges. Unusual framing at sill level. tying up animals fixed to timber plates built D: Ledged & sheeted leaf, original, with into wall. North wall shows evidence for original strap & gudgeon hinges, stocklock, having been shingled prior to corrugated iron and thumblatch. roofing. Split weatherboard gabled partition to Other: Wall-mounted wheel (for making wheel workshop. rims) Large chimney breast Smith Intact bellows, furnace, anvil. C: Exposed roof structure, original. Original Benches under windows. corrugated iron, large gauge.
Cook House The Cook House is mainly built of timber with a large brick chimney alcove and baker’s oven as one of its gabled walls. The roof is jerkin headed and retains its Morewood & Rogers iron tile roof. The feature of the building must be its brick nogged dado internally and its chimney wall with open fireplace and baker’s oven. Internally there is a bracket which once housed a clock which is an interesting feature for a staff kitchen. The external timber framed walls are weatherboarded.
North elevation South elevation
Fireplace
Bakers Oven Figure 3. 13: Cook House
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 61 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 14: Plan of Cook House
Exterior fabric: F: Timber, predominantly original, some Morewood & Rogers iron roof replaced boards in northern third of room. Brickwork to eastern end in Flemish bond D1 (south elevation) Ledged & sheeted leaf, Weatherboards look comparatively new to original, with original stock lock, strap & remaining walls gudgeon hinges. Half round gutters D2 (north elevation) Old, but not original door; Modern downpipes a replacement from elsewhere. Evidence for Pudding stone base. Concrete apron against thumblatch and gudgeon hinges. north wall. Window sashes – top sashes are replacements. Evidence that sashes were originally paired. Interior fabric: Highlight window in west gable, modern C: Exposed joists and rafters, Morewood & replacement. Rogers tiles above battens, original Other: Bakers oven, fireplace, original; intact Wa: Stud walls, not lined internally. Feather including oven door and crane. Outer hearth edged chamfered weatherboards to dado height replaced with concrete pavers. Clock house on of 1100. west wall, evidence for same on south wall.
Chapel The Chapel is a fine architectural composition of exaggerated proportions, particularly the unusually steep roof, tall doors, and a decorative bellcote fleche. The Chapel would almost certainly have come from a pattern book or have been the work of an architect. Its style and materials appear to indicate a date later than 1855. Certainly it is not shown in the 1841 plan of Brickendon (see Figure 2. 20). It could possibly be the work of the Launceston architect, Peter Mills (1828 – 1886), who designed a similar building for the Archer family in the 1860s at another property, Saundridge at Cressy. Further research into sources such as family papers could provide a firmer date for the chapel and it may be found to date to the convict era. It is a face brick building of English bond and has cement dressings and decorative bargeboards. The entrance door has an ogee arch and there are intact lead light casements. A stained glass from the east window was removed many years ago and displayed at Entally; however, at the time of the preparation of this report, it had been removed from Entally, conserved, and its re-installation at Brickendon in its original aperture was imminent. There are remains of oak graining inside and well detailed pews of huon pine.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 62 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
The roof has always been shingled although the present shingles are not very old. There is a simple nave and porch with scissor trusses to the roof of the nave. An internal door between the porch and the nave has been removed at an unknown time.
West elevation East elevation
South elevation
Interior looking west Figure 3. 15: Chapel
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 63 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 16: Plan of Chapel Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: Shingle roof, modern C: Original roof structure with scissor trusses. Half round gutters Sarking boarding running parallel to thin Bargeboards and eaves, original chamfered rafters. Oak grained timber. Bellcote rebuilt Porch ceiling: Sarking running across rafters. English bond brickwork South slope painted blue, original. North slope, Cement dressings to window, plinth, and modern replacement. buttresses Wa: Plaster, marked out in imitation of ashlar. Ventilators in plinth Windows: Mullion and transom casement Porch – original bargeboards, pine door with windows, originally oak grained, now painted. gothic sham hinges. Cement heraldic shield to Except the east windows, all windows are porch. leadlighted with coloured glass, original. Fascia on south side not original Original east window is at Entally and expected to be returned. Sillboards have all 4no. sub-floor ventilators, all replacements been replaced except to the east window and except on the northwest. the northwest window. Bullseye windows in east and west walls are East elevation painted leadlight, not coloured glass leadlight. Bargeboard, original Other: Pews, original. Altar table missing. Bullseye window, original Joinery: Has all been oak grained, but this Transom and mullion window with label graining only survives to inner face of external mould door and door case to porch. 2no. interesting pendant brackets under sill Front door: Ledged, framed & sheeted door leaf. Drawback rimlock, T-hinges, ogee top. Original. F: Timber floor, original, to main chamber but porch has a new timber floor.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 64 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Fowl house This colourwashed brick built building is very architectural with an extremely lightly framed roof covered in Morewood & Rogers iron tiles. It has pigeonholes in the gables and decorative ventilators in the main walls. The corners are marked by heavy pilasters. The high pitched roof with its decorative gables and picturesque details suggest the hand of the family architect, William Archer. The interior fitout would appear to have been altered. The brick pigeonholes and ventilators are arched with ogee bricks, which is quite unusual.
East elevation West elevation
South elevation North elevation Figure 3. 17: Fowl house
Figure 3. 18: Plan of Fowl house
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 65 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: Wa: Limewashed 9-inch brickwork (all other Ce: Economically framed roof carrying brickwork on site is 14-inch). Slate damp- Morewood & Rogers iron tiles, each stamped proof course (not found on other buildings). ‘Best / Morewood & Rogers / Patent Tile’ Pudding stone base. Decorative curvaceous Wa: Whitewash brickwork, Colonial bond. bargeboards, missing on north elevation. Decorative ogee ventilating holes in gables, Decorative pilasters at door and on corners. possibly used for pigeon / squab. Hole under gauzed opening could have Fl: Brick paved. allowed chickens to enter/exit building. Other: Laying boxes Door: Ledged, framed & sheeted door, original. Boards do not go full height. Evidence formerly painted bottle green. Half round gutters.
Outhouse (privy) This is an archetypal privy, square on plan with a simple pyramidal hipped roof. The building remains intact with a double thunder box of pine. The roof was originally shingled. The walls have been colourwashed.
South Elevation North and west elevations Figure 3. 19: Outhouse (privy)
Figure 3. 20: Plan of Outhouse (privy)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 66 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: Wa: 14-inch English bond brickwork, Ce: Split weatherboards limewashed Wa: Plastered, Reckitt’s blue limewash. Roof: Corrugated iron roof over shingles (still Door: Frame original, door leaf original but in place) hung incorrectly (leaf should swing inwards). Trap door at back for removal of pan. Door stops missing. Other: w-hole thunderbox, pine?, original
Smoke house and baker’s oven This is an archetypal structure although has been heavily reconstructed, at least so far as its roof is concerned. The smoke house is square on plan with a pyramidal roof and the baker’s oven is now protected by a verandah or an awning of modern construction.
West elevation East elevation Figure 3. 21: Smokehouse
Figure 3. 22: Plan of Smokehouse
Exterior fabric (smoke house): Exterior fabric (baker’s oven) Roof: modern shingles. Original / old cowl. Roof: modern, freestanding structure with Wa: Brickwork, limewashed. modern shingles. No chimney to oven Fl: Remains of brick floor around baker’s oven. On pudding stone base. Concrete rendered brick barbecue to east end of baker’s oven.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 67 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Interior fabric (smoke house): Ce: Exposed roof structure; rebuilt. 1no. Wa: 14-inch English bond brickwork. Various original rafter and 2no. original ridge pieces in nails in walls. situ. Fl: brick. Modern concrete plinth under west Door: ledged & sheeted door, relocated from wall. Brick lined pit in floor elsewhere, in original frame.
William Archer’s Cottage This brick nogged cottage, weatherboarded externally, with a simple hipped roof is three bays wide and one bay deep. The brick chimney breasts are on the outside.
The front skillion verandah is unusually deep for Tasmania and for such a cottage. The window sashes have been replaced and the interior has been much altered. The internal lining plaster has now largely been removed and the rear wall is much altered.
West elevation East elevation
North elevation Figure 3. 23: William Archer’s Cottage
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 68 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 24: Plan of William Archer’s Cottage Exterior fabric: Other: Firebox, outer hearth Modern concrete verandah floor Stop-chamfered verandah posts, modern South room Wa: Beaded weatherboard, original to east and Fl: Western half – concrete slab; otherwise west elevations; south elevation boards have timber, modern. been replaced. At northern end of building Ce: Boarded battened beaded weatherboards are replaced by feather Wa: Brick nogged, plater removed edged chamfered boards of various widths. W1 (to front): Architrave and catch, original. All windows in east elevation are Modern sash. replacements. The window to left of the door W2 (to back): Opening modern, sash reused in east elevation may have been another door. old sash from elsewhere. Verandah ce: Exposed rafters with shingles Other: firebox above. Shows signs of limewashing. Indication Hall of skylight above north window in verandah Wa: South wall lined with beaded boards over ceiling. brick nogging Ogee gutter. Ce: Plank and planted beaded cover strip Sk: Beaded Interior fabric: Door to front: Case original but missing North room architrave. Possibly original leaf. Glazed light Wa: Brick nogged, plaster missing. Hardwood later. Hung inside out. studwork. Door to back: Architrave and linings original, Sk: Beaded skirting. This is the only internal door leaf adjusted, not original to this location. joinery in the room. Has fanlight suggesting it was the front door Fl: Timber, original and the cottage may have faced the other way Ce: Beaded timber boards at 30mm centres (addressing the view). Windows: Modern sashes in old frames.
Dutch Barn (south) The cruciform planned barn is largely intact except the original shingled roof has been replaced in corrugated iron and there is a quantity of new weatherboarding on the outside. The floor inside is now concreted.
The barn is almost certainly the work of an English vernacular tradesman specially brought out, or else could result from a nineteenth century pattern book for rural structures.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 69 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
North elevation South and west elevations
South elevation West elevation Figure 3. 25: Dutch Barn (south)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 70 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 26: Plan of Dutch Barn (south) Exterior fabric Southeastern annex – early addition, made Wa: Feathered edge hardwood weatherboards, soon after barn was constructed much renewed/replaced Ce: Olpen roof structure with shingle battens Half round gutters Wa: External weatherboard walls at two ends; High doors, not original otherwise, exposed stud walls. (4-inch studs) Pudding stone base Fl: Timber Corrugated iron roof, renewed 1950s using Doors: Two doors in east wall original to this roof material from demolished hay sheds. addition
Interior fabric Southwestern annex No interior linings apart from weatherboard Same construction as southeastern annex, but linings to south gable. with lined ceilings. Building contains original gate from estate Ceiling lined at two levels to accommodate entrance. hopper. Mezzanine at eastern end is structured Ce: Shingle battens, corrugated iron roof through the main wall (suggesting construction above. Open trussed roof structure. at the same time as or very soon after main Wa: 6-inch studs with heavy timber posts at chamber). each truss and corners. Fl: modern timber Fl: Concrete; originally earth? Doors and windows: modern construction. Doors – all replacements except on north wall of entrance lobby and in southeastern annex.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 71 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Dutch Barn (west) This barn is almost identical to the Dutch Barn (south) except that it has been altered for tourist purposes particularly on the west front.
East elevation West elevation
North elevation South elevation Figure 3. 27: Dutch Barn (west)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 72 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 28: Plan of Dutch Barn (west) Exterior fabric: Wa: 150mm studwork Wa: weatherboards, original in several areas Fl: Timber, modern (indicated by pyramid-topped nails). Doors: modern construction except original Roof: corrugated iron door in same position as in Dutch Barn (south) Modern porch and glazed screen to west – south side of east lobby
Interior fabric: 2no. skillion additions structured in with main Ce: open trussed ceiling, exposed shingle chamber, suggesting near contemporary builds. battens. Northwestern annex: modern office fitout
Pillar granary This is one of the highlights of the site. Brick nogged at least in its lower storey and raised on staddle stones. It has heavy ledged framed and sheeted doors and symmetrical elevations of five bays with adjustable louvred windows. The roof is jerkin headed with a generous eave. The staddle stones have unfortunately been rendered at least in the shafts and some have weathered badly. Some of the weatherboarding is old but much has been renewed. The building is, like all timber buildings on the site, in need of careful conservation. Corrugated iron now replaces the original shingle roof. Except for a similar granary at Bothwell it is unique in Australia.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 73 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
South elevation North elevation
Ground floor West elevation Figure 3. 29: Pillar Granary
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 74 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 30: Plan of Pillar Granary
Exterior fabric: Southeast corner – seed room lined with sawn Wa: beaded weatherboards. Apron board feathered edged weatherboards, limewashed. around base of wall (to throw water off Internally, room is lined out in tin, modern. building away from staddlestones) is extant Part original timber floor, part lined in tin. only on south side. Window opening covered with perspex. Building sits on 28no. staddlestones, of which Southwest corner – room lined with sawn only the tops are wholly sandstone. Shafts boarding, once limewashed. have been rendered. Staddlestones sit on a Windows: 5no. louvred windows, each with sandstone footing. 5no. circular bars in north wall. 4no. louvred Eaves on north and south are lined with beaded windows each with 5no. circular bars in south boards. wall. Half-round gutters Door: Pair of outward opening ledged & Corrugated iron roof sheeted doors lined internally with horizontal boards and externally with vertical beaded Interior fabric: boards. Remains of swing locking device. Iron Ground floor stocklock “secure patent” with crown and Ce: exposed joists and underside of first floor ‘VR’ (indicating a post-1837 date). Original boards, not painted hasp and staple and strap & gudgeon hinges. Wa: brick nogged timber construction, evidence of former limewashing Fl: hardwood, original Massive stop-chamfered beam supported by 5no. stop-chamfered posts
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 75 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
First floor Fabric as for ground floor apart from: Trap door in floor in front of external door and Ce: Exposed ceiling joists under partial floor small square trap door in southeast corner of above. Opening trimmed immediately above lobby trap door. Ring in ceiling suggests an internal block and tackle, now missing. Attic Signs of collapse and later shuttering. Wa: ashlar. Lined with sawn feathered edge Wa: 6-inch studwork with heavy timber weatherboards members at principal points. All sawn timber Ce: corrugated iron over shingle battens except central stop chamfered 140x140 posts. Windows: Gable windows at each end have Window bars are square section set on the 4no. square profile bars each diagonal Other: 2no. modern water tanks 5no. bins with sawn / sawn and beaded plank boarding to sill level. Evidence the bins have been whitewashed in the past. Some bins have metal cover strips masking gaps between planks.
Implement Shed This is a large vernacular structure with a hipped roof of corrugated iron and walls of vertical timber slabs. The western end clearly has been changed to allow for the gabled extension. The building is built of bush poles and the floors are dirt.
North elevation North elevation (north west corner)
South elevation South elevation Figure 3. 31: Implement Shed
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 76 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 32: Plan of Implement Shed Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: Wa: East elevation – weatherboarded. North Bush pole construction up to plate level,, elevation – vertical slabs on timber frame, Rafters, collarties, battens framed for ledged construction. corrugated iron roof. Roof: corrugated iron. Door: Pair of ledged & sheeted doors with strap & gudgeon hinges on east shed. Wa: Vertical sawn boards and horizontal sawn boards form partition to west end shed. Fl: earth
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 77 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brick granary This is a brick built, two-storey vernacular Georgian building of four bays with a jerkin head gabled roof originally covered in shingles. The brickwork was originally harled or roughcast. The interior’s heavy wooden construction survives as do the bins on the first floor. There is a contemporary brick built skillion across the rear breast wall. The original doors appear to have been ledged and framed with beaded boards in a chevron pattern and are distinguished by elaborate iron-mongery.
The doors for raising the grain are asymmetrically placed in the southern gable wall.
West elevation East elevation
South elevation South and west elevations Figure 3. 33: Brick granary
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 78 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 34: Plan of Shearing shed & Brick granary
Exterior fabric: Ce: exposed corrugated iron on shingle Wa: Skillion – brickwork, limewashed. battens. Remainder – roughcast. Other: plates in west wall for holding timber Roof: corrugated iron with half round gutters granary structure in position. Block and tackle Sandstone windowsills in west wall. Brick for hoisting. Metal external stair to first floor, windowsills in east elevation, laid with frogs modern. up. Ground floor Interior fabric: Ce: exposed ceiling joists under Baltic pine Skillion floorboards. 200x200 stop chamfered posts Windows: 3no. louvred windows in east wall supporting structure. Evidence of 4no. grain with control stick (as in shearing shed), chutes in ceiling, 3 of which partially survive. suggesting this space has never had a granary 2no. timber chutes adjacent the west wall. use. Fl: slatted gratings, divided into sheep pens. Door (south end): pair of smart inward- Wa: 8-inch brickwork up to 1400, then 6-inch opening ledged & sheeted doors with diagonal brickwork. North and south walls have timber sheeting, strap & gudgeon hinges, original. structure supporting roof. Limewashed. Retains original pivoting closing mechanism Windows: 4no. sash windows in west wall; which can be locked from inside. only the northernmost one is original. Door (west wall): ledged & sheeted door with Door (south): Pair of ledged, framed and diagonal beaded boarding on original strap & diagonally sheeted doors with strap and gudgeon hinges. gudgeon hinges, stock lock, thumblatch, hasp Wa: face brick English bond. Never painted. and staple. Shows lanolin from sheep.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 79 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
First floor Front bin in the southeast corner contains the Ce: Exposed joists under shingle battens under windlass for manually lifting bags. A timber corrugated iron roofing walkway at doorhead height provides access to Wa: Limewashed brickwork empty grain into bins. Sk: Plank skirting to east and west walls, Doors: There are 3no. doors in the south wall, modern at ground, first, and mezzanine levels. Each Fl: pine with 2no. square chutes and 4no. door is an outward opening pair of ledged and circular chutes. sheeted doors with original hinges and can all Divided into 4no. bins with corridor along be locked from inside with a bar mechanism. west wall. Bin partitions made with Baltic pine Instead of the swivel closing latch found on the tongue & groove boards (150x27), ground floor door, the first floor door has a limewashed. Slots for vertical closers, only a hasp & staple. few extant. Corridor also has slots for closers There is a modern glazed inner door assembly so it could also be filled as a bin. to the south wall at the first floor level.
Shearing Shed – Horse Stables This conglomerate timber building is as old as any of the farm buildings and would appear to have originally started its life as a stable for the working horses and a shearing shed. The horse stables however, have long ceased to be used and the shearing operation appears to have extended into this area. The building is an extension of the brick granary although is single storeyed with a continuous gabled roof now covered in corrugated iron. The walls are weatherboarded and there are numerous apertures that date from its various periods. Much of the exterior boarding has been replaced in recent years. The original stable building was brick nogged and there is evidence of the original stalls. However, the building is very much altered. The brickwork has been taken for other purposes.
West elevation of southern shearing shed west elevation of northern shearing shed
West elevation of draught horse stable (shearing shed West elevation of draught horse stable (former) and wool press) (North end of complex)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 80 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
North elevation East elevation of southern and northern shearing sheds
Draft horse stable (shearing shed and wool press) Southern shearing shed Figure 3. 35: Shearing Shed – Horse Stables
Figure 3. 36: Plan of draught horse stable (former) (north end of complex) and draft horse stable (shearing shed and wool press)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 81 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Draught horse stable (former) (North end of complex)
Exterior fabric: Remains of original stud paneling on north Wa: weatherboarded, majority replaced. wall. Supported on brick plinth. Fl: remains of river stone cobbling; modern Doors: 2no. horse doors in east wall – ledged, cement. braced & sheeted. Retain strap and gudgeon Windows: Small louvre window with cast iron hinges, staples and hasps. bars. Windows: 2no. louvre windows in east wall, Doors: Pair of doors in west wall cut in post- each with 5no. cast iron bars, contemporary construction. Old door leaves, reused from with window in north wall. elsewhere. 20th century concrete paving and concrete Door south of porch: ledged & sheeted beaded loading dock for conversion to wool room. board door Roof: corrugated iron. Half round gutters. Other: 5no. saddle props.
Interior fabric: Horse porch (now experts’ room) Ce: corrugated iron roof over shingle battens, Fl: concrete shingles removed. 3no. trusses, 1no. truss Wa: Feathered edge dressed weatherboard replaced at south end. Indication of attic / linings. mezzanine floor, of which only 4no. floor Ce: corrugated iron above shingle battens. joists survive. Whitewashed. Door (internal): Internal horse door with strap Wa: North and east to first window – 5-inch and gudgeon hinges; ledged, braced & sheeted brick nogged (to plate height) walls of which beaded board leaf. the northern part of the east wall survives. Door (external): External horse door with strap Evidence of brick nogging above door height and gudgeon hinges, barrel bolt. Evidence of in south wall. Evidence of limewashing. thumb latch.
Draught horse stable (shearing shed and wool press)
Exterior fabric: Other: evidence of doorway in south wall Wa: weatherboards, majority replaced. gable. Evidence of manhole in attic floor Pudding stone base. against north wall. Evidence of saddle props Windows: 3no. sashes in west wall, modern against porch wall. Former stable partitions replacements. 2no. sashes in east wall, now wool classing bins. probably original. Ledged & sheeted window shutter on strap & gudgeon hinges in east wall. Northern shearing shed Ce: corrugated iron above shingle battens Interior fabric: above collar tie level. Below collar tie, sheeted Ce: Corrugated iron above shingle battens. with split weatherboards. Roof structure supported on large (180x180) Wa: Stud construction. North - sheeted with stop chamfered timber posts, 2no. of which split palings. South – part split palings with have been removed. Evidence of attic storey at cover battens, part feathered edge attic/pitching level of which 10no. joists weatherboards. Brick and heavy bottom plate. survive. 4no. skylights cut in corrugated Windows: 2no. modern skylight sash windows. perspex, 1no. similar skylight in skillion 2no. sash windows and 1no. skylight in section. skillion (same skillion construction as in Wa: Split weatherboards. South wall sheeted draught horse stables). 1no. sash window in with weatherboards now cut through. Skillion east wall. 1no. ledged & braced shutter section raised, lined with boards as high as old window. pitching level. Weatherboards to north wall Fl: Slatted gratings and part timber floor (to gable. shearers’ board), modern Fl: timber, modern
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 82 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Other: space divided into pens for directing of door in this wall. Brickwork below attic sheep to 4no. stations on shearers’ board. 4no. level not painted and shows evidence of grease sheep doors corresponding to shearing stations. from sheep fleeces. Fl: slatted gratings. Southern shearing shed Other: 2no. original louvred ventilators in west Ce: split palings. Sealed at collar tie level. wall. Remains of ledged & sheeted window Evidence of wool bins cut out. Mezzanine attic hatch in east wall. Door cut into east wall. removed. Evidence ceiling was painted white. Sheep pens. Wa: north wall sheeted with split palings; east Skillion in this space at original level and has and west walls split palings above door head not been raised as has the skillion in other but stud wall cut out below. South wall is spaces. Ceiling of the skillion in this space is English bond brickwork of granary. Evidence shingle battens under corrugated iron.
Sheep Dip – Slaughter House This long single-storeyed building runs parallel to the shearing shed / horse stables and is in a similar state of having been much altered. In recent years it has been used as a pottery. However, evidence of the sheep dip and numerous of its original apertures survive. The roof is now covered in corrugated iron and the weatherboarding has been much adjusted.
East elevation East elevation
South elevation West elevation Figure 3. 37: Sheep Dip – Slaughter House
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 83 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 38: Plan of Sheep Dip - Slaughter House
Exterior fabric: Interior fabric: Roof: hipped roof, corrugated iron. Originally Wa: Partition wall of some age, originally shingled. sheeted on north face in split weatherboards. Wa: Sheeted with split weatherboards, Dado lined with boards. Slots/holes in dado majority reboarded and/or adjusted. linings. Other: 5-rail gates originally located at various Ce: exposed rafters, shingle battens, and apertures; only one survives on west elevation. corrugated iron roofing All apertures trimmed with beaded boards. Fl: brick paved with central drain. Timber trap Door: Ledged and sheeted door in west door forming level floor over dip chute. elevation with beaded trim. Concrete floor with blood drain in former Glazing: Modern, for pottery fitout. slaughter room (to north). Internally, the building is completely fitted out for use as a pottery, modern.
Farm Cottage The farm cottage is a simple three bayed building focused on a door now protected by a Picturesque brick porch. The roof is gabled and the building now extends into the adjoining dairy. It is clearly built to align with the farmyard street and continues the line of William Archer’s cottage and the brick granary. This brick building is rendered and the roof is now corrugated iron, but probably it was originally shingled.
Morewood & Rogers tiles are used on the porch roof. The porch has a stone flagged floor. The porch’s ceiling sarking boards above thin rafters could be original. The building appears to have its original front door, however no original window sashes survive. External trimmings including gutters and finials are modern.
The back of the cottage has been completely transformed in the post-WWII era. One section of face brick with a relieving arch over survives of the original appearance.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 84 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
West and south elevations West elevation
South elevation East elevation Figure 3. 39: Farm Cottage
3.4 Archaeological Resource
Background An historical archaeological survey was undertaken at Brickendon as part of this CMP. The purpose of the survey was to identify areas and features of archaeological potential and significance, formulate viable conservation policies and provide pragmatic management guidelines. The survey included consideration of standing structures, the sites of demolished structures, earthworks, roadworks, drainage works, rubbish deposits, archaeological scatters and miscellaneous items. These have been recorded by way of sixty proformas that are included in the Appendices to this report. A list of the site names are included in Table 1. The locations of the sites have been shown in Figure 3. 40 – House Precinct, Figure 3. 41 – Farm Precinct and Figure 3. 42 – Paddocks and Outlying Sites. This data has also been summarised and graphically presented by way of the archaeological sensitivity plans (Figures 4. 4 and 4. 5).
The analysis of the site was based on the historical data supplied by Lindy Scripps, the transcripts of interviews with Kerry Archer, and discussions held with Kerry, Richard and Louise Archer. Richard guided the survey team around the site and pointed out many of the sites including the drainage lines, sumps, septic tanks, clay pits, flood flaps etc.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 85 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 40: Plan of the House Precinct showing building and site locations
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 86 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Figure 3. 41: Plan of the Farm Village Precinct showing building and site locations
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 87 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 3. 42: Plan of Brickendon showing paddock names, property boundary and site locations outside the Farm Village and House Precincts.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 88 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
Archaeological Potential ‘Archaeological potential’ can be defined as the likelihood of the occurrence or existence of subsurface cultural deposits. An assessment of potential is generally based on consideration of the historic sequence of occupation, activities and development of an area and takes into consideration the impact of those factors, as well as more recent land practices, on the state of subsurface archaeological deposits. In general, the range of both recent and past activities will have contributed to the likelihood of survival of subsurface archaeological deposits as well as their condition, integrity and extent. Standing structures themselves can be of archaeological interest in terms of deposits in underfloor areas, roof cavities and interstitial spaces between floors in multi-level buildings; archaeology can also provide information on construction techniques, especially in regard to footings and foundations.
Archaeological significance is discussed in Section 4. Rankings of archaeological potential and significance are shown in Table 1, Section 4.
Extant Structures All of the early phase buildings at Brickendon can be considered to have archaeological potential. This will mainly reside in any underfloor deposits but can also include other places as indicated above. The long history of occupation of the buildings and the use of straight edge floorboards in many of them has provided an environment conducive to accumulation of archaeological material. While there will undoubtedly have been repair and renovation episodes to the main buildings such as the main house, it is likely that this did not involve wholesale reconstruction or extensive clean-ups of underfloor material. An exception to this is the fire of November 1845 in the northern wing of the main house. This is likely to have left extensive archaeological evidence which may well throw new light on that event. The historical background information also indicates that repairs to the house may not have started immediately as there is are 1846 diary entries related to them; the archaeology could provide information on this aspect as well.
The cellar was one of the earliest parts of the main house constructed as there is a reference to the “cellar store” in Archer’s diary of November 1829. It was not paved with sandstone flagging until at least 1847 (again as indicated by the diary). This provided an opportunity for material to accumulate over an eighteen-year period in the important establishment phase of Brickendon. Of course the cellar made have had a “temporary” floor of some kind in that period but the evidence of that could be of interest as well. The flagstones were subsequently pulled up in the 1950s and re-laid in the main courtyard above with the cellar being re-surfaced with (re-used) bricks (source unknown). The courtyard itself is of archaeological interest as the nature of its earlier paving is not known and it may well contain archaeological deposits or features as well.
All of the other early extant domestic buildings such as the Coachman’s House and Farm Cottage are of similar archaeological interest. These long-lived buildings which have been in more or less continuous use and have been maintained are likely to have intact deposits in sub-floor areas. They may also include structural information about the development of the building and evidence of earlier finishes, materials and methods used.
William Archer’s Cottage (Site No 34) is one of two places at Brickendon that may pre-date the Archer occupation (the other being Jacob Mountgarrett’s house site (Site No 60) in the River Paddock). William Archer’s Cottage may in fact be the original William Whyte homestead (1817 – c.1827). Up until his death in 1833, William Archer Senior occupied the building, its proximity to the convicts’ quarters allowing him to keep an eye on the men. Usage during the rest of the century is unknown. The cottage had gone out of use by the 1940s and was being used for storage. There was a
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 89 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD structure at the rear of the building (east), possibly serving as a laundry, which was removed in the 1940s.
One building that has undergone major works is the Gardener’s Cottage (Site No 12). This fell into a state of severe disrepair and was largely reconstructed by the Archers in the 1980s. Bricks were scavenged from around the farm and house precincts and from previously demolished buildings for use in the repairs. Floors were replaced and Richard Archer commented that bottles and some other items were retrieved form the underfloor deposits. A 1798 twopenny coin was found at the rear of the house. This building therefore has a lesser degree of archaeological potential.
Floors in some old buildings show evidence of patching and board replacement. The Cook House (Site No 38) in the farm precinct is a good example. There are a number of different width boards, the majority of which appear to be circular sawn and affixed with galvanised nails, although the odd straight-edge board survives. The eastern section of the room, around the oven and fireplace, has been paved with concrete blocks.
Demolished Structures The disturbance history provided by Lindy Scripps in the historical background section (Section 2) indicates a number of buildings that have been demolished or removed. In the house precinct these include:
• the glass and timber greenhouse (possibly 1870s) (Site No 9), • a brick and timber potting shed and a seedling shed located near the Gardener’s Cottage (Site No 14), • a tennis court with summerhouse at each end in the middle of the lawn, and • an unidentified building in an enclosure near the main drive way shown on an 1882 plan by Alexander Clerke (Site No 58).
In the farm precinct demolished or removed buildings include:
• a stable (Site No 26) adjacent to the Cattle Yard on the western side of the roadway through the Farm Village. This may have been the timber stable referred to in William Archer’s 1831 grant application. • the Hay Sheds and Milking Shed (Site No 25) which formed the long side of an L-shape with the surviving Cart/Implement Shed. • the Men’s Quarters (Site No 40), • the Carpenters Shop (Site No 41), • a cottage (Site No 39).
Proformas have been prepared for most of these sites and are included in the Appendices.
One site that is mentioned in the historical background report but is not shown on any surviving plan is the tannery. This was reputedly established in the “NE Corner of the Stack Yard”. It is only partially described in the diary of 2 December 1829 where a trench three feet deep for the tubs is mentioned and that thin clay was found that was suitable for “puddling the tubs”. (Puddling or lining with clay creates a waterproof membrane.) The tubs were fixed and puddled and ready to receive the first skins on 12 December.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 90 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description
The location of the tannery is not known. If it was built in the northeast corner of the stackyard it may well lie beneath one of the barns or the pillar granary. Richard Archer pointed out a place in the northwest corner of the stackyard that is now a drain but has some unusual features (Site No 56). An earthenware pipe runs underground along the northern boundary of the Stack Yard, terminating in the yard’s north west corner. Immediately south of the pipe’s mouth is a retaining wall of red handmade bricks, three rows wide and approximately 1.5m long. This low wall is adjacent to the northern side of the present-day footbridge. The function of the low wall and bricks, which are only partially visible, is not apparent.
Other Features The disturbance history provided by Lindy Scripps in Section 2 indicates a number of features outside the house and farm precincts that are the locations of some past historical features. These sites were all examined and proformas prepared. Some have a high degree of archaeological significance and potential. These sites are:
• At the river near the northern boundary is the watering place where water was collected in water carts for distribution on the estate when water from other sources was not available (Site No 55), • The 1841 plan records the site of a sheep wash at the south eastern corner of the River Paddock (Site No 49), • The 1882 plan records a sheep wash at the south eastern corner of the Pump Paddock (Site No 50), • Two claypits in the Brickfield Paddock (Site Nos 52 and 53).
Archaeological Features During the survey a number of other archaeological features were noted. Most of these arose from the transcripts of Kerry Archer’s interviews, or verbal information from Kerry or Richard Archer, or being pointed out by Richard during a site inspection of the property. Features included the possible site of Jacob Mountgarrett’s residence, extensive drainage works (including the flood flaps), roadworks, rubbish deposits, and garden beds or changes to the garden layouts.
Site of Jacob Mountgarrett’s Residence (Site No 60) Prior to the Archers’ occupation, the land that today comprises Brickendon was initially broken into six separate land grants. By 1825 settler Jacob Mountgarrett had a single grant at the south of the property and possibly occupied another grant to the south (William Able’s original grant). Mountgarrett lost his grant/s in 1827, Thomas Archer purchasing the property in 1828. Historical references indicate that Mountgarrett had a building on his grant. It was located on a rise overlooking a point in the river called Doctor’s Bend. Mountgarrett’s building was apparently removed at some point, becoming an outbuilding at Woolmers.1
No evidence of the residence could be found. However, Richard Archer has unearthed the remains of household rubbish in the southeast corner of the River Paddock (Site No 60), above the location of the 1841 sheep wash. The situation of the site – on a rise above a bend in the river – does closely match the historical description.
1 W. E. L. H. Crowther, ‘Mr Jacob Mountgarrett, R. N.: The Pioneer Surgeon of Van Diemen’s Land, 1803- 1828’ in Medical Journal of Australia 22 March 1947, p. 11 [refer to Section 2, pp. 15-16 of this report for more detail]
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 91 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Drainage Works The drainage works at the property commenced from very early on and are extensive. They include surface earth drains around the perimeters of many of the paddocks as well as subterranean clay pipe and cast iron pipe drainage across the paddocks. By 1895 the property was described as being ‘under- drained’ (ie below ground) with tile pipes ‘at great expense’. The drains of Brickendon have been maintained throughout the 20th Century, although modern polythene pipes have in places replaced them. Much of the early drainage is still functional or is when it is kept free of debris. There is no plan showing the drainage lines but Richard Archer is very knowledgeable about this topic and keeps records of drains he uncovers from time to time.
The most substantial of these below ground drains was located on the northern boundary of the property and apparently drained the lagoon in the north western paddocks. It is not known when the drain was established. It consisted of a deep surface ditch, approximately 500m long, along which were four separate sumps. The largest of these sumps (Site No 51) is at the western end of the drain, the other three were brick boxes to drain the surface ditch. Below the surface drain is a secondary drain, formed from a 2ft (600mm) pipe. This could be accessed via the sumps. At the large sump the pipe is approximately 1m deep, but due to the fall toward the river it is reportedly 5m deep in the sump near Brickendon’s main entrance. According to Richard Archer, the drain was still operating until the 1970s.
Pipes that emptied into the river were fitted with cast iron flood flaps (for example Site No 54) to prevent the river water flowing back up the pies and flooding the paddocks during river flood events.
Around the main house Richard Archer pointed out two main brick box drains with soakage/collection sumps running out to the west of the house. The most northerly of these (Site No 18) appears to service the two privies north and north west of the main house and runs to an intermediate sump (Site No 21) in the paddock to the west before running to the lagoon. The other is for excess stormwater from the underground tank/well at the back of the house (Site No 7). It runs out to a sump (Site No 20) on the south side of the Coachman’s Cottage and thence to the lower lying land near the lagoon.
At the farm precinct Richard Archer pointed out a main brick and earthenware pipe drain running along the northern edge of the stackyard and another running from the main yard north of the Cart and Implement Shed to the south east and exiting near the old granary.
Roadworks Evidence of construction of formed earth roadways is visible in places. For example the bed of a formed roadway is clearly visible skirting the western edge of the Marsh Paddock. This includes a widened circular platform used for turning a horse drawn water cart around adjacent to the river (see information included with Site No 55).
In the farm precinct the locations of the roads were largely dictated by the position of the buildings. They have therefore probably been in place since the establishment of those buildings.
Rubbish Deposits Rubbish deposits can be repositories of vast amounts of archaeological information for 19th century sites in Australia. It is likely that Brickendon with its substantial labour force had a formal organised system of rubbish (and effluent) disposal. According to the Archers, no very early rubbish dump sites have been unearthed at Brickendon. Known rubbish dump sites have been recorded and documented in this report. However, it is likely that there are other earlier dumps that have not been documented or
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 92 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 3. Physical Description recorded. These may well be discovered in the future and should be conserved as important archaeological sites.
Known dump sites are as follows:
• A possible rubbish pit site (Site No 8) is located approximately 6m west of the main courtyard entrance in what is now a garden bed in the house precinct. Kerry Archer recollects that the pit was a deep (2.5 – 3.0 metres), brick-lined repository. Household rubbish would be placed here, some of which would be incinerated and the remainder carted away periodically. The pit was in use when Kerry took over management of the property (1950s) and went out of use in the latter half of the 20th century. A scatter of red brick is visible just to the south of the garden bed. • Another possible rubbish dump site (Site No 16) is located approximately 50m east of gardener’s cottage. This pit does not appear in any of the available survey plans. When Kerry Archer took over the management of the property in the 1950s the pit was being used for both household and garden rubbish, a practice which continued until the latter half of the 20th century. Kerry remembers the pit would become full of water during a wet winter, which may have led to the installation of the short length of earthenware pipe in its eastern bank. The area within the pit is heavily disturbed. Rubbish (including pieces of farm machinery) is located at the north end of the pit and a mound of brick rubble is located at its south eastern extent. Pieces of timber and wire are obvious between these two main scatters. An earthenware pipe is embedded in the eastern bank of the pit. • A further possible rubbish pit (Site No 59) was located in the House Paddock according to Kerry Archer. This was possibly used for the dumping of household rubbish during the early- mid 20th century. An inspection of the paddock and the 1947 aerial photograph failed to reveal the location of this dump but Richard Archer has subsequently advised that this site is infact still evident. • A below ground water tank (Site No 42) located approximately 4m west of men’s quarters site has been used as a rubbish dump. This tank collected water off the roofs of nearby buildings. It is unclear when the tank was installed, although it is listed in the 1895 property description as one of three tanks capable of holding between 30,000 to 50,000 gallons (136,380 to 227,300 litres) of water. These three tanks were all interconnected via underground brick box drains. By the 1940s the tank had gone out of use and became a rubbish pit for farm waste. Until recently the tenant of Farm Cottage deposited their garden rubbish into the pit. Within the last decade students from the University of Tasmania undertook an excavation of the tank. The artefacts from this dig are located in the dairy and lying around the lip of the tank. No report on the excavation is known to have been written.
Gardens The configuration of the oval garden in front of (ie east of) the main house has changed several times according to examination of photographs showing this area. In the 1870s there was a central gravelled path leading directly to the front door with trees, shrubs and plantings on either side. The plantings appear to have altered in other later photographs and the central path disappeared. The area was grassed and brought to its present form under Kerry’s stewardship.
There was also a tennis court located to the east of the house with a summerhouse at each end. Kerry Archer states that it straddled the path with the path more or less crossing the court beside the net. No evidence of the court or summerhouses are visible today.
The orchard was in place by 1831 and remnants of this survive in the same location. The area is well defined and the divisions shown on the 1841 plan are discernible on the ground. The southern end of
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 93 3. Physical Description CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD the orchard includes the Gardener’s Cottage and the remains of the former potting shed (Site No 14) and seedling shed. Kerry Archer recollects that the disturbed ground with earth mounds and hollows west of the gardener’s cottage was occupied by a vegetable plot (Site No 13). None of the available plans show this area in requisite detail.
Also located in the southern part of the orchard and to the east of the Gardener’s Cottage is a modern septic tank and a red brick scatter. The concrete septic tank was installed during the renovation of the cottage in the 1980s. Nearby is a scatter of brick rubble said by Kerry Archer to relate to an implement shed and/or a privy. Both these structures were present when Kerry took over management of Brickendon in the 1950s and were subsequently demolished.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 94 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
4 Assessment of Heritage Values
4.1 Heritage Assessment Criteria
An assessment of cultural significance seeks to establish the importance that a place has to the community. The concept of cultural significance is intrinsically tied to the fabric of the place, its history, setting and relationship with other items in its surrounds and the response it evokes from the community.
The assessment of the significance of a place requires an evaluation of the fabric, uses, associations and meanings relating to the place, leading to detailed statement of significance. The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (see Appendix 4) defines cultural significance according to the following five types of value:
• historic • aesthetic • scientific • social • spiritual.
These five types of significance have been translated into more specific heritage assessment criteria by statutory heritage listing bodies such as the Commonwealth Government and the state and territory governments, which maintain their own heritage registers.
Criteria for the assessment of National Heritage values are set out in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Similar criteria have been adopted by Heritage Tasmania for places of significance to the state of Tasmania. Both sets of criteria encompass the five types of significance identified by the Burra Charter, but express them in more detailed form.
The table below summarises and compares the National and State heritage assessment criteria:
National Criteria Tasmanian Criteria
Historic (a) importance in the course, or (a) important in demonstrating the pattern, of Australia’s natural or evolution or pattern of Tasmania’s cultural history history
Rarity (b) possession of uncommon, rare or (b) demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of Australia’s endangered aspects of Tasmania’s natural or cultural history heritage
Research/ (c) potential to yield information that (c) potential to yield information that technical will contribute to an understanding will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s natural or cultural of Tasmania’s history
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 95 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
history
Represent (d) importance in demonstrating the (d) important in demonstrating the ativeness principal characteristics of a class characteristics of a broader class of of Australia’s natural or cultural cultural places places or environments
Aesthetic (e) importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a important in demonstrating a high community or cultural group (e) degree of technical achievement
(f) importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period
Social (g) strong or special associations with (f) strong or special meaning for any a particular community or cultural group or community because of group for social, cultural or social, cultural or spiritual spiritual reasons associations
Associa- (h) special association with the life or (g) special association with the life or tion works of a person, or group of work of a person, group or an persons, of importance in organisation that was important in Australia’s natural or cultural Tasmania’s history history
National Criterion (i), ‘importance as part of Indigenous tradition,’ has no direct equivalent in the Tasmanian State Heritage Criteria (beyond social significance to a particular community or cultural group). As this report does not address Aboriginal significance (past or present), this criterion is excluded from the discussions below.
The following assessment of significance has been prepared in accordance with the National Heritage assessment criteria. In order to assist in the use of this document by Heritage Tasmania and local governments, the State heritage criteria are also referred to. World Heritage criteria are also of relevance, and this is discussed further in Section 4.3.
4.2 Heritage Assessment of Brickendon
Historic Significance National Criterion (a) / Tasmanian Criterion (a): importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s / Tasmania’s natural or cultural history
Official Values The National Heritage List entry for Brickendon identifies the following values:
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 96 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
“Brickendon Estate is a farming property dating from the 1820s, with intact convict built farm buildings, Georgian country house and formal garden. It is nationally outstanding for its association with the convict assignment system and for the continuity of farming practice at the estate. Assignment was the most common experience for convicts with 85% of those transported to Australia being assigned.
The assignment system was set up to provide convict labour to settlers in exchange for food and clothing. Masters were responsible for the physical and moral wellbeing of assigned convicts. Male convicts worked as blacksmiths, tanners, bricklayers and agricultural hands on Brickendon while female convicts worked in domestic service. Convict workplaces are extant on the Estate as are the living quarters of female convicts. Also extant is the chapel built for the sole use of convicts – religion being an important part of the reformation of convicts.
Convicts provided the labour necessary to establish and operate prosperous agricultural estates. Brickendon Estate represents an outstanding example of the successes of an industrious 1820s settler family and the productivity of convict labour which established the basis for six generations of the Archer family to develop the estate.
The farming property and historic buildings of Brickendon Estate illustrate a continuity of mixed farming practices in Tasmania from the 1820s. Mixed farming contributed significantly to the growth of the colonial economy in the years before transportation ceased (Butlin 1986). At Brickendon intensive mixed farming specialised in grains, wool and animal husbandry. The farmed landscape is confined within extensive boundary hedges and contains estate buildings, including the two barns, cottages, two granaries, woolshed and stables, cart shed, poultry house, cook house, blacksmith’s shop, outhouse, wells and drainage systems and access roads. Together these embody a designed landscape resulting in a significant record of farming practices.”1
Discussion of other potential National Heritage Values Brickendon is the culmination of over 180 years of continuous ownership by one family. Partly as a result of this longevity of ownership, the estate possesses an outstanding degree of intactness, retaining (with minor exception) its original boundaries and paddock layout. The estate contains everything one associates with a country estate, including a quintessential early colonial house, service buildings, and farm buildings arranged in a village form, within a setting which to the present is remarkably evocative of the early 19th century rural landscape in Tasmania. The separation of the farm buildings from the house complex is for Australia unusual. Only perhaps at Camden Park (near Sydney NSW) did such an arrangement exist. In this respect it is typical of the English Home farm.
Established by William Archer who migrated to Van Diemen’s Land from Hertfordshire in 1824 to join his brother, Thomas, who was already farming at the adjacent Woolmers estate, Brickendon possesses many features typical of the English ‘model farms’ of the early 19th century. The age of ‘improved’ or model farms saw a more formal architecture applied to traditionally vernacular farm buildings, arising from a broader social, economic, and aesthetic movement toward Picturesque, humanitarian, and utilitarian ideals. In addition to architectural design being newly applied to traditional farm buildings, new building types evolved for special functions, such as the fowl house, as the gentleman’s profession of farming encompassed sporting and leisure aspects as well as the practical.2 Gentlemen were often poultry fanciers.
1 National Heritage List entry for Brickendon, Place ID 105977, Australian Heritage Database, cited 7th January 2008. 2 Robinson, John Martin, 1983 Georgian Model Farms, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 4-5.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 97 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
As described in Section 2, Brickendon’s main period of growth took place during the years of convict transportation to Van Diemen’s Land. The Archer family held a number of properties and all received assigned convicts to work their estates. It is likely that a great deal of work at Brickendon, from constructing buildings and estate infrastructure, such as the drainage system, to the myriad farming activities associated with a mixed farming practice of the early Colonial period, was carried out by convicts. As such, the estate is a good reflection of a convict assignment period mixed farming concern and demonstrates the economic circumstances of convict assignment which contributed to the flourishing of the estate.
As part of the utilitarian organisation and moral philosophy associated with proper country estates of the early colonial period, the estate was laid out in such a way as to clearly separate the practical livelihood of the estate from the family’s life in the main house. At Brickendon, the two areas are separated by a relatively large distance, and the farm village is virtually invisible from the house. Likewise, the estate made separate provision for the accommodation of assigned convict labourers as well as free labourers and servants.
This deliberate separation of the house from the farm is a very sophisticated form of Estate layout along the lines of the typical English arrangement, but it is not frequently found in Australia. Where it is known, subsequent developments of the property have obscured the relationship, as at Camden Park, where the house was built before the farm and is now under separate ownership. The more prevalent arrangement in Australia is to find the farm buildings situated around the back of, but still in close proximity to, the main house, as at Woolmers, where the only building which is out of sight of the rest is Woolmers Cottage (not the main house).
Rarity National Criterion (b) / Tasmanian Criterion (b): possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s / Tasmania’s natural or cultural history
Official Values The National Heritage List entry for Brickendon identifies the following values:
“Brickendon is uncommon in the diversity of original colonial features that survive within the boundary of a single property. The estate is uncommon in that it contains the original 420 hectare property which has been continuously farmed by the descendents of the William Archer family for six generations. It therefore retains evidence of its original use and demonstrates the importation of British farming practices into northern Tasmania by the Archer family and the way that the use of assigned convicts facilitated the establishment of these practices in the northern Tasmanian area. The original operation of the early Estate remains legible in the layout.
Brickendon is also uncommon as a designed cultural landscape where the range of buildings demonstrate early colonial agricultural and pastoral farming practices based on British practice and techniques imported by the Archer family and developed over six generations. This uncommon range of building types and construction methods are represented by the timber pillar granary, Dutch barns, the poultry house and the blacksmith’s shop with its associated collection of tools.”3
3 National Heritage List entry for Brickendon, Place ID 105977, Australian Heritage Database, cited 7th January 2008.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 98 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
Discussion of other potential National Heritage Values Brickendon is a singular place for the intactness of its farm village and service buildings all within the near-original boundaries of the land grants which originally comprised the estate. This intactness is facilitated to an extent by the continuous ownership of the property by one family for over 180 years. Brickendon is the oldest property in Australia known to continue in its single family ownership. (Though Camden Park [NSW] was also taken up in the 1820s, its principle buildings are later.) This longevity of ownership is accompanied by a level of intactness of buildings, paddocks, carriageways, and landscape elements which allows the early 19th century farming practices to be legible.
Brickendon contains several rare buildings. The pillar granary is one of only two known buildings in Australia to have staddle stones. (The other is a granary at Bothwell, Tasmania.) Together with the pair of Dutch barns, the pillar granary forms a group of exceptionally early timber buildings in a formal arrangement around a courtyard which is unparalleled in Australia.
The decorative poultry house is also rare in Australia.
Figure 4. 1: View north in the farm village, showing the brick granary at right. Date unknown, possibly 1870s. (Source: from the original photograph at Brickendon)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 99 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 4. 2: The chapel, pillar granary, and Dutch barn (west) viewed from the north. Date unknown, possibly 1870s. (Source: From the original photograph at Brickendon)
Research Significance National Criterion (c) / Tasmanian Criterion (c): potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s / Tasmania’s natural or cultural history
Official Values The National Heritage List entry for Brickendon identifies the following values:
“The Brickendon Estate with its farm buildings, Georgian house in its garden setting, hedges, and land use patterns, provides a rare source of information about the living and working conditions of colonial settlers and the convicts assigned to rural estates from the 1820s to the cessation of transportation to Tasmania in 1853. The research potential of the place is enhanced by documentary records associated with the operation of the estate and the convict assignment system, including family diaries and records and early maps which detail the layout and development of the estate. Archaeological remains at the site provide the potential to reveal information about the lives and working conditions of convicts at the estate.
Brickendon contains archaeological sites, layout and buildings functionally associated with convict use, which have the potential to add to our understanding of the assignment system and the living and working experiences of convict men and women on a large estate during the assignment period.”4
Discussion of other potential National Heritage Values In addition to the intact layout of the estate and its buildings, Brickendon possesses a collection of documentary records which have outstanding research potential to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the use and occupation of an early colonial farming estate. Brickendon is unusually
4 National Heritage List entry for Brickendon, Place ID 105977, Australian Heritage Database, cited 7th January 2008.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 100 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values privileged to have living memory of several of its demolished buildings, including the convict men’s quarters, which adds to its research significance.
The assessment of cultural significance with respect to archaeological sites can be difficult because the nature and extent of the “relics” are often indeterminate and value judgements therefore need to be made on the basis of potential attributes. The element of judgement can be greatly reduced by historical or other research, as has been completed for the current study. Archaeological deposits and features provide important evidence of the history and settlement of Tasmania. These heritage items may include deposits containing material culture (artefacts) that can be analysed to yield information regarding early development that is unavailable from other sources. Archaeological investigations can reveal much about technology, industry, past economic and social conditions and people's lives.
Sites that contain these elements therefore have scientific value that may be of considerable significance when analysed in association with documentary evidence. It is through this potential to reveal information about the past use of a place that archaeological sites have heritage significance.
‘Archaeological significance’ is a term used in this document to rank areas of archaeological potential that are likely to be of a scientific value. This assessment is based on the probable scientific value of the subsurface material and its ability to contribute to our understanding of activities and/or buildings in the study area.
Areas of archaeological sensitivity have been identified in Table 1 and in Figures 4. 4 and Figure 4. 5. These plans indicate that quite predictably, the main zones of archaeological significance and potential lie in the core zones of the house and farm precincts. Some other outlying features that have high levels of significance and potential have also been separately identified on the sensitivity plan. This is not to say that known archaeological resources in the paddocks (such as the open earth drains and the earthenware pipe drains) are not of potential or significance. It must also be remembered that there could be other as yet unidentified archaeological resources in the paddocks and outside the identified areas in the core zones.
The purpose of the sensitivity diagrams is to ensure that the areas most likely to host archaeological resources are appropriately managed during the day to day operations of the property. It also indicates where care must be taken in during any proposed intrusive below ground works or planning construction of any new buildings or structures.
Significance In Table 1 below, sites are ranked for their potential and significance. The following is a guide to meaning of the rankings.
High Sites of high significance are integral to understanding Brickendon's development. They often - but not always - are related to the period between 1829 and 1841 when many of Brickendon's standing structures were erected.
Medium Sites of medium significance, though perhaps of a later period, are still representative of Brickendon's historic development. Sites from an early period which have subsequently been disturbed are also included in this category.
Low Sites of low significance are generally modern building additions or very disturbed historic features.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 101 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Potential High Sites of high potential are those with a high probability of archaeological material being recovered (either as deposits or structural features). In most instances this category applies to those areas with a 'High' significance rating. However, some sites (such as a later rubbish pit) which have a high probability of archaeological deposits being encountered may have a lesser level of significance.
Medium Sites of medium potential are those which may have suffered disturbance of some form at a later date which may have affected the survival of original archaeological deposits. The archaeology may also be of a more recent nature and therefore less likely to provide information integral to understanding Brickendon's development.
Low Sites of low potential are those that may have been thoroughly disturbed or which are likely to provide little information integral to understanding Brickendon's development. This classification has also been extended to those areas where no historical structures are known to have been built.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 102 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
Table 1 Site Number Name of Item Precinct Historic Period Significance Potential 1 Main house and courtyard House 1829 - 1950s High High 2 Coach house and stable House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 3 Underground water tank House 1829 - 1950s High Medium Coach house and stable 4 outbuildings House 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 5 Underground water tank House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 6 Coachman's cottage House 1829 - 1950s High High 7 Underground water tank House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 8 Rubbish pit site House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 9 Conservatory site House 1829 - 1950s Medium Low 10 Cellar House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 11 Cellar sumps House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 12 Gardener's cottage House 1829 - 1950s High Medium Disturbed ground near 13 gardener’s cottage House 1829 - 1950s Medium Low 14 Potting shed site House 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 14A Seed shed site House 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 15 Septic tank and rubble scatter House 1829 - 1950s Medium/Low Medium/Low 16 Rubbish pit House 1829 - 1950s Medium High 17 Earth mound House 1950s - present Low Low 18 Privy House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 19 Privy House 1829 - 1950s High Medium 20 Sump House 1829 - 1950s High High 21 Sump House 1829 - 1950s High High 22 Piggery site Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 23 Cart shed Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 24 Pig slips’ yard site Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 25 Hay shed and milking shed site Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 26 Hay shed and stable site Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 27 Stack yard Farm 1829 - 1950s High Low 28 Dutch barn (west) Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 29 Dutch barn (south) Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 30 Pillar Granary Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 31 Water tank Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 32 Smokehouse Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 33 Bread oven Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 34 William Archer’s cottage Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 35 Farm Cottage Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 36 Privy Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 37 Fowl house Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 38 Cookhouse Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 39 Cottage site Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 40 Men’s quarters site Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 41 Carpentry shop site Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 42 Water tank Farm 1829 - 1950s High High 43 Blacksmith Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 44 Chapel Farm 1829 - 1950s High High
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 103 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
45 Stables and shearing shed Farm 1829 - 1950s High Low 46 Water tank Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium Slaughterhouse and dipping 47 shed Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 48 Granary Farm 1829 - 1950s High Medium 49 Sheep wash site Paddock 1829 - 1950s High Medium 50 Sheep wash site Paddock 1829 - 1950s High Medium 51 Surface and underground drain Paddock 1829 - 1950s High Medium 52 Claypit site Paddock 1829 - 1950s High High 53 Claypit site Paddock 1829 - 1950s High High 54 Flood flaps Paddock 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 55 Water collection point Paddock 1829 - 1950s High Medium 56 Drain feature Farm 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 57 Shed site House 1950s - present Low Low 58 Unidentified building site House 1829 - 1950s Medium Medium 59 Possible rubbish pit Paddock 1829 - 1950s High High Possible site of Jacob 60 Mountgarret cottage Paddock pre-1829 High High
Figure 4. 3: Kerry Archer’s map, 2007, showing the locations of buildings in the Farm Village, including now- demolished structures; e.g., men’s quarters, hay sheds, carpenter’s workshop. (Source: From the original plan at Brickendon)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 104 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
Figure 4. 4: Archaeological Sensitivity Plan for the northern portion of Brickendon. Note that the location of rubbish dumpsite in the House Paddock is conjectural.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 105 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 4. 5: Archaeological Sensitivity Plan for the southern portion of Brickendon. Note that the location of Mountgarret’s house is conjectural.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 106 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
Representativeness National Criterion (d) / Tasmanian Criterion (d): importance in demonstrating the principle characteristics of a class of Australia’s / Tasmania’s natural or cultural places or environments
Brickendon is an archetypal example of an early colonial farming estate in Australia. It contains classic estate structures such as the breakfront colonial brick stables, an intact chapel, a group of exceptional timber barns and granary, and a quintessential early colonial Palladian main house, set in its largely original garden. Unlike other examples of similar period, such as Woolmers, Brickendon’s house and farm buildings are set in clearly distinct enclaves, and the farm village adheres to a relatively strict layout.
Brickendon is of Tasmanian significance and possesses potential National Heritage values under this criterion.
Aesthetic/Creative Significance Commonwealth Criteria (e) and (f) / Tasmanian Criterion (e): importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period
While Brickendon lacks the overall impression of an architect’s hand at work in the overall estate planning, such as that found at Woolmers, the majority of buildings at Brickendon are very confident structures which may be derived from pattern books which were prevalent in the design of model farms in the 18th century, or from a long tradition of building. Their design and layout demonstrate the influence of an educated proprietor, William Archer, who imported English model farm planning and Picturesque ideals to his situation in Van Diemen’s Land.
The Dutch barns, in particular, have the look of specialist craftsmen at work, builders who have constructed such barns many times before. The main house, though not architecturally designed, as far as we know, derives from a strong building tradition and shows the hand of a builder who knows what he is doing. Likewise, the breakfront brick stable is a well built structure showing the influence of pattern book. In contrast the timber stable/coach house is a more vernacular structure which appears to be the work of a local builder.
The poultry house in the farm village is amongst the most decorative building on the site and hints at the involvement of William Archer, the architect son of Thomas of Woolmers. The ornamentation of the poultry house indicates more than a purely functional use which is in keeping with poultry houses of the model farm movement.
The involvement of Peter Mills (1826-1886) in the design of the chapel is a distinct possibility, given the similarity of his design for a building at Saundridge which appears contemporary with Brickendon’s chapel.
Brickendon’s position in the landscape overlooking the Macquarie River and its flood plain, and the paddocks defined by miles of hawthorn is a strong feature in the aesthetic qualities of the local landscape, which is evocative not only of 19th century rural Tasmania but also the ideals of rural England, an expression of the Archers’ desire to establish a landscape in the antipodes comparable to England.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 107 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon is of Tasmanian significance and possesses potential National Heritage values under this criterion.
Figure 4. 6: (Left) The chapel at Brickendon, date unknown, possibly 1870s. (Right) Detail from a drawing by Peter Mills, architect, of a Cottage for RJ Archer (of Saundridge). Undated, but assumed to be c1860s. (RJ Archer took up Saundridge upon his marriage in 1859.) (Source: Brickendon collection)
Social Significance National Criterion (g) / Tasmanian Criterion (f): strong or special associations with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons
Brickendon is held in high esteem by a number of groups, including members of the Archer family and those interested in historic places and gardens. The Tasmanian Heritage Register identifies the importance of Brickendon in the community’s sense of place.
No book has been written on Tasmanian colonial architecture that does not include Brickendon.
Brickendon is of local significance under this criterion.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 108 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 4. Assessment of Heritage Values
Associational Significance National Criterion (h) / Tasmanian Criterion (g): special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s / Tasmania’s history
Brickendon is a record of the successive generations of one family. It is the oldest Tasmanian estate to have remained in continuous family ownership, and only one other property is known to have been in one family from before 1820, Rouse Hill in New South Wales. Rouse Hill is no longer in the original family’s ownership, making Brickendon’s association a unique one.
Brickendon is of Tasmanian significance under this criterion.
4.3 World Heritage Significance
In January 2006, the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage announced that the Australian Government was preparing a nomination for World Heritage listing of eleven convict sites in Australia for their significance in the global story of convictism and forced migration.5 Brickendon, together with Woolmers, is to be included in the nomination as representatives of the convict assignment system, whereby convicts were assigned to free settlers as a labour force, in exchange for basic provisions such as food, clothing, and shelter. The majority (85%) of convicts transported to Australia were entered into the assignment system before it was abolished in 1840. This is discussed further in Section 2.
The World Heritage List criteria vary from those used for national, state, or local heritage listings. The two criteria which apply to the Australian convict sites nomination are:
• Criterion iv ‘an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history’ • Criterion iv ‘directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance’
Under each of the above criteria, a series of themes have been identified to further assess each site’s contribution to the global experience of punishment, transportation, and convictism.
Brickendon and Woolmers are identified as ‘outstanding exemplars’ of the following themes:
• Criterion iv (c) Geo-political advantages [of transportation] for home state as an example of the economic benefit of the use of convict labour as part of the assignment system for the development of landed estates • Criterion iv(d) Convictism for the reformation of criminals as an example of the role of the assignment system in rehabilitating offenders • Criterion vi(a) Impact [of transportation] on other parts of the world as a place contributing to the end of transportation in the British empire
5 Senator the Hon Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Media Release: ‘Australia’s Convict Heritage Goes Global’, 12th January 2006.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 109 4. Assessment of Heritage Values CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
• Criterion vi(c) Exceptional experiments in penology: punishment and reform of female convicts as an example of the opportunities provided through the assignment system for female convicts to become rehabilitated
Brickendon and Woolmers are also considered notable sites (with cross-reference to the above criterion vi(c)) in demonstrating criterion iv(a): Complex and diverse systems of punishment and reform, as an example of the assignment system.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 110 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 5. Statement of Significance
5 Statement of Significance
5.1 Statement of Significance
Official Summary Statement of Significance The National Heritage List entry provides the following Official Values for Brickendon:
A Events, “Brickendon Estate is a farming property dating from the 1820s, with intact convict built farm Processes buildings, Georgian country house and formal garden. It is nationally outstanding for its association with the convict assignment system and for the continuity of farming practice at the estate. Assignment was the most common experience for convicts with 85% of those transported to Australia being assigned.
The assignment system was set up to provide convict labour to settlers in exchange for food and clothing. Masters were responsible for the physical and moral wellbeing of assigned convicts. Male convicts worked as blacksmiths, tanners, bricklayers and agricultural hands on Brickendon while female convicts worked in domestic service. Convict workplaces are extant on the Estate as are the living quarters of female convicts. Also extant is the chapel built for the sole use of convicts – religion being an important part of the reformation of convicts.
Convicts provided the labour necessary to establish and operate prosperous agricultural estates. Brickendon Estate represents an outstanding example of the successes of an industrious 1820s settler family and the productivity of convict labour which established the basis for six generations of the Archer family to develop the estate.
The farming property and historic buildings of Brickendon Estate illustrate a continuity of mixed farming practices in Tasmania from the 1820s. Mixed farming contributed significantly to the growth of the colonial economy in the years before transportation ceased (Butlin 1986). At Brickendon intensive mixed farming specialised in grains, wool and animal husbandry. The farmed landscape is confined within extensive boundary hedges and contains estate buildings, including the two barns, cottages, two granaries, woolshed and stables, cart shed, poultry house, cook house, blacksmith’s shop, outhouse, wells and drainage systems and access roads. Together these embody a designed landscape resulting in a significant record of farming practices.
B Rarity Brickendon is uncommon in the diversity of original colonial features that survive within the boundary of a single property. The estate is uncommon in that it contains the original 420 hectare property which has been continuously farmed by the descendents of the William Archer family for six generations. It therefore retains evidence of its original use and demonstrates the importation of British farming practices into northern Tasmania by the Archer family and the way that the use of assigned convicts facilitated the establishment of these practices in the northern Tasmanian area. The original operation of the early Estate remains legible in the layout.
Brickendon is also uncommon as a designed cultural landscape where the range of buildings demonstrate early colonial agricultural and pastoral farming practices based on British practice and techniques imported by the Archer family and developed over six generations. This
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 111 5. Statement of Significance CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
uncommon range of building types and construction methods are represented by the timber pillar granary, Dutch barns, the poultry house and the blacksmith’s shop with its associated collection of tools.
C Research The Brickendon Estate with its farm buildings, Georgian house in its garden setting, hedges, and land use patterns, provides a rare source of information about the living and working conditions of colonial settlers and the convicts assigned to rural estates from the 1820s to the cessation of transportation to Tasmania in 1853. The research potential of the place is enhanced by documentary records associated with the operation of the estate and the convict assignment system, including family diaries and records and early maps which detail the layout and development of the estate. Archaeological remains at the site provide the potential to reveal information about the lives and working conditions of convicts at the estate.
Brickendon contains archaeological sites, layout and buildings functionally associated with convict use, which have the potential to add to our understanding of the assignment system and the living and working experiences of convict men and women on a large estate during the assignment period.”1
Potential National Heritage Values and additional aspects of significance Considering the above discussion of potential National Heritage values and other Tasmanian and local heritage values, a summary statement of significance for the place is as follows:
Brickendon is of outstanding cultural heritage significance as a remarkably intact Colonial rural estate. Associated for its entire history and to the present day with the Archer family, prominent settlers in northern Tasmania, the property contains all the things one associates with a country estate, including a quintessential Colonial house and garden, as well as a village arrangement of early farm buildings, set some distance from the main house in an early Colonial landscape of paddocks and drives lined with hedgerows, all of which is little different from its original configuration. Brickendon is a classic example of an early Colonial, pre- 1840, country property.
Developed principally during the period of convict transportation to Van Diemen’s Land (prior to 1852), Brickendon is historically associated with the convict assignment system; documentary records indicate that in the 1840s, about half of the occupants of the estate were convict assignees. The archaeological resource at the property has the potential to contribute to the understanding of the convict assignment system.
Brickendon contains a set of timber farm buildings dating from the 1820s which are unique in Australia. In addition to the two Dutch barns and pillar granary, the place contains a set of farm buildings arrayed in a strict village arrangement which is rare in Australia.
Brickendon is of aesthetic significance as an evocation of rural England, for which the northern midlands of Tasmania is well known. The architectural qualities of the main house, brick coach house, chapel, fowl house, and the vernacular farm buildings demonstrate that the estate was laid out and built as a place of high quality from the outset.
1 National Heritage List entry for Brickendon, Place ID 105977, Australian Heritage Database, cited 7th January 2008.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 112 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 5. Statement of Significance
5.2 Areas of Significance
As discussed in Section 4, Brickendon possesses National and World Heritage values, as well as Tasmanian and local values and potential National Heritage values which are not at present included in the National Heritage listing of the place. While it is the overall estate, its boundaries and layout, which is essential for the understanding of the importance of Brickendon in general, its components contribute in different ways to its significance. Figures 5. 1 and 5. 2 illustrate the areas (World, National, State, local) of significance demonstrated by each built component.
The values tables for the World Heritage List nomination as well as the National Heritage List entry and the Tasmanian State Heritage Register listing are included in the Appendices.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 113 5. Statement of Significance CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 5. 1: Identification of potential World, National, State, and local heritage significance of individual buildings within the House Precinct.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 114 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 5. Statement of Significance
Figure 5. 2: Identification of potential World, National, State, and local heritage significance of individual buildings within the Farm Village Precinct.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 115 5. Statement of Significance CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 116 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
6 Constraints and Opportunities
The significance of the place creates obligations and opportunities regarding its treatment. In addition, many other factors are relevant to the management of the place. These are discussed in the sections below.
6.1 Obligations and Opportunities Arising from Significance
The significance of a place forms the basis for its heritage management. The following conservation ideals are the main goals for the management of the potential World, National, State, and local areas of significance.
• The identified National Heritage values of Brickendon should be managed in accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles. • The potential World Heritage values of Brickendon should be managed in accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles until such time as a World Heritage List nomination is made. Following the nomination, these values should be managed in accordance with the Australian World Heritage Management Principles. • Other aspects of the cultural significance of the place which are not identified as having National or potential World Heritage values should be managed with regard to the National and potential World Heritage values of the place. • The significance of the place should be maintained, conserved, and interpreted. This includes: • The history of Brickendon, its establishment, association with the convict assignment system, longevity of ownership by the Archer family, and its continuing use. • The potential resource for understanding more about the history of Brickendon and other similar places, including the archaeological resource as well as the collection of family papers. • The intactness of the estate, its layout, and its collection of rare buildings. • The aesthetic qualities of the estate, including the buildings, landscape setting, views, and prospect.
6.2 The Burra Charter
Because Brickendon is of considerable cultural significance, works should be carried out in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. The Burra Charter is the basis for heritage conservation in Australia, and its processes have informed the Australian World and National Heritage Management Principles. However, the Burra Charter provides additional guidance for conservation actions and sets the framework for the making decisions about the use and conservation of the place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 117 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
The main guiding principles which are specifically relevant to the conservation of Brickendon are as follows:
• The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place. (Article 2.2, Burra Charter) • Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. (Article 3.1, Burra Charter) • The cultural significance of many places is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation. Interpretation should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate. (Article 25, Burra Charter) • Significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured. Opportunities for the interpretation, commemoration and celebration of these associations should be investigated and implemented. (Article 24.1, Burra Charter) • Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place. New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate. (Article 8, Burra Charter) • Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained. (Article 7.1, Burra Charter) • A place should have a compatible use. (Article 7.2, Burra Charter) • The use of the place should be organised to minimise the removal or concealment of significant fabric due to statutory requirements including the need for new services, provision of fire egress and access for disabled people. (Article 7.2, Burra Charter) • Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place. (Article 21.2, Burra Charter) • Continuing, modifying or reinstating a significant use may be appropriate and preferred forms of conservation. (Article 23, Burra Charter) • Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation. (Article 15.1, Burra Charter) • The contributions of all aspects of cultural significance of a place should be respected. If a place includes fabric, uses, associations or meanings of different periods, or different aspects of cultural significance, emphasising or interpreting one period or aspect at the expense of another can only be justified when what is left out, removed or diminished is of slight cultural significance and that which is emphasised or interpreted is of much greater cultural significance. (Article 15.4, Burra Charter) • Work should be carried out by personnel experienced in conservation, both professional disciplines, and building and engineering trades. (Article 30, Burra Charter) • Appropriate recording and documentation procedures, in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter should be carried out before any works. (Article 27.2, Burra Charter)
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 118 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
6.3 Present Condition
The appearance of great age is one of the aspects of Brickendon which adds to its character. It is important to maintain the buildings and carry out repairs to an appropriate standard without removing this patina of age.
Generally the buildings are in fair to good condition, although on close inspection several may require work. In particular, the timber buildings should have their rainwater goods replaced, and many of the external hardwood weatherboards need replacing and/or repair. The same can be said about all the weatherboarded buildings. The apron boarding to the pillar granary needs to be reconstructed as a priority. Additionally, the timber stables are in need of major conservation, which could involve reconstruction of the original plan form. The table below summarises the condition of each of the components of the place.
None of the place is in such bad condition so as to substantially affect conservation options for the place.
Building Condition in Comment 20071 House precinct Main house Good Stables Fair Timber coach house Very poor Requires extensive works in order to stabilise structure. Gardener’s Cottage Good Coachman’s House Good Farm village Dutch barn south Fair Repair deteriorated external weatherboards. Dutch barn west Fair Repair deteriorated external weatherboards. Pillar granary Poor Reconstruct apron boarding and renew rainwater goods. Repair deteriorated external weatherboards. Implement shed Fair Brick granary Fair Draught horse stable Fair Repair deteriorated external weatherboards. Shearing shed Fair Farm cottage Good Fowl house Good William Archer’s Good cottage Smoke house Good Cook house Fair Repair deteriorated external weatherboards. Blacksmith’s shop Fair Chapel Fair Roof requires re-shingling. Dipping shed / Good
1 Condition rankings are as follows: Excellent = Building has no defects. Good = Building exhibits superficial wear and tear, minor defects, minor signs of deterioration to surface finishes. Fair = Building is in average condition. Deteriorated fabric or surface finishes require maintenance. Poor = Building has deteriorated badly. Possible structural problems. Defective or failed surface finishes or fabric. Major defects requiring substantial maintenance or repair. Very poor = Building is dilapidated. Requires extensive rebuilding.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 119 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD slaughter house Privy Fair
Environmental factors affecting condition In Tasmania, as with many parts of Australia, the prevailing weather comes from the south. As such, it is often on the south face of a building or south slope of a roof where the timbers, shingles, and joinery will deteriorate more rapidly than other faces.
Conversely, the southern face of a building rarely shows evidence of rising damp, while north faces do tend to show the effects. Rising damp is caused by groundwater (which contains salts) being drawn up into the brick or stonework of a building by warmth. As the groundwater evaporates, it leaves behind the salts, which expand and cause fretting and deterioration of brick and stonework. As the south face of a building does not get as much sun and warmth as the north face, the effects of rising damp are not as prevalent in the south face (even if damp is present in the brick or stonework of the south face).
Tasmania does not have the same levels of humidity as other parts of Australia, which is one factor which has allowed the timber buildings at Brickendon to survive. In more humid climates, timbers tend to rot. In the past, the timber buildings at Brickendon may have been treated with oil (sump oil was commonly used) in order to keep the weatherboards from drying out too much and splitting.
Where timber gets wet and does not dry out, it will rot. This is evident on the timber buildings at Brickendon where rainwater goods have failed.
Pebbledash and limewashing were commonly used with solid masonry buildings as a means of stopping moisture from rain getting into soft masonry and coming inside. All of the masonry buildings at Brickendon with the exception of the chapel show evidence of having been limewashed, and the brick granary is pebbledashed. These treatments should be maintained in order to throw water off the brickwork.
6.4 Integrity
The term ‘integrity’ is used here to describe the degree to which the place “retains the aspects which make it significant.”2
In this case, the present appearance of the place is the result of one family’s creation. It is the longevity of the Archer family ownership which has allowed many buildings to survive which, at other places, might have been demolished to make way for updated buildings. Over time, the Archers have made few changes to the buildings and have often reused materials from the site in new work. The place generally is considered to have an exceptional level of integrity.
2 NSW Heritage Office
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 120 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
The table below summarises the integrity of the individual buildings at the place.
Building Integrity in 20073 House precinct Main house High Stables High Timber coach house Little Gardener’s Cottage Moderate Coachman’s House Moderate Farm village Dutch barn south High Dutch barn west High Pillar granary High Implement shed High Brick granary High Draught horse stable High Shearing shed High Farm cottage Little Fowl house High William Archer’s cottage High Smoke house High Cook house High Blacksmith’s shop High Chapel High Dipping shed / slaughter Little house Privy Moderate
6.5 Interpretation and Promotion of Heritage Values
Interpretation Measures Brickendon is currently open to the public for self-guided tours to most of the buildings in the Farm Village as well as the garden of the Main House precinct. Full-colour pamphlets promoting the place as a tourist attraction, bed & breakfast accommodation, and function venue are available at other tourist attractions and at tourist information offices throughout the Northern Midlands region.
A visitors’ guide, including hand-drawn map, is provided at the visitor entry / ticket sales point in the Dutch Barn (west) and signs in several of the buildings further explain the history and use of the spaces, including William Archer’s Cottage, the Pillar Granary, the Blacksmith’s Shop and the Shearing Shed. These signs are generally very informative and interesting; focussing on the buildings’ construction, importance in farm life, and changes of use over time. Historic photographs are also on display in the Dutch Barn (west).
3 Integrity rankings are as follows: High = Building retains a substantial amount of original fabric, little altered over time. Moderate = Building retains much of its original fabric, with some modern fabric or alterations. Little = Predominantly modern fabric; substantial portion of original fabric obscured or removed.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 121 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
These signs and the visitors’ guide together do a good job of explaining the history of Brickendon and the Archer family, particularly as the atmosphere of the farm village itself is highly evocative. Visitors appear to enjoy wandering through the farm village at their own pace, with a short description of each building available in the visitors’ guide should the visitors wish to know more. The current quantity of introduced interpretation signs is enough to lend interest to particular buildings, but restricted enough so that the buildings, views, and ambience of the farm village can all be experienced first hand with minimal intrusions from the ‘modern’ world.
Notwithstanding this, there are some areas in which the interpretation can be improved. For example, the graphic presentation of the interpretation signs and visitors’ guide could be enhanced. Additionally, a more substantial souvenir booklet of say 8 to 12 pages could also provide further detailed information on Brickendon. It could be offered for sale, to offset its production costs, as a supplementary guide for individuals who are interested in the deeper story.
An interpretation plan was prepared in August 2006 by Dr Marion Stell and Dr Celmara Pocock, ‘The End Crowns the Labour’: Interpretation at Brickendon. This report identifies a number of interpretation themes for the place (e.g., Convict, Isolation) and recommends methods of conveying information Figure 6. 1: A typical interpretive sign in related to these themes, e.g., audio tours and museum-quality the Blacksmith’s Shop. signs. While the funding may not be available to implement these recommendations at present, the thematic interpretive approach outlined in the Stell/Pocock report is endorsed as an appropriate way forward in interpreting the potential World and National Heritage values of the place.
One recommendation of the Stell/Pocock report which could be implemented with little initial cost is to make use of the 1829 farm diary (or facsimile) on display. The diary could be opened to the current date so that visitors can read what activities took place at Brickendon 180 years ago. Richard Archer continues to keep a farm diary, and one way of demonstrating the continuity of farming at Brickendon would be to display current farm diary entries side by side with the 1829 entries.
With the increased publicity of the inclusion of Brickendon on the serial nomination of convict sites for the UNESCO World Heritage list, the opportunity arises for increased promotion, leading to increased visitor numbers. It is possible that funding may be sought to update the interpretation available at Brickendon. A museum-type display explaining the World and National Heritage values could be installed, utilising facsimiles of the extensive collection of historical documents, plans, and photographs held at Brickendon, together with a curated display of artefacts of the period (or from Brickendon itself). In the event of increased visitor numbers, tours could be led at regular intervals, rather than self-guided, as at present. There is also scope to work together with Woolmers to provide, say, entry to both attractions with a single ticket, or to conduct guided tours of both properties (perhaps requiring a mini-van or coach to ferry visitors between the two sites). Should the World Heritage nomination go ahead, the two places may find it beneficial to work together to achieve funding and technical assistance in developing a single interpretive centre to explain both places and their relationship.
Brickendon continues to be a private residence, and any interpretation activities which invite the public onto the site must make provision for the privacy of the residents. In light of this, it may be advisable in future to allow general public access to the Farm Village only. Occasional public tours could be made available of the House Precinct, gardens and stables area. On special occasions, say once a year, internal inspections of the principal rooms of the main house could be offered as well.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 122 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
Such special tours are available at other privately owned historic houses like Camden Park (near Sydney NSW), and succeed in not only raising funds (from an entry fee) to be put back into conservation of the historic property, but also in fostering relations with the local community.
Any introduced interpretation measures will need to have regard for the significant fabric of the place. This is addressed further in the Conservation Policies.
Visitor Management Most visitors arriving at Brickendon come by private vehicle and are directed into a carparking area to the west of the Dutch barn (west). Visitors enter via this Dutch barn, where there is a ticket sales point, coffee/tea service, souvenir and local crafts sale, and display of historic photographs. Visitors are provided with a map of the Farm Village and the House Precinct at the ticket sales point, and then are generally free to explore where they wish. There is no set route to follow, however, the alignment of the buildings in the Farm Village suggests a natural direction for the flow of traffic.
Agricultural gates and hedges provide some boundaries which discourage visitors from entering the paddocks adjacent the Farm Village. To an extent, the place relies on the common sense of visitors to prevent injury or loss of stock through people climbing fences and entering paddocks. There are no directional signs and most of the buildings are not labelled in any way. As discussed above, the absence of such signs makes a large contribution to the ambience of the place, particularly the Farm Village.
Upon exiting the Farm Village, visitors return to the carparking area via the Dutch barn (west), however, it is possible to bypass this building and exit the site without passing by the ticket sales point. From the carparking area, visitors may drive to the House Precinct to view the exterior of the main house, coachmen’s cottage, gardener’s cottage, and to walk in the gardens.
Impacts of public visitation The present arrangements for visitor management appear to work satisfactorily for the number of visitors currently experienced at Brickendon. However, there are legitimate concerns that less scrupulous visitors may be tempted to ‘souvenir’ an object from one of the buildings (particularly the Blacksmith’s shop, where there are numerous small metal objects lying about), or that vandalism or inadvertent damage may be inflicted on the building fabric. Although these issues have not resulted in any major loss or damage until now, consideration needs to be given to ways of increasing the security of the place. As with introduced interpretation devices, such security measures will need to have regard for the significant fabric of the place. This is addressed further in the Conservation Policies.
The buildings in the Farm Village which visitors are allowed to enter are robust and structurally sound. The fabric of the place currently shows no undue impact from public visitation.
Planning for the management of increased numbers of visitors and reducing the potential damage from visitor impacts in future are addressed in Section 7.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 123 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
6.6 Owners’ Requirements
Ownership & Management Structure Brickendon is a privately owned farming property. It is wholly owned and managed by Richard and Louise Archer. There is no Board of Directors or other such body to which the Archers report in their day-to-day management of the property. There is no formal asset management regime. Decision making is carried out by Richard and Louise Archer. Richard’s parents, Kerry and Angela Archer, live at the property and continue to have an input in the running of the place.
Use of the place First and foremost, the property is a working farm. Crops such as poppies, grass seeds, wheat, oats, barley, triticale, and vegetables are grown on the property, and about 1200 sheep are run on it. Richard Archer employs one full time workman to work on the farm, and contractors are brought in for seasonal activities such as shearing, sowing, and harvesting. For the foreseeable future, the farming use of Brickendon is intended to continue.
The coachman’s cottage was opened for guest accommodation in the 1980s, and the tourism operation grew from there. There are currently two historic buildings available for guest accommodation (coachman’s cottage and gardener’s cottage) as well as three new buildings located north of the Farm Village. One employee assists Louise Archer in opening the property to tourism and guest accommodation. Another part time employee assists with cleaning the guest accommodation.
Opening the Farm Village to tourists and providing guest accommodation helps to offset the cost of maintaining the buildings on the site which are otherwise not useful to the farming enterprise. In an ideal scenario, the heritage tourism could generate sufficient income to look after the heritage buildings entirely, while the farming business could operate on a completely separate balance sheet.
Apart from leaving the buildings in the Farm Village largely unused and open for the public to view, the Archers would be interested in finding appropriate new uses for the buildings. There are several useful spaces which have been used successfully in the past, e.g., the artist’s studio in the brick granary and the pottery in the sheep dip and slaughterhouse.
Measures enacted to protect and manage heritage values The Archers have long been aware of the heritage values of the property. This is particularly evident in light of the way maintenance and repairs have been carried out over time, and the consideration put into designing and siting new buildings at the place. Additionally, concern for the sensitive fabric and archaeology of the place has led the Archers to carry out much work manually, rather than using machinery, despite the increased costs associated with the manual approach. For example, concern for the heritage and archaeology of the site has meant that work such as drainage has been undertaken with hand labour rather than with machines, greatly increasing the cost of the work. The hedges are trimmed by the Archers themselves; this alone costs several thousand dollars a year.
Having regard for the heritage value of the farm buildings, the Archers have opted to construct new sheds which can accommodate modern farm machinery rather than attempt to alter or adapt the existing buildings in the Farm Village for the same purpose. The modern buildings are sited perfectly out of view from virtually anywhere in the vicinity, hidden behind hedgerows.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 124 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
Similarly, the three buildings constructed in the 1990s for guest accommodation are sensitively sited out of direct view of, but in close proximity to, the Farm Village. The buildings were constructed of re-used materials from the site and as such naturally blend in with the surrounding buildings.
Repairs to the buildings over time have generally always matched the existing fabric. Rather than introduce new window sashes, old sashes have been repaired in place, or re-used from another building. This approach arises from a regard for the heritage value of the buildings, in addition to good common sense and economy.
The Archers have taken considerable measures to have regard for the heritage values of the place in planning and designing the recent addition to the main house. They worked closely with their architect to ensure that heritage advice from the Northern Midlands Council and the Tasmanian Heritage Council was implemented in the design of the addition.
Allocation of resources As a privately owned and operated property, the allocation of resources can only be the concern of the owners of the place. As discussed above, in an ideal world, the income generated from the tourism and guest accommodation at Brickendon would be sufficient for the ongoing maintenance of the buildings at the place. While the Archers are well aware of the need to direct funds to the maintenance and upkeep of the fabric of the place, it would be optimistic to suggest that the tourism and guest accommodation income alone could generate sufficient income to undertake reconstruction or conservation works, implement a new interpretation scheme, provide specialist heritage training for personnel, or conduct a programme of research.
For these types of activities to be adequately funded, additional resources would need to be sought. For example, grant funding has been provided by the Tasmanian government for conservation works. Should Brickendon be included in the World Heritage List, additional streams of funding may be available for building works, research, and training.
6.7 Statutory Heritage Constraints
The following sections outline the statutory heritage status of Brickendon and discusses the implications of each statutory listing on the management of the place, particularly as regards assessments and approvals for works or proposals.
For the purposes of this report, it is useful to distinguish between major works and minor works.
Major works are considered to be projects such as construction of new buildings, construction of new roads or tracks, construction of major additions to existing buildings, or major reconstruction or restoration works to existing buildings (including reflooring, underpinning, installing underfloor ventilation, deep drainage).
Minor works are considered to be tasks such as digging shallow trenches for drip irrigation, routine maintenance of existing buildings, drains and below ground service lines (telecommunications, water, gas), gardening activities (digging holes for tree planting), and establishing paths.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 125 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
National Heritage List (NHL) Brickendon has been entered in the National Heritage List.
The National Heritage List records the natural, indigenous, and historic values of places which are assessed to be of outstanding significance to Australia. The NHL was created by the Environmental and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2003, which amended the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to include ‘national heritage’ as a matter of National Environmental Significance.
Places which are nominated for listing on the National Heritage List are assessed by the Australian Heritage Council for their historical, scientific, social, research potential, indigenous, and aesthetic values, as well as their rarity and representativeness. The final decision on listing a place or group of places is made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts after receiving the recommendation of the Australian Heritage Council.
The EPBC Act stipulates that management plans for Australian Commonwealth-owned or -controlled places listed on the National Heritage List be prepared in accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles (discussed in Section 1). Where places are privately- or state-owned, the Australian Commonwealth Government must endeavour to ensure an appropriate management plan is adopted and implemented, and may provide technical and financial assistance in this regard.
National heritage values of a place are statutorily protected under the EPBC Act, but not necessarily the physical fabric of the place itself. The legislation prohibits anyone undertaking actions which are likely to have a significant impact on the national heritage values of a place listed on the National Heritage List without the approval of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. If a proposed action were considered likely to have a significant impact on the identified National Heritage values of a place, that action would need to be referred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (via the Department) for a decision on whether is a ‘controlled action’, that is, an action which must be assessed and approved under the EPBC Act.
A referral can be made by the person proposing to take the action or a State, Territory or Australian Government Minister, or government agency who is aware of the proposed action to be made and has administrative responsibilities relating to that action. Notices of all referrals and decisions are placed on the Internet for public access. The Minister must also inform relevant Australian Government, State and Territory Ministers of referrals, and invite them to comment on whether the action requires approval.
The likelihood of significant impact can be examined by considering whether one or more of the National Heritage values of the place may be lost, degraded, damaged, notably altered, modified, obscured, or diminished.4 Given the National Heritage values of Brickendon, discussed in Section 4, it is likely that actions which have the following effect would need to be referred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for assessment/approval under the EPBC Act:
• Actions which involve the permanent removal of fabric which embodies the National Heritage values of the place (as identified in the gazettal) Examples: partial or total demolition of buildings identified in the gazettal; removal of boundary hedges
4 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines, May 2006, p. 21.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 126 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
• Actions which affect the overall layout of the estate Examples: subdivision of the property, realignment of estate roads, construction of a new building within the house precinct or farm village precinct • Actions which affect the archaeological record related to the assignment period Example: excavation of former men’s quarters site
As it is impossible to predict every proposal which may arise for the place, the above list can not be considered a complete list of actions which could be controlled. As a general rule of thumb major works, as described above, are likely to require referral. Minor works, as described above, are unlikely to have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of the place and can therefore be carried out without referral. Where the potential impact of an activity is uncertain, it is preferable to make a referral early in the planning phase and prior to carrying out the action, rather than proceeding without a referral.
It must be noted that places on the National Heritage List which are privately owned are also bound by the applicable State legislation (see below).
World Heritage List (WHL) Together with ten other convict sites in Australia, Brickendon is part of a serial nomination to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for inscription on the World Heritage List under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972).
The World Heritage List records cultural and natural heritage places around the world which are considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. The WHL is administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, comprised of 21 State Parties (countries) which are elected by the General Assembly of States Parties.
All nominations of places for the WHL come from the State Parties of the country in which the natural or cultural property is located and are submitted to the World Heritage Committee. If the Committee determines that the nomination meets at least one of the ten World Heritage criteria, then the property is inscribed on the WHL, with the consent of the State concerned.
In Australia, World Heritage is recognised as a matter of ‘national environmental significance’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The assessment and approval provisions of the EPBC Act apply, as discussed above. As with National Heritage places, the world heritage values of a property are statutorily protected under the EPBC Act.
The legislation prohibits anyone undertaking actions which are likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a property listed on the World Heritage List without the approval of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. An action includes a project, development, undertaking, activity, or series of activities. To obtain approval, the action must undergo a rigorous environmental assessment and approval process.
The Minister may exempt a person from the requirement to undergo an environmental assessment and/or obtain approval, if it is considered in the national interest to do so.
Under the World Heritage Convention, Australia has adopted the following objectives and obligations for World Heritage places:
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 127 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
• “to protect, conserve and present the World Heritage values of the property; • to integrate the protection of the area into a comprehensive planning program; • to give the property a function in the life of the Australian community; • to strengthen appreciation and respect of the property's World Heritage values, particularly through educational and information programs; • to keep the community broadly informed about the condition of the World Heritage values of the property; and • to take appropriate scientific, technical, legal, administrative and financial measures necessary for achieving the foregoing objectives.
In achieving these primary objectives due regard is given to:
• ensuring the provision of essential services to communities within and adjacent to a property; • allowing provision for use of the property which does not have a significant impact on the World Heritage values and their integrity; • recognising the role of current management agencies in the protection of a property's values; and • the involvement of the local community in the planning and management of a property.”5
Places on the World Heritage List must be managed in accordance with the Australian World Heritage Management Principles, as set out in Schedule 5 of the EPBC Regulations 2000. These are similar to the National Heritage Management Principles, and address the objectives of management of World Heritage places, the involvement of the community, the requirements of a management plan for the place, and the processes for assessing and approving actions which are likely to have a significant impact on the World Heritage values of a property.
Planning Scheme, Northern Midlands Council Brickendon is included in the Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995 as a heritage item.
Under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, local councils are required to conserve those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. They do this by means of local heritage studies and heritage schedules within Planning Schemes.
Standard heritage provisions in Planning Schemes require that councils must consider heritage issues when assessing building permit applications for a use or development of listed items. Development refers to demolition, painting of any previously unpainted exterior fabric, painting or otherwise permanent blanking out glass or similar external windows, sandblasting, including dry or wet grit, cleaning by chemical products of any exterior fabric, the cladding of any exterior fabric of any existing building, the extension or addition to any existing building or the development of a building, and internal alterations to a building where a building permit is required. Councils may appoint an
5 Department of the Environment and Water Resources, World Heritage: Implications of Listing,
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 128 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
Advisory Committee or Heritage Adviser to give written recommendation when considering applications for a permit to items of cultural significance.
Planning Schemes also designate ‘conservation areas’ within local council areas. While conservation areas do not usually have the same statutory protection as individual items, local councils are still obliged to consider heritage issues when assessing building permit applications for places within such areas.
Local councils also require adequate information to convey the proposed development with building permit applications for heritage listed items and places located within conservation areas. The submission of heritage impact statements and conservation management plans are desired but not required.
Inclusion does not have any legal effect, but is used to alert the property owners and the public so that those concerned may adopt measures to preserve the special qualities which prompted the listing.
Where items are also included on the Tasmanian Heritage Register, a Works Application is required (see under Tasmanian Heritage Register, Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC), below).
Tasmanian Heritage Register, Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC) Brickendon is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.
The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 established the Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC) and Tasmanian Heritage Register (Register). The aim of the Act is to promote the identification, assessment, protection and conservation of heritage places in Tasmania and to provide a system of approvals for work on places included on the Register. The aim of heritage management is not to prevent change and development, but to ensure that the heritage significance of recognised places is not harmed by changes. Heritage ‘places’ refers to:
• a site, precinct or parcel of land; • any building or part of a building; • any shipwreck; • any item in or on, or historically or physically associated or connected with, a site, precinct or parcel of land where the primary importance of the item derives in part from the association with that site, precinct, or parcel of land; and • any equipment, furniture, fittings and articles in or on, or historically or physically associated with, any building or item.
The Tasmanian Heritage Council, or any person, can make a submission for a place to be entered on the Register on a provisional basis, if it meets any one or more of the required criteria. If entered, the THC must give written notice to the owner and local planning authority, and publicly notify the listing, after which it can further assessed and entered on a permanent basis. If the THC does not enter a place on a permanent basis, the provisional entry must be removed.
Under Section 29 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act, the Minister of Tourism Arts and the Environment is empowered to place an order on a ‘heritage area’ if it contains any place of historic cultural heritage significance. This is published in the Gazette, and remains in force for 2 years or any further period specified by the Minister.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 129 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
When any works (including development) are proposed for an item on the Register, the THC becomes an approval body for the development. A Works Application Form must be lodged with the local planning authority, which is referred to the THC for assessment. A Works Application must be determined within 42 days of lodgement and publicly notified within generally 2-3 days. The THC then assesses the application and indicates the any condition or restrictions of its approval or intention to refuse the application.
If the works are likely to destroy or reduce the significance of a registered place, the THC may only approve such works application if it is satisfied that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to carrying out the works.
Works are defined as:
• any development; • any physical intervention, excavation or action which may result in a change to the nature or appearance of the fabric of a place; • any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; • any removal, destruction or lopping of trees otherwise than in accordance with forest practices as defined in the Forest Practices Act 1985; and • any removal of vegetation or topsoil.
Development is defined as:
• the construction, exterior alteration or exterior decoration of a building; • the demolition or removal of a building; • the subdivision or consolidation of land, including buildings or airspace; • the placing or relocating of a building; and • the construction or putting up for display, of signs or hoardings.
Any activity (internal or external) that falls within the above definitions must be the subject of a Works Application to the THC. The THC may not require an application for some minor maintenance works, provided the works do not affect the significance of the place. A contact should be made with the Heritage Tasmania to establish whether an exemption can be granted.
State Approvals for Archaeological Works Any works on a heritage registered place that may affect the place’s historic cultural heritage significance (including archaeological or potential archaeological significance) requires formal approval from the Tasmanian Heritage Council through lodgement of Works Application. The THC’s Practice Note 2 (included in the Appendices) sets out the parameters for lodging a Works Application in relation to archaeological sites or places. Essentially it requires a desktop assessment which includes an illustrated site and disturbance history prepared by a professional historian and evaluations of historical archaeological potential and significance. It should also address the nature of information that may be derived from a study of the place, a summary of the current information already available in the particular research area, and a statement which clearly identifies the contribution, or the potential contribution, the information may make to an understanding of Tasmania’s history. The assessment usually makes a recommendation on the future course of action ie either archaeological testing to provide more information or prove up potential, controlled excavation to retrieve all archaeological information, or monitoring of works. If controlled archaeological excavation is recommended, a detailed archaeological method statement must also be lodged with the THC.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 130 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 6. Constraints and Opportunities
In the event that major works as defined above are planned for Brickendon, it is likely that a Works Application covering the archaeology will be required. In preparing the archaeological component of this CMP, the authors have been mindful of the Works Application requirements and that this CMP actually provides a lot of the information needed to include with such an application. For example the professionally prepared historical report and disturbance history has been done, and all the historical buildings and known archaeological sites and features have had proformas prepared which include assessments of their archaeological potential and significance.
Most proposed archaeological works at Brickendon will probably be conservation-driven (ie associated with essential conservation works such as underpinning of masonry walls, reductions of ground levels around buildings, or repairs to stormwater drains). In such instances, conservation orientated projects would obviously endeavour to minimize impacts to known archaeological resources where possible. However, where there is no prudent or feasible alternative, or where archaeological investigation itself is required to inform the conservation planning process, impacts to known archaeological resources maybe impossible to avoid. This means that an archaeological method statement would be required to obtain works approval from the Tasmanian Heritage Council. This document would have to be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and directly address the proposed works ie it is not possible to prepare a generic document that the applicant could lodge in any case.
6.8 Non-Statutory Heritage Constraints
The non-statutory heritage status of Brickendon according to the following organisations is as follows:
Register of the National Estate (RNE), Australian Heritage Council Brickendon is included on the Register of the National Estate.
The Register of the National Estate is an Australia-wide reference database maintained for educational and promotional purposes generally.
A place is included in the Register of the National Estate where it is assessed to have natural, cultural or indigenous value at a local, state, national, or international level and this significance is considered to have value for future generations. The RNE will be phased out as a statutory register within five years and the database will be a reference tool only. No further additions to the RNE will be made.
Inclusion does not have any legal effect on private- or state-owned land, but the register is widely recognised as an authoritative statement on the significance of a place. Responsible authorities, property owners and the public may have regard to a listing on the register in making decisions about a place, so that measures may be adopted to preserve the values which prompted the listing.
The actions of Commonwealth government agencies with regard to places listed on the RNE are constrained under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Ministerial approval is required for actions taken on Commonwealth land, or outside Commonwealth land which has an effect on Commonwealth land, which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, including the heritage values of places. The likelihood of significant impact is also determined by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 131 6. Constraints and Opportunities CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
National Trust of Australia (Tasmania) Brickendon is included on the Register of the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania).
The register lists those buildings, sites, items, and areas which, in the Trust’s opinion, fall within the following definition:
components of the natural or the cultural environment of Australia, that have aesthetic, historical, architectural, archaeological, scientific, or social significance, or other special value for future generations, as well as for the present community
The purpose of the register is to alert responsible authorities, property owners and the public so that those concerned may adopt measures to preserve the special qualities which prompted the listing.
When the significance of a place is under threat, the National Trust will take whatever action is deemed appropriate to ensure its protection, including giving advice to the property owner and seeking the use of the Tasmanian Heritage Council or local government planning powers. For the purposes of such action, the National Trust makes no differentiation between classified and recorded listings in its register.
Inclusion does not have any legal effect, but the register is widely recognised as an authoritative statement on the significance of a place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 132 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
7 Conservation Policies
Considering the Statement of Significance for the place and the constraints and opportunities identified in Section 6, the following is a series of conservation policies and guidelines appropriate to the place.
7.1 Background to the Conservation Policies
A conservation management plan provides a clear set of policies derived from an understanding of the place in order to guide the future care of the place.
Conservation policies appropriate to the place can be developed in the areas of :
• treatment of the fabric • interpretation of the place • use of the place • additions, new buildings and other new features • conservation procedures and practice
Such policies can operate at the level of the whole of the place, at the level of precincts or areas within the place and at the level of individual buildings, vegetation and other site features.
The policies below reflect what should happen to the place in the best of all possible worlds. Not all these policies will necessarily be achievable in a management plan for the place when other external matters, for instance the owner’s finances, are taken into account. It is recognised that there are many other factors which contribute to decision making about a place, and that cultural heritage is only one of these factors.
Many of the words used below have special meanings defined by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (see Appendix 4).
7.2 Conservation Approach
Brickendon has a history of nearly 200 years of management by a single family. The character of the place, embodied in much of the physical fabric of the buildings and the continuing use of the place as a farm, is evocative of its history. It is this character and the historical associations of the place which should be the main aim of conservation.
The site contains numerous buildings with fabric of particular interest and significance, for their age, aesthetic qualities, historic associations, and their rarity. With careful treatment and interpretation, these buildings, together with the landscape, provide an elegant and powerful representative example of a large early colonial pastoral estate. It is this overall ensemble which comprises the heritage value of Brickendon.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 133 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Over time, the construction of new buildings and changes to existing buildings have been guided by common sense and an economy of materials. Where materials were already available on site, they were reused where necessary. Several of the buildings at Brickendon still contain a supply of building materials from earlier structures on the site.
The overriding philosophy behind the conservation of the place, including decision making regarding maintenance, repairs, and adaptation of components of the place, should carry on the common sense and economy of the past. This approach is more fully defined in the policies provided below.
Policy 1: The character and significance of Brickendon should be conserved and, where appropriate, intepreted.
Policy 2: The historic use of Brickendon as a farm should be continued as a priority.
Policy 3: Where necessary, changes to the fabric should be carried out in a common sense way, bearing in mind traditional methods, established over 180 years, of making repairs and carrying out adaptations to the buildings. The existing palette of building forms and materials of timber, colour washed brickwork, corrugated iron, and Morewood & Rogers iron tiles should continue to be used.
7.3 Identifying the Place and Setting
Extent of the Place For clarity and planning purposes the extent of the place and its setting should be defined. Additionally, should serial nomination of Australian convict sites be successfully placed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, a buffer zone may be defined so as to protect the World heritage values.
In this case the current legal boundaries of Brickendon include all of the historic extent of the property and the ‘place’ should therefore be identified as Lot 1 Title Reference 27652.
Policy 4: The place defined as Lot 1 Title Reference 27652, as shown on Figure 1. 1.
Definition of the Setting and Buffer Zone Because of Brickendon’s very deliberate and aesthetically significant position in the landscape, it is important to maintain the setting of the place as far as is possible. Economic and planning considerations, discussed in Section 6, put additional pressure on the setting. Therefore a buffer zone is identified as an area where planning controls should defer to the significance of Brickendon.
The setting of the place should be considered in terms of the ‘prospect’ of the place; that is, the view outwards from the main house toward the east. The near and middle ground in this prospect is part of Brickendon. Further out, across the Macquarie River, part of the land is owned by the Woolmers Foundation. There are privately owned landholdings to the north of Woolmers and to the south of Brickendon which are part of the setting.
Policy 5: The setting of the place should be identified as in Figure 7. 1.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 134 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
The buffer zone is an area in which development should be controlled in deference to the significance of Brickendon, regardless of whether the zone is contained within the visual catchment of the place. As part of the World Heritage List nomination of the Brickendon and Woolmers Estates, a buffer zone for the two properties has been identified by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Policy 6: A buffer zone should be identified as in Figure 7. 1.
Intervention in the Setting and Buffer Zone New buildings and features, changes to zoning, use, or subdivision within the setting or the buffer zone may also be detrimental to the place. While often these changes are outside the control of the owners of a heritage place, the owners may take steps to advocate for the protection of the heritage values of their place.
Policy 7: Works or other changes within the buffer zone or the setting of the place, particularly on the boundary of the place should, if possible, be controlled to minimise impact on the place itself (such as visual or aural intrusions).
Policy 8: The assistance of statutory bodies such as the Tasmanian Heritage Council and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts should be sought in advocating for the protection of the heritage values of Brickendon through any changes or works within the buffer zone or setting of the place.
Inappropriate Uses and Activities in the Setting The intensification of activities at properties adjacent to Brickendon has the potential to impact upon the character of Brickendon, for example a noisy industrial activity taking place near the boundary of the site would be highly detrimental to the character of the Farm Village. Such activities should be considered by the local planning authority with regard to the heritage significance of Brickendon.
Policy 9: Uses and activities within the place which lessen, obscure or confuse its historical associations and meanings, should be discouraged.
Views The views to and from Brickendon contribute to the significance of the place and should protected from change. The views between Brickendon and Woolmers are very important in interpreting the historical link between the two estates. The prospect described above, although more difficult to maintain (as much of it is outside the control of the owners of Brickendon), should also be maintained as much as possible.
Policy 10: The following views should be retained:
• Views between Woolmers and Brickendon • View eastward from the main house.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 135 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Figure 7. 1: Identification of the setting for Brickendon (outlined in red) and the recommended buffer zone (outlined in orange) for the areas of the Brickendon and Woolmers Estates which will be nominated for the World Heritage List (shaded in green).
Associated Places For clarity and planning purposes associated places should also be identified, as a means of furthering the understanding of the place itself. In the case of Brickendon, there are a number of places which were historically connected to the place, even though some distance away. Brickendon is one of a group of properties developed by the Archer family on the Norfolk Plains. As well, the Archers of Brickendon owned Munden and Palmerston. As family resources were pooled from time to time in the operation of each property, it is important to understand Brickendon as one of a group of Archer family properties, some of which are a distance away.
Further recommendations regarding associated places are provided under Section 7.6 Interpretation.
Policy 11: The following places should be considered associated places:
• Woolmers • Palmerston • Munden • Panshanger • Fairfield • Woodside • Saundridge
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 136 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
7.4 Treatment of the Fabric
Much of the significance of the place is embodied in its fabric. The term ‘fabric’ is used in heritage conservation to indicate all the elements which make up a place: the landform, landscape, vegetation, buildings, building components, site features, sub-surface remains of buildings and occupational deposits (archaeology).
The preceding sections of this report identify the nature and extent of the built and archaeological fabric at Brickendon (Section 3), the significance of the fabric in representing the heritage values of the place (Sections 4 and 5), the condition and integrity of the significant fabric, and the environmental factors which impact the fabric (Section 6).
The policies below identify how to conserve the significance of the place by conserving the fabric which embodies the identified significance.
Fabric of Unknown Age In the physical survey for this report it has not been possible to determine the age and history of some items and care should be taken that these items are not inadvertently damaged or removed if they are significant.
Policy 12: Where the nature of an component of the place is uncertain, further investigate the component by documentary and physical research, prior to carrying out work or removal.
Fabric Conservation Conservation is defined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter to include maintenance, preservation and interpretation including restoration and reconstruction. It also includes adaptation which means modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses. Conservation essentially means managing change with due regard for the heritage significance of a place.
The most significant fabric should be preserved and conserved in accordance with recognised conservation principles. Generally, at Brickendon, all of the 19th century buildings are of exceptional significance. However, not all of the fabric is of such significance as to warrant conservation as defined by the Burra Charter. In this case, World War II provides a convenient cut-off date for practical decisions about retention or otherwise of recent significant fabric.
Fabric which is not identified to be conserved, e.g., the modern buildings at the place such as the dairy, could be removed.
Policy 13: The following fabric should be retained and conserved:
• All significant fabric introduced prior to 1950 • All fabric recorded in this report as previous reconstructions • All fabric reconstructed (in the future) in accordance with these policies.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 137 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Changing Fabric Identified to be Conserved There are sometimes cases where fabric that otherwise should be retained and conserved needs to be altered or removed for good reasons. In this case some of the external fabric and vegetation will eventually need to be removed for maintenance reasons. Removal or alteration of some fabric may be essential to maintaining the continuing historical use of the entire place as a working farm, which may involve periodic upgrading of some components.
Nevertheless, some fabric is so significant that it should be changed only in exceptional circumstances.
Policy 14: The following fabric should be retained and conserved with the qualification indicated:
Fabric Qualification
All fabric identified for Except where alteration or removal is essential for conservation continuing historical use of the place by the Archer introduced prior to family as a farm, or essential for the maintenance of the 1900 place
All fabric identified for Except where alteration or removal is needed for the conservation conservation of the place introduced 1900 to 1950
Removal of Fabric If not identified above to be retained and conserved, fabric at the place could be removed.
Policy 15: Fabric other than that listed above in Policy 13 (i.e., fabric introduced since 1950) could be removed without reducing the cultural significance of the place.
Urgent Maintenance Works While any fabric is in existence it should be maintained, which means continuous protective care. General routine maintenance tasks should be able to be carried out by the owners of the place. Periodically, say every 5 to 10 years, maintenance work will require the involvement of a specialised tradesperson. This is addressed in the policies below and in Section 7.7.
Urgent maintenance will always be the roof, gutters, downpipes, drainage and external envelope which includes colour washing, weatherboards, and other sheetings plus external joinery which includes glazing. These materials must be kept in working order so as to keep moisture from entering the buildings.
In the course of the fabric survey for this report, the need for a number of urgent maintenance works was identified. These are as follows (in order of urgency):
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 138 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
Policy 16: The following urgent maintenance works should be carried out in accordance with the details provided above:
1. The external timberwork on the two Dutch barns and the pillar granary and the rainwater goods on the pillar granary require repairs. This group of three buildings must be treated as a whole; that is, one cannot be prioritised over another.
2. The chapel roof requires re-shingling. This should be done to the detail in the historic photograph (see Figure 2. 4) if feasible.
3. The external timberwork of the cook house requires repairs.
4. The external timberwork of the shearing shed / draught horse stables requires repairs.
5. All timberwork should be treated (oiled).1 All brickwork except the chapel should be limewashed using a traditional limewash preparation.2
6. The timber coach house. If it is to be maintained, it requires urgent and substantial stabilising works. It is recognised that this is a costly undertaking and would not be possible to complete without external funding assistance.
Areas of Historical Archaeological Importance Out in the paddocks and outside any identified sensitivity zones (identified in Section 4, Figures 4. 4 and 4. 5), it is not envisaged that there would be any constraints on day to day activities and operations eg ploughing, seeding, or reaping. Old earthenware drains are the feature most likely to be encountered. If such items are found during such activities, efforts should be made to leave them in situ. If however, there is no prudent and feasible alternative, the minimum impact possible to allow the operation to proceed is permissible.
Major works proposed for any of the existing buildings that may impact identified areas of high archaeological potential and/or significance will need to go through a state and federal approvals process, described above. In all cases it is highly recommended that the applicants initially make early contact with the THC and liaise with them on the best way to proceed.
It is recognised that the Archers are aware of the archaeological significance and potential of the site and that they already generally structure their operations to minimise impacts to archaeological resources. This report identifies archaeologically sensitive areas where the likelihood of significant
1 Oil Preservative: Mix of linseed oil and terebene dryers. First coat - 25% raw linseed oil, 75% kerosene or mineral turpentine. Second coat - 50% 50/50 raw/boiled linseed oil, 50% kerosene. Do not apply in damp or wet weather. Do not apply to damp timber or early in the morning. 2 Lime Wash: Where 'limewash' finish is scheduled remove and/or cut back all existing paint finishes, thoroughly wash and clean, sand and dust down. Fill cracked and broken areas with lime/sand stopping and level to existing surface. (Allow to undercoat the surface with either an oil or water-based paint as directed by the architect). Then apply two (2) coats of lime wash prepared as follows: Make 36 litres of lime putty, put in colour while slaking, sieve and allow to cool. NB: Fine sieving is necessary to give limewash a smooth finish. Add 36 litres of dry calcium chloride mixed with water and added to lime putty to give desired consistency. Then add 1.8kg of Alum powder and 4.5 litres of hot tallow. Mix well, sieve and strain and apply two (2) coats. The mixture is to be applied hot. It should be quite thin and semi-transparent on application (it will colour as it dries). The finished surface should be smooth with a slight lustre and free from particles of undissolved lime and other ingredients.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 139 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD historical archaeological deposits surviving is high. Brickendon is a working farm and requires flexibility in its day to day operations. A simple archaeological recording system has been developed for the Archers to formally record miscellaneous finds and discoveries in a standardised manner. This system comprises a site index catalogue and an archaeological recording form. See the Appendices for copies of these forms.
Management policies have been prepared below for common scenarios that identify if and when professional archaeological advice should be sought and the planning process which should be followed. The Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Practice Note 2 is relevant to the management of archaeological sites in Tasmania (see Appendices). In the event that the Archers require professional archaeological assistance in preparing or lodging a Works Application to the Tasmanian Heritage Council, external sources of funding should be made available to them. Refer to Section 6.7 for a definition of the use of the terms ‘major works’ and ‘minor works’.
Policy 17: The archaeological resource of Brickendon represents an integral part of the overall cultural significance of the site; conservation and management of this archaeological resource should be a high priority.
Policy 18: Endeavour to minimise below-ground disturbance to the archaeological sites and sensitive zones documented in this report - especially places of high potential and/or high significance.
Policy 19: If below-ground disturbance to these known sites is required as part of planned major works, archaeological input to the process of minimising or mitigating impacts may be required. For major works this will require prior approvals under the Tasmanian Historic Cultural Heritage Act and the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Under the Tasmanian Historic Cultural Heritage Act a Works Application will need to be completed. Under the EPBC Act, the matter will require referral to the Minister.
Policy 20: If previously unknown archaeological deposits or features are inadvertently discovered within the identified zones of sensitivity during minor works, cease works, complete an archaeological recording form and proceed with works, trying to avoid the site.
Policy 21: If previously unknown archaeological deposits or features are inadvertently discovered outside the identified zones of sensitivity during minor works, cease works, complete an archaeological recording form and proceed with works, trying to avoid the site.
Policy 22: If previously unknown archaeological deposits or features are inadvertently discovered outside the identified zones of sensitivity during major works, cease works and seek advice from the Tasmanian Heritage Council.
Collection of Family Papers The collection of Archer family papers held at Brickendon is part of the outstanding cultural value of the place and present a remarkable resource for the understanding of the estate on the whole. For this reason, the collection should be treated as exceptionally significant, and should be subject to conservation.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 140 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
Policy 23: The Brickendon collection of family papers should be fully catalogued.
Policy 24: Specialist assistance should be sought to advise on appropriate storage of the collection.
Policy 25: The involvement of the Archives Office of Tasmania should be sought in order to make preservation copies of documents held in the collection.
7.5 Use
Historical Uses The cultural significance of the place is embodied to a great degree in its continuing historical use. Brickendon has been farmed by the Archer family since the 1820s, and this is the anticipated use of the property for the foreseeable future, as discussed in Section 6.6.
Policy 26: The use of Brickendon as a farm should be continued as a priority.
The continuing historic uses of particular buildings adds another layer of significance to the place. For example, the shearing shed continues to be used seasonally for shearing. The farm cottage, coachman’s cottage, gardener’s cottage, and main house all continue to be used for residential purposes. These uses should continue for as long as is feasible and practical.
Policy 27: The historic use of individual buildings should be continued if at all possible.
Tourism Uses The tourism use of parts of the site, e.g., the Farm Village, has been established for many years. The chapel, Dutch barn (south), and cookhouse are available as venues to hire for weddings, receptions, parties, and the like. This use is not without its attendant pressures on the fabric, as discussed in Section 6.5.
To date, there has been very little impact on the fabric of the place from public visitation. The adaptations which have been made in the past for the tourism use, for example, the timber floor in the Dutch barn (west), and the introduction of a small public lavatory in the farm village, are very sensitive in their execution and completely reversible. It is important to keep the significant fabric in mind when planning for greater visitor numbers. This is addressed in the policies below.
Visitor Management Aspects of visitor management, such as the recommended circulation pattern or availability of buildings for internal inspection can be arranged so as to involve the least intervention in the fabric. For example, it would be preferable to only allow external access to the pillar granary if statutory controls required a balustrade to the stair.
Should security of the buildings or contents become a major concern, it would be preferable to allow only guided tours, rather than install a security camera system or the like, which would require
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 141 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD intervention in the fabric of significant buildings and which could detract from the character of the place.
Policy 28: The visitor experience at Brickendon should be organised in a way that allows the conservation of the fabric, while considering:
• the effect of structural loadings • the effect of statutory requirements • the effect of service installations • the effect of providing access for people with disabilities • the effect of the safety and security of the buildings. Policy 29: Should wear and tear from public visits become evident in any of the Farm Village buildings, internal access to those buildings should be restricted to limited numbers of visitors per day.
New Uses While much of the land and several buildings will continue to be used for farming, new uses for several of the buildings should be contemplated.
At present, the buildings in the Farm Village are little used, apart from being opened to the public for self-guided tours. Limited areas in the Farm Village are used for storage for the farm. New uses which take advantage of the available space yet involve minimum change to the significant fabric (compatible uses) would be appropriate. Such uses may include:
• Artists’ studios • Market – e.g., weekly or monthly farmers’ markets • Shop(s) – e.g., antiques • Venue – e.g., for musical performances
Policy 30: Compatible uses for the buildings in the Farm Village are appropriate provided the uses allow for the conservation of the buildings in accordance with these policies.
7.6 Interpretation
As the place is of outstanding cultural significance, the opportunities to interpret it to visitors should be carefully addressed. The current interpretation measures are discussed further in Section 6.5. The current interpretation provides basic, clear, and accurate information; however the style of the interpretation signs could be updated, and additional information could be provided.
The interpretive message should reflect the Statement of Significance. Although Brickendon is currently receiving a great deal of attention for its association with Australia’s convict heritage, the Burra Charter points out that all aspects of the significance of a place should be addressed (Article 15.4). Care should therefore be taken to interpret not only the convict history of Brickendon, but also the association of the place with the Archer family, the significant continuing historical use of the place, the aesthetic qualities of the place and its cultural landscape, and its importance to the community.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 142 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
Policy 31: The significance of the place should be interpreted to the public. The main interpretive messages should include all aspects of the significance of the place.
Information about the importance of a place can be conveyed through a range of interpretive devices, including introduced signs and displays, restoration or reconstruction works to the fabric (see below), and through the organisation and nature of uses at the place, discussed above. The goal in introducing new interpretive devices is to do so subtly, without detracting from the ambience of the place itself.
Policy 32: Interpretation signs should be confined to the interior of buildings.
Policy 33: Free-standing podium-type interpretation signs could be located inside buildings where there is enough space, rather than signs.
Policy 34: The development of audio tours is appropriate, should the opportunity arise, in order to facilitate interpretation to people with vision impairments and to people who do not read English.
Policy 35: Any conduits, such as lighting for interpretation displays, should be located in inconspicuous positions and designed and finished to be self-effacing.
There is a strong historical link between Brickendon and Woolmers. As the properties are paired in their World Heritage nomination, the connection between them stands to be better interpreted in future. This could be achieved by including mention of Woolmers in any published interpretation produced at Brickendon, or through the use of a sign near the brick granary which explains the historical connection of the place with the buildings at Woolmers which are visible in the distance. The two places could consider working together to offer entry to both estates on one ticket. It is conceivable that if the two places are inscribed on the World Heritage list, there may be an opportunity to build a joint interpretive centre for the two places, or to conduct guided tours (by mini-van or coach) of both places.
Policy 36: The historical link between Brickendon and Woolmers should be recognised and interpreted.
In order to tell the site’s story it is important that people are allowed and encouraged to visit it. The best way to do this is to allow access and develop viable new uses for the site that will draw a variety of users to it at different times for different activities. For example, occasional open days, where visitors are allowed to see areas not normally on show to the public, are likely to draw members of the local and regional community to Brickendon, and would help raise the profile of the place.
Policy 37: To facilitate the above interpretation, public access to the site should be encouraged by the establishment of new events or uses on the site to draw people there.
Restoration/Reconstruction Works One way to interpret the place is to carry out selected restoration and reconstruction works. (These terms are defined in the Burra Charter.) While the funding for these works may never be found, it is considered worthwhile to provide a list of items which have been noted as capable of restoration or reconstruction.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 143 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Policy 38: As feasible and where sufficient evidence is available, selected components of the place should be restored/reconstructed as follows:
• Timber coach house and stables • Gates at estate entrances (the main gate to the garden front drive survives in storage in the Dutch barn south) • Layout of main garden • Brick fowl house (attached to timber coach house) • Orchard adjacent gardener’s cottage • Tennis court pavilion
Identification of Reconstructions The Burra Charter calls for reconstructed fabric to be “identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation.”3 In accordance with proper practice and to avoid misinterpretation, restoration/reconstruction works at the place should be well documented so that a record of the reconstruction is readily available if needed. The reconstructed material need only be identifiable to specialists on close inspection.
Policy 39: All restoration/reconstruction works introduced pursuant of these guidelines should be identifiable on scrutiny by specialists and clear records kept of all reconstruction works.
7.7 Management
Because the place is of cultural significance, procedures for managing change and activities at the place should be in accordance with the recognised conservation methodology set out in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.
Additionally, should the place be included on the National and World Heritage Lists, the National and Australian World Heritage Management Principles would apply.
The current ownership/management structure is discussed in Section 6.6. The place is owned and managed by a single family. There is no management body. No formal measures have been implemented to protect the cultural heritage values of the place, however, in many ways the owners have demonstrated their regard for the heritage values in the way in which works have been carried out previously.
Policy 40: Activities at the place should be guided by the philosophy of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.
Involvement of Skilled Trades In terms of routine maintenance, the owners of the place could carry out the following tasks:
• Clearing gutters and drains • Refixing loose iron or weatherboards.
3 Australia ICOMOS, Burra Charter, Article 20.2
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 144 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
• Limewashing walls • Painting joinery • Cutting back and trimming plants, shrubs, vines, etc. • Trimming hedges. • Making and hanging farm gates • Keeping locks and fastenings in working order.
However, because of the significance of the place it is important that the proposed changes are achieved involving a high standard of conservation practice. Professional advice should be sought for any major works, as discussed in Section 6.7; that is, anything that requires a Works Application. Professional tradesmanship is required for many other things to do with the maintenance of the site:
Policy 41: Skilled traditional building trades should be engaged as appropriate carry out building and maintenance works including the following:
• Roof plumbing and slating • Brick and stone wall repairs • Wall plasters including rough cast. • Joinery repair and replacement • Repair of stud work and replacement of weatherboards • New buildings or additions within the Farm Village and Main House precincts. Policy 42: Professional designers with skills in the discipline of heritage and conservation should be engaged as appropriate to advise on and design any additions, new buildings, and new features to be made in the House Precinct or the Farm Village Precinct.
Records & Reporting Brickendon has a long series of records which provide details of activities on the estate dating back to 1829. It is appropriate to continue to make records of any changes made to the building fabric as a resource for the study of the place in future. Record keeping is vital in meeting the reporting requirements under the National (and Australian World) Heritage Management Principles.
Further recommendations for documenting works are provided below, under Section 7.8.
Policy 43: Systematic Photographic Survey. Systematic photographic surveys of the place should be carried out before, during and after any major works and the results catalogued and archived.
Policy 44: In accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles, a regular (annual) report on the condition of the fabric representing National Heritage values may be required. A suggested pro forma for this purpose is included in the Appendices. An annual audit of the condition could be made by the owners or by a builder.
Policy 45: Any maintenance or repair works which take place in a year should be noted on that year’s record for reporting under the guidelines of the National Heritage Management Principles if required.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 145 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Unforeseen discoveries The management of unforeseen archaeological discoveries is addressed in Policies 20 to 22. Should an unexpected discovery occur within the building fabric, a similar set of recommendations is appropriate:
Policy 46: If previously unknown building fabric or features are inadvertently discovered during minor works, cease works, photograph the fabric prior to removing it and, if possible, retain a sample (if the find is, for example, a wallpaper or other decorative finish) and proceed with works, trying to avoid the site.
Policy 47: If previously unknown building fabric or features are inadvertently discovered during major works, e.g., demolition, ensure that photographs of the fabric are included in the systematic photographic survey of the site which accompanies major works (see above).
Policy 48: Any photographs or retained samples of unforeseen discoveries should be organised, with descriptions of fabric, location, and circumstances of its discovery, in the records of the estate.
Research, training and resources The allocation of resources is discussed at Section 6.6. There are several research opportunities which the owners of the place could assist in exploring by making records available to researchers (e.g., University students under supervision). Topics which could contribute greatly to the understanding of the place include the following:
• Exploration of the experience of convicts assigned to Brickendon by the use of diaries, convict records, records of the local lower courts, and visiting magistrates. This could take the form of case studies that might throw some light on the assignment system as it worked in Tasmania as well as looking at the lives of individual convicts and putting a human face to an important aspect of Tasmania’s history: convicts’ background and sentencing could be covered as well as the nature of their work, the legacy of the assignment system in the form of for example the drainage system and farm village, contact with the justice system, social experience at Brickendon and other properties, and their lives after they left the convict system. This would present an opportunity for interpretation and education programs centred around convicts at Brickendon. • The Archer family papers at Brickendon present many opportunities for research. The diaries and record books lend themselves to an exploration of the history of farm management, looking at topics such as adaptation of the environment, management of flocks, cropping, labour, Brickendon as a family property, the challenge of labour shortages and mechanisation. • A broader study of all the Archer properties in Tasmania could lead to important conclusions regarding the possible common vision they shared in developing their estates along the lines of the English pastoral ideal.
Archaeological investigation, say, of the site of the former men’s quarters, could proceed in accordance with the principles outlined below.
Policy 49: Investigation of the place for research should be allowed to increase knowledge of Australian history and other aspects of the occupation and construction of the place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 146 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
Such investigations should only be allowed when guided by specific and scrutinised research goals and when there are adequate resources available to undertake, complete and publish results of the study and leave the place in a stable condition.
Policy 50: Archaeological investigation to provide information to guide conservation and interpretation work pursuant these policies should be allowed, but only when there are adequate resources to undertake and complete the work and to stabilise areas destabilised by the intervention.
As discussed in Section 6.6, there are three staff members at Brickendon: one workman who assists in farming activities, one employee who assists with the tourist and accommodation activities, and a cleaner. There are no volunteers presently involved at the place. As all of the individuals who work at the place are presently conversant with the history of Brickendon and the importance of the buildings and features, the need for additional, specialised training is not apparent. Should the opportunity arise, however, staff and/or the owners of the place could attend workshops or conferences in order to continue their own education and interest in topics related to the history and ongoing management of Brickendon.
Naturally, should additional staff be employed or volunteers taken on, people new to the place should be fully trained.
Policy 51: The owners of the place should endeavour to make employees aware of the procedures outlined in this report for handling unforeseen discoveries.
Policy 52: Should new employees or volunteers be engaged, they should be trained in accordance with the requirements of duties they will perform. For example, individuals who work at the ticket entry area to the Farm Village should be reasonably conversant with the history of the place, so they are in a position to answer visitor queries.
Repairs and Maintenance The schedule below provides specific information on how repairs and maintenance should be carried out. Appropriate time frames for routine maintenance activities are included in the Appendices.
Policy 53: Fabric should be repaired and maintained in accordance with the advice provided below and to the timeframe provided in the Appendices:
1.00 Roofs
1.01 All roofs should be maintained in good order. All gutters should be kept clear and downpipes should throw the water clear of the walls of all buildings.
1.02 If roofing materials need replacing they should be done in like materials and fixed in similar ways to the existing. The existing lengths of iron sheeting should be maintained.
1.03 The Morewood & Rogers iron tiles would have to be specially made if they needed replacement as would the early corrugated iron on the Blacksmith’s Shop.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 147 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
1.04 Where necessary gutters and downpipes should be replaced generally to match existing and downpipes and gutters fixed to existing details.
1.05 The prefabricated cast iron porch may need special attention in due course.
2.00 Walls
2.01 Weatherboarded walls will need boards replacing as general maintenance to keep the building waterproof.
2.02 Weatherboards would have to be specially milled to match original boards and be of like timber species. They would have to be fixed with a single spike as originally.
2.03 Corrugated iron wall sheeting would have to be replaced in the same lengths.
2.04 Stud walls will have to be carefully repaired by splicing, etc and by skilled carpenters.
2.05 Brick or stone walls will need repairing in matching sandstock bricks or stones set in lime mortar.
2.06 Wall coatings, be they colour wash or plasters or roughcast, should be redone where necessary. These are needed to throw water off solid walls.
2.07 Traditional washes should be used so that the solid walls can breathe.
2.08 Plasters and pebble dash (rough cast) should be in traditional lime mixes.
2.09 Bricklaying or stonemasonry and plastering can only be done by skilled tradesmen.
3.00 Joinery
3.01 External joinery such as windows and doors need to be kept in good order to keep the building weatherproof.
3.02 Joinery will need to be carefully repaired by splicing or where it has to be replaced carefully copied in a joinery shop using like materials.
3.03 Glazing needs to be kept in good order to keep the buildings weatherproof.
3.04 External joinery needs to be kept well painted.
3.05 Historic architectural hardware should be maintained. Locks, sash fasteners, hinges, etc are all important.
4.00 Plantings
4.01 Vines, creepers, trees, shrubs, and raised garden beds should be kept free of buildings, drains, apertures and so on. The can be very destructive.
4.02 Sub-floor ventilation apertures should be rigorously kept clear.
5.00 Fences
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 148 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
5.01 Fences should be maintained to existing fence lines and in existing construction methods.
5.02 Hedgerows should be maintained or regrown as necessary and cut as appropriate.
5.03 Gates should be maintained and traditional ‘Brickendon’ farm gates copied where necessary.
5.04 Painted gates are like joinery and would have to be carefully repaired or, where necessary, remade in a joinery shop.
7.8 Intervention, Adaptation, and Future Development
Appropriate Intervention The term ‘intervention’ is used here to indicate changes made to the fabric of the place for practical purposes, such as maintenance, access, research, or improvement of services.
In the case of Brickendon, pressures to make interventions in the fabric for access, provision of security and fire detection systems, or structural stabilisation may arise.
Generally, such works should be confined to buildings of local significance (as identified in Figures 5. 1 and 5. 2) except where investigation of alternatives yields no alternatives but to make interventions in buildings of National or State significance.
Policy 54: Work to the fabric identified to be conserved should be avoided, except for:
• stabilisation and maintenance. • intervention in accordance with the Policy for Intervention for Structural, Service, Statutory and Hazardous Materials Reasons (see below). • restoration and /or reconstruction in accordance with Policies 38 and 39 above.
Intervention for Practical Reasons Interventions or adaptations for practical reasons such as the following are addressed by the policies below:
• For structural reasons • For replacement of existing services • For installation of new services and equipment • To meet fire safety and other statutory requirements • To remove asbestos and other hazardous material • To accommodate access by people with disabilities
Policy 55: Adaptation of significant fabric to prevent structural failure of existing fabric is appropriate, provided alteration of significant fabric is minimised.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 149 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Policy 56: Replacement of existing services and equipment is appropriate, provided that work is planned and carried out to minimise damage to significant fabric and that as a general rule building services are concealed within buildings in spaces of lower significance and exterior services are located in inconspicuous positions and designed and finished to be self-effacing.
Policy 57: Alteration of significant fabric in order to comply with the spirit of fire safety and other statutory requirements is appropriate, but only after investigation of alternative fire safety strategies and other alternatives in order to determine design and construction strategies. Adaptation should be located in spaces of lower rather than higher significance, minimise damage to significant fabric and provide for removal of alterations without further damage to retained fabric.
Policy 58: Adaptation of significant fabric to contain or remove asbestos or other hazardous materials is appropriate. Removal of hazardous fabric, where it cannot practically be sealed from future disturbance, is appropriate. In cases where exposed to view in its normal configuration, hazardous fabric should be replaced with fabric of matching appearance.
Policy 59: Alteration of the significant fabric to facilitate access by disabled people is appropriate, but only after investigation of alternative strategies. Adaptation should be located in spaces of lower rather than higher significance, minimise damage to significant fabric and provide for removal of alterations without further damage to retained fabric.
Unavoidable Intervention In many cases some detracting intervention is unavoidable.
Policy 60: Unavoidable intervention should be located in areas of lesser cultural significance in preference to those of higher cultural significance.
Adaptation of the Fabric Identified to be Conserved Most extensive intervention in fabric will occur during adaptation work to accommodate new uses. Depending on significance, different types of alteration of fabric may be appropriate.
For example, in the case of interior spaces these types are:
• Dividing of spaces and areas by partitions • Joining of spaces and areas by openings • Covering of significant fabric • Changes to significant fabric • Installation of new elements • Installation of new services
Similar types of alterations are applicable to landform and landscape, external fabric of buildings and building contents of a place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 150 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
Adaptation of Exteriors of Buildings As an exceptional collection of buildings, adaptation of the exteriors of buildings generally is not recommended. However, some adaptation may be appropriate in order to allow the place or a component to continue in its historical use or have a new sympathetic use. Very minor adaptation may be appropriate in order to accommodate a new use; however, such adaptation should be carefully considered and all alternatives thoroughly exhausted before adapting any of the fabric identified for conservation.
For example, discreet new doorways or windows for functional reasons may be inserted, but the overall appearance of the building should remain unchanged.
Policy 61: Adaptation of the exteriors of buildings identified for conservation may proceed provided that surfaces are not covered or concealed to view from a distance and no new finishes are applied. The existing palette of materials appropriate to that building should be used.
Adaptation of Interiors of Buildings Some adaptation of the interiors of the buildings may be appropriate in order to facilitate the ongoing historical use of the building, or to facilitate presentation of the place to the public. Such adaptations should take into consideration the historic function of the building. For example, as the historic function of the pillar granary and the brick granary is clearly evidenced by the partitioning of the interiors into bins for grain storage, it would not be appropriate to remove the bin partitions and form new rooms in the granaries. Any adaptations should defer to the existing character of the building and make use of similar materials.
Policy 62: Adaptation of the interiors of buildings identified for conservation may proceed provided the adaptation is in keeping with the spirit of the historical use of the building and utilises the existing palette of materials appropriate to that building.
Additions to Buildings Because of the exceptional significance of the buildings at Brickendon, additions should be avoided, unless no other alternative is possible and the addition is necessary for structural or statutory (e.g., access) reasons.
New Buildings Carefully sited new buildings may be appropriate as an alternative to adapting or adding to the significant buildings at the place. For example, modern farm buildings have successfully been introduced to the paddock behind the brick coach house. These are sensitively situated and are hardly noticeable from the drive. As well, a modern lavatory block has been built in the Farm Village. It is a small building constructed in timber and corrugated iron, self-effacing, and functional. Likewise, the modern guest accommodation buildings are sited out of the way and constructed in reused materials.
Any new buildings should be designed in accordance with the Conservation Approach (Section 7.2) and the following policies:
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 151 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Policy 63: New structures should be low key, of a traditional form, and built in weatherboard and corrugated iron.
Policy 64: New structures in the Farm Village Precinct should be sited with regard to the arrangement of the existing buildings in the precinct along village-like ‘streets’.
New Features Because of the intactness of Brickendon’s landscape, including the paddocks, drainage system, and drives, new features such as roads, car parking, fences, and the like should be carefully considered.
Policy 65: New elements including planting within the place are not appropriate, except: • in accordance with the Interpretation Policy • items of a trifling nature associated with an existing use or for a new compatible use as included in the Policy for Use, such as fences, walking tracks, pump houses, service lines, signposts and provided they are designed and located to cause minimal intrusion for the purposes of water and land conservation and other critical landscape management procedures. Any major new works should be amply documented and recorded.
Policy 66: Changes at the place should be achieved in the following way:
(a) Conservation Guidelines: Proposals for the place should be assessed in the light of what is recommended in this report. It may be necessary to carry out further research in order to assess and implement the proposed work to a high standard. Research can include physical intervention, for example a search for former surface finishes. (b) Documentation of Conservation Works: Proposed work to a component should be documented for implementation in a way that allows the scrutiny of others before the work is executed and also for posterity. A statement setting out the precise aims of the work should be made. The documentary or physical evidence upon which restoration and reconstruction decisions are made for each component should be cited. A copy of the documentation, including schedules and plans, should be kept at Brickendon, together with other records on maintenance and repairs. (c) Preservation of Fabric and Patina: During documentation of proposed work to a component of the place, and during the work itself, the maximum amount of fabric and patina should be retained consistent with the preservation of the element and in relation to its relative significance. Replacements, no matter how accurate, should be considered of far less heritage value than the original fabric. (d) Information Revealed during Conservation Work: New information about the materials, configuration, use, age, evolution, etc. of the component that comes to light during the work should be recorded in a report, a copy of which should be held at the archive of the place. (e) Identification of Personnel: Personnel involved in the documentation and implementation of works to components of the place should be recorded for future reference.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 152 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 7. Conservation Policies
7.9 Community Involvement
While community involvement in decisions about the place is recommended in the National Heritage Management Principles, as a privately owned place, community consultation is at the discretion of the Archer family.
It is recommended that a reasonable level of community involvement may be achieved through the normal processes of exhibition of Works Applications (to the Northern Midlands Council), or through exhibitions of referred actions (by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts).
Policy 67: Ensure the community has the opportunity to be involved in decisions about the place by engaging in normal public exhibition of proposals which are the subject of Works Applications or referrals to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
7.10 Review
It is appropriate for Management Plans to be reviewed from time to time. This is addressed by the policies below.
Policy 68: Adoption of Conservation Guidelines. These policies should be adopted as the Conservation Management Plan for the place. If not adopted, these policies should be revised and then adopted before further works or activities other than urgent works are carried out at the place.
Policy 69: Review of Conservation Management Plan. The Conservation Management Plan should be reviewed at regular intervals, firstly say, five years from its adoption.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 153 7. Conservation Policies CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 154 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 8.Implementation
8 Implementation
Considering the conservation policies set out in Section 7 and the National Heritage Management Principles, the following recommendations for implementation are made.
Principle 1: The objective in managing National Heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their National Heritage values.
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• The historical background (Section 2) and descriptions of individual elements and precincts (Section 3) identify fabric which embodies National Heritage values • The existing management framework is outlined in Section 6.6 • Conservation ideals are included in Section 6.1 • Policies for conserving the fabric are included in Section 7.4 • Policies for interpreting the values are provided in Section 7.6.
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Adopt the Conservation Ideals identified in Section 6.1 as the basis for managing the heritage values of Brickendon. • Manage Brickendon in such a way that the largest number of policies in Section 7 can be achieved.
Principle 2: The management of National Heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their National Heritage values.
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• Discussion of the applicable legislation in Section 6.7 • Identification of appropriate conservation procedures and practices in Sections 7.7 and 7.8 • Discussion of training for individuals involved with the management of Brickendon in Section 6.6 and 7.7 • Suggestions for future research topics in Section 7.7 • Identification of activities which require professional/technical expertise in Sections 7.7 and 7.4.
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Work together with the Tasmanian government and Commonwealth government to establish a panel of local experts in the fields of heritage architecture, landscape, archaeology, planning, furniture artefacts, and paper conservation/archives to provide ad hoc advice to the Archer family when and as needed. The panel could be paid an annual retainer for their service to be funded by government sources and should be available to provide advice on unforeseen discoveries, repair works, etc.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 155 8. Implementation CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Principle 3: The management of National Heritage places should respect all heritage values of the place and seek to integrate, where appropriate, Commonwealth, State, and local government responsibilities for those places.
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• Identification of different types, or areas, of significance in Section 5.2 • Description of the applicable legislation in Section 6.7 • Advice regarding statutory requirements in Section 6.7 • Recommendations and pro formas for managing statutory reporting and other requirements in Section 7.7 and the Appendices • Recommendations for decision-making procedures in Section 7, generally
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Ensure that the management of the place incorporates the conservation of all the values of the place, without placing unwarranted emphasis on one type of significance. • Work together with the State and Commonwealth governments in order to stay informed of the development of any relevant bi-lateral agreements between the Commonwealth and the State Government of Tasmania.
Principle 4: The management of National Heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their National Heritage values.
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• Policies for assessing proposals for changes to the fabric and changes of use in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 • Policies for planning and managing future work in Section 7.8 • Identification of activities which require professional/technical expertise in Sections 7.4 and 7.7 • Description of current interpretation and promotion of the place in Section 6.5 • Recommendations for future interpretation and promotion of the place in Section 7.6 • Description of known/anticipated pressures on the values of the place in Sections 6.3 and 6.7) • Identification of other constraints on the management of the place in Section 6, generally.
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Ensure the continuing historical use of the place as a farm as a priority in the long term in accordance with the policies. This may involve some adaptation of the Farm Village buildings, e.g., the shearing shed, to function properly in their historic use. Other adaptations, e.g., for the purposes of interpretation or a new compatible use, may be appropriate. All adaptations should be carefully considered in order to balance the needs of the historic use and the viability of the property’s heritage structures. • Carry out as many of the urgent maintenance works identified in Section 7.4 as possible.
Principle 5: The management of National Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provisions for community involvement, especially by people who: a) have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place; and b) may be affected by the management of the place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 156 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD 8.Implementation
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• Recommendations for community involvement in Section 7.9
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Invite community comment on works which require local, state, or Commonwealth approval.
Principle 6: Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage. The active participation of Indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values.
This principle is not applicable to Brickendon at the present time.
Principle 7: The management of National Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review and reporting on the conservation of National Heritage values.
This principle is addressed in the Management Plan as follows:
• Policy for review of the management plan in Section 7.10 • Pro forma documents for monitoring and reporting on actions at the place (Appendices)
This principle can be implemented by the following actions:
• Make reports to the Commonwealth on the condition of the National Heritage values of the place using the pro forma documents supplied in the Appendices if required.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Page 157 8. Implementation CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Page 158 Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 1 Archaeological Assessment Inventory Sheets
Austral Archaeology Pty. Ltd.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 1 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Main house and courtyard LOCATION: In the north western extent of the property, forming the focus for the house precinct
N
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The main residence at Brickendon was constructed between 1829 and 1831. Initially consisting of the central dwelling and northern wing, the southern wing had been added by 1841 to accommodate the growing Archer family. Minor modifications were made to the building during its occupation, the most significant of these being the rebuilding of a part of one of its wings after a fire in 1845 and the addition of the porch in the late 1850s. More modern additions have been made to the north of the central dwelling and west of the southern wing.
In 1895 the central courtyard was described as being paved with brick and cement. A gentle slope funnelled water to a tiled drain in the centre of the courtyard. Beneath the yard was a 1000 gallon (4546 litres) brick tank, fed with roof water. A force pump raised water from this tank. During the 1950s the deterioration of the cement in the courtyard resulted in the yard being paved with sandstone blocks, sourced from the cellar beneath the house’s eastern wing. The tank was filled with debris from the construction works.
DESCRIPTION: Not all of the main house was inspected internally. In some of the sections inspected timber floorboards are still present, raising the archaeological potential. The north eastern and south western sections of the house have had substantial modern modifications carried out. The courtyard retains the sandstone flagging. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 2 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Coach house and stable LOCATION: South west of the main residence
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The stables and coach house were constructed between 1829 and 1841. Their function has changed little over time, providing shelter initially for the family’s thoroughbreds and coaches and later providing garaging for the vehicles that superseded them. Today the stables are used primarily for storage, with a workshop housed in the timber addition south of the main building.
DESCRIPTION: The northern space of the brick-built coach house is floored with straight-edge timber floorboards. The southern space contain two loose horse boxes. The eastern portion of this room is floored with brick, whilst concrete has been laid underneath the location of the boxes along the opposing west wall. The main building is located on the western edge of a gravel courtyard, at the south end of which is a range of timber stables. This latter building is earthen floored.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 3 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Underground water tank LOCATION: Approximately 15m east of main stables
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
The underground tank near the stables was described as a 15,000 gallon (68,190 litres) underground brick tank. It collected water from the stable buildings via piping (no longer extant). It is unclear when the tank was initially installed.
DESCRIPTION: The water tank is located east of the stables. It is covered by a conical Portland cement cap, approximately 1.5m in diameter. Beneath the cap red handmade bricks are visible, forming the main body of the tank. A tree is located approximately 1m south of the tank. Between the tank and the tree is a force pump, supported on a rough timber framework. Approximately 2.5m north of the tank is a petrol pump bowser. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 4 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Coach house and stable outbuildings LOCATION: South of coach house and stables
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The stables and coach house were constructed between 1829 and 1841. Their function has changed little over time, providing shelter initially for the family’s thoroughbreds and coaches and later providing garaging for the vehicles that superseded them. Today the stables are used primarily for storage, with a workshop housed in the timber addition south of the main building.
DESCRIPTION: At the rear of the stables is a cluster of attached buildings, the most westerly of which is constructed from brick. Approximately 10m south of the main structure is a fowl house, 3m (north – south) x 2m. The structure is set on a foundation of stone covered with a coarse aggregate concrete. The superstructure is made up from timber, corrugated iron and chicken wire.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 5 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Underground water tank LOCATION: Adjacent to south east corner of main residence’s southern wing
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house. The underground tank adjacent to the main residence’s southern wing was described in 1895 as having a capacity of 6,000 gallons (27,276 litres). It is unclear when the tank was initially installed. DESCRIPTION: The underground water tank is located south of the main residence and west of the site of the greenhouse. It is a circular feature, approximately 3m in diameter, constructed from red handmade bricks topped with a skin of coarse aggregate concrete. No capping is extant. The tank has been converted to a garden and the interior is occupied by plantings. The tank is encircled by brick edging. On its northern side the brick edging adjoins the brick paving abutting the southern side of the residence. An earthenware pipe (with PVC insert) enters the tank on its northern side. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 6 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Coachman’s cottage LOCATION: Approximately 50m west of a main residence
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The coachman’s cottage was built between 1831 and 1841. In 1895 it was described as a two storey brick building roofed with iron. During the early 20th Century the building was used as accommodation for farm workers, including Italian prisoners of war during the war years. In the 1960s the building was leased, the occupants building the sunroom and bathroom additions at its rear (west). The cottage is presently used as accommodation for paying guests.
DESCRIPTION: The majority of ground floor rooms retain timber flooring, raising the building’s archaeological potential. Sections have been modified, including substantial modifications to the rear (west) of the building in the 1960s.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 7 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Underground water tank LOCATION: Approximately 10m west of main residence’s southern wing
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
The underground tank west of the main residence’s southern wing was described in 1895 as a 10,000 gallon (45,460 litres) underground brick and cement tank. The residence’s wood yard initially surrounded the tank, but today the tank is set at the southern edge of the carpark. It is unclear when the tank was initially installed.
DESCRIPTION: The underground water tank is currently located underneath an ornamental rock garden, approximately 10m west of the main residence’s southern wing. The garden occupies an area 4m (east – west) x 3m. There is no visible structure relating to the water tank.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 8 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Site of rubbish pit LOCATION: Approximately 6m west of main residence’s courtyard entrance
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Throughout occupation the rubbish generated at Brickendon has been treated in a variety of ways. At the farm one of the water tanks was reused as a rubbish pit from the late 19th Century. A pit was also located east of the gardener’s cottage. House rubbish was reputedly dumped in a pit in the House paddock, south west of the main residence. A rubbish pit was also located just to the west of the main courtyard outside the bounds of the main residence (circled red above).
Kerry Archer recollects that the pit located just west of the main residence’s courtyard was a deep, brick-lined repository. Household rubbish would be placed here, some of which would be incinerated and the remainder carted away periodically. The pit was in use when Kerry took over management of the property (1950s) and went out of use in the latter half of the 20th Century.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the pit is occupied by an ornamental garden bed edged with red handmade bricks. There is no indication that the garden bed has been dug to any depth. No extant remains of the pit are visible today although there is an area of broken brick fragments to the south of the garden bed.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 9 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Greenhouse site LOCATION: South east of main residence’s southern wing
Site of greenhouse
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The earliest descriptions of the property in the 1830s do not mention the presence of a greenhouse in the main residence precinct, although an 1841 survey of the property shows a structure on the known site of the greenhouse. Latter photographs from the 1870s show the building was a gable-roofed structure, constructed from glass and framing (most likely timber). A chimney was present at its southern end. Kerry Archer dismantled the structure, establishing the present-day ornamental garden on the site.
DESCRIPTION: There is no evidence of the greenhouse structure. The site is occupied by ornamental plantings, with low formal borders of red handmade brick and pathways of brick and sandstone flagging. There is evidence of ground disturbance, which may have affected any subsurface remains of the original structure. The brick base of the chimney is supposedly still visible, though could not be located during the survey.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 10 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Cellar LOCATION: Beneath the eastern wing of the main residence
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The main residence at Brickendon was constructed between 1829 and 1831. Initially consisting of the central dwelling and northern wing, the southern wing had been added by 1841 to accommodate the growing Archer family. Minor modifications were made to the building during its occupation, the most significant of these being the rebuilding of one of its wings after a fire in 1845 and the addition of the porch in the late 1850s. More modern additions have been made to the north of the central dwelling and west of the southern wing.
The cellar was originally flagged with sandstone. In the 1950s the flags were removed for reuse in the courtyard of the main residence. A concrete strip was placed around the edge of the cellar walls and the whole cellar’s interior paved with brick.
DESCRIPTION: The brick paving and concrete reinforcing is still present in the cellar. A sump is located in both of the two main rooms of the cellar.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 11 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Cellar sumps LOCATION: In the cellar of the main residence’s central building
N
N South sump North sump
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The main residence at Brickendon was constructed between 1829 and 1831. Initially consisting of the central dwelling and northern wing, the southern wing had been added by 1841 to accommodate the growing Archer family. Minor modifications were made to the building during its occupation, the most significant of these being the rebuilding of one of its wings after a fire in 1845 and the addition of the porch in the late 1850s. More modern additions have been made to the north of the central dwelling and west of the southern wing.
The sandstone flagging of the cellar was pulled up during the 1950s and reinstalled in the courtyard above. The cellar was then repaved with bricks. The sumps were most likely installed between 1829 and 1831, when the main residence was built. They ensured that the house was minimally affected by the high water table in the area. The sumps were initially emptied by hand, but today the water level is controlled by an electric pump.
DESCRIPTION: Two sumps are located in the cellar of the main residence, in rooms either side of the entrance corridor. The lip of the sumps are square, approximately 1m x 1m, and lined with red handmade bricks covered in concrete. The body of the sumps are circular and are approximately 1m deep. An automatic electric pump is installed in the southern sump. Presumably the sumps are linked by a connecting pipe.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 12 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Gardener’s cottage LOCATION: Approximately 130m south east of main residence
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The gardener’s cottage is located south east of the main residence and was built between 1831 and 1841. A plan of the property in 1882 shows another structure to the north of the cottage, described as the potting shed. By 1895 the cottage was accompanied by ‘store-rooms and sheds for fruit, vegetables etc’. During Kerry Archer’s management there was a potting shed, hot bed structure for seedlings, implement shed and vegetable plot. The periphery structures were in a deteriorated state by the latter half of the 20th Century and were consequently demolished. During the early-mid 20th Century the gardener’s cottage was intermittently occupied. In the 1980s work began on its restoration, with brick being sourced from deteriorated around the property. This restoration saw the removal and disturbance of much of the cottage’s original timber flooring.
DESCRIPTION: The gardener’s cottage was not internally inspected. The renovations in the 1980s resulted in disturbance to the cottage’s original floors, which may have affected the archaeological potential of the building and its periphery.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 13 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Disturbed ground west of gardener’s cottage LOCATION: West of gardener’s cottage
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The gardener’s cottage is located south east of the main residence and was built between 1831 and 1841. A plan of the property in 1882 shows another structure to the north of the cottage, described as the potting shed. By 1895 the cottage was accompanied by ‘store-rooms and sheds for fruit, vegetables etc’. During Kerry Archer’s management there was a potting shed, hot bed structure for seedlings, implement shed and vegetable plot. The periphery structures were in a deteriorated state by the latter half of the 20th Century and were consequently demolished. The cottage was intermittently occupied, until being restored during the 1980s.
Kerry Archer recollects that the disturbed ground west of the gardener’s cottage was occupied by a vegetable plot. None of the available plans show this area in requisite detail.
DESCRIPTION: The ground west of the gardener’s cottage has visibly been disturbed. There is low mounding evident, as well as linear depressions.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 14, 14A PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Potting shed and seed shed site LOCATION: North of the gardener’s cottage
Extent of site
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The gardener’s cottage is located south east of the main residence and was built between 1831 and 1841. A plan of the property in 1882 shows another structure to the north of the cottage, described as the potting shed. By 1895 the cottage was accompanied by ‘store-rooms and sheds for fruit, vegetables etc’. During Kerry Archer’s management there was a potting shed, hot bed structure for seedlings, implement shed and vegetable plot. The periphery structures were in a deteriorated state by the latter half of the 20th Century and were consequently demolished. The cottage was intermittently occupied, until being restored during the 1980s.
The potting shed (site #14) was described by Kerry Archer as being approximately fifteen feet (4.6m) long. It comprised sliding frames (Huon Pine) with glass over the top. The footings for the framing were of brick. The shed had gone out of use by the time Kerry was managing the property in the 1950s. Bricks were salvaged from the structure for use in the gardener’s cottage and on walling around the main residence. There is no description of the seed shed (site #14A), other than it was located slightly further east of the potting shed. DESCRIPTION: The extant remains of the potting shed (#14) consist of a line of red handmade bricks laid end-on, running north-south from the north west corner of the fence surrounding the gardener’s cottage. 4.5m of bricks are visible. Further north and north east of the bricks a number of low linear formations edging a slight platform are visible, which possibly denotes the area of the seed shed (#14A). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 15 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Septic tank and rubble scatter LOCATION: Approximately 20m east of gardener’s cottage
Septic tank
Rubble scatter N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The gardener’s cottage is located south east of the main residence and was built between 1831 and 1841. A plan of the property in 1882 shows another structure to the north of the cottage, described as the potting shed. By 1895 the cottage was accompanied by ‘store-rooms and sheds for fruit, vegetables etc’. During Kerry Archer’s management there was a potting shed, hot bed structure for seedlings, implement shed and vegetable plot. The periphery structures were in a deteriorated state by the latter half of the 20th Century and were consequently demolished. The cottage was intermittently occupied, until being restored during the 1980s.
The concrete septic tank was installed during the renovations of the gardener’s cottage. Nearby is a scatter of brick rubble thought to relate to an implement shed and/or a privy. Both these structures were present when Kerry Archer took over management of Brickendon in the 1950s and were subsequently demolished.
DESCRIPTION: The tank is spherical, approximately 2m x 1m, and has been excavated into the ground. 1.5m east of the tank is a number of red handmade bricks, some of which appear to be still in situ. The scatter is approximately 0.5m x 1m. 2m. Further east is another small scatter of brick and stone.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 16 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Pit LOCATION: Approximately 50m east of gardener’s cottage
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Throughout its occupation the rubbish generated at Brickendon has been treated in a variety of ways. At the farm one of the water tanks was reused as a rubbish pit from the late 19th Century. A pit was also located east of the gardener’s cottage. House rubbish was reputedly dumped in a pit in the House paddock, south west of the main residence. A rubbish pit was also located just outside the bounds of the residence.
The pit to the east of the gardener’s cottage does not appear in any of the available survey plans. When Kerry Archer took over the management of the property in the 1950s the pit was being used for both household and garden rubbish, a practice which continued until the latter half of the 20th Century. Kerry remembers the pit would become full of water during a wet winter, which may have led to the installation of a short length of pipe in its eastern bank.
DESCRIPTION: The pit is approximately 12m (east – west) x 10m. The area within the pit is heavily disturbed. Rubbish (farm machinery) is located at the north end of the pit and brick rubble is mounded at its south eastern extent. Pieces of timber and wire are located between these two main scatters. An earthenware pipe is embedded in the eastern bank of the pit.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 17 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Earth mound LOCATION: Approximately 50m east of current tennis court
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Kerry Archer states that the mound is rubbish accumulated from the clearance of nearby poppy fields.
DESCRIPTION: The mound is located in the north east corner of the paddock containing the extant tennis court. It is approximately 1m high and 7m in diameter. A small number of red handmade bricks are scattered around the perimeter.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 18 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Privy LOCATION: Approximately 20m north west of the main residence
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Although the two privies north of the main residence do not appear in any historic survey plans, it is likely that they date to an early period of occupation. Both buildings have a trapdoor at the base for the removal of nightsoil pans. The discovery of drainage (see above, right) during recent times and the presence of a sump in a nearby paddock suggests that the privies had been converted to water closets at some point.
DESCRIPTION: The privy is of brick construction, with pyramidal timber framed cgi roof. A timber trapdoor is present at the base of the western wall. The interior has been modified to accommodate modern furnishings. The floor has been concreted, obscuring any historic detailing.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 19 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Privy LOCATION: Approximately 15m north of main residence
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Although the two privies north of the main residence do not appear in any historic survey plans, it is likely that they date to an early period of occupation. Both buildings have a trapdoor at the base for the removal of nightsoil pans. The discovery of drainage during recent times and the presence of a sump in a nearby paddock suggests that the privies had been converted to water closets at some point.
DESCRIPTION: The privy is of brick construction, with a timber framed cgi clad gabled roof. The interior was modified prior to 1950 to accommodate modern furnishings. The floor has been partly concreted, obscuring most historic detailing.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 20 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Sump LOCATION: Approximately 30m south west of coachman’s cottage GPS: Visible sandstone cap - 55G 0510278, 5392384 (Datum WGS 84)
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: It is unclear when the two sumps were installed at the property. In 1895 the house was described as having ‘the best sanitary arrangements as regards ventilation, drains, and W.C [water closet]’. Recent excavations have found the drain that most likely enters into this sump. It runs from the courtyard of the main residence, south west past the coachman’s cottage and toward the sump.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the sump is marked by a slight depression in the ground, 1.5m in diameter. The cistern is capped by a sandstone block (broken in half), underneath which is a steel ploughshare covering the top of the cistern. The cistern below is lined with red handmade bricks, with an approximate diameter of 1.5m and a depth of 2m. Two earthenware pipes are visible entering the cistern from the north east (direction of coachman’s cottage). Another earthenware pipe runs out of the cistern to the north west, taking runoff to the lagoon, approximately 30m away.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 21 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Sump LOCATION: Approximately 40m west of the garden privy GPS: Visible metal pipe. 55G 0510330, 5392446 (Datum WGS 84)
Excavated drain
Location of tank
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: It is unclear when the two sumps were installed at the property. In 1895 the house was described as having ‘the best sanitary arrangements as regards ventilation, drains, and W.C [water closet]’. The garden privies were originally emptied via a trapdoor, but at some stage were converted to water closets. It is likely that water from a cistern at the main residence was used to flush waste into a sump. Recent excavations have found the drain that most likely connects to this tank. It runs from the north east corner of the main residence, under both the privies and toward the sump.
DESCRIPTION: The sump is currently obscured by soil. Observations by Richard Archer indicate that the structure is a brick box, approximately 1.5m square. An inlet pipe is on the east side, with an outlet to the west taking waste approximately 30m to the lagoon. The site is marked by a metal pipe, inserted vertically into the tank. Richard Archer states that the pipe has a rod insert, possibly to measure the level of waste in the sump.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 22 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Piggery site LOCATION: Approximately 15m north of cart shed
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The piggery was described by Kerry Archer as being unroofed, with a brick wall around the outside and brick partitions in the interior. The whole structure was approximately 8ft (2.4m) (east – west) x 12ft (3.7m) and 4ft (1.2m) high. It was paved with either brick or stone. The piggery was not in use by the time Kerry started working on the property (1940s) and was recycled for its building materials.
DESCRIPTION: The site is marked by a low platform, approximately 10m (north – south) x 4m. Brick with cement mortar, forming the floor for the structure, is visible in places. Linear divisions of concrete are also extant. A large fruit tree is presently growing out of the centre of the site. Around its base are a number of freestone blocks, which appear to be disturbed surfacing for the piggery yard.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 23 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Cart shed LOCATION: At southern end of farm precinct, west of granary
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The cart shed appears in the earliest 1841 plan of the property and was originally part of the range of buildings which formed an open courtyard in the western section of the farm precinct. The shed has been maintained over the course of its life, including stabilisation works along its open southern frontage. Today it shelters old farm machinery.
DESCRIPTION: The cart shed is floored with earth with a light top dressing of gravel. There is no evidence to suggest that it was paved at any stage.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 24 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Pig slips’ yard site LOCATION: North of cart shed, west of the shearing shed, hard against the fence line
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The pig slips’ yard was used concurrently with the piggery on the opposite side of the yard and went out of use in the 1940s.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the pig slips’ yard consists of a slightly raised concrete pad. The pad measures 3.5m (east – west) x 11m and is constructed from coarse aggregate concrete placed over a foundation of freestone blocks. A number of small trees are presently growing out of the site.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 25 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Hay shed and milking shed site LOCATION: North of cart shed, running length of yard’s western side
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
Kerry Archer describes the shed as being a low building, approximately 10ft (3m) high, and open on the eastern side. The western side was enclosed by a timber wall. There were no partitions in the shed, just low fences. A ramped drive ran through the shed, allowing access to the stack yard. The milking shed at the northern end contained a trough down the centre and stalls for the animals. The floor was earth. The milking shed was not in use by the time Kerry started working on the property (1940s). It was demolished in the 1950s.
DESCRIPTION: The hay sheds are no longer extant. The site consists of a low mound, approximately 6m wide, running the length of the western side of the yard. The western edge of the mound is more defined than the eastern. An earth ramp is located in the centre of the feature, abutting the western side.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 26 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Hay shed and stable site LOCATION: North of cart shed, running length of courtyard’s northern side
Outline of stone-lined depression
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The hay shed and stables comprised the northern edge of the yard in the western portion of the farm precinct. The building was timber and fronted (on the southern side) by a verandah. In the eastern half of the building was a stable for stockhorses outfitted with a number of stalls. Kerry Archer also recollects that between the stable and the hay shed was a store shed, possibly floored with timber. The building was demolished in the 1950s.
DESCRIPTION: The site consists of a 6m wide low platform running the length of the north side of the courtyard. On its southern edge is a slightly lower platform, 2m wide. Along the northern edge of the site runs a ditch. In the site’s eastern half is a square, stone-lined depression. Measuring 2.5m (east – west) x 2m, the pit is lined by a single row of freestone on three sides. On its southern side, fronting the yard, the wall of the pit is formed from smaller facing stones with a core of stone rubble. In the centre of the pit is evidence of brick, stone and timber rubbish.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 27 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Stack yard LOCATION: West of cart shed, on western edge of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The stack yard was mentioned as early as 1829, when William Archer Senior recorded that a number of convict labourers were constructing a tannery in the yard’s north eastern corner. The yard appears to have been used throughout the 19th Century, though had stopped being used by the time Kerry Archer started working on the farm in the 1940s.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the stack yard consists of three regularly spaced, square, levelled earthen mounds, enabling the hay to be raised off ground level. Drainage ditches run on the western, eastern and southern sides of the yard.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 28 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Suffolk barn (west) LOCATION: Most westerly of the three barns, north west corner of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The two Suffolk barns (commonly referred to as the ‘Dutch’ barns) were some of the earliest structures built in the farm precinct. They were used for hay storage during both the 19th and the 20th Centuries. A calf shed was present in the north western corner of the western barn. Recently the barns have both been refurbished and are used as entertainment spaces.
DESCRIPTION: The western barn was not inspected internally. Like the southern barn it has been converted for use as an entertainment venue. Richard Archer advised that the southern earthen floor is intact under a replacement timber floor.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 29 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Suffolk barn (south) LOCATION: Most southerly of the three barns, north west corner of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The two Suffolk barns (commonly referred to as the ‘Dutch’ barns) were some of the earliest structures built in the farm precinct. They were used for hay storage during both the 19th and the 20th Centuries. Recently the barns have both been refurbished and are used as entertainment spaces.
DESCRIPTION: The barn originally had an earthen floor. Today it is floored with concrete.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 30 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Pillar granary LOCATION: Most northerly of the three barns, north west corner of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The pillar granary is possibly one of the earliest structures built at the farm, between 1829 – 1831. It was definitely built by 1841. The building was used for the storage of grain and was elevated off the ground to ensure minimum pest intrusion. During the mid-late 20th Century the barn was also used for the storage of fertiliser.
DESCRIPTION: The barn has an elevated timber floor.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 31 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Water tank LOCATION: Abutting southern side of present-day Thresher shelter
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
The tank near two Suffolk barns collected water off the roofs of nearby buildings. It is unclear when the tank was installed, although it is listed in the 1895 property description as one of three tanks capable of holding between 30,000 to 50,000 gallons (136,380 to 227,300 litres) of water. These three tanks were all interconnected via underground brick box drains.
DESCRIPTION: The tank is presently hidden in a small copse of trees, surrounded by a post and rail fence
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 32 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Smokehouse LOCATION: South of the fowl house, northern portion of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The smokehouse was most likely constructed between 1831 and 1841. It was still in operation in 1895. When Kerry Archer took over management of the property in the 1950s it was no longer in use. The roof was replaced by Kerry in the latter half of the 20th Century. The floor had always been brick.
DESCRIPTION: The smokehouse floor is formed from red, handmade bricks. There is little indication of the position of the fire box for creating the necessary smoke, other than a small hole in the northern floor area. The entrance to the building has been modified, with concrete bases laid either side of the entrance.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 33 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Bread oven LOCATION: South of the fowl house, northern portion of farm precinct. Attached to northern side of smokehouse
Oven N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The bread oven attached to the smokehouse was most likely constructed at the same time as the latter building, between 1831 and 1841. It was not mentioned in the 1895 property description. In the mid-1900s it was used as a wood shed by tenants in Farm Cottage. When Kerry Archer took over management of the property in the 1950s the structure around the oven was dismantled. A timber shelter was later added.
DESCRIPTION: The immediate surface around the base of the oven is paved with red handmade bricks. A line of bricks extends approximately 2m north from the north eastern corner of the oven and returns to the west. There is no evidence of a footing for the western wall.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 34 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: William Archer’s cottage LOCATION: South of the smokehouse and oven, northern portion of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
William Archer’s cottage possibly pre-dates the Archer occupation, being one of the candidates for the original William Whyte homestead (1817 – c.1827). Up until his death in 1833, William Archer Senior occupied the building, its proximity to the convicts’ quarters allowing him to keep an eye on the men. Usage during the rest of the century is unknown. The cottage had gone out of use by the 1940s and was being used for storage. There was a structure at the rear of the building (east), possibly serving as a laundry, which was removed in the 1940s. DESCRIPTION: The central corridor and northern room are floored with pit-sawn straight-edged timber floorboards and do not appear to have been disturbed. The flooring of the southern room has been modified, the boards being thinner and circular sawn. A pad of concrete has been placed in the western half of the room. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 35 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Farm Cottage LOCATION: South of William Archer’s cottage
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The buildings that comprise present-day Farm Cottage were built between 1831 and 1841. The northern building was used for hanging cured meats from the smokehouse, while the southern building served as the dairy. By 1895 the dairy was no longer listed as being used, with the building possibly having been converted into a cottage for accommodation for farm workers. During the early 1900s the farm manager, Robert Kelty, lived in the cottage. After he left in the 1920s the cottage was occupied by farm workers and their families. In the 1940s the cottage was leased to tenants. As part of this the cottage was combined with the northern building and a sunroom added at the rear (east), forming the present groundplan. The building is still occupied by a tenant. . DESCRIPTION: The cottage was not inspected internally.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 36 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Privy LOCATION: East of smokehouse and oven
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The privy was most likely built between 1831 and 1841. It was mentioned in the 1895 property description.
DESCRIPTION: The interior of the privy appears to remain substantially unmodified. The fittings for the two- hole seat remain, dropping through to a trapdoor at the rear (north) of the structure. The flooring consists of pit- sawn straight-edged timber floorboards.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 37 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Fowl house LOCATION: North of smokehouse and oven, northern boundary of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The fowl house was most likely built between 1831 and 1841. During the 1880s a poultry shed was built near the main residence and as a result the farm fowl house appears to have gone out of use, not receiving a mention in the 1895 property description. From the 1940s until the present time the fowl house has once again been used for poultry.
DESCRIPTION: The fowl house is floored with red handmade bricks. Detritus from the poultry obscures much of the flooring detail. Brick boxes for poultry line the southern and northern walls.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 38 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Cookhouse LOCATION: East of fowl house, northern extent of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The cookhouse was built between 1831 and 1841. It catered for the needs of the convict and free workers on the farm. The building served this purpose up until the mid-20th Century, catering for shearers and other farm workers. It is not clear when the building ceased to be used for this purpose.
DESCRIPTION: The flooring of the cookhouse shows signs of having been replaced at various times. There are a number of different width boards, the majority of which appear to be circular sawn and affixed with galvanised nails. The eastern section of the room, around the oven and fireplace, has been paved with concrete blocks.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 39 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Cottage site LOCATION: Approximately 15m north west of dairy
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The cottage was built sometime between 1829 and 1841. It is unclear whether it was one of the original timber buildings listed as an overseer’s cottage in 1831, although latter recollections by Kerry Archer suggest that the building may have been brick-nogged. It is highly likely to be one of two overseers’ cottage listed in the 1895 property description. By the 1940s the cottage was unoccupied and possibly used for storage. It was demolished in the first half of that decade. Kerry Archer remembers it being fronted by a veranda (south). A timber addition at the rear housed the kitchen and a detached privy was located further north.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the cottage is marked by a low mounded platform and linear depressions, north west of the farm dairy. The site extends 9m (east – west) x 7m. Red handmade bricks are scattered across the site, as well as a number of protruding freestone blocks. Where the trees have grown up through the site a number of in situ bricks are visible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 40 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Men’s quarters site LOCATION: West of dairy
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The men’s quarters were one of the earliest structures erected at the farm, having been built by 1831. The quarters were capable of holding up to thirty farm workers and were situated in close proximity to the most eastern overseer’s cottage. The nearby carpentry shop was added soon after the construction of the men’s quarters, with a small unidentified building built between the two. The quarters were apparently used throughout the course of the 19th Century, the 1895 property description listing it as a ‘range of labourers’ cottages’. The men’s quarters were timber and presumably shingled (later changed to corrugated iron). The presence of brick footings today suggest that the timber superstructure had been set on a brick foundation. The front door and windows were located on the building’s eastern wall. Through the door was an entrance hallway, flanked by a room either side. These rooms were lit by a single window on the eastern side. The quarters were floored with timber. The men’s quarters were unused by the 1940s and demolished in the 1950s to make way for the dairy.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the men’s quarters and flanking carpentry shop is marked by a low mounded platform and linear depressions, north west of the farm dairy. The site extends 9m (east – west) x 7m. Red handmade bricks are scattered across the site, as well as a number of protruding freestone blocks. Where the trees have grown up through the site a number of in situ bricks are visible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 41 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Carpentry shop site LOCATION: West of dairy
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The carpentry shop was possibly added between 1831 and 1841 and was located immediately north of the men’s quarters. In the gap between the two structures a small building was erected and possibly acted as a store. In 1895 the building was described as ‘carpenters’ and wheelwrights’ shops’. The shop was of timber and set on brick foundations. It was described as being very low. A pit for sawing timber was located in the northern portion of the building and had an earthen floor. The area was accessed by a set of double doors in the eastern wall. The pit was described as being approximately 3ft (1m) x 8ft (2.4m). One of the hawthorn bushes on the present site is supposedly growing from the pit’s location. A storeroom with a timber floor was located in the building’s southern section. Between the two was a carpentry workshop fitted with a workbench down the western wall and accessed by a door in the eastern wall. By the 1940s the building was not used and was subsequently demolished in the 1950s.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the carpentry shop and flanking men’s quarters is marked by a low mounded platform and linear depressions, north west of the farm dairy. The site extends 9m (east – west) x 7m. Red handmade bricks are scattered across the site, as well as a number of protruding freestone blocks. Where the trees have grown up through the site a number of in situ bricks are visible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 42 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Water tank LOCATION: Approximately 4m west of men’s quarters site
N
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
The tank near the men’s quarters collected water off the roofs of nearby buildings. It is unclear when the tank was installed, although it is listed in the 1895 property description as one of three tanks capable of holding between 30,000 to 50,000 gallons (136,380 to 227,300 litres) of water. These three tanks were all interconnected via underground brick box drains. By the 1940s the tank had gone out of use and became a rubbish pit for farm waste. Until recently the tenant of Farm Cottage deposited their garden rubbish into the pit. Within the last decade students from the University of Tasmania undertook an excavation of the tank. The artefacts from this dig are located in the dairy. No report is known to have been written.
DESCRIPTION: The tank is an oval shape, walled with three rows of red handmade bricks. The interior of the tank has a skin of concrete. The tank measures approximately 7m (north – south) x 4.5m. It is currently filled with household, farm and garden waste, which does not allow the depth to be estimated.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 43 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Blacksmith LOCATION: East of the dairy, eastern boundary of the farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The blacksmith was built after 1841. It was listed in the 1895 property description. The workshop is located in the southern portion of the building and contains a forge, workbenches and a coal store. The northern section of the building possibly served as a store and is today used as an animal shelter. The building has remained substantially unmodified and has been used until recently for minor metalworking purposes.
DESCRIPTION: The southern room (workshop) has an earthen floor surfaced with gravel and lots of charcoal. The northern space (animal shelter) has an earth floor.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 44 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Chapel LOCATION: East of Farm Cottage
N
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The chapel has long been reputed to have been built in 1836, however it is not depicted in the 1841 plan. The building was listed in the 1895 property survey, though its description as ‘suitable for a good store’ suggests that it had stopped being used for religious observances. Its use as a store continued until the mid-20th Century, when minor restoration works were carried out.
DESCRIPTION: The chapel has straight edged floorboards, with limited signs of patching.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 45 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Stables and shearing shed LOCATION: Abutting northern side of the granary
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The structure containing the stables and shearing shed was possibly built in two phases. The northern section is pit-sawn timber set on brick footings, whilst the southern section is timber set on freestone footings. It is possible that either of these buildings dates to the early 1830s. By 1841 both had been constructed, with the shearing shed in the southern half and the stables in the northern. In 1895 the shed was described as ‘shearing shed, wool loft, sheds for sheep’. From the 1940s parts of the original stables were taken over for shearing, with gradually more areas of the building given over to the activity. Portions of the original cobblestones were concreted over and a concrete ramp laid down to enable loading of the wool. The far northern section of the building was used to stable draught horses throughout the early 20th Century until the 1950s, when motor transport took over on the farm.
DESCRIPTION: In the northern section of the shed where the draught horses were stabled is remnant cobblestone surfacing. Large areas have been given over to concrete, including a concrete ramp. There is timber flooring in the southern half of the stables building, with a concrete base for a wool press in the centre. The southern shearing shed is floored with timber slats and floorboards.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 46 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Water tank LOCATION: East of stables and shearing shed
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
The tank adjacent to the stables and shearing shed collected water off the roofs of nearby buildings. It is unclear when the tank was installed, although it is listed in the 1895 property description as one of three tanks capable of holding between 30,000 to 50,000 gallons (136,380 to 227,300 litres). These three tanks were all interconnected via underground brick box drains. At some stage a force pump was installed, filling a large trough for the use of the draught horses stabled nearby. This purpose was discontinued when horses were no longer used on the farm after the 1950s.
DESCRIPTION: The tank is lined with red handmade bricks and covered with a skillion timber roof (to direct runoff back into tank). Wire netting has been laid over the places where the timber has deteriorated, showing that the tank is still full of water. A pump is situated on the western edge of the tank and would have drawn water into a large iron trough that is still in situ.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 47 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Slaughterhouse and dipping shed LOCATION: East of stables and shearing shed
Slaughterhouse N N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
The slaughterhouse and dipping shed were built between 1841 and 1882. The slaughterhouse was located in the most northerly room of the building and was described as containing a concrete floor with drainage and a meat safe. It was used until the 1980s. In the building’s southern section was a sheep dip. The original dip comprised a timber-lined channel into which sheep entered from the south, exiting into a brick drainage pen at its northern extent. A boiler set in brickwork was situated nearby for supplying the dip. In the 1960s tradesman Tom Orr replaced the original dip with a concrete circular dip (still extant). In the late 1990s the dipping shed was converted into a pottery, the circular dip being boarded over.
DESCRIPTION: The southern (pottery) room is presently paved with brick. The southern extent of the room has a raised timber floor covering the concrete sheep dip. The northern room (slaughterhouse) has a concrete floor and is presently used as a store.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 48 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Granary LOCATION: South of stables and shearing shed, southern boundary of farm precinct
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
A timber granary had been erected on the property by 1831. At some stage prior to 1841 this more substantial brick granary was constructed. In 1895 the granary was reported as capable of storing 7,000 to 8,000 bushels. The building consisted of three floors. The middle floor contained a number of bins, into which grain could be fed. These funnelled through to the lower floor, where the bags could be filled. The filled bags of grain could be then be hoisted to the top floor for storage. During the mid-20th Century the lower floor was converted to house sheep waiting to be shorn in the nearby shearing shed and timber slats were installed in the floor. The granary has not been used for grain storage since at least the 1970s.
DESCRIPTION: Sections of the granary are floored with straight-edged timber floorboards. Timber slats have been installed to form a covered run to the shearing shed on the building’s eastern side. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 49 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (River Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Sheep wash site LOCATION: In the south east corner of the present day River Paddock GPS: Brick pad - 55G 0510797, 5390623 (WGS 84 Datum) Northern post – 55G 0510803, 5390619 (WGS 84 Datum) Southern post – 55G 0510788, 5390596 (WGS 84 Datum)
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: A wash was required to ensure that a sheep’s fleece was clean prior to shearing. At Brickendon the proximity of the wash to running water would have greatly assisted the cleaning process. This sheep wash appears in an early 1841 plan, though does not receive any mention in the known documentary records. It is situated over 2.5km (by road) from the farm precinct. It had gone out of use by the 1880s, when a second sheep wash was built 500m further north east along the river.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the 1841 sheep wash extends approximately 30m along the riverbank. Red handmade bricks are visible scattered across the site, a number of the bricks having large plain rectangular frogs embedded into their top surface. A large scatter of bricks is present at the southern end of the site, a number of which appear to be in situ. Along the rocky bank of the river are the remnants of at least eighteen timber upright posts which may have once supported a raised platform over the riverbank. At the site’s northern end, on the ground above the riverbank, is a small brick platform measuring approximately 1.m (east – west) x 2.5m. The platform is constructed from handmade red bricks placed face down to form a flat, square surface.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 50 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Pump Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Sheep wash site LOCATION: In the south extent of the present day Pump Paddock GPS: Pump remnant – 55G 0511153, 5390939 (WGS 84 Datum)
Well and pump
Brick wall Channel
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: A wash was required to ensure that a sheep’s fleece was clean prior to shearing. At Brickendon the proximity of the wash to running water would have greatly assisted the cleaning process. This sheep wash appears in an 1882 plan and post-dates an earlier sheep wash located further south west along the line of the river. The remaining components visible in the site today are very similar to plans for an ‘Improved Sheep Washing Plant’ shown in a brochure from the 1870s/1880s. This machine provided pressured water for hot- washing sheep and consisted of walkways, soaks, pump and boiler. The wash was some distance from the main farm precinct – a distance of 2.5km by roadway. It is not known when the wash went out of use.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the sheep wash extends approximately 30m along the northern bank of the river. Red handmade bricks are scattered along the rocky bank. At the western extent of the site a natural levee has formed. At the base of this a channel has been cut into the stone, approximately 500mm wide. On the northern edge of the channel a hole, 150mm in diameter, has been cut into the stone, possibly to take a crossbeam for a sluicegate or a piece of water-driven equipment. At the base of the bank, approximately 15m north east from the channel, is a low brick wall, three bricks wide, 1.2m long. Directly above this on the bank is a brick well, 1.5m in diameter. On top of this well is a rough timber framework supporting a cast iron pipe (200mm diameter) and attached mechanism (W.Wright, Melbourne). The pipe feeds into the well and protrudes 1.5m above the top of the well. Immediately north of the pipe a 10m (east – west) x 5m platform has been benched into the slope. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 51 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Near Lagoon – Windmill paddocks) NAME OF ITEM: Surface and underground drain LOCATION: On northern boundary of the property, running from the Near Lagoon Paddock to the Windmill Paddock GPS: Sump #1 – 55G 0510390, 5392887 (WGS 84 Datum) Sump #2 – 55G 0510545, 5392927 (WGS 84 Datum)
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present HISTORY: For Brickendon to be successfully farmed, its founders were required to invest a large amount of time, money and manpower in the problem of adequately draining the property. From 1829 convict labourers were constantly digging drains along field boundaries, funnelling the water into the nearby river. At some stage earthenware pipes were installed along many of the drainage lines, increasing the flow of water off the fields. By 1895 the property was described as being ‘underdrained’ with tile pipes ‘at great expense’. Earthenware pipes and brick box drains channelled water and waste within the main house and farm precincts. The drains of Brickendon have been maintained throughout the 20th Century, although modern polythene pipes have in places replaced them.
The most substantial of these drains was located on the northern boundary of the property and apparently drained the lagoon in the north western paddocks. It is not known when the drain was established. It consisted of a deep surface ditch, approximately 500m long, along which were four separate sumps. The largest of these sumps was at the western end of the drain, the other three were brick boxes to drain the surface ditch. Below the surface drain was a secondary drain, formed from a 2ft (600mm) pipe. These could be accessed via the sumps. At the large sump the pipe was approximately 1m deep, but was reportedly 5m deep in the sump at Brickendon’s main entrance. The drain was still operating until the 1970s.
DESCRIPTION: The surface and underground drainage system is located on the northern boundary of the Brickendon property. The surface drain is a 4m wide, 2m deep ditch which tapers at the base. An identical ditch runs parallel to the south. Where this feeds into the primary drain there is a stone sump measuring 2m x 2m. The stone walls of the sump are approximately 500mm thick and bonded with coarse aggregate cement. On all but the northern side there are iron grates. Remnants of the riveted iron sheeting that once covered the sump are still in situ. The structure is presently full of brackish water, obscuring the secondary pipe at the base of the sump. Richard Archer advised that there are three other similar sumps located along the line of the drain, although only one could be located in the survey. This was located approximately 200m east of the first sump and in its visible form was only a depression filled with vegetation litter.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 52 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Brickfield Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Claypit site LOCATION: In the north west corner of the Brickfield Paddock GPS: Brickpit – 55G 0511467, 5392692 (WGS 84 Datum)
Estimated area of claypit
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The establishment of the claypits most likely coincided with the beginning of the construction of Brickendon’s main residence in 1829. A large quantity of bricks was required to complete the project. During 1831 and 1841, when a great number of brick buildings were added, the clay requirements would have increased exponentially. After this rapid building phase the need for bricks dropped off. During the 20th Century a number of demolished buildings were salvaged for their materials.
This claypit located in the north west corner of the Brickfield Paddock was used as a tip for rubbish from the farm precinct during the late-20th Century. Car bodies were even dumped in the pit. Richard Archer later filled in the pit.
DESCRIPTION: There is no visible sign of the claypit today. Richard Archer identified its location.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 53 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Brickfield Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Claypit site LOCATION: In the eastern extent of the Brickfield Paddock, on the riverbank GPS: Brickpit – 55G 0511968, 5392485 (WGS 84 Datum)
Estimated area of claypit
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: The establishment of the claypits most likely coincided with the beginning of the construction of Brickendon’s main residence in 1829. A large quantity of bricks was required to complete the project. During 1831 and 1841, when a great number of brick buildings were added, the clay requirements would have increased exponentially. After this rapid building phase the need for bricks dropped off. During the 20th Century a number of demolished buildings were salvaged for their materials.
The claypit located at the eastern extent of the Brickfield Paddock extends into the present-day river bed. The river increased in width in the late 1950s, with the building of the Poatina Power Station. The pit remained unmodified until the building of a flood levee in 1995, which obscured the western edge of the pit.
DESCRIPTION: The site of the claypit extends approximately 20m along the river bank and is marked by an obvious gap in the willow trees lining the river. Though it has obscured the western side of the pit, the levee makes an obvious bend around the pit’s western edge, helping to define the location of the pit. Richard Archer identified its location.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 54 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Brickfield, 54 Acres, Upper Bridge and Upper Plain River paddocks) NAME OF ITEM: Flood flaps LOCATION: Brickfield, 54 Acres, Upper Bridge and Upper Plain River Paddocks. GPS: Brickfield Paddock flood flap – 55G 0511976, 53924476 (WGS 84 Datum)
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: A number of Brickendon’s drain outlets were fitted with flood flaps, ensuring that water would not runs up the drains and back into the fields in times of flood. The flaps consisted of a hinged cast iron cover which capped the outlet of the drain. It is not known when the flaps were installed. However, the manufacturer, Barfod & Perkins, Peterborough, were producing agricultural machinery from the mid-19th Century until the early 20th Century. During the late-20th Century works to the drainage has seen surviving flood flaps removed from their original earthenware pipes and installed on the ends of concrete pipes. These flaps have been replaced in their original locations.
DESCRIPTION: There are four known flood flaps still in situ on the property. These are located at the Brickfield, 54 Acres, Upper Bridge and Upper Plain River Paddocks.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 55 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (Windmill/Marsh paddocks) NAME OF ITEM: Water collection point LOCATION: On the northern boundary of the Windmill and Marsh paddocks GPS: Timber uprights on riverbank– 55G 0511976, 53924476 (WGS 84 Datum)
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Water for use at Brickendon was attained from a number of sources. During early occupation, water was drawn by hand from the river at the northern boundary of the property. A windmill was installed in the latter half of the 19th century to pump water to the main house. Water was also collected off the roofs of buildings. By 1895 there were three brick and cement underground tanks collecting water at the farm, with another five underground tanks at the main house.
This water collection point was used from an early date at the property. By 1841 a roadway linked the site to the farm precinct. A water pump is depicted on this plan as being at the elbow of this road, at the south east end of the Blacksmith Paddock. A water cart was used to collect the water. A windmill was installed some time during the latter 19th Century, which pumped water via a galvanised two inch (50mm) pipe to a tank stand north east of the main residence. This was replaced in the 1940s with a Lister petrol pump. By the 1950s the galvanised pipe had been replaced with a polythene pipe. An electric pump was later added, as well as another length of polythene pipe.
DESCRIPTION: There is no extant evidence of the windmill at the north east corner of the Windmill Paddock. A corrugated iron shed approximately 30m west of the river houses the modern pump. Piping and equipment for a pivot irrigator is also present on the site. A number of timber upright posts are visible in the shallow water around where the timber stage is currently located. The bed of the formed roadway is clearly visible skirting the western edge of the Marsh Paddock, including a widened circular platform used for turning the water cart around adjacent to the river. There is no evidence of a pump at the corner where the Marsh Paddock meets the Blacksmith Paddock.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 56 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Drain feature LOCATION: In the north west corner of the Stack Yard, farm precinct
N
N
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Along with the main house, the buildings that make up the farm precinct are amongst the earliest on the property. Originally the buildings were constructed from timber, comprising an overseer’s house, men’s quarters, barn, granary and stable. By the 1840s substantial buildings of brick had been added, including a cottage, granary, poultry shed, smokehouse and oven. These buildings remained substantially unaltered during the remainder of the century. During the mid-20th Century a number of structures were removed, as well as more modern buildings added to the working farm.
No structures are recorded as having been located in the north west corner of the Stack Yard, though as early as 1829 convict workers are recorded as having been engaged in building a tannery in the yard’s north eastern corner. A number of drains are reported to have been in this area, ensuring that the Stack Yard stayed dry.
DESCRIPTION: An earthenware pipe runs underground along the northern boundary of the Stack Yard, terminating in the yard’s north west corner. Immediately south of the pipe’s mouth is a retaining wall of red handmade bricks, three rows wide and approximately 1.5m long. This low wall is adjacent to the northern side of the present-day footbridge.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 57 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Shed site LOCATION: South edge of former main entrance road to the main house precinct
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Aerial photographs from the early 1980s shows a small corrugated iron structure on the south side of the former main entrance road into Brickendon. The structure does not appear on later 1990s aerials. Richard Archer reports that it was a basic shed (timber frame, corrugated iron roof) built to shelter livestock in the paddock.
DESCRIPTION: The site is marked by an earthen mound and scattered timber and iron components.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 58 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify) NAME OF ITEM: Unidentified building (site) LOCATION: South edge of present main entrance road to main house
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: A structure set within a fenced enclosure is shown in this location in an 1882 plan. It does not appear in any other plan or receive mention in any of the sources. It was not standing within living memory.
ESCRIPTION: There is no extant evidence of the structure today.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd
PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 59 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (House Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Possible rubbish pit LOCATION: House Paddock (unlocated)
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Throughout occupation the rubbish generated at Brickendon has been treated in a variety of ways. At the farm one of the water tanks was reused as a rubbish pit from the late 19th Century. A pit was also located east of the gardener’s cottage. House rubbish was reputedly dumped in a pit in the House paddock, south west of the main residence. A rubbish pit was also located just outside the bounds of the residence.
According to Kerry Archer, a pit in the House Paddock was possibly used for the dumping of household rubbish during the early-mid 20th Century.
DESCRIPTION: No evidence of the pit was found.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd PROJECT: Brickendon Archaeological Assessment SITE NO: 60 PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (River Paddock) NAME OF ITEM: Possible site of Jacob Mountgarrett’s residence LOCATION: South east corner of the River Paddock (unlocated)
HISTORIC PERIOD: Pre-1829 / 1829-1950s / 1950s – present
HISTORY: Prior to the Archer’s occupation, the land that today comprises Brickendon was initially broken into six separate land grants. By 1825 settler Jacob Mountgarret had a single grant at the south of the property and possibly occupied another grant to the south (William Able’s original grant). Mountgarret lost his grant/s in 1827, Thomas Archer purchasing the property in 1828. Historical references indicate that Mountgarret had a building on his grant. It was located on a rise overlooking a point in the river called Doctor’s Bend. Mountgarrett’s building was apparently removed at some point, becoming an outbuilding at Woolmers.1
DESCRIPTION: No evidence of the residence could be found. However, Richard Archer has unearthed the remains of household rubbish in the south east corner of the River Paddock, above the location of the 1841 sheep wash. The situation of the site – on a rise above a bend in the river – does closely match the historical description.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE: High / Medium / Low ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL: High / Medium / Low
1 From a conversation with Historian Lindy Scripps, 15 August 2007.
Brickendon Archaeological Assessment August 2007 Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 2 Tasmanian Heritage Council Practice Note No.2
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan
Practice Note No 2 Version 2: revised May 2006
MANAGING HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE WORKS APPLICATION PROCESS
No 2
PREAMBLE
The Tasmanian Heritage Council (Heritage Parts Council) has issued a series of Practice 1 The Works Application process Notes designed to provide advice and guidance on a range of historic heritage 2 Assessing historical archaeological topics. This Practice Note refers to the significance management of significant historical archaeological sites and features in the 3 Disturbance of an archaeological site Works Application process. Further guidelines regarding historical 4 Archaeological excavation strategy archaeological research and education can and research design be obtained from Heritage Tasmania. This Practice Note advocates the 5 Professional standards application of professional standards with the aim of securing information resident in 6 The collection, storage and curation archaeological contexts either through of excavated finds meaningful protection in situ or through a logical well founded process of inquiry and 7 Dealing with unexpected discoveries specialised investigation. A central tenet of the document is realisation of a public 8 Making new found information benefit from archaeological investigations. available to the community This acknowledges the high level of public interest in archaeology and the contributions which new found information can make to the cultural amenity of the Tasmanian community.
1
What is historical archaeology? • Methods of waste disposal and Historical archaeology is the study of the sanitation, including the waste itself past using physical evidence in conjunction which may contain discarded elements with historical sources. from all classes of artefact as well as indicators of diet and pathology It focuses on the objects used by people • Any surviving physical evidence of the in the past and the places where they interplay between site environment lived and worked. It can tell us about the and people. way things were made and used and how people lived their daily lives. Such The information found in historical information is usually brought to light archaeological sites is often part of a through careful controlled archaeological bigger picture which offers opportunities excavation informed by a wide range of to compare and contrast results between processes and techniques. sites. The most common comparisons are made at the local level, however, due to advances in research and the increasing What is a historical archaeological sophistication and standardisation of site? methods of data collection, the capacity Archaeological sites are a repository of for wider reference (nationally and, information, with details of the past sealed occasionally, internationally) exists and within an often complex matrix of places added emphasis on conservation of structures and deposits. They may include historical archaeological resources. features below or above the ground, including structures and/or artefact Archaeological excavations in Wapping bearing occupation and refuse deposits. revealed 150 year old structural remains A historical archaeological site may including subtle evidence include: of former sub-floor timber structures and • Topographical features and evidence associated underfloor of past environments (ie, resident in deposits (photo courtesy of Hobart City Counci pollens and diatoms) and, Tony Jenners / • Evidence of site formation, evolution, Austral Archaeology 1998). redundancy and abandonment (ie, features and materials associated with
land reclamation, sequences of structural development, demolition/deconstruction, and renewal) • Evidence of function and activities according to historical theme/s represented (eg, an industrial site may contain diagnostic evidence of process, products and by-products) • Evidence associated with domestic occupation including household items and consumables, ornaments,
personal effects and toys Artefacts recovered from archaeological contexts can • Evidence of diet including animal and reveal details of every day life. Holloway’s ointment was a popular imported remedy for a range of skin ailments. fish bones, and plant residues Thomas Holloway began producing medicinal compounds • Evidence of pastimes and occupations in c1828. By 1837 the business had a factory at the Strand in London, moving to Oxford St in 1867. This item was including tools of trade and the tell recovered from deposits in Hobart’s Wapping district tale, and often fragmentary, signatures (photo courtesy Hobart City Council and Tony Jenner / of these activities and processes Austral Archaeology 1998).
2
Why are historical archaeological Most commonly, archaeological heritage is sites important? valued for its research potential, i.e. its value as evidence for creating new In Australia there is the opportunity to knowledge about the past (criterion c). gain insight into aspects of our history However, archaeological heritage may from the earliest period of European also have historic value (criterion a), settlement, with Tasmania having some of community value (criterion f), and the most significant and well preserved associative value (criterion g). In addition, historical archaeological sites in the archaeological sites may also meet rarity nation. thresholds (criterion b) or the The careful recording and collection of representative threshold (criterion d). tangible evidence from archaeological sites, when analysed and interpreted can provide valuable, and often original, information that enhances our 1 THE WORKS APPLICATION understanding and appreciation of our PROCESS history. Historical archaeological sites are also 1.1 Works on a heritage registered considered for their interpretation place potential and use as a cultural resource Any works on a heritage registered place and / or a venue for community that may affect the place’s historic cultural engagement. heritage significance (including archaeological or potential archaeological Historical archaeological resources are significance) requires formal approval perpetually at risk and ever diminishing. from the Heritage Council. The effects of disturbance cannot be undone nor can a site be re-excavated. The Act defines ‘works’ to include ‘any development (see below); any physical intervention, excavation or action which How are historical archaeological may result in a change to the nature or sites protected in Tasmania? appearance of the fabric of a place; any change to the natural or existing The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (the condition or topography of land; any Act) promotes the identification, removal, destruction or lopping of trees assessment, protection and conservation otherwise than in accordance with forest of places having historic cultural heritage practices as defined in the Forest Practices significance. Act 1985; and any removal of vegetation Places are protected by listing in the or topsoil’. Tasmanian Heritage Register, if, in the This definition includes a range of opinion of the Heritage Council, the activities that may affect the historic significance of the place meets one or cultural heritage (including archaeological) more of seven criteria listed in the Act significance of a place. One example of (see www.thelaw.tas.gov.au). ‘works’ is excavation, including actions The Act defines historic cultural heritage relating to the installation of services. significance as meaning ‘significance to any Another example is where ‘works’ on group or community in relation to the adjacent land may affect the historic archaeological, architectural, cultural, cultural heritage values of a heritage historical, scientific, social or technical registered place. value of a place’. The term ‘development’ includes construction, exterior alteration or exterior decoration of a building; the demolition or removal of a building; the subdivision or consolidation of land, including buildings or airspace; the placing or relocating of a building; and the
3
construction, or putting up for display, of 1.3 Works Application approval / signs or hoardings. conditions process Any activity on a heritage registered place Having considered a Works Application that falls within the above definitions must the Heritage Council may approve the form the subject of a Works Application application with or without any conditions to the Heritage Council. A Works or restrictions, or may refuse the Application can be obtained from application (see also the Heritage Heritage Tasmania or downloaded from Council’s Works Application Practice Note 1 Heritage Tasmania’s website online at www.heritage.tas.gov.au). www.heritage.tas.gov.au For example, where proposed works will Note 1: In all cases regardless of Applicant disturb the archaeological or potential it is the owner of the property who bears archaeological significance of a place, the the legal responsibility to endure that Heritage Council may require the design conditions imposed by the Heritage of the works to be amended or additional Council are carried out to the required studies to be undertaken. Where design standards modification or meaningful protection is not possible the Heritage Council may Note 2: A Works Application may not be require a controlled excavation to be required if there is certainty expressed in undertaken (see Part 3). writing that the works will not affect the archaeological significance of the place. Where conditions are imposed, the Heritage Council will prescribe the Note 3: The Heritage Council may grant standards by which the works are to be an exemption of works. An exemption undertaken. This may require the can only be issued when the matter is engagement of experts to supervise or referred to the Heritage Council undertake the works (or any part before a Works Application is lodged. thereof). Once a Works Application has been lodged it must be processed as per As a rule, the destruction or reduction of statutory requirements. a significant historical archaeological site or feature will only be sanctioned by the 1.2 Contacting the Tasmanian Heritage Council if it can be Heritage Council demonstrated that: The first approach in proposing any new a. there is no prudent and feasible works on a heritage registered place is to alternative to carrying out the understand the significance of the place. works; and/or It is recommended that the Heritage b. its excavation or removal will Council is contacted in the initial stage of contribute to our knowledge of proposing any works, preferably in the the site and its social and cultural conceptual phase of project planning. This context, however broadly or will establish the procedures that need to narrowly defined. be followed. For example, where a place is registered for its archaeological or potential archaeological significance, the Heritage Council may require the proponent to prepare a statement of historical archaeological potential and to have factored in any recommendations arising from that assessment into their works proposal before a Works Application is submitted (see Part 2: Assessing Historical Careful excavation in Wapping revealed stratified yard surfaces, interspersed with evidence of flood borne Archaeological Significance). deposits (photo courtesy Hobart City Council and Tony Jenner / Austral Archaeology 1998).
4
Photo courtesy PHASMA (2004)
2 ASSESSING HISTORICAL 2.2 Outcomes of the statement of ARCHAEOLOGICAL historical archaeological potential SIGNIFICANCE The following components shall be 2.1 Statement of historical included in the statement of historical archaeological potential archaeological potential. A statement of historical archaeological a) An illustrated site and disturbance potential is a desktop assessment. Its history: Prepared by a professional purpose is to: historian, this document shall include • understand in more detail the a series of overlay plans that depict archaeological values of the place, key periods or phases (as dictated by including its potential to contain the availability of archival evidence), significant archaeological features and together with explanatory text and deposits, and illustrations. • to provide guidance on an appropriate b) An evaluation of historical course of action to protect those archaeological potential: A qualified values. historical archaeologist shall review It provides the opportunity to: the site and disturbance history to predict sensitivity and historical • redesign or reconsider any proposals archaeological potential. This shall be at an early stage, in order not only to presented graphically with supporting avoid identified zones of historical text explaining the basis for the archaeological potential or judgement(s) made. sensitivities • minimise or eliminate the capacity for c) A statement of archaeological later delays to critical path timetables significance: Depending on the • identify areas of low significance sensitivity zoning this may vary within thereby providing some flexibility for the subject study area. Where works to occur in certain locations. applicable, the statement will make specific reference to criterion (c) of The scope of the statement will reflect the Act (i.e. where there is potential the size of the project and any other to yield information that will factors deemed relevant by the Heritage contribute to a greater understanding Council. of Tasmania's history) and any other The statement must be undertaken by a relevant criteria. qualified historical archaeologist. In the The statement should also address: case of a large project or development at a highly significant site, the archaeological • The nature of information that assessment will typically require the skills may be derived from a study of of a multi disciplinary team including, for the place example, a historical archaeologist, an historian, architectural historian and / or other appropriate expert(s).
5
• A summary of the current (such as geophysical remote sensing) information already available in and/or test trenching). The Heritage the particular research area, and Council may require that any resultant information is factored into an • A statement which clearly amendment of the Works Application. identifies the contribution, or the potential contribution, the 3.3 Archaeological excavation information may make to an understanding of Tasmania’s Where design modification and/or history. meaningful protection is not possible and loss of significant fabric is inevitable, d) Places identified as having low appropriate actions will be requested by historical archaeological significance: the Heritage Council to mitigate loss. The Where the statement of historical range of activities required to be archaeological potential finds the undertaken could include, but not place has low historical archaeological necessarily be limited to; significance the Heritage Council may a. Combined archaeological testing require no further action. and recording (see Parts 5-8) Note 1: The statement of historical b. Controlled archaeological archaeological potential MUST be excavation of archaeological provided to the Heritage Council for features and deposits (see Parts 4 endorsement as part of the Works -8) Application process, even if the place is c. Monitoring of works to mitigate identified as having low historical archaeological impacts and archaeological significance. recover information before it is lost, as part of a wider program of Note 2: Due to the predictive nature of archaeological works. Monitoring this type of assessment, there is always will only be approved as part of a the possibility of unexpected finds being project design where, depending made after the works have commenced. upon the findings, budget and time (See Part 7) exists to progress to a more detailed phase of investigation and analysis (see Parts 5-8). 3 DISTURBANCE OF AN The above options, with decisions and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE outcomes, are represented in the chart on page 7. 3.1 Redesign Where a site predicted to have archaeological significance, sensitivity and/or potential will be disturbed, the Heritage Council may require an amendment to the design of the works to avoid significant or potentially significant impacts.
3.2 Further investigation
Where a site predicted to have Controlled open area excavation in Wapping revealed archaeological significance, sensitivity extensive evidence of early – mid 19th century dwellings and yard surfaces pock marked with artefact bearing and/or potential will be disturbed and cesspits. All at a depth of nearly 2metres below existing where the feasibility of an amendment to street levels (photo courtesy Hobart City Council and Tony the Works Application depends upon Jenner / Austral Archaeology 1998). further study, the Heritage Council may require the archaeological potential to be clarified by further investigations. This may take the form of non-invasive studies 6
3.4 Figure 1: Process Chart (Numbers in bold refer to Part headings within this Practice Note)
Proposed works (1.1)
Contact Heritage Tasmania (1.2)
No Archaeological potential
Yes
Statement of Historical Archaeological Potential (2.1)
Site History (2.2a)
Photo courtesy Jody Steele (2003) Archaeological Potential (2.2b) Statement of Archaeological Significance (2.2c)
Yes No (2.2d) Action required
Redesign to Yes avoid Yes impacts (3.1) No
Photo courtesy of Jody Steele (2004) Further investigation (3.2) - non-invasive - test trenching
No
Mitigation (3.3, 4)
Archaeological Project Design (4.1)
Controlled Monitoring excavation
Photo courtesy of PAHSMA (2005) Works Approval
7
4 Archaeological comprehensive and systematic framework. This report is to be a Excavation Strategy and definitive and succinct document that Research Design will cross reference to the project archive. It will provide a base for 4.1 Project design more detailed analysis and interpretation by the archaeological Where controlled archaeological community, and provide a reference excavation before site development is for future work in the area. The final required, a method statement shall be report shall contain, but not be prepared and provided to the Heritage limited to: Council for consideration. • A plain English abstract which can The method statement shall include: act as a stand alone site overview a. Extracts as appropriate from the • Introduction and background statement of historical • The excavation process and archaeological potential (see Part descriptions of methods used 2) • A description of stratigraphic b. An archaeological strategy, sequences across the excavated outlining the proposed stages of areas works and protocols for • An outline response to the undertaking that work Research Design c. An archaeological research design d. An archaeological methodology • A summary of excavation results for a full controlled excavation taking into account the analysis of e. Provisions for archaeological artefacts (comparing fabric type, advice to be given in planning functional attributes, usage, stages of any exploratory works chronology, distribution and or environmental site associations), and assessments, if applicable • A synthesis of findings and f. A conservation strategy for the interpretation in the wider protection, where required, of context and in light of relevant features to remain in-situ themes. g. A method statement for extant (2) A project archive containing: recording(s), if applicable h. A strategy for reburial / • Copies of final excavation records rehabilitation of the site, if (trench notebooks, context applicable sheets etc) i. A proposal for artefact analysis, • Plans and Section drawings including a procedures for the • Photographs of the excavation management and conservation of • Selected artefact drawings and / finds during the field program and or photographs analysis stage • Notes pertaining to site j. A program that provides for the interpretation and analysis communication of new found • Artefacts catalogue information to be made available • Other relevant primary material to the Tasmanian community (see • Appropriate digital copies of Part 8). documentation, and • An index of all material provided. 4.2 Reporting Note 1: The historical archaeologist will need to be endorsed by the Heritage Following excavation the Heritage Council Council and will also be required to will require two separate reports in a consult with the Heritage Council at all timely manner: stages of the project design and (1) A final report which presents the implementation. findings of the excavation in a
8
Note 2: The contractual parties must The Heritage Council also places a strong discuss and agree on the commencement ethical and practical obligation on and completion of the excavation, and the archaeologists to contribute, where methods of payment. applicable, to community involvement in archaeological work programs and to Note 3: Although this Practice Notes provide source material that will assist in deals with historic heritage only, the delivering a public benefit arising from any potential to encounter Aboriginal sites program of work (see Part 8). within a project area should be discussed with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Ultimate responsibility to deliver high- Office, DTAE and the Tasmanian quality interpretation and community Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (TALSC). involvement as part of the heritage The Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, states in management / Works Application process III(9) that: ‘(1) except in accordance with rests with the owner / developer. the terms of a permit granted by the Copies of all archaeological / assessment Director, no person (a) shall destroy, reports are to be lodged with the damage, disfigure, conceal, uncover, Heritage Council for endorsement and or expose, excavate, or otherwise interfere information as specified in the conditions with a protected object…..(2) Except in of approval. accordance with the terms of a permit granted by the Minister on the While ownership of copyright should be recommendation of the Director, no confirmed in writing between the relevant person shall remove a protected object parties, the archaeological consultant and from a protected site’. the Heritage Council will retain unrestricted rights to use the project
results, data and records in perpetuity.
5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
ALL proposals outlining any suggested 6 THE COLLECTION, STORAGE archaeological work will require the explicit written approval of the Heritage AND CURATION OF Council. EXCAVATED FINDS Any archaeological monitoring, recording The Heritage Council will require all or excavations etc must be conducted by materials and documentation derived a professional historical archaeologist, from an archaeological project to be with procedures and documentation suitably curated upon completion. carried out ethically, following the Materials are to be appropriately Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 1999, conserved and retained on conclusion of of industry ‘best practice’ and the the project. Australian Archaeological Association’s (AAA) Code of Ethics. The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approach to change; ‘do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained’. The AAA Code of Ethics charges archaeologists with an obligation to manage archaeological sites and materials in a manner which conserves the archaeological and cultural heritage values of the sites and materials. Photo courtesy PAHSMA (2004)
9
The Heritage Council may require, as part 7 DEALING WITH UNEXPECTED of the Works Application process, DISCOVERIES proposals for communicating new found Any unexpected archaeological features information to the community. and/or deposits revealed during works, must be reported to the Heritage Council. Works must cease and advice 8.1 Options for communicating must be sought from the Heritage Council new found information or the Aboriginal Heritage Office, as The Heritage Council may recommend appropriate, on how best to proceed. new found information to be Possible outcomes may necessitate: communicated through: a. An amendment to the design of a. Organised tours the development b. Structured schools programs b. Carrying out of archaeological c. Participation by undergraduates excavations prior to the re- d. Community on site (trench side) commencement of works talks with archaeologists on hand c. Archaeological monitoring and to talk about the excavation, the recording during works discoveries made and the role of d. Preparation (and implementation) an archaeological team in ‘writing of a strategy to ensure history’ communication of the new e. Incorporation of archaeological information to the community, or features as visible features in new e. A combination of the above. development (where enduring conservation in situ can be achieved) f. Public lectures, exhibits and 8 MAKING NEW FOUND displays INFORMATION g. Initial media launch and press AVAILABLE TO THE conference h. Continual media updates COMMUNITY (television, radio and print media) Making new found information available to i. Documentary film the community increases public awareness j. Installation of site based passive, of archaeology within Tasmania and or preferably, interactive promotes the importance of conserving interpretation (sign boards, Tasmania’s historical archaeological interactive touch screens, small heritage. display of artefacts provided they Archaeological sites can also have broader are appropriately referenced social values and community contexts. For within any wider collection under example, ‘hands on’ experiences can curation) provide communities with an opportunity k. Print Publications to connect directly with their history and l. Electronic publications through heritage. Related public tours, community Heritage Tasmania’s website. participation programs, published books, The Heritage Council may provide media releases etc can also form part of guidance in the above processes. the social context of an archaeological site.
10 CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 3 Documents held at Brickendon Documents held at Brickendon that relate to the development and management of the property.
Item Author or Association Date Range [Memo book: includes articles to be purchased William Archer Sen. 1827 in Hertford and London, and articles to be sent per Medway] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1845 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1846 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1847 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: notes, mainly daily expenses] William Archer Jun. 1848 [Pocket diary: notes, daily expenses] William Archer Jun. 1849 [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1850 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: daily expenses] William Archer Jun. 1851 [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1852 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1853 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1854 and daily expenses, copies of letters of introduction for H. Archer studying ay Cambridge] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1855 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1856 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1857 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1858 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda] William Archer Jun. 1859 [Pocket notebook: Accounts William Archer Jun. 1859-March 1860 [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1860 the year, daily expenses]
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
[Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1861 and daily expenses] [Pocket diary: includes brief daily memoranda William Archer Jun. 1862 and daily expenses] [Pocket notebook, mainly accounts] William Archer Jun. 1863 [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1863 the year, daily expenses] [Pocket diary: detailed diary entries for part of William Archer Jun. 1864 the year, daily expenses] ‘Pocket Cash Book’ William Archer Jun. Jan 1865 to 30 June 1866 ‘Pocket Cash Book’ William Archer Jun. July 1866 to Dec 1868 [Photocopy pf APQ1/1 William Archer’s Letter William Archer Sen. 1827 Book 1827 from Quamby Plains] [Farm diary] William Archer Sen. 11 Aug. 1829 -- 24 Feb. 1830 Description, particulars, and plan of the WHD Archer 1895 Brickendon Estate, Longford, Tasmania, the property of WHD Archer Esq. ‘Brickendon. Longford, Tasmania’ photo album William Archer Jun. c. 1870s Untitled photo album of Archer properties William Archer Jun. c. 1870s ‘Indenture made the 29th April 1820 …’ Contact William Archer Jun. 1829 between William Archer Jun. of the first part and Joseph and Thomas Archer of the other part, for the transfer of Brickendon. Photo of the main house taken from the tank WHD Archer c. 1870s? stand. Photo of two children in a pram, from the front WF Archer c. 1930s? of the house with a view of the arbour in the background towards the tennis courts. Letter William Archer Jun. to WHD (in William Archer Jun. 10 July 1857 England) Refers briefly to situation at Brickendon. Statement ‘Furniture etc. to Mr Archer of William Archer Jun. 3 April 1856 Brickendon’ (estate of Elinor Archer) Letter William Archer Sen. To William Archer William Archer Sen. 23 Mar 1830 Jun; detailed advice re repair of harrows. Statement ‘The Real Property of William Archer William Archer Jun. c. 1856 of Brickendon’ includes 1093 acres of Brickendon. Letter William Archer Sen to his sons – contains William Archer Sen. 30 July 1826 advice re farm management.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Manuscript copy of newspaper report of William Archer Jun. 1 May 1829 wedding of William Archer and Caroline Harrison. ‘Sheep Book 1884’ WHD Archer 1884-1911 [Diary 1868]; includes expenses 1868-1879 William Archer Jun. 1868-1879 [Account Book kept by Robert Kelty, Manager WHD Archer 1909-1911 of Brickendon]. [Diary 1919] Refers to visits to Brickendon WHD Archer 1919 [Notebook 1910-1911] includes stud, shearing, WHD Archer 1910-1911 crops notes etc. Handwriting varies. [Notebook] includes part of a diary 1875, William Archer Jun. 1874-1920 planting notes etc. WHD Archer [Farm diary] WHD Archer 1901-2 [Notebook: Inventory of stock, implements and ? Undated tools – Brickendon and Woolmers] ‘Store Book, Brickendon Farm’ William Archer Jun. April 1875 – Nov. 1907 WHD Archer [Notebook; Rough farm journal] Record of William Archer Jun. 1864 ploughing, crops etc. at Brickendon and Munden [Record of paddocks laid down in English ? Undated grasses apparently in response to queries or circular] Letter HWA Kilgour to Henry Archer re closing WHD Archer 25 June 1911 up the house at Brickendon. ‘40 entries of Hay taken by Mr John Saltmarsh William Archer Jun. June-Oct 1860 from a stack sold to him by Mr W. Archer’. Letter: Thomas Archer to William re William Archer Jun. 23 November arrangements for shipping wool. 1849 Circular ‘Improved Sheep Washing Plant’ WHD Archer? c. 1880? Letter: Alexander Clerke to WHD Archer WHD Archer 16 June 1880 enclosing plans of the estate. Statement of Accounts ’Executors Estate of late William Archer Jun. 1879 William Archer Brickendon to James Cooper’ [Valuation of Paddocks at Brickendon] WHD Archer 1882 ‘Particulars of Stock at Brickendon arranged to William Archer Jun. 1 April 1868 be taken at Valuation’ WHD Archer [List of lots sold at Launceston Wool Sales, on WHD Archer 1 April 1911 Brickendon letterhead] [Description of lots sold at Launceston Wool WHD Archer [1 April 1911] Sales with bale numbers]
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
[Inventory of stock etc at Brickendon] William Archer Jun. 1 April 1860 ‘Memorandum for Mr Archer …[from Mr James William Archer Jun. October 1839 MacArthur and Capt Arthur Cotton]… on the quantity of water required to irrigate a given area of land and the power required to raise it a given height.’ Statement: ‘Summary compiled from the William Archer Jun. 31 Dec. 1856 account of stock at Brickendon, Munden and Saundridge’. Receipt for £100 to Launceston Immigration Aid William Archer Jun. 6 Feb. 1854 Society and memo re German shepherds. [Statement re use of bone dust and guano at William Archer Jun. c. 1860? Brickendon and Munden]. Undated. ‘Memoranda’; Account of income received from William Archer Jun. 1869 Brickendon. Letter: Charles Headlam to WHD Archer re WHD Archer 5 June 1873 rams brought down from the Lakes. Letter: Charles Headlam to WHD Archer re WHD Archer 11 June 1873 rams brought down from the Lakes. ‘Inventory March 1868’ William Archer Jun. March 1868 Statement: AJ Horne in account with William William Archer Jun. Feb. 1859-Sept. Archer, Brickendon and Palmerston. 1868.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 4 Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance The Burra Charter Considering the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice 1964), and the Resolutions of the 5th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (Moscow 1978), the Burra Charter was adopted by Australia; ICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS) on 19 August 1979 at Burra, South Australia. Revisions were adopted on 23 February1981, 23 April 1988, and 26 November 1999.
The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australia ICOMOS members.
Articles
Article 1. Definitions For the purposes of this Charter:
1.1 Place means site, area, land, landscape, building or other work, group of buildings or other works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views.
1.2 Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.
Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.
Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.
1.3 Fabric means all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents, and objects.
1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance.
1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction.
1.6 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.
1.7 Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.
1.8 Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.
1.9 Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use.
1.10 Use means the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place.
1.11 Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance.
1.12 Setting means the area around a place, which may include the visual catchment.
1.13 Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place.
1.14 Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place but is not at the place.
1.15 Associations mean the special connections that exist between people and a place.
1.16 Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses.
1.17 Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Conservation Principles
Article 2. Conservation and management 2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved.
2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place.
2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.
2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.
Article 3. Cautious approach 3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.
3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.
Article 4. Knowledge, skills and techniques 4.1 Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place.
4.2 Traditional techniques and materials are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In some circumstances modern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate.
Article 5. Values 5.1 Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others.
5.2 Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions at a place.
Article 6. Burra Charter Process 6.1 The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collecting and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy.
6.2 The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance.
6.3 Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner's needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition.
Article 7. Use 7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained.
7.2 A place should have a compatible use.
Article 8. Setting Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate visual setting and other relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.
New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate.
Article 9. Location 9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
9.2 Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other components do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate.
9.3 If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance.
Article 10. Contents Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objects should be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate.
Article 11. Related places and objects The contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained.
Article 12. Participation Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.
Article 13. Co-existence of cultural values Co-existence of cultural values should be recognised, respected and encouraged, especially in cases where they conflict.
Conservation Processes
Article 14. Conservation processes Conservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention of associations and meanings; maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation and interpretation; and will commonly include a combination of more than one of these.
Article 15. Change 15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation.
15.2 Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversible, and be reversed when circumstances permit.
15.3 Demolition of significant fabric of a place is generally not acceptable. However, in some cases minor demolition may be appropriate as part of conservation. Removed significant fabric should be reinstated when circumstances permit.
15.4 The contributions of all aspects of cultural significance of a place should be respected. If a place includes fabric, uses, associations or meanings of different periods, or different aspects of cultural significance, emphasising or interpreting one period or aspect at the expense of another can only be justified when what is left out, removed or diminished is of slight cultural significance and that which is emphasised or interpreted is of much greater cultural significance.
Article 16. Maintenance Maintenance is fundamental to conservation and should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance and its maintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance.
Article 17. Preservation Preservation is appropriate where the existing fabric or its condition constitutes evidence of cultural significance, or where insufficient evidence is available to allow other conservation processes to be carried out.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Article 18. Restoration and reconstruction Restoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the place.
Article 19. Restoration Restoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric.
Article 20. Reconstruction 20.1 Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. In rare cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as part of a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place.
20.2 Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation.
Article 21. Adaptation 21.1 Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place.
21.2 Adaptation should involve minimal change to significant fabric, achieved only after considering alternatives.
Article 22. New work 22.1 New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation.
22.2 New work should be readily identifiable as such.
Article 23. Conserving use Continuing, modifying or reinstating a significant use may be appropriate and preferred forms of conservation.
Article 24. Retaining associations and meanings 24.1 Significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured. Opportunities for the interpretation, commemoration and celebration of these associations should be investigated and implemented.
24.2 Significant meanings, including spiritual values, of a place should be respected. Opportunities for the continuation or revival of these meanings should be investigated and implemented.
Article 25. Interpretation The cultural significance of many places is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation. Interpretation should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate.
Conservation Practice
Article 26. Applying the Burra Charter process 26.1 Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place which should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines.
26.2 Written statements of cultural significance and policy for the place should be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence. The statements of significance and policy should be incorporated into a management plan for the place.
26.3 Groups and individuals with associations with a place as well as those involved in its management should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of the place. Where appropriate they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Article 27. Managing change 27.1 The impact of proposed changes on the cultural significance of a place should be analysed with reference to the statement of significance and the policy for managing the place. It may be necessary to modify proposed changes following analysis to better retain cultural significance.
27.2 Existing fabric, use, associations and meanings should be adequately recorded before any changes are made to the place.
Article 28. Disturbance of fabric 28.1 Disturbance of significant fabric for study, or to obtain evidence, should be minimised. Study of a place by any disturbance of the fabric, including archaeological excavation, should only be undertaken to provide data essential for decisions on the conservation of the place, or to obtain important evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible.
28.2 Investigation of a place which requires disturbance of the fabric, apart from that necessary to make decisions, may be appropriate provided that it is consistent with the policy for the place. Such investigation should be based on important research questions which have potential to substantially add to knowledge, which cannot be answered in other ways and which minimises disturbance of significant fabric.
Article 29. Responsibility for decisions The organisations and individuals responsible for management decisions should be named and specific responsibility taken for each such decision.
Article 30. Direction, supervision and implementation Competent direction and supervision should be maintained at all stages, and any changes should be implemented by people with appropriate knowledge and skills.
Article 31. Documenting evidence and decisions A log of new evidence and additional decisions should be kept.
Article 32. Records 32.1 The records associated with the conservation of a place should be placed in a permanent archive and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate.
32.2 Records about the history of a place should be protected and made publicly available, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate.
Article 33. Removed fabric Significant fabric which has been removed from a place including contents, fixtures and objects, should be catalogued, and protected in accordance with its cultural significance.
Where possible and culturally appropriate, removed significant fabric including contents, fixtures and objects, should be kept at the place.
Article 34. Resources Adequate resources should be provided for conservation.
Words in italics are defined in Article 1.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan
Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Appendix 5
Technical Terminology1 Apron (1) A panel or board below a window board. It projects slightly into the room. (2) Vertical asphalt on a fascia or overhang of a roof.
Ashlar (1) A square-hewn stone. (2) Stone walls or facings finely dressed to given dimensions, laid in courses with thin joints, about 1/8 in. chick. The facing may be plain, vermiculated, with drafted margin etc. It was used by the Egyptians in 3000BC
Aperture An opening or gap.2
Architrave Trim which is planted to cover the joint between the frame within an opening and the wall finish, particularly plaster, at the opening of a door or window.
Balustrade Collective name to the whole infilling from handrail down to floor level at the edge of a stair, bridge, etc.
Bargeboard A sloping board (built in pairs) along a gable, covering the ends of roof timbers, and protecting the barge course from rain. Old barge boards were often beautifully carved.
Battened (Batten) A small board or strip of wood used for various building purposes, as to cover joints between boards, supports, shingles, or roofing tiles, or provide a base for lathing.3
Bell cast The turning up of the edge of a roof in the manner of a bell.4
Bellcote A small turret on the apex of a gable of a church to contain one or two bells. 5
Beaded (bead or beading) (1) A semi-circular moulding often used to mask a joint, sometimes with a quirk. (2)A glazing bead. (3) In zinc or copper roofing, at eaves or flashings, an edge bent round to a tube shape or to 180o for stiffening the edge of the sheet and fixing it.
Brick nogged (brick nogging) Brickwork infilling between the studs of a wooden framed partition or building frame
Bullseye window A small, circular or oval, window or opening.
Bush pole A timber member which is simply a cut sapling. 6
1 Unless otherwise noted, definitions come from Scott, John S., 1964, A Dictionary of Building, Mammondsworth: Penguin Books. 2 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary 3 Illustrated Architecture Dictionary (www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/Architec/Generalities/ IllustratedArchitecture/mainpage/mainpage.htm) 4 Clive Lucas 5 Clive Lucas
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Buttress A support, usually brick or stone, built against a wall to support or reinforce it.7
Casement window A window in which one or more lights are hinged to open. Generally the hinges are vertical, like door hinges.
Chamfered (chamfer) A right-angle corner cut off symmetrically, that is, at 45o. When cut off unsymmetrically, the surface may be called a bevel.
Cistern (1) or storage tank A rectangular, open-topped, cold-water tank usually fixed in the roof of a house. Nowadays usually made of asbestos cement, galvanized steel sheet, or various plastics. In the past they were made of slate slabs bolted together, or of wood lined with lead or zinc or copper sheet. (2) or flushing cistern or water-waste preventer A small tank above a WC fitment which contains enough water to flush the WC once. (3) An underground tank for rainwater, often of concrete.
Cladding The non-loadbearing clothing of the walls and roof of a building, the skin used to keep the weather out. An American term which corresponds closely is siding
Colonial bond (colonial siding) Plain, square-edged weather boards, 9 to 12in. wide, of which considerable width is exposed, used in early American buildings
Colourwashed see Limewash
Conglomerate Consisting of heterogeneous parts or elements.8
Dado A boarded or panelling over the lower half of the walls of a room above the skirting.
Damp-proof course (dpc) A horizontal layer of impervious material laid in a wall to exclude water, usually at 6in. above ground level, as well as above the junctions of parapet walls with a roof and above door or window openings. Vertical damp courses (tanking) of asphaltic material are also provided to keep basements dry. Damp courses may be of asphalt
Door head The horizontal wood member forming the top of a door frame.
Door leaf One of a pair of doors or windows or one of the slates at a slate ridge.
Door lintel A small beam over a door or window head, usually carrying wall load alone.
Double pile plan See single pile plan
Dowelled (dowel) (1) A short, round hardwood rod used instead of or together with a tenon for holding two wood parts together, by inserting it into a hole drilled in each. It should be grooved (keyed) to enable air and excess glue to escape. (2) A short steel rod cast into a concrete floor, over which a door post can be fixed by dropping the bored post over the dowel. (3) A piece of slate or a cramp used for locking adjacent stones to each other in a wall.
6 Clive Lucas 7 Architecture Glossary (http://architecture.about.com/library) 8 http://dictionary.reference.com
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Eaves The lowest, overhanging part of a sloping roof.
English bond A brick bond in which alternate courses are composed entirely of stretchers or entirely of headers.
Fascia board (1) A wide board set vertically on edge, fixed to the rafter ends or wall plate or wall. It carries the gutter round the eaves. (2) the wide board over a shop front.
Feather edged A tapered weatherboard9
Finial A usually pointed ornament at the top of a gable or pinnacle or newel
Flagging (flagstone or flag) A slab of cast stone, stone or concrete used for paving footways or gardens, in articular a sandstone which splits into thin sheet.
Fleche A steeple or spire, esp. one in the Gothic style, emerging from the ridge of a roof.10
Flemish bond A seventeenth-century bond which shows, in every course, stretchers and headers alternately.
Frog An indentation on a bed face or faces of a brick to reduce its weight. Recent tests have shown, at least for V-shaped frogs, that walls built frog down (frog empty) are stronger that walls built frog up.
Gable The triangular part of the end wall of a building with a sloping roof. It is that part between the barge boards or rafters which sometimes rises above the roof. A gable may be of any material – weatherboards, brick, stone, hung tiles, etc.
Galvanised Iron or steel coated with rust-resistant zinc.
Glazed (glaze) (1) to install glass in any sort of light. (2) A glass-like waterproof protection fired on to the surface of pottery, bricks, walls, and occasionally, roofing tiles. It may be transparent, coloured, or white.
Gudgeon hinge (1) a metal dowel for locking neighbouring stone together. (2) A gate hook.
Harled (harl) Rough cast.
Hasp and staple Winged and slotted plate to fit over a staple to secure a door by means of a padlock.11
Hearth Floor of a fireplace or the area in front of it. 12
Hipped roof A roof which has four slopes instead of the two slopes of the ordinary gabled roof. The shorter sides are roofed with small sloping triangles, called the hipped ends, which are bounded by
9 Clive Lucas 10 http://dictionary.reference.com 11 Clive Lucas 12 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices two hips above (meeting at the ridge) and an eave below. Normally tie eaves are at the same level all round.
Ironmongery Cast or wrought iron, or hardware.
Jerkin headed roof or hipped gable A roof which is hipped from the ridge halfway to the eaves and gabled from there down, the contrary of a gambrel roof
Joinery (1) The making and fixing of wood finishings to a building such as doors, skirting boards, architraves, linings, windows, picture rails. (2) The joints in woodwork whether for heavy construction (English carpentry) or for cabinet maker’s or other fine work.
Joist A wood or steel beam directly supporting a floor. It is usually a common joist. Steel joists are often distinguished by called them RSJs or rolled-steel joists.
Label mould(ing) A square-arched dripstone or hoodmold; extends horizontally across the top of an opening and returns vertically downward for a short distance.13
Limewash or whitewash A milk formed with quick-lime by soaking in excess water. It is made more durable by adding tallow, size, casein, alum or other binder.
Loggia Open sided gallery or arcade14
Louvered windows (louvre or louver) (1) A ventilator sometimes in a window, in which horizontal sloping slats allow ventilation and exclude rain. It was originally a turret to let out smoke from a medieval hall with no chimneys. (2) A grill connected to a ventilating duct, usually one delivering air to the room (output louvre).
Mortar A mix of Portland cement, lime putty, and sand in the proportions by volume of 1 : 1 : 6 or 1 : 2 : 9, etc. for laying bricks or stones. Until the manufacture of cement became general, lime – sand mortars were universal. Occasionally cement – sand mortar is used, but it is less easy to lay and more liable to crack than cement – lime – sand mortar.
Nave The principal longitudinal area of a church, extending from the main entrance or narthex to the chancel, usually flanked by aisles of less height and breadth: generally used only by the congregation. 15
Mullion window A vertical dividing member of a frame between the light of a door or window, each of which may be further subdivided into panes by glazing bars.
Oak grained (graining) Painting a surface to look like the grain of wood or marble, etc by manipulating a wet coat of semi-transparent ‘graining colour’ with graining combs, brush, rags and other implements.
Ogee joint A type of spigot-and-socket joint in pipes.
13 Illustrated Architecture Dictionary (www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/arts/Architec/Generalities/ IllustratedArchitecture/mainpage/mainpage.htm) 14 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary 15 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Pavilion (1) A light, usually open building used for shelter, concerts, exhibits, etc., as in a park or fair. (2) Any of a number of separate or attached buildings forming a hospital or the like. (3) A projecting element of a façade, used esp. at the center or at each end and usually treated so as to suggest a tower. 16
Pilasters A Rectangular pier, sometimes fluted, projecting from the face of a wall, having a cap, shaft, and base. It buttresses the wall.
Plinth A slight widening and thickening at the base of a column, wall or pedestal.
Portico A porch or walkway with a roof supported by columns, often leading to the entrance of a building. 17
Prefabricated To manufacture (a building or section of a building, for example) in advance, especially in standard sections that can be easily shipped and assembled. 18
Pudding stone A composite rock made up of particles of varying size.19
Relieving arch (or rough arch or discharging arch) An arch built over and clear of, a wooden lintel or other weak support, to carry the main load. It is generally of rectangular bricks with wedge-shaped mortar joints.
Roughcast Original (Tudor times) consisted of a rendering of coarse stuff,, rendered a second time and roughened. The rough cast, that is find shingle mixed with hot hydraulic lime, was then thrown on. Nowadays the coarse stuff has a different composition, usually having some cement, and often including colouring matter (red iron oxide, yellow ochre, crimson late).
Rimlock A metal box screwed on the inner face of the shutting style of a door. It contains a latch for fastening the door, the latch being turned by door knobs. It can also be locked.
Sandstock brick A clay brick made in a wooden stock and sanded20
Staddlestone A capped stone used as a base for a building, usually a granary, to prevent vermin gaining access to the stores.
Sarking boards Roof boarding up to ¾ in. tick.
Sash window A window in which the opening lights slid up and down in a cased frame, balanced by sash cords passing over a sash pulley. This window came to England from Holland in the seventeenth century.
Sash fasteners or sash lock A fastening on the meeting rail of one sash which swings across to the meeting rail of the other sash and engages with a spur on it.
16 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary 17 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary 18 Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary 19 http://dictionary.reference.com 20 Clive Lucas
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Scissor truss A simple truss formed of four main members of which two are rafters from wall plate to ridge. The other two extend from the rafter at wall-plate level to the middle of the span, giving a scissors-like appearance to the truss. A scissors truss may also be of steel. It has the advantage of giving good ceiling height in the centre of the span.
Scrim course canvas, or cotton or metal mesh, used for bridging the joints between board, sheet, or slab coverings before they are plastered, and as reinforcement for fibrous plaster.
Shingle A thin rectangular piece of timber about 16 x 5 x ¼ in. used like a tile for covering walls or roofs. It usually reduces in thickness from tall (butt) to head.
Skillion A lean-to serving as a room or a shed.21
Sill The lowest horizontal member of a framed partition, of frame construction, or of a frame fro a window or door. A wooden door or window sill is usually fixed over a stone, concrete, or brick sill
Single pile plan A building plan form which is one room deep. A double pile plan is two rooms deep. 22
Soffit (1) the under-surface of a cornice, stair, beam, arch, vault, or rib or the uppermost part of the inside of a drain, sewer, or culvert. Generally, it is any under-surface except a ceiling. (2) the lining at the head of an opening.
Split weatherboard A hand-split (cut) weatherboard. (See weatherboard.)
Staple and hasp See hasp and staple
Stock lock A heavy wooden casing containing a bolt operated by a key. 23
Strap hinge A band-and-hook hinge or cross-garnet hinge, or one formed of two metal straps of equal length.
Stud Intermediate vertical members in a framed partitions or in frame construction usually placed about 18 in. from studs on each site. The end members are called posts and are heavier. On a partition or he inner face of a building frame, lathing or wallboards are usually nailed to the studs. Time close- boarding may be nailed to the outside of studs in a building frame to stiffen it. stud partition A partition built of studs, a framed partition.
Thumb latch A steel fall bar, under which a lifting lever, worked by the thumb, passes through a slot in the door. When the lifting lever is raised it lifts the fall bar and unfastens the door.
Transom window A horizontal beam, particularly the stone or timber bar separating the lights of a window, or separating a door from a fanlight over it
21 http://dictionary.reference.com 22 Clive Lucas 23 Clive Lucas
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Truss A frame, generally nowadays of steel (but also sometimes of timber, concrete, or light alloy) to carry a roof or other load, built up wholly from members in tension and compression. Steel trusses generally weigh 2 to 3 lb. per sq ft. of floor area for spans of 40 ft or less. For every 10 ft increase in span, another 0.5 to 1 lb. should be added. Bracing against wind adds a further 0.5 to 1 lb. Roofing with slates instead of the usual asbestos, steel, or aluminium sheets increases the truss weight by 15%. Trusses are usually placed about 10 ft. apart, but their spacing is fixed by the design of the purlin.
Weatherboard A long thin board with one edge thicker than the other; used as siding by lapping one board over the board below.24
Whitewash see limewash.
24 http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan
CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 6 Copies of Heritage Listings
1. National Heritage List Inventory Sheet for Brickendon 2. Tasmanian Heritage Register Inventory Sheet for Brickendon 3. Register of National Estate Inventory Sheet for Brickendon and Outbuildings 4. Register of National Estate Inventory Sheet for Brickendon Garden 5. World Heritage List Justification Table
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 1 of 12
Australian Heritage Database Place Details edit search | new search | about the Australian Heritage Database | Heritage home | Australian Heritage Council home
Send Feedback
Brickendon Estate, Woolmers La, Longford, TAS, Australia
Photographs: None List: National Heritage List Class: Historic Legal Status: Listed place (23/11/2007) Place ID: 105977 Place File No: 6/03/071/0046 Summary Statement of Significance:
Brickendon Estate is a remarkably intact example of a farming property dating from the 1820s with its convict built farm complex , Georgian country house and formal garden. The estate is of outstanding national significance for its association with the convict assignment system and as a designed landscape providing a significant record of continuous farming practice at the place.
The assignment system was set up to provide convict labour to settlers in exchange for food and clothing. Masters were responsible for the physical and moral wellbeing of assigned convicts. Male convicts provided the labour to make the building materials such as bricks, sawn timber and quarrying stone from the estate, constructing the timber and brick buildings and working as agricultural labourers, gardeners and shepherds on Brickendon while female convicts worked in domestic service. Workplaces where convicts were employed continue to be used on the Estate as are the living quarters of female convicts. The chapel built for the convicts also survives at Brickendon. It illustrates the role placed on religion, seen as an important part of the reformation of convicts.
Convicts provided the labour necessary to establish and operate prosperous agricultural estates. Brickendon Estate represents an outstanding example of the successes of an industrious 1820s settler family and the productivity of convict labour. This established the groundwork that enabled six generations of the Archer family to continue to successfully farm the estate.
The farming property and historic buildings of Brickendon Estate illustrate a continuity of mixed farming practices in Tasmania from the 1820s. The colonial economy grew substantially in the years before transportation ceased and mixed farming made a significant contribution to this growth. At Brickendon intensive mixed farming specialised in grains, wool and animal husbandry, and the farmed landscape is confined within extensive boundary hedges, estate buildings, including the pillar granary and the brick granary constructed later, the two Dutch barns, the cottages, woolshed and stables, cart shed, the brick poultry house, cook house, blacksmith’s shop, outhouse, wells, drainage systems and access roads. Together these embody a significant record of farming practices.
Brickendon is uncommon in the diversity of original colonial features that survive within the boundary of a single property. The estate survives intact as the original 420 hectare property which has been continuously farmed by the descendents of the William Archer family for six generations. It retains evidence of its original use and demonstrates the importation of British farming practices into northern Tasmania by the Archer family and the way that the use of assigned convicts facilitated the establishment of these practices in the northern Tasmanian area. The original operation of the early Estate remains legible in the layout and farmed landscape.
Brickendon is also uncommon in that the range of buildings demonstrate early colonial agricultural and http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 2 of 12
pastoral farming practices based on British practice and techniques imported by the Archer family and developed over six generations. This uncommon range of building types and construction methods are represented by the timber pillar granary raised on staddle stones to protect the stored grain from vermin, the Dutch barns, the poultry house and the blacksmith’s shop with its associated collection of tools.
Brickendon Estate with its farm buildings, main Georgian house in its garden setting, hedges and land use patterns is a rare source of information about the living and working conditions of colonial settlers and the convicts assigned to rural estates from the 1820s to the cessation of transportation in 1853. The property has been lived in by the same family for seven generations and it contains related documentary records including farm diaries, correspondence, agricultural machinery and other moveable objects which detail the layout and development of the estate. These records provide opportunities for research on the operation of the estate and the convict assignment system Archaeological remains at the place including the site of the convict barracks building provide the potential to reveal information about the lives and working conditions of convicts on Brickendon Estate.
Brickendon contains archaeological sites, layout and buildings associated with convict use which have the potential to add to our understanding of the assignment system and the living and working experiences of convict men and women on a large estate during the assignment period.. Official Values: Criteria Values A Events, Processes Brickendon Estate is a farming property dating from the 1820s, with intact convict built farm buildings, Georgian country house and formal garden. It is nationally outstanding for its association with the convict assignment system and for the continuity of farming practice at the estate. Assignment was the most common experience for convicts with 85% of those transported to Australia being assigned.
The assignment system was set up to provide convict labour to settlers in exchange for food and clothing. Masters were responsible for the physical and moral wellbeing of assigned convicts. Male convicts worked as blacksmiths, tanners, bricklayers and agricultural hands on Brickendon while female convicts worked in domestic service. Convict workplaces are extant on the Estate as are the living quarters of female convicts. Also extant is the chapel built for the sole use of convicts – religion being an important part of the reformation of convicts.
Convicts provided the labour necessary to establish and operate prosperous agricultural estates. Brickendon Estate represents an outstanding example of the successes of an industrious 1820s settler family and the productivity of convict labour which established the basis for six generations of the Archer family to develop the estate.
The farming property and historic buildings of Brickendon Estate illustrate a continuity of mixed farming practices in Tasmania from the 1820s. Mixed farming contributed significantly to the growth of the colonial economy in the years before transportation ceased (Butlin 1986). At Brickendon intensive mixed farming specialised in grains, wool and animal husbandry. The farmed landscape is confined within extensive boundary hedges and contains estate buildings, including the two barns, cottages, two granaries, woolshed and stables, cart shed, poultry house, cook house, blacksmith’s shop, outhouse, wells and drainage systems and access roads. Together these embody a designed landscape resulting in a significant record of farming practices.
B Rarity Brickendon is uncommon in the diversity of original colonial features that survive within the boundary of a single property. The estate is uncommon in that it contains the original 420 hectare property which has been continuously farmed by the descendents of the William Archer family for six generations. It therefore http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 3 of 12
retains evidence of its original use and demonstrates the importation of British farming practices into northern Tasmania by the Archer family and the way that the use of assigned convicts facilitated the establishment of these practices in the northern Tasmanian area. The original operation of the early Estate remains legible in the layout.
Brickendon is also uncommon as a designed cultural landscape where the range of buildings demonstrate early colonial agricultural and pastoral farming practices based on British practice and techniques imported by the Archer family and developed over six generations. This uncommon range of building types and construction methods are represented by the timber pillar granary, Dutch barns, the poultry house and the blacksmith’s shop with its associated collection of tools. C Research The Brickendon Estate with its farm buildings, Georgian house in its garden setting, hedges, and land use patterns, provides a rare source of information about the living and working conditions of colonial settlers and the convicts assigned to rural estates from the 1820s to the cessation of transportation to Tasmania in 1853. The research potential of the place is enhanced by documentary records associated with the operation of the estate and the convict assignment system, including family diaries and records and early maps which detail the layout and development of the estate. Archaeological remains at the site provide the potential to reveal information about the lives and working conditions of convicts at the estate.
Brickendon contains archaeological sites, layout and buildings functionally associated with convict use, which have the potential to add to our understanding of the assignment system and the living and working experiences of convict men and women on a large estate during the assignment period. Description:
Brickendon Estate is a 458 ha mixed farming property with the boundaries corresponding closely to the 1820s land grant. The property contains a set of pre-1850s farm buildings and a Georgian country house dating from 1829-30. Since William Archer commenced farming in 1824 the property has remained in the ownership of his direct descendants, has been lived in by seven generations of the Archer family and is still managed as a working farm on the extensive alluvial soils of the Macquarie River flood plain.
The farming estate is bounded by the Macquarie River to the east and partially to the south while to the north and west the boundaries are delineated by hawthorn hedges. Similarly the field divisions of the farm and the access roads are defined by around thirty kilometres of trimmed hawthorn hedges. Gaps through the hedges or gateways create views across the farmed landscape to neighbouring properties, including Woolmers directly across the river to the east or the imposing mountain ranges, the Great Western Tiers, to the west.
Located on level ground separated by one field from the Macquarie River the farm village comprises a large group of timber or brick buildings in vernacular style, set out along roadways framed by hawthorn hedges. The outstanding range of early colonial farm and estate buildings still extant at Brickendon is uncommon. The buildings include:
Weatherboard Cottage: Built with convict labour. Two roomed beaded weatherboard and brick nogged cottage with a central hallway and veranda. The original shingles are still in place under the corrugated iron roofing. Probably the oldest of the Brickendon structures, it was the original homestead from the property (1820s) which was probably later used as quarters for an overseer of convicts. Pillar Granary: c.1827. Built with convict labour. A rectangular, Dutch gabled two storey plus loft building of weatherboard and brick nog construction elevated on curved sandstone straddle stones with circular capping stones to prevent vermin reaching the stored grain. The pitched corrugated iron roof, originally shingled, has jerkin head gables. Original beaded boards remain on the exterior of the southern wall and split boards on the other walls, with brick nogging internally Dutch Barn No 1: c. 1827. Built with convict labour . A high pitch Dutch gabled timber frame construction, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 4 of 12
weatherboard barn. The building is a single storey structure, standing approximately 4.8 metres at plate height. The corrugated galvanised roof was previously shingled. Sections of earth floor have been concreted. The barn has a single internal space constructed in a cruciform plan. The building stands between the granary and its twin barn. Dutch Barn No 2: c. 1827. Built with convict labour. A high pitch Dutch gabled timber frame and weatherboard single storey structure, with a corrugated galvanised iron roof, previously shingled. The building stands approximately 4.8 metres at plate height. The barn has a single internal space constructed in a cruciform plan. A concrete floor has replaced the original timber board and earthen floor. The barn is located on the southern side of the quadrangle, and stands opposite the granary. The buildings form an intact and exceptionally significant group of barns. Implement Shed: c.1830s. Built with convict labour. A timber framed L shaped weatherboard and vertical split board building open on the south. Timber posts with beams support a galvanised iron hip roof. The floor is earthen. A 19th century photograph held by the Archer family shows further buildings infilling the space between the implement shed and the group of barns. Sub surface remains exist for these buildings. Smoke House: 1831. Built with convict labour. Solid square brick building with a hipped shingle roof and one door and no windows. The roof has been reconstructed. An external bakers oven is located on the northern side of the building covered by a new awning. Poultry Shed: Late 1830s Built with convict labour. Single roomed rectangular brick building with a galvanised iron tile gabled roof, richly moulded fascias, decorative brickwork for the pigeon loft at the gable ends and in a course along the top of the door head and brick pilasters at all four corners. There is a remnant brick paved floor and brick nesting boxes in the corners. The building may be later in date, c1840s if the iron tile roof is original. The building is reputed to be based on a contemporary pattern book design. Granary. A rectangular two storey brick and stucco building with a galvanised iron jerkin head roof. A single storey skillioned section on the east side of the brick granary with associated timber stock yards. Woolshed and stables. A rectangular weather board and corrugated iron building with a galvanised iron jerkin head roof attached to the granary extends to the north. Part of the former stables was modified to enlarge the wool shed to accommodate mechanical shearing equipment. Adjacent to the granary is a grain pickling room. The upper level is lined with blackwood boards. Farm cottage: c.1830s. Built with convict labour. Split gable rendered brick cottage with a galvanised iron roof, originally constructed as two buildings for a dairy and overseer’s cottage. The building has been extended to the rear. Outhouse: c.1830s. Built with convict labour. Single roomed brick building with a corrugated iron hip roof, once shingled. Internally the walls are plastered, the ceiling is beaded timber lining boards with a timber floor . The original two hole pine seat is still in place. Cookhouse: c.1830s. Built with convict labour. Part brick/weatherboard building with a Dutch gable roof lined with metal patent iron tiles over earlier shingles. Internal brick oven and fire place and timber floor with concrete block hearth. Blacksmiths’ shop: c.1830s. Built with convict labour. Brick rectangular building with a high pitched hipped roof of corrugated iron sheets with widely spaced pressed grooves, once shingled, with forge, bellows, charcoal vent, and associated tools and equipment still in situ. Outside the building is an iron hoop bed and tyre plate. Chapel: c.1840s. The brick single room chapel has a high pitched shingled gable roof, belltower and gabled foyer. Built in Victorian Picturesque Rustic Gothic style the chapel is highly decorative with many neo-gothic features including brick buttresses and decorative fascias and stained glass windows. All but two original stained glass windows are in situ and the eastern lead light window relocated to Entally chapel forty years ago is to be returned to the chapel. Repairs have been undertaken to the chapel and the original pews reinstated. Tanks. There are three interconnected brick and concrete lined in-ground tanks, one located east of the second timber barn, one rectangular tank located at the rear of the woolshed/stables building and one oval shaped tank east of the chapel and cookhouse, later used for household and farm rubbish. Convicts barracks site. Built with convict labour. The site of the former barracks building c. 1829-30 has had no subsequent disturbance and subsurface remains appear to be in situ. A 19th century photograph of the building taken prior to demolition is in the possession of the Archer family. Sawyer’s pit and site of carpenter’s shop. A site of convict labour. On level ground east of the barracks site is the site of the sawyer’s pit, carpenter’s shop and an additional residential building, all c.1929-30. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 5 of 12
The site is undisturbed and subsurface archaeological remains are likely to be in situ. Bull pen. A wooden slab and corrugated iron shed east of the blacksmith’s shop. The building was erected after the 19th century photograph of the farm buildings was taken. Carpentry shop (dairy). A 1950s rectangular building with a corrugated iron gable roof. Landscaping. Within the farming estate the farm buildings precinct is sheltered by several mature plantings of pine trees and remnant eucalypts, and framed by hawthorn hedgerows which border both sides of the farm lanes and access roads. A very large Bay tree (Laurel) overshadows the privy. Assorted fruit trees grow in the vicinity of the Cookhouse and in back gardens of the cottages. Later plantings have been introduced into the cottage and chapel gardens. Drainage system. The drainage has an extensive system of clay pipe drains of differing sizes and open channels, and a collection of associated tools. Sites of wool washes. Marked on an 1843 map as the wool wash on the bank of the Macquarie River, the site is also evidenced by archaeological features. The site of a later wool wash, further upstream is indicated by timber footings.
The Brickendon House precinct is located on the estate a kilometre distant from the farm buildings and the river, and separated from the farm buildings by the public road, known as Woolmers Lane. The complex comprises the manor house in its garden setting, stables, coachman’s and gardener’s cottages.
Brickendon House, built using convict labour and constructed in 1829-30, the two storey Colonial Georgian brick residence has stepped two-storeyed wings on both sides which partially form a stone paved courtyard. The house contains a front staircase, two back stairs and a service wing including servants’ quarters and a cellar. A well in the cellar stores water collected from the roof while the hand pump is in situ in the courtyard. An original bell, marked 1836, in place over the courtyard gate was used to mark the hours of work and probably to sound the alarm in the case of attack. The windows are twelve or six panes with shutters and the doors six panelled. The front door was also shuttered and features an iron trellis portico custom designed by William Archer, son of Thomas Archer, manufactured and imported from London in 1857 for 70 pounds. The hipped roof is of slate and patent iron tiles. Windows are twelve or six panes, with shutters; the building has six panelled doors, and a front door with curved fieldings, which is also shuttered. The western corner of the servants' wing was rebuilt in 1845 following a fire. An iron trellis portico is positioned above the entrance gate of the rear courtyard. The conservatory adjacent to the house has been removed.
The house is surrounded by a 7ha parkland garden with many exotic trees sourced from around the world and planted during the 1830s. There is an extensive tree lined carriageway with formal avenue approaches to the back and the front of the house lined with a mixture of elms and hawthorn. The main approach terminates in an elliptical carriage turning circle. The centrepiece of the front garden is an ornamental sundial with an axial view from the main entrance. The grounds have been planted out with a mixture of native and exotic broadleaf trees and conifers. In the central formal area several interesting Victorian and Edwardian trees. The garden has later period overlays of planting which contribute to the variety of species. Later features include the metal gates. Water reservoir. Timber frame, with iron tank, 7 metres above ground used to provide water for the house and garden. Access roads to service buildings at the rear of the house are framed by high hawthorn hedges. Stables: Rectangular, two-storey Old Colonial Georgian style brick building with hip roof and intersecting centre gable. The use of a central projecting gable shows Palladian influences. The ground floor is divided into three sections: stables, coach house and tack room with loft areas above. There are twelve pane windows on the ground floor and louvred windows with a fanlight above the upper floor door. The roof is clad with iron patent tiles c. 1840. A small metal Archer insignia is attached to one of the stable doors. An interconnecting workshop links the stable building with a weatherboard machinery shed. Coachman’s Cottage: Built using convict labour c. 1830s a two storey painted brick building with a later extension to the back. The building has a high pitch gabled corrugated iron roof. Gardener’s Cottage: Painted four room brick cottage with rear service wing built using convict labour c. 1830s. Reconstruction work undertaken in 1991 included an extension to the rear. Landscape. All the early 19th century field systems can be identified and around thirty kilometres of hawthorn boundary hedges remain in place. The plantings of European trees and the maintenance of the hedge rows demonstrate clearly the intention to modify the colonial landscape to conform to the aesthetic http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 6 of 12
values of an ‘antipodean England’. The collection of pre-1850s farm buildings remain largely intact and provide direct evidence of the continuity of farming practices from the 1820s. The remains of early drainage, water collection and distribution schemes are evident. Although some crops grown at Brickendon are relatively new arrivals, notably poppies, many others have been grown on the estate since its early days including barley and wheat. Just as it did in the 1820s, Brickendon continues to function as a mixed farm and in addition to agricultural produce approximately 2 000 sheep are run on the property.
Modern farm structures have been sympathetically sited so they do not detract from understanding the original layout and feeling of the property. History: The penal colony of Van Diemen’s Land was established in 1803 with a small population of convicts, soldiers and some free settlers. From 1788-1830s free grants of land were distributed to settlers in the colony. A small but wealthy farming and trading community emerged (Petrow 2000:4). However, unlike NSW very few ex-convicts, known as emancipists, prospered and became prominent in public life (Petrow 2000:5). Through grants and purchases of land free settlers in Tasmania owned ‘a very large proportion of all the property’ and became very influential. The wealthier settlers in the north ‘could build pastoral empires at the expense of their struggling neighbours’ (Morgan 1992:34).
Brickendon Estate is located in the Norfolk Plains, a district that wis well watered by the Macquarie and South Esk rivers. Originally known as 'Wattle Park', the estate was granted to William Whyte, but was taken over by Thomas Archer (1790-1850) of Woolmers and subsequently by William Archer (1788- 1879) who in 1824 had migrated to Van Diemen's Land to join his brother Thomas. Located across the Macquarie River from Woolmers, William Archer renamed the farm Brickendon after a village near his birthplace in Hertfordshire, England.
The topography of the Midlands of Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) was praised in 19th century immigrants’ guides for the manner in which it was said to resemble an English gentleman’s park. This view was fostered by the fertile alluvial soil well watered by river systems and an absence of heavy scrub. These factors facilitated the importation and adoption of traditional British farming practices, and many migrants attempted to further transform the landscape in order to enhance its credentials as an 'antipodean England'. Clearing native vegetation, introducing European species of fauna and flora and drainage schemes all contributed to the creation of a park like landscape. Located within the Norfolk Plains, Brickendon is an estate where this process is particularly evident.
The agricultural and pastoral potential of the area meant that it was quickly exploited. Many early land grants were made in the area, the most significant being that awarded to Thomas Archer. Having arrived in Australia in 1811 aged 21 to take up a posting with Commissariat Department in Sydney, Thomas Archer was later transferred to Port Dalrymple in northern Tasmania where he was granted Woolmers in 1817. His brother William arrived in the colony in 1823 and settled on adjoining land, Brickendon which remains in Archer family ownership.
In the 1820s, at a time when the Bigge Report was encouraging pastoralism as an economic base for the colony, the British woollen industry was expanding. Its promotion of colonial wool stimulated the industry in Australia. By 1817 there were more sheep in Tasmania than NSW, and from the 1820s the Tasmanian Midlands became a major merino breeding centre. By 1821 Van Diemen’s Land was depasturing more sheep than NSW and had taken the lead in improving the quality of merino wool’ (Pearson and Lennon, 2006:12).
William Archer established a mixed farming property on the 420 ha (985 acre) grant. Amongst the merchandise accompanying Archer on the ship Aguilar were 77 pure merino ewes and 3 rams, a Norman cow and bull, many pigs and two horses (Chick 1991:105).
The first timber buildings were erected in the mid-1820s. These included the original two roomed homestead which later probably functioned as an overseer’s quarters, three wooden barns for storing grain, a wooden shearing shed and working horses’ stable and a later brick granary, drains and water harvesting features, fences and hawthorn hedges. The farm buildings were almost certainly constructed http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 7 of 12
using convict labour from pit sawn timber and locally fired bricks. Specific buildings to house, feed and provide religious instruction for the convict labour included the original barracks, now demolished, cookhouse and chapel. The buildings indicate a clear intent to undertake mixed farming following customary English practice. Intensification of agriculture, crop and wool production, stock breeding, animal management and sheep shearing were practiced at Brickendon. These farming practices have continued by successive Archer generations to the present.
The Archers were amongst the first settlers in Van Diemen’s Land to 'improve' their livestock in order to take advantage of the new opportunities in the fine wool export trade. William Archer imported 30 Merino ewes and 2 rams from England in 1824 for Brickendon forming the basis for the very successful stud he established
Following his marriage in 1829 to Caroline Harrison, William Archer had a grand Georgian house built, set in an elaborate garden with accompanying domestic servants’ wing, stables complex and brick houses for a coachman and gardener. The garden was laid out by William Archer in 1831 and specimen trees planted during the 1830s were sourced from around the world. Changes to the design of the garden reflect later plantings by subsequent generations of the Archer family. The homestead complex with its formal architectural style and garden layout was located at some distance from the farm buildings to separate the residence from the working area, demonstrating the family’s status and authority.
The farm layout, its design and development was strongly linked with a high labour input only possible because of the significant use of convict labour provided through the assignment system. The assignment system was set up to provide convict labour to settlers in exchange for food and clothing. The first convicts were assigned as farm servants and for personal service to officer-farmers who had been authorised to receive land grants in 1793 (Shaw 1971:67). Reports of the Bigge Commission, established in 1819 to enquire into conditions in the colony, recommended tightening the assignment system and encouraging pastoralism by allocating large land grants to free immigrants with substantial capital. Assignments of convicts to private masters was very much the favoured method of dealing with convicts. The government saw reformative employment as a cost effective measure to develop colonial infrastructure and assist settlers in establishing rural and commercial enterprises. In its ideal form, assignment was beneficial to all three parties: the government transferred the upkeep of the convict, the master gained cheap labour, and the convict gained reformation through industrious labour (Tuffin in Alexander 2005:30). There were still over 23,000 assigned convicts in 1837 (Kercher 2003) and the system continued in NSW and Tasmania until the cessation of transportation to NSW in 1840 (Shaw 1971:272, Kercher 2003).
Sir George Arthur (1784-1854), the lieutenant-governor of Van Diemen's Land from 1824-1836, developed and administered the assignment system in Tasmania and rigorously insisted on the mutual good behaviour of both master and servant. He 'recognised that the settler formed a very important 'cog' in a greater machine. In keeping with this, he governed the settler-master almost as stringently as he governed the convict' (Tuffin in Alexander 2005:30). Convict labour which was in high demand due to the shortage of free labourers and skilled artisans, could be withdrawn by Arthur for a range of offences. Servants were liable to summary punishment for misconduct, but they might be withdrawn if their masters broke any of the many other regulations.
The assignment system included incentives for convicts to reform. Convicts were entitled to tickets-of- leave if well behaved. This 'indulgence' allowed them to earn wages and live independently while they served out the remainder of their sentence. However as convicts they continued to be monitored and a ticket of leave could be withdrawn for bad behaviour. Conditional pardons (convicts had to remain in the colony) were given as inducements for special services, such as the capture of bushrangers or absconders or faithful service as police. Arthur personally scrutinised the records before granting these incentives. His administration of convicts increased the governor's patronage and aroused the bitter hostility of those whose servants were withdrawn (Shaw 1966). While Arthur set up an Assignment Board in 1832 he supervised it closely. He consistently insisted that under his regime transportation was a very severe punishment. Assigned convicts, he said, were slaves, except that their slavery was terminable. They were always subject to their masters' caprices and vaguely defined offences were liable to severe punishment (Shaw 1966). http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 8 of 12
Working on a large farming property became the most common assignment for convicts. In Tasmania, an average of 54 percent of male convicts were assigned to settlers during the period 1820-1835 (Maxwell- Stewart 2006a:3). The need to provide rations and shelter for convicts favoured larger enterprises, as small farmers were less able to support convicts on a consistent basis and would return them to the colonial authorities for reassignment.
Large farming enterprises were labour intensive. Their development was dependent on the availability of cheap labour. Since convicts and ex-convicts constituted 80 to 90 percent of the potential male labour force in the colonies between 1820-1835 (Butlin 1985:19), convicts were instrumental in the expansion of farming in the colonies. The large country estate quickly became established as the archetypal symbol of the assignment system. As estates were generally managed along paternalistic lines it was thought that masters could instil convicts with habits of industry.
Estate architecture was regarded as vital in achieving these aims. Separate quarters for female assigned servants within the house, clearly defined service areas, service staircases, separate quarters for an overseer and detached barrack-like accommodation for male servants were all considered to be features of the well-ordered estate. Skilled workers, such as gardeners, coachmen and artisans were provided with their own cottage style accommodation whereas other agricultural workers were housed separately in simpler quarters. Ideally the estate complex should also include a chapel where the convict population could be mustered each Sunday (Maxwell-Stewart 2006a:7). The Brickendon Estate exemplifies these features and is an outstanding example of an assignment era property.
A map of 1841 names the paddocks which are still in use by the current generation of Archer descendants. Some names indicate their use, for instance clay dug from the 'Brickfields' paddock was most probably used for making the bricks for the estate buildings. The location of the wool wash marked on the map as being on the Macquarie River bank is also evidenced by archaeological features. A later wool wash, further upstream is also indicated by timber footings.
As one of the larger estates, many convicts worked at Brickendon in the period from the early 1820s to the 1850s. The Brickendon diary, written by William Archer senior with daily entries from 11 August 1829 until 24 February 1830, documents the daily tasks assigned to the convict workforce, the deployment of bullock teams and the use of specialised convict labour (Gregg 2005:7). It provides a record of the lived experience of assigned convicts which differs greatly from that recorded in the official records, an example being the use of incentives to increase convict productivity particularly at harvest time, the busiest season of the agricultural year. The Brickendon diary provides a snapshot of an assigned convict workforce. The convicts at Brickendon were both young and mostly skilled. The average age was 23: the youngest, John Watt was 13 years old and the eldest, William Morgan was 59. A third of the sample of men identified in the diary possessed skills related to agriculture, including six ploughmen. Another two were listed as carters, two labourers, one well sinker, one sawyer, and a butcher. Men with highly specialised trades such as Benjamin Cooper, the wheelwright who constructed and maintained a wide range of agricultural equipment, were highly valued. Men with trades such as John Allcock, a painter, and James John, a shoemaker, were recorded as performing their trades at times, but were most likely to be employed in low-skilled or manual tasks for most of the agrarian cycle. The diary also illustrates the process of technological change and adaptation as colonists used the skills of the convict labour force to adapt technology to suit differing environments (Gregg 2005:24-25).
The 1829 diary provides detailed information on master-servant relationships including the use of incentives to ensure the success of harvesting crops. Food rations, particularly the supply of meat and fruit, were significantly increased at harvest time for the convict workforce (Gregg 2005:39-47).
In practice, the Archer families shared labour between the neighbouring properties, Woolmers and Brickendon. This was especially the case during harvest seasons when assigned servants were rotated between the two properties. With a combined convict population of over 100, Brickendon and Woolmers formed the second largest pool of convict labour in private hands in the colony, after the Van Diemen’s Land Company.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 9 of 12
Properties such as Brickendon are historically important as they represent the typical convict experience. Unlike road parties, and other punishment regimes, assigned convicts were largely managed by the use of incentives, as opposed to punishment. The estates were places where a premium was placed on particular skills, especially those possessed by convict mechanics and many of these skills are exemplified in the surviving architecture and layout of the estate. They were also places where male and female convicts worked alongside each other unlike the public sector where, housed in barracks or female factories, they were generally kept apart. As well as being sites of work, they were also sites of leisure and recreation. They were places where many sections of colonial society interacted, a process which estate architecture was deliberately designed to control. All of these features are remarkably well preserved at Brickendon.
While the assignment system created opportunities for many convicts to start a new life, opposition to the transportation of convicts grew steadily, culminating in the 1838 Molesworth report. The assignment system was considered inconsistent, a lottery dependent too often on the character of the masters, rather than the nature of the crimes. Withdrawal of the assignment process commenced in Tasmania in 1839, to be replaced with the probation system which sought to punish systematically. In 1840 and 1841 there was a labour shortage as no convicts were assigned to private settlers. Due to the cessation of transportation in NSW the convict numbers increased dramatically from 1841 increasing the convict population by over 40% in four years (Shaw 1971:300). From the settlers’ perspective the numbers of convicts increased with no off-setting economic contribution, and they deeply resented the additional imposts levied on them to pay for more police and goals which they considered the responsibility of the British government. Meanwhile revenues fell significantly from falling land sales and a drop in exports (Townsley 1991:61). The failure of the probation system turned the majority of colonists into implacable opponents of transportation itself (Sprod 2005:290). Both Thomas Archer and William Archer of Brickendon with other family members signed a petition, published in 1850, for the immediate abolition of transportation (Chick 1991:11).
William Archer made many other land purchases. However the original land grant of Brickendon, together with an additional 22 ha of land, has continued to be farmed by successive generations of the Archer family. The successful pattern of mixed farming established by William Archer has continued with minor adaptations to address market conditions.
Changes and adaptations undertaken since the end of the assignment period include the declaration of the private road which connected the Brickendon Estate with Woolmers as a public road in 1877. Use of buildings specifically associated with the assignment period such as the chapel and the male convict barracks were discontinued, and some were demolished or used for other purposes such as storage.
A sale brochure for Brickendon in 1895 depicts the 1120 acre estate, of which about 750 acres were cleared and cultivated. The property however was not sold and remains in the possession of William Archer’s descendants. Part of the property was used in the filming of 'My Brilliant Career' to convey the lifestyle of the early landed gentry of eastern Australia.
Brickendon estate is an outstanding example of an assignment era property, and contains some exceptionally early and important buildings. As a large country estate it exemplifies the archetypal symbol of the assignment system. All the features relating to the assignment of convicts in the early 19th century are still extant at Brickendon, with the exception of the male convict barracks, the site of which can readily be identified and remains undisturbed. Since assignment (or work on a property as a ticket-of- leave or pass holder) was far more common than the experience of punishment, Brickendon could be said to exemplify the typical experience for both male and female convicts.
Condition and Integrity: Brickendon estate is in remarkably good condition although many of the outhouses and buildings require routine maintenance.
At Brickendon house the western wing of the servants quarters was rebuilt after a fire in 1845. Otherwise there have been few major structural changes to the house. The conservatory has been removed. The recent addition of a sunroom was completed with Tasmanian Heritage Council permission. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 10 of 12
Security for the movable cultural heritage, particularly the objects in the blacksmith’s shop, is an issue. Location: About 458ha, Woolmers Lane, Longford, comprising the whole of Lot 1 Title Reference 27652. Bibliography:
Aitken, R and Looker, M (eds), 2002 The Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens, Australian Garden History Society, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Altenburg, K 1988, ‘Strathallan near Braidwood, New South Wales: an historical archaeological investigation’ MA thesis, University of Sydney.
Apperly, A, Irving, R, and Reynolds P, 1989, A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian Architecture Styles and Terms from 1788 to the present, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Australian Bureau of Statistics Tasmania, Historical tables, Population Tasmania, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/, accessed on 5 January 2007.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/1384.62002? OpenDocument, accessed on 5 January 2007.
Alexander, A (ed) 2005, The Companion to Tasmanian History, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Australian Broadcasting Commission 2006, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200401/highlights/221534.htm, accessed 22 December 2006
Australian Council of National Trusts 1981, Historic Buildings of Australia, Volume 2, Cassell Australia, North Ryde.
Australian Museum on Line (AMOL), http://amol.org.au/guide/instn.asp?ID=N157, accessed 22 December 2006.
Boyd, Robin 1972, The Australian Ugliness, Penguin Books Australia, Ringwood.
Broadbent, J in Aitken, R and Looker, M (eds), 2002 The Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens, Australian Garden History Society, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Butlin, N G, 1986, ‘Contours of the Australian Economy 1788-1860’, Australian Economic. History Review, Vol 26, No 2, September, 96-125.
Chick, Neil 1991, The Archers of Van Diemens Land A History of Pioneer Pastoral Families, Pedigree Press, Lenah Valley.
Clark, C M H, 1962, Select Documents in Australian History 1851-1900, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Clark, C M H,1979, A History of Australia 111, The Beginning of an Australian Civilization 1824-1851, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.
Frazer Simons, P, 1987, Historic Tasmanian Gardens, Mulini Press, Canberra.
Freeland J M, 1974, Architecture in Australia A History, Penguin Books Australia, Mentone, Victoria.
Gregg, A J, 2005, Convict Labour at Brickendon: The Diary of William Archer Senior, a thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in History, School of History and Classics, University of Tasmania.
English Heritage, www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Historic-Farmsteads-East-England-part2, accessed 21 http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 11 of 12
December 2006.
Forbes, C, 2003, ‘Coombing Park: A Case Study’ in Out There?, National Trust of Australia (NSW), 10 March, 45-52.
Heritage Council of Victoria, 1997, Warrock.
Irving R (compiler), 1985 The History and Design of the Australian House, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kercher, Bruce 2003, Law and History Review, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700–1850’, Vol 21, No 3, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/21.3/forum_kercher.html, accessed on 11 January 2007.
Kerr, J S, ‘A Brief Account of the Development of Fencing in Australia during the Nineteenth century’, in Historic Houses Trust, 1998, Bush Futures? Forum, Sydney.
Lucas, C and Joyce, R, 1994, Australian Country Houses Homesteads, Farmsteads and Rural Retreats, Lansdowne Publishing, Sydney.
Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1996: Woolmers Estate, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Plan, (Volumes 1-4)
Macmillan Australia, 1983, The Heritage of Tasmania The Illustrated Register of the National Estate, Macmillan Australia in association with the Australian Heritage Commission.
Maxwell-Stewart, H, 2006a, ‘Short Term Consultancy for World Heritage Serial Nomination for Australian Convict Sites’, for the Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Maxwell-Stewart 2006b, ‘Woolmers, Brickendon’ for the Tasmanian Department of the Tourism, Arts and the Environment.
Morgan S, 1992, Land Settlement in Early Tasmania, Cambridge University Press, Oakleigh, Victoria.
Morris-Nunn, M, Watson-Brown, E, Ascui, G, and Bartkevicious, M, 1986, Woolmers Blacksmith shop; Woolshed; Ciderhouse; Pumping house; A Study, Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston.
New South Wales Heritage Council, http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm? itemid=2690002, accessed 21 December 2006.
Pearson M and Lennon J, 2006, ‘Draft Pastoralism and National Estate Values’.
Petrow, S, 2000, ‘Policing in a Penal Colony: Governor Arthur's Police System in Van Diemen's Land, 1826-1836’ in Law and History Review, Vol 18, No 2, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.2/petrow.html, accessed on 4 January 2007.
Roberts, S H, 1935, The Squatting Age in Australia 1835-1847, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Robson L, 1983, A History of Tasmania, Volume 1, Van Diemen’s Land from the Earliest Times to 1855, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Sale brochure, 1895, Description, Particulars and Plan of the Brickendon Estate, Longford, Tasmania the property of W.H.D. Archer Esq. The Tasmanian Permanent Executors and Trustees Association Limited, 68 St John Street, Launceston.
Shaw, A G L, 1966, 'Arthur, Sir George (1784 - 1854)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 12 of 12
Melbourne University Press, pp 32-38.
Sprod, D 2005, in The Companion to Tasmania History, Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania.
Stilwell, G T, 1966 Australian Dictionary of Biography, ‘Archer Thomas (1790-1850)’, Volume 1, Melbourne University Press.
Strzelecki, de, P E, 1845, Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, accompanied by a Geological map, sections and diagrams, and figures of the organic remains, , Australiana Facsimile editions No 19, 1967, Adelaide.
Townsley W A, 1991, Tasmania From Colony to Statehood 1803-1945, St David’s Park Publishing, Hobart.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staddle_stones, accessed 21 December 2006.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Rackham, accessed 30 January 2007.
Report Produced: Mon Jan 7 16:08:47 2008
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=place_name%3Dbri... 7/01/2008 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 13 of 18
noted that ‘surprisingly, in Hertfordshire, where weatherboarding is usual on most farm buildings, the framing of granaries is in-filled with brick’ (English Heritage 2006:29). Internally granary walls were usually close-boarded or plastered and limewashed, and the floor made of tight fitting lapped boards to prevent loss of grain. Grain bins, or the slots in vertical timbers for horizontal planking used to make them, are another characteristic feature: close-boarded partitions allowed different crops to be kept separate. Window openings were typically small, and, with ventilation being the main objective, the openings were generally either louvres, sliding vents or grilles (English Heritage 2006:27 -30).
Following his marriage in 1829 to Caroline Harrison, William Archer had a grand Georgian house built, set in an elaborate garden with accompanying domestic servants’ wing, stables complex and brick houses for a coachman and gardener. The garden was laid out by William Archer in 1831 and specimen trees planted during the 1830s were sourced from around the world. Changes to the design of the garden reflect later plantings by subsequent generations of the Archer family.
Brickendon was typical of early colonial gardens in Tasmania in its incorporation of the glazed protection provided by a conservatory, considered a necessity for the growth of tender plants from ‘home’ (Aitken and Looker 2002:588).
The homestead complex with its formal architectural style and garden layout was located at some distance from the farm buildings to separate the residence from the working area, demonstrating the family’s status and authority. Security may also have played a role.
William Archer, a miller from Hertford and father of the four Archer sons who settled in the Norfolk plains, arrived from England in 1827. Writing from Woolmers in December 1827 he found fencing work to be expensive. Atkinson in his detailed Account of the State of Agriculture and Grazing in NSW, published in 1826, pointed out that there had been few attempts to grow live fences (hedges) (Historic Houses Trust 1998:130). William Archer however wrote that ‘Hawthorns and other shrubby Plants being cultivated now very generally and live fences will be springing up here and there lessening the expense of dividing and enclosing as well as beautifying the Country’ (Chick 1991:52).
William Archer and his sons demonstrate colonial settlers’ practical transference of European farming technologies to the Australian environment with attempts to adapt the unfamiliar environment to reflect the aesthetic values of an ‘antipodean England’. A contemporary, Edward Curr, described the Norfolk plains as being unsurpassed in ‘native beauties and excellence of soil’ (Gregg 2005:24). William Archer utilised the topography removing the natural landscape features to establish an English farming landscape. The variation of small hedge-lined paddocks, the introduction of European oaks and elms, European cereal crops and grazing animals, created a park like landscape. The aesthetic qualities of the region, especially its open grazing and hedge lined fields and lanes have been valued by subsequent generations. It is widely regarded as a (if not the) quintessential Tasmanian farming landscape.
The farm layout, its design and development was strongly linked with a high labour input only possible because of the significant use of convict labour. This is demonstrated by the extensive drainage systems which testify to the intensive use made of assigned convict labour which required non-skilled but repetitive manual labour, scarcely financially viable without the use of a supply of assigned labour.
The Brickendon diary, written by William Archer senior with daily entries from 11 August 1829 until 24 February 1830, documents the daily tasks assigned to the convict workforce, the deployment of bullock teams and the use of specialised convict labour. Other journal entries include details of accounts, and a certain social record of visitors to and from Brickendon and neighbouring farms (Gregg 2005:7). It provides a record of the lived experience of assigned convicts which differs greatly from that recorded in the official records, an example being the use of incentives to increase convict productivity particularly at harvest time, the busiest season of the agricultural year.
The Brickendon diary provides a snapshot of an assigned convict workforce in 1829-30. The convicts at Brickendon were both young and mostly skilled. The average age was 23: the youngest, John Watt was 13 years old and the eldest, William Morgan was 59. A third of the sample of men identified in the diary possessed skills related to agriculture, including six ploughmen. Another two were listed as carters, two http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 14 of 18
labourers, one well sinker, one sawyer, and a butcher. Labour was shared amongst the Archer properties, particularly at harvest time. Men with highly specialised trades such as Benjamin Cooper, the wheelwright who constructed and maintained a wide range of agricultural equipment, were highly valued. Men with trades such as John Allcock, a painter, and James John, a shoemaker, were recorded as performing their trades at times, but were most likely to be employed in low-skilled or manual tasks for most of the agrarian cycle. The diary also illustrates the process of technological change and adaptation as colonists used the skills of the convict labour force to adapt technology to suit differing environments (Gregg 2005:24-25).
The 1829 diary provides detailed information on master-servant relationships including the use of incentives to ensure the success of harvesting crops and methods of convict protest. Food rations, particularly the supply of meat and fruit, were significantly increased at harvest time for the convict workforce. William Archer also records an extraordinary harvest ‘indulgence’, the provision of bottled Cape wine (Gregg 2005:39-47).
The 1829 Brickendon diary refers to loans of convict labour between Archer-owned properties. Infrastructure including the granaries at Brickendon may also have been shared between Brickendon and Woolmers (Clive Lucas Stapleton 1996 (2):45).
A map of 1841 names the paddocks which are still in use by the current generation of Archer descendants. Some names indicate their use, for instance clay dug from the ‘Brickfields’ paddock was most probably used for making the bricks for the estate buildings. The location of the wool wash marked on the map as being on the Macquarie River bank is also evidenced by archaeological features. A later wool wash, further upstream is also indicated by timber footings.
Strzlecki in his description of the geology and soils of the colonies of New South Wales and Tasmania, published in 1845, classified three soil types at Brickendon. He described the estate as being ‘…situated in the most advantageous position for effecting improvements in agriculture, and from those which have already taken place, entitled to be classed among the best of the Australian settlements….the rich alluvium (No 18) ‘has been manured, but not irrigated; it produces of wheat 35 bushels (a bushel is 36.36872 litres) per acre (an acre is 0.4047 ha) ….Mr Archer looks upon this soil as possessing the highest productive power (Strzlecki, 1845:404).
The second soil sample (No 19), taken from the higher ground was lighter in colour, subject to frost and crops of wheat, barley and oats which had been trialled, had failed. ‘Mr Archer pronounces it to be the soil of the least productive power upon the farm’ (Strzlecki, 1845:406). The dark alluvial soils of the river banks (No 20) ‘….is neither manured nor irrigated. This soil is pronounced to be of the highest productive power. It yielded 40 bushels per acre, and has yielded 90 of Cape barley; but the crop is considered peculiarly precarious, being more subject to injury from frost than on any of the adjoining lands’ (Strzlecki, 1845:407).
Strzlecki publicised William Archer’s success as a farmer, writing that ‘…wheat of Mr William Archer, grown in the farm of Brickendon, my be pointed out to Tasmanian agriculturalists as the best in the island’ (Strzlecki, 1845:457).
He considered that Brickendon, the farms of his brothers Thomas Archer and Edward Archer and another three, as being ‘ranked with the best farms of England’ (Strzlecki, 1845:386).
A painting of Norfolk Plains by William Thomas Lyttleton c 1833, depicts Woolmers in the foreground and Brickendon in the distance across the river. On Brickendon sheep are grazing along the river bank near the site of the wool wash, while on both sides of the track leading from the punt to the prominent two storey manor house, abundant grain crops are being harvested, stooked sheathes stand waiting to be loaded into carts, shown being driven back to the farm village where five or six haystacks and the two storey granary provide a central focal point in the middle distance, their golden hue repeating the glowing grain fields in the foreground and the golden light of the western sky. The pastoral ideal of a model English landscape being transferred to the colonies, the ‘Antipodean’ image is being realised scarcely a decade after William Archer’s arrival in the colony. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 15 of 18
Strzlecki preferred the agricultural landscape of the colonies to the pastoral areas, writing ‘In passing from the pastoral to the agricultural districts, the traveller exchanges a wild solitude, a rude independence, a shifting and temporary industry – images quite of an Australian complexion – for the scenery of the Old World, - towns, villages, comfortable homesteads, tilled and enclosed fields, and gardens. Great the contrast is, it is nevertheless the work of only twenty years’ (Strzlecki, 1845:386).
‘In Van Diemen’s Land, the agricultural districts are superior in appearance to those of New South Wales. The details of farm and farming are better understood and defined, and the practical results are such, that no country reminds the traveller so much of the old one as Van Diemen’s Land. There, the tasteful and comfortable mansions and cottages, surrounded by pleasure grounds, gardens and orchards, the neat villages, prominently placed churches, forming as it were the centres of cultivated plains, divided and sub- divided by hedgerows, clipped or brushed, and through which an admirably constructed road winds across the island, are all objects which forcibly carry back the mind to similar scenes of rural beauty in England and Scotland’ (Strzlecki, 1845:381).
William Archer made many other land purchases. However the original land grant of Brickendon, together with an additional 22 ha of land, has continued to be farmed by successive generations of the Archer family. The successful pattern of mixed farming established by William Archer has continued with minor adaptations to address market conditions. Cereal and seed crops continued to be grown for the local market after the decline of the Norfolk plains as the colonial Australian granary. The family continued to utilise the high fertility of the soils, cropping on the alluvial plain and raising sheep on higher ground with clay soils. In 1917 the family changed from fine wool production with Merinos to breeding Corriedales.
Changes and adaptations undertaken since the end of the assignment period include the declaration of the private road which connected the Brickendon Estate with Woolmers as a public road in 1877. Use of buildings specifically associated with the assignment period such as the chapel and the male convict barracks were discontinued, and some were demolished or used for other purposes such as storage.
A sale brochure for Brickendon in 1895 depicts the 1120 acre estate, of which about 750 acres were cleared and cultivated. The agricultural farm was noted ‘for bearing the best crops of grain, without manure, in the district. and Crops of 35, 40 and 52 bushels of wheat and barley were frequently obtained. The estate was breeding stud stock, cattle, horses and sheep. The sheep frequently cut from 7 to 7 and a half pounds of wool of best quality; the lambs 2 lbs. After a long wet winter there were 1400 merino sheep, around 50 cattle and about 25 horses, 195 acres in wheat, 60 acres in oats, 3 or 4 acres in mangolds (a type of beet grown for stock feed) and sugar beet and 35 acres sown with rape. The orchard and vegetable garden produced the ‘finest fruit and vegetables’ estimated to be worth £100 a year.
The brochure describes the farm buildings as comprising ‘overseer’s cottages (2), dairy, slaughter house, smoke house for hams, bacon etc, chapel of brick (suitable for a good store), range of stables and loose boxes, shearing shed, wool loft, sheds for sheep during shearing for night housing or against rain, brick granary with every convenience for storing 7,000 or 8,000 bushels of grain, cook house and double cottage for labourers, range of labourers’ cottages, carpenters and wheelwrights shops, blacksmiths shop (with every convenience for farm work). Three large brick cememt tanks holding from 30,000 to 50,000 gallons of water caught from roofs supply stables and cottages with water – all from iron roofing. Range of stables, store, chaff house, long ranges of milking, root, cattle and implement sheds. ALL ROOF WITH IRON. Two very large barns will hold fully 3,000 bushels of wheat in straw, with two bays and midsty; store for iron goods, etc; oat crusher, engine shed, and calf house attached to barns. Large granary of three storeys, of wood roofed with iron, ddivided into stores and bins for grain, with every convenience for raising, delivering and storing grain. Most convenient shed, divided into two compartments; brick paved, with dip for sheep. Large boiler set in brickwork, for supplying dip. Many of the fields have been underdrained at great cost with tile pipes. The property is divided into 35 paddocks (1120 acres, 31 r, 23p), 25 of which have been cultivated. A perfect property for stud breeding purposes, whether for horses, cattle or sheep. Whitethorn hedges for the most part divide the fields. (Sale brochure in possession of the Archer family 1895). The property however was not sold and remains in the possession of William Archer’s descendants. Part of the property was used in the filming of 'My Brilliant Career' to convey the lifestyle of the early landed gentry of eastern Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 16 of 18
Brickendon estate is an outstanding example of an assignment era property. As a large country estate it exemplifies the archetypal symbol of the assignment system. All the features relating to the assignment of convicts in the early 19th century are still extant at Brickendon, with the exception of the male convict barracks, the site of which can readily be identified and remains undisturbed. Since assignment (or work on a property as a ticket-of-leave or pass holder) was far more common than the experience of punishment, Brickendon could be said to exemplify the typical experience for both male and female convicts.
Condition and Integrity: Brickendon estate is in remarkably good condition although many of the outhouses and buildings require routine maintenance.
At Brickendon house the western wing of the servants quarters was rebuilt after a fire in 1845. Otherwise there have been few major structural changes to the house. The conservatory has been removed. The recent addition of a sunroom was completed with Tasmanian Heritage Council permission.
Security for the movable cultural heritage, particularly the objects in the blacksmith’s shop, is an issue. Location: About 458ha, Woolmers Lane, Longford, comprising the whole of Lot 1 Title Reference 27652. Bibliography: Aitken, R and Looker, M (eds), 2002 The Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens, Australian Garden History Society, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Altenburg, K 1988, ‘Strathallan near Braidwood, New South Wales: an historical archaeological investigation’ MA thesis, University of Sydney.
Apperly, A, Irving, R, and Reynolds P, 1989, A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian Architecture Styles and Terms from 1788 to the present, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Australian Bureau of Statistics Tasmania, Historical tables, Population Tasmania, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/, accessed on 5 January 2007.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/1384.62002? OpenDocument, accessed on 5 January 2007.
Alexander, A (ed) 2005, The Companion to Tasmanian History, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Australian Broadcasting Commission 2006, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200401/highlights/221534.htm, accessed 22 December 2006
Australian Council of National Trusts 1981, Historic Buildings of Australia, Volume 2, Cassell Australia, North Ryde.
Australian Museum on Line (AMOL), http://amol.org.au/guide/instn.asp?ID=N157, accessed 22 December 2006.
Boyd, Robin 1972, The Australian Ugliness, Penguin Books Australia, Ringwood.
Broadbent, J in Aitken, R and Looker, M (eds), 2002 The Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens, Australian Garden History Society, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
Butlin, N G, 1986, ‘Contours of the Australian Economy 1788-1860’, Australian Economic. History Review, Vol 26, No 2, September, 96-125.
Chick, Neil 1991, The Archers of Van Diemens Land A History of Pioneer Pastoral Families, Pedigree http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 17 of 18
Press, Lenah Valley.
Clark, C M H, 1962, Select Documents in Australian History 1851-1900, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Clark, C M H,1979, A History of Australia 111, The Beginning of an Australian Civilization 1824-1851, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.
Frazer Simons, P, 1987, Historic Tasmanian Gardens, Mulini Press, Canberra.
Freeland J M, 1974, Architecture in Australia A History, Penguin Books Australia, Mentone, Victoria.
Gregg, A J, 2005, Convict Labour at Brickendon: The Diary of William Archer Senior, a thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in History, School of History and Classics, University of Tasmania.
English Heritage, www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Historic-Farmsteads-East-England-part2, accessed 21 December 2006.
Forbes, C, 2003, ‘Coombing Park: A Case Study’ in Out There?, National Trust of Australia (NSW), 10 March, 45-52.
Heritage Council of Victoria, 1997, Warrock.
Irving R (compiler), 1985 The History and Design of the Australian House, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kercher, Bruce 2003, Law and History Review, ‘Perish or Prosper: The Law and Convict Transportation in the British Empire, 1700–1850’, Vol 21, No 3, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/21.3/forum_kercher.html, accessed on 11 January 2007.
Kerr, J S, ‘A Brief Account of the Development of Fencing in Australia during the Nineteenth century’, in Historic Houses Trust, 1998, Bush Futures? Forum, Sydney.
Lucas, C and Joyce, R, 1994, Australian Country Houses Homesteads, Farmsteads and Rural Retreats, Lansdowne Publishing, Sydney.
Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1996: Woolmers Estate, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Plan, (Volumes 1-4)
Macmillan Australia, 1983, The Heritage of Tasmania The Illustrated Register of the National Estate, Macmillan Australia in association with the Australian Heritage Commission.
Maxwell-Stewart, H, 2006a, ‘Short Term Consultancy for World Heritage Serial Nomination for Australian Convict Sites’, for the Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Maxwell-Stewart 2006b, ‘Woolmers, Brickendon’ for the Tasmanian Department of the Tourism, Arts and the Environment.
Morgan S, 1992, Land Settlement in Early Tasmania, Cambridge University Press, Oakleigh, Victoria.
Morris-Nunn, M, Watson-Brown, E, Ascui, G, and Bartkevicious, M, 1986, Woolmers Blacksmith shop; Woolshed; Ciderhouse; Pumping house; A Study, Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston.
New South Wales Heritage Council, http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm? itemid=2690002, accessed 21 December 2006.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 18 of 18
Pearson M and Lennon J, 2006, ‘Draft Pastoralism and National Estate Values’.
Petrow, S, 2000, ‘Policing in a Penal Colony: Governor Arthur's Police System in Van Diemen's Land, 1826-1836’ in Law and History Review, Vol 18, No 2, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.2/petrow.html, accessed on 4 January 2007.
Roberts, S H, 1935, The Squatting Age in Australia 1835-1847, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Robson L, 1983, A History of Tasmania, Volume 1, Van Diemen’s Land from the Earliest Times to 1855, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Sale brochure, 1895, Description, Particulars and Plan of the Brickendon Estate, Longford, Tasmania the property of W.H.D. Archer Esq. The Tasmanian Permanent Executors and Trustees Association Limited, 68 St John Street, Launceston.
Shaw, A G L, 1966, 'Arthur, Sir George (1784 - 1854)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1, Melbourne University Press, pp 32-38.
Sprod, D 2005, in The Companion to Tasmania History, Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, University of Tasmania.
Stilwell, G T, 1966 Australian Dictionary of Biography, ‘Archer Thomas (1790-1850)’, Volume 1, Melbourne University Press.
Strzelecki, de, P E, 1845, Physical Description of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, accompanied by a Geological map, sections and diagrams, and figures of the organic remains, , Australiana Facsimile editions No 19, 1967, Adelaide.
Townsley W A, 1991, Tasmania From Colony to Statehood 1803-1945, St David’s Park Publishing, Hobart.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staddle_stones, accessed 21 December 2006.
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Rackham, accessed 30 January 2007.
Report Produced: Fri Jun 29 12:36:41 2007
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105977 29/06/2007 AHPI - Record Page 1 of 1
[ New Search ] Brickendon
Source: Go to the Tasmanian Heritage Register for more information. Identifier: 5180 Location: RA 236 Wellington Street, Longford Local Northern Midlands Government: State: TAS Country: Australia --- Statement of This building is of historic heritage significance because its townscape --- Significance: associations are regarded as important to the community s sense of place. Brickendon is of historic heritage significance because of its ability to demonstrate the principal characteristics of a brick Old Colonial Georgian rural homestead and associated outbuildings (including a chapel). Description: It is a double storey brick building with a hipped roof, stringcourse and 12-paned windows with shutters. There is a portico at the front entrance. There is a large collection of pre 1850s outbuildings; some timber, and others stone. They include farm buildings and a chapel.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE:- Old Colonial Georgian
Report produced : 31/8/2007 AHPI URL : http://www.heritage.gov.au/ahpi/search.html
http://www.heritage.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahpi/record.pl?TAS5180 31/08/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 1 of 4
Australian Heritage Database Place Details new search | about the Australian Heritage Database | Heritage home | Australian Heritage Council home
Send Feedback
Brickendon and Outbuildings, RA 236 Wellington St, Longford, TAS, Australia
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=12869 31/08/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 2 of 4
Photographs:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=12869 31/08/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 3 of 4
List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (21/03/1978) Place ID: 12869 Place File 6/03/071/0046 No: Statement of Significance: Brickendon is important as a remarkably intact rural complex which has developed over time, including the main residence and very complete outbuildings, set in their original farming lands, which reflects the lifestyle of the early landed gentry of eastern Australia (criterion A.4). Brickendon is significant for its association with the prominant local settlers, the Archers, who owned a http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=12869 31/08/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 4 of 4
string of properties in the area, of which Woolmers, Panshanger, Northbury, Fairfield, Cheshunt, Woodside, Palmerston and Saundridge are entered on the Register of the National estate (criterion H.1). Official Values: Not Available Description: The original land grant to William Whyte was taken over by William Archer in 1829 and called 'Wattle Park'. The property has remained in family ownership ever since (to 1989). The house was built in 1829- 30, but in 1845 was partially destroyed by fire and subsequently rebuilt. The main residence is a two-storey stuccoed brick old Colonial Georgian home with cellars. Stepped wings of two-storeys at the side and rear form a large courtyard, which is paved with stones. Windows are twelve or six panes, with shutters; the building has six panelled doors, and a front door with curved fieldings, which is also shuttered. It has an iron trellis portico, designed by William Archer jr and manufactured in London in 1857 for 70 pounds. The building has hipped roofs of slate and early patent iron tiles. The stable is a brick building of two-storeys in Old Colonial Georgian style, with a centre gable, fanlight doors and a hipped roof. There is a large group of timber barns in vernacular style, including a two-storey barn on carved stone piers to prevent vermin from entering. Pitched iron roofs have sloped gables. Outbuildings also include workers' cottages in stone and brick. The small family chapel is built of brick in the Victorian Rustic Gothic style with timber shingled roof and bellcote. Part of the property was used in the filming of 'My Brilliant Career' to convey the lifestyle of the early landed gentry of eastern Australia. The garden is significant in its own right. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Original 1829-30 residence destroyed by fire and rebuilt in 1881. Outbuildings erected 1820-60 are remarkably intact. Location: Comprising homestead, cottages, chapel, barnes, stables, coach house and cottage, RA 236 Wellington Street, outbuildings off Woolmers Lane, Longford. Bibliography: GRAEME ROBERTSON. EARLY HOUSES OF NORTH TAS.VOL 1 PP 147-151. COX & STACEY THE AUSTRALIAN HOMESTEAD. ENTRY FOR THOMAS ARCHER, AUSTRALIAN DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY.
Report Produced: Fri Aug 31 14:19:05 2007
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=12869 31/08/2007 Search The Australian Heritage Database Page 1 of 1
Australian Heritage Database Place Details new search | about the Australian Heritage Database | Heritage home | Australian Heritage Council home
Send Feedback
Brickendon Garden, RA 236 Wellington St, Longford, TAS, Australia
Photographs:
List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (14/05/1991) Place ID: 12870 Place File No: 6/03/071/0046 Statement of Significance: Brickendon garden is a homestead garden constructed in the 1830s. The garden is important for demonstrating the principal characteristics of an early 19th century Australian landscape garden style, including the following: a formal layout; axial views with in-line ornaments; a curving avenue approach; a central carriageway turn around; and the use of broadleaf English trees coupled with exotic conifers, which reflect the influence of the horticultural movement (criterion D.2). The garden exhibits aesthetic quality derived from the designed spatial arrangement, coupled with the maturity of plants which now contribute canopies and plant detail (criterion E.1 ). The garden is important for demonstrating creative achievement which was recognised and described in 1907 in 'The Naturalist in Tasmania' by G. Smith (crierion F.1). The garden is important for its association with William Archer of the pioneer farming family (criterion H.1). Official Values: Not Available Description: The garden was established by William Archer in 1831 as a setting for an impressive Georgian residence. The approach to the homestead is through an avenue of elms and hawthorn, terminating at an elliptical shaped carriageway in front of the house. The front garden is laid out around a central sundial, with an axial view from the main entrance. Either side of the central axis are shrubberies and woodlands, noted for their array of native, and exotic broad leaf and conifer trees. At the rear of the house is a courtyard. The garden has later period overlays of planting which contribute to the variety of species. Later features include the metal gates. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Not Available Location: RA 236 Wellington Street, 3km south of Longford. Bibliography: SIMONS, P. F. HISTORIC TASMANIAN GARDENS. MULINI PRESS, CANBERRA, 1987.
Report Produced: Fri Aug 31 14:37:33 2007
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=12870 31/08/2007 SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
CRITERION (IV) CRITERION (VI)
(a) Complex and diverse systems of punishment and reform* (a) Impact on other parts of the world
This includes: the assignment system; probation system; secondary punishment in (i) Important influence in ending transportation in the British empire and discouraging penitentiaries; female factories; penal bureaucracy; special regimes for convict boys the expansion of convictism in other parts of the world: establishment of the new and female convicts; chain gang schemes; hiring depots; ticket-of-leave system. penitentiary system in Britain. Harsh conditions and punishments, as well as good material conditions and reform regimes that provided opportunities for convicts to build new lives. Profile sites: Coal Mines; Fremantle Prison; Brickendon-Woolmers.
Profile sites: Fremantle Prison; Old Great North Road; and Darlington Probation Notable sites with a cross-reference: Old Government House [Pt 2B]. Station. (ii) Important influence in establishment of penal colonies: New Caledonia and French Notable sites with a cross-reference: Cascades Female Factory [6 (c)]; Brickendon- Guiana Woolmers [6 (c)]; Old Government House [6 (e)]; Port Arthur [4 (b)]. Profile sites: The whole series of sites. NOTE: Some penal colonies in other parts of the world had elements of these systems but they operated on a more informal and ad hoc way.
(b) Convictism as a deterrence to crime in home state (b) Exceptional experiments in penology: reformation regimes under Macquarie, Maconochie and Arthur* The major immediate objective of transportation and throughout the convict era in Australia was to rid Britain of criminals (overcrowded prisons, hulks) and to deter Instances of exceptional material conditions and enlightening regimes: created criminals. substantial opportunities for convicts to build new lives.
Harsh conditions and punishment regimes: instances of brutalizing regimes Profile sites: comparable to some of the worst in the world. This included physical and psychological regimes of punishment. Macquarie: Hyde Park Barracks; Old Government House.
Profile sites: KAVHA; Port Arthur. Maconochie: KAVHA, Fremantle Prison.
Unconfirmed profile sites: Coal Mines; and Old Great North Road. Arthur: Port Arthur.
(c) Geo-political advantages for home state including (c) Exceptional experiments in penology: punishment and reform economic benefit of female convicts* SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
CRITERION (IV) CRITERION (VI)
Empire building was an objective of transportation to Australia. Colonisation Brutal punishment regimes that sometimes damaged or destroyed female lives including several potentially unique aspects in terms of global convictism – such as (including the death of large numbers of their babies) as well as opportunities for some the important role of women in populating the colonies and efforts to mould women female convicts to build new lives. into a moderating influence on male convicts – which was critical to the survival of the penal colony and the new civil societies)*; export of goods from the new Profile sites: Cascades Female Factory, Brickendon-Woolmers Estates. colonies; naval strategic benefits; and preventing French expansion.
Immediate and long term economic benefits to the home state including: natural resources; lower cost of detaining criminals; use of convict labour for construction of infrastructure, housing etc. Economic development of Australia was a critical element of the foundation of a new society: the 'white settlement' of a continent previously inhabited by Aboriginal communities.
Empire building contributed to the harsh treatment of convicts but also created opportunities for convicts to build new lives.
Profile sites: KAVHA; Brickendon-Woolmers Estates; Cockatoo Island.
Unconfirmed profile sites: Old Government House; Cascades Female Factory; Old Great North Road.
Notable sites with a cross-reference: Fremantle Prison [Part 2B; 2 (a) in Pt 3].
(d) Convictism for the reformation of criminals* (d) Exceptional experiments in penology: reformation of convict boys* The reform of criminals was an important objective of transportation and the convict system in Australia. The legal framework, the material conditions and the various Profile sites: Port Arthur. punishment and labour regimes provided opportunities for many convicts to build new lives. The vast majority of convicts were closely integrated into the penal colonies as evidenced in the low incidence of resistance.
This will briefly outline the important role of religion and the impact of Enlightenment ideas – covered in detail under 4 (a) and 6 (b).
Profile sites: Brickendon-Woolmers; Fremantle Prison. SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
CRITERION (IV) CRITERION (VI)
Unconfirmed profile sites: Darlington Probation Station.
Notable sites with a cross-reference: Port Arthur [6 (b)]; KAVHA [6 (b)]; and Darlington Probation Station [4 (a) and Part 2B].
(e) Cultural landscapes (e) Penal bureaucracy
Profile sites: KAVHA. Profile sites: Old Government House.
Notable sites with a cross-reference: Port Arthur. Notable sites with a cross-reference: Port Arthur; KAVHA.
(f) Artistic and literary works
Profile sites: Fremantle Prison.
Unconfirmed profile sites: Hyde Park Barracks
Notable sites with a cross-reference: Port Arthur; KAVHA.
Explanatory notes
• Each of the sites demonstrate most of the themes outlined above. There are some themes that are represented by only a few sites.
• ‘Profile sites’ are the outstanding exemplars of the theme (see below).
• The aim of the table is to ensure that each of the sites is profiled at least once and that none of the sites are profiled excessively. However, while there is a need to achieve a relatively balanced representation of the sites across the themes, it is still important that the best sites are profiled under each of the themes.
Legend ‘Profile sites’ these sites are the confirmed exemplars of the theme.
Unconfirmed profile sites: these sites may be included as a ‘profile site’ or listed as a ‘notable site’ (see below). This will be decided during the drafting of versions 3 and 4 and discussed at the next CNSC meeting. SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
‘Notable sites with a cross-reference’ these sites will be listed as a notable site that in 2-3 sentences with a cross-reference to another theme in Part 3, Part 3C and/or Part 2B.
* These are potentially unique aspects of global convictism. SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
SUMMARY TABLE OF SITES AGAINST THEMES
SITE PROFILE SITE UNCONFIRMED NOTABLE/CROSS COMMENTS PROFILE SITE REFERENCE KAVHA 4 (b), 4 (c), 4 (e), 6 (e) 4 (d), 6 (f). 6 (b)
Old Government House 6 (b), 6 (e) 4 (c) 4 (a), 6 (a), 6 (c)
Old Great North Road 4 (a) 4 (b), 4 (c) May change 4 (b) to a ‘profile site’.
Hyde Park Barracks 6 (b) 6 (f)
Cockatoo Island 4 (c) 6 (a)
Fremantle Prison 4 (a), 4 (d), 6 (a), 4 (c) May reduce ‘profile site’ to less themes. 6 (b), 6 (f)
Port Arthur 4 (b), 6 (b), 6 (d) 6 (e) 4 (a), 4 (d), 4 (e), 6 (f)
Coal Mines 6 (a) 4 (b)
Cascades Female Factory 6 (c) 4 (c) 4 (a) May change 4 (c) to a ‘profile site’.
Darlington Probation Station 4 (a) 4 (d) May change 4 (d) to a ‘profile site’.
Brickendon-Woolmers Estates 4 (c), 4 (d), 6 (a), 4 (a) May reduce ‘profile site’ to three themes 6 (c) only. SUMMARY TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION THEMES
BRICKENDON-WOOLMERS ESTATES WORLD HERITAGE VALUES THAT ARE PROFILED IN THE NOMINATION
WORLD HERITAGE CRITERION (IV)
‘BE AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF A TYPE OF BUILDING OR ARCHITECTURAL OR TECHNOLOGICAL ENSEMBLE OR LANDSCAPE WHICH ILLUSTRATES A SIGNIFICANT STAGE IN HUMAN HISTORY’
• An outstanding representation of the assignment system which was an important feature of the convict system in Australia.
• An outstanding representation of the use of convict labour for the economic benefit of the home state (including colonisation).
• An outstanding representation of the reform and rehabilitation of convicts.
WORLD HERITAGE CRITERION (VI)
‘BE DIRECTLY OR TANGIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS OR LIVING TRADITIONS, WITH IDEAS, OR WITH BELIEFS, WITH ARTISTIC AND LITERARY WORKS OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL SIGNIFICANCE’
Impact on other parts of the world : the important influence in ending transportation in the British empire and discouraging the expansion of convictism in other parts of the world: establishment of the new penitentiary system in Britain.
• An outstanding representation of the assignment system which played a crucial role in the abolition of transportation to NSW. CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 7 Maintenance Plan for Buildings (following stabilisation works, if any)
Every week Inspect external lighting, security fencing, access ways and safety barriers (if any).
Every month Inspect and clean out box gutters, eaves gutters, downpipes and rainwater heads Check operation of stormwater drains Mow presently mowed areas
Every 6 months Check roof membranes Clear regrowth and fallen trees from tracks and roads Check and repair roads, clean out gutters and culverts, etc.
Every year Inspect structural timbers for termites and rot and take remedial action Check film flashings to masonry cornices and projections and repair if needed Check metal walling, roofing, guttering etc. and repair if needed Check external steelwork and spot prepare and paint if needed Oil locks, hinges, etc.
Every 2 years Check roof timbers and masonry walls for structural faults and take remedial action Investigate corrosion at junctions of steelwork and footings, steelwork and floor slabs, steelwork and walls and spot repair, prepare and paint Clear regrowth in cleared areas
Every 3 years Check over and repair roof coverings and flashings Renew film flashings to concrete cornices and projections Renew film finishes to masonry and timber sills of windows and doors Paint exposed external joinery Paint metal windows
Every 5 years Clean out stormwater drains Paint external painted render, masonry, cement fibre etc. surfaces Paint external metal surfaces Paint protected external joinery
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Every 8 years Paint internal structural steelwork
Every 10 years Repair external timber work Refurbish flat roof membranes Renew external galvanised steel walling, roofing, guttering, downpipes and flashings
Every 20 years Renew external zincalume walling, roofing, guttering, downpipes and flashings.
Every 25 years Carry out major repairs to non-metal roofing and lead, copper and zinc roof flashings
Every 50 years Renew copper, lead or zinc box, tapered and eaves gutters, downpipes, rainwater heads and roofing
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 8 Building Condition Report
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania [DATE] Report on condition of fabric representing National and (potential) World Heritage values Building Condition1 Comment2 House precinct Main house Stables Timber coach house Gardener’s Cottage Coachman’s House Farm village Dutch barn south Dutch barn west Pillar granary Implement shed Brick granary Draught horse stable Shearing shed Farm cottage Fowl house William Archer’s cottage Smoke house Cook house Blacksmith’s shop Chapel Dipping shed / slaughter house Privy
1 Condition rankings are as follows: Excellent = Building has no defects. Good = Building exhibits superficial wear and tear, minor defects, minor signs of deterioration to surface finishes. Fair = Building is in average condition. Deteriorated fabric or surface finishes require maintenance. Poor = Building has deteriorated badly. Possible structural problems. Defective or failed surface finishes or fabric. Major defects requiring substantial maintenance or repair. Very poor = Building is dilapidated. Requires extensive rebuilding. 2 Describe any repairs or maintenance works undertaken.
CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 9 Site Index Catalogue
Austral Archaeology Pty. Ltd.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Brickendon Archaeological Record
Site Index Catalogue Note: This form is to be used in conjunction with an Archaeological Recording Form to record miscellaneous finds (ie artefacts of any type), sites (eg. demolished building locations or rubbish dumps) or structural features (eg. drains, foundations, paths etc). When a find, site or feature is discovered, allocate a number from this sheet and then complete a separate Archaeological Recording Form.
Note: Site numbers 1 – 60 have already been allocated in the CMP prepared by Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners Pty Ltd, 2007.
Site Date Site Name or Description Heritage Agency No Advised (Yes/No) 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 1 Brickendon Archaeological Record
Site Index Catalogue Note: This form is to be used in conjunction with an Archaeological Recording Form to record miscellaneous finds (ie artefacts of any type), sites (eg. demolished building locations or rubbish dumps) or structural features (eg. drains, foundations, paths etc). When a find, site or feature is discovered, allocate a number from this sheet and then complete a separate Archaeological Recording Form.
Note: Site numbers 1 – 60 have already been allocated in the CMP prepared by Clive Lucas, Stapleton and Partners Pty Ltd, 2007.
Site Date Site Name or Description Heritage Agency No Advised (Yes/No) 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135.
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 2 CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices
Appendix 10 Archaeological Recording Form
Austral Archaeology Pty. Ltd.
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Appendices CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD
Brickendon, Longford, Tasmania Conservation Management Plan Brickendon Archaeological Recording Form Note: This form is to be used in conjunction with the Site Index Catalogue to record miscellaneous finds (ie artefacts of any type), sites (eg. demolished building locations or rubbish dumps) or structural features (eg. drains, foundations, paths etc). When a find, site or feature is discovered, allocate a site number from the Site Index Catalogue and then complete this form.
PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify where find made): SITE NO: (Allocate from index) RECORDER: (Name) DATE: NAME OF ITEM: (If known) LOCATION: (Note where in precinct the find was made by marking the approximate location on appropriate attached plans. Also record distances to / from known structures or features to allow future relocation).
DESCRIPTION:
PHOTOGRAPHS: YES/NO (Attach copies)
CONDITION: (Can’t Assess, Good, Fair, Poor)
HISTORY or HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION: (If known)
COMMENTS: (Indicate how the discovery was made and if the item or feature has been or will be impacted by proposed works, and the nature/extent of that impact.)
HERITAGE AGENCY ADVICE SOUGHT: YES/NO NAME OF AGENCY: NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: DATE OF ADVICE/CONTACT: NATURE OF ADVICE OR OUTCOME: (Attach letter or state outcome)
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 1 Brickendon Archaeological Recording Form
PRECINCT: House / Farm / Paddocks (specify): SITE NO: RECORDER: DATE: NAME OF ITEM:
SKETCH PLAN Sketch the shape or form of the item with dimensions. Include a north arrow on the diagram. Indicate direction (and if possible visual catchment) of any photographs taken.
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 2 Brickendon Archaeological Recording Form
Windmill
Blacksmith
Farm Marsh Near Lagoon
Far Lagoon Horse Side Middle Brickfield
54 Acres 40 Acres Road
Garden House
Longshot Cockatoo
Sheep Upper Cullens Yard Gorse Park Plain Bush Road
Upper Middle Bridge Bridge Plain Silage Rough Upper Plain River
Bush Pump Hill
River N
Little Bush Mt Garrett
PLAN 1. PROPERTY PLAN WITH PADDOCK NAMES (Indicate the approximate location of outlying discoveries on this plan)
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 3 Brickendon Archaeological Recording Form
PLAN 2. FARM PRECINCT PLAN (Indicate location of discovery in the Farm Precinct on this plan)
Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 4 Brickendon Archaeological Recording Form
PLAN 3. HOUSE PRECINCT PLAN (Indicate location of discovery in the House Precinct on this plan) Prepared by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd October 2007 5