81

3.2.2.7 Large shed Around 450m south of the cluster of farm buildings is another building known as ‘Large shed 1 with hayloft and machinery (pump)’ (T&T item 7.2) (Figure 3.35, Figure 3.74). It is adjacent to a small dam, referred to as ‘Dam 1’ (T&T item 7.1).

The shed mostly has open sides apart from the south end which has an enclosed upper level known as the ‘hayloft’ (Figure 3.75). Some machinery, believed to be a chaff cutter, was seen in this upper level during the site visit (Figure 3.77). Attached to the south end was an enclosed room. This contained various benches (Figure 3.76) and an old water pump with the cast iron component labelled “EVAN’S 6 ‘CORNISH’/ STEAM PUMP” (Figure 3.78, Figure 3.79). These pumps were manufactured by Joseph Evans & Sons Ltd in Wolverhampton, England. They were developed around 1881, and the first known Australian advertisement is from the Melbourne Argus in 1884. In 1892 they were displayed at the Sydney Agricultural Exhibition and they remained in production into the 1930s.222

A building to the south of the large shed was demolished in mid-2015, and appears on the Craig & Rhodes survey dated October 2015. The purpose of this building was unclear but it might be the building known as the ‘pump house’ (T&T item 7.3) (Figure 3.35). No visible remains associated with this building were noticed during the site visit.

Figure 3.74: Large shed near dam 1. Photo looking east. NP

Figure 3.75: South end of large shed, showing the ‘hayloft’ and the enclosed shed. Photo looking west. NP

222 Argus 8 July 1884, p 3c; Sydney Mail 16 April 1892, p 876b; Parker n.d. A citing The Engineer 16 December 1881; Parker n.d. B.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 82

Figure 3.76: Enclosed room attached to south end of the large shed near dam 1. Photo looking west. NP

Figure 3.77: Farm machinery seen in the ‘hayloft’ during the site visit. It is thought to be a chaff cutter. Photo looking west.

Figure 3.78: Water pump in the southeast corner of the enclosed room attached to south end of the large shed near dam 1. Photo looking southeast. NP

Figure 3.79: Detail of the water pump, showing the name on one of the cast iron components.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 83

3.2.2.8 Former dam During the site visit, the location of a former dam was inspected (Figure 3.20, Figure 3.80, Figure 3.81, Figure 3.82). This area is adjacent to a watercourse which has been steeply cut. This raises the possibility that the ground has been deliberately cut to obtain clay, possibly for brickmaking. The nearby vegetation consisted of smaller trees, which is consistent with recent regrowth.

The area was examined for bricks but none were found. On balance it appears more likely that the steeply cut areas had been formed through erosion caused by the formation and subsequent removal of this dam. The dam was removed sometime between 1947 and 1956.223

A weather-worn timber bridge was also located near the road in this area. This bridge almost certainly would date from after the dam was removed, sometime between 1947 and 1956.

Figure 3.80: View of the former dam area examined during the site visit. Photo looking southeast, towards the watercourse and bridge shown in Figure 3.81.

Figure 3.81: Watercourse running through the former dam area and the weather-worn bridge. Photo looking northwest.

Figure 3.82: View of the former dam area. Photo looking southeast from roughly where Figure 3.81 was taken.

223 Tropman & Tropman 2015:51, 53.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 84

Figure 3.83: Annotated detail survey sheet of Maryland, showing the location of the former dam examined during the site visit. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-10.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 85

3.2.2.9 North Entry Gatehouse Another stone cottage is located on the Maryland property, just off The Northern Road (T&T item 3.6) (Figure 3.20, Figure 3.84). It is situated at the former northern entry to the property. Up to the 1980s, Maryland had both a north and south entry (Figure 3.21).224

As this cottage was occupied at the time of the site visit, it could not be inspected closely. However, it appears to be very similar to the other stone-walled buildings on the site. Like some of the other cottages on the property it appears to have had later additions made to the rear of the house. It also appears to have been modified in other ways, particularly at its north end. For instance, between December 2009 and March 2013, one of its two chimneys was removed (Figure 3.85, Figure 3.86).

Figure 3.84: Detail from sheet 8, showing North Entry Gatehouse, north at top. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-09.

224 Tropman & Tropman 2015:60-61.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 86

Figure 3.85: North Entry Gatehouse at Maryland, Bringelly, December 2009. Google Streetview.

Figure 3.86: North Entry Gatehouse at Maryland, Bringelly, March 2013. Google Streetview.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 87

3.3 Analysis of historic site development The development of the site over time can be analysed through the careful integration of historical descriptions and the present physical evidence. When these two sources of information are critically examined together, a better understanding of the site emerges. This section expands on the sources cited in the historical background and discusses them with reference to the physical layout of the study area.

3.3.1 Birling 3.3.1.1 1810s to 1840s The farm was initially surveyed in May 1812, and granted in August of that year. Sometime around then, the initial house at Birling is likely to have been constructed. An unreferenced piece of information contained in historic notes at Liverpool library state that the first house on the site was burnt down and a second ‘slab homestead was built in front of the earlier home’.225

Robert Lowe was appointed as a magistrate in 1815. This appointment must have had an influence on the structures on the site, as the court met at his house. A relative by marriage, J.B. Martin, recorded the following in 1883: The Court was held on his [Lowe’s] premises, which must have been an important centre, as there were gaol, triangles, and stocks there. I cannot ascertain at whose cost they were erected, but most likely at the expense of the Crown. A paddock near the house is still known as the “Gaol Paddock”. One of his sons informed me that in his boyhood he had often enjoyed the fun of seeing both men and women in the stocks.226

Although this was recorded 63 years after Robert Lowe’s death, J.B. Martin’s long association with the Camden area and his close association with the Lowe family give these comments some credence.

Robert Lowe mortgaged ‘Birling’ in November 1817. The mortgage included: all that messuage Tenement or Dwelling House with the Barns, Stables, and all other Erections and buildings thereon erected and Built and also all Yards, Gardens, Orchards, Paddocks, ways, Paths, Passages, water, watercourses, profits, commodities, advantages & app[?] whatsoever of him the said Robert Lowe...227

This description may provide evidence that Robert Lowe had already added these features to his property by this date. This is likely, given that there were already ten adults and three children living on the site as early as 1814 (Table 2.1). However, it is also possible that this description is purposefully broad, so to cover all possible legal bases.

Although Robert Lowe’s house was the initial focus of administration in the area, by the mid 1820s, the intersection of Bringelly Road and The Northern Road began to be the location of important public buildings, such as a separate lock-up (1827) and a school house (c.1823).228

225 Liverpool Council n.d.- ‘History of our suburbs: Bringelly’. 226 Johnson 2012 [1883]:27, also reprinted in Australian Town and Country Journal, 15 December 1895, p 52b. JB Martin was the brother-in-law of Emma Hannah Lowe, third child of Robert and Sarah Lowe (Johnson 2012:5; Lowe 2008:76, Sydney Morning Herald 14 September 1861, p 1a) and the brother-in-law of Charles Bland Lowe, eldest son of Robert and Sarah Lowe (Sydney Morning Herald 21 August 1846, p 4c). 227 NSW LPI Old Register Book 7, No. 21, p. 11. 228 Lock-up: Keating 1996:61, Letter Colonial Secretary to Bench of Magistrates Bringelly, 15 April 1827, SRNSW Ser. 2844, Item 2/8097-2; School: Sydney Morning Herald 5 December 1873, p 5a (date of construction), NLA MAP Folder 154, LFSP 2506 (1892) (location).

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 88

The earliest known image of Birling is a watercolour dated 1843 (Figure 3.87). It was painted by a woman named Anne Dadswell, who appears to have been a governess prior to marrying at Narellan in 1846.229

Figure 3.87: ‘Birling’ – watercolour by Anne Dadswell, 1843. Annotated with probable building identifications (see text). SLNSW SSV1B / Brin / 1, digital order no. a1528395.

Anne Dadswell’s watercolour shows many features which are mentioned in the earlier descriptions. The main ‘dwelling house’ or homestead is shown on the left. A smaller cottage is shown on the right. Between the two (and possibly set further back) are (left to right) another small building, which may be a detached kitchen, a round building of uncertain function and a large structure which may be a barn or stables, based on its shape. There also are two raised features, which may be a dovecot and a bell. There is a large hill in the background, which is thought to be the same hill on which the Maryland homestead is now situated.

3.3.1.2 1880s to 1920s The next image of the site after the 1843 watercolour are two photographs taken around the 1870s or 1880s, possibly in 1880 while the property was being prepared for sale following the death of Henry Robert Lowe (Figure 3.88, Figure 3.91).230

These show the main homestead, possible barn and cottage little changed since 1843 (Figure 3.87, Figure 3.89, Figure 3.90). The possible detached kitchen, the unidentified round building, the

229 Dadswell n.d. 230 One of the photographs is dated ‘ca 1880’ by the SLNSW catalogue. There are also circumstantial details which support this date, such as the women wearing black in the photograph, possibly in mourning for Henry Lowe, who died in October 1880. Also Miss (Laura) Lowe was given an album and photographs by friends at Holy Innocents Church, Rossmore when she left the area in May 1881 (Sydney Morning Herald 2 June 1881, p 5c).

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 89 possible dovecot and bell shown on the 1843 watercolour all appear to have been removed by c.1880.

The 1880s photographs also show some details not shown on the earlier watercolour. The hill behind the homestead has been cleared since 1843, which would be consistent with the construction of terraced vineyards at Maryland from the late 1860s onwards (Figure 3.89). This provides further evidence for the location of the historic homestead. One photograph shows what appear to have been stables, to the right of the cottage and possible barn (Figure 3.90). These may have been standing in 1843, and simply fallen outside the artist’s field of view. A close-up photograph of the main homestead shows clearly that it was clad with weatherboard and had a ditch surrounding its verandah, most likely for drainage (Figure 3.91).

Figure 3.88: ‘Family and homestead, Birling, Bringelly, ca. 1880’. SLNSW, SPF/2528.

Figure 3.89: Detail of ‘Family and homestead, Birling, Bringelly, ca. 1880’, showing the main homestead. SLNSW, SPF/2528.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 90

Figure 3.90: Detail of ‘Family and homestead, Birling, Bringelly, ca. 1880’, showing various outbuildings, with probable identifications. cf Figure 3.87. SLNSW, SPF/2528.

Figure 3.91: ‘12. Lowe, E.R., Bringelly - Residences – Birling, Photograph, black and white’. This appears to have been taken on the same day as Figure 3.88, c.1880. Copy from Liston 2009:20, reproduced in Australian Museum Consulting 2014:20. Original SLNSW PXA 2137, Box 29, Item 12.

Birling was also described in an 1881 newspaper advertisement for its sale by auction, although this provides few details regarding the buildings apart from that the main homestead had nine rooms and was built of weatherboard: BIRLING ESTATE. BRINGELLY ROAD, NEAR CABRAMATTA. 500 ACRES OF LAND, being portion of LOWE'S 1000-ACRES GRANT, commanding frontages to LOWE'S CREEK and BRINGELLY ROAD, adjoining HUTCHISON'S grant, and situate 7 MILES from CAMDEN. 3 MILES from CABRAMATTA, and 13 MILES from LIVERPOOL.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 91

The improvements consist of a family residence, built of weather-board, containing 9 rooms. &c., and all usual out-conveniences. TITLE, FREEHOLD. E. CLARK, Esq., MUDGEE, Solicitor for Vendor. HARDIE and GORMAN have received instructions to sell by public auction, at their rooms, 133, Pitt-street, at 11 o'clock on WEDNESDAY. 23rd FEBRUARY, The BIRLING ESTATE, as above described, consisting of 500 ACRES. nearly all of which is fenced with sheep proof wire fence, portion being subdivided into paddocks; 300 ACRES of the land are cleared, and the balance has been ring-barked. BIRLING ESTATE is situate opposite the residence of Mrs. Barker, and is in every way suitable for a gentleman's country residence.231

No photographs of the main homestead at Birling have been found later than c.1880. However there are further written descriptions of the site. In 11 Nov 1896, property was offered for sale at public auction. The property was advertised as follows: IN THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SIR ROBERT WISDOM. FARM or COUNTRY HOME, near CAMDEN. Highly desirable Property, known as BIRLING, the country residence of the late Sir R. Wisdom, situate at Bringelly, close to Camden, containing 494 acres, divided into grass and cultivation paddocks, all securely fenced, good orchard and garden. On the land is a commodious residence of 12 rooms, kitchen, dairy, washhouse, coachhouse, stable, etc., also cowsheds with bails and yards, barns, etc., etc. Hardie & Gorman (in conjunction with Mr. A. J. Doust, of Camden) have received instructions from the Executors in the Estate of the late Sir R. Wisdom, to sell by public auction in their Rooms, 133 Pitt-street, Sydney. at 11.30 a.m. on WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1896, The above described property. Large sums of money have been expended in improving same, and it can be confidently recommended.232

Although it cannot be stated for sure, it is possible that the dairy and cowsheds referred to in this advertisement were additions to the property after 1881. During the late 19th century, dairy farming became more widespread across in the Camden/Nepean region, as other earlier agricultural activities such grain growing and viniculture faced problems with introduced pests and diseases.233 Further dairy-related facilities are likely to have been added to the site during the early 20th century (c.1899–c.1930) when the dairy farmer, D. J. Morrow was the long-term tenant at Birling.234 The location of any such facilities are not known but they may have been constructed near the existing farm buildings, including the main homestead.

A topographic survey of the site undertaken by the Army in 1929 showed one building on Birling at that time. This is the likely position of the homestead and associated outbuildings (Figure 2.9).

231 Sydney Morning Herald 22 January 1881, p 13e. 232 Camden News 29 October 1896, p 5c. 233 Norrie 1990:46. 234 Camden News 25 May 1899, p 4c; 3 September 1903, p 4d; 24 November 1927, p 4e.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 92

3.3.1.3 1930s to present A wealthy horse-trainer, Howard Horace Young, purchased Birling in 1935. He undertook substantial construction works, including the demolition of the old homestead and most associated buildings. A 1939 newspaper profile of Mr Young provided the following description: …When Mr. Young acquired Birling, he erected a modern bungalow, and proceeded to prepare for the hobby of training a small team, and eventually for horse breeding. About a year ago he completed a seven-furlong training track, 40 ft. wide, with two long straights and gentle bends. Grass then planted now gives it a perfect galloping surface. A five-strand barrier was installed a few months ago, and more recently spacious six box brick stables, with well equipped feed room and saddle cupboard, were completed.235

The extent of the changes to the property at this time can be seen on an aerial photograph taken in 1947 (Figure 3.92). This shows the new bungalow, brick stables and feed room. These were still standing in 2016.

In the 1960s, the site was developed as a veterinary research station. These changes can be seen on aerial photographs taken in 1970. They include the construction of various sheds, further dams and also drainage channels leading to these dams (Figure 3.94, Figure 3.95).

In 1981, the site was advertised for sale and described as follows: IMPROVEMENTS: Stately old (appox. 1937) brick home of about 48 sq. 6 Bedrooms, office, billiard room (fully equipped), 2 kitchens, 2 baths, gracious lounge, dining, wide tiled verandahs, courtyard etc. BUILT IN THE GRAND OLD MANNER. Detached, self-contained mens quarters, sep. new 3 br B/T cottage, new laboratory building of about 16 sq. (readily convertible to employees quarters) fully enclosed animal shed of about 30 m * 25 m, 5 broiler sheds, fully self-contained pig shed. Block 6 brick stables., 2 haysheds. Fencing good. WATER: 5 major dams plus various smaller interconnected. About 60,000 gals holding tanks & filtration systems, reticulated through property. REMARKS: "Birling" for the post [sic] few years has been owned & operated by the PFIZER Chemical Co., as a veterinary research station and is now surplus to requirement. It offers tremendous potential for development, subdivision or a large acreage close to Sydney. It is ideally suited for conversion to HORSE OR CATTLE STUD, Poultry, general mixed farming, intensive agriculture, COUNTRY CLUB, sporting, recreational etc. A description cannot do justice, please CALL FOR A BROCHURE.236

Few changes appear to have taken place in the location of the historic homestead between 1947 and 1970 (Figure 3.93, Figure 3.95). The aerial photographs show that there were three structures on the site at the time which have been since demolished. The purpose and function of the two north buildings is unclear, although one may have been a house. The south building is likely to have been associated with the care of animals, as it was next to a fenced yard. The relationship between these buildings and those shown on the c.1880 photograph is unclear.

Since 1970, the house and another outbuilding to the north of the stables appear to have been rebuilt (Figure 3.98).

235 News (Adelaide) 8 June 1939, p 22h. 236 Vol 8004, fol 157, no. S760509, NSW LPI; Canberra Times 8 July 1981, p 12a.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 93

Figure 3.92: Detail of 1947 aerial photo mosaic. Early 20th-century boundary of Birling outlined in blue, rezoning area outlined in red.

Figure 3.93: Detail of 1947 aerial, showing former location of historic homestead and 1930s stables.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 94

Figure 3.94: Detail of 1970 aerial photo mosaic. Early 20th-century boundary of Birling outlined in blue, rezoning area outlined in red.

Figure 3.95: Detail of 1970 aerial, showing former location of historic homestead and 1930s stables.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 95

Figure 3.96: 2002 aerial view from Google Earth. Early 20th-century boundary of Birling outlined in blue, rezoning area outlined in red. Imagery dated 21-07-2002.

Figure 3.97: Annotated detail showing the former homestead location at Birling, with the location of structures show on the 1947 and 1970 aerial photographs added in blue. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-05. Additions by Casey & Lowe.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 96

Figure 3.98: Detail of 2016 aerial, showing former location of historic homestead and 1930s stables. Google Earth. Imagery dated 5-05-2016.

3.3.2 Maryland 3.3.2.1 1810s to 1840s The property was developed for agriculture during this period but there is no firm evidence for any substantial structures being built on the site at the time. Michael Dowdell’s 40 acre grant included a requirement for 12 acres to be cultivated within the first five years of ownership. It is not clear if this requirement was fulfilled, and even if it was, it is not necessarily the case that a permanent house was built on the property for Dowdell to live in. By 1820 the grant had been acquired by Rowland Hassall who owned a nearby 100 acre grant known as ‘Coventry’ (Figure 2.1). Both ‘Coventry’ and ‘Dowdell’s Farm’ were inherited by Eliza Cordelia Hassall (later Eliza Walker).237 It is likely that these two farms were managed together. They were probably used for grazing, possibly with some cropping. By 1847 an access road from The Northern Road to Dowdell’s Farm had been formed (Figure 2.4).

The plan of Dickson’s grant prepared in 1840 (Figure 2.3) indicates that the remainder of Maryland was not used to grow crops at that time, and did not appear to have been ever used for that purpose. Instead, the land was either light forest, or ring-barked (‘girdled’) trees. This would have been suitable for grazing sheep and cattle. The 1840 plan also provided the first indication of the access road along the south boundary of the later Maryland property.

Sarah Lowe, who owned the neighbouring property Birling, did briefly own the property from July 1842.238 The small brick building known as the ‘Laundry and Kitchen Store’ (T&T item 2.3) may have been built during this period. There is a clear visual relationship between the location of Maryland and the former Birling homestead, which make this possible. Sarah Lowe, however, had lost

237 Will of Rowland Hassall, Series 1, No. 81, copy contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA14468. 238 PA 14468, citing Bk 4, no. 212.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 97 ownership of Maryland by 1847, making it highly unlikely that she had the resources to significantly develop the site.

Another plan of Dickson’s former property was prepared in 1847 (Figure 2.4). This indicates that the land use had changed slightly from 1840. Two areas within the later Maryland property are annotated ‘partly in cultivation’: one area was in the northwest part of the site, near Lowes Creek, the other was in the southeast, near the frontage to The Northern Road. This indicates that crops had begun to be grown in these areas.

3.3.2.2 1850s Intensive occupation on Maryland appears to have begun around 1854-1855, after Thomas Barker acquired the property from M. D. Hunter.239 The initial evidence for Barker’s occupation is limited and somewhat indirect. The earliest evidence relates to two servants and their families.

Thomas Barker collected money in February to March 1855 for the ‘Patriotic Fund’, which went to support widows and orphans of those British combatants killed in the Crimean War. He collected money from a total of 19 people. Out of these, two families are named who are later known to have lived at Maryland. These are Samuel Goard (also spelt Gourd) and Robert Vicary, his wife (Sophia) and young sons Albert and Thomas.240 It would appear that both Samuel Goard and Robert Vicary were working for Thomas Barker by March 1855. They may also have been living at Maryland by that date. Both men were living in the area by 1857 and attending St Paul’s Cobbitty as their local (Anglican) church. In February 1857, Samuel Goard married Annie Roberts of Denbeigh at St Paul’s Cobbitty.241 In June 1857, the young daughter of Robert and Sophia Vicary died and was buried at St Paul’s Cobbitty.242 The first published reference to ‘Maryland Farm, New Camden’ was in October 1857, when Robert Vicary advertised that he would sell a horse which had been left with him twelve months previously.243 Katherine Barker, Thomas Barker’s second wife, moved into Maryland in 1858, the same year that they were married.244

Together this evidence suggests that a reasonable number of buildings were constructed at Maryland between 1854 and 1858. The workers’ accommodation had to be adequate to accommodate not only Samuel Goard and Robert Vicary, but also Robert’s wife Sophia and their growing number of children. By 1858, the accommodation was good enough for Thomas Barker’s new wife Katherine to move in. This suggests that the Maryland homestead was already relatively comfortable by that time, since Thomas Barker still owned his mansion ‘Roslyn Hall’ at Darling Point at the time.245

One of the two employees of Thomas Barker, Samuel Goard, was a stone mason from Cornwall.246 It would appear logical that he was responsible for the construction of the many stone structures at Maryland. Out of the major of 19th-century buildings at Maryland, all appear to be either timber or stone apart from the Laundry & Kitchen Store (T&T item 2.3), which is built from sandstock bricks.

239 Conveyance from M D Hunter to Thomas Barker, 7 July 1854, cited in PA 14468. 240 Empire 15 March 1855, p 2g. 241 Sydney Morning Herald 25 February 1907, p 6a – notice for their Golden Wedding Anniversary. 242 Headstone in Cobbitty Cemetery for Ann Sophia Vicary at http://mv.ancestry.com.au/viewer/cfbd25c5-e33d-4168- 8ae6-c02dec6a68fc/17606699/19424187206. 243 Empire 13 October 1857, p 1c. 244 As stated by K Barker in a sworn affidavit relating to property boundaries made in 1907 and contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA 14468. 245 Tropman & Tropman 2015:23, citing information on back of Record No 34250, Vertical File, Sydney Living Museums, Caroline Simpson Library and Research Collection. 246 SRNSW Assisted Immigrants per Ship ‘Lady Ann, Reel 2466, [4/4941] [accessed via ancestry.com]; ‘Bringelly’ in Greville’s 1872 Post Office Directory (see Table 2.9 above).

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 98

If Samuel Goard was working at the property by March 1855, this may then imply that the Laundry & Kitchen Store was built before that date. This may make it the oldest extant building on the property, although at present this is not confirmed.

3.3.2.3 1860s During the 1860s production of wine commenced at Maryland. Barker’s wine was advertised for sale from January 1865.247 Various changes to the site would have been necessary in the years before these first wines were sold. The vineyards would have needed to be planted a couple of years before hand. At least some of the large stone winery and winery store buildings (T&T items 4.1 and 4.3) would have been built by 1865, so that there would be a place for the wine to be made and stored.

Apart from the winery, there probably were other buildings added to the property during the 1860s. As discussed in section 2.4.1, there were a fair number of workers and their families who lived on the site by the late 1860s. These all would have required accommodation. Some of this would have been in the servants’ quarters attached to the Kitchen Wing of the main homestead, but others would have lived in the various cottages spread over the property. These are thought to correspond with the following cottages which are still standing: the ‘Former Entry Cottage’ (T&T item 3.4), the ‘Upper Gatehouse (T&T item 3.1), the ‘North Entry Gatehouse’ (T&T item 3.6), the ‘Stone Guesthouse Existing’ (T&T item 2.10) and the ‘Farm Managers Residence’ (T&T item 6.2.1).

3.3.2.4 1870s For the first half of the 1870s, the property at Maryland is thought to have continued to develop as it had done during the 1860s. The stonemason Samuel Goard and his family moved to ‘St Leonards’ (now Kirribilli) sometime between 1872 and 1875, between the births of their seventh and eighth children,248 which suggests that most of the stone buildings had been completed by then, unless another stonemason was hired in his place.

A description of the gardens at Maryland was published in the Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar in 1870: We might say ‘That a fairer scene we had ne’er surveyed, when gazing on the vale below’ with its large pool of water, enclosures planted with pines, and cattle peacefully browsing; the mowers cutting hay, the fine, commodious farmyard in the distance, while on the slopes of the hill were vineyards, orchards, kitchen gardens, plantations of ornamental trees, all forming a picture so complete as more likely to be seen on canvas than in reality.249

The ‘large pool of water’ mentioned in this description is likely to be ‘Dam 1’, which also was the only dam shown on a 1907 map of the property (Figure 2.8).

Thomas Barker died in 1875, and the property was advertised for sale in 1876.250 Although the site was never sold, the advertised description provides a good impression of the extent of the property at the time. Most, if not all, of the items described in this advertisement can be related back to structures which remain standing on the site (Table 3.1).

247 Sydney Morning Herald 30 January 1865, p 6e, 2 December 1865, p 9d, 18 May 1869, p 1f; Empire 19 March 1867, p 8f; Protestant Standard 30 December 1871, p 7c. 248 BDM Reg. No. 8223/1872, 5919/1875. 249 Tropman & Tropman 2015:24, citing Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar, 1870. 250 Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1876, p 14c.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 99

Table 3.1: Description of Maryland in 1875 1875 item name 1875 description 2015 CMP Name 2015 CMP Archaeo- Discussion Item logical number Item Number MARYLAND HOUSE a FAMILY MANSION, built of stone on Maryland Villa 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 9 an "elevated site, with a north- Homestead, easterly aspect and surrounded by Kitchen Wing, the extensive gardens, vineyards, &c., Laundry & Kitchen which occupy the slopes extending to Store the western land at foot. The accommodation comprises a magnificent hall, 28 x 12, approached by a spacious verandah: dining-room, 20 x 18; drawing-room, 30x18; library, 22x11; 7 bedrooms, dressing-room, butler's pantry, linen-room, kitchen, servants' dining and other rooms; bathroom, dairy, store-room, cellars, laundry, with copper, &c. GARDEN, arranged with unequalled taste and Pleasure Garden 3.12 16 SHRUBBERY, and skill & Tennis Court GROUNDS SPLENDID WELL- of about 20 ACRES, in sound good Vineyard slopes 3.14 15 The CMP curtilage for the MANAGED order, from which the celebrated ‘Vineyard slopes’ only has an VINEYARD MARYLAND RED and WHITE WINES area of 6.6 acres (2.7 ha). If the are produced which yields LARGE vineyard extended downhill to ANNUAL RETURN. The average crop neighbouring paddocks, then an produces about 4000 gallons area equal to 19.9 acres (8 ha) annually. can be found (Figure 3.99). The 20 acre vineyard represented about 20% of all wine grapes planted in the Camden, Narellan & Picton Police District in 1876.251 ORCHARD and Picking/ Kitchen 3.13 17 ORANGERY.252 Garden/ Orchard MASSIVELY-BUILT with PERFECT PLANT and APPLIANCES Stone Winery and 4.1 and 4.3 11 and 12 The Stone Winery Store is STONE WINE for the manufacture of wine Stone Winery believed to have been originally CELLARS and other Store two-storeys high, until a fire in large buildings 1899 – see Section 3.3.2.5. EXTENSIVE May include other stables, STABLING and which were ’40 yards’ from the Coach-houses winery building which burnt down in 1899 – see Section 3.3.2.5. UNDERGROUND capable of holding about 70,000 Large Stone n/a and 2.8 13 and The capacity of the two stone WATER RESERVOIRS gallons Cistern in shed, part of cisterns known on the site and Large Stone item 9 would reach a total of Cistern under the approximately 70,000 imperial South Courtyard gallons (318 m3).253 FARMHOUSE and The farm house and dairy farm, The description indicates that other premises together with barn, &c., are let on the farm was being run as a lease, with conditions as to supply of dairy under lease. produce required by the proprietor PADDOCKS - WELL- WATERED GRAZING, also CULTIVATION PADDOCKS

251 Norrie 1990:192, which reproduces the following table ‘Abstract Return of Agriculture for the year ending 31 March 1876’ ref no. Q 319.1/N. This was taken from material in the NSW Archives Office (now SRNSW) in boxes labelled, ‘Miscellaneous Statistics of the Colonial Secretary’ (Norrie 1990:186). 252 Note – an ‘orangery’ in a 19th-century NSW context did not necessarily imply an elaborate heated building for growing oranges as was common on large estates in Europe. 253 A tank with a 5 m diameter and 8 m depth would hold 157 m3 or 34,550 imperial gallons.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 100

1875 item name 1875 description 2015 CMP Name 2015 CMP Archaeo- Discussion Item logical number Item Number TWO HANDSOME at the entrances on the Bringelly and North Entry 3.6 and 8 and The North Entry Gatehouse LODGES Cobbitty Roads, &c, &c. Gatehouse and either 3.1 either 6 would correspond to the lodge either the Upper or 3.4 or 3 on the road to Bringelly – which Gatehouse or the would be The Northern Road. Former Entry Cobbitty lies to the south of Cottage Maryland. The second lodge is likely to be the Upper Gatehouse, but might be the Former Entry Cottage, which also is located on a former path leading out of the property to the south.

Figure 3.99: An interpretation of the evidence for the former vineyard. The red outlined area is the area now known as the ‘Vineyard Slopes’. It measures approximately 6.6 acres. The blue shaded area is the possible extent of the 1875 vineyard, which was ‘about 20 acres’. The shaded area measures approximately 19.9 acres. Background aerial photo from NSWGlobe, NSW LPI, imagery date 17-01- 2014.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 101

3.3.2.5 1880s to 1890s Little is known from documentary sources regarding the physical development of the site during the 1880s and 1890s. It is assumed that the site continued to expand and develop over these two decades.

A major fire occurred on the site on the night of 6 May 1899. It was widely reported in both local and Sydney newspapers.254 Three of these reports were detailed enough to provide information regarding the site at the time. These details can be summarised as: . The fire occurred in the wine cellars. . There were two wine cellars, which were joined by a door. One of these was badly damaged, the other less so. . The wine cellars were two-storeys and built of stone, with stone-flagged ground floor. The upper level was used as a cooperage and to store samples of Australian wood. . There were stables about 40 yards (37m) away, but these were not destroyed. . There was another building known as the ‘press-house’. It was not destroyed. . The wine cellars were located to the south or southwest of the main homestead. . No wine had been produced for ‘some seasons past’.

Together these details strongly support the view that the presently standing building, known as the ‘Stone Winery Store’ (T&T item 4.3), are the same wine cellars which were partially destroyed by the 1899 fire. The division of the building into two adjoining cellars is consistent with the differences noticed between the northwest and southeast ends of the ‘Stone Winery Store’ during the April 2016 site visit (Section 3.2.2.5).

It is not clear where the stables, which were roughly 40 yards (36m) away from the wine cellar, were located. Most of the homestead buildings are about 40m away, which means that the stables may have been one of the buildings located in this complex. Alternatively, they may have been located near the cottage know known as the ‘Upper Gatehouse’ (T&T item 3.1) which is within easy line of site of the ‘Stone Winery Store’, but actually at a distance of approximately 70m (77 yards).

The reference stating that no wine had been produced for ‘some seasons past’ probably indicates that the vineyard had stopped production during the 1890s. There is a good possibility that this was on account of Phylloxera, a species of small, almost microscopic insect which feeds on the roots of grape vines. This pest inflicted serious damage to vineyards in the counties of Cumberland and Camden in the late 19th century.255

254 Nepean Times 13 May 1899, p 1f, 20 May 1899, p 4f; Camden News 11 May 1899, p 1d; Sydney Morning Herald 11 May 1899, p 3d; Cumberland Argus 13 May 1899, p 3b; Sydney Mail 20 May 1899, p 1157a. 255 Norrie 1990:46.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 102

Table 3.2: Articles describing the 1899 fire at Maryland and a summary of the key information they provide regarding the site. Article Information on the site Camden News 11 May 1899, p 1d . Fire at Marylands. Fire occurred between 10 and Between ten and eleven o'clock on Satur day night last the inmates of Mrs. Barker's residence at 11pm. . Marylands were aroused by the outbreak of a fire in their noted wine cellars. It was discovered that Fire occurred in the wine the fire had by some means originated in the wine cellars of which there are two, each being built of cellars. . stone, the communication being by a strongly constructed door. The fire originated on the left of the There were two wine cellars, two cellars in which was stored matured casks of wine and brandy, but, very few bottles of wine. which were joined by a door . Willing hands were quickly available and with the assistance of the residents the fire was The ‘left’ cellar, where the fire extinguished. The wine vault, where the fire originated, was confined within the stone walls and the started was badly damaged; outer or right store was saved from destruction although the heavy door communicating was badly the ‘right’ cellar was ‘saved charred. Above the wine cellar is a store room where Mr. Barker has for years past been storeing from destruction’. . samples of Australian woods. All were practically destroyed. The wine bins ranged on each side of the Above the cellar there was a building and in the centre in tiers. All were destroyed. Mrs. Barker of the Maryland's Estate has not for storeroom – this implies that some seasons past devoted the result of her vineyards to wine making, hence the product of years the cellar building was two- past, — full matured wine — was destroyed. The wine and brandy was of great age and of storeyed. . considerable value. How the fire occured is somewhat difficult to account for, as the building is of The cellars were built of stone stone and of stone flagging, it is presumed that the rats, of which many abound, must have set fire to with a stone flagged floor. . a box of matches which had been left on a desk in the cellar. No other cause is assigned. Empty crates No wine had been produced were on the left of the vault. Not one gallon of wine was saved and the loss is therefore very great. for ‘some seasons past’. . Mr. Barker estimates the loss in wine alone exceeds £1200 of which £1000 is insured in the There were stables about 40 Commercial Union office. The loss of the valuable timber cannot be estimated. The stables, which are yards (36m) away. . some 40 yards away were not destroyed as is currently reported. The adjoining wine cellar was The stables were not fortunately saved owing to the many willing hands and the sound construction of the building. No destroyed. enquiry, so we are informed, will be held as to the cause of the outbreak.

. The fire began in the Cumberland Argus 13 May 1899, p 3b cooperage. Fires at a Vineyard. . If a south or southwest wind A fire of considerable dimensions took place at "Marylands," Bringelly, the seat of Mr. F. C. Barker, on had been blowing, many Saturday. The wine cellar and plant were destroyed, also a large quantity of expensive timber. The fire buildings (the main is believed to have originated in the cooperage, where a man had been at work. By great efforts on homestead?) would have the part of the bands present the residence was saved ; but if a south or south-west wind had been been destroyed. – This blowing, the whole block of buildings must have been destroyed. The place was partly insured in the implies that this wine cellar Commercial Union office ; but Mr. Barker is a heavy loser. was south or southwest of the main homestead.

Nepean Times 20 May 1899, p 4f . The fire began at about On Saturday night week, at about 10 o'clock, a fire took place at Mrs Barker's, Maryland. The fire 10pm. originated in the cooperage over the wine cellar, the latter being destroyed with the plant, also a . The fire started in the large quantity of valuable matured wine, and an expensive assortment of Australian timber collected cooperage, above the wine by Mr T. C. Barker. The press-house was saved, and it was only by great exertion and keeping the hose cellar. continually playing on the dwelling house that it escaped the flames. Although the building, etc., was . The ‘press-house’ was not insured for £1000 the amount does not cover the loss, and Mrs Barker is a great loser by the disaster. destroyed. The cause of the fire is not known, but is attributed to rats getting to the matches, although as a . ‘The dwelling house’ (the precaution they have always been kept in an iron bucket. main homestead?) was at serious risk of damage.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 103

3.3.2.6 1900s to 1930s Very few major changes to the site probably occurred between the 1900s and 1940, when Thomas Charles Barker died and the property was sold.

The steam engine, shed and probably the associated water pump near Dam 1 were installed sometime before 1907, when the dam, an ‘Engine’ and a ‘shed’ appeared on a plan of the property associated with its conversion to Torrens Title (Figure 2.8). The water pump is labelled “EVAN’S 6 ‘CORNISH’/ STEAM PUMP” (Figure 3.78, Figure 3.79). These pumps were manufactured by Joseph Evans & Sons Ltd in Wolverhampton, England from around 1881 up to the 1930s.256 In 1940, the affidavit for probate for Thomas Charles Barker’s estate contained a valuation for an ‘Old steam Engine, Pump, Circular saw & bench’ of £45.257

The 1907 plan also shows a bridge in the southeast portion of the present study area (Figure 2.8). This bridge may be on the line of the present south entry drive (T&T item 3.8), or it may be another bridge (Item A3) shown on the 2015 detail survey by Craig & Rhodes (Figure 3.22)

By the early 20th century, the private road to the south of the property appears to have fallen into disuse. The 1907 surveyor’s description of the property for conversion to Torrens Title referred to the southern boundary as ‘being fenced lines passing along the centre of a reserved road fifty links wide (closed many years ago)’.258 The road does appear on a 1929 topographic map of the area (Figure 2.9), but was not included when the same map was revised in 1955 (Figure 2.10).

3.3.2.7 1940s to 2000s The development of the site after the 1940s is far better documented by means of aerial photographs. These are discussed in detail in the Conservation Management Plan prepared by Tropman & Tropman, and that discussion will not be repeated here.259 However, the following summary of changes, relevant to assessing the archaeological potential of the site can be made: . The former dam that was inspected during the site visit and which is towards the northwest portion of the property (Section 3.2.2.8) was drained between 1947 and 1956. . The Swimming Pool, Poultry Duck Shed and Dam 4 (T&T items 2.13, 5.1 and 7.10) were all added between 1956 and 1961. . The Poultry Sheds and Dam 5 (T&T items 5.3 and 7.11) were added between 1965 and 1970. . Two unidentified sheds were removed from the group of farm buildings between 1961 and the present (T&T Item 6.9 and Item A7). . An unidentified feature, possibly a disused cattle dip, was removed from a location on the south side of the South Entry drive between 2014 and 2015 (Item A3).

256 Argus 8 July 1884, p 3c; Sydney Mail 16 April 1892, p 876b; Parker n.d. A citing The Engineer 16 December 1881; Parker n.d. B. 257 SRNSW Probate for Thomas Charles Barker, Series 4, no. 248138, schedule no. 4. 258 CT Vol 1840 Fol 53, p2. 259 Tropman & Tropman 2015:51-63.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 104

Figure 3.100: 1947 aerial photograph showing most of Maryland. Historic boundary of Maryland outlined in blue, rezoning area in red. NSW LPI.

Figure 3.101: Detail of 1947 aerial, showing the Maryland homestead, winery buildings, and farm buildings. NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 105

Figure 3.102: 1961 aerial photograph showing Maryland. Historic boundary of Maryland outlined in blue, rezoning area in red. NSW LPI.

Figure 3.103: Detail of 1961 aerial, showing the Maryland homestead, winery buildings, and farm buildings. NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 106

Figure 3.104: 1970 aerial photograph showing most of Maryland. Historic boundary of Maryland outlined in blue, rezoning area in red. NSW LPI.

Figure 3.105: 2002 aerial view from Google Earth. Historic boundary of Maryland outlined in blue, rezoning area in red. Imagery dated 21-07-2002.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 107

Figure 3.106: Unidentified feature known as ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 11-03-2007. Google Earth.

Figure 3.107: Unidentified feature known as ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 17-01-2014. Imagery from NSWGlobe, NSW LPI, viewed on Google Earth.

Figure 3.108: Former location of ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 16-10-2015. Google Earth.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 108

3.4 Summary Phases 3.4.1 Birling Based on the historical background and the analysis of site development, the potential archaeological evidence at Birling is expected to fall into the following categories: Phase 1 Natural Landscape Phase 2 Aboriginal occupation Phase 3a Robert Lowe & administrative centre (1810s – 1832) Phase 3b Lowe family occupation (1832 – 1881) Phase 4 Tenant farmer occupation (dairy farming) (1881 – 1935) Phase 5 Mid-20th century society farm and residence (1935 – 1960) Phase 6 Veterinary research facility (1960 – present)

3.4.2 Maryland Based on the historical background and the analysis of site development, the potential archaeological evidence at Maryland is expected to fall into the following categories: Phase 1 Natural Landscape Phase 2 Aboriginal occupation Phase 3 Early grants (1810 - 1850) Phase 4 Barker family (1850 - 1940) Phase 5 Thomson family (1940 - 2009)

3.5 Comparative sites 3.5.1 Archaeological investigation There are several homesteads of a similar type to the Maryland and Birling Homesteads, which survive to this day in western Sydney, whether as standing buildings or as partially ruined archaeological sites.

A number of these sites have been archaeologically investigated. These include: . Camden Park, Camden. This includes Belgenny Farm which was archaeologically investigated by Wendy Thorp c1986-1989 and Edward Higginbotham c2006–2010.260 It is listed on the SHR under two listings (#341 and #1697). . Bungarribee Homestead Complex - Archaeological Site, Doonside. This homestead was built c.1825 for the merchant and politician John Campbell. It had several owners before it was demolished in 1957. Test excavations by Austral Archaeology in 2000 revealed remaining homestead walls, floor surfaces and footings.261 Further excavations and site interpretation have since been undertaken by GML Heritage.262 It is listed on the SHR (#1428). . Dunheved Homestead site, Dunheved. This homestead was built for the King Family c.1807. It was demolished in 1947. Although it has not been archaeologically excavated, a detailed archaeological assessment has been undertaken for the site and it is currently

260 Camden Advertiser 3 June 2009; Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd 2010; NSW Department of Primary Industries 2008; Thorp 1989; Camden Park Estate and Belgenny Farm NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01697. 261 Bungarribee Homestead Complex - Archaeological Site, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01428; Austral Archaeology 2000; Godden Mackay Logan 2007. 262 GML Heritage n.d. – http://www.gml.com.au/project/bunya-residential-estate-bungarribee/; Godden Mackay Logan 2012; Godden Mackay Logan 2013.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 109

protected as part of St Marys Regional Parkland.263 The site and its potential archaeology is considered to be of State significance. . Veteran Hall, Prospect. This homestead was built for the explorer and pastoralist William Lawson in 1819. It was demolished in 1929 but substantial footings of the house remain. Although the homestead has not been archaeologically excavated, the building has been surveyed as part of the preparation of a conservation management plan. The structural remains of a series of outbuildings which are thought to have been associated with Veterans Hall also have been found and surveyed by Casey & Lowe.264 It is listed on the SHR (#1351). . Rouse Hill House, Rouse Hill. This house was built for Richard Rouse between 1813 and 1818. It is notable for continuous ownership by the same family until it was purchased by the NSW State Government in 1978. Although largely known as a standing structure and house museum, some archaeological investigations on the outbuildings were undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s. It is listed on the SHR (#2) and is owned by the State government and is operated by Sydney Living Museums.265 . Regentville, Penrith. This house was built for Sir John Jamison from c.1823. It was subject to several seasons of teaching excavations in the 1980s led by Judy Birmingham (University of Sydney) and Graham Connah (University of New England). The site is also notable for containing surviving landscape elements associated with wine growing, including terraces. This archaeological site is within the Mulgoa Nature Reserve, south of the modern suburb of Regentville.266 . The Homestead, Georges Hall. This was built by David Johnston, son of George Johnston, in 1837. In 1990, archaeological excavations were undertaken by archaeologist Damaris Bairstow and others in the grounds adjacent to the standing homestead. These recorded structural remains of three mid 19th-century outbuildings, thought to be the servants’ quarters, a possible laundry or bakehouse and an unidentified small structure. Although the excavation report for this site provides limited details regarding these structures and their associated artefact deposits, this excavation does show how outbuildings were built and removed while a homestead remained in use.267 It is listed on the SHR (#448). . Harrington Park (house). This homestead was built in stages from 1817, initially for William Douglas Campbell. Archaeological investigations were undertaken by Stedinger Associates in 2011 and 2012. These were within sub-floor deposits in the standing building and monitoring of service trenches outside. The investigation recorded a great deal of information relating to the occupation of the house, its construction and subsequent structural changes.268 It is listed on the SHR (#1773).

Other standing farm homesteads in western Sydney listed on the State Heritage Register have largely not been subjected to extensive archaeological investigation.

263 Casey & Lowe 2005; Australian Heritage Database, Register of the National Estate (RNE) ID # 100576. 264 Casey & Lowe 2014; Sydney Water 2009; Veteran Hall - House Remains, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01351. 265 Rouse Hill House and Farm, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 00002; Thorp 1988; Thorp 1990; Thorp 1992; Varman 1997. A further report by Edward Higginbotham dated 1999 is listed in the NSW Heritage Division library but was not reviewed for this report. 266 Australian Heritage Database, Register of the National Estate (RNE) ID # 13461; Birmingham & Wilson 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1991, 1994, 2009; Connah 1986; Wilson & the Centre for Historical Archaeology 2000 [website] – online at http://web.archive.org/web/20080731133935/http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/research/regentville/frameless/00- 1_contents.htm#Top [accessed 27/05/2016] 267 Thorp 1989; Bairstow 1991. 268 Stedinger 2013.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 110

Other farm houses have also been excavated elsewhere in NSW. Out of these, the Lake Innes Estate, near Port Macquarie is probably the most notable. This site was investigated by a team led by Graham Connah between 1993 and 2001. This homestead was constructed from 1830 onwards for Major Archibald Innes. Although it was a larger and more prestigious house than Maryland at that time, it still forms a fruitful comparison, as an example of a major farm and homestead complex which developed in the 1830s and 1840s. The homestead remains are still in situ in a National Park.269

An interesting example of artefacts being collected from a standing building on a rural site, are the Tocal Homestead Barracks, near Paterson in the Hunter region of NSW. These are believed to have been constructed in the 1820s to house convicts, and were later used to house other farm workers. Before new flooring was installed in 1994, archaeological excavation of existing earthen floors was undertaken. This work found a range of material associated with the occupation of the building.270 Tocal Homestead is listed on the SHR (#147).

269 Connah 1998; Connah 2001; Connah 2007; Connah 2009. 270 Aartsen 1995.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 111

3.6 Discussion of archaeological potential 3.6.1 Birling The 19th-century structures at Birling appear to have been concentrated around the main homestead. The approximate location of the homestead is known from a topographic map published in 1929. This location is supported by a range of other evidence. Historic images show similar topography to that visible today on the site. During a site visit in 2016, various pieces of sandstone and sandstock brick rubble were noticed at the location, and an in situ section of sandstock brick paving was noticed. The 1947 and 1970 aerial photographs show two unidentified structures in this area which may or may not have been associated with the 19th-century use of the site. The exact location of the 19th-century buildings remains unknown at present. Further information, either in the form of archaeological testing or currently unknown historic plans of the site, would be required to provide this information. A fairly wide search has been undertaken for historic plans.

Given that the exact location of the main homestead and outbuildings is unknown, the entire spur on which these were located is assessed as having a moderate to high potential to contain archaeological remains (Figure 3.109, Figure 3.110). The location of the unidentified buildings shown on the 1947 and 1970 aerial photographs, and the area around the sandstock brick paving seen during the July 2016 site visit have been assessed as having high potential. Further work on the site, particularly archaeological testing, may allow the area of moderate to high potential to be reduced, once the location of the potential archaeological remains is more accurately known. Options for possible archaeological testing will be further discussed in section 5.2.

The area of moderate to high potential may contain the following archaeological remains: . Early to mid 19th-century structural and occupation-related artefact deposits associated with: o The first farm house built for Robert Lowe, c.1812 o The main Birling homestead (built 1810s? demolished c.1937?) o Probable kitchen, pre-1843 o Probable barn, pre-1843 o Separate cottage (for workers), pre-1843 o Unidentified round building shown on 1843 watercolour (Figure 3.87) o Stables . Possible artefact deposits backfilled into built underground features, such as water cisterns and cesspits. . Ad hoc rubbish pits, often dug in the vicinity of dwellings, typically at the rear of the house. . Paved areas and other yard features, particularly relating to the use of the site as the magistrate’s house and administrative centre from 1815 to c.1832. . Later additions and modifications to the homestead and surrounding outbuildings, including the adaption of the property for dairy farming.

The remainder of the site has low to nil potential to contain remains associated with the early 19th century due to the ephemeral nature of the original activities and the impact of later farm activities.

The potential for archaeological remains associated with mid to late 20th-century uses of the site is low to nil, given changes in construction methods and waste disposal practices. The ephemeral nature of the activities associated with the private racetrack make the potential for substantial remains associated with this low.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 112

Figure 3.109: Annotated detail showing the former homestead location at Birling, with archaeological potential added. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-05. Additions by Casey & Lowe.

Figure 3.110: Combined detail sheets covering Birling (historic boundary outlined in blue) with selected item numbers and other features relevant to the archaeological potential. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779. Detail plan is Figure 3.6. Rezoning area outlined in red.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 113

3.6.2 Maryland Most of the major buildings constructed at Maryland during the 19th century remain standing, including the main homestead, workers accommodation, winery buildings, stables and farm buildings. For this reason, most of the potential historical archaeological items on the site are associated with buildings which are still standing.

Standing buildings can contain archaeological evidence of their use, including occupation-related artefact deposits. There also can be a range of archaeological features which occur in the vicinity of standing buildings, such as ad hoc rubbish pits.

Other potential historical archaeological items in the study area are not located in or around standing buildings.

The potential for the site to contain historical archaeological remains associated with the early land grants on the site (Phase 3), dating pre-1850, is low to nil. These remains would have been ephemeral to begin with, consisting of dropped items and possibly fences. The study area was not cultivated for grain in Phase 3, apart from perhaps the area of Dowdell’s grant. Later farm activities such as tilling the soil for improvement (seen on some aerial photos) will have adversely impacted on the potential for such evidence to be preserved.

Table 3.3 contains a list of the potential archaeological items at Maryland, Bringelly. The location of these items are shown on Figure 3.111, Figure 3.112 and Figure 3.113.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 114

Table 3.3: Table of potential archaeological items at Maryland, Bringelly – note item numbers correspond to those in the Tropman & Tropman CMP, apart from the specifically archaeological item numbers, which are in the format ‘A1’, ‘A2’. Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion Parts of the complex of buildings around the homestead have probably been occupied since the 1850s, with the buildings gradually being added to. The Laundry & Kitchen Store (T&T item 2.3) may . underfloor deposits within be older than the other structures as it is built from brick. structure 2.1, A large stone cistern is located under the south courtyard. This appears to be largely free of later . underground cistern and 2.2, backfill, but may contain some accumulated material in its base. possible backfill 2.3, Homestead complex 4 1850s+? . remains of former The buildings may retain underfloor deposits below the timber floorboards. The cellar appears to 2.4, outbuildings and earlier retain its original lath and plaster ceiling, which would mean that occupation related underfloor 2.5, building arrangements deposits above may be retained in this portion of the house. However, some common practices such 2.12 . remains of former as the extensive use of interior carpets and good maintenance of the floorboards may have landscaping prevented underfloor deposits from forming. The interiors of the homestead buildings were not inspected during the site visit, as they were occupied. This structure may have provided accommodation to members of the staff on the homestead. Stone Guesthouse 1870s or . underfloor deposits within Depending on the type of flooring originally used, and on the extent of any later impacts, the 2.10 4 Existing 1880s? structure (limited) guesthouse may retain some occupation related underfloor deposits within the standing structure. The interior of the guesthouse was not inspected during the site visit, as it was occupied. . underfloor deposits within This intact cottage probably provided accommodation to one of the several families who were living on structure the site during the 19th century. 3.1 Upper Gatehouse 4 1870s? . possible cesspit & backfill An 1899 description of the property mentioned stables 40 yards from the fire damaged wine cellar . ad hoc rubbish pits (12). These may have been in the vicinity of the Upper Gatehouse. . possible remains of stables The gatehouse was not closely inspected during the site visit, as it was occupied. . Possible former garden features Pleasure Garden & 3.12 4 including terracing, paths, This area was not inspected during the site visit. Tennis Court outbuildings . Possible former garden features Picking / Kitchen 3.13 4 1860s? including terracing, paths, This area was not inspected during the site visit. Garden / Orchard outbuildings . possible former vineyard 3.14 Vineyard slopes 4 1860s This area was not inspected during the site visit. features including terracing

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 115

Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion This cottage probably provided accommodation to one of the several families who were living on the site during the 19th century. Its proximity to the possible quarries means it may have been used by the . underfloor deposits within on-site stonemason, although this is only conjecture. structure (limited) The potential features include a possible underground cistern. These were commonly used for water . possible underground cistern 3.4 ‘Former Entry’ Cottage 4 1860s? storage prior to above-ground iron tanks being common. However, other water storage strategies and backfill were commonly used, such as water butts, and it is possible that no underground cistern was built. . possible cesspit & backfill . ad hoc rubbish pits A cesspit may have been associated with this cottage, with the material disposed of elsewhere on the property. However, a dunny or privy may have been equipped with a can or pan, which would not leave as clear an archaeological trace. This cottage probably provided accommodation to one of the several families who were living on the . underfloor deposits within site during the 19th century. structure (limited) A cistern and cesspit are both possible features in the yard of this house. However, the house may not . possible underground cistern 3.6 North Entry Gatehouse 4 1870s? have ever had either. and backfill . possible cesspit & backfill Later refurbishment of the house might have diminished its potential to retain in situ occupation- . ad hoc rubbish pits related underfloor deposits. The gatehouse was not closely inspected during the site visit, as it was occupied. . deposits and earlier surfaces under existing floor . possible paths & terracing This building is thought to have been used for the production of wine on site in the 19th century. 4.1 Stone Winery 4 1860s surrounding building The exterior area surrounding the building may contain buried features such as paths and terracing . evidence of earlier building which could clarify how this building functioned in relation to the nearby stone winery store. phases and previously installed machinery . deposits and earlier surfaces This building is thought to be the cellar which was badly damaged by fire in 1899. It originally was a under existing floor two-storey building. There may be archaeological deposits or features under the existing modern 4.3 Stone Winery Store 4 1860s . evidence of earlier building floor. However, historical reports of the 1899 fire indicate that the earlier floor was stone flagged. This phases and previously installed will limit the potential for the earlier floor to include much use-related material. machinery The building may also contain evidence of its later use by the Cobbity Pony Club. . underfloor deposits within This cottage probably provided accommodation to the farm manager and his family. structure (limited) A cistern and cesspit are both features which are possible in the area surrounding this house. Early Farm Managers . possible underground cistern However, the house may not have ever had either. 6.2 4 1860s? Cottage & outbuilding and backfill Later refurbishment of the house might have diminished its potential to retain in situ occupation . possible cesspit & backfill related underfloor deposits. . ad hoc rubbish pits The house was not closely inspected during the site visit, as it was occupied.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 116

Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion This stone stables and coach house contains a substantial amount of original fabric. Archaeological . deposits under existing floor Stone Stables & Coach evidence associated with the structure is likely to include material which has accumulated under the 6.3 4 1860s . evidence of earlier building House existing timber board floor. The area within building and its immediate surrounds may also provide phases evidence of earlier building phases. Early Timber Slab 4 or This shed is still standing. Most of the heritage values will relate to the standing structure. The 6.5 ? . former surfaces Stables 5? building may contain evidence of former surfaces Early & Later Milking This shed is still standing. Most of the heritage values will relate to the standing structure. The 6.6 4 or 5 ? . former surfaces Shed building may contain evidence of former surfaces. This large shed is still standing. Most of the heritage values will relate to the standing structure. The 6.7 Early Shed & Feed Stall 4 ? . former surfaces building may contain evidence of former surfaces and uses. The age and function of this demolished shed is unclear. It appears to have been demolished during Storage Shed 2 4 or . postholes or footings for shed 6.9 ? 2013. The extent of the demolition is unknown and may have been extensive. This area was not (gone?) 5? . former surfaces inspected closely during the site visit. . buried remains of pump house This large shed had a steam engine associated with it up to at least 1940. This engine probably . underground pipes? Large Shed and provided power for the remaining water pump, as well as other farm machinery. 1880s- . deposits associated with the use 7.2 & 7.3 remains of pump 4 A building to the south of the large shed was demolished in mid-2015. The purpose of this building was 1907 of the large shed house unclear, but it might be the building known as the ‘pump house’ (T&T item 7.3). There may possibly be . possible machine base for remains associated this building. engine Spatial – pastoral 9.1 setting spire planted knoll 4 and Spire planted knoll [landscape item] [landscape item] 5 arising from broad 9.2 alluvial flats bisected by a large water body . Cut rock-face Possible on-site 1850s- . Archaeological remains of A1 4 quarry 1870s? work sheds Samuel Goard, a Cornish stonemason lived on site at Maryland from the 1850s to the 1870s. It is . Dropped tools thought that he could have gathered stone for the buildings from the property itself. . Cut rock-face These sites have only been identified from the detail survey of the site. An onsite inspection may Possible on-site 1850s- . Archaeological remains of A2 4 find that there is no reason to believe that these features are associated with quarrying. quarry 1870s? work sheds . Dropped tools This rectilinear feature appears on aerial photos up to 2014. Its function is currently uncertain. If it A3 Possible cattle dip? 5? ? . Unidentified feature was a relatively recent, contaminated site, then it probably does not reach the threshold for local significance. before . Evidence for previous water A bridge may have been on this location from before 1907, depending on the interpretation of A4 Bridge 4 1907? crossings historic plans. This bridge is not on the main access driveway, and so may provide evidence for an

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 117

Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion earlier route. They may be evidence for previous water crossings on this location. . underground cistern and This is the location of a large stone cistern. It is thought to date back to at least the 1870s. The possible backfill Large Stone Cistern cistern mostly appears to be largely free of later backfill, but may contain some accumulated A5 4 1860s? . buried disused pipes and in shed material in its base. The area surrounding the cistern may contain pipes and channels which could channels bringing water in provide information on how the water was collected and used. and out of the cistern. . Possible footings for this This structure is shown on a 1961 aerial photograph of the site. It appears to have been demolished Former location of structure 4 or by 1970, based on later aerial photos. The age and purpose of this structure is unclear. The A6 unidentified ? . Possible occupation/use- 5 archaeological potential and significance of this structure is unclear and requires further research. structure related deposits associated This area was not inspected during the site visit. with this structure The age and function of this demolished shed is unclear. It appears to have been demolished 4 or . postholes or footings for shed A7 Former shed ? between 1961 and 2002. The extent of the demolition is unknown and may have been extensive. 5? . former surfaces This area was not inspected closely during the site visit. . possible footings for a 4 or The age and function of this feature is unclear. It is not the present septic system for the cottage, A8 unidentified feature ? building or disused cistern or 5 which is located to the south of the cottage. It may be an earlier septic system or a disused cistern. septic system Birling homestead, 1812- A9 - See list in section 3.6.1. The archaeological remains at Birling are discussed above in section 3.6.1. and outbuildings c.1935

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 118

Figure 3.111: Map showing identified potential historical archaeological items. Background map, combined detail sheets covering Maryland (outlined in light blue). Rezoning area outlined in dark blue. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779. Additions by Casey & Lowe.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 119

Figure 3.112: Map showing identified potential historical archaeological items – Detail 1, Maryland homestead and winery buildings. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-21.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 120

Figure 3.113: Map showing identified potential historical archaeological items – Detail 2, farm buildings. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-09.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 121

3.6.3 Remainder of rezoning area Two parts of the rezoning area lie outside the historic boundaries of Birling and Maryland. One area was part of the historic property known as ‘Newstead’ (Figure 2.9, Figure 2.10, Figure 3.114). There are currently no structures in this area, and there is no evidence that there have ever been any substantial structures in this area since the land was first granted in 1812, as part of the initial grant of 1000 acres to Robert Lowe. Therefore, the potential for this area to contain historical (ie non- Aboriginal) archaeological remains is considered to be low to nil.

The other area, now 749, 751 and 761 The Northern Road, Bringelly, is now the location of some private houses and a recycling facility. Aerial photographs of the area, however, show that these were all constructed after 1970. There is no evidence of earlier structures in the area since it was first granted to John Dickson in 1816. Therefore, this area also is considered to have low to nil potential to contain to contain historical (ie non-Aboriginal) archaeological remains.

Figure 3.114 shows all identified areas of potential historical archaeological remains identified by this report and listed in Table 3.3.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 122

Figure 3.114: Map showing identified potential historical archaeological items across entire rezoning area; early 20th-century property boundaries added. Rezoning area outlined in dark blue. Background map, combined detail sheets Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779. Additions by Casey & Lowe.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 123

4.0 Heritage Significance 4.1 Heritage significance Heritage significance is distinct from archaeological potential. Assessment of archaeological potential considers the probability of physical evidence from previous human activity to still exist on a site. Assessment of heritage significance for archaeological features considers the cultural values associated with those remains.271

This section will outline the basis of assessing the heritage significance of archaeological remains, before then assessing heritage significance on the potential archaeological features identified in section 3.

4.2 Heritage significance and archaeology A number of guidelines are relevant to the heritage assessment of historical archaeological remains. In NSW the most relevant of these are those developed by the Heritage Branch (now the Heritage Division) in 2009: Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’. The heritage criteria, adopted by the NSW Heritage Council and the associated guidelines issued in 2001 (NSW Heritage Manual - Assessing heritage significance) are also foundational.

The 2009 guidelines provide the following discussion of heritage significance and archaeology: Apart from NSW State guidelines, the nationally recognised Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Significance (The Burra Charter) also defines ‘cultural significance’ as meaning: ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific and social value for past, present and future generations.’ Significance is therefore an expression of the cultural value afforded a place, site or item. Understanding what is meant by value in a heritage sense is fundamental, since any society will only make an effort to conserve things it values. In terms of built heritage, what we have inherited from the past is usually places that have been continuously cared for. Conversely, many archaeological sites will comprise places which, for whatever reason, have not been cared for until the relatively recent period. Our society considers that many places and items we have inherited from the past have heritage significance because they embody, demonstrate, represent or are tangible expressions of values society recognises and supports. Our future heritage will be what we keep from our inheritance to pass on to the following generations.272

The 2001 heritage criteria are used to assess the heritage significance of archaeological items. To be assessed as having heritage significance an item must: . meet at least one of the one of the seven significance criteria . retain the integrity of its key attributes273

Relics must also be ranked according to their heritage significance as having: . Local Significance . State Significance

271 This distinction has long been recognised by historical archaeologists working in heritage management but was restated in Practice Note – The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice (Australia ICOMOS 2013:7). 272 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:1-2. Note that this passage quotes the 1988 version of the Burra Charter. The 1999 and 2013 revisions also include ‘spiritual value’ in their definition of cultural significance. 273 NSW Heritage Office 1996:26.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 124

If a potential relic is not considered to reach the local or State significance threshold then it is not a relic under the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

Section 4A of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 defines these two levels of heritage significance as follows: ‘State heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to the State in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item. ‘local heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to an area in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.274

Although ‘research significance’ (criterion e of the Heritage Council criteria) has traditionally been seen as the primary heritage value of archaeological remains,275 if an item is to be considered to be of State significance it should meet more than one criterion.276 As the 2009 guidelines state: Archaeological Significance may be linked to other significance categories especially where sites were created as a result of a specific historic event or decision, or when sites have been the actual location of particular incidents, events or occupancies. Other relevant factors may be comparative values related to the intactness and rarity of individual items. The rarity of individual site types is an important factor, which should inform management decisions.277

Similar sentiments are also contained in the 2013 Australia ICOMOS Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice.278

As a result of the need to assess sites using multiple criteria, the 2009 guidelines include the following categories and associated questions relevant to historical archaeological sites: . Archaeological Research Potential (current NSW Heritage Criterion E). . Associations with individuals, events or groups of historical importance (NSW Heritage Criteria A, B & D). . Aesthetic or technical significance (NSW Heritage Criterion C). . Ability to demonstrate the past through archaeological remains (NSW Heritage Criteria A, C, F & G).279

274 NSW Heritage Act 1977 (current January 2014), section 4A; NSW Heritage Branch 2009:6. 275 Bickford & Sullivan 1982; NSW Heritage Office 1996:26. 276 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:9, cf NSW Heritage Act 1977, section 33 (3) (a) which requires an item to meet more than one of the heritage criteria for an item to be listed on the State Heritage Register. 277 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:9. 278 Australia ICOMOS 2013:3. 279 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:11-13.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 125

4.3 Previous statements of heritage significance 4.3.1 Birling Birling has been previously identified as a landscape item of local significance in the 1990 South Creek Valley Heritage Study (item L5). The inventory sheet for Birling contained in this report provided the following statement of significance: Site of an early colonial land grant, since maintained as pastoral landscape and sharing this scenic heritage with "Maryland", on its southern boundary. Includes important native vegetation along Lowes Creek. Site considered to be of regional significance.280

This is the only known previous statement of significance for Birling. It does not include potential archaeological remains.

4.3.2 Maryland 4.3.2.1 Tropman & Tropman 2015 / NSW State Heritage Inventory The heritage significance of Maryland has been assessed in the 2015 draft Conservation Management Plan by Tropman & Tropman. This assessment concluded with the following statement of significance, which also appears on the NSW State Heritage Inventory, associated with the site’s listing on the Camden LEP: Maryland is an outstanding complex of early homestead and farm buildings, especially significant for its completeness as a group, its excellent state of preservation, and the integration of the buildings, garden and magnificent setting. Includes many early buildings in good repair as well as buildings of special architectural interest. The winery and store may be the oldest winery buildings in Australia. Property has been in continuous occupation by only two families for over 130 years. Long associations with the surrounding district. The Main Building is an important historic grouping, set in magnificent garden and landscape and retaining most original fabric. The outbuildings form a substantial group which are of state significance because they are an important historic grouping and some of the earliest on the buildings on site. They illustrate the diversity of functions associated with early agricultural activity in this area. All are virtually intact.281

4.3.2.2 Artefact Heritage The heritage significance of Maryland has been previously assessed by Artefact Heritage in 2012 as part of an assessment relating to the upgrade of The Northern Road. It provided the following statement of significance for site as a whole: Maryland is of State significance. It is important in the cultural history of the district as one of the earliest farms in the area, and is associated with several people of importance in the local area and the State. Through its standing structures, remnant garden, and potential archaeological remains, the property has the potential to provide information about the history of the Camden/Bringelly area, while also demonstrating many of the principal characteristics of this type of estate on a local and State level. The property retains many original standing structures, as well as its historical landscape setting and views, and is therefore a rare intact example of this type of estate.282

The Artefact Heritage report also contained the following statement of significance for the North Entry Gatehouse on The Northern Road:

280 Perumal Murphy 1990, item L5. 281 Tropman & Tropman 2015:69; NSW State Heritage Inventory, database no. 1280029: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=1280029 [accessed 12/05/2016]. 282 Artefact Heritage 2012:62.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 126

The gatehouse is of State significance as part of the historic estate complex and landscape. The building is of aesthetic significance as an early vernacular building and an important landmark on The Northern Road.283

4.3.2.3 State Heritage Inventory – draft listing The NSW State Heritage Inventory also contains the following draft listing which was last updated on 7 August 2015: Maryland is State significant as an intact example of a major surviving mid-19th century rural estate, - the core of the original 1815 grant of 300 acres [sic] - within the Cumberland Plain which continues as a working dairy farm. It occupies a prominent hilltop location forming an important reference point in the local area, further emphasised by the conspicuous old Araucarian pine plantings - and gate lodges along the Northern Road. The homestead and associated buildings, gardens and plantings have characteristics of the Summit Model of homestead siting within an intact rural landscape setting fundamental to its interpretation. The traditional rural landscape character and its setting is largely uncompromised. Maryland retains substantial evidence of earlier estate layout and design by engineer Thomas Barker with an outstanding group of dairy and winery outbuildings and gate house. Maryland is a rare example of mid 19th century gardening design and remains an historical resource in its remnant gardens and vineyards. Other historically related rural landscape elements beyond the homestead may still be appreciated in relation to it - old farms, creek lines, fence lines, the dairy group and outlying gatehouse. It retains important traditional historic views to and from The Northern Road. It offers an outstanding landscape archaeological resource with its extensive remnant vineyard fields and other remnant functional and ornamental plantings. The significance of Maryland is considerably enhanced by the extent to which it has retained its form, character, fabric and rural setting.284

4.4 Discussion of Heritage Significance 4.4.1 Birling The assessment of historical archaeological potential above indicates that a limited area of Birling has a moderate to high potential for historical archaeological remains from c.1812 onwards. These remains may include: . Early to mid 19th-century structural and occupation-related artefact deposits associated with: o The first farm house built for Robert Lowe, c.1812 o The main Birling homestead (built 1810s? demolished c.1937?) o Probable kitchen, pre-1843 o Probable barn, pre-1843 o Separate cottage (for workers), pre-1843 o Unidentified round building shown on 1843 watercolour (Figure 3.87) o Stables . Possible artefact deposits backfilled into built underground features, such as water cisterns and cesspits. . Ad hoc rubbish pits, often dug in the vicinity of dwellings, typically at the rear of the house.

283 Artefact Heritage 2012:63. 284 NSW State Heritage Inventory, database no. 5051539: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051539 [accessed 12/05/2016].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 127

. Paved areas and other yard features, particularly relating to the use of the site as the magistrate’s house and administrative centre from 1815 to c.1832. . Later additions and modifications to the homestead and surrounding outbuildings, including the adaption of the property for dairy farming.

The remainder of the site has low to nil potential to contain remains associated with the early 19th century, due to the ephemeral nature of the original activities and the impact of later farm activities.

The potential for archaeological remains associated with mid to late 20th-century uses of the site is low to nil, given changes in construction methods and waste disposal practices. The ephemeral nature of the activities associated with the private racetrack make the potential for substantial remains associated with this low.

Criterion (a): Historic Significance - (evolution) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). Birling was an important administrative centre while Robert Lowe lived and worked as a magistrate on the site between 1815 and 1832. During this period, Birling was where the magistrate’s bench met. It was the first point where people sought legal redress for crimes. It was the place where the convict system was managed. In 1825, it was the registration station for the General Muster. The constables who lived on the site were responsible for law enforcement in the local area. The nearest comparable magistrate at this time was located in Liverpool.

The site was also an administrative centre for relations between local Aboriginal people and the colonising New South Wales government. During the conflict of 1816, troops were stationed at Birling but no confrontations are known to have taken place on the property itself. During the 1820s, clothing and blankets were distributed to surviving Aboriginal groups through Birling, as the location of the magistrate’s bench. It is unclear, however, to what extent this role meant that Aboriginal people actually interacted with white colonists on the site itself.

As these administrative functions took place in buildings and areas also used for other purposes, such as the main homestead, it is expected that associated archaeological remains will most likely occur in the occupation-related material of these structures.

In addition to being an administrative centre, Birling also was a working agricultural establishment from when the land was first granted in 1812. The kind of agriculture practiced on the site has changed over time, moving from mixed farming, to sheep grazing, to dairy farming, horse training and most recently veterinary research. The potential archaeological remains of the farm outbuildings around the main homestead, such as the barn and stables, will be associated with this aspect of the site’s use.

Birling has also been home to many people, both in the main homestead and in the cottages seen on historic views of the site. The archaeological remains of the homestead and cottage have the potential to contain occupation-related artefact deposits or ad hoc rubbish pits in their yards. These may yield material which would relate to day-to-day domestic life.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 128

Table 4.1: Summary of Historic Themes and possible associated archaeological evidence. NSW themes from Heritage Council 2001. Australian Theme NSW Theme Local Theme Possible associated archaeological evidence 2 Peopling Australia Aboriginal cultures Frontier conflict of . Occupation-related deposits possibly related and interactions with 1816; early forms of to soldiers stationed on the site, esp. in other cultures Government welfare 1816. in 1820s 2 Peopling Australia Convict Convict assignment, . Occupation-related deposits from use as the punishment and magistrates bench (1815-1832). control . Structural remains of buildings used by the magistrate Robert Lowe and others in their administrative work. 3 Developing local, Agriculture Pastoral sheep . Deposits and earlier surfaces associated with regional and national farming; Dairy farm outbuildings around the former economies farming homestead. 7 Governing Law and Order Bringelly Magistrates . Occupation-related deposits from use as the Bench magistrates bench (1815-1832). . Structural remains of buildings used by the magistrate Robert Lowe and others in their administrative work. 8 Developing Domestic life life on a farm and . Occupation-related deposits in the main Australia’s cultural “gentleman’s homestead and cottage. life estate” . ad hoc rubbish pits with domestic rubbish . Backfills of built underground features such as cisterns and cesspits. 9 Marking the Persons Robert Lowe and his . Occupation-related deposits in the main phases of life family homestead. . ad hoc rubbish pits with domestic rubbish . Backfills of built underground features such as cisterns and cesspits. . Evidence associated with the gardens, winery and vineyard.

Criterion (b): Associative Significance – (association) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, or importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); Birling was part of a 1000 acre grant initially made to Robert Lowe on his arrival in Australia in 1812. Robert Lowe was a prominent settler who was appointed as a magistrate by Governor Macquarie in 1815. Robert Lowe does not appear to have become quite as entangled in political disputes as other prominent settlers, but rather appears to have successfully focused on his role as magistrate.

Robert Lowe lived at Birling from 1812 until around his death in 1832, although he did die elsewhere. Birling was named after Birling Manor, near Eastdene Sussex, which had been owned by the father of his first wife. Members of the Lowe family continued to live at Birling until 1881, when the property was sold.

Birling was owned by the colonial politician Sir Robert Wisdom from 1884 up to his death in 1888. It is unclear, however, if he ever spent extended periods of time on the property.

Birling was later owned between 1935 and 1945 by the horse trainer Howard Horace Young. Mr Young was somewhat prominent in the local area. However, he is not strongly associated with the potential archaeological remains, as these buildings were demolished during his period of ownership.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 129

Criterion (c): Aesthetic Significance - (scenic qualities / creative accomplishments) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); The potential archaeological remains are unlikely to have particular aesthetic significance on their own. The potential archaeological remains are expected to mostly consist of structural remains and occupation or use-related artefact deposits. These probably were not made in order to evoke emotions, however, some people may find that archaeological artefacts/structures can help them emotionally engage with the past.

Nevertheless, clearly understanding the location of the Birling homestead will help to understand the past landscape. In particular, the homestead is expected to have visual connections to the Maryland homestead, which was built during the 1850s, while Birling was still standing.

Criterion (d): Social Significance - (contemporary community esteem) an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); No public consultation has been undertaken regarding the social significance of the archaeological remains associated with Birling. In some ways, Birling may have slipped from the local consciousness, since the homestead was demolished in the 1930s. Anecdotally, to locals at present, Birling appears to be most strongly associated with the veterinary research facilities located on the site.

However, the clear and relatively strong association of Birling with both the administration of the convict system, and early government interactions with Aboriginal people are likely to mean that there are many who would be interested in the site, if they knew its history. The convict system and the early 19th-century relationship of white settlers to Aboriginal people are both aspects of Australian history which are widely acknowledged as important. It is likely that there would be many, both in the local area and across NSW who would be interested in aspects of the archaeological remains at Birling.

Criterion (e): Technical/Research Significance - (archaeological, educational, research potential and scientific values) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); The potential archaeological remains at Birling have the potential to yield archaeological information which would contribute to the understanding of the site and its inhabitants.

The potential archaeological remains associated with buildings pre-dating c.1832 would provide information regarding the way in which a rural magistrate functioned under the administrations of Governors Macquarie, Brisbane and Darling. The personal and administrative lives of rural magistrates greatly overlapped during this period, as they worked out of their houses. Other government officers were based out of the site including constables and even soldiers, at times. Any pre-1832 remains would be associated with this hybrid administrative/domestic space. The ways in which this arrangement functioned is not particularly well-understood. Archaeological investigations may be able to provide both the spatial relationship of various structures and the material culture used on the site. Both types of information would be new and would improve our understanding of how this kind of site functioned.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 130

The potential archaeological remains dating after 1832 would also provide a good source of information regarding the day-to-day lives of those who lived on the site, including the Lowe family (1812-1881), the Morrow family (c.1899-c.1930) and any staff.

Overall, the kinds of research questions Birling could address include: . What was life like for convicts and British settlers in the Bringelly area in the early 19th century? . The function of a magistrate’s residence: o How did the personal and official functions of Robert Lowe as magistrate interact, when the spatial arrangement of his property is considered? o What evidence is there for others on the property prior to 1832 – convicts? soldiers? Aboriginal people? If so, what does this evidence tell us about them? . Long-term occupation by two families (the Lowes & the Morrows). . How did the site function as a place of residence and work for people on the site? This may lead to further questions relating to: o Class and hierarchy. o Community and cooperation. o Material culture and the nature of the lives of women, children and men on the estate.

There have been a number of documented archaeological investigations at the homesteads associated farms or former farms in New South Wales. These include Belgenny Farm at Camden and Lake Innes Estate, near Port Macquarie. Other farm estates, such as John Jamieson’s Regentville, Mulgoa have been subjected to archaeological investigations, but the results of these have been less widely disseminated (Section 3.5).

There have been a number of administrative sites from the early 19th century investigated in Sydney and Parramatta. The opportunity to examine a rural administrative centre may provide an interesting contrast to these sites.

There have been archaeological investigations at a fairly large number of 19th-century domestic sites from urban areas in Sydney and Parramatta. These sites will have points of similarity to rural domestic sites from the same period, such as those at Maryland, but they also will differ in a number of ways, in part shaped by the better transport connections which were available in the Sydney CBD and Parramatta.

The evidence provided by archaeological features at Birling dating from the mid 19th century through to the early 20th century are likely to supplement what is already known from other archaeological sites. However, the potential archaeological evidence associated with the first phases of the site (largely prior to Robert Lowe’s death in 1832), has a good possibility to provide new information which would enhance and expand the archaeological data set of New South Wales. Not only could the site provide information regarding day to day life during a formative period of British colonial expansion into the area, but it could also provide insights into the day to day administration of the area during this time.

Criterion (f): Rarity an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); There are several surviving farm sites of a similar age in Western Sydney but a smaller number have been subject to any archaeological investigation. Notable examples include Belgenny Farm,

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 131

Regentville, and Bungarribee. Western Sydney is unusual in NSW for its density of surviving 19th- century farms and homesteads. Birling is slightly unusual among these many sites, since it was also a magistrate’s residence. As such it was a centre of administration, as well as agriculture and a domestic dwelling.

Overall, the surviving homesteads in Western Sydney and the potential archaeological resource associated with them are under pressure due to the gradual expansion of Sydney’s suburbs. During expansion in the 1960-1980s many similar sites were lost without being recorded. Archaeological resources in standing buildings can be removed by later renovations and restorations, meaning that some surviving homesteads might not contain substantial in situ archaeological deposits.

Criterion (g): Representativeness an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places of cultural or natural environments (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). Birling is representative, in many ways, of the many farms in the area which operated from the 1810s onwards. As such, it can be seen as representative of these farms and the residences of the people who worked on them.

The administrative aspects of the early history of the site are less common. However, it was common for the relatively small number of early magistrates in rural areas to meet in their own homes. Birling would be representative of this smaller set of sites. It would be representative of those sites where the convict system was administered in the 1810s and 1820s.

Integrity The actual integrity of the various potential archaeological resources is unknown without archaeological testing. On available information, however, some features are likely to be relatively intact, although their exact location is unknown. The current buildings on the site and associated services, dating from the 1930s or later, will have had some impact on the potential remains of earlier features. However, these impacts are expected to be localised in the form of trenches and strip footings.

4.4.2 Maryland The assessment of historical archaeological potential above indicates that potential historical archaeological remains date from the mid 19th century onwards (Phases 4 and 5).285 The site has low to nil potential to contain remains associated with the early 19th century, due to the ephemeral nature of the original activities and the impact of later farm activities.

The majority of the archaeological remains are associated with buildings which are still standing and therefore there is limited potential for substantial and significant structural remains to survive. The kinds of remains associated with standing buildings includes: . Use and occupation-related artefact deposits, such as ‘underfloor deposits’ within structures, notably the house and kitchens but also possibly within outbuildings. . Possible artefact deposits backfilled into built underground features, such as water cisterns and cesspits. . Ad hoc rubbish pits, often dug in the vicinity of dwellings, typically at the rear of the house. It is also possible that rubbish was dumped in a hollow or a creekline or even in garden areas, as a typical rural way of disposing of rubbish.

285 The potential Aboriginal heritage and archaeology of the study area is being assessed separately.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 132

. Evidence for earlier machinery buried under later additions and surfaces. . Evidence for earlier work surfaces buried under later additions and surfaces, typically within buildings.

The site also contains potential archaeological remains associated with buried, built landscape features including: . Vineyard Terracing?? . Pathway . Demolished garden outbuildings and pavilions . Evidence of the rural landscape and the legibility of the old farms, creek lines, fence lines, the dairy group and outlying gatehouse.

There is the potential for archaeological remains associated with a small number of demolished structures. The potential remains in these cases include both footings and occupation/use-related deposits. In many cases the function of these structures is unclear.

Criterion (a): Historic Significance - (evolution) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). Maryland has been used for agriculture and grazing since the early 19th century. From the 1850s, it was used more intensively, with the development of the homestead and then the vineyards from the 1860s up to at least the 1890s, and its use as a dairy farm from at least the 1870s up to the 2010s. The potential archaeological remains associated with this use as a dairy farm, a vineyard and winery include vineyard terracing and paths, deposits and earlier surfaces under existing floor in winery buildings and some farm buildings and possibly postholes or footings for demolished

Although the homestead has often been the focus of attention, the site itself has been home to many other families, who lived in the numerous other houses at Maryland. The standing homestead and other houses have some potential to contain occupation-related artefact deposits or ad hoc rubbish pits in their yards. These may yield material which would relate to day-to-day domestic life. Previous structural features would also provide some evidence on previous patterns of life on the site.

Maryland was also home to a number of German immigrants and their descendants, including Francis and Wilhelmina Klum, Peter and Elizabeth Nies, and most prominently the Anschau family. These lived and worked on the farm. The archaeological remains associated with the vineyard, winery and domestic residences may be associated with them.

Maryland is important to several themes in the cultural history of New South Wales. These are summarised in Table 4.2.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 133

Table 4.2: Summary of Historic Themes and possible associated archaeological evidence. NSW themes from Heritage Council 2001. Australian Theme NSW Theme Local Theme Possible associated archaeological evidence 2 Peopling Australia Ethnic influences German Migration of . Occupation-related deposits in various skilled wine growing workers’ accommodation labour . ad hoc rubbish pits with domestic rubbish . backfills of built underground features such as cisterns and cesspits . vineyard terracing and paths . evidence for earlier machinery buried under later additions and surfaces in winery buildings 3 Developing local, Agriculture Wine growing . vineyard terracing and paths regional and national . evidence for earlier machinery buried under economies later additions and surfaces in winery buildings . possible paths & terracing surrounding winery buildings . deposits and earlier surfaces under existing floor in winery buildings 3 Developing local, Agriculture Dairy farming . deposits and earlier surfaces under existing regional and national floor in some farm buildings economies . postholes or footings for demolished sheds with identified archaeological potential 3 Developing local, Environment – The landscape of a . archaeological remains associated with regional and national cultural landscape mid to late 19th- possible on site quarry economies century farm and . archaeological remains associated with a “gentleman’s estate” previous water crossing near a pre-1907 bridge (Item A4) 8 Developing Domestic life life on a farm and . Occupation-related deposits in various Australia’s cultural life “gentleman’s estate” workers’ accommodation and the main Maryland homestead. . ad hoc rubbish pits with domestic rubbish . backfills of built underground features such as cisterns and cesspits 9 Marking the phases Persons Thomas Barker and . Occupation-related deposits in the main of life his family Maryland homestead. . ad hoc rubbish pits with domestic rubbish . backfills of built underground features such as cisterns and cesspits . evidence associated with the gardens, winery and vineyard 9 Marking the phases Persons The Thomson family . Occupation-related deposits in the main of life Maryland homestead. (These are likely to include material associated with the Thomson’s occupation of the homestead).

Criterion (b): Associative Significance – (association) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, or importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); Maryland formed part of a 3000 acre farm known as ‘Nonorrah’ granted to John Dickson, a prominent miller, engineer and businessman who brought the first steam engine to Australia and established the first steam mill in Darling Harbour in c. 1815. He was sent out to New South Wales at the request of Governor Macquarie. John Dickson was involved with the operations at ‘Nonorrah’ but never permanently lived on the site. James Dickson, John’s brother, was more involved with the management of ‘Nonorrah’. However, the best available evidence suggests that study area was used for grazing while it was part of ‘Nonorrah’, and no identified potential archaeological resource is associated with that phase.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 134

Maryland was developed by Thomas Barker, who was another miller, engineer, businessman and philanthropist, who was prominent in many aspects of public life in NSW. Thomas Barker was closely involved in developing the site and oversaw development of many of its prominent features, including the homestead, gardens, vineyard, winery and workers’ housing. Surviving letters indicate that Barker was personally involved in the management of winery processes, such as bottling wine.

The site is also closely associated with Thomas Barker’s son, Thomas Charles Barker. T. C. Barker was prominent in his local community, particularly the Nepean Shire Council, St Paul’s Cobbitty Church of England and the Camden Show Society.

Maryland was home to a number of German migrants, who were involved in producing wine on the site. Although relatively unknown individually, they were part of a group who were of importance in developing the wine industry in Australia. While Maryland was not a place where these Germans immigrants with experience in running vineyards were initially employed, a number later lived and worked on the estate.

Maryland was owned and occupied by the Thomson family from 1940 up to 2012. Annie and Elizabeth Thomson, who lived on the site were particularly prominent in public life, in the spheres of agricultural shows, dairy farming and horse riding. Both received the Medal of the Order of Australia for this work in 2004. Their public interests were directly associated with their activities at Maryland.

Criterion (c): Aesthetic Significance - (scenic qualities / creative accomplishments) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); Although the overall site of Maryland has aesthetic significance based on factors including the location of the homestead, the design of the buildings and the gardens and other intentional plantings,286 the potential archaeological remains are unlikely to have particular aesthetic significance on their own. The potential archaeological remains are expected to mostly consist of occupation or use-related artefact deposits. These probably were not made in order to evoke emotions; however, some people may find that archaeological artefacts/structures can help them emotionally engage with the past.

The archaeological deposits associated with the winery buildings may have technical significance, as examples of a fairly large 19th-century winery in NSW. Any remains associated with the winery, such as machine bases, buried pipes, paths and other features, will help interpret the winery buildings which remain standing. This significance may be heightened by an association with Thomas Barker a significant early engineer in New South Wales.

Criterion (d): Social Significance - (contemporary community esteem) an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); No public consultation has been undertaken regarding the social significance of the archaeological remains associated with Maryland. However, Maryland is likely to be relatively well known in the

286 Tropman & Tropman 2015:66-67, see also Artefact Heritage 2012:61.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 135 local area, given its prominent location on a ridgeline near a locally important north-south thoroughfare (The Northern Road). The site was also used by the local Cobbitty Pony Club during the period of Thomson ownership.

Broadly speaking, local community groups who have an interest in local history are also interested in the historical archaeology of those places. It is also likely that the social values placed on Maryland homestead and property are also transferred to the archaeology.

Criterion (e): Technical/Research Significance - (archaeological, educational, research potential and scientific values) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); The site of Maryland has the potential to yield archaeological information which would contribute to the understanding of the history of both the buildings and the people who lived there.

The potential use and occupation-related artefact deposits could particularly prove a rich source of information regarding the day-to-day lives of those who lived at the site, including the owners, the farm managers and other staff who may have lived in the various houses on the site. The occupation-related deposits include possible underfloor deposits in some parts of standing buildings and ad hoc rubbish pits and dumps which were often dug in the vicinity of dwellings or deposited elsewhere on the estate (Section 3.6). Potential archaeological remains of previous structural features could improve the current understanding of the architectural development of the buildings. They would also help understand the day-to-day living conditions of the occupants. The presence of several German migrant families on the site for extended periods on the also may mean that the material remains has the ability to address research questions related to how ethnic identity interacted with material culture.

The potential archaeological remains associated with the standing winery buildings, the Large Shed and remains of pump house adjacent to Dam 1 (T&T items 7.2 and 7.3) and the other standing farm buildings could provide insights into how these buildings functioned when first built and how they operated within the estate.

Other potential archaeological remains, such as evidence of possible quarrying, former terracing, paths, and demolished garden outbuildings and pavilions, can contribute to an understanding of the former landscape and the evolution of its design. In turn, this can feed into research questions about the design of landscapes such as that at Maryland.

Generally the overall integrity of the estate and the buildings with their reasonably intact archaeological deposits have the potential to provide for an understanding of a range of archaeological research questions relating to: . Long-term occupation by two families. . The range of hierarchically sorted families and workers across the estate from wealthy and leading engineer Thomas Barker and family, to the resident workers on the estate, such as the German families (Anschau, Klum and Nies), and non-German families (Goard, Fitzgerald, Thorn, Vicary and Young) will have left used different and ethnically diverse material culture. These may allow for a variety of further research questions relating to: o Class and hierarchy. o Community and cooperation. o Material culture and the nature of the lives of women, children and men on the estate.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 136

o How the presence of German workers and families can be understood through the material culture. . Tracing and revealing new landscape and spatial information on the way the owners, the workers and families lived in and used the estate. This may then allow further research questions to be addressed, relating to subjects such as: o Social relationships – how does the landscape relate to the various residences and other buildings on the site? Has it been shaped by one or more governing principals or ideologies, such as status, resistance, aesthetics, cooperation or productivity? o Utilisation of local resources – how were resources such as water, stone and the soil itself used and manipulated o Responses to change – how has the landscape been manipulated in response to changes such as the Phylloxera outbreaks of the late 19th century.

There have been a number of documented archaeological investigations at the homesteads associated farms or former farms in New South Wales. These include Belgenny Farm at Camden and Lake Innes Estate, near Port Macquarie. Other farm estates, such as John Jamieson’s Regentville, Mulgoa have been subjected to archaeological investigations, but the results of these have been less widely disseminated (Section 3.5).

There have been archaeological investigations at a fairly large number of 19th-century domestic sites from urban areas in Sydney and Parramatta. These sites will have points of similarity to rural domestic sites from the same period, such as those at Maryland, but they also will differ in a number of ways, in part shaped by the better transport connections which were available in the Sydney CBD and Parramatta.

The excavation of features related to the occupation of Maryland is likely to enhance the overall archaeological data set of New South Wales. The study area as a whole, the main homestead and the broader estate forms a complex which retains many features dating to the mid 19th century and which is readily interpretable. As a whole, the site would be a fruitful resource for landscape archaeology based approaches, considering questions regarding how the site was used, developed, and how this related to the social relationships between the people who lived on the site. The standing buildings are expected to have reasonably intact archaeological deposits. Well-preserved occupation-related artefact assemblages would have the potential to contribute to a range of research questions, including those relating to class and hierarchy, community and cooperation, material culture and the nature of the lives of women, children and men on the estate, and how ethnic identity shaped the material culture of the many German families living on the site. This material would also complement what is known from urban domestic sites from the same period, and allow for comparisons between urban and rural life. The potential archaeological features associated with the vineyard, winery, stables and dairy buildings would improve our understanding of these rural industries.

Structural remains would enhance our knowledge regarding development of the architectural history of the buildings.

Criterion (f): Rarity an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); There are several surviving farm sites of a similar age in Western Sydney, but a smaller number have been subject to any archaeologically investigation. Notable examples include Belgenny Farm

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 137

Regentville, and Bungarribee. Western Sydney is unusual in NSW for its density of surviving 19th- century farms and homesteads. In part this is a reflection of the early development of agriculture in this area and the limited development in the area before the modern heritage protection framework was introduced from the 1970s. Nevertheless, the surviving homesteads in Western Sydney and the potential archaeological resource associated with them are under pressure due to the gradual expansion of Sydney’s suburbs. During expansion in the 1960-1980s much of this similar evidence was lost without being recorded. Archaeological resources in standing buildings can be removed by later renovations and restorations, meaning that some surviving homesteads might not contain substantial in situ archaeological deposits.

Maryland is particularly notable for retaining not only its mid 19th-century homestead, but also much (or possibly all) of its workers’ housing from the same period. Most of these standing buildings have the potential to contain associated occupation-related material, which could form interesting comparisons within the site. Although each of these buildings on their own is not particularly rare, as a group the system is more unusual and of greater interest.

Archaeologically excavated domestic sites from mid to late 19th century are relatively common from urban areas, but far fewer rural sites have been excavated. This increases the value of archaeological features from Maryland to act as comparative material to other urban sites.

Criterion (g): Representativeness an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places of cultural or natural environments (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). In many ways, Maryland was typical of many farms in the area which operated from the 1820s onwards. As such, it can be seen as representative of these farms and the residences of the people who worked on them. Although vineyards and wineries were not very common, they were many other wineries in Western Sydney and the Nepean area until phylloxera caused the industry to shrink in the late 19th century.

Integrity The actual integrity of the various potential archaeological resources is unknown without archaeological testing. On available information, however, some features are likely to be relatively undisturbed. Although the interiors of most buildings were not inspected during the site visit, it is believed that they have a good chance to retain occupation-related artefact deposits. Those parts of the landscape believed to contain buried built landscape features have not been heavily modified by later farming practices. More detailed assessments of archaeological integrity may be required prior to impacts in some cases.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 138

4.5 Statement of Heritage Significance 4.5.1 Birling The potential archaeological remains at Birling cover a period ranging from 1812 to the mid 1930s. Although their location is only approximately known, they are expected to be reasonably intact and legible. These remains are closely associated with Robert Lowe, who was a magistrate from 1815 up to his death in 1832. As a magistrate, Robert Lowe used his house and other associated buildings as an administrative centre, providing legal decisions, managing the convict system and interacting with local Aboriginal people as a government official. Other government officers lived on the site, including constables and, for a time, several soldiers during the frontier conflict of 1816. The archaeological remains of this period of the site are particularly unusual and closely associated with major themes in the history of NSW, in particular the administration of the convict system. Not only could the site provide information regarding day to day life during a formative period of British colonial expansion into the area, but it could also provide insights into the day to day administration of the area during this time.

After Robert Lowe’s death, the site continued to have a close connection with the Lowe family, until it was sold in 1881. In the early 20th century, the site was occupied by the dairy farmer D J Morrow and his family, as long-term tenants. The potential archaeological remains on the site include material associated with these extended periods of domestic occupation.

The potential archaeological remains at Birling are expected to be able to expand the archaeological knowledge of NSW. Those associated with the hybrid administrative/domestic phase (1815-1832), are particularly rare, as there were only a limited number of magistrates involved in the administration of the convict system in NSW at the time. The remains associated with the long- term domestic occupation of the site are more common but the site is still notable as a non- Aboriginal domestic centre from 1812, shortly after large-scale, private colonial occupation of the area began. The potential archaeological remains have been assessed as being of State heritage significance.

4.5.2 Maryland Maryland is a highly intact and legible complex of a 1850s homestead, workers’ housing, farm buildings, winery and rural landscape. It is closely associated with the two families, that of prominent 19th-century engineer, businessman and philanthropist Thomas Barker who established the estate, as well as his son and local identity, Thomas Charles Barker. The estate was then occupied by Annie and Elizabeth Thomson, who were prominent in the local community and the dairy industry. The Barker and Thomson families owned Maryland until 2012, while members of the Thomson family continue to live in the homestead, a total of c.160 years of continuous occupation by two families. This long-term residence at Maryland adds to the values and expressions as being associated with two prominent families who successfully managed and held onto this property throughout the economic vicissitudes of 19th and 20th-century New South Wales.

The potential archaeological remains at Maryland are likely to include material associated with domestic occupation of the Barker and Thompson families, their household staff/servants, the archaeology of the workers and their families, notably those of German heritage, the nature and use of the winery and farm buildings, and the landscaping of the garden and vineyard. This has created a complex and layered landscape; much of which is visible but there are also buried and disused aspects to the place which archaeological analytical and spatial approaches could allow for further definition and understanding.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 139

The potential archaeological remains have historic significance through their association with larger themes including the development of wine growing and dairy farming in the local area, German migration to NSW and everyday life on a large farm and ‘gentleman’s estate’. They also have archaeological research significance through their ability to address various research questions related to rural domestic life, farm and winery practices and technology, and the rural landscape. The potential archaeological remains could provide material for comparisons both within different houses on the site, and with other sites. Possible research questions/themes relate to the material expressions of: class and hierarchy; the nature and construction of women, children and men’s lives on the estate; evidence of ethnic diversity and heritage and what this tells us about their lives; as well as the evidence for the archaeological and cultural landscape and associated spatial information on how the estate operated.

This significance relates to the integrity of the site as a whole, its long-term occupation by two families – over 80 years by Thomas Barker and his family and then the Thomson family, its association with German workers and families and the likely legibility of many elements of the historical evolution of the place which can still be read in the landscape. The potential archaeological remains on the site are assessed as being of State heritage significance.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 140

5.0 Results and Recommendations 5.1 Results Most of the rezoning area consists of two large historic properties: Birling, north of Lowes Creek, and Maryland, south of Lowes Creek. Both these properties contain areas which have been assessed as having a moderate to high potential to contain historical archaeological remains of State heritage significance.

The remainder of the rezoning area consists of areas which were on the periphery of other large rural properties. One of these does not appear to have had any substantial structures built on it since the British occupation of the area in the early 19th century. The other has only been developed since the 1970s. Neither area is considered to contain historical archaeological remains which meet the criteria for either local or State significance.

5.1.1 Birling At Birling, the approximate location of the former homestead and associated outbuildings has been identified. These were constructed from 1812, shortly after large-scale European occupation of the area began. They continued to be occupied until the 1930s, when they were demolished. An area covering potential archaeological remains of the former homestead and associated outbuildings has been assessed as being of moderate to high archaeological potential. The remainder of the property has been assessed as being of low to nil archaeological potential.

Birling was initially developed by the British colonist, Robert Lowe, who received a land grant which included the study area in 1812. Robert Lowe became a magistrate in 1815, which in turn made Birling into an important administrative centre. Until his death in 1832, Lowe conducted much of the region’s government administration from his home base at Birling. This included decisions regarding the assignment and punishment of convicts, government musters and acting as a station for Government officials, such as constables and soldiers. From 1832 to the 1930s, the main homestead at Birling continued in use as a domestic dwelling, surrounded by outbuildings used in the operation of a working farm.

The potential archaeological remains of the former homestead and outbuildings would include structures and occupation-related material associated with its use from c.1812 through to the 1930s. The archaeological resource would likely provide information into how early 19th-century hybrid administrative/domestic sites functioned in rural areas at a formative time in the development of New South Wales. Such sites are relatively rare, on account of the limited number of magistrates in the colony at the time. Post 1832 remains are able to provide information about domestic and agricultural buildings. These would complement what is known from urban domestic sites of the same period. Certain occupation-related assemblages at the site also have the possibility of providing information regarding the day-to-day life of the occupants of the house. The potential archaeological remains at Birling are therefore considered to be of State significance. Their archaeological investigation is likely to expand and enhance the overall archaeological data set of New South Wales.

5.1.2 Maryland The structures at Maryland were largely developed by the prominent engineer and businessman, Thomas Barker, from the 1850s onwards. Maryland contains a number of standing buildings constructed during the 19th century, including the main homestead, workers’ accommodation, winery buildings, stables and farm buildings. All these buildings are regarded as likely to retain archaeological remains associated with their use. There also can be a range of archaeological features which occur in the vicinity of standing buildings, such as former buildings or additions and ad hoc rubbish pits. There are also several potential archaeological sites not currently associated with the standing buildings.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland Part (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 141

The potential for Maryland to contain historical archaeological remains associated with the early land grants on the site (Phase 3), dating prior to the 1850s, is low to nil. These remains would have been ephemeral to begin with, consisting of dropped items and possibly fences. The study area was not cultivated for grain in Phase 3, apart from perhaps the area of Dowdell’s grant. Later farm activities such as tilling the soil for improvement (seen on some aerial photos) will have adversely impacted on the potential for such evidence to be preserved.

The excavation of features related to the occupation of Maryland is likely to enhance the overall archaeological data set of New South Wales. The study area as a whole, the main homestead and the broader estate forms a complex which retains many features dating to the mid 19th century and which is readily interpretable. As a whole, the site would be a fruitful resource for landscape archaeology based approaches, considering questions regarding how the site was used, developed, and how this related to the social relationships between the people who lived on the site.

The standing buildings are expected to have reasonably intact archaeological deposits. Well- preserved occupation-related artefact assemblages would have the potential to contribute to a range of research questions, including those relating to class and hierarchy, community and cooperation, material culture and the nature of the lives of women, children and men on the estate, and how ethnic identity shaped the material culture of the many German families living on the site. This material would also complement what is known from urban domestic sites from the same period, and allow for comparisons between urban and rural life.

The potential archaeological features associated with the vineyard, winery, stables and dairy buildings would improve our understanding of these rural industries. Structural remains would enhance our knowledge regarding development of the architectural history of the buildings. It is therefore of State significance. The excavation of features related to the occupation of Maryland is likely to enhance the overall archaeological data set of New South Wales.

5.2 Recommendations As the rezoning area has the potential to retain State significant archaeological remains, the following recommendations are made: 5.2.1 Birling . A program of archaeological testing would clarify the nature and extent of the potential archaeological remains within the area in this report as being of moderate to high potential (Figure 3.109). Such testing would require a methodology and research design written by a suitably qualified archaeologist, and approval from the Heritage Division, Office of Environment and Heritage, in the form of either a S139 exception or a S140 permit. . The area identified in this report as being of moderate to high potential (Figure 3.109) should not be subjected to earthworks such as grading without further archaeological investigation. . The future management of the potential remains should be determined following the results of archaeological testing, in discussion with the Heritage Division, Office of Environment and Heritage. Public interpretation as part of any new landscaping may also be required. . Standard conditions attached to S140 approvals include the requirement for a final report on the results of any archaeological program and the cataloguing and archiving of any archaeological artefacts or relics recovered during the works.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland Part (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 142

5.2.2 Maryland . Any proposed development within the Maryland curtilage site should consider how to minimise impacts on the potential archaeological resource. . Any impacts on archaeological sites listed in this report should be the subject of a S140 Archaeological Excavation application to the Heritage Division, Office of Environment and Heritage. . The S140 documentation will need to consider mitigation of impacts on potential archaeological resources as well as methodologies to record and archaeological remains exposed during works. Methodologies might include clarification of strategies to minimise impacts including testing prior to the finalisation of impact design, which may lead to detailed archaeological recording and investigation. . This report should be lodged as part of any S140 application. . A S140 application requires the writing of an Archaeological Research Design (ARD) outlining the details of proposed design impacts and the excavation methodology and research questions. The ARD requires the nomination of an Excavation Director and key members of the archaeological team who will undertake the archaeological program. . Demolition of existing structures at the site should be subject to archaeological input regarding mitigation of impacts on potential archaeological remains. . The archaeological program will need to be undertaken in accordance with the S140 Conditions of Consent. . Standard conditions attached to S140 approvals include the requirement for a final report on the results of any archaeological program and the cataloguing and archiving of any archaeological artefacts or relics recovered during the works. . A repository, storage in perpetuity, for the artefacts recovered from the site will need to be provided by the proponents. A suitable storage solution may be the construction of a storage room within any new development.

5.3 Draft Indicative Layout Plan Following detailed technical studies and consultation with the Heritage Division of the Office of Environment and Heritage, a Draft Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) has been prepared (Figure 5.1). The proposed heritage curtilage shown on the Draft ILP is the subject of a State heritage nomination to list the precinct on the State Heritage Register (SHR), which will be considered by the Heritage Council of NSW.

The ILP once finalised should be compared to the archaeological zoning in this report so that any sites outside the heritage curtilage are appropriately managed. The implications of the precinct being listed on the SHR will be that any impacts on archaeological sites listed in this report will need a S60 rather than a S140 approval from the Heritage Council of NSW or its delegate, the S60 approval applying to sites of State significance.

The application would be similar to that required for the S140 approval, in that: . The S60 documentation will need to consider mitigation of impacts on potential archaeological resources as well as methodologies to record any archaeological remains exposed during works. Methodologies might include testing prior to the finalisation of design. Testing may lead to detailed archaeological recording and investigation. . A S60 application requires the writing of an Archaeological Research Design (ARD) outlining the details of proposed design impacts and the excavation methodology and research questions. The ARD requires the nomination of an Excavation Director and key members of the archaeological team who will undertake the archaeological program.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland Part (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 143

. The archaeological program would need to be undertaken in accordance with the approval’s Conditions of Consent, which generally include the requirement for a final report on the results of any archaeological program and the cataloguing and archiving of any archaeological artefacts or relics recovered during the works.

Figure 5.1: Draft Indicative Layout Plan for the Lowes Creek and Maryland Precinct.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland Part (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 144

6.0 Bibliography 6.1 Primary Sources

Newspapers All historic newspapers in this report have been accessed via http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspapers apart from The Dawn, which is available at http://aiatsis.gov.au/collections/collections- online/digitised-collections/dawn-and-new-dawn/dawn-issues

Note – newspaper references used in this report include the page number and column for where a particular reference occurs. The newspaper columns are labelled alphabetically from the left. For example, ‘p 9d’, would refer to a reference on page 9, in the fourth column from the left (column ‘d’).

Statutory Documents Legislation and regulations accessed via http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/ Heritage Act 1977 No. 136, Current version for 15 January 2016 to date (accessed 13 April 2016). Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010, Current version for 11 March 2016 to date (accessed 12 April 2016). Historic Images 1843 ‘Birling [i.e. Bringelly], 1843’, watercolour by Anne Dadswell. SLNSW SSV1B / Brin / 1, digital order no. a1528395. Available at http://acmssearch.sl.nsw.gov.au/search/itemDetailPaged.cgi?itemID=836837 [accessed 6/07/2016]. c.1880 ‘12. Lowe, E.R., Bringelly - Residences – Birling, Photograph, black and white’, SLNSW PXA 2137, Box 29, Item 12. c.1880 ‘Family and homestead, Birling, Bringelly, ca. 1880’, SLNSW, SPF/2528.

Maps, Plans and Aerial Photography 1830s? ‘Parish of Cook in the County of Cumberland’, AO Map 210, Historical Parish Maps Collection. NSW LPI, Historic Land Records Viewer (HLRV). Available via http://images.maps.nsw.gov.au/pixel.htm. 1840 ‘Reduced plan of the Cowpasture Estates, formerly J. Dickson's, for sale by the Australian Auction Company on Tuesday the 28th July1840’ Surveyor: E. J. H. Knapp, Lithographer: R. Clint. SLNSW Z/M2 811.113/1840/1A, digital order no. c012220001. Available at http://library.sl.nsw.gov.au/record=b3163291~S2 [accessed 8/04/2016]. 1847 ‘Plan of the Cowpasture Estates, the property of M.D. Hunter, Esqr., for sale by Mr Lyons on Monday 30th Augt. 1847’, NLA MAP Folder 34, LFSP 448. Available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230124835 [accessed 12/06/2016] OR SLNSW Z/M2 811.1133/1847/1, digital order no. c012290001. Available at http://library.sl.nsw.gov.au/record=b3163680~S2 [accessed 12/04/2016]. 1929 ‘Liverpool, New South Wales’, Topographic map produced by the Australian Section Imperial General Staff. 1947 [Aerial Photographs], Liverpool, County of Cumberland, January 1947, multiple images: Run 21, nos. 57-110, 57-111; Run 22, nos. 54-167, 54-169. NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 145

1955 ‘Liverpool, New South Wales’, [Topographic map], 2nd edition, compiled by Royal Australian Survey Corps, from ground surveys and air photographs, 1952. SLNSW Cc 95/6. Available at http://library.sl.nsw.gov.au/record=b2936815~S2 [accessed 12/04/2016]. 1970 ‘Parish of Cook, County of Cumberland’, 5th edition, date of map 14 January 1970, LTO copy with annotations. NSW LPI, Historic Land Records Viewer (HLRV). Available via http://images.maps.nsw.gov.au/pixel.htm. 1970 [Aerial Photographs], Cumberland 1970 Series, taken 7 July 1970, multiple images: Run 21 NSW 1908-5147, 1908-5148; Run 22 NSW 1908-5072. NSW LPI. 2010 ‘Heritage Map - Sheet HER_006’, Camden Local Environment Plan 2010. Last updated 3 Sep 2010. Map sheet (identification number) 1450_COM_HER_006_020_2010070, NSW Legislation. Available at http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/map/1450_COM_HER_006_020_20100705.pdf?id=42 672304-ba16-ec6f-e2ba-8bb99b8c396a [accessed 12/04/2016]. 2012 [Aerial photography], ‘NSW Imagery’ SIX Maps, LPI, NSW Department of Finance & Services, http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ [accessed 29/08/2014].

Manuscripts and Original Records State Records of NSW (SRNSW) various records via www.ancestry.com.au as cited

State Library of NSW Papers relating to Robert Lowe, 1820-ca. 1944, SLNSW Al 36. Hassall family - correspondence, Volume IV, 1811-1895, SLNSW A 1677 / 4

SRNSW Probate for Robert Lowe, Series 1, no. 2048. Probate for Thomas Barker, Series 2, no. 1309. Probate for Thomas Charles Barker, Series 4, no. 248138, schedule no. 4. Will Books, roll 4294, will no. 248138, Thomas Charles Barker. Primary Application Packet PA14468, NRS 17513/2/47 Primary Application Packet PA32885 Letters received [Bringelly and Cooke Court of Petty Sessions] Series. 2844, Items 2/8097 to 8098.

Miscellaneous Sources including Indexes and Databases Baxter, C. (ed.) 1988 General Muster and Land and Stock Muster of New South Wales, 1822, Australian Biographical and Genealogical Record (ABGR) in association with the Society of Australian Genealogists, Sydney.

Australian Heritage Database: King Family Farm Sites and Trees, Links Rd, North St Marys, NSW, Australia, Australian Heritage Database, Register of the National Estate (RNE) ID # 100576. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=100576 [accessed 24/02/2014].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 146

Maryland and Outbuildings, The Northern Rd, Bringelly, NSW, Australia, Register of the National Estate (Non-statutory archive), place ID 3246, place file no. 1/15/009/0024, registered 21/03/1978. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=3246 [accessed 13/04/2016]. Maryland Garden and Setting, The Northern Rd, Bringelly, NSW, Australia, Register of the National Estate (Non-statutory archive), place ID 3247, place file no. 1/15/009/0024, registered 21/10/1980. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=3247 [accessed 13/04/2016]. Mulgoa Natural Area, Sir John Jamison Cirt, Mulgoa, NSW, Australia, Australian Heritage Database, Register of the National Estate (RNE) ID # 13461. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=13461 [accessed 24/02/2014].

Historical Records of Australia (HRA). Series 1, Volume III, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1915. Available at https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord00v3aust [accessed 17/02/2014].

Series 1, Volume VII, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1916. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/517428

Series 1, Volume X, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1917. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/499340

Series 1, Volume XVI, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1923. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/529443

Series 1, Volume XXVI, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, Sydney. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/503622 [accessed 26/04/2016].

NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages [BDM], Family History Search. Available at https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search?0 [accessed 16/05/2016].

Biographical Database of Australia [BDA]. Available at http://www.bda-online.org.au/

Old Bailey Online WILLIAM GOOD, Theft > grand larceny, 11th November 1794. Reference Number: t17941111-1. Available at https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t17941111-1

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 147

State Heritage Database: Bungarribee Homestead Complex - Archaeological Site, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01428. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5051257 [accessed 8/09/2014] Camden Park Estate and Belgenny Farm, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01697. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5051536 [accessed 24/02/2014]. Camelot, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 00385. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5045721 [accessed 10/09/2014]. Kirkham Stables (Including Setting), NSW State Heritage Database, Camden LEP Listing I123. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=1280040 [accessed 10/09/2014]. Maryland, NSW State Heritage Database, Camden LEP Listing I1. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=1280029 [accessed 12/05/2016]. Maryland (draft), NSW State Heritage Database, Heritage Act - Under consideration for SHR/IHO listing. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5051539 [accessed 12/04/2016]. Orielton, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01693. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5052821 [accessed 28/08/2014]. Rouse Hill House and Farm, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 00002. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5044989 [accessed 24/02/2014]. Veteran Hall-House Remains, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01351. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=5051453 [accessed 24/02/2014]

6.2 Printed works Allen, A. 2012 ‘Keighran's Mill’ [blogpost], The History Buff: Campbelltown City Library Local Information Blog, posted 11 December 2012. Available at http://campbelltown- library.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/keighrans-mill.html [accessed 10/09/2014]. Anon. 1966 ‘Davidson, Walter Stevenson (1785–1869)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared in Volume 1 (MUP 1966). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/davidson-walter-stevenson- 1960/text2361 [accessed 17/02/2014]. Anon. 1967 ‘Tompson, Charles (1807–1883)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared in Volume 2 (MUP 1967). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/tompson-charles-2738/text3869 [1/09/2014]. Anon. n.d. ‘37 & 35 Lower Fort Street’, Millers Point [website]. Available at http://millerspointcommunity.com.au/the-place/lower-fort-street/37-35-lower-fort-street/ [accessed 21/04/2016].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 148

Artefact Heritage 2012 The Northern Road upgrade from The Old Northern Rd, Narellan, to Mersey Rd, Bringelly, Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment, for Roads and Maritime Services, October 2012. Available at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/sydney_region/south_west_sydney/the _northern_road/documents/ref/appendix_e_non-aboriginal_heritage.pdf [accessed 29/08/2014]. Austral Archaeology 2000 Archaeological Test Excavations at Bungarribee Homestead, Great Western Highway, Doonside, for Australian Site Assessment, June 2012. Australia ICOMOS 2013 Practice Note – The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice, version 1, November 2013. Available at http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Practice- Note_The-Burra-Charter-and-Archaeological-Practice.pdf [accessed 16/01/2014]. Australian Museum Consulting 2014 Badgerys Creek Initial Environmental Survey: Historic Heritage for SMEC Australia, October 2014. Available at http://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/files/Appendix_B_Historic_Heritage_Report.pdf [accessed 13/04/2016]. Bairstow, D. 1991 “The Homestead” Georges Hall, Archaeological Excavation Report, with Wayne Johnston for Church of the Four Square Gospel, February 1991. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/54D0293A816CF. Bickford, A. & S. Sullivan 1984 ‘Assessing the Research Potential of Historic Sites’ in Sullivan & Bowdler, Sites surveys and significance assessment in Australian archaeology, 1984. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 1987a Regentville Joint Field Project; Artefact Analysis Interim Report 1, National Estate Grant Project Number 38, February 1987. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/54D02A99E4292 [accessed 27/05/2016]. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 1987b Regentville Interim Report 3. The 1987 Field and Analysis Season. Volume 1, National Estate Grant Project Number 38: 1984/5. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/54D02A9D683B6 [accessed 27/05/2016]. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 1988 Regentville. Interim Report 4. The 1988 Field Programme, National Estate Grant Project Number 38: 1984/5, August 1989. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/504816262943B [accessed 27/05/2016]. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 1991 Regentville Archaeological Project 1989-90: Fifth Interim Report 1989-1990 Field Program, National Estate Grant Project Number 38: 1984/5, 87/8, March 1991. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/54D02A88031FB [accessed 27/05/2016]. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 1994 Regentville Archaeological Project, 1985-1993, Final Report to the National Estate Grant Program. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/54D0292571CFB [accessed 27/05/2016]. Birmingham, J. & A. Wilson 2009 ‘Remembering Regentville’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 27:23. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/29544610 [accessed 24/02/2014]. Byrne, P. J. 1993 Criminal Law and Colonial Subject, New South Wales, 1810-1830, Studies in Australian History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Casey & Lowe 2002 History of Barker’s Mill, Darling Harbour (Extracted from Cross City Tunnel Archaeological Assessment), for CW-DC Pty Ltd on behalf of BHBB Pty Ltd, September 2002. Available at http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/pdf/city/barkers-wait.pdf [accessed 10/09/2014]. Casey, M. 2004 ‘Falling through the cracks: method and practice at the CSR site, Pyrmont’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 21: 27-43. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/29544516 [accessed 12/03/2014] or http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/research/casey-pyrmont-2004.pdf [accessed 12/03/2014].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 149

Casey & Lowe 2005 Heritage Assessment, Dunheved Precincts, St Marys Development, St Marys, NSW, for Jo McDonald CHM, on behalf of the Maryland Development Company. Casey & Lowe 2006 Non-Indigenous Archaeological Report, Cross City Tunnel Route – Darling Harbour to Kings Cross, for Baulderstone Hornibrook Bilfinger Berger Cross City Tunnel Joint Venture, February 2006. Available at http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/pdf/city/cctarchaeologyreport-wait.pdf [accessed 10/09/2014]. Casey & Lowe 2013a Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Precinct (SICEEP) Concept Plan, The Haymarket - SSDA2 Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment and Impact Statement, for Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd, March 2013. Available at https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/6607daaa3f27d369c3e460a030f03e7f/Appen dix%20D%20-%20Non-Indigenous%20Archaeological%20Assessment%20Pt1.pdf and https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/ed46f37061a3f0f797f9a62543f79589/Append ix%20D%20-%20Non-Indigenous%20Archaeological%20Assessment%20Pt2.pdf [accessed 21/04/2016]. Casey & Lowe 2013b Darling Quarter (formerly Darling Walk), Darling Harbour, Sydney [Archaeological Investigation], for Lend Lease Development, December 2013. Available at http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/rept_darling_quarter.htm [accessed 4/09/2014]. Casey & Lowe 2014 Non-Indigenous Archaeological Survey and Recording Results, Prospect Reservoir archaeological remains, for SCA, February 2014. Chichester, H. M. 2004 ‘Hunter, Sir Martin (1757–1846)’, rev. Philip Carter, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.oxforddnb.com /view/article/14226 [accessed 21/04/2016]. Collins, D. 1798 An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales [Volume 1], T. Cadell and W. Davis, London. Available at http://purl.library.usyd.edu.au/setis/id/colacc1 [accessed 14/05/2013]. Connah, G. 1986 ‘Historical Reality: Archaeological Reality, Excavations at Regentville, Penrith, New South Wales, 1985’, Australian Historical Archaeology 4:29-42. Available at http://www.ashadocs.org/aha/04/04_04_Connah.pdf [accessed 24/02/2014]. Connah, G. 1998 ‘The Archaeology of Frustrated Ambition: An Australian Case-Study’. Historical Archaeology 32 (2):7–27. Connah, G. 2001 ‘The Lake Innes Estate: Privilege and Servitude in Nineteenth-Century Australia’. World Archaeology 33 (1):137–54. Connah, G. 2007 The Same Under a Different Sky? A Country Estate in Nineteenth-Century Australia, BAR International Series 1625, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Connah, G. 2009 ‘Lake Innes: Identifying Socioeconomic Status in the Archaeological Record’, Historical Archaeology 43(3):82-94. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25617572 [accessed 6/02/2014]. Dadswell, H. n.d. ‘Anne Dadswell (1809-1849) and George Loomes’, Dadswell Family History. Available at http://www.dadswell.id.au/history/tree7/anne_dadswell_1809.htm [accessed 6/07/2016]. Department of Planning 1991 South Creek Valley, South-Western Sydney, Regional Environmental Study, Sydney, September 1991. Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd 2010 ‘On the trail of the Macarthur Family Part 2 – “A small miserable hut”, Belgenny Farm, Camden Park Estate, Camden’. Available at http://www.higginbotham.com.au/macarthur2.html, http://www.higginbotham.com.au/macarthur3.html, http://www.higginbotham.com.au/macarthur4.html, and http://www.higginbotham.com.au/macarthur5.html [accessed 10/09/2014].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 150

GML Heritage n.d. Projects, Bunya Residential Estate, Bungarribee, [information sheet]. Available at http://www.gml.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/GML-Case-Studies-Bunya- Residential-Estate-Bungaribee-2.pdf [accessed 10/09/2014]. Godden Mackay 1997 Technical Paper 12: Non Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, Proposal for a Second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek or Holsworthy Military Area, for PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd on behalf of Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Development, December 1997. Available at http://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/resources/deis/files/Draft_Environmental_Impact_Stat ement_1997_Second_Sydney_Airport_Proposal_Technical_Paper_12_Non- Aboriginal_Cultural.pdf [accessed 13/04/2016]. Godden Mackay Logan 2007 Doonside Residential Parcel and Parklands, Bungarribee Precinct, Western Sydney Parklands, Heritage Impact Statement, for Landcom August 2007. Available at http://www.landcom.com.au/downloads/File/Parklands%20Bungarribee%20Project%20Her itage%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf [accessed 24/02/2014]. Godden Mackay Logan 2012 Bunya Residential Estate, Bungarribee Precinct 3, Former Kitchen Gardens, Historical Archaeological Excavation Report, for Landcom, June 2012. Godden Mackay Logan 2013 Bunya Residential Estate, Bungarribee Historical Archaeological Excavation Report, for Landcom, September 2013. Golder, H. 1991 High and Responsible Office, a history of the NSW Magistracy, Sydney University Press, in association with Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Groome, F. H. 1882-84 ‘Berwickshire’, Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland. Transcribed copy © 2004 Gazetteer for Scotland. Hosted on Vision of Britain [website]. Available at http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/descriptions/84990 [accessed 21/04/2016]. Guilford, E. 1976 ‘Wisdom, Sir Robert (1830–1888)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared Volume 6 (MUP, 1976). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/wisdom-sir-robert-4876/text8155 [accessed 6/09/2016]. Hassall, J. S. 1902 In Old Australia: Records and Reminiscences from 1794, R.S. Hews & Co, Brisbane. Available at https://archive.org/details/inoldaustraliar00hassgoog Holcomb, J. 2014 Early Merchant Families of Sydney: Speculation and Risk Management on the fringes of empire, Anthem Press, London, New York, Delhi. [first published 2013 by Australian Scholarly Publishing, North Melbourne.] Johnson, J. (ed.) 2012 Reminiscences of Early Camden by J.B. Martin; R.H. Antill; T. Herbert; S.H. Thompson; O. West; R. Todd; J. J. Moloney, Camden Historical Society, Camden. Karskens, G. 2015 ‘Appin Massacre’, Dictionary of Sydney. Available at http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/appin_massacre [accessed 13/04/2016]. Keating, C. 1996 On the Frontier, a social history of Liverpool, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney. Liverpool City Council n.d. ‘History of our suburbs: Bringelly’, Factsheet. Available at http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5205/Bringelly-Fact- Sheet.pdf [accessed 4/07/2016]. Liston, C. 1988 Campbelltown, the Bicentennial History, Allen & Unwin, North Sydney. Lowe, E. 2008 Lowe Family History – unpublished manuscript compiled by Erica Lowe. Supplied by Stephen McMahon, General Manager, Macarthur Developments. Navin Officer heritage consultants 2013 Googong New Town: Neighbourhood 1, NSW, Salvage Excavations at Historic Site GH14, for CIC Australia, May 2013.

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 151

NSW Department of Primary Industries 2008 ‘Archaeological dig hopes to uncover relics from the birthplace of Australian agriculture’, Media release dated 10 September 2008. Available at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/archive/news-releases/agriculture/2008/archaeological-dig [accessed 20/01/2014]. NSW Heritage Branch 2009 Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning [Sydney]. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/ArchSignificance. pdf [accessed 22/03/2013]. NSW Heritage Council 2001 ‘New South Wales Historical Themes, Table showing correlation of national, state and local themes, with annotations and examples’, dated 4 October 2001. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/themes2006.pdf [accessed 19/02/2014]. NSW Heritage Office 2001, Assessing Significance: a NSW Heritage Manual Update. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/listings/assessing heritagesignificance.pdf [accessed 22/03/2013]. Parker, B. n.d. A ‘Joseph Evans: Articles from 'The Engineer' magazine’, Woverhampton Museum of Industry [virtual], Woverhampton History & Heritage Website. Available at http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/Museum/Engineering/Evans/evans05.htm [accessed 26/04/2016]. Parker, B. n.d. B ‘Joseph Evans: Illustrated Catalogue of Pumps and Pumping Machinery, 1930’, Woverhampton Museum of Industry [virtual], Woverhampton History & Heritage Website. Available at http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/Museum/Engineering/Evans/evans02.htm [accessed 26/04/2016]. Parsons, V. 1967 ‘Lowe, Robert (1783–1832)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. . First appeared in Volume 2 (MUP 1967). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lowe-robert-2375/text3123. Perumal Murphy 1990 South Creek Valley, Heritage Study, for the Department of Planning (NSW), March 1990. Proudfoot, H. 1990 Analysis of the History and Geography of the South Creek Catchment Area, for Perumal Murphy on behalf of the Department of Planning (NSW), March 1990. Stedinger Associates 2013 Harrington Park Homestead, Excavation Report, for Harrington Estates (NSW) P/L, December 2013 Steven, M. 1967 ‘Macarthur, John (1767–1834)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared in Volume 2 (MUP 1967). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/macarthur-john-2390/text3153 [accessed 17/02/2014]. Sydney Water 2009 Veteran Hall Conservation Management Plan, Archaeological Site, Prospect NSW, report by Anne Bickford, Heritage & Archaeology, September 2009. Tench, W. 1793 A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson, G. Nicol and J. Sewell, London. Digital transcription University of Sydney Library, Australian Digital Collections. Available at http://adc.library.usyd.edu.au/view?docId=ozlit/xml-main-texts/p00044.xml [accessed 29/08/2014]. Thorp, W. 1988 Rouse Hill Archaeological Report, Resource Document for Sites and Outbuildings, March 1988. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/5045936798538 [accessed 24/02/2014] Thorp, W. 1989 Report on Archaeological Programme. Belgenny Farm, Camden Park. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/5045934444AFA [accessed 20/01/2014].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 152

Thorp, W. 1990 Excavations at Rouse Hill House, Bath House and Stables, Archaeological Evidence, for Department of Public Works, NSW, April 1990. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/50459419D60EF [accessed 24/02/2014]. Thorp, W. 1992 Excavations at Rouse Hill House for Drainage and Relocation of Services: Report on Archaeological Evidence, for Department of Public Works, NSW, April 1992. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/5048210C08303 [accessed 24/02/2014]. Tropman & Tropman Architects 2006 Orielton Park Homestead Estate, 179 The Northern Road, Narellan, Conservation Management Plan, for Dandaloo Developments Pty Ltd, August 2006, REF: 0352:CMP [revised copy]. Tropman & Tropman Architects 2015 Maryland, 773-877 The Northern Road, Bringelly, NSW Conservation Management Plan, for MacArthur Developments Pty Ltd, April, Ref: 1425: CMP Issue 01 Draft CMP Turbet, P. 2011 The First Frontier, The Occupation of the Sydney Region, 1788 to 1816, Rosenberg, Dural. Varman, R. V. J. 1997 Drainage Report. Timber Barn, Rouse Hill House, for Historic Houses Trust of NSW, June 23 1997. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/50B4279F654CB [accessed 24/02/2014]. Walsh, G. P. 1966a ‘Barker, Thomas (1799–1875)’, , Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared in Volume 1 (MUP 1966). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/barker-thomas-1741/text1925 [accessed 3/09/2014]. Walsh, G. P. 1966b ‘Dickson, John (1774–1843)’, , Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. First appeared in Volume 1 (MUP 1966). Available at http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/dickson-john-1977/text2395 [accessed 1/09/2014]. Waugh, D. L. 1838 Three years' practical experience of a settler in New South Wales: being extracts from letters to his friends in Edinburgh from 1834-1837, 5th ed., John Johnstone, Hunter Square, Edinburgh. NLA copy, Call no. FRM F2674, Available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj- 52764062 [accessed 22/04/2016]. Weatherburn, A. K. 1992 ‘BARKER, Thomas (1799-1875)’, in Australian Biographical and Genealogical Record - Series 1 - 1788-1841, John T. Spurway and Allison Allen (eds.), ABGR, Sydney. Biog Item No. 910110054. Included in the Biographical Database of Australia (BDA). Available at http://www.bda-online.org.au/mybda/search/expanded-biographical- item/11051122101/910110054 [accessed 22/02/2016]. Wenburg, R. [2009] ‘Personal Statement – Rita Wenburg’, Stolen Generations' Testimonies [website]. Available at http://stolengenerationstestimonies.com/index.php/testimonies/993.htm. Willis, I. 2008 ‘Narellan’, Dictionary of Sydney. Available at http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/narellan [accessed 29/08/2014]. Wilson, A. 1982 Regentville: An Historical Archaeological Study. An Australian Local History Using Non-documentary Evidence, Honours Thesis, Dept. of History, University of Sydney. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4227/11/5045A34751331 [accessed 27/05/2016]. Wilson, A. and the Centre for Historical Archaeology, University of Sydney 1999-2000 ‘Historical Archaeological Investigations at Regentville’ [website]. Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080731133935/http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/research/regent ville/frameless/00-1_contents.htm#Top [accessed 27/05/2016]. Wotherspoon, G. 2008 ‘Economy’, Dictionary of Sydney. Available at http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/economy [accessed 26/05/2016].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 153

Appendix 1 – Draft SHR listing for Maryland from NSW State Heritage Database

Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051539 [accessed 27/05/2016].

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 154

Appendix 2 – Abstracted land transactions related to Birling, Bringelly Date Instrument From To Details Reference Grant 25-8- Crown Grant Robert Lowe 1000 acres Register Bk 7, 1812 fol 63 July Will of Robert Lowe PA 32885 1832 29-8- Probate of will of Robert Lowe PA 32885 1832 29- Equitable PA 32885; bk 11- Sarah Lowe Thomas Wilford mortgage 1, no 84 1838 9-11- Probate of will of Thomas Wilford PA 32885 1849 9-10- of will and codicils of Lucy Probate PA 32885 1852 Wilford of Estate and effects of Sarah 6-10- Order for Lowe and appointment of PA 32885 1843 Sequestration Thomas Walker as Trustee 25- Letters of of Estate and effects of Henry 11- PA 32885 Administration Robert Lowe 1880 Charles Bland Lowe, Joseph Ward Lowe, Edward George Martin, Emma Hannah Martin, William Wools, Sarah Elizabeth Wools and Laura Ann Lowe (first part); PA 32885, 1-8- Conveyance Charles Bland Lowe citing bk 229, 1881 (second part); no. 344 Edward George Martin and Emma Hannah Martin (third part) Thomas Walker (forth part) Frederick Barden (fifth part) of Joshua Frey Josephson, 2-9- Certificate Deputy Chief Commissioner of PA 32885 1881 Insolvent Estates 27- PA 32885, 11- Conveyance Frederick Barden Robert Wisdom citing bk 299, 1884 no. 488 16-5- of will and codicil of Robert Probate PA 32885 1888 Wisdom PA 32885, 10-4- Deed Poll of by James Watson citing bk 421, 1889 Renunciation no. 635 Cecil E. B. Maybury and Indenture of PA 32885, 2-5- Hon. Francis B. Suttor (one Appointment of citing bk 412, 1889 part) new Trustee no. 941 William Wiley (other part) 23-5- Deed Poll of by Hon. Francis B. Suttor PA 32885 1889 Renunciation C.E.B. Maybury and 23- Indenture of William Wiley (one part) PA 32885, 10- Appointment of F. B. Suttor (second part) citing Bk 412, 1890 new Trustee and William Henry No. 941 Maybury (other part) of Trustees of the late Sir 1897 Abstract of Title PA 32885 Robert Wisdom

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 155

Date Instrument From To Details Reference Charles Thomas PA 32885, 7-5- C.E.B. Maybury and Conveyance Whiteman (other citing Bk 598, 1897 William Wiley (one part) part) no. 914 PA 32885, 21-9- Probate of Charles Thomas Whiteman citing Will no. 1903 29340 Anne Whiteman (first part) Indenture of Hubert Ross Whiteman PA 32885, 30-6- Appointment of (second part) citing Bk 1929 new Trustee Henry Nelson Whiteman 1561, no. 510 (third part) Frederick Alton Dunbar, Arthur 11- PA 32885, Henry Nelson Whitman Hamily Milton 11- Conveyance citing Bk (one part) Dunbar and Cecil 1930 1616, no 631 Reginald Dunbar (other part) Frederick Alton Dunbar, 11- Elsie Constance PA 32885, Arthur Hamily Milton 11- Mortgage Bluett and Ida citing Bk Dunbar and Cecil Reginald 1930 Mary Whiteman 1616, no. 631 Dunbar Frederick Alton Dunbar, 1933 Abstract of Title Arthur Hamily Milton Dunbar PA 32885 and Cecil Reginald Dunbar Frederick Alton Dunbar, PA 32885, 15-8- Arthur Hamily Milton Stanley Armstrong Conveyance citing Bk 1933 Dunbar and Cecil Reginald Marden 1669, no 416 Dunbar Frederick Alton Dunbar, Arthur PA 32885, 15-8- Mortgage Stanley Armstrong Marden Hamily Milton citing Bk 1933 Dunbar and Cecil 1669, no 417 Reginald Dunbar PA 32885, 4-9- Discharge of Bk 1669, no 417 citing Bk 1934 mortgage 1707, no. 117 PA 32885, 5-11- Discharge of Bk 1616, no. 631 citing Bk 1935 mortgage 1735, no. 831 1935 Abstract of Title Stanley Armstrong Marden 25- PA 32885, Horace Howard 11- Conveyance Stanley Armstrong Marden citing Bk Young 1935 1735, no. 832 [bunch of titles for Hassall’s

land] 30- Primary by Horace Howard Young, of 10- PA 32885 Application Bringelly, Gentleman 1936 25-8- Issue of Torrens to Horace Howard Young, of Vol 4866, fol.

1937 Title Bringelly, Gentleman 22 Lee Cameron Vol 4866, fol. 3-12- Lathrop Murray of Transfer Horace Howard Young 22, no. 1945 Point Piper, D441344 Manager George Lacey Vol 4866, fol. 20-9- Transfer Lee Cameron Lathrop Evans of Kogarah, 22, no. 1949 Grazier F102447 Lee Cameron 17- Vol 4866, fol. Lathrop of 10- Mortgage George Lacey Evans 22, no. Bringelly, Company 1949 F102448 Manager

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment 156

Date Instrument From To Details Reference Vol 4866, fol. 8-8- Discharge of No. F102448 22, no. 1950 mortgage F290960 Reginald William Farrell of Sydney, Vol 4866, fol. 8-8- Company Director Transfer George Lacey Evans 22, no. 1950 and Una Grace F290961 Farrell, wife as joint tenants Vol 4866, fol. 8-8- Reginald William Farrell Bank of New South Mortgage 22, no. 1950 and Una Grace Farrell Wales F290962 c. property Vol 4866, fol. June subdivided, see Vol 8004, fol 157 22, no. 1959 deed cancelled H386283 11- Reginald William Farrell of Issue of new Vol 8004, fol 10- Sydney, Company Director deed 157 1960 and Una Grace Farrell, wife Vol 8004, fol 7-12- Discharge of No. F290962 157, no. 1960 mortgage H660597 John David Keys 14- Vol 8004, fol [Reginald William Farrell and Edna Burton as 11- Transfer 157, no. and Una Grace Farrell] tenants in common 1960 H660598 in unequal shares 25- Vol 8004, fol [John David Keys and Edna Witten Brothers 11- Transfer 157, no. Burton] Limited 1960 H666717 Clifton Vol 8004, fol 29-8- Transfer [Witten Brothers Limited] Laboratories Pty 157, no. 1966 Limited K431541 20- Vol 8004, fol [Clifton Laboratories Pty Pfizer Agriculture 10- Transfer 157, no. Limited] Pty Limited 1977 Q415984 28- Vol 8004, fol [Pfizer Agriculture Pty Prima Holdings Pty 10- Transfer 157, no. Limited] Limited 1981 S760509 Coopers Animal Vol 8004, fol 28-2- Transfer [ Health Australia 157, no. 1985 Limited V598974 The past 30 years of property transactions have not been researched for this report

Casey & Lowe Lowes Creek Maryland (Precinct), Rezoning Historical Archaeological Assessment