Our reference: DOC13/336

The Proper Officer Haines Bros Earthmoving & Drainage PO Box 123 BRINGELLY NSW 2556

Attention: Steve Nest orovic

BY EMAIL AND STANDARD POST 8 January 2013

Dear Mr Nestorovic

‘Maryland’ 877 The Northern Road, Bringelly – Ground Technologies Report GTE206 Compliance with Clean-Up Notice No 1504687

Reference is made to Clean-Up Notice No. 1504687 (the Notice) and Variation Notice No. 1506331 which were issued by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to Haines Bros Earthmoving & Drainage (Haines Bros) in relation to waste transported to ‘Maryland’ 877 The Northern Road, Bringelly (the Premises). Reference is also made to Ground Technologies Report GTE206-ENV01Rev1 (the Report) provided by Haines Bros to the EPA on 19 December 2012.

The EPA has reviewed the Report and has determined that based on the information provided, Haines Bros have complied with Direction 1 of the Notice.

The EPA has also reviewed the disposal documentation for the waste removed from the Premises, and notes that the documentation complies with the requirements of Direction 2 of the Notice.

If you have any questions in relation to this matter, please contact Megan Whelan on (02) 4224 4109.

Yours sincerely

CATE WOODS Unit Head – Waste Operations Environment Protection Authority

PO Box 513 Wollongong NSW 2520

Block D, Level 3, 84 Crown Street Wollongong NSW 2500 Tel: (02) 4224 4100 Fax: (02) 4224 4110 ABN 43 692 285 758 www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Draft 1 Historical Archaeological Assessment

Maryland, Bringelly

Detail of ‘Reduced plan of the Cowpasture Estates, formerly J. Dickson's’, subdivisions prior to auction 28 July 1840. Surveyor: E. J. H. Knapp. Study area outlined in blue. SLNSW Z/M2 811.113/1840/1A.

Report to Tropman & Tropman Architects on behalf Macarthur Developments

May 2016

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines the potential for the Maryland estate to retain historical archaeological remains which may be subject to future impact depending on the nature of proposed impacts. This site is under consideration for listing on the State Heritage Register (SHR).

RESULTS 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.

The potential for the site 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.

Any occupation-related artefact assemblages would complement what is known from urban domestic sites from the same period. Some assemblages also have possibility of providing information regarding the day-to-day life of the occupants of the house. Structural remains would enhance our knowledge regarding development of the architectural history of the buildings. The potential archaeological resource is considered to compliment the standing buildings, and activities associated with their uses. 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

RECOMMENDATIONS As the study area has the potential to retain State significant archaeological remains, the following recommendations are made: . Any proposed impacts 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 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 putting forward methodologies to record and archaeological remains exposed during works. Methodologies might include clarification of strategies to minimisation of impacts, 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. . 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment ii

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment iii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i RESULTS ...... i RECOMMENDATIONS ...... i Contents ...... iii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 1 1.3 Statutory Constraints ...... 4 1.4 Previous Reports ...... 8 1.5 Authorship ...... 8 1.6 Acknowledgements ...... 9 1.7 Limitations ...... 9 1.8 Glossary ...... 9 1.9 Abbreviations ...... 10 2.0 Historical Background ...... 12 2.1 Early land use ...... 12 2.2 First land grants 1810s to 1850s ...... 12 2.3 ‘Maryland’ ...... 20 3.0 Archaeological Potential ...... 31 3.1 Introduction ...... 31 3.2 Site description ...... 32 3.3 Analysis of historic site development ...... 64 3.4 Summary Phases ...... 74 3.5 Comparative sites ...... 74 3.6 Discussion of archaeological potential ...... 75 4.0 Heritage Significance ...... 83 4.1 Heritage significance ...... 83 4.2 Heritage significance and archaeology...... 83 4.3 Previous statements of built heritage significance ...... 84 4.4 Discussion of Heritage Significance ...... 86 4.5 Statement of Heritage Significance ...... 92 5.0 Results and Recommendations ...... 93 5.1 Results ...... 93 5.2 Recommendations ...... 93 6.0 Policy? ...... 94 7.0 Bibliography ...... 95 7.1 Primary Sources ...... 95 7.2 Printed works ...... 97 Appendix 1 – Draft SHR listing from NSW State Heritage Database ...... 102

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment iv

Document Status Name Date Purpose Author Approved Draft 1 27-05-2016 Draft for review Nick Pitt Tony Lowe & Mary Casey

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment

Maryland, Bringelly Archaeological Assessment

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd were engaged by Tropman & Tropman Architects on behalf of Macarthur Developments to prepare a Historical Archaeological Assessment to assess the property known as ‘Maryland’, 773-877 The Northern Road, Narellan (Lot 1, DP218779 and Lot 29, DP872135) (Figure 1.1).

This report has been prepared to inform the Conservation Management Plan being prepared by Tropman and Tropman and to provide guidance in light of the proposed rezoning and future development. Only historical archaeological remains, that is evidence associated with occupation of the site post-dating British colonisation, has been considered in this assessment. This report has not assessed the potential for the site to contain Aboriginal archaeological remains.

1.2 Study Area The property ‘Maryland’ is situated on the west side of The Northern Road, approximately 2.7km south of the township of Bringelly and Bringelly Road (Figure 1.1). It forms part of the Lowes Creek and Maryland (Part) Precinct, which is presently subject to planning under the NSW Government’s Precinct Acceleration Protocol (Figure 1.3).1 It is located in the Camden Council Local Government Area.

The present property covers an area of 257 hectares. It is bounded on the north by Lowes Creek, on the east by three smaller properties (895, 905 and 925 The Northern Road, Lots 21-23 DP 836540) and The Northern Road, on the south by the access road to 765 The Northern Road (Lot 280, DP 1043744) and by the same property (Lot 280, DP 1043744) on the west (Figure 1.2). It forms a substantial portion of the 1816 3000 acre (1214 Ha) grant to John Dickson known as ‘Nonorrah’2 (also spelt ‘Nonorah’ and ‘Nonnorrah’) and roughly half of a 40 acre (16.2 Ha) portion of land granted to Michael Dowdell on 25 August 1812 (Figure 2.1).3

1.2.1 A note on terminology Throughout this report ‘Maryland’ or ‘the property of Maryland’ is used to refer to the entire study area. Historically this site has functioned as an estate under unified ownership from 1854. In the 19th and 20th centuries the name ‘Maryland’ was often used by many people living on the study area to identify the place where they lived, often in the form ‘Maryland, Bringelly’. Most of these women and men would have lived in the one of the several workers cottages on the property.

When this report needs to refer specifically to the main historic house on the study area the terms, ‘Maryland homestead’, ‘main homestead’ and ‘the homestead’ have been used. Previous studies including the 2015 Conservation Management Plan by Tropman & Tropman have referred to the main house as the homestead. When this report needs to clearly refer to both the homestead and the rest of the study area, phrases like ‘the Maryland homestead and property’ have been used.

1 http://vparegister.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6825 [accessed 13/04/2016]. 2 NSW LPI Grants Register Bk 8, No. 152. 3 NSW LPI Grants Register Bk 8, No. 32.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 2

Figure 1.1: Modern map with study area outlined in blue. SIX Maps, NSW Map, © Land and Property Information (NSW).

Figure 1.2: Aerial photo with cadastral lots and other features added. Study area outlined in blue. SIX Maps, NSW Imagery (date taken 04-01-2014), © Land and Property Information (NSW).

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 3

Figure 1.3: Map showing Lowes Creek and Maryland Parts Precinct shaded in red, with the Maryland study area (this report) outlined in green. Supplied by client with Casey & Lowe additions.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 4

1.3 Statutory Constraints 1.3.1 NSW Heritage Act 1977 The main legislative constraint on archaeological remains is the relics provisions of the Heritage Act 1977. These provisions are contained in Division 9 of the Heritage Act (sections 139-146C). These protect archaeological remains by requiring an excavation permit in certain circumstances. While the current site is under consideration for listing under S57 of the Heritage Act, 1977 the archaeology of this site is protected under this part of the Act.

According to Section 139: (1) A person must not disturb or excavate any land knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed unless the disturbance or excavation is carried out in accordance with an excavation permit. (2) A person must not disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or exposed a relic except in accordance with an excavation permit. … (4) The Heritage Council may by order published in the Gazette create exceptions to this section, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, in respect of any of the following: a. any relic of a specified kind or description, b. any disturbance or excavation of a specified kind or description, c. any disturbance or excavation of land in a specified location or having specified features or attributes, d. any disturbance or excavation of land in respect of which an archaeological assessment approved by the Heritage Council indicates that there is little likelihood of there being any relics in the land.

A ‘relic’ is an item of ‘environmental heritage’. Environmental heritage is defined by the Heritage Act 1977 (amended) as: those places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects, and precincts of State or local heritage significance. (Section 4)

A relic as further defined by the Act as: any deposit, object or material evidence that: a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement; and b) is of State or local heritage significance. (Section 4)

Any item identified as an historical archaeological site or relic cannot be impacted upon without an excavation permit. An excavation permit forms an approval from the Heritage Council for permission to ‘disturb’ a relic.

An application for an excavation permit must be made to the Heritage Council of NSW (Section 140) (or its delegate) and it will take approximately three to six weeks to be processed. The application for a permit must nominate a qualified archaeologist to manage the disturbance of the relics. There is a processing fee for each excavation permit application, the details of which can be obtained from the Heritage Division, Office of Environment and Heritage website.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 5

Exceptions An application for a S139(4) Exception to applying for an Excavation Permit may be made where the impact is considered to be in accordance with the following categories: (1A) An archaeological assessment, zoning plan or management plan has been prepared in accordance with Guidelines published by the Heritage Council of NSW which indicates that any relics in the land are unlikely to have State or local heritage significance. (1B) The excavation or disturbance of land will have a minor impact on archaeological relics including the testing of land to verify the existence of relics without destroying or removing them. (1C) A statement describing the proposed excavation demonstrates that evidence relating to the history or nature of the site, such as its level of disturbance, indicates that the site has little or no archaeological research potential.

State Heritage Register Listing ‘Maryland’ is presently under consideration for listing as a State Significant heritage site on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR).4 Archaeological remains or relics, including works, within an SHR- listed area receive protection as part of the SHR listing.

Section 57 of the Heritage Act contains the following provisions which are relevant to the protection of ‘relics’: (1) When an interim heritage order or listing on the State Heritage Register applies to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object, precinct, or land, a person must not do any of the following things except in pursuance of an approval granted by the approval body under Subdivision 1 of Division 3: … (b) damage or despoil the place, precinct or land, or any part of the place, precinct or land, (c) move, damage or destroy the relic or moveable object, (d) excavate any land for the purpose of exposing or moving the relic, (e) carry out any development in relation to the land on which the building, work or relic is situated, the land that comprises the place, or land within the precinct, (f) alter the building, work, relic or moveable object, (g) display any notice or advertisement on the place, building, work, relic, moveable object or land, or in the precinct,

If the entire ‘Maryland’ site or certain parts of the site were listed on the State Heritage Register, then the removal of relics would require an application under Section 60 or an exemption under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act 1977, in the place of a S140 excavation permit or a S139 exception. An approval under Section 60 requires the identification of suitably qualified archaeologists to undertake this work as part of writing a Research Design for the application.

1.3.2 Camden LEP 2010 Although the provisions of the Camden LEP 2010 are primarily geared for extant built heritage items, it also includes the following requirements which are relevant to archaeological heritage: 5.10 Heritage conservation (1) Objectives The objectives of this clause are: (a) demolishing or moving any of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

4 See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/NominationsOfStateHeritageRegister.aspx. The draft listing on the State Heritage Database is Database No. 5051539, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051539 [accessed 26/05/2016].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 6

(i) a heritage item, ...... (c) to conserve archaeological sites,

(2) Requirement for consent Development consent is required for any of the following: ...... (c) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed, ......

(7) Archaeological sites The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause to the carrying out of development on an archaeological site (other than land listed on the State Heritage Register or to which an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies): (a) notify the Heritage Council on its intention to grant consent, and (b) take into consideration any response received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice is sent.

The property ‘Maryland’ is listed as item I1 on Schedule 5 Environmental heritage. It is described as: “Maryland” (including the homestead, grounds, outbuildings, stone cottage, former winery, stone store and gate keepers cottage); 773 The Northern Road, Bringelly, Lot 1, DP 218779; Lot 29, DP 872135, Local Significance, I1. The site is presently listed as being locally significant. However, if it is listed on the State Heritage Register, the level of significance given in the LEP is also likely to change to State significance.5

5 Draft SHR listing reproduced as Appendix 1, and also available here: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051539 [accessed 26/05/2016].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 7

Figure 1.4: Detail of Camden LEP 2010, Heritage Map, Sheet 6, showing the location of I1 – ‘Maryland’. Map sheet id no. 1450_COM_HER_006_020_2010070. NSW Legislation website.

1.3.3 Non-statutory heritage listings Apart from the statutory heritage listings provided by the NSW State Heritage Register and the Camden LEP 2010, a number of other non-statutory heritage lists cover heritage items in NSW. Non-statutory heritage listings do not provide legal protect for heritage items. However, they provide evidence that a site has previously been recognised by some as having heritage significance. They also often pre-date the current statutory heritage lists, and so provide some indication of the length of time over which the heritage values of a site have been recognised.

1.3.3.1 Register of the National Estate (non-statutory) The Register of the National Estate (RNE) is a historic heritage list, previously maintained by the Australian (Commonwealth) Government. It accepted listings between 1975 and 2007. Listing on the Register of the National Estate no longer provides any statutory protection for a site.6

The Register of the National Estate included two listings which covered ‘Maryland’: . Maryland and Outbuildings, The Northern Rd, Bringelly, NSW; place ID 3246, place file no. 1/15/009/0024, registered 21/03/1978. . Maryland Garden and Setting, The Northern Rd, Bringelly, NSW; place ID 3247, place file no. 1/15/009/0024, registered 21/10/1980.

6 See the discussion by the Department of the Environment here: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/register-national-estate [accessed 13/04/2016].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 8

1.3.3.2 National Trust (non-statutory) The ‘Maryland’ property is listed on the National Trust’s register. It is listed as ‘Maryland including outbuildings and garden’, Listing ID S8893.

1.3.4 Statutory and Non-statutory Guidelines The management of heritage sites in New South Wales should conform to the requirements of the Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS. Many of the following guidelines provide for best practice conservation approaches and can be used to inform all the management of the archaeological remains. There are a range of archaeological guidelines which inform the management of the place: Archaeological Assessment Guidelines, NSW Heritage Office, Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, 1996. A new draft of this has been prepared but not yet published. Assessing Significance for Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, 2009. NSW Heritage Manual, NSW Heritage Office, Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, 1996. Historical Archaeological Investigations: A Code of Practice, NSW Department of Planning, 2006. Historical Archaeological Sites, Investigation and Conservation Guidelines, Department of Planning and NSW Heritage Council, 1993. Excavation Director’s Assessment Criteria, NSW Heritage Office. ICHAM Charter, The ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage, ICOMOS International, 1990. Practice Note – The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice, Australia ICOMOS 2013. Practice Note – Understanding and assessing cultural significance, Australia ICOMOS 2013. Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations, UNESCO, 1956. Heritage Interpretation Policy and Guidelines, Heritage Information Series, NSW Heritage Office, August 2005. Photographic Recording of Heritage Items, Heritage Information Series, NSW Heritage Office, 2006.

1.4 Previous Reports A number of previous heritage reports have been prepared regarding Maryland. The most important of these is the draft 2015 Conservation Management Plan: Tropman & Tropman Architects 2015 Maryland, 773-877 The Northern Road, Narellan, Conservation Management Plan, for Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd, April 2015, REF: 1425:CMP.

1.5 Authorship This report was prepared by Nick Pitt, Archaeologist/Researcher, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, with reference to previous assessments by Casey & Lowe. All overlay plans have been prepared by Nick Pitt unless otherwise specified. All contemporary site photographs have been taken by Tony Lowe (TL) or Nick Pitt (NP), unless otherwise specified. The historical background (section 2) draws on information and references contained in the site history prepared for Tropman & Tropman by

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 9 historian and archaeologist Rosemary Broomham, and on further information on John Dickson researched by historian Caroline Plim for another project by Casey & Lowe.7 These works are cited where they are used.

The site description (section 3.2) is largely based on a site visit by Tony Lowe & Nick Pitt in the company of Lester Tropman on 20 April 2016. Where relevant it also draws on a supplied detail survey undertaken by Craig & Rhodes, Surveyors in October 2015 and site details contained in the 2015 draft Conservation Management Plan by Tropman & Tropman.

The report was reviewed by Tony Lowe and Mary Casey, Directors, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd.

1.6 Acknowledgements Lester Tropman: Tropman & Tropman Architects.

1.7 Limitations It should be noted that this report only assesses the historical archaeology of the study area. The land outside the study area has not been examined in detail. The Aboriginal archaeology and heritage of the study area has not been assessed by this report.

1.8 Glossary The following terms are used in this report:

Historical Archaeology (Non-Indigenous/European) Historical Archaeology (in NSW) is the study of the physical remains of the past, in association with historical documents, since the British occupation of New South Wales in 1788. As well as identifying these remains the study of this material can help elucidate the processes, historical and otherwise, which have created our present surroundings. Historical archaeology includes an examination of how the late eighteenth and nineteenth-century arrivals lived and coped with a new and alien environment, what they ate, where and how they lived, the consumer items they used and their trade relations, and how gender and cultural groups interacted. The material remains studied include: . Archaeological Sites: • below ground: these contains relics which include building foundations, occupation deposits, rubbish pits, cesspits, wells, other features, and artefacts. • above ground: buildings, works, industrial structures and relics that are intact or ruined. . cultural landscapes: major foreshore reclamation . maritime sites: infrastructure and shipbuilding . shipwrecks

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

7 Casey & Lowe 2013a.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 10

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

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

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

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

Archaeological Investigation Any kind of work on a site to examine and record information relating to the material remains of human occupation which addresses archaeological research questions. Examples of archaeological investigation include archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring and archaeological excavation.

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

Research Potential The ability of archaeological evidence, through analysis and interpretation, to provide information about a site that could not be derived from any other source and which contributes to the archaeological significance of that site and its ‘relics’.8

Relic Means any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that: (a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance. (NSW Heritage Act 1977, Definitions, Part 1.4)

1.9 Abbreviations ABGR Australian Biographical and Geneological Record [publisher] ADB Australian Dictionary of Biography b. born B.C. Born in the Colony (in Table 2.2)

8 NSW Heritage Branch 2009: 11

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 11

BDA Biographical Database of Australia – website: http://bda-online.org.au/ c. circa C Convict (in Table 2.1) C.F. Came Free (in Table 2.2) C.P. Conditional Pardon (in Table 2.1) CT Certificate of Title (referring to Old Form Torrens Register land titles) CC-BY-SA Creative Commons by attribution, Share Alike [a form of Creative Commons licence] DA Development Application DNMT Does Not Meet Threshold [for local archaeological heritage significance]. DP Deposited Plan F.B.S. Free by servitude (in Table 2.1) F.S. Free by servitude (in Table 2.2) G.S. Government Servant (in Table 2.2) ha Hectare HRA Historical Records of Australia IDA Integrated Development Application LEP Local Environment Plan LPI Land and Property Information (NSW) LPMA Land and Property Management Authority (NSW) [a predecessor to the LPI]. ML Mitchell Library (in the State Library of NSW) NLA National Library of NSW n.d. not dated PA Primary Application [for Torrens Title] SLNSW State Library of NSW SHR State Heritage Register SRNSW State Records of NSW T.L. Ticket of Leave (in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2)

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 12

2.0 Historical Background 2.1 Early land use Before British colonists arrived in the area, the study area would have been used by the traditional Aboriginal owners of the locality. This report does not cover the Aboriginal history and prior land use of the study area. These are to be investigated in a separate report.

The first recorded British exploration of the Camden region was in August 1790, when Watkin Tench, William Dawes and George Wogan travelled southwest from ‘Rose Hill’ (now Parramatta). They went as far as ‘Pyramid Hill’, now known as ‘Mount Prudhoe’ in the locality of Razorback, about 20km south of Maryland. Apart from the Nepean River, Tench noted that ‘nothing very interesting was remarked’.9

Interest in the area by British colonists increased following the discovery of cattle on the west banks of the Nepean River in 1795. These were the descendants of five cows and two bulls which had been lost in 1788. The landscape at the time was mostly grassy, with some thinly scattered trees.10 Understandably the area became known as the Cow Pastures.

By 1803 the Government was attempting to make use of these wild cattle by establishing stockyards with the intention of killing some for meat and taming others. Unauthorised access to the western bank of the Nepean to this area was forbidden.11 Although early grants on the western side of the Nepean were limited to John Macarthur and Walter Davidson,12 the eastern side was increasingly settled from the second interregnum period (January 1808 to December 1809) onwards. Most grants within the Parish of Cooke were made between 1810 and 1819.13

The first decades of the British colonial occupation of the Cumberland Plain were marked by conflict with some of the traditional Aboriginal owners. The peak of conflict appears to have been focused between 1814 and 1816.14 However, no known sites where conflict occurred are located within the boundaries of the Maryland site.

2.2 First land grants 1810s to 1850s Two 1810s land grants covered the area which is now the Maryland property (Figure 2.1). The smaller of these two grants was for a 40 acre (16.2 Ha) portion of land granted to Michael Dowdell on 25 August 1812.15 Michael Dowdell, more commonly spelt ‘Dowdall’, was an Irish convict who arrived on the Atlas in October 1802, aged 28.16 He received his Certificate of Freedom in 1810, after serving out his term of imprisonment.17 In 1811 he was included in a ‘list of persons to receive lands in the new Districts of Airds or Appin’, where he was recommended to receive 40 acres.18 His 1812 grant appears to have been in response to this.

Following common practice of the time, this grant was made with the condition not to sell or alienate the land for five years and to ‘cultivate twelve acres within the said period’. However, it is not clear whether he ever fulfilled these conditions. At the time of the grant he appears to have

9 Tench 1793:53. 10 Collins 1798:436-438; 1797 map by John Hunter SLNSW Cb 79/9, digital order no. a928985. 11 HRA III, p 74 [King to Hobart, 9 May 1803], p344 [Proclamation, 6 July 1803]. 12 Anon. 1966; Steven 1967. 13 Artefact Heritage 2012:15; Tropman & Tropman 2015:11; Willis 2008; Summary of portions on LPI Map ‘Parish of Cook, County of Cumberland’, 5th ed. 1970, HLRV. 14 Karskens 2015; Tropman & Tropman 2015:12-13. 15 NSW LPI Grants Register Bk 8, No. 32. 16 BDA Biographical report for Michael DOWDALL, person ID: B#10011982901 [accessed 15/04/2016]. 17 SRNSW 4/4427, pp 498-499, cert. no. 71/245. 18 SRNSW Col. Sec. Papers, Fiche 3266; 9/2652 p.10.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 13 been living at Kissing Point, where he served as a juror at an inquest in April 1812.19 Dowdall again was living in the Parramatta district, which would have included Kissing Point, in 1820 when he countersigned a printed copy of Proclamation on the accession of King George IV.20 In the 1822 Land and Stock Muster, he was again living in the Parramatta district, on a leasehold, with 7 acres of wheat, ¼ acre of pease/beans, 4 acres of orchards/gardens and 7 cattle and 18 ‘hogs’.21 In 1822, two of Dowdall’s children and his wife Catherine Hickey were also living at Parramatta.22 A third daughter, Rosetta, aged 9, was living at Liverpool.23 Michael Dowdall accidently drowned in Cockle Bay (now Darling Harbour) in March 1823. At the time he was described as ‘a settler at Kissing- point, of 15 or 16 years standing’.24

Through an unregistered transaction, whose details have long been lost, Michael Dowdall’s grant passed to the well-known former missionary and prominent Parramatta figure, Rowland Hassall. After Hassall’s death in 1820, ‘Dowdells Farm’ was inherited by Eliza Cordelia Hassall, daughter.25 Other siblings of Eliza also had properties in the area. Eliza Hassall married the Methodist minister, the Rev. William Walker on 14 May 1823.26 Eliza Walker died in 1835, and her husband William died in 185527 and the property passed to their son Rowland Thomas Brisbane Walker. He then sold the land to Thomas Barker on 17 December 1855.28

Figure 2.1: Detail of map of the ‘Parish of Cook, County of Cumberland’, from the NSW LPI Historic Parish Maps collection, probably drawn c.1830s with later annotations. Study area outlined in blue, north arrow and scale added. AO Map 210. HLRV, NSW LPI.

19 SRNSW Col. Sec. Papers, Reel 6021; 4/1819 p.329. 20 SRNSW Col. Sec. Papers, Reel 6049; 4/1745 p.129. 21 1822 Land & Stock Muster of NSW, ABGR ed. ID:B00598. 22 BDA Biographical report for Michael DOWDALL, person ID: B#10011982901 [accessed 15/04/2016]. 23 BDA Biographical report for Rosetta DOWDALL, person ID: L#11051904901 [accessed 15/04/2016]. 24 Sydney Gazette 1823, p 2b; Reports of Inquests, 1823, SRNSW Series 2233; Roll 5607, pp 109, 113. 25 Will of Rowland Hassall, Series 1, No. 81, copy contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA14468. Eliza Cordelia Hassall paid the quit rent for ‘Dowdells Farm’ in 1822 – the original receipt is pinned to the original 1812 grant and contained in the primary application packet. 26 St Johns Parramatta, Register Vol. 1, No. 1007. 27 NSW BDM Reg. No. 2357/1835 V18352357 19; Sydney Morning Herald 29 November 1855, p 8e. 28 Old System Title Bk 41, No. 706, cited in PA 14468, NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 14

The second grant which comprised a majority of the present property of Maryland was a 3000 acre (1214 Ha) grant to John Dickson, given on 20 June 1816. This was originally known as ‘Dixon’s Farm’, but later known as ‘Nonorrah’ (Figure 2.1).29 John Dickson was a prominent engineer, miller and grazier, who is best known for operating the first steam engine in NSW from 1815.30 John Dickson developed extensive land holdings in the area. By the time of his death he had also acquired the properties ‘Orielton’ (granted to Edward Lord, 10-6-1815, 1600 acres [648 ha]), ‘Netherbyres’ (20-6-1816, George Molle, 1600 acres [648 ha]), ‘Moorefield’ (Thomas Moore, 87 acres [35 ha]), and ‘Eastwood’ (1060 acres [429 ha]), which gave him control over 7347 acres [2973 ha] of land, forming an almost continuous strip of land between Bringelly Road and The Cowpastures Road (now Camden Valley Way) (Figure 2.3).31

During the 1820s and 1830s, John Dickson did not live permanently at his property, Nonorrah. He lived in Sydney, while others worked and managed the estate. Government records provide snapshots into how the property was managed.

The September 1822 ‘Land and Stock Muster’ recorded that John Dickson held 4500 acres (1820 ha) either a grant or a purchase. Out of this, 65 acres was under cultivation for wheat, maize or barley, with a further 3 acres of potatoes and 2 acres of garden/orchard. He also had on the property 12 horses, 850 ‘horned cattle’, 450 sheep and 80 ‘hogs’. The General Muster which was held at the same time lists 22 people associated with John Dickson at ‘Liverpool’.32 Out of these, 14 were assigned convicts, while the others were employed and had varying degrees of freedom (Table 2.1).

A second snapshot of the property is contained in the relevant 1828 Census return, which was completed in November of that year. At the time 28 people were working on the property in various roles, with an additional 25 year old woman and an unrelated 1½ year old child, listed without occupations (Table 2.2). The listed occupations indicate that a range of activities were taking place on the property, including keeping sheep (5 shepherds) and cattle (2 stockmen and a butcher), and growing grain (2 ploughmen). The others would have provided the necessary labour, support and management required to keep the farm in operation. The related return of land and stock indicated that John Dickson had consolidated his 7300 acres at Bringelly/Narellan by this date. Only 20 per cent of the land had been cleared, and of that cleared land only 20 per cent (or 300 acres) was under cultivation (Table 2.3).

These 1820s records provide the impression that the property functioned as a mixed farm, with land used both to grow crops such as wheat, maize and barley, and to graze sheep and cattle. It is tempting to draw a connection between the property producing grain and livestock and John Dickson’s industrial works at Darling Harbour, which included a mill, soap and candle works,33 and a brewery.34 It is known from newspaper advertisements that by October 1829 prime salted beef from Dickson’s own herds was for sale at the ‘Steam Engine’, Darling Harbour.35

On a 1840 map of the Dickson’s combined property (Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3) various areas were annotated as cleared, ‘forested’, as being ‘under cultivation’ or ‘formerly under cultivation’. The plan also includes three huts or houses in the southern and central parts of the property and the

29 NSW LPI Grants Register Bk 8, No. 152. 30 Walsh 1966b. 31 Sydney Monitor 6 July 1840, p 4d. 32 In NSW, General Musters required individuals to present themselves at predetermined points in order for their names taken down and their details to be recorded. The courthouse at Liverpool was the muster station for the ‘Districts of Airds, Bringelly, Appin, Bunbury Curran, Upper and Lower Minto, and Places adjacent’ – see introduction to Baxter (ed.) 1988, and Sydney Gazette 16 August 1822, p 1a. 33 At the time soap and candles both were made using tallow, ie processed beef or mutton fat. 34 Walsh 1966b. 35 Sydney Gazette 29 October 1829, p 4c; Casey & Lowe 2013a:20.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 15 main homestead at the north of the property on the east side of The Northern Road. These land uses probably represent the evolution of the earlier landuse pattern of the property. None of the areas marked as being used for cultivation on this map intersect with the study area, which instead was likely used for grazing livestock. The cattle and sheep probably grazed over areas which were both cleared and also lightly forested. Pigs probably were kept in smaller numbers near the main homestead, where they could be fed using food scraps and garden waste. Probably most of the 28 residents lived on the homestead itself, but some would have lived at the other smaller houses.

Table 2.1: Summary table of all people named as assigned or employed by John Dickson at ‘Liverpool’ – based on index in ABGR copy of 1822 muster (Baxter ed. 1988). Shaded names also were recorded in the 1828 Census. ABGR Ref no. First name Last name Condition Ship Sentence Occupation Employer etc Where A01608 John Blunt C Prince of Orange 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A02914 John Butcher C General Hewitt Life Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A03569 Margret Cavenny F.B.S. 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A03598 William Chalker C Baring 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A06557 Mary Edwards F.B.S. Mary Ann 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A07407 Daniel Foley C Minerva 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A09406 Thomas Harriss C Recovery Life Govt. Servant J Dickson Liverpool A09416 John Hart C Atlas 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A11050 William Ivery C Tyne 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A11659 William Jones C Recovery 14 years Govt. Servant J Dickson Liverpool A12370 James Lake C Dick 7 years Govt. Servant to J Dickson Liverpool A12902 William Lewis C.P. Earl Spencer Life Employed J Dixon Liverpool A13668 Michael McGlyn F.B.S. Rolla 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A13780 Daniel McIntyre C Elizabeth 14 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A15915 Henry Nicholson C Eliza Life Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A16878 Stephen Pike F.B.S. Elizabeth 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A17058 Walter Powell T.L. Fanny Life Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A17925 David Ritchie F.B.S. Wellington 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A18327 William Rothwell F.B.S. Indefatigable 7 years Employed by J Dixon Liverpool A18542 William Ryan C Minerva 7 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool A18800 James Script C Mangles 7 years Govt. Servant to J Dixon Liverpool A21203 Joseph Towers C Ocean 14 years Govt. Servant J Dixon Liverpool

Table 2.2: Transcription of 1828 Census return for John Dickson’s property in the district of Cooke, form no. 9, p 1. SRNSW Series 1273, viewed on Ancestry.com. Shaded names also were recorded in the 1822 General Muster. Names of Family Arrival Age Class Sentence Employment Residence Religion and Servants Ship Year Agnes Cowen 30 C.F. Triton 1825 - Dairy Woman Nonorra Protestant Margaret Cowen 1½ B.C. - - - - ditto ditto Michel Greaton 21 G.S. Bowdina 1828 7 Years Labourer Nonorra Catholic John Vreadon (?) 34 F.S. John Barry 1821 - ditto ditto Catholic John Smith 23 G.S Hindostan 1821 Life ditto ditto Protestant James Leonard 28 G.S. Prince Regent 1824 7 Years ditto ditto Catholic John Bagshaw 39 G.S. Asia 1822 7 Years ditto ditto Protestant William McKan 23 G.S. Medina 1823 7 Years Bullock Driver ditto Catholic John Butcher 33 G.S. Genl Hewitt 1814 Life Carpenter ditto Protestant William Booth 37 G.S. Henry 1823 7 Years Ploughman ditto Protestant John Dowling 50 F.S. Chapman 1817 - Stockman ditto Catholic John Shea 43 T.L. Dromedary 1809 Life Stockman ditto Catholic James Swift 35 G.S. Mangles 1820 Life Ploughman ditto Protestant Mary Swift 25 B.C. - - - - ditto Catholic William Ryan 42 F.S. Minerva 1819 - Waterman ditto Catholic Joseph Ratcliffe 25 G.S. Guildford 1823 Life Labourer ditto Protestant

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 16

Names of Family Arrival Age Class Sentence Employment Residence Religion and Servants Ship Year John Kinley 29 G.S. E S Vincent 1820 14 Years Butcher ditto Catholic Thomas Allen 30 T.L. E S Vincent 1823 7 Years Shepherd ditto Catholic Joseph Wilkins 36 F.S. Hindostan 1821 - Labourer ditto Protestant Richard Tills 54 T.L. Hunter 1809 Life Shepherd ditto Protestant Sam Lees 26 T.L. Mangles 1820 - Labourer ditto Protestant Daniel McIntyre 33 G.S. Elizabeth 1820 14 Years Shepherd ditto Catholic James Gleeson 21 G.S. Brudina 1828 7 Years Shepherd ditto Catholic Richard Franklin 27 G.S. Hindostan 1821 Life Bullock Driver ditto Protestant Charles Warmsley 29 C.F. Borodina 1828 - Superintendant ditto Protestant Andrew Cowen 40 C.F. Triton 1825 - Overseer ditto Protestant Henry Stuckey 27 C.F. Prince Regent 1825 - Overseer ditto Protestant William Kerrin 28 G.S. Mangles 1828 Life Labourer ditto Catholic Henrey Nickelson 34 G.S. Lisen 1820 Life Shepherd ditto Protestant Eleanor Booth 26 G.S. Mary Ann 1822 7 Years Laundress ditto ditto

Table 2.3: Transcription of 1828 Census return for John Dickson’s property in the district of Cooke, form no. 9, p 2. SRNSW Series 1273, viewed on Ancestry.com. Total District where Name of Name of Proprietor Acres Acres Horned Number of Horses Sheep situated Farm or Tenant cleared cultivated Cattle Acres Nonorrah Cook John Dickson 7300 1500 300 60 3000 2000 and Orielton Argyle Shire Mummel Ditto 10,000 30 30 8 - -

John Dickson appears to have experienced some financial and later legal difficulties from the late 1820s onwards. The property was mortgaged in April 1829 to Richard Jones.36 In 1831, Dickson sold some property in Sydney, possibly to finance an expansion of his mill with another boiler.37 However, on 4 July 1833 he lost a court case for debt and was also facing associated charges of forgery of associated documents.38 Around the same time he also advertised his Darling Harbour properties and brewery for sale.39 Against this background, he appointed Thomas Barker, George Muckle, and Alexander Berry and his brother James Dickson as trustees to manage his affairs ‘to pay his just debts and maintain and educate’ his children.40 Shortly afterwards, John Dickson fled New South Wales, while still on bail for the forgery charges. He died in England in 1843 at the age of 69.41

During the 1830s, information regarding the day to day operation of Nonorrah is fairly thin. Various sales of livestock took place from 1834 onwards, perhaps to help pay off Dickson’s creditors.42 In January 1834, Lily Dickson, John’s eldest daughter, married Willoughby Dowling and spent their honeymoon at Nonorrah.43 In August 1834, Thomas Barker was managing the property while living in Sydney.44 James Dickson, John’s brother and Thomas Barker’s father-in-law, was living at

36 PA 14468, citing Old System deed Bk. C, No. 3. 37 Sydney Herald 19 December 1831, p 4; Casey & Lowe 2013a:21; Tropman & Tropman 2015:19. 38 Sydney Gazette 2 April 1833, p 2f, 13 July 1833, p 3c; Sydney Herald 1 April 1833, p 2e, 8 July 1833, p 2c; Sydney Monitor 6 July 1833, p 2d, 24 August 1833, p 4d; The Australian 24 May 1833, p 2e, 5 July 1833, p 3b; Casey & Lowe 2013a:22. 39 Sydney Herald 29 July 1833, p 2d; Casey & Lowe 2013a:21-22. 40 Tropman & Tropman 2015:15; PA 14468, citing Old System deed Bk F, No. 169 (2 July 1833) and Bk H, No. 430 (12 July 1833). 41 The Australian 2 August 1833, p 2e; Walsh 1966b. 42 Tropman & Tropman 2015:15; Sydney Monitor 14 February 1834, p 1b; Sydney Herald 12 October 1837, p 4e; Sydney Gazette 17 February 1838, p 1g. 43 Sydney Gazette 28 January 1834, p 3b; see Walsh 1966b for the first name of ‘Miss Dickson’. 44 Waugh 1838:18, 21.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 17

Nonorrah in January 1835 when he died after falling off a horse.45 He may also have been living there earlier during the 1820s, when his address was given as Bringelly.46 In March 1838, Lieutenant Thomas Moore, John Dickson’s son-in-law, was living at Nonorrah and advertised for an overseer ‘capable of conducting a large Farming Establishment’.47 Overall, it appears that the farm at Nonorrah continued to be managed fairly consistently throughout the 1830s, even though the management of the farm was shared between various members of John Dickson’s family and close associates.

In August 1838, John Dickson sold Nonorrah to the Sydney-based merchant Matthew Dysart Hunter. Hunter also may have been a distant relative, as his mother was a Jean Dickson, daughter of James Dickson of Anton’s Hill, an estate in Berwickshire, Scotland.48 Matthew Hunter then subdivided the property and tried to sell it in 1840 (Figure 2.2).49 The present property of Maryland covers most of lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision of Nonorrah (Figure 2.3). These were described as: LOTS XI to IV Comprise the well-known Fat Bullock Paddock, immediately opposite the estate of Mrs. Lowe ; lot six contains more than a mile frontage to the Great North Road, and comprises in all three hundred and forty-one acres-all girdled50 and bounded on the north by Lowe's Creek to the extent of half a mile; lot 7 contains three hundred and thirty-three and a half acres, nearly all gridled, and possessing three quarters of a mile frontage to Lowe's Creek ; the views from this particular spot are admirable; It also contains a valley of fine rich dark soil;51

From this description and the associated subdivision plan (Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3), it appears that there were no major buildings on the study area in 1840 when the land was advertised for sale.

M. D. Hunter failed to sell the lots which now make up Maryland at auction in 1840, which was not uncommon at the time, particularly given the economic depression which accompanied the end of convict transportation and recession in Britain, as well as growing debt associated with over expansion of pastoral properties combined with lower wool prices.52 Sarah Lowe, who then owned the neighbouring property Birring, bought the property from Hunter on a mortgage from him in July 1842.53 The sale, however, appears to have somehow fallen through, as Nonorrah was again offered for sale in 184654 and in 1847. In 1847 the land was subdivided differently to 1840 (Figure 2.4). The area of Maryland was divided into four lots, which were described as: Lot 7 — Contents, 126 Acres, with about 18 chains frontage to the great North Road. Lot 8 — Contents, 140 Acres, with about 32 chains frontage to the great North Road. Lot 9 — Contents, 173 Acres, bounded on the north by Lowe's Creek, with about 30 chains frontage thereon. Lot 10 — Contents 160 Acres, or thereabouts, fronting Lowe's Creek, with about 30 chains frontage to the great North Road. The five last described farms are all easily to be cleared, the timber in most parts having been girdled or ringed many years ago, and portions of each of them are now in cultivation.55

45 Sydney Herald 19 January 1835, p 2f. 46 BDA Biographical report for James DICKSON, person ID: L#35011014404 [accessed 22/04/2016]. 47 Sydney Gazette 3 March 1838, p 3c. 48 Holcomb 2014:224; The Spectator 5 June 1852, p 20; Chichester 2004; Groome 1882-84. 49 Sydney Herald 1 June 1840, p 3e; Sydney Monitor 6 July 1840, p 4f. 50 ‘girdled’ in this context means ring-barked. 51 Sydney Monitor 6 July 1840, p 4d 52 Wotherspoon 2008. 53 PA 14468, citing Bk 4, no. 212. 54 Sydney Morning Herald 1846, p 2g. 55 The Australian 17 August 1847, p 1

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 18

Again, the lots comprising Maryland failed to sell in 1847. They finally were sold to Thomas Barker in July 1854. The neighbouring 40 acre lot which had been originally granted to Michael Dowdell was sold to Thomas Barker in December 1855.56

Figure 2.2: Plan of John Dickson’s landholdings in the Narellan/Bringelly area advertised for sale in 1840. Study area, scale and MGA aligned north arrow added. SLNSW Z/M2 811.113/1840/1A, digital order no. c012220001.

56 PA 14468, citing Bk 38, no. 885, Bk 38, no. 224 and Bk 41, no. 706.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 19

Figure 2.3: Detail of ‘Reduced plan of the Cowpasture Estates, formerly J. Dickson's’, subdivisions prior to auction 28 July 1840. Surveyor: E. J. H. Knapp. Study area outlined in blue. Note the annotations within the study area: ‘Forest of Girdled timber’, ‘Reserved Road’, ‘Good Valley’, ‘Low Range of Hills good soil’, ‘Timber girdled and dead /easily cleared’ and ‘Ringed Forest’. SLNSW Z/M2 811.113/1840/1A, digital order no. c012220001.

Figure 2.4: Detail of ‘Plan of the Cowpasture Estates, the property of M.D. Hunter, Esqr., for sale by Mr Lyons on Monday 30th Augt. 1847’. Study area outlined in blue. Note the updated annotations compared with the 1840 map: ‘partly in cultivation’, ‘Good Valley’, ‘Low Range, Good Soil’, ‘Partly cultivated’. NLA MAP Folder 34, LFSP 448.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 20

2.3 ‘Maryland’ Thomas Barker (1799-1875) purchased the land which became Maryland in July 1854.57 This was a time of change for Barker. His first wife Joanna had died on Christmas Eve 1851. She had been the daughter of James Dickson and the niece of John Dickson. During the 1850s, Thomas Barker had a brief foray into legislative office. He was an unelected member of the NSW Legislative Council between April 1853 and February 1856, and an elected member of the NSW Legislative Assembly between April 1856 and December 1857, for the district of Gloucester and Macquarie on the NSW North Coast.58 He also was involved in a wide range of commercial and philanthropic boards and associations at this time.59

After purchasing Maryland, Thomas Barker began work on both the homestead and the vineyard. The earliest known reference to ‘Maryland Farm, New Camden’ dates to October 1857, when Robert Vicary placed an advertisement regarding a horse which had been left with him a year previously.60 Vicary appears to have been some kind of farm manager for Barker, who remained associated with the property until his death in 1876.61

Thomas Barker married again in March 1858, to Katherine Heath Gray (1820-1911).62 Katherine moved into Maryland the same year.63 There is limited information about life on the property during the 1850s and early 1860s. The first identified contemporary reference to the Barkers living at Maryland dates to May 1862, when Katherine Barker advertised to employ a cook.64 In September 1863, Thomas and Katherine Barker’s son Thomas Charles was born at Maryland.65

By December 1864 Barker’s vineyard was in production, when some was served at a dinner in honour of James Macarthur’s return from England.66 From January 1865, Barker’s wine was readily available for sale in Sydney.67 In May 1865, Thomas Barker was first licenced to distil brandy from wine on his own vineyard.68

The wine from Maryland was fairly well regarded and appears to have consistently won some prizes from the late 1860s to at least the 1880s.69 There some evidence that it was also consumed elsewhere in Australia, as 1½ dozen bottles of ‘New South Wales Maryland Wine’ of c.1867 vintage were auctioned at a house contents sale in Hobart 1876.70 Following Thomas Barker’s death in 1875, the property was offered for sale in 1876. The advertised description provided a good impression of the property at the time and will be further discussed in section 3.3.4.71 However, the property was not sold at this time.

57 Conveyance from M D Hunter to Thomas Barker, 7 July 1854, cited in PA 14468. 58 ‘Mr Thomas BARKER’, Parliament of NSW website [accessed 22/04/2016]. 59 Walsh 1966a. 60 Empire 13 October 1857, p 1c. 61 Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c, 27 January 1871, p 11d, 11 May 1876, p 1a. 62 Weatherburn 1992; Sydney Morning Herald 10 March 1858, p1a. 63 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. 64 Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 1862, p 1f. 65 Sydney Morning Herald 22 September 1863, p 1a. 66 Sydney Morning Herald 20 January 1865, p 7f. 67 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. 68 The Armidale Express 13 May 1865, p 3a. 69 Empire 6 May 1869, p 3d; Sydney Morning Herald 27 May 1869, p 4f; Sydney Mail 17 April 1880, p 755b, 27 April 1889, p 854c; Evening News 23 October 1882, p 3b. 70 The Mercury 1 September 1876, p 4c. 71 Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1876, p 14c.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 21

Katherine Barker and her son Thomas Charles continued to live in the property following Thomas Barker’s death. A substantial number of other people also lived on the property at the time, in the various houses and cottages on the site. The 1891 NSW Census recorded three households with a total of 18 people living at ‘Maryland’, which provides some idea of the complexity of the community on the site.72 The 1876 property description states that the dairy farm was leased out at that time,73 and this practice appears to have continued for most of the Barker’s ownership of the property, although explicit records of the lease arrangements have not been found. Some of the individual biographies of those who lived on the site will be discussed further in section 2.3.1.

After Thomas Barker’s death, winemaking initially continued on the property, with the wine winning awards during the 1880s.74 However, in 1899 winemaking at Maryland faced a major setback when a fire occurred in the wine cellar, which appears to have been a two-storey building. The fire destroyed casks of wine and brandy which were kept on site, the on-site cooperage and a collection of Australian woods which was considered valuable at the time. Parts of the building were able to be saved from the fire and nearby buildings including the ‘presshouse’ and some stables avoided damage.75 The identification of these buildings will be discussed in section 3.3.

Sometime around the late 19th or early 20th century, large scale wine making on the property appears to have wound down. There is some evidence that wine making on the site might have not taken place in the late 1890s, since when the 1899 fire occurred, one report stated that ‘Mrs Barker … has not for some seasons has devoted the results of her vineyards to wine making’.76 The ‘cellarman’ Heinrich Schmitz still was living at Maryland in 1903, but perhaps his duties were already diminished.77 A search of digitised newspapers on Trove has not been able to identify any reference to wines from Maryland after the 1899 fire, and no reference to the vineyard or winemaking facilities was made in Thomas Charles Barker’s will, dated 28 March 1928, or its subsequent codicils.78 The end of winemaking might also have been associated with the pest Phylloxera. This small, almost microscopic insect, devastated the winemaking industry in the counties of Cumberland and Camden during the late 19th century.79

Thomas Charles Barker had married Emily Macarthur Chisholm in November 1887.80 The couple appear to have lived at Maryland until Thomas Charles Barker died in 1940. They had no children. T. C. Barker was active in the local community. He was a member of Nepean Shire Council from its foundation in 1906 until 1913 and then again from 1920 until his death. He was also a warden at St Paul’s Cobbitty Church of England for 50 years from 1890, and a member of the Camden Show Society.81 Emily Barker was active in community life, particularly the local branch of the Red Cross Society.82

72 1891 Census, Summary of Returns for the sub-district of Narellan & Cook in the district of Camden, county of Cumberland, census district no. 35. SRNSW NRS 683; Book: 21; Item: [2/8410]; Roll: 2520 [accessed via ancestry.com]. 73 Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1876, p 14c. 74 Sydney Mail 17 April 1880, p 755b, 27 April 1889, p 854c; Evening News 23 October 1882, p 3b. 75 Nepean Times 20 May 1899, p 1f; Camden News 11 May 1899, p 1d. 76 Camden News 11 May 1899, p 1d. 77 Electoral Roll for the District of Camden (1903) [accessed via ancestry.com]. 78 SRNSW Will Books, roll 4294, will no. 248138. 79 Norrie 1990:46. 80 Tropman & Tropman 2015:28, citing Sydney Morning Herald 12 November 1887. 81 Camden News 13 February 1913, p 6b, 11 January 1940, p 7c, 24 April 1947, pp 1-2; Cumberland Argus 19 May 1906, p 12d; Nepean Times 24 July 1920, p 5g, 11 January 1940, p 1d; The Biz 11 January 1940, p 9c; Tropman & Tropman 2015:29-30. 82 Camden News 27 May 1915, p 8a, 2 October 1919, p 1a, 2 June 1921, p 1b, 11 January 1940, p 7c.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 22

In 1906 Thomas Charles Barker acquired the neighbouring properties of ‘Moorfield’ and lots 1 to 5 of the 1840 subdivision of Nonorrah from T. C. Burnell, and lot 8 of the 1840 subdivision from Charles Smith.83 This can be understood as part of rebuilding Dickson’s original property.

After Thomas Charles Barker’s death, the combined property of Nonorrah, Moorfield and Maryland was sold to Henry John and Olive Annie Andrews in August 1940. They then sold Maryland to Ninian Alan Thomson in September 1940.84 Ninian Thomson was the chairman of directors of Mauri Brothers and Thomson, a diversified company with interests in food flavourings, yeast, equipment and machinery manufacturing and wholesaling.85 According to a 1965 feature article on the house and grounds, the Thomsons were responsible for installing electricity on the site and connecting hot and cold running water.86 N. A. Thomson suffered a stroke in 1942 which forced him to retire from business. He died in March 1952.87

Following Ninian Thomson’s death, various members of his family continued to live on the property. Eventually two of his daughters, Annie and Elizabeth Thomson ended up running the property as a dairy farm. Annie and Elizabeth Thomson were active in various community groups. They helped develop an exhibit at the Sydney Royal Easter Show called the ‘Milky Way’, which explained milk production and processing. They were involved in the Camden Show Society and other agricultural groups. Annie also helped establish the Cobbitty Pony Club in 1960. This group used to meet at Maryland. Elizabeth and Annie Thomson were awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in 2004. Elizabeth died in 2006, Annie in 2009.88

Figure 2.5: 1907 plan showing Maryland, Nonorrah and Moorfield, after their acquisition by T. C. Barker. SRNSW Primary Application Packet, PA 14468.

83 NSW LPI PA 14468; CT Vol 1339 Fol 134. 84 NSW LPI CT Vol 1840 Fol 53, CT Vol 5186-Fol105. 85 http://archivescollection.anu.edu.au/index.php/mauri-brothers-and-thomson-limited. 86 Australian Women’s Weekly 1 December 1965, p 81. 87 Sydney Morning Herald 31 March 1952, p 12b, 2 April 1952, p 8, 17 July 2009. (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/dairys-creme-de-la-creme-on-citys-edge-20090716-dmsc.html) 88 Sydney Morning Herald 17 July 2009; Tropman & Tropman 2015:32-33.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 23

Figure 2.6: Detail of 1929 ‘Liverpool, New South Wales’, topographic map produced by the Australian Section, Imperial General Staff.

Figure 2.7: Detail of 1955 ‘Liverpool, New South Wales’, topographic map, 2nd edition, compiled by Royal Australian Survey Corps. SLNSW Cc 95/6.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 24

2.3.1 Residents of Maryland Like many other large country properties, Maryland was home not only to the property owners but also to a large number of other people. These would have included members of their extended family, domestic staff, specialist staff, and tenant farmers. Although it is necessary to understand the history of property ownership, it is also important to understand something about the lives of the other people who lived and worked on the site, particularly given that their activity would have contributed significantly to the archaeological resource.

It is difficult to arrive at a definitive list of all those who lived at Maryland. After 1828, there are no census or census-like records which name each person at an address. Instead, the people associated with the site have to be identified from sporadic references in various documents, particularly contemporary newspapers but also electoral rolls and postal directories (Table 2.4, Table 2.5, Table 2.6, Table 2.7). Some names also emerge out of the wills of Thomas and Thomas Charles Barker. However, the names discussed here are only some of the many people who would have been associated with the site during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Table 2.4: Adult men living at Maryland, listed in Greville’s 1872 Post Office Directory. Surname Christian Occupation Address Post Town ANOCHAN John coachman Maryland Bringelly BARKER Thomas -- Maryland Bringelly DWYER Thomas labourer Maryland Bringelly GOURD Samuel mason Maryland Bringelly KLUM Francis vine dresser Maryland Bringelly NEIS Peter vine dresser Maryland Bringelly VICARY Robert farmer Maryland Bringelly YOUNG Robert gardener Maryland Bringelly

Table 2.5: Summary of 1891 NSW Census returns for households at Maryland, Bringelly. Name of No. of Householder’s Total number of Total number of Locality Householder Schedule Males Females Maryland John Anschau 127 3 2 Maryland John Fitzgerald 129 3 1 Maryland Katherine Barker 130 3 6

Table 2.6: Signatories of a letter from Maryland in support of the Bringelly postmaster (Nepean Times 19 September 1896, p 3a). H. Schmitz Aug. Letort A. Anschau Mary Letort Eliza J. Ellis John Fitzgerald F. Daniels John Anschau A D Anschau Fred. Anschau Robt. Daniels Fred. Towers Lousia E. Lodge

Table 2.7: Electors resident at Maryland, listed in the electoral roll for Bringelly Polling Place, District of Camden, 1913 (accessed via ancestry.com). No. Surname Christian name Sex Residence Occupation 4 Adams William M Maryland labourer 8 Anschau Albert William M Maryland dairyman 9 Anschau Louisa Emily F Maryland domestic duties 20 Barker Emily Macarthur F Maryland domestic duties 21 Barker Thomas Charles M Maryland grazier 40 Caine William M Maryland labourer 58 Cooper David M Maryland labourer 75 Fitzgerald Johanna F Maryland domestic duties 76 Fitzgerald John M Maryland gardener

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 25

Robert Vicary (c.1822 – 1876) and Sophia Vicary – at Maryland 1850s to 1876 Robert Vicary arrived in Australia in 1851 with his wife Sophia and their infant son Albert as Government-assisted migrants. He had previously been a labourer.89 He appears to have been recruited fairly early by Thomas Barker to develop Maryland into a working farm. This was remembered in an obituary for his son, written many years later, presumably drawing off oral history from the family.90 He also might have worked at Nonorrah before Thomas Barker acquired Maryland, although the basis for this claim is a 1939 article on the local history of the Camden area.91

Robert Vicary appears to have been employed by Thomas Barker by March 1855, since he was named, along with his wife and young sons Albert and Thomas, on a list of donations to a Patriotic Fund, collected by ‘Mr Barker’.92 Presumably Barker solicited donations from his relatives and staff – a practice which is also seen for other people at Maryland and in later collections.

Robert Vicary was definitely living at the site by October 1857, when he gives his address as ‘Maryland Farm, New Camden’ in an advertisement regarding a horse which had been left with him a year previously.93 Robert Vicary appears to have managed the portion of Maryland which was a pastoral farm. Initially, this appears to have included sheep and pigs, since Robert Vicary of Bringelly advertised both for sale. , He later, however, appears to have focused on dairy cattle, which he appears to have personally owned. Robert Vicary’s family presumably were the lessees of the ‘farm house and dairy farm’ which were mentioned in the 1876 advertisement of the property. Following his death in 1876, his estate was auctioned off at Maryland, including ‘the whole of the dairy cattle, horses, and other livestock with farming implements, &c.’94

Robert and Sophia Vicary had a total of 10 children, all of whom would have lived on Maryland at some time: Albert E. (c.1851-1932), Thomas A. (c.1852-1939), Ann S. (1855-1857), Mary J. (b.1858), James R. (1860-1948), John W. (1862-1946), Susanna (b.1864), Frank (1866-1948), Kate (b.1868) and Edith M. (b.1874).95

Annie Harford (c.1821-1908) – at Maryland c.1860 to 1908 Annie Harford was a relative of Thomas Barker who lived with the family from at least 1868 until her death in 1908. She had arrived in Sydney on the Vimeria in 1860. By 1868, she was closely associated with the Barkers, as her name appeared on a list of money collected by Thomas Barker for the Prince Alfred Hospital. Thomas Barker left £200 to ‘Annie Harford who now resides with us’ in his 1874 will.96

Like T. C. Barker, she was very active in the local Church of England, St Paul’s Cobbitty. She died aged 87.97

89 SRNSW Persons on bounty ships (Agent's Immigrant Lists); Series: 5316; Reel: 2136; Item: [4/4790], ‘List of Immigrants per Ship Sarah’ (accessed via ancestry.com). 90 Camden News 29 December 1932, p 5b. 91 Camden News 16 March 1939, p 7c. 92 Empire 15 March 1855, p 2g. 93 Empire 15 October 1857, p 1c. 94 Sydney Morning Herald 26 March 1868, p 6e, 27 January 1871, p 11d, 11 May 1876, p 1a, 25 November 1876, p 14c, 19 April 1880, p 8f. 95 BDM Reg. No. 2517/1857, 5948/1858, 5976/1860, 6556/1862, 7299/1864, 7240/1866, 7793/1868, 9007/1874, 8799/1939, 28334/1946, 14484/1948, 24713/1948; Camden News 29 December 1932, p 5b, 7 April 1939, p 7c; Picton Post 4 January 1933, p 5c. Headstone in Cobbitty Cemetery for Ann Sophia Vicary at http://mv.ancestry.com.au/viewer/cfbd25c5-e33d-4168-8ae6-c02dec6a68fc/17606699/19424187206 96 SRNSW Probate for Thomas Barker, Series 2, no. 1309. 97 SRNSW Inward passenger lists. Series 13278, Reels 399-560, 2001-2122, 2751 (accessed via ancestry.com); BDM Reg. No. 8959/1908; Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c; Camden News 30 July 1908, p 1d.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 26

John Anschau (c.1834-1908) and Anna D Anschau (c.1832-1922) – at Maryland 1868 to 1895 The Anschau family were long-standing residents at Maryland over two generations from 1868 through to the late 1930s. John and Anna D Anschau had married in 1854 at Mulgoa. They were both German migrants; John had arrived in 1849 on the Beulah, and Anna arrived around 1850. John initially worked for one of the Cox family, who were based at Mulgoa. After their marriage, John and Anna initially lived at Werombi, but later came to Bringelly where John worked for Thomas Barker and later Katherine and T. C. Barker, from 1868 to 1895.98

John Anschau may have initially been recruited to work in the vineyards at Maryland. The Anschau family were one of 104 German families who were recruited as skilled wine growers and makers in the late 1840s. These were arrived as Government-assisted immigrants and were initially employed by a number of men who were generally prominent in business and agriculture in NSW, including George and Edward Cox.99 The immigration records of the time record that ‘Johann Anschau’ was a ‘Wine Dresser’, as were his older brothers Philip and Franz. Their father Franz Johann was a ‘wine cooper’.100 A ‘Franz Anschau’ later developed a vineyard on The Northern Road, Luddenham which operated from the 1870s until after sometime 1908.101 This probably was John’s brother, but possibly his father was also involved.

By 1872, however, John Anschau was employed as a ‘coachman’ on the property, with other Germans employed as ‘vine dressers’ (Table 2.4). John remained a coachman until his retirement in 1895.102

John Anschau was survived by four sons (Frank, John, Fred and Albert) and three daughters (Elizabeth McAuley, Annie Towers and Mrs Webber).103 Annie Towers was married to Fredrick Towers, who was a signatory to an 1896 open letter in support of the Bringelly postmaster (Table 2.6). Whether this means that the couple were living at Maryland at the time is unclear.

Albert Anschau (c.1874-1950) and Louisa Anschau – at Maryland 1874 to c.1940 John and Anna Anschau continued to live at Maryland until 1895 when John retired in the place of his youngest son Albert.104 Albert Anschau married Louisa Lodge in 1902.105 Together they lived at Maryland into the 1930s and possibly up to T. C. Barker’s death in 1940.106 They had at least two children: Mervyn (b. 1902) and Lynda (b. 1904),107 but they possibly also had others who were born after the open birth records search cut-off year of 1916.

They appear to have been employed in the management of the property, but unlike John, were not involved with the vineyard. In the 1903 electoral role, Albert’s occupation is given as a ‘coachman’. In 1913, he was a ‘dairyman’, a profession he persisted in up to the 1930s (Table 2.7).108 During the

98 Camden News 8 October 1908, p 3c; Nepean Times 4 February 1922, p 6c; sworn affidavit by John Anschau relating to property boundaries made in 1907 and contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA 14468. 99 Nadel 1953-54; HRA Ser 1, vol. 26, p 10. 100 SRNSW Assisted Immigrants per Ship ‘Beulah’, Reel 2459, [4/4709]; Fiche 851 [accessed via ancestry.com]. 101 Godden Mackay 1997:5.7; Australian Museum Consulting 2014:24; Nepean Times 15 July 1954, p 6f. 102 Camden News 8 October 1908, p 3c. 103 Camden News 8 October 1908, p 3c; see BDM Reg No. 1651/1879 and 2235/1887 to identify Mrs McAuley and Mrs Towers respectively. 104 Camden News 8 October 1908, p 3c; sworn affidavit by John Anschau relating to property boundaries made in 1907 and contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA 14468. 105 BDM Reg. No. 780/1902. 106 cf ‘Mrs Anschau, Marylands’ won 2nd prize for her rainbow cake at the Camden Show in 1933 - Picton Post 5 April 1933, p 4c. 107 BDM Reg. No. 30529/1902, 31084/1904. 108 Electoral Rolls for the District of Camden (1903), District of Camden, Polling-place of Bringelly (1913), Division of Werriwa, subdivision of Ingleburn (1937) [accessed via ancestry.com].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 27

1930s, Albert invested in a dairy of his own at Asquith, funded by a mortgage from Thomas C. Barker and managed by Mervyn Anschau, Albert’s son.109 T. C. Barker also owned dairy cows on this property,110 which provides some indication of how closely the interests of the two families were interlinked. After Maryland was sold, Albert Anschau lived at Baulkham Hills, which would have been closer to his son’s farm at Asquith.111 He died there in November 1950.112

Francis Klum (c.1823-1885) and Wilhelmina Klum (c.1824-1876) – at Maryland 1870s Francis (or Franz) Klum and his wife Wilhelmina were German migrants who arrived on the Parland in 1849, as part of the same scheme as the Anschau family.113 Francis Klum was a German winemaker, and worked on the vineyards at Maryland. It not clear when he began working there, but he did donate 10 shillings to the Prince Alfred Hospital in 1868, through Thomas Barker’s collection.114 Francis and Wilhelmina do not appear to have had any children. Wilhelmina died in the district of Camden in 1876, Francis died in the district of Penrith in 1885.115

Samuel Goard (c.1831-1910) and Annie Goard (c.1840-1921) – at Maryland 1850s to 1870s Samuel Goard (also spelt ‘Gourd’) was a Government-assisted migrant, who arrived from Cornwall in September 1854. He was a stonemason by trade.116 He was associated with Thomas Barker as early as 1855, when his name appeared on a list of donations to a Patriotic Fund, collected by ‘Mr Barker’.117 He married Annie Roberts, of Denbeigh in 1857.118 Together they had ten children: William (1858-1936), Charles (1860-1929), Mary (b.1862), George (1864-1934), Thomas (1866- 1938), Annie (b.1869), Samuel (1872-1948), Grace (Hahn) (1875-1959), Florence (Murphy) (b.1877) and Ethel (Taylor) (1879-1970).119 The last three of these children were born after they had moved to St Leonards, which appears to have taken place between 1872 and 1875. By 1879, Samuel Gord (sic) was living on Jeffrey Street, St Leonards (now Kirribilli).120 Samuel Goard died in November 1910, Annie Goard died in March 1921.121

Samuel Goard appears to have worked his entire time at Maryland as a mason, since his profession is given as a mason in Greville’s 1872 Post Office Directory (Table 2.4). This small observation may account for the predominance of stone structures over brick structures at Maryland.

Peter Nies (c.1822-1910) and Elizabeth Nies (c.1838-1901) – at Maryland 1860s to 1880s Peter Nies (also spelt ‘Neis’) was a German vine dresser who arrived in NSW on the Singapore in December 1854. An obituary provided by his eldest son described his life as: He was born on the banks of the Rhine, in Germany, and came to Australia in the fifties, attracted by the gold rush. Soon he settled down on the Nepean, and he laid out a number of the best vineyards there, but for years he had lived in Sydney.122

109 Electoral Roll for the Division of Parramatta, subdivision of Hornsby (1937) [accessed via ancestry.com]. 110 SRNSW Probate for Thomas Charles Barker, Series 4, no. 248138, schedule no. 3 and associated letter from ‘James Mullane, valuator’, dated 12 March 1940. 111 Electoral Roll for the Division of Parramatta, subdivision of Castle Hill (1943) [accessed via ancestry.com]. 112 Sydney Morning Herald 13 November 1950, p 16a. 113 SRNSW Assisted Immigrants per Ship ‘Parland’, Reel 2459, [4/4912]; Fiche 851 [accessed via ancestry.com]. 114 Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c. 115 BDM Reg. No. 5427/1876, 12676/1885. 116 SRNSW Assisted Immigrants per Ship ‘Lady Ann, Reel 2466, [4/4941] [accessed via ancestry.com]. 117 Empire 15 March 1855, p 2g. 118 Sydney Morning Herald 25 February 1907, p 6a. 119 BDM Reg. No. 5903/1858, 5971/1860, 6494/1862, 7276/1864, 7325/1866, 9240/1869, 8223/1872, 5919/1875, 6581/1877, 7817/1879, 8022/1900, 136/1905, 8584/1909, 18802/1929, 2186/1934, 19193/1936, 24025/1938, 12039/1948, 23582/1959, 11773/1970. 120 Sands Directory Alphabetical Directory, 1879. 121 Sydney Morning Herald 14 November 1911, p 8a, 26 March 1921, p 10a. 122 Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate 16 March 1910, p 2b.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 28

He married Elizabeth Anschau, the younger sister of John Anschau, at Mulgoa in 1855.123 They had six children together: Peter (b.1858), Theodore (b.1859), Ahelouia (Apollonia?) (b.1861), Phillip (b.1864), Elizabeth (b.1871) and Anna (b.1873).124

It is not clear when Peter and Elizabeth moved to Maryland but it probably was between 1861 and 1864. When Peter was naturalised in 1858, he was still living at Mulgoa.125 Between the birth of Peter and Elizabeth’s third and fourth children (1861 and 1864), the location where their birth was registered changed from Penrith to Camden. This would be consistent with moving between Mulgoa and Maryland, Bringelly. By 1868, ‘Peter Neis’ was included in a list of donations for the Prince Alfred Hospital collected by Thomas Barker, which shows that Peter was already in contact with Thomas Barker by that time.126 It seems highly likely that Peter Nies and Francis Klum were the first German winemakers to work at Maryland, although they may have been assisted by others including ‘Ludovic Yang’ and ‘Adam Kroseberger’ who also were included in the list of donations received by Thomas Barker in 1868.127

Sometime between 1872 and 1886 Peter Nies left Maryland. It might have been in 1880 or in 1885, both times when the position of vigneron at Maryland was advertised.128 In 1886 Peter Nies received a colonial wine licence, that is, a licence to sell locally produced wine. At the time he gave his address as the Luddenham Post Office.129 Elizabeth Nies died in 1901.130 Peter Nies died at Badgerys Creek in March 1910.131

Robert Young (1831?-1916?) and Frances Young (?-1879) – at Maryland 1860s? to 1880s? Robert Young was a gardener at Maryland during the 1870s. He worked on the property from at least 1872 (Table 2.4) to after his wife’s death in 1879.132 It is relatively difficult to trace information regarding Robert and Frances Young, given that Young was a relatively common last name. However, it is known that they had seven children: George Edward, Alfred A (b.1856), Robert M (b.1858), Emily F (b.1861), Edwin P (b.1862), Albert A (b.1864), Louisa E (b.1867) and James W (b.1868).133 After 1862, the births of these children were registered at Camden, which may mean that the Young family were living at Maryland by that time.

At the time of Frances’ death in 1879, Robert and Frances were living in the ‘Lodge, Maryland’.134 George and Alfred Young had both been married by that then. In later life, Alfred and his wife Elizabeth moved to Marrickville to a house named ‘Yarra Glen’. Robert appears to have lived with them, where he then died in 1916, aged 85.135

123 BDM Reg. No. 709/1855 V1855709 101 . 124 BDM Reg. No. 11005/1858, 11544/1859, 11759/1861, 7282/1864, 8565/1871, 8817/1873. 125 SRNSW Certificates of Naturalization, 1849-1874 NRS 1039; Roll: 2690 [accessed via ancestry.com]. 126 Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c. 127 Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c. 128 Australian Town and Country Journal 4 December 1880, p 6b, 19 September 1885, p 43a. 129 Nepean Times 26 June 1886, p 4b, 17 July 1886, p 2d; for colonial wine licenses see the note here: http://search.records.nsw.gov.au/agencies/3833 [accessed 29/04/2016]. 130 BDM Reg. No. 10870/1901. 131 Sydney Morning Herald 16 March 1910, p 8a; Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate 16 March 1910, p 2b. 132 Sydney Morning Herald 17 May 1879, p 16a; BDM Reg. No. 4831/1879 – this was the only death of a woman named ‘Young’ registered in Camden that year. 133 BDM Reg. No. 790/1856 V1856790 161, 1724/1858, 8364/1861, 6592/1862, 7302/1864, 7948/1867, 7896/1868; George Young’s birth registration could not be found but he appears to be the eldest son, born before 1856 – see Camden News 31 May 1900, p 4a and Sydney Morning Herald 16 March 1878, p 1a. 134 Sydney Morning Herald 17 May 1879, p 16a. 135 Sydney Morning Herald 5 January 1911, p 6a, 18 September 1933, p 8b; Electoral Roll for the Division of Marrickville, Marrickville Polling-place (1913) [accessed via ancestry.com].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 29

John Fitzgerald (c.1831-1925) and Johanna Fitzgerald (c.1837-1921) – at Maryland 1860s to 1910s John Fitzgerald was a gardener at Maryland, probably from the 1860s up to the late 1910s. He married Johanna Wallace in 1859 at Campbelltown.136 Together John and Johanna appear to have had seven children: Joseph (1862-1897), Mary (1863-1889), Honora (b.1866), John (1870-1870?), Katherine (b.1871), Bridget (1874-1876?) and James (1876-1931).137

When the Fitzgerald family moved to Maryland is a little unclear. John Fitzgerald’s name features on an 1868 list of donations for the Prince Alfred Hospital collected by Thomas Barker.138 This suggests that John Fitzgerald may have already been working for Thomas Barker by this time. By 1878, John Fitzgerald was part of a Public School Board for Bringelly.139 John Fitzgerald was one of three heads of households at Maryland in the 1891 NSW Census (Table 2.5), and his name also appeared on a letter in support of the Bringelly Postmaster (Table 2.6). When his son Joseph died in 1897, he was spoken of as being ‘well-known and highly respected throughout the Camden district’.140 In the 1903 electoral roll, John Fitzgerald was listed as a gardener living at Bringelly.141

John and Johanna continued to live at Maryland into the 1910s, with both living there at the time when the 1913 electoral roll was compiled (Table 2.7). Johanna Fitzgerald died at Parramatta in September 1921, John Fitzgerald died at his daughter’s home in North Parramatta in November 1925.142

Charles Henry Thorn (c.1876-1928) and Jean Thorn – at Maryland 1910s to 1920s Charles and Jean Thorn were employees who worked at Maryland during the 1910s and 1920s. In the 1913 electoral roll, both were listed as residents of Bringelly, which may mean that they were not living in a house at Maryland at the time.143 However, by 1914 Jean Thorn was advertising for a cook on behalf of Mrs Barker, which suggests that she was already working there at the time.144

Charles Thorn was sufficiently well-regarded by Thomas Charles Barker to be named in his will as the beneficiary of £100, if he was still working at Maryland at the time of Barker’s death. However, Thorn predeceased Barker. His short obituary presents a clear impression of his life and cause of death: CHARLES HENRY THORN. The residents of Bringelly were shocked last week when it became known that Mr. C. H. Thorn had died suddenly at Marylands on Wednesday evening, October 31, whilst in the act of retiring for the night. Mr. Thorn had not been complaining of any illness of late, and on the Tuesday previous was in Camden, where he met friends and never made mention of any ailment and appeared to be in good health. His wife had already retired and he had just blown out the light and instantly fell down on the floor. The Doctor was at once sent for but was too late, and pronounced the cause of death as sudden heart failure. The deceased gentleman was well known in this district, having lived here practically all his life, 22 years of which he resided at Bringelly, and was greatly respected. He was in the employ of Mr. T. C. Barker, who at present is in England. He was 52 years of age and the eldest son of the late Mr. C. C. Thorn, of Werombi, and Mrs. Thorn, of Camden. Deceased leaves a widow (formerly Miss Jean Cuthel, of Werombi) but no family, also five sisters and three brothers. The

136 BDM Reg. No. 1676/1859. 137 BDM Reg. No. 6487/1862, 6746/1863, 13535/1866, 15674/1870, 5468/1870, 16099/1871, 9062/1874, 9474/1876, 5470/1876, 8856/1889, 6022/1897, 5836/1931. 138 Sydney Morning Herald 6 May 1868, p 6c. 139 Sydney Morning Herald 22 May 1878, p 3g. 140 Camden News 22 July 1897, p 4b. 141 Electoral Roll for the Division of Camden (1903) [accessed via ancestry.com]. 142 Cumberland Argus 14 September 1921, p 5d; Sydney Morning Herald 26 November 1925, p 8a. 143 Electoral roll for District of Camden, Bringelly Polling Place (1913) [accessed via ancestry.com]. 144 Camden News 8 January 1914, p 6c.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 30

funeral took place at Cobbitty on Friday afternoon last, and was largely attended, the Rev A. F. Pain conducting the service.145

145 Camden News 8 November 1828, p 1d.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 31

3.0 Archaeological Potential 3.1 Introduction Archaeological Potential is the degree to which archaeological remains are considered likely to survive within a study area. It is distinct to the archaeological heritage significance of the site, even though the two are related. The archaeological potential of an area depends on the historical uses of the site (Section 2.0), its broader historical and archaeological context and other factors including previous impacts. This section will present additional material relating to the archaeological remains on the study area, before assessing the archaeological potential of the study area. Section 4.0 will assess the Heritage Significance of the identified potential remains. Section 5.0 will make recommendations for the management of the site in light of its archaeological potential and Heritage Significance.

Two factors determine archaeological potential: initial processes on a site, and later activity. The initial processes which occurred on a site will determine the likelihood that this process is preserved in the archaeological record. Some human activities leave a durable material record, other activities leave very few remains. The general experience of archaeologists working on historic sites in New South Wales over the past 40 plus years has found that domestic sites can commonly contain the following archaeological remains: . Structural remains associated with buildings shown on a historic plan are likely to survive but will be impacted by later phases of building. These remains include: • building footings • underfloor deposits associated with the occupation of a house • other types of deposits . Certain types of remains are typically not shown on historic plans, although they occasionally feature on later plans. These include:  wells  underground water storage systems, including cisterns and reservoirs  cesspits  site drainage  rubbish pits  evidence for gardens, layout and use of the yard areas  fencelines, assisting with clarification of lot boundaries and internal use of lots  pollen and soil evidence  land clearing and modification of the landform, including major filling events, i.e., backfilling of ponds or creek lines  rubbish dumps  other types of archaeological deposits . The kinds of undocumented features found on a site will depend upon the sites uses. Industrial, domestic and institutional sites are all examples of site categories which have quite different sets of expected remains.

There are also several other common processes which determine the archaeological resource: . Disused underground features such as wells, cisterns, reservoirs and cesspits tend to be backfilled with rubbish when they cease being used. . Underfloor deposits typically form where the original flooring was butt-boarded timber floorboards.  These can survive in both demolished and standing structures, although the installation of later services and the replacement of flooring can impact on the integrity of underfloor deposits.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 32

 Underfloor deposits can include both small items which fell between floorboards, and also material which must have been deliberately deposited beneath loose floorboards.  Floor coverings such as oil-cloths and carpets can minimise the accumulation of items underneath a butt-boarded timber floor. Floor coverings like these would be more common in wealthier households.  Subsequent replacement with tongue and groove floorboards or even capping the underfloor void with imported material (a strategy popular for dealing with rats),146 often will only have a limited impact on any archaeological deposit.  Rooms where the floors are used heavily, washed often and not covered by oil cloth or carpet provide the best circumstances for the formation of underfloor deposits. In a domestic context, these rooms most commonly are kitchens.147 . Later building phases will impact on the remains of early phases. . The greater the number of phases on a site, the more complicated the nature of the archaeological remains is expected to be.

Later activity affects the archaeological potential of a site. Some activities will help preserve archaeological remains, while other activities will cause adverse impacts. The following general principles have been observed on historical archaeological sites in the greater Sydney area: . The later the date a building was demolished, then the greater the impact on the archaeological resource from larger modern machinery. . Footing systems of single-storey buildings have less impact on the archaeology of earlier phases than those of multi-storey buildings. . Demolishers and builders typically do as little as they have to, because of the need to control costs. . Higher areas get cut down and levelled, while lower, damp areas get filled.

3.2 Site description The following site description is limited to a broad overview of the study area with detailed comments on those features considered relevant to its archaeological potential. It is based on a site visit by Tony Lowe & Nick Pitt on 20 April 2016, and detail survey of the property undertaken by Craig & Rhodes, surveyors, in October 2015 for Maryland Development Partnership. This site description is focused on aspects of the site relevant to the archaeological potential of the site. Further information regarding the heritage buildings and landscape of the site will be contained in the Conservation Management Plan presently under preparation by Tropman & Tropman Architects.

Where possible, this report has used the same feature names as have been used by Tropman & Tropman. It also cites item numbers from the Tropman & Tropman CMP where possible, using the format ‘T&T item’. Where other items with archaeological potential have been identified, they have been given supplementary archaeological item numbers in the format ‘Item A1’. The site visit, together with the analysis of historic site development (Section 3.3), identified a total of 25 potential archaeological items, which are listed in Table 3.3.

3.2.1 General landscape Maryland is situated on the west side of The Northern Road, approximately 2.7km south of the township of Bringelly. The broad outline of the property is formed by Lowes Creek on the north, three smaller properties in the northeast (895, 905 and 925 The Northern Road, Lots 21-23 DP 836540), The Northern Road on the east, a private road on the south and the property known as

146 This practice was observed at workers’ housing excavated as part of the Darling Quarter redevelopment (Casey & Lowe 2013:412-413). 147 Casey 2004:34.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 33

765 The Northern Road (Lot 280, DP 1043744) on the west. Apart from the three smaller properties in the northeast corner, and some minor changes to the alignment of The Northern Road, this is approximately the same area as purchased by Thomas Barker in 1854 (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1: Combined detail sheets covering Maryland (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 1 is Figure 3.18, detail plan 2 is Figure 3.43.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 34

Figure 3.2: Aerial photo covering Maryland, dated 5/03/2016. Google Earth with study area added.

Figure 3.3: 1947 aerial covering Maryland, with the three entry drive routes traced and annotated. Study area outlined in blue. NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 35

There are presently five dams on the property. Two of these are very large. One is situated on the east of the property. It is referred to by Tropman & Tropman as ‘Dam 4’ (T&T item 7.10). It was built during the late 1950s to early 1960s.148 The other is situated on the west of the property. Tropman & Tropman refer to it as ‘Dam 5’ (T&T item 7.11). It was built in the late 1960s.149

The two large dams are on the lines of two natural intermittent watercourses, which run north- south through the property and into Lowes Creek. On the eastern watercourse, near the south boundary of the property, the 2015 detail survey showed a small bridge (Item A4) (Figure 3.4). This feature was not inspected during the site visit.

The property is dominated by a north-south ridgeline, roughly located in the centre of the property. This is referred to by Tropman & Tropman as ‘Lot 7 Low Range Knolls’ (T&T item 8.2). Many of the buildings on the site are located on this landscape feature. These will be described in due course. The buildings are accessed by a South Entry drive (T&T item 3.8) (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3) which accesses the property from The Northern Road. There are two other entries to the property – a South Entry drive off the southern boundary (T&T item 3.9) and a North Entry drive from The Northern Road (T&T item 3.7). These have largely fallen into disuse and are most clearly seen in the 1947 aerial (Figure 3.3).

At the far southern end of the ‘Low Range Knolls’ are two steep cliffs shown on the 2015 detail survey (Figure 3.5). Unfortunately these were only noticed after the site visit, and so they were not inspected close up. However, they may be places where quarrying possibly took place (Items A1 and A2) (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.5).

3.2.2 Former Entry Cottage Further to the north along the ridge, there is a small cottage referred to as the ‘Former Entry’ (T&T item 3.4) (Figure 3.6, Figure 3.7). This cottage is presently unoccupied, but based on material left in the house it appears to have been occupied within the last ten years or so. The cottage is orientated facing east, fronting the largely disused South Entry drive off the southern boundary (T&T item 3.9).

The cottage itself is constructed with stone rubble walls, which are rendered and painted. The house chimney was built of brick (Figure 3.8). The house appeared to be relatively early in date for the site, and may date to 1860s or 1870s with later additions and modifications. Modifications visible on the exterior south wall of the house suggest that the rear rooms originally had a skillion roof which had then been modified (Figure 3.9). The verandah had been repaired with concrete and bricks which appeared less than 50 years old (Figure 3.14).

Although the interior of the house was accessible, parts were filled with rubbish and other discarded items which made moving through the entire house difficult. For this reason, the entire house was not inspected. Some rooms of the house had concrete floors, others appeared to have timber floors under carpets or other coverings (Figure 3.13).

The garden surrounding the cottage was overgrown. There were two outbuildings in the garden: a galvanised iron shed and what appeared to be an aviary, which had been built from fibre cement (Figure 3.11, Figure 3.12). There was also a galvanised iron rainwater tank at the rear of house, as well as brick footings which appeared to mark the former location of a tank (Figure 3.10). No evidence of a former brick cistern or any kind of privy (toilet) was seen.

148 Tropman & Tropman 2015:53-54, 56. 149 Tropman & Tropman 2015:56-57.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 36

Figure 3.4: Annotated detail survey sheet of Maryland, showing the bridge on the watercourse that runs into Dam 4. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-15.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 37

Figure 3.5: Annotated detail survey sheet of Maryland, showing features along ‘Low Range Knolls’ near the south property boundary, notably potential quarrying areas. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-16.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 38

Figure 3.6: View of ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4), looking north. Note how it is situated above the disused drive to its east. NP

Figure 3.7: Front verandah of ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4), looking south. TL

Figure 3.8: North-facing side of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4), looking southeast. Note the brick chimney. TL

Figure 3.9: South-facing side of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4), looking north. Note the cracking in the render which suggests that the roof line has changed. NP.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 39

Figure 3.10: Former tank stand near the southwest corner of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4). View looking north. NP

Figure 3.11: Rear view of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4), showing tank and outbuildings. View looking east. NP

Figure 3.12: Shed identified as an aviary at the rear of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage(T&T item 3.4). View looking southeast. TL

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 40

Figure 3.13: Example of interiors in the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4). Southeast corner of southeast (front) room. This room had a timber floor. NP

Figure 3.14: Detail of verandah base on the southeast corner of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage (T&T item 3.4). Note the orange brick on the left, typical of bricks made within the last 50 years. Photo looking north. NP

3.2.3 Other ridgeline residences North of the ‘Former Entry’ cottage, there is a brick-built ‘Modern Cottage’ (T&T item 3.6) (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.17) which historic aerial photos indicate was built between 1965 and 1970.150 It was not inspected during the site visit.

Further again to the north was another cottage known as the ‘Upper Gatehouse’ (T&T item 3.1), which was thought to date to roughly the 1870s, with later additions (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.15, Figure 3.16). The cottage was not inspected closely during the site visit as it was occupied at the time.

West of the ‘Upper Gatehouse’ were three large metal sheds and associated outbuildings. These are poultry sheds (T&T item 5.3). Historic aerial photography suggests that they were constructed between 1965 and 1970.151 They were not inspected during the site visit.

150 Tropman & Tropman 2015:56-57. 151 Tropman & Tropman 2015:56-57.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 41

Figure 3.15: Front view of ‘Upper Gate House’ (T&T item 3.1). View looking west. Taken from Tropman & Tropman 2015.

Figure 3.16: Rear of the ‘Upper Gate House’ (T&T item 3.1). View looking south. NP

3.2.4 Maryland homestead North of the ‘Upper Gatehouse’ was the Maryland Homestead and associated outbuildings (Figure 3.18). The interiors of these buildings were not inspected, as they are presently occupied.

The main homestead (T&T item 2.1) is a large house with a flagged verandah on its northeast and southeast frontages (Figure 3.19). Like many other buildings on the property, the homestead had stone rubble walls which had been rendered, apart from quoins on the corners and door surrounds, which were made from neatly-dressed stone. The interior flooring of the house is believed to be a mix of timber boards and stone flagging. Part of the house has a cellar underneath (Figure 3.20, Figure 3.21). This is accessed via a stone staircase on the southwest side of the homestead (Figure 3.22). The cellar had a stone flagged floor. Most of its ceiling was lath and plaster, apart from under the bathroom which had a concrete floor. The lath plaster ceiling appeared original. One room in the cellar had stone shelving or benches, which could be used to store items such as wine.

Immediately to the northwest of the main homestead was the Kitchen Wing (T&T item 2.2). It was joined to the main homestead by a later addition which appeared to date to the 1940s (Figure 3.23). Again further to the northwest was a small brick building known as the ‘Laundry and Kitchen Store’ (T&T item 2.3) (Figure 3.24). The bricks appeared to be sandstocks. One loose brick on a windowsill was a flat sandstock brick, which may indicate an early date. The Laundry and Kitchen Store also has a small timber addition at its southwest end. This is thought to date from the 1890s, and is known as the ‘Meat House’ (T&T item 2.4) (Figure 3.25).

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 42

Figure 3.17: Annotated detail survey sheet of Maryland, showing features along ‘Low Range Knolls’. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-13. Also see detail survey of homestead and winery features Figure 3.18.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 43

Figure 3.18: Annotated detail survey of Maryland homestead and winery buildings. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-21.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 44

Figure 3.19: Front (northeast) verandah of Maryland Homestead (T&T item 2.1). Photo looking south. TL

Figure 3.20: Cellar under Maryland Homestead (T&T item 2.1), looking south towards entry door. NP

Figure 3.21: Wine cellar room within the cellar under Maryland Homestead (T&T item 2.1). Note the stone benches for storing wine and the lath and plaster ceiling (here in poor condition). NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 45

Figure 3.22: Stairs to cellar under Maryland Figure 3.23: Later addition joining the main Homestead (T&T item 2.1). Photo looking Maryland Homestead (T&T item 2.1) and southeast. NP Kitchen Wing (T&T item 2.2). Photo looking northeast. NP

Figure 3.24: Laundry and Kitchen Store building (T&T item 2.3). Photo looking south. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 46

There are two courtyard areas around the Maryland Homestead. The South Courtyard (T&T item 2.8) is bounded by the Meat House, Laundry & Kitchen Store, the Kitchen Wing and the main Homestead (Figure 3.26). Its present surface is concrete. Under the courtyard surface is a large cylindrical cistern which is built from stone blocks. An old, and probably original, pump is still located in the courtyard. The cistern is accessible via a trapdoor near the pump. When inspected, it appeared to be largely free of debris, and contained some water.

The West Courtyard (T&T item 2.9) is bounded by the Kitchen Wing, the Laundry and Kitchen Store and a timber building known as a ‘Workshop’ (T&T item 2.5) (Figure 3.27). The West Courtyard surface is presently concrete.

The timber ‘Workshop’ (T&T item 2.5) is a two-storey timber building. Parts have been covered over with fibre cement. The ground level is presently used as a workshop, the upper level having rooms which may have been used for servants’ accommodation.

Northwest of the workshop is a building known as the ‘Stone Guesthouse’, although possibly the building served some other function, such as further staff accommodation. The building has two halves: a stone portion, thought to date to the 19th century (T&T item 2.10) and a brick addition, thought to date to the 1970s or 1980s (T&T item 2.11).

Figure 3.25: Meat House addition (T&T item 2.4) to the Laundry and Kitchen Store building. Photo looking northwest. NP

Figure 3.26: South Courtyard (T&T item 2.8) formed by the Meat House, Kitchen Wing and main Homestead. Under the concrete is a large cylindrical cistern, built from stone blocks. Photo looking north. NP.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 47

Figure 3.27: North Courtyard (T&T item 2.9) formed by the Kitchen Wing, Laundry and timber Workshop building. Photo looking southeast. TL.

Figure 3.28: Timber Workshop (T&T item 2.5) building (centre) with Kitchen Wing (left). Photo looking southwest. TL.

Figure 3.29: Stone Guesthouse – older portion (T&T item 2.10). Photo looking southwest. TL.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 48

Figure 3.30: Later addition to the Stone Guesthouse (T&T item 2.11). Photo looking southwest. NP.

3.2.5 Former winery buildings Southwest of the Maryland Homestead and its associated outbuildings were structures associated with the former winery on the site. These were all located on the opposite side of an access driveway, and downslope from the homestead. The higher of the winery buildings was a large building known as the ‘Stone Winery’ (T&T item 4.1) (Figure 3.18). This had stone rubble walls, similar to those seen on other buildings. The Stone Winery was a two-storey building, built into the side of the hill. Its upper storey was accessible from the ground level of the driveway which passed to its northeast (Figure 3.31, Figure 3.32). Its lower storey had an entrance level with the ground near its south corner.

The lower storey of the Stone Winery had a rough concrete floor. It was divided into two equally- sized rooms. Each contained timber racks which may have been associated with holding barrels (Figure 3.33, Figure 3.34). The upper storey had a timber floor, which appeared to be made from tongue and grove floorboards. The lower storey had no ceiling. At the time of the site visit, part of the northwest wall had collapsed but there were plans for its timely repair.

Figure 3.31: Stone Winery (T&T item 4.1), upper level entrance from driveway. Photo looking west. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 49

Figure 3.32: Stone Winery (T&T item 4.1), showing upper level entrance and the partial collapse of its northwest wall. Photo looking south. TL

Figure 3.33: Stone Winery (T&T item 4.1), southwest room, lower storey, showing the timber racks thought to be associated with holding wine barrels. Photo looking north. NP.

Figure 3.34: Stone Winery (T&T item 4.1), northeast room, lower storey, showing timber racks and partial collapse of the northwest wall. Photo looking north. TL

Downhill and to the south of the Stone Winery is a building known as the Stone Winery Stone (T&T item 4.3) (Figure 3.18, Figure 3.35, Figure 3.36). At present this is a long, single-storey building with stone rubble walls. Some features of the building appear out of scale for a single-storey building, in particular its main entry archway. The interior generally has a roughly finished hard floor. There is a raised platform in the north corner of the building (Figure 3.37). The south end of the building is separated from the north end by a lightweight, timber-framed partition (Figure 3.38). The south end also has a higher floor level and no large windows facing the west. The higher floor level appears to be a form of internal terracing, as the exterior ground level rises slightly, moving north to south. The exterior stonework appeared rougher at the south end of the building. The south end of the building was used for meals by the Cobbitty Pony Club during the mid 20th century. The stoves from this use are still located in the building.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 50

On the northeast side of the winery a concrete retaining wall separated the Stone Winery Store from the sloping ground to its northeast (Figure 3.39). Above this retaining wall, near the south end of the Stone Winery Store, was a corrugated iron shed which contained a large, cylindrical stone cistern (Figure 3.18, Figure 3.40) (Item A5). This is thought to be for water storage dating back to the 1870s or earlier (section 3.3.4). It probably supplied clean water for cleaning and other uses in the nearby winery buildings.

In the vicinity of the Stone Winery Store there are also several mid 20th-century buildings which are associated with duck farming. These include a large Poultry Duck Shed (T&T item 5.1) and a smaller Amenity Shed (T&T item 5.2). These buildings were not inspected because they were not thought to be associated with potential archaeological remains.

Figure 3.35: Main entrance to the Stone Winery Store (T&T item 4.3). Photo looking east. NP

Figure 3.36: Southwest side of the Stone Winery Store (T&T item 4.3). Photo looking north. TL

Figure 3.37: Stone Winery Store (T&T item 4.3) interior, north end. Note the raised platform in the corner. Photo looking northwest. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 51

Figure 3.38: Stone Winery Store (T&T item 4.3) interior, north end, looking southeast. Note the raised south end in the background. NP

Figure 3.39: Northeast exterior side of the Stone Winery Store (T&T item 4.3). Note the concrete retaining wall on the left hand side. The shed which contained a large sandstone cistern is in the background, partially obscured by plants. Photo looking southeast. TL

Figure 3.40: Large stone cistern inside shed near Stone Winery Store (Item A5). Photo looking south. NP

3.2.6 Farm buildings About 400m downhill and northeast of the Maryland Homestead are a cluster of farm buildings (Figure 3.43). Two of these buildings had stone rubble walls with neatly dressed stone quoins, similar to other structures on the property. One of these stone buildings was a house known as the Farm Managers Cottage (T&T item 6.2.1) (Figure 3.41, Figure 3.42, Figure 3.43). It was rendered and had a verandah on its east side. In some ways it resembled the ‘Former Entry Cottage’ described earlier (Section 3.2.2). In the paddock immediately to the east of the cottage, an unidentified brick feature was visible (Item A8) (Figure 3.43, Figure 3.44). This may be a former septic tank, some other feature associated with the house, or simply discarded building materials. To the west of the house there is a timber shed. This is thought to be a later addition to the Farm

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 52

Manager’s cottage. The interior of the cottage could not be inspected during the site visit as it was occupied.

The other stone building was a Stone Stables & Coach House (T&T item 6.3) (Figure 3.43, Figure 3.45, Figure 3.46, Figure 3.48, Figure 3.47). Unlike most other stone buildings at Maryland it was not rendered. Part of this building was two-storeyed. However, the ground floor did not have a ceiling, which would prevent any material accumulating between the floors. The stables had a floor made from timber planks laid on the ground. This flooring appeared to be old and possibly original. Other early/original interior fittings of the stables also remained (Figure 3.49).

A number of other sheds occupied the area around the stables. These included an ‘Early and Later Milking Shed’ (T&T item 6.6) (Figure 3.43, Figure 3.50, Figure 3.51), an ‘Early Shed & Feed Stall’ (T&T item 6.7) (Figure 3.52) and an ‘Early Timber Slab Stables’ (T&T item 6.5) (Figure 3.53). Most of these sheds generally had hard floors, which typically were concrete. The ‘Early Timber Slab Stables’ had an earthen floor. These stables also had internal partitions (Figure 3.54).

About 50m south of the Stone Stables were some mid to late 20th-century buildings, mostly used for farming. One was a brick and concrete building known as a ‘Step-up Dairy’, since the cows needed to step onto a platform in order to be milked (T&T item 6.10) (Figure 3.17, Figure 3.55). Another building was a large metal hayshed, which appears to have been built relatively recently for storing feed (Figure 3.17, T&T item 6.11).

Figure 3.41: East verandah, Farm Managers Cottage, Maryland. Photo looking northwest. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 53

Figure 3.42: Detail of east wall of the Farm Managers Cottage, showing the stone rubble wall beneath the rendered surface. Photo looking west. NP.

Figure 3.43: Annotated detail of sheet 9, showing farm buildings. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-09.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 54

Figure 3.44: Photo showing the location of an unidentified feature (Archaeological Item 22) east of the Farm Managers Residence.

Figure 3.45: Stone Stables & Coach House, photo looking northwest. NP

Figure 3.46: Stone Stables & Coach House, photo looking southwest. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 55

Figure 3.47: Stone Stables & Coach House, west wall under repair. Photo looking east. NP

Figure 3.48: Detail showing lock-up coach house. Figure 3.49: Interior of Stone Stables. Photo Photo looking south. NP looking north. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 56

Figure 3.50: Earlier portion of the ‘Early & Later Milking Sheds’. Photo looking north. NP.

Figure 3.51: Later portion of the ‘Early & Later Milking Sheds’. Photo looking southwest. NP

Figure 3.52: ‘Early & Later Feed Stalls’ building, now used to store machinery. Photo looking southwest. NP.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 57

Figure 3.53: ‘Early Timber Slab Stables’ under repair. Photo looking northeast. NP

Figure 3.54: Timber feeding trough and internal partition walls within the ‘Early Timber Slab Stables. NP

Figure 3.55: Milking stalls in the Step-up Dairy at Maryland. Photo looking southwest. NP

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 58

3.2.7 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 3.17, Figure 3.56). 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 3.57). Some machinery, believed to be a chaff cutter, was seen in this upper level during the site visit (Figure 3.59). Attached to the south end was an enclosed room. This contained various benches (Figure 3.58) and an old water pump with the cast iron component labelled “EVAN’S 6 ‘CORNISH’/ STEAM PUMP” (Figure 3.60, Figure 3.61). 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.152

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 3.17). No visible remains associated with this building were noticed during the site visit.

Figure 3.56: Large shed near dam 1. Photo looking east. NP

Figure 3.57: South end of large shed, showing the ‘hayloft’ and the enclosed shed. Photo looking west. NP

152 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 59

Figure 3.58: Enclosed room attached to south end of the large shed near dam 1. Photo looking west. NP

Figure 3.59: Farm machinery seen in the ‘hayloft’ during the site visit. It is thought to be a chaff cutter. Photo looking west.

Figure 3.60: 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 3.61: Detail of the water pump, showing the name on one of the cast iron components.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 60

3.2.8 Former dam During the site visit, the location of a former dam was inspected (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.62, Figure 3.63, Figure 3.64). This area was adjacent to a watercourse which had been steeply cut. This raised the possibility that the ground had 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 1956.153

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 3.62: View of the former dam area examined during the site visit. Photo looking southeast, towards the watercourse and bridge shown in Figure 3.63.

Figure 3.63: Watercourse running through the former dam area and the weather-worn bridge. Photo looking northwest.

Figure 3.64: View of the area of the former dam area examined during the site visit. Photo looking southeast from roughly where Figure 3.63 was taken.

153 Tropman & Tropman 2015:51, 53.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 61

Figure 3.65: 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 62

3.2.9 North Entry Gatehouse Another stone cottage is located on the Maryland property, just off The Northern Road (T&T item 3.6) (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.66). It is situated at the former northern entry to the property. Up to the 1980s, Maryland had both a north and south entry (Figure 3.3).154

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 buildings with stone rubble walls 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 3.67, Figure 3.68).

Figure 3.66: Detail from sheet 8, showing North Entry Gatehouse, north at top. Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779G T01[02]-SHT-09.

154 Tropman & Tropman 2015:60-61.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 63

Figure 3.67: North Entry Gatehouse at Maryland, Bringelly, December 2009. Google Streetview.

Figure 3.68: North Entry Gatehouse at Maryland, Bringelly, March 2013. Google Streetview.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 64

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 1810s-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).155 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.

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 1850s Intensive occupation on Maryland appears to have begun around 1854-1855, after Thomas Barker acquired the property from M. D. Hunter.156 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.157 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.158 In June 1857, the young daughter of Robert and Sophia Vicary died and was buried at St Paul’s Cobbitty.159 The first published reference to ‘Maryland Farm, New

155 Will of Rowland Hassall, Series 1, No. 81, copy contained in SRNSW Primary Application Packet for PA14468. 156 Conveyance from M D Hunter to Thomas Barker, 7 July 1854, cited in PA 14468. 157 Empire 15 March 1855, p 2g. 158 Sydney Morning Herald 25 February 1907, p 6a – notice for their Golden Wedding Anniversary. 159 Headstone in Cobbitty Cemetery for Ann Sophia Vicary at http://mv.ancestry.com.au/viewer/cfbd25c5-e33d-4168- 8ae6-c02dec6a68fc/17606699/19424187206.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 65

Camden’ was in October 1857, when Robert Vicary advertised that he would sell a horse which had been left with him twelve months previously.160 Katherine Barker, Thomas Barker’s second wife, moved into Maryland in 1858, the same year that they were married.161

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.162

One of the two employees of Thomas Barker, Samuel Goard, was a stone mason from Cornwall.163 It would appear logical that he was responsible for the construction of the many stone structures at Maryland. Out of the major 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. 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.

3.3.3 1860s During the 1860s production of wine commenced at Maryland. Barker’s wine was advertised for sale from January 1865.164 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 2.3.1, 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).

3.3.4 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,165 which suggests that most of the stone buildings had been completed by then, unless another stonemason was hired in his place.

160 Empire 13 October 1857, p 1c. 161 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. 162 Tropman & Tropman 2015:23, citing information on back of Record No 34250, Vertical File, Sydney Living Museums, Caroline Simpson Library and Research Collection. 163 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 2.4 above). 164 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. 165 BDM Reg. No. 8223/1872, 5919/1875.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 66

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.166

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 2.5).

Thomas Barker died in 1875, and the property was advertised for sale in 1876.167 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).

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 3.69). The 20 acre vineyard represented about 20% of all wine grapes planted in the Camden, Narellan & Picton Police District in 1876.168 ORCHARD and Picking/ Kitchen 3.13 17 ORANGERY.169 Garden/ Orchard

166 Tropman & Tropman 2015:24, citing Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar, 1870. 167 Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 1876, p 14c. 168 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). 169 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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 67

1875 item name 1875 description 2015 CMP Name 2015 CMP Archaeo- Discussion Item logical number Item Number 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 3.3.5. EXTENSIVE May include other stables, STABLING and which were ’40 yards’ from the Coach-houses winery building which burnt down in 1899 – see Section 3.3.5. 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).170 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 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 3.69: 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.

170 A tank with a 5 m diameter and 8 m depth would hold 157 m3 or 34,550 imperial gallons.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 68

3.3.5 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.171 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 as 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 3.2.5).

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.172

171 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. 172 Norrie 1990:46.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 69

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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 70

3.3.6 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 2.5). The water pump is labelled “EVAN’S 6 ‘CORNISH’/ STEAM PUMP” (Figure 3.60, Figure 3.61). These pumps were manufactured by Joseph Evans & Sons Ltd in Wolverhampton, England from around 1881 up to the 1930s.173 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 £45.174

The 1907 plan also shows a bridge in the southeast portion of the present study area (Figure 2.5). 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 3.4)

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)’.175 The road does appear on a 1929 topographic map of the area (Figure 2.6), but was not included when the same map was revised in 1955 (Figure 2.7).

3.3.7 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.176 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 3.2.8) 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).

173 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. 174 SRNSW Probate for Thomas Charles Barker, Series 4, no. 248138, schedule no. 4. 175 CT Vol 1840 Fol 53, p2. 176 Tropman & Tropman 2015:51-63.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 71

Figure 3.70: 1947 aerial photograph showing most of Maryland. Study area outlined in blue. NSW LPI.

Figure 3.71: 1961 aerial photograph showing Maryland. Study area outlined in blue. NSW LPI.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 72

Figure 3.72: Detail of 1961 aerial, showing the Maryland homestead, winery buildings, and farm buildings. NSW LPI.

Figure 3.73: 2002 aerial view from Google Earth, study area outlined in blue. Imagery dated 21-07-2002.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 73

Figure 3.74: Unidentified feature known as ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 11-03-2007. Google Earth.

Figure 3.75: Unidentified feature known as ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 17-01-2014. Imagery from NSWGlobe, NSW LPI, viewed on Google Earth.

Figure 3.76: Former location of ‘Archaeological item 4’ – aerial photo dated 16-10-2015. Google Earth.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 74

3.4 Summary Phases 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 Phase 4 Barker family Phase 5 Thomson family

3.5 Comparative sites There are several homesteads of a similar type to the Maryland Homestead, 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 c2006–2010.177 . 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.178 Further excavations and site interpretation have since been undertaken by GML Heritage.179 It is listed on the SHR. . 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 protected as part of St Marys Regional Parkland.180 The 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.181 It is listed on the SHR. . 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 and is owned by the State government and is operated by Sydney Living Museums.182

177 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. 178 Bungarribee Homestead Complex - Archaeological Site, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01428; Godden Mackey Logan 2007. 179 GML Heritage n.d. – http://www.gml.com.au/project/bunya-residential-estate-bungarribee/ 180 Casey & Lowe 2005; Australian Heritage Database, Register of the National Estate (RNE) ID # 100576. 181 Casey & Lowe 2014; Sydney Water 2009; Veteran Hall - House Remains, NSW State Heritage Database, SHR Item # 01351. 182 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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 75

. 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.183

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

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.184

3.6 Discussion of archaeological potential 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 to before 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.

Table 3.3 contains a list of the potential archaeological items at Maryland, Bringelly. The location of these items are shown on Figure 3.77, Figure 3.78 and Figure 3.79.

183 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] 184 Connah 1998; Connah 2001; Connah 2007; Connah 2009.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 76

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, The buildings may retain underfloor deposits below the timber floorboards. The cellar appears to Homestead complex 4 1850s+? . remains of former 2.4, retain its original lath and plaster ceiling, which would mean that occupation related underfloor outbuildings and earlier 2.5, deposits above may be retained in this portion of the house. However, some common practices such building arrangements 2.12 as the extensive use of interior carpets and good maintenance of the floorboards may have . remains of former prevented underfloor deposits from forming. landscaping 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 77

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 A cesspit may have been associated with this cottage, with the material disposed of elsewhere on the . ad hoc rubbish pits 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 North Entry . possible underground cistern 3.6 4 1870s? have ever had either. Gatehouse 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 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. 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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 78

Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion 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 . 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 A Cornish stonemason, named Samuel Goard, lived on site at Maryland from the 1850s to the 1870s. . Dropped tools It is thought that he could be gathering stone for the buildings on 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 find that there is no reason to believe that these features are associated with quarrying. A2 4 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. A bridge may have been on this location from before 1907, depending on the interpretation of before . Evidence for previous water A4 Bridge 4 historic plans. This bridge is not on the main access driveway, and so may provide evidence for an 1907? crossings 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 Large Stone Cistern A5 4 1860s? possible backfill cistern mostly appears to be largely free of later backfill, but may contain some accumulated in shed . buried disused pipes and material in its base. The area surrounding the cistern may contain pipes and channels which could

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 79

Item no. Name Phase Date? Potential features Discussion 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

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 80

Figure 3.77: Map showing identified potential historical archaeological items. Background map, combined detail sheets covering Maryland (outlined in blue). Survey by Craig & Rhodes, 23/10/2015, ref 1779.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 81

Figure 3.78: 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 82

Figure 3.79: 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 83

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.185

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.186

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 attributes187

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

185 This distinction has long been recognised by historical archaeologists working in heritage management, but has recently been restated in Practice Note – The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice (Australia ICOMOS 2013:7). 186 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. 187 NSW Heritage Office 1996:26.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 84

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.188 Although ‘research significance’ (criterion e of the Heritage Council criteria) has traditionally been seen as the primary heritage value of archaeological remains,189 if an item is to be considered to be of State significance it should meet more than one criterion.190 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.191

Similar sentiments are also contained in the 2013 Australia ICOMOS Practice Note: The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice.192

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).193

4.3 Previous statements of built heritage significance 4.3.1 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

188 NSW Heritage Act 1977 (current January 2014), section 4A; NSW Heritage Branch 2009:6. 189 Bickford & Sullivan 1982; NSW Heritage Office 1996:26. 190 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. 191 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:9. 192 Australia ICOMOS 2013:3. 193 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:11-13.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 85

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.194

4.3.2 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.195

The Artefact Heritage report also contained the following statement of significance for the North Entry Gatehouse on The Northern Road: 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.196

4.3.3 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.

194 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]. 195 Artefact Heritage 2012:62. 196 Artefact Heritage 2012:63.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 86

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.197

4.4 Discussion of Heritage Significance The assessment of historical archaeological potential above indicates that potential historical archaeological remains date from the mid 19th century onwards (Phases 4 and 5).198 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. . 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). The property 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

197 NSW State Heritage Inventory, database no. 5051539: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5051539 [accessed 12/05/2016]. 198 The potential Aboriginal Heritage and Archaeology of the study area is being assessed separately.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 87 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 4.1.

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 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

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 88

Australian Theme NSW Theme Local Theme Possible associated archaeological evidence 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.

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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 89

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,199 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 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

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

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 90 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. 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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 91

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 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

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 92 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.

4.5 Statement of Heritage Significance 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.

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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 93

5.0 Results and Recommendations 5.1 Results 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 ad hoc rubbish pits. There are also several potential archaeological sites not currently associated with standing buildings.

The potential for the site to contain historical archaeological remains associated with the early land grants on the site (Phase 3), dating to before 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.

5.2 Recommendations As the study area has the potential to retain State significant archaeological remains, the following recommendations are made: . Any proposed impacts 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 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 putting forward methodologies to record and archaeological remains exposed during works. Methodologies might include clarification of strategies to minimisation of impacts, 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. . 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 94

6.0 Policy? The report may need to contain policy recommendations to Tropman & Tropman for inclusion in the CMP.

To be addressed after discussion with Tropman & Tropman.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 95

7.0 Bibliography 7.1 Primary Sources

Newspapers All historic newspapers in this report have been accessed via http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspapers

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).

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. 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. 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].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 96

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

SRNSW 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

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]. 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 3, Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, 1915. Available at https://archive.org/details/historicalrecord00v3aust [accessed 17/02/2014].

Series 1, Volume 26, 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].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 97

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]

7.2 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 98

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]. 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]. 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]. 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 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 99

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]. 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]. 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].

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 100

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]. 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]. 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.] Karskens, G. 2015 ‘Appin Massacre’, Dictionary of Sydney. Available at http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/appin_massacre [accessed 13/04/2016]. Nadel, George 1953-54 ‘Letters from German immigrants in New South Wales’, Royal Australian Historical Society, Journal & Proceedings, 39:253-266. Available at http://www.rahs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/06_Article-3_Letters-from-German- Immigrants-in-New-South-Wales.pdf [accessed 22/04/2016]. 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]. 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.

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 101

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]. 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]. 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]. 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 Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment 102

Appendix 1 – Draft SHR listing from NSW State Heritage Database

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

Casey & Lowe Maryland, Bringelly Historical Archaeological Assessment Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

Maryland (Draft)

Name of item: Maryland (Draft) Other name/s: Nonorrah Type of item: Complex / Group Group/Collection: Farming and Grazing Category: Farm

Property description

Lot/Volume Code Lot/Volume Number Section Number Plan/Folio Code Plan/Folio Number

LOT 1 DP 218779

LOT 29 DP 872135

Refer to Plan No. 1923

Organisation Name Owner Category Date Ownership Updated

Aitken Lawyers Private

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 - 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 outbulidings 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. Date significance updated: 07 Aug 15 Note: There are incomplete details for a number of items listed in NSW. The Heritage Division intends to develop or upgrade statements of significance and other information for these items as resources become available.

1 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

Designer/Maker: unknown Builder/Maker: unknown Construction years: 1820-1859 Physical Landscape / gardens description: The main homestead, outbuildings and remnant landscapes are scattered along the main ridgeline and slopes. The main cultural plantings occur near and around the homestead, loop road and the eastern slopes. The house is sited on a knoll typical of the "summit" model of homestead landscaping, and has extensive views to the north over Lowes Creek catchment.

The estate forms one of the most important clusters of colonial plantings in the municipality and is dominated by massed plantings of emergent Araucarias which form one of the major visual components of this hilltop landscape. Bunya Pines (Araucaria bidwillii) dominate the horizon on approach. These Bunya Pines due to the drier climate and colder winter nights have been co-planted with hardy Monterey Pines ( Pinus radiata), Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Chinese Elms (Ulmus parvifolia) and Pepper trees (Schinus areira). Araucaria pines ranging between 18-22 metres in height have been concentrated over the northern grassy slope, along the upper eastern loop of the driveway and down the old track to the lower gate. In the lower parts of the slope is a scattered plantation of Monterey Pines ( Pinus radiata), Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda), Stone Pines (Pinus pinea) and English Oaks (Quercus robur). Port Jackson Pine (Callitris rhomboidea) is scattered throughout the hilltop area and mainly on the lower eastern slopes and is likely to be a remnant of the original woodland.

A single Morton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla) has been planted on the northern lawn to the house and is a rare planting to the Camden area. A large Carob Bean (Ceratonia siliqua) is growing within its canopy. Rain forest plantings of two large Lacebarks (Brachychiton discolor) 15 and 18 metres in height can be found in the fork near the driveway and Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) planted nearby.

Typical of many larger estate plantings is a wilderness area located close to the homestead which contains a variety of wild hedgerow plants and vines. These create a dense canopy and tangled understorey dominated by species now considered weeds. Wild Olives (Oleo africana) dominate the understorey throughout the eastern slope and continuing down to the lower road. Wild Olives (Oleo africana) interconnect to create a canopy over the driveway giving the appearance of a gothic landscape. Beneath this canopy is a clipped Cape Plumbago (Plumbago auriculata) hedge which competes with weed species and naturalised remnant Century plants (Agave americana) and Kaffer Lilies.

The garden entry to this area is dominated by a single large Loblolly Pine (pinus taeda), Wild Olives (Oleo africana) and clipped hedges of Cape Plumbago (Plumbago auriculata) and Cape Honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis). Other historic species within this wilderness area include the Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia), Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), Pepper Tree (Schinus areira), White Cedar (Melia azedarach), Lemon-scented gums (Eucalyptus citriodora), Funeral Cypress (Cupressus funebris), Cotoneaster (Contoneaster sp.), Chinese Hawthorn (Photinia serratifolia), and Oleander (Nerium oleander). These species are common to many 19th century landscape schemes in the Camden area. Camelot in particular has almost identical major tree species to Maryland.

The eastern driveway is dominated by by the emergent plantings of two Bunya Pines (Araucaria bidwillii) and a large spreading Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus citriodora). The western part of the loop road to the outbuildings and barn continues through the Wild Olive grove and a remnant of the Cumberland Plain woodland. An enormous Eucalypt, possibly a Mana Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) is located on the steep embankment adjacent to the road. On top of the hill beside the outbuildings, Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) remnants of the original woodland compete with a dense understorey of exotics dominated by Wild Olives. A Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) is the dominant ornamental tree in this area and a large leafed Mulberry (Morus alba) is also growing in this area.

Throughout the ridge area to the south of the homestead associated with outbuildings are further cultural plantings forming important clusters of vegetation. Another Morton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla) is located in a paddock adjacent to the entry roadway in association with other remnants of cultural plantings. The Lower Road, located above the dam and adjacent to a derelict farm building, contains a significant grove of cultural plantings which includes Hoop Pines (Araucaria cunninghamii), a Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata), Pepper Trees (Schinus areira) and Chinese Elms (Ulmus parvifolia) (Camden Significant Tree and Vegetated Landscape Study. 1993. pp131-132)

Immediate Garden

There is a large rambling garden of oaks, olives, auracarias, plumbago hedges, geraniums,

2 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

and oxalis planted by Thomas Barker Snr. There is also further landscaping on an extensive scale executed by Thomas Barker Jnr.

House

The house has been extant on site since c. 1820. The present building was completed by 1859. The colonial estate consists of a large single-storey brick and stone-rubble homestead with cellars, built with two fronts. It includes associated outbuildings.

Exterior

The exterior is plastered in imitation of ashlar and sandstone quoins (painted). There are flagged verandahs with turned timber posts to north and east fronts, separate galvanised iron roofs to the house and verandahs, and sandstone Gothic chimney shafts. The shuttered French doors to the east-facing reception rooms have single panes of glass above and panels below. There are also margin bars glazed to the floor in the bedrooms on the north or entrance faade.

Interiors

There ias a large vestibule with a flagged floor of exceptional quality and a flagged central corridor with skylights. The joinery has been painted throughout. Other detilas include four panel doors, black/grey marble and painted timber with paterae in bedrooms.

Outbuildings

Kitchen and offices are traditionally believed to predate the house. There are a stone rubble winery, a fine stone stable with loft, a stone barn (re-roofed) and a stone and brick manager's cottage

Gate Lodges:

There are two Gothic sandstone gate lodges on the Northern Road (one altered c.1960). Physical condition The estate is prominent in the local area, has a number of significant outbuildings and and/or although overgrown, the garden remains in recoverable form (ibid, 2000, 57). Archaeological potential:

The general layout is well maintained but some overgrown areas need attention. Some thinning and replanting is necessary. The archaeological potential is high regarding remnants of the previous house on the site, thought to be dated c.1820. Date condition updated:29 Jul 03 Modifications and During 1859 , major developments were undertaken when Thomas Barker converted 280 dates: hectares of the original 1,200 hectares to grazing and agricultural land. Between 1920 and 1940, Thomas Barker Jnr undertook major works to extend the original gardens and made 10 hectares of the original grant into a grass-like park land.

One of the two Gothic sandstone lodges was altered c.1960

It is uncertain when the present house at Maryland was built. The farm would have supported some form of dwelling from at least the 1820s, possibly similar to its neighbour Denbigh, which was built of framed construction with brick nogged and weatherboard. The only record of building activity on the property so far found is contained in a letter to Thomas Barker from his agent/manager, Clements Lestir, c. 1849. Listir’s letter indicated a small verandahed house, with a detached kitchen and small shed, and noted that it was being rented out. The letter also mentioned costs for repairs, including an order for 3000 bricks. It is unclear whether this letter implies that the original house Nonorrah was of full brick construction or whether the bricks were to be used only for paving or chimneys. If this little house mentioned here was on the hill-top, it must have been demolished and replaced by the present house. Some of the rear sections of the present house are believed to be part of an earlier dwelling. Further The architectural quality of the house and outbuildings in association with the quality of the information: surrounding countryside/landscape justifies the inclusion of a large curtilage with this classification.

Current use: Working farm Former use: Working farm.

3 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

Historical notes: Maryland is situated west of the Northern Road on land granted to John Dickson, a prominent Sydney engineer, manufacturer,flour miller and grazier (Wrigley, 2006) in 1815. John Dickson named this 1,200 hectare grant, "Nonorrah". It is thought that Dickson built a hill-top house on the property by the 1820s that was later demolished to make way for the present residence.

Dickson in England had been very interested in the use of steam in industry and when he migrated he decided to bring one of the new steam engines to New South Wales in the hope of making a fortune with it. He arrived on the Earl Spencer in Sydney in 1813. Another ship brought him a complete saw milling plant. On arrival he received his grant on which to erect his mills and steam engine. His grant of nearly 16 acres included nearly all the land bounded by Hay, George and Goulburn Streets to Sussex Street in Sydney (ibid, 2006).

Thomas Barker (then aged 16 (ibid, 2006)) was apprenticed to John Dickson and in 1823 married Dickson's niece, Joanna, daughter of James and Helen Dickson of Bringelly. The newlyweds were given Dickson's Sydney property (ibid, 2006).

Both John Dickson and Thomas Barker established profitable milling businesses but in 1833 Dickson sold his business and returned to England, instructing his agent Matthew Dysart Hunter to sell his holdings in 1838. These were Nonorrah, Netherbyres, Orielton, Moorefield and Eastwood.

Thomas Barker built Roslyn Hall at Woolloomooloo Hill (now Kings Cross) in 1833 and had a keen interest in gardening. A list of plants despatched to Barker from the Botanic Gardens in 1832 indicates a more than usual interest in ornamental plants including 50 vine cuttings and he was trustee of (Sydney's first) nurseryman Thomas Shepherd's will (ibid, 2000, 56). He was one of the richest flour millers in Sydney, with a splendid house in Sussex Street next to his mils and later (in 1835) a place called 'Roslyn Hall' in Darlinghurst "more like a palace than a private home", near the present Roslyn Avenue (now Roslyn Gardens)(Fox, 1978, 47).

Just when Barker came to control Nonorrah is unclear. There is an unsubstantiated story that Nonorrah was a wedding gift to Thomas and Joanna. However recent research indicates that Thomas Barker purchased the homestead part of the Nonorrah estates in 1854 (Don Gapes, Land Titles Office, June 1999)(ibid, 2000, 56).

Either way, Thomas Barker was certainly managing both Nonorrah and Orielton in 1834 and his name is marked on an old parish map on both the Netherbyres grant (App 1833) and Oran Park (App 1834).

Joanna Barker died in 1851(1853, and childless and some years later (Wrigley, 2006)) Thomas married Katherine Heath Grey in 1857 (and they came to live at Nonorrah / 'Maryland' (ibid, 2006)). By 1870 Thomas Barker was known as "one of the chief patrons of gardening". After the 1859 sale of his Sydney property Roslyn Hall he shifted his gardening efforts to Nonorrah, which he renamed "Maryland". Authors of an article in the Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners' and Amateurs' Calendar, describe Maryland as covering an area of seven hundred acres of "ine grazing and agricultural land" (Britton & Morris, 2000).

The major development of the estate was undertaken after Barker took up residence there. There were entrance lodges to the property, both on the Bringelly and the Cobbitty sides of the estate. The main house stood on a hill, "for it is entirely on its slopes that the garden and vineyards are situated - is surrounded by a strong fence, having two sets of gates" (Horticultural Magazine & Gardeners & Amateur's Calendar, 1870).

The prospect was admired for its pool of water, its "peacefully browsing" cattle and its enclosures planted with pines. Gardens and 8.5 hectares of vineyards are situated on (about three parts /21 acres of) the slopes surrounding the house. The orchards and kitchen gardens are both on the eastern slope and there are also plantations of ornamental trees. Katherine Barker was responsible for many of the decorative gardens that were located close to the house, including margins of the whole of the carriage drive and other walkways between the vineyards and pleasure grounds. This was described in 1870 (ibid, 1870) as:

..." a neat border under the verandah, plentifully planted with choice dwarf plants of all kinds. On a wall on the northern side of the house, Bougainvillea splendens and (B.)spectabilis, Quisquales (sic: Quisqualis) indica, Mandevillea (sic: Mandevilla), cloth of gold roses, Bignonia cheree etc, etc, were exerting their powers to please the eye. A well-formed flower garden is made on the platform forming the terrace on the eastern and southern sides of the house.

4 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

These are planted with roses, carnations, fuchsias, verbenas etc, - all the leading kinds in cultivation. Then, as a breakwind, a tolerably dense belt of pines, cypresses, araucaria Bidwellis (sic: Araucaria bidwillii, Bunya Bunya pine), camphor (laurel), lophostemons, etc are planted. This is also applicaable to the margins of the whole of the carriage driver, and other walks between the vineyards and pleasure grounds...We might state that a neat greenhouse is erected, and was resplendent with bignonias, azaleas, tydias, Russellia, eranthemums, alamandas etc etc."

Thomas Barker died in 1875 and Maryland was inherited by his only son, Thomas Charles Barker (1860 - 1940), who extended the gardens. The impressive park-like landscape seen from the Northern Road is attributed to his stewardship. Thomas Barker Jnr's wife, Emily Macarthur, also grew up on a property known for its prominent garden, Chisholm of Gledswood, Narellan. Both gardens were romanticised by Hardy Wilson. The Maryland garden has been directly linked to Hardy Wilson's description in "On the Cowpasture Road" (ibid, 2000, 56-7). Thomas Charles and Emily Barker lived at Maryland until Thomas' death, aged 80, in 1940 (ibid, 2006).

Maryland was sold in 1940 to Alan and Janet (Jetta) Ievers, the parents of the current owners, Misses Elizabeth and Annette Thomson. The Ievers were living before then at Cuppacumbalong, a property on the Murrumbidgee River south of Canberra. In 1923 Alan took control of the family business, Mauri Brothers & Thomson, a merchant company in Sydney (taken over by Burns Philp & Co. in 1982) and moved the family to Double Bay, Sydney. In 1940 he bought Maryland, then a 400 hectare dairy farm, so he could run the business in the city and enjoy country life (Veitch, 2009)(ibid, 2000).

At that stage (1940) the view to the north of the house was blocked by a dense plantation of trees adjacent to the upper drive beside the house where the slope fell away rapidly. The Thomsons thinned the northerly plantation and extended with fill the platform upon which the homestead was situated. An aerial photograph from 1947 indicates that there were fenced plantations of trees along a drive which was now south of the earlier entrance marked with a gate lodge on Northern Road. The landscape surrounding the hilltop homestead still had clearly defined areas of pleasure grounds. The former kitchen garden, orchard and plantings of trees appear to define the perimeters of the vineyard areas (ibid, 2000, 57).

The Thomsons had four children including two daughters, Annie (1921-2009) and Elizabeth (19? - 2006). Annie & Elizabeth worked on the farm and supported the family during World War II and the hard times that followed. When their father died in 1952, Annie & Elizabeth took over the farm because their brothers had gone into business in Sydney.

In 1959 the sisters joined the Friesian Cattle Club, started building a stud herd of Holstein- Friesians and entered the animals in the Camden and other shows. "The Girls" were the mainstay of the local community, known to everyone as such, and raised prize-winning cattle, showing these all over NSW. "The Girls" were eventually rewarded with life membership of the Camden Show Society, and Maryland Farming Company still exhibits there.

The Thomsons first took their cattle to the Sydney Royal Easter Show in 1964. One of the most popular exhibits at Sydney's Royal Easter Show for many years was 'the Milky Way', a portable dairy where milkmaids dressed from the 1800s gave demonstrations. Annie Thomson provided the commentary, helping educate city people about country ways. Their Milky Way also visited Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra shows. When the Easter Show moved to Homebush Bay in 1998 a permanent Milky Way exhibit was built.

Annie's commitment to the dairy industry was recognised in 1988 when she was awarded life membership of the Holstein-Friesian Association of Australia. In 1993 she received a Dairy Industry Merit Award and life membership; in 1994, the Dairy Research Foundation's Tetra Pak award; in 1997, a Royal Agricultural Society contributor's award; and in 2001 she was named a Royal Easter Show Legend.

Thomson was also passionate about horses and riding. A founding member of the Cobbitty Pony Club in 1960, she taught generations of local children to ride. Maryland was the home ground for the club for many years. Thomson instructed beginners at the pony club until 1985. Giving this up, and later having to give up riding, were two of the hardest and saddest things she had ever faced. She never married or had children of her own.

In 2004 Annie and Elizabeth Thomson were each awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for their contribution to shows, the dairy industry and the community. Even then, they were

5 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

keeping 120 dairy cows and travelling throughout NSW to show their animals (in their 80s). Maryland will continue to be run by the family (Veitch, 2009).

Australian theme New South Wales theme Local theme (abbrev)

3. Economy- Agriculture-Activities relating to the cultivation and Orcharding- Developing local, regional and rearing of plant and animal species, usually for commercial national economies purposes, can include aquaculture

3. Economy- Agriculture-Activities relating to the cultivation and Clearing land for Developing local, regional and rearing of plant and animal species, usually for commercial farming- national economies purposes, can include aquaculture

3. Economy- Agriculture-Activities relating to the cultivation and Growing vines and Developing local, regional and rearing of plant and animal species, usually for commercial maintaining vineyards- national economies purposes, can include aquaculture

3. Economy- Environment - cultural landscape-Activities associated Landscapes of Developing local, regional and with the interactions between humans, human societies and the cultural and natural interaction- national economies shaping of their physical surroundings

4. Settlement- Accommodation-Activities associated with the Country Villa- Building settlements, towns provision of accommodation, and particular types of and cities accommodation – does not include architectural styles – use the theme of Creative Endeavour for such activities.

9. Phases of Persons-Activities of, and associations with, Associations with Life-Marking the phases of life identifiable individuals, families and communal groups Thomas Barker, pastoralist and flour miller-

9. Phases of Persons-Activities of, and associations with, Associations with Life-Marking the phases of life identifiable individuals, families and communal groups William Hardy Wilson, architect, artist, writer, conservationist-

SHR Criteria a) Maryland is of important to NSW's cultural history because of its role as a early model of [Historical significance] garden design and European planing practices within NSW. Its garden was singled out by Hardy Wilson in his studies of early Australian homesteads. SHR Criteria b) Maryland Estate is a prominent site in the local area and was in ownership of the Barker [Associative significance] family from 1854 - 1940 with close links dating back to 1823. Maryland has direct association with the Macarthur Chisholms of 'Gledswood' and has a strong inter-relationship with Hardie Wilson who romanticised Maryland in "On the Cowpasture Road" with direct links to the property. Thomas Barker Jnr was later to design the gardens at Marylands to emulated Wilson's ideal. SHR Criteria c) Maryland is significant for its high degree of creative landscape design in its vineyards and [Aesthetic significance] gardens. These have been consciously organised according to the particularities of its local climate. It offers an important early example of the "summit" model of homestead landscaping. SHR Criteria d) Maryland is significant in the locality for occupying a prominent hilltop location, forming an [Social significance] important local reference point. SHR Criteria e) Maryland offers important research potential because it provides extensive and partially [Research potential] intact evidence of early estate layout. Thomas Barker's mid-nineteenth century landscape design includes an outstanding group of dairy and winery outbuildings and gatehouses. The remnant vineyard fields and other remnant functional and ornamental plantings offer potential for archaeological research into mid-nineteenth century gardens within the Cumberland Plains area. SHR Criteria f) Maryland is a rare example of a major mid-nineteenth century rural estate which survives as [Rarity] a working farm incorporating original remnants of its nineteenth century gardens and landscaping. SHR Criteria g) Maryland is highly representative of early Cumberland County settlements. More generally it [Representativeness] is representative of rural landscapes in the English landscape tradition. Integrity/Intactness: Maryland's house and outbuildings retain much of their nineteenth century architectural integrity. Mayland's landscape qualities include a park-like setting and important remnants of nineteenth century gardens. Assessment criteria: Items are assessed against the State Heritage Register (SHR) Criteria to determine the level of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory

6 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

protection.

Ensure immediate listing on State Heritage Register of whole remaining estate area.

The whole remaining estate should be conserved as a cultural landscape including its historic fabric (including the outlying gatehouse and dairy group), layout (including the former entry drive to the north) and visual dominance of the hilltop homestead and garden composition from the Northern Road.

Retain the existing zoning for the remaining estate.

Consider providing appropriate incentives (at both local, State and Federal government levels) to assist in the responsible ongoing custodial management of the estate.

Heritage Listing Listing Title Listing Gazette Gazette Gazette Number Date Number Page

Heritage Act - Under 23 Aug 01 consideration for SHR/IHO listing Heritage Act - Listing Minister returned Rejected by Minister unsigned-further work needed Local Environmental Plan 0048 21 Feb 92 026 1143

National Trust of Australia 8893 21 Oct 80 register Register of the National Estate 12 Mar 78

Title Year Number Author Inspected by Guidelines used

Colonial Landscapes of the 2000 4.12 Morris, C., & Britton, G./NSW National Trust of Cumberland Plain and National Trust (for the Australia Yes Camden, NSW Heritage Council of NSW)

Type Author Year Title Internet Links

Other 1832 Royal Botanic Gardens 'Plants Sent Out'.

Written 1870 Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners' and Amateurs' Calendar - Vol. VII

Written Colleen Morris & 2000 Colonial Landscapes of the Cumberland Plain and Geoffrey Britton Camden, NSW

Written Fox, Len 1978 Old Sydney Windmills

Written James Broadbent 1982 "Maryland", in 'Historic Homesteads'

Written Veitch, Harriet 2009 Dairy's crème de la crème on city's edge (Obituary: Annie Thomson, 1921-2009)

Written Wrigley, John 2006 Historic Sites make up the landscape, in 'Back Then' column

Note: internet links may be to web pages, documents or images.

7 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM Maryland (Draft) | NSW Environment & Heritage http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDet...

(Click on thumbnail for full size image and image details)

The information for this entry comes from the following source: Name: Heritage Office Database number: 5051539 File number: 11/20788; H02/00080

Every effort has been made to ensure that information contained in the State Heritage Inventory is correct. If you find any errors or omissions please send your comments to the Database Manager.

All information and pictures on this page are the copyright of the Heritage Division or respective copyright owners.

8 of 8 27/05/2016 6:11 PM ANALYTICAL REPORT

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

Contact Vagner Jorden Manager Huong Crawford Client Environmental Investigations Laboratory SGS Alexandria Environmental Address Suite 6.01, 55 Miller Street Address Unit 16, 33 Maddox St NSW 2009 Alexandria NSW 2015

Telephone 02 9516 0722 Telephone +61 2 8594 0400 Facsimile 02 9516 0741 Facsimile +61 2 8594 0499 Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

Project E22115 - 765 Old Northern Rd - Maryland SGS Reference SE124658 R0 Order Number (Not specified) Report Number 0000075215 Samples 2 Date Reported 12 Feb 2014 Date Received 11 Feb 2014

COMMENTS

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

Asbestos analysed by Approved Identifier Ravee Sivasubramaniam.

SIGNATORIES

Ravee Sivasubramaniam Asbestos Analyst

SGS Australia Pty Ltd Environmental Services Unit 16 33 Maddox St Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia t +61 2 8594 0400 f +61 2 8594 0499 www.au.sgs.com ABN 44 000 964 278 PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia

Member of the SGS Group

12/02/2014 Page 1 of 3 SE124658 R0 ANALYTICAL REPORT

RESULTS Fibre ID in bulk materials Method AN602

Laboratory Client Sample Matrix Date Sampled Fibre Identification Est.%w/w Reference Reference Description

SE124658.001 EIAUSTRALIA Other 130x80x15mm 11 Feb 2014 No Asbestos Detected SM1 Cement sheet

SE124658.002 EIAUSTRALIA Other 110x40x5mm 11 Feb 2014 No Asbestos Detected SM2 Cement sheet

12/02/2014 Page 2 of 3 SE124658 R0 METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

AN602 Qualitative identification of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite in bulk samples by polarised light microscopy (PLM) in conjunction with dispersion staining (DS). AS4964 provides the basis for this document. Unequivocal identification of the asbestos minerals present is made by obtaining sufficient diagnostic `clues`, which provide a reasonable degree of certainty, dispersion staining is a mandatory `clue` for positive identification. If sufficient `clues` are absent, then positive identification of asbestos is not possible. This procedure requires removal of suspect fibres/bundles from the sample which cannot be returned.

AN602 Fibres/material that cannot be unequivocably identified as one of the three asbestos forms, will be reported as unknown mineral fibres (umf).

FOOTNOTES

Amosite - Brown Asbestos NA - Not Analysed Chrysotile - White Asbestos LNR - Listed, Not Required Crocidolite - Blue Asbestos * - Not Accredited Amphiboles - Amosite and/or Crocidolite ** - Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.

This report does not comply with the analytical reporting recommendations in the Western Australian Department of Health Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation and Management of Asbestos Contaminated sites in Western Australia - May 2009.

Sampled by the client.

Where reported: 'Asbestos Detected': Asbestos detected by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Where reported: 'No Asbestos Found': No Asbestos Found by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Where reported: 'UMF Detected': Mineral fibres of unknown type detected by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Confirmation by another independent analytical technique may be necessary.

Even after disintegration it can be very difficult, or impossible, to detect the presence of asbestos in some asbestos -containing bulk materials using polarised light microscopy. This is due to the low grade or small length or diameter of asbestos fibres present in the material, or to the fact that very fine fibres have been distributed intimately throughout the materials.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here : http://www.sgs.com.au.pv.sgsv3/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued, on the Client's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at http://www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions/General-Conditions-of-Services-English.aspx . The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues defined therein.

Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company's findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.

This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full.

12/02/2014 Page 3 of 3