! 1-1-' WENDY THORP L Consultant Archaeologist 1 ~ 78 SI. rl Camperdown '2050 ph (02) 516 3381 l 11 r' , [r I

·11 I. I I 1I ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT .I I I I 11 DAIRY AND HOUSE SITES I COOLANG,ATTA HISTORIC VILLAGE. ·11,

1I

I I SEPTEMBER 1986 1I I , , 11 il { .. _0 [

t: I I J: :I I I,

I

I ''r , , I I I ·PREPARED FO'R THE DEPARTMENT OF ENV'fr10NMENT AND PLANNING r [. LJ-----··---· ,'-_' ---.~~----.-... _-_.:~-----_._-_._-----_._------I WENDY THORP I Consultant Archaeologist I I I I ARCHA.EDLOGICAL REPORT DAIRV AND HOUSE SITES

I CDDLANGATTA 1-1ISTDRIC VILLAGE I I I I I I I I I I I I 78 Australia St, Camperdown 2050 IL------Ph (02) 516-3381 ----' I I INDEX TO THE REPORT

I Acknowledgements ii

1.0 Preface to the Report 1 I 1.1 Location 1 1.2 Heritage Recognition 2 1.3 Initiative for Investigation 3 I 1.4 Objectives 4 1.5 Methodology 5

2.0 Synopsis and Recommendations 6 I 2.1 Synopsis 6 2.2 Recommendations 8 2.2.1 Site I 8 I 2.2.2 Site II 9

3.0 Historic Context 10 I 3.1 Discovery and Opening the South Coast 11 3.2 12 3.3 Berry and the South Coast 13 3.4 The Estate: The Beginnings 14 I 3.5 Development 17 3.6 Later History 20 3.7 New Beginnings 23 I 3.8 Graphics 24 4.0 ·Site Investigation 25 I 4.1 Preface 25 4.1.1 Location 25 4.1.2 Current Status 26 4.1.3 Objectives 27 I 4.1.4 Methodology 28 4.2 Site I 29 4.2.1 Trench 1 30 I 4.2.2 Trench 2 31 4.2.3 Trench 3 32 4.2.4 Conclusions 33 I 4.3 Site II 34 4.4 Conclusions 35

5.0 Subsidiary Documentation 36 I 5.1 Footnotes to the Text 36 5.2 Bibliography 38 I 6.0 Graphics to the Text 39 I I I I I ii I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I I would like to thank Mr Graham Wilson for his assistance with the field work and Mr Colin Bishop and his staff for their I assistance. I W.T. 1986 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1.0 PREFACE TO THE REPORT

I 1.1 LOCATION

I The areas which are the subject of this report are located within the Coolangatta Historic Village. The Village is located on Bolong Road, Coolangatta a I short distance from . It is within the Shellharbour . The site is owned and managed by Mr Colin Bishop as a resort centre.

I The sites which are considered within this report are those of the former principal residence (Site I) and a dairy (Site 11). These are both located within I the area of the major building complex; the dairy site is to the west of the stables and the former house site to the south-west of the restaurant. I Plan No. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2

I 1.2 HERITAGE RECOGNITION

I Various elements within the site have been classified by both the National Trust of NSW and the Australian Heritage Commission. These listings cover I the stables and coachman's quarters, "The Cottage", the former tinsmith's shop and residence, coach house, billiard room, blacksmith's shop, the remains I of the original homestead including maids' quarters and dairy, the "Convict Cottage", former estate office, former community hall, the Berry monument I and cemetery. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 1.3 INITIATIVE FOR INVESTIGATION

I The work carried out during this programme was initiated at the request of the Department of I Environment and Planning. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I 1.4 OBJECTIVES

I Three main objectives were identified for this work. These were as follows:

I 1.4.1 To locate archival detail sufficient to enable a satisfactory assessment of the significance of the I two sites and any remnant archaeological material. 1.4.2 To carry out sufficient site work to enable a definition of the nature of the two study areas as either potential archaeological sites with I recognizable deposits and/or features or historic sites of association.

I 1.4.3 To provide a· statement of archaeological significance for the two sites and recommendations I with respect to the proposed future developments. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 I 1.5 METHODOLOGY

I Archival data sufficient to define the role of the village within the development of the South Coast already existed and was collated for the purposes of I the assessment of archaeological significance.

Site work consisted of the excavation of three minor I trenches across the site of the house and a survey of the dairy site. This work was carried out by one person over two and a half days.

I The excavation was recorded by means of a site log and pro-forma system, black and white photographic I record and log. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6

I 1.6 CONSTRAINTS

I Time constraints imposed by the contract and brief limited the degree of archival work which could be carried out during the course of this programme and I this has constrained some of the objectives expressed within the brief. I The available archival material is sufficient to define to a limited degree the role of the estate in the development of the region, however, -it would require a much longer programme of research and I survey to define the development sequence of the estate and, therefore, to arrive at an accurate I statement of significance. The estate comprises many standing and sub-surface features and the limited quantity of archival I material and a short site inspection indicates that these have been established over a long period of time, have undergone many changes and additions and have served many purposes. To accurately define this I complex development will require detailed and comprehensive archival research and site by site analysis. This work was well beyond the scope of the I current programme. The objectives of the current programme, therefore, are severely limited; to explore the archaeological I potential of each site and to comment on the significance of each as a potential research tool for site specific investigation. It cannot comment I on the significance of these sites as -part of the overall development of the estate. I I I I I I I I ------

I 6 I 2.0 SYNOPSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I 2.1 SYNOPSIS

I The small programme of archaeological work which is the subject of this report has been undertaken at the request of the Department of Environment and Planning. The subjects of the work are two sites I within the Coolangatta Historic Village for which developments have been proposed. The objectives of the work are, primarily, to determine the I archaeological potential and integrity of the two sites as a basis for assessing the effect of the I proposed developments on the resource. The Historic Village and its components are the remnants of the former Berry and Wollstonecraft property. This property was first granted in 1822 I and gradually expanded throughout the ninteenth century to incorporate most of the surrounding territory including at least two private towns. From I the later ninteenth century the size and holdings of the property have gradually decreased; in 1947 Mr Bishop bought the remnants and has since established I the Historic Village Motel and Resort. The importance and uniqueness of the original property, its developments and subsequent history I cannot be overstressed. It is comparable to and in many respects eclipses similar properties such as Regentvi1le and has played a singular role in I directing the development of a large area of the state. I Professional research into the documentary history and investigation of the physical remnants on and associated with the site would undoubtedly reveal much about the role of such estates in the I development of the country. One the basis of the available documentary evidence I at the time of this study it was impossible to comment on the significance of the two subject sites within the development of the estate although, in I the case of the house, the situation is fairly self evident. The intent of the report, therefore, is to comment on the nature and integrity of the two I sites. Site I, that of the house, is marked by small sections of standing walls at eithern end of the I house. Both sections have been partially rebuilt in I I I 7 I recent times. Small excavations within the area of the house, along the lines of the external walls and in areas immediately adjacent to the site have I revealed that all the foundations have been dug up and the foundations trenches destroyed in the process. Most of this stonework can now be seen in I garden edgings and extensions to the community hall. In addition to this work the site has obviously been I levelled to bedrock probably by means of a mechanical device such as a rotary hoe. This has destroyed all evidence of structural material, occupation debris, demolition debris and external I associated deposits.

In the case of Site 11, the dairy, excavation was I unncessary; there was no accumulated deposit over the site and the building had been established on bedrock. The site is defined by a concrete platform I with associated cobbled path and cobbled bUilding platform. There has been no visible disturbance to the site.

I It can be stated, therefore, that Site I is primarily a site of association with no significant sub-surface archaeological material. The standing I walls are the only visible remnant of the house and, therefore, are of some considerable .significance. Site 11 is an intact archaeological site consisting I of structural remains. Further site investigation would appear to be unneccesarry in either case. I I I I I I I I I I 8 I 2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

I 2.2.1 SITE I The proposed development may take place on this I site; there is no significant sub-surface archaeological material which could be disturbed, however, considerable caution must be exercised in \1 dealing with the surviving above ground remnants. t These remant walls are the only surviving elements of the house, arguably the most significant element I on the site because of its focus for development. These walls must be maintained in any proposed development of the site. Two factors must be I considered in the maintenance of these walls. At this time the eastern section is covered in cement render and this is obviously of some I considerable concern because of the problems of, amongst others, rising damp. Advice should be sought on how to stabilise the walls without resorting to I this extreme . The second consideration should be to determine how .1 these walls will be accomodated in the proposed development; will they be incorporated within the scheme or left to stand outside and will they be adequately protected during and after the I development. Therefore it is recommended· with respect to Site I I that the proposed development be allowed to continue as long as there are adquate measures taken to protect the surviving remnants of the house before, I during and after the development and that the scheme adopts a sympathetic manner in which to incorporate the remnants in the new development. The problem of I long term stabilisation must also be considered. I I I I I I I 9 I 2.2.2 SITE 11 I Site 11 has been found to be an intact archaeological site with well defined structural remains of a dairy. The date of construction of this building and its subsequent development and history I are, at this time, unknown.

The significance of the site in terms of the fl development of the estate is unknown but because of the singular importance of the estate in the development of the region it is important to retain as much of the surviving fabric intact. This would I apply to all demonstrated archaeological sites on the property until their significance to the estate I can be determined. In this case, therefore, it would not be recommended that development be allowed to proceed on this site I unless it can be demostrated that the dairy site is of minimal or peripheral significance to the development of the estate. This would entail research into the physical development of the I property to determine when the dairy was built and what role it played in the operation of the estate. I It is recommended, therefore, that at this time and subject to further research no development be I allowed to proceed on this site. I I I I I I I I I

3 *• I 10

I 3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT

I The intention of this section is to provide an historic context for both the estate in the development of the South Coast and the two study· I sites in the development of the estate. This analysis largely relies on secondary sources and it is not intended as a definitive account of the two I strands of development. Comprehensive research, particularly with resepct to the development of the estate, is required and I should be considered a high priority. Defining the significance of the estate and its development should reveal much about the role of these large I rural properties in colonial expansion. Coolangatta is certainly comparable to sites such as Regentville, Elizabeth Farm, Winbourne and I Newington. In most of these cases it has far exceeded the developments of these other and like properties both in scope and variety. Its function I as a community centre is perhaps only paralleled by Regentville and this is not an exact comparison. I The following discussion does not take the form of a development analysis defined ~y phases; this was £ound to be impractical because of the lack of detailed research. Instead a thematic approach has I been adopted which considers important aspects of I the site and regional history. I I I I I I I I \ \._------d e « b 11

DISCOVERY AND OPENING THE SOUTH COAST

The South Coast around Shoalhaven was first sighted and recorded by James Cook in 1770. He observed and recorded his impressions of Cape Dromedary, the Pigeon House, Long Nose and Cape George (1). Lt Bowen named Jervis Bay in 1791 and whalers used the bay for the next fifty years (2). Survivors of two wrecks on the far South Coast passed through Shoalhaven in 1797 in an effort to reach (3). In December 1797 Bass followed Seven Mile Beach and explored the immediate area; he gave the name "Shoalhaven" to what is now known as Crookhaven. He then went further down the coast to (4).

Lieutenant Grant, Borrallier and Cayley explored the Jervis Bay region in 1801 and four years later Lieutenant Kent and James Meehan came to J~rvis Bay via the Shoalhaven noting, as they progressed, the heavy timber stands of the region (5).

From then on cedar cutters began to move in and exploit the stands of red cedar in the region. Shallow draft vessels were sent over the bar of the Shoalhaven to load the .timber and return it to Sydney.

In 1812 Surveyor Evans journeyed from the present site of Huskisson to the Shoalhaven which he crossed then went on to Broughton Creek and 'finally to Appin. Kangaroo Valley was explored by Throsby in 1818; he came from the west, followed the Valley to the Shoalhaven then crosed to Jervis Bay. Between 1819 and 1822 OXley, Meehan and Hume explored the area as far down as the Clyde River (6). I 12

I 3.2 ALEXANDER BERRY

I The greatest single influence on the Shoalhaven area occurred at this time through the aegis of Alexander I Berry. Berry was born at Cupar in Fifeshire, in 1781. He was sent to st Andrews and Edinburgh I Universities with the intent of achieving a medical career, however, by the time of his graduation he had determined to go to sea and to that end accepted a commission with the . He made a I number of voyages to India and China in their service as a ship's surgeon. However, he decided during these voyages that his future lay in commerce I rather than medicine. He resigned his commission ( 7 ) •

Berry then chartered a vessel for a commercial trip I to the Cape of Good Hope at which place he heard of the serious food shortages in NSW. He then invested in a new ship, loaded it with provisions and set I sail for the colony in 1807. He sold most of the provisions in Fort Dalrymple and arrived at Sydney I in 1808. For the next eleven years Berry continued to sail commercial ventures to places such as , , Cape Horn, England, Cadiz and Lisbon. From I 1815 to 1818 he stayed in England with the Wollstonecrafts. They formed a partnership and took I a cargo ship to NSW arriving in 1819 (8). I I I I I I I I I 13

I 3.3 BERRY AND THE SOUTH COAST

I After Berry's arrival in 1819 he established a business at what is now Berrys Bay; this consisted of a wharf and trading premises. This was to endure I for a number of years (9). At this time Berry began the exploration of the coast as far as the Hunter in the north and the Bong I Bong district in the south. In 1820 he returned to London. An early application for land had been refused because he was not a permanent resident and I so Berry and Wollstonecraft returned to Sydney. Governor Brisbane granted Berry and Wollstonecraft 10,000 acres if they contracted to maintain 100 I convicts. At the beginning of 1822 Berry was commissioned to explore the south coast of with the I particular intention to verify the existence of the River Clyde. Preliminary investigation of the lower Shoalhaven began in 1822 and was followed by an I investigation of the Clyde and the first ascent of Pigeon House with Hamilton Hume (10). The Crookhaven was entered and the region explored; permanent camp 1 was set up on the south-east slope of a mountain variously kno~n as "Cullingatty" or "Coolungatta".

This was the area that Berry decided to take up the I partnership's grant. This grant consisted of the promised 10,000 acres which included the land between Broughton Creek and the government reserve I along the beach to Black Head and Crooked River as well as an additional 2000 acres grant on the south 1 side at Numba (11). The first work in the area was the construction of a hut and the excavation of a ditch across the narrow sand spit that separated the Shoalhaven from I Crookhaven. Apart from any other reason this was intended to employ the convicts and so keep them from mischief. Berry began his explorations, located I his grant and established a wooden store at the base of the mountain (12). Further huts followed as did stockades for the future herds and sties for the pigs. The flat at Numba was cleared and prepared I for cUltivation. By July 1822 the hut was nearly finished and the I. canal had been cut 209 yards long, the first of its ·kind in Australia. A track for stock had been made over the mountains and by August 93 head arrived at I the site. Berry returned to Sydney for a time (13). I I I 14 I 3.4 THE : BEGINNINGS

I With the canal established, the land cleared and some shelter provided the first cultivation began on the farm. In the first year crops of potates, corn, I tobacco and vegetables were grown, cattle and pigs raised and timber-getting began. Grass was cut for hay and sold on the Sydney market. Additional crops I including , and were added over the next few years (14). From quite early on and salt beef were sent to Sydney. Flax, hemp and I sea island cotton were also tried. Distance and the difficulties of transport prevented an influx of settlers seeking land in the area and I this allowed Berry to secure more land and add to the holdings of the firm.

Berry's residence at the foot of Coolangatta I Mountain was begun in 1823 (15). The bricks were made at a site two miles from the homestead still called "Brickies Hill" (16). A number of aborigines I helped with the bricklaying and carpentry.

The house was completed in 1824 by which time Berry I had 120 acres of wheat under cUltivation, forty or maize, three of barley, three as a garden with an orchard at Numba where 250 acres were cleared. He had 600 cattle, fourteen horses and 235 pigs. Swamp I drainage at Lower Numba began in 1823 using the labour of the 100 convicts. In 1824 a barn was also completed at Lower Numba near the canal. Another I barn was completed at Upper Numba in 1830 (17).

Wollestonecraft did not see the estate until 1823 I but from then until his death in 1832 the partners took turns living there while the other remained in Sydney and managed that side of the business. In Sydney the partners acted as merchants and shipping I agents.

Shipbuilding began at Coolangatta during the early I 1820s; it was necesary to ensure the transportation of their own crops to the Sydney market. The first vessel was completed in January 1824 and was taken I by Berry to Sydney with a cargo of potatoes in March. Another barge was built soon after (18).

Additional large grants of land were added to I Berry's grants during this time until he held all the land bounded by a line northward from Pig Island and west from Gerringong. Wo11stonecraft had a long I tract of 1500 acres running south from this from I I I 15

I Numba. Berry held tracts either side of this each of 2520 acres (19). I "The development of the estate to 1827 is shown by a pencil map in the Mitchell Library, probably drawn by I Berry himself. It shows the country north of and including the to the head of Broughton Creek. It marks Pig Island, Broughton Creek, I 'Bombadara' Creek and shows the western side of Broughton Creek as a 'Large Swamp'. It shows 'Muroo Hut' I 'New Stock Yard' west of and beside the swamp, 'Bangley Creek' with 'Bangley" at its source, 'Good Dog' I and a high peak 'Broughton's Rump'. It shows stands of cedar and blue gum forest on the foothills." (20) I In 1829 sheep were introduced to the property; bloodstock horse breeding had also begun in earlier years. In 1830 a storehouse, specifically intended I for the Shoalhaven produce, was built on the western side of Berrys Bay in Sydney close to Wollestonecraft's wharf. By this time Berry had I married Wollestonecraft's sister Elizabeth. There were no children from the marriage (21).

Wollstonecraft's health had begun to deteriorate I soon after his arrival in Sydney and this was exacerbated by legal disputes and financial worries. I "Although the partners' joint estate was growing so rapidly, their initial capital had not been large and they I were constantly mortgaging stock to buy land or land and other property to buy stock. Cash was always short and they were frequently on the I verge of bankruptcy. Indeed it was at least six years before the partners were able to pay for the merchandise I Berry had brought out in 1822. Local market demands were small and overseas I markets far away." (22) There was also some considerable friction between the partners at various times. Edward Wollestonecraft died in 1832 and left his half of I the estate to his sister Elizabeth, Mrs Berry. Berry then spent several months in Sydney finally closing down the mercantile business; the two enterprises I were too large for the one man to manage. He and his I I I 16 I wife moved to Shoa1haven (23). I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I 17

I 3.5 DEVELOPMENT

I Following his partner's death Berry gained even more land in the Shoalhaven partly through manipulation of the property market, some through buying up old I grants and some bought from the estate of Wollestonecraft (24). Berry was obviously concerned by the competition from his neighbours who had begun to arrive from the l820s. By 1842, therefore, his I holdings north of the river amounted to approximately 30,000 acres. I With a diverse empire of such magnitude and no partner Berry contacted his family in Scotland to enquire if they would move out to the colony and I assist in the business management. He had first suggested this move early in the l820s but the family had delayed making the decision. Berry's father died in 1827 and his mother in 1830; his I requests for help became demands by 1832 (after Wollestonecraft's death) and ultimatums by 1835. The I family came in 1836 (25). Three brothers and two sisters joined Berry; his other sister was married and remained in Scotland. I None of the family married and the sister in Scotland remained childless. There was no heir to the estate. I Each of the brothers took over a specific aspect of management; David was the general manager of Coolangatta, John managed the beef business, William I the mechanical development of the businesses and Alexander managed the Sydney end as well as being I the "boss" of the entire enterprise. With the arrival and management of John beef production became the primary concern of the estate and apart from their own stock improvements portions I of the estate were leased out for this purpose (26). During these years (1835-1840) three more vessels were built, a windmill was built at Numba and a I water powered saw mill replaced the old saw pits at Broughton Creek (27). Salt pans were were worked at I Lower Numba. From the later l820s onwards further explorations southward and inland occurred, village reserves were marked out and settlements such as Milton and Jervis I Bay established; roads were laid out, auctions began and industries moved in (28). I At Coolangatta, although relegated to a second I I I 18 I place, farming continued aided by modern machinery brought from Scotland by William. By 1840 the estate housed 270 people (29). Contracts for salt beef were I a primary concern but experiments were also made in the manufacture of condensed , preserved meat, I gelatine and in improved dairying methods. In 1842 the decision was made to introduce tenant farming. This was inspired to some great extent by the increasing pressure from expanding settlement in I o • the area and government grants; ~t would have been impossible to maintain the estates without considerable pressure from the Government to hand I over some acreage for settlement. Plots of 20 acres were offered for lease for periods I of two to five years, rent free, on condition that they were cleared and fenced by the end of that time. Up to 1844 approximately fifty tenant farmers I were brought onto the estate. During these years Elizabeth Berry's health had declined and in 1845 she died in Sydney. Alexander I gave two acres from his "Crows Nest" property to establish st Thomas's (North Sydney) cemetery. Elizabeth was the first to be buried here; her I brother Edward's remains ·were moved there shortly after (30). '1 In 1848 the saw mill at Broughton was leased to a tenant to cut cedar and hardwood for use on the estate. By 1868 the numbers of tenants had reached I 370 and utilised over 15,000 acres (31). By the same year a thriving tallow and hide business was well established on the estate, although its I beginnings are unclear. Berry wrote to his sister in Scotland at this time that they had slaughtered upwards of I "1000 bUllocks, some weighing 1400 Ibs merely for their hides and tallow. We have large pots on purpose and two of I these can hold each one a dozen bu11coks." (32) I In the same year, 1848, John died as a result of a riding accident and David took over management of the estate; he continued to lease more of the property. During this time more ships were built at I Shoa1haven. In 1851 olives were planted as an experiment; it is not recorded whether they were I successful (33). I I I 19 I From the 1850s schools were opened on the estate to provide for the education of the children of the tenant farmers and workers. During the later 1850s I Berry engaged in a bitter fight with the Rev. Dunmore Lang who had accused Berry of being a greedy .old man, without an heir, owning a vast amount of I land on which a town or village had never been built, that the original grant had been far more than he had been entitled to, that his tenants were I harshly treated, that he had been cruel to his assigned convicts, that Berry had his own secret police force and that his canal had been a failure I (34). Berry vigorously repudiated all these claims, with every justification. The ill feeling appears to have I risen over Berry's refusal to allow Lang to use his church hall for a political meeting (35). I However, spurred on by Lang the Government incorporated a large part of the estate into the newly formed Shoalhaven municipality; this would have ruined Berry because of the municipal rates. I Some years of litigation followed during which Berry was subject to much ill feeling and some violence. Berry eventually won his case and the Government had I to pay costs (36). The early 1860s saw the system of clearing leases I replaced by that of rented farms and from that time onward the development of the Shoalhaven area took on a much more diversified character which relegated I the Berry estate to a less prominent role . I I I I I I I I I 20

I 3.6 LATER HISTORY

I liThe mid nineteenth century brought a vast change to Shoalhaven. In preceeding years the area had been I centred on Coolangatta as one community, with outstations at Broughton Creek and Numba. The population had remained small; the I former convicts had passed away and Berrys had been compelled to use free labour with the end of the I convict system. The scarcity of labour brought the opening up of the clearing leases and the rush of free I labourers to the goldfields in the fifties made workmen harder to secure.

I The introduction of independent families brought the necessity for buying and selling of stores which I in turn brought the need for villages which during the succeeding thirty I years appeared and grew. 11 (37) The later ninteenth century was a time of growth and expansion in the district and a period when local industries were established, the produce shipped to I Sydney. It was a period when many new roads and tracks were put through making it more accessible I for settlers. Butter was the principal product of the sixties and potatoes still brought a good price. Wheat was grown I and oats in increasing amounts. By the seventies dairying was the principal concern of the area with exports being butter, eggs, and pigs, calves and fowls (38). Shoalhaven also grew as a major I shipping port; by 1873 it was the fourth busiest port in NSW after Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. I Alexander Berry's influence over the estate declined as he left more and more to his brothers David and William although he continued to harangue them by I mail for the rest of his life. He resided most of ll the time in Sydney at IICrows Nest , the land of this grant he had begun to subdivide in the 1850s (39).

I Alexander Berry died in 1873 a few weeks before his ninety-second birthday and was buried beside his wife and her brother at st Thomas's. His brother I William died in 1875 and the whole property at I I I 21

I Coolangatta came to be owned and managed by David. The estate at that time totalled 60,500 acres and included the private towns of Berry, Bomaderry and I parts of Greenwell Point and Gerringong (40). Towards the end of his life David was assisted by John Hay, a cousin.By this time Coolangatta had I become "A Workshop in which every trade was plied; an army of masons, carpenters, I blacksmiths, wheelwrights, harness makers etc. etc., and including even a tailor was constantly employed in I attending to the wants of 400 tenants on the Estate. A steam saw-mill dealt with all the timber required. Houses I and barns were framed and sent out ready to erect; and all agricultural implements were manufactured." (41) I David died in 1889 aged ninety-four and left the part of the estate consisting of the Parish of Coolangatta to John Hay except for certain legacies. I Hay and another man, Dr Norton, became trustees and the new manager of the estate was Hay's younger I brother Alex. The legacies of the will were nearly crippling, including 100,000 pounds to st Andrews University, 100,000 pounds to build a new hospital at Berry, I 30,000 pounds to the Presbyterian Church as well as a number of smaller legacies (42). I In order to pay the legacies Hay had to sell a great deal of the land, stock and ,other assets. The estate at the time of David's death was valued at 1,252,975 I pounds which was made up of Coolangatta Estate 667,093 pounds; North Sydney Estate 521,050 pounds and personal assets less debts 54,832 pounds (43). I Hay brought many new and profitable ideas to the estate including carriage to market by steamers rather than the slower sailing ship. Several new I schools were built and the general areas of the tenant farms increased and the leases extended. I New areas were cleared, surveyed and subdivided and leased and many of the older buildings renovated; Hay began the extensive reclamation of the swamp lands along the flood plains and at the turn of the I century had more than 125 miles of drains and ditches, had built large concrete flood gates and I thrown up huge embankments (44). I I I , 22 I The sale of the Berry estates began in 1892. This began with the auction of the Gerringong Farms (four) totalling 175 acres; the entire township of I Bomaderry and the Numbaa estates (5-6000 acres apportioned into 108 farms). Preference was given in I all cases to tenant farmers (45). John Hay died in 1909 and A1ex Hay and D.W.Roxburgh became trustees. Part of the Numbaa estate was I resubdivided in this year and the final offering of all unsold lands of the Berry estate took place in 1916 (46).

I By 1926 only a small portion of the Berry estate around Coolangatta remained unsold. Alex Hay continued to follow scientific farming methods at I Coolangatta where herd testing and pasture improvements were featured. After his death Mr and Mrs Berry Hay went into occupation but in 1946 the I homestead was destroyed by fire. Only the end walls, library, billiard room, hall and outbuildings were saved. The library was transferred to Shoalhaven I Heads and became st Peters Church of England (47). I I I I I I ,I I I I I I 23

I 3.7 NEW BEGINNINGS

I After the fire the buildings were left and fell into disrepair. In 1947 Mr Colin Bishop bought some land at Coolangatta and began dairying there in 1950. In I the same year, "he secured the old building that had been the maid's quarters and I laundry and with his wife's help this was restored to become a comfortable family residence. The I old convict's cell became a bathroom and the laundry the loungeroom. Coachmen's quarters I and stable adjoining were renovated to house an employee and his family." (48)

I In 1965 the National Trust recommended for the acquisition of the buildings at Coolangatta but this scheme was abandoned for lack of funds. The Bishops, I meanwhile, continued to work at the buildings which were overgrown and ruinous; the coach-house had to be demolished (49). The Bishops gradually acquired all of the land occupied by the homestead and I outbuildings.

In 1966 the Shoalhaven Council, the National Trust I and the NPWS began a feasibility study on the possibilities of Coolangatta becoming an historic village. This came to nothing and the Bishops I continued to convert the site to an Historical Village Motel a process which continues to this day I (50). The Village was officially opened in 1972. I I I I I I I I 24

I 3.8 GRAPHICS

I A large collection of graphic material exists both within the Mitchell Library and at Coolangatta which shows both the house and the dairy; the house in I particular is shown developing through a number of phases. For the purposes of this programme it was not considered necessary to reproduce any; reference I to those graphics in Mitchell Library can be supplied on request to the consultant. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 I 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION

I 4.1 PREFACE

I 4.1.1 Location

I Two sites were investigated during this programme. Site I was the area of the former residence of Berry and Wollestonecraft and the successive owners of the I estate. Site 11 was the site of a former dairy. Site I is located to the north-west of the community I hall and Site 11 is located north of the stables. Plan No. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 26

I 4.1.2 Current Status

I Site I is defined by the two end walls of the former house. Both have hearths still visible. The southern return of the eastern wall has been rebuilt in I recent times and the masonry at this end has rendered. been The walls at the western end of the site consist of exposed brickwork (Plate Nos. 1-5). I The extant brickwork displays at least two phases of nineteenth century work in addition ·to the twentieth century reconstruction which is evident, apart from I the south-eastern section, on a north-eastern wall. A number of footings have been relocated in the I western section. The area between the two most distant points of walls the is approxiately 34.5 metres in length. This space is grassed over with swings erected in I centre. the There was no visible surface evidence to indicate underlying deposits or foundations.

I Mr Bishop stated that, on his assumption of property the and during the clean up programme, he tidied the surface and removed some foundations I which have since been incorporated in garden edgings and extensions to the comunity hall. He stated that I he did not excavate the site during this work. Site 11 is defined by a large concrete slab which has gutters formed in it and is adjoined by a cobble path leading to a large cobbled space to the east the of I slab. No work appears to have occurred on this site (Plate Nos. 15-22). I I I I I I I I·

______.______~ ...... oOL.-_ _ __ _ .- I 27

I 4.1.3 Objectives

I The objectives for this work have been defined in Section 1.0 but are summarised here.

I a) To carry out sufficient field work to determine the status of both sites as either archaeological sites with identifiable deposits, features and or relics or as historic sites of association i.e I devoid of archaeological material.

b) To determine a statement of archaeological I significance for the sites.

c) To provide recommendations with respect to the I effect of proposed development proposals on the archaeological potential of both sites. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 28

I 4.1.4 Methodology

I To investigate the potential of Site I three small trenches were excavated to determine the presence or absence of foundations and occupation deposits I associated with the house as well as deposits or features in close proximity to the house.

I It was not considered necessary to excavate on Site 11 because of the absence of accumulated deposit above bedrock. A small survey was undertaken to I investigate the integrity of the visible remains. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 29

I 4.2 SITE I

I Three trenches were excavated here with the intention of investigating the following:

I The survival of footings in situ which could be further investigated to provide information about I the form and development of the house. The survival of occupation debris within the interior spaces of the former house which could be further investigated to provide evidence for I function and social documentation.

The survival of deposits or structures immediately I adjacent to the former house site. The combined data from these excavations was to be used to provide a basis for assessing the I archaeological and research potential of the site.

The results of these excavations and the conclusions I which may be drawn from the evidence are discussed in the following sub-sections. I I I I I I I I I I I I 30

I 4.2.1 Site I, Trench No. 1

I This trench was located at the north-eastern corner of the site. A trench measuring 2.0 x 0.5 metres was laid out with a long axis running·north-south. The I location of the trench intercepted the line of the northern wall of the former house as well as part of the area within the house and carriageway outside the building. This was intended to investigate the I survival of foundations, occupational debris and external surfaces. I A total of three deposists were identified during the excavation. Layer 3, the lowest deposit, consisted of the decayed, yellow-brown upper portion of the bedrock (sandy siltstone). This layer graded I upwards into a sandy loam containing fragments of bedrock. It was excavated to a thickness of 250mm; it represents the B2 or B3 horizon of the natural I soil profile.

The surface of this deposit was level in the I southern side of the trench and then sloped sharply to a lower level on the northern side. The difference in the two levels was approximately 50mm. This change in level was aligned with the line of I the extant wall on its southern side. The overlying deposit, Layer 2, consisted of a mixed I loam and rubble deposit mottled in appearance. It extended over the entire trench. Part of the matrix consisted of loam and decayed stone from Layer 3. I Building debris consisted of lime (shell), hand-made brick fragments and portland cement render. More than 30% of the matrix was very similar to Layer 3. I It averaged from 90 - 160mm in depth. There was no evidence in this layer of occupation I debris, external surface deposits or foundations. Layer 1, the surface deposit, consisted of a light brown sandy loam topsoil dressing with grass cover I which covered the whole trench. It had an average depth of 500mm.

Fig. 1 I Plate Nos. 6 - 8 I I I I I 31

I 4.2.2 Site I, Trench 2

I Trench 2 was located at the south-western corner of the former house site. A trench measuring 1.0 x 0.5 metres was excavated with a long axis running I north-south. The trench intercepted the line of the southern wall as well as part of the interior space and verandah area.

I A total of three deposits were excavated in this trench. The base deposit, Layer 3, was similar to the base deposit found in Trench I (Layer 3) being I the decayed upper bedrock although in this case there was a higher loam content. This may be due to the position of the stratum higher in the soil I profile. The surface of Layer 3 consisted of a level area in the northern half of the trench which sloped down to I the south. The difference in the two levels was approximately 120mm. The alignment of this I depression followed the line of an extant wall. The overlying deposit, Layer 2, was composed of dark brown loam and building rubble. A number of I fragments of dressed stone, none more than 200mm,· were found to be present some with mortar adhering to the surface. The presence of mortar on the stone indicates an act of demolition rather than I construction. The deposit was found over the entire trench and had an average thickness of 80-230mm. I There was no indication of occupation debris within the known limits of the building and there was no evidence to indicate any stratigraphic difference I between the area occupied by the verandah, the south wall of the residence and the internal structure of the house.

I Layer 1 consisted of black, humus-rich topsoil with a grass cover. It was found over the entire trench. I Fig. I Plate Nos. 9 - 11 I I I I I I 32 I 4.2.3 Site I, Trench 3

I This trench was located on the north-western side of the site in the immediate vicinity of but not within the lines on the known·walls. This site was chosen I to investigate the survival of deposits away from the known location of walls. I A total of three deposits were excavated, the same as those seen in the previous two excavations all three layers covering the surface of the trench.

I Layer 3 consisted of the decayed upper profile of the bedrock with some charcoal flecks present in the surface. Layer 2 was a loam matrix with building I rubble mixed in with an average depth of 60-80mm. Layer 1 was a black topsoil with an average depth of 60-80mm. I Fig. 1 I Plate Nos. 12 - 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I 33 I 4.2.4 Site I: Conclusions

I The only evidence of the former house still to be seen on this site was the faint depressions left by the robbed out foundation trenches. The stones I themselves have been excavated and removed and in doing so the foundation trenches have been I destroyed. Following the removal of the foundations the site has been levelled, probably by a mechanical device, which has removed all evidence of occupation debris, I the destruction debris of the house and any external deposits in the immediate vicinity of the house. I The only potential locations for intact internal deposits would be along the lines of the extant original walls where it would have n difficult I for a mechanical device such as a rotary hoe to have come close enough to disturb the underlying material. However, the value of such a small sample, at best a 500mm wide strip, is practically I negligible.

Further excavation on this site is unlikely to I reveal anything more than the internal structure of the house which could possibly be traced from the traces of the foundation trenches. No evidence I relating to occupation is likely to be recovered. I -I I I I I I I I I 34 I 4.3 SITE II

I This site was subject only to visual survey. There was no potential for excavation; the site was built directly on· top of the bedrock; all overlying I natural soil horizons had been cleared and there has been no subsequent accumulated deposit. The I foundations and features are clearly evident. The site consists of a concrete slab with gutters formed in the block. Running from this to the east is a cobbled path, c. 1.5 metres wide which leads to I a large, square cobbled surface possibly another bUilding interior. The cobbles are of siltstone. I There is no evidence of disturbance to the site. Graphic evidence held at the village shows this to have been the site of a dairy; it had already been demolished by the time the Bishop family came to own I the property.

The site is intact and appears to have little I potential for further investigation other than that which is visible on the surface. I Plate Nos. 15 - 22 I I I I I I I I I I I 35 I 4.4 CONCLUSIONS

I Site I has been completely destroyed except for the surviving end walls, some of which have been rebuilt, and a potentialy negligible strip of I deposit along these walls. Sub-surface depressions could mark the line of old walls. I Further investigation is unlikely to reveal any further information either within the area of the house or in the immediate vicinity; this appears to have been completely levelled and mechanically I disturbed to bedrock.

Site 11 is intact as foundations. Yurther I investigation is unlikely to reveal further information; there is no accumulated deposit and no I surviving superstructure. Site I, therefore, is primarily a site of association with some small extant remnants and Site I 11 is an archaeological site. I I I I I I I I I I I I 36 I 5.0 SUBSIDIARY DOCUMENTATION

I 5.1 FOOTNOTES TO THE TEXT

1. Shoalhaven Historical Society Historic Shoalhaven., I 4-6 2. Ibid. ,7 3. Ibid. I 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. ,8 7. Bradshaw, N.T. Coolangatta.,l I 8. Ibid.,1-2 9. Ibid. ,2 10. Shoa1haven Historical Society Op. Cit., 9 I 11. Bayley,W. History of the Shire of Shoalhaven.,27-8 12. Bradshaw, N.T. Op Cit., 5 13. Ibid. 14. Bayley, W. Op.Cit., 28 I 15. Ibid. ,29 16. Bradshaw, N.T., Loc.Cit. 17. Bayley,W. Loc.Cit. I 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid.,29-30 20. Ibid. ,30 21. I Swords, M. Alexander Berry and Elizabeth Wollstonecraft., 19 22. Ibid., 20 I 23. Ibid. 24. Antill, R.G. Settlement in the South.,15-16 25. Swords, M. Op.Cit.,21 26. Antill, R.G. Op.Cit.,16 I 27. Ibid. 28. Bayley, W. Op.Cit.,31-43 29. Antill.,R.G. Op.Cit.,17 I 30. Swords,M. Op.Cit.,23 31. Antill, R.G. Loc.Cit. 32. Ibid. I 33. Ibid. 34. Swords, M. Op.Cit.,26 35. Ibid. ,26-7 36. Ibid.,28 I 37. Bayley, W.A. Op.Cit.,51 38. Ibid., 57-8 39. Swords, M. Op.Cit.,32-33 I 40. Antill, R.G. Op.Cit.,18 41. Ibid. ,353 42. Swords, M. Op.Cit.,34-5 43. Antill, R.G. Loc.Cit. I 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid., 19 46. Bayley, W.A. Op Cit.,152 I 47. Bradshaw, N.T. Op.Cit.,6 I I I 37 II 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid.,8 I 50. Ibid. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 38

I 5.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY I" Antill, R.G. Settlement in the South Robert G. Antill. 1982 I Bayley, W.A. Shoalhaven: History of the Shire of Shoalhaven. I Shoalhaven Shire Council. 1965

I Bradshaw, N.T. Coolangatta 1822 Private Publisher. I 1972 Shoalhaven Historic Shoalhaven I Historical Shoalhaven Historical Society. Society 1970

I Swords, M. Alexander Berry and Elizabeth Wollstonecraft North Shore Historical Society. I 1978 I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0 GRAPHICS TO THE TEXT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GERROA I

I BERRY I I .....•.... ,', ..'... ':::...... ,', I ....,', ..." ~. .:.. I ::. I OMADERRY I I TB I BERR LACKSMITH' S DSHOP I SITE 11

,,.... _-- - .. I , , I OTQ D '------' RESTAU ANT I SITE I ~ ] TENNIS COURT I \

I te P an ter Bradshaw,N.T. "Coolangatta 1822" endpaper, PL.. AN NO.l I LOCATION I ------S N

...:-.. :£- ..lI .J, -.t- ~ ~ t , _ f ~ f 7j , t / , 'I --/ , f '\ - /' - --'\ /, { - / , / I' , / 'I' - / '\ /\ - " - - ~ -\ 1 I' , I f_ '\ - / \ - - ...... ~, -.0" - . '.'0:' ".::0::, ~~ .. <:>90·····, . . :·'.00 .. ' .. .' ':::Q 2 '. 6 ..,... . ',0:' .() ...... ,~. ....',a":0: . ~~:., .. 0"· '.' -11 • .!n.l!i1m;.mft~iim-;7'~...... ".<;),0'. "'lI!:!L11.::::11"" u '" "1i:J'iIlJii n= " =-t'-"'-' 1'-=-":::::-11c- I' n: ii ''''''11"'":A -.....:.. It = "e::,,=-,,'='1Ie-"-" 11- 11=It= ,t w; " ,Ir 11=11 =11=lI 3 It= 11""11= e- I! H It =-" P " tl. 11=11"'11""""" II=-II It = :: t':: \I b 11"'11= II=-II-It:"'" g I! !Iii.g,i,~ii~ u:=.n=:.-n'C:'- " - ~ Trench 1 West Section ~ tIJ 2: S N c S N "'"~

.Jt .;14. -/1/'\ -I,/..,;:,.- f-i r---:::::1 < :: "/' 1 /,,,/' /' I I .. 0 '. ~~:. 0,:·0 ·'0·· 0.... ·0',_ ~ ::t1- '99.... o , 2 . ""''':=011=11''''.='' :-=-.. 'i~;:~~.".: O " n==-n.:- Trench 3 West Section {f1 1,: '.60'- IIc!.!=I'''' 3 11=11:1 ,,"'It ~: II-H = u"." "'" tIJ 11"'" It'" .!' '\-:'\1:::" n-= h:- c " ~ • ; Trench 2 West Section oH z rn

KEY 'Iq;IBedrock El Loa m and Rub b l e ~1~r Top soil I

I Ea tern end of house I I 11 I I PLATE No.2 I Eastern end of house Southern side. I I I I I I

Eastern end of house I Exterior I I I I I I I I I I I I I .4 t.ern end 0 f house. I I I I I I I I I

I houss-- filc' i nq no rt.l: I I I I I I I I I I I I h ..lf\TE No.6 I'Ll"TE 1\0. '7 I PI Zlt.e ---No b 'Tr'pnch LdYC r

'I I p 1(j t.e No I 'I'r-ench 1 Layer' 2

t) 1ate No B Tt'endl [,dyer- :3 I ------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I PU:\ rE ND.9 PtA . 10 I

I rl'l?r1ch '2 LaVt!r!

:-:.::::..::..:::~:..:::..:.~.1D: lrench 2 Laver '2

I :-:.::::..::..::::...... :..;:..:::..:..:...11;...:: 1 rench 2 I aver 5 I I I I I I I I I I Trench 3 layer 1 I I I I I I PLATE No. 13 Trench 3 Layer 2 I I I I I

I PLATE No. 14 I Trench 3 Layer 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PLATE No. 15: General View Site Il Looking South I I I I I I I I I I Site 1I Concrete platform Looking East I