hunter estates. a comparative heritage study of pre 1850s ... · the environment and heritage in...

HUNTER ESTATES

A Comparative Heritage Study ofpre 1850s Homestead Complexes

in the Hunter Region

Volume II Appendix 3: Historic Archaeology Report

CLIVE LUCAS, STAPLETON & PARTNERS PTY LTD Appendices

Hunter Estates Comparative Heritage Study



Appendix 3: Historic Archaeology Report

NINETEENTH CENTURY RURALHOMESTEAD COMPLEXES IN THE

HUNTER REGION.HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL

SURVEY.

Tocal, Tocal Road, Tocal NSW 2421 (Google Maps).

Edward A K Higginbotham,

MA (Cambridge), PhD (Sydney),MAACAI.

EDWARD HIGGINBOTHAM& ASSOCIATES PTY LTD.

Archaeology • History • & Heritage

A.B.N. 79 072 316 968

NINETEENTH CENTURY RURAL HOMESTEADCOMPLEXES IN THE HUNTER REGION.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

Edward Higginbotham

MA (Cambridge), PhD (Sydney), MAACAI.

EDWARD HIGGINBOTHAM & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

13 O’Connor Street

HABERFIELD, NSW 2045.

PO Box 97

HABERFIELD, NSW 2045.

Phone. (02) 9716-5154

[email protected]

www.higginbotham.com.au

For

Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners.

Draft September 2012

Final

Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd. (02) 9716-5154.

ii

CONTENTS.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ........................................................................................... iv

1 INTRODUCTION. ...............................................................................................1

1.1 Background................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Brief. .......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Location of site. .......................................................................................... 1

1.4 Heritage Listings. ....................................................................................... 1

1.5 Study methodology and limitations. ............................................................ 2

1.6 Author identification.................................................................................... 3

2 THE EXTENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE. .................................5

2.1 Methodology. ............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Definition of a Nineteenth Century Rural Homestead Complex.................... 5

2.3 Historical sources for mapping the archaeological resource. ....................... 6

2.4 The identification of individual properties. ................................................... 7

2.5 Figures..................................................................................................... 10

3 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE

HUNTER REGION....................................................................................................15

3.1 Distribution of rural settlement within the Settled Districts.......................... 15

3.2 Historical settlement typologies. ............................................................... 16

3.3 Settlement hierarchies.............................................................................. 18

3.4 Sample Bias............................................................................................. 18

3.5 Correcting the bias in the surviving evidence. ........................................... 19

3.6 The evolution of the homestead complex and

"Settlement Type Dynamics". ............................................................................... 21

3.7 Curtilages and archaeological assessment. .............................................. 22

3.8 Principal improvements found on homestead complexes. ......................... 23

3.9 Table. Survey of improvements on 51 homestead complexes

in the Goulburn Mulwaree LGA, 2009-2010.......................................................... 25

3.10 Property databases. ................................................................................. 28

3.11 Figures..................................................................................................... 29

4 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT LISTINGS................33

4.1 Introduction to assessment methodology. ................................................. 33

4.2 Preliminary selection of sites for archaeological assessment..................... 34

4.3 Sites requiring further research prior to assessment.................................. 35

4.4 Results of baseline archaeological assessment. ....................................... 36

4.5 Provisional List of sites for site inspection. ................................................ 36

4.6 Provisional List of Archaeological Sites..................................................... 39

4.7 The disturbance of archaeological sites. ................................................... 39

4.8 A note on significance. ............................................................................. 40

4.9 Figures..................................................................................................... 42


iii

5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS. ...............................................................................44

6 RECOMMENDATIONS. ....................................................................................45

APPENDIX 1. CADASTRAL MAPS OF EACH LOCAL COUNCIL AREA,

SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES ESTABLISHED

BEFORE THE 1850S. ..............................................................................................47

APPENDIX 2. BASELINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. THE

FORMAT OF THE DATABASE.................................................................................60

Location and Address. ......................................................................................... 60

Description of House and Outbuildings................................................................. 60

Typology of Sites. ................................................................................................ 62

Description of Farm Layout. ................................................................................. 63

Description of Farm Plantings and Landscaping. .................................................. 64

APPENDIX 3. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF

SITES IN THE CLSP HOMESTEAD DATABASE. .....................................................66


iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The author would like to thank

Client: Hector Abrahams and Kate Denny, Clive Lucas Stapleton

& Partners.

Aboriginal

Archaeology

Dominic Steele, Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology.

Historical Research Nicholas Jackson.


1

1 INTRODUCTION.

1.1 Background.

This report was commissioned by Hector Abrahams, Clive Lucas Stapleton &

Partners on 18 May 2012.

This report forms part of the Comparative Heritage Study of the Nineteenth Century

Rural Homestead Complexes of the Hunter Region, commissioned by the Office of

the Environment and Heritage in 2012.

1.2 Brief.

The purpose of this report is to provide the results of an historical archaeological

desktop survey of the nineteenth century homesteads of the Hunter Region. The

report seeks to:

1. Assess the extent of the archaeological resource.

2. Undertake a desktop survey of the previously listed sites to determine

condition and integrity.

3. Assess factors affecting protection, conservation and viability.

4. Determine priorities for heritage listing on the State Heritage Register.

1.3 Location of site.

The study area comprises twelve local government areas (Figure 1.1). The area

includes three regions, namely the Lower Hunter (Port Stephens, Maitland,

Newcastle, Cessnock and Lake Macquarie Councils), the Upper Hunter (Dungog,

Singleton, Muswellbrook and Upper Hunter Councils) and also the Manning River

Regions (Great Lakes, Gloucester and Greater Taree Councils).

All councils have Local Environment Plans (LEP), although the Upper Hunter Council

has three LEPs relating to the now amalgamated councils of Merriwa, Murrurundi

and Scone.

1.4 Heritage Listings.

The heritage listings that form the basis of this study have been compiled into a

database by Kate Denny, Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners.1

1 Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners, 2012. Homestead Database.


2

The direct antecedent to this database was prepared by Godden Mackay Logan Pty

Ltd (GML) in 2010 and forms part of the Wambo Homestead Complex Heritage

Strategy.2

1.5 Study methodology and limitations.

This report has been prepared in accordance with standard guidelines.3

The report is confined to a desktop survey and does not include the site survey of the

properties on the ground.

The report relies upon the database of homesteads provided by Clive Lucas

Stapleton & Partners. Funding has not allowed the author to inspect the original

listings that comprise this database.4

The desktop survey has revealed that the address and cadastral information for a

significant number of the listings have changed, including street numbering and road

name, lot and deposited plan numbers. In a small number of cases, the address

information provided with the original listing has been insufficient to re-locate these

properties or has caused mis-identification. Further research is required.

This report relies upon the historical documentation gathered by Nicholas Jackson

for Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners. Funding has allowed for little additional

historical research, except for the maps and plans described in Chapter 2. The

Subdivision Plans, from the State Library of New South Wales, have also been a

useful resource.

2 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd. 2010. Wambo Homestead Complex HeritageStrategy. Wambo Coal Pty Ltd.3 Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996. Statementsof Heritage Impact.

Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996. Conservation

Management Documents.Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996. NSW Heritage

Manual.

Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996.Archaeological assessment Guidelines.

Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. 1996. Heritage

Assessments.

NSW Heritage Office. 2000. Assessing Heritage Significance. A NSW HeritageManual Update.

J. S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.

The ICOMOS Burra Charter.4 Clive Lucas Stapleton & Partners, 2012. Homestead Database.


3

No funding has been available for a search of archaeological reports on Hunter

Valley Homesteads, other than those reports provided by Clive Lucas Stapleton &

Partners or Dominic Steele.

1.6 Author identification.

This report was prepared by Dr. Edward Higginbotham.


4

Figure 1.1. The Study Area comprising the twelve local government areas of Greater Taree, GreatLakes, Port Stephens, Gloucester, Dungog, Upper Hunter, Muswellbrook, Singleton, Maitland,Cessnock, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie.Source. Office of Environment and Heritage.


5

2 THE EXTENT OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE.

2.1 Methodology.

Previous studies have relied on listings and databases prepared for local and

regional heritage studies. They have emphasised the listing of good surviving

examples of homesteads, farms and outbuildings. They have often been prepared

with an emphasis on architectural and historical qualities.

In contrast, the archaeological approach should seek first to identify the total extent

of the archaeological resource to answer a series of research questions. What was

the total number of homesteads and farms in the study area in the nineteenth

century? How many of these survive and in what condition?

2.2 Definition of a Nineteenth Century Rural Homestead Complex.

Before proceeding to identify the archaeological resource, it is necessary to define

the criteria used to describe that resource. What is a "nineteenth century rural

homestead complex"?

In their comparative study of Wambo Homestead, Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd

defined the homestead complex as follows:

"…a homestead complex of an owner engaged in pastoral-based

activities (compared to town or company pursuits) with various early

outbuildings. In some examples, the residences will have been altered or

replaced by later owners/development, in others, the outbuildings have

been renewed."5

For the purposes of identifying the archaeological resource, the following additional

criteria have been used:

1. Land grants generally comprising more than 640 acres (1 square mile.

258.99 hectares), although in practise this has been reduced to 500 acres

(202.34 hectares) in cases where the land grant is conjoined to other land

grants in the same ownership.

2. Land granted in most cases prior to the end of convict transportation in 1840,

but extending through the 1840s to early 1850s, before the onset of closer

settlement from the 1850s onwards.

3. Land located within the Settled Districts.

4. Landholders involved in "pastoral or agricultural pursuits".

5 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd. 2010: 51.


6

The following properties have been excluded:

1. Land outside the Limits of Location.

2. Town and Suburban Allotments.

3. Village Reserves.

4. Church and School land.

5. Australian Agricultural Company land.

2.3 Historical sources for mapping the archaeological resource.

A series of historical maps has been used to identify the archaeological resource,

including:

1. Dixon's Map of the Colony of New South Wales, 1837.6

2. William Baker. Baker’s Australian County Atlas, 1843-1846.7

3. County Maps.

4. Parish Maps.

Both Dixon's Map and Baker's Atlas show the extent of rural settlement towards the

end of convict transportation in 1840. The County Maps are taken as the most

reliable source for the name of the grantee, though some editions do not include

grantee names. Reference has then been made to Parish Maps for the Grantee

name.

The rapid nature of the settlement of the Hunter Region can be gauged from the

comparison of various earlier maps, beginning with R. Penny's 1820 Map of New

South Wales, which shows the complete isolation of Newcastle (Port Hunter) from

the Settled Districts.8 Joseph Cross' Map of the Hunter River , in 1828 shows the

dramatic expansion in rural settlement within the first eight years of the 1820s.9

6 Robert Dixon. 1837. ‘This Map of the Colony of New South Wales Exhibiting theSituation and Extent of The Appropriated Lands, including the Counties, Towns,

Village Reserves, Etc, Compiled from Authentic Surveys etc is respectfully dedicatedto Sir John Barrow Bart, President of the Royal Geographic Society Etc Etc Etc Etc,

by His Obliged Humble Servant Robert Dixon. Engraved by J. & C. Walker. SR Map

4617.7 William Baker. Baker’s Australian County Atlas. Dedicated by permission to Sir T.L. Mitchell, Surveyor General of New South Wales, Showing the Various Parishes,

Grants, Townships Purchases and Unlocated Lands. Sydney, Printed and Publishedby William Baker, Hiberni[an] Press King Street East. 1843-1846. National Library of

Australia. Map RaA 8.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-raa88 “Map of New South Wales…”, by R. Penny, published in W. C. Wentworth.

Statistical, historical, and political description of the colony of New South Wales,Second Edition, 1820.

Source. National Library of Australia. http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-f864-e9 “Map of the Hunter River…”, engraved by Joseph Cross, London, 1828. Source. National

Library of Australia

http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-nk646-e


7

2.4 The identification of individual properties.

In order to identify the total number of homesteads and farms in the study area in the

nineteenth century, portions held by individual landholders have been combined into

single properties, where land grants are contiguous (even corner to corner). Where

land grants are not contiguous, they have been separated into individual farms. In

most cases grantees with the same surname have been combined, even if initials

are different. Further research is required to determine if these landholdings were

treated as single enterprises or farms in the historical context.

The results of the analysis were plotted onto the modern cadastre for each of the

twelve local governments in the study area (See Appendix 1). The following table

summarises the results:

LGA Properties

10,000 acplus

Properties

2560 acplus, up to

10,000 ac

Other

properties

CLSP

Database

Notes.

Greater

Taree

1 2 12 1

Great lakes 0 1 0 6 Excluding

AAC

Port

Stephens

0 7 61 31 Excluding

AAC

Gloucester 0 0 0 6 Excluding

AAC

Dungog 3 23 57 39

Upper Hunter 5 43 115 44

Muswellbrook 1 17 46 20

Singleton 3 20 113 34

Maitland 0 3 54 23

Cessnock 0 3 65 8

Newcastle 0 2 18 0

Lake

Macquarie

1 2 7 2

Totals 14 123 548 685

214

The table shows that a total of 685 properties have been identified in the Study Area.

They comprise at least 14 properties of 10,000 acres (4,046.86 hectares) or more,

123 properties of 2,560 (1,035.99 hectares) acres or more (but less than 10,000

acres) and 548 other properties, ranging from around 500 acres (202.34 hectares)

up to less than 2,560 acres.

How can the total of 685 properties as the complete archaeological resource be

correlated with the 214 listings in the CLSP Homesteads Database?


8

Furthermore, how can this total of 685 properties be reconciled with the total

identified by Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd of 554 listings of nineteenth century

homestead complexes established pre 1900 in New South Wales as a whole? Out of

this database, they identified only 78 Hunter Region Homestead Complexes

established pre 1850 and a further 137 established between 1850 and 1900, making

a total of 215 sites.

The GML Homestead Database does not restrict itself to rural properties, but also

includes some on town or suburban allotments and small portions. The CLSP

Homestead Database excludes all but rural properties, but with additional research

has brought the number of rural properties to a total of 214 sites.

There are a number of potential reasons that can be used to explain why the total

extent of the archaeological resource cannot be reconciled with the total number of

listings, including:

1. The existing heritage listings only record those homesteads that survive intact

or in a state sufficient to recognise architectural or historical characteristics of

significance.

2. A number of surviving homestead complexes have not been listed, but have

been overlooked.

3. A substantial proportion of the original homestead complexes have not

survived.

4. The methodology used to identify the archaeological resource is incorrect.

It is highly likely that all of these factors have played a varying role in the lack of

correlation between the listings and the archaeological resource. However given the

high level of professional expertise brought to bear on the heritage listing of

properties in the Hunter Region over the last 30-40 years, it is unlikely than many

properties have been overlooked. There is also a high level of correlation on a

property-by-property basis between the archaeological resource and the household

returns of the 1841 Census, confirming the archaeological methodology used.

Thus the most likely factor for the lack of correlation is the high rate of loss of

historical buildings.

The archaeological resource may survive in a number of forms, including buildings

and structures, then ruins and finally as below ground archaeological sites.

The lack of correlation between the listings and the archaeological resource may

reflect a worst-case scenario, in which less than a third of the original homestead

complexes survive as standing buildings or as ruins (31.38%).


9

It is assumed that a higher proportion of homestead sites survive as below ground

archaeological sites, but that assumption should be tested through a separate study

to assess the remaining 471 sites not already included as listings.10

The worst-case scenario may have another explanation, relating to our

understanding of settlement types, settlement hierarchies and the evolution of

settlement types (see Chapter 3).

10 The analysis of sites not already listed is outside the scope of this study.


10

2.5 Figures.

Figure 2.1. “Map of New South Wales…”, by R. Penny, published in W. C. Wentworth. Statistical,

historical, and political description of the colony of New South Wales, Second Edition, 1820.Source. National Library of Australia. http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-f864-eThis map of New South Wales shows the isolation of Newcastle (Port Hunter) from the settled districts.This is in complete contrast to the extent of settlement by 1828 shown in Figure 2.2).


11

Figure 2.2. “Map of the Hunter River…”, engraved by Joseph Cross, London, 1828.Source. National Library of Australia. http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-nk646-eBy 1828 free settlement had reached nearly the full extent of the Hunter Valley. Ships and steamerswith supplies for the settlers bypassed Newcastle and went as far as the head of navigation on the river.For shallow draft vessels the upper reaches were located at Maitland, but for larger vessels Morpeth

became the head of navigation. This focus of trade also made Maitland the centre of government for theHunter until the construction of the railway in 1857.


12

Figure 2.3. Detail of Dixon’s Map of NSW, 1837, showing the extent of settlement in the Study Area,

comprising the Counties of Macquarie, Gloucester, Durham, Brisbane, Bligh, Phillip, Hunter andNorthumberland.Source. Robert Dixon. 1837. ‘This Map of the Colony of New South Wales Exhibiting the Situation andExtent of The Appropriated Lands, including the Counties, Towns, Village Reserves, Etc, Compiled fromAuthentic Surveys etc is respectfully dedicated to Sir John Barrow Bart, President of the RoyalGeographic Society Etc Etc Etc Etc, by His Obliged Humble Servant Robert Dixon. Engraved by J. & C.Walker. SR Map 4617.


13

Figure 2.4. Map of the County of Durham, showing the extent of land alienated from the Crown, togetherwith roads, towns and villages.Source. William Baker. Baker’s Australian County Atlas. Dedicated by permission to Sir T. L. Mitchell,Surveyor General of New South Wales, Showing the Various Parishes, Grants, Townships Purchasesand Unlocated Lands. Sydney, Printed and Published by William Baker, Hiberni[an] Press King StreetEast. 1843-1846. National Library of Australia. Map RaA 8.http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-raa8


14

Figure 2.5. Map of the County of Durham, detail, showing the names of grantees and properties, for

land granted prior to the 1850s.Source. http://images.maps.nsw.gov.au/pixel.htm


15

3 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE HUNTER

REGION.

Chapter 2 sought to answer two important questions. What was the total number of

homesteads and farms in the study area in the nineteenth century? How many of

these survive and in what condition? It found that there were 685 properties forming

the total archaeological resource, but suggested a worst-case scenario in which less

than a third of this resource survived as standing buildings or ruins.

Although this worst-case scenario is initially hard to accept, a plausible explanation is

found in an understanding of settlement types, settlement hierarchies and the

evolution of settlement types.

In this chapter the following archaeological research questions are investigated

among others. What was the settlement pattern associated with the Hunter Region

homesteads? What settlement types can be observed? What settlement hierarchies

can be observed? Can sample bias be recognised in the archaeological resource?

How does the evolution of the homestead complex throughout the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries affect this archaeological resource? What are the principal

improvements found on homestead complexes?

3.1 Distribution of rural settlement within the Settled Districts.

An initial glance at any historical map showing the distribution of rural settlement in

the first half of the nineteenth century in the Settled Districts of New South Wales will

demonstrate very clearly that it was highly selective or patterned (Figure 2.3). There

are vast tracts of land, which have not been alienated from the Crown and which

remain unsettled to this day. The settlers primarily avoided the Hawkesbury

Sandstone and generalised slopes of more than 8 degrees.11

Preference was then given to access to water, alluvial soils and gravels, and land

only lightly timbered. These preferences characterise the large-scale pastoral

settlement of the settled districts until the closer settlement of the 1850s and later

nineteenth century. Unfortunately it was this same land that was occupied by the

greatest concentrations of native Aboriginal populations, causing inevitable conflict

and displacement.12

11 Jeans, D. N. 1972. An Historical Geography of New South Wales to 1901. ReedPublications. Artarmon, Sydney.12 Higginbotham, E. 1994. ‘The historical archaeology of rural settlement in theSouth Western Districts of New South Wales’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney.

Volume 1: 6.


16

The assessment of the homestead complexes in the Hunter Region reveals how the

land along major rivers and watercourses was selected very early in the 1820s, to

the detriment of later settlers and small farmers.

The homesteads that survive today are primarily located above the flood prone land,

but adjacent to the alluvial soils that were ideal for cultivation paddocks. This fixed

relationship between the homestead and the alluvial soils demonstrates the

importance given to access to water and the proximity to cultivated land, resulting in

the investment of substantial capital in fixed assets at this prime location, not only

housing and farm buildings, but orchards, annual and perennial crops. These were

fixed assets in contrast to the four-legged moveable assets that roamed the grassed

paddocks that stretched back and away from the watercourses.

3.2 Historical settlement typologies.

A document like the New South Wales Calendar and General Post Office Directory,

1832 will quickly reveal the contemporary terminology used by the local population to

describe the different types of rural settlement.13 In the description of the Great

North Road from Wiseman's to the extremities of settlement on the Liverpool Plains,

the various landholdings are described as follows:

1. Small Farms and Settlers.

2. Stations.

3. Farms.

4. Estates.

5. Farms for Veterans.

6. Large Farming Establishments.

7. Residences.

8. Sheep Runs.

This selection of terminology shows the distinction made between small and large

farms and between settlers with limited or extensive means. The terms "small farm"

and "farms for veterans" are used to describe specific small farms that can be

equated with land grants of less than 640 acres.

In contrast the terms, "estate" and "residence" are limited to the larger landholders.

These term "residence" is limited to the main residences of the larger landholders,

but the term "estate" is less indicative of a resident owner. The term "station" is

normally used to define a landholding, which is managed on behalf of an owner living

elsewhere. For this reason the landholdings on the Liverpool Plains were all termed

"stations" in the PO Directory of 1832.

13 New South Wales Calendar and General Post Office Directory, 1832. Sydney.Facsimile Edition published by the Public Library of NSW, 1966.


17

The PO Directory also uses the term "sheep run" to refer to the use of a particular

large landholding, though one might also expect to see the term used to describe

runs on Crown land, both within and without the Limits of Location.

The above differentiation in terminology is also reflected in the households and

settlement types that can be reconstructed from the 1828 Census.14

Settlement Group 1. Alienated Land.

Settlement Types:

Main Residence

Main Residence of Other Family Member

Managed Station or Farm

Other Residence

Settlement Group 2. Crown Land.

Settlement Types:

Run on Crown Land

Run on Crown Land, Managed

Run on Crown Land, by Stockholder

Settlement Group 3. Other Income.

Settlement Types:

Innkeeping

Lodgings

Place of Work

Tenant

Ungrouped Settlement Types

Settlement Types:

Duplicate

Land and Stock Held by Employee

Land and Stock Held by Partner

Unidentified

Of the above settlement types, the following are of particular relevance to the study

of Hunter Region homesteads.

1. Main Residence

2. Main Residence of Other Family Member

3. Managed Station or Farm, and

4. Run on Crown Land.

The settlement types correlate with the terms "estates", "residences", "stations" and

"runs" that are used in the 1832 PO Directory.

14 Edward Higginbotham. 1993. 'The 1828 Census and the analysis of ruralsettlement in NSW', Australasian Historical Archaeology. Volume 11. p. 52-75.


18

3.3 Settlement hierarchies.

The 1828 Census also clearly reveals that many larger landholders possessed a

series of settlement types. Typically a single landholder might possess a main

residence, a managed station or farm, but also one or more runs on alienated or

Crown land. The chain-of-settlement pattern from the settled districts out beyond the

Limits of Location is well documented particularly from the 1820s and 1830s

onwards. Examples include James Hale of Wambo, who possessed a string of

properties up into New England.15 The Dumaresq family at Muswellbrook, Scone

and Saumarez in New England provide another example.

Historical maps have been used to reconstruct the settlement pattern of the Hunter

Region up to the 1840s, locating 685 properties. Research has already indicated that

improvements can be expected on each of the three main settlement types. The

extent of improvements will depend on the place each property holds in the hierarchy

of settlement types of each landholder. The land grants occupied as main residences

possess the most improvements and the highest level of capital investment. Those

occupied as managed stations or farms had more utilitarian improvements, while

runs on alienated or Crown land mostly possessed only a hut and stockyards or

pens.16

The usage of Lyndhurst Vale in 1830 as a run on alienated land is illustrated by a

plan showing only "Verge's Hut" without any other improvements on the property.

Brookfield, the adjacent property to the south, is similarly only shown with one hut

and may have been used for the same purpose (Figure 3.1).17

An understanding of settlement hierarchies among the properties in the Hunter

Region now begins to provide a partial explanation for the lack of correlation

between the archaeological resource of 684 sites and the 214 listed properties.

3.4 Sample Bias.

Sample bias is present within the surviving evidence for rural settlement, not just for

the Hunter Region, but also for all the Settled Districts of New South Wales,

particularly for the period up to the 1850s.

Sample bias may be described as the differential rates of survival of settlement types

and the buildings each possess. Over time, the cumulative effect of these processes

15 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd. 2010: 57.16 Edward Higginbotham. 1993. 'The 1828 Census and the analysis of ruralsettlement in NSW', Australasian Historical Archaeology. Volume 11. p. 52-75.17 Survey of Williams River. G B White. 1830. Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW.Z M2 811.24/1830/1


19

will result in the survival of a highly biased sample, which is not representative of the

historical settlement pattern.

Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, in their report on Wambo Homestead recognise

some of the causes for the depletion of the archaeological record in recent years:

"…in the 28 years that have elapsed, much of the rich heritage Sheedy

observed has disappeared—by fire, flood, neglect, demolition, urban and

industrial development."18

The survival of historical buildings on homestead complexes, stations and runs

depends on the continued investment of capital in maintenance and improvement.

Reasons for a cessation of capital input include the redundancy of buildings as

labour and technology requirements change or with subdivision or amalgamation of

land. The personal and financial circumstances of the landowners may also result in

a lack of capital to fund maintenance and improvements.

Given the variation in the level and continuity of capital invested in main residences,

stations or runs, sample bias in the current listings can be easily demonstrated.

All the current heritage listings for rural properties relate to main residences. None

relates to stations or runs. These two statements clearly need to be tested against

the heritage listings themselves, but if found to be true, reveal the heavy weight of

sample bias on the surviving archaeological resource. Sample bias against certain

settlement types therefore becomes part of the explanation for the lack of correlation

with the surviving heritage listings.

Not only is there sample bias in the surviving settlement hierarchy, but it is also

active within each property. It is obvious in the better survival of brick and masonry

buildings over timber structures. It is also an important factor in the poor survival of

convict accommodation, both mens' huts and convict barracks, when they became

redundant in the 1840s. They were replaced by better quality cottages to ensure that

the waged employees were retained; Tocal provides an excellent example of this

process of change.19

3.5 Correcting the bias in the surviving evidence.

If we are to gain a better understanding of the historical settlement pattern, sample

bias should be countered. We should take action to restore the evidence to a

balanced and representative state.

18 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd. 2010: 45.19 Brian Walsh. Voices from Tocal: convict life on a rural estate. CB AlexanderFoundation. Tocal. 2008.


20

Since the current heritage listings represent only the main residences, the

archaeological resource should be addressed to provide an equal sample of the

former stations and runs, the other components of the settlement hierarchy.

Since this study is limited to the review of the current heritage listings, the

assessment of the 471 other sites identified as the archaeological resource is

beyond the scope of work that can be undertaken at present. Nonetheless among

the existing listings are a number of archaeological sites. Again they are all examples

of main residences.

Although the extent of historical research for each property has been limited by the

large extent of the study area and the numbers of sites requiring attention,

nonetheless historical documentation is already available to highlight at least the run

on alienated or Crown land settlement type. Examples include "Verge's Hut" and the

hut on Brookfield, already mentioned. Various place names, like Sheep Station

Creek, may refer to the location of a run on Crown land. Surveyor's Field Books have

been used in previous studies to locate the huts and yards associated with cattle or

sheep runs on Crown land.20 In one important instance, the 1885 subdivision plan

for St. Hilliers, near Muswellbrook and Aberdeen, shows the combination of a hut

and sheepyard at two locations on the property, at least 3 miles (4.8 kilometres) from

the homestead.21 This document gives an indication of what must have been a

common practice on the larger properties, particularly in the period of convict

transportation up to 1840 and before the advent of wire fences in the 1860s onwards.

Other property or subdivision plans reveal that many homestead complexes had a

broader range of outbuildings than survives today. Examples include Bona Vista,

Bellevue, Elmswood, Glendon, Glen Livet and St Aubins. On the latter property, the

homestead is located to the south of Scone, but the associated Shearing Shed and

Houses (Shearers' Quarters?) are located at the other extreme of the estate at

Parkville. The shearing shed no longer survives (Figure 3.2). On Glendon, a plan

dated to 1856 shows the location of two rows of mens' huts and other buildings that

are no longer extant (Figure 3.3). They are probably buildings that were used

previously for convict accommodation.

The archaeological sites of homesteads are also revealed by subdivision plans or

other plans included in title documents. Examples include Boorara, Cardoress,

Kirkton and Louth Park (Figure 3.4).

20 Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd. Goulburn Mulwaree Archaeological

Management Plan. 2010. Volume 2: 7.21 Mitchell Library Subdivision Plans. The Hall Estate. St Hilliers. 1885.


21

3.6 The evolution of the homestead complex and "Settlement Type

Dynamics".

"Settlement types therefore change with the evolution or development of

properties by landholders. For example a run may become a managed

station or farm, a managed station or farm may become a main

residence, or a main residence may become a tenant settlement type.

Changes from one settlement type to another reveal significant stages in

the development of economic strategies by landholders."22

"Settlement Type Dynamics" play an important role, not only in the historical

settlement pattern, but also in the surviving heritage listings. Properties evolved

during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As stations and runs were converted

or evolved into main residences, so a homestead would be built, together with its

associated improvements. From the current heritage listings it is clear that the first

homesteads on a number of properties were therefore constructed after the end of

convict transportation in the 1840s. In other instances it is suggested that

landholdings never became main residences, never possessed a homestead

complex. For example Lyndhurst Vale was a run in the 1830s. The subdivision plan,

dated to 1917, shows the pre-existing settlement nodes or nuclei, but does not

indicate the location of a homestead. Was this run converted into leasehold farms

rather than a homestead complex? What effect does this have on the surviving

heritage sites on the property? What significance should tenant farms be given in the

context of the evolution of large landholdings?

We have already seen how a number of distinct settlement types can be found on

one property. St Hilliers in 1885 had not only a main residence at the homestead, but

also at least two sheep runs on the far reaches of the land. Likewise a significant

number of subdivision plans for the properties in the study area show not only the

main homestead, but also a number of other buildings, cottages, houses and related

outbuildings. Examples include Lyndhust Vale, Osterley, Overton, Penshurst,

Piercefield, Redbourneberry, Rosebank, Rosebrook (near Maitland), St Clair and

Woodville.

The plans for Penshurst reveal the nature of much of this development of the larger

estates, namely the leasing of small farms to settlers. For small farmers, leasehold

property on good alluvial soil was a better alternative to conditional purchase on land

that was only useful for grazing of cattle and sheep, or alternatively heavily timbered.

These same subdivision plans also sometimes reveal the historical context of the

leaseholds as part of the expansion of dairy farming in the second half of the

22 Edward Higginbotham. 1993. 'The 1828 Census and the analysis of ruralsettlement in NSW', Australasian Historical Archaeology. Volume 11. p. 63.


22

nineteenth century. Other examples include piggeries (Penshurst) and tobacco

production (Merton).

Thus on the same land as a main residence or homestead, there are ample

examples of the Tenant Settlement Type; leasehold farms therefore form a

significant part of the settlement pattern associated with homestead complexes. The

bias of the current listings towards the main homesteads should also be balanced by

the listing of what were former leasehold properties on the same landholdings. Do

leasehold farms buildings survive? This question should again be resolved by

analysis of the existing heritage listings, but also through thorough analysis of the

remaining archaeological resource.

Other examples of two or more settlement types on one original land grant or

combined holding may be found among the current heritage listings. Examples

include Dalwood House and Leconfield, or Castle Forbes and Baroona. Another

interesting combination is provided by Berry Park, Berry House and Duckenfield.

Further afield at Muswellbrook, Edinglassie, Rous Lench, Balmoral and Skellater are

all located on the one combined landholding of Francis Forbes. At Allynbrook and

East Gresford, Caegrwle, Maryville and Cam Yr Allyn are all located on what

appears to be one large landholding, as are Lewinsbrook and Bingleburra and the

adjacent Bingleburra Park. Further research is required to elucidate the historical

context of these multiple homesteads or residences on the one landholding, but the

study of the 1828 Census has already revealed how family members and other

related persons were housed on single landholdings (Main Residence of Other

Family Member Settlement Type).

Where multiple settlement types are located on the one landholding, it is important,

first, that the relationships to the main homestead complex are recognised and,

second, that the associated properties are given appropriate representation during

heritage listing.

3.7 Curtilages and archaeological assessment.

The distribution of settlement types on individual land grants or holdings has a

twofold affect on not only curtilages, but also the methodology for archaeological

assessment. Only a basic level of desktop investigation or a baseline archaeological

assessment has been completed for each heritage listing for Hunter Region

homestead complexes in this study.

A more thorough archaeological assessment of each property should be based first

of all on detailed historical research of primary and secondary sources. An essential

element of this research is the elucidation of the economic strategy utilised by the

individual landowner, so that the settlement types on the property can be readily


23

identified. Failure to identify settlement types correctly will lead to misinterpretation of

the archaeological evidence and a misunderstanding of the heritage item.

Although most settlement on historical land grants was located at one or more

settlement nodes or nuclei, the evidence already discussed reveals that certain

settlement types will be located at a distance from the main residence. Examples

include sheep and cattle runs, but also other residences and farm buildings. Items

like water mills also had different location requirements in contrast to homesteads.

A significant proportion of current heritage listings has concentrated on the

homestead itself and failed to list the associated outbuildings. This is sometimes

understandable when the outbuildings are more recent, but fails to take into account

the possible archaeological resources for outbuildings and other structures that may

survive.

The investigation of the archaeological resource indicates that the primary curtilage

should be the boundaries of the original land grant or combined landholding. Only

after detailed archaeological assessment should this curtilage be reduced to protect

the homestead complexes and other archaeological sites identified on a property.

3.8 Principal improvements found on homestead complexes.

As part of his thesis on rural settlement, Dr. Edward Higginbotham examined the

limited historical references to improvements on main residences in the South

Western Districts to be found in the Colonial Secretary Correspondence Regarding

Land, held by the Archives Office of New South Wales.23 Although this research

related to large homesteads in the South Western Districts, nonetheless it is still

applicable to other homesteads in the Settled Districts of New South Wales for the

period up to the 1850s.

In the 43 examples of main residences in rural situations, substantial variation was

exhibited, but the evidence revealed a relatively common grouping of buildings and

other improvements, including a house, fencing, barn, men's huts, stable,

outbuildings, dairy and stockyards. Other buildings, which were not so frequently

mentioned, included granaries, kitchens, mills, stores and sheep sheds. Each of the

following structures received a single mention: coach(house), cowyard, ditching,

dockyard, forge, milking yard, piggeries, school house, shed, water holes, watermill

and workshop.

23 Higginbotham, E. 1994. ‘The historical archaeology of rural settlement in theSouth Western Districts of New South Wales’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney.

Volume 1. Chapter 5.


24

Improvements. Totalnumber

Frequency(%).

Dwelling, house, cottage or hut 40 93.02

Fencing 25 58.14

Barn 16 37.21

Stable 10 23.26

Mens or servants huts, or barracks 9 20.93

Outbuildings, outhouses, offices. 8 18.60

Dairy 8 18.60

Stockyard 5 11.63

Granary 4 9.30

Kitchen 2 4.65

Mill 2 4.65

Sheep shed 2 4.65

Store 2 4.65

Coach(house) 1 2.33

Cowyard 1 2.33

Ditching 1 2.33

Dockyard 1 2.33

Forge 1 2.33

Milking yard 1 2.33

Piggery 1 2.33

School house 1 2.33

Shed 1 2.33

Water holes or tanks 1 2.33

Watermill 1 2.33

Workshop 1 2.3324

The above inventory of improvements can be compared and contrasted with the

survey of fifty-one homestead complexes in the Goulburn-Mulwaree local

government area in 2009-2010.25

This survey again revealed the predominance of the homestead itself, ranging in

style from what was termed vernacular with a British regional derivation, through

Georgian and Victorian to modern, comprising a wide range of building materials.

Attached to the main house were servants' quarters, kitchen wings and nearby

detached kitchens. Following close behind were the various workers cottages,

managers cottages, mens' huts and shearers' quarters.

The most prominent farm buildings included barns, stables, coachhouses, woolsheds

or shearing sheds, wool washeries, granaries, blacksmith's shops, dairies and meat

sheds, as well as flourmills. One property also possessed a gate lodge.

24 Edward Higginbotham. 1993. 'The 1828 Census and the analysis of ruralsettlement in NSW', Australasian Historical Archaeology. Volume 11. p. 69.25 Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd. Goulburn Mulwaree ArchaeologicalManagement Plan. Goulburn Mulwaree Council. December 2010. Volume 2: 26ff.


25

The Goulburn-Mulwaree survey also revealed some very important findings. Among

the survey of homesteads, the surviving houses represented up to a fifth rebuild of a

main residence. The original house was only present on eight properties, but a

second house had survived in ten examples.

Another important finding was the near absence of convict accommodation. No

convict barracks were located, though one slab hut may have survived from an early

period and represents the standard type of accommodation occupied by men or

convicts (Lockyersleigh).

Another distinct feature was the presence of gaols on some of the properties owned

by magistrates. The best example survives on Reevesdale, but relates to the

magistrate at Inverary Park. Other examples have been possibly identified at

Lansdowne and Rossiville. Other forms of confinement, simply represented by iron

bars on windows for cellars or storerooms, are in fact for the safekeeping of stores,

rather than confinement.

3.9 Table. Survey of improvements on 51 homestead complexes in the

Goulburn Mulwaree LGA, 2009-2010.

Source. Goulburn Mulwaree AMP, 2010.26

Main categories, buildings, structures,

features.

Number of sites with these items.

1. Main building or structures.

Chapel. 4

Cemetery. 6

House. 40

Hotel. 5

Manager’s House. 2

Public School. 1

Private Village 3

House – Stage 1 8

House – Stage 2 10

House – Stage 3 3

House – Stage 4 3

House – Stage 5 2

Farm – Vernacular – Regional Britishderivation.

2

Cottage – Vernacular. 14

Colonial Georgian 8

Georgian. 13

Victorian. 7

Victorian Italianate. 2

26 Edward Higginbotham & Associates Pty Ltd. Goulburn Mulwaree ArchaeologicalManagement Plan. Goulburn Mulwaree Council. December 2010. Volume 2: 26ff.


26

Federation. 1

Californian Bungalow. 1

20th Century. 1

Brick. 8

Brick or stone 1

Stone. Stone rubble. 11

Stone, dressed. 5

Render 7

Slab. 2

Weatherboard. 3

Lath and Plaster. 1

Pise. 1

Other buildings. 1

Detached kitchen. 2

Kitchen wing. 10

Servant’s Quarters. 5

2. Description - Other Buildings.

2a. Staff housing.

Cottage 4

Worker’s cottage. 10

Hut. 3

Men’s hut. 1

Shearers’ quarters. 4 (not all recorded)

2b. Main farm buildings

Barn. 13

Barn and Stable. 1

Stable. 8

Coachhouse. 4

Coachhouse and Stable. 8

Saddlery and tack room. 1 (not all recorded).

Ballroom. 1

Woolshed. 4 (not all may have been

recognised).

Shearing shed. 6 (not all recorded).

Wool washery. 2

Shed for merino rams. 1

Granary. 2 (not all may have been identified).

Granary and flour store. 1

Gatelodge. 1

Weighbridge. 1

Chicken shed. 1 (not all may have been recorded)

Shed. 3

Outbuildings. 19

Sandstone gateposts. 1

2c. The trades.

Blacksmith’s shop or smithy. 6

Workshops for other trades. 1

2d. Mills.

Windmill. 1 (site of)

Horse powered mill. 1

Millstones, grindstones. 1

Milling equipment and grindstones in situ. 1


27

Associated machinery and equipment in situ. 1

2e. Food preservation and production.

Dairy or cool room. 5

Meat Shed. 5

Building complex – cider making. 1

Honey house 1

2f. Other domestic duties.

Laundry. 1 (site of)

2g. Religion and education.

Jewish Synagogue. 1

Schoolhouse. 1 (not all may have been

recognised).

2h. Methods of water conservation.

Water trough. 1 (not all may have been recorded).

Well. 2 (not all may have been recorded).

Water tank. 1 (not all may have been recorded).

Cistern. 1 (not all may have been recorded).

Dam. 1 (not all may have been recorded).

Dam and causeway. 1 (not all may have been recorded).

2i. Industrial sites.

Limestone quarry. 1

Lime kiln. 1

Brick kilns 1

2k. Agriculture or stock control.27

Paddocks – fenced, as indicated on historical

plans.

3

Historical documentation or aerial

photographic evidence

3 (sample only).

2m. Communications.

Bridge abutments. 1

2n. The great pastimes.

Racecourses. 2

Grandstands. 1

Grandstands, raided earthen banks. 1

Armoury – guns for hunting. 1

3. Penal System.

Gaol 3

Other place of confinement - cellar 1

Other place of confinement - storeroom 2

4. Layout and Landscape.

Courtyard layout of house and outbuildings. 4 (surviving buildings may not

reveal original layout in some

cases).

Rectilinear Farm Layout, often around fencedand tree lined enclosures.

11

Exotic Plantings. 36

Formal gardens. 13

Pastoral Landscape. 34

Old road routes. 15 (not recorded in every case).

27 Note that category 2j and 2l are avoided, because of easy confusion with 2i and21 (number).


28

Grid layout of private villages. 1 (not recorded in every case).

3.10 Property databases.

The richness of the surviving improvements on the homestead complexes in the

Goulburn-Mulwaree area indicates that site survey for the Hunter Region would

reveal a similar rich heritage. Indeed the current listings for the Hunter Region do

exhibit this richness, but as yet it has evaded detailed quantification:

"For each of the items, the database includes brief annotation from

desktop information currently available on the architectural components

of the sites, their character, age and integrity (where known) and basic

history. Not unexpectedly, the data ranged considerably in its age and

available detail, particularly in relation to outbuildings, and must be

ground truthed. This represents an initial assembly to be refined and

updated over time. It should be regarded as a work in progress."28

The desktop baseline archaeological assessment database described in Chapter 4

takes the existing database forward by providing additional quantifiable information

on both the houses and outbuildings and enables a selection to be made for site

survey and "ground truthing".

28 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd. 2010: 49.


29

3.11 Figures.

Figure 3.1. Survey of Williams River, G B White, 1830, detail.Source. Mitchell Library. Z M2 811.24/1830/1

The plan shows a single hut ("Verge's Hut") on Lyndhurst Vale and a similar hut on Brookfield to thesouth, indicating that both were used as runs.


30

Figure 3.2. Subdivision plan for St. Aubins at Scone, details.Source. Mitchell Library. Subdivision plans. County of Brisbane.

The subdivision plan not only shows the vast size of the landholding, but the different locations of thehomestead complex and its shearing shed.


31

Figure 3.3. Plan of Glendon, by White and Gale, 1856, detail.

Source. Mitchell Library. Z M4 811.24/gbbd/1856/1

This plan is unusual in that it reveals the rows of mens' huts beside the homestead. These buildingswould have housed the workers on the estate and no doubt the convict workforce prior to the 1840s.


32

Figure 3.4. Plan of Louth Park, Dodds, 1854, detail.Source. Mitchell Library. Z M2 811.25/1854/2

This plan shows the layout of the homestead and other buildings, none of which survive as standingbuildings.


33

4 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT LISTINGS.

4.1 Introduction to assessment methodology.

The CLSP Homestead Database has identified a total of 214 sites. All of these sites

were subject to analysis, which included gathering information under a number of

headings:

1. Location and Address.

2. Description of House and Outbuildings.

3. Description of Farm Layout and Landscaping.

In addition to the database, a series of vertical aerial photographs was gathered for

each property, together with supporting historical maps and plans.

The purpose of the baseline archaeological assessment is to:

1. Provide accurate and up to date property information.

2. Confirm the identification of the listed item.

3. Provide quantifiable information on the number of houses, cottages and

outbuildings on each property.

4. Assist in the selection of sites for site survey.

The following documentation was used to identify and locate each item. Most

mapping is available electronically through the Spatial Information Exchange (SIX):29

1. Lite Maps, providing access to current aerial photography, current

topographic maps and current address and title information.30

2. Historical county, parish, village and town maps were used to verify property

locations and help identify other properties. They were also used to

determine the date of grant, size of grant or status of the land (either portion,

town or suburban allotment).31

3. In a small number of cases it was necessary to research parish maps through

the Parish Map Preservation Project.32

4. In most cases, except in portions of the Upper Hunter LGA, Google Maps

provided the most detailed aerial photography, used in the baseline

archaeological assessment.33

5. ML subdivision plans often assisted in locating properties and provided more

details on historical improvements.

The baseline archaeological assessment is a desktop analysis and has not been

supported by site survey on the ground. While the availability of documentation

through the internet has made this type of survey much easier to complete,

29 https://six.maps.nsw.gov.au/wps/portal/30 http://lite.maps.nsw.gov.au/31 http://images.maps.nsw.gov.au/pixel.htm32 http://parishmaps.lands.nsw.gov.au/pmap.html33 https://maps.google.com/


34

nonetheless vertical aerial photography does not compare with the information that

can be recorded by site inspection. The desktop analysis has been adapted to

provide meaningful information from this resource, but shortcomings include the

limited ability to date buildings from their roof style or to ascribe use to the farm

buildings. The assessment is therefore intended to provide sufficient information to

determine which sites warrant further assessment through site survey.

(Details relating to the format of the database are described in Appendix 2).

4.2 Preliminary selection of sites for archaeological assessment.

Each of the 214 properties identified in the CLSP Homestead Database was subject

to an initial assessment. The total number of entries was expanded during this

process to a total of 233 listings, in order to allow for more detailed analysis of some

individual properties or to suggest alternative sites (see Second Listings below).

However a number of the properties require additional research before assessment,

or alternatively could not be located on the information available. Other properties

have been excluded from the database on the grounds that they do not comply with

the definition of a Hunter Region Homestead Complex, as provided in Chapter 2.2.

A total of 94 properties was therefore excluded from the database and the remaining

139 properties were subject to baseline archaeological assessment. The table below

summarises the reasons for exclusion.

Category Number of Properties

Australian Agricultural Company 8

Further research required 42

Not located 5

Outside Study Area 3

Outside the Limits of Location 1

Second Listing 16

Small Portions 13

Town or Suburban Allotments 5

Village Reserves 1

Total excluded from baseline

archaeological assessment

94

Note - Second Listing refers to a second record relating to an existing listing. The

quantifiable information is provided in the original listing, but the second listing

provides additional information or alternative listings on a particular property.


35

4.3 Sites requiring further research prior to assessment.

The following 47 properties require further research before they can be assessed:

LGA SHI Name

Cessnock 2820008 Abercorn

Cessnock 2820004 Caerphilly

Dungog 2820046 Fotheringaye - Royston

Dungog 2820040 Lyndhurst Vale

Dungog 2820029 Mountjove - Mountjoy ?

Dungog 2820045 Summer Hill

Dungog 2820036 Thalaba

Dungog 2820031 Tillegra

Dungog 2820021 Trevallyn

Gloucester 2820050 Faulkland

Lake Macquarie 2820061 Cooranbang

Lake Macquarie 2820062 Lymington ?

Liverpool Plains 2820191 Warrah - Old Warrah -

New Warrah

Maitland 2820081 Dunoon

Maitland 2820080 Font Hill

Maitland 2820076 Regentville

Muswellbrook 2820088

Muswellbrook 2820102 Belmont

Port Stephens 2820126 Bowthorne

Port Stephens 2820128 Doribank

Port Stephens 2820130 Eagleton - Engleton

Port Stephens 2820132 Hollow Tree

Port Stephens 2820115 Irrawang

Port Stephens 2820127 Kilcoy

Port Stephens 2820122 Kimmerghan

Port Stephens 2820129 Leigh Farm

Port Stephens 2820133 Motto

Port Stephens 2820116 Newton - Tabbra

Port Stephens 2820117 Rosebank

Port Stephens 2820118 Toombimba

Port Stephens 2820125 Tremarton Park

Singleton 2820155 Ardersier

Singleton 2820141 Arrowfield

Singleton 2820167 Bebeah

Singleton 2820153 Carrow Brook

Singleton 2820166 Clifford

Singleton 2820162 Ewbank

Singleton 2820165 Frome

Singleton 2820163 Greylands

Singleton 2820160 Hambledon Hill

Singleton 2820168 Spottiswood

Singleton 2820158 Strowan

Upper Hunter 2820201 Barsham

Upper Hunter 2820192 Bloomfield

Upper Hunter 2820193 Carrington Park


36

LGA SHI Name

Upper Hunter 2820187 Dartbrook

Upper Hunter 2820213 Gelston

4.4 Results of baseline archaeological assessment.

The baseline archaeological assessment recorded the number of homesteads,

attached buildings and outbuildings. It recorded the roof style of the main

homestead, visible from aerial photography. It also recorded the layout of the main

homestead and its primary farmyard.

In many cases there were a number of other settlement nodes or nuclei on the

property, comprising houses, cottages or outbuildings. Some properties had up to 5

settlement nuclei, in addition to the main homestead and primary farmyard. All of the

buildings were added into the quantified database for each property.

A number of outbuildings were excluded from the quantified database, including

stock shelters, usually associated with pens or yards (modern horse breeding?) and

large sheds for modern pig or poultry production.

Finally the nature of landscaping and plantings on each property was recorded,

including the presence of mature gardens, mature exotic or native trees, avenues,

hedges and windbreaks.

The results of the baseline archaeological assessment allow the database of

homestead complexes to be analysed in accordance with three principal criteria:

1. Typology of Sites, namely the numbers of buildings, outbuildings and

settlement nuclei.

2. Farm Layout.

3. Plantings and Landscaping.

(Details relating to the format of the database are described in Appendix 2.

Preliminary results of the analysis of sites according to the three above criteria are

provided in Appendix 3.)

4.5 Provisional List of sites for site inspection.

The three classification criteria described above should not be used to provide a

ranking of each property, but should simply be used as a guide in selecting

properties for further investigation. The aerial photographic survey provides a

general overview of each property and enables the archaeologist or heritage

practitioner to select those sites requiring site inspection.


37

On this basis, a total of 94 properties has been provisionally selected by the

archaeologist for site inspection. This list will be updated by the heritage architect

and others prior to site survey. (The list does not include those sites that survive

principally as below ground archaeological sites. The latter sites are listed separately

below).

LGA SHI Property Name

Cessnock 2820006 Laguna House

Dungog 2820044 Bingleburra

Dungog 2820044 Bingleburra Park

Dungog 2820023 Cam Yr Allyn - Camyr Allyn

Dungog 2820013 Cangon

Dungog 2820024 Cawarra

Dungog 2820038 Cory Vale (and Vacy ?)

Dungog 2820039 Dingadee

Dungog 2820030 Figtree - Lanquoyah

Dungog 2820019 Gostwyck

Dungog 2820014 Maryville

Dungog 2820035 Mulconda

Dungog 2820026 Munni - Down

Dungog 2820042 Nulla Nulla

Dungog 2820022 Penshurst

Dungog 2820032 Tillemby - Tillimby - Tillimbi

Dungog 2820020 Tocal

Dungog 2820009 Torryburn

Dungog 2820033 Underbank Estate

Dungog 2820011 Wirragulla - Crooks Park - Wilhur Chulla

Dungog 2820011 Wirragulla - Crooks Park - Wilhur Chulla

Maitland 2820069 Aberglasslyn

Maitland 2820079 Anambah

Maitland 2820063 Bellevue - see Mindaribba

Maitland 2820067 Berry Park

Maitland 2820072 Bolwarra

Maitland 2820077 Closebourne - see also Illalaung and Morpeth House

Maitland 2820065 Dunmore

Maitland 2820064 Eelah

Maitland 2820068 Kaludah - Lochinvar

Maitland 2820063 Mindaribba - see Bellevue

Maitland 2820071 Windermere

Muswellbrook 2820104 Baerami

Muswellbrook 2820105 Balmoral

Muswellbrook 2820087 Bengalla

Muswellbrook 2820087 Dalmar Stud - Celdon Stud - Pickering

Muswellbrook 2820097 Edinglassie - See Rous Lench

Muswellbrook 2820090 Martindale

Muswellbrook 2820096 Merton

Muswellbrook 2820094 Negoa

Muswellbrook 2820086 Overton - Overdene

Muswellbrook 2820091 Pickering - see alternative listing

Muswellbrook 2820089 Piercefield

Muswellbrook 2820100 Plashett


38


Muswellbrook 2820095 Randwick Park - Woodlands Stud

Muswellbrook 2820092 Rosebrook - Rosehill Stud

Muswellbrook 2820098 Rous Lench - See Edinglassie

Muswellbrook 2820103 St Hilliers

Port Stephens 2820131 Brandon Estate

Port Stephens 2820108 Burrowell

Port Stephens 2820106 Duninald - see other listing

Port Stephens 2820109 Eskdale

Port Stephens 2820121 Glen Livett

Port Stephens 2820111 Hinton

Port Stephens 2820112 Kinross

Port Stephens 2820134 Stradbroke

Port Stephens 2820107 Wallalong

Singleton 2820147 Archerfield

Singleton 2820149 Baroona - Rosemount

Singleton 2820137 Glendon

Singleton 2820150 Greenwood - see also Newington

Singleton 2820159 Mount Leonard

Singleton 2820148 Neotsfield

Singleton 2820138 Ravensworth

Singleton 2820157 Redbourneberry

Singleton 2820146 Wambo

Upper Hunter 2820179 Belltrees

Upper Hunter 2820195 Bickham

Upper Hunter 2820174 Brindley Park

Upper Hunter 2820172 Cassilis

Upper Hunter 2820203 Cliffdale

Upper Hunter 2820171 Collaroy

Upper Hunter 2820205 Cressfield

Upper Hunter 2820197 Cuan

Upper Hunter 2820214 Cullingral

Upper Hunter 2820188 Dalkeith

Upper Hunter 2820204 Elmswood

Upper Hunter 2820194 Glen Alvon - Glenalvon

Upper Hunter 2820206 Grampian Hills

Upper Hunter 2820198 Harben Vale

Upper Hunter 2820181 Invermein

Upper Hunter 2820189 Kelvinside

Upper Hunter 2820209 Kingslyn

Upper Hunter 2820208 Llangollen

Upper Hunter 2820175 Puen Buen

Upper Hunter 2820182 Segenhoe

Upper Hunter 2820178 St Aubins

Upper Hunter 2820173 Terragong

Upper Hunter 2820180 Thornthwaite

Upper Hunter 2820186 Timor

Upper Hunter 2820177 Turanville

Upper Hunter 2820210 Waverley

Upper Hunter 2820196 Yarrandi

Upper Hunter 2820207 Yarrawonga


39

4.6 Provisional List of Archaeological Sites.

The following sites have been identified specifically as archaeological sites, because

they either lack a main house or survive only as ruins or below ground

archaeological sites. However it should be noted that all the homestead complexes

are archaeological sites and will contain relics and sites of previous buildings.


Cessnock 2820003 The Wilderness

Dungog 2820028 Brookfield - Lowther Park

Dungog 2820015 Cardoress

Dungog 2820040 Lyndhurst Vale - Verge’s Hut 1830

Maitland 2820067 Duckenfield

Maitland 2820074 Louth Park

Maitland 2820075 Newington - See also Greenwood

Maitland 2820085 Rathluba

Muswellbrook 2820103 St Hilliers

Port Stephens 2820124 Osterley Park

Port Stephens 2820110 Porphyry Point

Port Stephens 2820119 Woodville

Singleton 2820142 Corinda

Singleton 2820143 Kirkton

Singleton 2820161 Minimbah - Old Minembah - Singleton Military Area

Singleton 2820170 St Clair

Upper Hunter 2820093 Kayuga (and Rose Vale Cottage)

4.7 The disturbance of archaeological sites.

The factors leading to a loss of building stock on homestead complexes and

associated settlement types have already been discussed in Chapter 3.4.

The baseline archaeological assessment process has also highlighted a number of

additional threats to these sites. Aerial photography has revealed the following

causes, which may be summed up as changes in land use:

1. Open cut coal mining and potentially mine subsidence.

2. Subdivision of farm properties.

3. Subdivision for urban development.

4. Industrial subdivision.

5. Sewerage treatment plants.

6. Gravel extraction and quarrying.

7. Vineyard development.

8. Dam construction and reservoirs, particularly St Clair.

9. Flood mitigation works, water supply channels.

10. Regional airport.


40

11. Horse stud development.

12. Industrial development.

13. Forestry.

14. Defence use, for example Singleton Military Area.

Other causes do not involve a change in land use, but relate to historical and modern

agricultural practices:

1. Soil erosion.

2. Ploughing.

3. House renovation, additions and extensions.

4. Garden or other landscaping.

4.8 A note on significance.

The pastoral expansion of the 1820s to the 1840s is a principal feature of the

settlement of the Nineteen Counties of New South Wales to the Limits of Location. It

was one of the main employers of convict labour. The pastoral settlement pattern

had a strong influence on the development of road communications, on the location

of towns and villages, as well as other services.

In 2010 a group of eleven penal sites in Australia was inscribed on the World

Heritage List.34 This followed on from the listing of the Convict Records of Australia

on the Memory of the World Register in 2007.35 But this leaves an imbalance in the

assessment of the convict system, since there are few listings for the pastoral

workplaces of the assigned convicts.

‘Yarralumla [not its current occupants, but as a historic pastoral station] is

just an example of the more general heritage problem of the vanishing

landscape of the Assigned Servant. With few identifiable intact material

remains, the legacy of the Assigned Servant is long overshadowed by

several versions of the Penitentiary System. The historic spectacle of

minding sheep, drawing water and hewing of timber lacks the glamour

and hiss of cruelty, In this sense, the huts and hovels and pathways of

the Assigned Servant have become part of the intangible heritage of

Australia.’36

34 UNESCO World Heritage List.http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/130635 UNESCO. Memory of the World Register.http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-

activities/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-

heritage-page-8/the-convict-records-of-australia/#c18640836 James Warden, 2009. ‘Canberra, the Lost Convict Landscape’. in Trust News,

Volume 1. No 9. August 2009: 5.James Warden was the then Director of the Donald Horne Institute of Cultural

Heritage, University of Canberra, ACT.


41

This study provides an opportunity to investigate the workplaces of the assigned

servants and to restore a balance in our understanding. The convict system was far

more ingrained in the settlement of New South Wales than we may now imagine, as

revealed not only by the historical documentary records, but also by the homestead

complexes of the Hunter Region.


42

4.9 Figures.

Figure 4.1. Aerial photograph of Cangon, Dungog LGA.

Source. Google Maps.

Figure 4.2. Aerial photograph of Torryburn, Dungog LGA.Source. Google Maps.


43

Figure 4.3. Aerial photograph of Puen Buen, Upper Hunter LGA.Source. Google Maps.

Figure 4.4. Aerial photograph of St Aubins, Upper Hunter LGA.Source. Google Maps.


44

5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

The following research questions have been raised and some have been addressed

in this report. The further study of these and other research questions has the

potential to provide a more detailed and improved understanding of nineteenth

century rural homestead complexes in the Hunter Region.

1. What was the total number of homesteads and farms in the study area in the

nineteenth century?

2. How many of these survive and in what condition?

3. How can the total of 685 properties as the complete archaeological resource

be correlated with the 214 listings in the CLSP Homesteads Database?

4. What was the settlement pattern associated with the Hunter Region

homesteads?

5. How did this settlement pattern affect the native Aboriginal population?

6. How did the large-scale pastoral settlement of the Hunter Region affect

smaller settlers and individuals with lesser means? How did the latter

respond to being locked out of the prime river frontages and the associated

highly productive alluvial land?

7. What settlement types can be observed?

8. What improvements are located on each settlement type?

9. What settlement hierarchies can be observed?

10. Can sample bias be recognised in the archaeological resource?

11. How does the evolution of the homestead complex throughout the nineteenth

and twentieth centuries affect this archaeological resource?

12. What range of settlement types can be found on the one landholding?

13. Do leasehold farm buildings survive?

14. How should the range of settlement types be incorporated into the listings for

homestead complexes?

15. What are the principal improvements found on homestead complexes?

16. What is the range of variation found on the nineteenth century Hunter Region

rural homestead complex, in terms of buildings, layout, landscaping and

settlement nuclei?


45

6 RECOMMENDATIONS.

There are a number of recommendations that arise out of the discussion and findings

of this baseline archaeological assessment report on nineteenth century rural

homestead complexes in the Hunter Region.

It is recommended that:

1. An archaeological Management Plan should be completed for all 685

properties identified as the archaeological resource in the Study Area.

2. The archaeological resource should be studied on a council-by-council basis

or as a regional study.

3. In the study of the archaeological resource, every effort should be made to

identify sample bias and develop strategies to counter its affect on our

understanding and knowledge of the settlement pattern associated with

Hunter Region homesteads.

4. Since the current heritage listings represent only the main residences, the

archaeological resource should be addressed to provide an equal sample of

the former stations and runs, as well as the other components of the

settlement hierarchy (for example, farm leases by larger landholders to small

farmers).

5. Where multiple settlement types are located on the one landholding, it is

important, first, that the relationships to the main homestead complex are

recognised and, second, that the associated properties are given appropriate

representation during heritage listing.

6. Thorough archaeological assessment of each property should be based first

of all on detailed historical research of primary and secondary sources. An

essential element of this research is the elucidation of the economic strategy

followed by the individual landowner, so that the settlement types on the

property can be readily identified. Failure to identify settlement types correctly

will lead to misinterpretation of the archaeological evidence and a

misunderstanding of the heritage items.

7. The investigation of the archaeological resource indicates that the primary

curtilage should be the boundaries of the original land grant or combined

landholding. Only after detailed archaeological assessment should this

curtilage be reduced to protect the homestead complex itself and other

archaeological sites identified on a property.

8. Further research should be undertaken to locate and assess the 47

properties for which there is insufficient detail to provide an assessment (see

the list in Chapter 4.4).

9. Site inspection should be completed for the 94 properties listed in Chapter

4.5.

10. The 17 archaeological sites identified in Chapter 4.6 should be listed as

archaeological sites, as well as heritage items.


46

11. All the homestead complexes identified in this study should be listed as

archaeological sites, as well as heritage items.


47

APPENDIX 1. CADASTRAL MAPS OF EACH LOCAL COUNCIL AREA,

SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE

1850S.

*S

heep

Sta

tion

Cre

ek

640

orle

ssac

res

1280

orle

ssac

res

less

than

2560

acre

s

2560

orm

ore

acre

s

Bla

ck-G

rant

eena

me

Red

-+P

rope

rtyN

ame

Whi

te-o

ther

sect

ions

3P

rope

rties

of25

60ac

res

orm

ore.

12ot

hers

mal

lerp

rope

rties

Num

bero

foth

erpo

rtion

son

Bak

ers

Map

,bu

tnot

onC

ount

yM

ap.

Not

incl

udin

gA

AC

opr

oper

ties.

GR

EA

TER

TAR

EE

LGA

AA

Co

Out

side

the

Lim

itsof

Loca

tion

10km

s

10m

iles

10,0

00ac

+

640

orle

ssac

res

1280

orle

ssac

res

less

than

2560

acre

s

2560

orm

ore

acre

s

Bla

ck-G

rant

eena

me

Red

-+P

rope

rtyN

ame

1P

rope

rtyof

2560

acre

sor

mor

e.0

othe

rsm

alle

rpro

perti

esN

otin

clud

ing

AA

Co

prop

ertie

s.G

RE

AT

LAK

ES

LGA

AA

Co

Stro

ud

Boo

ral Car

ringt

on

10km

s

10m

iles

Glo

uces

ter

*H

ead

ofN

avig

atio

n

UP

PE

RH

UN

TER

LGA

45P

rope

rties

of25

60ac

res

orm

ore.

114

othe

rsm

alle

rpro

perti

esN

umbe

rofo

ther

porti

ons

onB

aker

sM

ap,

butn

oton

Cou

nty

Map

.

640

orle

ssac

res

1280

orle

ssac

res

less

than

2560

acre

s

2560

orm

ore

acre

s

Bla

ck-G

rant

eena

me

Red

-+P

rope

rtyN

ame

Whi

te-o

ther

sect

ions

Mer

riwa

Ails

aC

asilli

s

?S

mal

lPor

tions

Sco

ne

AA

Co

Gra

nt24

9,60

0ac

resLi

verp

oolP

lain

s

AA

Co

Gra

nt31

2,29

8ac

res

Bey

ond

the

Lim

itsof

Loca

tion

10km

s

10m

iles

10,0

00ac

+

10,0

00ac

+

10,0

00ac

+

10,0

00ac

+

10,0

00ac

+

*B

arry

Sta

tion

*S

chof

ield

sC

hurc

h

MU

SW

ELL

BR

OO

KLG

A

18P

rope

rties

of25

60ac

res

orm

ore.

47(4

outs

ide

LGA

)oth

ersm

alle

rpro

perti

esN

umbe

rofo

ther

porti

ons

onB

aker

sM

ap,

butn

oton

Cou

nty

Map

.

640

orle

ssac

res

1280

orle

ssac

res

less

than

2560

acre

s

2560

orm

ore

acre

s

Bla

ck-G

rant

eena

me

Red

-+P

rope

rtyN

ame

Whi

te-o

ther

sect

ions

Den

man

Mus

wel

lbro

ok

Sm

allP

ortio

ns

Sm

allP

ortio

ns

10km

s

10m

iles

10,0

00ac

+

10,0

00ac

+

MA

ITLA

ND

LGA

640

orle

ssac

res

1280

orle

ssac

res

less

than

2560

acre

s

2560

orm

ore

acre

s

Bla

ck-G

rant

eena

me

Red

-+P

rope

rtyN

ame

Whi

te-o

ther

sect

ions

3P

rope

rties

of25

60ac

res

orm

ore.

53ot

hers

mal

lerp

rope

rties

Clu

ster

sof

smal

lpor

tions

.

Sm

allP

ortio

ns

Sm

allP

ortio

ns

Sm

allP

ortio

ns

WM

aitla

ndE

Mai

tland

Mor

peth

Hin

ton

10km

s

10m

iles

Sm

allP

ortio

ns


60

APPENDIX 2. BASELINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. THE FORMAT OF

THE DATABASE.

Location and Address.

A number of fields were used to describe the location and address of each item.

They are standard fields for recording items on the State Heritage Inventory (SHI).

They include:

1. SHI number.

2. Name.

3. Number.

4. Street

5. Suburb

6. State

7. Postcode.

8. Local Government Area.

9. Lot

10. Section.

11. DP number.

12. Portion.

13. Parish.

14. County.

15. Acres.

16. Grantee Surname.

17. Grantee First Name.

Additional fields also allow for the recording of multiple lot and DP numbers.

The historical cadastre is an essential element for archaeological assessment, since

it is the fundamental historical property unit upon which each homestead complex

was located.

All of the address and cadastral information for each listing had to be checked for

current validity. It is surprising that addresses and cadastral information have

changed in a large proportion of the 214 listings.

Description of House and Outbuildings.

In the initial stages of the baseline archaeological assessment process, an attempt

was made to describe the topography of each land grant and the settlement nodes or

nuclei within each land grant. This is an essential process in the assessment of each

property. It enables an understanding of the status of each settlement nucleus and

can assist in the process of identifying an original homestead or later development of

the land grant. In some cases it has highlighted the presence of two homesteads on

a single land grant, requiring further research to resolve the historical context of the


61

development (for example Dalwood House and Leconfield, or Castle Forbes and

Baroona).

After discussion with Hector Abrahams and Kate Denny of Clive Lucas Stapleton &

Partners, it was decided to refine the recording of each property to numerical or

multiple choice values to assist in the comparative evaluation process. This has not

resulted in the abandonment of the original evaluation of each land grant, but has

allowed the information to be recorded in a more usable manner.

Having completed the evaluation of a sample of properties, the database was

therefore reduced to the recording of a number of fields reflecting the potential date

of the main house, the extent of outbuildings and the number of settlement nodes or

nuclei on each property.

The following fields have been recorded:

On House or Garden Block 01.

1. Roof Structure of Main House.

2. House (numerical value for presence or absence).

3. Attached Buildings (numerical value for presence or absence).

4. Cottage (numerical value for presence or absence).

5. Outbuildings (numerical value for presence or absence).

Farmyard 02, adjacent to House 01

6. Cottage 02 (numerical value for presence or absence).

7. Outbuildings 02 (numerical value for presence or absence).

House and or Farmyard 03, at a distance from house.












16. Outbuildings Dispersed.

The above information was summarised in a number of additional fields, recording:

1. Total number of houses or cottages.

2. Total number of buildings on the Main House or Garden Block 01.

3. Total number of buildings on the Main House or Garden Block and the

adjacent Farmyard 02.

4. Total number of outbuildings.

5. Total number of all outbuildings.


62

6. Total number of settlement nuclei.

7. Questions. Where the date of a house or the identification of a property was

in doubt, it was noted in this field.

The remaining fields in the baseline archaeological assessment database bring

together the previous information or summarise the characteristics of the property.

These fields include:

1. Typology. A Typology of the Properties based on the number of houses,

buildings and settlement nuclei.

2. Farm Layout, and

3. Plantings or Landscaping.

Typology of Sites.

The following Typology of Sites was adopted as the most useful means of collating

the information provided by the desktop survey.

1.1. House and Primary Farmyard, with 20 or more buildings; single

nucleus.

1.2. House and Primary Farmyard, with 20 or more buildings; multiple

nuclei.


nucleus.


nuclei.

2.3. Primary Farmyard, with 15 or more buildings; single nucleus


nucleus


nuclei

3.3. Primary Farmyard, with 10 or more buildings; multiple nuclei

3.4. House with 10 or more buildings; multiple nuclei


nuclei with 10 or more buildings.

4.2. Primary Farmyard, with 5 or more buildings; multiple nuclei with 10

or more buildings


nuclei with less than 10 buildings.


nucleus

4.5. Primary Farmyard, with 5 or more buildings; single nucleus


63

4.6. House with 5 or more buildings; single nucleus

5.1. House and Primary Farmyard, with 4 or less buildings; multiple

nuclei with 20 or more buildings








nuclei with 4 or less buildings

5.6. House and Primary Farmyard, with 4 or less buildings; single

nucleus

5.7. House with 4 or less buildings; single nucleus

6. Archaeological Site

7.1. Modern Farm

The following additional terms were used, as follows:

Australian Agricultural Company - outside scope of study.

More research required

Not Located

Outside Study Area - outside scope of study.

Outside the Limits of Location - outside scope of study.

Second Listing - where the details of a property are recorded in a related

listing.

Small Portion - outside scope of study.

Town or Suburban Allotment - outside scope of study.

Description of Farm Layout.

The following terminology for House and Primary Farmyard Layout was adopted as

the most useful means of collating the information provided by the desktop survey.

1.1. House and Farmyard, rectangular blocks, designed

1.2. House and Farmyard, non-rectangular blocks, designed

1.3. House Block, non-rectangular, designed

1.4. Farmyard, irregular, 2 alignments; remnants of rectangular block,

designed

2.1. House and Farmyard, rectangular blocks

2.2. House and Farmyard, rectangular blocks, 2 alignments


64

3.1. House Block, rectangular

4.1. House Block rectangular; Farmyard irregular, single alignment

4.2. House Block rectangular; Farmyard irregular, 2 alignments

4.3. House Block rectangular; Farmyard irregular, multiple alignments

5.1. House and Farmyard, irregular, single alignment

5.2. House and Farmyard, irregular, 2 alignments

5.3. House and Farmyard, irregular, multiple alignments

5.4. House block, irregular

6.1. Farmyard, irregular, single alignment

6.2. Farmyard, irregular, 2 alignments - not used as yet.

6.3. Farmyard, irregular, multiple alignments

The above terminology makes a distinction between rectangular and rectilinear

layouts. While a farm may be planned on a rectilinear layout, the house and farmyard

blocks may not be rectangular. In some cases, it was difficult to fit the farm layouts

exactly into the above categories and in these cases a best-fit description was

adopted from the existing categories. No individual site suggested that the typology

should be extended with additional categories.

Description of Farm Plantings and Landscaping.

The following terminology for Farm Landscaping and Plantings was adopted as the

most useful means of collating the information provided by the desktop survey.

1.1. Mature Garden

1.2. Mature Garden and Farmyard with mature plantings

1.3. Mature Garden with avenues

1.4. Mature Garden, with avenues, hedges

1.5. Mature Garden, with avenues, hedges, windbreaks

2.1. Some mature plantings near house

2.2. Some mature plantings near House or Farmyard

2.3. Some mature plantings and natives near House or Farmyard

2.4. Some mature plantings near house, with windbreaks

2.5. Some mature plantings and hedgelines

2.6. Hedgelines or windbreaks

3.1. Some mature native trees

4.1. Possible mature plantings


65

5.1. No mature plantings


66

APPENDIX 3. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF SITES IN THE

CLSP HOMESTEAD DATABASE.

The results of the baseline archaeological assessment allow the database of

homestead complexes to be assessed in accordance with three principal criteria:

1. Typology of Sites, namely the number of buildings, outbuildings and

settlement nuclei.

2. Farm Layout.

3. Plantings and Landscaping.

LGA Name SHI Typology Layout Plantings

Cessnock Byora or OldByora

2820005 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with

10 or morebuildings; singlenucleus

5.2. House andFarmyard,irregular, 2

alignments

5.1. Nomatureplantings

Cessnock Laguna House 2820006 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or more

buildings; singlenucleus

5.3. House andFarmyard,irregular, multiplealignments


Cessnock Old Barraba 2820002 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

2.1. House andFarmyard,rectangular blocks


Cessnock The Wilderness 2820003 6. ArchaeologicalSite

Cessnock The Wilderness 2820003 6. ArchaeologicalSite

Dungog Bingleburra 2820044 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5

or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.

2.2. House andFarmyard,rectangular

blocks, 2alignments

2.3. Somematureplantings

and nativesnear Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Bona Vista -Douribang

2820018 5.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;

multiple nucleiwith 5 or morebuildings

5.1. House andFarmyard,irregular, singlealignment

2.1. Somematureplantingsnear house

Dungog Brookfield -Lowther Park

2820028 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;

single nucleus

5.2. House andFarmyard,irregular, 2alignments

2.3. Somematureplantingsand natives

near Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Brookfield -Lowther Park

2820028 6. ArchaeologicalSite


67


Dungog Caegrwle -Allynbrook

2820010 5.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 5 or morebuildings


1.1. MatureGarden

Dungog Cairnsmore 2820037 5.6. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;single nucleus



Dungog Cam Yr Allyn -Camyr Allyn

2820023 3.2. House andPrimary

Farmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei

5.2. House andFarmyard,

irregular, 2alignments

1.5. MatureGarden, with

avenues,hedges,windbreaks

Dungog Cam Yr Allyn -Camyr Allyn

2820023 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5

or more buildings;single nucleus


alignments

1.1. MatureGarden

Dungog Cangon 2820013 1.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with20 or morebuildings; singlenucleus.

2.2. House andFarmyard,rectangularblocks, 2alignments

1.2. MatureGarden andFarmyardwith matureplantings

Dungog Cardoress 2820015 6. ArchaeologicalSite



Dungog Cawarra 2820024 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with


2.2. House andFarmyard,rectangular

blocks, 2alignments



Dungog Cory Vale (andVacy ?)


single nucleus

4.1. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, single

alignment

2.3. Somematureplantingsand natives


Dungog Cree Bank 2820017 3.3. PrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei


2.2. Somematureplantingsnear Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Dingadee 2820039 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei

4.3. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, multiplealignments

2.3. Somematureplantingsand nativesnear Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Elms Hall 2820082 4.4. House andPrimary

Farmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

4.2. House Blockrectangular;

Farmyardirregular, 2alignments

2.2. Somemature

plantingsnear Houseor Farmyard


68


Dungog Figtree -Lanquoyah

2820030 5.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 20 or morebuildings



Dungog Gostwyck 2820019 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.


3.1. Somematurenative trees

Dungog Lewinsbrook 2820025 5.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 15 or morebuildings

3.1. House Block,rectangular


Dungog Lyndhurst Vale -Verge’s Hut 1830

2820040 6. ArchaeologicalSite

Dungog Maryville 2820014 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Dungog Melbee 2820012 5.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 5 or morebuildings


1.3. MatureGarden withavenues

Dungog Mowbray - The

Vineyard

2820016 4.6. House with 5


3.1. House Block,

rectangular

2.4. Some

matureplantingsnear house,withwindbreaks

Dungog Mulconda 2820035 4.1. House andPrimary

Farmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.


irregular, singlealignment

2.3. Somemature

plantingsand nativesnear Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Munni - Down 2820026 5.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4

or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 5 or morebuildings

4.3. House Blockrectangular;Farmyard

irregular, multiplealignments


and nativesnear Houseor Farmyard

Dungog Nulla Nulla 2820042 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5



1.1. MatureGarden


69


Dungog Penshurst 2820022 5.6. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;single nucleus



Dungog The Grange 2820027 4.2. Primary

Farmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings

6.1. Farmyard,


3.1. Some

maturenative trees

Dungog Tillemby -Tillimby - Tillimbi

2820032 2.3. PrimaryFarmyard, with15 or more

buildings; singlenucleus

1.3. Farmyard,irregular, 2alignments;

remnants ofrectangular block,designed


andhedgelines

Dungog Tocal 2820020 2.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with15 or more

buildings; singlenucleus.


1.2. MatureGarden andFarmyardwith mature

plantings

Dungog Torryburn 2820009 1.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with20 or morebuildings; singlenucleus.

1.1. House andFarmyard,rectangularblocks, designed

1.5. MatureGarden, withavenues,hedges,windbreaks

Dungog UnderbankEstate

2820033 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; singlenucleus



Dungog Wirragulla -

Crooks Park -Wilhur Chulla

2820011 4.1. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.

2.1. House and

Farmyard,rectangular blocks

1.1. Mature

Garden

Dungog Wirragulla -

Crooks Park -Wilhur Chulla

2820011 5.3. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings

4.3. House Block

rectangular;Farmyardirregular, multiplealignments

1.1. Mature

Garden

Dungog Wirragulla -Crooks Park -

Wilhur Chulla

2820011 7.1. Modern Farm

Gloucester Stobo 2820051 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

4.2. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, 2alignments

1.1. MatureGarden

Greater

Taree

Woodside 2820060 4.4. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

5.2. House and

Farmyard,irregular, 2alignments

5.1. No

matureplantings


70


Maitland Aberglasslyn 2820069 4.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.

1.3. House Block,non-rectangular,designed


Maitland Anambah 2820079 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; singlenucleus



Maitland Bellevue - see

Mindaribba

2820063 4.3. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.

4.2. House Block

rectangular;Farmyardirregular, 2alignments

1.1. Mature

Garden

Maitland Berry Park 2820067 3.1. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; singlenucleus

4.3. House Block


1.1. Mature

Garden

Maitland Bolwarra 2820072 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5



1.4. MatureGarden, withavenues,

hedges

Maitland Closebourne -see also Illalaungand MorpethHouse

2820077 3.4. House with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei

5.4. House block,irregular


Maitland Duckenfield 2820067 6. Archaeological

Site - seesubdivision plan

Maitland Dunmore 2820065 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

1.1. House andFarmyard,rectangularblocks, designed

2.3. Somematureplantingsand nativesnear House

or Farmyard

Maitland Eelah 2820064 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

4.1. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, singlealignment


Maitland Kaludah -Lochinvar

2820068 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.


1.4. MatureGarden, withavenues,hedges

Maitland Louth Park 2820074 6. Archaeological

Site


71


Maitland Mindaribba - seeBellevue




Maitland Newington - Seealso Greenwood

2820075 6. ArchaeologicalSite - seesubdivision plan

Maitland Owlpen 2820070 5.6. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;single nucleus



Maitland Rathluba 2820085 6. ArchaeologicalSite

Muswellbrook Baerami 2820104 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nuclei

with 10 or morebuildings.



Muswellbrook Balmoral 2820105 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Muswellbrook Bengalla 2820087 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

1.2. House andFarmyard, non-rectangularblocks, designed


Muswellbrook Dalmar Stud -Celdon Stud -

Pickering

2820087 2.3. PrimaryFarmyard, with




2.3. Somemature


Muswellbrook Edinglassie - SeeRous Lench

2820097 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or more

buildings; multiplenuclei


2.2. Somematureplantingsnear House

or Farmyard

Muswellbrook Martindale 2820090 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Muswellbrook Merton 2820096 4.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.


1.1. MatureGarden

Muswellbrook Negoa 2820094 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus




72


Muswellbrook Overton -Overdene

2820086 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


2.4. Somematureplantingsnear house,withwindbreaks

Muswellbrook Pickering - seealternative listing

2820091 4.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.



Muswellbrook Piercefield 2820089 4.4. House and


4.2. House Block


2.1. Some

matureplantingsnear house

Muswellbrook Plashett 2820100 5.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4

or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings



1.4. MatureGarden, withavenues,

hedges

Muswellbrook Randwick Park -Woodlands Stud


multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.

4.2. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, 2

alignments


or Farmyard

Muswellbrook Rosebrook -Rosehill Stud


multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.

4.2. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, 2

alignments


or Farmyard

Muswellbrook Skellator -Skellater

2820099 4.6. House with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Muswellbrook St Hilliers 2820103 6. ArchaeologicalSite - no mainhouse



PortStephens

Balikera -Ballacara

2820120 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5




1.1. MatureGarden

PortStephens

Brandon Estate 2820131 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus

1.2. House andFarmyard, non-rectangularblocks, designed


PortStephens

Burrowell 2820108 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


2.4. Somematureplantingsnear house,withwindbreaks


73


PortStephens

Duninald - seeother listing

2820106 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei



PortStephens

Eskdale 2820109 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.



Port

Stephens

Glen Livett 2820121 5.2. House and


4.3. House Block


3.1. Some

maturenative trees

Port

Stephens

Hinton 2820111 4.4. House and


4.2. House Block


1.5. Mature

Garden, withavenues,hedges,windbreaks

PortStephens

Kinross 2820112 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;

single nucleus



PortStephens

Osterley Park 2820124 6. ArchaeologicalSite

PortStephens

Porphyry Point 2820110 6. ArchaeologicalSite

6.1. Farmyard,irregular, singlealignment


PortStephens


PortStephens


PortStephens

Tahlee 2820114 4.6. House with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

PortStephens

Tomago 2820113 5.7. House with 4or less buildings;single nucleus



Port

Stephens

Wallalong 2820107 5.4. House and


1.2. House and

Farmyard, non-rectangularblocks, designed

1.4. Mature

Garden, withavenues,hedges

Port

Stephens

Woodville 2820119 6. Archaeological

Site - Furtherresearch required

Singleton Abbey Green 2820151 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus




74


Singleton Archerfield 2820147 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Singleton Baroona -

Rosemount

2820149 3.2. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei

1.2. House and

Farmyard, non-rectangularblocks, designed

1.5. Mature

Garden, withavenues,hedges,windbreaks

Singleton Castle Forbes 2820152 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5




2.6.Hedgelinesor

windbreaks

Singleton Corinda 2820142 6. ArchaeologicalSite - seesubdivision plan

Singleton Dalwood House -Wyndham Estate

2820144 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Singleton Dulwich - seeKangory

2820154 4.4. House andPrimary



Farmyardirregular, multiplealignments

1.4. MatureGarden, with

avenues,hedges

Singleton Glendon 2820137 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; single

nucleus



Singleton Greenwood - seealso Newington



1.1. MatureGarden

Singleton Kirkton 2820143 6. ArchaeologicalSite

Singleton Leconfield 2820145 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nuclei



1.1. MatureGarden

Singleton Manresa 2820156 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

Singleton Minimbah -Minembah

2820161 4.6. House with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

Singleton Minimbah - OldMinembah -Singleton MilitaryArea

2820161 6. ArchaeologicalSite - seesubdivision plan


75


Singleton Mount Leonard 2820159 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus



Singleton Neotsfield 2820148 4.1. House and


2.2. House and

Farmyard,rectangularblocks, 2alignments

1.4. Mature

Garden, withavenues,hedges

Singleton Ravensworth 2820138 4.4. House andPrimary



rectangularblocks, designed

1.2. MatureGarden and

Farmyardwith matureplantings

Singleton Redbourneberry 2820157 5.7. House with 4or less buildings;single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

Singleton St Clair 2820170 6. Archaeological

Site - Submerged

Singleton Wambo 2820146 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


2.5. Somematureplantingsandhedgelines

Upper Hunter Belltrees 2820179 2.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with15 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.



Upper Hunter Bickham 2820195 1.2. House andPrimary

Farmyard, with20 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.



2.2. Somemature


Upper Hunter Brindley Park 2820174 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;

multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.

1.3. House Block,non-rectangular,designed


Upper Hunter Cassilis 2820172 4.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;

multiple nucleiwith less than 10buildings.


1.1. MatureGarden

Upper Hunter Cliffdale 2820203 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nuclei





76


Upper Hunter Collaroy 2820171 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei



Upper Hunter Cressfield 2820205 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.



Upper Hunter Cuan 2820197 3.1. House and


4.3. House Block


2.3. Some

matureplantingsand nativesnear Houseor Farmyard

Upper Hunter Cullingral 2820214 2.3. PrimaryFarmyard, with




1.1. MatureGarden

Upper Hunter Dalkeith 2820188 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; single

nucleus



Upper Hunter Elmswood 2820204 4.4. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

Upper Hunter Glen Alvon -

Glenalvon

2820194 3.1. House and


5.1. House and

Farmyard,irregular, singlealignment

1.3. Mature

Garden withavenues

Upper Hunter Grampian Hills 2820206 3.2. House andPrimary




2.1. Somemature

plantingsnear house

Upper Hunter Harben Vale 2820198 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or more

buildings; multiplenuclei

4.1. House Blockrectangular;Farmyardirregular, single

alignment

1.2. MatureGarden andFarmyardwith mature

plantings

Upper Hunter Invermein 2820181 4.3. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nuclei

with less than 10buildings.


2.3. Somematureplantingsand nativesnear House

or Farmyard


77


Upper Hunter Kayuga (andRose ValeCottage)

2820093 6. ArchaeologicalSite - no mainhouse

6.3. Farmyard,irregular, multiplealignments


Upper Hunter Kelvinside 2820189 5.7. House with 4

or less buildings;single nucleus

5.4. House block,

irregular

2.1. Some


Upper Hunter Kingslyn 2820209 3.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; single

nucleus



Upper Hunter Llangollen 2820208 2.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with15 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.



Upper Hunter Milgarra 2820183 5.5. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 4or less buildings;multiple nucleiwith 4 or lessbuildings



Upper Hunter Puen Buen 2820175 1.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with20 or morebuildings; singlenucleus.



Upper Hunter Satur 2820176 5.7. House with 4or less buildings;

single nucleus


1.1. MatureGarden

Upper Hunter Segenhoe 2820182 2.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with15 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.



Upper Hunter St Aubins 2820178 1.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with20 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.



Upper Hunter Terragong 2820173 4.1. House and


4.3. House Block


1.2. Mature

Garden andFarmyardwith matureplantings

Upper Hunter Thornthwaite 2820180 3.2. House andPrimary



Farmyardirregular, multiplealignments

2.3. Somemature



78


Upper Hunter Timor 2820186 4.1. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.



Upper Hunter Turanville 2820177 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei



Upper Hunter Waverley 2820210 2.2. House and

PrimaryFarmyard, with15 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei.

5.3. House and

Farmyard,irregular, multiplealignments

2.1. Some


Upper Hunter Yarrandi 2820196 4.1. House andPrimary

Farmyard, with 5or more buildings;multiple nucleiwith 10 or morebuildings.



2.2. Somemature


Upper Hunter Yarrawonga 2820207 3.2. House andPrimaryFarmyard, with

10 or morebuildings; multiplenuclei


alignments


near house