The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales 9781407358802, 9781407358819

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Figures
Foreword
Abstract
1. People and places
2. The old homestead site
2.1. The excavation
2.2. Structural evidence
2.3. Artefactual evidence
2.4. Conclusion
3. The store
3.1. Construction and materials
3.2. Building chronology
3.3. Document recovery
3.4. Conclusion
4. The working-horse stable, later the barn
4.1. Construction
4.2. Gates, doors and stairs
4.3. The chaff cutting room
4.4. Other artefacts in the building
4.5. Conclusion
5. The Thomas Building
5.1. Site, construction and layout
5.2. Materials and techniques
5.3. Roof, flooring and chimneys
5.4. Internal details
5.5. Ceilings
5.6. Subsequent use
5.7. Conclusion
6. The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house
6.1. The stable
6.2. The skillion
6.3. The carriage house
6.4. The condition of the building
6.5. Conclusion
7. The killing shed and piggery site
7.1. Structural development
7.2. Operating the killing shed
8. Two contrasting poultry houses
8.1. The buildings
8.3. Conclusion
9. The cowshed
9.1. The survey
9.2. The layout of the building
9.3. The flow of animals and materials
9.4. Building materials and methods
9.5. The strength of the building
9.6. Portable equipment in the building
9.7. Discussion
9.8. Conclusion
10. The fences
10.1. Killing shed (1) and Fence 2
10.2. Fence 3
10.3. Fences 4 and 5
10.4. Fence 6
10.5. Fence 7
10.6. Fence 8
10.7. Fence 9
10.8. Fence 10
10.9. Fences 11 and 12
10.10. Fences 13 and 14
10.11. Fence 15
10.12. Fence 16
10.13. Fence 17
10.14. Fences 18, 19, 20 and 24
10.15. Fences 21, 22 and 23
10.16. Conclusion
11. Jack Haynes’s Cottage
12. The garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage
12.1. Plants identified in the garden
13. Comparisons and conclusion
13.1. Abington (photographs by Graham Connah)
13.2. Newholme (photographs by Graham Connah)
13.3. Conclusion
References

Citation preview

210mm WIDTH

‘An important contribution to documentation of Australian rural building heritage and socio-economic history.’ Professor Penelope Allison, University of Leicester

This book is an analysis of nineteenth and early twentieth-century farm buildings dating from Australia’s rural pioneering period. Based on field recording during the 1980s, its historical value is now particularly significant because similar buildings in Australia have since often deteriorated or vanished completely. Construction techniques, the use of materials, mainly timber as slabs or weather boarding, and of galvanized corrugated iron, including the role of recycling, and the ways in which the buildings were adapted to economic and social changes in agricultural production are examined. In particular, the distinctive Australian tradition of making do with whatever was available is considered. The result is a study of humble, utilitarian buildings that have been given less attention than grand houses of the past or public buildings. Nevertheless, they played a vital role in Australia’s past development, and they deserve close consideration.

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Connah CPI 9.6mm ARTWORK.indd 2-3

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 6 7

297mm HIGH

Graham Connah has written widely on African archaeology, his best-known book being African Civilizations, now in its third edition (2015). He was also one of the pioneers of Australian historical archaeology, publishing The Archaeology of Australia’s History in 1988. In 2000 he was awarded the Order of Australia for his contributions to archaeology.

BAR  S3067  2021   CONNAH   The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

BAR INTERNATIONA L SE RIE S 3067

210mm WIDTH

9.6mm

2021

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales GRAHAM CONNAH

18/01/2022 12:57

210mm WIDTH

297mm HIGH

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 6 7

2021

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales GRAHAM CONNAH

210 x 297mm_BAR Connah TITLE ARTWORK.indd 1

18/01/2022 12:56

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3067 The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales ISBN  978 1 4073 5880 2 paperback ISBN  978 1 4073 5881 9 e-format doi  https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407358802 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © Graham Connah 2021 Cover image  Saumarez Station Store from the north side. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985. The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in  any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest

Who Came to Tea at the Old Kinchega Homestead? Tablewares, Teawares and Social Interaction at an Australian Outback Pastoral Homestead Penelope M. Allison and Virginia Esposito Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 2964

Yachay Wasi The House of Knowledge of I.S. Farrington Edited by Lisa A. Dunbar, Rebecca Parkes, Christine Gant-Thompson and Damian Tybussek Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020

BAR International Series 2962

The So Pots of Central Africa Memories of the past Graham Connah Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019

BAR International Series 2938

Qasr Ibrim House 1037 Resurrecting an Excavation Graham Connah and David Pearson Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2016

BAR International Series 2821

The Same under a Different Sky? A country estate in nineteenth-century New South Wales Graham Connah Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2007

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com

BAR International Series 1625

Dedicated to the many former students whose information made this book possible

Acknowledgements Particular thanks are due to John Atchison, a retired historian from the University of New England, who persuaded me to write this book and assisted in many ways while I was doing so. I am also indebted to William Oates, former Archivist at the University of New England, for help accessing sources. Bob Betts, who lived at Saumarez for so long, was an important source of oral information. More generally, I acknowledge the contributions of Jillian Oppenheimer and Bruce Mitchell, now deceased, who did so much to interest people in the history of New England. I have also to thank John Sorenson, who brought me documentation from Armidale that I needed in Canberra. Otherwise, I have to thank David and James Connah for solving a variety of digital problems, and Pat Kelly for similar assistance. Meanwhile, my colleague David Pearson continues to provide support and Beryl still puts up with me, after 58 years of marriage. It is of historical relevance that this book was written during 2020 and 2021, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions of people worldwide. May they rest in peace. Graham Connah Canberra Australia 1 June 2021

Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................... ix Foreword.......................................................................................................................................................................... xiv Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ xvi 1. People and places............................................................................................................................................................1 2. The old homestead site..................................................................................................................................................17 2.1. The excavation.............................................................................................................................................................20 2.2. Structural evidence.......................................................................................................................................................23 2.3. Artefactual evidence.....................................................................................................................................................25 2.4. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................29 3. The store.........................................................................................................................................................................37 3.1. Construction and materials..........................................................................................................................................37 3.2. Building chronology....................................................................................................................................................40 3.3. Document recovery......................................................................................................................................................41 3.4. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................42 4. The working-horse stable, later the barn....................................................................................................................43 4.1. Construction.................................................................................................................................................................44 4.2. Gates, doors and stairs.................................................................................................................................................46 4.3. The chaff-cutting room.................................................................................................................................................46 4.4. Other artefacts in the building......................................................................................................................................47 4.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................48 5. The Thomas Building....................................................................................................................................................49 5.1. Site, construction and layout........................................................................................................................................49 5.2. Materials and techniques..............................................................................................................................................51 5.3. Roof, flooring and chimneys........................................................................................................................................52 5.4. Internal details..............................................................................................................................................................52 5.5. Ceilings........................................................................................................................................................................55 5.6. Subsequent use.............................................................................................................................................................55 5.7. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................55 6. The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house.................................................................................................57 6.1. The stable.....................................................................................................................................................................57 6.2. The skillion..................................................................................................................................................................60 6.3. The carriage house.......................................................................................................................................................61 6.4. The condition of the building.......................................................................................................................................62 6.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................63 7. The killing shed and piggery site.................................................................................................................................65 7.1. Structural development................................................................................................................................................65 7.2. Operating the killing shed............................................................................................................................................71 7.3. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................75 8. Two contrasting poultry houses...................................................................................................................................77 8.1. The buildings...............................................................................................................................................................77 8.2. Discussion....................................................................................................................................................................83 8.3. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................84

vii

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales 9. The cowshed..................................................................................................................................................................85 9.1. The survey....................................................................................................................................................................86 9.2. The layout of the building............................................................................................................................................86 9.3. The flow of animals and materials...............................................................................................................................86 9.4. Building materials and methods...................................................................................................................................88 9.5. The strength of the building.........................................................................................................................................92 9.6. Portable equipment in the building..............................................................................................................................92 9.7. Discussion....................................................................................................................................................................92 9.8. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................92 10. The fences....................................................................................................................................................................95 10.1. Killing shed (1) and Fence 2......................................................................................................................................96 10.2. Fence 3.......................................................................................................................................................................96 10.3. Fences 4 and 5............................................................................................................................................................96 10.4. Fence 6.......................................................................................................................................................................96 10.5. Fence 7.......................................................................................................................................................................97 10.6. Fence 8.......................................................................................................................................................................97 10.7. Fence 9.......................................................................................................................................................................98 10.8. Fence 10.....................................................................................................................................................................98 10.9. Fences 11 and 12........................................................................................................................................................98 10.10. Fences 13 and 14......................................................................................................................................................98 10.11. Fence 15...................................................................................................................................................................98 10.12. Fence 16...................................................................................................................................................................98 10.13. Fence 17...................................................................................................................................................................98 10.14. Fences 18, 19, 20 and 24..........................................................................................................................................99 10.15. Fences 21, 22 and 23................................................................................................................................................99 10.16. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................100 11. Jack Haynes’s Cottage..............................................................................................................................................103 11.1. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................108 12. The garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage.....................................................................................................................109 12.1. Plants identified in the garden..................................................................................................................................111 12.2. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................113 13. Comparisons and conclusion...................................................................................................................................115 13.1. Abington (photographs by Graham Connah)...........................................................................................................115 13.2. Newholme (photographs by Graham Connah)........................................................................................................121 13.3. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................................126 References........................................................................................................................................................................129

viii

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Francis John White, c.1870s...............................................................................................................................1 Figure 1.2. The location of Saumarez Station.......................................................................................................................2 Figure 1.3. Jack and Hannah Haynes....................................................................................................................................3 Figure 1.4. Bob Parsons, whose family worked on Saumarez..............................................................................................4 Figure 1.5. Bob Betts in 1993...............................................................................................................................................4 Figure 1.6. Hay wagon pulled by draughthorses..................................................................................................................5 Figure 1.7. Forking and loading lucerne at Saumarez..........................................................................................................5 Figure 1.8. Saumarez homestead 1888–1906.......................................................................................................................6 Figure 1.9. Saumarez homestead in recent times..................................................................................................................7 Figure 1.10. The later homestead, ground floor....................................................................................................................8 Figure 1.11. The later homestead, upper floor......................................................................................................................9 Figure 1.12. Elsie White (1885–1981) on a favourite horse...............................................................................................10 Figure 1.13. Josesphine Betts and her daughter Daphne in buggy.....................................................................................10 Figure 1.14. Possibly one F.J. White’s daughters on bicycle..............................................................................................11 Figure 1.15. Farm buildings at Saumarez early twentieth century.....................................................................................11 Figure 1.16. The 1883 woolshed at Saumarez....................................................................................................................12 Figure 1.17. Aerial photograph of part of Saumarez Station..............................................................................................13 Figure 1.18. Historical archaeological sites at Saumarez and to its west...........................................................................13 Figure 1.19. List of sites to west of main buildings at Saumarez.......................................................................................14 Figure 1.20. Map of work buildings at Saumarez...............................................................................................................15 Figure 1.21. Enlarged part of Figure 1.18, with concentration of buildings.......................................................................15 Figure 1.22. Aerial photograph of sheepwash on Saumarez Creek....................................................................................16 Figure 2.1. Saumarez Old Homestead site from north-east................................................................................................17 Figure 2.2. White’s diary entry 3 December 1888, Old Homestead demolition................................................................18 Figure 2.3. William Gardner’s c.1854 drawing of Old Homestead....................................................................................18 Figure 2.4. Saumarez Old Homestead in 1874...................................................................................................................19 Figure 2.5. Proposed structural sequence of Saumarez Old Homestead............................................................................19 Figure 2.6. Central portion of site plan after excavation....................................................................................................20 Figure 2.7. Plastic structure protecting Area 1 of the excavation.......................................................................................21 Figure 2.8. Area 1 from north-east, excavation in progress................................................................................................21 Figure 2.9. Graham Connah and students at work on site, 1987........................................................................................22 Figure 2.10. Area 1, Unit 3 excavated, from south-east.....................................................................................................22 Figure 2.11. Section-drawing of north side of Area 1.........................................................................................................23 Figure 2.12. Excavating one of the postholes of the Old Homestead.................................................................................24 Figure 2.13. Area 1, eastern part of spoon drain, from west...............................................................................................24 ix

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales Figure 2.14. Child’s tea-set cup and smoking-pipe bowl....................................................................................................25 Figure 2.15. Coins: 1863, 1872, 1873, 1917, 1949.............................................................................................................25 Figure 2.16. Obverses of 1863 and 1873 sixpences in Figure 2.15....................................................................................25 Figure 2.17. Two glass bottles: the largest complete artefacts on the site..........................................................................26 Figure 2.18. Ceramic and brass curtain-rod terminal.........................................................................................................26 Figure 2.19. Red sandstock brick........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 2.20. Blue sandstock brick.......................................................................................................................................27 Figure 2.21. Red sandstock brick........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 2.22. Half dry-pressed blue brick............................................................................................................................28 Figure 2.23. Area 1, Unit 3, distribution of 85 ceramic types.............................................................................................28 Figure 2.24. Distribution of brick in Area 1, by weight......................................................................................................30 Figure 2.25. Distribution of nails in Area 1, by weight......................................................................................................31 Figure 2.26. Distribution of charcoal in Area 1..................................................................................................................32 Figure 2.27. Distribution of window glass in Area 1..........................................................................................................33 Figure 2.28. Degree of fragmentation in Area 1 for all artefacts........................................................................................34 Figure 2.29. Degree of ceramic fragmentation in Area 1...................................................................................................35 Figure 3.1. Ground-floor plan of the store..........................................................................................................................38 Figure 3.2. The store from the south-west..........................................................................................................................39 Figure 3.3. The store from the north...................................................................................................................................39 Figure 3.4. Room 10, two of the timber-slab walls............................................................................................................41 Figure 3.5. Inscription on front flyleaf of the book found in the store...............................................................................41 Figure 3.6. Embossed stamp in Figure 3.5..........................................................................................................................42 Figure 4.1. Plans and elevation of the working-horse stable, later the barn.......................................................................43 Figure 4.2. Working-horse stable, later the barn, from the south-west...............................................................................44 Figure 4.3. Working-horse stable, timber slabs north end of Ground Level.......................................................................45 Figure 4.4. ‘Stork Brand’ corrugated galvanized iron, working-horse stable.....................................................................45 Figure 4.5. Working-horse stable, chaff cutter....................................................................................................................46 Figure 5.1. Thomas Building from south-west...................................................................................................................49 Figure 5.2. Thomas Building from east..............................................................................................................................50 Figure 5.3. Thomas Building from north-west...................................................................................................................50 Figure 5.4. Saumarez Old Homestead in 1874...................................................................................................................51 Figure 5.5. Plan of the Thomas Building............................................................................................................................53 Figure 5.6. Open fireplace, southern room of Thomas Building........................................................................................54 Figure 5.7. Manufacturer’s brass plate on locks in Thomas Building................................................................................54 Figure 5.8. Part of tree fallen against wall of Thomas Building.........................................................................................56 Figure 6.1. The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house........................................................................................57 Figure 6.2. As Figure 6.1 but early in the twentieth century..............................................................................................58 Figure 6.3. Plan of riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house...................................................................................58 Figure 6.4. Interior of riding-horse stable...........................................................................................................................59 Figure 6.5. Stable: suggested first phase of construction....................................................................................................60 x

List of Figures Figure 6.6. Stable: suggested second phase of construction...............................................................................................61 Figure 6.7. Stable: suggested third phase of construction..................................................................................................62 Figure 6.8. The stable: roller doors on carriage house........................................................................................................62 Figure 6.9. Corrugated iron brands on riding-horse stable.................................................................................................63 Figure 6.10. Damaged window, riding-horse stable and carriage house............................................................................63 Figure 7.1. Killing shed from north....................................................................................................................................65 Figure 7.2. Killing shed from south-west...........................................................................................................................66 Figure 7.3. Killing shed, northern side...............................................................................................................................66 Figure 7.4. Killing shed, southern side...............................................................................................................................67 Figure 7.5. Killing shed, eastern side..................................................................................................................................67 Figure 7.6. Killing shed, western side.................................................................................................................................68 Figure 7.7. Killing shed, probably in the early twentieth century......................................................................................68 Figure 7.8. Plan of killing shed...........................................................................................................................................69 Figure 7.9. Interrelationship of killing shed and yards.......................................................................................................70 Figure 7.10. Rail fence corner post in killing-shed yards...................................................................................................71 Figure 7.11. Gate hook of recycled horseshoe in killing-shed yards..................................................................................72 Figure 7.12. Diagram of the killing process.......................................................................................................................72 Figure 7.13. Boiling-down vat near killing shed................................................................................................................73 Figure 7.14. Meat room to south-west of killing shed........................................................................................................73 Figure 7.15. Surface evidence of piggery site.....................................................................................................................74 Figure 8.1. Plan of main poultry complex..........................................................................................................................78 Figure 8.2. North-west elevation of main poultry complex................................................................................................79 Figure 8.3. Part of north-west elevation of main poultry complex.....................................................................................79 Figure 8.4. Lysaght corrugated iron brand, main poultry-complex....................................................................................80 Figure 8.5. Plan of Building 2, fowl house, Jack Haynes’s Cottage...................................................................................82 Figure 8.6. Building 2, fowl house, Jack Haynes’s Cottage...............................................................................................82 Figure 8.7. Front of Building 2, fowl house, Jack Haynes’s Cottage.................................................................................83 Figure 8.8. Inscription, Building 2, fowl house, Jack Haynes’s Cottage............................................................................83 Figure 8.9. American poultry house of the 1880s...............................................................................................................84 Figure 9.1. Cowshed at Saumarez soon after its completion..............................................................................................85 Figure 9.2. Plan of cowshed at Saumarez...........................................................................................................................87 Figure 9.3. Isometric view of cowshed structural framework............................................................................................88 Figure 9.4. A nineteenth-century cowshed plan..................................................................................................................89 Figure 9.5. Structural joints in cowshed.............................................................................................................................90 Figure 9.6. Gate and door catches in cowshed....................................................................................................................91 Figure 10.1. Plan of fences studied at Saumarez................................................................................................................95 Figure 10.2. Fence 5: butted rail-ends cross-wired.............................................................................................................96 Figure 10.3. Fence 7: gate with iron hook, chain and wire netting.....................................................................................97 Figure 10.4. Fence 8: old gate post with mortices for former rails.....................................................................................97 Figure 10.5. Fence 9: detail of wiring of rails onto post.....................................................................................................98 xi

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales Figure 10.6. Fence 17: detail of wiring of rails onto post...................................................................................................99 Figure 10.7. Fence 19: detail of pipe and planks inserted into post....................................................................................99 Figure 10.8. Fence 18: detail of barbed and plain wires at post.........................................................................................99 Figure 10.9. Fence 24: detail of rails, post, and wire netting..............................................................................................99 Figure 10.10. Corner post on part of western boundary...................................................................................................100 Figure 10.11. Wire-tied fence north-west of riding-horse stable......................................................................................100 Figure 10.12. An American post and rail fence in 1888...................................................................................................100 Figure 11.1. Jack Haynes’s Cottage Phase 1, from north.................................................................................................103 Figure 11.2. Jack Haynes’s Cottage, laundry from south-east..........................................................................................104 Figure 11.3. Western elevation of Jack Haynes’s Cottage................................................................................................104 Figure 11.4. Plan of Jack Haynes’s Cottage......................................................................................................................105 Figure 11.5. The structural phases of Jack Haynes’s Cottage...........................................................................................105 Figure 11.6. Silhouettes of furniture and fittings, Phase 2 kitchen...................................................................................106 Figure 11.7. Locks on doors in Jack Hanes’ Cottage........................................................................................................107 Figure 11.8. Dunny for Jack Haynes’s Cottage................................................................................................................107 Figure 12.1. Jack Haynes’s Cottage with garden fountain................................................................................................109 Figure 12.2. Sketch-plan of the inner garden....................................................................................................................110 Figure 12.3. The fountain in the inner garden..................................................................................................................111 Figure 12.4. Garden bed edged with stones......................................................................................................................112 Figure 13.1. The granary at Abington...............................................................................................................................115 Figure 13.2. The stables at Abington................................................................................................................................116 Figure 13.3. The south end of the Abington woolshed.....................................................................................................116 Figure 13.4. The old dip from the drying shed end, at Abington......................................................................................117 Figure 13.5. The woolshed loading ramp at Abington......................................................................................................117 Figure 13.6. Slab wall in the Abington woolshed.............................................................................................................118 Figure 13.7. Measuring slabs inside the granary at Abington...........................................................................................118 Figure 13.8. A pegged mortice brace inside the granary at Abington...............................................................................119 Figure 13.9. The shearers’ quarters at Abington...............................................................................................................119 Figure 13.10. Oak Cottage at Abington............................................................................................................................120 Figure 13.11. Cottage/Old Store at Abington...................................................................................................................120 Figure 13.12. The back of the granary at Newholme.......................................................................................................121 Figure 13.13. View south at Newholme from woolshed..................................................................................................122 Figure 13.14. The back of the chaff shed at Newholme...................................................................................................122 Figure 13.15. Probably recycled slabs in a building at Newholme..................................................................................123 Figure 13.16. The woolshed at Newholme from its west end..........................................................................................123 Figure 13.17. Corrugated iron brand on the woolshed at Newholme...............................................................................124 Figure 13.18. Inside the Newholme woolshed, stands and chutes....................................................................................124 Figure 13.19. Workers’ accommodation at Newholme.....................................................................................................125 Figure 13.20. The back of the house at Newholme, three construction phases................................................................125 Figure 13.21. Inside of a dunny at Newholme, for adult and child..................................................................................126 xii

List of Figures Figure 13.22. The sawmill site at Newholme...................................................................................................................126 Figure 13.23. Fence at the sawmill site, Newholme.........................................................................................................127 Figure 13.24. Small house site at the sawmill site, Newholme........................................................................................127 Figure 13.25. Large house site at the sawmill site, Newholme,.......................................................................................128

xiii

Foreword New South Wales has a remarkable number of nineteenthand early twentieth-century traditional buildings, of timber, corrugated iron, stone, brick and pisé. In the case of houses, these have been extensively studied by architects, historians, archaeologists, and others. However, many buildings associated with day-to-day work have not had as much attention, and this is particularly the case with farm buildings, frequently quite humble and utilitarian, which have often deteriorated badly in recent decades, sometimes reduced to ruins. This book focuses on one group of such buildings in New England, in northern New South Wales, at the former pastoral property of Saumarez, near Armidale, and compares them with similar buildings at the nearby properties of Abington and Newholme. It draws on information from field reports by historical archaeology students at the University of New England, written in the later 1980s and early 1990s. Because that was so long ago, the book has now acquired a historical value as an account of how things were at that time.

excavations have long been used in this way. The problem was that these required blocks of time, and the semester system then recently adopted by Australian universities created timetabling difficulties that prevented this from happening. However, the University of New England, where I headed the Archaeology Department, was unusual in that it had ‘external students’, as well as the usual ‘internal students’. The external students were often older than the internal students, who were mostly in their early twenties, and the university had taught external students since the 1950s, an early example of ‘distance education’ long before the development of the Internet. External courses depended heavily on correspondence, but it was also required that external students visit the University for four or five days to take part in what was called a ‘residential school’ for each semester course in which they were enrolled. These were held during our so-called vacations and involved concentrated teaching by academic staff who received no extra payment for their efforts. There were also occasional ‘weekend schools’ when, after a week’s work, we would fly to Sydney to give lectures to external students who lived there or could travel there (sometimes from great distances). Often held at Sydney University, one would give two, three or four lectures on the Saturday and again on the Sunday, and then fly back to Armidale to face another week’s work. Again, we got no extra payment. However, it gave me the freedom to improve the teaching of archaeology. External students consisted of a remarkable variety of people of many ages (they had to be over 23 years old to enrol externally) and of many professions, varied experience and a wide range of ability. They frequently read more than our internal students and were often far more enthusiastic; in most cases they wanted to study for its own sake rather than merely to improve their employment prospects.

Notable publications about traditional buildings in Australia include Cox, P. et al. 1980. Rude timber buildings in Australia. Farm buildings and associated structures have often lacked specific attention, but an exception is: Roxburgh, R. and Baglin, D. 1978. Colonial farm buildings of New South Wales. Overseas there have been studies of ‘vernacular architecture’, such as Brunskill, R.W. 1989. Traditional buildings of Britain: An introduction to vernacular architecture. More specialized is Barnwell, P.S. and Giles, C. 1997. English farmsteads, 1750–1914. Also useful is Alcock, N.W. et al. 1996. Recording timberframed buildings: An illustrated glossary. In addition, there is Nilsen, A. 2021. Vernacular buildings and urban social practice: Wood and people in early modern Swedish society. In Australia, a comparable development has been the growth of interest in the archaeology of standing structures (Davies 1987), essentially using archaeological techniques to analyse buildings, all of their remains above ground as well as those that are buried but accessible.

An average residential school could consist of 20 or more people, and sometimes a small number of internal students, willing to forgo part of their vacation, would join the group. My solution to the problem of teaching archaeology in a more practical way was to organize field projects of one or two days each during a residential school, during which students would examine and analyse a historical building or structure and write a report on their investigation.

Teaching archaeology in universities in Britain, Nigeria, Sweden, Australia and elsewhere for several decades led me to seek a way of involving students more effectively in the subject than was often possible. It seemed that a more ‘hands-on’ approach was needed than that of the lecture, seminar or practical room. There also had to be an alternative to writing interminable essays based on existing literature, because much of the subject belonged in the outdoors, not in the library. I recollected a proverb attributed to Confucius: ‘I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand.’ This made me think that I needed to get students to do archaeology, and indeed training

Near Armidale is the historical site of Saumarez, a nineteenth- and early twentieth-century pastoral property with a grand house and associated farm buildings (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002). Saumarez originated in the 1830s and was held with varying title by three families in turn: the xiv

Foreword Dumaresq, Thomas and White families. Although it was primarily a sheep station, the structures we investigated were for general farming, not for wool production, because the facilities for the latter were some distance away on the other side of Saumarez Creek. Most of the farm buildings were the work of Francis John White (1854–1934), who ran the property from 1875 until his death. During this time, he developed Saumarez so successfully, along with other properties that he controlled, that he became a major figure in the life of Armidale and its district (Philp 1984). Clearly, he was well organized and practical; the buildings and other structures that he built or had modified show this, each being for a particular purpose. In 1984, the White family donated the main house, its surrounding garden and the main group of farm buildings, together with 10 hectares, to the National Trust of Australia (New South Wales). This generosity gave me and my students easy access to subjects for field projects, subjects that were near the University and thus economical in time and expense to reach.

It is now impossible to contact those whose work has contributed to this book; indeed, sadly some of them might no longer be with us, but they are fully acknowledged where appropriate. I would be grateful if any of them could contact me by email and I will send them a copy of this book if they provide a mailing address. What they did has enabled me to create a record that deserves to be preserved. Appropriately, I have dedicated the book to them.

So, in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1993, each year I ran a field project on the Saumarez and other farm buildings as part of my Australian historical archaeology course. Each of these field projects lasted a full day, so that students had seven to eight hours on-site. On each occasion, I was present throughout the day, to advise and solve problems. I insisted that it was the archaeology of the buildings and structures that should receive most attention, rather than their history, relevant though that obviously was. Emphasis was to be on the analysis of construction, materials, building techniques and chronological sequence, as well as suitability for purpose. Students were encouraged to ask questions about what they observed, not merely describe it, a task often difficult because buildings and structures had been modified in various ways during their lengthy existence. Students had some weeks to produce a report, in which they were encouraged to include plans, elevations, other diagrams, drawings, photographs and anything else of relevance. I was so impressed by the results that I kept photocopies of what I judged to be the best of the reports. Photocopies of photographs were technically poor at that time, so my records were mainly limited to text and line-drawings, but where possible I have added photographs of my own taken at the time. I have also had a number of the drawings redrawn commercially. I made it known to the writers that I would eventually use some of the information in the reports as a contribution to heritage studies of New England. However, the years rolled by while I published archaeological work on Africa (for example Connah 2016) but also on Australia (for example Connah 2007). Now, nearly 30 years later, I have done what I hoped to do. With the passage of time, the information has acquired an intrinsic historical value that should not be lost; it is a record of things as they were for three groups of Australian farm buildings at that time, not as they are now.

xv

Abstract Farm buildings were particularly important in colonial Australia. They played a vital role in the rural economy of the largely European immigrants. Yet architects, historians and others have generally given them less attention than the grander domestic and public buildings of the period. Although some farm buildings were of stone or brick, most were humbler structures of timber or, later, of timber and corrugated iron. Also, they often included recycled materials, because of limited finances and a make-do attitude by their owners or users. This book analyses a group of such buildings and fences at Saumarez Station, near the city of Armidale in northern New South Wales, Australia, that formed the centre of a wool-production and cattle-raising property from the 1830s to the early twentieth century, most of them dating from the 1880s or soon after. They are now cared for by the National Trust of New South Wales and open to the public because of their heritage interest. They are also compared to similar buildings at the nearby properties of Abington and Newholme. The book is based on information from field investigations by archaeology students of the University of New England at Armidale, during 1985–89 and 1992–93, giving it significant historical relevance because socio-economic changes, obsolescence and neglect have resulted in the loss of similar evidence elsewhere in many parts of Australia. The emphasis in the book is on the archaeology and architecture of the structures, particularly on their structural analysis. Attention is concentrated on construction methods, materials, the structural chronology of change and adaptation, and suitability for purpose. The buildings differed from each other, but each was fit for its intended purpose.

xvi

1 People and places For much of Australia’s recent history, wool has been a major contributor to the economy. It has frequently been claimed, with some justification, that the country was ‘built on the sheep’s back’. Investigation of the infrastructure, including people and places, which achieved this is therefore of considerable importance. Saumarez Station, on the New England Tablelands near Armidale, in northern New South Wales, provides an example of how this functioned. Saumarez was originally settled by Henry Dumaresq in 1834 as an outstation of his St Heliers property in the Upper Hunter Valley (Gray 1982: 87). The lease for Saumarez, originally for approximately 404.70 hectares (100,000 acres), was sold to Henry Arding Thomas in 1857. He converted 8094 hectares (20,000 acres) to freehold, and this was sold to Francis White in 1874 (Philp 1986: 3). The remainder was selected by others. The property was inherited by Francis John White in 1875 after his father’s death. He took up residence and commenced building up the property in 1878. Born in 1854, ‘F.J.’, as he was known, was then only 23 years of age and unmarried. He was clearly a man of considerable energy and ability, qualities that are reflected in the buildings and other structures for which he was responsible at Saumarez (Figure 1.1).

was added to the homestead. In the meantime, Thomas supervised the sheep work on Saumarez and pursued a vigorous policy of land acquisition. Most of the property was still Crown land, but over the next 17 years Thomas used every means at his disposal to purchase as much of the land as possible. By the 1870s, Saumarez had been consolidated as a freehold estate of 9308 hectares (23,000 acres). Thomas also played a pioneering role in the development of Armidale. He sat as a Magistrate on the Armidale Bench; helped to start the New England Hospital; and as President of the Agricultural Society initiated the first Agricultural Show on the Northern Tablelands. Thomas sold Saumarez in 1874 to Francis White, whose family had developed a highly successful sheep-farming business across New South Wales, and with the acquisition of Saumarez, Francis White looked to further consolidate these interests. However, Francis White died suddenly and his eldest son, Francis John White (F.J.), took charge of Saumarez. A 23-year-old bachelor, F.J. arrived in 1878 and over the next decade continued to manage the property in the same successful manner as Henry Arding Thomas. A

Saumarez Station is situated on the New England Tablelands, at a height of over 900 metres (3000 feet), with ideal conditions for sheep breeding and wool production (Figure 1.2). It is about 5 kilometres (3 miles) south of Armidale and was one of the earliest grazing runs established in New England during the 1830s. In 1835, Henry Dumaresq, a former army officer, after first claiming a squatting station for himself on the New England Tablelands, sent a large contingent of men, livestock and machinery to occupy a vast area as a grazing run. It was named in memory of his family connections with the Seigneurs de Sausmarez of Guernsey (an island in the English Channel). Under the control of Dumaresq’s superintendent, A.S. Wightman, a head station, store and stables were set up above Saumarez Creek. Within a few years, Wightman had also built a shearing shed and men’s huts. The operation, even in its early years, was a successful one, but in 1838, when Dumaresq died, Saumarez was left to his widow, Elizabeth Sophia. In 1857, the pastoral run was sold to Henry Arding Thomas, who arrived with his young wife, Caroline, and their first son, William, in April the following year. As the property’s first resident owners, they worked hard to make the existing slab homestead a comfortable retreat for their growing family and eventually a three-roomed brick cottage with surrounding verandas

Figure 1.1. Francis John White, c.1870s. He owned and ran Saumarez from 1875 to 1934 (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473 Album 1, page 2).

1

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.2. The location of Saumarez Station, indicated by a star near Armidale. Broad shading is land over 305m (1000ft); narrow shading is land over 914m (3000ft). Map by Graham Connah.

new woolshed was built in 1883, and five years later, F.J., his wife Margaret (they had married in 1881), and their five children moved into a larger house further up from the creek. Maggie, as F.J. called her, bore two more children in the new house and spent much of her time supervising the family and entertaining. Meanwhile, F.J. continued to make improvements to the property; over the next decade, a saddle horse stable, wagon shed, blacksmith’s shop, cowshed, fowl pens and ensilage pit were added to the property. These years were difficult: the depression of the 1890s was made worse by drought and the Whites, like other pastoralists, felt the impact of these changes but were in a stronger position to adapt to the crisis. Thus, while forced to reduce sheep numbers from 21,000 in 1892 to 15,000 in 1906, F.J. was over the same period able to increase his cattle numbers from 7000 to 9000. Indeed, as the crisis receded, he was able to add a second storey

to the Saumarez homestead. With gas lighting, interior flushing lavatories, a system of heating bath water and an improved telephone line to Armidale, the renovated homestead possessed all the facilities which befitted the White family’s leading social status in the community. F.J. died at the age of 80 in 1934, and Margaret followed two years later. Saumarez was left to their five daughters, two of whom, Mary and Elsie, continued to live in the house while the property itself was managed by their brother Harold Fletcher White. As the Australian wool industry experienced increasing difficulties during the second half of the twentieth century, parts of Saumarez were sold off, a section being purchased by the federal government after World War Two to allow the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to establish a pastoral research station there. Furthermore, the state government in the 1950s required the White family to surrender large portions of 2

People and places the property for soldier settlement, resulting in Saumarez being further reduced to about 3237 hectares (8000 acres) by the early-1960s. Mary, who founded the Country Women’s Association in Armidale and represented the White family on the first Council of the New England University College, died in 1948, but Elsie continued to occupy the homestead at Saumarez. She took an active role in the management of the property and resisted change to the point of refusing to alter the accustomed furnishings or routine of Saumarez. When she died in 1981 at the age of 97, F.J.’s grandchildren were so impressed with the pristine state of the homestead that they donated it and its surrounds to the Australian National Trust as an example of a late-nineteenth century Australian pastoral station. The remaining 1214 hectares (3000 acres) surrounding the Saumarez homestead is still run by the descendants of F.J. White (Saumarez Station Unlocking Regional Memory. https://www.nswera.net.au/ biogs/UNE0413b.htm).

place, employing numerous people, mostly men. It was a world of its own, although an important part of the New England economy. Only about 6.5 kilometres (4 miles) from the centre of Armidale, the nearest city, it was nevertheless sufficiently isolated for those who worked and lived on the property to want a horse or a horse-drawn vehicle to go there. Indeed, some would have had to walk there, and many people lived further west of the farm-buildings area, in cottages on parts of the property or former parts of it. The workforce included both permanent employees and others engaged when seasonal demands made it necessary or when particular tasks, such as building or fencing, had to be undertaken. Therefore, this was a hierarchical community, depending on the work undertaken and the varying wages paid for it. At the head of the property was F.J. White (Figure 1.1), hard-working, innovative and well-organized, who was responsible during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century for the construction or modification of the farm buildings that are discussed in this book.

The work buildings and associated structures analysed in this book have survived the vicissitudes of time and are now preserved as an important part of Australian heritage open to visitors. However, the buildings are just the remains of former activities that lack the people who worked and, in some cases, lived in and among them. To be fully understood, they need to be considered in their context at the centre of a busy pastoral and farming complex. Formerly, the Saumarez property was an active and lively

White kept detailed records about the work at Saumarez and also a diary for part of his time there. Using these and oral sources from some of the workers, Bruce Mitchell and Barry McDonald were able to publish a valuable account of life and work on the property: Working Saumarez: people and places on a sheep and cattle station (Mitchell and McDonald 1996). This book highlighted several people and families who were at Saumarez for many years, such as Jack Haynes and his wife Hannah (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3. Jack and Hannah Haynes on the veranda of their house, now known as Jack Haynes’s Cottage (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 43).

3

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.5. Bob Betts in 1993. He lived all his life on Saumarez and was an important source of information about its past. Here he is seen outside the front of the Thomas Building (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 102).

Betts (Figure 1.5), who lived all his life on Saumarez and was a former yardman there. It was he who helped me with a 1970s archaeological field survey of the property (Connah 1977). At that time, he was able to identify the sites of houses and other buildings to the west of the work-buildings area and he remembered who had lived in some of them or what they were used for. He was also an important source of oral information for Mitchell and McDonald in their 1996 book.

Figure 1.4. Bob Parsons, whose family worked on Saumarez for three generations. The timber slabs behind him are probably part of one of the work buildings (Vanessa Taylor (ed.) 2010: cover photograph).

Haynes served longer than any other employee recorded at Saumarez: from 1885 until his death in 1943. For most of this time, he worked as the groom and storekeeper, and developed a special relationship with F.J. White that gave him an unofficial authority over his fellow employees, which was resented by them. A man who sternly insisted on things being done his way, he seems to have led a lonely life and he committed suicide at the age of 80, probably because he found that he could no longer do the many things that he felt responsible for. It was remembered that no one on the station ever saw Mrs Haynes, who was never known to step outside her cottage and of whom it was commonly believed that she hung out and took in her washing after dark.

Although Saumarez was a sheep station, the economy of which depended on wool production, particularly high-quality wool, cattle were also run and these, as mentioned above, were particularly important at times. However, the work buildings analysed in this book were largely separate from sheep-related activities; indeed, apparently after 1883 the woolshed was on the other side of the Saumarez Creek. In effect, the buildings and their surroundings constituted a farm that was the nucleus of an operation that provided beef, mutton, pork, milk, eggs and chicken, as well as breeding and managing work horses for ploughing and cartage, and horses for pulling vehicles and for riding. This was mainly a self-sustaining economy, supplying food for the White homestead and also some for the workforce on the property. To support these activities and feed the farm animals, it was necessary to grow a variety of crops. The following is a list of field crops and grasses mentioned in F.J. White’s diaries that were sown on Saumarez between 1883 and 1906: barley, pumpkins, quasha, Planter’s Friend (sorghum), mangolds, peas, beans, corn, gammas, squash, cucumbers, sunflowers, cabbages, prairie grass, potatoes, prairie-rye, cocksfoot, Kentucky bluegrass,

Another remarkable example of loyalty by workers was Bob Parsons and his family, who worked on Saumarez for three generations (Figure 1.4). A published collection of photographs edited by Vanessa Taylor includes some that are relevant to Saumarez, as well as material from other places in the general area: Faces on the farm: a rural photographic retrospective (Taylor 2010). Amongst these photographs is one of Bob 4

People and places tares, pie melons, black wheat, rye-grass, lucerne, Scotch Goers (oats), clover, wheat, Kaffyr corn, rape, swedes, scarlet clover, Hungarian millet, onions, mustard, black oats, Italian rye-grass, Algerian oats.

Growing and tending such a variety of crops, no doubt in different seasons and years, would have required a lot of work: ploughing, harrowing, fertilizing, weeding, harvesting, carting, haymaking (Figures 1.6 and 1.7),

Figure 1.6. Hay wagon pulled by a team of four draughthorses (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 95).

Figure 1.7. Forking and loading lucerne at Saumarez. In the twentieth century the truck replaced the horse team, but harvesting still demanded manual labour (Taylor 2010: Panel 14).

5

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales It was the people at Saumarez—the work that they did, their characters and abilities, and their overall activities—that gave the property a life that is now gone but is represented by the buildings that remain (Figures 1.12–1.14). To understand those buildings, it is essential to remember the people who were associated with them, who built them, repaired them, worked in them or lived in them. The buildings are also evidence of F.J. White’s ambitions and planning. Each of these buildings served its own purpose or purposes.

preparing ensilage as winter feed for animals, chaffcutting and other animal-food preparation. In an age dependent on the muscles of people and horses, these activities made very heavy demands on labour, from both more permanent workers and many short-term casuals. In addition, there was horseshoeing (although usually done in Armidale) and other blacksmithing work, such as the repair of tools and vehicles (Bailey 1980). Buildings also had to be maintained and sometimes modified or replaced, and fences frequently needed attention. For such work, timber often needed felling, carting and splitting or sawing, although some of it was obtained from local sawmills. Overall, the Saumarez work buildings were the centre of many activities, some demanding daily attention, such as feeding animals, watering and grooming horses, and milking.

The buildings and other features that are the subject of this book are grouped in a small area above the Saumarez Creek (Figures 1.15–1.17), but just as they need to be seen in the context of the people who were associated with them, so they also need to be seen in the context of other buildings and features of which only the sites are known. A survey of surface remains in 1975/6, supplemented by local memories, was the basis of a map of these, although probably of variable reliability. It is uncertain, for instance, which sites were relevant to Saumarez Station itself and which were the result of free selection, although detailed title and other land research could clarify this to some extent (Figures 1.18 and 1.19). However, a group of sites and other features on each side of the Saumarez Creek do probably belong to the Station: those to the west of the Creek are of earlier date, and those to its east, on slightly higher ground, are of later date (Figure 1.20). The principal buildings and sites studied in this book are shown

Workers who lived on Saumarez seem to have had accommodation with few comforts (Chapter 11), but in 1888, when the old homestead was demolished (Chapter 2), F.J. White had a new, much grander homestead built for his growing family, befitting his economic success as a wool grower. This was initially of a single storey, then in 1906 an upper storey was added. However, it was primarily a family home rather than a place for social entertainment, although the Whites were now playing an important role in New England society (Figures 1.8–1.11). Nevertheless, F.J. White seems to have remained a man of simple tastes, mainly interested in the work of his property.

Figure 1.8. Saumarez homestead, first phase of only one storey, 1888–1906. The five daughters of F.J. White at tea. The advanced growth of creeper on the building suggests a date in the 1890s or early 1900s (National Trust, Saumarez Photographic Collection).

6

People and places higher ground was probably because alternative sources of water became available, such as tanks and boreholes.

in an enlarged section of Figure 1.18 (Figure 1.21). The most important of these are the remains of a sheepwash on the western side of the creek (Figure 1.22), which almost certainly dates from before the railway reached Armidale in 1883. Until that time, the sheep were washed before shearing, in order to reduce the weight of the wool as much as possible. This was because the bales had to be transported by dray some 400 kilometres to the Hunter River and were charged by weight. When the railway arrived, the bales went by rail and were charged by volume rather than weight. It therefore ceased to be necessary to wash the wool in such a laborious way; indeed, it ceased to be an economical proposition, and the washpool at Saumarez therefore become a thing of the past (Butlin 1972: 76). Furthermore, the use of sheep dips in this part of New South Wales has declined, being replaced by spray treatments (Connah 1977: 126). The site of the sheep dip is near the site of the former woolshed and the site of the blacksmith’s shop and house, all three sites being on the western side of the Creek. It is apparent that the centre of activities at Saumarez Station moved onto higher, less flood-prone ground to the east of the Creek late in the nineteenth century, although the present woolshed, apparently built in 1883 by F.J. White, is on slightly rising ground to its west, probably because more space was needed for the substantial yards and sheep movements essential for handling large sheep numbers. The shift in the centre of activities at Saumarez Station from creek-side to

It is apparent that both the past behaviour of people and the remains of former structures and facilities created the context of the buildings studied in the chapters that follow. The oldest of these buildings and sites was the first homestead, which has survived only as an archaeological site. In the remainder of the book, an approximate chronological order has been followed wherever possible. The dominant figure is F.J. White, who achieved so much at Saumarez during his long life.

Figure 1.9. Saumarez homestead in recent times, showing the top storey added in 1906 (National Trust, Saumarez Photographic Collection, Item 15/3c).

7

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.10. The later homestead, ground floor. This consists of drawing room (1), hall (2), old drawing room (3), office (4), sitting room, (8) service area (12–20) and other rooms (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 12).

8

People and places

Figure 1.11. The later homestead, upper floor. This consists of bedrooms (22–27), lavatory (29), bathroom (30), veranda (28) and other rooms (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 16).

9

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.12. An indication of status: Elsie White (1885–1981), one of F.J. White’s daughters, on a favourite horse at the Armidale Show, date unknown (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 64).

Figure 1.13. Some of the workers at Saumarez had transport for journeys to Armidale and recreation. Josesphine Betts and her daughter Daphne in their buggy, date unknown (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 73).

10

People and places

Figure 1.14. A bicycle could also provide transport, which was better than walking. Here, seen in front of the first phase of the 1888–1906 Saumarez homestead, possibly one F.J. White’s daughters. The photograph has to be of pre-1906 date (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473 Album 12, page 10).

Figure 1.15. General view of the farm buildings at Saumarez, in the early twentieth century. The building at the centre with a large open door is the riding-horse stable and carriage house (Number 7 in Figure 1.20) (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473 Album 15, page 10).

11

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.16. The woolshed at Saumarez, constructed in 1883 and replacing an earlier one. Photograph by Doris F. White (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473 Album 15, page 11).

12

People and places

Figure 1.17. Aerial photograph of part of Saumarez Station and the adjacent landscape (undated but probably in 1970s or 1980s). The 1888–1906 homestead to the right and part of the farm buildings area at the extreme left. View approximately to the west (UNE Heritage Centre. This item was loose in a collection Ref UNE Heritage Centre—A1473 Box 7, Image 143).

Figure 1.18. Historical archaeological sites at Saumarez and to its west. Solid circles: stone houses. Open circles: timber houses. Black stars: other sites or features. White star: present woolshed. L: lagoon. By Sites 6 and 8 is a ford. Contours are at 50ft (15.25m) intervals. Inset map U: Uralla (J.F. Campbell 1922). Map by Graham Connah 1977: 123. See Figure 1.19.

13

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.19. Sites west of the main group of buildings and other features at Saumarez, as recorded in 1975/6. See Figure 1.18 (Connah 1977: 122).

14

People and places

Figure 1.20. Map of work buildings at Saumarez. Key: 1. Homestead. 2. Site of station office. 3. Cowshed. 4. Workinghorse stable, later the barn. 5. Bull stall. 6. Blacksmith’s shop and wagon shed. 7. Riding-horse stable and carriage house. 8. Poultry house. 9. Killing shed. 10. Site of pig pens. 11. Meat room. 12. Store. 13. Site of brick building? 14. Thomas Building. 15. Site of old homestead. 16. Jack Haynes’s Cottage. 17. Small cowshed. 18. Privy. 19. Small poultry house. 20. Workshop. 21. Garage. 22. Cottage. Note: Numbers 20–22 are outside the National Trust property. Drawn by P.D. Blackman, 1987; revised by Graham Connah, 2020. Not to scale.

Figure 1.21. Enlarged part of Figure 1.18, showing the concentration of buildings and other features at the centre of Saumarez. The heavy line from south to north is the Saumarez Creek, lighter lines are the 3400ft and 3300ft contours. 7. Site of woolshed. 8. Site of blacksmith’s shop and house. 10. Site of washpool. 14. Site of sheep dip. The white star is the 1883 woolshed, on a road through the centre of the Saumarez Station (from Connah 1977: 123).

15

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 1.22. Aerial photograph of the sheepwash on Saumarez Creek, September 1976. A ditch led water into a washpool, which drained back into the creek. It probably dates to before 1883. See Number 10 in Figure 1.21. Photograph by Graham Connah.

16

2 The old homestead site 1838 and the sheep station of Saumarez was held by his widow until it was sold in 1857 to Henry Arding Thomas. The latter came to live at Saumarez with his wife Caroline, and six of their children were born there. Caroline kept a diary and, during the time that she and her husband lived at Saumarez, recorded improvements to the house. However, it eventually became inadequate for their needs, and in 1863–65 Thomas added the brick building that is still standing (Chapter 5) to the earlier timber house built by the Dumaresq family. A c.1854 drawing of the Dumaresq buildings at Saumarez by William Gardner appears to show the older building and a possible detached kitchen. This house was probably the original part of the homestead that was demolished in 1888 (Figures 2.2–2.5), when it would have been about 43 years old, indicating a lifespan quite likely for a solidly built timber structure. It was the site of this building that was the focus of excavation during the late 1980s.

This is the site of the original slab homestead at Saumarez (Figure 1.20, Number 15), situated near the southern edge of the central group of buildings. It was excavated in five periods from 1987 to 1989 and published in 2019 (Connah 2019). It incorporated analyses by Sue Pearson (n.d.) and Samantha McKay (2000). A precis of the main evidence is provided here, concentrating on the structural and artefactual aspects. At the time of the excavation, the site was an open, flat, grassy area between Jack Haynes’s Cottage and a surviving brick building constructed by Thomas in about 1865 (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 33), as an extension to the old homestead (Figure 2.1). The site was located near the southern edge of the farm buildings, beyond which the land slopes down to the Saumarez Creek. The Saumarez homestead was named by Henry Dumaresq in 1834/5, after a place name and family name in the Channel Isles of the United Kingdom. With his brother, William Dumaresq, he was responsible for the earliest European settlement on the New England Tablelands, near the subsequent town of Armidale. Henry Dumaresq died in

Thomas sold Saumarez in 1874, and he and his family moved to Cobbity, outside Sydney. Saumarez was purchased by Francis White, but he died soon after

Figure 2.1. The old homestead excavation site from north-east, before excavation. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

17

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.2. White’s diary entry for Monday 3 December 1888, evidence for the date of the demolition of the old homestead. The annotation at the top is probably modern (extract from the Saumarez Station records. UNE Heritage Centre—AO149 Item 6).

Figure 2.3. An enlarged part of William Gardner’s drawing, showing the old homestead (the Dumaresq building) at Saumarez (UNE Heritage Centre, from the State Library of New South Wales (Gardner c.1854)).

18

The old homestead site

Figure 2.4. The Saumarez old homestead in 1874, viewed from the south. The Thomas family stand in front of the building: left to right, Henry Arding Thomas, his wife Caroline and some of their children. There are other figures on the veranda of the old homestead. The brick extension to the right was built by Thomas in 1863–65, and still survives (UNE Heritage Centre, copied from National Trust, Saumarez House collections).

Figure 2.5. A proposed structural sequence of Saumarez old homestead (after McKay 2000: 100).

and left the property to his 21-year-old son Francis John White, who managed it from 1878 until his death in 1934. The 10 hectares on which the later homestead and station buildings stand were donated to the National Trust of New South Wales in 1984. The new Saumarez homestead, built of brick in 1888, was of only one storey, but this was increased to two storeys in 1906. It still

stands on a site that is a little distance from the workbuildings area, which it overlooks. It appears that the old homestead was altered several times during its existence, particularly between 1854 and 1874, and it is possible to propose a structural sequence from 1848 to the 1980s that includes the use of the site after the demolition of 1888 (Figure 2.5). 19

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.6. Enlarged central portion of the site plan after completing the excavation. Surveyed and drawn by D. Hobbs, 1993.

2.1. The excavation

have been exposed to cold and perhaps wet conditions. Fortunately, the Maintenance Department at the University of New England made a steel- and timber-framed structure covered with heavy, transparent plastic that provided protection for Area 1, potentially the most important part of the site (Figures 2.7–2.10). The sides could be rolled up in warmer weather and, with the addition of black plastic sheeting laid over the excavated surfaces within the structure, protection was provided during the periods between excavation sessions, discouraging the growth of weeds. Other parts of the site as a whole were not covered in this way; Areas 3 and 4 were protected by parts of Jack Haynes’s Cottage and Areas 2 and 5 were not significant enough to merit protection.

A total of five areas were excavated: 1. The large area that was presumed to be the main part of the house site; 2. A small area west of the south-west corner of Jack Haynes’s Cottage; 3. The western part of the laundry of Jack Haynes’s Cottage; 4. The breezeway between the two sections of Jack Haynes’s Cottage; 5. An area to the west of Jack Haynes’s Cottage. These areas are indicated by Numbers 1–5 on the site plan (Figure 2.6). The attention given to Jack Haynes’s Cottage was because part of the original house site appeared to be beneath that building, but relatively little evidence was recovered by excavation from those locations. Because the site was that of a demolished building, surviving artefacts seemed likely to be small, fragmentary and few in number. Therefore, all the excavated deposits were sieved, in June 1987 through 6-millimetre mesh and in October 1987, and presumably subsequently, through 5-millimetre mesh. Small hand tools such as trowels and brushes were those most frequently used, but at times the compact character of the deposits made small hand-picks also essential. The Saumarez old homestead site had to be excavated during autumns and winters, when those working on the site could sometimes

The Saumarez excavation was essentially an open-area one, in which plan details were inevitably most important but the stratification of the site was also significant. The deposits of Area 1, for instance, were extremely shallow (Figures 2.10 and 2.11); the 1888 demolition had left little behind. There was only a thin topsoil (Units 1 and 2) lying over a layer of compacted material, which in turn lay on top of the natural clay. However, from the compacted material, which was designated Unit 3, we recovered by 20

The old homestead site

Figure 2.7. Plastic structure protecting Area 1 of the excavation. Thomas building to left. Photograph by Graham Connah, 12 June 1987.

Figure 2.8. Area 1 from north-east, excavation in progress. Jack Haynes’s Cottage in background. Photograph by Graham Connah, 13 June 1987.

21

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.9. Graham Connah and some of the students at work on the site, 1987. Photograph by Silvano Jung.

Figure 2.10. Area 1, most of Unit 3 excavated, from south-east. Chimney base at lower right with Andrew Piper. Photograph by Graham Connah 10 October 1987.

22

The old homestead site

Figure 2.11. Section-drawing of north side of Area 1. Top: 0–3m; middle: 3–6m; bottom: 6–9m. Unit 3 consisted of Numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Key: 1. Red gravel. 2. Black bitumen and sand. 3. White mortar and gravel. 4. Brown topsoil. 5. Brown soil in disturbance. 6. Red gravel. 7. Log at edge of garden bed. 8. Tree root. 9. Light brown sandy clay (Unit 15). 10. Red gravel. 11. Black bitumen and sand. 12. Red gravel. 13. Black bitumen and sand. 14. Roots of shrub. 15. Brown garden soil. 16. Garden bed between broken vertical lines on 1–3m and 3–6m sections. 17. Plank at edge of garden bed. 18. Black clay natural. 19. Black topsoil with cultural material. 20. Black topsoil with cultural material. 21. Stone chimney base between broken vertical lines, projected onto section. Drawn by Graham Connah and Geoffrey Tanks, 11 October 1987.

total sieving an amazing variety of small and fragmented domestic artefacts. Clearly, this material was residual from the demolition process; although it presumably originated from the structure that had stood on this site, it was scattered and trampled underfoot as demolition proceeded. Even after every last bit of demolition debris was raked up and carted away, as was probably done at the Saumarez site, remnants would survive, trodden underfoot or ignored. Thus, our excavation of the old homestead at Saumarez told us more about the demolition process of 1888 than it did about the building that had been demolished or about the life of those who had lived in it. Regarding the latter, apart from some minimal structural evidence,

the surviving artefacts were of course informative, but their locations and associations were clearly the result of secondary deposition associated with the demolition. 2.2. Structural evidence Structural evidence revealed by the excavation was indeed limited (Figures 2.6 and 2.10). In Area 1, it consisted of one stone chimney base and a possible second stone chimney base. There were also six large postholes (Figure 2.12), four of which were 28–32 centimetres deep (probably for posts that supported parts of the building), two smaller postholes, part of a bed-log trench, one large pit and three 23

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales small pits, and two areas of unexplained fill. In addition, there was a brick spoon drain (Figure 2.13) running parallel to the northern side of the building, draining into a stone-filled pit at its western end and into a closed drain of unknown termination at its eastern end. The spoon drain was cut by one of the three small pits, showing that this pit was later than the building. The other excavated areas were less informative, although in Area 2 we uncovered

Figure 2.12. Excavating one of the postholes for the main supports of the old homestead. Area 1 extension, F10 and F11. Photograph by Graham Connah 13 July 1988.

Figure 2.13. Area 1, eastern part of spoon drain, view from west. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah, 21 April 1989.

Table 2.1. List of special finds, including areal and stratigraphic locations Area

Square

Unit

Find number

Figure number

Description

1

M7

88

No record

2.17

two glass bottles

1

P11/12

104

31

2.14

clay-pipe bowl

1

N2

1

1

teaspoon bowl

1

J3

1

8

key

1

F6

3

9

watch back

1

F8

3

10

thimble

1

—

—

11

stone flake

1

K5

3

12

1

E6

3

13

1

L4

3

14

1

G3

3

18

1

C2

45

19

1

M5

83

21

2.15

1872 threepence

1

A11/12

54

22

2.15

1949 threepence

1

E11

79

24

—

frag metal sheet with hole

1

A12

54

25

1

N7

90

27

2.14

cup from child’s tea-set

1

P11/12

96

28

—

earthenware disc with hollow stem

1

A11/12

54

23

key

2

B3

28

15

filigree metal buckle

2

B2

28

16

top of glass bottle

2

A3

28

17

4

Extended

74

20

5

B2

84

26

small complete glass bottle

5

C4

91

29

small complete glass bottle

5

C4

91

30

brass doorknob

2.15, 2.16

1873 sixpence clock winder

2.18

curtain-rod terminal penknife brass and iron fitting

small complete glass bottle

top of glass bottle 2.15

24

halfpenny

The old homestead site

Figure 2.14. Child’s tea-set cup, above, Area 1, Unit 90. Smoking-pipe bowl, below, Area 1, Unit 104. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

Figure 2.15. Coins. Top left to right: sixpence 1863, Area 1, Unit 1; sixpence 1873, Area 1, Unit 3. Centre: halfpenny, 1917, Area 4, Unit 74, surface. Bottom left to right, threepence 1872, Area 1, Unit 83; threepence 1949, Area 1, Unit 54. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

another stone chimney base and a small posthole. Area 3 produced no significant structural evidence, Area 4 only part of an earth floor, part of a bed-log trench, a stone slab, and part of a brick step probably belonging to Jack Haynes’s Cottage. In Area 5 there was only an area of stone and brick rubble of unknown purpose. Little though the evidence was, it provided a rough indication of the building’s dimensions. Stone chimneys were usually constructed outside the end walls of such timber buildings, and on this basis it can be estimated that the building was a little over 18 metres long. The positions of the large postholes would indicate a width for the building of a little under 9 metres, a measurement that excludes the spoon drain because it would have to have been located beneath overhanging eaves to be effective. Evidence in Area 4 would suggest that there was also a building extension to the north, but the position of Jack Haynes’s Cottage made it impossible to estimate its extent. The location of the excavated artefacts, discussed in the next section, also provides structural evidence. It seems likely that some artefacts had survived in under-floor deposits that were ignored during the demolition process. This suggests that the building possessed supported wooden floors, beneath which small or fragmentary objects had fallen through gaps and knotholes, although the location of some could have resulted from the actual demolition.

Figure 2.16. Obverses of the two upper coins in Figure 2.15. Sixpences, left to right: 1863 and 1873, same arrangement. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

2.3. Artefactual evidence This is the most important part of the excavated evidence because it provides most of the information about the demolition that took place and about the building and its occupants that preceded it. Usually, excavated structural remains would be the most informative evidence about a former building, but in this case it was artefacts that comprised the greater part of the evidence, the more significant being listed in Table 2.1. 25

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.17. Two glass bottles: the largest complete artefacts on the site, Area 1, Square M7, Unit 88. Drawings by Sophie Pullar. Scale in centimetres (McKay 2000: 92).

There were whole bricks and fragments of brick, examples of which are shown in Figures 2.19–2.22, and small pieces of wood that must have come from the building, as well as fragments of charcoal probably from on-site burning of refuse after the demolition. In addition, there were nails and glass fragments, as well as fragments of no fewer than 85 types of ceramic (Figure 2.23). There were also special finds, of greater significance (Table 2.1), such as a thimble, parts of a watch, an 1873 sixpence and the blade of a penknife. Inevitably there were buttons, fragments of clay smoking-pipes, pieces of slate pencils, probably for adult use as well as for teaching the homestead children, and there were marbles that must have belonged to the latter. In short, although the artefacts were mostly fragmentary and in some places few, they gave a remarkable picture of the vanished building and of the activities within it. In addition to the special finds, there was also a variety of other materials. Bones were amongst the more common and, as would be expected on a sheep station, they were dominated by sheep, although some rabbit was also present, as well as a little cow and the skeleton of a domestic cat. Pieces of metal, usually iron, were common and included horseshoe nails and screws. There were also pieces of mortar and render and fragments of slate,

Figure 2.18. Ceramic and brass curtain-rod terminal, Area 1, Square L4, Unit 3. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

26

The old homestead site

Figure 2.19. Red sandstock brick, Area 1, half Square N8, Unit 90. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

Figure 2.20. Blue sandstock brick, Area 1, Square N7. Unit 90. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

Figure 2.21. Red sandstock brick, Area 5, Square A2, Unit 89. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

27

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.22. Half dry-pressed blue brick (note screw head impression), Area 5, Square A5, Unit 91. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah.

Figure 2.23. Area 1, Unit 3, distribution of 85 ceramic types. Each number represents a different ceramic (Pearson 1993). Redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

28

The old homestead site A fragmentation index was calculated from the number of artefacts per kilogram per excavated square, so that lower numbers indicated larger items and higher numbers indicated many small pieces (Figure 2.28). For brick, the index ranged from 5 to 2000, for ceramic from 68 to 1400, for glass from 1 to 833 and for bone from 65 to 3429. In summary, the range of fragmentation for all artefacts across the site in Area 1 was enormous, from 1 piece per kilogram per square to as many as 225,000 but generally lacking any particular pattern. The degree of fragmentation for ceramic has a possibly significant distribution, one that suggests the location of the dining room or living room (Figure 2.29). It should be noted that, unlike Figures 2.24– 27, the diagram showing fragmentation of all artefacts in Area 1 includes non-excavated areas, as does the diagram for the fragmentation of ceramic artefacts.

which seemed to have been from the slates on which the slate pencils were used. Material of less significance, and in some cases of later date, included fragments of leather, peach stones and other seeds, stonemasons’ dressing flakes of granite and other stone, fragments of limestone, pieces of bakelite and plastic, a piece of shell, pieces of bitumen, fragments of plastic combs, pieces of wool, fragments of netting, paper reinforcement rings, band aids, pieces of foil, a piece of rubber, a stone with a bored hole, even flakes of red, cream and white paint. In addition, residual items from earlier times included a few flakes from stone artefacts of quartz, jasper, chert, schist and granite: items that are almost ubiquitous in Australian soils. In short, the Saumarez homestead excavation produced archaeological evidence from before, during and after the time of the homestead. Because of her death, Sue Pearson’s analysis was never finalized, and to some extent must be regarded as preliminary. However, the analysis by Samantha McKay was very detailed and was finalized, presenting a complete picture of the artefacts and their contexts at the site.

2.4. Conclusion The excavation of the old homestead site at Saumarez, particularly that of Area 1, showed that even after the demolition in 1888 of a nineteenth-century mainly timber structure and the clean-up and reuse of its site, there was still substantial evidence for its existence. Most of this was artefactual rather than structural evidence, but it still provided details of life within the building over the approximately 43 years of its occupation by three different families. It also shed some light on earlier activity at the site and on its subsequent reuse, as well as on a later, second phase of demolition that included the old detached kitchen in 1906, probably the source of a large amount of butchered bone in the site, with 1725 pieces in Unit 1 alone. There was also a remarkable number of plastic clothes pegs in Unit 1, as well as the skeleton of a domestic cat, these probably originating from Jack Haynes’s Cottage, which remained occupied until sometime in the 1970s.

The analysis conducted by Sue Pearson (unpublished, but see Pearson n.d.) was mainly restricted to Area 1 of the homestead site, but McKay’s investigation (2000), although mainly of Area 1, did include some information about Areas 2–5 too. The McKay analysis provided data on stratigraphy, artefacts, artefact distributions, artefact fragmentation and other matters for Area 1. It also included a series of artefact distribution diagrams for Area 1, using the weights of materials for comparison between the structural materials of brick, mortar, render, nails, wood, charcoal, window glass and other glass. The four most significant of these are shown in Figures 2.24– 2.27, but they do not differentiate between excavated squares that lacked artefacts and squares that were not excavated.

However, the main research question addressed by the excavation asked what archaeological evidence, and how much of it, could be expected from such a site, for the demolition of which there was documentary evidence. The answer as shown above was remarkable: 37,665 artefacts were recovered, weighing 340,625.9 grams, almost 35 kilograms. Some of this material was later than the 1888 demolition, with almost 24 per cent of the number of recovered artefacts coming from the superficial Units 1 and 2, and a few later artefacts were even present in Unit 3, the main demolition deposit. Nevertheless, most of the artefacts seemed to be residual from the demolition process, consisting of items that were small enough to have fallen through gaps in suspended timber floors or to have been trampled during their work by the men who demolished the building. However, McKay asked a different question. Her principal aim was to identify an archaeological signature within the artefactual assemblage that could differentiate between abandonment and demolition of such a building. In other words, if there had been no documentary evidence for its demolition, could the archaeological evidence have shown that this had indeed happened? She thought that demolition would have resulted in the artefacts showing

McKay concluded that the distributions of construction materials showed that the original Saumarez homestead was a slab building with rendered brick chimneys on stone footings, glass-paned doors and windows, and perhaps a shingled roof. Combustible materials seem to have been piled in the south-west corner of the site and burnt during the demolition, and some posts might have been burnt in their postholes. The large number of small or fragmentary artefacts probably indicates the remains of a sub-floor deposit, consisting of objects that had fallen through holes and spaces in suspended timber floors. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this site is the large number of small artefacts and fragments of artefacts that were recovered, a total of 37,665, weighing 340,625.9 grams, almost 35 kilograms, a quantity much larger than expected from a structure that had been demolished and its site cleaned up. Some of the material must have originated after this had happened, but most seemed to result from that event. Consequently, McKay assessed the degree of artefact fragmentation in Area 1 at the site. This was done for all artefacts and, separately, for brick, ceramic, glass and bone. 29

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.24. Distribution of brick in Area 1, by weight (McKay 2000: 83). Top to east.

30

The old homestead site

Figure 2.25. Distribution of nails in Area 1, by weight (McKay 2000: 86). Top to east.

31

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.26. Distribution of charcoal in Area 1, by weight (McKay 2000: 88). Top to east.

32

The old homestead site

Figure 2.27. Distribution of window glass in Area 1, by weight (McKay 2000: 89). Top to east.

33

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 2.28. Degree of fragmentation in Area 1 for all artefacts.

34

The old homestead site

Figure 2.29. Degree of ceramic fragmentation in Area 1.

35

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales more wear and tear and being more heavily fragmented and widely distributed than if the building had been merely abandoned. However, the artefacts did not conclusively show these attributes, the most conclusive evidence of demolition coming from the stratigraphy. The extent and depth of construction debris was more even than would have been expected on a site that had just been left to fall down. The chimneys had been removed to ground level, structural posts had been pulled up and their holes filled in with large-size domestic refuse, and secondary fill had been used to level the ground surface. The Saumarez homestead site was not ideal for answering the questions asked of it; archaeological sites rarely are. There had been too much activity at the site, which complicated conclusions. In the end, it seemed that documented demolition would still leave a lot of archaeological evidence and that both artefactual and stratigraphic archaeological evidence could show that demolition had taken place even if no such documentation existed. It was a matter of looking at the same evidence from two points of view. Overall, the Saumarez excavation demonstrated that it is essential for an excavator to seek to understand the whole history of a site or structure, even though interest might be focused on a particular point in time. Neither sites nor structures are static entities, except in rare instances; instead, they have an ongoing dynamic relationship with their natural and human environment. Formation processes have impacted on the site before, during and after the period in which we are principally interested. Indeed, such processes continue and our excavation even becomes a part of them.

36

3 The store The store is probably the oldest of the utilitarian farm buildings at Saumarez Station, although almost certainly modified and extended over time. Its location is in the western area of the buildings, close to the site of the earliest homestead suggesting an early origin (Figure 1.20, Number 12). It is situated south of the riding-horse stable and carriage house. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Dumaresq’s superintendent, A.S. Wightman, set up a head station, a store and stables above Saumarez Creek during the 1830s. The building originally provided rations and goods to the employees of the Station, and was probably run by a resident storekeeper until World War I (Anon 1988: 27). Modified in the 1880s (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22), it is a complex building that has been altered several times, but the central storeroom (Room 10) is mainly constructed of wooden slabs, suggesting a date early in the nineteenth century, possibly in the 1830s. The oldest historical evidence suggests that it was constructed in 1883, on the site of a predecessor, or at least adapted in 1883 from an earlier building (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 47). Latterly it was used to store fencing material, seed, tools and machinery. It consists of 10 rooms that need individual analysis (Figure 3.1). Most measurements given here are in imperial, pre-metric units, because these would have been used at the time of construction.

QLD 123LB NETT WEIGHT when packed’. Above a height of 8 feet on the west and south walls there is newer work of machined timber, part of a rebuilding of the loft. 3.1.2. Room 2 The eastern wall shows the rough side of split slabs from Room 1. The western and southern walls are also of slabs. The northern wall is of painted weatherboard and has an external door of tongue-and-groove wood. The floor is of machine-cut boards, fixed with machine-made nails. Upper parts of the northern and western walls have been repaired with pieces of ‘Wunderlich’ pressed-metal ceiling. Heavy beams support the visible floorboards of the loft. As in several rooms, there is a cat access hole cut at the bottom of the door. 3.1.3. Room 3 This room has similar building materials to Room 2, including timber slabs. There is a hand grain-grinder, in working order, bolted to the floor in the middle of the room. Its markings indicate its source: Richmond and Chandler, Manchester, No. I.F.R. Patent 557, 664, 662 (in that order). Loft floorboards provide the ceiling. The western wall has horizontal weatherboards above the slabs.

The outside of the walls of the store are clad with horizontal weatherboards, repainted at a late date with white gloss enamel paint (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Walls of timber slabs, or partly of such slabs, are present in Rooms 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, in contrast to Rooms 5, 6 and 7, which are of weatherboard, and Room 4, which is of recycled materials and probably of a late date.

There are steps up to the loft on the outside wall of Room 3. These are of sawn timber and very weathered; they are slotted into side pieces and perhaps nailed later. Three of the steps are narrower and less weathered, suggesting replacement. At the bottom of the steps is a large, untrimmed log that is half buried in the ground, while at the top of the steps is a landing of sawn timber giving access to a door into the loft. The loft covers Rooms 2, 3 and 10 (as Room 10 was created before Room 8), probably comprising the core of the original building.

3.1. Construction and materials 3.1.1. Room 1 The northern wall consists of double doors, made of tongue-and-groove wood cut with a circular saw, the marks of which are clearly visible. Bolts and hinges of steel are attached with machine-made nails and countersunk screws. The outside is painted with white gloss enamel paint and is later than the rest of the room. The room has a dirt floor, and the southern and western walls are of rough vertical wooden slabs. The latter are 8 feet high, with axetrimmed ends for setting into the bearer log, but this cannot be seen because of later repairs with 3×1-inch and 4×2inch machined timber. Sacking has been nailed over the gaps between slabs on the eastern wall. The sacks are very faded, but one at least seems to read: ‘FIDELITA FEEDS Manufactured by BUNGE AUST. Pty LTD WARWICK

3.1.4. Room 4 This room consists of weatherboards and a mixture of recycled materials. It is probably the latest of the rooms and is not fully attached to the rest of the building. There is a door into it from the eastern part of Room 10. At the northern end of the room are double doors. 3.1.5. Room 5 This room has floorboards, the northern and western walls are of weatherboard, the eastern wall shows the reverse side of the wooden slabs in Room 3 and the southern wall has a door that opens into a half-enclosed porch (Room 37

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 3.1. Ground-floor plan of the store, north at the top. Note the dotted line marking the eastern extension of Room 10 and its access to Room 4. Drawn by B.A. Young, 1988, incorporating work by Katherine Makepeace; revised by Graham Connah.

38

The store

Figure 3.2. The store from the south-west. Skillion roofs cover Rooms 5, 6, 7 and 9. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 3.3. The store from the north. Room 4 is the small gable-roofed building to the left. Note the stairs giving access to the loft and the change in roof pitch of the eastern part of the main building. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

39

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales 6). There is a glass window with six panes in the western wall. The date ‘1939’ is written in chalk on the inside of the southern wall, together with some illegible letters.

Four 8×8-inch timber posts support an 8×8-inch beam across the centre of the room (Figure 3.4); axe marks are present on this timber and the joints are bolted. The beam supports the floor of the loft above. Room 10 shares walls with every other room except Room 5, but only has doors into Rooms 4 and 6. There is no outside door and only one small window that opens into Room 6. Consequently, the room is very dark: one boundary rider, apparently unimpressed by the quality of the meat sold to him by the store, is said to have commented that its inside was dark on purpose: ‘so that you couldn’t see what you was gettin’ (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 51). The wooden floor of sawn timber is unlikely to be contemporary with the rest of the room and was probably a later addition. The eastern extension of Room 10 has a lower roof pitch and the eastern wall of this extension has a large, horizontal lift shutter with a wire screen, probably of later date than the wall, which is of similar material to the ceiling in Room 9.

3.1.6. Room 6 There are circular-sawn weatherboards on the northern and southern walls and corrugated galvanized iron on the western wall, which is incomplete because this is a porch rather than a room, although it has floorboards. The eastern wall is partly of timber slabs, with horizontal weatherboards above, and there is a window in the eastern wall. The room provides the only direct doorway access from outside the building into Room 10. 3.1.7. Room 7 This is the mirror image of Room 5, except that it has an 18-inch metal grating next to the door.

Room 10 must be the oldest part of the building, originally including what are now Rooms 2, 3 and 8. Every other part of the building seems to have grown from this original core. Room 1 and the eastern extension of Room 10, marked by a dotted line on the building plan (Figure 3.1), are later. The original door on this eastern side of the building could have been in a wall, since removed, that was on that dotted line. Rooms 1, 4, 8 and 9 seem to have been intended for undercover unloading and loading. Room 1 was possibly an early example of this, the large shutter in the eastern wall of the eastern extension of Room 10 might have been for loading into or from Room 4, and Room 8 is big enough to hold a bullock wagon. The latter room has high and wide doors and, because it is not covered by the loft, a high ceiling, which would allow space to work on top of a loaded wagon.

3.1.8. Room 8 This room has a sawn-timber floor and vertical-slab eastern and southern walls that are higher than those in Rooms 9 and 10. The northern wall is of sawn timber, separating what was formerly part of Room 10, and marks the southern end of the loft. Three iron reinforcing rods protrude from the northern wall. The slab walls have been increased in height with sawn timber, to make the height equal to that of Room 10 plus the loft height. Almost the whole of the western wall consists of very large double doors of tongue-and-groove wood. Metal bolts 10 inches long are on each door, the hinges of which are 2 feet 8 inches long. The floor is of dirt, and this room was probably for unloading and loading large wagons. Room 8 was probably separated from the original Room 10 and the part of the loft above it in order to provide the height needed for entry of such wagons.

3.2. Building chronology The above analysis of the 10 rooms in the store indicates that it is probable that Rooms 2, 3, 10 and possibly 8 (before its separation from Room 10) were the original core of the building. The weatherboard wall shared by Rooms 10 and 8 was installed later as a division within Room 10 and it marks the end of the loft. Room 8’s floorboards were also later, but it seems likely that Room 8 was originally part of Room 10. Rooms 1, 9 and the eastern extension of Room 10 were probably next in the sequence, judging by their timber slab walls and method of roofing. There is a change in the pitch of the east side of the main gable roof (Figure 3.3), which confirms that they were additions to the core of the building. Rooms 5, 6, 7 and 9 were also added to the central core, as shown by their skillion roofs, which contrast with the central gable-roofed part of the building (Figure 3.2). Finally, Room 4 was added to the building, and has a separate and lower gable roof (Figure 3.3). The main gable-roofed section of the store has a loft, 9.3 metres (30 feet 6 inches) long and 5.4 metres (c. 18 feet) wide, entered by a door from a landing at the top of an external stair on the northern side of the building (Figure 3.3). A photograph at Saumarez homestead, possibly dating from

3.1.9. Room 9 This is almost a veranda around Room 8. The two northern walls and the western wall are of timber slabs; the eastern and southern walls are of weatherboards. The floor is of circular-sawn timber and the ceiling is of trimmed timber. There are shelves on most sides of various sizes, shapes and types of wood. A missing floorboard shows that partly trimmed logs were used as bearers. A box nailed to the southern wall has on it: ‘Plume motor spirit Vacuum oil co. Pty Ltd.’ What is probably part of a vice is bolted to a bench. Pieces of leather strap are nailed to the walls, probably to hang items for sale. Double doors at the southwest corner of the room would have provided access for unloading and loading vehicles. 3.1.10. Room 10 This is constructed of timber slabs except for the southern wall where it adjoins Room 8, which is of machined timber. 40

The store

Figure 3.4. Room 10, north-east corner, showing two of the three timber-slab walls and two of the four posts and the beam that support the loft floor above. Note the iron-bound chest of unknown use. Flash photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

the 1920s, shows this building to have a roof of a lower pitch, suggesting that the loft was subsequently made higher, with a steeper roof clad with corrugated galvanized iron. The guttering could also date from that time. The horizontal weatherboards on the outside of the building must be a late addition. Finally, the white gloss enamel paint that covers much of the outside of the building is of a later date. 3.3. Document recovery The remains of a book were observed inside the store during a visit by the writer in 1986. It was badly damaged by damp and by mice, and was in a disintegrating condition. On the surviving part of its front flyleaf the date 1863 could be made out, but nothing else. Two photographs were taken of the remains without a flash, but the result was two colour slides that were almost completely black and useless. The decayed book was left in the store and its subsequent fate is unknown, but the slides were retained and in 2020 they were scanned into Adobe Photoshop, which had not been possible in 1986. One of them proved to be out of focus and showed only a rotting page of unreadable printed text, but the other slide proved to be of significance (Figures 3.5 and 3.6), showing the inscription on the flyleaf. It reads: ‘F.J. White A Birthday gift from Papa & Grandmamma Belltrees June 9th 1863’. At the top is an embossed stamp

Figure 3.5. Inscription on front flyleaf of the book found in the store. Photograph by Graham Connah, 1986.

41

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 3.6. Embossed stamp in Figure 3.5 in Photoshop mirror image. Photograph by Graham Connah, 1986.

that reads ‘W.[K’?]. [Illegible]NGTON IMPORTER OF BOOKS & STATIONERY SYDNEY’ when viewed in mirror image. John Atchison, of Armidale, has traced this to ‘William R. Piddington, bookseller and stationer, 332 George Street, Sydney’. It would be interesting to know what the subject of the book was and whether, as a nineyear old, F.J. White’s later activities were influenced by its content, but this remains unknown. 3.4. Conclusion The store is an early-nineteenth-century building that has been added to and modified through time to suit changing and increasing use. Significantly, it contains numerous timber slabs that do not appear to have been recycled. In addition, there is little corrugated galvanized iron except on the apparently later roof. The purpose of the store was to supply rations and other necessities to the Saumarez Station workers at a time before the commercial development of Armidale provided some of these supplies. It probably functioned in this way until about the 1920s, although as time passed it seems to have changed to the storage of supplies transported from or to elsewhere. This is suggested by the provision of large double doors to the later Rooms 1, 4, 8 and 9 to enable the unloading and loading of wheeled vehicles. Dating is uncertain, but it seems probable that the arrival of the railway in 1883 could have brought about some of these changes. Finally, it ceased to be needed for its original purpose and was only used for general storage. Rooms 2, 3 and 10 were the original store and Room 8 was probably a subdivided part of Room 10 after the store had been in use for some time. Other rooms were apparently later additions to meet changing requirements, and the loft was also altered and possibly reconstructed at a late date. The overall plan of the building suggests that access for workers visiting the store was via Room 6, which has one of the only two doors into Room 10, where most of the stock was probably kept. It seems likely that the storekeeper (who latterly was Jack Haynes) was the only person allowed free access to Room 10. Overall, this is a complex building, the history of which reflects that of the Saumarez Station itself.

42

4 The working-horse stable, later the barn The working-horse stable, later the barn, is situated amongst the northernmost farm and utilitarian buildings at Saumarez (Figure 1.20, Number 4), south-west of the cowshed and west of the blacksmith’s shop and wagon shed. This is a large building that has had two ‘lifetimes’, first as a stable for heavy draught horses and later as a barn for the storage and processing of feed, for horses and for other animals. It is possible that its origin makes it the third in the chronological sequence of Saumarez buildings because Dumaresq’s superintendent, A.S. Wightman, set up a head station, store and stables above Saumarez Creek in the 1830s. However, as stables, it is inconveniently further north than the old homestead and the store, suggesting that this was not the original site of the building. Indeed, the origin of the present structure is presumed to be in the 1880s, probably before 1883 when the railway arrived in Armidale, and the building is stated to have reached its final form by 1906 (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 91; McDonald 1993: no page). Change

in its use probably also occurred from the 1920s to 1940s, as tractors were introduced. As one tractor advertisement claimed at the time, comparing draught horses and the tractor: ‘They eat all the time, it eats only while working.’ It was also said that one tractor could do the work of 11 horses (Birmingham et al. 1979: 16). Nevertheless, some use of draught horses continued until late amongst those who had limited finances. The layout of the building is complex and is made more so by the change in use that has occurred. Philp and Oppenheimer (2002: 23) comment as follows: ‘The oldest section is at the south—probably the first stables with a brick floor. On the eastern side are the remains of stalls for working draught horses, feed troughs and a harness room. The open central section stored the sheaves of oaten hay before they were made into chaff for cows and horses. There is a chaff-cutting room at the northern end, with an engine and drive shafts.’

Figure 4.1. Plans and elevation of the working-horse stable, later the barn. Drawn by A.C. Walker, 1988.

43

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales The structure consists of a single storey, with a mezzanine floor at the northern end and an engine room adjoining at ground level. The main part of the building is approximately 30 metres long, excluding the engine shed, and 10.7 metres in width, with an estimated height from ground level to the peak of the gable roof of 5.7 metres (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). On its western side is an area of approximately 14.5×22.5 metres enclosed by a fence with four gates. Within this area is the site of a structure; from the remains of concrete and asphalt, and the position of bolts, it would have been of about 7.9×14 metres. Its purpose is unknown, but it might be the remains of a filled-in pit, perhaps originally for manure.

but is now a discharge room for chaff from the upper floor, and rooms for storing equipment and poisons. Most of the western side of the main part of the building (Figure 4.2) is open and faces the site of the former structure already referred to. The southern end consists of a covered entrance (Figure 4.1, Number 1) and a backroom (close spacing of some purlins suggesting it might originally have had a shingled roof) of chamfer boards with some timber slabs and corrugated iron (Figure 4.1, Number 2). Weatherboards on the northern walls of these latter spaces suggest that they could have been additions to the original building. A brick floor in the backroom, with drains and spaces in the bricks (probably for troughs), four southern doors and mortice holes indicating former stalls, strongly suggest its former use for stabling. Evidence of the former use of the main part of the building as a stable with 10–12 stalls is provided by mortices in the vertical poles that indicate stall divisions and door jambs with mortices cut for removable rails. In this main part of the building, parts of the floor are of dirt and parts are of stone slabs. In the south-east corner of the main building there is a surviving original four-rail horse-stall (Figure 4.1, Number 3), the measurements of which correspond with the mortices in the vertical poles. A harness room of corrugated galvanized iron with a ceiling of wire netting (Figure 4.1, Number 5) is also evidence of the former use of the building as a stable. A number of large iron hooks hang from a galvanized iron pipe and are marked in black paint with the names ‘Dolley’, ‘Bally’, ‘Nobe’, ‘Punch’ and ‘Nugget’. Old leather straps still hang from some hooks, saddle trees of forked branches are set

4.1. Construction The main support for the roof is provided by about 20 stringybark poles 4.2 metres long and 270 millimetres in diameter, some of which might be replacements and some of which have been set in concrete at their base or supported by angle-iron set in concrete, because of rot. These are secured by steel plates bolted to cross poles lengthwise. Further details of the roof structure were not recorded, but it is most likely a ‘common rafter truss’ (Alcock et al. 1996: F8: A), with cross battens of sawn hardwood. Linings and room dividers at the northern end of the building consist of timber slabs on the lower part, and chamfer boards (i.e. featheredged weatherboards) on the upper part. On the eastern side, timber slabs with sheet and corrugated iron form what was formerly a tack room

Figure 4.2. Working-horse stable, later the barn. View from the south-west. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

44

The working-horse stable, later the barn in the ground and an open-fronted box in the corner served as an equine medicine chest, still containing some bottles and tins. To the north of the harness room is an implement store (Figure 4.1, Number 6), accessible only from the outside. Excepting the roof, most of the material used in the construction of the building appears to have been recycled from earlier structures. The timber slabs are substantial, with average measurements of 2000 millimetres length, 240–300 millimetres width (some of 400 millimetres) and 50 millimetres thickness. Almost all show adzing on at least one end (Figure 4.3). All of the chamfer boards are of hardwood, 150 millimetres wide, and show signs of previous use, mostly sanding and many with marks of extraction. Where observable, many of the nails appear to be handmade, probably in the blacksmith’s shop at Saumarez. The upper floor of the building is almost entirely of chamfer boards on all sides. The roof is of ‘STORK BRAND’ corrugated galvanized iron and is probably a post-World-War-II reroofing (Figure 4.4). This material might have been imported because of an apparent shortage of roofing iron in Australia during the 1950s. The roof has the only evidence of the use of new materials in the building’s structure. The pole plates, rafters and ridge timbers look relatively new, and a number of old pole plates lie where they were dropped, along the western face of the building. Corrugated iron is also the principal material used for the engine shed. There are some timber slabs and two windows in that shed, one facing east, the other west, both appearing to be handmade. Except for the roof, other iron in the building is Australian Lysaght and ORB corrugated or ‘QUEEN’S HEAD’ sheet.

Figure 4.3. Working-horse stable, later the barn. Split timber slabs in dividing wall at the north end of Ground Level, Area 4 (Figure 4.1). Scale in centimetres. Flash photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 4.4. ‘Stork Brand’ corrugated galvanized iron in the working-horse stable. The second line cannot be read. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

45

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales At the south-west corner of the building is what appears to be a ‘bulkfeed’ constructed of sapling poles supporting a sawn hardwood and sheet-iron feed bench.

long and 3.6 metre wide, and includes a room of Lysaght corrugated iron to accommodate the chaff cutter and its workers (Figure 4.1, Number 12). The southern side of the chaff-cutting floor is mainly open space, looking down to the ground level of the building, whereas the northern side is closed off except for access to the outside stairs. The chaff cutter is the main item on the upper floor, making it a processing unit. It is an imposing machine, 3.4 metres long, with an average width of 1.3 metres and a discharge length of 3.3 metres. This was a machine capable of commercialscale production. It is estimated that it could have handled 120 bales per hour, which, depending on the quality of the hay and thus the weight, would equate to about 4 tonnes per hour or 40 tonnes per 10-hour day (Figure 4.5).

4.2. Gates, doors and stairs The fenced site on the western side of the building has four different gates, three of them of steel tubing, steel wire and steel netting, albeit of different designs, and one of wood. The doors of the building are similarly varied, all of them seem to have been made on the property and one on the upper level has a cat access hole. There are external stairs to the upper level on the north-west corner of the building, with hardwood treads of 900×140×50 millimetres, supported by 2300×170×70-millimetre hardwood planks. The stairs lead to a landing (Figure 4.1, Number 11), the planks of which are of similar size to the treads, and it is supported by two poles 1660 millimetres high and 216 millimetres in diameter. The upper level has three doors, two from 140×25-millimetre hardwood, like the floor, and one from 290×25-millimetre hardwood. These doors have latch-bolt fasteners and appear to have been made of recycled wood, as is the case with other doors.

Manufactured by Cliff & Bunting, Melbourne, it is a Model ZIR, Size 13, Number 15067, and a tacked-on shipping tag indicates that it was supplied by Dalgety & Co. Ltd., Millers Point, New South Wales. A travelling chaff cutter by Cliff & Bunting is illustrated in M. and P. Simpson (1988: 77–79, Figure 120). The original scrollwork on the Saumarez machine, in faint orange paint, is still visible on the blade housing, which is of plywood. Input and output were by a wooden-slat conveyor belt below a wooden platform. Discharge was through a timber-covered chaff flume into a ground-floor room that is windowless and almost airtight (Figure 4.1, Number 7). The chaff cutter was originally driven by a steam engine, but this was replaced by a diesel engine at an unknown date (Figure 4.1, Number 10). Cooling water for the latter came from

4.3. The chaff-cutting room A mezzanine floor was added at an unknown date in the building’s history, probably in the late nineteenth century. This seems to have been for the purpose of installing a chaff cutter. This upper floor is approximately 10 metre

Figure 4.5. Working-horse stable, later the barn. Chaff cutter. View from the south-east. Flash photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

46

The working-horse stable, later the barn a 180-gallon (800-litre) Lysaght tank, which might have originally served the steam engine. The engine drove belting attached to one of three flywheels of different diameters, which, in turn, drove the chaff cutter’s flywheel. Other rooms in this part of the building are a storeroom (Figure 4.1, Number 8), a machinery store (Figure 4.1, Number 9) and a machinery room (Figure 4.1, Number 13).

2 tooth-gear clutch sets marked XA and XB, patented 8 February 1885. These appear to be parts of a stock-feedmixing unit.

The building and the use of recycled material in it indicates thrifty behaviour by F.J. White, but the chaff cutter is a large machine that is likely to have been expensive. It is not known when it was purchased, but sometime in the 1890s seems probable, although a presumed steam engine and attachments possibly to drive a chaff cutter or saw bench were purchased as early as 1877 (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 99; McDonald 1993: no page). In South Lincolnshire, in Britain, chaff cutters were already in use during the third quarter of the nineteenth century, chopping fodder for cows or horses from oats, roots or oilcake (Barnwell and Giles 1997: 45, 61). Possibly the Saumarez chaff cutter was second-hand and cheaper than a new machine. This could have been at the time of the 1893 land crash (Aplin, Foster and McKernan 1987: 109), during which 14 Australian banks closed, suggesting that the chaff cutter might have been acquired as a result of repossession from its original owner. Indeed, the turn of the nineteenth–twentieth century was generally a bad time for Australian agriculture, although White might have been able to take advantage of the situation to make this purchase.

1 spare cutting comb.

From about 1890 up until 1938, most station hands worked six days a week for at least 10 hours a day, and longer in the summer. In 60 hours, the chaff cutter could have produced 240 tonnes of chaff. What was done with it and where did all the hay come from? Saumarez carried sheep and cattle, and hay was possibly available from only 100–200 acres, in a good season producing about 400 tonnes, or only 10 day’s work for the chaff cutter. It seems likely, therefore, that the chaff cutter was operated all year round as a commercial unit for the Armidale district. Also, the chaff could have been used for some of the livestock on Saumarez itself, and other artefacts surviving in the building indicate the former existence of a feed-mixing unit that would have facilitated this.

One 9-tine Sunpalm chisel plough, manufactured by Sunshine Australia, iron seat, ornamental footrest, quantity of tines.

1 wooden box, using wood at ends marked ‘Cadbury Cocoa’. 1 worm drive shaft.

1 spare chaff channel, perforated base. Main area of barn 1 empty can of B.A.L.M. Dulux paint marked 1 imperial gallon. Probably dating to 1957/1958 because it pre-dates the 1966 Metric Conversion Act, and British Australian Lead Manufacturers Ltd changed its name to Dulux Australia Pty Ltd in 1957. Contains a quantity of leadheaded roofing nails. Engine room 1 wooden ladder, 3 rungs. 3 overhead wooden flywheels, central bearing, mounted on timber poles. 1 wooden dray, 1.2×1.2-metre platform, two 1.3-metrediameter wheels, 16 spokes, iron tyres.

Room under chaff-cutting room 3 bale cutters. 1 board with gear and roller, possibly a windlass. Quantity of assorted harness equipment. Rake shed Blackstone 24-tine iron rake, horse drawn, ornamental seat filigreed ‘BLACKSTONE’, iron wheels.

4.4. Other artefacts in the building Although some of the items listed below probably relate to activities within the building, it is likely that others were more likely the result of incidental storage, in some cases at a later date.

Back room 1 Buzacott Cyanogas dust blower for poisoning rabbits.

Chaff-cutting room

1 wooden box marked ‘John Betts Fire extinguisher Brisbane’.

8 ratchet-drive units.

2 iron wheel rims. Quantity of slim glass bottles, unmarked.

47

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales 1 empty can of Pegasol horse disinfectant, manufactured by Drug Houses of Australia, a company that ceased business in 1965.

considered better than spending money. Even when part of the building was converted to chaff production, it seems that it could have been a second-hand machine that was installed. Nevertheless, the adaptation of this building to suit the changing demands of Australian farming, at a time when power was replacing draught horses and economic conditions were often testing, is impressive. As such, it is the historical implications of this unassuming building that are most important. It seems to have been a valued asset that was much used for a variety of purposes at different times.

3 handmade sliding wooden door catches. Bulkfeed Quantity of feed bins, handmade from Lysaght Queen’s Head sheet iron. Intended for efficient provision of feed to livestock. Coach port Quantity of sapling poles. 4.5. Conclusion The working-horse stable, later the barn, has a history complicated by its conversion from use as a stable to use as a barn. This has necessitated substantial changes in its structure and fittings, some of the details of which are uncertain. On its long western side, it is now mainly open to the elements, presumably making it more convenient for the storage of hay, which would presumably have kept better by being open to the air. As a stable, however, the western side must surely have been enclosed, because otherwise it would have been too exposed for the horses kept there, particularly during New England winters, which can be cold. Their health as working animals would have been important, even though they did not merit the same level of care given to the horses in the riding-horse stable and carriage house. Nevertheless, it is possible that the working horses were usually kept outside in a paddock and that these stables were mainly used for riding horses before the construction of the riding-horse stable and carriage house in 1890. Historical archaeological studies of nineteenth-century Australian barns are uncommon, but an illustration of a timber-framed barn at Hahndorf in South Australia shows how some could have looked (Young 1985: 49). Stables have also been little studied by historical archaeologists, although one at Hyandra, in New South Wales, with an early improvised sheep-shearing space, retained part of the original stable layout and also provides an example of another building of which the use had altered (Cannon 1992: 67). Analysis of the construction and materials of the working-horse stable, later the barn, shows evidence of considerable recycling. Timber slabs, weatherboards and corrugated iron were reused, and even new bush poles were probably cheap or free and obtained locally. The only certainly purchased new materials were in the roof, probably renovated in the middle of the twentieth century. As a result, the materials used in the building are as complex as its plan. The overall impression given is that thrift was a driving force, as has long been the case in rural Australia, where extra labour and inconvenience was often 48

5 The Thomas Building This is next in the chronological sequence of the Saumarez buildings, because it is the first for which a date of construction is documented. It is also different from most of the other structures, being a domestic building, rather than one for utilitarian farming use. The Thomas Building is situated near the southern edge of the group of Saumarez buildings (Figure 1.20, Number 14) and was built in 1863–65 as a semi-detached addition to the old homestead that formerly stood on the adjacent site (Chapter 2). Unlike the latter, it still survives (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 33). The old homestead was a slab building possibly constructed by Henry Dumaresq or his agents in the late 1830s or the 1840s and subsequently sold to Henry Arding Thomas as part of the Saumarez property. The latter came to live at Saumarez with his wife Caroline, and six of their children were born there. However, in spite of improvements to the homestead, space must have become a problem and Thomas added a three-room brick building to the earlier six-room timber house. It is this brick structure that is the subject of this chapter. When the old slab building was eventually demolished in 1888 and replaced by a fine new homestead some distance away to

the north, the Thomas brick extension was left standing and has survived in a mainly good condition. 5.1. Site, construction and layout Other than the later homestead, this is the only one of the Saumarez buildings constructed of brick. It is on a level site, although above the Saumarez Creek, which is in a valley to the west. The building is characterized by a symmetry typical of a period earlier than its construction (Figures 5.1–5.3). Built as an adjunct to the earlier timber homestead, it is clear that it was never intended to function as a separate living unit. Therefore, it can only be fully understood in relation to the original homestead. The internal layout of the building consists of three rooms that are functionally and stylistically alike. Each has a fireplace, an external door and a connecting door to the adjacent room. The external door of the southern room opens onto a veranda, but those of the northern room and central room appear to have opened onto a breezeway between this building and the old homestead. The building was constructed as a single unit, although there have been

Figure 5.1. The Thomas Building from the south-west. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

49

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 5.2. The Thomas Building from the east. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 5.3. The Thomas Building from the north-west. Part of Jack Haynes’s Cottage is to the right. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

50

The Thomas Building which Jeans (Birmingham et al. 1983: 104) maintained is the strongest bond. However, the fourth course is laid in Flemish Bond like the rest of the wall, thus the bricks were laid in a manner most consistent with both strength and decoration. It is apparent that the bricklayers were skilled professionals and that their work was of high quality.

several alterations, such as the removal of the veranda on the eastern and southern sides. 5.2. Materials and techniques The walls consist of brown, handmade bricks laid in Flemish Bond, which Jeans considered more decorative than other bonds and certainly more expensive to lay than the more common Colonial Bond (Birmingham et al. 1983: 104). The bricks used predate the ‘Armidale Blues’ that became common in the area later in the nineteenth century and it is likely that these earlier bricks were made on-site. In that case, there must have been a local source of suitable clay, of lime or shell for mortar and of fuel for firing. The lime could have been difficult to obtain in the area but, if so, the problem was overcome, and the lime-mortared brickwork remains in good condition after over a century. Birmingham (1983: 53) maintains that until the twentieth century it was cheaper to open a brickyard near to the source of demand than to transport bricks by horse and dray. At the time of construction, the Thomas house was situated in a remote area; transportation costs for bricks manufactured elsewhere would have been prohibitive. The bricks of the walls rest on a dampcourse of local basalt, with the four lower courses of brick forming a plinth, the three lowest courses of which are laid in English Bond,

Apertures in the brickwork of the basal plinth indicate that the building was constructed with a veranda. The dimensions of the apertures and their spacing suggest that the flooring of the veranda would have run parallel to the side of the building. The apertures indicate the former existence of the veranda on the eastern and southern walls of the building as well as on part of the western wall, terminating between the external doors of the southern and central rooms. The end of the veranda on the western wall has left a groove in the brickwork above the present small veranda, where the roofing iron of the previous veranda was inserted into the wall. This part of the western veranda was probably altered to facilitate access from the old homestead to the Thomas building, as seems the case in an 1874 photograph (Figure 5.4). There are no windows in the western wall of the building but there are three in the eastern wall (Figure 5.2), one for each room. There is also one window in the northern wall

Figure 5.4. The Saumarez old homestead in 1874, viewed from the south. The Thomas family stand in front of the building: left to right, Henry Arding Thomas, his wife Caroline and some of their children. The Thomas Building is to the right (UNE Heritage Centre, copied from National Trust, Saumarez House collections).

51

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales and one in the southern wall. All of these are two-piece, six-pane, colonial-style sash windows. Some sashes are broken and in one case nails have been used to support the upper frame to prevent it from falling. Small, whiteceramic-topped brass catches are on each window to secure it. The glass appears to be in good original condition except for a broken pane in the middle eastern window. The windows are quite large and would have provided a lot of light in the three relatively small rooms, probably occasioning heavy curtains.

in which spring-cleaning involved taking up carpets and oiling floors. There are ventilators below the floor of the building to combat rising damp. These are of cast iron and are positioned directly opposite each other to facilitate airflow. Roof framing, bearers, joists and the veranda timber are most likely of local hardwood and the roof of both the building and its veranda is of corrugated galvanized iron, although it is believed that it was replaced in the 1950s or 1960s. Gutters and downpipes are also of galvanized iron but are thought to have been added in the 1980s. It is unknown what form of drainage for the building would have been in place at the time of construction.

A bell box is located beneath the eaves on the western wall of the building containing two bells; a third bell is either missing or was not seen (Figure 5.3). The bells were probably used to summon servants or other family members. There appears to have been a bell-pull system; in each room near the fireplace there is evidence that a cord or similar item passed through the ceiling and out to the bells. With frequent guests and visiting dignitaries, as well as a child who was ill for some time (Philp 1987: 17), the bell-pull system could have been important, and it reinforces the impression from the character of the three rooms that they were intended to be used as bedrooms. By about the 1890s, such bell systems were frequently electrical and indicated where the summons came from (Fraser and Joyce 1986: 111), but in this case a battery would have been needed because the building was never wired for electricity. It also lacked a water supply and a water closet. Presumably these facilities were outside the building; however, their locations are unknown because no evidence of them has survived.

Freeland (1981: 119) suggests that one strategy for coping with the ‘hot box properties’ of an iron-roofed structure was to increase the pitch of its roof in order to provide a larger volume of air in the roof space. This seems to have been done with the Thomas Building. The eaves of the building, formed by extending the ceiling joists beyond the external wall, are consistent with mid- or late-Victorian design. One corner of the eaves has been patched with lead sheeting, probably because of a previously leaking roof, but the timber beneath the patch and the lead have continued to decay. The building has two brick chimneys, of a different bond from most of the walls, each chimney with a copper lightning rod, fitted at an unknown date. A cable across the roof connects the two rods and runs down the outside of the north wall to provide an earth. It would appear that lightning was considered a risk, perhaps because of a previous problem or because of nearby trees. The southern chimney served the flue from the fireplace in the southern room, but the northern chimney served two flues, one for the fireplace in the central room and one for the fireplace in the northern room, these fireplaces being back-to-back (Figure 5.5). Flues and chimneys for fireplaces burning wood were wider than those for burning coal (Stapleton 1985: 28) and it appears that wood was the fuel used in the Thomas Building. There is wire mesh on the top of the chimneys to keep birds out.

5.3. Roof, flooring and chimneys Evans (1986: 60) suggests that the concave shape of veranda roofs, as with the surviving part of the veranda on the Thomas Building, could give the impression of a canvas awning, which was emphasized by striped painting, normally each stripe the width of one sheet of roofing iron. It is likely that the veranda roof of the Thomas Building was originally painted in coloured stripes. A line of lead flashing near the northern end of the eastern wall is also consistent with the concave form of the former veranda roofing iron (Figure 5.2).

5.4. Internal details

Internal flooring is of circular-sawn Kauri pine, which is likely to have been imported from New Zealand (Evans 1986: 51), although there are pockets of Kauri in Queensland and Western Australia. Floorboards are 6-inch timber (152.4 millimetres), planed down to 5.75 inches (146.05 millimetres). Recessed square holes in the timber indicate that handmade nails were used in construction, and it is likely that the boards are tongue-and-grooved. The basal brick plinth of the external walls was probably supporting joists, which typically spanned from wall to wall in Colonial and early Victorian floor structures (Stapleton 1985: 66). During the time that the building was occupied by the Thomas family, the floors were probably oiled and covered with carpets. Philp (1987: 20) records a reference in Caroline Thomas’s diary of 1868,

Stapleton (1985: 29) notes that some old construction books recommend internal plastering of the flue with a cow-dung mortar called ‘parget’, which will not crack off from the heat of the fire. It is unknown whether this was the case in the Thomas Building, but all three fireplaces were certainly plastered with different material from that used on the ceilings and internal walls. Heat from the fires has since caused some of this plaster to fall off. The design of the fireplaces appears more similar to Colonial rather than to Victorian examples. However, function might have been the determining factor: if the three rooms were bedrooms, as seems likely, practicality could have mattered more than appearance. Open fireplaces that burnt wood, such as seems to have been the case in the Thomas Building 52

The Thomas Building

Figure 5.5. Plan of the Thomas Building, with part of the excavated site of the old homestead (see Chapter 2). South is to the top. Surveyed and drawn by D. Hobbs, 1993.

(Figure 5.6), were probably provided with firedogs (Evans 1988: 92), although the northern room has a moveable iron fender of a style common from the 1850s (McEwan 1987: 80). The fireplace in the northern room also has the most evidence of use, suggesting that this could have been the most used of the three rooms. The mantlepiece and all interior joinery is of cedar, which is likely to have come from the Styx River Forest, east of Armidale, from which the cedar used in the 1888–1906 homestead was apparently obtained. Mouldings for architraves and skirting boards are in keeping with Victorian fashions.

T. Vaughan (Figure 5.7), an English manufacturer who, along with Carpenter, produced most of the locks fitted to Australian houses in the nineteenth century (Evans 1986: 92). The locks have been treated with japan, a black spirit varnish that protected the lock against corrosion and gave it an attractive finish. Good-quality rim locks were used in the Thomas Building. The Internal walls were plastered with two layers. Examination of the northern wall of the northern room shows that the primary layer included animal hair, indicating hair plaster described by Evans et al. (1985: 108) as a plaster ‘containing teased cow hair which acts in place of cement as a binder’. The thin finishing layer of plaster is tinted pink, a common occurrence for the period, and is approximately one-eighth of an inch thick

There is no evidence to suggest that the doors are not hung in their original places. The internal door furniture includes rim locks with lift-up bolts, each of which measures 10×15 centimetres. Two of these were manufactured by H. and 53

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 5.6. Open fireplace with a brick hearth in the southern room of the Thomas Building. Note the damp wall, suggesting a leaking roof. Flash photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

of a counter, that has never been painted. The negative impression of counters on walls and flooring of this room result from recent history. In the late 1970s, the Thomas Building was used in a period film called The chant of Jimmy Blacksmith, and the northern room was the set of an office of the Department of Agriculture. The negative impression of lettering on the window in the northern wall confirms the room’s function in the film. Other indications are walls painted only to a height that would appear in the film and two large nails in the floor where a counter terminated, indicating that at the time the counters were fixtures. In retrospect, it is regrettable that the building was treated in this way by people who even failed to make good the damage that they caused. Scraps of blue and yellow floral wallpaper remaining high on the walls of the northern room might be original. Murphy (1981: 7) asserts that ‘formal, geometric and austere patterns’ on wallpaper were popular during the 1860s, a period when the manufacture of wallpaper by English firms became common. The central and southern rooms have wallpaper friezes that are unusually deep. These might date to the end of the nineteenth century, a period when Murphy (1981: 29) says that the size of friezes grew. However, the striped wallpaper in these

Figure 5.7. Manufacturer’s brass plate on the locks of the middle and southern doors in the Thomas Building. Drawn by R.J. Drake, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

(20.32 millimetres). It is likely that all three rooms were originally wallpapered. There is no indication of paint beneath the torn wallpaper in the central room, and the western wall of the northern room has a part, in the shape 54

The Thomas Building rooms appears to be more recent. Some of the surviving wallpaper covers previous paper that is pastel blue with red and blue flowers.

room is upside-down because the original lock has been replaced by another that was designed for a door opening in the opposite direction. Also, the inside of the door has a negative impression of a previous lock. Further evidence of a break-in is on the falling stile of the external door of the southern room, which shows crushing marks consistent with someone trying to lever the door open. That this failed is indicated by substantial damage to the external door of the central room, which was ripped off its hinges and subsequently temporarily nailed back in place. The purpose of the burglary is suggested by a pencilled inventory written on the wallpaper of the southern room listing eight blankets, 17 pillows and 19 mattresses. It seems that late in its history the use of the building had been reduced to storage, and that the break-in caused the changing of all three locks, one of which should have been for a door opening to the left, not to the right like the other two external doors, and consequently it had to be fitted upside-down, presumably because three identical locks had been obtained in error.

5.5. Ceilings Each of the three rooms has a metal ceiling centre or rose, with a central section of mesh. Evans (1988: 59) asserts that such centres were designed to enhance ventilation and, thus, to help maintain a comfortable temperature in extremes of heat. A small hole or hook in the middle of each of these centres shows that lights were hung from them. Such lighting is likely to have been in the form of kerosene lamps, which burn upwards and can be smoky. The ceiling centre would have protected the ceiling from fire and would have allowed the stains from the lamp to be covered by repainting the centre instead of the entire ceiling (cf. Murphy 1981: 11). The ceilings are made of lath and plaster. Examination of plaster that had fallen to the floor revealed the technique in which plaster knobs or ‘keys’ secured the plaster to the laths. Evans (1988: 125) contends that the sagging of such ceilings is often due to the detachment of the laths from the joists as nails rust or the timber rots because of a leaking roof. Examination of the fallen plaster also showed that it had been painted white, probably with a distemper as it is slightly streaky. The ceilings were subsequently covered with ‘butcher’s paper’, a strategy for hiding cracks and other imperfections in plaster ceilings. The ceiling plaster consists of two layers: a one-inch layer of hair plaster finished with a thin setting coat. Freeland (1981: 72) argues that such materials, whilst providing a flat and smooth finish, did not lend themselves to complicated moulding. The absence of cornices in these rooms might therefore reflect the nature of the available materials. However, Evans (1988: 123) notes that plaster cornices were often omitted from small bedrooms and other lesser rooms even when the materials were available. Apart from this, the omission of cornices might reflect conservatism in Thomas’s taste, because there are a number of design elements present which could have been considered ‘old-fashioned’ at the time of construction of the building in the 1860s. Evans et al. (1985: 24) argue that the Colonial period is partly characterized by both the omission of cornices and the absence of picture rails, while Stapleton (1985: 32) identifies 12-paned, double-hung sash windows with the early Victorian period. Other elements, such as the fourpanelled doors, mitred architraves and high skirting boards (22 centimetres in this case), are consistently associated with the mid-Victorian era (e.g. Evans et al. 1985: 42). As it is clear from the design elements that the building was constructed when mid-Victorian features were available, the choice of those associated with an earlier period must result from individual preference, probably of Thomas himself.

Clearly, the building has not been in use for some years. Though structurally sound, its maintenance has been neglected. For example, a number of elm-tree suckers have pushed their way between the skirting board and a chimney, and potentially could do serious damage. Also, some walls are damp, probably because of a leak in the roof (Figure 5.6). However, a pane of glass in the bottom sash of the central room has recently been replaced. Nevertheless, there is a serious threat from falling trees or parts of trees, evidence of the latter being observed against the southern wall in 1986 (Figure 5.8). It is also significant that most of the original extensive veranda has been lost, probably because of neglect. When constructed, the building was intended to be part of the Saumarez homestead, but 23 years later this ceased to be the case when the old slab house was demolished in 1888. The subsequent use of the Thomas Building is uncertain, but before the 1888 demolition took place it formed part of a home, which would have been essentially a female province during the Victorian era. Although the men of the household could have eaten, rested and slept there, they would have had little to do with its organization because they were working on the property most of the time or absent attending to other matters. Functional interpretation of the Thomas Building and the rest of the homestead should therefore be made from the point of view of Caroline Thomas and Maggie White. 5.7. Conclusion The Thomas brick building was clearly intended to be of a quality superior to the rest of the old Saumarez homestead. Its brickwork, internal plastering, windows and other fittings are evidence of this. It seems likely that its three rooms were used as bedrooms, particularly at times for visitors, both from the family and important guests. The building lost most of its veranda at some time in the past and the existing roof has probably replaced an earlier

5.6. Subsequent use The building appears to have been broken into at some time. The lock on the external door of the southern 55

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 5.8. Part of a tree that had fallen against the southern wall of the Thomas Building in 1986. Fortunately, it appears to have only damaged the guttering. This is a winter photograph taken in poor light. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

one, perhaps in the 1950s or 1960s. Also, guttering and downpipes have been added at a late date. The building remains structurally sound, but there are indications that maintenance has been neglected. As an addition by Thomas to the earlier homestead building, its original purpose ceased to be relevant once the earlier structure was demolished in 1888 and replaced with a new house some distance away that was more appropriate to the growing status and importance of the White family. The later history of the Thomas Building was, therefore, one of abandonment as a home and of use for purposes other than domestic. Nevertheless, it remains one of the most important structures amongst the Saumarez buildings.

56

6 The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house This building is the first of those constructed in the late nineteenth century by F.J. White to be considered here, because its role in the care of riding and carriage horses would have been so important at the time. It is now difficult to appreciate the extent to which Australian society formerly depended on horses (other than draught horses), for personal transport and the pulling of a wide range of lighter wheeled vehicles used for work, transport and relaxation. The riding-horse stable and carriage house (Figures 6.1 and 6.2) is situated south-west of the blacksmith’s shop and the working-horse stable (later the barn), near the centre of the Saumarez farm buildings (Figure 1.20, Number 7). The building consists of three structural phases, the earliest of which is the stable for the riding horses, whose value and importance are reflected in the size, construction, building materials and layout of the building. In contrast, the two later phases have been given less care.

horses at Saumarez. The second stage of construction was probably the skillion. Mitchell and McDonald (1996: 55) and McDonald (1993: no page) date the added cart shed and the skillion pony stalls to 1891 and 1892. Tradition suggests that the skillion was built to house prized polo ponies belonging to Harold and Frank, F.J. White’s two sons (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22), but its rough character makes this unlikely. The third part, containing the carriage house, was built later, probably between 1906 and 1909, but the date of the feed room is less certain. The original part of the building measures 8.6×16.5 metres, the skillion attached to the northern wall is 3.93×10 metres (Figure 6.3). The chronology of the whole building is also suggested by the materials and construction methods used in it, as well as by the supporting archival material (Figures 6.4–6.7).

The original part of the stable was built in 1890 by Duncan McLennan and Pat O’Brien (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22; Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 55) for the family riding

The oldest part of the building houses the loose boxes and the tack room; the feed room is probably later. There are seven loose boxes, four along the northern wall and three

6.1. The stable

Figure 6.1. The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house from the north. Distant to the right is the store. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

57

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 6.2. The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house from the north, probably early in the twentieth century. Distant to the right is the store before late alteration (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473, Album 15, page 12).

Figure 6.3. General plan of the riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house. Drawn by Victoria Maxwell, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

58

The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house

Figure 6.4. View to the west in the interior of the riding-horse stable. Note the quality of construction and the grooves (difficult to see here) cut into the wooden floor of the central corridor to prevent horses slipping. Flash photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

59

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 6.5. The stable: suggested first phase of construction. Scale in metres. Drawn by H.A. Hayes, 1987; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

6.2. The skillion

opposite. The loose boxes are of a more than adequate size, each being 2.5×3 metres, allowing a horse to turn around or lie down. Each of them faced inwards towards the building’s central corridor, with a feed box at the back. Each had a floor of 90×230 millimetre bricks that had been covered with cement, which years of use had worn back to the bricks in most boxes. The stabled horses were obviously well cared for in a carefully constructed building of quality timber. There are even remains of felt that had lined the ceiling over the loose boxes, presumably to retain warmth during the winter months. In addition, the northern (warmer) side of the roof has skylights, the southern (colder) side just windows. The floor in each loose box slopes from the rear to near the door of the box, where it rises a little to provide a drain for cleaning. The loose boxes could be swept out one by one, starting in the boxes closest to the carriage house, and sweeping the manure and urine under the partitions between the boxes and out through a 42×45-centimetre free-swinging hatch on each side of the stable at its western end. These hatches had been replaced since 1984 because of rot. The drainage arrangements are another example of how well planned and purpose-built the stable is. Unlike the floor of the loose boxes, the floor of the central corridor in the stable consists of heavy wooden planks, the surfaces of which have V-shaped grooves cut into them, apparently to prevent the horses from slipping on the floor if it was wet (Figure 6.4).

Loose box 4 (Stall 4 in Figures 6.5–6.7) must have ceased to be used as a loose box when the skillion was added together with a door into the skillion. This door opens inwards into the stable, which would have been inconvenient at least if the box contained a horse. The door can only be opened from the stable side; on the skillion side there is neither a door handle nor a doorknob. Loose box 4 also has some characteristics not present in the other boxes: it is the only one with its original feed box; the cement covering of the brick floor is less worn than in the other boxes; and the opening near the loose box door for sweeping the box out has been obstructed by a wooden board nailed over it. In addition, nails protruding from one wall of Loose box 4, perhaps for hanging articles of clothing, would have risked injury to a horse if the box was still used for its original purpose. It seems that the box had ceased to be used for its original purpose at a time when the rest of the stable was still being used as intended. Graffiti in pencil on the inside of the door from the stable to the skillion records the dropping of a foal on 1 August 1914, as well as Wisper being served by Coil on 8 March 1918 and Floet being served by … [?] on 11 August 1923. The name ‘Haynes’ and the initials ‘J.H.’ are also discernible, presumably referring to Jack Haynes, the groom (Chapter 1), who probably recorded these events. It 60

The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house

Figure 6.6. The stable: suggested second phase of construction. Scale in metres. Drawn by H.A. Hayes, 1987; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

is thus apparent that the stable was used for breeding some of the horses used at Saumarez.

room is provided with a cat access hole in an attempt to control rats and mice, and there are three types of cladding on the feed-room walls: featheredged weatherboard, like in the stables, presumably machine-sawn weatherboard and corrugated galvanized iron. The carriage house walls are of corrugated galvanized iron, with some machinesawn weatherboard. There is a carefully laid brick floor in the carriage house with a central drain, covered by an iron grid surrounded by cement, and this brick floor extends into the feed room and to the door into the stables. In contrast, the tack room’s construction and materials are of much better quality. All four walls and the ceiling of the tack room are of pine, and the southern exterior wall is of featheredged weatherboard lined with pine. The tack room is also divided into sections, presumably for the storage of the more valuable equipment such as saddles and harness. In addition, the room is provided with two doors, one of which gives access to the stable. The care taken with the tack room and the higher quality of the materials used compared with the feed room suggests that it is contemporary with the stable, for which it could have been essential.

The purpose and use of the skillion are uncertain. According to tradition, it was built to house polo ponies, but this seems unlikely because it is a crude structure, with limited height (three of the five doors are 175 centimetres high) and a dirt floor, and is constructed of recycled materials, including some timber slabs—surely not suitable accommodation for presumably valuable ponies. Possibly it was for the use of station-workers’ horses, but the presence of the door from Loose box 4 indicates that access to the skillion from the stable was necessary for the functioning of the latter. 6.3. The carriage house The carriage house was the third phase of the building, but it is uncertain when the feed room situated between the carriage house and the stable was constructed. It might have provided facilities needed in the stable, so it is possible that it dates from before the carriage house, but it is separated from the stable by an access door. The door of the feed 61

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 6.7. The stable: suggested third phase of construction. Scale in metres. Drawn by H.A. Hayes, 1987; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

The carriage house is fitted with large double sliding doors (3.4 metres wide) on its southern side. These are suspended on four iron rollers marked ‘A. Merrick & Sons West Bromwich Patent No 2326’ (Figure 6.8). The main entries to the carriage house are from doors in both the north and south walls, perhaps to facilitate access to the carriage or other vehicle when harnessing its horse or horses to it. The carriage house could have been built between 1906 and 1909 (see beginning of chapter), because iron rollers like those from which the sliding doors are suspended were already available ‘at any hardware store’ in America in the 1880s (Lewandowski n.d.: 24 [originally 1888]). 6.4. The condition of the building Generally, the condition was as good or better than the other Saumarez Station work buildings, but one exception was observed in July 1986. This was a window in an unspecified location of the stable that was seriously in need of replacement. Its frame was rotten and partly missing, and several panes of glass were absent (Figure 6.10). Weatherproofing of the structure would have been compromised as a result, and it is assumed that the window was replaced soon after.

Figure 6.8. The stable: roller doors on carriage house and detail of the upper part of one of the iron rollers from which they are suspended. Drawn by Victoria Maxwell, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

62

The riding-horse stable, skillion and carriage house

Figure 6.9. Corrugated iron brands on the riding-horse stable. Drawn by Heather Burke, 1986. Reproduced with permission.

certainly better than the blacksmith’s shop, indeed it is the best of the farm buildings at Saumarez. As Bob Betts recalled in 1993: it was ‘a flasher place than what the people had to live in’ (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 56). Both its materials and their use reflect the importance of the riding and carriage horses that would have been kept there. In turn, the evidence for their care and comfort indicates their important role at Saumarez for vehicular transport, work and pleasure. Late in the nineteenth century, before the advent of motor vehicles, such horses were essential, and remained so into the early twentieth century. Therefore, this building has a major socio-economic relevance, as well as providing information about its construction and chronology. It was also clearly suitable for the purposes for which it was built.

Figure 6.10. Damaged window, riding-horse stable and carriage house. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

6.5. Conclusion With the exception of the rather crudely built skillion, the building that consists of the stable and the carriage house is of a superior construction; better than the cowshed and 63

7 The killing shed and piggery site 7.1. Structural development

This building and site would have been important because they almost certainly provided most of the meat consumed at Saumarez, by both the homestead occupants and the station employees. Consisting of beef, mutton and pork, this demonstrates the self-sufficiency of farming activities at Saumarez. The killing shed is situated east of the ridinghorse stable and carriage house, with the site of the former piggery closer to the south-west (Figure 1.20, Numbers 9 and 10). Although sheep and pigs were probably also killed in the shed, the size, structure and design of the building suggests that it was primarily intended for slaughtering steers and the provision of beef (Figures 7.1–7.7).

The killing shed is a gable-roofed building with an attached skillion. It is approximately 7.5 metres long and 3 metres wide, and has a maximum roof height of over 6 metres. There is one room beneath the gable-roofed part and two smaller rooms under the skillion (Figure 7.8). A water tank, a boiling-down vat, stockyards and a platform with a winch are adjacent to the building. The structure is of wood, including timber slabs, weatherboard and sawn timber, with some corrugated galvanized iron external cladding and a roof of corrugated galvanized iron. It is apparent that the building has been modified on several occasions over time. A likely structural sequence for the killing shed is indicated by chronological changes in construction techniques and building materials. Four stages might be identified. Stage 1 seems to have been an original structure of six tree trunks and timber slab walls, probably supporting a bark roof. Stage 2 probably saw the addition of the hide room and storeroom, and of the three yards that successively narrow towards the entrance to the killing room. Stage 3 could have completed the enclosing of the structure on the east and west sides above the wooden slabs of Stage 2 and included the horizontal weatherboards on the eaves and for the doors. It probably included the corrugated galvanized iron roof and the concrete floor in

The killing shed consists of a killing room, a skin room and a storeroom, and is situated approximately 20 metres from the site of the pig pens and approximately 50 metres from the meat room. It is possible to determine the development of the killing shed and the killing process from the structure and the materials of the building. This indicates the suitability of the killing shed for its purpose and throws light on the socio-economics of the period of its construction. It was built in 1900 (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 80; McDonald 1993: no page; Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22) by Duncan McLennan and replaced an earlier ‘killing place’ mentioned in White’s diary.

Figure 7.1. The killing shed from the north. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

65

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 7.2. The killing shed from the south-west. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 7.3. The northern side of the killing shed. Compare with Figure 7.7. Drawn by Noelene Steel, 1988.

66

The killing shed and piggery site

Figure 7.4. The southern side of the killing shed. Drawn by Noelene Steel, 1988.

Figure 7.5. The eastern side of the killing shed. Drawn by Noelene Steel, 1988.

67

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 7.6. The western side of the killing shed. Drawn by Noelene Steel, 1988.

Figure 7.7. The northern side of the killing shed, probably in the early twentieth century. Compare with Figure 7.3 (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473, Album 9, page 13).

68

The killing shed and piggery site

Figure 7.8. Plan of the killing shed. Drawn by J.S. Treadwell, 1988.

the killing room, although the other two rooms only had floors of earth. The concreting of the floor in the killing room also included the addition of lengths of iron set

in the concrete and bolted to the bottom of some of the timber uprights to strengthen them. The boiling-down vat and the water tank might also belong to this stage. Stage 4 69

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 7.9. Plan of the killing shed and yards, showing their interrelationship. 1. Killing room. 2. Hanging room for hides. 3. Storage room. 4. Water tank connected to tap outside killing room. 5. Boiling-down vat. 6. Bench with winch on it. 7A–C. Yards. Drawn by C.A. Szpak, 1987.

70

The killing shed and piggery site is the recent addition of guttering and a drainpipe for the roof, as well as the white paint and some of the brickwork supporting the boiling-down vat.

steel hooks along the wall of the killing room. They could have been killed in the building by cutting their throats. The killing shed consisted of three rooms: the actual killing floor, with a drain for the blood; a room for hanging skins (labelled ‘hide room’ in Figure 7.8); and a room possibly for hanging the carcass (labelled ‘store room’ in the figure). The large double doors on the eastern side of the killing room made it easier to remove the carcass, gave access to the floor drain and, using the nearby tap, made it possible to wash out the room after the killing, gutting and skinning.

Three of these stages are apparent from the materials and equipment used in the killing shed. Tree trunks and timber slabs characterize the earliest construction of the building, and the yards are of split or sawn timber. The killing room and storeroom have split slab walls (part of the killing room has sawn slabs), and three of the four hide-room walls are of slabs. Later, cross-cut-sawn wood, nails, metal hinges and locks, nuts and bolts, metal hooks for suspending the carcass, a metal hoist and crank, and corrugated galvanized iron roofing were present. Timber supports were fastened to the structure with bolts that were probably made by the Saumarez blacksmith, as were the hinges on the doors. The doors were provided with cat access holes in an attempt to control rats and mice.

A steer intended for slaughter would be driven through the three pens in the yards, which narrowed to the entrance of the killing room (Figures 7.9–7.12). Once there, it was speared with a killing spear in the top of the head by the slaughterman standing on boards above the animal. Philp and Oppenheimer (2002: 22) say that the blow was to the spinal cord and that it was usually delivered by F.J. White himself. To get into this position, he would have climbed the small ladder on the outside of the southern side of the building near the winch (Figure 7.4). Killing a steer in this way would have required both skill and courage but, done correctly, the animal would die almost instantly.

It seems that the storeroom was an addition to the original structure. There is weathering on the wall that was formerly the exterior wall of the hide room and numbering on the now-exterior wall of the killing room. This numbering suggests that the wall has been removed and then replaced in its numbered sequence. The yards also suggest different periods of construction. Split slab posts and rails might be earliest, held together by wire probably to provide strength in case an animal became violent. Perhaps later are split slabs with saw-cut notches in the posts and saw-cut ends of rails, and also tied with wire (Figure 7.9). A gate made of sawn wood held together with nuts and bolts might also be later. The fences are higher than needed for sheep or pigs and are clearly intended to restrain steers. There are five doors in the killing shed, all of which open outwards. The animal to be killed entered by the door at the southern side of the killing room and there was a door on the western side of this room above the drain exit. There was also a door for the hide room and another for the storeroom, both on the eastern side of the building, and a pair of large double doors on the eastern side of the killing room. The latter were barred from the outside, but the other doors could probably be opened from the inside. 7.2. Operating the killing shed The killing process depended on the type of animal to be slaughtered. Sheep and pigs could be killed more easily than steers, and the strength of the killing shed structure and the presence of a rope and pulley in the killing room indicate that the facilities were mainly intended for killing large animals. The sturdy construction of the yards also indicates the same thing, and they were designed to help get a large animal into the shed. Similarly, the killing shed was obviously intended to be strong, particularly important if a terrified or enraged steer had to be killed. However, it was apparently necessary to have the animal calm before killing, because otherwise the flavour of the meat could be affected. Killing a sheep or a pig, or several of them, would have been easier, but their carcases would still have been hung, either from the rope and pulley or on

Figure 7.10. Rail fence corner post in killing-shed yards. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

71

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales no provision for it and there was the separate meat room to its south-west. Thus, the killing shed should be considered together with the associated boiling-down vat, water tank and meat room: they formed an integrated process that supplied beef and other meat to the management and workers at the station. In addition, the meat room was near to the store, from which meat would have been sold or otherwise provided to station employees (Figure 1.20, Number 12). Sheep and pigs could also have been killed in the building, by cutting their throats, and their skins, offal and carcasses would have been dealt with in the same way and the butchering done in the meat room.

The carcass would then be winched up by the rope and pulley suspended from the inside of the roof of the killing room, aided by the winch outside the building. Hung by the feet, its throat would be slit and the blood would flow down the drain to the outside of the shed. Next, the beast would be gutted, and the hide removed and put on a rack in the hide room (Figure 7.8, but see ‘skin store’ in Figure 7.12). The carcass might have been hung in the northernmost room (the ‘hanging room’ in Figure 7.12), but it is more likely that it was left hanging in the killing room and subsequently removed through the double doors on the east side of that room, doors that were wide enough to allow a small cart to be backed up to them to take the carcass to the nearby meat room. The offal, which could be heavy (a 544-kilogram steer could produce 144 kilogram of offal plus other waste), would be put into the copper boiling-down vat situated near the building (Figure 7.12). There was also a water tank close to the building, connected to a tap outside the killing room, so that the room could finally be washed out with water. It seems unlikely that butchering was done in the killing shed because there was

An important part of the meat supply would also have been provided by the piggery, situated close to the killing shed, to its south-west (Figure 1.20, Number 10). Unfortunately, this has been demolished, possibly in the mid-twentieth century, and only the site remains (Figure 7.15). The abandonment of the piggery would suggest a change in farming practice at Saumarez, with attention concentrated on other activities. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth Edition (Stevenson and Waite 2011), defines a piggery as ‘a farm or enclosure where pigs are kept’, apparently similar to an English ‘pigsty’ but on a larger scale. Only surface traces of this site are visible, and they are vestigial and difficult to interpret. The piggery was constructed in 1900 by Duncan McLennan, replacing an old one that was pulled down (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 80; McDonald 1993: no page), but it is uncertain when or why the 1900 piggery was demolished. The surface evidence at the piggery site is as follows (Figure 7.15, Numbers 1–11). 1. A rectangular pebbled concrete slab, approximately 6.0×2.8 metres. There was one round posthole in this

Figure 7.11. Gate hook of recycled horseshoe in killing-shed yards. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

Figure 7.12. The killing process. Drawn by Noeleen Steel, 1988.

72

The killing shed and piggery site

Figure 7.13. The boiling-down vat near the killing shed. With unidentified student. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 7.14. Meat room to the south-west of the killing shed. The inside of this building was not examined, but its external appearance suggests a twentieth-century date, probably as a response to improving hygiene. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

73

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 7.15. The piggery site, showing details of surface evidence. Numbers refer to feature numbers in text. Not to scale. Drawn by K.I. Buckley, 1985; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

slab. The slab is covered with a thin whitewash or render which is not found on other features. 2. A rectangular pebbled concrete slab, approximately 9.4×5.0 metres. There are three concrete troughs set in the northern edge, each with two rectangular water containers. One square and four round postholes were noted, along with two depressions and a formed channel in the concrete, possibly to channel water or related to internal divisions of the space. 3. A rectangular pebbled concrete slab, approximately 2.0×2.9 metres, with a T-shaped concrete trough adjacent to the northern edge of the slab. 4. A rectangular pebbled concrete slab, approximately 4.2×1.1 metres. Two rectangular concrete troughs are set in the northern edge of the slab. The area between the two troughs is broken through by a small tree. The easternmost of the two troughs contains three small water pipes which terminate at a point level with the top of the trough. 5. A raised C-shaped large mound to the north of Feature 2, length approximately 4 metres. 6. A raised linear mound extending north-east from the north-east corner of Feature 2 to the north-west corner of the boiling-down vat stand. 7. A rectangular stone and concrete step, approximately 0.2×1.5 metres. 8. An irregular funnel-shaped concrete slab, located at the base of Feature 7.

9. A linear depression running south-east to north-west, terminating in Feature 8. 10. A depression at the south-east corner of Feature 2. 11. A rubble scatter and an isolated pebbled concrete block to the east of Feature 2. It is difficult to determine the original configuration of the site from these remains. The proximity of Feature 4 to the killing shed perhaps suggests that the two activities were not functioning at the same time or that Feature 4, although closely resembling the other piggery features, is unrelated to them but actually relates to the killing shed drain. Clearing of the grass, without excavation, could clarify a number of questions about the extent of the site and possibly reveal more postholes, particularly around Features 1, 2 and 3. The several mounds and depressions are more difficult to explain. Overall, the remains of the piggery suggest that there was production of pork on a scale exceeding the requirements of the Saumarez homestead and its occupants, possibly also supplying workers on the property or even commercial concerns in nearby Armidale. There might also have been the sale of live pigs in the district. The surviving remains are evidence of a planned construction, with concrete floors and troughs and its own water supply, suggesting that the piggery was an important part of activities at Saumarez. 74

The killing shed and piggery site 7.3. Conclusion The Saumarez Station killing shed is a building specially designed and constructed for the purpose of killing animals for meat. Its purpose was to provide food for the management and workers of the station. Sheep and pigs could also have been slaughtered there, but the killing of steers appears to have been a significant factor in the design of the sturdy building and its strong structure. It is appropriate to call it ‘the killing shed’ because it had one purpose only and this did not change with the passage of time. The killing process used by a slaughterman standing above the animal, who penetrated the top of its skull (or the spinal cord) with a killing spear, would have needed both skill and courage. If the spear penetrated the brain, death would have been almost instantaneous. This was probably a common method of slaughtering in Australia during the nineteenth century and might also have been practised for a long time on farms in England. Subsequently, concerns for hygiene, animal welfare and the health and safety of the slaughterman have brought about changes as rural Australian society has changed. Nevertheless, in the context of its time and place, the killing shed served a purpose that was important, and evidence of maintenance and modifications show that it continued to be so from 1900, when it was built, probably into the mid-twentieth century. It is a good example of a special building for a special purpose, and is one of relatively few such buildings that have survived to the present. Only two other early buildings specifically for slaughtering are known in New South Wales: a timber ‘slaughterhouse’ at Tocal, in the township of Paterson (Cox et al.1980: Plate 44); and one of brick at Blackdown, Bathurst, mentioned in an 1829 account but whose fate is unknown (Roxburgh and Baglin 1978: 11). However, details are not available in either case. The design and construction of the Saumarez killing shed is evidence of F.J. White’s planning and organization on his property, as are other buildings there that he was responsible for late in the nineteenth century. Farm animals could be slaughtered in the open, particularly smaller ones such as sheep and pigs but even steers when there was no alternative. At Saumarez, however, not only were special facilities provided for slaughtering, but they were the best available at that time and in that place, for both the animals and the men who had to do the job.

75

8 Two contrasting poultry houses Poultry provided another important source of food at Saumarez, although on a lesser scale than meat. Eggs from chickens and table birds of chickens, and possibly ducks, geese and others, all contributed. Production was from two poultry houses situated in different areas of the Saumarez farm buildings and most probably served contrasting socio-economic parts of its community. These were a main poultry complex located in the middle of the farm buildings west of the killing shed (Figure 1.20, Number 8), and a more modest fowl house to the north of Jack Haynes’s Cottage and associated with it, among the southern buildings (Figure 1.20, Number 19).

the open-fronted style, but the wire netting of the front wall has been covered with corrugated iron. No doubt this was added as a concession to winter temperatures. The design suggests that this building was constructed later than the main poultry complex. Historical records indicate that the main complex was designed and built for F.J. White, whose family bought the property in 1874, and who was interested in experimenting with livestock breeding and in crop and pasture improvement. It seems likely that his enquiring mind extended to poultry breeding, and examination of this complex shows that he was aware of ideas that were new in the last part of the nineteenth century and put some of them into practice in designing his own poultry yard.

Australian fowl houses show considerable ingenuity in construction and style. Whether put together from recycled materials or designed and built professionally as part of a farm complex, these structures reveal the intentions of the builder when it was decided to keep poultry. The poultry buildings on Saumarez Station show a contrast in style, probably a difference in age and different motives. It is interesting to examine the site, structure and materials of the main poultry house on the Station and contrast them with the small fowl house at Jack Haynes’s Cottage.

8.1. The buildings The main poultry complex is referred to as Building 1 and Jack Haynes’s fowl house as Building 2. Building 1 is situated adjacent to the riding-horse stable and carriage house. It is separated from that building by an elevated tank stand, to which it is not connected. The complex consists of a building internally divided into three rooms, a yard extending to the south-east from this building and five side pens opening into the yard (Figure 8.1). The ground is level except for a slight drop towards the southern corner. The house and fence of Building 1 are continuous (Figures 8.2 and 8.3) and are constructed of Lysaght corrugated galvanized iron sheets with an ‘ORB’ brand (Figure 8.4) attached to sawn timber frames. The fence timbers are bolted and covered with iron to a height of 1.8 metres. The iron is unpainted. Where fence posts have rotted at ground level, they have been supported by vertical logs tied to them with wire. Two hinged trapdoors, opening inwards, are set into the south-eastern fence at ground level. When these doors are secured, the house and yard are quite fox-proof.

Before 1885, little was written about poultry-house construction and it was considered that any kind of shelter that gave protection from wind and weather was all that was needed, although in America quite elaborate buildings were found on country estates, more decorative than functional. English farms in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries kept fowls usually on a small scale and for the farmer’s domestic use, cared for by his wife. One of the most important considerations in their housing was protection from foxes and other predators. Little attention seems to have been given to health, as is apparent from a photograph of a Lincolnshire brick- and stone-built fowl house that would have had little fresh air or light (Barnwell and Giles 1997). After 1885, ideas changed and designs progressed from closed houses to scratching-shed houses (incorporating a closed roosting and nesting room and an open room for scratching) and to open-front houses, which appeared towards the close of the century as farmers found that better ventilation meant healthier birds (Waite 1929: 38, 40).

The side pens are five adjoining enclosures backed by corrugated iron which is continuous with the fence. The roof is also iron and is skillion in shape, with a slight slope downwards to the back of the pens. The fronts of the pens face north-east and are constructed of 5-centimetregauge wire netting except for the bottom 60 centimetres, which is corrugated iron. This same combination of iron and wire forms the divisions between pens. There is a sliding section of iron at the rear of each division allowing communication by birds between pens. Each pen has a separate door, opening inwards and fastened with a revolving wooden peg.

The main poultry complex at Saumarez reflects this time of transition in ideas. It was built in 1903 by a man named Rowland (Mitchell and McDonald 1996: 77) and it combines dark, closed nesting and roosting rooms with sunny, open-fronted side pens for chicken rearing. Jack Haynes’s fowl house shows that the builder had some knowledge of the need for ventilation as this house is in 77

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 8.1. Plan of the main poultry complex. Wall construction: Solid line: corrugated iron. Dotted line: wire netting. Dash and dotted line: corrugated iron below, wire netting above. The floors of A, B1, B2 and G1–G5 are concrete. Key: A. Nesting room. B1 and B2. Roosting rooms. C. Concrete apron. D. Veranda posts. E. Tank. F. Water trough. G1–G5. Side pens. H. Broody cages. I. Chicken brooder. J. Trapdoors. Drawn by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

78

Two contrasting poultry houses

Figure 8.2. North-west elevation of main poultry complex showing water supply and drainage. Key. a. Drainage from northwest side of roof. b. Brick drain from riding-horse stable. c. Drainage from south-east side of roof. d. Tank collecting southeast drainage. e. New downpipe bypassing tank. f. Old semi-circular gutter draining side pens and emptying over pig-pen area (g). Drawn by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

Figure 8.3. Part of north-west elevation of Building 1 in the main poultry complex. Photocopy of photograph by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

79

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales The lower cut edges have been hammered flat and a small, raised area of concrete has been added to prevent damage to birds’ feet. These holes are closed by means of sliding wooden trapdoors attached to wires that can be operated from outside the house. The floor of the house is concrete, which facilitates cleaning and prevents entry of rodents. The water drainage system is interesting as it seems to link with other buildings. Rainwater draining from the northwest side of the roof runs off via a fairly new gutter and downpipe to join a brick drain from the adjacent stable. The level of the gutter is much lower than the top of the tank between the buildings, so apparently the rainwater from the fowl house was never collected there but diluted the stable outflow. The drainage from the south-east side of the roof flows into a very recent gutter, which feeds into a pipe penetrating side pen G1, then empties behind the pen. It seems that drainage from this side originally flowed into the tank that stands on a low platform of planks in front of side pen G1. This tank, now holed and rusted, has a castiron trough placed under the tap. The system of collection of rainwater would have provided drinking water for fowls without the need for carrying, except for those in pens and cages. The drainage from the roof of the side pens is into a very old gutter of semi-circular section, which is attached by metal strips riveted to metal rods which project through the wall into the timber frame. This gutter overshoots the end of side pen G5, which brings the outflow close to the remains of troughs associated with pig pens nearby to the south (Figure 1.20, Number 10). Thus, the water system of the fowl house might have added to the stable outflow and provided clean water for both fowls and pigs.

Figure 8.4. Lysaght corrugated galvanized iron ‘ORB’ brand on south side of main poultry-complex wall. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

The nest room contained raised benches on three sides, 65 centimetres above floor level, divided by dressed timber divisions into 22 nests. There was a short ladder giving access, though this appeared to be unnecessary since the nests were the same height as the roosts in the adjoining room. A box with an inclined lid, rather like a writing desk, was built in against the wall to the left of the door, at the same height as the nests. This, like the nests, contains old straw. Its purpose is unknown, but it might have provided temporary storage for eggs. All timber, including nests, ladder and wall frames, up to the height of the doorway had been treated with creosote. Early writers recommended tarring or creosote treatment to preserve wood and to prevent parasite infestations (Brown 1915: 154). In the roosting rooms, six perches were either lying in situ on wall bearers or on the floor. Every perch had small pieces of dressed timber with rounded ends inserted neatly and bolted at intervals along its length. These were apparently a measure to prevent crowding and overheating. Kains (1910: 67) wrote: ‘For light fowls, 2×2-inch [5.08 centimetre] scantling with rounded corners is very popular especially if the roosts must be rather long.’

The main house has a gable roof with a steep pitch. The ridge is 4 metres above the floor. There is some decoration on the exterior: the barge boards are bevelled along most of their length and there are mouldings along the outer side which are repeated under the louvred ventilators at each end of the gable. A wooden spire projects from the apex of the barge boards. The south-eastern wall of the main house, facing the yard, is the only exterior part that has been painted. This wall has three solidly constructed doors, which have wire netting in the upper half. There is a 30-centimetre-high strip of wire netting below the eaves in this wall and this, with the door netting and louvres, is the only ventilation. There is a veranda roof on this aspect of the building, which overhangs a concrete apron. A solid wooden door at the south-west end of this concrete provides access to the complex. Internally, the house is divided into a nesting room and two roosting rooms by a wall of corrugated iron to wall height with wire netting above. The roosting rooms are divided into two by wire netting which has been cut to allow walkthrough access. In addition to the doors, access by poultry to these rooms was by means of holes cut into the iron.

The vegetation in the yard is of two main types: oats and a species of barley. These are only evident in the fowl yard, so might represent grains that were fed to the fowls. Both oats and barley are recommended feeds, being cheaper 80

Two contrasting poultry houses than wheat and almost as high in energy yield (McArdle 1961: 338). Brown (1915: 133–34) recommended sprouted oats for fowls kept semi-intensively in small yards, which was the case at Saumarez. This provided green feed at any season of the year. F.J. White’s interest in crop improvement might well be represented in the current fowl yard vegetation. Occupying a central position in the yard is a broody cage consisting of six compartments on one side and eight on the other, allowing for different-sized birds. The floor and central dividing wall are of interlocking boards and the roof and end walls are corrugated iron. The cage fronts are small-gauge wire netting, with a sliding panel for access. The whole is raised on legs at each corner. Kains (1910: 73) recommended slats for the base of a broody coop, the principle being that a hen that cannot sit comfortably cannot brood and returns to laying in a few days. Behind the broody coop is a chicken brooder. This consists of corrugated iron and ridge capping of gable shape, surmounting a wooden frame attached to four legs. The frame is 20 centimetres above the ground. McArdle (1961: 177) describes a cold brooder which consisted of a frame 3×24 inches and 4 inches deep (7.62×60.96×10.16 centimetres), covered top and bottom with hessian and packed with straw. The frame is on four legs, and flannel strips are sewn onto the lower surface of the frame and cut to hang in tassels. These flaps provide a cosy insulated environment for young chicks. This description is very similar to F.J. White’s structure.

to have passed through the doorway of the yard, indicating that the yard must be later. These and other constructional details support the possibility of a three-stage sequence, but there remains the possibility that it all happened quite quickly. Building 2 is situated north of Jack Haynes’s Cottage, facing south-east, and is in a very exposed position as the prevailing winds are westerlies which sweep across the valley of the Saumarez Creek (Figure 1.20, Number 19). The south-east frontage affords protection from wind but excludes sunlight. This building is constructed of reused corrugated iron and timber with a few sheets of new iron, which indicate that the building has been in use recently. The skillion roof slopes down to the back and pieces of timber, rocks and wire on it bear testimony to the strength of the wind. The iron of the walls shows nail holes and evidence of having been beaten flat. There is a very weathered wide board across part of the eaves at the front that offers some protection from rain beating in through a section of netting immediately below the roof. The rear wall has a similar section of netting, but this has been boarded up. The front wall has three doors, each giving access to a separate room (Figures 8.5–8.7). Each door has a section of small-gauge chicken wire, the middle and right-hand doors have iron in their lower sections and the middle and left-hand doors are internally lined with used, interlocking wallboards. The upper lengths of iron on the front wall of the middle and right rooms have been placed over wire netting. There is a concrete apron along the front of the building and at the right-hand end it is inscribed: ‘30/5/45 R.B.’ (Figure 8.8). No doubt this is the work of Bob Betts, who formerly lived in Jack Haynes’s Cottage nearby. The floor is made of concrete containing many small pebbles, which would have reduced the cost.

The iron at the base of the side pen walls and doors suggests that these were used to contain small chicks, probably those weaned from the brooder. In pens G2 and G3 are troughs made from lengths of guttering crimped up at the ends. There is no evidence of solder, so these would have held feed rather than water. In pen G4 and outside pen G2 are large wooden boxes that might have provided sleeping cover for the chicks. McArdle (1961: 183) mentions the danger in moving chicks from a brooder to a shed without some form of warm sleeping enclosure.

Internally, the building has three rooms (Figure 8.5). Room 1 is the nesting area, which is divided from the central roosting area by wire netting, with corrugated iron in the lower part. Room 3 is lined on the front and end walls with used wallboards. These boards are similar to those in Jack Haynes’s Cottage and suggest a similar origin. The wall between Rooms 2 and 3 is of new corrugated iron.

There is also a tank in the poultry complex, with its stand enclosed by chicken wire to prevent access to the cavity beneath, a cast-iron water trough with a rough cement repair and a cut-down kerosene tin with a wire handle suitable for carrying feed or water. There was another iron trough in the grass, which was broken in two.

Water drainage is into a modern gutter at the rear, with a circular-section vertical downpipe. A course of bricks and other scattered bricks at the north-east corner of the building indicate that a tank might have stood there. Rusted wires hanging from the rafters at that end of the building suggest that there might have been a suspended drainpipe connecting the gutter at the rear with the tank at the front.

The overall impression of the house, side pens and yard is durability, neatness and attention to detail. There is no evidence of reused materials except for one veranda post with nails and nail holes. However, there is some evidence of a constructional sequence of three stages: Stage 1, the main building; Stage 2, its veranda; Stage 3, the side pens and the yard. For instance, the internal framework of the main building shows that it was built first, as an integral unit. Also, the edge of the concrete of the veranda, where it sits against the wall of the main building, is corrugated, showing that it was laid when the building already existed, and that the veranda was probably later than the building. In addition, the yard contains a water tank that is too large

The nests in the nesting room were built similarly to those in Building 1, but with a variety of used timber. The rough method of securing the nest dividers with small pieces of wood contrasts with the workmanship in Building 1 and suggests a handyman rather that a carpenter. There is also a ladder to the nests, as in the other building. There is no evidence of creosote having been used and, with the front 81

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 8.5. Plan of Building 2, the fowl house at Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Key. 1. Nesting room. 2. Roosting room. 3. Probable storeroom. A. Concrete apron. B. Repaired concrete with inscription associated with brickwork. C. Poplar tree. Drawn by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

Sunshine Petrol Engine H.V. McKa… This might have been supplied containing fuel for the chaff cutter in the working-horse stable and then commandeered for holding water in the fowl house. It might, in fact, have been the tank that stood in the north-east corner. The roosting room has lost its perches, but nails in the horizontal wall frames show that there were four, set 65 centimetres above the floor. The maximum capacity from the 10.5 metres of perching space would have been 50 birds, but it is unlikely that so many were kept, and the perch space was probably extremely generous. Room 3, with its two lined walls, was cosy. It shows no evidence of use by fowls, so perhaps it was a feed store. It contains a desk made from old wall and floorboards, a few boxes and a quantity of peach stones on the floor. It might have been a work room.

Figure 8.6. North-east end of Building 2, the fowl house at Jack Haynes’s Cottage, indicating the presumed water drainage system. a. Downpipe at rear. b. Tie-wires attached to the rafters, probably for supporting a water pipe. c. Repaired concrete over brickwork that might have been the position of a tank. Drawn by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

Outside the house, there is no surviving evidence of an enclosed yard, except for one fencepost sawn through at ground level. In front of the house is an old, much-pruned poplar tree, one peach and two apple trees. It is probable

open, it would not have been necessary for lice control. A large galvanized container has been placed in the nest room. It has inlet and outlet pipes, and bears the words:

82

Two contrasting poultry houses

Figure 8.7. The front of Building 2, the fowl house at Jack Haynes’s Cottage from south-east. Photocopy of photograph by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

writing a little later (1915: 156–57), said that warmth was overrated, and that light and air were the main priorities. He said that louvres in the gables and spaces below the eaves were insufficient (he might have been describing the situation at Saumarez), and that houses should be openfronted and oriented towards the sunlight. He argued that fresh air reduced condensation from the breath of fowls and that sunlight reduced the prevalence of bacteria and parasites. In fact, he claimed that open-fronted housing caused a revolution in parasite control. In America, these ideas were already being adopted by the 1880s, and F.J. White could well have been aware of this (Figure 8.9). F.J. White incorporated the open-fronted principle in the side pens but not in the main house, though both could have been built at the same time. Ideally, the house ought to have been at the southern end of the yard, but it is more aesthetically pleasing to have it adjacent to the ridinghorse stable and this might have been a factor. The side pens show that White was prepared to try new methods. McArdle (1961: 214) notes that the change to open-fronted sheds was often slow, so White was really an innovator for his time. Jack Haynes’s fowl house, being of an openfronted design, was probably built some years later.

Figure 8.8. Inscription in concrete at Building 2, the fowl house at Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Reads: ‘30/5/45 R.B.’ No doubt the work of Bob Betts, who formerly lived in the cottage. Photocopy of photograph by M.S. Fraser, 1986.

that the fowls ranged freely over this area, using the house only for roosting and laying. 8.2. Discussion

These two buildings are the only ones built wholly of corrugated iron, except for a ram shed (not otherwise recorded), which has a similar use of wallboards to those in Building 2 and in Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Corrugated iron was produced in Sydney from the 1860s (Birmingham et al. 1983: 106) and the railway facilitated its use in country

The chicken house at the Saumarez poultry complex is very well built but extremely dark and limited in ventilation because there is no crossflow of air unless both louvres are opened. Early writers like Kains (1910: 53) listed dryness, ventilation and warmth as priorities, whereas Brown, 83

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 8.9. An American poultry house of the 1880s, incorporating some of the latest ideas (Lewandowski: 1888, modern edition).

areas from the 1880s. Cox et al. (1980: 53) say that its use for walls, as well as roofs, dates from 1914, so White was early to adopt new ideas in both livestock management and in building.

fowl house was a make-do structure using recycled materials but nevertheless showing awareness of the care then thought necessary for fowls. The former structure would have cost money, probably quite a lot, whereas the latter required ingenuity and plenty of it. In their different ways they had the same objective, the production of food for people, in the form of hens’ eggs and table birds. It is likely that both were successful at doing this, albeit on different scales. They represent one aspect of the rural selfsufficiency common at the time that they were built.

From the perches presently in Building 1, the capacity for birds at 20 centimetres per bird was 78 fowls (total perch length 15.6 metres). There is room for more than six perches; in fact, two or three times this number could have been carried and the side pens could have held at least 100 chicks. Why, when such a well-organized poultry complex existed, was there a need for a separate fowl house for Jack Haynes? Archaeological evidence at Saumarez shows that at least nine homes for employees existed close to the main homestead, with at least 20 more further away (Connah 1977: 120, 122). If the poultry complex existed to supply the needs of a large labour force rather than (most likely) only the privileged occupants of the main homestead, it might have become less needed as the size of that work force declined with mechanization and other changes at the end of the nineteenth century. Remaining employees would then have needed to keep their own fowls, as Jack Haynes did. If this was the case, then the Haynes fowl house is probably later in date than the main poultry complex. In balance, it seems most probable that the main complex was principally intended to serve the needs of the White homestead. 8.3. Conclusion The two poultry houses at Saumarez are contrasting examples of buildings that show the intentions and abilities of their builders. The main complex incorporated some of the latest ideas, and was carefully planned and wellconstructed with quality materials, whereas Jack Haynes’s 84

9 The cowshed In addition to meat, eggs and poultry, Saumarez Station also produced milk and milk products, including butter. Thus, the complex of farm buildings on the property provided a significant part of the food for those who lived and worked there, both the White family and their employees, as well as some of the food for the piggery. The 1880s were a boom time for Australian pastoralists and by 1886 F.J. White had reached a level of prosperity where the construction of substantial buildings at Saumarez was possible. As part of his building programme, the cowshed was built in 1888 (Philp and Oppenheimer 1986: 14, 2002: 23) on the crest of the hill relatively close to the new homestead, on the northern edge of the farm building complex (Figure 1.20, Number 3). Significantly, it was also close to the station office, of which only the site has survived (Figure 1.20, Number 2). In contrast to Philp and

Oppenheimer, McDonald (1993: no page) alternatively states that it was built in 1902 by a man called Caldwell, but whatever the case, it appears that the cowshed (also known as the dairy) had a special significance that influenced its location. In fact, F.J. White bred and exhibited stud Jersey cattle for many years. In the Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, O’Callaghan (1901: 374) remarked on the popularity of the Jersey breed in Armidale, and the quality of Mr F. White’s Jerseys exhibited in the open sections of the Armidale Agricultural Show. The show-prize certificates still on the wall of the cowshed show dates at least to 1922, giving some indication of the continuation of F.J. White’s interest in Jersey breeding. Presumably this interest was allied to his involvement in the development of the Armidale District Pastoral and Agricultural Society (Philp and Oppenheimer 1986: 7). It appears that these

Figure 9.1. The cowshed at Saumarez Station, from the south-east, apparently photographed soon after its completion probably late in the nineteenth century or possibly at the beginning of the twentieth (UNE Heritage Centre—A1473, Album 11, page 9).

85

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales circumstances led to particular care with the planning and construction of the cowshed, as can be seen in a photograph almost certainly taken shortly after its completion.

calves from crawling out between the rails. The board in the bail for holding the cow’s head has been reinforced with a second board to add to its strength. An apparatus was added to the top of the bail by John Standen, the dairyman, so that he could break-in cows single-handed (Betts, personal communication 29 September 1987). The features of this bail contribute to its strength and suitability for its purposes, namely the breaking-in of cows and the penning of calves. The railed area beside the feed box at the northern end of Bails 1 and 2 has been boarded over, probably not as part of the original construction. In Bail 1, some of the boards are branded ‘… CHICAGO’. In Bail 2, the board across the top of this boarded-up section does not match the board on top of the feed box. It must have been added soon after construction, as rose-headed nails were used, rather than round-headed nails. Presumably this railed area was boarded up to discourage cows from going up into the space beside the feed box. In Bails 4, 5 and 6, the space beside the feed box have been closed off, by nailing on an assortment of timber pieces using various nails. Presumably, this was to prevent cows from going the wrong way and represents a later addition to the structure. The space between Bails 3 and 4 contained a wooden bench and a cupboard, presumably for drugs and any other materials requiring safekeeping. The feed bins in the northern section were made of soft wood, having been constructed in situ, indicated by the fact that one post stands inside one of the bins. The position of these bins allowed for easy access to the feed boxes of the cow bails.

The cowshed would have been built for property-based dairying, supplying the occupants of the property and the piggery (Figures 9.2 and 9.3). The general design of the cowshed was typical of its time, as can be seen by comparing it with that of a design by a Queensland Government Dairy expert (Mahon 1897: facing 438) (Figure 9.4). Some of the features common to both plans include sword bails, where the cow’s head is held by a board, and the fact that the cow was always milked on the right side, known as ‘the milking side’. Other common features were wooden floors, bins for feeding the cows, storage areas for fodder and the fact that the cow was backed out of the bail and went back out into the yard after milking. With the advent of the factory system, with dairy inspectors, larger herds and mechanization from the beginning of the twentieth century, changes occurred in dairy design, resulting in concrete floors, milking on either side of the cow and the use of walk-through bails, the advantages of which were realized by 1898 (Boag 1898: 520–22). As F.J. White owned stud cattle, the cowshed might have served more than one function. Besides being a milking shed, it might also have been used for controlled hand feeding, handling of animals in preparation for the show ring, housing of animals either permanently or during winter, and breeding. Calves could have been shut in the breaking-in bail, as indicated by the narrow board between its two lower rails.

9.3. The flow of animals and materials Each animal entered the building through the south-west door, walked into one of the bails and had its head locked in the bail by means of the bail-stick and a peg in a hole in the framework. The cow was milked and fed at the same time. On completion, her head was released and she backed out of the bail, turned around and walked back out of the door by which she had entered. The space by the feed box could be used by the workman to stand out of the way as the cow backed out, and also for access to the cow’s head for veterinary purposes. Young cows could be trained to use the bails in Bail 1, where a gate could be closed behind them. Unbroken cows could be enticed into the bails by tying their calf in front of the bail. When the cow had been milked and her head released, the calf was led out of the bail, and the cow would walk back out, and turn around to follow. Alternatively, the calf could be kept in the breaking-in bail to encourage the cow to walk into the bail.

9.1. The survey A survey of the building was conducted, consisting of measuring it and recording its features. The aim was to record the plan, the building materials and techniques used, and the appropriateness of the building to its function. There was also the question of whether the building revealed anything of the life or personality of its original owner and his involvement in its construction. 9.2. The layout of the building The building is rectangular, divided into two lengthwise by a difference in floor thickness, with six milking bails in the western section and fodder bins (‘feed bins’ in Figure 9.2) in the eastern section (Figure 9.2). Each bail was enclosed by a rail fence, with a feed box at the northern end, incorporating a board pivoted on the lower end and secured in its frame by a peg at the top to hold the animal’s head. Originally there was an open space besides the feed box in all six bails.

Excreta on the floor went through the spaces between the boards to the ground beneath. The boards were wider spaced where the cows stood in the bails than elsewhere in the shed: 1–2 centimetres apart, compared with 1 centimetre in the fodder section. The material beneath would then have to be removed at intervals, through the opening in the galvanized iron wall below floor level on the southern side of the shed. Milk was not further treated but was distributed whole from the cowshed. Further

Bail 1 was the breaking-in bail. There is an extra wall stud on the western wall, compared with the eastern wall. Three rails were added to form a funnel shape, to make the manoeuvring of a reluctant cow a little easier. A narrow rail has been added between the two lower rails to prevent 86

The cowshed

Figure 9.2. Plan of the cowshed at Saumarez. Drawn by P.D. Blackman, 1987.

87

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 9.3. Isometric view of Saumarez cowshed structural framework. Drawn by P.D. Blackman, 1987.

9.4. Building materials and methods

processing was carried out in the main house, where there was a separator and a butter churn (Betts, personal communication 29 September 1987). Presumably, milk would have been distributed to the staff and also to the piggery. The fodder, in the form of chaff and pumpkins, was brought in bags from the stable through the northwest door and stored in bags against the reinforced northern wall. The vehicle was reversed to the north-west door, which opened to the north-west. The floor there was approximately 40 centimetres above the ground for easier unloading. Evidence exists of at least one miscalculation in reversing, in the form of a large dent and puncture marks in the galvanized iron on the north side of the door.

The building was constructed of sawn hardwood timber suspended on stumps and clad with galvanized iron. Its framework is shown in Figure 9.3. Joints throughout the building were morticed, and the frame was securely braced. The strength of the building is attested by its soundness a century after it was built. The bearers were 100×100 millimetres, running the length of the building, on rows of stumps spaced north to south at a mean interval of 1237 millimetres. They are spaced according to the load-bearing sections of the building, with rows of stumps under the outer wall studs (north and south walls), under the row of studs in the fodder area and under the two rows of posts associated with the bails structure. There was a row of stumps between each pair of these load-bearing rows. No stump caps were used, which seems inconsistent in such a carefully planned and built structure. Stump caps had been available from about 1880, prior to which pieces of flat galvanized iron sheeting were used (Bell 1984: 164). The building is now infested with white ants (termites). Signs of their activity can be found in the framework. The galvanized iron used was branded ‘Lysaght Orb galvanized tinned’. In the gable area of both ends, pinpoints of light were visible, indicating that the iron had been reused. The quality of the iron can be judged

A tap on the north wall provided water from a tank situated just outside of the building. Water was needed for the washing of hands and udders, and presumably some washing of the floor in the bails. As there are no other washing-up facilities, presumably buckets were washed in the kitchen of the main house. A sheet of galvanized iron protected the floor under the tap. The system worked well under the conditions that existed when set up. From some of the alterations, namely added boards, deficiencies had been obvious in operation. As long as time was no consideration, the system was acceptable. If machinemilking had been adopted, the system would have proved to be slow. 88

The cowshed

Figure 9.4. A nineteenth-century cowshed plan (Mahon 1897).

spacing of 185 millimetres, to a height of 1.11 metres. These were to protect the cattle from the wall studs and to protect the iron walls from the cattle. On the northern wall, similar-sized boards were nailed to the studs to a height of 1.06 metres with no spacing, so that bags of fodder could be stored against the wall without damage to the wall. In the short sections of wall from the northern wall to the doors, boards were nailed vertically, the rest being horizontal. These boards were attached with rose-headed nails, similar to those used in the main structure, so were part of the original work or were added soon after. Later repairs were done with round-headed nails. The wall studs in the main gable-roofed section of the building were in the main approximately 100×100 millimetres, whereas those in the skillion-roofed section were approximately 75×100 millimetres, so the former part had a stronger construction. [A skillion is a one-pitched roof on an addition to a building (Cox et al. 1980: 215).] The gableroofed section is braced with carpenter trusses, consisting of joists tied to the wall plates by angle-iron straps and braced from the centre to the two rafters (Figure 9.5). The structure of the bails is very strong, being tied to the roof joists and securely braced. The skillion-roofed section, in comparison, is much lighter, as it did not need to withstand the weight and movements of the animals.

from the lack of obvious rust patches on the outside. The iron was attached with screw nails and lead washers. The flooring joists were approximately 150×75 millimetres, with a mean spacing of 612 millimetres. The joists where the skillion roof section joins the gable roof section are continuous, so the building was erected in one episode. Flooring in the bails section was 45 millimetres thick, and in the northern section 20 millimetres thick. The heavy flooring in the bails section must have been supplied in short lengths: one section of flooring is 3.7 metres long and another 4.2 metres long, necessitating joins in the floor through the bails. In Bail 3, the join was where the cows stood, resulting in considerable attrition at the ends of the boards, requiring repairs. A patch of cement had been placed in the gap between the ends of the boards in Bail 3, and boards had been bolted to both sides of the floor joist where the cows stood, the floorboards being nailed to these boards. In Bail 4, the join was not where the cows stood, so the timber had not deteriorated as in Bail 3. On both sides of the floor joist, the floorboards were bolted to boards running beside, but not attached to, the joists. On the southern, western and eastern walls, boards 23×140 millimetres were nailed to the wall studs, with a mean 89

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 9.5. Details of the structural joints in the cowshed at Saumarez. Drawn by P.D. Blackman, 1987.

90

The cowshed

Figure 9.6. Gate and door catches in the Saumarez cowshed. Drawn by P.D. Blackman, 1987.

Two hopper-style windows were in the northern wall, three in the southern wall. Those in the southern wall were 230 millimetres higher than those in the northern wall, above the eye height of cattle. There was also a window high in the gable at each end of the building. The windows were covered with chicken wire as a protection against hail (Betts, personal communication 29 September 1987). To some extent, the building was ventilated through the spacing of the floor.

There were a variety of catches used on doors and gates (Figure 9.6). Two of these were not commercial catches. The one on the north-east door, closest to the house, provided easy access for children. It was placed low, and was easily opened from the outside. It features a nineteenth-century version of the child-proof lock. The lock would snap down to prevent the wooden bolt from being slid back. It would appear to have been forced at some time, or perhaps it bent with constant use, so a round-headed nail was added as a 91

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales repair. The cowshed could have been a dangerous place for a small child.

would already have been chaffed. Some straw might have been kept in the cowshed, but would not have required a hay knife as it would not pack down as stacked hay does.

Outside the south-west door was the area where the cows walked up to the building. A stone retaining wall was built, and the area built up to give access to the door. Stone reinforcing was placed in the built-up area near the door, so that it would not become damaged by constant traffic.

9.7. Discussion F.J. White’s attention to detail can be inferred from the account of the building of the homestead at Saumarez (Philp and Oppenheimer 1986: 7). He is also credited with the design of most of the working buildings, the carpenter/ contractor generally employed being John McLennan (Philp and Oppenheimer 1986: 15). The care with which the cowshed building was designed and constructed is evidence of the standards of both F.J. White and the builder. Apart from the deterioration of the flooring and the presence of white ants, the building is structurally sound. The use of round-headed nails in parts of the structure, mainly in the floor, shows that maintenance was carried out. This would have been essential for the survival of such a building and the safety of the valuable animals using it.

9.5. The strength of the building Striking features of the building are its strength and the careful attention to detail that was the basis of that strength. It was built to withstand the movement of cattle. The gable section where the cattle were was much stronger than the skillion section, with heavier studs, a heavier floor and bracing on all of the walls and the roof. The bails structure was tied to two beams running the length of the building, in turn tied to the roof beams. The roof beams were tied to the wall plates by metal straps. Joins in the beams running the length of the building were scarfed joints (Figure 9.5). In general, joints were morticed, and most were bolted or nailed as well. The gable roof itself was much stronger than the skillion roof. The gable roof was braced both beam to rafter and diagonally on rafters. The only bracing on the skillion are stays between the four posts where the roof joins the gable-roof section, and rafters. The skillion was obviously of lesser importance than the gable-roofed part of the building.

It would appear that the dairy herd was an object of personal interest to F.J. White. The location of the cowshed in relatively close proximity to the house and the station office, instead of being down the hill with the other working buildings, would suggest personal involvement. The building itself would also appear to have been an object of personal pride, both in its construction and in the fact that its location made it more public than the other buildings. This was despite it being screened by trees to restrict the view from the house. The location would have had some influence on the care in construction, in contrast with the strictly utilitarian bails elsewhere, which were often built of bush timber. F.J. White’s pride and interest in his dairy cattle is also obvious from the presence of the prize certificates on show in the cowshed, and the fact that he exhibited his animals at least from 1901 till 1922.

9.6. Portable equipment in the building Some equipment still remains from the stud cattle era. A pumpkin slicer was used for the preparation of pumpkins as fodder. They were accepted at the time as being good food for dairy cattle (Boag 1898: 523). The presence of a butter-fat tester is evidence of F.J. White’s interest in the performance of his cows and the development of his breeding stock. The Babcock tester was introduced in 1893 to enable farmers to monitor the production of individual cows (The Director of Agriculture 1893: 275–79). Nails above the bench were part of the organization of the milk testing (Betts, personal communication 29 September 1987). Bull rods hanging on nails in the fodder section of the cowshed are evidence of the showing of the cattle, a necessity as Jersey bulls have the reputation for being bad-tempered. Further evidence of the showing of cattle can be found in the prize certificates attached to boards nailed to the southern wall and over the south-eastern door. Although faded, dates from 1912 to 1922 were still visible for the Armidale Show, and the classes entered and the owner’s name could still be read on some of them. The remains of a magazine photograph with the caption ‘Jersey cattle exhibited by Frank J. White. Showing the champion Jersey cow … 25.3.1914’ is also on the board. The original photograph was in the adjacent cupboard. Both the prize certificates and the photograph are evidence of the quality of White’s stock. A hay knife present was probably not originally in the cowshed. Its purpose was for cutting stacked hay, and most of the fodder in the cowshed

Apart from a few minor alterations in the form of boards added to the bails and repairs to the floor, the building has survived much as it was constructed. This would suggest that it served well the purpose for which it was built—not commercial dairy production, but relatively small-scale stud production. It was never mechanized. The construction materials and methods were in keeping with the practicality of the building. The use of timber and iron allowed for a strong building, but one that was relatively cheap to construct, in comparison with weatherboard cladding, stone or brick. 9.8. Conclusion This building was probably constructed in the 1880s, a time of great prosperity for the then proprietor. This was a time when dairying had not reached the level of organization it would assume with the adoption of the factory system in the next decade. The scale and standard of construction of the building would suggest that F.J. White had long-term plans concerning the organization and diversification of 92

The cowshed his property. He was not merely catering for a few house cows. The property was supported at the time by wool production (centred on the woolshed, which was separate from the group of buildings studied here). The dairy cattle represented a probable personal interest and, to a certain extent, a commercial interest in that stud cattle could be sold locally as Jerseys were very popular in the district at the turn of the century. The presence of this and other buildings from the same era conveys the impression that the property still bears the stamp of F.J. White a century after he built up the complex and over 50 years (now over 80 years) after his death. The cowshed and other buildings are a fitting memorial to him.

93

10 The fences The buildings and the activities associated with them, as well as particular areas of the Saumarez property, had to be separated from one another to be able to function efficiently, and this was accomplished by a network of fences (Figure 10.1). Fences are an important source of historical data, but the buildings or areas that they enclose often receive more attention. A prime exception is Pickard (2010 and his other publications about fences), but a number of other references are also relevant (Connah 1993: 87–90; Kerr 1984; Walker 1978: 22–32). As humanly made artefacts spread across the countryside, fences are remarkably informative: they mark the limit of property, their size and shape indicate their use, they separate crops from animals, animals from predators or each other, or exclude vermin. Fences in Australia reflect the growth of pastoralism and the coming of settlers: changes in technology from hand to machine tools and from wood to wire can reveal much by their very existence. The way that a fence is built indicates the landholder’s wealth or lack of it, his social background, even his country of origin, and his socioeconomic advancement can be traced from changes in his fences.

posts and rails. It was only later that iron posts, which were used in Britain, were adopted in Australia; previously they had been too expensive, but timber was often readily obtainable by the expenditure of an individual’s labour. Fencing was essential to the development of farming in Australia, and the history of its adoption provides a chronology of that development. Wire was available in Victoria from the early 1850s ,but almost a decade passed before it was used more generally in eastern Australia. The wire had to be imported from Britain, and the imports of wire for fencing became huge, stimulated by almost limitless demand. Different gauges of wire were adopted and the interval between posts was increased to reduce costs. The imported wire was most commonly of Birmingham Wire Gauges 4, 6 and 8, of diameters 6.04, 5.16 and 4.19 millimetres (Pickard 2010: Table 1). It was usually soft iron wire that could be easily manipulated, not like the high-tensile steel wire that has since become adopted. Barbed wire, apparently invented in America and much used there after 1874 (Pickard 2010: Figure 3), appears to have been only slowly introduced into Australia. Although wire was not produced in Australia until 1911, by the 1880s, when White was particularly active at Saumarez, it was increasingly used, relying on imports.

Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Australian fencing depended on two materials: wire, and wooden

Figure 10.1. Plan of the fences studied at Saumarez. Drawn by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988, reconstructed from a damaged photocopy by Graham Connah; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

95

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales In the small area studied, 24 different treatments of fence posts, rails and/or construction were found (Figure 10.1). Some of these were dictated by the need for strength for large, frightened or excited animals, while others, lower and closely netted, were needed to contain smaller animals or poultry. The evolution from hand-split logs to hand-sawn, then machine-sawn, timbers, various forms of morticing and shaping of posts to fit rails, or vice versa, is complex and some generalization has been necessary in the following descriptions, each one of which represents an example in Figure 10.1 and is similarly numbered. 10.1. Killing shed (1) and Fence 2 Fence 2 is the smallest of the three yards south of the killing shed (Figure 10.1). It appears to have been built later than the middle yard, because the mortices, which go only halfway into the post, are at different heights on either side of the post. Extra rails were added between the original rails at the bottom at a later date, and the round top rail wired to the post might also have been added later. A possible date for this fence is suggested by a record stating that in May 1888, John Townsend was employed to make a ‘four-rail fence for the killing yard including all round posts’ for £3.1.6 and was paid 6 shillings for the day spent ‘pulling up the old fence’ (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records Ledger 1883–93, A149, V121, page 422). However, Philp and Oppenheimer (2002: 22) state that the ‘slaughterhouse and yards’ were built in 1900, and these apparently replaced earlier facilities, which possibly replaced even earlier ones. Mitchell and McDonald (1996: 80) and McDonald (1993: no page) also give 1900 as the construction date of the killing shed (Chapter 7).

Figure 10.2. Fence 5: butted rail-ends cross-wired. Drawn by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

(Fence 5) has butted ends cross-wired on the inner side of grooved posts (Figure 10.2). This might be Townsend’s 1888 fence, but it appears to be of later construction; indeed, on 24 December 1895, James McNoble was paid 1 shilling per yard for cutting 47 yards of ‘roadway from killing yard to killing paddock’, and on 1 and 2 June 1896 Townsend was ‘morticing posts in killing paddock’ (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records 1894–99, A149, V122, page 290). The white-painted palings and gates might be reused material.

10.2. Fence 3 A seven-rail gate between the killing yard and the middle yard is of light, sawn timber construction, with two diagonal strengtheners to facilitate the cutting-out of the required beast. The lower five rails are close together to prevent small animals escaping and two wider-spaced rails above permit access to animals through the gate. A handforged iron hook and ring on a chain secure the gate to a round post, the whole yard being very strong. The middle yard consists of an older fence in bad repair, the morticed posts having split, and the overlapping tapered ends of the rails have been wired around the posts. Overlapping, tapered ends through mortices appear to have been one of the earliest, pre-wire, methods of fence building (Kerr 1984: 10, quoting Atkinson 1826).

10.4. Fence 6 Near the killing shed, the remains of an old timber fence extend to the north-east of the present fence across to a water tank, enclosing part of a small animal yard. This yard, so-called because of wire netting round it and its low height, has a four-rail, white-painted gate covered in fine chicken wire. Between this gate and the water tank, great care was taken to prevent rot of the fence, perhaps the fate of the earlier one. Several pieces of tin were cut and overlapped to form a cap, provision being made for the insertion of the irrigation pipe used in the construction of the fence, the top then being covered by cement. The two lower rails are supported by handforged iron hooks, bolted through the posts, which hold the pipes inside the yard. Handmade netting is suspended from the lower pipe to the ground, making it lower than

10.3. Fences 4 and 5 The five-rail gate between the central yard and the largest of the yards is similarly constructed, but with evenly spaced rails (Fence 4). The largest yard has two sides of machinesawn rails with a top rail of metal pipe, fitting into round morticed end posts and the inner side of intervening posts. A four-rail split-log fence along the far side of the yard 96

The fences ones being ‘knotted’ by only two turns of wire, whereas the lower have three or four turns for added strength. The turns end at different angles. The wire supporting the netting is passed through the metal spacers, being stapled onto the outer side of the timber posts. A probable date for this netting can be established. Townsend spent 36 days almost continuously between 26 June and 16 August 1897 ‘working at wire netting’, and much erecting of wire netting, cutting and erecting posts and making gates followed (Saumarez Ledger 1894–99, A149, V122, pages 2–3).

the rest of the netting around the yard. The bottoms of the posts are supported by an iron strap set into cement below ground level. 10.5. Fence 7 The northern side of this small animal yard has a fiverail gate, secured with a hand-forged chain and hook (Figure 10.3). The round gate post (1.33 metres high, 260 centimetres diameter) is propped up by a round branch. Intermediate posts between the gate and corner posts are of quarter-split logs with a single T-angle metal spacer between them. The top wire is barbed. The wire netting consists of wide and irregularly spaced mesh, and would appear to be handmade. Larger mesh in the two upper rows is reduced to closer mesh towards the ground, the upper

10.6. Fence 8 This is situated near the building of which the blacksmith’s shop forms a part. Irrigation pipe forms the top two rails on half the fence, the uppermost being wired across the top of the split half-posts. The adjacent timber gate post has two empty mortices that would have held older wooden rails (Figure 10.4). The second pipe is stapled onto the side of the half-posts by a bent metal rod, two lower sawn-timber planks being attached by several strands of wire bored through the post. A rotting split plank embedded in the ground might indicate an even earlier split-log fence. The gate is of metal tube with fine chicken wire and is probably recycled. The other half of this fence has separate end posts, joined by a top pipe rail and three sawn rails (the older one below); empty mortices would indicate reuse of these posts, which do not join adjacent fences. In August 1896, Duncan McLennan spent four days ‘building buggy shed’ (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records 1894–99, A149, V122, page 272), which was part of the building referred to in this book as the blacksmith’s shop and wagon shed. Perhaps Fence 8 nearby was constructed at about the same time, although it could have taken longer than four days to construct the ‘buggy shed’.

Figure 10.3. Fence 7: gate with iron hook and chain and handmade wire netting. Photocopy of photograph by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988.

Figure 10.4. Fence 8: old gate post with mortices for former rails. Photocopy of photograph by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988.

97

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales end-butted planks horizontally wired on the top and crosswired on the lower, with the smooth sides inwards. 10.10. Fences 13 and 14 These are part of the fence on the eastern side of the Cow Paddock (Figure 10.1). To the north of the Bull Yard and sloping up to the cowshed are fences of split-slab posts, through-drilled to take six strands of wire, the top one barbed, the rest alternating plain and barbed. Fence 13 is collapsing, and Fence 14 is in a poor condition. In May 1889, Townsend spent two days (at 6 shillings a day) ‘putting barbed wire to cultivation for cow paddock and yard’ (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records Ledger 1883–93, A149, V121, page 423), a rare mention of barbed wire, although it replaced smooth wire and came into common use in the 1890s (Jeans 1972: 205). 10.11. Fence 15

Figure 10.5. Fence 9: detail of wiring of rails onto post. Drawing by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

This is a ‘crush’, used to constrict movement of cattle during dehorning and other work. Six removable metal bars could be slipped into place via shaped slots in the strong posts and secured by steel pins. The sliding gate behind the animal forced its head through the front aperture, which could be adjusted.

10.7. Fence 9 This encloses an area marked as the ‘Bull Run’ in Figure 10.1. It is almost surrounded by a four-rail fence, except for a bull stall that forms part of the fence of this area. The top rail of the four-rail fence is a round branch shaped to fit over the top of the round posts, then wired into place (Figure 10.5). The other three rails of split slab are shaped at the ends to fit into the central mortices on the corner posts, but are end-butted and wired on the inner side of intervening posts. Some of the rails have been replaced by sawn planks, the smoother inner surface thus obtained reducing damage to animals.

10.12. Fence 16 This loading ramp appears to cover a wide time span. Two much-used old split-slab posts, the first showing adzing, support the first section of a continuous fence up the side of the ramp, consisting of a pipe top, a lower rail and four through-bolted machine-sawn rails. Two similar planks protect the earth-filled space beneath the sloping ramp from the weather. On the higher section of the ramp, for additional strength and to prevent the legs of cattle from slipping through, are hand-hewn planks, possibly part of an old fence as they have small holes in their shaped ends. Posts frame the exit of the ramp, across the lip of which metal edging protects white-painted weatherboards overlying old deteriorated split slabs.

10.8. Fence 10 This is a large paddock east of the ‘Bull Run’ that has been fenced with materials contrasting with those of the previous fences. Cement posts are used and appear to have been cast locally, in an open trough mould, because each one has an uneven surface on one side. Seven strands of galvanized wire (barbed, plain, barbed and four plain) are supported by metal T-spacers between smaller cement posts.

10.13. Fence 17 In June 1890, ‘iron, ridging, screws and washers for new stable and timber’ were bought for £649 (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records Ledger 1883–93, A149, V121, page 448). Such a substantial building would appear to be the working-horse stable, now the barn, and the materials could have been for its alteration rather than for its original construction. On the western side of this building is an area enclosed by a strong wire-mesh fence (Fence 17), stated to be a pig pen. The corner posts have been incised to hold five strands of wire, which supported the wiremesh two-thirds of the way up the posts. At their tops is a wooden rail. The intermediate quarter posts, separated by metal spacers, are shaped at the top and rails are wired onto them (Figure 10.6). The tops of the corner posts were also shaped to accept the rails and wired.

10.9. Fences 11 and 12 Marked as the ‘Bull Yard’ in Figure 10.1, this area has a strong recent fence. The round posts have been cut to take rails of machine-sawn planks that are alternately centrebolted or butted, the latter being covered by a metal band, which presents a smooth surface. However, the southern part of this fence (Fence 11) has been constructed with its rough side, consisting of the post body, bolt ends and nuts, on the inner side of the fence, making it dangerous for animals. The section of the fence on the northern side (Fence 12) is of similar dimensions and has uniformly 98

The fences

Figure 10.6. Fence 17: detail of wiring of rails onto post. Drawing by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

Figure 10.8. Fence 18: detail of barbed and plain wires at post. Drawing by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

Figure 10.7. Fence 19: detail of pipe and planks inserted into post. Drawing by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

10.14. Fences 18, 19, 20 and 24 These are boundary fences around the area of the work buildings at Saumarez Station (Figure 10.1; see also Figures 10.10 and 10.11). Fence 19, which forms the entrance to the work-building area, bears some similarity to the older boundary fence at right angles to it (Fence 20), in that both consist of a top rail of pipe and three timber rails. However, the former has the pipe and machine-sawn planks inserted into the post (Figure 10.7), as opposed to split-slab rails shaped to the post. The latter fence has the pipe wired across the top of the post and the rails shaped, end-butted and double-wired onto the side of the post (the end-shaping perhaps indicating that the rails had previously been used in morticed posts). A strand of barbed wire runs just above ground level (Figure 10.11). Another variation nearby (Fence 18) consists of quarterlog posts, four thin wooden spacers, one metal T-spacer and four wooden spacers. These supported a strand of barbed wire on top (to one side) of the post, two throughcentre-drilled plain wires, another barbed-wire strand in a

Figure 10.9. Fence 24: detail of rails, post, and wire netting. Drawing by L. de Berry Hughes, 1988; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

slot cut into the side of the post, offset, then a further two strands of centre-drilled plain wire (Figure 10.8). Between Fences 18 and 20 is Fence 24: a new brown-painted fence, comprising a half-round post supporting three sawn planks with chicken-wire netting between them (Figure 10.9). 10.15. Fences 21, 22 and 23 These fences are adjacent to the riding-horse stable and carriage house, and to the poultry shed. Iron for ‘two 99

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 10.10. Corner post on part of western boundary. Not marked in Figure 10.1. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 10.11. East side of wire-tied fence north-west of riding-horse stable. Not marked in Figure 10.1, but probably Fence 20. Scale in centimetres. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

cottages and kitchen, stables and buggy shed’ was ordered on 19 March 1903 (UNE Archives. Saumarez Station Records Miscellaneous Papers from Mr Purser of Guyra, A149, V1345/18). A well-made, white-painted picket gate, with neatly rounded and even palings, contrasts with the hand-sawn picket fence in front of a water tank adjoining the poultry shed (Fence 21). The latter has palings of uneven width and length, with various shaped tops (Fence 22). Perhaps this predates the stable, which was built in several stages beginning in 1890 (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22), because otherwise it could have matched it. On the other side of the poultry shed, down to the killing shed, a fence consists of two sawn planks, cross-wired into shaped round posts at each end, with two metal T-spacers in between each section either side of a metal gate (Fence 23). Machine-made strong wire netting, of uniform spacewidth, is attached to the second plank by pieces of metal and stapled to the end posts. The exactness of shape and size of the mesh indicates mass-production by machine, providing a secure small-animal or poultry yard.

Figure 10.12. An American example of a timber post and rail fence, published in 1888 (Lewandowski n.d.: 29).

For comparison with the Saumarez fences, an American example of a timber post and rail fence, published in 1888 (Lewandowski n.d.: 29), is provided in Figure 10.12.

and include iron or steel spacers, galvanized barbed and plain wire, and wire netting, some handmade, some machine-made. They also vary in their condition and probable age, the earliest perhaps dating from the 1880s, the latest from the 1950s or 1960s. They show evidence of having been frequently repaired, suggesting limited funds for replacement or simply thrifty behaviour. Their purpose

10.16. Conclusion The fences in the Saumarez Station work-buildings area vary greatly, from timber post and rail to concrete posts, 100

The fences was to restrict the movement of a range of livestock, from steers to pigs and sheep. However, the latter might not have been slaughtered here; although the primary purpose of Saumarez Station was the production of wool, the woolshed and associated activities were some distance away, across the other side of the Saumarez Creek and separate from the farm buildings studied here. The use of wire in the Saumarez fences, probably from the 1880s, shows that F.J. White was well aware of contemporary practices in Australian farming, and indeed more generally in Britain, America and elsewhere. However, the work buildings and structures described in this book eventually became obsolete or were considered irrelevant, valueless except for their heritage value. Consequently, they were donated to the National Trust of New South Wales in 1984 (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 7). This was an important recognition of their significance as a historical group of associated buildings, each specific to a particular purpose.

101

11 Jack Haynes’s Cottage Jack Haynes’s Cottage is situated near the southern edge of the group of farm buildings at Saumarez (Figure 1.20, Number 16). This cottage would have provided accommodation for one of the workers on the property, at times with his family. Indeed, it is known that Jack Haynes, after whom the building is named, was a longserving Saumarez employee. He worked for the Whites for more than 60 years, over 50 years at Saumarez. He lived in this cottage from 1892 with his wife and two children. For the last 30 years of his life he was responsible for all the work in the farm area at Saumarez, including breeding programmes for pigs and poultry, the training and grooming of riding horses and abattoir work (Philp and Oppenheimer 2002: 22). Therefore, changes in the structure of the building and its facilities indicate changes through time in the conditions in which he and his family lived, a valuable insight into the socio-economic situation of such an employee.

cultural change, social values and technological advances. The evolution of a structure can be traced until it reaches its final form. This enables it to be placed in its historical, technical and social context. The value of this work has been amply demonstrated (Davies 1987; Davies and Buckley 1987; Wood 1994). The cottage is a single-storey structure (Davies n.d. [1987]), consisting of three parts built at different times (Figures 11.1–11.5). Phase 1, the oldest part, is a fiveroom section, with a veranda on its northern elevation, covered by a gable roof and a rear skillion. Phase 2, to its south, is of three rooms, with a breezeway on its northern elevation, a veranda on its eastern elevation (the latter partly enclosed as a bathroom) and a hipped roof. The evidence for Phase 2 post-dating Phase 1 is a blocked window in the south wall of Phase 1, facing the breezeway of Phase 2. Phase 3, the latest part of the building, consists of a laundry with a gable roof, attached to the south-east corner of Phase 2 (Figure 11.2). The cottage partly overlies the site of the early homestead demolished in 1888 (Chapter 2) and is therefore later in

Historical archaeological analysis of such a domestic building can shed light on the people who designed, built, altered and occupied it. It can also provide information on

Figure 11.1. Jack Haynes’s Cottage Phase 1, view from north. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

103

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 11.2. Jack Haynes’s Cottage, laundry from south-east. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

Figure 11.3. Western elevation of Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Drawn by Beverly Brown, 1988.

date. Some of the materials used in the building were probably recycled from the homestead, particularly two French doors on the north side of Phase 1, a fireplace surround in Room 1 of Phase 1 (the north-eastern room of that phase) and some architraves and other timbers in Phase 1. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 have foundations of ‘Armidale Blue’ bricks, which were produced from the 1880s, and the laundry sits directly on the ground. There are three brick chimneys on the cottage, again of ‘Armidale Blues’, but their character is different in

each chimney and the bricks of two of the chimneys have different frogs. Mitchell and McDonald (1996: 36) consider the construction date for the cottage to be ‘before 1883’ and McDonald (1993: no page) considers it to be ‘between 1883 and 1906’, but they fail to mention the archaeological evidence that it could not have been constructed before the demolition of the old homestead building in 1888. Therefore, a date between 1888 and 1906 is probable, and its earliest known occupant was Bill Haynes in 1889 (Chapter 12). 104

Jack Haynes’s Cottage

Figure 11.4. Plan of Jack Haynes’s Cottage. West is to the top of the plan. Drawn by Michael Foster, 1988.

Figure 11.5. The structural phases of Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Drawn by Michael Foster, 1988.

Three of the four rooms of Phase 1 open into an internal hallway (Figure 11.4). The veranda on the northern side of Phase 1 has French doors opening into two rooms (Rooms 1 and 3), one of which was the original kitchen and the other a sitting room. Behind these two rooms are two

smaller rooms, separated by a hallway, which were most probably bedrooms. The hallway leads to a back entrance and there is evidence there of a brick step leading into the cottage. There is an outside dunny (Figure 11.8), and other facilities include a small cowshed with an attached storage 105

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales those of Phase 1 but reused. The roof of Phase 1 is crudely framed, but that of Phase 2 could not be examined. The cladding of the Phase 1 roof is corrugated ‘Lysaght “Orb” Galvanized Tinned’ iron; it is also used on the veranda of Phase 2. The roof of the laundry is clad with ‘Gospel Oak “GO” Galvanized Tinned Iron’, also corrugated. The floorboards of the cottage are circular-sawn and appear to be original, with the exception of part of the floor at the west end of the Phase 1 veranda. The Phase 2 floors are bare, but one of the rooms has perimeter staining that indicates that part of its floor was formerly covered, whereas the other room (the Phase 2 kitchen) lacks such staining and has traces of furniture and fittings on the timber, indicating that it was never covered. Linoleum is present in the four rooms of Phase 1 and stains on the floor of the hallway are evidence of two previous coverings. The remains of

shed (adjacent to which are two middens for ash, manure and compost), a chicken house (Chapter 8, Building 2) and the remains of an orchard, all in the vicinity of the cottage. There might also have been a vegetable garden, though no trace of such survives; clearly the cottage occupants tried to be as self-sufficient as possible. Room 1 of Phase 1 was the kitchen: it had an open fireplace, with an iron hook set into the chimney for hanging cooking pots and a kettle over the fire. The exterior walls of Phases 1 and 2 are clad in circular-sawn featheredged weatherboards (Figure 11.3), but those of Phase 1 differ slightly in measurement from those of Phase 2. The walls of Phase 3 (the laundry) are of corrugated galvanized iron, and those of the enclosed part of the eastern veranda of Phase 2 (the bathroom) are of similar weatherboards to

Figure 11.6. Silhouettes of furniture and fittings in the Phase 2 kitchen. Above, on the lower part of the eastern wall. Below, on the lower part of the western wall. Drawn by P.J. Dean-Jones, 1987.

106

Jack Haynes’s Cottage

Figure 11.7. Two of the locks on doors in Jack Hanes’ Cottage. Drawn by Martin Davies, n.d. [1987].

newspapers under the linoleum are dated to 1946 and the 1960s, and wear on the linoleum indicates heavy traffic in some areas. The interior walls of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are lined with tongue-and-groove boards, horizontally in each of the Phase 1 rooms except for the hallway, where they are vertical. The chronology of the cottage is indicated by the French doors into the two front rooms of Phase 1, which probably came from the old Saumarez homestead demolished in 1888. In addition, all the panes of glass in the windows and in the French doors of this phase are handmade, small, and have ripple and bubble imperfections, suggesting a date earlier than the cottage. The window catches are also significant; those in Phase 1 are brass thumb catches, which appear earlier than those in Phase 2, which are similar to those used on later sash windows. The doors in the cottage have been made in a variety of ways, some even trimmed top and bottom to fit smaller doorways— clear evidence of recycling. The locks on doors, made by H. & T. Vaughan of Willenhall, in Britain, also vary, and again are obviously recycled (Figure 11.7). It is therefore probable that Phase 1 of the cottage was constructed at the end of the nineteenth century, most likely in the 1890s, and because Phase 2 was added onto Phase 1, it could date from the early 1900s. Phase 3 clearly postdates both the two previous phases and could have been constructed from about 1920 to 1930 (Figure 11.5).

Figure 11.8. Dunny [privy] for Jack Haynes’s Cottage. With unidentified student. It appears that formerly this had a water closet and a ceramic waste pipe to a sullage pit, but when observed there was no surviving flushing mechanism; only a can was present. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

to form a bathroom. The bathroom has a cold-water tap over the bath and a higher tap over a gap at the end of the bath. It is likely that this is where a chip heater was located to heat the bathwater, because there is a hole in the ceiling where a metal chimney would have been. The western wall of the bathroom has external weatherboarding, which indicates that the bathroom was an addition and not part of the original Phase 2 structure. The kitchen of Phase 2 still has a Metters combustion stove built into its southern wall. A Metters stove of 1888 is illustrated by Murphy (Irving 1985: 237, 239), and apparently it could burn wood, readily available locally at Saumarez, unlike coal, which had to be brought on the railway at some expense. Staining on the kitchen ceiling and upper walls nearby suggests that the chimney serving this stove did not always draw well. More informative are the silhouettes of furniture and fittings on the lower walls of the kitchen, which show as cleaner areas on the stained walls. The former existence of a dresser, a sink with a tap, a wooden shelf, two cabinets, a rail and an electric stove is indicated (Figure 11.6).

The ceilings of Phases 1 and 2 are boarded, but those of the verandas are unlined, with the exception of the western end of the Phase 1 veranda, which has the remnants of a canvas ceiling. The laundry has no ceiling, so the roof framing and cladding are visible. Simple skirting boards and cornices are present in some rooms. Phase 2 of the cottage was built against the original rear wall of Phase 1. It is clear that Phase 2 is a later addition because the relevant parts of the brickwork of the foundations are abutted, so will have been laid at different times. Also, the roof of Phase 1 is slightly lower than that of Phase 2 and the two phases are joined by a breezeway that has an even lower roof. In addition, the rear window in Room 4 of Phase 1 has been boarded over, as already mentioned, probably when Phase 2 was added. Where the breezeway is attached to Phase 1, the timbers are starting to rot. Phase 2 made the kitchen of Phase 1 redundant by adding a new dining room and kitchen, as well as a second veranda. Part of this veranda was enclosed at a later date

Phase 3 consists of the added laundry, which is not as well constructed as the rest of the cottage. It adjoins the bathroom, and the bathroom window opens into the 107

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales laundry. In one corner of the laundry is a copper, in which the clothes would have been boiled. The copper is still surrounded by most of its supporting brickwork and there is a poorly built brick chimney over the top. Beneath the copper is a square brick-built hearth, with a small castiron door near its base. The laundry is built from sawn timber, with a corrugated galvanized iron exterior and no internal lining. It has windows in the three external walls. The structure is on wooden stumps, the rest of the cottage being on brick foundations.

Davies was an archaeologist who was one of the pioneers of archaeological structural analysis in Australia.

Water was supplied from two outside corrugated galvanized iron surface tanks, one piped to the kitchen, bathroom and laundry, the other apparently for the garden and other uses. The increasing size of the cottage also indicates improving living conditions. Cooking was now done with the slow combustion stove, not in an open fireplace. Technological change is also evident in the underfloor air vents of Phases 1 and 2. Those in the first phase are of cast iron, but the vents of the second phase are of terracotta, made by R. Fowler Ltd of Sydney. Even the bricks in the foundations indicate the latest quality. They consist of ‘Armidale Blues’, reported in 1884 as ‘of that dark colour which prevails … in Armidale’, and produced by Palmer’s Brickworks for the previous nine years (Gilbert 1982: 38). Most significant, however, is the provision of the bathroom and laundry; they were roughly built, but no longer did washing and laundry have to be done in the kitchen, as special facilities were now present. This made some attention to drainage necessary, although it was limited. Electricity was also eventually installed, probably in the late 1940s, replacing oil lamps, evidence of the existence of one surviving in Room 1 of Phase 1 in the form of a small hole drilled in the ceiling, probably for a suspended lamp fitting. 11.1. Conclusion Jack Haynes’s Cottage is a humble building of wood and corrugated iron, without any insulation. It would have been very cold in some of the New England winter weather, particularly at night, and extremely hot in the middle of summer, in spite of eventually two verandas and a breezeway. Its original facilities appear to have been minimal, although there were some improvements in convenience and comfort as time went on. The archaeological analysis of its structure is complicated by the apparently extensive reuse of material, probably from the old homestead, over part of the site of which the cottage lies. It is also likely that some of the recycling was from other sources on the property, other buildings indicating that the practice was common at Saumarez. Nevertheless, the cottage sheds important light on the living conditions of a workman and his family from the end of the nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century. Information from an unpublished report about the cottage for the National Trust of New South Wales, by the late Martin Davies (n.d. [1987]), has been included. Although undated, it appears to have been done on-site in 1987. 108

12 The garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage Adjacent to Jack Haynes’s Cottage (Chapter 11) are the remains of a garden, which throw light on the interests and recreational activities of Jack Haynes, or more probably those of a later occupant. Almost certainly of twentieth-century date, in some ways it is typical of a large Australian front garden, with its small orchard, poultry shed and collection of hardy plants. Where it differs from the norm is in the lavish use of stones and concrete to outline and elevate garden beds, as well as in the presence of a homemade concrete fountain of uncertain function (Figure 12.1). Behind the cottage on its western, eastern and southern sides are mature elm trees, Ulmus montana, distinguishable from Ulmus procera, the English elm, by its corky trunk (Claude Crowe, personal communication). There are many elm suckers growing up through the grass. The front of Phase 1 of the cottage faces north, where the fountain-type structure dominates the foreground. Near this is an elaborate construction of stones, concrete and piping. Also adjacent is a poultry house and four fruit trees, consisting of two apples and two other trees that are nectarines or peaches.

Within this larger yard there is an inner garden, on the edges of which is a Cotoneaster franchetti, three Cupressus sempervirens stricta, a broken line of bricks and concrete, a depression where edging has been and a large pine tree. In addition, on the northern side there are the remains of a chicken-wire fence, 7.9 metres long. There is a tree stump, flush with the ground, on this line. This rectangular inner garden is 10.95×18 metres. A rockery, built under the shade of the pine tree, takes up a little less than half the area. The stones in the latter have been arranged to gain maximum use of their surface areas. Periwinkle, solanum and smilax are rambling over the stones and chicken wire. An iron container, 16×47 centimetres, cemented onto supporting pipes, looks, from its elevated position, as if it might have been a fountain with water falling onto the stones below and along a narrow channel into a shallow pond. However, the supporting pipes do not feed into the container and there is no evidence that there was a water supply to it. It might have been used as a bird bath, a birdfeeding station or a planter for trailing plants.

Figure 12.1. The northern side of Jack Haynes’s Cottage, with the garden fountain in the foreground. Photograph by Graham Connah, August 1985.

109

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 12.2. Sketch-plan of inner garden. Drawn by P.J. Dean-Jones 1987; redrawn by Kwik Kopy Printing Centre, Phillip, Canberra.

The rockery beds are grouped around a shallow, round concrete pond, 200 centimetres deep by 1.4 metres diameter. Large stones and pieces of concrete are arranged halfway around the pond. The stones continue around another concrete slab, 1.4 metres across, that sounds hollow when tapped. It might be a covered well. The remains of two shrubs on the northern side of the pond and possible well were identified as lilac (Claude Crowe, personal communication). On the northern side of the possible well is an artefact made of two pieces of metal encasing a timber rod, attached to a concrete base with an extension on each side. The top of the rod has been cut at an angle so that it is 30 centimetres high. White undercoat and red paint are flaking off the artefact and there is red paint on a stone beside it. The stem of an English box, Buxus sempervirens (Claude Crowe, personal communication), stands beside the artefact that is nearly hidden by the overgrown grass. Some of these details do not appear in Figure 12.2.

20 centimetres high and has multiple holes in it, so there might have been a pipe for water up through the centre of the structure from a connection below ground. If so, no evidence of it was seen during the survey and, with no mains water supply, the only available water would have been from the nearby corrugated-iron tank on the eastern side of Phase 1 of the cottage. It is possible that when full, or nearly so, there could have been enough pressure for water to flow to the fountain through a flexible hose, though no evidence of such has survived. However, using this system, the fountain could have run for only a brief time and, without more evidence, it seems possible that it never functioned. It might have resulted from an imaginative but failed project. There is evidence of garden beds outside the 10.95×18-metre inner garden on the north side of Phase 1 of the cottage. The outlines of circular garden beds edged with stones can be seen around two of the elms on the eastern side of the cottage (Figure 12.4). There is also a rectangular bed, roughly 2×5.4 metres, consisting of a slight mounding of earth, with large stones embedded in the ground at its northern and southern ends, on the eastern side of the cottage. To the north-west of the front yard is a smaller, narrower bed, 61 centimetres by 5.5 metres. Some of its edging remains, a mixture of concrete, timber and brick. There is also chicken wire under part of the surface.

The fountain (Figure 12.3), in pride of place in front of the veranda, is ringed by two concentric circles of stones. The outer circle is composed of large lichen-covered stones, and the inner circle of smaller stones. Nepeta is spreading from the confines of the inner circle and there are clumps of Muscari in the outer. The fountain consists of a square-sectioned concrete pillar of 24×24 centimetres that is 1.2 metres high. The brass attachment at its top is 110

The garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage

Figure 12.3. The fountain in the inner garden. Drawn by K.A. Murray, 1988; revised by Graham Connah.

A third of the veranda on the north side of Phase 1 of the cottage has been enclosed with windows and weatherboarding. Chicken wire has been attached to the lower half of both the open and enclosed sections of the veranda. The chicken wire is 1.6 metres high and 3.35 metres long. A piece of galvanized iron protrudes from just below the surface of the soil near the end of the cottage. There is a slightly raised strip of earth, 39 centimetres wide, between the house and the soil-covered iron, wide enough for a bed of climbing plants that could have been supported by the chicken wire.

planted for a cottage-garden effect or for carpet bedding, but no evidence of them survives. It is only more recently that Australian native plants have been considered for home gardens (Tanner 1976: 45–48; Walling 1985), and there is no indication that they were used in this garden.

The plants that survive in the garden are all hardy introduced species. Annuals or biennials might have been

Cotoneaster franchetti Hardy, fast growing, suitable for most soils and climates, dislikes very moist, shady

12.1. Plants identified in the garden Buxus sempervirens English box, 2–10 metres high, evergreen, slow-growing plant used in the clipped hedges of formal gardens (Swane 1983: 25).

111

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 12.4. Garden bed edged with stones, around an elm tree on the eastern side of Jack Haynes’s Cottage. Photograph by Graham Connah, July 1986.

positions. Grows to 2 metres, suitable for hedging (Readers Digest 1967: 168; Swane 1983: 35).

Ulmus montana Large, handsome and long-lived shade trees, requiring deep, fertile, moist but well-drained soils. Cold climate trees (Readers Digest 1967: 140).

Cupressus sempervirens stricta Italian or Mediterranean cypress, ornamental purposes and windbreak, characteristic upright shape. Long-lived, fairly frost-resistant, droughthardy (Readers Digest 1967:154).

Vinca Periwinkle, trailing perennial, dry situations in shade or sun (Claude Crowe, personal communication).

Smilax Hardy creeper, grown from tuber (Claude Crowe, personal communication).

The garden is limited by space, reflecting the status of the occupants of the cottage, and it was clearly an amateur’s hobby, not the work of a professional gardener. Economics appear to have been a limiting factor, so that the rockery used materials that were available, such as stones, concrete and bricks. Nevertheless, the construction of the fountain would have required the making of concrete, as well as both time and effort. The weight of some of the materials suggests that it was the work of a man, but this need not necessarily have been the case. It is not known who made the garden or when, but Mitchell and McDonald (1996: 45) provide the following list of those who lived in the cottage, any of whom might have created the garden, although it seems to have been maintained until the end of the occupation of the cottage and could have originated late in that occupation.

Solanum Potato vine, hardy (Readers Digest 1967: 213).

1889—Bill Haynes

Muscari Grape hyacinth, will grow in almost any situation and any soil. Used in rock gardens, under shrubs and trees. Spring-flowering bulb (Readers Digest 1967: 324). Nepeta mussinii Catmint, variety common in gardens for over a hundred years. Useful border plant, loose, freedraining soils, resistant to dry conditions (Harrison 1953: 140). Pinus ssp. A large group of softwood trees that thrive in varying climates and on poor soils. Most need good drainage (Readers Digest 1967: 1550).

1890—Charles Bredemach and wife

Syringa Lilac, 2–3 metres, fertile, well-drained soil, sun and good air circulation, cool, temperate districts (Readers Digest 1967: 183).

1891—George Griffiths and wife 1891—Pat O’Hea 112

The garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage 1892—Jack Haynes and family 1944—Harold Stark and family 194?—Tarrant and family 194?—Alan Bourke and family 1948—Ken Ferris and family 1950—Aubrey Betts and family 12.2. Conclusion In addition to being in the tradition of the front garden, the inner garden could qualify as a small Antipodean ‘folly’, an extravagant structure such as the ruined castles or Greek temples usually seen on large estates owned by the wealthy in Britain and other countries. In the case of the inner garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage, it is a humble example of an Australian fascination with concrete gnomes, bush animals, ornamental windmills and so on. Dennis Pryor (1978) described such things as examples of ‘indomitable eccentricity’, a phrase that could be used to describe at least the inner garden at Jack Haynes’s Cottage. The overall evidence indicates that this garden, and particularly the rockery, was labour-intensive and that many hours of work were expended, signifying the importance of the garden to its creator, who was able to produce a highly individualistic landscape. Sadly, the centrepiece of the landscape—the fountain—might never have worked, or might have done so only in a limited fashion. Nevertheless, while still cared for, the garden must have given pleasure to the person who made it.

113

13 Comparisons and conclusion The buildings at Saumarez can be compared with other rural structures in the region of New England. Two additional groups of buildings that were analysed by archaeology students from the University of New England during 1988, 1989, 1992 and 1993 were at Abington, on the western slopes of the tableland near Bundarra, and at Newholme, a little to the north of Armidale. They showed similarities to the Saumarez buildings but some of their details differed, for reasons of chronological and environmental significance. Abington was the larger of the two, and the more successful and better known. Its ownership passed through more hands than Saumarez. One of the later owners, Thomas Richmond Forster, played an important part in the creation of the New England University College in 1938 (as part of the University of Sydney), which was later to become the University of New England, even purchasing Booloominbah as its first building, for a sum thought to have been about £6000.

1982: 5) and its clearance was to take many years. It was first occupied in 1836, by John Cameron from Stirling in Scotland, who called it ‘Lochiel’. However, the name was changed in 1841, when it was sold to Alexander Barlow, who called it ‘Abington’, after the village near Cambridge where he had been born. The following collection of photographs show work buildings and some domestic ones, and several things are apparent. First, the work buildings are built of heavier timbers than those at Saumarez, wooden slabs do not appear to have been recycled at Abington (Figures 13.1–3 and 13.5–8) and, in places, heavy timbers have been employed in other ways (Figures 13.1 and 13.3–5). In contrast, two of the three domestic structures at Abington (Figures 13.9, 13.10 and 13.11) are built of lighter materials, more comparable to those used in the Armidale buildings. The reasons for this might be both chronological and environmental. It is recorded, for example, that the granary (Figures 13.1, 13.7 and 13.8) was built in 1863 by Edward Carter and that: ‘it is possible that he was responsible for some of the other buildings too’ (Harris 1982: 20). This is earlier than White’s period of buildings at Saumarez

13.1. Abington (photographs by Graham Connah) The environment of this station is now mostly cleared land, but in 1839 it was described as ‘lightly wooded’ (Harris

Figure 13.1. The granary at Abington, recorded as built in 1863, March 1993.

115

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 13.2. The stables at Abington, March 1993.

Figure 13.3. The south end of the Abington woolshed, March 1993.

116

Comparisons and conclusion

Figure 13.4. The old dip from the drying shed end at Abington, March 1993.

Figure 13.5. The woolshed loading ramp at Abington, April 1993.

117

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 13.6. A slab wall in the Abington woolshed, April 1993.

Figure 13.7. Measuring slabs inside the granary at Abington, April 1993.

118

Comparisons and conclusion

Figure 13.8. A pegged mortice brace inside the granary at Abington, April 1993. Scale in centimetres.

Figure 13.9. The shearers’ quarters at Abington, April 1993.

119

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 13.10. Oak Cottage at Abington, March 1993.

Figure 13.11. Cottage/Old Store at Abington, March 1993.

120

Comparisons and conclusion and, although there is little firm evidence of the Abington environment in the early 1860s, it could still have had more trees than Saumarez had in the 1880s. Information on other buildings at Abington is less useful, the only relevant changes being that the woolshed was extended during the 1902 drought, taking several years to complete the work, and the shearers’ quarters was renovated (Figure 13.9) (Harris 1982: 67, 68). It is possible that further work had been done on the woolshed, and a covered dip (Figure 13.4) had replaced a smaller one by about 1908 (Harris 1982: 77, 78). Domestic buildings also received attention from time to time, with the homestead, for example, being altered and extended in 1911 (Harris 1982: 171).

as indicating that the oldest vernacular buildings at Newholme date from 1863 (Ferry 1991). The house at Millstead was probably built between 1870 and 1873 and still stands today. It consists of hardwood studs and braces clad in featheredged beaded weatherboards. Further work was done on it later, most likely in 1893 (Ferry 1891). In 1904, Newholme was sold to Albert F. Warner and his brother William Hunter Warner, who were to be the longest resident family there, the latter being the last private owner of the property. His son, Roy Bray Hunter Warner, inherited Newholme and his widow sold it to the University of New England in 1973. It is the location of a number of historical structures illustrated here.

13.2. Newholme (photographs by Graham Connah)

As at Abington, heavier timbers were sometimes used here (Figure 13.12), suggesting their availability (Figure 13.13), but corrugated galvanized iron was also used, indicating a range of construction dates (Figure 13.14). Timber slabs were also recycled (Figure 13.15). The woolshed is clad in corrugated galvanized iron and was a former pavilion at the Armidale Showground (Figure 13.16). It was purchased by William Hunter Warner and removed to Newholme in 1909. In April 1989, its internal timbers still had the markings that had enabled its reassembly. The brand on the iron (Figure 13.17) seems to have been discontinued during World War I. A photograph of the interior of the woolshed shows machine-sawn wood but, in the right foreground, is a heavy timber upright with what appear to be two mortice or bolt holes (Figure 13.18). The workers’ accommodation at Newholme was probably also the

Mount Duval lies 18 kilometres north of Armidale. Encompassing the mountain and extending across the land south of it is Newholme, a research station of the University of New England, covering some 1680 hectares and including Mount Duval, mostly 1100 metres above sea level, with Mount Duval rising to 1400 metres. The station is located about 10 kilometres north of Armidale. The first European settlers came to this area in the mid1830s as squatters, and it subsequently had a complex history of land occupation, including owners, selectors, gold miners and others. A survey plan and a surveyor’s report of 1863 indicate no buildings on the land selected by George Mills, which he called ‘Millstead’, but by 1865 there were buildings and a fence. This has been interpreted

Figure 13.12. The back of the granary at Newholme, September 1988.

121

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 13.13. View south at Newholme from the woolshed, showing the tree cover, April 1989.

Figure 13.14. The back of the chaff shed at Newholme, September 1988.

122

Comparisons and conclusion

Figure 13.15. Recycled slabs in a building at Newholme, April 1989.

Figure 13.16. The woolshed at Newholme from its west end, a recycled building, April 1989.

123

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales archaeological evidence that was not investigated because of lack of time. However, the remains of a sawmill was recorded, probably one of a number that formerly existed to exploit the timber of an area so close to Armidale where it was in much demand (Figure 13.22). The sawmill site consisted of a jumble of fallen timbers that were difficult to interpret. At this site was also a disintegrating morticed post-and-rail wooden fence (Figure 13.23). Nearby were the sites of two houses, a small one, of which little evidence remained (Figure 13.24), and a larger one, with more evidence (Figure 13.25).

shearers’ quarters (Figure 13.19). It appears to have been of sawn weatherboards, with a corrugated galvanized iron roof. The house is constructed of similar materials, and was built in three phases to suit changing requirements (Figure 13.20). Nevertheless, a surviving dunny would have provided limited comfort, although attempting to accommodate both an adult and a child, possibly at the same time (Figure 13.21). In addition to the main buildings at Newholme, there is an extensive scatter of other

This collection of photographs does provide some relevant information. As documentary records suggest, the earliest building occurred at Newholme about 20 years before White’s work at Saumarez. Use of timber slabs makes this probable because of the amount of timber in the environment of the Newholme area. However, the proximity of Armidale created a demand for sawn timber and numerous sawmills operated in the area, so that wooden framework and weatherboarding could have been early at Newholme. Corrugated galvanized iron was used on later buildings there, amongst which was a pavilion removed from the Armidale Showground and reassembled at Newholme as its woolshed. The house was altered several times.

Figure 13.17. Corrugated iron brand on the woolshed at Newholme, April 1989.

Figure 13.18. Inside the Newholme woolshed, stands and chutes, with a heavy timber to the right, April 1989.

124

Comparisons and conclusion

Figure 13.19. Workers’ accommodation at Newholme, probably also used as shearers’ quarters, September 1988.

Figure 13.20. The back of the house at Newholme, showing three construction phases, September 1988.

125

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales 13.3. Conclusion The farm buildings at Saumarez, Abington and Newholme are important sources of information about such structures dating to the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. In particular, they are examples of farm buildings during the period in a small area of northern New South Wales. They were built by craftsmen with traditional skills, carpenters and builders with varied experience. Their work reflected their origin, usually Britain, where many of the ways that they built had been practised for many centuries (Brunskill 1989). For example, wall-framing, roof trusses and joints followed British tradition and slabs had sometimes been used, albeit with vertical grooves and known as ‘staves’ (Alcock et al. 1996). Indeed, the tradition of timber building also has a long history in parts of northern Europe, such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and some German states (Nilsen 2021). In addition, wooden houses are present in many forms in large parts of Asia, in Central and South-eastern Europe and in Northwest America. Construction methods used in Australia were also present in Europe, such as the morticeand-tenon joint, first recorded in the 1200s at a Swedish site (Nilsen 2021: 87), and the half-dovetail joint (Nilsen 2021: 126–27). Similarly, nails were used sparingly, if at all. The purposes for which the Australian buildings were constructed mainly reflected British experience: there were stables, granaries, barns, piggeries, workers’ cottages, owner’s or manager’s houses and various other structures. However, there was also that iconic Australian

Figure 13.21. Inside of a dunny at Newholme, for adult and child, September 1988. Scale in centimetres.

Figure 13.22. The sawmill site at Newholme, with University of New England archaeology students, October 1992.

126

Comparisons and conclusion

Figure 13.23. Fence at the sawmill site, Newholme, October 1992.

Figure 13.24. Small house site at the sawmill site, Newholme, with Sue Pearson, October 1992.

127

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

Figure 13.25. Large house site at the sawmill site, Newholme, with unidentified student, October 1992.

(and New Zealand) invention, the woolshed, often with its accompanying shearers’ quarters. In each case, a building would be built to meet a particular need, although its subsequent use could change through time as the character of farming changed.

Improvements in communications helped to bring about the changes that occurred, particularly the development of the New South Wales railway system, which made the supply of materials easier and cheaper. Finally, the farm buildings at these three locations demonstrate the resourcefulness and adaptability of European settlers (or their descendants), who had come from the other side of the world and were determined to succeed, or at least survive, in what they regarded as a new world.

During the nineteenth century, Australian structures relied on the use of split slabs to a large extent because Australian hardwoods were so difficult to saw with the limited technology often available. Slab building was a wasteful use of a valuable resource and ultimately destructive of the environment, but most nineteenth-century European settlers did not realize this and they needed buildings as soon as possible. In the circumstances, they did well. However, as power sawing came into increasing use, more sawn framework and weatherboarding became common for buildings. Corrugated galvanized iron also became important as a wall-cladding material, and was used to replace the ageing wooden roof shingles of older buildings. In addition, there was a revolution in fencing when iron wire, imported from British manufacturers, replaced the rails in wooden post-and-rail fences. It was also found possible to increase the distance between the wooden posts using wire, as an economy of effort and cost. The latter consideration was the reason for not adopting, until later times, the iron posts used in Britain: they were just too expensive for Australian farmers. Nevertheless, barbed wire, an American invention, was adopted late in the nineteenth century as its advantages were realized. 128

References Alcock, N.W., Barley, M.W., Dixon, P.W. and Meeson, R.A. 1996. Recording timber-framed buildings: An illustrated glossary. Council for British Archaeology. Practical handbooks in archaeology No 5 (Revised edition), York.

Claude Crowe. Personal communication. Berrima Bridge Nurseries, Berrima, N.S.W. Connah, G. 1977. Wool, water and settlement: The archaeological landscape of Saumarez Station. Armidale and District Historical Society Journal 20: 117–27.

Anon. 1988. Saumarez Homestead, Armidale, N.S.W.: Celebrating 100 years. Armidale, N.S.W. 2350, The New England Regional Centre, National Trust of Australia (NSW).

Connah, G. 1993. The archaeology of Australia’s history. Paperback edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Aplin, G., Foster, S.G. and McKernan, M. 1987. Australians: Events and places. Fairfax, Syme & Weldon Associates, Broadway [Sydney].

Connah, G. 2007. The same under a different sky? A country estate in nineteenth-century New South Wales. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1625.

Atkinson, J. 1826. An account of the state of agriculture and grazing in New South Wales. Cross, London. Cited by Kerr 1984.

Connah, G. 2016. African Civilizations (Third Edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bailey, J. 1980. The village blacksmith. Shire Publications, Aylesbury.

Connah, G. 2019. Vestiges of the past: Excavating Saumarez Old Homestead. Incorporating analyses by Sue Pearson and Samantha McKay. Connah, Canberra.

Barnwell, P.S. and Giles, C. 1997. English farmsteads, 1750–1914. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, National Monuments Record Centre, Swindon.

Cox, P., Freeland, J. and Stacey, W. 1980. Rude timber buildings in Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Davies, M. 1987. The archaeology of standing structures. Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology 5: 54–64.

Bell, P. 1984. Timber and iron. Houses in North Queensland mining settlements 1861–1920. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Davies, M. n.d. [1987]. Unpublished report to the National Trust of New South Wales, about Jack Haynes’ Cottage. Copy with Graham Connah.

Betts, B. Personal communication 29.9.87. Betts, B. 1988. Personal communication.

Davies, M. and Buckley, K. 1987. Archaeological procedures manual: Port Arthur Conservation and Development Project. Occasional paper No.13, Department of Lands, Parks and Wildlife, Hobart.

Birmingham, J., Jack, I. and Jeans, D. 1979. Australian pioneer technology: Sites and relics … towards an industrial archaeology of Australia. Heinemann, Richmond, Victoria.

Dickinson, H.W. 1943. A study of galvanised and corrugated sheet metal. Transactions of the Newcomen Society 24: 27–36.

Birmingham, J., Jack, I. and Jeans, D. 1983. Industrial archaeology in Australia: Rural industry. Heinemann, Richmond, Victoria.

Evans, I. 1985 (paperback). The Australian home. Flannel Flower Press, Glebe, NSW.

Boag, J.W. 1898. The dairying industry. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales IX (5): 517–23.

Evans, I. 1986. Restoring old houses: A guide to authentic restoration. McMillan, South Melbourne.

Brown, E. 1915. Poultry husbandry. Edward Arnold, London.

Evans, I. 1988. Caring for old houses. Flannel Flower Press, Glebe, NSW.

Brunskill, R.W. 1989. Traditional buildings of Britain: An introduction to vernacular architecture. Victor Gollancz, London.

Evans, I., Lucas, C. and Stapleton, I. 1985. Colour schemes for old Australian houses. Flannel Flower Press, Glebe, NSW.

Cannon, A. 1992. Woolsheds and catastrophe theory: The Lower Lachlan Experiment. Australasian Historical Archaeology 10: 65–74.

Ferry, J. 1991. In the shadow of Duval: The Newholme story. Armidale and District Historical Society Journal 34: 47–60. 129

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales Fraser, H. and Joyce, R. 1986. The Federation House: Australia’s own style. Lansdown Press, Sydney.

McArdle, A.A. 1961. Poultry management and production. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Freeland, J.M. 1981. Architecture in Australia. Penguin, Ringwood, Victoria.

McDonald, B. 1993. Saumarez Homestead farm buildings. Unpublished studies prepared for the Saumarez Homestead Advisory Committee, National Trust of Australia (NSW). No pagination.

Gardner, W. c.1854 [also cited as c.1842–1858]. Production and resources of the northern and western districts of New South Wales. New South Wales State Library. Unpublished.https://collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/ digital/a3a3Z8zVAxVa2

McEwan, J. 1987. A facsimile printing of James McEwan and Co’s Illustrated Catalogue of Furnishing & General Ironmongery: Victorian Ironmongery in Australia. Hale & Ironmonger Pty. Ltd., Sydney.

Gemmell, W. 1986. And so we graft from six to six: The brickmakers of New South Wales. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

McKay, S. 2000. Demolition at Saumarez: A study of demolition as site formation process at Saumarez, near Armidale, N.S.W. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours). School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Faculty of Arts, The Australian National University. Unpublished.

Gilbert, L (compiled) 1982. An Armidale Album: Glimpses of Armidale’s history and development in word, sketch and photograph. New England Regional Art Museum Association, Armidale. Gray, N. 1982. Saumarez Station Records. Some light on the establishment of stock stations in New England. Armidale and District Historical Society Journal 25: 87–94.

Mahon, J. 1897. A model cow-shed. Queensland Agricultural Journal I: 437–8. Mitchell, B. and McDonald, B. 1996. Working Saumarez: People and places on a sheep and cattle station. Saumarez Advisory Committee of the National Trust of Australia (New South Wales).

Harris, A. 1982. Abbington. A history of a station and its people. University of New England, Armidale. Harrison, R.E. 1953. Handbook of bulbs and perennials for the Southern Hemisphere. Keeling and Mundy Limited, Palmerston North.

Murphy, P. 1981. The decorated wall: Eighty years of wallpaper in Australia, c.1850–1930. Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.

Hartley, D. 1939. (Fourth Edition 1974). Made in England. Eyre Methuen, London.

New South Wales Police Gazette 1874. Nilsen, A. 2021. Vernacular buildings and urban social practice: Wood and people in early modern Swedish society. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Hornburg, L. Personal communication 3.10.87. Hyett, J. 2002. Variation on a theme: The archaeology of an Australian blacksmith’s shop. Australasian Historical Archaeology 20: 92–5.

O’Callaghan, M.A. 1901. Dairying in New England. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales XI (5): 372–4.

Irving, R. (compiled) 1985. The history & design of the Australian house. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Patrick. Personal communication 10.10.87. Pearson, S. n.d. Unpublished records of the Saumarez Old Homestead excavation. Copies with Graham Connah.

Jeans, D.N. 1972. An historical geography of New South Wales to 1901. Reed Education, Sydney.

Philp, A. 1984, Town and country: An individual participation in the development of Armidale, N.S.W. 1880–1910. An essay in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Pass). Department of History, University of Sydney.

Kains, M.G. 1910. Profitable poultry production. Orange Judd Company, New York. Kelly’s Directory of Birmingham Birmingham Publishers.

1920.

Kelly’s

Kerr, J.S. 1984. Fencing. A brief account of the development of fencing in Australia during the nineteenth century. Australian Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 14(1): 9–16.

Philp, A. 1986. The development of Saumarez Homestead. An interpretation. Armidale and District Historical Society Journal 29: 1–12.

Kingston, D. 1985. Early slab buildings of the Sydney region. Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst.

Philp, A. 1987. Family life at Saumarez, Armidale, in 1868: Excerpts from a housewife’ diary. Armidale and District Historical Society Journal 30: 15–30.

Light, J.D. 1984. The archeological investigation of blacksmith shops. Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology 10(1): 55–68.

Philp, A. and Oppenheimer, J. 1986. Saumarez Homestead. An outline history and guide. The National Trust of Australia (NSW).

Lewandowski, S. n.d. Farmer’s and Housekeeper’s Cyclopaedia 1888: A complete reference library: Updated for modern times. Elaine and John Gill, U.S.A.

Philp, A. and Oppenheimer, J. 2002. Saumarez Homestead. An outline history and guide. The National Trust of

130

References Australia (NSW). A new edition with amendments and additions prepared by Bruce Mitchell.

Wood, J. (ed.) 1994, Buildings archaeology: Applications in practice. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Pickard, J. 2010. Wire fences in colonial Australia: Technology transfer and adaptation, 1842–1900. Rural History Economy, Society, Culture 21(1): 27– 58. Cambridge University Press. Available on-line, accessed 22 February 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0956793309990136

Young, G. 1985. Early German settlements in South Australia. The Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology 3: 43–55.

Pryor, D. 1978. Disneyland down under. In Belot, J. (ed.). Our glorious home. Sun Books, South Melbourne. Reader’s Digest, 1967. Complete book of the garden. Reader’s Digest Association, Pty. Limited, East Sydney. Roxburgh, R. and Baglin, D. 1978. Colonial farm buildings of New South Wales. Rigby, Adelaide. Simpson, M. and P. 1988. Old farm machinery in Australia: A fieldguide & sourcebook. Kenthurst, Kangaroo Press. Springhall, J.A. 1964. Elements of horseshoeing. University of Queensland Press. Stapleton, I. 1985. How to restore the old Aussie house. John Fairfax and Sons Ltd., Sydney. Stevenson, A, and Waite, M. 2011. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Swane, V. 1983. Australian gardener’s illustrated catalogue. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Tanner, H. 1976. The great gardens of Australia. Macmillan, South Melbourne. Taylor, V. (ed) 2010. Faces on the farm: A rural photographic retrospective. National Trust of Australia (NSW). The Director of Agriculture 1893. How to increase the percentage of butter fat in milk. Agricultural Gazette of N.S.W. 4(4): 275–9. The manual of horsemanship of the British Horse Society 1966. National Equestrian Centre, Warwickshire. University of New England Archives. Saumarez Station Records: Ledger 1883–1893, Reference No A149, V121. University of New England Archives. Saumarez Station Records: Ledger 1894–1899, Reference No A149, V122 University of New England Archives. Saumarez Station Records: Miscellaneous Papers from Mr Purser of Guyra, A149, V1345/18. [1903]. Waite, R.H. 1929. Poultry science and practice. McGrawHill, New York. Walker, M. 1978. Pioneer crafts in early Australia. Melbourne, McMillan. Walling, E. 1985. A gardener’s log. Anne O’Donovan Pty. Limited, Hawthorne. 131

210mm WIDTH

‘An important contribution to documentation of Australian rural building heritage and socio-economic history.’ Professor Penelope Allison, University of Leicester

This book is an analysis of nineteenth and early twentieth-century farm buildings dating from Australia’s rural pioneering period. Based on field recording during the 1980s, its historical value is now particularly significant because similar buildings in Australia have since often deteriorated or vanished completely. Construction techniques, the use of materials, mainly timber as slabs or weather boarding, and of galvanized corrugated iron, including the role of recycling, and the ways in which the buildings were adapted to economic and social changes in agricultural production are examined. In particular, the distinctive Australian tradition of making do with whatever was available is considered. The result is a study of humble, utilitarian buildings that have been given less attention than grand houses of the past or public buildings. Nevertheless, they played a vital role in Australia’s past development, and they deserve close consideration.

Printed in England

210 x 297mm_BAR Connah CPI 9.6mm ARTWORK.indd 2-3

B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 6 7

297mm HIGH

Graham Connah has written widely on African archaeology, his best-known book being African Civilizations, now in its third edition (2015). He was also one of the pioneers of Australian historical archaeology, publishing The Archaeology of Australia’s History in 1988. In 2000 he was awarded the Order of Australia for his contributions to archaeology.

BAR  S3067  2021   CONNAH   The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales

BAR INTERNATIONA L SE RIE S 3067

210mm WIDTH

9.6mm

2021

The Archaeology and Architecture of Farm Buildings at Saumarez Station, Armidale, New South Wales GRAHAM CONNAH

18/01/2022 12:57