---

🦘 Who Carved Manly’s Stone Kangaroo?

A 1916 Account Raises a Quiet Historical Question

The recent vandalism of Manly’s iconic stone Kangaroo — its head knocked off in a senseless act — has prompted many of us to reflect on what this monument represents.

While revisiting some early material I found several years ago during deep research through Trove, I came across something that has stayed with me.

A discrepancy.

And it raises a simple but intriguing question:

Who actually carved the Kangaroo?

---

The Current Attribution

Heritage records today attribute the carving of the stone Kangaroo to a stonemason named Pickering. It is generally accepted that the monument was erected in 1857 at the direction of Henry Gilbert Smith, as part of his vision to draw visitors to the newly developing Manly.

That story has been repeated for decades.

But an earlier source records something slightly different.

---

The 1916 “Sixty Years in Manly” Article

In The Sun (Sydney), Sunday 29 October 1916, page 2, an article titled “Sixty Years in Manly” documents the recollections of Mr. E. Badmington, who arrived in Manly in 1856 — the year before the Kangaroo was erected.

Under the heading “THE KANGAROO,” the article states:

“The huge ill-shapen stone Kangaroo still stands on the hill. It was put up in 1857… A contracting mason named Youler erected the effigy at the order of Mr. Henry Gilbert Smith.”

Not Pickering.

Youler.

This account was written only 59 years after the monument’s erection, based on the recollections of someone who was living in Manly at the time.

That makes it a source worth pausing over.

---

What Might This Mean?

Several possibilities arise:

• Was Youler the contracting mason, with Pickering the sculptor?

• Was Youler an apprentice working under Pickering?

• Is “Youler” a spelling variation or transcription error?

• Did later records rely on different archival material?

• Could both names be historically accurate in different capacities?

This isn’t about overturning established history.

It’s about recognising that history is layered — and sometimes primary sources add nuance.

---

Why This Matters Now

The stone Kangaroo was erected as an early tourism device — to entice visitors to climb the hill and admire the Pacific view. It was marketing, symbolism and civic pride in one gesture.

Now, in the wake of vandalism, as the monument is physically damaged, perhaps it’s also an appropriate moment to revisit its origins.

Restoration is not only structural.

It can also be historical.

---

An Invitation

Has anyone encountered archival documentation clarifying the role of Youler?

Is there evidence linking Pickering definitively to the carving itself?

Are there contracts, rate books, or builder records that shed light on the distinction between contractor and sculptor?

If you have insights, documents, or family history connected to early Manly stonemasons, I would genuinely welcome the discussion.

History grows stronger when examined carefully.

---

Lost Manly has always been about uncovering, preserving and questioning the stories that shape our peninsula.

The Kangaroo still stands — wounded for now — but still standing.

Perhaps its authorship deserves the same careful attention as its repair.

---