appendix 2: aboriginal archaeological survey report

CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (STAGE 3) REPORT – OLD WALLGROVE RD, EASTERN CREEK, NSW

Archaeological & Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd September 2012

APPENDIX 2: ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

The eastern part of the study area, looking west.

Final Report

April 2012

ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT:

OLD WALLGROVE ROAD UPGRADE

(ROBERTS ROAD - M7 MOTORWAY),EASTERN CREEK, SYDNEY

FOR

AURECON AUSTRALIA

ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT – OLD WALLGROVE ROAD, EASTERN CREEK, NSW

2ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD April 2012



CONTENTS

1. Introduction .......................................................................................12

1.1 Purpose of the Archaeological Investigation ............................................ 12

1.2 Study Area.................................................................................... 13

1.3 The Project................................................................................... 13

1.4 Assessment Aims and Objectives.......................................................... 14

1.5 Limitations ................................................................................... 18

1.6 Investigator and Contributors ............................................................. 18

2. Statutory Context ................................................................................19

2.1 Commonwealth legislation................................................................. 19

2.2 NSW State Legislation ...................................................................... 20

3. Aboriginal Community Consultation ..........................................................23

4. Landscape Context...............................................................................24

4.1 Background................................................................................... 24

4.2 Geology and Soils............................................................................ 24

4.3 Vegetation.................................................................................... 25

4.4 Water ......................................................................................... 25

4.5 Land-Use History ............................................................................ 27

5. Ethnographic Information ......................................................................28

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 28

5.2 Traditional Aboriginal people of the area ............................................... 28

5.3 Subsistence................................................................................... 29

5.4 Plant Management .......................................................................... 32

5.5 Shelters ....................................................................................... 33

5.6 Weapons and Equipment ................................................................... 34

5.7 Stone .......................................................................................... 34

5.8 Contact History .............................................................................. 35

6. Archaeological Context .........................................................................37

6.1 General ....................................................................................... 37

6.2 Regional Context ............................................................................ 37

6.3 Local Archaeological Context.............................................................. 40

6.4 AHIMS Results ................................................................................ 46

7. Site Inspection ....................................................................................55

8. Regional Character...............................................................................62

8.1 Archaeology .................................................................................. 62



8.2 Existing Disturbance ........................................................................ 63

9. Conclusions and Impacts ........................................................................65

9.1 The Archaeological Resource .............................................................. 65

9.2 Impacts ....................................................................................... 65

10. Management Measures ..........................................................................67

References ..............................................................................................70

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: A general location map showing the location of Old Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek, NSW

(red) in the context of the wider Western Sydney Employment Area (purple) (MP_06_0166) (source: National Environmental Consulting Services Pty Ltd, 2008).............................15

Figure 2: A map showing the proposed upgrade of Old Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek, NSW (yellow) and the maximum extent of the field investigation (red). .........................................16

Figure 3. Plan of the proposed upgrade of Old Wallgrove Road, as amended following completion of the investigations for the present assessment........................................................17

Figure 4. Topographic map showing the lagoons and watercourses in proximity to the study area (in black). The study area crosses parts of Reedy Creek and Eskdale Creek. Note that these have been altered somewhat by development (source: Land and Property Management Authority, Topoview)......................................................................................26

Figure 5. Joseph Lycett c.1817 ‘Aborigines Hunting Waterbirds” (Lycett 1830). ..........................30 Figure 6. Joseph Lycett c.1817 “Aborigines climbing a tree, with two Aborigines sitting beside a fire,

others spearing birds” (Lycett, J. 1830)...............................................................31 Figure 7. Joseph Lycett c.1817 ‘Aborigines using fire to hunt kangaroo’ (Lycett, J. 1830)..............32 Figure 8. Joseph Lycett c. 1820 A family of Aborigines taking shelter during a storm (Lycett 1830). .33 Figure 9. A map showing the locations of previous assessments in the vicinity of Old Wallgrove Road.

Each of these areas is discussed in detail in the main text. Note: the Wonderland Theme Park (Surplus Land) is also Part of SEPP 59 land and ‘Link Road’ near Quarry Road is not the same Link Road within the study area. ................................................................41

Figure 10. A map of registered AHIMS sites within one kilometre of the study area. AHIMS sites underlined are discussed in text. .......................................................................53

Figure 11. Two Aboriginal sites previously identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants in the vicinity of the subject site (generally indicated by a black line) that are not registered with AHIMS. AHIMS site # 45-5-0439 is located within the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2008) as an artefact scatter. This registered AHIMS site is not the recommended Conservation Area (PAD) itself. ............................54

Figure 12. The western end of the study area, looking east. Note the wide shoulders in the foreground and the transmission line. .................................................................57

Figure 13. The northern edge of the study area, looking east. This photograph show sub-surface optic fibres services running through this grass verge. Note the re-location of the fence-lines to closer resemble the study area (as shown in Figure 2). .........................................57

Figure 14. The centre of the study area, looking west..................................................58 Figure 15. The centre of the study area, looking east. In this area, recent industrial construction

and breakdown lanes has completely removed any natural land surface. ......................58 Figure 16. The southern part of the study area on Wallgrove Road, looking south. This area has



extensive undulations, indicating disturbance most likely from the construction of the nearby M7 Motorway. .....................................................................................59

Figure 17. The eastern part of the study area, looking east towards the ‘recommended conservation area’. The dense Casuarina trees delineate Eskdale Creek in this location. The area between the road verge edge and the creek are considered of archaeological interest. 59

Figure 18. An old bitumen road truncating the ‘recommended conservation area’ near Wallgrove Road, looking north........................................................................................60

Figure 19. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking west. Note the undulating nature of the landscape, indicating disturbance. In addition, there is little evidence of a topsoil here, with the under-lying clays being clearly evidence. ...............60

Figure 20. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking southeast. Note the truncated clays exposed on the surface within which excavator tracks are clearly evident.61

Figure 21. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking north. Note the truncated clays exposed on the surface within which excavator tracks are clearly evident.61

Figure 22. A map of the proposed development area (red outline) and areas identified as retaining previously identified Aboriginal sites (blue) and/or areas of PAD (orange) and requiring further assessment. Areas not highlighted were considered to be ‘disturbed land’ under the OEH guidelines and do not require further assessment. ...............................69

LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix 1 Deerubbin LALC comments Appendix 2 AHIMS searches and relevant site cards



GLOSSARY

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

A document developed to assess the archaeological and cultural values of an area, generally required as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP)

The statutory instrument that the Director General of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (formerly the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)) issues under Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to allow the investigation (when not in accordance with certain guidelines), impact and/or destruction of Aboriginal objects. AHIPs are not required for proposals subject to project approval under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Aboriginal object A statutory term defined under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 meaning, ‘any deposit, object or material evidence (not being handicraft made for sale) relating to Aboriginal habitation of the area comprising NSW, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains’.

Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigations of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales 2010

A series of guidelines developed that form the structure and content of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments and associated archaeological investigations/excavations.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)

Now known as the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales

A series of guidelines that form the first stage of a two stage process in determining whether Aboriginal objects and/or areas of archaeological interest are present within a study area. Frequently, the findings of a due diligence assessment will lead to the development of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. The Code does not apply to Part 3A projects.



Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Statutory instrument that provides planning controls and requirements for environmental assessment in the development approval process. The Act is administered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI).

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The primary piece of legislation for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. Part 6 of this Act outlines the protection afforded to and offences relating to disturbance of Aboriginal objects. The Act is administered by OEH.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

The OEH is responsible for managing the Aboriginal Heritage (and other) provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Proponent A corporate entity, Government agency or an individual in the private sector which proposes to undertake a development project. The proponent for this project is the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

RTA Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (PACHCI)

A procedure developed by the RMS for consultation and investigation of Aboriginal heritage. This procedure works in conjunction with OEH guidelines to provide a framework for undertaking heritage investigations.



ABBREVIATIONS

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

AHMS Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions

BP Before present (AD 1950)

CHL Commonwealth Heritage List

DCP Development Control Plan

DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now OEH)

DP Deposited Plan

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPLR 2 Erksine Park Link Road 2 – an artefact scatter identified in the vicinity of the study area

ERS Eastern Regional Sequence

ka Abbreviation for thousands of years ago (e.g. 1 ka equals 1,000 years ago)

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area

LTO Land Titles Office

NHL National Heritage List

NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage (formerly DECCW)

PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit

REP Regional Environmental Plan

RMS NSW Roads and Maritime Services

RNE Register of the National Estate

RTA NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, now RMS

SHR State Heritage Register

SHI State Heritage Inventory

WHL World Heritage List

PACHCI Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Matty Mathivanar and Barry Gunther (NSW Roads and Maritime Services).

Lucy Baker and Lucia Colletta (Aurecon Australia).

Steve Randall (Deerubbin LALC).



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) proposes to upgrade the eastern end of Old Wallgrove Road between Roberts Road and Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek, NSW.

In accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and RMS Aboriginal heritage assessment guidelines, Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions (AHMS) undertook an Aboriginal heritage survey of the study area.

The aim of the survey was to identify whether or not further Aboriginal heritage investigation and/or impact assessment was required prior to determining the proposed works and/or prior to the proposed works commencing.

A search of the Native Title Tribunal register had indicated that there were no active or finalised native title claims within the study area.

The survey and associated reporting was undertaken in consultation with a representative of the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC). A site inspection with a DLALC representative occurred on 1 September 2011.

The site inspection indicated that much of the proposed study area within the existing road corridor was heavily disturbed and unlikely to retain Aboriginal objects.

A review of background information indicated that the study area was located within a broader area that had been subject to intense archaeological investigation over the last 10-20 years.

Based on the review of background information and the site inspection, it was originally concluded that most of the study area could be identified as ‘disturbed land’ according to that definition in Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2010) and no further assessment was required.

However, the two tributaries of Reedy Creek located close to the proposed mini-link road and Old Wallgrove Road/Wallgrove Road junction, were considered of archaeological interest. Specifically:

o an existing artefact scatter, Erskine Park Link Road 2 (EPLR 2), was located within the proposed mini-link road footprint. Site inspection of this area indicated extensive disturbance by heavy machinery, but could not rule out the presence of disturbed Aboriginal objects occurring on the surface.

o a potential archaeological deposit (PAD) identified as a ‘recommended Conservation Area’ (by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008)’ was partially located within the study area east of Quarry Road and north of Old Wallgrove Road. Parts of this area were, similarly, shown to be disturbed, but the potential for sub-surface archaeological deposits was considered high.



It was concluded that a report in accordance with Stage 3 of the Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation was required to allow: 1) further assessment and sub-surface investigation of the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008); and 2) to obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit for EPLR 2 and associated areas. In relation to EPLR2, it was not considered that any further sub-surface investigation was required given the level of existing disturbance.

Recommendations

Areas not highlighted in Figure 22 are considered ‘disturbed lands’ as defined in Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010). Using this definition, no further investigation or assessment is required in these areas prior to construction.

Areas highlighted in blue (Conservation Area, EPLR2 and surrounding land) in Figure 22 are considered to potentially retain surface Aboriginal objects. Based on regional models, these are likely to be in low densities and in disturbed contexts. It is considered that further assessment is required to obtain an approved AHIP from OEH prior to any construction works occurring. Assuming an AHIP is issued, it is considered unlikely that further sub-surface testing, salvage or other monitoring works would be required prior to, or during the construction, given the nature of these area.

Areas highlighted in orange in Figure 22 are considered to potentially retain surface and sub-surface Aboriginal objects. Based on regional models, these are likely to be in low densities and in disturbed contexts. It is considered that further assessment with a focus on sub-surface testing of these areas is required and depending on the findings, an approved AHIP may be required prior to the construction activities.

In the event that previously undiscovered Aboriginal objects, sites or places (or potential Aboriginal objects, sites or places) are discovered during construction, all works in the vicinity of the find should cease and NSW RMS should implement their Standard Management Procedure: Unexpected Archaeological Finds (November, 2011) for addressing un-identified Aboriginal objects.

Should suspected human skeletal material be identified, all works should cease and NSW RMS should implement their Standard Management Procedure: Unexpected Archaeological Finds (November, 2011) for managing human skeletal remains.

A copy of this final report should be provided to the Deerubbin LALC (A: 2/9 Tindale Street, Penrith, NSW 2170).

EPLR2 should be registered with the Office of Environment and Heritage Aboriginal Heritage Information Management Systems database.



1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Archaeological & Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd (AHMS) for Aurecon Australia (Aurecon) and the proponent, the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

1.1 Purpose of the Archaeological Investigation When considering a proposed development, the RMS assesses Aboriginal heritage impacts and risks by implementing its Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (PACHCI) guidelines (RMS, 2008). These guidelines outline a five stage process for identifying and managing Aboriginal heritage. The stages are summarised below:

1. Stage 1 – the RMS undertakes an internal assessment and identifies the potential for Aboriginal objects to be harmed within the study area. The assessment is based on readily available data, which may include previous studies undertaken by the RMS, a search of archaeological databases and other pertinent information. If this consideration identifies the need for further investigation, a Stage 2 report is implemented.

2. Stage 2 – the RMS engages a heritage professional to undertake an Archaeological Survey report. This report is usually undertaken with a representative of the Local Aboriginal Land Council and any Native Title claimants/holders and will include a site inspection. The report largely follows the guidelines set out in the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010). If the survey report identifies the potential to harm Aboriginal objects, a Stage 3 report is implemented.

3. Stage 3 – a full archaeological assessment in accordance with the PACHCI and Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigations for Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales and (DECCW, 2010) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (DECCW, 2010) is undertaken. The main focus of the assessment is to further characterise the Aboriginal objects within the study area and to enable appropriate Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits (AHIP) to be sought, or management mitigation if necessary.

4. Stages 4 and 5 – the implementation of the recommendations and requirements of the previous assessments. These stages include any sub-surface testing, monitoring, salvage and the associated



documentation/permits required to undertake them.

RMS had previously undertaken a Stage 1 assessment of the study area and determined that further Stage 2 investigation was warranted. This report documents the tasks, assessment, findings and recommendations of the Stage 2 Survey undertaken by AHMS of the proposed Old Wallgrove Road upgrade area in September - November 2011.

1.2 Study Area The proposed upgrade of Old Wallgrove Road will affect land located between the M7 Motorway and Roberts Road, Eastern Creek, NSW (Figure 1). The upgrade includes widening the existing roadway by two lanes and the upgrading of several intersections (such as Quarry Road, Southridge Street and Eastern Creek Drive). Two bridges crossing Eskdale and Reedy Creeks are also proposed to be widened as part of the development. A new mini-link road running between Old Wallgrove Road and Wallgrove Road (near Reedy Creek) is also proposed (Figure 2). The total length of the upgrade is 1500 metres with an average width of about 40 metres. Since completion of the investigation for the present report, the impact area has been slightly amended (Figure 3).

1.3 The Project The proposed Old Wallgrove Road upgrade forms part of the larger Erskine Park Link Road (EPLR) Network, through the Western Sydney Employment Hub. The EPLR Network was the subject of a Part 3A Concept Approval under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (MP_06_0166) in August 2009.

The RMS is now undertaking project approval investigation and assessment of various parts of the EPLR Network upgrade under Part 5 of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979. This includes the proposed works, widening of Old Wallgrove Road (‘the Proposal’).

The Old Wallgrove Road Widening project consists of:

Upgrading around 1.5 kilometres of Old Wallgrove Road to a four lane road, with a road boundary width of around 40 metres to facilitate any future upgrading.

Construction of a mini link road (about 400 metres long) connecting Old Wallgrove Road to a new intersection with Wallgrove Road opposite the M7 Motorway northbound off ramp.

Additional merge lanes required on Wallgrove Road (involving the widening of bridges over Eskdale Creek and Reedy Creek) to accommodate turning movements from Old Wallgrove Road and the proposed mini link road.



A shared pedestrian and cycleway on the northern side of the road to connect with the existing M7 cycle path.

Upgrade for five intersections at:

o Roberts Road.

o Eastern Creek Drive.

o Southridge Street.

o Quarry Road.

o Wallgrove Road.

Construction of two new intersections at:

o The proposed mini link road and Old Wallgrove Road opposite Quarry Road

o The proposed mini link Road and Wallgrove Road opposite the northbound M7 Motorway off-ramps.

Provision of one intersection to accommodate Southridge Street North (not yet constructed) opposite the existing Southridge Street intersection.

1.4 Assessment Aims and Objectives The principal aims of the survey and its reporting are to:

Outline the statutory requirements relevant to the study area with regard to Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Carry out background research to identify known Aboriginal objects, sites and places in the study area, and to identify any potential archaeological deposits (PADS) for any unknown objects and places of significance.

Undertake Aboriginal Community Consultation in accordance with the RMS’ PACHCI.

Carry out a survey to rediscover and assess known items, identify previously unrecorded items, and assess any potential Aboriginal archaeological deposits (PADs) of the study area.

Develop preliminary mapping of the known and potential Aboriginal cultural heritage sites in the study area.

Assess the archaeological (scientific), public and Aboriginal (social) significance of any known or potential Aboriginal sites or objects that may be impacted by the proposed development.

Identify any possible Aboriginal heritage constraints to the proposed development.

Assess the potential for direct and indirect impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Identify and recommend measures to mitigate any potential adverse heritage impacts.

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

L SU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

1

5A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

E M

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TY L

TD

Apr

il 20

12

Figu

re 1

: A

gen

eral

loca

tion

map

sho

win

g th

e lo

cati

on o

f O

ld W

allg

rove

Roa

d, E

aste

rn C

reek

, N

SW (

red)

in t

he c

onte

xt o

f th

e w

ider

Wes

tern

Sy

dney

Em

ploy

men

t A

rea

(pur

ple)

(M

P_06

_016

6) (

sour

ce:

Nat

iona

l En

viro

nmen

tal C

onsu

ltin

g Se

rvic

es P

ty L

td,

2008

).

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

L SU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

1

6A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

E M

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TY L

TD

Apr

il 20

12

Figu

re 2

: A

map

sho

win

g th

e pr

opos

ed u

pgra

de o

f O

ld W

allg

rove

Roa

d, E

aste

rn C

reek

, N

SW (

yell

ow)

and

the

max

imum

ext

ent

of t

he f

ield

in

vest

igat

ion

(red

).

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

L SU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

1

7A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

E M

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TY L

TD

Apr

il 20

12

Figu

re 3

. Pl

an o

f th

e pr

opos

ed u

pgra

de o

f O

ld W

allg

rove

Roa

d, a

s am

ende

d fo

llow

ing

com

plet

ion

of t

he in

vest

igat

ions

for

the

pre

sent

ass

essm

ent.



1.5 Limitations The archaeological survey report is based on existing and publicly available environmental and archaeological information and reports about the study area and the 2011 AHMS site visit. The assessment that informed the report did not include any independent verification of the results and interpretations of externally sourced existing reports (except where the site inspection indicated inconsistencies). The survey report includes some predictions about the probability of subsurface archaeological materials occurring in certain landforms/landscapes of the study area. The predictions have been based on surface indications noted during the field investigation and environmental contexts. It is acknowledged, however, that sub-surface materials may survive in landform/landscape contexts despite surface and environmental indicators that may suggest that they do not. The converse also applies.

Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) information was provided to AHMS by DECCW. Information in the archaeological assessment report reflects the scope and the accuracy of the AHIMS site data, which in some instances is limited.

1.6 Investigator and Contributors This report was written by Alan Williams, B.Sc, M.Sc., MAACAI, Senior Archaeologist and Laura Matarese, Archaeologist AHMS. Lisa Newell, Associate Director, AHMS reviewed, edited and wrote some parts of the draft report.



2. STATUTORY CONTEXT

2.1 Commonwealth legislation

2.1.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 was established to preserve and protect areas (particularly sacred sites) and objects of particular significance to Aboriginal Australians from damage or desecration. Steps necessary to protect a threatened place are outlined in a gazetted Ministerial Declaration (Sections 9 and 10). This can include preventing or controlling development.

As well as providing protection to areas, the Act can also protect objects by Declaration, in particular Aboriginal skeletal remains (Section 12). Although a Commonwealth Act, it can be invoked on a State level if the State is unwilling or unable to provide protection for such sites or objects.

No Aboriginal sites or places within the study area are currently subject to a Declaration.

2.1.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides for the protection of natural and cultural heritage places. The Act establishes three heritage lists; World Heritage, Commonwealth Heritage and National Heritage. World Heritage items are those listed for outstanding international heritage values. National Heritage items are assessed as having natural or cultural significance at a national level. The World and National Heritage lists may include items on private or state crown land. The Commonwealth Heritage list only includes items on land owned or controlled or occupied by the Commonwealth.

Items on the lists described above are protected under the terms of the EPBC Act. The Act requires approval from the Minister of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities before any action takes place which has, will have, or



is likely to have, a significant impact on the heritage values of a listed place. Proposals for actions which could affect such values are rigorously assessed.

No places within the study area are currently included on the National, Commonwealth or World Heritage lists.

2.1.3 Native Title Act 1993

The Native Title Act 1993 provides recognition and protection for native title. The Act established the National Native Title Tribunal to administer claims to land by Aboriginal people. The Act also provides for Indigenous Land Use Agreements which allow native title claimants and/or holders control over the use and management of affected land and waters.

A search of the Native Title Tribunal registers for the study area did not reveal any active or finalised claims.

2.2 NSW State Legislation

2.2.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides blanket protection for Aboriginal objects (material evidence of indigenous occupation) and Aboriginal places (areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community) across NSW. An Aboriginal object is defined as:

“...any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains.”

An Aboriginal place is any place declared to be an Aboriginal place by the Minister for Environment and Heritage, under Section 84 of the Act.



It is an offence to harm Aboriginal objects or places without a permit authorised by the Director-General of the OEH. In addition, anyone who discovers an Aboriginal object is obliged to report the discovery to OEH.

The operation of the NPW Act is administered by OEH. With regard to the assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage, OEH has endorsed the following guidelines:

Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010).

Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010).

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (DECCW, 2010).

The RMS has its own guidelines for managing Aboriginal heritage, Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (PACHCI), which provide the RMS with a structure for how it implements OEH codes and guidelines within its development program. Specifically, the PACHCI identifies a five stage process in identifying, characterising and managing Aboriginal heritage prior to a development. Each stage has thresholds for whether further investigation, etc, is needed. Stages 1 and 2 represent a risk management based due diligence assessment process based upon the OEH Due Diligence Code of Practice for Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010). If Aboriginal objects are believed to be present and subject to harm within the study area following Stages 1 and 2, Stage 3 is implemented. Stage 3 includes formal consultation and preparation of the development of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR), which allows Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permits (AHIP) to be obtained if required. The Stage 3 report correlates with OEH’s (2010) Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, and can include an AHIP application, Stages 4 and 5 of the PACHCI implement the preferred mitigation measures.

The PACHCI initiates staged Aboriginal consultation before the requirement to comply with OEH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (DECCW, 2010) is triggered. Aboriginal consultation with the LALCs and Native Title holders is undertaken in Stages 1 and 2, with more formal consultation in accordance with these guidelines being implemented in Stage 3.



2.2.2 Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW)

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 allows certain vacant Crown land to be transferred to Aboriginal Land Council ownership.

No places within the study area are currently subject to Aboriginal Land Rights Claims.



3. ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The study area was encompassed within the wider Erskine Park Link Road study undertaken by Navin Office Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd in 2008. During this study, consultation was undertaken in accordance with Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2005) and included five Aboriginal parties. Namely, the consultation included meetings and site inspections with the Deerubbin LALC, Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation, Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation, Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments, Darug Land Observations and Tocmowall.

Under the PACHCI, a Stage 2 assessment report only requires consultation with the Local Aboriginal Land Council. Subsequently, the RMS undertook Aboriginal consultation with the Deerubbin LALC who participated in two site surveys with AHMS personnel.

AHMS discussed the findings and recommendations of this report on site with Deerubbin LALC, as well as provided them with a copy of the draft report. Deerubbin LALC provided RMS a written response on the project, which agreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Specifically, they state that much of the area was disturbed, but that areas near Eskdale Creek would require further assessment (Appendix 1).



4. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

4.1 Background Archaeological assessment reports include information about the environmental context of study areas because of the important role environmental characteristics played in influencing the types of archaeological sites in any given area. Physical environments influenced both the type and availability of natural resources and the types of cultural activities that were carried out in the past. As a result, this also influenced the types of archaeological sites that may be found. A determination of the former environmental context is essential to develop accurate models of cultural activity, site distribution patterns and the archaeological potential of any given area. The environmental context of the study area is discussed below.

4.2 Geology and Soils The study area is predominately located within the Blacktown soil landscape with a small portion of the study area situated in the South Creek soil landscape in the vicinity of Reedy Creek (Hazelton, Bannerman & Tille, 1989).

The topography of the Blacktown soil landscape is characterised by gently undulating rises with local relief between 10 – 30 metres, all situated on Wianamatta Group shales (Bannerman & Hazelton, 1990). Crests and ridges are broad and rounded with convex upper slopes grading into concave lower slopes. The soil profile consists of shallow to moderately deep (<100 centimetres) hard setting, mottled, texture contrast soils. The underlying geology consists of the Ashfield shale group which is comprised of laminate and dark grey siltstone.

The topography of the South Creek soil landscape consists of a flat to gently sloping alluvial plain with occasional terraces or levees providing low relief of less than 10 metres (Bannerman & Hazelton, 1990). The soil profile consists of deep layered sediments over bedrock and relict soils. The underlying geology is comprised of Quaternary alluvium derived from Wianamatta Group shales and Hawkesbury sandstone.



4.3 Vegetation The character of the native vegetation depended to a great extent on the underlying soils and topography.

The vegetation of the South creek soil landscape reflects its frequent inundation. The vegetation of the Blacktown soil landscape originally comprised of open dry sclerophyll forest) Much of the vegetation from these soil landscapes have been cleared in the past. Common species of the original vegetation are listed in Table 1, and indicate the variety of natural resources that were available to the local Aboriginal population.

Table 1. Common native plant species of the study area, listed according to soil landscape (source: Bannerman and Hazelton, 1990).

Blacktown Soil Landscape South Creek Soil Landscape

Forest red gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis)Narrow leaved iron bark (Eucalyptus creba)Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana)Spotted gum (Eucalyptus maculate)Grey gum (Eucalyptus punctata)White stringybark (Eucalyptus globoidea)Broad leaved ironbark (Eucalyptus fibrosa)Woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia)Some understorey species

Broad leaved apple (Angophora subvelutina)Cabbage gum (Casurina glauca)Still water species such as Spike rush (Eleocharis spacelata, Juncus usitatus and Polygonum spp.) On elevated streambanks: Paperbark (Melaleuca sp.)TeaTree (Leptospermum)Or exotic species and weeds, such as: Blackberry (Rubus vulgaris)

4.4 Water The eastern extent of the study area crosses Reedy Creek, a tributary of Eastern Creek (located 500 -1000 metres south and east of the study area) (Figure 4). Eskdale Creek, a tributary of Reedy Creek is located within and up to 200 metres north of the eastern extent of the study area.

Ropes Creek is located two kilometres to the west of the subject site and a man-made reservoir site (Prospect Reservoir) is located three kilometres to the east of the study area.

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

L SU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

2

6A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

E M

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TY L

TD

Apr

il 20

12

Figu

re 4

. To

pogr

aphi

c m

ap s

how

ing

the

lago

ons

and

wat

erco

urse

s in

pro

xim

ity

to t

he s

tudy

are

a (i

n bl

ack)

. Th

e st

udy

area

cro

sses

par

ts o

f Re

edy

Cree

k an

d Es

kdal

e Cr

eek.

Not

e th

at t

hese

hav

e be

en a

lter

ed s

omew

hat

by d

evel

opm

ent

(sou

rce:

La

nd a

nd P

rope

rty

Man

agem

ent

Auth

orit

y,

Topo

view

).



4.5 Land-Use History Historical and recent land uses have extensively disturbed several parts of the study area. Within the curtilage of the study area, it has been cleared of original vegetation, although there is evidence of native vegetation at the western and eastern extent and southern boundary of Old Wallgrove Road, and along the riparian corridor of Reedy Creek.

Historical land uses have included early agricultural and pastoral activities. Ground disturbance is likely to have been caused by ploughing, grazing of farm animals and the construction of fences, tracks, dams, electricity transmission lines and drainage.

More recent land use activities have included:

the re-development of the southern part of the study area for the construction of an industrial and business park.

the construction of existing roadways within, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the study area. This has resulted in significant ground disturbance both during and post- road construction.

The northern part of the study area remains open paddock.



5. ETHNOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

5.1 Introduction This section presents a summary of Aboriginal life at contact, as recorded by early European settlers in documents, maps, plans, images and ethnographic records. By studying these sources, we can reconstruct aspects of traditional Aboriginal lifestyle and economy. Although such accounts are fragmentary and present a biased European view of Aboriginal culture, they provide an important insight about traditional Aboriginal use and occupation of the land.

The Sydney Basin was occupied and used by Aboriginal people for thousands of years before European settlement. Within the Sydney Basin (which includes the current study area), creeks, floodplains, swamps and woodlands provided Aborigines with rich and varied resource zones and occupation areas. Aboriginal sites across the Sydney Basin provide tangible evidence and an on-going link with the long history of Aboriginal use and occupation of this area.

5.2 Traditional Aboriginal people of the area

The first people known to have an association with the study area were people of the Darug language group. There is considerable ongoing debate about the nature, territory and range of the pre-contact Aboriginal language groups of the greater Sydney region. These debates have arisen largely because, by the time colonial diarists, missionaries and ethnographers began making detailed records of Aboriginal people in the late 19th Century, pre-European Aboriginal groups had been broken up and reconfigured as a result of European settlement activity. Sydney region archaeologist and historian Val Attenbrow has cautioned:

‘Any boundaries mapped today for (these) languages or dialects can only be indicative at best. This is not only because of an apparent lack of detail about such boundaries in the historical documents, but because boundaries between language groups are not always precise lines’(Attenbrow, 2002:34-35).



5.3 Subsistence Early observers indicate that the subsistence and economy of Aboriginal groups depended largely on the environment in which they lived. The differences in available food resources between coast and hinterland influenced the diet and subsistence patterns of the groups living in each zone. The current study area is in hinterland along Eastern Creek.

Inland population densities were assessed by early settlers as being lower than those on the coast. The relative scarcity of resources in the hinterland and the greater work required to procure terrestrial foods through hunting meant that the hinterland was more thinly populated than the coast (Attenbrow 2002:17).

During a trip along the Hawkesbury-Nepean during 1791, Watkin Tench wrote that hinterland people primarily subsisted on small animals and roots, probably yams. (Tench 1793 [1979]:122). However, fish, shellfish and birds were also collected from resource rich swamps and lagoons (Figure 5) (Attenbrow, 2002:88). Important plants and animals were also found in wetlands, providing medicines, fibres, vitamin and food sources.

Kangaroos, wallabies, possums, koalas, bandicoots, dingoes, wombats, echidnas, fruit bats (flying foxes) and other smaller mammals were amongst the wide range of land animals that inhabited the Sydney region and were available to both coastal and hinterland people. Most Australian land animals are not migratory and therefore their seasonal availability and abundance do not vary markedly (Attenbrow 2002:70). The diet also included honey produced by native bees, as well as ants and their eggs. Many foods were harvested by tree climbing. Birds and tree dwelling mammals could be captured, and birds eggs and honey could be collected in this way (Figure 6) (Tench 1793 [1979]:126).

Open woodland areas were grazing habitat for macropods, and formed an important part of the economy of the Aborigines living on the Cumberland Plain, and were hunted with the aid of deliberately lit fires (Barrallier, 1802 [1975]: 2-3) (Figure 7) or by ambushing them (Mathews in Havard, 1942:237).



Figure 5. Joseph Lycett c.1817 ‘Aborigines Hunting Waterbirds” (Lycett 1830).1

1 Joseph Lycett painted most of his pictures of Aboriginal people in the Newcastle region. His works form some of the earliest and most explanatory paintings of Aboriginal life in the late 18th Century. His works are included here to be illustrative and do not depict Aboriginal people from the Sydney region.



Figure 6. Joseph Lycett c.1817 “Aborigines climbing a tree, with two Aborigines sitting beside a fire, others spearing birds” (Lycett, J. 1830).



Figure 7. Joseph Lycett c.1817 ‘Aborigines using fire to hunt kangaroo’ (Lycett, J. 1830).

5.4 Plant Management Plant management practices similar to those reported in northern Australia were also conducted in the Sydney area. For instance, there is good evidence that Aborigines practiced fire-stick farming in and around Sydney. (Hunter 1793 [2006:74-75]).

Plant management also enabled Aboriginal groups to broaden their range of food sources. Tench provides an interesting account of ‘a poor convict’ trying to eat a poisonous yam (probably Dioscorea bulbifera) and getting violently sick. Tench had seen Aborigines digging this same yam and concluded that they have a way of preparing the roots before they eat them ‘which renders these last an innocent food’ (Tench 1789 [1979]:83).Such plant management and processing practices were an important part of the economies of Aboriginal groups.



5.5 Shelters Aboriginal groups in the Sydney Basin lived in bark huts and rockshelters formed from natural sandstone overhangs (Figure 8). Tench described how native huts were constructed by laying pieces of bark together in the form of an ‘oven’. The end result consisted of a low shelter, which was opened at one end and sufficient to accommodate one person lying down (Tench 1789 [1979]:81).

The rockshelters, referred to by Tench are abundant throughout sandstone country represented within the study area. These shelters, especially those located close to water sources, such as those along the Georges River and Peter Meadows Creek, provided valuable shelters for Aboriginal people.

Figure 8. Joseph Lycett c. 1820 A family of Aborigines taking shelter during a storm (Lycett 1830).



5.6 Weapons and Equipment Many different tools and weapons were used to obtain food and raw materials, carry small items, make equipment, and for defensive and offensive purposes. These included fishing and hunting spears, spear-throwers, fishing hooks and lines, stone hatchets, shields, clubs, digging sticks, baskets, net bags and other containers, as well as canoes, animal traps, torches, small adzes and scrapers, awls, stones for pounding and beating plant foods and raw materials, stone wedges and fire. In addition, unmodified shells and stones were used opportunistically on some occasions as cutting or adzing tools and missiles. Most tools and weapons were highly portable and also multi-purpose (Attenbrow 2002:85).

Collins pointed out that the spears of the hinterland groups were distinguishable from those of the coast people as they were armed with bits of stone in place of broken oyster shell. Amongst the hinterland groups, stone was hafted into the end of the spear thrower instead of shell (Collins, 1798 [1975:122]).

Tools used for such tasks as cutting/incising, adzing, ‘scraping’, and beating/pounding were made of stone, bone and shell, and historical accounts indicate that the latter two materials were used for these tasks both in the hinterland and along the coast (Attenbrow, 2002:92).

The archaeological evidence of tools and equipment used in the Sydney region is limited to the more durable implement parts such as bone, shell and stone. These items are not always identifiable as a component of a specific historically described implement, and there are also other artefacts that are not described in the historical accounts (Attenbrow 2002:86).

5.7 Stone Aboriginal stone artefacts are an important source of archaeological information because stone is preserved for long periods of time whereas organic materials such as bone, shell, wood and plant fibres decay. Stone artefacts provide valuable information about technology, economy, cultural change through time and settlement patterning. Stone has also been used for ‘relative’ dating of sites where direct methods such as Carbon dating cannot be applied.



The main source locations for stone materials in the Sydney region are gravel beds and palaeo-channels associated with the Nepean-Hawkesbury and antecedent river systems and their tributaries, conglomerate pebbles in the Hawkesbury sandstone, and volcanic formations. The western half of the Sydney region appears to have a greater number and wider distribution of source locations as well a greater range of stone types suitable for making stone tools than the coastal zone. Knowledge of source locations for suitable materials for tool manufacture is of great importance in determining movements, and trade and exchange patterns of the people who inhabited the sites at which artefacts are found (Attenbrow 2002:43).

Temporal changes in stone materials used may have been associated with changes in the range of tools made (the introduction and later disappearance of Bondi points for instance) or in the way stone tools were made (increased use of the bipolar technique, for example). New subsistence methods or changes in conditions of access to raw materials sources (due to cultural factors such as changes in group alliances or group boundaries that may have affected trade and exchange) are also likely reasons (Attenbrow 2002:121).

Bipolar technique is argued to have been adopted under circumstances where there is a need to gain maximum flakes by reducing cores to their minimum flakeable size. Such circumstances include raw material scarcity. Decreased mobility is also claimed to be associated with an increased use of the bipolar technique (Attenbrow 2002:122).

Research has shown that silcrete is naturally relatively widely distributed in the Sydney region and is also present, albeit in lesser abundance, in the coastal zones and hinterland. On the Western Cumberland Plain, where sources of raw material are more common and more widespread than along the coast, the distance between source and manufacturing/use sites is usually much shorter. Within this part of the hinterland many clans would have had sources within their country (Attenbrow 2002:123).

5.8 Contact History The decrease in population after British colonisation is well documented. The traditional life of the local people was broken through the course of the early 19th century. The impact of smallpox and influenza decimated the Aboriginal population.

Early European settlement of traditional hunting lands deprived Aboriginal groups of access to food sources, and camping and ceremonial sites. People who survived outbreaks of disease and massacres were forced to live in marginal areas, integrate



with European settlers or resist (Liston 1988). Resistance by Aboriginal groups was often met with retaliatory action by white settlers and the colonial administration.

Factors including disease, dislocation and violence led to the demise of traditional lifestyles and a decrease in the Aboriginal population, particularly in and around the early centres of colonial settlement in Sydney, Parramatta and Liverpool.



6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

6.1 General This section discusses the regional and local archaeological context within which the study area is situated. For the purposes of determining settlement and site location patterns, archaeologists examine regional and local trends in the distribution of known sites in relation to environment and topography. This provides evidence about economic and social systems in the past and also assists archaeologists in predicting likely site types, site locations and the nature of the archaeological resource in any given area.

6.2 Regional Context The study area falls within the Cumberland Plain region. The archaeology of the region has been well documented through a large number of academic studies, regional management studies and impact assessment investigations over the past 30 years.

6.2.1 Early Occupation

Aboriginal occupation in the region dates back well into the Pleistocene period (i.e. before 10,000 years ago). This evidence comes from radiocarbon dates retrieved from excavated sites at Cranebrook Terrace (41,700 years before present [BP]), Shaw's Creek K2 (14,700 BP), and George & Charles St Parramatta (c.25,000 – 30,000 BP) (Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, 2005; Kohen et al., 1984; Nanson et al., 1987). Other sites include Burrill Lake and Bass Point on the south coast with dates >15,000, and Loggers Shelter and Tempe House, the latter a hearth on Cooks River, both dating to early Holocene (5-10,000 years BP) (Attenbrow, 1987; Bowdler, 1984; Lampert, 1971; Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd, 2006a). More recently, AHMS has recently obtained ages of between 12,000 – 15,000 years BP for PT12, an artefact scatter within a sand dune overlooking Hawkesbury River in Pitt Town (AHMS, 2010).

The dating of Cranebrook Terrace has been widely criticised, but has never been withdrawn from publication, and they are still considered the earliest in Sydney. It is,



however, considered that the George and Charles Street site is the oldest reliable date for Aboriginal occupation in the Sydney region, although these dates similarly have interpretation issues.

The early occupation sites dating to the late Pleistocene /early Holocene have been found in deep stratified rockshelter deposits and within alluvial deposits, particularly on the margins of large rivers such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean and Parramatta Rivers. Drawing on this evidence, McDonald has recently argued that early occupation of the Sydney basin was focused on these primary river systems and characterised by a high degree of ‘residential mobility’ between a small number of sites (McDonald, 2008). However, the survivability and taphonomic loss of older sites in such a heavily urbanised environment must also be considered (Surovell et al. 2007) with these areas receiving only minimal impact from the coastal plains for example.

6.2.2 Intensification During the Holocene

The vast majority of dated sites in the Sydney region are less than 5,000 years old (35 out of a total of 48 dated sites) (Attenbrow, 2002). It has been argued that this is a result of increased populations and 'intensification' of cultural activity during this period. The prevalence of sites dating to the last 5,000 years may also be a result of the last significant rise in sea level, about 7,000 years ago (Sloss et al. 2007). The sea level rise would have submerged many of the older sites along the coastal fringe and forced Aboriginal groups westward to the current coastline.

In an attempt to better understand changes in use and occupation during the Holocene period, Val Attenbrow undertook a detailed study of the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment to the north of Sydney (Attenbrow, 2006). Attenbrow’s study found significant changes in site patterning during the Holocene. She concluded that population was unlikely to have changed, but the use of sites, most notably in the last 2,000 years did. This increased use of sites appeared in the archaeological record as increasing population.

Smith et al. (2008) and Williams et al. (2010), both suggest that populations were far larger in the last 2,000 years than any preceding period. Using radiocarbon data and regional studies, they demonstrate that there is an increasing use of sites in all locations at this time, which cannot be explained by movement of people across the landscape, but rather increasing numbers of people using more of the landscape.



This issue is still widely contested in archaeological literature, but whatever the reason, archaeological sites within the Sydney Basin are dominated by late Holocene sites.

6.2.3 Regional Site Patterns

More than 4,500 sites have been recorded and registered with the OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) for Sydney, reflecting both the wealth of archaeology in the region and the number of archaeological investigations undertaken.

The dominant site types in the Sydney region (in the 15 - 20 percent frequency range) are rock shelters with midden deposit, rock shelters with art, rock art engravings and open artefact scatters (Attenbrow, 2002). Site types in the 5 - 15 percent range include rock shelters with artefacts, grinding grooves and open middens (Attenbrow, 2002). The distribution, density and size of sites is largely dependent on environmental context. For instance, middens are found in close proximity to marine, estuarine and less often, freshwater bodies. Rockshelters are only found in areas of exposed sandstone escarpment and grinding grooves are found on areas of exposed flat bedded sandstone near a source of water.

A study of the regional archaeology of the Cumberland Plain by Kohen made a number of findings about site location patterns in the Sydney area. The study demonstrated that proximity to water was an important factor in site patterning. Kohen found that 65 percent of open artefact scatter sites were located within 100 metres of permanent fresh water (Kohen, 1986). Only 8 percent of sites were found more than 500 metres away from permanent fresh water. In short, Kohen argued that open artefact scatters are larger, more complex and more densely clustered along permanent creek and river lines. Kohen's study also found that silcrete (51 per cent) and chert (34 per cent) are the most common raw materials used to manufacture stone artefacts. Other raw materials include quartz, basalt and quartzite.

Although the patterns described above have been generally supported by subsequent investigations, Kohen’s study was limited by a reliance on surface evidence. Extensive excavation across the Cumberland Plain has since shown that areas with no surface evidence often contain sub-surface deposits buried beneath current ground surfaces. This is a critical consideration in aggrading soil landscapes, such as those commonly found across the Cumberland Plain. In a 1997 study of the Cumberland Plain, McDonald (1997) found that:



17 out of 61 excavated sites had no surface artefacts prior to excavation.

The ratio of recorded surface to excavated material was 1:25.

None of the excavated sites could be properly characterised on the basis of surface evidence. In short, surface evidence (or the absence of surface evidence) does not necessarily indicate the potential, nature or density of sub-surface material.

The results of McDonald's study clearly highlight the limitations of surface survey in identifying archaeological deposits in this landscape. The study also shows the importance of test excavation in establishing the nature and density of archaeological material on the Cumberland Plain.

J. McDonald has undertaken over 20 years of consulting archaeology in the Cumberland Plain, and like Kohen has developed predictive models for the distribution of Aboriginal objects. In a recent publication, White & McDonald (2010:29) summarised this model as follows:

Topographic and stream order variables correlate with artefact density and distribution. High artefact density concentrations may have resulted from large number of artefact discard activities and/or from intensive stone flaking. Highest artefact densities occur on terraces and lower slopes associated with 4th and 2nd order streams, especially 50 – 100 metres from 4th

order streams. Upper slopes have sparse discontinuous artefact distributions but artefacts are still found in these landscape settings.

6.3 Local Archaeological Context Archaeological studies in the local area have been undertaken since the early 1980s (Haglund, 1980; McIntyre, 1984). The earliest investigations focused on Aboriginal archaeological surveys of the area. Several archaeological investigations have recently been undertaken in the local area for proposed developments and regarding the widening of local roadways. These investigations include desktop reviews, archaeological surveys and subsurface investigations.

Outlined below is a summary of Aboriginal archaeological investigations of the local area, as shown in Figure 9.

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

L SU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

4

1A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

E M

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TY L

TD

Apr

il 20

12

Figu

re 9

. A

map

sho

win

g th

e lo

cati

ons

of p

revi

ous

asse

ssm

ents

in t

he v

icin

ity

of O

ld W

allg

rove

Roa

d. E

ach

of t

hese

are

as is

dis

cuss

ed in

det

ail i

n th

e m

ain

text

. N

ote:

the

Won

derl

and

Them

e Pa

rk (

Surp

lus

Land

) is

als

o Pa

rt o

f SE

PP 5

9 la

nd a

nd ‘

Link

Roa

d’ n

ear

Qua

rry

Roa

d is

not

the

sam

e Li

nk R

oad

wit

hin

the

stud

y ar

ea.



CSR Lands, Erskine Park

In 1998, Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (JMCHM 1998) undertook an archaeological survey at the CSR lands at Erskine Park (2.8 kilometres west of the study area). During the survey six artefact scatters and one isolated find were identified. The assessment also identified areas of potential sub-surface archaeological sensitivity within the site.

Another archaeological assessment of the CSR lands at Erskine Park was undertaken in 2004, by HLA-Envirosciences to support a Development Application (HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd, 2004 cit. Navin Officer Heritage Consultants, 2008). The survey recorded no additional archaeological sites when compared with JMCHM’s report. However, it was noted that the effectiveness of the survey at this time was hampered by low ground surface visibility.

In 2003, Navin Officer Heritage Consultants conducted subsurface investigations of the CSR lands. In total, 285 Aboriginal objects were recovered from 88 of the 250 test pits excavated at the site. Post excavation analysis identified 17 different types of lithic items within the assemblage and raw materials comprised silcrete and tuff with minor components of quartz, quartzite, chert, chalcedony and two unidentified stone types.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd undertook an additional program of subsurface test excavations in 2005 at the CSR site. A total of 172 Aboriginal objects were recovered from 21 out of 24 excavated test pits. The test pits were located on a low spur line.

An area of Aboriginal archaeological assessment and subsurface testing was undertaken in 2006, 130 metres south of the existing Old Wallgrove Road alignment within the existing business park (JMCHM, 2002; 2006b; 2006c). The site was identified during an archaeological survey as an area of archaeological potential. Test excavation of the PAD recovered 126 Aboriginal objects from less than half of the 55 test pit locations. JMCHM concluded that the site was disturbed, had low artefact densities and low archaeological significance.

Sydney West Powerline Easement

An Aboriginal heritage assessment and survey was undertaken for a 132kV power line easement which commenced at the Sydney West Substation (located at the western extent of the study area) and carried on 3.5 kilometres west to Erskine Park (JMCHM, 2006c).



Two artefact scatters and an area of potential archaeological deposit were identified during the survey located in valley floor landforms in the vicinity of ephemeral drainage lines. The area of PAD was located at the junction of Ropes Creek and an un-named tributary.

Clay and Shale Quarry, Old Wallgrove Road

Several archaeological investigations have been undertaken for a clay and shale quarry on the corner of Old Wallgrove Road and Burley Road, Horsley Park (Haglund, 1987). Haglund undertook a survey and identified potentially modified (carved or scarred) trees. Avoidance of these potential archaeological sites was recommended.

In 2002, an archaeological investigation of the proposed quarry site was undertaken by John Appleton (Jon Appleton Archaeological Surveys and Reports Pty Ltd, 2002). During the site survey, two isolated finds and an area of PAD were identified. The artefacts were identified adjacent to the eastern bank of Ropes Creek, and on an eroded vehicular track. The area of PAD was identified on the bank adjacent to Ropes Creek. Two areas of archaeological sensitivity were identified in an area of proposed works for the quarry, and archaeological sub-surface testing and/or further assessment was recommended.

Surplus Land adjoining (former) Australia’s Wonderland Theme Park

Several archaeological assessments and test excavations have been undertaken in an area of surplus land adjoining the former Australia’s Wonderland Theme Park (north of the study area).

The Archaeological Management Consulting Group (AMCG) conducted an Aboriginal archaeological survey of the surplus land in 1997 (AMCG, 1997). The investigation identified seven artefact scatters and eight isolated finds. The effectiveness of the survey, however, was hindered due to dense grass cover. The majority of the sites were found on exposed surfaces of the numerous vehicle tracks in the area. The artefacts consisted of red silcrete flakes, flaked pieces and possible quartz manuports.

AMCG identified the sites as having low to moderate archaeological integrity due to historical disturbance. AMAC identified that it was likely the archaeological sites were the result of limited stone knapping and discard undertaken by Aboriginal people in the past. The low densities of artefacts recovered from the study area may have been



due to limited visitation of the area or due to maintenance activities involving the use of raw materials across the area. AMAC also indicated that the results of the survey are reflective of sporadic use by people moving between two favorable creek lines (Eastern and Ropes Creek).

In 2002, Dominic Steele undertook an Aboriginal survey and assessment of the site (Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology, 2002). Based on his findings, and those of previous reports undertaken in the area, he undertook an Aboriginal archaeological test excavation in 2003 at the surplus land site for a proposed business park development(Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology, 2003). The program of test excavation focused upon five artefact scatters, two isolated finds, a potentially culturally modified tree and an area of PAD. Aboriginal artefactual material was recovered from seven of the 20 test pits excavated at the site. The total number of artefacts recovered from the excavation was 38, of these 33 were collected from the surface and five from sub-surface excavation. The assemblage comprised six artefacts, one potential edge ground axe and 29 manuports. Four raw materials were represented in the assemblage: silcrete, quartz, tuff and an un-identified volcanic rock.

Steele interpreted the results of the excavation and artefact densities as reflecting sporadic use of the area.

In 2006, Jo McDonald undertook an assessment, survey and test excavation of Aboriginal archaeological sites within the area, including a PAD and seven artefact(s) (scatters and isolated finds) (JMCHM, 2006b). Test excavations revealed lithic density was similar in all landforms (e.g. hill slopes, drains, etc) at 0.8 lithics/metres². The results of the excavation of the PAD revealed the site was relatively undisturbed, however it had been truncated by naturally occurring erosional activity. A total of 1,550 Aboriginal objects were recovered from the test excavations. The predominant raw material was silcrete with some silicified tuff, quartz and petrified wood.

JMCHM interpreted the results of the excavation in terms of the area being used intermittently in the past by Aboriginal people. This pattern of behaviour would result in the slow accumulation of lithics discarded over a long time period as opposed to more intensive discard associated with domestic locations or tool production areas.



Fitzpatrick Lands

A number of assessments have been undertaken on land north of the study area, known as the Fitzpatrick lands (e.g. Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists, 2005).

Assessments have identified artefact scatters and PADs in the area, particularly on spur lines and alluvial flats adjacent to Ropes Creek. The crest of the spur was noted as being broad and flat. It was predicted that the crests and upper slopes of the spur are likely to have Aboriginal archaeological potential in areas that have not been disturbed (for example due to the construction of electricity transmission lines).

Erskine Park Link Road Network

In 2008, Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd conducted an Aboriginal heritage literature review and site investigations of the proposed Erskine Park Link Road (EPLR) Network in the Western Sydney Employment Hub (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants, 2008). The EPLR Network encompasses the majority of the study area.

The review identified that no known Aboriginal sites would be impacted by the proposed EPLR Network, however, certain areas were considered to have potential archaeological sensitivity for sub-surface artefactual material. These areas of sensitivity had not been substantially disturbed by historical activities.

In addition to the literature review, Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd surveyed the EPLR Network in order to re-locate known Aboriginal archaeological sites and identifying several previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites.

The Aboriginal archaeological sites (including artefact(s) and PAD) are located on a number of landforms including broad and flat ridge or spur lines (particularly in the vicinity or with views of Ropes Creek and/or Eastern Creek), slopes of spur or ridgelines adjacent to permanent or ephemeral watercourses usually exposed due to natural erosion (in alluvium or gullies) or disturbance (within vehicular track for example).

Two sites identified during the survey are located within the current study area, a recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008), effectively identified as a potential archaeological deposit, and a potential archaeological deposit with artefact scatter (see Section 7.4 for further details). The sites are located in an area that has remained largely undisturbed by historical activities adjacent to a watercourse and in an eroded area in the vicinity of a drainage line, respectively.



Aboriginal community representatives present during the field inspection indicated the EPLR Network had no sites or places of significant cultural heritage value, however, it was indicated that areas of potential archaeological sensitivity within the study area may contain as yet unknown archaeological sites, and which may have cultural significance to the Aboriginal community.

Link Road, Eastern Creek

Comber Consultants (2008) undertook an archaeological assessment of a proposed road in the vicinity of the existing Quarry Road, Eastern Creek. Part of the widening of the existing road excluded a riparian/bridge zone located adjacent to an un-named tributary of Reedy Creek. This assessment was in close proximity to the northeastern quadrant of the study area.

Although no Aboriginal sites were found in the study area during survey, Comber recommended that subsurface testing should be undertaken prior to construction due to the presence of Aboriginal archaeological sites in the vicinity of the study area.

Based on the findings of Comber’s report, test excavations were undertaken of the Link Road PAD, adjacent to Quarry Road. An area of 5 square metres was excavated in addition to testing with an auger (Oliver Brown Consulting Archaeologist, 2010). No Aboriginal archaeological material was discovered during excavations and it was found that the area was heavily disturbed due to the construction of the existing road. The deposits comprised of modern fill and road base overlying archaeologically sterile clays. Test excavations indicated disturbance in some areas exceeded 15 metres from the edge of the existing bitumen road.

It was recommended that no further archaeological investigation or permits were required prior to development of the existing roadway. It was noted that AHIMS was informed regarding the absence of archaeological potential at this registered site.

6.4 AHIMS Results OEH maintains the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), a database of known and registered Aboriginal sites in NSW.

Two AHIMS database searches were undertaken by AHMS. The first, undertaken on 29 June 2011 showed that 72 registered Aboriginal heritage sites existed at, or within one



kilometres of the subject site. 2 A second extensive search, also undertaken on 29 June 2011, identified the locations of these sites (Table 2, Figure 10 and Appendix 2).

The registered Aboriginal sites within a one kilometre search area of the subject site comprise of one art (pigment or engraved), sixty one artefact(s), one artefact with potential archaeological deposit (PAD), two modified trees (scarred or carved), one modified tree with artefact(s) and six PADs.

The majority of these sites are located in the vicinity of water courses, areas of vegetation, on land that has been minimally disturbed by historical land uses, and/or have been exposed due to human or natural processes (such as erosion).

It was found that five registered Aboriginal sites are within or in close proximity to the study area (#45-5-3076, #45-5-2828, #45-5-2565, #45-5-2797 and #45-5-0439). Two of these sites have permits issued by OEH (#45-5-3076 and #45-5-2828) and have circumstantial evidence that they have been previously destroyed3. A brief description of these sites is as follows:

AHIMS #45-5-3076 - a potential archaeological deposit. AHIMS records indicate one permit number for this site (#2308) and current aerial photographs show that the AHIMS site is situated within the newly constructed business and industrial park, and likely destroyed.

AHIMS # 45-5-2828 – an isolated artefact. One of several sites located immediately north of Eskdale Creek within the Australia’s Wonderland Park (Appendix 2). AHIMS records indicate three permit numbers exist for this site (#1573, #1609 and #2470) suggesting it has been previously destroyed.

AHIMS # 45-5-2565 - two isolated finds and a potential archaeological deposit. The site card indicates that the PAD is situated to the east of Reedy Creek north and east of the study area (Appendix 2). The two isolated finds are poorly documented. IF 1 is a significant distance from the study area near an ex-RAAF transmitting station. IF 2 is much closer to

2 There are 73 sites registered in the search area, however two sites are duplicates of previously registered sites, specifically #45-5-2578 is a duplicate of #45-5-2598, and #45-5-2578 is a duplicate of #45-5-2593. 3 Further clarification on the status of these sites was sought from OEH, but no definitive advice on their destruction or not could be provided. It is assumed that these sites have been destroyed, since their locations are currently within extensive areas of development.



the study area, but is referred to as occurring in an exposed bank, possibly of Eskdale Creek to the east of the M7 Motorway.

AHIMS # 45-5-2797 – an open camp site located immediately east of the study area. No site card was available, but this site was recorded during the construction of the M7 Motorway (WSO-OS8) by Robynne Mills. A permit (#1398) was issued for the site, and given its location adjacent the M7 Motorway, it is believed to have been partially or completely destroyed.

AHIMS # 45-5-0439, an artefact scatter, is within close proximity to the study area (approximately 50 metres north of the study area). The site card indicates that this site is situated on the banks of the Eskdale creek immediately north of the study area (Appendix 2). The site card, suggests the site was located east of Quarry Road, although several references to a nearby dam suggest it may actually be immediately west of Quarry Road (the only area were a dam is evident). This site may also be located in a recommended Conservation Area identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants (2008), which is discussed in further detail below.

In addition to the AHIMS sites, a review of previous archaeological reports of the study area has revealed two archaeological sites in the vicinity of the subject site were identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (2008), however these sites have not been registered on AHIMS. These sites were a Conservation Area and EPLR2 (Figure 11 and Section 3) (Navin Officer Heritage Consultants, 2008). These sites were not registered on the AHIMS database, although AHIMS # 45-5-0439 is located within the Conservation Area curtilage.

The recommended Conservation Area as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (2008), located north of the subject site is a PAD adjacent to Erskdale Creek. The area is considered to be part of a group of representative samples of archaeologically sensitive landforms in the Eastern Creek Business Park area.

EPLR 2 consisted of two artefacts within a shallow vehicle track exposure in an overhead transmission line easement, within 100 metres of Reedy Creek. This site is situated within the proposed link road of the study area.



Table 2. Details of nearby sites registered on AHIMS

AHIMS Site ID Number

Site Name Site Type Within Study Area

45-5-0249 Wallgrove Road Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-0435 Eastern Creek W6 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.



45-5-0439 Eastern Creek W1 Artefact No, however within Conservation Area identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd (2008) - See recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures

45-5-0556 Blacktown Southwest 2 Eastern Creek

Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.





45-5-0562 Blacktown Southwest 10 Colyton


45-5-0563 Blacktown Southwest 11 Colyton




45-5-0741 WDD1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-0742 WDD 2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.



45-5-2564 IF1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.





45-5-2565 IF2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2578 EC3 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2582 EC8, Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2591 EC1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2593 EC3 (Duplicate copy of 45-5-2578)


45-5-2598 EC8 (Duplicate copy of 45-5-2582)


45-5-2600 WSRA 2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2614 Eastern Creek 9 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2720 PAD-OS-8 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2796 WSO-IF-2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2797 WSO-OS-8 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2822 WBP 1 Modified Tree No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2823 AWL 8 Art (Pigment or Engraved)

No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2827 AWL 4 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2828 AWL 6 Artefact Yes – previously destroyed

45-5-2829 AWL 7 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2832 IF:3 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.



45-5-2836 IF:7 Artefact No – outside proposed areas





of impact.


45-5-2861 DTAC 3 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2862 HP 2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2974 Lucan Park PAD PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2983 Austral 1 Modified Tree and Artefact

No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2984 Austral 2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2985 Austral 3 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2986 Austral PAD 1 PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-2987 AUS 1 Modified Tree No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3076 Austral 4 Artefact and PAD Yes – previously destroyed

45-5-3078 Minchinbury Reservoir Artefact Scatter


45-5-3159 RCIF 2 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3162 RCAS 4 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.




45-5-3201 EC3-PAD1 PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3202 EC3-PAD2 PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3203 AWL9 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.





45-5-3204 ISF9 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.



45-5-3286 ISF2 Jacfin Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3381 Oakdale IF 1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3387 Oakdale Campsite 6 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3434 Parramatta SWC PAD PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3684 WR1 (Prospect) Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3779 Link Road PAD PAD No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3815 Q6 (Prospect) Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3842 EPLR1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3843 RCIF1 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.

45-5-3936 ROPES CREEK AS4 Artefact No – outside proposed areas of impact.





AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

5

3A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

EM

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TYLT

DA

pril

2012

Figu

re 1

0.

A m

ap o

f re

gist

ered

AH

IMS

site

s w

ithi

n on

e ki

lom

etre

of

the

stud

y ar

ea.

AH

IMS

site

s un

derl

ined

are

dis

cuss

ed in

tex

t.

This

pag

e of

the

asse

ssm

ent c

onta

ins

cultu

rally

sen

sitiv

e in

form

atio

n. R

MS

has

re

mov

ed th

e co

nten

ts to

pro

tect

and

cul

tura

lly m

anag

e se

nstiv

e in

form

atio

n, o

ut o

f re

spec

t for

the

Abo

rigin

al c

omm

unity

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

5

4A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

EM

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TYLT

DA

pril

2012

Figu

re 1

1.

Two

Abo

rigi

nal

site

s pr

evio

usly

iden

tifi

ed b

y N

avin

Off

icer

Her

itag

e Co

nsul

tant

s in

the

vic

init

y of

the

sub

ject

sit

e (g

ener

ally

indi

cate

d by

a

blac

k lin

e) t

hat

are

not

regi

ster

ed w

ith

AH

IMS.

AH

IMS

site

# 4

5-5-

0439

is lo

cate

d w

ithi

n th

e re

com

men

ded

Cons

erva

tion

Are

a (a

s id

enti

fied

by

Nav

in O

ffic

er

Her

itag

e Co

nsul

tant

s 20

08)

as a

n ar

tefa

ct s

catt

er.

This

reg

iste

red

AH

IMS

site

is n

ot t

he r

ecom

men

ded

Cons

erva

tion

Are

a (P

AD

) it

self

.

This

pag

e of

the

ass

essm

ent

cont

ains

cul

tura

lly s

ensi

tive

info

rmat

ion.

RM

S ha

s re

mov

ed t

he c

onte

nts

to p

rote

ct a

nd c

ultu

rally

man

age

sens

tive

info

rmat

ion,

out

of

resp

ect

for

the

Abor

igin

al c

omm

unit

y



7. SITE INSPECTION

A site inspection was undertaken by Alan Williams (Senior Archaeologist AHMS) and Steven Randall (Deerubbin LALC) on the 1 September 2011. The site inspection was constrained to the existing road corridor. The existing road corridor has been recently expanded with new fencing and broadly resembles the outline of the proposed study area (see red outline in Figure 2). Two further areas were investigated by the same individuals on 8 November 2011. These were the un-developed paddock between Quarry Road and Eastern Creek Drive in the north of the study area, and the proposed link road near Reedy Creek in the southeast of the study area.

In general, the entire study area appeared to be heavily disturbed due to the installation and maintenance of Old Wallgrove Road and several surrounding industrial structures (Figure 13 to Figure 16). In the road corridor, there were few areas of unmodified landscape, with several sub-surface (drainage, optic fibre) and surface (transmission lines) services running along both sides of the road. Along with the existing road, these services were considered to have disturbed most parts of the existing road corridor.

The study area was characterised as a series of undulating hills becoming lower and flatter towards Reedy Creek and its tributaries. Within the road corridor, vegetation and soil profiles were minimal due to the occurrence of wide shoulders either side of Old Wallgrove Road. Where vegetation was present and/or observed, it was generally low dense grasses. Visibility was generally high, but few exposures indicated a natural land surface.

Two areas were noted for further investigation, both through the background review (Sections 4 - 7) and during the site inspection. One was an area identified as a recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008), effectively a potential archaeological deposit, and the other, the area of the proposed mini link road adjacent Reedy Creek in the south of the study area. The recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) includes a registered artefact scatter (AHIMS # 45-5-0439).

The recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) located between Old Wallgrove Road, Wallgrove Road and Quarry Road, was noted to contain low slopes and low-lying landforms encompassing Eskdale Creek (Figure 17). The creek itself was defined by dense copses of Casuarina sp. trees with the surrounding areas covered in dense low-lying grasses. Visibility was



low, but there appeared little evidence of previous disturbance between Old Wallgrove Road and the south side of the tributary. However, areas closer to the M7 Motorway did appear to be quite disturbed, including an old bitumen road running across the creek and a Sydney Water compound with sub-surface infrastructure to the north of the creek (Figure 18). It was considered that areas close to the creek on either side may retain some sub-surface integrity. Based on the field inspection, these areas did not reveal any form of services, or undulations indicative of soil disturbance. It must, however, be noted that disturbance from Quarry Road and Old Wallgrove Road may have occurred in these areas, but simply could not be seen during the site inspection.

The area proposed for the mini-link road was investigated as part of a second site visit. While initially believed to retain high potential for archaeological deposits, the site inspection demonstrated that the entire area had been extensively modified using heavy machinery. The undulating nature of the area, combined with frequent exposures of truncated clay and bedrock, along with excavator tracks all indicated that sub-surface deposits in this area would be unlikely (Figure 19 to Figure 21). A large sub-surface pipeline and large transmission line were also present in this area, both of which would have caused extensive ground disturbance during construction. It was considered that only areas in very close proximity to the creek (to the south) and outside of the proposed area of impact would retain any sub-surface integrity.

However, due to the relatively dense vegetation and poor visibility across the mini link road location, it could not be concluded that the previously identified Aboriginal objects, EPLR 2, or other unidentified objects were no longer present. Therefore, while this area was heavily disturbed, it could not be conclusively determined that no Aboriginal objects were present.



Figure 12. The western end of the study area, looking east. Note the wide shoulders in the foreground and the transmission line.

Figure 13. The northern edge of the study area, looking east. This photograph show sub-surface optic fibres services running through this grass verge. Note the re-location of the fence-lines to

closer resemble the study area (as shown in Figure 2).



Figure 14. The centre of the study area, looking west.

Figure 15. The centre of the study area, looking east. In this area, recent industrial construction and breakdown lanes has completely removed any natural land surface.



Figure 16. The southern part of the study area on Wallgrove Road, looking south. This area has extensive undulations, indicating disturbance most likely from the construction of the nearby

M7 Motorway.

Figure 17. The eastern part of the study area, looking east towards the ‘recommended conservation area’. The dense Casuarina trees delineate Eskdale Creek in this location. The area

between the road verge edge and the creek are considered of archaeological interest.



Figure 18. An old bitumen road truncating the ‘recommended conservation area’ near Wallgrove Road, looking north.

Figure 19. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking west. Note the undulating nature of the landscape, indicating disturbance. In addition, there is little evidence of a topsoil

here, with the under-lying clays being clearly evidence.



Figure 20. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking southeast. Note the truncated clays exposed on the surface within which excavator tracks are clearly evident.

Figure 21. The general location of the proposed mini-link road, looking north. Note the truncated clays exposed on the surface within which excavator tracks are clearly evident.



8. REGIONAL CHARACTER

This section provides a synthesis of the archaeological and environmental information for the subject site to identify key issues and develop predictions in relation to the presence of Aboriginal objects.

8.1 Archaeology Based on the regional and local archaeological context, a number of conclusions can be reached regarding the Aboriginal archaeological potential of the study area.

From a regional perspective, Aboriginal people have occupied and utilised the Sydney Basin for a considerable period of time, certainly throughout the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) and evidence suggests probably also in the late Pleistocene (10,000-50,000 years ago). Archaeological studies pertaining to the region suggest that site distribution is characterised by proximity to permanent water sources, and landform types such as lower slopes, spurs, river terraces and alluvial flats. Importantly, sites are generally found above the flood zone, especially in western Sydney. Further information identifies confluences of creeks and larger water sources as of importance.

The study area has been extensively investigated through previous projects. Studies include those encompassing the CSR Lands (Erskine Park), Wonderland Theme Park, Quarry Road immediately north of the study area, and the EPLR Network. These studies (a mixture of surface surveys and excavations) all revealed evidence of a low density of Aboriginal objects occurring in all landforms across the region. While a preference was demonstrated for prehistoric occupation and associated deposits to occur along the major creeklines (most notably Ropes Creek and Eastern Creek), Aboriginal objects were found in a range of other landforms. These sites were almost exclusively artefact scatters or isolated finds, and often found in association with potential/sub-surface archaeological deposits (PAD).

In relation to the study area, the southern parts appear largely developed and the survivability of archaeological deposits is likely to be poor. In the north of the study area a large pastoral property is present and initially appeared to retain low disturbance. However, these pastoral areas have similarly been subject to extensive landscape modifications (most notably levelling and drainage). Excavations in these areas have proved relatively poor archaeologically. In addition, much of the development in this location is in the existing road corridor, which already has disturbance, services and drainage within



them. However, the eastern part of the study area is encompassed by Reedy Creek and its associated tributaries. This is a creek comparable in size and form to nearby Eastern Creek and Ropes Creek, both of which have been shown to retain extensive archaeological remains.

Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of Aboriginal objects in these eastern areas, with a known artefact scatter (EPLR 2) being located near Reedy Creek (and within the proposed mini link road), and a recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008), effectively a potential archaeological deposit (based on the report identifying it), encompassing the unnamed tributary north of Old Wallgrove Road.

8.2 Existing Disturbance Previous archaeological investigation by JMCHM across the Rouse Hill Infrastructure Development area, the most intensively studied shale-based archaeological landscape in the Sydney basin, found that the primary factor in assessing archaeological potential is the degree of prior land-use disturbance of soils. Therefore, areas that have a low level of land-use disturbance should be considered to have archaeological potential because archaeological deposits may survive intact within undisturbed portions of topsoil in such areas. Conversely, areas with a high level of disturbance should be considered to have nil to low potential because any archaeological deposits have either been removed or heavily disturbed (meaning they have little or no archaeological value).

While visibility of the study area was poor during investigation and there is currently no geotechnical information available, it is evident that many parts of the study area have been heavily disturbed. All areas within the road verge appear to have been impacted as part of the existing infrastructure, with bitumen, grading and other activities present to the road verge fence-line in many areas. In addition, along the northern side of the road, several services, including drainage, optic fibre cables and power poles, can be identified running along the length of the study area. It is considered that the development of the various industrial structures to the south of the road would also have had an impact on the edges of the study area in this location.

The very eastern parts of the study area have been heavily impacted by the installation of Wallgrove Road and the M7 Motorway. With the exception of some areas, the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) referenced above has been truncated by these works, as well as a Sydney Water compound.



The level of the two areas identified in Section 8.1, cannot be definitively determined. In terms of the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008), impacts have occurred around its edges from the expansion of Quarry Road, Old Wallgrove Road, M7 Motorway and industrial structures. Based on excavations adjacent to Quarry Road, it appears that impacts from the road construction/maintenance may have spread up to 15 metres from its current edge. Adopting this value around the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) would reduce it to a far smaller area than it currently appears. However, visual investigation north of Old Wallgrove Road did not appear to indicate any significant signs of disturbance this far from the road, and a distance of between 5-10 metres is considered more realistic.

While initially considered of archaeological interest, further assessment indicates that the area encompassing the mini link road has been subject to extensive land use and development impacts. There is some evidence that a site compound for the M7 Motorway’s construction was located there, and this may explain the extensive earth modifications that were noted during the site inspection. Earlier photographs of the location also suggest clearance and/or landscape modification in several parts of what is currently a grassed paddock. Notwithstanding previous land use disturbance, recent surveys have identified Aboriginal objects within this area (EPLR 2). Poor visibility during field survey, however, meant that it could not be confirmed that Aboriginal objects were still present in that location. Based on the site inspection, it seems unlikely, however, that any subsurface deposits would survive in this area due to the previous impacts.

In summary, the majority of the study area is within an existing road verge and can be considered heavily disturbed by construction, maintenance and use of the existing road infrastructure. The two areas outlined in Section 8.1 as being of archaeological interest may have similarly been disturbed, but current evidence does not allow for a definitive determination of the level of impact.



9. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPACTS

9.1 The Archaeological Resource The study area is located on undulating hills and slopes within the Cumberland Plain. With the exception of eastern parts of the study area, it does not contain landforms of high archaeological interest (i.e. lower slopes, alluvial flats, spur lines, etc). Regional and local studies, however, suggest that there is a likelihood that Aboriginal objects in low densities occur and are retained in all landforms across the Cumberland Plain.

The eastern parts of the study area are all in close proximity to (<100 metres), and in some areas cross, Reedy Creek or Eskdale Creek. These areas are considered to have potential to retain both surface and subsurface archaeological deposits.

Based on regional data, archaeological deposits in this area are likely to be constrained to artefact scatters, isolated finds and or potential archaeological deposits. Previous studies indicate that an artefact scatter and a potential archaeological deposit are present within the study area (in close proximity to Reedy Creek and Eskdale Creek).

While archaeological material does appear to occur in a range of landforms across the Cumberland Plain, the extent of previous land use disturbance remains a key factor in its presence and/or survivability. Based on a review of existing information, the study area has been extensively disturbed by the installation of Old Wallgrove Road, the M7 Motorway and several industrial developments. It is considered that all areas within the existing road corridor (i.e. the existing road and surrounding road verges) are likely to be disturbed and have low potential to retain in situ Aboriginal objects. These areas can be considered to meet the threshold of ‘disturbed land’ under the OEH’s codes of practice, and as such, no further assessment of those is warranted.

9.2 Impacts The assessment identified two locations within the study area that were considered to retain Aboriginal objects. They are EPLR 2, a disturbed artefact scatter within the proposed mini-link road footprint, and a recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) located around Eskdale Creek. Note that the impact area has been slightly amended since completion of the investigation for the present report (see Figure 3).



The level of previous land use disturbance of the archaeological resource of the recommended Conservation Area (as identified by Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2008) – effectively a PAD - north of Old Wallgrove Road, could not be adequately determined. Circumstantial evidence indicates that it may have received significant disturbance in the past, however, it could not be determined if this would have removed the potential for Aboriginal objects, especially sub-surface deposits, to survive in that location. It is considered that the Aboriginal objects, albeit at low densities and potentially in disturbed contexts, may occur in these areas (Figure 22). Based on previous studies in the vicinity and visual observations, it can also be expected that the PAD extends some 5 – 10 metres north of the existing road. It is understood from the NSW RMS that the proposed development may extend up to 30 metres into this area, and so partial impacts to the site would be expected. While it is understood that the design of the road can be modified to avoid some of these impacts, it is recommended that further investigation into the archaeological potential to determine whether this is warranted should be undertaken first to avoid what might be unnecessary and extensive engineering re-design.

Despite being close to Reedy Creek and initially identified as of archaeological interest, the area encompassing the mini link road was found to be heavily impacted. Evidence suggests that extensive earthworks have occurred across the area, and in most places they have completely removed the upper part of the soil profile. It is considered that the potential for subsurface deposits is unlikely. It is, however, recommended that if any geotechnical works are proposed in this area, that these conclusions are re-explored, since the burial of a natural soil profile by stockpiled material (and thereby preservation of buried deposits) can occur.

While the presence of sub-surface deposits along the mini link road curtilage was considered low, it could not be conclusively determined if EPLR 2 or other disturbed Aboriginal objects previously identified on the surface of the area, were still present. Using the precautionary principle, it is consequently concluded that the site is still present within the mini-link road route and would be impacted as part of the proposed development. Accordingly, it is recommended that an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) be sought for this area to avoid unnecessary risk to the NSW RMS during construction. Given the extensive disturbance already present in this area, it is not considered that any further sub-surface investigation, salvage or other on-site works would be required prior to, or following the receipt of the AHIP. (Please note, however, that this view may not be supported by OEH and/or the Aboriginal parties). To obtain an AHIP, a further report in accordance with the PACHCI Stage 3 would be required.

In summary, it is considered that a report under Stage 3 of the PACHCI would be required to:



1. Further investigate (sub-surface) the areas of the ‘Conservation Area’, a PAD north of Old Wallgrove Road and partially within the proposed development footprint.

2. To obtain an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit to destroy EPLR 2 and any other associated Aboriginal objects within the mini link road curtilage.

10. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Areas not highlighted in Figure 22 are considered ‘disturbed lands’ as defined in Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010). Using this definition, no further investigation or assessment is required in these areas prior to construction.

Areas highlighted in blue (Conservation Area, EPLR2 and surrounding land) in Figure 22 are considered to potentially retain surface Aboriginal objects. Based on regional models, these are likely to be in low densities and in disturbed contexts. It is considered that further assessment is required to obtain an approved AHIP from OEH prior to any construction works occurring. Assuming an AHIP is issued, it is considered unlikely that further sub-surface testing, salvage or other monitoring works would be required prior to, or during the construction, given the nature of these area.

Areas highlighted in orange in Figure 22 are considered to potentially retain surface and sub-surface Aboriginal objects. Based on regional models, these are likely to be in low densities and in disturbed contexts. It is considered that further assessment with a focus on sub-surface testing of these areas is required and depending on the findings, an approved AHIP may be required prior to the construction activities.

In the event that previously undiscovered Aboriginal objects, sites or places (or potential Aboriginal objects, sites or places) are discovered during construction, all works in the vicinity of the find should cease and NSW RMS should implement their Standard Management Procedure: Unexpected Archaeological Finds (November, 2011) for addressing un-identified Aboriginal objects.

Should suspected human skeletal material be identified, all works should cease and NSW RMS should implement their Standard Management Procedure: Unexpected Archaeological Finds (November, 2011) for managing human skeletal remains.

A copy of this final report should be provided to the Deerubbin LALC (A: 2/9 Tindale Street, Penrith, NSW 2170).



EPLR2 should be registered with the Office of Environment and Heritage Aboriginal Heritage Information Management Systems database.

AB

OR

IGIN

AL

AR

CH

AEO

LOG

ICA

LSU

RV

EY

REP

OR

T –

OLD

WA

LLG

RO

VE

RO

AD

, EA

STE

RN

CR

EEK

, NS

W

6

9A

RC

HA

EOLO

GIC

AL

& H

ERIT

AG

EM

AN

AG

EM

ENT

SO

LUT

ION

S P

TYLT

DA

pril

2012

Figu

re 2

2.

A m

ap o

f th

e pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ent

area

(re

d ou

tlin

e) a

nd a

reas

iden

tifi

ed a

s re

tain

ing

prev

ious

ly id

enti

fied

Abo

rigi

nal

site

s (b

lue)

and

/or

area

s of

PA

D (

oran

ge)

and

requ

irin

g fu

rthe

r as

sess

men

t. A

reas

not

hig

hlig

hted

wer

e co

nsid

ered

to

be ‘

dist

urbe

d la

nd’

unde

r th

e O

EH g

uide

lines

and

do

not

req

uire

fur

ther

ass

essm

ent.

This

pag

e of

the

ass

essm

ent

cont

ains

cul

tura

lly s

ensi

tive

info

rmat

ion.

RM

S ha

s re

mov

ed t

he c

onte

nts

to p

rote

ct a

nd c

ultu

rally

man

age

sens

tive

info

rmat

ion,

out

of

resp

ect

for

the

Abor

igin

al c

omm

unit

y



REFERENCES

Archaeological Management Consulting Group Pty Ltd, December. 1997. Aboriginal heritage Survey Surplus Land Adjoining Australia’s Wonderland, Eastern Creek NSW. Unpublished report for Gutteridge Haskin & Davey Pty Ltd.

Attenbrow, V. 1987. The Upper Mangrove Creek catchment: a study of quantitative changes in the archaeological record. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.

Attenbrow, V. 2002. Sydney's Aboriginal Past: Investigating the Archaeological and Historical Records. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Bannermann, S.M., Hazelton., P.A. 1990. Sol Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet.Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Barrallier, F. 1802[1975]. Journal of the Expedition into the Interior of New South Wales 1802 by order of His Excellency Governor Phillip Gidley King. Marsh Walsh Publishing, Melbourne.

Bowdler, S. 1984. Hunter Hill, Hunter Island. Terra Australis 8. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

Collins, D. 1798 [1975]. An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales. Volume 1.A.H. & A. W. Reed in association with the Royal Australian Historical Society, Sydney.

Comber Consultants Pty Ltd. 2008. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Link Road, Eastern Creek. Unpublished report for Complete Urban Solutions.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW). 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, DECCW, Sydney South.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW). 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, DECCW, Sydney South.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology Pty Ltd. 2002. Aboriginal Archaeological Survey and Assessment Report: Proposed Wonderland Business Park Development Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek. Unpublished report prepared for Australand.



Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology. 2003. Aboriginal Archaeological Test excavation Report: Proposed Wonderland Business Park Development. Unpublished report prepared for Australand.

Haglund, L. 1980. Report on an Archaeological Survey in the City of Blacktown. Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service.HLA-Envirosciences

Halund, L. 1987. Archaeological survey of Area Proposed for a Clay and Shale Quarry – Corner of Wallgrove Road and Old Wallgrove Roads, Horsley park, NSW. Unpublished report to Don Fox Planning Pty Ltd for Austral Brick Co Ltd.

Havard, O. 1942. Mrs Felton Matthew’s Journal. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Australian Historical Society 29(4):217-52.

Hazelton, P.A., Bannerman, S.M., Tille, P.J. 1989. Soil Conservation Service of N.S.W. soil landscape series. Sheet 9030, Penrith. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Hunter, J. 1793[2006]. An Historical Journey of the Transactions at Port Jackson and Norfolk Island. Currey, J (ed) The Banks Society, Malvern.

Kohen, J. L. 1986. Prehistoric Settlement in the Western Cumberland Plain: Resources, Environment, Technology. PhD Thesis, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Kohen, J. L., Stockton, E.D., Williams, M.A.J. 1984. Shaws Creek KII rockshelter: a prehistoric occupation site in the Blue Mountains piedmont, eastern New South Wales. Archaeology in Oceania 19(2): 57-73.

Kovac, M., Lawrie, J.W. 1991. Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:250 000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management (JMDCHM). 1998. Archaeological Survey of CSR Lands at Erskine Park, NSW. Report to GHD on behalf of CSR.

JMDCHM. 2002. Archaeological Assessment of Aboriginal Sites: Eastern Creek Land Use Study SEPP 59, Lands in Blacktown Council. Unpublished report to Blacktown Council.

JMCHM. 2005. Archaeological salvage excavation of site RMS-G1 109-113 George Street, Parramatta, NSW. Unpublished Report to Landcom.

JMCHM. 2006a. Archaeological salvage of a stormwater easement and testing within the State Heritage Register conservation precinct at the former Tempe House, Discovery Point. Unpublished Report to Auckland Holdings Pty Ltd.



JMDCHM. 2006b. Archaeological Subsurface Investigations at SEPP 59 Wonderland Surplus, Old Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek. Unpublished report prepared for Australand Holdings Pty Ltd.

JMDCHM. 2006c. Archaeological Subsurface Investigations at Austral 4 (#45-5-3078). The M7 Hub, Old Wallgrove Road, Horsey Park. Unpublished report prepared for Macquarie Goodman Management Pty Ltd.

JMCHM. 2007. Potts Hill, Bankstown Indigenous Heritage assessment. Unpublished report to Cite Urban strategies on behalf of Landcom.

Jon Appleton Archaeological Surveys and Reports Pty Ltd. 2002. The archaeological investigation of Lot 2 DP 120673: The site of a proposed new clay and shale extraction area Old Wallgrove Road, Horsley Park, west of Sydney NSW. Unpublished Report for R.W Corkey & Co. Pty Ltd on behalf of The Austral Brick Co. Pty Ltd

Lampert, R.J. 1971. Burrill Lake and Currarong; coastal sites in southern New South Wales. Terra Australis 1. The Australian National University, Canberra.

Liston, C. 1988. The Dharawal and Gandangara in Colonial Campbelltown, New South Wales, 1788-1830. Aboriginal History 12(1): 49-62.

Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists (MDCA). 2005. Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment Lot 4 DP 262213 – Fitzpatrick Land, Eastern Creek, NSW. Unpublished report to Minter Ellison.

McDonald, J. 1997. Interim Heritage Management Report: ADI Site St Marys, Vol. 1: Text. Unpublished report to Lendlease – ADI Joint Venture in Response to the Section 11 Committee Interim Report.

McDonald, J. 2008. Dreamtime Superhighway. Sydney Basin Rock Art and Prehistoric Information Exchange. Terra Australis 27. The Australian National University, Canberra.

McDonald, J., Mitchell., P. 1994. An Assessment of the Archaeological Context, Land-use History and Management Requirements for Aboriginal Archaeology in the ADI site, St Marys, NSW. Unpublished report prepared for ADI Ltd.

McIntyre, S. 1984. An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Quarry Extensions at Erskine Park, NSW. Unpublished report to GHD on behalf of CSR.



Nanson, G.C., Young, R.W., Stockton, E.D. 1987. Chronology and palaeoenvironment of the Cranebrook Terrace, near Sydney, containing artefacts more than 40,000 years old. Archaeology in Oceania 22: 72-78.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd. 2003. Proposed 132kV Transmission Line Erskine Park, NSW Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report to Integral Energy.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd. 2008. Western Sydney Employment Hub Erskine Park Link Road Network: Aboriginal Heritage Review. Unpublished report to NECS on behalf of the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

Oliver Brown Consulting Archaeologist Pty Ltd. 2010. Test Excavation of Link Road PAD (AHIMS #45-5-3779). Unpublished report to Blacktown City Council.

Sloss, C.R., Murray-Wallace, C.V., Jones, B.G. 2007. Holocene sea-level change on the southeast coast of Australia: A review. The Holocene 17(7): 999-1014.

Smith, M.A., Williams, A.N., Turney, C.S.M., Cupper, M. 2008. Human environment interactions in Australian drylands: exploratory time-series analysis of archaeological records. The Holocene, 18(3): 389-401.

Surovell, T.A., Brantingham, P.J. 2007. A note on the use of temporal frequency distributions in studies of prehistoric demography. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34:1868-1877.

Tench, W. 1789, 1793 [1979]. Sydney’s First Four Years. A Narrative of the expedition to Botany Bay and A complete account of the settlement at Port Jackson 1788-1791.Fitzhardinge, L.F (ed) Library of Australian History, Sydney.

White, E., McDonald, J. 2010. Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area, Cumberland Plain, New South Wales. Australian Archaeology, 70: 29-38.

Williams, A.N., Ulm, S., Goodwin, I., Smith, M.A. 2010. Hunter-gatherer response to late Holocene climatic variability in northern and central Australia. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25(6): 831-838.


ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD January 2012

APPENDIX 1 – DEERUBBIN LALC COMMENTS


ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HERITAGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD January 2012

APPENDIX 2 – AHIMS SEARCHES AND RELEVANT

SITE CARDS



APPENDIX 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST EXCAVATION



3.1 GENERAL

Following the completion of the Stage 2 report, a sub-surface investigation of the Conservation Area PAD was recommended. Test excavations of this area were undertaken as part of the Stage 3 assessment.

The aim of the test excavations was to identify whether any Aboriginal objects or sites were present within the lower slope/floodplain situated between Quarry Road, Old Wallgrove Road, Wallgrove Road and Eskdale Creek (Figure 3 of ACHA). If archaeological material was identified, the objectives of the test excavation would include the accurate mapping and characterisation of such material (i.e. depth, context, age, etc). A further aim of the test excavation was to ensure that the results of the investigation in the subject area could be used in conjunction with results of previous studies, to provide a greater understanding of the prehistoric occupation of the region.

All archaeological investigations were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, September 2010). These guidelines allow test excavation without the need for a permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, so long as it is undertaken according to the methodology laid out in the guidelines. Therefore, the excavation sampling strategy was developed to achieve the research goals outlined above, while also fulfilling the obligations and requirements of the Code of Practice.

3.2 MethodsAn excavation sampling strategy was developed to achieve the research aims outlined in Section 4.2, and meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. As required by the Code of Practice, and the consultation guidelines, the sampling strategy was developed in consultation with the RAPs and provided to OEH 14 days before the excavation began (Appendix 1).

Due to the narrow rectangular shape of this part of the subject site, the sampling strategy consisted of two evenly spaced rows of test pits in an east-west direction within the lower slope/floodplain landform (Figure A-1). Two further small rows of test pits were added during the field investigation to fill in gaps in the grid where the study area was not exactly rectangular.

The grid was set up to allow for a test pit every 10 -15 m across the subject area (Error! Reference source not found.), thus providing a total of 43 possible test pits. However, several of these proved to be either in disturbed contexts (such as a storm drain) and/or in the actual channel of Eskdale Creek, and were not excavated. Ultimately, 39 test pits were excavated.



A surveyor with a Total Station with accuracy of +/- 20 mm was engaged to place the test pits and document the locations (Figure A-1), and provide temporary benchmarks of AHD heights for the documentation of in situ artefacts, section lines and depths.

Each test pit was 50 cm2 in size, and each was assigned a unique alpha-numeric code (e.g. A1, A2, A3, etc). The test pits were excavated by hand, using shovels, coal shovels and trowels. The initial test pit (C2) was excavated in 5 cm spits. However, the remainder of the test pits were excavated in 10 cm spits, as this conformed better with the stratigraphy.

Excavations were undertaken until sterile deposits and/or basal clays were reached, which in most cases was at about 30-40 cm below the surface.

All sediment recovered from the excavation was wet sieved through a 5 mm sieve, with all archaeological material being retained for subsequent analysis.

All test pits were recorded by photography, written descriptions and scaled section drawings (Appendices 4 and 5).

The shallow and disturbed context of the soil profile, along with the relatively low density of Aboriginal objects, did not allow for any detailed soil or chronological samples to be taken or analysed.

CU

LTU

RA

LH

ERIT

AG

E A

SSES

SME

NT

(STA

GE

3) R

EPO

RT

– O

LD W

ALL

GR

OV

E R

D, E

AST

ERN

CR

EEK

,NSW

Arc

haeo

logi

cal&

Her

itag

e M

anag

emen

t S

olut

ions

Pty

Ltd

Sept

embe

r 20

12

Figu

re A

-1.

A m

ap o

f th

e te

st p

its

unde

rtak

en t

o in

vest

igat

e th

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a PA

D i

dent

ifie

d by

the

Sta

ge 2

(ar

chae

olog

ical

sur

vey)

rep

ort.

As

show

n, t

he t

est

pits

for

med

tw

o br

oad

tran

sect

s, A

1-6

and

B1-6

, an

d C

1-11

and

D1-

12,

wit

h tr

anse

cts

F an

d G

and

pit

A7

bein

g ad

ded

to f

ill

in g

aps

in t

he s

ampl

ing

grid

. Ar

eas

betw

een

tran

sect

A a

nd F

wer

e si

gnif

ican

tly

dam

aged

by

a 33

kV

tran

smis

sion

lin

e. A

reas

eas

t of

D12

wer

e he

avil

y im

pact

ed b

y th

e fo

rmer

Old

Wal

lgro

ve R

oad.

Th

e ed

ge o

f th

e su

bjec

t ar

ea i

s sh

own

in p

ink.

This

pag

e of

the

ass

essm

ent

cont

ains

cul

tura

lly s

ensi

tive

info

rmat

ion.

RM

S ha

s re

mov

ed t

he c

onte

nts

to p

rote

ct a

nd c

ultu

rally

man

age

sens

tive

info

rmat

ion,

out

of

res p

ect

for

the

Abor

igin

al c

omm

unit

y



3.3 Results 3.3.1 General

The test excavations consisted of 39 test pits distributed across the Conservation Area PAD in the northeast of the subject area (Figures A-2 – A-7; Appendices 4-6). The test pits were initially distributed along two transects, labelled as B1-B6 and D1–D12, and A1-A6 and C1-C11. Due to the shape of the area requiring investigation, each transect actually resembled an off-centre V-shape, and hence the different alpha-numeric identifiers. A further two rows, F1–F3 and G5-G7 and an additional pit A7, were later incorporated into the excavations, since some parts of the subject area were considered to be inadequately sampled. These were both undertaken close to the road to investigate the integrity of the soil profile. Several of the test pits in transect D were either not undertaken or slightly relocated due to the meandering and poorly defined edge of Eskdale Creek in this area - several of the test pits proving too water-logged to excavate.

The test excavations encompassed most of the Conservation Area PAD between Quarry Road in the west and the edge of the former Old Wallgrove Road in the east. The 39 test pits gave a sampling grid roughly 15 m (east – west) x 10 m (north – south), and in some areas even higher (e.g. test pits G5-G7 were only 5 m from C5-C7). Existing impacts around the former Old Wallgrove Road were so high (including embankments, stormwater drains and other M7 Motorway related activities) that no testing east of test pit D12/C11 was undertaken. An area near the junction of Quarry Road and Old Wallgrove Road was also not investigated, since the construction of several recent 33 kV electricity poles had been installed and caused significant impact to the area (Figure A-4). This area was also tested historically by Oliver Brown (see Appendix 2: Section 6.3), and found to be primarily re-worked materials from Quarry Road.

The test excavations revealed that the Conservation Area PAD was composed of a shallow texture contrast soil that contained a low density of Aboriginal objects (4/m2). There was little variation in the 39 test pits, all of which retained soil depths of between 10 – 40 cm, with an average of 26.15cm (Table 1 and Appendix 4). On average, 2.6 spits and approximately 148 kg were recovered from each test pit before basal clays were reached. The deeper soil profile appeared to be close to Old Wallgrove Road, with shallower (probably scoured/eroded) soils closer to the floodplain and Eskdale Creek. The shallow and active nature of the soil profile meant that no in situ Aboriginal objects were recovered – most of the artefacts being found on the interface between the A and B horizons.



Figure A-2. Photograph of the subject area, looking west. Test pit D5 is in the foreground with transects C and D being evident by fencing around each test pit.

Figure A-3. Photograph of the subject area, looking east. Test pit C1 is in the foreground with the rest of transect C evident behind it. Transect G is just evident to the right of the photograph.



Figure A-4. Photograph of the subject area, looking west. Transects A and B are evident in the photograph. Note the large recently installed transmission poles in the background.

Figure A-5. Photograph of the subject area, looking east. Transect B is evident to the left of photograph.



Figure A-6. Photograph of the eastern portion of the subject area, looking east. Transects C and D are evident in the photograph. Note this part of the site is slightly higher than the low-lying flood prone

land shown in the centre/left of this photograph.

Figure A-7. Photograph of the eastern portion of the subject area, looking east. The end of transect A and most of transect C is evident in this photograph. The highest concentrations of Aboriginal

objects appear to occur on the slight rise evident in the foreground of this photograph.



Table 1. Summary of the test pit locations, depths, spits and sediment recovered.

Test pit # Easting* Northing* Elevation AHD (Top)

Elevation AHD

(Base)

Number of spits (10cm)

Maximum Depth (cm)

Sediment weight (kg)†

A1 300781.791 6256736.561 54.50 54.10 4 40 280

A2 300768.566 6256743.740 54.05 53.85 2 20 90

A3 300755.399 6256750.888 54.18 53.98 2 20 140

A4 300742.237 6256758.033 54.19 53.99 2 20 100

A5 300729.105 6256765.162 54.37 54.17 2 20 100

A6 300715.877 6256772.343 54.79 54.59 2 20 80

A7 300796.745 6256736.433 54.54 54.24 3 30 180

B1 300786.528 6256745.428 53.67 53.27 4 40 290

B2 300773.318 6256752.575 53.66 53.56 1 10 70

B3 300760.219 6256759.612 53.86 53.76 1 10 60

B4 300747.056 6256766.788 53.77 53.67 1 10 60

B5 300732.019 6256774.920 53.79 53.69 1 10 60

B6 300722.394 6256780.163 53.67 53.57 1 10 60

C1 300806.793 6256735.618 54.39 54.14 3 25 180

C10 300934.199 6256780.247 52.28 51.98 3 30 260

C11 300948.365 6256785.209 52.16 51.81 4 35 200

C2 300821.009 6256740.598 53.93 53.43 10 (dug as 5cm spits)

50 180

C3 300835.121 6256745.541 53.53 53.23 3 30 200

C4 300849.188 6256750.469 53.27 52.97 3 30 150

C5 300863.563 6256755.504 53.07 52.77 3 30 130

C6 300877.511 6256760.390 52.84 52.56 3 28-30 170

C7 300891.754 6256765.379 52.71 52.43 3 28 190

C8 300905.883 6256770.329 52.60 52.28 4 32-35 190

C9 300920.069 6256775.297 52.46 52.12 4 34 180



Test pit # Easting* Northing* Elevation AHD (Top)

Elevation AHD

(Base)

Number of spits (10cm)

Maximum Depth (cm)

Sediment weight (kg)†

D1 300801.878 6256749.844 53.65 53.35 3 30 160

D10 300931.214 6256788.726 52.21 51.91 3 30 140

D11 300945.413 6256793.714 52.10 51.82 3 28 170

D12 300959.679 6256798.726 52.05 51.73 3 32 60

D2 300815.924 6256754.657 53.53 53.30 3 23-25 60

D3 300830.126 6256759.672 53.29 52.99 3 30 170

D4 300844.296 6256764.645 53.10 53.00 1 10 130

D5 300860.149 6256764.914 53.08 52.98 1 10 140

D9 300915.132 6256789.518 52.35 52.05 3 30 180

F1 300767.212 6256733.172 55.02 54.72 3 30 210

F2 300752.511 6256730.068 55.86 55.56 3 30 170

F3 300737.904 6256727.065 56.76 56.46 3 30 100

G5 300865.128 6256750.711 53.24 52.94 3 30 200

G6 300878.982 6256755.526 52.95 52.67 3 28 150

G7 300893.149 6256760.498 52.81 52.51 3 30 160

Average 53.55 53.29 2.69 26.15 148.72

* All eastings and northings were taken from the northeast corner of each test pit. All co-ordinates are presented in MGA Area 56. † Sediment weight is based on bucket counts. All sediment was collected in a standard sized bucket, which takes approximately 10 kg per load. Subsequently, this value has been calculated by taking the bucket count per test pit and multiplying it by 10.

Based on the soil profile, it is considered that much of the PAD is situated within the flood corridor of Eskdale Creek. Most of the soil profiles within the test pits revealed evidence of gleying and/or frequent iron/manganese pisoliths, all indicative of prolonged water-logging and/or flooding. Only the soil profiles from those test pits (e.g. C1-C6, F1-F3, G5-G6, etc) along the edge of Old Wallgrove Road suggested that they were outside the flood zone and may have represented a former elevated area near the creek. Typically, these test pits were located ~54 m AHD, rather than those nearer the creek, which were frequently less than 53 m AHD (Table 1). Unfortunately, in many cases, the test pits adjacent the road were heavily disturbed through the construction of the nearby roadway and/or the ongoing use of the area as an informal road verge in several places.



The excavations recovered 40 Aboriginal objects (Figure A-23) from the 39 test pits, giving an average of broadly 1 lithic/0.25 m2 or 4 lithics/m2. Test pits A1 and C2 contained the highest number of artefacts (4 and 14, respectively), equating to between 16 and 56 lithics/m2. However in the case of test pit C2, excavations revealed significant disturbance in the form of a linear cut running through the centre of the test pit, with the fill of the cut containing frequent gravel inclusions. The cut was interpreted as a wheel rut or narrow drainage channel. The high number of Aboriginal objects recovered from test pit C2 is therefore considered to more likely reflect the fracturing/smashing of a lesser number of artefacts, or the introduction of artefacts in gravel. In either case, test pits surrounding test pit C2 suggest these high concentrations of artefacts did not extend >10 m in any direction.

There was no discernible pattern to the distribution of Aboriginal objects, although most artefacts were recovered from a 50 m stretch on the bend of Eskdale Creek (and including test pits A7, C2, D1-D3, C4–C6) within the centre of the area investigated. Visually, this area appears slightly steeper than other parts of the PAD area investigated, and was probably above the more minor flood/water-logging episodes. However, similar landforms at other parts of the PAD area, most notably at either end of the excavations were archaeologically sterile.

The majority of Aboriginal objects were recovered from the upper 20 cm, which reflects the generally shallow nature of the soil profile (the average depth being 26 cm – see Table 1). The Aboriginal objects were dominated by various types of silcrete (n=30) and contained several broken backed artefacts. The assemblage’s appearance generally suggested ephemeral occupation of the area probably in the last few thousand years. However, given the disturbed, shallow and active nature of the soil profile, it seems more likely the assemblage formed in only the last few hundred years.

The following sections provided a detailed description of the soil profile and the Aboriginal objects recovered from the test excavations.

3.3.2 Soils

The soil profile across the Conservation Area PAD was consistent (e.g. Figures A-8 – A-17). Specifically, the soil profile can be split into two units:

1. Friable coarse sandy clay loam with colours ranging from dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) and with pH ranging from 5.7 to 6.5. The unit also contained extensive charcoal, organics, manganese and iron flecks, and fine ironstone gravels. This soil unit was identified as an A horizon or topsoil and is generally 10 to 40 cm thick. In low-lying areas, this unit was often gleyed and/or contained extensive pisoliths indicative of prolonged flooding/water-logging ; over-laying



2. Plastic, silty clay to heavy clay with a moderate polyhedral to blocky ped structure. This unit retained no inclusions, was dark brown (10YR 3/3 and 3/4) in colour and had a pH of 4.0 to 5.2. This unit was considered to represent the B horizon or basal geology for the purpose of this investigation. It was generally found some 40 cm below surface level.

Based on other studies in the region, this soil could be characterised as a texture contrast profile (Duplex sensu Northcote 1971) with an active biomantle (1 above) (sensu Johnson, 1989, 2002) grading into basal clays (2 above) (Figures A-9 – A-11 and A-14). Variations in bleaching and ironstone pisoliths at the base of the biomantle, and the likely location of artefactual material, all related to the position and angle of the test pit on the lower slope or flood plain (Figures A-12 and A-13). The texture contrast soils were generally deeper on the lower slopes closer to Old Wallgrove Road (~30-40 cm) (Figure A-10 and A-12), compared to the floodplain (where they were rarely greater than 10 cm in depth) (Figure A-13). This is most likely due to areas closer to Eskdale Creek having been scoured and/or eroded through increased water flow in the past - based on the presence of gleying and pisoliths across the northern edges of the PAD, prolonged flooding of at least a metre does occur here fairly regularly.

It is, however, considered likely that the indicators of water-logging and/or flooding, such as manganese pisoliths, may have developed recently following modifications of Eskdale Creek by the M7 Motorway. Other nearby parts of the creek are clearly delineated and surrounded by lower slopes, whereas several similar types of landform within the Conservation Zone PAD exhibited signs of frequent and/or prolonged flooding probably though reduced water flow from channel modifications by the recent road modifications.

Several of the test pits, most notably those near the road, were extensively impacted and re-worked by surrounding development (Figures A-16 and A-17). In most of these test pits, some remnant of the texture contrast soil remained, but it rarely contained any structure and often had modern refuse (e.g. glass, plastic, metal, re-worked clay, etc) throughout. This includes test pit C2, which contained the majority of the Aboriginal objects recovered from the testing program. Test pit C2 further had a shallow deep trough running through the centre of the excavations, which was interpreted as a wheel rut or drainage channel (Figures A-10 and A-11).



Figure A-8. Photograph of test pit A6, facing north. Near the base of a lower slope, the soil profile was a shallow texture contrast soil composed of a friable clay loam over-lying basal clay.

Figure A-9. Photograph of test pit B2, facing north. Near the base of a lower slope, the soil profile was a shallow texture contrast soil composed of a friable clay loam over-lying basal clay.



Figure A-10. Photograph of test pit C2, facing north. This test pit contained the highest number of Aboriginal objects, but as shown here there is a linear disturbance through the centre of the test

pit. It is believed this reflects a wheel rut or drainage channel (the soil above being recent and full of modern refuse), the test pit being close to Old Wallgrove Road.

Figure A-11. Photograph of test pit C2, facing east. The linear feature was believed to be a wheel rut (several were noted across other parts of the subject area), or drainage channel.



Figure A-12. Photograph of test pit C9, facing north. In the low-lying floodplain areas, the texture contrast soil was slightly deeper here, but did exhibit water-logging and/or flooding through gleying

and/or the presence of iron/manganese pisoliths throughout the deposit.

Figure A-13. Photograph of test pit C11, facing north. In the low-lying floodplain areas, the texture contrast soil was slightly deeper here, but did exhibit water-logging and/or flooding through gleying

and/or the presence of iron/manganese pisoliths throughout the deposit.



Figure A-14. Photograph of test pit D1, facing north. The western parts of transect D were on the lower slopes and revealed a shallow texture contrast soil.

Figure A-15. Photograph of test pit D12, facing north. Several parts of transect D were in close proximity to the active channel of Eskdale Creek. These test pits, where undertaken, proved to be shallow and

frequently water-logged.



Figure A-16. Photograph of test pit F1, facing north. Test pits closer the road where frequently disturbed, as evident by this photograph which shows a mixing of the topsoil and the under-lying

clay, as well as a piece of road base partway down the section.

Figure A-17. Photograph of test pit F3, facing north. Test pits closer to the road were frequently disturbed, as evident by this photograph which shows a recent burning event (with modern road

base) at the base of the section.



3.3.3 Stone Tool Analysis

The 39 test pits revealed a low density of Aboriginal objects (artefacts). . A total of 40 artefacts were recovered from 16 of the 39 pits (Test pits A1, A7, B2, B4, C2, C4, C6, C8, C11, D2, D3, D11, F2, G5, G6, and G7) (Figure A-23, Table 2, Appendix 6), which equates to an average artefact density in the order of 1/0.25 m2 or 4 lithics/m2.

Table 2. Distribution of artefacts in pits by spit. Main soil units are also shown (A1 –black; B – orange).

Spit (10cm) A1 A7 B2 B4 C1 C2* C4 C6 C8 D1 D2 D3 F2 G5 G6 G7 Total

1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 11

2 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 13

3 3 2 1 6

4 3 3 6

5 4 4

6 0

Total 4 2 2 1 2 14 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 40

* C2 was excavated in 5cm spits but is presented her in 10 cm spits for comparison.

The majority of the Aboriginal objects were recovered from the top 20cm (n=24; 60%) of the pits with 0-10 cm containing 27.5% (n=11) and 11-20 cm containing 32.5% (n=13) of the assemblage. Only test pits A1, C2, C6 and G7 contained Aboriginal objects in the lower spits with six (15%) artefacts coming from spit 3 (21 – 30 cm) and six (15%) artefacts coming from spit 4 (31 – 40 cm).

Test pit C2 contained the most artefacts recovered from the excavations (n=14; 35%) and also the deepest (spit 5; 41-50 cm). However, test pit C2 did exhibit evidence of significant disturbance, and the high number of artefacts may be a reflection of damage (smashing/fracturing) of an originally lesser number of Aboriginal objects (from vehicle crushing, for example). Conjoin analysis was not definitive, but did indicate all the artefacts were composed of the same pink silcrete and were all broken and/or small. The high number of Aboriginal objects did not extend >10 m in any direction, so the high number of Aboriginal objects in C2 can be considered a discrete peak concentration in an otherwise larger background scatter found across the PAD.

The assemblage raw material was predominantly silcrete (n=33; 82.5%), which could be further divided into medium grained silcrete (n=30), fine grained silcrete (n=2) and fine grained siliceous (n=1). Quartzite (n=5; 5%), silicified wood (n=1; 2.5%), clear quartz (n=1;



2.5%) and milky quartz (n=1;2.5%) were also present in small numbers. Cortex was present on 12 silcrete flakes, four quartz flakes and one quartzite flake. Ten of these artefacts revealed water-rolled cortex indicating a fluvial source – probably nearby Ropes Creek or Eastern Creek, since Eskdale revealed no evidence of a pebble/rock bedload – a further six retained evidence of primary outcropping. These six artefacts were all silcrete, one had rind cortex, while the other five had rough cortex, both suggesting sources from other parts of the Cumberland Plain.

Only a small number of tools or diagnostic artefacts were found in the assemblage and these were generally broken fragments. They consisted of cores (n=5; 12.5%) and tools (n=6; 15%). Only one complete tool was recovered. Two artefacts had backed retouch and four artefacts had scalar retouch/usewear. Scalar retouch and usewear was identified where scale-like flake scars occur along the edge of the tool blank. The artefacts with scalar retouch/usewear are distal pieces from test pit 27 Spit 2 (ID 0027) and Pit C2 Spit 81

(ID 0020) and Spit 9 (ID 0023) (Figures A-18 - A-20). Test pit C2 Spit 3 contained the only complete core of pink medium grain silcrete. Four core fragments made of red and pink medium grain silcrete were found in test pit A1 Spit 1 (ID 0001), test pit B4 Spit 1 (ID 0009) test pit C2 Spit 6 (ID 0018), and test pit C2 Spit 8 (0021). Backed retouch is usually along the lateral margin of a tool and was abrupt unidirectional or bidirectional steep retouch (>80°) (Holdaway and Stern 2004: 159).

The one complete tool form from test pit B2 Spit 1 (ID 0008) was made from yellow, fine grain siliceous material and has both scalar and backed retouch (Figure A-21). The other backed artefact from test pit A1 Spit 4 (ID 0003) was a broken distal tool made on a red medium grained silcrete (Figure A-22).

The presence of backed artefacts indicates a likely mid-late Holocene age for the assemblage. Given the soil profile appears to have been scoured and eroded in several places, it is quite possible the assemblage is only a few hundred years old. The low number of Aboriginal objects combined with the low number of diagnostic features makes any interpretation on site use problematic. However, the lack of complete tools indicates a low degree of tool use on site and this was most likely associated with short term occupation of the area. This is unsurprising given the presence of better resources nearby at Eastern Creek to the east and Ropes Creek to the west.

Overall, these results are comparable with the findings of archaeological investigations by Jo McDonald Heritage Management Pty Ltd at Wonderland Surplus, Old Wallgrove Road, Easten Creek (SEPP59: EC3, EC3/1 A. EC3/1 B, and EC3/2) in October 2006 (see Table 3).The similarities at both sites are summarised as; silcrete was the dominant material, low average lithic densities <10/m²; contained locally sourced silcrete and quartz, low number of tools and possible usewear; a small number of backed artefacts; a lack of small artefacts (<1cm); and cores were fairly uncommon (Table 3).

1 Test pit C2 was excavated in 5 cm spits. The actual spit the artefact came from is referenced here, although in other parts of the report, test pit C2 has been amalgamated into 10 cm spits for ease of comparison. All spits presented in this section are the original 5 cm divisions.



Table 3. Table 2: Summary of artefacts found at OWR12 (AHMS) and SEPP59 (Jo McDonald)

Figure A-18. Retouched artefact from test pit C2, spit 9 (ID 0023).

Material Types (%) Tools and Diagnostic Artefacts

SITE Total

Lithics

Average Density

/m² Silcrete Other Backed Possible Usewear

Core

This site 40 4 82.5% 12.5% 2 3 1

EC3 87 0.9 70% 30% 1 1 1

EC3/2 14 1.5 91% 9% 1 1 0

EC3/1 A 358 8 87% 13% 3 12 2

EC3/1 B 1087 7 90.5% 9.5% 14 4 1





2 Test pit C2 was excavated in 5 cm spits. The actual spit the artefact came from is reference here, although in other parts of the report, test pit C2 has been amalgamated into 10 cm spits for ease of comparison. All spits presented in this section are the original 5 cm divisions.



Figure A-21. Complete tool from test pit B2, spit 1 (ID 0008).

Figure A-22. Backed artefact from test pit A1, spit 4 (ID 0003).


Archaeological & Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd June 2012

Figure A-23. Map showing artefact densities across the Conservation Area PAD. Test pits with no Aboriginal objects are coloured white; those with 0 -5 lithics/0.25 m2 are shown in green; and those

with >5 lithics/m2 are shown in yellow.

3.4 Conclusions The test excavations of the Conservation Area PAD revealed a low density of Aboriginal objects occurring across the lower slopes and floodplain to the south of Eskdale Creek. The excavations recovered 40 Aboriginal objects, which provide an average of ~4 lithics/m2 across the two landforms. However, most of these Aboriginal objects were located in 16 test pits located along a 50 m bend in the river. Using only these 16 test pits in determining artefact densities (rather than the remaining 23 archaeologically sterile test pits), a slightly higher artefact density in the order of 8-10 lithics/m2 may be considered present in this area.

The Aboriginal objects were recovered from a shallow texture contrast soil, which was heavily disturbed adjacent Old Wallgrove Road and probably eroded/scoured closer to Eskdale Creek. Such erosion was similarly noted by Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage

This page of the assessment of the assessment contains culturally sensitiveinformation. RMS has removed the contents to protect and manage culturallysensitive information, out of respect to the Aboriginal community.



Management Pty Ltd north of Eskdale Creek at the old Wonderland Theme Park. The nature of the soil profile suggests its formation only over the last few hundred years, which agrees in general with the late Holocene (<5,000 years BP) character of the Aboriginal objects.

It is concluded that test excavations identified a low density background scatter of Aboriginal objects across the Conservation Area PAD. These findings are typical of the local area with several nearby studies finding similar results. Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (see Appendix 2: Section 6.3) in excavations of the industrial park immediately south of Old Wallgrove Road identified artefact densities of ~6 lithics/m2. Excavations by the same company, north of Eskdale Creek (at the old Wonderland Theme Park) recovered 1,550 Aboriginal objects at densities of between 0.8 – 2.9 lithics/m2. A range of other studies by Dominic Steele, Laila Haglund, Navin Officer Heritage Consultants and Jon Appleton have all demonstrated similar low densities of Aboriginal objects in the region. In general, these studies considered the archaeological significance of these finds to be low.



APPENDIX 4: EXCAVATION SECTION DRAWINGS



APPENDIX 5: EXCAVATION PHOTOGRAPHS

Conservation Area PAD / Artefact Scatter, Old Wallgrove Road, Eastern Creek

Archaeological Test Excavation: Photographic Register

CAMERA Nikon D-200 LENSES 28-105mmSENSOR SIZE 1.5 35 MM LENS EQUIVALENT 42-157.5mm SCALES 20 cm increments PHOTOGRAPHER Adrian Dreyer

IMAGEFILE NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ORIENTATION

001 29/05/2012 SQ C1: South Facing Section Facing N

002 29/05/2012 SQ C1: General Shot Facing N

003 29/05/2012 SQ C1: Location Shot Facing N

004 29/05/2012 SQ A2: South Facing Section Facing N

005 29/05/2012 SQ A2: General Shot Facing N

006 29/05/2012 SQ A2: Location Shot Facing N





011 29/05/2012 SQ C2: West Facing Section Facing E

012 29/05/2012 SQ C2: General Shot Facing E

013 29/05/2012 SQ C2: General Shot Facing S

014 29/05/2012 SQ C2: Location Shot Facing S





019 29/05/2012 SQ A1: Location Shot Facing E





024 29/05/2012 SQ B1: South Facing Section Facing N

025 29/05/2012 SQ B1: General Shot Facing N

026 29/05/2012 SQ B1: Location Shot Facing N

027 29/05/2012 SQ B1: Location Shot Facing S



030 29/05/2012 SQ A7: Location Shot Facing S

031 29/05/2012 SQ F1: North Facing Section Facing S


032 29/05/2012 SQ F1: General Shot Facing S

033 29/05/2012 SQ F1: Location Shot Facing S




037 30/05/2012 SQ F3: Location Shot Facing N




041 30/05/2012 SQ F2: Location Shot Facing N

042 30/05/2012 SQ G5: North Facing Section Facing S

043 30/05/2012 SQ G5: General Shot Facing S

044 30/05/2012 SQ G5: Location Shot Facing S

045 30/05/2012 SQ G5: Location Shot Facing N

046 30/05/2012 SQ C5: North Facing Section Facing S


















064 31/05/2012 SQ A6: North Facing Section Facing S

065 31/05/2012 SQ A6: General Shot Facing S








072 31/05/2012 SQ B4: North Facing Section Facing S

073 31/05/2012 SQ B4: General Shot Facing S



















092 31/05/2012 SQ D1: North Facing Section Facing S

093 31/05/2012 SQ D1: General Shot Facing S

094 31/05/2012 SQ D1: Location Shot Facing S

095 31/05/2012 SQ D1: Location Shot Facing N










































136 31/05/2012 SQ D12: South Facing Section Facing N

137 31/05/2012 SQ D12: General Shot Facing N











148 31/05/2012 SQ D9: South Facing Section Facing N


149 31/05/2012 SQ D9: General Shot Facing N


151 31/05/2012 View of Eastern end of site (from Eastern end) Facing W

152 31/05/2012 View of Eastern end of site Facing E



155 31/05/2012 View of Eastern end of site (along C-Transect) Facing E

156 31/05/2012 View of Eastern end of site (along C-Transect) Facing E

157 31/05/2012 View of Western end of site Facing W

158 31/05/2012 View of Western end of site (from Western end) Facing E




162 31/05/2012 View of site (from Western end) Facing E





Archaeological & Heritage Management Solutions Pty LtdSeptember 2012

APPENDIX 6: RAW LITHIC DATA

AR

EAID

LEVE

L3D

DA

TAC

LASS

MA

TER

IAL

CO

LOU

RH

EAT

DA

MA

GD

ISTE

ND

MA

NU

POR

TC

OR

TEX

TES

TEX

A1

100

01C

OR

EFR

AG

MS

ILC

RE

TEP

INK

N0%

TES

TEX

A1

400

02B

RO

KFL

AK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

0%TE

STE

XA

14

0003

BR

OK

TOO

LM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

26-5

0%TE

STE

XA

14

0004

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NFE

ATH

ER

26-5

0%TE

STE

XA

71

0005

BR

OK

FLA

KE

FSIL

CR

ETE

RE

DY

0%TE

STE

XA

72

0006

DIS

TTO

OL

FSIL

CR

ETE

YE

LLO

WN

FEA

THE

R0%

TES

TEX

B2

100

07C

OM

PFL

AK

EM

QU

AR

TP

INK

NFE

ATH

ER

26-5

0%TE

STE

XB

21

0008

CO

MP

TOO

LFG

SY

ELL

OW

NFE

ATH

ER

0%TE

STE

XB

41

0009

CO

RE

FRA

GM

SIL

CR

ETE

RE

DN

26-5

0%TE

STE

XC

42

0010

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TEY

ELL

OW

NC

OR

TIC

AL

1-25

%TE

STE

XC

42

0011

CO

MP

FLA

KE

CQ

UA

RT

YE

LLO

WN

FEA

THE

R51

-99%

TES

TEX

C2

300

12C

OR

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

0%TE

STE

XC

24

0013

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

YFE

ATH

ER

0%TE

STE

XC

24

0014

BR

OK

FLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N0%

TES

TEX

C2

400

15B

RO

KFL

AK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

RE

DN

0%TE

STE

XC

25

0016

CO

MP

SP

LIT

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NFE

ATH

ER

0%TE

STE

XC

25

0017

CO

MP

FLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NFE

ATH

ER

0%TE

STE

XC

26

0018

CO

RE

FRA

GM

SIL

CR

ETE

RE

DN

0%TE

STE

XC

27

0019

PR

OX

FLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N26

-50%

TES

TEX

C2

800

20B

RO

KTO

OL

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N1-

25%

TES

TEX

C2

800

21C

OR

EFR

AG

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N26

-50%

TES

TEX

C2

900

22B

LOC

KM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

0%TE

STE

XC

29

0023

DIS

TTO

OL

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NFE

ATH

ER

1-25

%TE

STE

XC

29

0024

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NA

XIA

L0%

TES

TEX

C2

1000

25M

AN

UP

OR

TQ

UA

RTZ

ITE

PIN

KN

SP

LITP

EB

51-9

9%TE

STE

XC

63

0026

DIS

TFLA

KE

QU

AR

TZIT

EG

RE

YN

FEA

THE

R0%

TES

TEX

C6

300

27D

ISTT

OO

LM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

FEA

THE

R0%

TES

TEX

C8

200

28B

RO

KFL

AK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

RE

DN

0%TE

STE

XC

111

0029

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TEG

RE

YN

HIN

GE

1-25

%TE

STE

XC

112

0030

DIS

TFLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

NFE

ATH

ER

0%TE

STE

XD

31

0031

PR

OX

FLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N0%

TES

TEX

D3

100

32B

LOC

KM

QU

AR

TP

INK

N26

-50%

TES

TEX

D2

200

33S

HA

TTE

RM

QU

AR

TP

INK

N51

-99%

TES

TEX

D2

200

34C

OM

PFL

AK

ES

WO

OD

YE

LLO

WN

PLU

NG

EN

/ATE

STE

XD

112

0035

BR

OK

FLA

KE

MS

ILC

RE

TER

ED

N1-

25%

TES

TEX

F22

0036

BLO

CK

MS

ILC

RE

TEG

RE

YY

N/A

TES

TEX

G5

100

37B

RO

KFL

AK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

GR

EY

N0%

TES

TEX

G5

100

38C

OM

PFL

AK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

YE

LLO

WN

FEA

THE

R51

-99%

TES

TEX

G6

100

39D

ISTF

LAK

EM

SIL

CR

ETE

YE

LLO

WN

FEA

THE

R0%

TES

TEX

G7

300

40C

OM

PS

PLI

TM

SIL

CR

ETE

PIN

KN

FEA

THE

R0%

IDLE

VEL

3DA

11

0001

A1

400

02A

14

0003

A1

400

04A

71

0005

A7

200

06B

21

0007

B2

100

08B

41

0009

C4

200

10C

42

0011

C2

300

12C

24

0013

C2

400

14C

24

0015

C2

500

16C

25

0017

C2

600

18C

27

0019

C2

800

20C

28

0021

C2

900

22C

29

0023

C2

900

24C

210

0025

C6

300

26C

63

0027

C8

200

28C

111

0029

C11

200

30D

31

0031

D3

100

32D

22

0033

D2

200

34D

112

0035

F22

0036

G5

100

37G

51

0038

G6

100

39G

73

0040

CO

RTE

XTFO

RM

PLA

TTYP

EPL

ATP

REP

FLA

KES

CA

RS

SCA

R1

TOO

LTYP

ER

ETED

GE

RET

TYPE

1R

ETTY

PE2

0N

/A0

RIN

DIN

DE

TER

BA

CK

ED

0W

ATE

R-R

OLL

N/A

0R

OU

GH

N/A

0N

/AU

SE

WE

AR

0W

ATE

R-R

OLL

IND

ETE

RU

NI

N0

NA

0IN

DE

TER

MIS

SIN

GN

<31

BA

CK

ED

4B

AC

KU

SE

WE

AR

WE

ATH

ER

0W

ATE

R-R

OLL

N/A

0W

ATE

R-R

OLL

BLO

CK

CR

US

HN

0N

A0 0

N/A

0N

/A0

N/A

0IN

DE

TER

0E

LON

GFA

CE

TN

<31

0 0R

OU

GH

ELO

NG

CR

US

HY

0R

OU

GH

ELO

NG

US

EW

EA

R0

RO

UG

H0 0

RO

UG

HN

/AU

SE

WE

AR

0E

LON

G0

WA

TER

-RO

LLB

LOC

K0

N/A

0E

LON

GU

SE

WE

AR

0N

/A0

WA

TER

-RO

LLIN

DE

TER

0IN

DE

TER

0E

XP

AN

DU

NI

N0

WA

TER

-RO

LL0

WA

TER

-RO

LLB

LOC

K0

WE

ATH

ER

IND

ETE

RU

NI

Y<3

10

RO

UG

HN

/A0

WE

ATH

ER

0N

/A0

WA

TER

-RO

LLE

XP

AN

DU

NI

N0

NA

0IN

DE

TER

0IN

DE

TER

0

IDLE

VEL

3DA

11

0001

A1

400

02A

14

0003

A1

400

04A

71

0005

A7

200

06B

21

0007

B2

100

08B

41

0009

C4

200

10C

42

0011

C2

300

12C

24

0013

C2

400

14C

24

0015

C2

500

16C

25

0017

C2

600

18C

27

0019

C2

800

20C

28

0021

C2

900

22C

29

0023

C2

900

24C

210

0025

C6

300

26C

63

0027

C8

200

28C

111

0029

C11

200

30D

31

0031

D3

100

32D

22

0033

D2

200

34D

112

0035

F22

0036

G5

100

37G

51

0038

G6

100

39G

73

0040

RET

TYPE

3R

ETTY

PE4

CO

RET

YPE

CO

REB

OD

YC

OR

ESEC

SCA

RFO

RM

CPL

ATN

OST

EPT

HIN

GET

LEN

GTH

LEN

GTH

CF

020

00

110

014

00

90

09

00

110

012

10B

AC

KU

SE

WE

AR

027

00

90

09

00

1212

UN

IDIR

BLO

CK

LEN

TM

IXE

D1

<5<5

290

09

00

140

012

00

130

017

170

140

011

00

130

011

00

110

012

00

140

056

00

90

019

00

80

012

00

230

09

00

100

07

00

1211

09

00

130

010

00

1410

015

00

140

IDLE

VEL

3DA

11

0001

A1

400

02A

14

0003

A1

400

04A

71

0005

A7

200

06B

21

0007

B2

100

08B

41

0009

C4

200

10C

42

0011

C2

300

12C

24

0013

C2

400

14C

24

0015

C2

500

16C

25

0017

C2

600

18C

27

0019

C2

800

20C

28

0021

C2

900

22C

29

0023

C2

900

24C

210

0025

C6

300

26C

63

0027

C8

200

28C

111

0029

C11

200

30D

31

0031

D3

100

32D

22

0033

D2

200

34D

112

0035

F22

0036

G5

100

37G

51

0038

G6

100

39G

73

0040

WID

THTH

ICK

CLE

NG

THPL

WID

PLTH

CO

RES

CA

RC

OR

SCA

RW

CO

RSC

AR

WEI

GH

T12

100

00

00

2.4

00

00

00

00.

4000

0001

00

00

00

00.

50

00

00

00

0.2

00

00

00

00.

10

00

00

00

0.30

0000

0110

30

42

00

0.40

0000

0113

50

00

00

2.29

9999

955

40

00

00

0.30

0000

010

00

00

00

0.1

105

06

30

00.

8000

0001

2015

190

017

86-

109.

60

00

00

00

0.1

00

00

00

00.

3000

0001

00

00

00

00.

3000

0001

04

00

40

00.

514

40

145

00

0.89

9999

9812

40

00

00

0.69

9999

990

00

143

00

0.30

0000

010

00

00

00

0.2

105

00

00

00.

6000

0002

00

00

00

00.

3000

0001

00

00

00

00.

20

00

00

00

0.40

0000

010

00

00

00

60.7

00

00

00

00.

20

00

00

00

0.69

9999

990

00

00

00

0.2

00

00

00

00.

3000

0001

00

00

00

01.

3999

9998

00

06

10

00.

10

00

00

00

0.30

0000

010

00

00

00

0.1

104

03

30

00.

4000

0001

00

00

00

00.

20

00

00

00

0.80

0000

010

00

00

00

0.2

164

010

40

00.

6999

9999

00

00

00

00.

4000

0001

03

00

20

00.

3000

0001

appendix 2: aboriginal archaeological survey report

Documents