Senior Project Manager-Cardno PO BOX 19 · Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd ABN 60 001 179 362...

Sydney

78 George Street Redfern

NSW Australia 2016

T +61 2 9319 4811

F +61 2 9319 4383

Canberra

2A Mugga Way Red Hill

PO Box 3171 Manuka

ACT 2603

T +61 2 6273 7540

F +61 2 6273 8114

Melbourne

PO Box 434

South Melbourne BC

VIC 3205

T +61 3 9380 1933

F +61 3 9380 4066

Hobart

GPO Box 554 Hobart

TAS Australia 7001

T +61 3 6223 2810

F +61 3 6223 2820

Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd

ABN 60 001 179 362

www.gml.com.au

[email protected]

10 October 2013

Megan Bonner

Senior Project Manager-Cardno

PO BOX 19

ST LEONARDS NSW 1590

Our Ref: 13-0234mbc3

Re: Marsden Park – Aboriginal Heritage Management in Relation to Proposed

Bulk Earthworks

Dear Megan

This letter provides an overview of Aboriginal heritage work undertaken to date for

Stockland’s future landholdings at Marsden Park.

The letter details the proposed mechanism for Aboriginal heritage management,

under Section 90 consent, if issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage

(OEH) under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Prior Aboriginal Heritage Work

On behalf of Stockland, in accordance with NSW legislation and OEH policy, GML

is in the process of undertaking an Aboriginal heritage assessment for the Marsden

Park study area. Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd completed the Marsden

Park Precinct North West Growth Centre Precinct Planning Aboriginal consultation

and reporting as part of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure precinct

planning processes in 2012.

The current work in train by GML is being undertaken in order to obtain a thorough

understanding of Aboriginal cultural and scientific values across the Marsden Park

study area to allow Stockland to apply for a precinct wide Section 90 consent to

‘harm’ Aboriginal objects. Work undertaken thus far includes:

Aboriginal community consultation;

consultation with the OEH;

archaeological field survey with the Aboriginal community (29 – 30

October 2012);

preparation of an Archaeological Research Design (ARD) to guide the test

excavation program (November 2012);

test excavation (July – August 2013);

13-0234mbc3 2

commencement of preparation of the draft Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

(ACHAR); and

commencement of the preparation of the draft Archaeological Technical Report (ATR).

Key to undertaking work to date has been the consultation processes (Aboriginal community and OEH).

OEH consultation commenced at the beginning of the assessment process (January 2012) and confirmed

that GML’s proposed methodology was appropriate for the submission of a precinct wide Section 90

application.

Test excavation was undertaken by GML and the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) between the 23

July 2013 and 5 August 2013 in accordance with the Marsden Park—Archaeological Research Design

prepared by GML (November 2012). The test excavation revealed a very low density Aboriginal

archaeological deposit which has low archaeological and scientific significance across the Marsden Park

study area. Previously recorded isolated finds were not relocated during works, despite surveying for

these in order to mark their location and provide a buffer for their protection. There is a low potential for

further isolated Aboriginal objects to be present within the study area; as well as a low potential for

archaeological deposits with a high density of Aboriginal objects to exist within the study area. As such,

from our preliminary assessment of the test excavation results, no salvage excavation work is required as

part of future Aboriginal heritage management across the Marsden Park study area. Please note the

Aboriginal community will still need to review and endorse this recommendation once the draft ACHAR

and draft ATR are finalised.

Future Aboriginal Heritage Management & Section 90 submission

Now that test excavation is complete, we are in the process of finalising the draft ACHAR and draft ATR

for submission to the Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) for their review and comment. Our reports will

recommend that no further archaeological excavation is required to mitigate sites within Stockland’s

landholding at Marsden Park. The study area at present does not contain a known Aboriginal place of

heritage significance.

However, under a future Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP), management would see the Aboriginal

community offered the opportunity to collect any surface based material or objects after topsoil scraping.

These objects can be temporarily held by GML or in an appropriate secure temporary location as agreed

to by the RAPs, with the objects from test excavation, until they can be reburied within the development

site — an area must be allocated and this area cannot be disturbed once the objects are reburied, without

a new AHIP. Once the statutory review period (28 days) for the reports has completed, the final ACHAR

and ATR will be submitted to OEH, in support of an AHIP application under Section 90A of the National

Parks and Wildlife Act (1974). Bulk earthworks would not be permissible prior to the awarding of the

Section 90 AHIP and subject to any S90 conditions of consent. Following topsoil removal, all surface

collection would need to be completed before any further development impacts could occur.

I hope that this letter provides sufficient detail of Aboriginal heritage undertaken to date and is sufficient to

support the submission of the bulk earthworks development application to Blacktown City Council.

13-0234mbc3 3

Yours sincerely

Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd

Natalie Vinton

Archaeology Manager

Attachments:

Marsden Park—Archaeological Research Design

Marsden Park Registered Aboriginal Parties

Marsden Park —Archaeological Research Design—Draft Report, November 2012 1

Marsden Park—Archaeological Research Design

1.1 Introduction

This Archaeological Research Design (ARD) has been prepared to define the methodology and

research parameters for test excavation at the Marsden Park study area, Marsden Park, NSW. The

background context for this ARD has been presented in the Marsden Park Heritage Assessment

draft report prepared by GML for Stocklands, November 2012. This ARD provides a brief summary

of the results of the Aboriginal heritage survey and archaeological context. Reference should be

made to the GML report for a complete overview of environmental conditions and the Aboriginal

heritage background which underpins this ARD.

This ARD presents:

a basic landscape characterisation and mapping;

a synopsis of the results from the Aboriginal survey of the Marsden Park study area, 29-30

October 2012; and

the test excavation methodology.

1.2 Landscape Characterisation

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of contextual information for use in developing

a predictive model relating to the remains for evidence of Aboriginal occupation and use of the

study area. Interactions between people and their surroundings are of integral importance in both

the initial formation and the subsequent preservation of the archaeological record. The nature and

availability of resources, including water, flora and fauna and suitable raw materials for the

manufacture of stone tools and other items had (and continues to have) a significant influence over

the way in which people utilise the landscape.

Alterations to the natural environment also impact upon the preservation and integrity of any cultural

materials that may have been deposited while current vegetation and erosional regimes affect the

visibility and detectability of Aboriginal sites and objects. For these reasons, it is essential to

consider the environmental context as a component of any heritage assessment.

1.2.1 Geomorphology

The geomorphology of the Marsden Park study area is based upon an alluvial floodplain associated

with a number of first and second order tributaries of South Creek. Alluvial flood deposits are

evident beneath loam topsoil units, in areas where erosion processes have exposed sections

associated with drainage channels (Fig 1.1). Bands of alluvium would have been deposited during

periodic flood events, and/or built up with the inclusion of by long-term wind deposition of Aeolian

sands against shallow landforms. The location and size of such alluvial and Aeolian deposits is not

possible to predict from a surface inspection of the study area. As such, a number of elevated

areas, ranging from low slopes to hilltop areas, may contain intact subsurface archaeological

deposits; these landforms are considered to have a low-moderate archaeological potential. The

lower portion these elevated areas, particularly those directly associate with drainage channels, will

certainly contain alluvial deposits.


Figure 1.1 Stratigraphy associated with an exposed section along a drainage channel (alluvium clearly present beneath a browner sandy loam topsoil)

1.2.2 Water Resources

The closest permanent water source to the study area is South Creek which lies approximately

900m to the north of the study area. South Creek is one of the largest catchments on the

Cumberland Plain and is considered a major watercourse. A total of twelve first order, four second

order, and one third order tributaries, are present within the study area. These semi-permanent

watercourses enter the study area from the north and west, forming a series of floodplains

associated with areas of low elevation. The first, second and third order tributaries would have

provided Aboriginal people with localised access to water, away from South Creek. The floodplains

created by the flooding of these tributaries would have formed important ecological zones rich in

flora and fauna resources.

A total of four dams were identified during survey of the study area, all of which had been built along

tributaries. Analysis of historic aerial imagery indicates all four dams were constructed in the last 40

years.

1.3 Landscape Impacts and Disturbances

The identification of previous disturbance to soil horizons is important and has implications for the

survival of Aboriginal archaeological deposits.

The intention for this project is to test excavate representative portions of the landscape that have a

low level of disturbance with good soil integrity (i.e. soils that have not been mixed and/or interfered

with) and retain a high level of soil condition (i.e. soils that have not been eroded). Such soils may

contain spatially intact archaeological deposits, which can provide evidence for past Aboriginal

activities and thus an understanding of how a location was used.


In order to determine the condition and integrity of soils, and thus the level of impact, within the

study area a number of tasks were undertaken: a field inspection, over one day in September 2011;

an analysis of the 1947-present aerial photographs; and consideration of historical landscape use

(derived from GML’s assessment of historical heritage).

These tasks have led to the identification of a number of historical impacts primarily associated with

historical vegetation clearing, construction, earthworks, farming and the consequential erosion to

the landscape, resulting in an alteration to the soil’s integrity and condition.

1.3.1 Levels of Disturbance

The implications of disturbance relates to the potential preservation of Aboriginal archaeological

deposits, such as stone artefact sites, hearths and other possible features.

Zones with low levels of disturbance are likely to retain intact soil horizons, which could hold

spatially intact archaeological deposits. Such zones can be assessed to determine their condition,

which can be related to the level of erosion or other similar formation processes. On a fundamental

level, areas with high soil integrity, also possessing good condition, can be assigned with a low level

of impact or disturbance.

Such landforms then need to be assessed in terms of their likelihood of bearing archaeological

deposits. Only then can a level of archaeological sensitivity and/or potential be assigned to an

area. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of the disturbance zones within the study area, allocated

under three categories: low, moderate and high disturbance.

One of the objectives of archaeological test excavation will be to sample a range of landforms with

different disturbance levels, in order to determine and assess the level of impact on Aboriginal

heritage across the study area.


Figure 1.2 Aerial of the study area with colour coded zones of disturbance; red representing high, orange representing moderate, and

green representing low (AHIMS sites are represented by yellow dots) (blacked out area not part of the study area, despite blue outline)

1.4 Aboriginal Heritage Predictive Site Modelling

Stream order is the basis for a Cumberland Plain predictive model for Aboriginal site location

(McDonald and Mitchell 19941; White and McDonald 20102). The model assumes that people will

preferentially select places where the water supply is more permanent and predictable for their

usual camping locations. The smallest tributary streams are first order streams and the

classification continues stepwise downstream. Two first order streams join at a first order node to

form a second order stream; two second order streams join at a second order node to form a third

order stream and so on.

The logic behind the stream order model is that in any particular climate and landscape a threshold

catchment area is probably necessary to allow permanent stream flow or the establishment of

waterholes with extended longevity (i.e. months to years). On the Cumberland Plain, where the

average annual rainfall is between 700–900mm, the critical point for human habitation appears to

be at the junction of two second or third order streams (second and third order nodes).

The following is a summary of the findings of previous archaeological work on the Cumberland

Plain:


the complexity of the Cumberland Plain’s archaeological record and time span of Aboriginal

occupation is far greater than was previously identified on the basis of surface recording and

more limited test excavation; and

archaeological landscapes on permanent water, as reflected by Aboriginal people’s

preference for artefact discard, are more complex than sites on ephemeral or temporary

water lines (McDonald 20083, White & McDonald 2010).

Based upon an understanding of the prior work, landforms and disturbances associated with the

study area, it can be stated that:

Aboriginal sites are most likely to be in the form of stone objects and scarred trees. There is

a possibility that hearths and ovens may remain. Other types of Aboriginal site are unlikely to

occur within the study area;

most areas within the study area that contain residual soil horizons, even those with sparse

or no surface manifestations of Aboriginal objects, will contain subsurface archaeological

deposits, albeit in low densities >1/m2;

where lithic concentrations are found in aggrading or stable landscapes, they will largely be

intact and have the potential for internal structural integrity. Sites in alluvium possess

potential for stratification. These locations are identified as being adjacent to South Creek;

most sites will be of mid- to late-Holocene age. Suitable geomorphic conditions (eg deep

sand bodies) for the preservation of Pleistocene–aged assemblages are unlikely to occur

within the study area (such deposits have been identified at Tempe and Parramatta);

frequently, the density and diversity of implements and debitage is conditioned by

permanence of water (stream order) and landscape unit;

distance to known silcrete sources seems to have little influence on artefact discard

generally, although many silcrete sources are perhaps still to be identified. Proximity to

known sources does influence the proportion of flaked to blocky silcrete material on sites.

around the periphery of the Cumberland Plain, sandstone features such as overhangs and/or

platforms may have been used for habitation, processing basalt ground-edged axes and/or

the production of art. Such locations are situated a few kilometres to the east of the study

area, and contrary to earlier models for the region (eg Kohen 1986, Smith 19894) many areas

contain extremely high artefact densities, with variability appearing to depend on the range of

lithic activities present. Densities in excess of 600 artefacts per square metre are not

uncommon adjacent to major streams on the Cumberland Plain (cf JMCHM 20015 and

20076).

1.5 Aboriginal Heritage—Survey Results

A two day archaeological survey was undertaken with the RAPs on 29 and 30 October 2012. The

survey resulted in the identification of three PADs, four stone artefact concentrations (SACs), and

eight isolated finds (If).


PAD1 is situated on a hilltop/slope with views towards South Creek and the Blue Mountains (north,

north-west). Although no cultural material was identified on the surface of the hilltop, sub-surface

deposits are suspected to be largely intact. The hilltop would have provided an excellent view

across a number of important “economic zones”, (localised areas that may have provided sources

of edible plans and other non-stone resources); the archaeological potential of sub-surface deposits

in PAD1 is considered to be low to moderate.


north-west. Although no cultural material was identified on the surface of the hilltop, sub-surface

deposits are suspected to be largely intact. The hilltop would have provided an excellent view

across a number of important “economic zones” (localised areas that may have provided sources of

edible plans and other non-stone resources); the archaeological potential of sub-surface deposits is

considered to be low to moderate.

PAD3 is situated on a small hilltop/rise in close proximity to a third order tributary of South Creek.

Although no cultural material was identified on the surface of the hilltop, sub-surface deposits are

suspected to be largely intact, and a number of stone artefact scatters and isolated finds were

identified in close proximity. PAD3 is suspected to be associated with a stone artefact scatter

registered in the AHIMs database. The area surrounding PAD3 would have provided immediate

access to a semi-permanent water source, as well as a range of flora and fauna associated with this

“economic zone” (localised areas that may have provided sources of edible plans and other non-

stone resources). The archaeological potential of sub-surface deposits is considered to be low to

moderate.


north-west), as well as back across the landscape to the east. Although no cultural material was

identified on the surface of the hilltop, sub-surface deposits are suspected to be largely intact. The

hilltop represents the best vantage point within the study area, providing the most complete view of

the surrounding landscape. Although no cultural material was identified on the surface of the hilltop,

sub-surface deposits are suspected to be largely intact. The hilltop would have provided an

excellent view across a number of important “economic zones” (localised areas that may have

provided sources of edible plans and other non-stone resources); the archaeological potential of

sub-surface deposits is considered to be low to moderate.

SAC1 is comprised of single piece of tuff, and four pieces of red silcrete, one of which show clear

evidence of working. SAC1 is located within an exposed area associated with two established trees,

on a slope rising above a drainage channel (associated with a 1st order tributary of South Creek).

While erosion processes (probably wind and water) have stripped some of the topsoil at SAC1,

subsurface deposits are probably largely intact, and the archaeological potential of the site is

considered to be low to moderate.

SAC2 is comprised of a single piece of red silcrete, and a mudstone point with evidence of backing.

Located on a slope slightly above a drainage channel, SAC2 is potentially the result of erosion

processes that have transported cultural material down towards the drainage channel (i.e. the stone

objects are not insitu). This suggests that artefact density may be greater in subsurface deposits

associated with increasing elevation in surrounding areas. The archaeological potential of the area

surrounding SAC2 is considered to be low to moderate.

SAC3 is comprised of two pieces of red silcrete, and a single piece of tuff. Located on a slope

slightly above a drainage channel, SAC3 is potentially the result of erosion processes that have


transported cultural material down towards the drainage channel. This suggests that artefact density

may be greater in subsurface deposits associated with increasing elevation in surrounding areas.

The archaeological potential of the area surrounding SAC3 is considered to be low to moderate.

SAC4 is comprised of a single piece of red silcrete, and a single piece of tuff. Located on a slope





SAC5 is comprised of a single piece of red silcrete, and a single piece of tuff. Located on a slope





IF1 consists of a single mudstone core with possible evidence of negative flake scars. Located on a

slope above a drainage channel, IF1 is probably the result of erosion processes that have

transported cultural material down towards the drainage channel. The archaeological potential of

the area surrounding IF1 is considered to be low to moderate.

IF2 consists of a single silcrete flake located in an exposed area on a slope above a drainage

channel. IF1 is probably the result of erosion processes that have transported cultural material

down towards the drainage channel. The archaeological potential of the area surrounding SAC1 is

considered to be low-moderate.

IF3 consists of a single quartz pebble that may be derived from alluvial gravels that have been

transported into the study area. Located on a slope above a drainage channel, IF3 is probably the

result of erosion processes that have transported cultural material down towards the drainage

channel. The presence of medium to large river pebbles eroding from this area further supports this

hypothesis. The archaeological potential of the area surrounding IF3 is considered to be low-

moderate.

IF4 consists of a single piece of quartz that may be derived from alluvial gravels that have been

transported into the study area. Located on a slope above a drainage channel, IF4 is probably the

result of erosion processes that have transported cultural material down towards the drainage

channel. The presence of medium to large river pebbles eroding from this area further supports this

hypothesis. The archaeological potential of the area surrounding IF4 is considered to be low-

moderate.

IF5 consists of a single piece of mudstone with evidence of negative flake scars. Located in an

exposed area on a slope above a drainage channel, IF5 is probably the result of erosion processes

that have transported cultural material down towards the drainage channel. The archaeological

potential of the area surrounding IF5 is considered to be low-moderate.

IF6 consists of a single piece of red silcrete. Located in an exposed area on a slope above a

drainage channel, IF6 is probably the result of erosion processes that have transported cultural

material down towards the drainage channel. The archaeological potential of the area surrounding

IF6 is considered to be low-moderate.


IF7 consists of a single mudstone flake. Located in an exposed area on an embankment, IF7 was

probably transported in the material used to build the embankment. The embankment is not

considered to have any archaeological potential, however, the potential of the area surrounding the

embankment is considered to be very low.

IF8 consists of a single piece of mudstone. Located in an exposed area associated with a pond, IF8

may have been transported in the material used to build the embankment of the pond. The

archaeological potential of the pond and embankment is considered to be very low to none,

however the area surrounding these features is considered to have very low archaeological

potential.

1.6 Test Excavation

1.6.1 Rationale for Test Excavation

As a component of the due diligence process for the development of the Marsden Park study area,

GML will be conducting a program of test excavation over a two week period. The purpose of test

excavation under the Code of Practice is to determine the nature and extent of subsurface

archaeological deposits, and to understand and refine the geomorphological context of the study

area and provide sufficient scientific understanding, so as to allow for appropriate heritage

management during the rezoning and consequential development process.

The rational for the current archaeological excavation proposes to utilise a similar methodology as

that employed of the Rouse Hill Development Area/Second Ponds Creek Area, and East

Leppington7.

The outcome Rouse Hill project was the identification of archaeological landscapes which exhibited

significant variation in their scale and nature, with particular reference to stone procurement

strategies, as evidenced by the size and weight of assemblages, along with the incidence of cortex

and the flaking quality of the stone. The outcome of the East Leppington project was the

identification of spatially discrete archaeological assemblages, along with a rare geo-chronofied

stratigraphic sequence.

1.6.2 Mechanism for Archaeological Test Excavation

Archaeological test excavation is permitted under the Code8 without the need for a Section 90

permit (ie excluded from the definition of harm under the NPW Act 1974), provided that the sub-

surface investigations are not carried out in the following areas:

in or within 50m of an area where burial sites are known or are likely to exist;

in or within 50m of a declared Aboriginal place;

in or within 50m of a rock shelter, shell midden or earth mound; and/or

in areas known or suspected to be Aboriginal missions or previous Aboriginal reserves or

institutes.

As described by OEH the purpose of test excavation is to:


collect information about the nature and extent of sub-surface Aboriginal objects, based on a sample derived

from sub-surface investigations. Test excavations contribute to the understanding of site characteristics and

local and regional prehistory and they can be used to inform conservation goals and harm mitigation

measures for the proposed activity8.

The archaeological test excavation described in this chapter has been undertaken in accordance

with OEH Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation.8 This ARD provides details and

analysis of the test excavation in accordance with Requirements 14–17 of the Code. This section

presents:

the test excavation sampling strategy;

details of OEH notification; and

the methodology for test excavation

Aboriginal community consultation was undertaken in accordance with NPW Regulation, subclause

80C(6), prior to archaeological test excavation commencing.

1.7 Test Excavation Sampling Strategy

The methodology for archaeological test excavation has been defined by OEH.8 However, the

sampling strategy for undertaking test excavation remains to be defined in accordance with each

project, subject to the specific requirements of the subject area.

An understanding of previous archaeological work and AHIMS data provides a context for

previously identified Aboriginal objects and scarred trees. Acknowledging the data and recording

limitations of the AHIMS system, there is a basic correlation between densities of previously

recorded Aboriginal features and zoning identified as having a potential for archaeological deposits.

In an ideal situation, where no post Aboriginal occupation impacts had occurred, all the zones

identified as possessing archaeological potential should be sampled. However, in order to develop

a strategic sampling model, consideration has been given to natural and historical processes that

have impacted, and removed, archaeological deposits associated with the study area. Analysis of

these factors has limited and restricted the need for archaeological sampling within the study area,

allowing for a focus on zones that have both good soil integrity and archaeological potential.

1.7.1 Archaeological Sampling Strategy

The archaeological sampling strategy to be employed during the excavation at Marsden Park is

based upon the methodology for sampling, as presented by Orton.9 Orton presents a 12-step

process9 for determining a suitable process of sampling and to provide a suitable test excavation

methodology. This methodology, following Orton’s categories, is presented below.

Existing Knowledge

Existing knowledge has been gathered and presented by this report in terms of registered site data

and prior reports; the landscape context, the known impacts to the study area; and consequentially

archaeological predictive modelling. The combination of these aspects defines the zones within the

study area that are suitable for archaeological testing. Test excavation units have only be located

within zones that have a low to moderate level of archaeological potential.


Objectives (and Research Questions)

The first objective of the archaeological test excavation for Marsden Park is to undertake excavation

that allows the clarification, characterisation, description and archaeological potential of the PADs

identified within the study area.

The second objective is to determine whether further soil profiles not identified with PAD, contain

archaeological materials and to undertake an assessment of these materials, within a regional

context.

In order to achieve these two objectives, research questions have been established to guide the

archaeological process, and to provide framework in which the question the resulting data..

Relevant research questions include:

1. What are the characteristics of soil horizons across the study area?

a. Are there two soil landscapes (South Creek and Berkshire Park) present? Are

these found where they are mapped at the regional level? Does the archaeological

deposit vary on each landscape? How do these soil landscapes interact? And does

the archaeological deposit vary by soil landscape?

b. At each location, is the deposit consistent? Or, does it possess characteristics that

tell of different depositional events?

c. How has the land use history impacted the study area and survival of soils and

thus, archaeological material?

d. Is there a difference in the soil landscape’s integrity across the study area due to

different ploughing regimes?

e. How has the land use history impacted the study area and survival of soils and

thus, archaeological material?

f. Is there alluvium present, and if so is this a component of the South Creek soil

landscape? How deep is the alluvium? And, what are its characteristics? Is there

evidence for former alluvial terraces and ‘ancient’ modifications to the water

courses? How does the alluvium interact with the associated soil landscape?

g. Are buried alluvial terraces present within the study area? If so, is any

archaeological material associated with them? Is stratigraphy present in alluvial

deposits?

2. Is there a relationship between the distribution of archaeological evidence and the transition

between geological formations? (i.e. Londonderry Clay to Bringelly Shale)

a. Is there discernible archaeological patterning associated with the geological

transition?

b. Does the clustering of archaeological evidence in the study area suggest that

proximity to water was a more important criterion when selecting sites than

proximity to a raw stone source suitable for tool production?

3. What are the characteristics of archaeological deposits across the study area?


a. What types and densities of archaeological materials are present? What is the

nature (type) of the deposit? Is the deposit stratified? Is the deposit associated

with a particular flood event? Does the deposit have different degrees of

archaeological potential with depth?

b. What, if any, evidence other than stone is present for Aboriginal occupation of this

region? Is it correct to infer that stone equates to Aboriginal use of a landform? Or

were other landforms without an archaeological signature used by Aboriginal

people?

c. How was stone used on site? Is there a relationship between artefact creation and

use of landscape and/or landform?

d. Are stone deposits spatially discrete within areas of PAD? What information does

this provide in terms of Aboriginal landscape occupation and use over both space

and time?

e. Can deposits be dated? What is the antiquity of the evidence?

f. What are the physical attributes of the deposit (stone, carbon, clay or other)?

g. Is there a geo-chronofied stratigraphic sequence? Is this associated with alluvial

deposits? How does this correlate with the regional research into stone resources

and use?

h. What is the source of the artefactual stone at any particular site? How does this

correlate with the regional research into stone resources and use?

4. How can the deposit be interpreted?

a. Is there evidence of archaeological spatial patterning of deposits on continuous

landforms? How long has it taken for such evidence to be created?

b. If spatial patterning is present, what does this mean in terms of Aboriginal

landscape use?

c. If archaeological deposits are absent from a landform, where they were expected

(and soils have good condition and integrity), what does this mean in terms of

Aboriginal landscape use?

d. Can archaeological deposits be assessed in terms of hill slope shade analysis?

Can this analysis be used to inform seasonal use of this landscape?

e. For stone deposits, what are the physical characteristics and do they indicate a

specialised use? Is there a difference in stone tool types between the different

locations tested?

5. Can the archaeology be interpreted in a regional context?

a. Is there evidence of long term occupation within the study area? If there is, on what

landforms, aspects etc?


b. Where did raw stone materials originate from? Have they been brought into the

study area? From how far away has the stone been brought?

c. How old is the archaeological deposit and how does this relate to regional use of

this landscape?

d. What is the relationship of the archaeological material within the study area to the

broader region; what if any, is the relationship between sites identified within the

Marsden Park Investigation Area and the surrounding landscape, particularly those

sites identified immediately to the south east?

e. Is there evidence of trade in connection to stone deposits?

f. Does the spatial distribution/density of artefacts/sites conform to current models of

spatial distribution/density (i.e. the work of Jo MacDonald regarding stream

ranking)?

g. What natural and human post-depositional processes have affected the spatial

distribution/density of artefacts, and to what degree?

h. To what degree is the spatial distribution/density of artefacts a reflection of the lack

of elevation differential within the study area?

i. To what degree is spatial distribution/density of artefacts a reflection of stream

ranking?

j. To what degree is spatial distribution/density of artefacts a reflection of site aspect?

k. To what degree is spatial distribution/density of artefacts a reflection of processes

that are not physically observable (i.e. cultural attitudes etc)?

6. Is the archaeological deposit culturally significant?

a. What is the heritage value of the deposit, both scientifically and culturally?

b. How does the Aboriginal community view and value the deposit identified?

7. Is there a deposit worthy of conservation or of future research?

a. Where and what deposits should be conserved for future generations?

b. Which deposits should be subject to more extensive investigations?

c. How should a boundary be drawn around a site? Are identifiable places present

within a cultural landscape?

8. Does the archaeological evidence at Marsden Park support the predictive model, or does

the data challenge it?

a. Has the environmental data utilized within the predictive model been effective in

identifying areas of archaeological potential?

b. Does the archaeological evidence fit alternative prediction models such as the

economic zone model (ERM 2006/2010) or recent spatial patterns observed at East

Leppington (GML 2012)?


Population

The sampling strategy for test excavation has been defined by the number of areas identified with

archaeological potential, either through the presence of surface material, or the identification of

subsurface deposits with archaeological potential.

The archaeological sampling strategy is designed to maximise coverage across areas of identified

archaeological potential, however, it is acknowledged that the archaeological sampling strategy is

limited spatially and has the potential to miss archaeological deposits within the areas allocated with

archaeological potential. Should no further Aboriginal archaeological deposits be recovered during

test excavation, the investigations will have provided additional information of the geomorphology

and archaeology within the Marsden Park study area.

Data to be Collected

Data will be collected for each TU during the test excavation on a specific TU context sheet. Data

collected will include: TU number, location, depth of each spit as excavated, description of alluvium

in each spit, number of stone objects (or other feature) per spit, the identification of any features or

inclusion (such as carbon), taphonomic factors (disturbance, bioturbation, etc), soil characteristics

(pH and colour), section and plan diagrams (especially where features are present).

Degree of Precision Required

The location of each TU has been established using ArcGIS to plot transects of test pits across

areas of potential in the landscape. Each TU’s location will be marked with survey markers by a

professional surveyor, with an accuracy of 100mm.

Vertical excavation will be measured against the survey marker placed at the northwest corner of

each test pit, given that vertical measurements of ground surface at this point will already have

been established by the surveyor. The vertical depth of each spit and/or stratigraphic unit will be

recorded by the excavation team, under the supervision of archaeological director and 2IC.

Method of Measure

The natural background density of Aboriginal objects across the wider region ranges from low to

high. Site density in the broader Marsden Park area has been recorded as 1 site per 0.8 hectares.

All of the Aboriginal stone material identified within the study area has been transported from

external sources. It is most likely that this material was transported into the study area as part of

Aboriginal occupation of the landscape. It is also possible that cultural material was transported into

the study area by the tributaries of South Creek.

Surface inspection during survey did not identify any cultural features that reflect long term

occupation. A number of PADs were identified however, and subsurface testing of these area may

reveal evidence that reflects a long term utilization of the area.

The Frame for Sampling

With reference to the units of sampling, Orton states that:

…surveys does not have to be based on grid squares or transects: other shapes (even ones without straight

lines) are statistically permitted…9


OEH’s requirements for sampling are fairly basic—the sampling framework for the test excavation

has been determined by the need to characterise and define the nature and extent of

archaeological deposits within the study area (Figure 1.3). As such three distinct and separate

zones of archaeological potential can be holistically applied to the whole of the study area:

Zone 1—a zone, in the south west corner, associated with an open depression and shallow slopes,

which contains most of the recorded Aboriginal sites, and possesses a low to moderate potential for

further subsurface archaeological deposits;

Zone 2—a zone, centre to mid north, associated with an undulating slope and saddle, which has

been identified as containing PAD, with a low to moderate potential for further subsurface

archaeological deposits; and

Zone 3—the remainder of the study area, which contains a number of distinct view points, albeit

without an allocated archaeological potential.

Therefore the extent and density of archaeological test excavation sampling will be defined in

accordance with these three zones (Figure 1.4). Each sample transect has been defined according

to soil landscape, landforms within that landscape, avoiding areas with known diminished soil

condition and/or integrity. TU have positioned to intersect known expressions of archaeology and to

sample areas with PAD.

Zone 1—TU will be located on a 20m by 20m grid, across the area with identified Aboriginal sites.

Within this zone all TU will be excavated, and further TU may be placed at 10m intervals, to

determine the precise extent of archaeological deposits;

Zone 2—TU will be located on a 40m by 40m grid, across landforms with the areas with PAD,

extending away from these landforms into areas with no allocated PAD. It is proposed that the

extent of sampling in zone 2 will be based upon the initial results of TU excavation; that is, if no

archaeological deposits are recovered from the initial TU, then excavation can cease and move into

a new adjacent areas. This methodology allows for confirmation, or not, of an archaeological

deposit, but provides the ability to move into and sample further landforms within the study area,

preventing unnecessary excavation on a landform, which has been proven to be archaeologically

sterile. Conversely, should a landform within zone 2 contain a dense archaeological deposit, then

further TU may be placed on either a 20m or 10m grid, to define the extent of the deposit; and

Zone 3—TU will be located on a 40m by 40m grid, across landforms in an area with no PAD. Zone

3 excavation aims to link excavation between zones 1 and 2, providing evidence for the presence,

or not, of archaeological deposits. The extent of TU excavation in zone 3, will follow that from zone

2, where the excavation director (and RAPs) will assess the results of initial TU excavation and

determine how and where further excavation would occur.


Figure 1.3 Archaeological Zoning Plan of Marsden Park, showing recorded Aboriginal sites (yellow dots) and areas with low-moderate archaeological potential (blue areas). (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlay)


The offset between transects is either 20m (zone 1) or 40m (zones 2 and 3), thus allowing for a

regular pattern of sample TUs. Orton9 has examined the relationship between site diameter to grid

interval and the probability of discovering a site. He contrasted a square grid against a staggered

square grid and found that ‘a staggered grid is considerably more efficient than a square grid…’11

with an increased probability of discovering sites using the staggered grid. Thus a staggered grid

pattern has been applied to the relationship of TUs on parallel transects.

The layout of the sample transects across the study area, and the TUs on each transect is shown in

Figure 1.4. It is proposed to excavate approximately 119-150 TUs, across 7-13 transects. A

breakdown of TUs and transects, by landform and soil landscape, is presented in Table 2. As can

be seen, a wide variety of landforms and locations will be test excavated.

Table 2 Number of Transects and TUs, by soil landscape and landform

Soil landscape Landforms Number Transects Number TUs (approx.)

Berkshire Park Hilltops and associated slopes

4-6 32

Floodplain 1 10

Lower slope (erosion zone)

4 72

Lower slope (suspected low to none archaeological potential associated with Black’s Farm)

1 5

119

Archaeological excavation at each location should be undertaken through the following

methodology:

the specific location for sampling will be located using survey markers;

hand excavation will be used to excavate each pit as a 50x50cm in a series of spits. Each

spit will measure up to 100mm, a shallower depth being defined if natural soil stratigraphy is

present;

each spit will be transported in buckets to a wet sieve station located away from identified

sites or areas of archaeological potential. The soil of each spit will be sieved separately, and

any cultural material will then be bagged and tagged appropriately;

the soil profile of each test pit will be described, and where appropriate, drawn and

photographed.

Should an archaeological deposit such as a mound and/or burial be identified, then excavation of

the TU will cease. It is not the intention of this methodology to excavate these features; however,

further excavation could be undertaken to clarify the extent and nature of such a deposit.

Management of such excavation would require development an additional ARD and consultation

between the RAP and Stockland.


Figure 1.4 Proposed TU locations along transects and their relationship to the two primary zones of archaeological potential (green 1

associated with identification of sites during survey; green 2 associated with identification of PADs and important vistas)


The Pre-Test or Pilot Survey

Orton notes that the best survey designs can be made when the survey is over and that a pilot

survey can serve to remove some of the bugs from the sampling process.9 The current survey

design has been based upon a recent field inspection, with GIS-based identification of areas that

have a moderate level of archaeological potential and which are suitable for sub-surface sampling.

Excavation within these areas is more likely to recover archaeological deposits than other zones

within the Marsden Park study area.

Organisation

The test excavation will be undertaken by a team which will include an archaeological director, four

field archaeologists, and four RAPs for each day on site.

Summary and Analysis

Following test excavation, any recovered Aboriginal stone objects will be subject to specialist

analysis (by GML’s artefact specialist Beth White), recording all relevant attributes in a comparable

manner to other regional lithic studies and in accordance with Holdaway and Stern (2004)10. A

technical report will be prepared that assesses the stone materials against other recent excavations

in the region.

During fieldwork the management of cultural material resulting from excavation will be discussed

with Aboriginal stakeholders. It is intended that Aboriginal artefacts will be transferred under a Care

and Control Agreement to an Aboriginal person or organisation representing the Aboriginal people

in accordance with section 85A(1)(c) of the NPW Act. Until a Care and Control Agreement is in

place all archaeological materials will be stores at either GML’s office or Beth White’s office-in a

manner consistent with best heritage practices.

If required, faunal analysis will be undertaken by Dr. Tim Owen. Should shell material and/or

human skeletal material be identified during the test excavation, work will cease in the immediate

area and OEH—and in the case of the latter, the NSW Police—will be notified. The project

archaeologist will be responsible for the positive identification of such materials.

The results of the test excavation will be incorporated into the Marsden Park heritage assessment

report prepared for Stockland (draft, December 2012) by GML.

Information Gained for Future Survey

The information derived from test excavation will be used to expand the heritage values

assessment of the study area. The report will provide direction for conservation of Aboriginal

heritage and an impact analysis for all known objects, sites, places and values within the study

area. The report will detail sites and places that would require further study, and possibly

excavation if they cannot be conserved during any future development process.

The report will also contrast and compare the study area within the wider region and provide

direction for future studies.


1.8 Endnotes

1 McDonald, J. and Mitchell, P. 1994. An assessment of the archaeological context, landuse history and management requirements

for Aboriginal Archaeology in the Australian Defence Industries Site, St. Marys, NSW. JMcD CHM Pty Ltd Report to ADI Ltd, NSW

Property Group. 2 White, E. and McDonald, J. 2010. Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area, Cumberland Plain, New South

Wales. Australian Archaeology. 70 3 McDonald, J. 2008. Dreamtime superhighway: Sydney Basin rock art and prehistoric information exchange. Terra Australis 27.

Australian University Press, Canberra. 4 Smith, L. 1989 Aboriginal site planning study in the Sydney Basin: the Cumberland Plain. Stage I. Report to NPWS. 5 JMCHM 2001. Salvage excavation of six sites along Caddies, Second Ponds, Smalls and Cattai Creeks in the Rouse Hill

Development Area NSW. Report to Rouse Hill Infrastructure Consortium. 6 JMCHM 2007. Salvage Excavation of Four Archaeological Sites in the Caddies Creek Precinct Rouse Hill Regional Centre, NSW.

Report to Lend Lease GPT (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd. 7 GML 2012. East Leppington Rezoning Assessment: Heritage Management Strategy (Draft Report), NSW, Report to NSW

Department of Planning and Infrastructure. 8 DECCW 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales 9 Orton 2002. Sampling in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, UK 10 Holdaway, S. & Stern, N. 2005. A Record in Stone: Australia’s Flaked Stone Artefacts

Marsden Park Registered Aboriginal Parties

Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC)

Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments (DACHA)

Darug Land Observations (DLO)

Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation (DTAC)

Darug Custodian Aboriginal Corporation (DCAC)

Tocomwall

Senior Project Manager-Cardno PO BOX 19 · Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd ABN 60 001 179 362...

Documents

Transcript of Senior Project Manager-Cardno PO BOX 19 · Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd ABN 60 001 179 362...