Post on 27-Jan-2022
transcript
Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP 30211 in Riverstone NSW
Archaeological Technical Report
Prepared for
Elite International Development Pty Ltd
May 2018
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D ii
DOCUMENT TRACKING
Item Detail
Project Name Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP 30211 in Riverstone NSW
Project Number 17SYD - 7752
Project Manager Tyler Beebe
Prepared by Tyler Beebe, Lorien Perchard
Reviewed by Alistair Grinbergs
Approved by Karyn McLeod
Status Final
Version Number 3
Last saved on 10 May 2018
Cover photo Transect C, ELA 2017
This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2017. Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP
30211 in Riverstone NSW. Prepared for Elite International Development Pty Ltd.’
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.
Disclaimer
This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between
Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Elite Development Pty Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Elite
Development Pty Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on
the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers
should obtain up to date information.
Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon
this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific
assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.
Template 29/9/2015
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iii
Contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. viii
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Details of the Proponent ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Brief .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Purpose and Objectives of the archaeological assessment ......................................................... 1
1.5 Statutory Control ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.5.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) ............................................................................... 4
1.6 Investigators and contributors ...................................................................................................... 4
2 Archaeological background ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1 AHIMS search results ................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Previous archaeological assessments ......................................................................................... 8
3 Landscape context ................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Landforms and topography ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 13
4 Regional character and predictive model .............................................................................. 15
4.1 Regional character ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Predictive Model ......................................................................................................................... 15
5 Research design and sampling strategy ............................................................................... 16
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 16
5.2 Background................................................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Research design ......................................................................................................................... 16
6 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 18
6.1 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................ 18
6.2 Test excavations ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.2.1 Lot 1 DP 30211 ........................................................................................................................... 18
6.2.2 Stage 1 test pits .......................................................................................................................... 20
6.2.3 General procedures .................................................................................................................... 20
6.3 Lithic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 20
6.4 Care and control ......................................................................................................................... 21
6.5 Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 21
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iv
7 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 22
7.1 Archaeological survey results ..................................................................................................... 22
7.1.1 Identified disturbances within the study area ............................................................................. 22
Lots 1 and 8, DP 30211 ........................................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Test excavation results ............................................................................................................... 27
7.2.1 Soils and stratigraphy ................................................................................................................. 27
7.2.2 Test Pits ...................................................................................................................................... 32
7.2.3 Lithics .......................................................................................................................................... 32
7.2.4 Identification of new Aboriginal sites and registration on AHIMS ............................................... 32
8 Analysis and discussion .......................................................................................................... 34
8.1 Artefact Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 34
8.2 Response to research design questions .................................................................................... 34
8.2.1 What is the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the
study area? .............................................................................................................................................. 34
8.2.2 What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the
assemblage? ........................................................................................................................................... 34
8.2.3 What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites? ............................................ 34
8.2.4 Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping
floors or other foci or activities areas? .................................................................................................... 35
8.2.5Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study
area? ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
8.2.6 How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source? .............................. 35
8.2.7 What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by
Aboriginal people? ................................................................................................................................... 35
8.2.8 How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region? .................................... 35
8.2.9 How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region? ................ 35
9 Scientific values and significance assessment .................................................................... 36
9.1 Scientific Significance ................................................................................................................. 36
10 Impact assessment .................................................................................................................. 38
11 Management and mitigation measures .................................................................................. 39
12 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 40
12.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 40
12.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 40
13 References ................................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix A – AHIMS search results ................................................................................................... 43
Appendix B – Artefact Catalogue ........................................................................................................ 47
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D v
List of figures
Figure 1: The study area ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: Indicative development plan (Courtesy of Diversi) ..................................................................... 3
Figure 3: AHIMS sites within 1 km of the study areas................................................................................ 6
Figure 4: Soil landscapes and hydrology of the study area ..................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Lot 8, front of the lot looking towards the rear .......................................................................... 23
Figure 6: Lot 8, livestock paddock at the rear of the property .................................................................. 23
Figure 7: Lot 1, erosion associated with equestrian activities ................................................................. 23
Figure 8: Lot 1, landscape modifications .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 9: Lot 1, erosion and landscape modification................................................................................ 24
Figure 10: Lot 1, landscape modification ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 11: Lot 1, residential disturbance .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 12: Lot 1, residential disturbance, view towards rear of property ................................................. 24
Figure 13: Survey units ............................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 14: Assessed disturbance level .................................................................................................... 26
Figure 15: Excavation and sieving within Lot 1, Transect E .................................................................... 27
Figure 16: Looking back along Transect E ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 17: Transect C-1, north section ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 18: Transect C-4, north section ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 19: Transect D-3, north section ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 20: Transect D-6, north section ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 21: Transect E-1, north section ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 22: Transect E-5, north section ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 23: Transect E-9, east section ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 24: Transect F-7, north section ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25: Transect F-3, north section ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 26: Transect F-9, north section ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 27: Testing locations and transects .............................................................................................. 31
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vi
Figure 28: ID.12 Silcrete core ................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 29: 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957 site extent ...................................................................................... 33
List of tables
Table 1: Test excavation field personnel .................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Aboriginal site types recorded within 1 km of AHIMS search areas ............................................ 7
Table 3: Aboriginal archaeological assessments completed in the vicinity of the study area.................... 8
Table 4: Survey coverage ........................................................................................................................ 22
Table 5: Landform summary - sampled areas ......................................................................................... 22
Table 6: Identified sites within the study areas ........................................................................................ 32
Table 7: Artefact Types ............................................................................................................................ 34
Table 8: Assessed site impacts ................................................................................................................ 38
Table 9: Impacts and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 39
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
ACHAR Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit
AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System
ARD Archaeological Research Design
ATR Archaeological Technical Report
DECCW (Former) Department of Environment Climate Change and Water
ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd
LEP Local Environmental Plan
OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit
SHI State Heritage Inventory
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vii
SHR State Heritage Register
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D viii
Executive summary
Eco Logical Australia (ELA) has been engaged by Elite Development Pty Ltd to prepare an Aboriginal
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) and accompanying Archaeological Technical Report
(ATR) for the proposed residential development of adjacent lots (Lot 1 DP 30211 and Lot 8 DP 30211)
within the suburb of Riverstone NSW, and the proposed residential development of Lot 2 DP 1208526
within the suburb of Schofields NSW. This assessment report has been undertaken to identify Aboriginal
objects and other cultural heritage values within the project areas in support of an application for an
Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) as required under Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act
1974 for the proposed works.
The proposed subdivision includes the establishment of two precincts (A & B) containing up to 270
dwellings at the Riverstone location and the construction of 44 dwellings at the Schofields location.
Activities associated with the proposed subdivision include earthworks, roadworks, and civil infrastructure
works.
An archaeological survey was conducted in order to identify any previously unregistered sites, any
sensitive landforms that may have archaeological potential, and areas of disturbance. No previously
unregistered sites were recorded as a result of the survey, but the survey did result in the identification of
areas of disturbance and archaeological potential. The entire Lot 8 DP 30211 was determined to be
significantly disturbed from residential development and current landscape use. The majority of Lot 1 DP
30211 was also found to be significantly disturbed. The entire southern portion of the lot is currently being
used for horse adjustment which has resulted in significant disturbances resulting from erosion, landscape
modifications, and artificial dam constructions. Two locations along the northern boundary of the lot were
determined to be less disturbed and were identified as having archaeological potential. Lot 2 DP 1208526,
in Schofields, had been found to be significantly disturbed by a sewer easement and past market
gardening practices. A location along the western boundary of the lot adjacent to First Ponds Creek was
identified as having archaeological potential.
A test excavation program was conducted at the two locations within Lot 1 DP 30211 Riverstone and one
location within Lot 2 DP 1208526 Schofields. The testing program was conducted under the Code of
Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010a).
The test excavations were carried out over a five day period with ELA archaeologists and four
representatives of the registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs). The transects were labelled sequentially from
A-F across the two locations, however for reporting purposes the two locations will be reported on
separately
The test excavation program with in Lot 1 consisted of a total of 33 stage 1 test pits across the two testing
locations. All test pits were 50cm x 50cm in size and resulted in the retrieval of 8 lithic artefacts. Low
density subsurface artefact scatters were identified at both testing locations, resulting in the identification
of two new Aboriginal sites Riverstone Road 1 (AHIMS# 45-5-4956), and Riverstone Road 2 (AHIMS#
45-5-4957). Due to the very low artefact numbers and low site integrity, the sites were assessed as having
low scientific and archaeological significance.
It is recommended that an AHIP application should be lodged with the Office of Environment and Heritage
for part of Precinct B within Lot 1 DP 30211. No further archaeological investigation is warranted.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Detai ls of the Proponent
Elite International Development Pty Ltd
C/- Diversi Consulting
PO Box 6662
Baulkham Hill NSW 2153
Contact: Mr David Gerardis
1.2 Project Brief
Elite International Development Pty Ltd proposes the residential subdivision of adjacent lots 1 and 8 DP
30211 Riverstone NSW, within the Blacktown Council Local Government Area (LGA). Both lots are
located within the Riverstone East precinct of Sydney’s Northwest Growth Centre. The increase in the
residential development of this precinct is a result of the rapid development of the growth centre.
The development of Lots 1 and 8 will involve the subdivision and construction of up to 270 dwellings. The
area is approximately 12.6 hectares in size (Figures 1 & 2).
Previous Aboriginal assessments conducted within the Northwest Growth Centre in proximity to our study
area identified that Aboriginal sites and areas of archaeological sensitivity may occur within the study
area. Elite International Development Pty Ltd engaged Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) to prepare an
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) to support the development application and
any approvals required for the proposed works. As part of the assessment, the Archaeological Technical
Report (ATR) has been prepared to document the archaeological values within the study area. This
information will be used to guide and manage the archaeological and cultural heritage resource.
The ATR and ACHAR will support an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) application under the
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) for the proposed residential development works and for
Aboriginal objects that may be harmed by the proposed development.
Proposed activities associated with the residential development in include bulk earthworks and landscape
modifications at both locations
This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)
Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (OEH
2010a).
1.3 Study Area
The study area is located in Riverstone NSW, within the Blacktown LGA, approximately 50km northwest
of Sydney CBD.
1.4 Purpose and Object ives of the archaeological assessment
The purpose of the archaeological investigation is to understand the presence, nature and extent of the
Aboriginal archaeological resource within the areas of proposed works. The cataloguing and analysis of
the recovered artefacts will inform the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the site and in turn
management of the heritage resource.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 2
Figure 1: The study area
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 3
Figure 2: Indicative development plan (Courtesy of Diversi)
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 4
1.5 Statutory Control
1.5.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)
Aboriginal cultural heritage is afforded protection under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife
Act 1974 (NPW Act). The Act is administered by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) which
has responsibilities under the legislation for the proper care, preservation and protection of ‘Aboriginal
objects’ and ‘Aboriginal places’.
Under the provisions of the NPW Act, all Aboriginal objects are protected irrespective of their level of
significance or issues of land tenure. Aboriginal objects are defined by the Act as any deposit, object or
material evidence (that is not a handicraft made for sale) relating to Aboriginal habitation of NSW, before
or during the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction (and includes Aboriginal
remains). Aboriginal objects are limited to physical evidence and may be referred to as ‘Aboriginal sites’,
‘relics’ or ‘cultural material’. Aboriginal objects can include scarred trees, artefact scatters, middens, rock
art and engravings, as well as post-contact sites and activities such as fringe camps and stockyards.
Part 6 of the NPW Act provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and places by making it an
offence to destroy, deface, damage, move them from the land. The Due Diligence Code of Practice for
the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010c) as adopted by the National
Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (NPW Regulation) made under the NPW Act, provides guidance to
individuals and organisations to exercise due diligence when carrying out activities that may harm
Aboriginal objects and to determine whether they should apply for consent in the form of an Aboriginal
Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP). This code of practice can be used for all activities across all environments.
The NPW Act provides that a person who exercises due diligence in determining that their actions will not
harm Aboriginal objects has a defence against prosecution for the strict liability offence if they later
unknowingly harm an object without an AHIP. However, if an Aboriginal object is encountered in the
course of an activity work must cease and an application should be made for an AHIP.
The Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a)
assists in establishing the requirements for undertaking test excavation as a part of archaeological
investigation without an AHIP, or establishing the requirements that must be followed when carrying out
archaeological investigation in NSW where an application for an AHIP is likely to be made. OEH
recommends that the requirements of this Code also be followed where a proponent may be uncertain
about whether or not their proposed activity may have the potential to harm Aboriginal objects or declared
Aboriginal places.
The OEH was notified in writing of the commencement, location and dates of the test excavation on 11
October 2017 and provided with a copy of the sampling strategy in line with Requirement 15c in the Code
of Practice.
1.6 Investigators and contributors
Test excavations were conducted by ELA archaeologists with assistance from the following Aboriginal
organizations (Table 1) over a period of 3 days, Didge Ngunawal Clan, Aboriginal Archaeology Services
Inc., Darug Land Observations, and the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council. Test excavations were
directed by Tyler Beebe, ELA Archaeology Consultant.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 5
Table 1: Test excavation field personnel
Organisation Name
Eco Logical Australia Tyler Beebe
Eco Logical Australia Andrew Crisp
Didge Ngunawal Clan Tanya Laughton
Didge Ngunawal Clan Jack Thomson
Aboriginal Archaeology Services Inc. Andrew Williams
Darug Land Observations Pty Ltd Luke Balaam
Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Steven Knight
This report has been prepared by Tyler Beebe with assistance from Lorien Perchard, Archaeology
Consultants with ELA, with review by Alistair Grinbergs, ELA’s Principal Consultant.
Tyler Beebe has a Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology cum laude) from Hamline University in the USA and a
MA (Environmental and Cultural Heritage) from The Australian National University. Lorien Perchard has
a Bachelor of Arts and Science (Archaeology Honours) from the University of Queensland. Alistair
Grinbergs has a Bachelor of Arts (Archaeology Honours) from the Australian National University and a
Graduate Diploma of Applied Science (Cultural Heritage Management) from the University of Canberra.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 6
Figure 3: AHIMS sites within 1 km of the study areas
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 7
2 Archaeological background
2.1 AHIMS search results
AHIMS register search was undertaken by ELA on the 18 July 2017. A search covering Lot 1 DP 30211
with a buffer of 1km at the Riverstone location resulted in the identification of 19 AHIMS sites. The site
types identified within the search area are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Aboriginal site types recorded within 1 km of AHIMS search areas
Site Type Number of sites Percentage of all sites
Artefact 10 53%
PAD 6 31%
PAD with Artefact 2 11%
Artefact, PAD, and Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) 1 5%
Total number of sites 19* 100%
* five sites are listed as partially or totally destroyed
There are no previously registered sites located within our study area.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 8
2.2 Previous archaeological assessments
A number of archaeological investigations have been conducted in the area over the past 30 years as
response to the planning and rapid development of the Northwest Growth Centre. The results of some
of the key assessments within the vicinity of the study area are detailed in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Aboriginal archaeological assessments completed in the vicinity of the study area
Assessment Key Findings
City of Blacktown
Archaeological
Assessment
Kohen (1985)
In 1985, Kohen completed one of the earlier surveys of the area. The survey was for four
areas of industrial land within the city of Blacktown. A total of 25 sites were located
comprising 9 isolated artefacts, 15 small surface scatters (>50 artefacts) and one larger
surface scatter of over 50 artefacts (1985:31).
Kohen found that the potentially significant sites in the area were more likely to be located
adjacent to creek lines and on ridge tops (1985:39). Where there are ridge tops adjacent to
and above the flood zone of a creek line the potential for sites increases (1985:31).
Archaeological
Assessment at
Rouse Hill
Development Area
Sewage Master
Plan
McDonald (2002)
In 2002, McDonald completed an archaeological assessment of indigenous cultural heritage
values for the Rouse Hills Development Area Sewage Master plan for GHD on behalf of
RDI. The study involved a desktop review of two trunk drainage lands along Eastern, South
and Killarney Chain of Ponds Creeks. The study found 46 areas within the trunk lands as
having low levels of existing disturbance and having good potential to preserve intact
archaeological sites, including 14 areas along Eastern Creek (McDonald, 2002:4).
The study recommendations that any proposed impacts to areas identified as having good
archaeological potential including those along Eastern Creek development should be
avoided. Where it cannot be avoided, development should be preceded by subsurface
investigation in order to undertake an assessment of Aboriginal heritage. Registered
AHIMS sites should be avoided (McDonald, 2002:18).
Riverstone West
Precinct, Aboriginal
archaeological
heritage
assessment
GML (2008)
This report was prepared for North West Transport Hub to meet the requires of the Growth
Centres Commission’s Riverstone West Precinct Working Group, a 273 hectare parcel of
land (GML, 2008:1). The study area is bound by the Blacktown – Richmond Railway on the
east side, Bandon Road to the north, Eastern Creek to the west and Garfield Road to the
south. The study noted the considerable number of sites recorded in the area in the past
and tried to reconcile the number of the sites as duplicate recordings by different
consultants.
Recommendations from the study included reconciling the existing recorded sites in the
study area into 10 artefact / open camp sites and 1 isolated artefact. An additional three
open campsites were recorded, 2 isolated finds and 2 PADs45-5-0313 included the
previously recorded site 45-5-0582 and IF5 and artefact recorded around the roots of a
fallen tree. The site was identified as having low significance and sensitivity.
The study recommended that any sites identified with the moderate to high sensitivity be
conserved in situ. Sites identified of low archaeological sensitivity were also recommended
for conservation, but where this could not be achieved a section 90 permit would be
required. (GML, 2008:83-84).
Aboriginal Heritage
Assessment – Alex
ENSR conducted Aboriginal heritage assessments of two precincts within the Northwest
Growth Centre, the Alex Avenue and Riverstone Precincts. The study identified 37
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 9
Assessment Key Findings
Avenue and
Riverstone Growth
Centre Precincts
ENSR (2008)
Aboriginal sites, 25 within the Riverstone Precinct and 12 in the Alex Avenue Precinct. The
site types consisted of isolated findspots, artefact scatters, potential archaeological
deposits, natural silcrete occurrences, and two potentially scarred trees (ENSR 2008).
The assessment identified multiple sites of high archaeological significance, including the
A7 Archaeological Complex site along First ponds Creek. ENSR also suggested that the
areas of natural silcrete occurrences represented only a handful of areas where this raw
material could be obtained in the Cumberland Plain and utilised by Aboriginal people for
stone tool production (ENSR 2008).
Richmond Road
Upgrade: Grange
Avenue to South
Creek: Aboriginal
Archaeological
Survey Report
KNC (2013)
Kelleher and Nightingale completed an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for the
Richmond Road upgrade from Grange Avenue to South Creek for Stockland. This
assessment included land on both side of the Richmond Road and Garfield Road West
intersection. The study found a total of four surface artefact sites (45-5-4172, 4173, 4175
and 0584) would be impacted by the proposed road upgrade and would therefore require
an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) application and partial salvage excavation
(KNC 2013:16-19).
45-5-4173 (MPP-10) was subject to AHIP and archaeological salvage excavation in May
2014 by KNC. The excavation report has not yet been completed, as such the results of
this archaeological investigation are not yet fully known. However Aboriginal stakeholders
who participated in the excavation noted to ELA that no artefacts were recovered from the
excavation on the north side of Richmond Road and Garfield Road west (which corresponds
to the southern end of the current project area). As of early September 2014, this area is
now being developed; with heavy machinery and excavating occur in the project area south
of the southernmost drainage line. As such, the southern end of the study area was subject
to archaeological investigation by KNC for the road widening and development in this area
has now been actioned following an AHIP.
Archaeological
Report for 81
Riverstone Parade,
Riverstone
AHMS (2014)
AHMS prepared an archaeological report for 81 Riverstone Parade, Riverstone northwest
of the current study area. Riverstone Parade Pty Ltd propose to develop the area for
industrial and commercial development. The land is bound by Richmond railway line on the
east, Bandon Road and Riverstone Sewerage Processing Plant to the north, Eastern Creek
to west and Garfield Road to the south. The report was used to support an AHIP application
to the OEH to develop Riverstone West. The proposal has a riparian corridor 100m from
Eastern Creek that will not be developed, thus conserving sites 45-5-0580 (which also
comprises 45-5-3635 and 3642). Sites 45-5-2525 and 45-5-3633 will also be conserved
(AHMS, 2014: 116-117).
This report included a comprehensive desktop of work undertaken in the area and included
for the first time the results of the 2009 test excavation program completed by AHMS in the
area which involved test pits along four transects and one long machine strip trench along
the north bank of Eastern Creek to test for the existence of human burials.
The findings of the test excavation were than a total of 91 1m2 test pits were excavated
along the slopes and alluvial flats on the north side of Eastern Creek. Test pits were
excavated along five transects (A-E) at a regular spacing. A total of 610 artefacts were
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 10
Assessment Key Findings
recovered from the 91 test pits at an average of 6.5 artefacts / m2. Twelve test pits contained
>10 artefacts/m2 approaching a medium density, while 3 test pits had > 50 artefacts/m2 a
high density of artefacts (see Figure 7 for results of the test excavation program). These
three test pits were part of a row of 6 test pits (all contained >10 artefacts/m2) which had
sandy levee deposits adjacent to Eastern Creek at a distance of 90-100m from the creek
bank and are thought to relate to site 45-5-0580. The assemblage was dominated by
silcrete, thought to be of late Holocene in age and taken from the natural silcrete occurring
on nearby ridgelines and potentially river cobbles as well. (AHMS, 2014: 92-99).
No remains or burials were uncovered in the strip trench of 250m x 4.5m adjacent to Eastern
Creek. 26 stone artefacts were recovered from the strip trench, with an average density of
0.023/m2 of the strip trench, suggesting this method was far less likely to recover stone
artefacts from a large strip trench, with little, if none sieving of soil deposits using this
method.
AHMS determined that the test program showed the hill slopes were generally disturbed
and shallow at less than 20cm deep with some naturally occurring silcrete and some
Aboriginal objects. These sites were deemed to probably relate to #45-5-0313. The alluvial
flats contained deeper soils 50-80cm, with thick clay loam plough soil, overlying an A2
horizon, in turn over basal clays. (AHMS, 2014: 92-93).
Based on the findings of previous investigations and results of the test excavation program
completed in 2009 the study identifies an area of moderate potential for archaeological
material to be found within 100m of Eastern Creek and high potential for archaeological
material to be found on elevated terraces or levees within this 100m buffer from the creek
(AHMS, 2014: 112).
The development of the Riverstone Parade property will result in direct and indirect impact
to 10 Aboriginal objects/sites comprising 45-5-0312, 0313, 0582, 3637, 3641, 0360 (which
includes 2527), 2530, 2532, 2533, 3632, 3634, 3636 and 3640. Following issue of an AHIP
AHMS considered it unlikely that mitigation such as test or salvage excavation would be
required prior to construction, given the disturbed nature and low significance of these sites.
Site 4-5-0580 was determined to have high archaeological significance, which will be
avoided by the proposed works. If works would occur here, the study recommended that
the site should be salvaged (AHMS, 2014: 122).
Riverstone
Wastewater Lead-
ins Project,
Salvage of A7
Archaeological
Complex (45-5-
4311)
AAJV (2016)
AAJV conducted salvage excavations at archaeological site A7 Archaeological Complex
(AHIMS# 45-5-4311). Two areas of the site were expected to be impacted by the installation
of two wastewater lead-ins into the primary wastewater trunk located on First Ponds Creek.
This site is currently located south of our study areas on First Ponds Creek.
The excavations at Salvage area 1 resulted in the recovery of 126 artefacts consisting of
flakes, heat shatter debitage, and retouched flakes. Overall low artefact densities in
conjunction with the small artefact size and observed soil profiles indicate that this was a
secondary deposition with artefacts being washed into the area from another location.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 11
Assessment Key Findings
Excavations at Salvage Area 2 revealed a disturbed soil profile and resulted in the recovery
of a single silcrete core. The low artefact number and the disturbed soil profile suggest that
the artefact bearing deposit was most likely removed sometime in the past (AAJV 2016).
S94 Stormwater
Infrastructure
Upgrades,
Riverstone and
Area 20 Precincts
ELA (2017)
Eco Logical Australia (ELA) has been engaged by the Blacktown City Council to prepare an
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) and accompanying
Archaeological Technical Report for the proposed stormwater infrastructure upgrade at
three locations at Riverstone, Schofields, and Rouse Hill NSW. Archaeological survey was
conducted at the three locations and testing was undertaken at Area 20 Basins at Rouse
Hill. The test excavation program consisted of thirty-seven (37) 50 x 50cm test pits
excavated along four transects in order to investigate the extent of site RH/SP16. The thirty
seven test pits were a combination of 31 Stage 1 and 6 Stage 2 excavation pits. The result
was the recovery of 75 artefacts for an average of 2 artefacts per 50cm2. An AHIP
application will be lodged with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the land
containing AHIMS site #45-5-2807. Application for an AHIP has been undertaken.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 12
Figure 4: Soil landscapes and hydrology of the study area
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 13
3 Landscape context
An understanding of the physical landscape and environment is vital to understand the archaeology of an
area. The natural environment influences the distribution of archaeological material in a variety of ways.
The availability and distribution of resources influenced past land use. People need access to resources
of freshwater and food (edible plants and animals), plants for medicinal use, timber for woodworking and
quarry sites for tool manufacture.
Since the time of Aboriginal occupation, the environment and resources in many places is likely to have
changed. As such, archaeologists cannot always draw direct inferences from the current environment.
Historical land use and environmental degradation have impacted on the survival of material remains.
Acidic soils, if present, are less likely to have preserved fragile organic materials such as bone or shell.
Areas of heavy erosion, some agricultural practices or other earth disturbances are less likely to contain
in situ deposits of archaeological material. These factors need to be considered when undertaking
archaeological assessment and predictive modelling.
3.1 Landforms and topography
The study area is within the Cumberland Plain physiographic region. The Cumberland Plain is
characterised by gently undulating low hills and plains atop the Wianamatta Group of Triassic period
sedimentary shales. The topography within the study area is characterised by the gentle slopes and
floodplains of First ponds Creek.
3.2 Geology
The underlying geology within the vicinity of our study area consist mainly of Bringelly Shale. Common to
the Cumberland Plain, Bringelly Shale is part of the late Triassic Wianamattta group of shales. Quaternary
Alluvium can be found within portions our study area closer to First Ponds Creek. Quaternary Alluviums
is derived from the Wianamatta group of shales and is often associated with the creeks and floodplains
across the Cumberland Plain.
3.3 Soils
Soil landscapes are largely determined by the underlying geology. The soil landscape located within the
study area are of the Blacktown Residual soil landscape (Figure 4). The Blacktown soil landscape
consists of shallow to moderately deep soil with relatively low susceptibility to erosion. In general the soil
profile of this landscape is comprised of a friable brownish black loam (A1 horizon) typically to 30 cm
depth, followed in turn by hard setting brown clay loam (A2 horizon), strongly pedal, mottled brown light
clay (B horizon) and grey plastic mottled clay (B3 or C horizon) (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990:29-30).
3.4 Hydrology
The study area is located just to the east of First Ponds Creek. At this location First ponds Creek would
be considered a variable 2nd/3rd order stream. 2nd order streams are waterways with intermittent flow and
occasional pools resulting from rainfall. In order to maintain a permanent flow and to generate permanent
waterholes a junction of two 2nd order streams or a 3rd order stream is required. Third order streams and
above are likely to have a permanent stream flow and/or waterholes.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 14
Therefore it may be concluded that depending on the time of year and the amount of water in the system
First Ponds Creek would have been a focus point for Aboriginal occupation providing abundant fresh
water, plant, and animal resources.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 15
4 Regional character and predictive model
4.1 Regional character
Previous archaeological assessments within the region provide important data on Aboriginal
archaeological site distribution and typology from which an understanding of the archaeological landscape
within the study area can be developed. More than five thousand archaeological sites with evidence for
a variety of Aboriginal activities have been recorded so far in the Sydney region, illustrating the richness
of the regional archaeological record. Such evidence reveals the dynamic and changing nature of
Aboriginal life over the millennia that people have lived in the Sydney region.
Dates of the earliest occupation of the continent by Aboriginal people are subject to continued revision as
more research is undertaken. The oldest dated archaeological resource from the Sydney region comes
from artefacts found in gravels of the Cranebrook Terrace on the Nepean River, dated to 41,700 +3000/-
2000 BP (years before present) (Nanson et al. 1987; Stockton 1973; Stockton & Holland 1974), however
there is some dispute over the accuracy of the date of the deposits.
Site (RTA-G1), excavated by McDonald (2005) from the Parramatta Sand Sheet in the city centre of
Parramatta has been dated to 30,735 +/- 407 BP and is considered reliable. A rock shelter site north of
Penrith on the Nepean, known as Shaws Creek K2, is another reliably dated Pleistocene site, (14,700 +/-
250 BP) (Attenbrow 2010:18). More recently, a salvage excavation at Pitt Town on the banks of the
Hawkesbury River has the lowest deposits containing artefacts dated to 15,000 BP (Williams et al,
2012:95). Based on the material evidence and range of archaeological sites right across the Sydney
region, it is clear that Aboriginal people were utilising the land and its resources.
4.2 Predictive Model
Taking in consideration previous archaeological investigations and predictive models for the region, and
the land forms and environmental landscape of the study area ELA propose the following predictive model
for archaeological site types and locations:
• Artefact scatters are the most common Aboriginal site types in the wider study area and
across the Cumberland Plain.
• Silcrete artefacts are likely to occur across parts of the study area and with the raw material
likely to have been sourced from the Plumpton Ridge formation located to the west of the
study area, where a number of sites have previously been recorded.
• The highest density of archaeological sites are expected to be located within 100m of First
Ponds Creek, a variable 2nd/3rd order stream.
• Terraces are the landforms where the highest density of artefacts are expected to occur,
followed by lower slopes, creek flats and mid slopes (of equal likelihood) and last upper
slopes and ridge tops where density may be consistent with a background scatter.
• Artefact densities around first order streams are expected to be no more than a background
scatter.
• Subsurface context will vary depending on past land use, levels of existing native vegetation,
levels of disturbance and past major flood events.
• Water movement in alluvial landscapes is likely to have scoured archaeological material or
covered it with sediment, making them difficult to detect from surface inspection alone.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 16
5 Research design and sampling strategy
5.1 Introduct ion
The purpose of a research design is to provide and direct a reasonable foundation for management
decisions of an archaeological or cultural heritage site or place as well as satisfying regulatory
requirements through a standardised process. All related future archaeological studies and analyses
stand to benefit if guided by clear linkage of study goals, relevant theory, data and methods. Application
of a research design is international best practice and plays a vital role in the planning process.
This research design follows a test excavation under the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation
of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010). The purpose of the test excavation is to
obtain information about nature and extent of subsurface artefacts and any archaeological features at this
location. This information will be used to better to understand the significance of the archaeology at this
location and to better guide its management.
5.2 Background
Lands within the study area stand to be impacted by the proposed development activities described in
Section 1 of this report. The purpose of the test excavation program was to collect further information
about the nature and extent of subsurface archaeological deposits that may be located within the study
area. A previous archaeological survey conducted by Apex Archaeology in early 2017 identified areas of
existing disturbance that were assessed as having low to nil archaeological potential. Subsequently they
also identified lands within the study area as having a moderate to high potential to contain subsurface
archaeological deposits.
An archaeological assessment was undertaken with RAP’s who were invited to participate in fieldwork to
support the technical assessment and provide advice on cultural issues relating to Aboriginal sites within
the study area. This excavation research design methodology provides a technical basis for undertaking
proposed excavation works under the Code of Practice.
The basis and justification for excavation has been established as part of analysis within the
Archaeological Technical Report (ATR) developed for the site. This methodology outlines the key
research questions to be considered as part of the excavation, how excavation will be undertaken, and
other technical and reporting requirements to guide and inform on how the field program is undertaken,
how data is captured and analysed, and key conclusions derived.
Results of the desktop assessment, archaeological survey, and test excavations will be presented in a
draft ACHAR and ATR. The ACHAR and ATR will include any areas of constraint that will require further
analysis and/or will support any avoidance or mitigation strategies with respect to possible impacts to
Aboriginal objects or other places of importance to the Aboriginal community. The reports will be made
available for the RAP’s to comment on with comments incorporated in the final reports. The reports may
support a future AHIP application to the OEH.
5.3 Research design
The survey and test excavation examined the relationship between the different landforms and any
artefact-bearing deposits were also examined for evidence of distribution pattern associated with distance
to water to test hypotheses around site utilisation and resource zones. The research questions outlined
below include broad questions that attempted to show the level of information the site might be expected
to reveal as well as questions specifically related to the site:
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 17
• What was the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the
study area?
• What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the assemblage?
• What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites?
• Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping
floors or other foci or activities areas?
• Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study
area?
• How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source?
• What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by Aboriginal
people?
• How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region?
• How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region?
The research design questions developed to guide the testing program are not limited to the questions
above and other pertinent questions may arise (or be fine-tuned) during the course of the work being
undertaken.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 18
6 Methodology
6.1 Field Survey
Prior to test excavations ELA Archaeologist Tyler Beebe conducted an archaeological field survey over
the study area with assistance from Steve Randall from the Deerubbin LALC in order to identify any
previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites or objects. Areas of low, moderate, and high subsurface
archaeological potential identified in the previous assessment were also inspected. Proposed areas for
archaeological testing were subject to site survey and consideration.
The field survey methodology was as follows:
• The field survey was undertaken by ELA archaeologists Tyler Beebe with Steve Randall from
Deerubbin LALC on 23 August 2017.
• The field survey involved a pedestrian survey to identify any previously unrecorded sites and
areas of archaeological potential, and any areas of historical land use and disturbance;
• All landform units within the study area were sampled as part of the field survey
• Documentation of cultural information as provided by Aboriginal representatives.
• Any Aboriginal sites and / or PADs identified within the project area were recorded using a GPS
and photographed.
• Any new Aboriginal sites required the completion of an Aboriginal heritage site recording form
(AHIMS Site Card) as required by OEH.
6.2 Test excavat ions
ELA undertook archaeological test excavations under the Code of Practice for Archaeological
Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a) in order to understand the presence, nature,
extent and significance of the Aboriginal archaeological resource and how best to manage it.
This section presents the methodology for the test excavation. The purpose of archaeological test
excavations was to collect information about the nature and extent of sub-surface Aboriginal objects,
based on a sample gathered from sub-surface investigations. According to the CoP “test excavations
should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow characterisation of the Aboriginal objects present without
having a significant impact on the archaeological value of the subject area.”
The test excavation methodology is as follows:
The work was undertaken by a team comprising archaeologists and representatives from the RAPs. The
initial approach to testing will include sampling from 50cm x 50cm test pits. The exact location (start and
end points) of the transects and test pits were selected in the field by the archaeologists and RAP
participating in the test excavations, dependent on surface ground conditions and suitability for answering
the research questions.
6.2.1 Lot 1 DP 30211
Transect C – ran southwest to northeast investigating an area of moderate potential within the northern
most portion of Lot 1. Seven test pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 19
Transect D – ran southwest to northeast investigating an area of moderate potential within the northern
most portion of Lot 1. Transect D was placed parallel to and 15 m to the south of Transect C. Eight test
pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.
Transect E – ran southwest to northeast investigating a landform that has moderate archaeological
potential within the northern most portion of Lot 1. Nine test pits were placed along this transect at 10m
intervals.
Transect F – ran southwest to northeast investigating a landform that has moderate archaeological
potential within the northern most portion of Lot 1. Transect F was placed parallel to and 10m to the south
of Transect E. Nine test pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 20
6.2.2 Stage 1 test pits
• The test pits were excavated by hand (inclusive of trowels, spades and other hand tools) along
transects C-F at intervals of 10m.
• The first test pit within the identified landform was excavated in 5cm spits; the subsequent test
pits conducted within the landform were then excavated in either 10cm spits or stratigraphic units
(whichever is smaller) to the base of Aboriginal object-bearing units being the removal of the A-
horizon soil deposit down to the sterile clay layer (B-horizon).
6.2.3 General procedures
• The Code of Practice dictates that the maximum surface area of all test excavation units must be
no greater than 0.5% of the PAD or landform unit area being investigated.
• All excavated soil was sieved in 5 mm sieves. Artefacts were collected and bagged according to
test pit location and spit or context number.
• Wet sieving was used for all excavated soils.
• Each test pit was recorded using standardised recording forms, coordinates collected using a
GPS, and photographed using a range pole.
• The stratigraphic / soil profile for each test pit was recorded in scale drawings as required by OEH
Code of Archaeological Practice recording requirements.
• Munsell colours were taken of the soils from the test pit program.
• Test excavation units were backfilled as soon as practicable.
• AHIMS site cards were prepared and submitted to the AHIMS Registrar for new sites identified
during test excavations.
• An AHIMS Site Impact Recording form will be completed and submitted to the AHIMS Registrar
for all sites impacted under an approved AHIP.
• In the unlikely event that suspected human remains were identified works would have
immediately ceased and the NSW Police and OEH would have been notified.
• Test excavations ceased when enough information* had been recovered to adequately
characterise the objects present with regard to their nature and significance.
*Enough information is defined by OEH as meaning “that the sample of excavated material clearly and
self-evidently demonstrates the deposit’s nature and significance. This may include things like locally or
regionally high object density: presence of rare or representative objects: presence of archaeological
features: or locally or regionally significant deposits stratified or not.” (DECCW 2010a).
6.3 Lithic Analysis
All collected materials were temporarily held at the ELA office, where they were analysed and catalogued
by Tyler Beebe, ELA Archaeology Consultant. Any artefacts that were particularly interesting or
representative were photographed and included in the report. The collection was analysed using the A
Record in Stone (Holdaway & Stern 2004).
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 21
6.4 Care and control
A strategy for management of Aboriginal artefacts recovered from the site would be developed through
consultation with the RAP. The RAP’s are invited to provide comment on the long term management of
artefacts.
Artefacts identified and collected during test excavations will be temporarily held at the ELA Sydney office
(Suite 1, Level 1, 101 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000) where they have been catalogued and analysed
by an ELA archaeologist / artefact specialist.
Following the completion of artefact cataloguing and analysis, after consultation with both the client and
RAPs it was determined that the artefact would be reburied within the dedicated conservation area of the
second development site located to the south at Lot 2 DP 1208526 in Schofields NSW. The artefact
reburial would coincide with the reburial of objects found at that location and would happen as soon as
practicable in accordance with:
• Requirement 26 “Stone artefact deposition and storage” in the Code of Practice for
Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (24 September 2010)
6.5 Reporting
Following completion of the test excavation program, the results have been presented in this report. The
results are used to revise the significance assessment of sites identified and provide guidance on
management of the heritage resource.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 22
7 Results
7.1 Archaeological survey results
An archaeological survey was undertaken of Lot 1 and 8 DP 30211 on 23 August 2017 by ELA
Archaeologists Tyler Beebe, with the assistance of Steve Randall from the Deerubbin LALC. The full site
coverage survey consisted solely of a pedestrian walk over. The two lots were walked on foot with
opportunistic inspection of areas of surface exposure. Landforms identified as having a potential for
containing a subsurface archaeological deposit were identified. The archaeological survey was
undertaken in accordance with the OEH Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal
Objects in New South Wals 2010.
In accordance with the OEH the study area was surveyed according to survey units, landforms, and
landscapes. All survey units are described in Table 4.
Table 4: Survey coverage
Survey
Unit
(SU)
Landform
Survey Unit
Area (SUA)
(m2)
Visibility
(V) %
Exposure
(E) %
Effective
coverage area
(ECA)
Effective
coverage %
1 Lower slope 105,000 20 30 6300 60
2 Lower slope 20,000 0 40 0 0
During the course of the survey, areas of disturbance and areas of potential were recorded. The test
excavation will be targeting the areas within close proximity to freshwater and landforms that exhibited
lower levels of disturbance.
Table 5: Landform summary - sampled areas
Landform Landform area
(m2)
Area
effectively
surveyed (m2)
% landform
effectively
surveyed
Number of
Aboriginal
sites
Number of
artefacts or
features
Lower slope 125,000 6,300 5 0 0
7.1.1 Identified disturbances within the study area
Lots 1 and 8, DP 30211
The entirety of Lot 8 was significantly disturbed and contained low to nil archaeological potential. The
disturbances within Lot 8 were associated with current residential use, this includes the construction of
several buildings, the construction of a livestock paddock, and landscaping (Figure 5 & 6).
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 23
Figure 5: Lot 8, front of the lot looking towards the rear
Figure 6: Lot 8, livestock paddock at the rear of the property
A number of disturbances have been documented within Lot 1 DP30211. The degree of disturbance
identified within the lot range from low / moderate to high. The large majority of the lot is currently being
used as horse adjistment that has resulted in significant landscape disturbance. These disturbances
include wide scale erosion, landscape modifications associated with equestrian activities, the construction
of several buildings, and the construction of artificial dams (Figures 7-10). The eastern portion of Lot 1
was significantly disturbed by the residence at 14 Clarke St. Riverstone. The disturbances were a result
of the residential development, various outbuildings, rubbish, and abandoned cars towards the rear of the
property (Figures 11-12).
Figure 7: Lot 1, erosion associated with equestrian activities
Figure 8: Lot 1, landscape modifications
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 24
Figure 9: Lot 1, erosion and landscape modification
Figure 10: Lot 1, landscape modification
Figure 11: Lot 1, residential disturbance
Figure 12: Lot 1, residential disturbance, view towards rear of property
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 25
Figure 13: Survey units
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 26
Figure 14: Assessed disturbance level
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 27
7.2 Test excavat ion results
The archaeological test excavation was undertaken following approval from OEH. Test excavations were
conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects
in New South Wales (OEH 2010a), and within the archaeological research design and methodology.
The following section presents a summary of the test excavation results. The full artefact catalogue is
included as an appendix.
Figure 15: Excavation and sieving within Lot 1, Transect E
Figure 16: Looking back along Transect E
Summary of Key Findings
7.2.1 Soils and stratigraphy
Within Lot 1 DP 30211, one of the two testing locations (Transects C and D) was located on a hill crest in
the eastern portion of the lot and was located 400 metres east of First Ponds Creek and 100 metres west
of an unnamed drainage line. The area had been cleared of native vegetation in the past and is currently
vegetated with some regrowth eucalypts and long paddock grass and scrub. Surface disturbance included
occasional household rubbish and tree clearing wood piles. The area immediately south of the tested
area, although originally assessed as having low to moderate levels of disturbance, was found to be
significantly disturbed by the presence of abandoned vehicles, various outbuildings, and large rubbish
piles, preventing the archaeological testing of the area. Soils across the testing area generally consisted
of a compact dark yellow brown silty loam over a strong brown basal clay. Soil depths varied from 20-
30cmbs on average. Six artefacts were recovered from the 15 test excavation squares within this area
(Figure 27). Representative sections of test excavation units from Transect C and D are presented and
described below.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 28
Figure 17: Transect C-1, north section
Transect C, test square 1 consisted of a very
compact dark yellow brown (10yr4/4) silty loam with
frequent ironstone gravel and charcoal flecking,
transitioning to a strong brown (7.5yr5/6) very
compact silt clay with occasional ironstone
inclusions.
Figure 18: Transect C-4, north section
Transect C, test square 4 was a moderately shallow
deposit consisting of a slightly compact dark yellow
brown with occasional charcoal flecking, ironstone
gravel increased in frequency with depth. The deposit
transitions to a moderately compact strong brown
basal clay with occasional ironstone inclusions.
Figure 19: Transect D-3, north section
Transect D, test square 3 consisted of a moderately
compact dark yellow brown silty loam with occasional
charcoal flecking and increasing ironstone gravel
frequency with depth. Transitions to a dry, cracked
strong brown clay base.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 29
Figure 20: Transect D-6, north section
Transect D, test square 6 exhibited a disturbed
profile. The approximate top 10 cm of the deposit
consisted of red/while plastic clay capping over a
brown silty loam with charcoal flecking and small
ironstone gravels. Clay content increased with depth
transitioning to a strong brown cracked basal clay
The second testing location (Transect E and F) within Lot 1 was located on a gentle slope in the north
western portion of the lot overlooking an unnamed drainage line. The area was currently being used for
horse adjistment so there was very little grass cover. The area had been cleared in the past of all old
growth woodland and currently consisted of regrowth eucalypt. Soils in general were moderately deep
with increased gravel up slope. Only two artefacts were recovered from the 18 test excavation squares
located within this testing area (Figure 27). Representative sections of test excavation units from Transect
E and F are presented and described below.
Figure 21: Transect E-1, north section
Transect E, test square 1 was located toward the
bottom of the slope. It consisted of a compact dark
yellow brown fine silty loam with charcoal flecking
throughout and small rounded manganese nodules.
Clay content increased with depth transitioning to
compact strong brown clay.
Figure 22: Transect E-5, north section
Transect E, test square 5 was located at the midpoint
of the slope. The deposit consisted of a compact dark
yellow brown silty loam with charcoal flecking and
angular ironstone throughout, moderate bioturbation.
Clay increases with depth transitioning to a compact
strong brown clay base.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 30
Figure 23: Transect E-9, east section
Transect E, test square 9 was located near the top of
the sloping landform. Soils were comprised of a dark
yellow brown silty loam with an extremely dense
shale and ironstone gravel lens. The gravel density
decreases with depth while the clay content
increases, transitioning to a strong brown basal clay
with occasional ironstone inclusions.
Figure 24: Transect F-7, north section
Transect F, test square 7 was located the furthest
down the slope closest to the drainage line. It
consisted of a moderately deep alluvial deposit of
homogenous dark yellow brown silty loam with small
manganese nodules, with a gentle transition to a
strong brown basal clay
Figure 25: Transect F-3, north section
Transect F, test square 3 was located at the midpoint
of the slope landform. The deposit consisted of a dark
yellow brown silt loam with a dense shale /ironstone
gravel lens 10cmbs. Gravel decreased with depth,
transitioning to a strong brown basal clay with
occasional gravel.
Figure 26: Transect F-9, north section
Transect F, test square 9 was located near the top of
the sloping landform. It consisted of a dark yellow
brown silty loam with a thick lens of angular shale at
the clay transition. The base consisted of a compact
strong brown clay.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 31
Figure 27: Testing locations and transects
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 32
7.2.2 Test Pits
A total of 33 stage one test pits measuring 50cm x 50cm were excavated over the course of the excavation
program. The excavated test pits resulted in the recovery of 8 artefacts, for a mean artefact density of 0.2
artefact/ test pit across both testing locations. The test pits were distributed across areas identified as
having higher archaeological potential.
7.2.3 Lithics
The sole raw material used in the production of lithic artefacts found during the test excavations was
silcrete. This was unsurprising given the number of silcrete sources that can be found across the
Cumberland Plain.
The artefacts recovered from the test excavation program were predominantly small in size, with the most
common size being between 10-19mm (75%) and only two artefacts over 25mm in size. The two largest
artefacts in the assemblage included a silcrete flake (25-29 mm) and a silcrete core (40-44mm). The core
displayed no cortical surfaces and had been rotated during reduction, evident by the negative flake scars
on multiple surfaces and in opposing directions.
7.2.4 Identification of new Aboriginal sites and registration on AHIMS
The test excavation resulted in the identification of two previously unregistered sites.
Table 6: Identified sites within the study areas
Site ID Site name
Coordinates (GDA94 Zone 56)
Site Type Recorder and Year
Easting Northing
45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 304021 6271819 Artefact Scatter ELA 2017
45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 304175 6271903 Artefact Scatter ELA 2017
Figure 28: ID.12 Silcrete core
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 33
Figure 29: 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957 site extent
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 34
8 Analysis and discussion
8.1 Artefact Analysis
A detailed artefact analysis of all artefacts recovered from the test excavation program was conducted by
ELA Archaeologist Tyler Beebe. Please refer to Appendix B for further details.
8.2 Response to research design questions
8.2.1 What is the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the study area?
The tested areas of Lot 1 exhibited a low subsurface archaeological deposit. Test excavations resulted in
the identification of two previously unregistered AHIMS sites, AHIMS #’s 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957.
The highest number of artefacts found within the two testing locations was six. These artefacts were
recovered AHIMS site 45-5-4956 located on a hill crest between First Ponds Creek and an unnamed
drainage line.
Current predictive models for Aboriginal land use show that third order creeks and above were often the
locations of repeated and sustained occupation sites. Although at the testing location, First Ponds Creek
is a variable 2nd/3rd order creek, there is no evidence of repeated or sustained occupation there. The
dispersed low artefact density nature of the sites within a disturbed context indicate that the main body of
the site is likely elsewhere and the presence of the artefacts is mostly likely the result of erosional
processes or modern land use disturbances.
8.2.2 What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the assemblage?
As expected based on the numerous source locations across the Cumberland Plain, silcrete was the
dominant raw material, accounting for all artefacts recovered (n=8).
Table 7: Artefact Types
Flakes Split
Flake
Proximal
Fragment
Medial
Fragment
Distal
Fragment
Angular
Fragment Core
Core
Fragment Total
2 1 2 - 1 1 1 - 8
Tool types present within the assemblage consisted of one silcrete core. No backed artefacts, a tool type
commonly found on the Cumberland Plain, were recovered from the test excavation program.
8.2.3 What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites?
The absence of large formalised tools (such as ground stone axes and flaked hatchets) indicate the
assemblage is representative of small tool tradition of the Bondaian phase of the Eastern Regional
Sequence. The Bondaian Phase dates to the mid to late Holocene, typically the last 5,000 years.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 35
8.2.4 Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping floors or other foci or activities areas?
The test excavation program did not reveal other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping
floors or other foci or activity areas.
8.2.5 Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study area?
The test excavations demonstrated evidence of disturbances from modern day land use, and natural
erosion.
The dense gravel lens’ found within the deposits on the sloping landform above the drainage line is an
indication of natural colluvial erosional processes.
The baked clay inclusions and charcoal flecking found within many of the test squares are most likely the
result of ground clearing/burning events.
8.2.6 How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source?
Making any hypotheses on artefact distribution in relation to proximity to water is not possible due to the
extremely low number of artefacts found within the assemblage.
8.2.7 What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by Aboriginal people?
The artefact assemblage is only an indication that Aboriginal people used this landscape in the past.
Because of the very low density of artefacts recovered, speculating on what they may have been doing
is impossible.
8.2.8 How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region?
The test excavation results are comparable to the results of the salvage excavations undertaken within
the A7 Archaeological Complex site (AHIMS# 45-5-4311) by AAJV in 2016. The A7 Archaeological
Complex is located on First Ponds Creek south of Lot 1.
The salvage excavations resulted in an overall low artefact density. It was determined that because of the
small artefact size and observed soil profiles that the presence of artefacts at that location was the result
of secondary deposition with the artefacts being washed into the area from another location.
8.2.9 How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region?
Due to the extremely low artefact density identified during the test excavation program, identifying any
pattern of landscape use is not possible.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 36
9 Scientific values and significance assessment
The Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Burra Charter 2013 provides
guidance for the assessment, conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural
heritage places). The Burra Charter provides a definition of cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic,
scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations”.
• Cultural heritage places or sites can be assessed through the application of these five
principle values.
• Social or cultural value (for Aboriginal sites this is assessed by Aboriginal people)
• Historical value
• Scientific/archaeological value (assessed mostly by archaeologists/heritage consultants)
• Spiritual Value (for Aboriginal sites this is assessed by Aboriginal people)
• Aesthetic value
While the Burra Charter does not include ‘archaeological value’ specifically it is noted that it can be
considered as a sub-set of scientific or other values (Australia ICOMOS Practice Note The-Burra-Charter-
and-Archaeological-Practice).
This section is a summary of scientific of archaeological values for the project area. The assessment for
social, historical and aesthetic value is presented in Section 5 of the ACHAR
9.1 Scient if ic Signif icance
Scientific or archaeological value may refer to the information content of a place and its ability to reveal
more about an aspect of the past through examination or investigation of the place, including the use of
archaeological techniques. The relative scientific value of a place is likely to depend on the importance of
the information or data involved, on its rarity, quality or representativeness, and its potential to contribute
further important information about the place itself or a type or class of place or to address important
research questions. To establish potential, it may be necessary to carry out some form of testing or
sampling. For example in the case of an archaeological site, this could be established by a test
excavation.
To appreciate scientific value, ask:
• Is it likely that further investigation of the place would have the potential to reveal substantial new
information and new understandings about people, places, processes or practices which are not
available from other sources?
Riverstone Road 1 (AHIMS# 45-5-4956)
Riverstone Road 1 is located on a hill crest 400 metres east of First Ponds Creek and 100 metres west
of an unnamed drainage line. Test excavations revealed the presence of a low density subsurface
archaeological deposit. A total of six artefacts were recovered from 15 test squares excavated at this
location. Riverstone Road 1 represents a commonly occurring site in the region in terms of site type and
topographical location. Site integrity is low with a low density subsurface archaeological deposit existing
at this location. The site was assessed as to having low archaeological and research potential, therefore
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 37
the site was determined to have low scientific significance. Further investigations would not contribute to
our understanding of Aboriginal landscape use in the region.
Riverstone Road 2 (AHIMS# 45-5-4957)
Riverstone Road 2 is located on a gentle slope overlooking an unnamed drainage line. Test excavations
revealed a low density subsurface archaeological deposit at this location. A total of two artefacts were
recovered from 18 test squares. Riverstone Road 2 represents a commonly occurring site in the region
in terms of site type and topographical location. Site integrity is low with a low density subsurface
archaeological deposit existing at this location. The site was assessed as to having low archaeological
and research potential, therefore the site was determined to have low scientific significance. Further
investigations would not contribute to our understanding of Aboriginal landscape use in the region.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 38
10 Impact assessment
Elite International Development Pty Ltd propose residential development works within adjacent lots 1 and
8 DP 302121 in Riverstone NSW. The residential development is in response to the rapid growth and
development of Sidney’s Northwest Growth Centre. Activities associated with the proposed works include
earthworks, roadworks, and civil infrastructure works associated with the construction of residential
dwellings.
Assessed impacts to the Aboriginal sites identified within the study area are shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Assessed site impacts
Site ID Site Name Type of
harm
Degree of
harm Consequence of harm
Significance of
harm
45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 Direct Total Total loss of value Low
45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 Direct Total Total loss of value Low
Riverstone Road 1 is expected to be totally impacted by the proposed development. The consequence
of harm is assessed as low due to the low artefact density of the site and the low archaeological
significance.
Riverstone Road 2 is expected to be totally impacted by the proposed development. The consequence
of harm is assessed as low due to the low artefact density, low site integrity, and the low archaeological
significance of the site.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 39
11 Management and mitigation measures
The identified sites within the study area have been considered in relation to the proposed residential
development works. Impacts to the site will be unavoidable due to the requirement for bulk earthworks
and associated activities. The recommended mitigation measures for the site within the study area is
shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Impacts and mitigation measures
Site ID Site Name Significance Recommended action
45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 Low
AHIP
Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) required prior to
commencement of works affecting the site.
45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 Low
AHIP
Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) required prior to
commencement of works affecting the site.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 40
12 Conclusions and recommendations
12.1 Conclusions
Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd was engaged by Elite International Development Pty Ltd to undertake an
Aboriginal archaeological test excavation program in response to the proposed residential development
of two parcels of land in Riverstone and Schofields NSW within the Riverstone East precinct of Sydney’s
Northwest Growth Centre. The increase in the residential development of the precinct is in response to
the continuing development of the growth centre.
The archaeological test excavation was undertaken following the Code of Practice for the Archaeological
Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010). A copy of the research design and
methodology for the archaeological test excavation program was provided to the Office of Environment &
Heritage (OEH) as a notification prior to the commencement of the test excavation.
The archaeological test excavation within Lot 1 in Riverstone NSW was completed over a period of 3
days by a team of ELA archaeologists and representatives from four different Aboriginal organisations.
The excavations took place the 6th-8th November 2017. Thirty-three (33) 50cm x 50cm test pits were
excavated along four transects at two different testing locations as part of the excavation program.
A total of 8 artefacts were recovered from the 33 test excavation squares over the course of the test
excavation program. The test excavation resulted in the identification of two previously unregistered
Aboriginal sites. These sites contained a low density subsurface archaeological deposit and was
assessed as having low archaeological significance.
12.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this archaeological investigation the following is recommended:
Recommendation 1 – Aboriginal sites are protected
All registered AHIMS sites are protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Unless they have
been granted a previous Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP), no earth works or soil disturbance in
these areas without an approved AHIP or defence under the Act.
Recommendation 2 – AHIP
An AHIP application will be lodged with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the portion of
Lot 1 DP 30211 containing Precinct B and the Aboriginal sites within (Riverstone Road 1 and Riverstone
Road 2).
Recommendation 3 – No AHIP, works can proceed with caution
The entirety of Lot 8 DP 30211 and the portion of Lot 1 DP 30211 containing Precinct A was found to be
heavily disturbed by residential development and current landscape use. No AHIP is warranted at this
location
Recommendation 4 – General Measures
• Aboriginal objects are protected under the NPW Act regardless if they are registered on AHIMS
or not. If suspected Aboriginal objects, such as stone artefacts are located during future works,
works must cease in the affected area and an archaeologist called in to assess the finds. If the
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 41
finds are found to be Aboriginal objects, the OEH must be notified under section 89A of the NPW
Act. Appropriate management and avoidance or approval under a section 90 AHIP should then
be sought if Aboriginal objects are to be moved or harmed.
• In the extremely unlikely event that human remains are found, works should immediately cease
and the NSW Police should be contacted. If the remains are suspected to be Aboriginal, the OEH
may also be contacted at this time to assist in determining appropriate management.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 42
13 References
AAJV, 2016. Riverstone Wastewater Lead-ins Project, Salvage of A& Archaeological Complex (45-5-
4311): AHIP C0000794. Prepared for Sydney Water.
Bannerman, S.M. and Hazelton, P.A., 1990. Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet. Soil
Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.
Clark, N.R. and Jones, D.C., (Eds) 1991. Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Sheet 9030. New South Wales
Geological Survey, Sydney
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010a. Code of Practice for
Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Hurstville, NSW.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010b. Aboriginal cultural heritage
consultation requirements for proponents 2010. Hurstville, NSW.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010c. Due Diligence Code of
Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Hurstville, NSW.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, 2010, Code of Practice for the
Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.
ENSR / AECOM 2008. Aboriginal Heritage Assessment – Alex Avenue and Riverstone Growth Precincts.
Report prepared for NSW Growth Centres Commission.
Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants. 2008. Riverstone West precinct, Sydney. Aboriginal
Archaeological Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for North West Transport Hub (NWTH).
Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd, 2013. Richmond Road Upgrade Grange Avenue to South Creek,
Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. .Prepared for Stockland
Kohen, J. 1986. An Archaeological Study of Aboriginal Sites within the City of Blacktown. Report to
Blacktown City Council.
Office of Environment and Heritage. 2011a. Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal
cultural heritage in NSW.
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 43
Appendix A – AHIMS search results
R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 44
Re s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f T hr e e L o t s i n R i ve r s t o n e a n d S c ho f i e l d s NS W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 45
Re s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f T hr e e L o t s i n R i ve r s t o n e a n d S c ho f i e l d s NS W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 46
Re s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f T hr e e L o t s i n R i ve r s t o n e a n d S c ho f i e l d s NS W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 47
Appendix B – Artefact Catalogue
Re s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f T hr e e L o t s i n R i ve r s t o n e a n d S c ho f i e l d s NS W - AT R
© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 48
#
Date
Excavate
d
Excavato
r
Tra
ns
ect
Te
st P
it
Te
st P
it Su
b
Sp
it
Sto
ne
Ty
pe
Co
lou
r1
Co
lou
r2
Arte
fact T
yp
e
Ma
ss (g
)
L (m
m)
W (m
m)
T (m
m)
Siz
e R
an
ge (m
m)
Co
rtex
Reto
uc
h
Ph
oto
Use-w
ear
Bip
ola
r
Heat
Co
mm
en
ts
1 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 1 1 Quartz milky Angular fragmenr
> 1 g 5-9mm 5-9mm 0-4mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n n n
2 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 1 2 Silcrete red purple distal fragment
> 1 g 13mm 10mm 3mm 10-14mm 0%
3 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 1 Silcrete red Flake > 1 g 15mm 12mm 3mm 15-19mm 0% n y n n yes
4 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete red yellow Flake > 1 g 7mm 9mm 2 5-9mm 0% n n n n yes
5 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete red distal fragment
> 1 g 8mm 8mm 2mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n yes heat fracture on dorsal surface
6 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete yellow Flake > 1 g 8mm 9mm 4mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n n
7 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 1 silcrete purple Flake > 1 g 15mm 14mm 4mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes
8 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 3 silcrete red Flake 16g 21mm 39mm 14mm 34-39mm 1-30% y y n n indeterm light retouch along lateral margin
9 10/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 d 1 silcrete brown Flake > 1 g 13mm 12mm 6mm 10-14mm 1-30% n n n n indeterm
10 9/11/2017 Tyler B B 1 3 silcrete red Core fragement
3g 19mm 13mm 11mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes
11 10/11/2017 Andrew C B 4 1 Tuff brown grey distal fragment
> 1g 8mm 10mm 3mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n
12 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 4 2 Silcrete pink Core 30g 44mm 27mm 14mm 40-44mm 0% n y n n yes rotated core, four negative scars
13 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 6 1 Silcrete red Proximal fragment
> 1g 12mm 7mm 2mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n
14 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 6 1 Silcrete pink yellow Proximal fragment
> 1g 13mm 12mm 4mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n yes
15 7/11/2017 Andrew C C 7 2 Silcrete red Split flake > 1g 16mm 10mm 3mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n indeterm
16 6/11/2017 Tyler B D 2 2 Silcrete pink distal fragment
>1g 13mm 17mm 6mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes
17 6/11/2017 Tyler B D 2 3 Silcrete pink Angular fragmenr
> 1g 11mm 7mm 5mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n
18 8/11/2017 Tyler B E 8 1 Silcrete red Flake > 1g 16mm 12mm 7mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n n
19 8/11/2017 Tyler B E 8 2 Silcrete red Flake > 1g 29mm 17mm 7mm 25-29mm 0% n n n n yes
HEAD OFFICE
Suite 2, Level 3
668-672 Old Princes Highway
Sutherland NSW 2232
T 02 8536 8600
F 02 9542 5622
SYDNEY
Suite 1, Level 1
101 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
T 02 8536 8650
F 02 9542 5622
HUSKISSON
Unit 1, 51 Owen Street
Huskisson NSW 2540
T 02 4201 2264
F 02 9542 5622
CANBERRA
Level 2
11 London Circuit
Canberra ACT 2601
T 02 6103 0145
F 02 9542 5622
NEWCASTLE
Suites 28 & 29, Level 7
19 Bolton Street
Newcastle NSW 2300
T 02 4910 0125
F 02 9542 5622
NAROOMA
5/20 Canty Street
Narooma NSW 2546
T 02 4302 1266
F 02 9542 5622
COFFS HARBOUR
35 Orlando Street
Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450
T 02 6651 5484
F 02 6651 6890
ARMIDALE
92 Taylor Street
Armidale NSW 2350
T 02 8081 2685
F 02 9542 5622
MUDGEE
Unit 1, Level 1
79 Market Street
Mudgee NSW 2850
T 02 4302 1234
F 02 6372 9230
PERTH
Suite 1 & 2
49 Ord Street
West Perth WA 6005
T 08 9227 1070
F 02 9542 5622
WOLLONGONG
Suite 204, Level 2
62 Moore Street
Austinmer NSW 2515
T 02 4201 2200
F 02 9542 5622
GOSFORD
Suite 5, Baker One
1-5 Baker Street
Gosford NSW 2250
T 02 4302 1221
F 02 9542 5622
DARWIN
16/56 Marina Boulevard
Cullen Bay NT 0820
T 08 8989 5601
F 08 8941 1220
BRISBANE
Suite 1, Level 3
471 Adelaide Street
Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7192
F 07 3854 0310
ADELAIDE
2, 70 Pirie Street
Adelaide SA 5000
T 08 8470 6650
F 02 9542 5622
1300 646 131
www.ecoaus.com.au