Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties' Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 Dp755923 and Lot 823 Dp 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales

A HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MALBEC PROPERTIES' PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF LOT 172 DP755923 AND LOT 823 DP 247285, MANYANA, SOUTH COAST OF NEW SOUTH WALES

A report to

Cowman Stoddart Pty Limited

PO Box 738 NOWRA NSW 2541

Peter Kuskie and Edward Clarke SOUTH EAST ARCHAEOLOGY Pty Ltd ACN 091 653 048

www.southeastarchaeology.com.au

24 Bamford Street HUGHES ACT 2605

Telephone: 02-6260 4439

October 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

South East Archaeology was engaged in April 2006 by Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd, on behalf of Malbec Properties, to undertake a heritage impact assessment of a proposed residential subdivision at Manyana. Malbec Properties proposes to develop Lot 172 DP 755923 and Lot 823 DP 247285, at the corner of Berringer and Cunjurong Point Roads, Manyana, for a residential subdivision of approximately 180 lots. The study area is located on the South Coast of New South Wales and measures approximately 20 hectares in size.

A Part 3A Major Project application is being prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, of which this heritage assessment will form a component. This assessment has been undertaken with reference to the Department of Planning's requirements, including to address and document information contained in the draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation and investigate the history and occupation of the site having regard to the Heritage Office guideline Assessing Heritage Significance.

The principal aims of the heritage investigation were to identify and record any Aboriginal and non-indigenous heritage evidence within the study area, assess the potential impacts of the proposal on this evidence, assess the significance of this evidence, and formulate recommendations for the conservation and management of this evidence, in consultation with the local Aboriginal community.

The investigation proceeded by recourse to the historical, archaeological and environmental background of the locality, followed by a field survey undertaken with the assistance of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

The total survey coverage (ground physically inspected for heritage evidence) obtained during the survey equated to approximately 13% of the study area. The total effective survey coverage (visible ground surface physically inspected with potential to host evidence) equated to just 0.7% of the study area. Very low conditions of surface visibility constrained the ability to effectively assess the Aboriginal heritage resources potentially present within the study area.

One non-indigenous heritage site (relics under the Heritage Act 1977, a 'weekender') has been identified within the study area. The potential for non-indigenous heritage items of local or state significance to occur within the study area is assessed as low and the identified non- indigenous site is assessed as being of low (little) significance under the Heritage Office guideline Assessing Heritage Significance.

One Aboriginal site (an artefact scatter, 'Manyana 1') has been identified within the study area. In addition, there remains a high potential for further heritage evidence to occur in the form of sub-surface deposits of stone artefacts across the study area, potentially including deposits that are in situ and/or of research value. The potential for other types of indigenous heritage evidence is assessed as low or negligible. No other cultural evidence or cultural values (eg. historically known places, resource use areas, etc.) were identified to the consultants by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders during the course of the assessment.

On a preliminary basis, site 'Manyana 1' is assessed as potentially being of low to moderate scientific significance within a local context. Further investigation is required to clarify the level of scientific significance of the site. It is important to observe that all heritage evidence tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape.

The Aboriginal heritage evidence recorded within the study area is protected under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Impacts should not occur within the recorded Aboriginal site area in the absence of a valid Section 90 Consent or Part 3A approval.

The primary recommendations made on the basis of legal requirements including the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Heritage Act 1977, the results of the investigation and preliminary consultation with the local Aboriginal community include:

Unmitigated impact is feasible for the non-indigenous heritage site 'Manyana 2' subject to Part 3A approval, or in lieu, endorsement by the Heritage Office of an Excavation Permit Exception;

In order to overcome the limitations posed by very low conditions of surface visibility and the resulting effective survey sample of just 0.7% of the study area, a program of sub- surface testing is warranted. Sub-surface testing will enable adequate assessment of the nature, extent, integrity and significance of the Aboriginal heritage resources of the study area, particularly within the gentle simple slope and gentle spur crest contexts. A Section 87 Preliminary Research Permit is required from DEC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders; and

Subsequent to testing, an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan must be formulated in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any development impacts occurring, to specify the policies and actions required in every conceivable circumstance to mitigate and manage the potential impacts of the proposal on Aboriginal heritage after Part 3A approval is granted. The plan will include procedures for ongoing Aboriginal consultation, mitigation measures for the recorded and potential Aboriginal evidence, and management procedures for any previously unrecorded sites and skeletal remains that may be uncovered. The Plan will comprise a detailed Statement of Commitments that, subject to Part 3A project approval, will guide management of the Aboriginal heritage resource in lieu of a Section 90 Consent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Environmental Context 4

3. Archaeological Context 7 3.1 Heritage Register Searches 7 3.2 Previous Archaeological Research 7 3.3 Synthesis 12 3.4 Local Aboriginal Culture 13 3.5 Predictive Model of Site Location 15

4 Historical Context 19

5. Methodology 23

6. Results and Discussion 24 6.1 Survey Coverage 24 6.2 Heritage Evidence 27 6.3 Discussion 28

7. Aboriginal Consultation 32

8. Significance Assessment 34 8.1 Indigenous Criteria 34 8.2 Significance of Indigenous Heritage Evidence Within the Study Area 36 8.3 Non-Indigenous Heritage 37

9. Statutory Obligations 40

10. Mitigation and Management Strategies 44

11. Recommendations 49

References 51

Acknowledgments 55

Disclaimer 55

Appendix 1: Archaeological Survey Coverage Database 56

Appendix 2: Heritage Site Data 58

Appendix 3: Plates 65

Appendix 4: Aboriginal Community Consultation 68

FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Location of Study Area 2

Figure 2: Preliminary Development Concept Plan 3

Figure 3: Approximate Location of Previously Recorded Aboriginal Heritage Sites 6

Figure 4: Plans of Parish of Conjola, County of St. Vincent 22

Figure 5: Approximate Location of Archaeological Survey Areas and Heritage Site Loci 26

TABLES

Page

Table 1: Results of DEC AHIMS Register Search 6

Table 2: Environmental Contexts - Survey Coverage and Artefact Density Summary 25

Table 3: Lithic Items Recorded During the Survey 25

1. INTRODUCTION

South East Archaeology was engaged in April 2006 by Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd on behalf of Malbec Properties to undertake a heritage impact assessment of a property at Manyana.

Malbec Properties proposes to develop Lot 172 DP 755923 and Lot 823 DP 247285, at the corner of Berringer and Cunjurong Point Roads, Manyana, for a residential subdivision of approximately 180 lots (Figures 1 and 2). The study area is located on the South Coast of New South Wales and measures approximately 20 hectares in size.

A Part 3A Major Project application is being prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd, of which this heritage assessment will form a component. The Department of Planning's requirements in relation to heritage comprised:

Address and document information contained in draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation. Provide heritage survey to investigate history and occupation of the site having regard to the Heritage Office guideline Assessing Heritage Significance. Identify nature and extent of impacts on the cultural heritage values and recommend options for actions in consultation with the Aboriginal communities to mitigate impacts.

The principal aims of the heritage impact sssessment are therefore to:

Undertake research, register searches and an archaeological survey and consultation with the Aboriginal community to identify and record any Aboriginal heritage evidence or non-indigenous heritage evidence, areas of potential evidence (including features of cultural significance) and cultural values within the study area;

Assess the potential impacts of the proposal upon any identified or potential Aboriginal heritage evidence or cultural values or non-indigenous heritage evidence;

Assess the significance of any Aboriginal or non-indigenous heritage evidence or cultural values identified;

Provide details of any Aboriginal heritage evidence in accordance with Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DEC) requirements;

Consult with the local Aboriginal community as per the DEC policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants;

Present recommendations for the management of any identified Aboriginal or non- indigenous heritage evidence, potential heritage resources or cultural values; and

Prepare a formal archaeological report to meet the requirements of the Department of Planning and DEC.

The heritage investigation has proceeded by recourse to the historical, archaeological and environmental background of the locality, followed by a field survey undertaken with the assistance of representatives of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 1 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 STUDY AREA →

STUDY AREA →

Figure 1: Location of Study Area (Tianjara 8927-1S, Milton 8927-2N, Sussex Inlet 9027-4S, Cunjurong Point 9027-3N AMG 1:25,000 topographic maps, reduced) (green rectangle denotes study area).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 2 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006

Figure 2: Preliminary Development Concept Plan (courtesy Malbec Properties).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 3 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The study area is located eleven kilometres north-north-east of Ulladulla, on the south coast of New South Wales. It is situated between AMG grid co-ordinates 272990 and 273650 east and 6095340 and 6095730 north, on the Cunjurong Point 9027-3-N 1:25,000 topographic map (Figure 1). Cunjurong Point Drive forms the western boundary, housing along Sunset Strip in the village of Manyana forms the southern boundary, housing along The Companionway forms the eastern boundary and the Berringer Road forms the northern boundary. The property measures approximately 20 hectares in size.

The property lies within the coastal lowlands land system. Altitude varies between 12 and 37 metres above-sea-level. The modern coastline has been shaped by the rising and subsequent stabilisation of the sea at its present level during the Holocene period (past 10,000 years). The drowned embayments of Conjola Lake and Berringer Lake lie less than two kilometres to the west and southwest of the study area. The rocky headland of Inyadda Point lies approximately 1.5 kilometres to the east of the present study area and Cunjurong Point and the entrance of Conjola Lake to the ocean lies approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south. Two un-named minor drainage depressions drain to the south through the property and combine before draining eastwards to the sea. The un-named creek is periodically closed to the ocean by Manyana Beach. Its eastern-most portion forms a lagoon approximately 400 metres southeast of the present study area. Landform units present within the property include gently inclined (less than 5°45´) spur crests, simple slopes and drainage depressions.

The study area is underlain by gravel, sand, clay, quartzite, sandstone and conglomerate of Tertiary period undifferentiated sediments (Ulladulla SI 56-13 1:250,000 geological map). The margins of Berringer Lake and region to the west are dominated by Permian conglomerate, sandstone and silty sandstone of the Conjola/Snapper Point Formation (Shoalhaven Group). Patches of Quaternary alluvial sand lie to the east and south associated with the rear of the foredune of Manyana Beach. An outcrop of Tertiary basalt occurs to the northeast at Red Head.

Of particular significance to both the Aboriginal and non-indigenous occupation of the region is the presence of silcrete deposits at Bendalong, which form the northern extent of coastal deposits outcropping between Narooma and Bendalong. These deposits occur along the ridgeline north of the study area, through to Red Head. The Aboriginal use of silcrete is discussed in Section 3.2 and the history of non-indigenous exploitation is presented in Section 4.

Silcrete is a brittle, intensely indurated rock composed mainly of quartz clasts cemented by a matrix which may be well-crystallized quartz, cryptocrystalline quartz or amorphous (opaline) silica (Langford-Smith 1978:3). The texture of silcrete reflects that of the host rock and clasts may range in size from very fine grains to boulders. Silcrete is produced by an absolute accumulation of silica, which is made available by chemical weathering. The formation of silcrete therefore requires the removal of most elements, other than silicon, in the host material. Silcrete is normally grey in colour, but can be whitish, red, brown or yellow. It shatters readily into sharp, angular pieces with a conchoidal fracture and newly broken rocks have a semi-vitreous sheen (Langford-Smith 1978:4).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 4 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 The silcrete beds present on the headland at Boat Harbour Beach, two kilometres north-east of the study area, are one to two metres thick. Callender (1978), a geologist for Newbold General Refractories Limited, described the Bendalong silcrete as typically grey and highly indurated, with poorly-sorted angular quartz clasts grading into a fine-grained authigenic quartz cement (Callender 1978:216). Friable silcretes grading into sandstones and clay-rich sands are common at Red Head (Callender 1978:216).

Vegetation cover varies within the property. Much of the study area has been substantially cleared within historical times and predominantly consists of regrowth Eucalypt forest or woodland. The regenerating vegetation and understorey consists of various Eucalypt species, wattle (Acacia spp.), forest oak (Casuarina torulosa), teatree (Leptospermum spp.) and a dense cover of grass, including pasture improved species. Bracken (Pteridium esculentum) is present on some lower slopes and drainage depressions.

The climate of the region can be described as meso-thermal, with uniformly distributed high rainfall and no extremes in temperature.

The Shoalhaven Local Environment Plan 1985 (as amended) lists the present study area as currently zoned Residential 2(a1).

Recent land use practices and impacts to the study area range from low to high (refer also to Section 4). These impacts include:

Removal of native vegetation and subsequent regrowth/revegetation, in relation to timber harvesting and pastoral use;

Erosion;

Urban development adjacent to the study area (including residences, landscaping and associated facilities throughout the urban areas along Sunset Strip and The Companionway); and

Essential services and roads (works associated with the construction, maintenance and drainage control of Berringer Road and Cunjurong Point Road and essential services such as a water mains, telecommunications cables and electricity transmission lines).

Hence, the survival and integrity of Aboriginal heritage evidence may have been affected to varying extents by these activities.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 5 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Table 1: Results1 of DEC AHIMS Register Search.

2 DEC Site # Site Name Easting Northing Site Type Recording DEC Report # Permit # (AMG) (AMG) 58-2-0337 1 Manyana 273880 6096020 Artefact Scatter Kuskie 99611, 99719 2292 58-2-0347 Lake Conjola 272659 6094900 Burial/s Wellington 58-2-0375 CS14 273650 6095050 Artefact Scatter/ PAD* Navin Officer 97560 58-2-0376 CS15N 273720 6094840 Artefact Scatter Navin Officer 97560 2292 58-2-0398 PAD 1 (Conjola 274020 6095120 PAD* Navin Officer 97560, 99719 2283, Sewerage Scheme) 2393 58-2-0399 CS20 - Beringer Lake 1 272800 6095440 Artefact Scatter Navin Officer 98243 2292 1 Only includes Aboriginal sites registered within approximately 500 metres of the study area. 2 Aboriginal Heritage sites may extend over far greater areas than indicated by this data or on Figure 3. * PAD denotes ‘Potential Archaeological Deposit’.

STUDY AREA

Figure 3: Approximate Location of Previously Recorded Aboriginal Heritage Sites (Aboriginal site data from DEC AHIMS, base map Cunjurong Point 9027-3N AMG 1:25,000 topographic map, enlarged).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 6 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

3.1 Heritage Register Searches

A search (#15772) was undertaken in May 2006 of the DEC Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), between AMG grid coordinates 268000-277000 east and 6091000-6099000 north. A total of 51 Aboriginal sites are listed on the DEC register within this area of 72 square kilometres, which encompasses the present study area (Figure 3, Table 1). The sites identified in the broader search area include artefact scatters, shell middens, quarries, scarred trees and burials.

No Aboriginal or non-indigenous heritage sites are listed within the study area on the DEC AHIMS register or other heritage registers or planning instruments, including the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended), State Heritage Register, or other registers under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 such as the Register of the National Estate, Commonwealth Heritage List and National Heritage List.

3.2 Previous Archaeological Research

Several Aboriginal heritage investigations have been undertaken within the vicinity of Manyana, principally for Environmental Impact Assessments relating to development proposals. Brief discussion of the most relevant investigations will highlight the range of site types and variety of site contents in the region, identify typical site locations, and assist with the construction of a predictive model of site location for the study area.

Of particular significance to the Aboriginal occupation of the district are the silcrete quarry sites (DEC #58-1-0077, 58-2-0232, 58-2-0233 and 58-2-0235) located around the rocky headlands at Bendalong, approximately 2-3 kilometres northeast of the present study area. Silcrete is exposed in a seam on the headlands and as weathered blocks at the base of the rock outcrops. Evidence for Aboriginal extraction of silcrete, for use in manufacturing stone tools, is present at these locations. Silcrete was a favoured material for making tools because of its flaking qualities.

A number of heritage investigations have been undertaken in the locality, including a survey by Kuskie (1997b) of an 80 hectare property at Lot 1070 DP 836591 (formerly Portion 107), Portion 106 and Portion 204, Parish of Conjola. This property is situated between Manyana and Bendalong, immediately north-east of the current study area, and was investigated for a proposed residential and golf course development by Kylor Pty Ltd.

Despite conditions of low surface visibility, five artefact scatter sites and a previously recorded shell midden were identified within the Kylor property. The majority of the property was assessed as having a high potential for further archaeological evidence. Silcrete dominated the site assemblages and was probably obtained from local sources such as the lithic quarries at Red Head. The 234 artefacts predominantly included evidence of non- specific stone flaking. The artefact densities recorded were typically low and comparable to other sites within the region (Kuskie 1997b).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 7 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Navin (1998) investigated several locations for the Conjola Sewerage Scheme, including treatment plant and exfiltration sites at Bendalong, 1-2 kilometres north of the present study area, and south and west of Conjola Lake. No sites were located at Bendalong, but an artefact scatter and several isolated artefacts were located south and west of the lake. Monitoring of geotechnical drilling also resulted in the identification of another artefact scatter.

Elsewhere, Kuskie (1997a) investigated Portion 158, Parish of Conjola, located 1.8 km southwest of the current study area, on the northern side of Conjola Inlet and west of Berringer Lake. The property had earlier been investigated by the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council, who recorded an artefact scatter. A tourist development was proposed for the 16 hectare property. Forty-one artefacts were recorded by the Land Council, but only several could be relocated by Kuskie (1997a) due to altered conditions of surface visibility.

Nearby Kuskie (1998) undertook a survey of a 19.8 hectare area at Lot 8 DP 652170 and Lot 64 DP 219497, Parish of Conjola, for a proposed residential development at the village of Lake Conjola. No Aboriginal sites were located during the survey. Kuskie (1998) argued that these results reflected a combination of low surface visibility as well as generally low intensity use of the area by Aboriginal people. Close-by Navin et al (1999) undertook sub- surface testing for an extension to a sand quarry in Portion 206. A total of 24 units were mechanically excavated to reveal 100 lithic items.

Attenbrow (1981) surveyed sections of high archaeological potential of pipeline routes and reservoir sites for the northern Shoalhaven water supply system. Attenbrow (1981) surveyed a 200 metre section immediately north of the Conjola Lake inlet and east of Berringer Lake. No sites were identified in this location.

Navin (1992) surveyed a 2.1 hectare part of Portion 420, Parish of Conjola, for the Camp Care Committee. The property is located 400 metres south of the current study area, on the northern side of Conjola Inlet, adjacent to Canada Street in Cunjurong. No Aboriginal sites were located on the mid-simple slopes, a result attributed to a genuine low potential for sites, as predicted by a model of site location, rather than to low conditions of surface visibility.

Kuskie (1997c) undertook a survey of 25 kilometres of road and power easements within Cudmirrah National Park, for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. The area is located between Bendalong and Sussex Inlet, north of the current study area. Fifteen artefact scatters and eight isolated artefacts were located during the survey. A further recorded site complex at Fishermans Rock (DEC #58-2-271, 58-2-272, 58-2-290) was also reported on in a separate Plan of Management (Kuskie 1997d). Five sites contained between 50 and 200 artefacts. The artefacts were mostly manufactured from silcrete.

West of Conjola Lake several linear surveys have been undertaken parallel to the Princes Highway. Lance (1987) surveyed the proposed route of an electricity transmission line between Nowra and Ulladulla, and Paton and Wood (1995) assessed a water pipeline between Bamarang and Milton. Both surveys recorded a number of artefact scatter sites. Cane (1985) surveyed a proposed water pipeline route for the Shoalhaven City Council, extending five kilometres north from Lake Conjola Entrance Road to Fishermans Paradise. No sites were located along this route.

Two artefact scatters were located several kilometres south-west of Fishermans Paradise, at Myrtle Gully, by Silcox (1990) during a survey and test excavations for a proposed deviation to the Princes Highway. The fifteen artefacts recovered from the test excavations were predominantly made from quartz and silcrete raw materials.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 8 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Kuskie (1994, 1995) conducted a surface survey and sub-surface excavations in a 66 hectare property immediately south of Fishermans Paradise, on the western margin of Conjola Lake. One artefact scatter and an isolated artefact were initially located (Kuskie 1994). A further 67 artefacts were uncovered in test-excavations at the two locations. The artefacts were predominantly comprised of quartz and silcrete raw materials, with minor quantities of crystal quartz, siltstone, indurated mudstone and volcanics present (Kuskie 1995).

A number of archaeological investigations have been undertaken outside the present study area in the region between Ulladulla and Nowra. For example, surveys conducted in the Jervis Bay hinterland, 10-40 kilometres north of Manyana, have identified mostly artefact scatter sites. Cane (1988) has recorded numerous sites on the peninsulas surrounding Jervis Bay. Beecroft Peninsula, the northern arm of Jervis Bay, contains over 130 recorded Aboriginal sites, mostly middens and rockshelters with deposit (Cane 1988). Over 60 sites have been recorded on Bherwerre Peninsula, the southern arm of Jervis Bay, which is ten to twenty-five kilometres north-east of Bendalong (Sullivan 1977). These are also predominantly middens. Cane (1988) interprets the archaeological evidence as suggesting that early, sporadic occupation of Beecroft Peninsula was followed by permanent, intense occupation within the last 2,000 years.

The coast and hinterland south of the present study area has been a focus of research for Honours students in archaeology from the Australian National University (ANU). Between 1981 and 1983 the ANU research focused on the large midden complexes and artefact scatters at the Murramarang Aboriginal Area. Subsequently, this research has focused on the forested hinterland of the Batemans Bay - Ulladulla region, south of the present study area but containing similar environmental contexts.

Knight (1996) compiled a synthesis of the research reports of the area prepared by ANU students. The research has primarily focused on locating and recording and analysing any visible evidence of Aboriginal occupation within the survey areas. Typically survey transects were inspected along unsealed roads and tracks, within State Forests, National Parks and private property, while other areas of exposure were included in an opportunistic manner.

Knight (1996) reports that over 5,000 person hours of field survey was undertaken by the ANU students, resulting in coverage of over 1,000 kilometres of roads and tracks. The surveys have resulted in the recording of approximately 2,207 Aboriginal heritage sites, comprising 1,142 artefact scatters, 678 isolated artefacts, 349 shell middens, 24 rock shelters (10 including art), 11 grinding groove sites and 3 scarred trees (Knight 1996:6). A total of 18,783 stone artefacts have been recorded within the survey areas. Many of these Aboriginal sites had not been recorded onto the DEC AHIMS Register by 1996.

In total, 78% of the sites recorded in the ANU study area were identified in the hinterland zone (land between the narrow belt of coastline inland to the Clyde River) and 22% in the coastal zone (including offshore islands).

Significantly, 59% of the total number of recorded sites occur on high points (ridges, hills and peaks). Of these sites, 57% occur on ridges, 18% on spurs, 12% on saddles, 10% on knolls and 2% on peaks. Knight (1996) attributes the high frequency of sites recorded on high points to:

Sampling bias (surveys have focused on exposures such as roads that have tended to follow ridgelines in the hilly to mountainous terrain of the ANU study area) and; Genuine patterns of Aboriginal occupation (ridgelines functioned as access routes or corridors for movement, spurlines enabled access to and from the ridges, and the flat areas of saddles, knolls and spur/ridge junctions may have been locally preferred camp site locations).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 9 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Over 12% of the recorded ANU sites occur on slopes, predominantly foot slopes (57% of this total), followed by upper slopes (23%), mid-slopes (18%) and cliff features (2%). Knight (1996) observes that general predictions that slopes will not host substantial evidence of Aboriginal occupation are not supported by the ANU survey results. Knight (1996) attributes these results to the:

Broad range of topographic contexts encompassed by this category (includes locations that may have been more favourable for occupation including gently undulating terrain and low gradient slopes bordering valley floors); and

Incorporation of minor scarps and sandstone outcrops that host rock shelter sites (micro- topographical features boosting the site tally).

Valley locations were identified for 6.4% of the total number of ANU sites recorded, including creek banks (56% of this total), flats (38%) and river banks (6%). Of the total number of ANU sites recorded, 22% occur in the coastal zone, which Knight (1996) subdivides into the ocean shoreline, estuarine features and offshore islands.

Approximately 13.5% of the total number of sites recorded (or 61% of the coastal zone sites) occur in the ocean shoreline zone. This includes dunes (48% of the ocean shoreline total), headlands (36%), rock ledges (13%), shoreline cliff tops (2%) and shoreline cliff bases (2%).

About 7.4% of the total number of sites recorded (or 34% of the coastal zone sites) occur in the estuarine features zone. This includes lake shores (76% of the estuarine sites total), river banks (18%) and mangrove swamps (5%). Differences in the environmental contexts of the various lakes sampled (eg. Durras, Meroo, Willinga, Termeil, Burrill and Tabourie) are used by Knight (1996) as explanations for variations in the density of sites around the respective lake shorelines.

Nine offshore islands formed part of the ANU study area, with 1% of the total number of sites recorded on them. Sites were recorded on five islands (northern Tollgate Island, Wasp Island, Grasshopper Island, Brush Island and Crampton Island). Knight (1996) notes that Aboriginal access to these islands by canoe would not have been difficult and the sites all contained midden material, indicating the primary activity involved procurement and consumption of food resources.

Knight (1996) analysed the ANU survey results in relation to a range of environmental factors. In terms of gradient, nearly 90% of all sites occur on landform units with a gradient of less than 6º, with 73% of the total occurring on gradients of less than 3º.

In terms of proximity to potable water, 40% of sites occur less than 60 metres from a source, but it is noted that the ANU study area is relatively well watered and the distance to a watercourse from any point in the landscape is generally not too substantial. As Kuskie (1989) concluded, proximity to ephemeral streams may not have been a factor in site location, however larger, more complex sites tend to occur in close proximity to permanent sources of potable water in the hinterland zone (Knight 1996).

Knight (1996) analysed site distribution in relation to general current vegetation types as obtained from 1:100,000 Landsat mapping. Generally the frequency of site occurrences is proportional to the frequency a particular vegetation type occupies the study area, with the exceptions of higher site frequencies in the dry forest and coastal woodland complexes.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 10 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Knight (1996) speculates that the higher frequency in dry forests could be a result of survey/sample bias (higher visibility conditions) or greater suitability of this vegetation type for occupation (eg. ease of movement, dry camping conditions, less insect problems). The higher frequency of sites in the coastal woodland complex is attributed to the coincidental distribution of this vegetation type alongside important marine and estuarine subsidence resources. Midden sites represent over 70% of the sites in this vegetation complex.

Knight (1996) analysed site distribution in relation to the underlying geological units. Site distribution is relatively uniform in the units, apart from a higher frequency of sites in the Termeil Essexite unit. However, Knight (1996) attributes this result to the presence of low relief, low gradient headlands with abundant and diverse subsistence resources (eg. Bawley Point, O’Hara Head and Murramarang Point). Geology is, however, an important determinant in the location of rock shelter and grinding groove sites, with a strong association between these site types and sedimentary rock.

Knight (1996) reports that artefact scatters ranging in artefact count from 2 to 534 artefacts have been recorded in the ANU study area. Each scatter was defined by the presence of two or more artefacts within 50 metres of each other. In total, 95% of the artefact scatters contained less than 50 artefacts, with the average number of artefacts in these sites being 7. The majority of sites exhibit little evidence of a sub-surface deposit, a result largely attributable to the skeletal nature of the A unit soils in much of the coastal hinterland. However, sites in depositional contexts, such as creek and river terraces, exhibit a high potential for sub-surface deposits. Knight (1996) concludes on the basis of artefact morphology (eg. presence of diagnostic items of the Australian Small Tool Tradition) that many of the artefact scatters may relate to occupation within the last 5,000 years. However, the possible occurrence of older evidence is noted, as has been demonstrated at the Burrill Lake rock shelter.

Isolated artefacts were recorded by the ANU students as individual artefacts further than fifty metres from any other artefact. As identified by Knight (1996), often these may be the only visible evidence of a larger scatter and the category is largely redundant. Re-surveys over subsequent years have often confirmed that a scatter is present where initially only an isolated artefact had been recorded (Knight 1996).

Middens were primarily recorded in the coastal, lacustrine and estuarine zones and included a variety of shellfish species, and often incorporated marine and land animal remains, stone and bone artefacts, and even human remains. Approximately 69% of the 349 middens contained only the remains of shellfish and occasionally other faunal remains. The remaining 31% of middens also contained stone artefacts, with 89% of these containing less than 100 artefacts (mean of 11 artefacts per midden). However, some middens are associated with very high numbers of artefacts (eg. at Murramarang Beach and Murramarang Point). Midden ‘complexes’, where multiple middens and artefact scatters are located in close proximity to each other, are noted by Knight (1996), with the Murramarang Point evidence one example which extends over an area of 65,000 m2.

Rock platform species of shellfish dominated 44% of the recorded midden total, including Cabestana, Ninella, Subninella, Haliosis, Cellana, Mytilus, Melanerita, Austrocochlea and Dicathais species. Estuarine/lacustrine species of shellfish dominated 41% of the study area’s middens, including Anadara, Ostrea, Pyrazus, Mytilus, Velacumantis and Connuba species. Sandy beach species (Plebidonax or pipi) are rarely dominant within middens in the ANU study area and pipi is the only sandy beach species recorded (Knight 1996). Bone occurs relatively frequently in the recorded middens, although in low quantities. Fish, bird, land mammal and sea mammal bones have been identified. Human skeletal remains have also been recorded at Murramarang Point and Nunderra Point (Knight 1996).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 11 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Knight (1996) analysed the combined stone artefact assemblage for the recorded ANU sites. The combined assemblage is dominated by items classified as ‘debitage’ (i.e. represent non- specific stone flaking) such as flakes, flaked pieces, chips and modified pebbles. These items comprise 80% of the assemblage. About 14% of the combined assemblage comprise cores, hammerstones and anvils, classified by Knight (1996) as ‘production tools’. Over half of these items are cores which could be classified as non-specific knapping or microblade production items. ‘Formal tools’ such as backed blades, scrapers, eloueras and blades are identified by Knight (1996) as comprising 5% of the assemblage. However, the blades (which comprise 62% of this subtotal) represent microblade production, rather than discard of microlith or non-microlith tools. Ground edge axes and axe preforms comprise 0.5% of the assemblage as do manuports (unmodified out-of-context items).

The stone materials used were predominantly silcrete and volcanics, but also quartz, chert and other less common items such as quartzite. Knight (1996) observes that the predominant emphasis appear to have been on the use of locally available stone.

Within the ANU study area, variation in the frequency of use of different stone materials is apparent, with silcrete more frequent in the northern sites and volcanics more frequent in the southern sites.

Knight (1996) concludes that the hinterland landscape displays evidence of intensive Aboriginal occupation, contrary to earlier theories. It is postulated that the hinterland between Batemans Bay and Ulladulla may have supported a permanent Aboriginal population which undertook a seasonal round of dispersal and congregation in this environment (Treloar 1985). It has also been postulated that the coastal zone supported year-round occupation (Vallance 1983).

3.3 Synthesis

Lampert (1971), after excavating the rock shelter on Burrill Lake, established that occupation of the South Coast commenced at least 20,000 years ago. A site excavated at Bass Point near Wollongong yielded a similar date of 17,000 BP (Before Present) (Bowdler 1970, 1976). Boot (1994) has excavated ten sites in the hinterland ranges of the South Coast. Bulee Brook 2 (#58-1-378), near Sassafras, yielded a date of 18,810±160 BP, which replaces Flood’s (1980) 3,770±150 BP date at Sassafras 1 as the oldest evidence for occupation in the coastal ranges. These results indicate that from at least 20,000 years ago Aboriginal people were exploiting the coastal zone and from 18,000 years ago the coastal ranges.

The nature of Aboriginal occupation on the South Coast has been a matter of considerable academic debate (cf. Boot 1994:320-321). Until recently, researchers have identified higher site densities in the coastal zone than in the coastal hinterland.

Several models have been forwarded to account for this pattern of recorded site distribution (Boot 1994:320-321). Bowdler (1970) argued that occupation of the coast during summer was intensive, with some exploitation of the hinterland when coastal resources were less abundant. Lampert (1971) proposed a mixed economic regime on the coast, involving exploitation of littoral, estuarine and land resources, but with a greater emphasis on the littoral component. Poiner (1976) produced a model of occupation based on a strict seasonal regime: abundant coastal resources were exploited during summer, and the coastline and hinterland were both exploited during winter when resources were far less abundant. Flood (1980) argued that the hinterland was only used when coastal resources were in short supply during the winter season.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 12 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Attenbrow (1976) proposed a model in which the coast and hinterland were occupied all year round and that movement between the two zones occurred at the family or small group level, rather than at the large population level suggested by Poiner (1976). Attenbrow’s model incorporates a higher proportion of terrestrial animal foods in the diet during winter. Hinterland river valleys and highland areas would have been occupied during summer. In winter, the population distribution would have been widespread, based on family groups.

Moving away from the seasonal model of exploitation, Vallance (1983) argued that a range of subsistence strategies would have existed, that varied both within and between seasons and even from year to year. Following Vallance’s model, Boot (1994) suggested that if this were the case, larger archaeological sites could be expected in areas where large quantities of food were available on a single occasion or on a regular basis, and smaller sites would be the result of short term occupation during movement between such locations.

Surveys by Byrne (1983, 1984) of forests within the hinterland, began to reveal evidence challenging models of occupation focused primarily on the coastline. While the highest site densities were still identified near the coast, high densities were also found in the hinterland 13-18 kilometres from the coastline. Byrne (1983) found there was an absence of sites 3-10 kilometres from the coastline in the Five Forests study. Several researchers developed theories to account for this apparent paucity of evidence. Walkington (1987) suggested campsites were focused along the coastline and this section of the hinterland (3-10 kilometres distance) was only exploited on daily return journeys. Distances further than 10 kilometres inland would have required overnight camps in the hinterland (Walkington 1987).

More recently, surveys focused on the hinterland zone north of Batemans Bay, by Australian National University Honours students and PhD scholar Philip Boot, have revealed a vastly different body of evidence (cf. Knight 1996, refer above, Boot 2002). Thousands of sites have been located within the hinterland areas, dramatically changing the pattern of recorded site distribution. As discussed above, it is apparent that the intensity of utilisation of the coastal hinterland is far greater than previously believed and previous researchers may have inadequately accounted for the coastal bias of earlier surveys (cf. Boot 1994:320-321).

The research of Boot (2002) has demonstrated that the currently available evidence does not lend support to many of the models listed above, with the exception of Vallance (1983). Boot's (2002) research has suggested that Aboriginal occupation tends to be more focused in areas of higher biodiversity and along the boundary or in close proximity to multiple resource zones.

3.4 Local Aboriginal Culture

The study area comprised part of the territory of the Wandandian people. Tindale (1974) describes the territory of the Wandandian as extending from the Lower Shoalhaven to the Ulladulla area, and inland to the Shoalhaven River north of Braidwood. The Wandandian people spoke the Dhurga language (Eades 1976) and were a local land owning clan of the Yuin Nation (Boot 2002).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 13 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Boot (2002) has undertaken a wide-ranging study of ethnohistorical observations relating to the south coast region, based on original archival sources. Boot (2002) lists the following faunal and floral species which have been recorded in the ethnohistorical sources as having been utilised: fish species including bream, trumpeter, whiting, salmon and shark, eel, whales, seals, marine worms, shellfish including oysters and mussels, possum, kangaroo, wombat, birds, goanna, grubs, honey, kangaroo apple, native cranberry, honeysuckle, pigface, macrozamia, cabbage tree, fruit and yams. Observations of use of these food sources were made within ten kilometres of the coast (Boot 2002).

The material culture of the local Aboriginal population would have included a range of items related to subsistence, cultural and social activities and shelter. Ethnohistorical observations along the coast have been made of the following items: huts, gunyahs, canoes, spears, shell- barbed spears, fishing spears, bark/wood shields, waddy/clubs, spear throwers, boomerangs, hatchets, fish-traps, stone heat retainers, kangaroo teeth adornments, pierced nose adornments, bark drawings, possum skin cloaks, shell fish hooks and grass tree resin (Boot 2002). In the archaeological record few of these items survive. Stone, bone and shell are the materials most frequently represented in archaeological sites.

The Shoalhaven region was frequented by non-indigenous people from 1770, following its sighting by Captain Cook. During the contact period, Aboriginal people were described as being armed and numerous (Cane 1988:29). Cane (1988) characterises the period between 1810 and 1840 as one of exploitation and hostility. This occurred in relation to the early cedar-getting and occupation of Aboriginal land.

Cambage (1916) estimates the total Aboriginal population of the Ulladulla region to have been in the order of six hundred people at the time of non-indigenous settlement. Through disease and disintegration of the traditional social structure, the population rapidly declined. In three census returns of the entire Shoalhaven District in 1834, 1838 and 1839, the total Aboriginal population was recorded as 170, 242 and 180 respectively (Berry 1834, 1838, 1839).

By the 1840s the Aboriginal population had been reduced to small remnant groups along the coast or subsisting around the fringes of the now permanent non-Aboriginal settlements. There were a number of substantial Aboriginal camps or reserves in the region, including ones at Ulladulla, Orient Point, Wreck Bay and Currambene Creek.

Within the Red Head/Bendalong area, several early residents recorded their contact with local Aboriginal people. A descendent of Jesse Goodsell, Reuben Johnson, recalls from the family history that Aboriginals travelling to Sussex Inlet would occasionally stop at the property and ask for sugar and flower, which was provided by Mrs Mary Goodsell (McAndrew 1991:60).

Francis Brown, one of the early settlers, recalls that in 1916 and into the 1920’s there were Aboriginal people living at Red Head, including several who would travel to Milton for him to obtain supplies. Stuart Robinson, a resident in the 1920’s, suggests there were ‘quite a few’ Aboriginals in the Red Head area during the first years of European settlement (McAndrew 1991:70).

A large and vibrant Aboriginal population remains on the South Coast today and takes an active interest in the management of their heritage.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 14 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 3.5 Predictive Model of Site Location

A predictive model of site location is constructed to identify areas of high archaeological sensitivity (ie. locations where there is a high probability of archaeological evidence occurring), so it can be used as a basis for the planning and management of Aboriginal heritage. Predictive modelling involves reviewing existing literature to determine basic patterns of site distribution. These patterns are then modified according to the specific environment of the study area to form a predictive model of site location. A sampling strategy is employed to test the predictive model and the results of the survey used to confirm, refute or modify aspects of the model.

The use of land systems and environmental factors in predictive modelling is based upon the assumption that they provided distinctive sets of constraints that influenced Aboriginal land use patterns. Following from this is the expectation that land use patterns may differ between each zone, because of differing environmental constraints, and that this may result in the physical manifestation of different spatial distributions and forms of archaeological evidence (Hall and Lomax 1993:26).

The predictive model is based on information from the following sources:

Identification of land systems and landform units; Previous archaeological surveys conducted within the region; Distribution of recorded sites and known site density; Traditional Aboriginal land use patterns; and Known importance of any parts of the study area to the local Aboriginal community.

In certain circumstances, such as where low surface visibility or recent sediment deposition precludes effective assessment of the potential archaeological resource, sub-surface testing may be a viable alternative for further testing the predictive model and assessing the study area.

The following is a brief description of the site types that may occur within the study area.

ARTEFACT SCATTERS: In most archaeological contexts, an artefact scatter has been defined as either the presence of two or more stone artefacts within 50 or 100 metres of each other, or a concentration of artefacts at a higher density than surrounding low density ‘background scatter’. The definition of an artefact scatter ‘site’ is often an arbitrary one, which can offer benefits from a heritage management perspective but is a source of theoretical/analytical debate for heritage practitioners.

Due to the nature of the underlying evidence, its identification only within exposures created by erosion or disturbance, and the limited suitability of existing definitions, artefact scatter sites are defined within this study as the presence of one or more stone artefacts within a survey area (cf. Kuskie 2000). The boundaries of the site are defined by the boundaries of the visible extent of artefacts within the survey area. The survey areas are based on discrete, repeated environmental contexts termed archaeological terrain units (eg. a particular combination of landform unit and class of slope).

An artefact scatter may consist of surface material only, which has been exposed by erosion, or it more typically involves a sub-surface deposit of varying depth. Other features may be present within artefact scatter sites, including hearths or stone-lined fireplaces, and heat treatment pits.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 15 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Artefact scatters may represent the evidence of:

Camp sites, where everyday activities such as habitation, maintenance of stone or wooden tools, manufacturing of stone or wooden tools, management of raw materials, preparation and consumption of food and storage of tools has occurred; Hunting or gathering events; Other events spatially separated from a camp site (eg. tool production or maintenance); or Transitory movement through the landscape.

The detection of artefact scatters depends upon conditions of surface visibility and ground disturbance and whether recent sediment deposition has occurred (cf. Dean-Jones and Mitchell 1993). Vegetation cover and deposition of sediments generally obscures artefact scatter sites and prevents their detection during surface surveys. High levels of ground disturbance can also obscure or remove evidence of a site.

Within the study area, there is a high potential for heritage evidence to occur in the form of stone artefacts, in a widespread distribution of variable density across virtually all landform units (eg. spur crests, simple slopes and drainage depressions) apart from within those areas which have been substantially impacted by recent land-use. A higher density of evidence is expected to occur where more focused and/or repeated Aboriginal occupation has occurred (eg. along higher order watercourses). Such contexts do not occur within the study area.

BORA/CEREMONIAL SITES: Bora grounds are a type of ceremonial site associated with initiation ceremonies. They are usually made of two circular depressions in the earth, sometimes edged with stone. Bora grounds can occur on soft sediments in river valleys and elsewhere, although occasionally they are located on high, rocky ground where they may be associated with stone arrangements.

The potential for bora/ceremonial sites within the study area is assessed as being very low, due to the recent history of land use.

BURIALS: Human remains tended to be placed in hollow trees, caves or sand deposits. The location of burials may once have been marked by carved trees (eg. Etheridge 1918:85), although subsequent tree clearing and the long passage of time since the disruption of this practice has rendered these markers extremely rare. Usually burials are only identified when eroding out of sand deposits or creek banks, or when disturbed by development. The probability of detecting burials during archaeological fieldwork is extremely low.

The potential for burial sites to occur within the study area is considered to be low, although cannot be discounted.

CARVED TREES: Carved trees were still relatively common in NSW in the early 20th century (Etheridge 1918). They were commonly used as markers for ceremonial or symbolic areas, including burials.

Both vegetation removal and the long passage of time since the practice of tree carving was prevalent have rendered this site type extremely rare. Consequently, the potential for carved trees within the study area is considered to be very low.

GRINDING GROOVES: Elongated narrow depressions in soft rocks (particularly sedimentary), generally associated with watercourses. The depressions are created by the shaping and sharpening of ground-edge hatchets.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 16 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Grinding grooves are typically located in sedimentary bedrock along watercourses. As such, their potential to occur within the study area is dependent upon the presence of such bedrock. Undifferentiated sand, gravel, sandstone and conglomerate sediments occur in the underlying geology of the study area and two minor drainage depression traverse the property. Notwithstanding the general potential for grinding grooves to occur in the locality, given the low order nature of the watercourses, on a preliminary basis the potential for grinding grooves can be assessed as low.

LITHIC QUARRIES: A lithic quarry is the location of an exploited stone source (Hiscock and Mitchell 1993:32).

Sites will only be located where exposures of a stone type suitable for use in artefact manufacture occurs. Silcrete quarry sites are known within the Bendalong locality and there is some potential for evidence of silcrete procurement should sources occur within the present study area.

MIDDENS: Shell middens are a common site type in the coastal region. Middens are deposits of shell, the remains of what formed part of the Aboriginal diet. Middens may also include stone, bone or shell artefacts, charcoal, or the remains of small terrestrial or aquatic fauna, which were also a part of the diet. Middens exhibit wide variation in terms of their size, preservation and contents, and can provide significant information on land-use patterns, diet, chronology of occupation and environmental conditions.

Considering the distance of the study area from shellfish sources (c.one kilometre) the potential for middens to occur is assessed as moderate to low.

MYTHOLOGICAL/TRADITIONAL SITES: Mythological sites, or sites of traditional significance to Aboriginal people, may occur in any location. Often natural landscape features are the locations of mythological sites. Other sites of contemporary significance include massacre sites (the location of violent clashes between early settlers and local Aboriginals), traditional camp sites and contact sites.

Consultation with the local Aboriginal community is essential to identify these site types within the study area.

ROCK SHELTER WITH ART AND/OR OCCUPATION DEPOSIT: Rock shelters include rock overhangs, shelters or caves, which were used by Aboriginal people. Rock shelter sites may contain artefacts, midden deposits and/or rock art. These sites will only occur where suitable geological formations are present.

This potential is assessed as negligible for the present study area, due to the nature of the topography.

SCARRED TREES: Scarred trees contain scars caused by the removal of bark for use in manufacturing canoes, containers, shields or shelters.

Mature trees, remnants of stands of the original vegetation, have the potential to contain scars. Considering the long time period elapsed since this practice was prevalent and the extent of previous vegetation removal, the potential for scarred tree sites to occur within the study area is assessed as very low.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 17 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 STONE ARRANGEMENTS: Stone arrangements include circles, mounds, lines or other patterns of stone arranged by Aboriginal people. Some were associated with bora grounds or ceremonial sites and others with mythological or sacred sites.

Hill tops and ridge crests which contain stone outcrops or surface stone, and have been subject to minimal impacts from recent land use practices, are potential locations for stone arrangements. The potential for stone arrangements to occur within the study area is assessed as very low, due in part to the recent history of land use.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 18 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 4. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

European contact with the region commenced in 1770 when Captain Cook sighted Jervis Bay. George Bass followed the coast from Jervis Bay south to Batemans Bay in 1797. Following his descriptions, Jervis Bay became a regular stop for whaling boats. From the early 1800s cedar cutters entered the district and began removing red cedar (Toona australis), with the first shipment leaving the Shoalhaven in 1811 (Antill 1982). Red cedar was a prized timber because it is light, soft and easy to work. Alexander Berry sailed into Conjola Lake in 1822 and shortly afterwards, European settlement commenced near Nowra. Surveyor Thomas Florance travelled overland from Jervis Bay to St. George’s Basin in 1827 and mapped out Sussex Inlet, Swan (‘Cudmirrah’) Lake, Berrara Creek (referred to as ‘Canal Lagoon’) and Red Head (Kemp 1980). The Surveyor Robert Hoddle completed a coastal survey between Jervis Bay and Moruya in 1828, in which he also mapped these localities (Cho et al 1995).

Kemp (1980) describes the original road from Shoalhaven leading through Huskisson, across Sussex Haven (Sussex Inlet), Swan Lake, Berrara Creek, Conjola and Narrawallee inlets. This route would have passed within close proximity of the current study area. The road was often blocked by rain-swollen creeks and in 1857 a new route was used following the current Princes Highway (Bayley 1975, Kemp 1980).

The area north of Manyana was sparsely settled from the 1860s and the settlement of Sussex Inlet did not begin in earnest until 1880. South of Bendalong, cedar drew the earliest settlers. Reverand Thomas Kendall arrived at Ulladulla in 1828 and by 1856 there was a population of three hundred with a port and a thriving dairy industry.

The first land at Manyana was taken up by Peter Donnelly in 1855 (Portion 10 at the north- eastern end of Lake Berringer) approximately 500 metres northeast of the present study area. Joseph Whatman took up land in 1866 (Portion 102 on the south-western side of Lake Berringer) approximately one kilometre to the southwest of the study area. Later, John Whatman, Joseph’s son, took up the 50 acre Lot 172 (the present study area). Samuel Pickering took up Lot 172 after John Whatman (Figure 4).

A single building in the present study area is marked on the Cunjurong Point 9027-3-N 1:25,000 topographic map (Figure 3). This building was constructed by the current owner’s grand-father and is approximately 60 years old (refer to Section 6).

George Robinson, who later married Peter Donnelly’s widow, took a conditional purchase of Portion 10 immediately to the north of the present study area. Jesse Goodsell later bought the property and went on to take up a conditional purchase of further land in 1882 (Portion 108, on the western side of Inyadda Drive) (McAndrew 1991). Jesse Goodsell also purchased Portions 64, 106 and 107, east and northeast of the present study area. In 1888 George Goodsell purchased Portion 2, immediately east of the Lot 172. Further east, Portion 204 was purchased in the 1950s by J. Curver (Figure 4).

Hughes in 1880 took up a conditional purchase of Portion 13 immediately south of Lot 172 and bordering Manyana Beach (previously called Hughes Beach) (McAndrew 1991).

The village at Red Head (Bendalong), two kilometres northeast of the present study area, grew after the establishment of a saw mill there by the Goodlet & Smith company in 1878, followed by a private school in 1879. The saw mill was relocated to Kioloa in 1885 and the timber industry not revived in this locality until Sydney firm Allen Taylor and Company began shipping logs out from Red Head (Boat Harbour) in 1905.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 19 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Stuart Robinson, a resident in the 1920s, recalls that in its early days Red Head was a thriving community because of the timber and silica industries. The earlier silica extraction had ceased by the 1920s but resumed in the 1940s with the Newbold Silica Company (McAndrew 1991). Silica (also referred to as quartzite and known in archaeological and geological terms as silcrete) is very hard and capable of deflecting heat. In the 1920s and 1930s it was regarded as a valuable non-metal and was used to manufacture refractory bricks for BHP at Port Kembla and Newcastle.

The coastal silica deposits were recorded by the Surveyor Florance in 1828, who noted ‘flint’ at Mollymook, naming the place ‘Flint Point’. R. H. Cambage, the Undersecretary for Mines, drew this to the attention of Mr Harper, a geological surveyor. Harper announced in 1917 potential large silica deposits at Ulladulla, Milton, Narrawallee and Red Head. A rush on mineral leases ensued, with thirty sites listed, mostly north of Red Head around Washerwoman’s Creek and south near Pattemore’s Lagoon (McAndrew 1991) (Figure 1). In 1920 B. Kirton extracted 140 tonnes and in 1921, 475 tonnes. In 1924 a wharf, jetty and flying fox were completed at Boat Harbour by Kirton and Earnshaw and 9,562 tonnes of silica were shipped. Between 1926 and 1945 the operations ceased at Red Head, before resuming with shallow open cuts around Washerwoman’s Creek. A crushing plant brought in from Narrawallee stood near the wharf. 11,721 tonnes of silica were transported in 1946. The silica crusher was removed to Yatte Yattah in 1947 and transport by ship was abandoned in favour of road. Silica mining continued until 1975 (McAndrew 1991).

Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, a visitor to Red Head from 1946, recalls that at this time the export of timber had ceased, but evidence of the trade remained. A wooden tramway existed between Conjola and Red Head, for transporting logs to the harbour. A wharf existed at the western end of Boat Harbour. Newbold’s silica operation at a quarry behind Washerwoman’s Beach was connected to the wharf by a small tramway. Newbold owned several houses in the Red Head area. Silica extraction ceased at Red Head around 1950 when the government refused to renew licences and cleared the reserve on the headland of illegal settlers (McAndrew 1991).

In addition to timber cutting and silica extraction, dairying was one of the primary local industries. Kaolin was also extracted from two veins at Red Head by Reuben Johnson.

From the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s villages such as Sussex Inlet and Bendalong were increasingly subdivided for housing and the population grew. Tourism became a significant local industry. In 1954 John Curvers purchased 375 acres of formerly Goodsell’s property and, following further purchases in subsequent years, subdivided the land to create the present village of Manyana (McAndrew 1991). In one of these subdivisions Willi Zunter, in 1963, purchased two uncleared blocks for £450 and built a shed between four she-oaks on the corner of Companion Way and Sunset Strip, immediately to the southeast of Lot 172 (McAndrew 1991).

This evidence indicates that non-Aboriginal land use practices have influenced parts of the current study area from the 1800s onwards. The original vegetation across most of the study area had been removed prior to the 1940s, and possibly as early as the late 1800s.

A number of vehicle and walking tracks traverse the property. These are generally unformed and the upper soil horizon remains at least partially intact. However, in some places the tracks have been substantially cut in from use in wet weather and/or gravel has been deposited, especially in the southern portion of the study area.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 20 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Extensive recent impacts behind the houses of Sunset Strip have also occurred through the installation of sewage pipes and the operation of heavy machinery over the area for these works. Refuse has been dumped at several locations, notably behind the houses along Sunset Strip and The Companionway.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 21 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006

Figure 4: Plans of Parish of Conjola, County of St. Vincent (c.1893 above and 1967 below, Department of Lands, Sydney).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 22 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 5. METHODOLOGY

During the initial stages of the investigation, research was conducted into the environmental, historical and archaeological background of the study area, and a search was undertaken of the DEC 'Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System' and other relevant heritage registers and planning instruments.

Consultation and involvement of the Aboriginal community was undertaken as per the requirements of the DEC policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants (refer to Section 7).

Field inspection of the study area was undertaken by Edward Clarke of South East Archaeology on 12 July 2006, accompanied by William Connelly, representing the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council, and Gerald Carberry, representing Jerrinja Consultants Pty Ltd.

The study area was divided into particular combinations of environmental variables that are assumed to relate to Aboriginal usage of the area. These Archaeological Terrain Units were defined on the basis of landform element and class of slope (following McDonald et al 1984). They are discrete, recurring areas of land for which it is assumed that the Aboriginal land use and resultant heritage evidence in one location may be extrapolated to other similar locations. Therefore survey areas were defined as the individual archaeological terrain unit that is bounded on all sides by different archaeological terrain units (cf. Kuskie 2000).

Detailed recording of the archaeological survey areas was made on survey recording forms, including environmental variables and heritage resources identified or potentially present. Each survey area was assigned a unique reference code (1, 2 etc,). Surveying was completed within a single survey area prior to commencing inspection of another area.

An Aboriginal heritage site recording form for the identified site was also completed. The boundaries of the Aboriginal site were defined by the boundaries of the visible evidence.

Stone artefacts were recorded on a lithic item recording form, including details about provenance, stone material type, artefact type, size class, cortex and other relevant attributes (Table 3).

Each survey area was inspected on foot by an archaeologist and the Aboriginal community representatives, with the focus on areas with higher ground surface visibility. Conditions of surface visibility were typically higher in many of the exposures recently created by earthmoving works, and along vehicle and walking tracks, clearings and erosion scours, than in the remainder of the study area which is densely vegetated (Appendix 1). Inspection was also made across the property for items of non-indigenous heritage and the existing house structure documented (Appendix 2).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 23 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Survey Coverage

The study area can be subdivided into a number of environmental contexts, representing specific combinations of landform element and class of slope (refer to Section 6.3, Table 2 and Figure 5; cf. Kuskie 2000). These include the gentle drainage depression, gentle simple slope and gentle spur crest units. Samples of each environmental context were inspected during the archaeological surveys, ranging between 9 and 15% of each context (Table 2).

Survey coverage of visible ground surface within the study area is estimated to have been relatively comprehensive. However, the dense cover of vegetation and in places leaf litter substantially limited visibility throughout the study area (Plates 1-6). Generally, the only substantial surface exposures related to an area of earthworks (sewer pipeline) in survey unit 7 (Plate 5), animal and vehicle/walking tracks, and minor erosion scours (Plates 1 and 3). In the remainder of the study area, visibility tends to be extremely low (<0.5%).

The overall study area measures a maximum of approximately 200,000 m2 (20 hectares) in size (as derived from two-dimensional base mapping). The total survey coverage (ground physically inspected for heritage evidence) equated to approximately 25,880 m2, or 12.9% of the total study area. The total effective survey coverage of the study area (visible ground surface physically inspected with potential to host evidence) equated to about 1,510 m2, or just 0.75% of the study area.

The percentage of effective survey coverage within each environmental context was also typically very low, ranging between 0.2% and 1.5% of each context. A marginally higher effective survey sample was achieved within the gentle spur crest context (1.5%), largely due to the presence of portions of cleared and less densely vegetated terrain in the northern section and walking/vehicle tracks along the eastern side of the context (Plate 1). The southern end of the context, as for the remaining contexts, is largely obscured by dense regrowth forest.

The survey is assumed to have resulted in coverage of a reasonably high sample of the visible ground present within the study area. As the survey coverage is considered to have sampled many of the ground surface exposures within the study area, the survey is also likely to have resulted in the recording of most locations with exposed heritage evidence. However, on average surface and archaeological visibility conditions are very low across large portions of the study area and consequently the potential to identify heritage evidence in these areas is limited. Hence, low conditions of surface visibility have somewhat constrained the ability to effectively assess the Aboriginal heritage resources potentially present within the study area.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 24 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Table 2: Environmental Contexts - Survey Coverage and Artefact Density Summary.

Environmental Survey Areas Approximate % Context Total % Sampled of Effective % Effective Total # Context (refer to App. Total Area of Comprises Sample Each Survey Survey Artefacts 1 & Figure 5) Context (m2) of Total Area Environmental Coverage Coverage of Study Area (m2) Context Total (m2) Each Context gentle drainage 4, 6 70,000 35.0% 6,280 9.0% 161 0.23% - depression gentle simple slope 2, 3, 5, 7 97,000 48.5% 15,100 15.6% 860 0.89% 13 gentle spur crest 1 33,000 16.5% 4,500 13.6% 489 1.48% - 200,000 25,880 1,510 0.76% 13

Table 3: Lithic Items Recorded During the Survey.

Item Colour Stone Lithic Item Type Size Class Cortex Cortex Comments # Material (eg. 10-20 Amount Type mm =2) (%) 1 grey silcrete flake - proximal 3 bending transverse break; fine grained raw material 2 grey rhyolite flake - medial 4 bending transverse breaks 3 grey chert flake - proximal 2 bending transverse break; focused platform 4 grey silcrete flake - longitudinal 4 5 grey silcrete flake 3 6 grey silcrete nondescript core 7 3 platforms; 4 distinct negative flake scars 7 grey rhyolite flake 3 focused platform 8 grey silcrete flake 4 step termination 9 grey silcrete flake 4 10 grey silcrete flake 3 fine damage to right margin; possible use-wear 11 brown silcrete flake 3 12 grey silcrete flake - proximal 3 bending transverse break; fine damage to left margin; possible use-wear 13 grey silcrete flake - medial 2

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 25 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Location of Aboriginal 2 Heritage Site 1

5 Location of Historic Heritage Site

Figure 5: Approximate Location of Archaeological Survey Areas (black borders) and Heritage Site Loci (grey shading) (base map courtesy Malbec Properties).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 26 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 6.2 Heritage Evidence

No Aboriginal or non-indigenous heritage sites are listed within the study area on any heritage registers or planning instruments (refer to Section 3.1).

Indigenous Heritage

One Aboriginal heritage site was identified in the study area during the present investigation. This site (Manyana 1) is an artefact scatter. It is described below and in Appendix 2 and its location is marked on Figure 5.

No other cultural evidence or cultural values (eg. historically known places, resource use areas, etc.) were identified to the consultants by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders during the course of the assessment. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that Aboriginal values or associations may exist that were not divulged to South East Archaeology by the persons consulted. In addition, heritage evidence, such as artefact scatters and shell middens, tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape. The contemporary cultural significance of these secular site types is addressed in Section 8.

Site Manyana 1:

Site Manyana 1 is an artefact scatter comprising one visible locus of evidence (Figure 5, Appendix 2). The identified and potential evidence encompasses the gently inclined slope and extends into the adjacent gentle spur crest descending from Berringer Road towards Sunset Strip.

Site Manyana 1 is situated around MGA grid reference 273688:6095565 on the Cunjurong Point 9027-3N 1:25,000 topographic map. It comprises thirteen artefacts, which include several flakes and flake fragments along with a nondescript core and two flakes that may have been used as tools. Most of the artefacts are made of silcrete, although a single chert and two rhyolite items also occur (Table 3).

The artefacts are exposed on walking/vehicle tracks in the southeastern portion of the study area, approximately 17 metres from the rear of houses along The Companionway and Sunset Strip. Some of the artefacts have been exposed by animal burrows. The extent of visible evidence occurs within an area measuring approximately 14 by 14 metres. However there remains a high potential for further surface and sub-surface evidence to occur within both the simple slope and spur crest units.

Non-Indigenous Heritage

One item of non-indigenous heritage was located within study area. It comprises a small wooden building (used as a weekender or fishing hut) with a brick chimney and an adjacent disused water tank platform and wood-shed. The site is located approximately 15 metres south of Berringer Road. It is described below and in Appendix 2 and its location is marked on Figure 5.

The building measures approximately 6.5 x 5 metres in outer dimensions and is constructed of roughly finished wooden board of irregular lengths with a cement threshold and an earthen floor. The building has two basic rooms, one of which is lined, the other un-lined, along with a work bench, storage box and open fire place.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 27 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 The chimney is constructed of brick, as are the piers for the adjacent platform which presumably housed a water tank. Roofing for both the hut as well as the probable wood-shed is corrugated iron. The roofing for the hut has guttering only on the front of the house and comprises an asymmetric gable offset approximately one-third the way to the rear of the house. Presumably this maximised the amount of water run-off for the (now absent) water tank originally at the front of the house.

The block was purchased by the current owner’s grandfather and has been in the family’s ownership since. The current owner is 56 years old and the building was constructed a few years before his arrival (Stuart Dixon pers. comm. 2006). Thus, the building is approximately 60 years old and therefore qualifies as a relic under the Heritage Act 1977. The age of the wood-shed is uncertain but may be of a similar age to the hut.

The hut appears to have undergone a series of changes for repairs and maintenance including painting and replacement of boards and removal of the original water tank. More recent additions include a nearby water tank and outhouse, items which do not qualify as relics.

6.3 Discussion

The results of the investigation are discussed below, including the potential integrity of the evidence, nature of the evidence and interpretations of the evidence.

The integrity of the identified sites and the remainder of the study area can primarily be assessed for surface evidence only through examination of land use impacts. Controlled excavation enables integrity to be assessed through the horizontal and vertical distribution of artefacts and by conjoining items.

Several forms of recent land use impact have extensively affected the study area, including:

Removal of native vegetation; Recent earthmoving works, including stripping and stockpiling of soil, associated with the sewage works at the rear of houses along Sunset Strip; Erosion; and Focalised impacts such as the formation and use of roads, construction of the rural building, and installation of essential services (eg. water main and sewer main).

Bioturbation has probably also affected the identified and potential evidence within the study area. Bioturbation refers to disturbance to the soil profile by the growth and activities of plants and animals; eg. animal burrows, ant and termite mounds, tree fall causing pits and mounds, plant growth and the promotion of sheet-wash erosion in combination with rainwash processes.

Levels of ground disturbance were recorded during the survey as typically low-moderate (Appendix 1).

The non-indigenous relic (site Manyana 2) has been subject to a variety of changes such as ongoing repairs, maintenance and updates, however the levels of disturbance are assessed as generally low.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 28 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 At the indigenous site locus (site Manyana 1) and within the broad site area (gentle simple slope and extending into the spur crest) there remains a high potential for further heritage evidence to occur in the form of artefact deposits as well as artefacts exposed on the surface. Although recent human impacts have been widespread (albeit at low levels) in occurrence across the property, affecting to some extent a portion of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage evidence, there exists potential for deposits of sufficient integrity to be of research value. In certain circumstances, the impacts of post-depositional processes can be identified and controlled for (cf. Koettig 1989, Kuskie & Kamminga 2000).

Stone Materials:

A total of 13 lithic items were recorded during the survey and these are dominated by silcrete with lower frequencies of rhyolite and chert (Table 3).

Silcrete was an attractive material to the local Aboriginal people because of its flaking properties and availability (refer to Section 2). Flakes have reasonably sharp, durable edges, and therefore the stone was used for a variety of tasks, including heavy-duty woodworking and for small spear barbs. The silcrete was most probably obtained from local sources, such as the recorded quarry sites nearby at Red Head. Characteristics of heat treatment, such as a lustrous red colour, are absent from the recorded silcrete artefacts.

Chert is a highly siliceous sedimentary rock, with a chemical composition of SiO2 and major constituent minerals of chalcedony, quartz and opal. Chert is formed by a chemical process, from silica derived from the compaction and precipitation of single-celled organisms (such as diatoms - a small algae, and radiolarians). These organisms remove silica from water to make their shells. After dying, shells accumulate at the bottom of a water body, and if in sufficient quantity, form a silica-rich ooze. Following burial, the silica-rich ooze becomes cemented and hardened into rock (diatomite or radiolarite). As these rocks become strongly lithified, they recrystallise to a very fine-grained rock composed of microcrystalline quartz (chert). Chert is also commonly found as nodules in limestone. Chert was a favoured material for manufacturing artefacts, as it breaks by the process of conchoidal fracture and provides flakes that have sharp, durable edges.

Rhyolite is solidified acid lava containing free quartz. It is the fine-grained volcanic or extrusive equivalent of granite (rich in quartz and alkali-feldspars). Rhyolite is typically light in colour, relatively light in weight and often has a flinty appearance. Two principal varieties can be identified, banded and porphyritic. Banded rhyolite is formed by the rapid cooling of lava and exhibits flow banding, involving swirling layers of different colour and texture. Porphyritic rhyolite contains small, widely spaced crystal inclusions.

Lithic items:

The lithic items (Table 3) recorded during the survey mainly consist of flakes and flake portions, with a single nondescript core also present. These items represent non-specific stone flaking.

Two of the flakes potentially exhibit use-wear, although asserting this without laboratory analysis is problematic. Although the function of these items is uncertain, they are possibly indicative of food processing or equipment maintenance tasks. No other tools or implements were identified, items that tend to be of higher interpretive value.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 29 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Spatial Patterning:

The spatial distribution of evidence can be examined, particularly in relation to environmental variables such as slope and landform element.

Aboriginal heritage evidence was not identified widely across the study area and is restricted to a single locus on and adjacent to the gentle spur crest. The distribution of the recorded evidence is probably largely a result of the distribution of surface exposures rather than the true underlying pattern of evidence. Many surveys in eastern Australia have identified a virtually continual distribution of artefacts across the landscape, but at varying densities (cf. Hall 1991, 1992, Hall & Lomax 1993, Kuskie 2000, Packard 1991, 1992). The results of large area surveys and major excavation projects (cf. Kuskie & Kamminga 2000, Kuskie & Clarke 2004, Kuskie 2005a, 2005b) lend support to arguments that the landscape should be viewed as an archaeological continuum, in which 'sites' represent points where higher frequencies of activities have occurred (cf. Foley 1981).

The two minor drainage depressions are very ephemeral and are unlikely to have provided reliable sources of potable water. The spur crest may have offered a vantage point overlooking the Manyana area and may also have provided a pathway for movement through the landscape.

Hence, it is concluded that a virtually continual distribution of artefacts is likely to be present in a sub-surface context in the Manyana study area, with potentially a greater focus of activity and therefore density of evidence closer to the spur crest. The overall spatial distribution and nature of evidence is anticipated to comprise a low density distribution of artefacts consistent with background discard, interspersed by a number of discrete activity areas in which more focused activity has occurred, predominantly in relation to food processing and equipment maintenance. Focused occupation (eg. encampments) is not anticipated to have occurred due to the general absence of potable water.

Regional Context:

Despite the small nature of the sample, the nature of the evidence from the study area and the conclusions derived from this study can be compared with those from studies of other sites within the region (refer to Section 3.1). The primary purpose is to identify similarities and differences with other reported evidence, in order to provide a framework for interpreting representativeness.

Several primary similarities have been identified with other surveys/studies in the region, including the:

Predominance of stone artefact evidence;

Similar stone materials and artefact types to those generally reported in the region;

The relatively low density of artefacts is comparable to some other sites in the region in similar environmental contexts;

Predominance of evidence relating to non-specific stone flaking; and

Evidence occurs in similar environmental contexts to other locations in the region.

However, substantially lower numbers of artefacts were identified in the present study area compared with the adjacent Kylor property (Kuskie 1997b), which is in closer proximity to the resources of the immediate coastline.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 30 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 On a preliminary basis, no specific aspects of the evidence in the study area appear to be unique or not replicated elsewhere within a regional context. The relatively limited nature of the sample renders it problematic to draw more detailed conclusions.

Reassessment of Predictive Model of Site Location:

In view of the survey results, the predictive model of site location (refer to Section 3.5) can be reassessed.

No evidence was identified within the study area of bora/ceremonial, grinding groove, rock shelter, carved tree, scarred tree, lithic quarry or stone arrangement sites and the potential for these site types to be impacted by the proposal can be reassessed as negligible.

Sites of traditional cultural significance (eg. mythological sites) were not identified by the Aboriginal representative involved in the investigation. The registered Aboriginal stakeholders also did not disclose any specific knowledge of other cultural values/places (eg. historically known places, resource use areas, etc.). However, the possibility cannot be excluded that Aboriginal values or associations may exist that were not divulged to South East Archaeology by the persons consulted.

No evidence was encountered of burial sites, and although the potential for skeletal remains to occur within the study area is considered to be low, it cannot be discounted.

No evidence of shell midden deposits was identified in the study area. This may partly be a result of low conditions of surface visibility or may reflect the consumption of shellfish elsewhere, closer to the sources (the study area is around one kilometre from such sources). The potential for midden deposits to occur is reassessed as low.

The prediction that stone artefact evidence has a high potential to occur in a widespread distribution of variable density across virtually all landform units was partially confirmed during the survey. However, low conditions of visibility limited the effectiveness of the surface survey across much of the study area. There remains a high potential for further heritage evidence to occur in the form of sub-surface deposits of stone artefacts across the study area.

Although recent human impacts have occurred across the area, affecting to some extent a portion of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage evidence, there exists potential for further heritage evidence in the form of sub-surface deposits which may be of sufficient integrity to be of research value. Sub-surface excavation would be required to examine this issue further.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 31 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 7. ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION

The indigenous heritage impact assessment has involved a comprehensive program of Aboriginal consultation that complies with the policy requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) that were introduced on 1 January 2005. These requirements are specified in the policy entitled Interim Community Consultation Requirements for Applicants and involve the following procedures:

1) Providing written notification of the project to the Local Aboriginal Land Council, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Registrar of Aboriginal Owners (Department of Aboriginal Affairs), NSW Native Title Services and relevant Local Councils, requesting that if they are aware of any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may wish to be consulted about the project to provide such advice in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period;

2) Providing written notification of the project directly to those Aboriginal persons/organisations that were identified in Step 1 above, requesting those who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period;

3) Placing a media advertisement to the same effect in the local press requesting any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing, with a minimum 10 day response period;

4) Providing detailed information about the heritage impact assessment, including the proposed methodology, to the Aboriginal persons/organisations who registered their interest in writing in Steps 1-3 above, with a minimum 21 day response period for comments;

5) Comments received from registered Aboriginal persons/organisations in Step 4, including information on areas of cultural significance, potential culturally acceptable mitigation measures, the nature of the assessment methodology and any other relevant traditional knowledge or issues, must be considered in order to finalise the assessment methodology;

6) Field inspection in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders;

7) Notifying the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and the Local Aboriginal Land Council (even if not registered) of the availability of the draft Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report and their comments invited; and

8) Preparation of a final Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report that addresses and incorporates the input of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

Procedures #1-8 outlined above have been implemented, as documented in the consultation database in Appendix 4 and below.

Compliance with Procedure #1 was achieved through correspondence forwarded to the relevant organisations on 4 May 2006. Responses were received within the specified timeframe from the Office of the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, Shoalhaven City Council and Jerrinja LALC.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 32 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 The Office of the Registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act advised that there were Boards of Management for Registered Aboriginal Owners within this specific locality, however upon contacting these boards South East Archaeology were advised that this was incorrect and that the Registered Owners were only for Biamanga and Gulaga National Parks and no other area (refer to Appendix 4). Shoalhaven City Council advised that the Jerrinja LALC, Jerrinjah Wandiwandandian People and Dharawal Aboriginal Corporation Community Association should be contacted. Jerrinja LALC registered an interest (refer to Appendix 4). Fifty-four days and several requests later, DEC responded on June 27 by stating that in addition to Jerrinja LALC and Jerrinja Consultants, the South East Coast Gadu Elders, Merrimans LALC, and South Coast Aboriginal and Elders and Friends Group Organisation should be contacted (refer to Appendix 4).

Compliance with Procedure #2 was achieved by writing to the organisations (Jerrinjah Wandiwandandian People, Dharawal Aboriginal Corporation Community Association) with an invitation to register an interest as per the DEC policy by 7 June 2006. In response to the DEC communication of June 27, despite its receipt well outside of the required timeframe, South East Archaeology wrote to the South East Coast Gadu Elders, Merrimans LALC, and South Coast Aboriginal and Elders and Friends Group Organisation with an invitation to register an interest by 22 August. None of these organisations registered an interest.

Compliance with Procedure #3 was achieved by placing an advertisement in the Public Notices section of The South Coast Register on 10 May 2006, requesting any Aboriginal persons/organisations who may be interested in participating in the project to register their interest in writing. Jerrinja Consultants Pty Ltd registered an interest.

Compliance with Procedures #4 and 5 was achieved by writing to the two organisations that registered an interest (Jerrinja LALC and Jerrinja Consultants) on 7 June 2006 providing them with the proposed methodology for the assessment and requesting their comment (refer to Appendix 4). Adell Hyslop of the Jerrinja LALC responded and supported the proposed methods, but identified the study area as an area of 'high potential' (Appendix 4).

Compliance with Procedure #6 was achieved by undertaking the field survey in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. Fieldwork was undertaken on 12 July 2006 by Edward Clarke of South East Archaeology, assisted by William Connelly, representing the Jerrinja LALC and Gerald Carberry, representing Jerrinja Consultants. The representatives expressed satisfaction with the level of coverage and the consultation process, as well as an interest in the findings. Management options for the identified site were discussed. The representatives expressed the view that sub-surface test excavation was required to enable further assessment of the artefact scatter site and potential evidence, along with consideration of potential management options.

Compliance with Procedure #7 was achieved by providing copies of the draft archaeological assessment report to the Jerrinja LALC and Jerrinja Consultants with a request for their comment.

Compliance with Procedure #8 was achieved through preparation of a final Aboriginal heritage impact assessment report that addresses and incorporates any input received from the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. Comments received from the Jerrinja LALC are attached in Appendix 4. The LALC endorsed the recommendations of the report. Copies of the final report will be forwarded to the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 33 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 8. SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

8.1 Indigenous Criteria

The information contained within this report, along with an assessment of the significance of the Aboriginal heritage evidence, provides the basis for the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) to make informed decisions regarding the management and degree of protection which should be afforded to specific Aboriginal heritage sites.

The significance of Aboriginal heritage evidence can be assessed along the following criteria, widely used in Aboriginal heritage management, derived from the relevant aspects of the ICOMOS Burra Charter and Department of Planning's 'State Heritage Inventory Evaluation Criteria and Management Guidelines':

I. Scientific (Archaeological) value; II. Importance to Aboriginal people (Cultural value); III. Educational value; IV. Historic value; and V. Aesthetic value.

Greater emphasis is generally placed on scientific and cultural criteria when assessing the significance of Aboriginal heritage evidence in Australia.

SCIENTIFIC (ARCHAEOLOGICAL) VALUE:

Scientific value refers to the potential usefulness of heritage evidence to address further research questions, the representativeness of the evidence, the nature of the evidence and its state of preservation.

Research Potential:

Research potential refers to the potential for information derived from further investigation of the evidence to be used for answering current or future research questions. Research questions may relate to any number of issues concerning past human culture, human behaviour generally or the environment. Numerous locations of heritage evidence have research potential. The critical issue is the threshold level, at which the identification of research potential translates to significance/importance at a local, regional or national level.

Several key questions can be posed for each location of heritage evidence:

• Can the evidence contribute knowledge not available from any other resource? • Can the evidence contribute knowledge, which no other such location of evidence can? • Is this knowledge relevant to general questions about human history, past environment or other subjects?

Assessing research potential therefore relies on comparison with other evidence in local and regional contexts. The criteria used for assessing research potential include the:

a) Potential to address locally specific research questions; b) Potential to address regional research questions; c) Potential to address general methodological or theoretical questions; d) Potential deposits; and e) Potential to address future research questions.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 34 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 In terms of meeting a threshold level to have significant research potential, the particular questions asked of the evidence should be able to contribute knowledge that is not available from other resources or evidence (either on a local or regional scale) and are relevant to general questions about human history, past environment or other subjects.

Representativeness:

Representativeness is generally assessed at local, regional and national levels. It is an important criterion, because the primary goal of cultural resource management is to afford greatest protection to a representative sample of Aboriginal heritage evidence throughout a region. The more unique or rare evidence is, the greater its value as being representative within a regional context.

The main criteria used for assessing representativeness include: a) The extent to which the evidence occurs elsewhere in the region; b) The extent to which this type of evidence is subject to existing or potential future impacts in the region; c) The integrity of the evidence compared to that at other localities in the region; d) Whether the evidence represents a prime example of its type within the region; and e) Whether the evidence has greater potential for educational or demonstrative purposes than at other similar localities in the region.

Nature of Evidence:

The nature of the heritage evidence is related to representativeness and research potential. The less common the type of evidence is, the more likely it will have representative value. The nature of the evidence is directly related to its potential to be used in addressing present or future research questions. Criteria used in assessing the nature of the evidence include the:

a) Presence, range and frequency of stone materials; b) Presence, range and frequency of artefact types; and c) Presence and types of other features.

A broader range of stone and artefact types generally equates to the potential for information to address a broader range of research questions. The presence of non-microlith and microlith tool types also equates to higher potential to address relevant research questions. The presence and frequency of particular stone or artefact types or other features also has relevance to the issue of representativeness (eg. a rare type may be present).

Integrity:

The state of preservation of the evidence (integrity) is also related to representativeness and research potential. The higher the integrity of evidence, the greater the level of scientific information likely to be obtained from its further study. This translates to greater importance for the evidence within a local or regional context, as it may be a suitable example for preservation within a sample representative of the entire cultural resources of a region. The criteria used in assessing integrity include:

a) Horizontal and vertical spatial distribution of artefacts; b) Preservation of intact features such as midden deposits, hearths or knapping floors; c) Preservation of site contents such as charcoal and shell which may enable accurate direct dating or other analysis; and d) Preservation of artefacts which may enable use-wear/residue analysis.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 35 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Generally, many of these criteria can only be applied to evidence obtained by controlled excavation. High levels of ground disturbance limit the possibility that the evidence would surpass the threshold of significance on the basis of integrity (ie. the area would be unlikely to possess intact spatial distributions, intact features, in situ charcoal or shell, etc).

ABORIGINAL (CULTURAL) SIGNIFICANCE:

Aboriginal (cultural) significance refers to the value placed upon Aboriginal heritage evidence by the local Aboriginal community.

All heritage evidence tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape. Heritage evidence may be part of contemporary Aboriginal culture or be significant because of its connection to spiritual beliefs or as a part of recent Aboriginal history.

Consultation with the local Aboriginal community is essential to identify the level of Aboriginal significance.

EDUCATIONAL VALUE:

Educational value refers to the potential of heritage evidence to be used as an educational resource for groups within the community.

HISTORIC VALUE:

Historic value refers to the importance of heritage evidence in relation to the location of an historic event, phase, figure or activity.

AESTHETIC VALUE:

Aesthetic value includes all aspects of sensory perception. This criterion is mainly applied to art sites or mythological sites.

8.2 Significance of Indigenous Heritage Evidence Within the Study Area

The significance of site Manyana 1 within the Manyana study area is assessed in relation to the criteria presented in Section 8.1. No other cultural evidence or cultural values were identified to the consultants by the registered Aboriginal stakeholders during the course of the assessment.

Site Manyana 1 does not surpass the threshold for significance in relation to aesthetic, educational or historic criteria. This is largely a result of the relatively unobtrusive nature of the evidence.

All heritage evidence tends to have some contemporary significance to Aboriginal people, because it represents an important tangible link to their past and to the landscape. Preliminary consultation with some members of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders was undertaken to identify the level of Aboriginal significance. Representatives of the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council and Jerrinja Consultants expressed a strong interest in the identified heritage evidence, its cultural value and the findings of the investigation. Further input on the cultural values of the evidence is to be sought from the Aboriginal community.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 36 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 In acknowledgment that the Aboriginal community themselves are in the best position to identify levels of cultural significance, the remainder of this assessment focuses on the potential scientific values of the heritage evidence. The statement of scientific significance is in no way intended to prioritise scientific values over cultural values or to lessen the importance of the views of the Aboriginal community.

A preliminary assessment of the scientific significance of the recorded site, encompassing both the identified and the potential Aboriginal heritage evidence, is presented below. The assessment is problematical and is not definitive. Effective survey coverage was restricted to just 0.7% of the property, by virtue of the very low conditions of surface visibility. Therefore, only limited evidence is available on which to base this assessment and the nature of the 'potential' evidence cannot be confirmed by surface survey alone. Further investigation may contribute to a substantial refinement of the significance assessment.

Site Manyana 1 is assessed on a preliminary basis as potentially being of low to moderate scientific significance within a local context. This rating is tempered by the moderate levels of ground disturbance present at the identified locus. Across the broad site area of the spur crest and adjacent simple slope there is a high potential for sub-surface deposits to occur in the A unit soil, including deposits that may be in situ. Further archaeological investigation of these potential deposits could address locally important questions regarding logistical and settlement patterns, subsistence behaviour, stone artefact manufacturing technology and the organisation of stone production and distribution. Further investigation is required to clarify the level of scientific significance of this site.

8.3 Non-Indigenous Heritage

The Heritage Office, now part of the NSW Department of Planning, has defined a set of criteria and methodology for the assessment of cultural heritage significance for items and places, where these do not include Aboriginal heritage, from the pre-contact period (Heritage Office 2001 Assessing Heritage Significance). The assessment provided below follows this methodology.

The NSW heritage assessment criteria encompass the four values (historical, aesthetic, scientific and social significance) in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. An item will be considered to be of State (or local) heritage significance if, in the opinion of the Heritage Council of NSW, it meets one or more of the following criteria: a) An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); b) An item has a strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); c) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local area); d) An item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; e) An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 37 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 f) An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area); g) An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments (or a class of the local area’s cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments).

Only particularly complex items or places will be significant under all or many criteria. In using the Heritage Office criteria it is important to assess the values first, then the local or State context in which they may be significant. Different components of a place may make a different relative contribution to its heritage value. For example, loss of integrity or condition may diminish significance. In some cases it is constructive to note the relative contribution of an item or its components (Heritage Office 2001).

A guide to ascribing relative values is provided below (Heritage Office 2001):

Grading Justification Status

Exceptional Rare or outstanding item of local or State Fulfils criteria for local or significance. State listing.

High High degree of original fabric. Demonstrates Fulfils criteria for local or a key element of the item’s significance. State listing. Alterations do not detract from significance.

Moderate Altered or modified elements. Elements with Fulfils criteria for local or little heritage value, but which contribute to State listing. the overall significance of the item.

Little Alterations detract from significance. Does not fulfil criteria for Difficult to interpret. local or State listing.

Intrusive Damaging to the item’s heritage significance. Does not fulfil criteria for local or State listing.

Within the study area one local historical theme has been identified in relation to the identified heritage object, 'Accommodation', within the broader national theme of 'Building settlements, towns and cities'.

The heritage site 'Manyana 2' within the study area comprises a small wooden hut and associated platform for a water tank. The site is of moderate integrity, being mostly intact but having been partially modified over the past 50 years for upgrades, maintenance and repairs. There have also been changes in the site’s overall context. The heritage significance of this site is assessed as little (low).

The site does not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion against the significance assessment criteria. For example, it does not have the potential to yield new or further substantial scientific and/or archaeological information, is not an important benchmark or reference site or type and does not provide evidence of past human cultures that is unavailable elsewhere.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 38 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 The guidelines for exclusion under this criterion are:

The knowledge gained would be irrelevant to research on science, human history or culture; Has little archaeological or research potential; and Only contains information that is readily available from other resources or archaeological sites.

In term of weekenders or fishing huts in the local area, the site is not particularly old and is consistent with these guidelines for exclusion against the significance assessment criteria.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 39 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 9. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as amended) provides the primary basis for the legal protection and management of Aboriginal heritage sites within New South Wales. Implementation of the Aboriginal heritage provisions of this Act is the responsibility of the Environment Protection and Regulation and Cultural Heritage Divisions of DEC. The rationale behind the Act is to prevent unnecessary or unwarranted destruction of Aboriginal objects and to protect and conserve objects where such action is considered warranted.

With the exception of some artefacts in collections, the Act generally defines all Aboriginal objects to be the property of the Crown. The Act then provides various controls for the protection, management and destruction of these objects. An 'Aboriginal object' is defined as

'any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains' [Section 5(1)].

In practice, archaeologists generally subdivide the legal category of 'object' into different site types, which relate to the way Aboriginal heritage evidence is found within the landscape. The archaeological definition of a 'site' may vary according to survey objectives, however it should be noted that even single and isolated artefacts are protected as objects under the Act.

Under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as amended), it is an offence for a person to:

Knowingly destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object or place, or knowingly cause or permit the destruction, defacement or damage to an Aboriginal object or place, without first obtaining the consent of the Director-General of DEC;

Disturb or excavate any land, or cause any land to be disturbed or excavated, for the purpose of discovering an object, without first obtaining the consent of the Director- General of DEC; and

Collect on any land an object that is the property of the Crown, other than an object under the control of the Australian Museum, without obtaining appropriate authorisation from the Director-General of DEC.

Penalties for infringement of the Act include up to 50 penalty units or imprisonment for six months, or both (or 200 penalty units in the case of a corporation).

Consents regarding the use or destruction of objects are managed through a DEC permit system. The issuing of permits is dependent upon adequate archaeological assessment and review, together with an appropriate level of Aboriginal community liaison and involvement. To excavate or disturb land for the purposes of discovering an Aboriginal object, approval of a Section 87 'Preliminary Research Permit' application is typically required. To enable unmitigated destruction of objects, a 'Section 90 Consent Permit' must normally be obtained (apart from Part 3A Major Projects). To enable the mitigated destruction of objects, involving measures such as collection and/or salvage excavation, a 'Section 90 Consent with Salvage Permit' is normally required. The Director-General may attach any terms and conditions seen fit to any Consent granted for the above activities. Failure to comply with a term or condition is deemed to be a contravention of the Act.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 40 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 An appeals process is available whereby an applicant, dissatisfied with the refusal of the Director-General to grant Consent, or with any conditions or restrictions attached to Consent, may appeal to the Minister. The Minister may refuse to grant an appeal or partially or wholly grant an appeal. The decision of the Minister on the appeal is final and is binding on the Director-General and the appellant.

The Minister also has substantial powers under Section 12 to direct DEC to carry out works and activities, either generally or in a particular case, in relation to the identification, conservation and protection of, and prevention of damage to, Aboriginal objects and places.

Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, ‘Aboriginal areas’ may also be declared over private land, where Aboriginal objects or places are located, with the consent of the owner or occupier. The purpose of reserving land as an 'Aboriginal area' is to identify, protect and conserve areas associated with a person, event or historical theme, or containing a building, place, object, feature or landscape of natural or cultural significance to Aboriginal people, or of importance in improving public understanding of Aboriginal culture and its development and transitions (Section 30K).

Under Section 91AA of the Act, if the Director-General is of the opinion that any action is being, or is about to be carried out that is likely to significantly affect an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place or any other item of cultural heritage situated on land reserved under the Act, the Director-General may make a stop-work order for a period of 40 days. A person that contravenes a stop-work order may be penalised up to 1,000 penalty units and an additional 100 units for every day the offence continues (10,000 units and 1,000 units respectively in the case of a corporation).

Under the Part 3A Major Project amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), subsequent to approval being granted, Section 90 Consent under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 may not be required to impact Aboriginal objects. In lieu however, a Part 3A application involving a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management and mitigation measures must be approved.

While the primary legislation offering protection to Aboriginal heritage in New South Wales is enacted by the state, several Acts administered by the Commonwealth may also be relevant.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, 1984, provides for the protection of areas and objects which are of significance to Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. The Act allows Aboriginals to apply to the Minister to seek protection for significant Aboriginal areas and objects. The Minister has broad powers to make such a declaration should the Minister be satisfied that the area or object is a significant Aboriginal area or object and is under immediate threat of injury or desecration. An ‘emergency declaration’ can remain in force for up to thirty days. It is an offence under the Act to contravene a provision of a declaration. Provisions are made for penalties of up to $50,000 for a corporation found guilty of contravening the Act and up to $10,000 and imprisonment for a maximum of five years, for a person found guilty of contravening the Act.

Under the Act, ‘Aboriginal tradition’ means:

‘the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships’ (Section 3).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 41 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 A ‘significant Aboriginal area’ refers to:

an area of land or water in Australia being of 'particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' (Section 3).

A ‘significant Aboriginal object’ refers to:

an object (including Aboriginal remains) of ‘particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition' (Section 3).

For the purposes of the Act, an area or object is considered to be injured or desecrated if:

a) in the case of an area, it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; or the use or significance of the area in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is adversely affected by reason of anything done in or near the area; or passage through or over, or entry upon the area by any person occurs in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; and

b) in the case of an object, it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition (Section 3).

A new national heritage system commenced on 1 January 2004, largely replacing the previous Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Its primary features under the amended Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 include:

A National Heritage List of places of national heritage significance;

A Commonwealth Heritage List of heritage places owned or managed by the Commonwealth;

Creation of the Australian Heritage Council – an independent expert body to advise the Minister on the listing and protection of heritage places; and

Continued management of the Register of the National Estate, a list of more than 13,000 heritage places around Australia that has been compiled by the former Australian Heritage Commission since 1976.

The study area does not contain any heritage items registered for either indigenous or non- indigenous values under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Minister may make various planning instruments such as Regional and Local Environment Plans. The Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 1986 and Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 1985 (as amended) (LEP) apply to the study area. The Plans set out objectives and controls for the development of land in this area. Schedules within each Plan list items of heritage significance within the local government area and region. No heritage items listed on either plan occur within the vicinity of the present study area. The Shoalhaven LEP does not contain generic provisions for unlisted Aboriginal heritage objects.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 42 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 The Heritage Act 1977 provides the legislative framework for protecting and maintaining the historic heritage of NSW. The Heritage Act 1977 is concerned with all aspects of the protection and conservation of environmental heritage, including buildings, works, places or relics that are over fifty years of age and are of historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance to the State of New South Wales (but not being related to aboriginal settlement). It recognises two levels of heritage significance, State significance and Local significance, across a broad range of values.

Generally this Act provides protection to items that have been identified, assessed and listed on various registers including State Government Section 170 registers, local government LEPs and the State Heritage Register. The only ‘blanket’ protection provisions in the Act relate to the protection of archaeological deposits and relics greater than 50 years of age. Under the Act, a historic archaeological ‘relic’ is defined as ‘any deposit, object or material evidence relating to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement; and which is fifty or more years old’ [Section 4(1)].

In accordance with Section 139 of the Heritage Act 1977, an 'excavation permit' or exception must normally be obtained from the Heritage Council of NSW before undertaking excavation or any works of disturbance if it is likely that a relic will be disturbed, discovered or exposed during the work.

The study area does not contain any heritage items listed on the State Heritage Register and the potential for items of local or state significance is assessed as low. However, the site 'Manyana 2' qualifies as a relic under the Heritage Act 1977 as it is marginally greater than fifty years of age. This item is assessed as being of little (low) significance and an exception to the requirement for an Excavation Permit may typically be sought (refer to Section 7).

However, under the Part 3A Major Project amendments to the EP&A Act, subsequent to approval being granted, an Excavation Permit or Exception under the Heritage Act 1977 may not be required to impact non-indigenous items. In lieu however, a Part 3A application involving a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management and mitigation measures must be approved.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 43 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 10. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The heritage assessment reported herein has been commissioned in relation to a proposal by Malbec Properties to develop Lot 172 DP 755923 and Lot 823 DP 247285, on the corner of Berringer and Cunjurong Point Roads, Manyana (Figure 2). Malbec Properties proposes to develop the land for a residential subdivision of approximately 180 lots and a Part 3A Major Project application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is being prepared.

Development may involve widespread impacts to the ground surface associated with the provision of roads, essential services, drainage control works, recreational facilities and housing and would result in impacts to the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources as well as the non-indigenous site within the study area. However, a substantial portion of the gentle drainage depression context is proposed to be conserved within a Public Reserve (Figure 2).

Non-Indigenous Heritage:

One non-indigenous heritage site (relics under the Heritage Act 1977, a 'weekender', 'Manyana 2') has been identified within the study area (Figure 5). The potential for non- indigenous heritage items of local or state significance to occur within the study area is assessed as low and the identified non-indigenous site is assessed as being of low (little) significance.

Under Section 139(4) of the Heritage Act 1977, exceptions are available to the general requirement for a s140 Excavation Permit for relics over fifty years of age. The relevant exceptions being: a) Where an archaeological assessment has been prepared in accordance with Guidelines published by the Heritage Council of NSW which indicates that there is little likelihood of there being any relics in the land or that any relics in the land are unlikely to have State or local heritage significance; and b) Where the excavation or disturbance of land will have a minor impact on the archaeological resource.

Hence, if impacts cannot be avoided to this non-indigenous relic, unmitigated impact involving endorsement by the Heritage Office of an Excavation Permit Exception would be a feasible management strategy. However, should Part 3A approval be granted, the requirement for an Excavation Permit or Exception under the Heritage Act 1977 would not apply.

Indigenous Heritage:

One Aboriginal site (an artefact scatter, 'Manyana 1') has been identified within the study area (Figure 5). In addition, there remains a high potential for further heritage evidence to occur in the form of sub-surface deposits of stone artefacts across the study area, potentially including deposits that are in situ and/or of research value.

General strategies for the management of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources within the study area are presented below. A key consideration in selecting a suitable strategy is the recognition that Aboriginal heritage is of primary importance to the local Aboriginal community, and that decisions about the management of the sites should be made in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 44 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Strategy A (Further Investigation):

In circumstances where a site is identified, but the extent of the site, the nature of its contents, its level of integrity and/or its level of significance cannot be adequately assessed solely through surface survey (generally because of conditions of low surface visibility or sediment deposition), sub-surface testing may be an appropriate strategy to further assess the site. Testing is also appropriate in locations where artefact or midden deposits are predicted to occur through application of a predictive model of site location, in order to identify whether such deposits exist and their nature, extent, integrity and significance.

Test excavations can take the form of auger holes, shovel pits, mechanically excavated trenches or surface scrapes. A Section 87 permit is required from the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) to undertake sub-surface testing. Approval can take up to eight weeks, following receipt by DEC of all necessary information. A research design specifying the aims and methods is an essential component of a Permit application and therefore requires approval from DEC. A letter of comment is also required from the relevant local Aboriginal community.

This is a pro-active strategy, which should result in the identification, assessment and management of the Aboriginal heritage resource prior to any development activity occurring. Following assessment of each Aboriginal site, management strategies as outlined below (B - E) can be applied.

In relation to the study area, sub-surface testing is warranted to overcome the serious limitations posed by very low conditions of surface visibility and the resulting effective survey sample of just 0.7% of the study area. Neither the nature, extent, integrity or significance of the identified or potential evidence within the study area could be satisfactorily addressed through surface survey methods alone. A program of sub-surface testing would enable the retrieval of a sample of evidence that may permit:

Identification of the nature and distribution of heritage evidence within the different environmental contexts of the study area, potentially focusing on samples in the eastern portion around the identified Aboriginal site;

Clarification of the integrity of deposits and identification of any means in which the effects of post-depositional processes could be controlled for; and

Through this information, permit a more robust assessment of the scientific significance of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources of the study area.

A program of sub-surface investigation to address these aims would involve the definition of a sampling strategy and methodology, which could only be finalised after extensive consultation with the key stakeholders, including DEC and the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. However, listed below are some of the potentially suitable options that could be applied to the study area. This discussion is not intended to encompass the full range of options or to be prescriptive in nature.

Three specific environmental/cultural contexts have been identified within the study area (Table 2). A representative sample of the study area would involve a sample of each of these contexts. Two contexts are represented by more than one survey area (simple slope and drainage depression contexts), but investigation would only need to be undertaken within the most suitable survey area for each context (eg. lower levels of disturbance and/or in proximity to where existing evidence has been identified).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 45 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 However, in relation to the requirement for testing within each context other factors such as the impacts of the development proposal must be considered. A substantial portion of the gentle drainage depression context is proposed to be conserved within a Public Reserve (Figure 2). As such, the imperative for testing or adopting mitigation measures for this context are low.

An appropriate sample for testing may therefore involve survey areas 1 and 2 (the gentle spur crest and gentle simple slope contexts) in the vicinity of the recorded Aboriginal site Manyana 1.

Within each of the locations selected for testing, the location of an excavation area would need to be selected. Factors such as the location of identified evidence, local conditions of ground disturbance, and potential depth of sub-surface deposits would be useful criteria in selecting the on-ground investigation area.

The size and nature of a test excavation sample could vary considerably, but consistency between the excavation areas would be desirable to enable comparison of results. The size, nature and methodology need to be selected in relation to the objectives of testing and the expected evidence. For example:

Small test units separated by wide spaces may not encounter discrete activity areas. Test units could be spaced at around 3 - 5 metre intervals along a transect or grid;

Test units need to be excavated over a broad portion of each context to identify spatial distribution. Mechanical surface scrapes can assist with identifying spatial patterning over a broad area, but would have adverse impacts on the existing vegetation;

2 To examine integrity and the nature of the contents, larger units (eg. 1 m ) are desirable to enable association/conjoining of artefacts and reconstruction of activity areas;

To examine integrity, units excavated by hand are essential; and

Sufficient units need to be excavated to retrieve a sample suitable for addressing the project objectives.

Different tools can be used to excavate, including machinery such as graders, dozers, bobcats or backhoes, or hand held tools such as shovels, mattocks and trowels. The disadvantages of mechanical excavation include the lack of precise control, loss of provenance information, damage to artefacts and impacts to resources that may preclude their future conservation. Another issue concerning mechanical excavation is the processing of the excavated deposit. For example, sieving only a small portion of a backhoe pit or surface scrape windrow may only obtain a sample marginally greater than if dug by hand, with substantial impacts having occurred to the resource. Excavation by shovel and trowel enables precise control and retrieval of much more information and therefore may be the most suitable technique for the study area.

Other aspects of methodology that need to be considered in a Section 87 application include sieving, drying, recording, storage, analysis and reporting (refer to Kuskie & Kamminga 2000, Kuskie 2000).

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 46 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Strategy B: Conservation:

The suitability of conservation as a management option has long been recognised (cf. Burton et al. 1990:8). This strategy is suitable for all heritage sites, but particularly those of high archaeological significance and/or high cultural significance. Conservation is also highly appropriate for landform units or specific archaeological/environmental contexts as part of a regional strategy aimed at conserving a representative sample of identified and potential heritage resources.

Options exist within development proposals that could be utilised for the conservation of identified or potential Aboriginal heritage resources, including exclusion of development from zones of high heritage significance or potential, or preservation of areas within formal conservation zones.

In relation to the present study area, further assessment is required to test the predictive model of site location and adequately assess the potential nature, extent, integrity and significance of heritage resources within the gentle simple slope and gentle spur crest contexts, prior to further consideration of conservation as a management strategy. The proposed Public Reserve (Figure 2) will result in the conservation of a significant sample of the gentle drainage depression context and further specific measures for this context are not warranted.

Strategy C: Mitigated Impact (Salvage):

In circumstances where a site is of moderate or high significance within a local context, but the options for conservation are limited and the surface collection of artefacts or excavation of deposits could yield benefits to the Aboriginal community and/or the archaeological study of Aboriginal occupation, the strategy of salvage can be considered.

Salvage may include the collection of surface artefacts or systematic excavation of artefact or midden deposits, normally as part of a Section 90 Consent Permit obtained from the Department of Environment and Conservation. This strategy is the primary means of minimising impacts to Aboriginal heritage from development projects where the option of conservation is not feasible.

The specific aims of any salvage project and the methodology could only be finalised after consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and DEC, in relation to an application for a Section 90 Consent. The application would need to address the views and policy and legislative requirements of these key stakeholders. Alternatively, if a Part 3A approval is granted, Section 90 Consent may not be required but in lieu a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management and mitigation measures must be approved.

In relation to the present study area, further assessment is required to test the predictive model of site location and to adequately assess the nature, extent, integrity and significance of the heritage resources, prior to further consideration of salvage as a management strategy.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 47 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Strategy D: Unmitigated Impact:

The strategy of unmitigated impact involves the proponent making application to DEC for a Section 90 Consent Permit for any known Aboriginal objects that will be affected by the proposal. This permit must normally be obtained prior to the commencement of works affecting the evidence, because all objects are protected under the terms of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974. Alternatively, if a Part 3A approval is granted, Section 90 Consent may not be required but in lieu a Statement of Commitments outlining proposed heritage management and mitigation measures must be approved.

The support of the registered Aboriginal stakeholders should be obtained, through further liaison, for any Section 90 Consent application or Statement of Commitments. DEC guarantees to process Permit applications within eight weeks, subject to receipt of all necessary information. This strategy is typically suitable when a site is of low scientific significance, the local Aboriginal community holds no objections, and it is unfeasible to implement any other strategy.

Strategy E (Monitoring):

An alternative strategy for zones where archaeological deposits are predicted to occur is to monitor construction, particularly any initial earthmoving and soil removal works, for the presence of artefacts, shell or skeletal remains.

Monitoring is the primary strategy for managing the possible occurrence of Aboriginal skeletal remains. Monitoring for the presence of shell and stone artefacts is also often of value to the Aboriginal community, who may be seeking to identify and salvage material that was not visible on the surface during a preliminary study. The sieving of graded deposits is also a practical measure that enhances the benefits of monitoring for artefacts.

Monitoring for artefacts (in preference to sub-surface testing) is not a widely accepted method within the context of a scientific investigation, because it could result in substantial and costly delays to construction, late revisions to development plans, and/or cause undesirable impacts to sites of cultural or scientific significance. However, when Development Consent is granted, monitoring for the presence of artefacts and other features during initial earthworks can be of scientific benefit and benefit to the Aboriginal community. Monitoring undertaken in this circumstance may enable the identification and retrieval of cultural evidence that may not otherwise have been recorded or salvaged.

In relation to the present study area, further assessment is required to adequately assess the nature, extent, integrity and significance of the identified and potential heritage resources, prior to further consideration of monitoring as a management strategy. Considering the low potential for skeletal remains, monitoring may not be required for this purpose. However, monitoring may represent a suitable strategy as a final salvage measure after Development Consent is granted.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 48 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 11. RECOMMENDATIONS

Malbec Properties proposes to develop Lot 172 DP 755923 and Lot 823 DP 247285, on the corner of Berringer and Cunjurong Point Roads, Manyana, for a residential subdivision. Development may result in impacts to an identified Aboriginal heritage site 'Manyana 1' and a non-indigenous site (relics under the Heritage Act 1977, a 'weekender', 'Manyana 2') (Figure 5). In addition, there remains a high potential for further indigenous heritage evidence to occur in the form of sub-surface deposits of stone artefacts across the study area, potentially including deposits that may be in situ and/or of research value. The potential for other types of indigenous heritage evidence is assessed as low or negligible. No other cultural evidence or cultural values were identified during the course of the assessment. The potential for non- indigenous heritage items of local or state significance to occur within the study area is assessed as low and the identified non-indigenous site is assessed as being of low (little) significance.

The following recommendations are made on the basis of legal requirements including the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Heritage Act 1977, the results of the investigation and preliminary consultation with the local Aboriginal community:

In consideration of the results of this assessment, including the low heritage significance of the non-indigenous heritage item (site 'Manyana 2'), unmitigated impact is feasible subject to Part 3A approval, or in lieu, endorsement by the Heritage Office of an Excavation Permit Exception;

In order to overcome the limitations posed by very low conditions of surface visibility and the resulting effective survey sample of just 0.7% of the study area, a program of sub- surface testing is warranted. Insufficient information is currently available on which to adequately determine the nature, extent, integrity and significance of the indigenous heritage resources of the study area, particularly within the gentle simple slope and gentle spur crest contexts. A program of testing, focusing on a sample such as that outlined in Section 10, would enable the retrieval of a sample of evidence that may permit:

- Identification of the distribution of heritage evidence across the study area and in relation to the hypothetical environmental/cultural contexts;

- Identification of the nature of heritage evidence within the recorded site and main environmental/cultural contexts of the study area, including the activities represented and the potential for this evidence to address locally and regionally relevant research questions;

- Clarification of the integrity of deposits and identification of any means in which the effects of post-depositional processes could be controlled for; and

- Through this information, permit a more robust assessment of the scientific significance of the identified and potential Aboriginal heritage resources of the study area;

In relation to sub-surface testing, a Section 87 Preliminary Research Permit is required from DEC, in consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders. An appropriate sample for testing would involve survey areas 1 and 2 (the gentle spur crest and gentle simple slope contexts on Figure 5) in the vicinity of the recorded Aboriginal site Manyana 1. Subsequent to testing, the proponent may be in a position to implement one or a combination of strategies outlined in Section 10, including conservation, unmitigated impact, mitigated impact and monitoring;

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 49 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Archaeological investigations should only be undertaken by an archaeologist qualified and experienced in Aboriginal heritage, in full consultation with the registered Aboriginal stakeholders and with the appropriate permit from DEC. The registered Aboriginal stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to comment on the research design of any future studies and to be involved in site management decisions and field studies;

Subsequent to testing, an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan must be formulated in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal stakeholders, prior to any development impacts occurring, to specify the policies and actions required in every conceivable circumstance to mitigate and manage the potential impacts of the proposal on Aboriginal heritage after Part 3A approval is granted. The plan will include procedures for ongoing Aboriginal consultation, mitigation measures for the recorded and potential Aboriginal evidence, and management procedures for any previously unrecorded sites and skeletal remains. The Plan will comprise a detailed Statement of Commitments that, subject to Part 3A project approval, will guide management of the Aboriginal heritage resource in lieu of a Section 90 Consent;

Under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 it is an offence to knowingly destroy, damage or deface an Aboriginal object without obtaining the prior written permission of the Director-General of DEC. Therefore, no activities or work should be undertaken within the Aboriginal site area as described in this report and marked on Figure 5 without a valid Section 90 Consent or in lieu, Part 3A approval;

Single copies of this report should be forwarded to the registered Aboriginal stakeholders:

Adell Hyslop Coordinator Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council PO Box 167 Culburra Beach NSW 2540

Mr Graham Connelly Jerrinja Consultants PO Box 66 Culburra Beach Post Office NSW 2540

Three copies of this report should be forwarded to:

Manager South Branch Environment Protection and Regulation Division Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) PO Box 2115 Queanbeyan NSW 2620.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 50 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 REFERENCES

Antill, R. G. 1982 Settlement in the South: A Record of the Discovery, Exploration and Settlement of the Shoalhaven River Basin 1803-1982. Weston & Co. Publishers Pty Ltd: Kiama.

Attenbrow, V. 1976 Aboriginal Subsistence Economy on the Far South Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Attenbrow, V. 1981 Northern Shoalhaven Water Supply Water Trunk Main and Reservoir Sites: Report on Survey for Archaeological Sites. Unpublished report to Shoalhaven City Council.

Bayley, W. A. 1975 Shoalhaven: History of the Shire of Shoalhaven. Shoalhaven City Council: Nowra.

Berry, A. 1834 Return of Aboriginal Natives Taken at Shoalhaven June 4th 1834. Papers Regarding Aborigines, Colonial Secretary, Letters Received, Special Bundles, 1826- 1839. MS, Archives Office of NSW, pp. 61-64.

Berry, A. 1838 Recollections of the Aborigines. NSW Supreme Court Office. Miscellaneous Correspondence Relating to Aborigines, 1797, 1804-6, 1814-16, 1824- 40. MS, Archives Office of NSW, pp. 557-608.

Boot, P. 1994 Recent Research into the Prehistory of the Hinterland of the South Coast of New South Wales. In, Sullivan, M, Brockwell, S. and Webb, A. (eds) Archaeology in the North: Proceedings of the 1993 Australian Archaeological Association Conference. NARU: Darwin.

Boot, P. 2002 Didthul, Bhundoo, Gulaga and Wadbilliga: An Archaeological Study of the Aboriginals of the New South Wales South Coast Hinterland. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Bowdler, S. 1970 Bass Point: The Excavation of a South-East Australian Shell Midden Showing Cultural and Economic Change. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Bowdler, S. 1976 Hook, line and dilly bag: an interpretation of an Australian shell midden. Mankind 10:248-258.

Burton, C., Koettig, M. and Thorpe, W. 1990 Overview and Recommendations. Regional Study of Heritage Significance, Central Lowlands Hunter Valley Electricity Commission Holdings. Volume 1. Unpublished report to Electricity Commission of NSW.

Byrne, D. 1983 The Five Forests: An Archaeological and Anthropological Investigation. Unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Byrne, D. 1984 Aboriginal Sites in Wandella-Dampier State Forests: An Archaeological Survey Ahead of Scheduled Forestry Operations. Unpublished report to Forestry Commission of NSW.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 51 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Callender, J.H. 1978 A study of the silcretes near Marulan and Milton, New South Wales. In, T. Langford-Smith (ed) Silcrete in Australia. Department of Geography, University of New England: Armidale.

Cambage, R.H. 1916 Captain Cook's Pigeon House and the Early South Coast Exploration. Samuel E. Lees Printers & Stationers: Sydney.

Cane, S. 1985 An Archaeological Survey of Pipeline Routes and Reservoir Sites Between Lake Conjola and Lake Tabourie, NSW. Unpublished report to Shoalhaven City Council.

Cane, S. 1988 An Assessment of the Impact of Defence Proposals on Aboriginal Sites in Jervis Bay, NSW. Unpublished report to Sinclair Knight & Partners.

Cho, G., Georges, A., Stoutjesdijk, R. and Longmore, R. (ed) 1995 Jervis Bay: A place of cultural, scientific and educational value. Kowari 5. Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra.

Dean-Jones, P. and Mitchell, P. B. 1993 Hunter Valley Aboriginal Sites Assessment Project: Environmental Modelling for Archaeological Site Potential in the Central Lowlands of the Hunter Valley. Unpublished report to NPWS.

Eades, D.K. 1976 The Dharawal and Dhurga languages of the New South Wales South Coast. In Australian Aboriginal Studies Research and Regional Studies No. 8. AIAS: Canberra.

Etheridge, R. 1918 The Dendroglyphs or ‘Carved Trees’ of NSW. NSW Govt. Printer, Sydney.

Flood, J. 1980 The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of the Australian Alps. AIAS: Canberra.

Foley, R. 1981 A model of regional archaeological structure. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:1-17.

Hall, R. 1991 Far East Gippsland Archaeological Survey. Unpublished report to Victoria Archaeological Survey.

Hall, R. 1992 A Predictive Archaeological Assessment of Crown-Timber Lands in the Glen Innes Management Area. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.

Hall, R. and Lomax, K. 1993 Grafton Management Area Supplementary Report - Archaeological Report. Unpublished report to NSW Forestry Commission.

Heritage Office (NSW) 2001 Assessing Heritage Significance.

Hiscock, P. and Mitchell, S. 1993 Stone Artefact Quarries and Reduction Sites in Australia: Towards a Type Profile. AGPS: Canberra.

Kemp, E. 1980 A Story of Sussex Inlet 1880 - 1980. E. Kemp: Sussex Inlet.

Knight, T. 1996 The Batemans Bay Forests Archaeological Project: Site Distribution Analysis. Unpublished NEGP report.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 52 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Koettig, M. 1989 Report on the Survey for Aboriginal Sites Along the Proposed Tomerong By-Pass. Unpublished report to RTA.

Kuskie, P.J. 1994 An Archaeological Assessment of Portions 55, 58 and 59, Parish of Conjola, Near Fishermans Paradise, NSW South Coast. Unpublished report to Matrix Planning Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P.J. 1995 Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigations of Portions 55, 58 and 59, Parish of Conjola, Near Fishermans Paradise, South Coast of NSW. Unpublished report to Matrix Planning Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P.J. 1997a An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Tourist Development at Portion 158, Parish of Conjola, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to P. W. Rygate and West.

Kuskie, P.J. 1997b An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Golf Course and Residential Development Between Manyana and Bendalong, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P.J. 1997c An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of Roads Within Cudmirrah National Park, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (Nowra District).

Kuskie, P.J. 1997d Management Plan: Fisherman’s Rock Aboriginal Site Complex, Cudmirrah National Park, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (Nowra District).

Kuskie, P.J. 1998 An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 8 DP 652170 and Lot 64 DP 219497, Lake Conjola, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P. J. 2000 An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Mount Arthur North Coal Mine, Near Muswellbrook, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Report to URS (Australia) Pty Limited.

Kuskie, P.J. 2005a Salvage of Aboriginal Heritage Evidence Within Stage 1 of "The Dairy", a Residential Development at Dolphin Point, Near Burrill Lake, South Coast of New South Wales. Volumes A & B. Unpublished report to Elderslie Property Investments Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P.J. 2005b Sub-Surface Archaeological Investigation of Stages 2-4 of "The Dairy", a Proposed Residential Development at Dolphin Point, Near Burrill Lake,on the South Coast of New South Wales. Volumes A & B. Unpublished report to Elderslie Property Investments Pty Ltd on behalf of Dolphins Point Developments Pty Ltd and Dolphin Point Properties Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P. and Clarke, E. 2004 Salvage of Aboriginal Heritage Sites in the Mount Arthur North Coal Mine Lease, Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Volumes A-C. Unpublished report to BHP Billiton.

Kuskie, P. J. and Kamminga, J. 2000 Salvage of Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in Relation to the F3 Freeway near Lenaghans Drive, Black Hill, New South Wales. Volumes 1-3. Unpublished report to NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 53 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 Lampert, R. 1971 Burrill Lake and Currarong: Coastal Sites in Southern New South Wales. Terra Australis 1 Department of Prehistory, ANU: Canberra.

Lance, A. 1987 An Archaeological Study of the Proposed Shoalhaven to Ulladulla 132KV Power Transmission Line. Unpublished report to the Electricity Commission of New South Wales.

Langford-Smith, T. (ed) 1978 Silcrete in Australia. Department of Geography, University of New England: Armidale.

McAndrew, A. 1991 Congenial Conjola. A. McAndrew: Epping.

McDonald, R. C., Isbell, R. F., Speight, J. G., Walker, J. & Hopkins, M. S. 1984 Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook. Inkata Press: Melbourne.

Navin, K. 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of Part of Portion 420, Parish of Conjola, Cunjurong, NSW. Unpublished report to Camp Care Committee.

Navin, K. 1998 Lake Conjola Sewerage Scheme Cultural Heritage Study. Unpublished report to NSW Department of Public Works and Services.

Navin, K., Kamminga, J. and Officer, K. 1999 Development Application for an Extension to Sand Quarry, Portion 206, Lake Conjola, NSW: Archaeological Subsurface Testing Program. Unpublished report to Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd.

Packard, P. 1991 Sites and Sampling in the South East Forests: Research Design, Sampling Methodologies and Sample Selection for a Proposed Site Survey Project. Unpublished report to NPWS and NSW Forestry Commission.

Packard, P. 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of State Forests in the Kempsey and Wauchope Forestry Management Areas. Report to NSW Forestry Commission.

Paton, R. and Wood, V. 1995 An Archaeological Assessment of the Shoalhaven Water Supply Augmentation Scheme: Bamarang to Milton, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Dames and Moore Pty Ltd.

Poiner, G. 1976 The process of the year among Aborigines of the central and south coast of New South Wales. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11: 186-206.

Silcox, R. 1990 Myrtle Gully Deviation: Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations Near Conjola Lake, South Coast of New South Wales. Unpublished report to RTA.

Sullivan, M. 1977 Aboriginal Sites of Bherwerre Peninsula (Jervis Bay). Unpublished report to Dept. of Capital Territory.

Tindale, N. B. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. ANU: Canberra.

Treloar, M. 1985 Topographical Analysis of Aboriginal Sites of the NSW South Coast. Unpublished BA (Honours) thesis, Australian National University.

Vallance, D. 1983 Fishing, Weather and Site Location: An Esoteric Essay. Unpublished Litt. B. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Walkington, M. 1987 An Archaeological Survey of a Basalt Quarry Near Termeil, New South Wales. Unpublished report to Mordek Pty Ltd.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 54 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The consultant wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following people:

Stuart Dixon, Cowman Stoddart Pty Ltd; Andrew Towzell, Malbec Properties; Sharlene Freeburn, Craig Jones, Paul House, Michael Hood and Lisa Corbyn, DEC; Graham Connelly and Gerald Carberry, Jerrinja Consultants; and Adell Hyslop and William Connelly, Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council.

DISCLAIMER

The information contained within this report is based on sources believed to be reliable. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy by using the best possible data and standards available. The accuracy of information generated during the course of this field investigation is the responsibility of the consultant.

However, as no independent verification is necessarily available, South East Archaeology provides no guarantee that the base data (eg. DEC AHIMS) or information from informants (obtained in previous studies or during the course of this investigation) is necessarily correct, and accepts no responsibility for any resultant errors contained therein and any damage or loss which may follow to any person or party. Nevertheless this study has been completed to the highest professional standards.

A Heritage Impact Assessment of Malbec Properties’ Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 172 DP 755923 55 and Lot 823 DP 247285, Manyana, South Coast of New South Wales. South East Archaeology Pty Ltd 2006