The Nepean Fords and Associated Lanes—Archaeology Handbook

1.0 Introduction

The Nepean River Fords are a series of five river crossings spread along a c7km stretch of the Nepean River, on the western boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. From north to south, these include Howell’s Ford, Single’s Ford, Jackson’s Lane Ford, Sheen’s Lane Ford and Long’s Lane Ford 1 (Figures 1 and 2). The fords date to the early days of European settlement in the Penrith region, when they served as the Figure 1 General view across the Nepean primary means of access to the west bank of the Nepean River looking northwest. (Source: GML River. They played a particularly important role in the transport 2008) of stock to the higher west bank pastures. Three of the fords Location are closely tied to historical laneways, Jackson’s Lane, Various (see Figure 2). Sheen’s Lane and Long’s Lane, from which the fords take their names. Indeed, during the early nineteenth century the fords Historic Use and laneways would have been closely linked, forming a local Fords and associated approaches/lanes. network connecting properties and nearby settlements, and Present Use providing valuable access to the Nepean’s western bank and Informal crossing points/connecting the Blue Mountains beyond. One of the few lanes not ending in roadways. a ford is Purcell’s Lane. Associated People These laneways and fords were some of the least tangible The settlers after whom they are named. historic remains surviving within the study area. They, by their very nature, are sites of low archaeological visibility (particularly when compared to other sites like homesteads or cemeteries). Furthermore, they are vulnerable to disturbance and have been significantly impacted by subsequent activities in the study area and a range of site formation processes (including aggressive alluvial actions). Today relatively little physical evidence remains relating to the early use of the fords and lanes. The fords continue to be shallow crossing points over the Nepean River with an exception of Single’s Ford, which due to having been located at the point where the riverbed is at its deepest, has gradually vanished under the force of the river’s currants (Figure 3). Until recently the shallow crossings were used by four-wheel-drive enthusiasts and locals. Quarrying activities have had a significant impact on many of the lanes, but some minor portions of them do survive in modern road alignments. Despite this, the fords and remaining laneways have the potential to provide information on early settlement and land utilisation in the Castlereagh region. These sites have a unique archaeological signature and can be considered as part of the overall cultural landscape of the area.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 1

Figure 2 Map of the Penrith Lakes Scheme area (outlined in blue) showing the location of the sites of the Nepean River fords (circled in orange) and lanes. (Source: PLDC 2011)

2 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

2.0 Historical Background

The Nepean River has been an important source of resources for Aboriginal people living along its banks for many thousands of years. The area that was to become the township of Castlereagh formerly comprised part of a larger expanse of land inhabited by the people, who are known to have favoured the Nepean’s riverbank terraces for habitation sites, and who utilised a range of resources including riverbank Figure 3 Looking northwest across the yams and a variety of terrestrial and aquatic resources. 2 The assumed original location of Single’s Ford. first European settlers to the region also recognised the (Source: GML) importance of the Nepean, and the majority of original land Key References grants faced onto the river. 3 The Nepean was not only the Bently F and J Birmingham 1981, Penrith main water source, but also provided a reliable means of Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study: History of European Settlement, transport in the early period of European settlement in the report prepared for PLDC. region. Britton G and C Morris 1999, Castlereagh Between 1795 and 1806 the basic layout of the locality took Cultural Landscape Study, report prepared for PLDC. shape. Land portions, major roads and lanes were surveyed in 1803, and by 1804 approximately 24 people and their Fox and Associates, Heritage Study of the families were settled in the Castlereagh area. 4 Land use , prepared on behalf of Penrith City Council, March 1987. during the mid 1790s focused on timber getting, with cedar and mahogany being cleared from along the banks of the Stedinger Associates 2006, European 5 Heritage within the Penrith lakes Scheme, Nepean River. This clearing altered the rate of run-off and A Conservation Management Plan (Master caused frequent flooding of the Nepean, resulting in changes Plan), prepared for PLDC. to the river’s course and the deposition of various alluvial Department of Environment and Planning, terraces and banks along the river’s edge. The largest of 1984, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional these is the eastern ‘high bank’, which in the late eighteenth Environmental Study , Blake and Hargreaves Pty Ltd, . century rose up to 50 feet in height. 6 Inland from the high bank, much of the Castlereagh region was low lying and flood prone, and many of the early land grants were subject to catastrophic flooding. By 1810 Hawkesbury cedar had been entirely cleared from along the river bank and silting of the river had become well established. 7

European settlement also had other impacts. The raised river terraces were favoured for habitation sites by both the area’s local Indigenous population and subsequent European settlers, creating competition for land and resources along the river. 8 This resulted in a series of conflicts and reprisals between European settlers and the local Indigenous population up until 1816. By the early nineteenth century, land use within the region began to shift, as the focus moved from cropping to the grazing of stock. Governor Macquarie deliberately encouraged the running of cattle by offering horned cattle from the Government herds for stock improvement, and from 1809 onwards land grants focused on grazing lands. 9 Thus, by the 1820s, stock rearing had become widespread. 10 It is likely that this shift in local land use was the

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 3

catalyst for the development of the Nepean River fords, as increasing cattle stocks pushed the search for suitable grazing lands beyond the immediate locality. Thus, the establishment of the fords would have been closely related to changing land- use patterns, enabling cattle to be taken to the higher west bank pastures to feed.

The Nepean River fords would have been constructed by laying river pebbles across a shallow, flat area of the river Figure 3 View of the Long’s Lane looking 11 northwest. River pebbles of the ford are bed , and thus are likely to have been particularly vulnerable shown in the foreground. (Source: GML to changes in the river caused by periodic flooding. 12 The 2008) construction date of the Nepean fords is unknown 13 , but the historical continuity of these river crossings is likely to extend back to the nineteenth century. 14 3.0 Single’s Ford

3.1 Description and Setting

Single’s Ford was located west of Nepean Park and (E 283176, N 6269664) on the wide, open western Figure 4 Looking west across the deep expanse of the Nepean River (Figures 4 & 5). At this location water section of the Nepean where the the river is at its deepest point with the high banks which are in former Single’s Ford was located. (Source: some places quite steep. There are no visible features that GML 2011) would indicate the presence of the ford at the current level of the river. Single’s Ford is listed as Site No. 63 in the Regional Environmental Study (RES). 15

3.2 Historical Development

No construction date is known for Single’s Ford. The ford is located in what was the most westerly portion of Mince’s Grant, a property which was later owned by John Single of

Nepean Park. 16 Single used this ford to move stock between Figure 5 View looking northwest showing Nepean Park, where he lived, and his inland properties both river banks at the approximate location of the former Single’s Ford. The (located over the Blue Mountains), driving stock ‘directly densely vegetated western bank still across the river and up the mountains via Single’s Ridge contains the track of Single’s Ridge Road. Road’. 17 Single held stock on his property (Source: GML 2011) before transferring it to Sydney’s markets. 18

In their history of the region, Bently and Birmingham state that Single’s Ford developed on the route of a track between Hadley Farm and the river, and which continued on the western bank, becoming what is now Single’s Ridge Road. 19 According to Bently and Birmingham, evidence of the track behind the Hadley farm was still visible in 1981. 20 According to Stedinger’s CMP, Single’s Ford remained in use until bridges were constructed across the river, and this part of the river was quarried in the 1960s. 21

4 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

3.3 Current Condition

Today no evidence of the ford exists. The river here is currently deep and no features indicating a crossing were observed up and down stream of the east bank. There is no evidence of the track behind Hadley’s farm that was noted by Bently and Birmingham in 1981. In the assumed ford’s location the east river bank is quite steep and overgrown by vegetation. The site inspection conducted to inform this study did not identify any tangible elements that could be associated with the crossing/ford. The lack of any obvious signs along the river banks, landscaping and the river flow could be explained by previous quarrying activities and/or fluctuations in water levels and associated alluvial processes that may have swiped the sand dune constituting the ford. Figure 6 Looking west along the western end of Jackson’s Lane. (Source: GML 4.0 Jackson’s Lane and Jackson’s Lane 2011) Ford

4.1 Description and Setting

Jackson’s Lane (RES Site No. 59) is an early route which runs west from the old line of McCarthy’s Lane to the Nepean River (intersecting and crossing Old Castlereagh Road in between) (Figure 2). Jackson’s Lane Ford (RES Site No. 62) is located at the western end of what was Jackson’s Lane, where it meets the Nepean River (E 282828, N 6266966). The ford is approximately 1.4km south of Single’s Ford, and is situated on the same wide straight western reach of the Nepean River. The ford has several possible crossing points, with a number of large low islands scattered across the river at this point, and a shallow, pebbly bottom. The river bank is vegetated by Figure 7 Lower portion of Jackson’s Lane grasses, low shrubs and large native trees, and round river leading to the river ford. (Source: GML pebbles occur on the river bank. 2011)

4.2 Historical Development

Jackson’s Lane formed part of the original subdivision of the area. 22 Given the early significance of the Jackson’s Lane/McCarthy’s Lane route, it is not surprising that a ford developed at the end of the lane. Jackson’s Lane was a gravel surfaced road that, at its western end, descended through a cutting in the high bank to the river’s edge below. 23 No construction date is known for the Jackson’s Lane Ford, Figure 8 Looking northwest across but it is likely to have developed relatively early in the Jackson’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008) settlement of the area. The ford is really a continuation of what was Jackson’s Lane and reflects early land use of the region, when the ford would have been important for the movement of stock to the western pastures. 24 The ford is located in Portion 54, which is part of the original 100 acres granted in 1803 to

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 5

Edward Field. 25 The land was purchased in 1867 by John Jackson. 26

Inspection of the ford in 1981 recorded some evidence of a cutting through the high bank, as well as early artefacts near the river. 27 Observations in 2006 recorded the ford as being ‘formed from river pebbles laid across a shallower flatter portion of the river. Figure 9 Looking upstream (south) along 4.3 Current Condition the Nepean, from Jackson’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008) Jackson’s lane nowadays presents as a track leading down to the ford on its east side. It is distinguished by a cutting into the river bank that is now overgrown by heavy vegetation (Figures 6–7). Sporadic river pebbles can be observed along the track, however no associated elements including artefacts can be identified due to the heavy overgrowth.

Jackson’s Lane Ford is still an ideal crossing point on the Nepean River, as evidenced by its current use by vehicles

fording the river. At this location the river is shallow and is Figure 10 Looking east along a portion of interrupted by a number of low islands and small pebble rapids Purcells Lane which is now sheeted with bitumen providing access to one of PLDC’s (Figures 8–9). Vehicles currently access the eastern bank of site compounds. (Source: GML 2011) the ford via a dirt road, which descends from the eastern high bank terrace to the riverbank below (probably the ‘steep cutting in the high bank’ observed by Stedinger Associates in their 2006 study 28 ). There is no evidence of surface artefacts in the vicinity of the ford, as observed in 1981 and 2011. 5.0 Purcell’s Lane

5.1 Description and Setting

Purcell’s Lane (RES Site No. 58) is located less than a Figure 11 Looking west along what could possibly be the westernmost end of kilometre south of Jackson’s Lane, immediately north of ‘Bird’s Purcell’s Lane. (Source: GML 2011) Eye Corner’ at a bend in the Nepean River. Similar to Jackson’s Lane, Purcell’s Lane is an early access route to the

river that was running on the same east-west alignment off Old Castlereagh Road. Currently the west portion of the lane serves as access way to a PLDC’s site compound; the rest of the original lane is no longer in use (Figures 10–11).

5.2 Historical Development

Purcell’s Lane dates back to the early settlement days and is part of the original subdivision when the main artery of the area, Old Castlereagh Road, was also formed. The early road, measuring one chain wide appears to have been part of a group of road surveyed by John Meehan to provide access to the river. Purcell’s lane was running off Old Castlereagh Road between John Pickering’s and Samuel Stanyard’s (later Purcell

6 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

family’s) grants down to the river foreshore. It also provided a connection to early flour mills established in mid 1830’s 29 .

5.3 Current Condition

Purcell’s Lane is no longer accessible for most of its original extent. The site survey undertaken to inform this study included the smaller, west portion of the original lane which is now sheeted with bitumen and serving as an access and parking zone for a PLDC’s site compound. 6.0 Sheen’s Lane and Sheen’s Lane Ford

6.1 Description and Setting

Sheen’s Lane was one of the early lanes within the Castlereagh district that provided an access route to the south Figure 12 Looking southwest along the river end of Sheen’s Lane. Note the vehicle (RES Site No. 57). It is located amongst several fords at this tracks indicating recent use of the lane. southern bent of the river, dating back to various historical (Source: GML 2011) periods 30 (Figure 2).

At the lane’s southern end is Sheen’s Lane Ford (RES Site No. 61) situated on a bend in the river, known locally as Bird’s Eye Corner, approximately 2km south of Jackson’s Lane Ford (E 282992, N 6265301) (Figure 1). The ford lies on a narrowing of the river, which up to that point is wide and free flowing to the south. The ford comprises a series of small low islands which create a . The river here is shallow and gravelly. Natural river pebbles are scattered along the river Figure 13 Looking west across Sheen’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008) bank, which is vegetated with grasses, shrubs and large native trees, particularly casuarinas.

6.2 Historical Development

Sheen’s Lane developed from what initially was a separation line between two parcels created from the early grant held by Mary Collette. The lane firstly provided access to the parcels and probably over the time a connection to the river itself. The lane appears to have been named after Henry Sheen who was leasing a part of Colette’s grant from 1886 31 . Figure 14 Detail of Sheen’s Lane Ford, looking west, showing low vegetated The construction date of Sheen’s Lane Ford is unknown, but it islands and laid river pebbles at the river’s edge. (Source: GML 2008) is one of several fords built during earlier periods to provide access for the properties and roads adjoining the Nepean River. Being situated to the south, Sheen’s Lane Ford gave the people of Castlereagh and its surrounds access to Emu Plains. 32 The ford is marked on the Springwood 9030-IV-S First Edition, where it is shown turning west as it meets the river. 33

Sheen’s Lane Ford was inspected by Bently and Birmingham during their 1981 study, at which time they observed ‘evidence

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 7

of earlier pebble metalling further east, looking obliquely southeast to the Emu Plains Training School’. 34 The ford was not inspected during preparation of the CMP in 2006 due to inaccessible terrain. 35

6.3 Current Condition Figure 15 Looking downstream (west) from Sheen’s Ford. (Source: GML 2011) Today Sheen’s Lane remains a dirt vehicle track leading from the river’s edge on the eastern bank, which connects with an access road on the high bank (Figure 12). Most of its alignment is covered by dense vegetation which obstructs any physical evidence of the road surface, edging, etc.

Sheen’s Lane Ford still remains an ideal fording point on this southern portion of the Nepean, and has until recently been in use by vehicles crossing this part of the river. There is evidence of laid river pebbles on the east bank of the river, and at the time of inspection the bank was boggy, with fresh tyre tracks leading from the water’s edge. The river upstream of the ford (to the southeast) is wide and open, but at Sheen’s Lane Ford it becomes shallow and narrow, with several low vegetated islands and built-up river pebbles altering the flow of

Figure 16 Looking south along the the river (Figures 13–15). assumed location of Long’s Lane. Note a slight depression in the grass potentially 7.0 Long’s Lane and Long’s Lane Ford indicating a road alignment. (Source: GML 2011) 7.1 Description and Settings

Long’s Lane (RES Site No. 56) was a small lane which runs south from Castlereagh Road to the Nepean River (Figures 1 and 16). Long’s Lane Ford (E 285054, N 6265009) (RES Site No. 60) is situated at the southern end of the line of the lane, on a gentle bend in the Nepean River at ‘Bird’s Eye Corner’, – adjacent to a bend in the Nepean Rive where the river is narrow and relatively slow flowing (Figures 1, 2). There is a

small area of shallow rapids, created by an accumulation of Figure 17 Looking southwest (upstream) river pebbles. Both the north and south banks of the ford are across the Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2011) covered by reeds and grasses, and has quite boggy, marsh- like ground with fewer pebbles than some of the fords further downstream. The overlying vegetation canopy is dense and enclosed.

7.2 Historical Development

Despite not being able to apply a construction date to the Nepean River fords, both Bently and Birmingham and Fox and Associates state that Long’s Lane Ford is the earliest known

Nepean River crossing. 36 According to Bently and Figure 18 Looking upstream (southwest) towards Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML Birmingham, the ford is located ‘where the old line of the 2008) Castlereagh Road turned south to the river down the east side of Thomas Appledore’s grant (Portion 74)’. 37 In order to

8 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

improve access to Emu Plains, the people of Castlereagh requested in 1814 that a bridge be erected across the swamp, thus Long’s Lane Ford played an important role. 38 The route that was selected ran ‘through the Reverend Fulton’s parsonage land to the Castlereagh plain, then probably via a choice of lanes between portions to MaCarthy’s Lane and Castlereagh Road, and on to the land’s Lane ford and Emu Plains’ (sic). 39 Long’s Lane, which led to Mouquet Farm, is thought to have possibly been constructed as early as 1795, Figure 19 Looking upstream (southeast) from Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML and was bordered on both sides with ‘old-style post and 2008) fencing’ from the 1870s and 1890s. 40

Lavelle identified the ford by ‘depressions in the river bank on either side of the river’ 41 , and Bently and Birmingham also recoding ‘much evidence of earlier activity—early bricks and the line of a former track’ as well as flood activity at the ford. 42

7.3 Current Condition

Long’s Lane alignment and associated road elements are no Figure 20 Looking downstream longer discernible due to the excessive vegetation overgrowth (southwest) across Long’s Lane Ford. and the most recent activities associated with quarrying (Source: GML 2008) (Figure 16). Gradings of Archaeological Long’s Lane Ford however survives in good condition, with no Potential evidence of current-day vehicle use (probably due to the High presence of a modern bridge only a few hundred metres to the Historical research indicates that there was previous human activity or development in west of the ford). There is some evidence of built up pebbles the area and that physical evidence of this stretching across the river and on the adjoining northern bank, activity would have been created. There creating a small area of rapids within the otherwise slowly has been little or no evidence of subsequent ground disturbance. There is flowing river (Figures 17–20). The ford is currently accessed a very good chance that physical evidence by foot along a small track leading from the bridge to the west, of this previous activity or development (archaeological remains) will survive in and remains relatively undisturbed. situ.

8.0 Archaeological Potential Moderate Historical research indicates that there was ‘Archaeological potential’ refers to the likelihood of previous human activity or development in archaeological remains to survive at a site. It should be the area and that physical evidence of this activity may have been created. There has distinguished from ‘archaeological significance’ which refers been some ground disturbance in the area. to the heritage values of any remains that may prove to There is some chance that physical have survived. Thus, there may be ‘low potential’ for certain evidence (archaeological remains) will survive in situ. remains to survive, but if they do survive, they might be assessed as being of ‘high significance’ (for example, if they Low are rare examples from the convict period). Historical research indicates that there has been no human activity or development in The potential for relics to survive at a site depends on the the area, or that there would be little or no physical evidence of any former activity or ‘site formation processes’ that have operated there. These development. The area has been subject processes include the physical development of the site (for to significant ground disturbance. It is unlikely that any physical evidence of example, the phases of building construction) and the previous activity or development activities that occurred there. (archaeological remains) would be present.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 9

Ask: Have parts of the site been subject to actions that may have deposited relics (on the one hand) or which might have destroyed relics (on the other hand)?

For example, a site that has been graded by earthmoving machinery may have low archaeological potential because grading works often disturb or remove archaeological evidence. Some archaeological remains are more vulnerable to disturbance (for example, botanical remains), while others are more robust (for example, wall footings).

8.1 Site Formation Processes

The Nepean River fords are exposed to a range of site formation processes. The most significant of these are the constant alluvial actions of the Nepean River itself: washing, erosion, sedimentation, fluctuating waters levels and flooding. These processes, along with the simple effect of constant movement, water pressure and river currents, are likely to have had the most significant impact on the archaeological potential of these sites. Any remains of original laid river crossings (either of pebbles or other materials) and associated artefacts are likely to have been impacted by these processes and pushed downstream with the river’s current. The river banks are also certain to have been significantly altered by alluvial erosion and deposition of sediments, river pebbles and other debris. Flooding is likely to have disturbed the remains of the fords, and floodwaters would also have the potential to move artefacts from their place of origin and redeposit them. If artefacts are found on the surface or near the surface at any of the fords, these should not be regarded as in situ without other supporting evidence.

Sand and gravel mining would have disturbed or destroyed any archaeological remains in areas where those activities have occurred. This is particularly relevant to Single’s Ford, which is thought to have been quarried in the 1960s.

Current land use is also likely to have had significant impacts on the archaeological potential of the Nepean River fords and associated laneways. The fords are known to have been used until recent times by vehicles as a means of crossing the river (at the time of the first site inspection in 2008, a vehicle was observed crossing Jackson’s Lane Ford). Indeed, use of the fords by four-wheel-drive enthusiasts crossing to the east bank was such a problem that, in an attempt to prevent members of the public from accessing the quarry lands, PLDC staff had placed mounds of dirt and large rubber tyres at the entrances to the fords on the eastern bank. This appeared not to have been an effective deterrent, as the tyres have been burned and the deposited soil scaled. This type of continued use by large vehicles is likely to have altered the fords, particularly along the boggy banks which are especially susceptible to impact and compaction from heavy vehicles. The deposition of soil mounds and tyres in these areas (as well as subsequent burning and disturbance) is also likely to have compromised the integrity of remaining archaeological deposits associated with the ford entrances and laneways. It is recommended that consideration be given to introducing more effective measures to address this issue.

The laneways associated with the Nepean River fords have been exposed to a range of site formation processes which would have impacted on the archaeological potential of these sites. Laneways and roads are, by their very nature, sites of low archaeological visibility, and they are highly susceptible to disturbance. Erosion, weathering and impact from quarrying traffic are likely to have reduced the archaeological potential of these sites, and to have disturbed archaeological remains that do survive. These laneways are also likely to have been altered by the construction of modern roads and subsequent quarrying works in their vicinity.

10 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

8.2 Potential Archaeological Remains

Table 1 Potential archaeological remains associated with the Nepean River Fords and associated laneways.

Activity Potential Remains Integrity of Remains Archaeological Archaeological Potential Significance at State Level Early river Evidence of laid crossing Likely to have been disturbed Moderate High crossings surfaces, riverbank approaches, by flooding, other alluvial cuttings through river bank processes, quarrying and terraces. current vehicle impacts. Early land Tree roots, charcoal deposits, Likely to have been Low High clearing artefact scatters, soil deposits, removed/disturbed by around ford evidence of camp sites etc. subsequent activities. entrances Early animal Post holes on fence lines or Some disturbance associated Moderate High management remains of stock routes across with subsequent activities or fords. structures in these areas. Historic Road alignments, road surfaces Some disturbance from traffic, Low High laneways/ and ditches, tree lines, fence alterations to road alignments roads posts, isolated artefacts. or construction of new roads. May have been obscured or disturbed by weathering processes and subsequent activities. Artefact Miscellaneous fragments of May have been periodically Low-to-Moderate High, depending scatters pottery, glass, bone etc. removed or disturbed by on date subsequent activities.

Note if any archaeological evidence relating to Aboriginal use of the site is discovered then the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) must be notified immediately. 9.0 Archaeological Significance

‘Archaeological significance’ refers to the heritage significance of archaeological remains (known or potential).

Assessments of heritage significance endeavour to establish why a place or item is considered important and why it is valued by a community. Significance assessments are carried out applying a range of criteria expressed in a variety of documents including The Burra Charter: the ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999 (for general application), the NSW Heritage Manual (for assessing State and local significance) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cwth) (for places of National significance).

While all of the assessment criteria may be applied to archaeological remains, the most relevant criteria relate to the research potential of the remains (that is, their ability to provide information), as well as their associations with significant historical places, events or people. Remains that have higher research potential would generally have greater heritage significance.

Archaeological remains should be managed according to their significance, which can influence the degree of impact that may be acceptable, or the level of investigation and recording that may be required. In some cases, the most appropriate management strategy may be to protect the remains from any impact or to retain any exposed archaeological remains in situ.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 11

9.1 Summary Statement of Significance

Archaeological Significance The following statement of significance is taken from the Archaeological remains are assessed as Conservation Management Plan: Penrith Lakes Scheme, being of State or local significance under the Heritage Act. 2006, prepared by Stedinger Associates Heritage and Archaeology. The CMP deals with only two of the Nepean Burra Charter fords: Jackson’s Lane Ford (referred to in the CMP as Article 1.2—Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or Jackson’s Ford) and Single’s Ford: spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Jackson’s Ford and the site of Single’s Ford were generally found to be of high historical, aesthetic and social significance at a local Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, level. Jackson’s Ford and the site of Single’s Ford are important as associations, meanings, records, related part of the overall locality settlement history, particularly in relation places and related objects. to the role of the Nepean River. These river fords are early examples of specialized land utilization. They constituted a part of colonial travel routes and river crossings in the Castlereagh area.

Jackson’s Ford forms part of the cultural landscape of the Nepean River and its conservation zone. It is one of only river [sic] crossings surviving along the Nepean River and continues to be used by some of the local community today, thereby demonstrating continuity of its historical use. While Jackson’s Ford is considered to be a good and intact example of a relatively early river crossing, it is not likely to contribute new or important information.

No physical evidence was located of Single’s Ford. Single’s Ford was reportedly removed in the 1960s or 1970s. The former site is only accessible by boat along the Nepean River and no material evidence was found during the present survey.

While this statement of significance relates only to Jackson’s Lane Ford and Single’s Ford, its theme can be equally applied to the other fords along the Nepean River and their associated laneways, which are similar in terms of their nature, setting and overall significance within the cultural landscape of the area. As a group, the Nepean River fords (and associated laneways) are examples of early specialised land utilisation, and are important because they remain as evidence of early colonial travel routes and river crossings in the district. The fords are significant as part of the overall area’s settlement history, especially in relation to the role of the Nepean, and are of considerable local significance.

12 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

10.0 Archaeological Research Design NSW Heritage Manual Criteria Criterion (a)—Important in the course, or The following research framework should be applied to any pattern, of our cultural history. archaeological investigation undertaken within the vicinity of any of the Nepean River fords or associated remnant Criterion (b)—Strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group laneways. of persons.

10.1 Research Questions—General Criterion (c)—Demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of • What physical evidence of former activities survives at creative or technical achievement. the site? Criterion (d)—Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural • What is the extent of the surviving archaeological group for social, cultural or spiritual evidence? reasons. Criterion (e)—Potential to yield information • What is the nature of extant archaeological features? that will contribute to an understanding of cultural history. • What is the date of the identified features? Criterion (f)—Possesses uncommon, rare • What can the cultural evidence contribute to our or endangered aspects of cultural history. knowledge about this site or other sites? Criterion (g)—Important in demonstrating 10.2 Research Questions—Penrith Lakes Precinct the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places. • What evidence is there of the pre-European Other Assessment Criteria landscape? 1. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other resource can? • Is there physical evidence of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal contact? 2. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other site can? • What does the archaeological evidence tell us about 3. Is this knowledge relevant to general the types of people that lived and worked in the area questions about human history or (in terms of socio-economic groups, race, religion, other substantive questions relating to Australian history, or does it contribute nationalities etc)? to other major research questions?

• Does the archaeological resource shed any light on (Bickford A and S Sullivan 1984 43 ) relations between convicts and free settlers in the

area?

• What does the archaeological record tell us about nineteenth century links between the rural west and

Sydney city? 10.3 Research Questions—Specific to the Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneways

• Is there archaeological evidence of the early development and use of the Nepean River fords and associated laneways?

• What evidence is there of the construction of the fords and laneways?

• Is there any archaeological evidence of landscaping or modification to the river banks around the fords? How

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 13

do they relate to the natural topography? How was the natural topography modified to create the fords? Need for a Research Framework The archaeological remains at a site are a • What does the archaeological resource tell us about finite resource. Where subsurface disturbance or excavation is required and specialised land utilisation and practices in this area? remains cannot be retained in situ (not disturbed or destroyed), it is essential that • What does the archaeological evidence tell us about the research potential of the archaeological the kinds of people who used the fords and associated resource be fully realised. laneways? An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) helps to ensure that this occurs. It • What does the archaeological evidence tell us about provides a research framework for the the early travel routes of the region? archaeologist, including a range of ‘research questions’ that help the • What does the archaeological evidence tell us about archaeologist formulate excavation methodologies prior to work commencing. the role and use of the Nepean River? A number of ‘historic themes’ have been developed to provide a framework for • What does the archaeological evidence tell us about developing these research questions. the role of the fords and laneways to the area’s An ARD sets out the appropriate settlement and development? excavation methodologies for a proposed excavation. Excavation methodologies • Is there any evidence of a link between the Nepean should be designed to best answer the River fords and other historic items nearby? research questions posed by the ARD, and to contribute to interpretation and other mitigative strategies. 11.0 Archaeological Management— General

The archaeological resources of the Nepean River fords and

associated laneways make an important contribution to the region’s overall cultural heritage values. At the time of first non-Aboriginal settlement in the area the fords were on the very edge of the colony’s settled areas. They held considerable symbolic and functional significance for the early settlers.

Future masterplanning and design development will need to take account of the location and significance of the potential archaeological resource. Proposed development requiring ground disturbance may need to be preceded by archaeological investigation, or modified where it will impact significant archaeological remains.

It would be highly desirable for the location and function of the fords and lanes to be interpreted to the public as part of a wider program of interpretation and community engagement (see the Interpretation Strategy prepared by GML in 2008).

The sites of the fords must be managed in accordance with their assessed significance. Generally, significant archaeological remains should not be disturbed and should be retained in situ. However, the archaeological evidence of the fords is particularly vulnerable to disturbance through natural processes, especially erosion. As a result, the research

14 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

potential of the fords is being lost and what remains is unlikely Statutory Framework to survive for much longer. Therefore, proactive research If relics of National significance would be excavation is justified at the site of the fords and laneways. significantly impacted by works, it may be The archaeological resource should be managed applying the necessary to refer the matter to the Australian Government Minister for following general principles and specific methodologies Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Sections 11.0 and 12.0). (applying the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ). 11.1 Roles and Responsibilities The Penrith Lakes Scheme is implemented under the provisions of Sydney Regional • Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) has Environmental Plan 11 (SREP 11). ultimate responsibility for the appropriate management of archaeological resources within the In addition, the Penrith Lakes Scheme has been declared a ‘major project’ governed Penrith Lakes Scheme. by Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). For • PLDC should appoint a Heritage Officer as the extraction, rehabilitation or lake formation, primary point of contact and communication for the the Minister for Planning will be the consent authority. The Minister for management of heritage issues within the Penrith Planning can approve works and can Lakes Scheme. condition that approval such that the works are undertaken in accordance with this • The PLDC Heritage Officer should be consulted AMP. before ground disturbance is undertaken in areas For other development proposals Penrith identified as being of archaeological sensitivity. If in City Council is the consent authority.

doubt—ask. For all other circumstances, the provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) would • The PLDC Heritage Officer must be responsible for apply. applying the principles and policies in this document. The Heritage Act provides automatic The PLDC Heritage Officer should consult with statutory protection to ‘relics’. The relevant heritage professionals and, where Heritage Act defines a ‘relic’ as: appropriate, the Heritage Branch, NSW Department Any deposit, artefact, object or material of Planning. evidence:

• Contractors involved in ground disturbance in relates to the settlement of the area that archaeologically sensitive areas must be informed of comprises not being aboriginal settlement, and their obligations in relation to archaeological issues by the PLDC Heritage Officer. A copy of this is of State or local significance.

Archaeology Handbook must be provided to site Sections 139–145 of the Heritage Act contractors. Contractors are also responsible for the prevent the excavation of a relic, except in appropriate management and treatment of the accordance with a gazetted exception or an excavation permit issued by the archaeological remains, in consultation with the Heritage Council of NSW (except where PLDC Heritage Officer. specified by other prevailing legislation).

• Where the development of the site is determined to The site has the potential to contain historical archaeological relics as defined be a ‘major project’ under Part 3A of the by the Heritage Act. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The management of the Penrith Lakes (NSW), the Minister for Planning would be the Scheme heritage resource is also consent authority for the project. The AMP should be governed by the provisions of a submitted with the Concept Application and related confidential Deed entered into between PLDC and State government in 1987, and Project Applications. Consents should be the conditions of consent attaching to a conditioned such that works carried out in number of DAs. Always consult these before commencing works that may impact accordance with the provisions of this document on the archaeological resource.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 15

Consultation and Liaison require no further consents. If Aboriginal objects are exposed by 11.2 General Policies—Archaeological ground disturbance, consult with those parties identified in the Aboriginal Cultural Management Heritage Management Plan (this may include the Department of the Environment The following policies should form the basis of archaeological and Climate Change, Aboriginal management and relate to all areas of the Penrith Lakes community representatives and others). Consult the guidelines for consultation Scheme. published by the DECC. Prioritise Management of Historical Archaeological The PLDC Heritage Officer should consult Remains —Appropriate management of historical with heritage professionals and/or the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW archaeological remains (known and potential) should be given Department of Premier and Cabinet, as high priority in the management of the site’s heritage values. appropriate. Minimise Archaeological Impacts —Ground disturbance The PLDC Heritage Officer may wish to involve community groups in the should be minimised or avoided in areas of archaeological management of the archaeological potential, where possible. resource. In Situ Retention —Archaeological remains of State

significance should be retained in situ, where possible.

Site Protection —Strategies should be put in place to minimise or avoid uncontrolled disturbance of areas of archaeological potential (for example, restricted movement of heavy machinery across these areas).

Archaeological Investigation —Where disturbance of areas of archaeological potential is proposed, this disturbance should be preceded by, or undertaken in conjunction with, archaeological investigation and recording.

Underground Utility Services —Excavation or ground disturbance for the purpose of exposing or accessing underground utility services infrastructure is appropriate where the excavation or disturbance would occur within an existing trench and the excavation or disturbance would not affect known or potential archaeological remains (other than the service infrastructure itself).

Suitably Qualified Personnel —Any archaeological investigation or recording should be undertaken by suitably qualified personnel. The archaeologist on site (Excavation Director) must have the authority to stop or redirect works, as required, to allow archaeological remains to be appropriately investigated or recorded.

Contractors and Subcontractors —Suitable clauses should be included in all contractor and subcontractor contracts to ensure that on-site personnel are aware of their obligations in relation to the site’s archaeological significance. Site inductions should include a heritage component. Relevant contracts should include provision for potential delays related

16 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

to the discovery of unexpected archaeological remains.

Notification —The Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, should be notified of the commencement and completion of any archaeological investigations.

Reporting —The results of any archaeological investigation should be presented in an Archaeological Excavation Report within 12 months of completion of the investigation and a copy of the report should be submitted to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Mitchell Library.

Conservation and Storage of Artefacts —PLDC (or its successors) is responsible for the safekeeping of relics recovered from the site unless alternative arrangements are negotiated with the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. ‘Safekeeping’ may include cleaning, stabilising, labelling, cataloguing and storing in an appropriate repository.

Interpretation —Interpretation of archaeological remains should occur within the Penrith Lakes Scheme where appropriate and should be undertaken in accordance with the policies and recommendations identified in the Penrith Lakes Scheme Interpretation Strategy (2008) and relevant Special Element Interpretation Plans.

Unexpected Aboriginal Archaeological Objects —If any unexpected Aboriginal archaeological objects are exposed during site works, work should cease and consultation with relevant Aboriginal community representatives and the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet should be initiated.

Unexpected Remains of National Significance —If any unexpected remains of potentially National heritage significance are encountered during site works, works should cease until a proper assessment has been made by a heritage professional. It may be necessary to make a ‘referral’ to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Disputes and Uncertainty —Should disagreement or uncertainty arise concerning the application of this AMP, the matter should be referred to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet for determination. 12.0 Management of the Potential Archaeological Resource

12.1 Research Questions

The fords and laneways can be used to address the following research questions:

• Can the archaeological data be used to more accurately date the fords?

• Are the extant fords at historic locations or have they moved with the passage of time?

• How were the fords constructed? Were there changes in construction techniques over time?

12.2 Step 1—Surface Survey

Although the location of the fords and lanes has been previously recorded, a thorough surface survey, which includes an analysis of landforms, artefact scatters etc, has not been undertaken.

No permit or other consent is required for a surface survey, provided no ground disturbance occurs.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 17

If the data cannot be obtained from existing topographic plans, the surface survey should include the use of an EDM to record elevations sufficient to generate contour plans of the fords and associated lanes and their approaches.

The surface survey should aim to idetify the artefacts noted by Bently and Birmingham in past surveys, and any other artefacts and related features that may be visible. The survey should aim at comprehensive site coverage in a c20m x 20m square around each ford and its approaches inclusding associated lanes. A transect approach should be favoured, where vegetation etc allows. Any relics identified during the survey should be located in space using an EDM and/or GPS. Given their vulnerability to natural disturbance or destruction, it would be appropriate for relics to be collected, conserved and stored.

Each ford and its approaches should be thoroughly recorded by photography.

A succinct report should be prepared at the conclusion of the survey presenting the results.

12.3 Step 2—Test Excavation

Given the vulnerability of the fords and their approaches including the associated lanes to natural disturbance/destruction, it is highly desirable that all possible data relating to their age and construction techniques be obtained before they disappear entirely. A proactive research excavation would be appropriate.

The following methodology should be observed:

• In relation to consents:

− If this AMP has been endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW, proceed with the works by observing the methodology below.

− If the works do not form part of a Part 3A Major Project, and the AMP has not been endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW, proceed by way of an Exception application to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (the application should provide for the excavation methodology presented below).

− If the works form part of a Part 3A Major Project, and if the provisions of the Heritage Act do not apply, proceed by way of the methodology below.

• At the location of each ford, a transect trench should be excavated, perpendicular to and bisecting the ford/approaches. The trench should be located to best capture data relating to the construction techniques of the ford (proximity to in situ cobbles would therefore be desirable). The trench need only be wide enough to create an informative section (for example, 1–1.2 m). Where ownership allows it, a second trench should be excavated on the right bank in the same manner.

• Test excavation of the associated laneways may include several transect trenches positioned along the original alignment of the road to test for the original surface , width and condition as well as the presence/absence of associated features (drains, culverts, curbs, etc.). The recommend test trench width would also be 1–1.2m.

• It would be appropriate to excavate the trenches by machine, monitored by an archaeologist. Manual excavation (picks, shovels etc) may be necessary where relics are exposed.

18 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012

• The archaeologist should excavate all deposits, applying the principles of stratigraphic excavation.

• Any artefacts that are recovered should be washed, labelled and stored. Arrangements should be made for appropriate conservation to occur where artefacts with particular conservation requirements are found (for example, leather and metal artefacts). Artefacts should be logged in a database that reflects current best-practice archaeological data recording.

• If archaeological evidence relating to Aboriginal use of the site is discovered, the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet must be notified immediately, in accordance with Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW). Appropriate Aboriginal consultation must be undertaken consistent with provided guidelines.

• On completion of the works, a succinct report should be prepared and submitted to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet that presents the results of the excavation, illustrated by photographs, survey plans and other drawings as appropriate.

12.4 Interpretation

The archaeological evidence relating to the Nepean River fords and their approaches including the associated lanes is vulnerable to disturbance/destruction by natural processes, especially erosion. It is not necessary to seek to stabilise or otherwise protect the resource. However, once the relevant research data has been obtained (observing the above survey and excavation) it is highly desirable that these significant features of the cultural landscape be interpreted to the wider community.

The results of any archaeological investigation of the fords and their approaches should inform the future interpretation options presented in the GML Interpretation Strategy (2008) (eg, if the fords and approaches and the associated lanes become a feature of a future Heritage Trail). 13.0 Endnotes

1 This handbook does not deal with Howell’s Ford, which lies outside the northern boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. 2 Liston, Carol c1999, Research Towards a History of Castlereagh to 1906 (Draft), p 6, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme, A Conservation Management Plan (Master Plan), report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited, p 35. 3 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study , Blake & Hargreaves Pty Ltd, Sydney, pp 11–15. 4 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study History of European Settlement, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited, pp 9–10. 5 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, pp 11–15. 6 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 8. 7 ibid, p 10. 8 ibid, p 11. 9 ibid, p 12. 10 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, pp 11–15. 11 Stedinger Associates 2006, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme, A Conservation Management Plan (Master Plan), report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited, p 246. 12 Fox & Associates 1987 (revised 1991), Heritage Study of the City of Penrith, Volume 3: Item Identification Sheets, for Penrith City Council, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246.

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 19

13 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, DA4 Management Study Heritage Assessment, Penrith Lakes Scheme Area, Castlereagh, NSW, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation—NSW Heritage Database Form, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 14 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246. 15 NSW Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 247. 16 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 17 Britton, Geoffrey and Morris, Colleen 1999, Castlereagh Cultural Landscape Study: Assessment and Recommendations Final Report, report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, pp 48, 65, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 18 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 19 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 20 ibid, p 73. 21 ibid, p 221. 22 ibid, p 221. 23 ibid, p 221. 24 ibid, p 221. 25 ibid, p 219. 26 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, op cit, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 219. 27 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 28 ibid, p 221. 29 Kass Terry, Outline History of Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73, 301 Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, Group 9, For Penrith Lakes Corporation April 2011, p 9. 30 Bently Fran & Birmingham Judy 1981, op cit, p 76. 31 Kass Terry 2011, op cit, p 54 32 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 245. 33 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 34 ibid, p 73. 35 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246. 36 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82; and Fox & Associates 1987 (revised 1991), Heritage Study of the City of Penrith, Volume 3: Item Identification Sheets, prepared for Penrith City Council, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 37 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82. 38 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 39 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 14. 40 ibid, p 93, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 41 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, op cit, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 42 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82. 43 Bickford, A and S Sullivan 1984, ‘Assessing the Research Significance of Historic Sites’, in Sullivan S and S Bowdler (eds) Site Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology (Proceedings of the 1981 Springwood Conference on Australian Prehistory), Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

20 Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012