North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Study
ADP-1207-HER-0005-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Report to Transport for NSW November 2012
Artefact Heritage ABN 73 144 973 526
PO BOX 772 Rose Bay NSW Australia 2029 +61 2 9025 3958 +61 2 9025 3990
[email protected] www.artefact.net.au
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Executive Summary
Artefact Heritage, on behalf of Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has undertaken an assessment of non-Indigenous and Aboriginal archaeology for the site of a proposed development at the North Ryde Station Precinct. This report constitutes an assessment of Aboriginal heritage and non-Indigenous archaeology in support of a Rezoning Study in respect of the North Ryde Station Precinct Project (NRSPP). The proposed rezoning seeks to establish a site specific planning regime for the North Ryde Station Precinct, including land use zones, building height, floor space ratio (FSR) and maximum car parking rates to facilitate the ultimate redevelopment of the precinct for a mixed use, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).
In relation to non-Indigenous archaeology it was found that there are no listed archaeological sites or conservation areas within the study area. The study area has a low non-Indigenous archaeological potential, apart from an isolated feature, a c. 1900 well or cistern, located within the M2 Site, which has been assessed as having moderate archaeological potential. This site has moderate research significance and has the potential to yield information to inform archaeological analysis. The well is currently located beneath a large spoil stockpile. It is expected that future works at the M2 Site will involve impacts to the well and will probably require its removal. Any impacts to the well will require archaeological monitoring and, depending on the significance of the well’s contents, test excavation may also be necessary.
Prior to further archaeological investigation commencing, a research design would be prepared for works at the cistern according to NSW Heritage Council guidelines. A suitably qualified archaeologist would be nominated as Excavation Director for the project.
If unanticipated archaeological deposits or relics are found within the remainder of the study area during construction, work should cease immediately and the NSW Heritage Council should be notified and a suitably qualified archaeologist engaged to assess the significance of the find. Further archaeological work may be required prior to impacts to relics.
No Aboriginal sites, Aboriginal Places or areas of Aboriginal archaeological potential have been previously listed within the study area. No Aboriginal sites were identified during the site survey and it was found that overall the study area has a low Aboriginal archaeological potential. Aboriginal consultation was conducted and no areas of cultural significance were identified by Aboriginal stakeholder groups. There are therefore no Aboriginal heritage constraints on the proposal. If unexpected Aboriginal objects are located during construction, all works must stop in the vicinity of the find. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) must be notified, and an archaeologist engaged to assess the significance of the find. Further archaeological work may be required.
The Rezoning Study is therefore supported in regard to Aboriginal heritage and non-Indigenous archaeology, provided that further investigation of the cistern within the M2 Site is undertaken prior to works commencing.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment i ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Approvals Process ...... 1 1.3 The Study Area ...... 2 1.4 The Proposed Development ...... 4 1.5 Development Control Plan ...... 5 1.6 Report Authorship ...... 5 2.0 Environmental Context ...... 6 2.1 Geomorphology ...... 6 2.2 Vegetation ...... 6 2.3 Hydrology – Lane Cove River ...... 6 3.0 Survey Methodology ...... 7 3.1 Background ...... 7 3.2 Field Methods ...... 7 4.0 Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment ...... 8 4.1 Background ...... 8 4.2 Heritage Listings ...... 8 4.3 History of the Study Area ...... 9 4.3.1 Aboriginal Occupation ...... 9 4.3.2 Early Settlement ...... 10 4.3.3 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries ...... 12 4.3.4 After World War One ...... 14 4.3.5 Summary ...... 18 4.4 Survey Results and Assessment of Archaeological Potential...... 18 4.4.1 M2 Site ...... 18 4.4.2 RMS Site ...... 24 4.4.3 Station Site North ...... 25 4.4.4 Station Site South ...... 27 4.4.5 OSL Site ...... 29 4.5 Summary ...... 30 4.6 Mitigation Measures ...... 30 5.0 Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment...... 31
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment ii ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.1 Background ...... 31 5.2 Legislative Context ...... 31 5.3 Aboriginal Consultation ...... 32 5.4 Aboriginal Material Culture and Site Types ...... 33 5.5 History of Aboriginal Occupation ...... 35 5.6 Registered Aboriginal Sites in the Local Area – AHIMS search ...... 36 5.7 Previous Archaeological Work ...... 38 5.8 Predictive Models ...... 39 5.9 Survey Results and Assessment of Archaeological Potential...... 40 5.9.1 M2 Site ...... 41 5.9.2 RMS Site ...... 43 5.9.3 Station Site North ...... 45 5.9.4 Station Site South ...... 46 5.9.5 OSL Site ...... 46 5.10 Significance Assessment ...... 47 5.10.1 Cultural Significance ...... 47 5.10.2 Historic Values and Significance...... 48 5.10.3 Scientific/Archaeological Values and Significance...... 48 5.10.4 Aesthetic Values and Significance ...... 48 5.10.5 Statement of Significance ...... 48 5.11 Impact Assessment ...... 49 5.12 Mitigation Measures ...... 49 6.0 Recommendations ...... 50 6.1 Recommendations for Non-Indigenous Heritage ...... 50 6.2 Recommendations for Aboriginal Heritage ...... 50 7.0 References ...... 52
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment iii ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figures
Figure 1: The study area (Source: TfNSW 2012) ...... 3
Figure 2: Parish map of Hunters Hill, detail showing the Field of Mars Common. Date Unknown (Source: Lands Department)...... 10
Figure 3: 1898 map of the study area ...... 11
Figure 4: 1928 parish map of Hunters Hill showing Delhi Rd extension...... 12
Figure 5: Junction of Delhi & Lucknow Roads looking east, 1938 ...... 14
Figure 6: Junction of Pittwater Road & Lucknow Road looking east, 1938 ...... 15
Figure 7: Looking south-east along Pittwater Road at Lucknow Road junction, 1938 ...... 15
Figure 8: The study area, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ...... 16
Figure 9: Detail of structures on M2 Site, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ...... 16
Figure 10: Detail of structures on RMS Site and NW corner of Station Site North, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ...... 17
Figure 11: Detail of the Station Site, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ...... 17
Figure 12: Aerial photographs showing changes to the M2 Site since 1994 ...... 19
Figure 13: Vegetation at northern end of M2 Site ...... 20
Figure 14: Left: Centre of M2 Site – contemporary satellite photo; Right: 1943 aerial photo showing unidentified structure (Six Viewer) ...... 21
Figure 15: Overlay of contemporary and 1943 aerials showing location of identified structure (Six Viewer) ...... 21
Figure 16: Cistern location as shown on M2 worksite environmental plan (courtesy of TfNSW)...... 22
Figure 17: 1943 aerial photograph of RMS Site and surrounding land (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ..... 24
Figure 18: Aerial photographs showing changes to RMS site since 1994 ...... 25
Figure 19: 1943 aerial photograph Station Site North (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/) ...... 26
Figure 20: Current aerial photograph of Station Site North. North to top of page. (Source: www.nearmap.com) .. 26
Figure 21: The Station Site North from its south-east corner...... 27
Figure 22: The Station Site South at present (Source: www.nearmap.com) ...... 27
Figure 23: Former Global Television Studios building in 2007 (Source: GoogleEarth) ...... 28
Figure 24: Excavated pit on northern edge of vegetated area, facing south-west...... 28
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment iv ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 25: Introduced fill in central area of Station South Site site, facing east ...... 29
Figure 26: Westernmost tennis court cut into the ground, facing north-east ...... 29
Figure 27: Map of registered site in the vicinity of the study area (outlined in red). Base map – GoogleEarth...... 37
Figure 28: Aerial photos showing minimal disturbance in northern portion of M2 Site ...... 41
Figure 29: Sandstone outcrop in northern portion of M2 Site ...... 42
Figure 30: Creek at northern end of M2 Site ...... 42
Figure 31: Houses along Epping Road, RMS Site, facing north ...... 43
Figure 32: Less disturbed area north-east of houses on RMS Site, facing south ...... 43
Figure 33: RMS Site aerial photograph comparison ...... 44
Figure 34: Station Site North, from south-east corner ...... 45
Figure 35: The Station Site North in 1943 (top) and 2011 (bottom) showing disturbance to the site ...... 45
Figure 36: Station Site South - disused car parking area with highly disturbed central area beyond ...... 46
Figure 37: Artificial slope parallel to entrance driveway OSL Site, facing north ...... 47
Tables
Table 1: Fulfilment of Study Requirements ...... 2
Table 2: Ownership details from the Old Title Register (Lands Department) ...... 13
Table 3: Registered Aboriginal Stakeholders...... 33
Table 4: Frequency of site types within the AHIMS search area ...... 38
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment v ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Background
This report constitutes an assessment of Aboriginal heritage and non-Indigenous archaeology in support of a Rezoning Study in respect of the North Ryde Station Precinct Project (NRSPP). The proposed rezoning seeks to establish a site specific planning regime for the North Ryde Station Precinct, including land use zones, building height, floor space ratio (FSR) and maximum car parking rates to facilitate the ultimate redevelopment of the precinct for a mixed use, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).
The aim of this study is to evaluate the potential for intact Aboriginal and non-Indigenous archaeological evidence within the study area, assess the impacts of the proposed development on areas of archaeological potential, outline opportunities and constraints on the proposed development regarding Aboriginal and non-Indigenous archaeological heritage, and recommend if further action is required to fulfil statutory heritage obligations.
This study does not assess built heritage or discuss issues such as impacts on the views and context of heritage items. A report discussing these issues has been prepared by Urbis and submitted with the Rezoning Study under a separate cover.
1.2 Approvals Process
On 17 October 2012 the NSW Government endorsed the North Ryde Station Precinct as an Urban Activation Precinct. Prior to this on 2 March 2011, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure formed the opinion that that the North Ryde Station Precinct was of State planning significance under State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (MD SEPP) and Study Requirements for a State Significant Site Study were issued on 9 November 2011 (Table 1). The Study Requirements are still relevant to the assessment of the rezoning of the site as an Urban Activation Precinct and have been used to inform the preparation of this Study.
The Rezoning Study has been informed by a variety of specialist studies including this Aboriginal and non- Indigenous archaeological assessment. The Rezoning Study seeks to establish a site specific planning regime for the North Ryde Station Precinct, including land use zones, building heights, FSR and parking provision.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 1 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Table 1: Fulfilment of Study Requirements
Director-General’s Requirements Where addressed within this report
Identify and assess the impacts of the proposal on the heritage significance of the Section 4.0 area in accordance with Assessing Heritage Significance (NSW Heritage Office
2001).
Identify and assess the impacts of the proposal on Aboriginal cultural heritage Section 5.0 values and significance in accordance with relevant guidelines. .
1.3 The Study Area
The subject lands, referred to as the North Ryde Station Precinct (NRSP) are located within the Macquarie Park Corridor (MPC), a predominantly commercial area that lies between the M2 Motorway and Epping Road, North Ryde (Figure 1).
The Precinct is situated within the City of Ryde (Council) Local Government Area (LGA), at the southern end of the MPC. The North Ryde Station Precinct comprises a total land area of 13.99 ha and is adjacent to the M2 Motorway, Epping Road and Delhi Road. The Precinct comprises four separate but linked parcels of land known as:
M2 Site (owned by TfNSW) Station Site North (owned by TfNSW) Station Site South (owned by Goodman International Funds Management Limited) OSL Site (owned by OSL) Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Site (owned by RMS)
M2 Site
The M2 Site is bound to the east by the M2 Motorway, to the south west by Epping Road, to the south by Delhi Road and to the north by Wicks Road.
Office of Strategic Lands (OSL) Site
The OSL owned land is located on the western side of Epping Road, opposite the Delhi Road/Epping Road intersection. The site has an area of approximately 14,800sqm and is currently leased to a private operator for recreational purposes (tennis courts). Blenheim Park adjoins the site to the south, while low density residential development to the west and north.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 2 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 1: The study area (Source: TfNSW 2012)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 3 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
RMS Site
The RMS owns four blocks of land situated between Epping Road, Delhi Road and the M2 Motorway. The lands adjoin the Bundara Reserve, which is owned by Council. The RMS owned lands surround one privately owned parcel of land, which is not included in this application.
Station Site North
Station Site North is owned by TfNSW and is situated with frontage to Delhi Road. The site is bound by the M2 Motorway to the west, and privately owned land to the south. The site has a total area of approximately 12,000sqm and is located adjacent to North Ryde Station and its service buildings. The land falls away from Delhi Road to the south.
Station Site South
The southern portion of the Station Site is bounded by the M2 motorway on the west and south, and commercial/industrial land uses on the east. It is currently owned by Goodman International Funds Management Limited (GIFML) but is vacant. A large building that existed in the centre of the site has been demolished, leaving a stepped profile where the building had been cut into the slope. The asphalt roads and car parking that surrounded this building are still present and in good condition, while an abandoned single-storey brick structure remains on the sites eastern boundary. Ornamental grass and garden areas also remain in the south of the site.
1.4 The Proposed Development
The proposal has been based on the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD) locating residential development and employment opportunities close to public transport infrastructure. Proposed zones have been identified for the site to provide for the following land uses:
The high density residential zone (R4) across the majority of the M2 site and the medium density residential zone (R3) on the OSL and RMS sites providing for a diversity of housing types in close proximity to North Ryde Station. The mixed use zone (B4) for the Station South and North sites and a portion of the M2 site providing for retail and commercial/employment on the M2 site and convenience retail and complementary commercial development in proximity to North Ryde Station. The public recreation zone (RE1) throughout the precinct to provide a series of public open space areas, buffer zones and green links. The RE1 zone will also allow for Community facilities, including a potential community centre with associated recreation space on the M2 site
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 4 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
1.5 Development Control Plan
A Development Control Plan (DCP) identifying development standards, public domain and road and infrastructure layout has been prepared to guide the future development of lands within the North Ryde Station Precinct.
Key elements of the DCP include:
Provision of a spine road through the M2 Site from Epping Road to Wicks Road to provide the main vehicular connection through the M2 site. Development of a vehicular access point to the M2 Site from Epping Road and one on Wicks Road with connections onto Waterloo Road. A footpath and pedestrian bridge sited at the southern end of the M2 site connecting the site with the Station. Significant pedestrian and cycleway upgrades and new links to improve connectivity to North Ryde Station and the MPC. A fixed quantum of private vehicle, public and other forms of parking to promote public transport utilisation and reduced car dependency. Sustainability initiatives including the use of native plants grown with locally sourced seed, Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) measures and rehabilitation of the riparian zones on the northern portion of the M2 Site to create a natural open space area with drainage area. Best practice Urban Design to create usable spaces, enhanced amenity and activation of the Precinct in accordance with TOD principles.
1.6 Report Authorship
Dr Sandra Wallace and Adele Anderson wrote this report. The assistance of Erin Saunders from Urbis and Anna Bradley from TfNSW is acknowledged in supplying relevant plans and other information.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 5 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
2.0 Environmental Context
An understanding of the environmental context of the study area assists in assessing the potential nature of Aboriginal archaeological sites and possible land use strategies of Aboriginal people. It also provides context for the investigation of the historical development of the study area after colonisation.
2.1 Geomorphology
The study area is primarily underlain by Ashfield shale, which forms part of the Wianamatta Group, consisting of black to dark grey shale and laminate. The northern half of the M2 Site consists of Hawkesbury sandstone, with medium to coarse-grained quartz sandstone, very minor shale and laminate lenses (Herbert 1983).
2.2 Vegetation
The study area would originally have been vegetated Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland, Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, and Western Sandstone Gully Forest, as indicated by some remnant stands of trees. Tree species would have included Smooth-barked Apple (Angophora costata), Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus haemastoma), Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera), Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), Grey Ironbark (Eucalyptus acmenoides), and Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis). The understory would have primarily consisted of shrubs such as Banksia and grass and fern species.
2.3 Hydrology – Lane Cove River
The Ryde area is bounded by Parramatta River to the south, and Lane Cove River to the east and north. Lane Cove River is located approximately one kilometre east of the study area. The Lane Cove River is a major waterway that extends from Normanhurst in northern Sydney to its confluence with the Parramatta River six kilometres downstream of the study area near Woolwich.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 6 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
3.0 Survey Methodology
3.1 Background
The initial site survey was undertaken by Dr Sandra Wallace and Adele Anderson (Artefact Heritage) on 3 February 2012. Representatives from the three Aboriginal stakeholder groups accompanied the archaeologists. An additional site survey was undertaken on by archaeologists from Artefact on 26 March 2012 to view areas made inaccessible by the swollen creek during the first visit. The Aboriginal groups were invited to this additional survey attend but were not available.
The surveys were necessary to ground truth the desktop assessment and to assess the potential for intact Aboriginal or non-Indigenous archaeological sites surviving within the study area.
3.2 Field Methods
Each of the land parcels within the study area was surveyed on foot. All ground exposures were examined for stone artefacts, shell, or other traces of Aboriginal occupation. Although there were few mature trees, all large trees that were accessible were checked for cultural scarring or marking that may have been the work of Aboriginal people. Levels of disturbance across the survey area were carefully noted. The study area was also examined for any areas of non-Indigenous archaeological potential during this survey.
A photographic record was kept for the study area. Photos were taken to represent different landform units, vegetation communities, objects of interest and levels of disturbance.
The results of the survey are outlined in Section 4.0 (the Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment), and Section 5.0 (the Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment).
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 7 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
4.0 Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
4.1 Background
The aim of the non-Indigenous archaeological assessment is to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits to remain within the study area. The assessment is based on historical research which will identify the history of the study area in relation to buildings that have been located on the land, and other activities that may have left a trace in the archaeological record. The assessment of non- Indigenous heritage is also based on the disturbance levels at the site. If significant subsurface impacts have occurred within the area, archaeological evidence may have been destroyed.
4.2 Heritage Listings
Statutory registers provide legal protection for heritage items. In NSW, the Heritage Act 1977 (the Heritage Act), and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) give legal protection. The State Heritage Register (SHR), the s170 registers, and heritage schedules of Local Environment Plans (LEPs) are statutory listings. Places on the National Heritage List are protected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
National Heritage List
The National Heritage List has been established to list places of outstanding heritage significance to Australia. It includes natural, historic and Indigenous places that are of outstanding national heritage value to the Australian nation.
There are no items or archaeological areas within the study area listed on the National Heritage List.
The State Heritage Register
The SHR is a list of places and objects of particular importance to the people of NSW and is administered by the Heritage Branch of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) under the Heritage Act. The register lists a diverse range of over 1,500 items, in both private and public ownership. To be listed, an item must be deemed to be of heritage significance for the whole of NSW.
There are no items or archaeological areas within the study area listed on the SHR.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 8 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Section 170 Registers
Section 170 of the Heritage Act requires government agencies to keep a Register of heritage items. A s170 Register is a record of the heritage assets owned or managed by a NSW government agency. Relevant s170 registers were checked (Sydney Water, RMS, Railcorp).
There are no items or archaeological areas within the study area listed on the s170 registers.
Ryde DLEP (2011) and Ryde LEP (2010)
There are no items within the study area listed on the Ryde Draft LEP or the Ryde LEP.
Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance
The M2 Site, the OSL Site, the Station Site North and the Station Site South are deferred from the LEP and DLEP and are covered under the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance (Ryde PSO). There are no heritage listings within the study area in relation to the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.
Implications of Legislation and Heritage Listings
The implications of the legislation for the study area are that under the Heritage Act any item listed on the statutory registers is protected from direct harm, or harm to its heritage significance. This applies to archaeological deposits and relics that are not listed but may be presently buried. This is also reflected in the Ryde LEP, the Ryde DLEP and the Ryde PSO. As the current project is being assessed as a SSS, approvals would not be required to impact on heritage items, including non-Indigenous archaeological deposits.
4.3 History of the Study Area
This history of the study area has been compiled from various primary and secondary sources. Historical maps and plans were viewed at the Mitchell Library, while parish maps and land title information were obtained from the Land and Property Information Division. Secondary sources, such as histories of the Ryde and North Ryde areas, and previous heritage reports relating to the study area were consulted.
4.3.1 Aboriginal Occupation
The Ryde area was originally known as Wallumetta, and was home to the Wullumetta or Wallumedegal people (Attenbrow 2010:26, Smith 2005). The Wallumedegal were Darug language speakers.
Aboriginal people were quickly disenfranchised from their traditional territories as colonists appropriated land and resources. The smallpox epidemics of 1789 killed a large portion of Aboriginal people of the Sydney region, even
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 9 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
those who had not yet come into contact with Europeans. A detailed discussion of the Aboriginal occupation of the Ryde area will be conducted in the Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment section below.
4.3.2 Early Settlement
European colonisation of the Ryde area began in 1792, when eight Marines were granted land with a frontage on Parramatta River. This area was called the Field of Mars, and by 1796 had extended to include much of North Ryde (then known as the Northern Bush). A large area of land along the Lane Cove River remained vacant and was set aside for the common use of all residents. Called the Field of Mars Common, this land was used by settlers to graze their animals and encompassed the study area (Redding 1986:7-8).
Figure 2: Parish map of Hunters Hill, detail showing the Field of Mars Common. Date Unknown (Source: Lands Department)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 10 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
The study area was initially part of the Field of Mars Commons, which was formally set aside for the use of all residents in 1804 (Figure 2). An 1849 survey found that the Commons covered 6235 acres, and it was roughly one mile wide and extended from Boronia Park to North Epping and Pennant Hills and included a substantial amount of North Ryde (Redding 1986:8).
In 1874, under “The Field of Mars Common Resumption Act”, a portion of the Common was surveyed and a plan made with roads, reserves and allotments marked (Land Titles Office [LTO] Old System Records Vol. 1342 Fol. 202). The gradual subdivision and sale of the Field of Commons began in 1885 and continued until 1900 (Figure 3). In September 1889 all of the parcels of land within the study area were put up for public auction in Sydney. Some of the lots sold immediately, while others were purchased later in 1898. It can be safely assumed that no major structures were located within the study area prior to this time.
The alignment of roads running through the study area has changed relatively little since 1898. The current M2 Motorway follows the route of Pittwater Road, while Cabul and Lucknow Roads were simply renamed Wicks Road and Epping Road respectively. The only major changes were the extension of Delhi Road to meet Lucknow/Epping Road prior to 1928, and the shortening of Waterloo Road, which had originally continued through the M2 Site to meet Pittwater Road (Figure 4).
Figure 3: 1898 map of the study area1
1 Detail from ‘Field of Mars, Auction Sale, Crown Lands’ 1898 (Source: NLA Digital Collection, MAP Folder 56, LFSP 821)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 11 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 4: 1928 parish map of Hunters Hill showing Delhi Rd extension
4.3.3 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
Few details regarding the use and occupation of the land in the ensuing years could be found, however the listed occupations of the land owners suggest that it was mainly used for orchards and poultry farming (see Table 2). It is difficult to ascertain whether major structures were present in the study area at this time. However, most of the landholders did not own other land in the local area and therefore it seems likely that they lived on these properties and ran them as small family farms. In this case it can be assumed that houses, outbuildings, and infrastructure associated with agricultural pursuits were present in the study area at this time. It is known that William Hudlow and his wife, Clara, were living in a residence on Lucknow Road (Portion 472) when he died in 1919 (The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) 6/6/1919). However, small farms like these are usually under-represented in the historical record and little documentation is available to provide further details.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 12 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Table 2: Ownership details from the Old Title Register (Lands Department)
Site name Portion Number Timeline of ownership Relevant LTO Old on 1898 plan System Records
M2 Site 473 1898 – John Benson (orchardist) Vol. 1515, Fol. 77 1946 – A. W. Poole and C. E. Poole Vo. 5610, Fol. 196 478 1898 – Edwin Paul Benson (orchardist) Vol. 1515, Fol. 75
472 1898 – William Oliver Hudson (poultry farmer) Vol. 1361, Fol. 121 1940 (7 Nov) – Harry Percy Hudson and David Frew (poultry farmer) 1940 (20 Nov) – Samuel Robert McConnell 470 1898 – J. C. F. S. Small (orchardist) Vol. 1281, Fol. 108 1900 – Thomas Scriven (grazier) 1911 – Jane E. Scriven 1915 – Charles Aquila Hudson (poultry farmer) 1944 – Robert Henry Campbell (Grower) 1946 – The Crown (for school site) RMS Site 468 1898 – David Frew (orchardist) Vol. 1450, Fol. 146 1922 – Robert Frew and David Frew (poultry farmer) 1923 – John Arthur Wollaston (retired Mariner) 1958 – Rita Horner (Lot 2 DP 27851) - Arthur John Percival (Lot 11 DP 27851) - R. B. E. Hill & I. G. White (Lot 4 DP 27851) - Lanatese [?] Weaving Mill Pty Ltd (Lots 1,3,4,5 DP 27851 & Lots A,C,D,E DP 28507) Station Site 370 & 375 1896 – Mary Rennie Vol. 1342, Fol. 202 (North and 1926 – Joseph Rennie (part) Vol. 4021, Fol. 133 South) 1930 – A. C. Rennie (orchardist)(under lease) Vol. 5173, Fol. 247 1940 – A. C Rennie (part) 1946 – Joseph Rennie (part), A. C. Rennie (part) 1949 – William Montgomery (part) 1952 – J. H. Sadler & R. Borowick (part) OSL Site n/a 1804 – granted to Michael Connor Parish maps Hunters 1926 – Ada Bourne and Mary Gibb Hill By 1958 – acquired by Director of War Service Houses Sydney Morning Herald Nov 1926:16 Lands Department, Plan Lodgement Book for DP 28914.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 13 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
4.3.4 After World War One
Although most of the properties within the study area changed hands several times during the first half of the 20th century, the land owners were still predominately orchardists or poultry farmers.
Photographs taken of the junctions of Delhi, Pittwater, and Lucknow Roads in 1938 show that at least some parts of the area were still heavily vegetated at this time (Figure 5-7).
A 1943 aerial photograph (Figures 8-11) shows thick vegetation in the northern corner of the M2 Site (Wicks Park) and the northern portion of the RMS Site (Bundara Reserve). The western side of Lucknow/Epping Road, including the OSL Site, was still uncleared bush at this time. The remainder of the M2 Site was cleared and divided into small paddocks. Crop lines or plough furrows can be seen in some areas of the site, however, no signs of significant cultivation are present. Four houses and several small outbuildings are visible, as well as a very small square structure in the same location as a cistern that was uncovered during earthworks at the site. It is likely that this structure is the cover or lid of the cistern. It is possible that the cistern pre-dates 1943, however, its date is impossible to determine without further documentary evidence or physical inspection.
The same photograph shows a house and outbuildings at the southern end of the RMS Site, outside the study area. In the north-west corner of the Station Site North are a house and outbuildings, while an extensive complex of buildings is clustered along the edge of Delhi Road. A house is located in the south-east corner south of the Station Site North, and two small outbuildings are situated close to the centre of the site. The remainder of the Station Site North is divided into paddocks which are all under crops.
Figure 5: Junction of Delhi & Lucknow Roads looking east, 19382
2 State Library of NSW, Government Printing Office 1 – 27227
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 14 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 6: Junction of Pittwater Road & Lucknow Road looking east, 19383
Figure 7: Looking south-east along Pittwater Road at Lucknow Road junction, 19384
3 State Library of NSW, Government Printing Office 1 – 27229 4 State Library of NSW, Government Printing Office 1 – 27234
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 15 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 8: The study area, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
Figure 9: Detail of structures on M2 Site, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 16 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 10: Detail of structures on RMS Site and NW corner of Station Site North, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
Figure 11: Detail of the Station Site, 1943 (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 17 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
In the mid-20th century, development in North Ryde began to increase. During World War Two, the area of land bounded by Wicks, Epping, Blenheim and Coxs Roads was used as a heavy vehicle park and transport workshop by the army. Living quarters and parade grounds were built on the eastern side of Blenheim Road. Following the war, the defence site was subdivided for war service housing, and the NSW Housing Commission resumed a large amount of land in the area and subdivided it for housing. However, relatively little subdivision has occurred within the study area (Farlow 2008).
In 1958, the RMS Site was subdivided into 13 lots, eight of which were purchased by Lanatese Weaving Mill Pty Ltd (LTO Old System Record Vol. 1450 Fol. 146). It is not known whether a mill operated on the site, but this seems unlikely given the proximity of the other, residential, lots and the size and shape of the block.
Since the 1960s, the OSL Site has been developed into a tennis centre, and the buildings located on the M2 Site, the RMS Site, and the Station Site North and Station Site South were demolished during the 1940s. Four houses have been constructed on the western half of the RMS Site, while commercial/industrial buildings, roads and parking spaces have been constructed on the Station Site North.
4.3.5 Summary
The study area was used for small-scale farming throughout most of its post-contact history. It is likely that various houses and outbuildings were present from the late 19th century until the 1950s, however, none of these have survived intact to the present. Little subdivision has occurred in the study area since 1898, however since the late 1950s it has gradually developed into a light industrial/commercial area.
4.4 Survey Results and Assessment of Archaeological Potential
Any areas of archaeological potential within the study area are most likely to relate to houses, outbuildings, and agricultural practices. Archaeological evidence may include building footings, structural material, domestic artefact scatters or under-floor deposits, privies, wells and cisterns, and the remains of infrastructure such as water pipes. Such remains would have the potential to yield information relating to major historic themes, including Agriculture, Accommodation, and Domestic Life.
While most parts of the study area have been subject to disturbance, the nature and degree of disturbance varies across the different sites. The following section will assess the levels of disturbance and potential for intact non- Indigenous archaeological deposits at each of the four land parcels.
4.4.1 M2 Site
The construction of the M2 Motorway severely impacted the eastern side of the M2 Site, while earthworks across the remainder of the site have also had a significant impact (see Figure 12). It is therefore likely that most archaeological remains on the site have been disturbed or destroyed. The only portion of the site that is relatively
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 18 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
undisturbed is the vegetated area to the north, however there is no documentary evidence to suggest that former structures existed in this location. No evidence for non-Indigenous archaeological remains was identified in this area during the site survey, though it should be noted that the area is thickly vegetated and this meant that much of it was inaccessible and visibility was poor (Figure 13).
Figure 12: Aerial photographs showing changes to the M2 Site since 19945
5 1994 photograph from the Land and Property Information Division; 2011 photograph from www.nearmap.com.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 19 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 13: Vegetation at northern end of M2 Site
In 2002, a brick domed well or cistern, approximately 2.5 m in diameter was uncovered during earthworks for the construction of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link (ECRL) at the M2 Site (Figures 14-16). No direct historical reference has been found to the cistern, although examination of the 1943 aerial photographs shows an item in approximately the same location (Figures 14 and 15).
HLA Envirosciences (2002) assessed the heritage significance of the cistern and determined that it was probably associated with the small farms that existed in the area from as early as the 1880s. The cistern is built of wet- struck handmade bricks possibly dating to c. 1900. When HLA Envirosciences inspected the cistern, they noted that the domed top had collapsed inwards and that it had clearly been filled prior to the collapse, as the fallen bricks were resting on fill. The archaeological potential of the cistern lies in its possible contents. If these contents include discarded material known to be from an associated house, then they could yield significant information to artefact analysis. However, it is also possible that the cistern was filled with demolition rubble or material from an unknown source and would therefore have limited research potential. The nature and condition of the cistern’s contents cannot be assessed without further archaeological investigation (HLA Envirosciences 2002:3).
HLA Envirosciences concluded that the cistern had moderate research significance and recommended that it should be filled with clean sand to stabilise it, and covered with shade cloth and steel mesh to allow the creation of the proposed spoil stockpile without harm to the item (HLA Envirosciences 2002:7). This has since been done, and the cistern is currently located beneath a large stockpile and could not be examined during the current survey.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 20 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
HLA Envirosciences (2002:3) did not identify any evidence for associated archaeological remains around the cistern, and speculated that the remains of any buildings had been removed earlier, probably during the construction of the M2.
Figure 14: Left: Centre of M2 Site – contemporary satellite photo; Right: 1943 aerial photo showing unidentified structure (Six Viewer)
Figure 15: Overlay of contemporary and 1943 aerials showing location of identified structure (Six Viewer)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 21 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 16: Cistern location as shown on M2 worksite environmental plan (courtesy of TfNSW).
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 22 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Significance assessment for the well/cistern
The Heritage Branch recommends that the significance of potential archaeological sites should be assessed using the NSW Heritage Council Criteria listed in the table below.
Criteria Description A – Historical Significance An item is important in the course or pattern of the local area’s cultural or natural history. B – Associative Significance An item has strong or special associations with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in the local area’s cultural or natural history. C – Aesthetic Significance An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area. D – Social Significance An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. E – Research Potential An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the local area’s cultural or natural history. F – Rarity An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the local area’s cultural or natural history. G – Representative An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSWs (or the local area’s): cultural or natural places; or
cultural or natural environments.
The following assessment of the heritage significance of the well/cistern within the M2 Site has been prepared in accordance with the ‘Assessing Heritage Significance’ (NSW Heritage Branch 2001) and ‘Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics’ (NSW Heritage Branch 2009) guidelines, based on the NSW Heritage Significance Criteria.
The cistern is not likely to be of significance according to Criteria A-D or F-G, however it is of moderate research potential as it may yield information to archaeological investigation.
The cistern could potentially provide information related to the history of agriculture and domestic life within the study area during the 20th century. Archaeological deposits contained within the cistern may be able to answer research questions based on some of the NSW historical themes. The themes that might be relevant to the site include:
Developing local, regional and national economies - Agriculture (irrigation practices) - Technology (techniques and materials used to build the well) Developing Australia’s cultural life
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 23 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
- Domestic life (potential domestic refuse deposits could answer research questions about daily life in the local area during the 20th century)
The amount of information that may be provided by the site, and its usefulness, cannot be accurately assessed without archaeological investigation.
Impact Assessment for the well/cistern
The cistern is located in an area that would be developed as part of the proposal. Based on the potential building footprints illustrated in the DCP it appears that it is likely the cistern will be situated within the footprint of a proposed building and may be subject to significant impacts during the ultimate development of the site.
4.4.2 RMS Site
Four houses were constructed along the Epping Road street frontage after the 1940s, and it is unlikely that any archaeological remains are present in the area occupied by these houses and their surrounding yards. The portion of the site to the north-east of the houses has remained largely undisturbed (Figure 18). However, no structures were present in this area in 1943, at which time the land was clear of trees (Figure 17). It is unlikely that intact non-Indigenous archaeological deposits are present in this area.
Figure 17: 1943 aerial photograph of RMS Site and surrounding land (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 24 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
A house and associated outbuildings are visible to the south and east of the current study area in the 1943 aerial photograph. It is highly unlikely that any archaeological deposits associated with the house are present within the study area, due to the disturbance caused by the construction of the present house, outbuildings, and backyard at 21 Epping Road.
If any remains do exist within or near the RMS Site, they are unlikely to have high heritage significance.
Figure 18: Aerial photographs showing changes to RMS site since 19946
4.4.3 Station Site North
Within the Station Site North, North Ryde Railway Station, a number of commercial buildings and the temporary site office of Leighton Contractors have been constructed on the site over recent years. The remainder is covered with a paved car park (Figures 20 and 21).
It is possible that some remnants of the structures visible in the 1943 aerial photograph (Figure 19) may remain beneath the paved areas and buildings along the northern boundary of the site, although this ultimately depends on impacts that would have occurred during the construction of the car park, train station and buildings. It is likely that the construction of the underground railway line and station would have caused major disturbance in the area of the former buildings. If any remains do survive, it is unlikely that they would be intact or have high heritage significance.
6 1994 photograph from the Land and Property Information Division; 2011 photograph from www.nearmap.com.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 25 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 19: 1943 aerial photograph Station Site North (Source: http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/)
Figure 20: Current aerial photograph of Station Site North. North to top of page. (Source: www.nearmap.com)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 26 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 21: The Station Site North from its south-east corner
4.4.4 Station Site South
The Station Site South consists of a central area partly vegetated with immature trees, surrounded by disused bitumen roads and a disused car parking area to the south-east. Along the eastern boundary of the site is a c. 1960s building, parts of which are now derelict (Figure 23).
Two small structures (probably sheds) were visible in the middle of the site in the 1943 aerial photograph. The construction and demolition of the Global Television Studios building in 1965 would have destroyed any remains of these structures (Figure 23). The studios covered most of the central area of the site and all of the central vegetated area now displays clear signs of landscape modification, including a large round pit and the presence of introduced fill (Figures 24 and 25).
Figure 22: The Station Site South at present (Source: www.nearmap.com)
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 27 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 23: Former Global Television Studios building in 2007 (Source: GoogleEarth)
The studios were demolished in 2009, but the surrounding bitumen roads are still present, along with the 1960s building to the east. The southeast corner of the site, where a house was located in 1943, has been paved but not subjected to further construction. It is possible that archaeological evidence associated with this house has been preserved beneath the pavement, although it is unlikely to have high heritage significance.
Figure 24: Excavated pit on northern edge of vegetated area, facing south-west
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 28 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 25: Introduced fill in central area of Station South Site site, facing east
4.4.5 OSL Site
Aerial photographs suggest that no development occurred on the OSL Site prior to 1943, when the area was still covered in thick vegetation (Figure 8). It is likely that the present tennis complex was the first significant structure to be built on the site.
The construction of the tennis courts involved major landscape modification, with a large amount of soil removed to create a level area for the courts (Figure 26). It is highly unlikely that non-Indigenous archaeological remains are present within the study area.
Figure 26: Westernmost tennis court cut into the ground, facing north-east
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 29 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
4.5 Summary
Overall the study area has low non-Indigenous archaeological potential due to the high levels of disturbance that have occurred across most of the area. It is possible that minor archaeological remains could survive beneath areas that are currently paved, provided that little subsurface disturbance has occurred, however, any such remains are likely to be of low heritage significance.
At least one known archaeological feature, a well or cistern probably dating to c. 1900, is present on the M2 Site. The well is currently protected from harm, but covered by a large spoil stockpile.
4.6 Mitigation Measures
Although the proposed rezoning would not impact the heritage item on the M2 site, it is expected that future works would involve impacts to the cistern and would require its removal. Any impacts to the cistern would require archaeological monitoring and, depending on the significance of the cistern’s contents, text excavation may also be necessary. Provisions for this work, including the preparation of a research design and nomination of a suitably qualified archaeologist as Excavation Director would be prepared prior to commencement of works.
If any unanticipated archaeological deposits or relics are found within the study area during construction, work should cease immediately and the NSW Heritage Council should be notified and a suitably qualified archaeologist engaged to assess the significance of the find. Further archaeological work may be required prior to impacts to relics.
The location of the cistern should be marked on maps within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The processes to be undertaken if unexpected finds are located should also be outlined in the CEMP.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 30 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.0 Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment
5.1 Background
The aim of this Aboriginal archaeological assessment is to assess the potential for Aboriginal sites to exist within the study area, whether on the surface or within buried archaeological deposits.
5.2 Legislative Context
Two principal items of legislation provide automatic statutory protection for Aboriginal heritage and the requirements for its management in New South Wales. These are the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as amended (2010) (NPW Act) and the EP&A Act.
National Parks & Wildlife Act (1974)
The NPW Act provides statutory protection for all Aboriginal ‘objects’ (consisting of any material evidence of the Aboriginal occupation of NSW) under Section 90 of the NPW Act, and for ‘Aboriginal Places’ (areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community) under Section 84. Aboriginal objects are afforded automatic statutory protection in NSW whereby it is an offence to:
damage, deface or destroy Aboriginal sites without the prior consent of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (now the OEH).
The NPW Act defines an Aboriginal ‘object’ as:
any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal European extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains’.
The NPW Act was recently amended (2010) with the legislative structure for seeking permission to impact on heritage items modified. The penalties and fines for damaging or defacing an Aboriginal object have also increased.
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (1979)
In contrast with the NPW Act, the EP&A Act is designed more specifically to cater for heritage issues within the context of new development projects and is closely linked with the process of preparing environmental impact studies. This act has three main parts of direct relevance to Aboriginal cultural heritage. Namely, Part III which governs the preparation of planning instruments, Part IV which relates to the assessment process for development which requires consent and Part V which relates to activity approvals by governing (determining) authorities.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 31 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
In 2005, the EP&A Act was amended with the introduction of section Part 3A. This section ‘switches off’ Part 6 of the NPW Act which specifies penalties for destruction of Aboriginal heritage. NPW Act s90 AHIPs are therefore not required to impact on Aboriginal heritage under Part 3A development applications as the penalties for doing so are nullified. Part 3A had since been repealed and this project is being assessed under the MD SEPP 2005 as an SSS. As with the provisions for Part 3A, permits are not required for SSS projects in order to impact Aboriginal heritage.
5.3 Aboriginal Consultation
Aboriginal consultation was undertaken in accordance with Section 80C of the amended NPW Act. Best practice methodology was undertaken in regard to Aboriginal consultation. Although an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) will not be required for the site, the most comprehensive level of consultation was undertaken in order to provide the best possible opportunity for the Aboriginal community to discuss cultural heritage values for the study area.
The formal consultation process so far has included:
An advertisement published in local media seeking expressions of interest from Indigenous stakeholders (Northern District Times). Letters to agencies seeking information of knowledge holders.
- OEH - Sydney Catchment Management Authority - Office of the Registrar – Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 - Native Title Services Corporation (NTSCORP) - National Native Title Services - City of Ryde Council - Aboriginal Heritage Office
Compilation of a registered stakeholder list (Table 3). Continuing consultation with the local Aboriginal community.
In accordance with the OEH Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 TfNSW advertised for Aboriginal stakeholders to be involved in the assessment and contacted agencies for referrals to groups who may have an interest. One Aboriginal group responded after being notified about the project from NTSCORP (Darug Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments -DACHA). The Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) and Yarrawalk were contacted on advice from OEH. A registered stakeholder list of those groups who indicated an interest in the study area was compiled by Artefact.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 32 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Table 3: Registered Aboriginal Stakeholders.
Registered stakeholder group Representative
DACHA Gordon Morton
Yarrawalk Scott Franks
MLALC Paul Morris
Representatives from the three registered stakeholder groups attended the site visit and survey. All participants were of the opinion that there was a low potential for Aboriginal sites within the four parcels of land. No areas of cultural significance were identified by the Aboriginal representatives.
A copy of this draft report has been submitted to the registered Aboriginal groups for their comments. A response was received from DACHA on 20 September 2012, which supported the results and findings of the assessment. No further comments were received during the consultation period.
5.4 Aboriginal Material Culture and Site Types
Aboriginal people have lived in New South Wales for more than 50,000 years. Evidence of Aboriginal occupation has been found dated to 40-60,000 years before present (yBP) at Lake Mungo in south western NSW and basal dates of over 14,000 years have been recorded within the Sydney basin (Nanson and Young 1987: JMcDCHM 2005a). The archaeological material record provides evidence of this long occupation, but also provides evidence of a dynamic culture that has changed through time.
The existing archaeological record is limited to certain materials and objects that were able to withstand degradation and decay. As a result, the most common type of Aboriginal objects remaining in the archaeological record are stone artefacts. Archaeological analyses of these artefacts in their contexts have provided the basis for the interpretation of change in material culture over time. Technologies used for making tools changed, along with preference of raw material. Different types of tools appeared at certain times, for example ground stone hatchets are first observed in the archaeological record around 4,000 yBP in New South Wales (Attenbrow 2010:102). It is argued that these changes in material culture were an indication of changes in social organisation and behaviour.
The Eastern Regional Sequence was first developed by McCarthy in 1948 to explain the typological differences he was seeing in stone tool technology in different stratigraphic levels during excavations such as Lapstone Creek near the foot of the Blue Mountains (McCarthy 1948). The sequence had three phases that corresponded to different technologies and tool types (the Capertian, Bondaian and Eloueran). The categories have been refined through the interpretation of further excavation data and radiocarbon dates (Hiscock & Attenbrow 2005, JMcDCHM 2005b). It is now thought that prior to 8,500 yBP tool technology remained fairly static with a preference for silicified tuff, quartz and some unheated silcrete. Bipolar flaking was rare with unifacial flaking predominant. No backed artefacts
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 33 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
have been found of this antiquity. After 8,500 yBP silcrete was more dominant as a raw material, and bifacial flaking became the most common technique for tool manufacture. From about 4,000 yBP to 1,000 yBP backed artefacts appear more frequently. Tool manufacture techniques become more complex and bipolar flaking increases (JMcD CHM 2006). It has been argued that from 1,400 to 1,000 years before contact there is evidence of a decline in tool manufacture. This reduction may be the result of decreased tool making, an increase in the use of organic materials, changes in the way tools were made, or changes in what types of tools were preferred (Attenbrow 2010:102). The reduction in evidence coincides with the reduction in frequency of backed blades as a percentage of the assemblage.
Material traces of the long Aboriginal occupation exist throughout the landscape and are known as Aboriginal sites. The primary site types that may be present in the study area are as follows.
Stone Artefacts – Flaked and ground stone artefacts are the most common trace of Aboriginal occupation in the Sydney region. Aboriginal people used particular techniques to flake stone and these changed over time. The approximate age of a tool can often be diagnosed by the way that it was made. Stone artefacts are most often found in scatters that may indicate an Aboriginal campsite was once present. Stone tools in the Sydney region are most often made from raw materials known as silcrete, tuff and quartz. These are all easily flaked and form sharp edges, which can be used for cutting or barbing spears. It is possible that stone artefacts, either on the surface, or buried, exist within the study area. Rock shelters with deposit – Rock shelters were used by Aboriginal people for habitation, rest places and as art or ceremonial sites. Deposits can build up on the floor of these shelters over time and bury traces of Aboriginal occupation. If these deposits are not disturbed, rock shelters can provide an intact stratigraphy that can tell us about the way Aboriginal occupation changed through time. Rock shelters may occur within northern part of the M2 Site, where a small creek passes through Hawkesbury sandstone. Shell middens – Shell middens are remains of campsites in which the primary traces are shell and/or bones of fish. Shell middens are often found close to rivers or streams and are either along banks or within enclosed shelters. It is unlikely that any major shell midden remains in the study area, although it is possible that remains of shellfish or fish could be found in an archaeological deposit. Rock engravings/Rock art – Rock engravings are often found in Hawkesbury geologies on flat sandstone platforms. Shapes of animals, ancestor figures or other symbols were carved into the sandstone. Weathering has affected the visibility of many rock engravings. Other rock art of various forms has also been recorded in New South Wales. Stencils, charcoal drawings and paintings are examples of the techniques used by Aboriginal people. Rock art is relatively rare, but is more common on sandstone geologies. It is possible that rock engravings or rock art could occur in the northern part of the M2 Site, which is characterised by Hawkesbury sandstone geology. Axe grinding grooves – Axe grinding grooves are created when axe blanks are shaped by rubbing the stone across an abrasive rock such as sandstone, often using water. Sharpening axes and other tools also
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 34 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
forms them. Axe grinding grooves are often found on the banks of streams or rock pools. It is possible that axe grinding grooves could occur near the creek in the northern part of the M2 Site. Scarred trees – Aboriginal people practiced tree marking or scarring for a variety of reasons. Large scars are often the result of a tree being debarked for a canoe blank and smaller scars may have been the result of making shields or coolamons (storage vessels). Tree marking may have been the result of ritual practices, or associated with burial. Scarred trees that remain today would be over 150 years old and the scar would retain certain characteristics that enable its identification as cultural. It is unlikely that scarred trees remain in the study area, as intensive logging would have removed most trees old enough to bear cultural scars. Contact sites – sites where evidence of early interaction between Aboriginal people and Europeans are known as contact sites. Artefacts found at contact sites may include flaked glass or ceramic. It is possible that a contact site was located within the study area. Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) – Areas are classified as PADs if there is a likelihood of archaeological material existing below the ground surface or on the ground surface, but obscured from view. An Aboriginal object does not need to be recorded for an area of PAD to be specified.
5.5 History of Aboriginal Occupation
Prior to the appropriation of their land by Europeans, Aboriginal people lived in small family or clan groups that were associated with particular territories or places. It seems that territorial boundaries were fairly fluid, although details are not known. The language group spoken on the Cumberland Plain is known as Darug (Dharruk – alternative spelling). This term was used for the first time in 1900 (Matthews & Everitt) as before the late 1800s language groups or dialects were not discussed in the literature (Attenbrow 2010:31). The Darug language group is thought to have extended from Appin in the south to the Hawkesbury River, west of the Georges River, Parramatta, the Lane Cove River and to Berowra Creek (Attenbrow 2010:34). This area was home to a number of different clan groups throughout the Cumberland Plain.
The study area is within the territory of the Wallumedegal (or Wallumattagal) clan. The exact boundaries of the territory are not known, and may have been fluid, but the Wallumedegal area is thought to have extended around Sydney Harbour from Lane Cove along the northern bank of the Parramatta River (Smith 2005: 1, Attenbrow 2010: 23).
European appropriation of Wallumedegal territory occurred very early in the colonization period. Boats were sent along the harbour up the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers within days of the arrival of the First Fleet. Numerous overland parties quickly arrived to explore the potential of land surrounding the harbour. Information about the way that Aboriginal people lived before white settlement can be gained from observations of these early parties of explorers.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 35 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Lieutenant William Bradley wrote on his observations of Aboriginal people during an expedition up the Lane Cove River in February 1788. He noted that Aborigines were plying the river in canoes, but it is not known what their activities were.
‘We did not meet with any Natives again ‘till this day, at day light saw several canoes in the Cove we were surveying; they all fled, some out of the Cove and others up to a Cove above’ (Bradley 1969: 74)’
The first reference to the people of the Ryde area was by Governor Philip on 13 February 1790. He wrote:
’The South side of the Harbour from the above-mentioned Cove [now Darling Harbour] to Rose-Hill, which the natives call Par-ra-matta , the district is called Wann, and the tribe, Wanngal. The opposite shore is called Wallumetta, and the tribe, Wallumedegal’ (Smith 2005:1 quoting Philip).
In May 1788 Surgeon George Worgan described the landscape of Wallumedegal country. He describes ‘ the trees are small and grow in almost regular rows so that together with the evenness of the land to a considerable extent it resembles a beautiful park’ (Worgan quoted in Smith 2005:11). Aboriginal people through selective use of fire had shaped the countryside described. This ‘fire stick farming’ was designed to modify the landscape to attract game, which was seen to be plentiful and to is said to have supported a pre-contact population of approximately 3000-5000 people in the Sydney region. The small pox epidemic of 1789 had a profound effect on the population of the Sydney region, and would have decimated groups in the Ryde area. From 1790 any Aboriginal people remaining in the Ryde area would have been further disenfranchised, as convicts were moved in to harvest the timber and lime resources of the area.
5.6 Registered Aboriginal Sites in the Local Area – AHIMS search
A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) was conducted on 15 July 2011. An additional AHIMS search was carried out on 27 June 2012. This search fulfils OEH guidelines which state that a search is not valid for due diligence purposes after 12 months. Both searches took in a 5 km radius of the study area (Zone 56, Easting from 325000 – 313000 Northing from 6257500 - 6262500). There were no Aboriginal archaeological sites registered within the study area. Fifty-eight registered Aboriginal sites were located within the search area (Figure 27). Site types include axe grinding grooves, rock shelters, rock art, areas of potential archaeological deposit and open artefact scatters (Table 4). The majority of the registered sites are rockshelters.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 36 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 27: Map of registered site in the vicinity of the study area (outlined in red). Base map – GoogleEarth.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 37 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Site AHIMS #45-6-1953 is registered as located three hundred metres from the southern border of the Station Site North. The site is listed as a rock shelter with midden deposit. During investigations for the M2 upgrade AECOM concluded that the co-ordinates of the site as listed on the AHIMS database are in error and that is it actually located several hundred metres to the south, and outside the upgrade corridor. It does not appear that this error has been corrected on the AHIMS database.
The location of Aboriginal sites is considered culturally sensitive information. It is advised that this information, including the AHIMS data map should be removed from this report if it is to enter the public domain.
Table 4: Frequency of site types within the AHIMS search area
Site Type Frequency Percentage
Rock shelter with deposit 11 57.9
Rock engraving 4 21.00
Midden 1 5.30
Open camp site 1 5.30
Shell 1 5.30
Habitation structure 1 5.30
5.7 Previous Archaeological Work
There have been a number of archaeological studies in the vicinity the local area, especially along the banks of the Lane Cove River, and in the Lane Cove National Park to the northeast of the study area.
During an archaeological survey along the route of the F2 [now M2]-Castlereagh Freeway in 1989 Laila Haglund located two rock shelters with deposit less than a kilometre to the southeast of the current study area. Both shelters (AHIMS #45-6-1855 and AHIMS #45-6-1854) contained middens with oyster and whelk shell recorded, while the later also had possible remnants of stencil art along the back wall.
In 1990 Conyers conducted a comprehensive survey of the Lane Cove River State Recreation Area (SRA), now known as Lane Cove National Park. Approximately one third of the SRA was surveyed during a twelve-day survey. Seven previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites were located - two engraving sites, two middens, and three rock shelters with deposit. Five potential habitation sites were also recorded along with three engraving sites which had previously been recorded.
In 1995 Wirrima Consulting conducted a survey for Aboriginal sites for the widening of Delhi Rd, Ryde by the RTA. A rock shelter with midden (AHIMS #45-6-2211), which was first recorded by Conyers, was relocated.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 38 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
In 1997 Tessa Corkhill conducted an excavation of rock shelter with potential archaeological deposit (CSIRO PAD1) at Riverside Corporate Park, approximately one kilometre to the east of the current study area. The PAD was first located in 1991 and it was recommended at that time that further investigation would be required if the site was to be affected by development. Ten test pits were excavated to bedrock at depths varying from 47 cm to 18 cm. Fourteen stone artefacts were recovered although the deposit was found to be relatively disturbed with evidence of European material throughout much of the profile.
In 2000 Bobbie Oakley completed a survey for a proposed sewerage upgrade within Lane Cove National Park. Two new Aboriginal sites were located in the southern portion of the National Park. Both new sites (LCRM1 and LCRM2) are shell midden scatters and associated areas of potential archaeological deposit (PAD). It was recommended that the sewer line should be redirected to avoid these sites, or if this was not possible that further archaeological work, such as a test excavation, should be conducted.
The route of the proposed M2 upgrade was investigated by AECOM in 2009/2010. The route was from Lane Cove Road in North Ryde, to Windsor Road at Baulkham Hills. Fifteen Aboriginal sites were found or previously recorded within the M2 corridor. The only site within the vicinity of the current North Ryde Station Precinct project study area was a rock shelter with deposit, site AHIMS #45-6-1953. After obtaining the original site card, AECOM concluded that the co-ordinates of the site as listed on AHIMS were in error and the site was actually located to the south of the M2 corridor.
In 2011 Artefact Heritage conducted a survey of an area along the northern edge of Stringybark Creek in Lane Cove West, approximately 1.3 km southeast of the current study area. A previously recorded rock shelter with a charcoal drawing of two fish was relocated. Although the shelter had been disturbed by construction of a sewer pipe, the art remained in good condition. No new Aboriginal sites were located during the study.
5.8 Predictive Models
Beth White and Jo McDonald have recently contributed to the debate over site prediction on the Cumberland Plain in their discussion on the nature of Aboriginal site distribution as interpreted through lithic analysis of excavated sites in the Rouse Hill Development Area (RHDA) (White and McDonald 2010). This analysis brings together data from 631 dispersed 1m x 1m test squares from 19 sample areas, which yielded 4,429 stone artefacts in total. The findings of this study generally support earlier models that predicted correlations between proximity to permanent water sources and site location, but also highlighted the relationship between topographical unit and Aboriginal occupation.
The major findings of the study were that artefact densities were most likely to be greatest on terraces and lower slopes within 100 m of water. The stream order model was used to differentiate between artefact densities associated with intermittent streams as opposed to permanent water. It was found that artefacts were most likely
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 39 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
within 50-100 m of higher (4th) order streams, within 50 m of second order streams, and that artefact distribution around first order streams was not significantly affected by distance from the watercourse (White and McDonald 2010: 33). Overall landscapes associated with higher order streams (2nd order or greater) were found to have higher artefact densities, higher maximum densities, and more continuous distribution than lower order intermittent streams. The analysis also concluded that while there were statistically viable correlations that demonstrated a relationship between stream order, land form unit and artefact distribution across the RHDA, the entire area should be recognised as a cultural landscape with varied levels of artefact distribution (White and McDonald 2010: 37). This predictive model can be transferred to other areas of the Cumberland Plain, especially those on shale soil geology, as landscape, soils and artefacts patterning are similar throughout the region.
The predictive model used in the current study comprises a series of statements about the nature and distribution of evidence of Aboriginal land use that is expected in the study area. These statements were based on the information gathered regarding:
Landscape context and landform units. Ethno-historical evidence of Aboriginal land use. Distribution of natural resources Results of previous archaeological work in the vicinity of the study area. Predictive modelling proposed in previous investigations.
Predictive statements were as follows:
The most likely site to occur within areas on sandstone geologies (northern section of the M2 Site) would be rock shelters with deposit or axe grinding grooves close to the creek on the northern edge of the M2 Site.
The most likely sites to occur within the rest of the study area would be artefact scatters or isolated artefacts. These would most likely occur within 100m of permanent water. In situ artefacts would be located in areas of least ground disturbance.
5.9 Survey Results and Assessment of Archaeological Potential
The potential for archaeological deposits remaining within the study area is strongly correlated to the levels of previous ground disturbance as well as factors such as landform unit and soil type. As stone artefacts are generally found within the top 20-30cm of the soil profile and rarely within clayey subsoil, any disturbance of the topsoil is likely to have destroyed or disturbed existing archaeological deposit. Much of the study area has been subject to historical landscape modifications (levelling, building, horticulture etc.), or to subsurface earth works (e.g. the M2 Site) which would have impacted on any surface or subsurface archaeological deposits. The following section will
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 40 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
assess the levels of disturbance and potential for intact archaeological deposit at each of the five land parcels within the study area.
Assessments of archaeological potential should also consider the predictive statements as to which site types are most likely, and whether the landform units associated with these site types are present. For example, the most common site type within the vicinity of the study area is rock shelters with deposit. These would only occur in landform units that contain suitable rock outcrops with aggrading deposits.
5.9.1 M2 Site
The majority of the M2 Site has been subject to various impacts, beginning with clearing and ploughing in the later 19th century. The construction of the M2 Motorway had a major impact on the eastern side of the site, while earthworks across the remainder of the site have also acted to strip away the top of the soil profile.
At the northern end of the site is an area of around five acres that is vegetated and appears to have been subject to low-moderate disturbance (see Figure 28). The eastern section of the northern end of the site, along the M2, appears to have the lowest levels of ground disturbance with the western section of the northern end of the M2 Site subject to clearing and agricultural activities, probably cultivation of orchards.
Figure 28: Aerial photos showing minimal disturbance in northern portion of M2 Site
It was observed that M2 Site was within a sandstone landscape with skeletal soils which are generally unlikely to contain buried archaeological deposits. Some sandstone platforms were located but the sandstone was relatively degraded and not ideal for engraving (Figure 29).
Porters Creek which runs across the northern end of the site was surveyed along its banks (Figure 30). At the entrance to the M2 Site, the creek passes through a large round culvert. The construction of the culvert has caused disturbance to the creek banks in this area. The creek banks are also highly eroded due to scouring caused
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 41 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
by flooding and storm water run-off. Sandstone outcrops and boulders along the creek were examined for axe grinding grooves, but none were noted.
Figure 29: Sandstone outcrop in northern portion of M2 Site
Overall the M2 Site was assessed as having a low-no archaeological potential. The majority of the site has been subject to high levels of ground disturbance and has no Aboriginal archaeological potential, while the northern section of the study area has a low-moderate disturbance level but is assessed as having a low archaeological potential due to its skeletal soils and lack of rock shelters.
The M2 Site, including the northern less disturbed section were also investigated during previous studies such as the environmental assessments prior to the construction of the M2 and the M2 upgrade. None of these studies identified the M2 site as having Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity.
Figure 30: Creek at northern end of M2 Site
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 42 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.9.2 RMS Site
It is unlikely that any Aboriginal archaeological remains are present in the area occupied by houses and their backyards at the RMS Site, due to disturbance through construction and landscaping (Figure 31).
Figure 31: Houses along Epping Road, RMS Site, facing north
To the north-east of the houses is a vegetated area that appears to have undergone little disturbance (Figure 32). The 1943 aerial photograph of the site (Figure 33) shows that part of this area had been cleared by this time; however there are no obvious crops or crop lines, as seen on neighbouring properties. It is possible that the soil profile in this area has not been significantly disturbed, and therefore it has some archaeological potential.
Figure 32: Less disturbed area north-east of houses on RMS Site, facing south
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 43 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 33: RMS Site aerial photograph comparison7
7 RMS Site outlined in pink, area of least disturbance outlined in blue broken line. Yellow broken line on middle photograph indicates the location of the M2 Motorway. 1943 and 1994 photographs from Land and Property Information Division; 2011 photograph from www.nearmap.com.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 44 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.9.3 Station Site North
The entirety of the Station Site North has been disturbed to varying degrees. From the 19th century until c. 1950, the site was impacted by clearing, ploughing, and the growth of crops. During the 21st century, the northern part of the site has been severely disturbed through the construction of the underground railway line and station, and the construction of other buildings, while the remainder of the site has been impacted through the construction of a bitumen car park (Figures 34 and 35).
Due to this history of disturbance it is concluded that the Station North Site has no potential for intact Aboriginal archaeological remains.
Figure 34: Station Site North, from south-east corner
Figure 35: The Station Site North in 1943 (top) and 2011 (bottom) showing disturbance to the site8
8 1943 photograph from Land and Property Information Division; 2011 photograph from ww.nearmap.com.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 45 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.9.4 Station Site South
The Station Site South consists of a central area partly vegetated with immature trees, surrounded by disused bitumen roads and a disused car parking area to the south-east (Figure 36). Along the eastern boundary of the site is a c. 1960s building, parts of which are now derelict.
During the 20th century the site was disturbed through ploughing and the growth of crops, before the large Global Television Studios building was constructed over most of the site in 1965. The studios were demolished in 2007, but the central vegetated area and surrounding remnant roads provide clear evidence of the landscape disturbance caused by the structure. This evidence includes a large excavated pit to the north, and the presence of introduced fill.
The Station Site South has no potential for intact Aboriginal archaeological remains.
Figure 36: Station Site South - disused car parking area with highly disturbed central area beyond
5.9.5 OSL Site
The OSL Site appears to have been undisturbed prior to the construction of Tennis World at some time after 1970. The construction of the tennis courts involved significant landscape modification, with a large amount of soil removed to create a level area for the courts. Some of this soil appears to have been used to create a long mound along the west and south-west boundaries of the car park, covering the original ground surface (Figure 37).
A number of mature trees are present along this artificial mound, which has been built up around them. None of these trees display cultural scarring. It is possible that Aboriginal artefacts are present in the car parking area or within the artificial mounds, however it is not likely that these archaeological remains would be intact or in context.
The OSL Site has a low archaeological potential.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 46 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Figure 37: Artificial slope parallel to entrance driveway OSL Site, facing north
5.10 Significance Assessment
This significance assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the OEH Guide to Investigating, Assessing and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in New South Wales 2010.
Cultural heritage consists of places, or objects, that are of significance to Aboriginal people. Cultural heritage values are the attributes of these places or objects that allow the assessment of levels of cultural significance.
Assessing the cultural significance of a place or object means defining why a place or object is culturally important. It is only when these reasons are defined that measures can be taken to appropriately manage possible impacts on this significance. Assessing significance involves two main steps, identifying the range of values present across the study area and assessing why they are important.
5.10.1 Cultural Significance
Social/cultural heritage significance should be addressed by the Aboriginal people who have a connection to, or interest in the area. As part of the consultation process the registered Aboriginal stakeholder groups were asked to provide appropriate information on the cultural significance of the study area. During the site inspection the Aboriginal representatives agreed that the study area did not have particular cultural significance and is therefore assessed as having a low cultural significance. No further information on cultural significance was provided by the Aboriginal groups in their comments on this draft report.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 47 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
5.10.2 Historic Values and Significance
Historic values refer to the association of the place with aspects of Aboriginal history. Historic values are not necessarily reflected in physical objects, but may be intangible and relate to memories, stories or experiences. The study area has a low historic significance is regard to Aboriginal heritage.
5.10.3 Scientific/Archaeological Values and Significance
Archaeological significance refers to the archaeological or scientific importance of a landscape or area. This is characterised using archaeological criteria such as archaeological research potential, representativeness and rarity of the archaeological resource and potential for educational values. These are outlined below:
Research potential: does the evidence suggest any potential to contribute to an understanding of the area and/or region and/or state’s natural and cultural history? Representativeness: how much variability (outside and/or inside the subject area) exists, what is already conserved, how much connectivity is there? Rarity: is the subject area important in demonstrating a distinctive way of life, custom, process, land-use, function or design no longer practised? Is it in danger of being lost or of exceptional interest?
Scientific significance is assessed using criteria to evaluate the contents of a site, state of preservation, integrity of deposits, representativeness of the site type, rarity/uniqueness and potential to answer research questions on past human behaviour.
The study area does not provide an opportunity to contribute to an understanding of the locality as any areas of low-moderate archaeological potential are small and isolated. A number of other sites have been investigated in detail in the vicinity of the study area therefore rarity values of the vegetated areas are low.
Although some sections of the study area were assessed as having a low-moderate archaeological potential based on an assessment of ground disturbance and landform unit sensitivity, the study area overall is assessed as having a low archaeological significance.
5.10.4 Aesthetic Values and Significance
Aesthetic values refer to the sensory, scenic, architectural and creative aspects of the place. These values may be related to the landscape and are often closely associated with social/cultural values. The study area has been developed and/or disturbed so therefore has a low aesthetic significance.
5.10.5 Statement of Significance
No particular cultural significance has been attributed to the study area by the Aboriginal stakeholder groups. The groups will have a further opportunity to comment on the cultural significance of the study area with their submissions on the draft report.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 48 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
The study area was assessed as having a low historical significance in regard to Aboriginal heritage. The overall aesthetic significance of the study area was assessed as being low. The archaeological significance of the study area was also assessed as being low.
5.11 Impact Assessment
This study concludes that there would be no known impacts on Aboriginal heritage as a result of the proposal.
5.12 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures recommended vary depending on the assessment of archaeological significance of the study area which is based on its research potential, rarity, representativeness and educational value. In general following mitigation measures would be appropriate for each level of significance:
Low archaeological significance – No further archaeological works required. Moderate archaeological significance – Conservation where possible. Further archaeological investigation (archaeological excavations, or artefact collection as a condition of the AHIP) would be required to impact the site before works can commence. High archaeological significance – Conservation as a priority. Further archaeological works would be required only if other practical alternatives have been discounted and may include comprehensive salvage excavations.
The archaeological significance of the study area has been adequately assessed by taking into account the archaeological potential associated with landscape and landform units; ground disturbance levels, results of previous studies in the locality, and assessment of other significance values such as rarity and representativeness.
As the study area has been assessed as having a low significance values, it is recommended that no further archaeological investigation would be required in regard to Aboriginal heritage.
If unexpected Aboriginal objects are located during construction, all works must stop in the vicinity of the find. The OEH must be notified, and an archaeologist engaged to assess the significance of the find. Further archaeological work may be required.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 49 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
6.0 Recommendations
6.1 Recommendations for Non-Indigenous Heritage
On the basis of background research and a site inspection and adhering to all relevant statutory obligations, it is recommended that:
There are no heritage listed archaeological sites or conservation areas within the study area. The study area has low non-Indigenous archaeological potential, apart from the site of the c.1900 well or cistern identified by HLA Envirosciences which has a moderate archaeological potential. The c. 1900 well or cistern has moderate research significance and has the potential to yield information to archaeological analysis. The well is currently located beneath a large spoil stockpile. It is expected that future works at the M2 Site will involve impacts to the well and will require its removal. Any impacts to the well will require archaeological monitoring and, depending on the significance of the well’s contents, text excavation may also be necessary. Provisions for this work, including the preparation of a research design and nomination of a suitably qualified archaeologist as Excavation Director should completed prior to a Construction Certificate being issued. There are no constraints in regard to non-Indigenous archaeological heritage on the RMS Site, OSL Site Station Site South or, Station Site North. If unanticipated archaeological deposits or relics are found within the study area during construction, work should cease immediately and the NSW Heritage Council should be notified and a suitably qualified archaeologist engaged to assess the significance of the find. Further archaeological work may be required prior to impacts to relics. The location of the cistern should be marked on maps within the CEMP. The processes to be undertaken if unexpected finds are located should also be outlined in the CEMP.
6.2 Recommendations for Aboriginal Heritage
The following recommendations are based on consideration of:
Statutory requirements under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as amended. The results of the background research, site survey and assessment. The interests of the Aboriginal stakeholder groups. And the findings of the study:
There are no recorded Aboriginal sites within the study area. Overall the study area has low Aboriginal archaeological significance.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 50 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
It is therefore recommended that:
There are no constraints on the proposal in regard to Aboriginal heritage. If Aboriginal objects are located during future construction, work should stop immediately and the OEH, the Aboriginal stakeholder groups, and an archaeologist should be contacted. Further archaeological work may be required. This process should be outlined in the CEMP. If sites are located during construction they must be recorded on an OEH site recording form and submitted to the Aboriginal Heritage Information System register.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 51 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
7.0 References
AECOM (2010) M2 Upgrade Project – Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Report to Leighton Contractors
Artefact Heritage (2011) 150 Epping Rd, Lane Cove West–Heritage Study Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment and Assessment of non-Indigenous heritage for a Concept Plan application. Report to Rose Group.
Attenbrow, V. (2010) Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the archaeological and historical records. UNSW Press.
Bradley (1969) A Voyage to New South Wales. The Journal of Lieutenant William Bradley RN of HMS Sirius 1786-1792.
Collins, D. 1798. (1975). An Account of the English Colony of New South Wales, Volume 1, edited by B.H. Fletcher, A.H. & A.W. Reed in association with the Royal Australian Historical Society, Terry Hills, NSW.
Corkill, T. (1997) Test Excavation of Rockshelter, CSIRO PAD 1, site 2 Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW. Report to Australia Pacific Projects.
EcoLogical (2008) Assessment of the Ecological Values of TIDC’s M2 and Bundara Reserve sites.
Farlow (2008) ‘North Ryde’ Dictionary of Sydney Accessed on 27/7/11 at: < http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/north_ryde>
Haglund & Associates (1989) Preliminary survey for Aboriginal sites along F2-Castelreagh Freeway. Pennant Hills Road to Lane Cove Road. Report to DMR.
Herbert, C. (1983) Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Sheet 9130, 1st edition. Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.
Hiscock, P. and Attenbrow, V. (2005) Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence Revisited: Technology and Change at Capertee 3. Oxford: BAR Monograph Series 1397 Archaeopress.
HLA Eurosciences (2002) Archaeological Assessment, Cistern M2 Worksite, Parramatta Rail Link. Report to Thiess Hochtief Joint Venture.
Jo McDonald CHM Pty Ltd. 2005a. Archaeological salvage excavation of site CG1 (NPWS #45-5-2648), at the corner of Charles and George Streets, Parramatta, NSW. Report for Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd.
Jo McDonald CHM Pty Ltd. (2005b) Archaeological Salvage Excavations of site RMS-G1 109-113 George Street Parramatta. Report to Landcom.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 52 ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment
Jo McDonald CHM Pty Ltd. (2006) Archaeological Salvage Excavation of the Colebee Release Area, Schofields, NSW, Volume 1. Report prepared for Medallist Golf Holdings Pty Ltd.
McCarthy, F. D., Brammell, E., and Noone, H. V. V. (1948) The stone implements of Australia. Memoirs of the Australian Museum 9, 1-94
Nanson, G.C., Young, R.W., & Stockton, E.D. (1987) Chronology and palaeoenvironment of the Cranebrook Terrace (near Sydney) containing artefacts more than 40,000 years old. Archaeology in Oceania, 22 (2): 72- 78.
NSW Heritage Branch (2001) Assessing Significance.
NSW Heritage Branch (2009) Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics.
Oakely, B. (2000) Indigenous Heritage Assessment – Proposed Sewerage Upgrade REF, Lane Cove National Park. Report to Australian Water Technologies Pty. Ltd.
Redding, G. (1986) A History of North Ryde, 1850-1950 (North Ryde Public School Ex-Pupils History Group).
Smith, V. (2005) Wallumedegal: An Aboriginal history of Ryde. City of Ryde.
The Sydney Morning Herald 6 June 1919 ‘Death notice of William Owen’
Transport for NSW (Cox Richardson) (2012) Draft Indicative Layout Plan – North Ryde Station Precinct
White, E. and J. McDonald. (2010) Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area, Cumberland Plain, New South Wales. Australian Archaeology 70:29-38.
Wirrina Consulting (1995) Archaeological survey for Aboriginal sites. Delhi Rd – Main Rd No. 191, CSIRO to Northern Suburbs Crematorium, Lane Cove, NSW. Report to RMS.
ADP-1207-HER-0005- Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment 53