GLENELG Desktop Title Pg

Home , Aboriginal Victorians

GLENELG SHIRE

DESKTOP CULTURAL HERITAGE STUDY

PUBLIC VERSION

A Report to Macroplan Australia On behalf of Glenelg Shire

May 2007

Prepared by

Andrea Murphy& Dr Tom Rymer

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd cultural heritage consultants 9 Berglund Road Beaconsfield Upper Victoria 3808

GLENELG SHIRE

DESKTOP CULTURAL HERITAGE STUDY

A report to Macroplan Australia on behalf of Glenelg Shire

September 2006

Prepared by

Andrea Murphy and Dr Tom Rymer

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd cultural heritage consultants 9 Berglund Road Beaconsfield Upper 3808 Victoria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a desktop investigation of the Aboriginal and historic archaeological cultural heritage values within the Glenelg Shire. The Glenelg Shire is located in the southwest of Victoria on the border with South Australia (Figure 1). From east to north Glenelg is bordered by the Shires of Moyne, the Southern Grampians and West Wimmera. The main watershed of the region comprises the Glenelg River, with the smaller watershed of the Fitzroy River to the east.

The study produces a preliminary and brief cultural heritage overview in order to highlight heritage values the shire can promote to attract tourism, to indicate opportunities for further cultural heritage investigation in areas of archaeological potential, to suggest strategies for cultural heritage management in the light of forthcoming new heritage legislation and to promote best practice heritage management.

Prior to this investigation there have been a large number of Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage assessments in Glenelg Shire (Sections 4 & 6). Stage 2 (Hubbard & Neyland 2005) of a regional historic heritage study is currently underway to make detailed significance assessment of heritage places identified in Stage One (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002). As of April 2006 there were 143 historic places on the Heritage Victoria Register and Inventory, 50 on the Register of the National Estate, 144 on the National Trust of Victoria Register and 155 on the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay. As of January 2006 there were 1,002 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places and 28 Aboriginal historic places on the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Register.

Various government and non-government organisations have an active interest in the cultural heritage of the Glenelg Shire. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria administers State legislation (Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972) providing protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage as well as Commonwealth legislation (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984) under part 11A (1987) Schedule of the Act. This Schedule lists the Kerrup-Jmara Aboriginal Elders Corporation as the local Aboriginal community representatives. They are currently represented by the Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation. South West and Wimmera Cultural Heritage Program is a body established and funded by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria to assist in cultural heritage management. A search for registered Native Title Claimants has been submitted to the national Native Title Tribunal Office. The Gundjitmara Native Title Group have a claim lodged that includes Glenelg, Wannon and Shaw Rivers.

Heritage Victoria (DSE) administers the Heritage Act 1995 and maintains the Victorian Heritage Register and Inventory. The Australian Heritage Council administers the Register of the National Estate which includes both historic and Indigenous sites. The National Trust of Victoria maintains a heritage register and inventory but has no legislative role. Various local historical societies also take an active interest in heritage matters.

Shire (Section 4.3). A brief outline of the European historic background (Section 5), historic cultural heritage assessments and recorded historic places (Section 6) is provided in order to produce an historic site prediction model. These are used to designate areas of known archaeological sensitivity/potential for both Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage (Section 7). Attention is drawn to the difference between scientific significance and cultural significance in regards to Aboriginal cultural heritage (Section 8). Statutory requirements in relation to Aboriginal sites and historic places are presented in Section 9. Cultural heritage opportunities, management issues and recommendations within Glenelg Shire are presented in Section 10.

This desktop cultural heritage investigation fulfils a range of social and legislative obligations relating to cultural heritage sites and places within the study area. However, it does not replace a comprehensive cultural heritage assessment. This investigation has been undertaken in accordance with Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Surveys in Victoria (AAV 2002), the conservation principles of the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999) and best current cultural heritage practise.

Cultural Heritage Opportunities and Management Issues (Section 10.1)

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:

Glenelg Shire has been subject to limited levels of cultural heritage investigation. Intensive archaeological survey has been conducted in two regions: the coast from Discovery Bay to Cape Bridgewater and Portland, and the Mount Eccles lava flow (Lake Condah Area and Tyrendarra). The latter has been listed as the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape and holds state and national significance. The Tyrendarra area has also been declared an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) as a managed resource protected area. This aims to reverse the impact of previous grazing, vegetation clearance and drainage. Research is currently underway to achieve World Heritage Listing. The Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project was initiated by the Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation in 2002. It also aims to achieve world heritage listing for the Lake Condah district as well as restoring water levels to revive the wetlands and the traditional eel management system; restoring the Lake Condah church site; developing land management plans; developing an international learning centre; and developing employment and business opportunities centred on tourism, accommodation and aquaculture (www.windamara.com.au). At best 5% of Glenelg Shire has been subject to cultural heritage survey (Section 4).

Inland areas have been subject to minimal previous archaeological survey. Areas that have been surveyed are shown in Figure 6. Previous investigations have been primarily for the purposes of development including linear pipelines and cable routes as well as local area developments.

There are currently 1002 recorded sites in the Shire (Sections 3 and 4). Given that no more than 5% of the Shire has received previous survey coverage, there are potentially 20,000 or more archaeological sites located within the Shire, the vast majority of which have no management plans.

Based on the results of previous investigations, areas assessed as having moderate to high potential for Aboriginal sites include the coastal margins, the Volcanic Plains wetlands, along rivers, creeks and tributaries, around lakes and swamps (including all former locations of water), and in all landforms where remnant native trees are located. As large tracts of archaeologically sensitive landforms have not been surveyed, Glenelg Shire is likely to contain many more Aboriginal sites than are presently recorded. The cultural heritage values of the Glenelg Shire are currently poorly understood. Although much of the land is in private ownership, additional investigation including survey is required of all archaeologically sensitive landforms under pressure from land use change.

Glenelg Shire has not been subject to a regional investigation for Aboriginal cultural heritage. A regional investigation would enable a broader view of the Aboriginal occupation including the utilisation of coastal, stony rises and inland areas. At present the archaeological view is constrained to local areas with little connection within the broader context of Aboriginal use of the regional landscape throughout the previous 40,000 years. A regional investigation would have both research and commercial benefits and should be considered by the Glenelg Shire as the next step towards responsible cultural heritage management. A research driven investigation would enable a more detailed understanding of the archaeological potential of different landforms and assessments of scientific significance. Furthermore, it would provide an important regional interpretive framework to enhance the archaeological narratives that might be employed in cultural tourism presentations for specific archaeological areas.

The rich Aboriginal cultural heritage of Glenelg Shire has been recognised as an educational and tourism opportunity by the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal initiatives including the Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project (LCSDP), their support for the listing of the Tyrendarra Area as an Indigenous Protected Area and the listing of the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape on the Register of the National Estate has facilitated the aims of the community to promote Aboriginal cultural heritage as a tourism draw card. The Victorian government as part of the Aboriginal Land and Economic Development Initiative has promised funding for the establishment of the Lake Condah facilitation group and to develop a new agreement to continue indigenous tours based at Mount Eccles National Park to Lake Condah and Tyrendarra. This will become an extension of the Bunjil Trail from Gariwerd to Lake Condah, Tower Hill and Deen Maar Island (Victorian

III

Government press release 6 May 2005). Opportunities exist, in consultation with the Aboriginal community, to extend and enhance these opportunities to other areas such as the coastal areas between Portland and Discovery Bay in conjunction with the Great South West Walk. All efforts to facilitate world heritage listing for these areas would enhance Glenelg Shire as a cultural tourism destination.

As an interim management measure, Glenelg Shire should attach a mandatory heritage assessment to the Planning Approval process of all areas that are of archaeological sensitivity. A generalised map of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity is presented as Figure 7. To achieve this, a heritage consultant could assist planners to ascribe an interim overlay mapping areas of known and demonstrated archaeological sensitivity.

The broad management aims for Aboriginal cultural heritage are to:

1. Aim to fund a regional Aboriginal archaeological assessment for the Shire; 2. Review existing interpretive locations or venues of Aboriginal cultural heritage; 3. Work with Aboriginal groups to assist them in achieving goals for existing projects.

Historic Cultural Heritage:

The Glenelg Shire possesses a unique historic cultural heritage that dates back before the first official settlement of Victoria. The history of the Shire reveals a rich history encompassing a sequence of periods and themes in the rural development of Victoria and Australia. The archaeology of the area has the potential to illuminate this rich heritage. Often previous historic cultural heritage investigations (e.g. Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981; Kellaway & Rhodes 2002) have not explored the archaeological potential in detail. It is not uncommon for sites of high archaeological significance to be missed during a study of a region’s extant heritage. The identification of areas of historic archaeological potential will present opportunities to conduct surveys and excavations to illuminate the history of Glenelg. Potential major historic and archaeological themes are sealing and whaling, pre- pastoral (i.e. Henty) squatting, gold, subdivision and small landholders, and development of townships in the 20th century. Some of the richest resources, such as the oldest precincts in Portland and other towns need to be identified as main priorities. Archaeology provides a window into history often unrepresented in documentary sources. This information would provide tangible material culture displays and alternative historical narratives for educational and tourism purposes. This is particularly important for periods and themes that are currently poorly represented in the history of Glenelg.

Currently there are 50 listings for the Register of the National Estate, 146 on the Victorian Heritage Register and Inventory, 144 listed with the National Trust and 155 on the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay (Table 2). Portland contains the highest number of historic places. A preliminary review of the various historic cultural heritage data-bases (Heritage Victoria Register, Register of the National Estate, Schedule to the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay, National Trust of Victoria Register) has identified a number of duplicate, inconsistent, or missing listings which should be clarified by a cultural heritage audit of these data-bases.

Recommendations (Section 10.2)

Based on the findings of this report the following recommendations are made (Section 10.2):

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:

1. It is recommended that Glenelg Shire develop, implement and maintain best practice Aboriginal cultural heritage planning and management to fulfil legislative requirements under the relevant Commonwealth and State Acts (Section 9). Forthcoming State Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation provides an opportunity to review current heritage management practices. This may require specific planning strategies to be developed that will enable Glenelg Shire to readily adopt requirements to be specified under the new legislation. Facilitating a heritage seminar could be the first step in understanding the implications of the new bill.

2. Several general areas of archaeological sensitivity for Aboriginal sites have been broadly identified, details of which are provided in Section 7 and Figure 7. A regional cultural heritage assessment and sample survey would serve to further refine these sensitive areas as well as generating specific management recommendations. As an interim measure all planning applications especially those in sensitive areas (Table 3) should be subject to mandatory heritage assessment. Areas requiring specific management strategies that could potentially be incorporated in the local planning scheme should result from the regional Aboriginal heritage assessment.

3. It is recommended that Glenelg Shire consult with the relevant Aboriginal community and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria on the feasibility of conducting an interpretive review and audit of the existing regional Aboriginal prehistory. This may involve survey of inland areas that have up to the present not been the focus of intensive survey and investigation. This study may have several outcomes for the Glenelg Shire including establishing an inventory of existing interpretive localities, their condition, disturbance and overall effectiveness; providing additional interpretive material to be used for cultural tourism and additional information required refining management recommendations for heritage planning and management. This goal seeks to better understand, support and improve existing interpretive sites.

4. In consultation with, and the support of the relevant Aboriginal community, it is recommended that Glenelg Shire take every opportunity to enhance or facilitate the promotion of Aboriginal cultural heritage values of projects that benefit regional cultural tourism. This may include current and future projects associated with the Great Southern Walk, the Bunjil Trail extension, the Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project, and Aboriginal cultural tourism opportunities in the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape, Discovery Bay and other coastal areas. Glenelg Shire should support and fund efforts to gain National Estate and World Heritage Listing for appropriate areas such as the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape. This process should also include a concerted effort to review funding opportunities from both private and government sectors.

In addition, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria requests the following are included:

5. If any suspected human burial remains are exposed at any stage during developments, then all works must cease in the immediate vicinity and the procedure outlined in Appendix 4 adopted.

Historic Cultural Heritage:

6. It is recommended that the archaeological potential of historic sites be identified in both heritage studies and cultural heritage assessments. This includes the identification of archaeological deposits which have the potential to contain information on the periods and themes of Glenelg Shire history which are poorly documented.

7. In consultation with Heritage Victoria, local historical societies and any other interested stakeholders, historic sites with cultural tourism and archaeological potential should be identified and opportunities for archaeological investigation explored to enhance the cultural tourism potential of these sites. This can only really effectively be achieved by funding an historic archaeological review of the Shire. Heritage Victoria could be approached for funding assistance for such a project.

8. In the short term, comprehensive audit of the various heritage sites should be conducted in order to update and clarify the cultural heritage assets of Glenelg Shire. This may involve additional research and ground truthing where appropriate. If this is not a component of the recent Second Stage of the Glenelg Heritage Study, then this should be conducted as soon as practical.

General Recommendations:

9. Identify significant archaeological sites and precincts, as well as immediate, medium and long-term threats.

10. Devise, fund and enact best practice heritage management to preserve and enhance the Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage values of the Glenelg Shire and promote best practice within public forums where appropriate.

11. Increase awareness of heritage values to Glenelg Shire inhabitants and visitors by providing high quality interpretation.

12. Encourage indigenous employment in all heritage pursuits (site identification, maintenance and tourism).

13. Promote a planning department that encourages and supports best current heritage practise and the redevelopment of properties that contain heritage/archaeological sites in a sympathetic manner and in accordance with relevant Acts.

14. The consultant will ensure copies of this report will be forwarded to the Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (DVC), Heritage Victoria (DSE), the

Kerrup-Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation (c/- Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation) and the South West and Wimmera Regional Cultural Heritage Program.

VII CONTENTS PAGE NO

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Aims 1 1.2 Consultation 2 1.3 The Study Area 3

2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION 4

2.1 Pleistocene and Early Holocene 4 2.2 Geology and Landform 5 2.3 Climate 8 2.4 Fauna and Flora 8 2.5 European Impact on the Study Area 8

3 ABORIGINAL BACKGROUND 10

3.1 Ethnohistory 10 3.2 Resources Available to Aboriginal People 12

4 PREVIOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE INVESTIGATIONS 15

4.1 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Sites/Places 15 4.2 Previous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Investigations 20 4.3 Aboriginal Site Distribution Model and Implications for Glenelg Shire 30 4.4 Discussion – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 32

5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 33

6 PREVIOUS HISTORIC CULTURAL HERITAGE INVESTIGATIONS 35

6.1 Previously Recorded Historic Sites 35 6.2 Previous Historic Cultural Heritage Investigations 36 6.3 Historic Site Distribution Model and Implications for Glenelg Shire 39 6.4 Discussion – Historic Cultural Heritage 40

7 AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY/POTENTIAL 40

8 ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 45

8.1 Aboriginal Cultural Significance 45

9 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS 46

9.1 Aboriginal Sites 46 9.2 Native Title Issues 48 9.3 Historic Archaeological Sites 48

VIII CONTENTS CONT’D PAGE NO

10 CULTURAL HERITAGE OPPORTUNITIES, MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51

10.1 Cultural Heritage Opportunities and Management Issues 51 10.2 Recommendations 54

REFERENCES 57

TABLES (In Text)

Table 1 Registered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places Summary Statistics 16 Table 2 Glenelg Shire Heritage Places and Localities on Heritage Databases 36 Table 3 Areas of Sensitivity for Aboriginal Archaeological Sites 42 Table 4 Areas of Sensitivity for Historic Archaeological Sites 43

FIGURES (In Text)

Figure 1 Study Area Location 2 Figure 2 Geology of the Study Area 7 Figure 3 Dhauwurd wurrung Language Areas and Clans 10 Figure 4 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Archaeological Sites within Glenelg Shire 17 Figure 5 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Historic Places in Glenelg Shire 18 Figure 6 Previous Cultural Heritage Survey Coverage in Glenelg Shire 19 Figure 7 Areas of Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivity/Potential 44

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Aboriginal Archaeological Site Gazetteer 68 Appendix 2 Aboriginal Archaeological Site Distribution Maps 94 Appendix 3 Aboriginal Historic Places Gazetteer & Maps 110 Appendix 4 Cultural Heritage Survey Coverage Maps 121 Appendix 5 Heritage Victoria Register Historic Places Gazetteer 141 Appendix 6 Glossary 147 Appendix 7 Advice on the Discovery of Human Remains 155 Appendix 8 Conservation Principles of the Burra Charter 157

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Tardis Enterprises would like to thank the following people for their assistance during the study:

Jason Taylor, Con Tsotsoros – MacroPlan Australia Scott Taylor – Glenelg Shire Council Denise Lovett- Cultural Heritage Officer Matthew Phelan – Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Ron Newsome – Heritage Victoria

ABBREVIATIONS

AAV Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria AHC Australian Heritage Commission DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment DVC Department of Victorian Communities HV Heritage Victoria H Heritage Victoria Inventory LV Land Victoria NT National Trust (VIC) RNE Register of the National Estate SLV State Library of Victoria VHR Victorian Heritage Register

* Throughout this report several technical terms are used that may not be familiar to some readers. An extensive glossary has been included as Appendix 6 and should be referenced for an explanation of terms.

** It should be noted that archaeological reports relating to Aboriginal and historic archaeological sites/places and the recommendations contained therein, may be independently reviewed by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, the relevant Aboriginal community, and Heritage Victoria. Although the findings of a consultant’s report will be taken into consideration, recommendations by an archaeological consultant for actions in relation to the management of a site should not be taken to imply automatic approval of those actions by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Heritage Victoria or the relevant Aboriginal community.

ã Copyright – This report is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd Project No. 5600685.000

X Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a desktop investigation of the Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal (hereafter referred to as historic) cultural heritage values within the Glenelg Shire. The Glenelg Shire is located in the southwest of Victoria on the border with South Australia. From east to north Glenelg is bordered by the Shires of Moyne, the Southern Grampians and West Wimmera. The main watershed of the region comprises the Glenelg River, with the smaller watershed of the Fitzroy River to the east.

This investigation has been based on a review of current databases and previous cultural heritage studies. No survey or site inspections have been included in this investigation. A brief environmental description (Section 2), Aboriginal background (Section 3) and outline of previous Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments, recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites and historic places (Sections 4) is provided in order to produce an Aboriginal site prediction model and implications summary for the Aboriginal cultural heritage of Glenelg Shire (Section 4.3). A brief outline of the European historic background (Section 5), historic cultural heritage assessments and recorded historic places (Section 6) is provided in order to produce an historic sites prediction model for the historic cultural heritage. These are used to designate areas of known archaeological sensitivity/potential for both Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage (Section 7). Attention is drawn to the difference between scientific significance and cultural significance in regards to Aboriginal cultural heritage (Section 8). Statutory requirements in relation to Aboriginal sites and historic places are presented in Section 9. Cultural heritage opportunities, management issues and recommendations within Glenelg Shire are presented in Section 10.

This investigation has been undertaken in accordance with Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Surveys in Victoria (AAV 2002), the conservation principles of the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999) and best current cultural heritage practise.

1.1 Project Aims

The aims of this study are aligned with those outlined by the standard AAV brief (2002):

• to produce a preliminary and brief cultural heritage overview of cultural heritage values in the Shire of Glenelg

• to indicate opportunities to promote and develop cultural heritage values in order to promote the Shire of Glenelg as a cultural tourism destination,

• to indicate opportunities for further cultural heritage investigation in areas of archaeological potential,

• to suggest strategies for cultural heritage management in the light of forthcoming new heritage legislation, and

• to promote best practice heritage management.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 1 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Figure 1 Study Area Location

1.2 Consultation

Various government and non-government organisations have active interest in the cultural heritage of the Glenelg Shire and should be consulted in any instance that a site may be impacted. Heritage Victoria (DSE) administers the Heritage Act 1995 and maintains the Heritage Register for historic cultural heritage on behalf of the Victorian Government. The Australian Heritage Council administers the Commonwealth Environment and Protection Biodiversity Act 1999 and Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2003 and maintains the Register of the National Estate. Non-government organisations include the National Trust of Victoria and local historical societies.

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (DVC) administers both State (Archaeological Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972) and Commonwealth (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984) legislation providing protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage. Aboriginal community organisation stakeholders include the Windamara Aboriginal Corporation, the Kerrup-Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation, and the South West and Wimmera Regional Cultural Heritage Program.

2 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study The Site Registers held by the Heritage Services Branch at Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (DVC); Heritage Victoria (DSE); National Trust of Australia (Victoria) and the Australian Heritage Commission’s Register of the National Estate (RNE) were checked for the presence of previously recorded Aboriginal or historic cultural heritage sites within the study area (Australian Heritage Commission, Heritage Council of Victoria, National Trust of Victoria websites). The Planning Schemes for the Glenelg Shire were examined for Heritage Overlay Restrictions (Planning Schemes Online website).

Copies of the draft and final reports have also been forwarded to the Kerrup Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation (c/o Winda mara Aboriginal Corporation) and the South West and Wimmera Regional Cultural Heritage Program. Copies of the final report have been lodged with Aboriginal Affairs Site Registry, and Heritage Victoria Site Registry.

1.3 The Study Area

Glenelg Shire comprises a total area of approximately 6,212 square kilometres and is located in the southwest of Victoria on the border with South Australia. From east to north Glenelg is bordered by the Shires of Moyne, the Southern Grampians and West Wimmera.

Glenelg Shire has a population of approximately 20,200 persons. Portland on the coast is the major urban city comprising a population of 10,000. The main rural towns include Casterton (pop. 1670), Heywood (pop. 1220) and Dartmoor (pop. 246). Sixty-five percent of residents live in an urban residential environment (DSE 2006).

Major road transport routes include the Princes Highway running along the southern coast of the Shire connecting Portland to Warnambool and South Australia. The Henty Highway connects Portland to Casterton and Hamilton in the north. Secondary road transport routes include the Glenelg, Hopkins and Hamilton Highways. The rail network connects Portland to South Australia as well as Melbourne and Geelong via Hamilton. The deep- water harbour at Portland has facilities for handling grain, woodchip, bauxite, refined alumina, livestock, timber and silica sands. A fishing fleet also operates from the harbour and is the base for the exploration of the Minerva Field by BHP.

The main watershed of the region comprises the Glenelg River, with the smaller watershed of the Fitzroy River to the east. It encompasses a range of landforms including sandy beach coastlines and promontories; basalt stony rises in the east; and inland plains and tablelands. Most of the landform is typified by low elevation rising in the northeast. Only a small percentage of the Shire remains undeveloped. The vast majority of the Shire is cleared farmland, forestry, rural residential and township.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 3 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION

The importance of understanding the past and present environment is two-fold. Firstly, it is the pre-European settlement that was the evolving context for Aboriginal land use in the region. Secondly, to understand the changes in the environment since European settlement is to bring an understanding of what Aboriginal archaeological sites may have survived and their potential location.

The background information provided in the following section includes both the environmental and historical background of the study area and its surrounding region. The environmental conditions outlined below include the geology, flora, fauna and climate of the study area. These environmental conditions influenced the past land use of the study area by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and, in turn, the history of pre and post-Contact periods in the Western District.

2.1 Pleistocene and Early Holocene

The Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Appendix 6 – Glossary) environment within the study area region was one of gradual and continuous change. Aboriginal people are known to have occupied southeastern Australia during the late Pleistocene (c.40,000 to 10,000 years BP) from archaeological evidence at Keilor (Coutts 1977a, 1978) and Hunter Island (Bowdler 1984).

During the Pleistocene, sea levels were, in general, much lower than at present. In the late Pleistocene, the sea was low enough for a land bridge, the Bassian Plain, to exist across what is now Bass Strait, between Victoria and Tasmania (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 118). Approximately 18,000 years BP, sea levels began to rise slowly (Marsden and Mallet 1975: 114-116) and by 12,000 years BP the Antarctic ice sheets retreated (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 119). About 5,000 to 6,000 years BP, the sea reached a maximum of 1.5 to 2 metres higher than at present. At this time, the Bassian Plain was fully submerged, as it is today, to form Bass Strait. The archaeological implications of these periods are that they provide different sets of resources for the human populations inhabiting the area. The effect of these climatic changes would have had significant impact for the study area in terms of exploitation by Aboriginals throughout the past 40,000 years.

Various paleoenvironmental studies present a general picture of climatic change in the region of the study area (Lourandos 1983; Head 1983; Dodson et al. 1988). Briefly these changes are:

40,000 - 30,000 years humid, rise in water levels 25,000 - 15,000 years Dry, cold and windy, reduced vegetation and water levels, peak aridity around 17,500 15,000 - 12,000 years Drier still, but, slightly warmer, rising water levels 12,000 - 8,000 years Becoming wetter 8,000 - 5,000 years Wetter and warmer than at present 5,000 to present Cooler and drier, current water levels

The past climate indicates that due to the more moderate conditions, the last 8,000 years may have been more conducive to intensive exploitation of the region by Aboriginal people than the earlier period before 15,000.

4 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 2.2 Geology and Landform

The geology and landform of the study area can be divided into four main zones for ease of discussion: the volcanic plains to the east, the coastline to the south, the western plains and the Merino and Dundas Tablelands in the northeast. They also form a convenient scheme to investigate, assess and discuss the cultural heritage of the study area.

Volcanic Plains

In the east of the Glenelg Shire is the westernmost extent of the Newer Volcanic Province represented by the Western District Volcanic Plains typified by Mt Eccles and the lava flows making up the stony rises. The Western District Volcanic Plains are generally less than 200m in elevation and comprise thin lava flows and ash deposits with scoria cones, lava volcanoes and maars. (Birch 2003: 552-553). The volcanic plains are divided into regions which are based in part on the age of lava flows: the oldest (3-5 Ma), the younger (3-1 Ma) and the youngest up until recent times (Birch 2003: 553). The youngest flows are called the stony rises. They are characterised with a relief up to 20m, commonly have sharp boundaries, stepping down onto the surrounding plain by up to 15m, and have irregular stony surfaces, thin soils and woodland cover. Basalt boulders commonly protrude the shallow brown to black soils. They form extensive areas around Mount Eccles, Mount Napier and Mount Rouse. The Mount Eccles flow has been tracked for 50km (Ollier 1964). Over fifty lava tubes are known in the plains basalt and flank flows usually in the stony rises. The best-preserved are at Byadunk in the Harman Valley and in the stony rises to the west of Mount Eccles which has complex tubes formed in flows on either side of a major lava channel (Birch 2003: 553) and also a volcano cave The Shaft just to the south.

The basalt flows have disrupted the pre-eruption drainage system by the displacement of streams, the ponding of streams, and the formation of lakes and swamps (Birch 2003: 554). The Tyrendarra flow has blocked the Firtzroy River, Darlot Creek and tributaries and formed the Homerton, Whittlesbury, Louth and Condah swamps (Birch 2003: 345).

Coastline

Discovery and Portland Bays dominate the coastline of Glenelg Shire. Both are large-scale arcuate embayments terminated by the Cape Bridgewater to Cape Sir William Grant headlands. Here the Capes are broken by flooded calderas, for example, Bridgewater Bay (Boutakoff 1963; Birch 2003: 555). The youngest Holocene beach deposits comprise the largest area of the coastal landform. At Discovery Bay unconsolidated calcareous sand consist of beach, foredune and dune complexes. The latter are up to 60m high with large blowouts, extend inland for up to 2.5 kilometers (Birch 2003: 555). However, along Portland Bay the Holocene dunes are much thinner. Exposed Pleistocene limestone dunes, known as the Bridgewater Formation, are visible at Cape Bridgewater. Underlying the Holocene sand deposits are red sandy loam deposits known as terra rossa (Godfrey 2000: 6; Schell 2000a & b: 13-14). These cap the remains of old Pleistocene calcarenite dunes (Godfrey 2000: 6). During the Holocene sea-levels may have extended up to 3km seaward until 4,000 BP when they reached present day levels (Godfrey 2000).

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 5 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Western Plains

The western plains, designated the Follet Plain (Kenley 1971; Jenkin 1988a & b), are found west and east of the Glenelg River, and comprises a Quaternary coastal plain formed by the emergence of the sea floor during Pliocene and early Pleistocene, and is characterised by old marine ridges. It has been described by Birch as having (2003: 554):

“…narrow ridges, representing calcareous sand dunes which formed along prior coastlines, alternating with broad flats dotted with small pans, swampy hollows and some larger lunette lakes. Close to the coast, south of the Glenelg River, the dune ridges are larger and dominate the topography, and the inter-dune flats are restricted to narrow swales. The plain lacks surface drainage lines except for the Glenelg River, which has incised a deep valley and gorge; away from the river the original features of the plain are still well preserved”.

The Pleistocene dune ridges and beach sands were formed over the last 800,000 years (Kenley 1971; Birch 2003: 554). They overlie Tertiary – Quaternary marls, calcareous sands and sandy limestone and are younger than the dune ridges and beach sands of the Wimmera and Mallee to the north of the study area (Birch 2003: 554).

The plains form part of an extensive karst province that extends from Princetown, east of Port Campbell westward into South Australia (Birch 2003: 555). Where the karst limestone present on the surface topography, caves often a feature, for example, along the Glenelg River (Birch 2003: 555).

Tablelands

The Merino and Dundas Tablelands form the westernmost projection of the Western Uplands which extend from the Grampians almost to the South Australian border. They comprise low plateaus of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic rocks overlaid by Cainozoic deposits. The highest elevation is found at Mt Dundas, northeast of Casterton outside the Glenelg Shire, and the main component within the shire is associated with the Merino Tablelands. Late Tertiary uplift and Quaternary sea-level falls resulted in the incision of the Glenelg and Wannon Rivers forming deep, narrow valleys. Recently alluvial soils are common on the valley floors (Birch 2003: 543-544).

In summary, the geology and landform of Glenelg Shire suggests that most Aboriginal sites will be located in areas with available potable water including along rivers, creeks, swamps and lakes will date to the Holocene. Similarly, sites found within Holocene dunes formed since the stabilisation of sea-levels will also date to this period. There is potential for Pleistocene sites to be located within several landform contexts including the Pleistocene dunes of the Bridgewater Formation (coast), caves within the karst limestone presenting on the surface topography (coast and plains), Pleistocene dune ridges and lake lunettes (plains) and within incised valleys of the Merino Tablelands. Raw material for stone tool manufacture would have been available as coastal flint, basalt and possibly obsidian from the volcanic plains, and quartz from rivers and streams. There are no apparent sources for silcrete, the most preferred raw material used in the manufacture of stone tools. However, as this stone type often occurs in association with basalt, there is a high likelihood that silcrete sources will be numerous throughout the shire.

6 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Qa Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Qrm Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Qvn Extrusive: tholeiitic to alkaline basalts, minor scoria and ash Sla Marine: sandstone, thick to thin bedded, siltstone, minor conglomerate Sud Marine: siltstone, thin-bedded sandstone Tpb Fluvial: gravel, sand, silt

Figure 2 Geology of the Study Area

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 7 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 2.3 Climate

The temperate varies considerable from the coast to inland. For example, in summer inland at Casterton the temperatures are significantly higher with an average January maximum of 27ºC and minimum of 11.7ºC while on the coast at Portland the average January maximum is 21.8ºC with a minimum of 12.7ºC. During winter the variation is less significant. In Casterton the July average is a maximum of 13.4ºC and minimum of 4.9ºC; while in Portland the July average is a maximum of 13.6ºC and a minimum of 6.5ºC (BOM 2006). Mean annual rainfall for Casterton is 660.4mm while for Portland it is 835.8mm (BOM 2006). Generally the shire experiences cool wet winters and warm dry summers. The climate of the Shire would not have been a constraint for either Aboriginal or historic occupation. Seasonal exploitation and foraging strategies by pre-contact Aboriginal may have seen the greatest use of the coastal margin during the more temperate summer months and inland swamps, lakes and rivers during the winter months.

2.4 Fauna and Flora

The study area contains a variety of landforms (see above) which support a similarly diverse range of environments and corresponding communities of flora and fauna. However, since European settlement extensive clearing of native vegetation has occurred throughout the study area. Remnant native vegetation has been preserved mainly on crown land comprising national parks and other reserves. A number of studies have investigated the environment of the Shire of Glenelg including Gibbons & Downes (1964), Jenkin & Rowan (1987), and The Rural Land Mapping Project in 1983 by the Victorian Department of Planning (see Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 5).

The coastal flora and fauna varies depending on landform including the sandy shore, the dunes, the wetlands and the promontories and includes a wide variety of marine and terrestrial species. Detailed information on these can be obtained from a range of reports (e.g. Godfrey 2000: 6-7 Appendix IX, XI, 2000; Richards & Jordan 1996; Schell 2000a & b; Richards & Webber 2004). In particular Godfrey (1994) evaluated the ethnography and palaeoecology of Discovery Bay and hinterland to construct the potential late prehistoric Aboriginal floral and faunal resources available for the coastal region. The landform supports a wide range of fauna and flora including riverine, lacustrine, sandy plains and tableland environments. A succinct summary can be found in Wood (2003: 4-5).

2.5 European Impact on the Study Area

The natural environment of the study area has been significantly modified by European land-use since first colonisation. The first whalers and sealers depleted the marine stocks. Next the early pastoralists and farmers not only cleared the native vegetation but also introduced exotic plants and animals. Watercourses were modified and swamps drained. Poor land practices degraded the soil.

By the 1850s large numbers of sheep were grazing the Western District and land degradation was already being reported (see Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 7). The gold rush in 1850s witnessed the collection of vast amounts of timber for the gold fields. From the 1860s government closer land settlement policies saw the ringbarking and clearing of forest for small farming ventures (Dingle 1984). Swamps such as those at Lake Condah were drained for small farmlets. The introduction of rabbit in the 1850s was devastating 8 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study and soon they were in plague proportions in the Western District (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 7-8).

Although agricultural and pastoral pursuits have continued into the twentieth century there has been the introduction of a variety of other industries such as plantation forests, extractive industries (e.g. crushed rock and sand mining), Portland smelter, Minerva Field, wind farms and other industries. Tourism and recreation have also become increasingly important with the introduction of National Parks and other measures to increase protection of the remaining relatively well-preserved natural environments. Areas likely to have incurred the least adverse impact are those that remain undeveloped. Essentially the majority of such locations are crown land such as Glenelg National Park, coastal areas, and various other crown land reserves.

All these previous practices have impacted the environment and therefore also cultural heritage sites. Land clearing, agricultural practices, grazing along with the introduction of rabbit causes soil degradation and erosion. Erosion potentially destroys in situ Aboriginal sites. Tree felling removes Aboriginal scarred trees. Extractive industries such as rock crushing may destroy Aboriginal stone arrangement of quarry sites and sand mining may destroy in situ sites such as sub-surface stone artefact scatters or burial sites. Increasing recreational use and associated upgrading of facilities at national parks and reserves also can adversely impact sites. Coastal developments, such as town and expanding residential sub-divisions, would have had a particularly significant and adverse impact to archaeological values.

In summary, the European activities that would have acted to degrade archaeological resources within the study area are:

• land clearing • grazing and repeated ploughing • minor and major drainage works • extractive industries • recreation and tourism • residential, commercial and industrial development

The overall adverse impact to archaeological values within the Shire would have resulted in the vast majority of sites are now disturbed. In situ sites (which are considered as being of higher scientific significance) will now be relatively rare within the Shire.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 9 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 3 ABORIGINAL BACKGROUND

3.1 Ethnohistory

The following section provides only a brief overview of Aboriginal culture and assessments. The information used to establish pre-settlement Aboriginal spatial organisation is mostly based on observations made by Europeans during the initial period of Contact and subsequent settlement of the study area region. While specific early historical accounts of Aboriginal land use near the study area are generally scant, James Dawson, who co-owned Kangertong run, documented languages and customs of Aboriginal groups in the region in his 1881 book Australian Aborigines The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia (Dawson 1881). Other primary sources regarding Aboriginal people include official records and papers, such as those of the Port Phillip Aboriginal Protectorate, and the diaries, papers and letters of the settlers of the district. Corris (1968), Kerley (1981), Critchett (1990), Cannon (1990) and Clark (1995, 1998) have documented the known records of frontier violence between the squatters and the tribes in the Western District during the earliest years of colonisation. Further information of Aboriginal – European contact history can also be found in Kellaway & Rhodes (2002: 50-65), Lane (2001: 13-20), Christie (1979) and Broome (2005).

At the time of European settlement in the area, the Dhauwurd wurrung (Gunditdjmara) language group occupied most of the Glenelg Shire region. The Gunditdjmara occupied the area between the Glenelg and Hopkins Rivers and from the Wannon River and Mount Napier in the north to the coast (Clark 1990: 32; Figure 5). Clark (1990: 55) identified the name and location of 59 Dhauwurd wurrung clans within the language boundary (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Dhauwurd wurrung Language Areas and Clans (Clark 1990: 54) 10 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study North of the Dhauwurd wurrung lands further inland from the Wannon River and into the upper reaches of the Glenelg River, the land comprised clans of the Jardwadjali (Clark 1990: 141). This group comprised of approximately 37 clans likely ranging between 40 – 60 persons making a total of approximately 1,480 to 2,220 at contact (Clark 1990: 253). They practiced a traditional hunting-gathering economy following seasonal resources across the landscape. Inland watercourses, lakes and swamps would have had potable water and a range of habitats and food resources for exploitation. The land west of the Glenelg River from its ocean outfall up to near Casterton belonged to the clans of the Buandig tribe. Little is known of this group, however one of their central meeting places was thought to be on the Glenelg River near Strathdownie (Cusack 1999: 8; McBryde 1984: 38).

There is limited information available regarding the initial Contact period of the Shire. The earliest contact between Dhauwurd wurrung clans and Europeans was with the sealers and whalers, who had arrived at Portland from at least 1810 (Clark 1990: 33). Aboriginal people in the district were used as messengers and guides for lost Europeans.

In contrast, much more has been documented on the frontier violence between the squatters and the tribes in the Western District during the earliest years of colonisation (Corris 1968; Kerley 1981; Critchett 1990; Cannon 1990; Clark 1995, 1998, Broome 2005). The violence was frequently the result of the introduction of sheep and other stock onto traditional Aboriginal land. This caused them to lose access to their country and its resources, such as the murnong, which was eaten by the sheep. Sheep were often stolen or eaten and in a number of cases the shepherds were killed. Many squatters carried out reprisal raids on camps and murdered or drove off the Aboriginals. Due to the squatters and their employees selectively recording and reporting the events, frequently documenting the number of Aboriginal people killed or who had killed them inaccurately, the records are limited (Corris 1968; Cannon 1990; Critchett 1990). In addition, the Assistant Protector for the Western District area, C.W. Sievwright never travelled further west than the Grampians and frequently arrived on the scene well after the events (Clark 1990: 238-239). On the occasions when Sievwright did attempt to have squatters or their workers prosecuted, the charges were either not followed up or considered to not be enough evidence as the accounts provided by Aboriginal witnesses were not admissible (Cannon 1990: 47-64).

In the early 1840s, the Dhauwurd wurrung sustained the most well known guerrilla war in the region, the ‘Eumeralla War’. They launched attacks on settlers from the stony rises in the volcanic country between Port Fairy and Mount Rouse, including the Lake Condah area. The Dhauwurd wurrung would launch attacks from the area near Mount Rouse, Sievwright’s Protectorate station, and return to the reserve for safety. In 1842, Sievwright told the Aborigine’s to cease these attacks. Thousands of sheep were killed or dispersed, four Europeans were killed and two injured. Attacks concentrated on runs that contained traditional meeting places and sacred sites. The frequency of attacks led to the label ‘Eumeralla War’ that had been given to the events by ‘Rolf Boldrewood’ (aka Tom Browne). From 1842 to 1848, Henry Dana and the Native Police Corps visited the area every year for several months, eventually breaking the resistance in 1846 (Clark 1990: 33- 34; Critchett 1990: 137, 171-173).

Despite the resistance and guerrilla war waged against them, the European occupation was complete by 1848, with all traditional lands of the Dhauwurd wurrung occupied by Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 11 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study settlers (Corris 1968; Critchett 1990). Kellaway & Rhodes (2002: 52-53) list the known confrontations between Aboriginal groups and Europeans during this resistance period. After this resistance had been broken by 1845, following a number of massacres and killings (Clark 1997: 9), many people were sent to Mount Rouse Station. Subsequently, the remaining local Aboriginals were relocated to mission stations, such as, Lake Condah and Framlingham Aboriginal Stations (Clark & Murphy 1999: 11).

Lake Condah was established in October 1867 when Rev. Francis, from Framlingham Mission, moved there. However, it was not an official site until land was temporarily set aside as an Aboriginal Reserve, with 2043 acres reserved the following year. By 1885, an additional 1740 acres of stony ground was temporarily reserved and the next year 37 acres (30 acres of which were later revoked) were added. The Mission closed in 1918, but the school stayed open until 1948. In 1951, 2000 acres of the reserve were revoked for a Soldier Settlement. By 1959, only the cemetery, which was later reserved as an Aboriginal Cemetery, remained. The Victorian Government acquired 53 hectares of land at Lake Condah for archaeological and historic interest. This land was handed over to the Kerrup- Jmara in 1987, at the same time as Framlingham Mission was handed over to the Framlingham Aboriginal community (Penney & Rhodes 1990: 20-21).

Under the Commonwealth Act, the traditional lands of the Dhauwurd wurrung have been divided into legislated Aboriginal boundary areas. The Glenelg Shire is within the legislative boundary of the Kerrup Jmara Aboriginal Elders Corporation via the Windamara Aboriginal Corporation.

3.2 Resources Available to Aboriginal People

The subsistence resources available to Aboriginal people in the past would have been very rich throughout the Glenelg Shire. There are an array of productive ecological zones, such as, lacustrine, riverine, wetland and terrestrial that would have been attractive for hunter-gathers. In particular, the coast, rivers and wetland environments would have provided a sufficient resource base to sustain family groups over extended periods.

Within each of the above-mentioned ecological zones, there would have been variations in staple species diversity and abundance, and this, in turn, would have influenced site location (Walsh 1987). It is expected that areas associated with permanent water sources and associated wetland areas would have been the focus of Aboriginal exploitation within and near the study area. It is beyond the scope of this study to reconstruct the resource structure at a local scale. However, some of the food resources that may have been utilised by Aboriginal people are wetland root crops (such as, Typa, Triglochin), dry land root crops (such as, Microseris scaigera), fresh-water fish, crustaceans, waterfowl and land mammals (such as, possums, kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, echidna and emu). Fish and eels were caught in stone fish traps that were constructed at Lake Condah in the Tyrendarra lava flow (Penney & Rhodes 1990: 38) and at the Hopkins River (Schell 1995).

The variety of plants available within the various vegetation communities in the region would have provided staples, such as, murnong (yam daisy), as well as, a variety of herbs, bulbs and tubers. The murnong was a well-known staple throughout the basalt plains. The abundance of other smaller vegetation species such as reeds and rushes associated with plains and wetland areas would have provided material used in the manufacture of various items such as bags, spears and fishing nets. Medicines could be made from species such 12 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study as Blackwood (Acacia mearnsii). The wood or bark from Silver Wattle could be used to manufacture implements. The underground stems, or rhizomes, of the bracken fern were “roasted in hot ashes and beaten into a paste with a stone to break up the hard fibre” (Gott & Conran 1991: 25; Zola & Gott 1990: 37). Open forest trees such as, Blackwood (A. melanoxylon) and Silver wattles (A. dealbata) had a variety of uses. As a medicinal plant, the bark of Blackwood was used to ease rheumatism by heating and infusing with water. String for fishing was obtained from fibre in the inner bark, with spear throwers and shields manufactured from the hard wood of the tree (Gott & Conran 1991: 50). The wood of the Silver wattle was used for stone axe handles. The gum of both Silver and Late Black Wattle could be mixed with ash to make a waterproof paste for repairs of canoes, or as food eaten plain or dissolved with flower nectar and water as a sweet drink (Gott & Conran 1991: 44; Zola & Gott 1990: 38). The wood of Manna gums (E. viminalis) was used for shields and the burls hollowed out and used as water vessels, while the sap provided a sweet treat for Aboriginal people and the Early European settlers alike (Zola & Gott 1990: 38). The ripe fruits of the Cherry Ballart (Exocarpos cupressiformis) were eaten, while its wood was used to make spearthrowers (Gott & Conran 1991: 31, 37).

A variety of gum trees in the region would have provided an extensive range of resources for Aboriginal people. Apart from the manufacture of wooden implements and gaining access to food resources, bark from these trees would also have been removed for other non-utilitarian ceremonial and social purposes.

Stone used for making ground edge axes, including diorite and diabase, was available near the Grampians to the north. Diabase outcrops have been recorded near Ararat, at Chatsworth, Mount Stavely and Juluka, with Norman Tindale claiming that Chatsworth axes were traded as far as the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia (Mulvaney 1964: 429). According to Dawson, stone axes were usually a prized possession of the chief of a tribe (Dawson 1981: 24):

“[The chief] lends it … for a consideration, to the best climbers, who use it to cut steps into the bark of trees, to enable them to climb in search of bears, opossums, birds, and nests, and also to cut wood and strip bark for their dwellings. For the latter purpose the butt end of the handle is made wedge-shaped, to push under the sheets of bark and prize them off trees”.

McBryde’s (1984: 267-268) research indicated that the trade of stone axes in Victoria was not purely economically based. Stone was often traded into areas where similar stone sources existed. Therefore, this indicates that a social reason existed for the trade networks. McBryde (1984: 278) noted that the greenstone from Mount William, near Lancefield, was traded extensively throughout Victoria and thus, might have served “social purposes as a prestige good when it passed beyond Kulin boundaries”. The greenstone may have changed in status from a “supply and demand” item to an item with social exchange value for marriages or other rituals (McBryde 1984: 278). McBryde (1984: 278) also noted that, unlike other curated artefacts, the size of the axes did not significantly reduce over distance from the source. An axe-stone quarry complex has been recorded at Mount Ararat in the Western District. It was investigated and recorded by the Victoria Archaeology Survey in 1975. This complex of greenstone quarry incorporates four individual quarry sites, a small quartz quarry and several work floors of scattered artefacts. The greenstone axes quarried from Victorian sites, such as this, were traded throughout

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 13 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study southeastern Australia. It is items such as these that have allowed archaeologists to trace trade routes and establish hypotheses on social interaction in prehistory (McBryde 1984).

At least one large-scale exchange gathering was recorded in the Western District during the post-Contact period (Dawson 1981: 78; McBryde 1984: 278; Mulvaney 1964: 430: Howitt 1996). James Dawson’s 1881 book, Australian Aborigines, is one of the only texts that recorded, first hand, the customs and languages of Aboriginal groups in the Western District. He detailed an inter-tribal gathering at Noorat (Dawson 1981: 78), approximately 45 kilometres northeast of Warrnambool. It was recorded as follows:

“At the periodical great meetings trading is carried on by the exchange of articles peculiar to distant parts of the country. A favourite place of meeting for the purpose of barter is a hill called Noorat, near Terang. In that locality the forest kangaroos are plentiful, and the skins of the young ones found there are considered superior to all others for making rugs. The aborigines from the Geelong district bring the best stones for making axes, and a kind of wattle gum celebrated for its adhesiveness. This Geelong gum is so useful in fixing the handles of stone axes and the splinters of flint in spears, and for cementing the joints of bark buckets, that it is carried in large lumps all over the Western District. Greenstone for axes is obtained also from a quarry on Spring Creek, near Goodwood; and sandstone for grinding them is got from the salt creek near Lake Boloke. Obsidian or volcanic glass, for scraping and polishing weapons, is found near Dunkeld. The Wimmera country supplies the maleen saplings, found in the malee scrub, for making spears. The Cape Otway forest supplies the wood for bundit spears, and the grass-tree stalk for forming the butt piece of the light spear, and for producing fire; also a red clay, found on the sea coast, which is used as a paint, being first burned and then mixed with water, and laid on a brush formed of the cone of the banksias while in flower by cutting off its long stamens and pistils. Marine shells from the mouth of the Hopkins River, and its freshwater shells, are also articles of trade (Dawson 1981: 78)”.

Dawson noted that attendance at these exchanges was compulsory. He provided the example of an Aboriginal shepherd, Gnaweeth, who was called by smoke signal to a meeting at Mount Rouse. As it was during the gold rush, shepherds were scarce and the station owner refused permission. However, Gnaweeth, who had always been a hard worker, left to attend the meeting, without his pay and possessions. After several months and several invitations by his former employer, he returned, explaining that to have refused the summons may have forfeited his life (Dawson 1981: 78-79).

Lithic resources in the region that could be used for manufacturing fine flake stone artefacts would have comprised predominantly coastal flint, quartzite and quartz and occasionally obsidian and greenstone. In particular, flint is found in nodules along the coast and was a much-prized stone resource for tool making and trade (Coutts et al. 1976: 12). Quartz is also widely available from within watercourses and naturally occurring surface deposits. These four main lithic materials are expected to be the dominant stone used in the manufacture of Aboriginal stone implements. Dawson (1981: 24) noted that “With splinters of flint and volcanic glass the surface of wooden articles is scraped and smoothed, and every man carries a piece of hard porous lava, as a rasp, to grind the points of spears and poles”. Dawson also noted that only the “middle aged aborigines” knew of the uses of these artefacts as they were only seen at “old aboriginal camping places” since being replaced by metal tools (Dawson 1981: 24).

14 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Silcrete was also a very popular stone material type. Until further investigation is undertaken, silcrete is considered to have been transported or traded into this area. However, given the widespread distribution of silcrete stone tools, local sources yet to be documented would have been exploited.

4 PREVIOUS ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE INVESTIGATIONS

As with most parts of Australia, much of Victoria would have been well known, if not utilised by Aboriginal people for at least the last 25,000 years (Keilor: Gallus 1976). While slightly more favourable climatic conditions during the early Holocene period (7-8,000 years BP) may have seen increased use of the region during this time, the greatest use is most likely to have occurred during the last 5,000 years. Like many parts of Victoria, the study area may have experienced population increases and reorganisations of social groupings due to a series of complex internal changes in society (Lourandos 1993).

4.1 Previously Recorded Aboriginal Sites/Places

The Aboriginal occupation of Western Victoria has a demonstrated archaeology dating to 20,000 years B.P. (Bird et al. 1998). Occupation at Drual rockshelter in the Grampians dates back to 22,000 BP (Bird et al. 1998). Lourandos excavated Bridgewater South Cave which dates to 11,300 BP (Lourandos 1983: 83; Head 1985: 3, 5). Therefore, it is possible that more Aboriginal archaeological sites date to this period may exist; however, due to changes in landform and preservation of sites, most of the surface archaeological sites in the region will most likely date to the past 5,000 years, and more probably the last 1,000 years (Bird & Frankel 1991, Godfrey et al. 1996). There is potential for Pleistocene sites to be located within several landform contexts including the Pleistocene dunes of the Bridgewater Formation (coast), caves within the karst limestone presenting on the surface topography (coast and plains), Pleistocene dune ridges and lake lunettes (plains) and within incised valleys of the Merino Tablelands. Raw material for stone tool manufacture would have been available as coastal flint, basalt and possibly obsidian from the volcanic plains, and quartz from rivers and streams.

It is beyond the scope of this study to produce an in depth analysis of the large number of previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites and Aboriginal historic places. A general review of the data from the AAV Heritage Information System allows a number of important observations to be drawn.

Aboriginal Archaeological Sites

Within the Glenelg Shire there are 1,002 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places (Table 1, Appendices 1-2). This comprises 490 stone artefact scatters (40.3%), 342 shell deposits (28.13%), 239 stone features (19.65%), 119 earth features (9.79%), with the remaining type categories making up less than one percent each of the overall total. The vast majority of recorded sites are described as being heavily disturbed with sites containing a significant in situ component.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 15 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Table 1 Registered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places Summary Statistics (Produced for Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria 25-01-2006)

Place Type Frequency (No) Frequency (%) Earth Feature 119 9.79 Shell Deposit 342 28.13 Artefact Scatter 490 40.3 Literature Reference Only 4 0.33 Burial/Human Remains 2 0.16 Quarry 1 0.08 Scarred Tree 11 0.9 Collection 4 0.33 Stone Feature 239 19.65 Aboriginal Place 3 0.25 Aboriginal Place Feature 1 0.08 Totals 1002 100

Although it is outside the scope of this study to breakdown the site categories according to landforms because of time constraints, a number of observations can be drawn from the available data and figures. Figures 4 & 5 depict the density of previously recorded Aboriginal sites. Figure 6 shows the previous survey coverage. Appendices 2 & 4 contain detailed GIS maps provided by AAV showing recorded site locations and areas that have been subject to previous survey.

Examining the site distribution at the scale of the entire Shire it is evident that a large number of sites are concentrated within 1km of the coastline. The dune systems along the coastline comprise predominantly shell deposits with far fewer artefact scatters; however, the percentage of artefact scatters increases in promontory coastal contexts (e.g. the Portland Smelter site). A large number of sites are also concentrated in areas of highly (archaeologically) visibility special interest areas such as Condah and Tyrendarra. These areas comprise predominantly of stone features and artefact scatters.

This recorded site pattern is produced by a combination of cultural and non-cultural factors including past Aboriginal behaviour, site preservation, surface visibility and previous survey coverage.

Aboriginal Historic Places

Twenty-eight Aboriginal Historical Places are registered at Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (Figure 5, Appendix 3). Of these five are murder/massacre places, seven are Honorary Correspondent Depots, four are burial cemetery places, five are associated with the Condah area (if not already counted). The remaining places comprise stations properties, houses, or fishing spots (see Appendix 3). These sites are located predominantly in the southern and northern thirds of the Shire (Figure 5).

16 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 4.2 Previous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Investigations

Numerous cultural heritage investigations have been conducted within the Shire of Glenelg at the regional and local level. Figure 6 shows areas that have been subject to previous survey coverage. Appendix 4 illustrates this coverage in more detail. However, there has been no detailed Aboriginal cultural heritage investigation that has encompassed the whole of the Glenelg Shire that has combined both background research and extensive survey. Most larger scale investigations have occurred along the coast or at Lake Condah and Tyrendarra. Other areas within the Shire that have been investigated are generally narrow linear surveys associated with the installation of pipelines, transmission lines and optical fibre routes. Other investigations have comprised local area cultural heritage assessments for smaller projects such as quarries (Cusack 1999). In general, areas that have received highest survey coverage are the coast in the south and volcanic plains in the southeast. Low survey coverage comprising narrow linear and small-scale area survey is limited primarily to two northwest to southeast corridors running through the middle and the north of the Shire in the plains and Tableland southern margin landforms respectively. Areas that have received little or no survey coverage include the overwhelming majority of the plains, especially the wetland areas west of Strathdownie, and the Tablelands beyond Merino and Casterton.

The following survey of Aboriginal cultural heritage investigations is divided into the following categories: the Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape (Lake Condah & Tyrendarra), the coast (Discovery Bay, Cape Bridgewater & Bridgewater Bay), and the inland of Glenelg Shire (the Glenelg River and the Merino Tablelands).

Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape (Lake Condah & Tyrendarra)

Lake Condah and Tyrendarra area in the southeast of Glenelg Shire has rich archaeological evidence for Aboriginal stone circles (houses) and a riverine based economy that contains complexes of fish trap systems constructed in a waterway environment (Penney & Rhodes 1990). The Lake Condah and Tyrendarra environment was formed from the eruptions of Mount Eccles some time before 20,000 BP (Rosengren 1990).

Early descriptions of the stone fishtrap systems and associated stone structures were initially presented by Kenyon (1912) and later by Massola (1968, 1969). The Victorian Archaeological Survey conducted the first detailed survey of the stone structures in the 1970s (Coutts 1977, 1980; Coutts et al. 1978). The initial investigation was conducted in 1975 on the Kinghorn property near Byaduk. This stimulated similar work at the nearby sites of Lake Condah and the Allambie property. A number of summer schools were conducted by VAS in 1977 and 1980/81. Overall 150 stone structures were recorded and mapped. Some of these sites were meticulously planned while some detailed contour maps of site concentrations were also drawn. Four were excavated in 1975: three by test pit and one more extensively. Only fifty-eight artefacts were found, along with substantial amounts of European artefacts. Coutts et al. (1977: 38) interpreted the archaeological evidence as follows:

20 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

“… it is tempting to argue that the site is a single encampment where all structures were occupied contemporaneously. The excavations revealed that none of the sites had been occupied for any length of time and there is no evidence of rebuilding. Assuming contemporaneity and using ethnographic analogy, we can link each cluster with family units and estimate the maximum population of the settlement … as at least 300, putting the settlement in the ‘special camp’ category with a population presumably drawn from several bands”.

However records were inconsistently recorded and combined with curation problems the records were later found to be incomplete (Clarke 1991: 4).

During the 1981 VAS summer school at Allambie nearly 200 stone structures were recorded. One paddock was investigated in detail and 128 sites were recorded consisting of 116 ‘house sites’, two hides and ten doubtful sites. A stone circle (AAV7222-0358) was also excavated (Wesson 1981). No European artefacts were found and in contrast to the results of the Kinghorn excavations 1745 stone artefacts were recorded. The majority of the artefacts were manufactured from coastal flint. Bone, shell and seeds were also recovered. Three possible ovens were identified. Radiocarbon dating indicated the site was effectively modern. Wesson (1981: 81) concluded that the site represented: “a ‘hearth group’ camp where a group of mixed ages and sexes cooked, ate, repaired weapons and slept”.

Although outside the Glenelg Shire, another stone circle was excavated in the early 1980s by Williams (1988) near Gorrie Swamp which is located north of Bessiebelle. Eight square meters were excavated. No features or European material was identified. Sixty-four artefacts were recorded with 71% exhibiting burning. Radiocarbon dating indicated the site was essentially modern.

In 1984 additional investigations were made at the Allambie property because sites were under threat from a rock-crushing plant being established on the property (Geering 1985a & b; Clark & Geering 1986). According to Geering (1985a: 7) most of the stone houses recorded during the 1981 survey were re-located with an additional 37 stone structures recorded in five paddocks. A further VAS fieldtrip to Allambie was conducted in 1985 to clarify the extent of sites in order to protect them from rock-crushing activities. Archaeologically sensitive areas were more clearly identified and marked, and previously ambiguous structures re-interpreted as natural features (Geering 1985b: 3). The difficulty of preserving the archaeological resources of the property from rock-crushing activities and land improvement resulted in negotiations for the purchase of the property (Clark & Geering 1986). The property was subsequently purchased and handed to the Kerrup- Jmara Aboriginal Elders Corporation.

As part of the Lake Condah Aboriginal Archaeology Project, Clarke (1991) was commissioned to review the archaeology of the Lake Condah area by collating site information held on the site register, to conduct a comprehensive survey of the Lake Condah and former Allambie and Muldoon properties, to re-locate previously recorded sites, to record new sites, and to produce an inventory of the archaeological heritage of the area in a precise and consistent format for management purposes. Ninety-two new sites were recorded including 51 stone circles, 31 stone trap features, seven artefact scatters and three doubtful sites (Clarke 1991: Table 16). Of the 317 previously recorded sites only 50% of them were relocated (Clarke 1991: Table 17). The investigation raised a

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 21 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study number of important issues including the distribution of sites in relation to stony rise topography; the clarification of the archaeological characteristics of the stone circles used to interpret them as ‘houses’; the identification of the archaeological criteria in order to determine the length of occupation of the stony rises, the dating and contemporaneity of stone circles found in clusters and the degree of sedentism represented by them; the social interpretation of these clusters; and the need to investigate adjacent landforms to the stony rises in order to understand the Aboriginal use of the whole landscape (Clarke 1991: 47-49). The results of the investigation by Clarke (1991) were incorporated into the Lake Condah Draft Heritage Management Plan (Context Pty Ltd 1992a & b).

In 1986 a landowner at Tyrendarra reported to VAS the presence of stone circles, fish- traps, scarred trees and an artefact deposit on his property. Site inspectors confirmed his report. Van Waarden (1990) conducted a preliminary survey of the property. Approximately 1.8% of the study area was surveyed. Forty-four sites were recorded including 38 stone circles, four fish-traps, one artefact surface scatter and one possible hunting hide. Some disturbance to the sites by rabbits, land clearing, vehicular traffic, tree disturbance and stock trampling had occurred. Additional survey was recommended to increase the sample of the study area and to better understand the workings of the fish-trap system.

A further survey of the Tyrendarra property was conducted in 1996 following a request by the then administrator of the Windamara Aboriginal Corporation who expressed an interest in purchasing the property at some time in the future (Schell 1996). A total area of 283,750m2 in 12 localities was surveyed with 4.9% effective coverage (Schell 1996: 3). Survey areas targeted locations of reported but as yet unrecorded sites. Twenty-three sites were located and recorded including eight fish-traps, one channel, nine stone circles, three surface scatters and two mounds (Schell 1996: 6). The mounds contained small fragments of bone, charcoal and stone artefacts (Schell 1996: 10). The reported scarred trees were assessed as having natural and not cultural scars (Schell 1996: 11). Some of the sites exhibited evidence of recent disturbance by modern vehicle tracks, stock tracks, stone collapse and rabbit warrens. The stone circle features were similar in size to those recorded by Van Waarden (1990), but occurred in lower densities (Schell 1996: 11). One fish-trap was found in association with a mound indicating multiple activities (Schell 1996: 12). Mounds are a relatively rare site-type in the stony rises landform. Coastal flint, the raw material used in the majority of artefacts recorded at the mound sites, is readily available from the nearby coast (Schell 1996: 12). Schell (1996: 12) recommended that any proposed change in land use practices or the development of any management plan must be referred to AAV and the Windamara Aboriginal Corporation. To reduce damage to stone feature sites Schell recommended a ban on new vehicle tracks and keeping vehicles to existing tracks as well as the implementation of a monitoring program of a sample of stone feature sites in order to assess the level and rate of disturbance of these features.

Lane (2001) conducted a survey on behalf of the Windamara Corporation who aimed to develop an ecotourism venture for the area. A cultural heritage assessment was required to assist in the development of a tourism concept plan. The difficult terrain and poor ground surface visibility hindered the effective survey coverage of the study. A major problem was determining whether stone features were cultural rather than natural arrangements. Fifty-nine Aboriginal archaeological sites and four historical archaeological sites were recorded. The Aboriginal sites consisted of two fish-traps, eleven stone circles, twenty-two surface artefact scatters and twenty-four isolated artefacts. Seventy-six 22 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study ‘possible’ cultural stone features were noted but not registered with AAV as Aboriginal archaeological sites. Management recommendations for the area included short term and longer term vegetation control along with rabbit control to protect archaeological sites from further disturbance; additional survey and excavation of sites especially in determining cultural from natural stone arrangements; and additional investigation of the relationship between the hydrology and archaeology of the area.

Van Waarden and Simmons (VAS 1992) reviewed the archaeological investigations of the stony rises for a Heritage Significance Assessment of the Lake Condah area. They reviewed the following areas: Lake Condah, Kinghorn, Allambie, Gorrie Swamp, the Ettrick/Homerton Locality, and Tyrendarra. This review comprised part an overall assessment of the significance of the archaeology of the stony rises which states that (VAS 1992):

“The Tyrendarra and Mt Napier lava flows represent a significant archaeological province which contains one of the most spatially coherent and extensive examples of stone features belonging to pre-agrarian societies known anywhere in the world.

The fish trap systems represent an intact and extremely rare example of an important development in human cultural evolution.

A major value of the Lake Condah archaeological sites is the unusual information they contain which can be investigated and interpreted to inform and enlighten”.

Furthermore, the area was considered to be of universal significance (VAS 1992: Memorandum):

“The archaeological sites at Lake Condah are of “universal” importance because they preserve critical evidence of technological and social developments which exemplify the transition from a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle into a semi-sedentary society and which are characteristics of incipient agrarian peoples”.

However, some issues were identified that hindered the case for world heritage listing (VAS 1992: Memorandum):

“By world standards, the archaeology of the Lake Condah region has received only limited investigation. Although these investigations have revealed a scale and quality of sites which is not found elsewhere, the absence of a more complete understanding of the dating, chronology, function and hydrology of those sites is a potential handicap in arguing a case for world heritage listing”.

Following on from this assessment Builth (2000, 2003) conducted additional investigation of the fish-trap systems. This involved an intensive survey of the northeastern part of the Tyrendarra property. A digital elevation model was produced to investigate the water flows through the stony rises and the relationships between the topography and the archaeological features. Builth (2000: 205) concluded that:

“It is possible to demonstrate how wetlands have been artificially extended and joined using channels and weirs; how water and eels were directed into these areas from either further upstream … or else from the adjacent boundary river into each separate system by its own constructed channel”.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 23 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study In 2003 the Tyrendarra property was officially declared an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) and was registered on the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database. The declaration was made under IUCN Category VI as a protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. It is the second IPA to be declared in Australia. The Tyrendarra IPA is part of the Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape which was listed on the National Heritage List in 2004. The Lake Condah area is also part of the Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape.

Builth, who currently holds a post-doctoral position at Monash University, is undertaking a large-scale high resolution study of the Mount Eccles lava flow in order to produce a World Heritage Management Plan for the area. The archaeological investigation of the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape has been conducted for many years and is continuing to the present day.

Coastal Areas

Numerous cultural heritage investigations have examined the coastal archaeology of Glenelg Shire. Predominantly these have consisted of survey and some excavation. Aboriginal cultural heritage has been considered in a variety of coastal management plans. For ease of discussion the coastal landform can be divided into two areas: Discovery Bay to the west of Cape Duquesne and Cape Bridgewater to Portland Bay.

Witter (1977) conducted a limited survey and identified sites attributed to the Early Prehistoric (before 5-6,000 BP) and Late Prehistoric periods (post 5-6,000 BP 1977: 56-57) on the basis of the terra rossa soils underlying the unconsolidated sand. The greatest antiquity of sites was dated to at least 8,000 BP (Witter 1977: 65). Late Prehistoric period sites were identified up to 2km inland with most sites located near the coastline or in association with inland swamps and fresh water lakes. The occasional stone hearth was identified with a variety of stone artefacts although their temporal association was questioned (Witter 1977: 57). Most shell midden sites were deflated although some in situ middens were identified in dune banks and buried soil remnants. These rarely exceeded 20cm in depth (Witter 1977: 57). Stone artefacts from the Early Prehistoric period were predominantly flakes with some unifacial cores. Late Prehistoric sites were either comprised primarily of flakes some with secondary retouch similar to “Gamberian” assemblages representing “activity areas” (Witter 1977: 58-59) or “microlithic sites” with backed blades, thumbnail scrapers and retouched bladelets interpreted as “workshops” (Witter 1977: 60). Witter (1977: 65) recommended additional research in the Discovery Bay area to mitigate threats to archaeological sites from increased recreational use of the area and the effects of erosion.

Godfrey (1980) conducted a more detailed survey of the Discovery Bay Coastal Park to identify and assess sites in order to formulate management recommendations for their protection, research and interpretation. Approximately 420 acres (7%) of the park was surveyed. Over 300 sites were observed and 114 sites recorded. Of these 5% dated to the Early Prehistoric period while 95% dated to the Late Prehistoric period (Godfrey 1980: 25). Only 23 of the sites appeared to be in situ. Most of the sites consisted of both shell and lithics (85%) while sites consisting of only one component of either shell or lithics comprised 11% and 4% respectively. Sites were generally concentrated within 200m inland of the foredune between Nelson and Transect 17 and were most frequently recorded in the bottom of blowouts (69%). Shellfish did not appear to be carried further 24 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study than 1.75km inland. Coastal flint was the main raw material for the manufacture of stone artefacts. The decortification of flint nodules appeared to predominate the assemblages (Godfrey 1980: 37). Some sites had cores, retouched flakes and backed blades. Godfrey (1980: 40-41) concluded that further research was required to resolve problems relating to the chronology, lithic technology, food exploitation strategies and changes in the prehistoric environment. Recommendations were presented on park use, public education and preservation of sites (Godfrey 1980: 41-45).

Godfrey (1994) presented the results of many years of investigation at Discovery Bay. Three phases of shell fishing were identified. During the early period (10,000 – 6,000BP) Mytilus planulatus (Common Mussel) associated with terra rossa sediments predominate although some Donax deltoides (Pipi) are also present. During the middle period (6,000 – 3,000 BP) middens were dominated by Donax deltoides (Pipi) and Brachidontes rostratus, with some Ostrea angasi (Mud Oyster). Some were found associated with the terra rossa sediments. The late period (<3,000 BP) middens are associated with unconsolidated sand dunes. Middens near rock platforms are dominated by Brachidontes rostratus with some Subninella undulate (Turbo), Cellana tramoserica (Limpet) and Dicathais textilosa (Dog Winkle). Middens near the sandy dunes are dominated by Donax deltoides (Pipi) with some Donacilla nitida.

In 1980 Discovery Bay was listed on the Register of the National Estate for its natural values. In the Statement of Significance the Aboriginal archaeological values are noted but not officially identified, documented or assessed.

Cape Duquesne – Cape Bridgewater – Bridgewater Bay – Portland

Early investigations in this area concentrated in the Tarragal Caves area and impact assessments were conducted for the Alcoa Aluminium Smelter (Wesson & Clark 1980; Simmons & Djekic 1981). The Tarragal Caves overlook the Bridgewater Lakes. Aboriginal artefacts in the caves were first identified by Bonwick (1970) and Coulson (1940). Mulvaney (1957) augured some of the cave deposits and also found shells, stone artefacts and bone. Lourandos (1980) excavated one of the caves in the mid-1970s. Two phases of occupation were identified: early to mid Holocene, 11,000 – 5,000 BP, when there was occasional use of the cave; and the late Holocene 5,000 – 500 BP when there was more intensive use of the cave perhaps on a seasonal basis. Recently the area has been subject to more intensive and systematic survey and excavation (Richards & Jordan 1996; Westaway 1998; Schell 2000a & b; Godfrey 2000).

Richards & Jordan (1996) conducted investigations at Cape Bridgewater after the Kerrup Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation expressed concern that work associated with the upgrading of sections of the Great South West Walk might damage Aboriginal sites in the area. Investigations were concentrated at Cape Duquesne, White’s Beach and Bridgewater Bay. At Cape Duquesne investigation of site AAV7121-0233 (Cape Duquesne 1) comprised detailed mapping, limited excavation, surface artefact collection, and materials analysis. Fifty-eight hearths were identified but only two were considered to be partially intact due to large-scale erosion. Both hearths were subsequently excavated. Nine of the shell middens had intact deposits and five of them were test excavated to assess their integrity, depth and nature of occupation. Radiocarbon dates from the two hearths range between 2,600 to 1,400 BP. The shell middens however dated to between 9,000 to 8,000 years ago indicating that there were two periods of occupation at the site Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 25 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study with a hiatus of approximately 5,000 years. At White’s Beach one site was recorded which had been disturbed by erosion and an unauthorised track to the beach. A very large site was recorded in the Bridgewater dunes measuring approximately 200m in diameter and contained at least 20 hearth features (Bridgewater Dunes 1 AAV7221-0750). Many hearths were still largely intact and capped with shell. Substantial midden deposits were also intact and a number of large retouched flint tools were identified on the surface. Based on the diversity of site contents and rarity Cape Duquesne 1 and Bridgewater Dunes 1 were assessed as highly significant. Both sites were considered to have high educational and tourism potential, although the access to the later site was very poor (Richards & Jordan 1996: 61-63).

Westaway (1998) made five recommendations regarding the protection of sites within the Bridgewater Bay dunes including restricting vehicular access, providing appropriate signage to assist the preservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, constructing a track to avoid archaeologically sensitive areas, the complete documentation and mapping of sites, monitoring of sites and assessing the effectiveness of management recommendations.

Schell (2000) conducted an archaeological assessment of the Bridgewater coastline on behalf of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria in order to “assess the condition of, and the risks to Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and places and to define zones of archaeological sensitivity for management purposes” (Schell 2000: 2). Previous archaeological investigations recorded 23 sites including 18 shell middens, 3 stone artefact surface scatters, a cave deposit and an isolated artefact. Schell recorded an additional 28 sites including 25 shell middens, 2 stone artefact surface scatters and a non-human bone surface scatter totalling forty-eight sites registered for the study area. Ground surface visibility was high due to considerable erosion. Differential use of the area by Aboriginal people was identified through the variation of site contents associated with local landform and available resources. For example, the Springs at Cape Duquesne and Murrells Beach were important for additional local resources (Schell 2000). Shell (2000: 2) used “background environmental information and the survey results … to identify six zones of ‘cultural variability’, varying from high to low/moderate archaeological potential.” Cape Duquesne, the inland dune system and the Tarragal Caves were assessed as having high potential; the Bridgewater Bay coastline and Murrells Beach area moderate potential and Cape Bridgewater low to moderate potential.

Godfrey (2000) conducted an archaeological survey of Bridgewater Bay and Aboriginal cultural heritage comparison with nearby Discovery Bay. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggested different utilisation of the two areas. Radiocarbon dating of shell and charcoal from the middens and ovens suggested Aboriginal visitation and exploitation of the dunes for at least the last 4,000 years. However, Bridgewater Bay was most probably secondary in importance to the richer and more diverse resourced Discovery Bay dune system. Although there was evidence from Discovery Bay and Cape Bridgewater that Aboriginal people exploited shellfish for at least the last 10,000 years, Godfrey attributed the patchiness of the evidence to the changing sea-levels and coastline which may have been up to three kilometres seaward. Subsequent erosion has probably destroyed much of the evidence required to demonstrate continuous occupation and utilisation of the area by Aboriginal peoples.

The aims of the survey were to record archaeological sites; identify shellfish species and their distribution; to record the location of individual ovens; take C14 samples from rock- 26 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study shelters, shell middens and ovens; note the presence of other food sources; note vehicle tracks; and to probe archaeological deposits to identify stratified archaeological deposits (Godfrey 2000: 11).

An area of approximately 4.5km2 was surveyed. The largest middens were located along the southwestern edge of the barren sand dunes in the centre of the study area. None appeared to be stratified and there was little evidence of shell lenses in the underlying terra rossa soils. Large deflated middens were located in the blowouts below the cliffs near Mt Chaucer (Godfrey 2000: 13). Middens with more than one species generally were comprised of Donax and Paphies. The greatest concentrations of stone artefacts were along the southwest margins of the barren dunes. The assemblages were characterised with cores, flakes (with and without cortex), scraper, and microliths. The most common raw material was coastal flint, however there were also basalt grinding stones, lumps of quartz and the occasional piece of silcrete (Godfrey 2000: 13). 124 ovens were recorded concentrated in two areas over approximately half a kilometre: 26 on the vegetated slopes to the east of the Nagorkas - beach vehicle track and 55 to the west (Godfrey 2000: 13- 15). Twenty of the latter were within an area of 40 metres on a low ridge. A smaller more isolated complex of 9 ovens was associated with the terra rossa at the northwestern end of the open dunes (Godfrey 2000: 15).

The earliest dates are 4,000 BP from shell samples taken from a clearly stratified deposit located in the terra rossa. The other samples fell within the 1,800-600 BP range (Godfrey 2000: 15). No stratified archaeological deposits were identified from probes sunk in four rock-shelters.

Godfrey (2000: 15-23) concluded that the oldest shell middens occur on Cape Bridgewater and range in age between 10,000-8,000 BP while none of the middens at Discovery Bay date earlier than 8,500 BP. The radiocarbon dating of the Bridgewater Dune shell middens indicates that most date within the last 4,000 years. The lack of midden sites from the Early Holocene (earlier than 4,000 BP) was attributed to the destruction of sites from this period caused by coastal erosion. Differential resource availability of shellfish species, plant resources, and water sources between Bridgewater Bay and Discovery Bay affected the relative seasonal significance of each area (Godfrey 2000: 21- 22). It was recommended that vehicular access should be restricted and supervised in order to protect sites (Godfrey 2000: 26).

The area from Portland to Cape Nelson has been listed on the Register of the National Estate as an Indicative Place for its natural values. A decision has not been made on whether it should be entered in the Register. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and the local Aboriginal community should be consulted to investigate whether the area should be nominated for its Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Inland

The remainder of Glenelg Shire has been the focus of many small-scale investigations but no systematic regional survey has yet been conducted. Various regional-scale investigations have been undertaken in neighbouring regions such as the Hopkins River (Coutts et al. 1976) and the South West Wimmera (Rhoads & Bird 2000).

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 27 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Between 1973 and 1975 Coutts et al. (1976) surveyed 247,000 hectares of the upper Hopkins River basin encompassing the Mt Stavely and Lake Bolac area. It is typified by a large number of perennial and intermittent lakes and swampy areas. A total of 207 mound sites were recorded in the field. 72% of these comprised accumulations of black soil and often contained charcoal and stone artefacts. 75% of the mounds were located on natural rises. Approximately 60% of the mounds ranged between 2 – 20m in diameter and 40% of those between 5 – 10m. More than 50% of the mounds had a volume less than 100m3 and 84% less than 60m3. Mounds tended to be circular in shape (Coutts et al. 1976: 19-20). 45% of mounds grouped in some way. Using a radius of 200m around mounds the most common grouping was is pairs. There were also a significant number of groupings up to six mounds. This pattern also occurred when the radius was increased to 500m and 1000m, although the distribution was bimodal. The most common grouping of mounds was in two and threes with fewer cases in fives and sixes (Coutts et al. 1976: 12). Locational analysis indicated that mounds were concentrated in areas within easy access to a diversity of environmental zones. Generally this comprised areas of woodland and grassland, swamps, lakes, creeks and areas subject to inundation. This diversity means that mound location was not directly associated with a single biotic community type, except in the close association of mounds with the main drainage system of the region (Coutts et al. 1976: 20).

Five sites were excavated four of which were mounds (Coutts et al. 1976: 14-19). Mound FM/1 was badly disturbed by rabbits. Two rock structures were identified along with evidence of at least three burials. Associated material included lithic material and bone fragments. The evidence indicated multiple activities including cooking, stone tool manufacture, refuse dumping and burial (Coutts et al. 1976: 21-24). Mound KP/1 was also disturbed by rabbit burrows. Excavations revealed rock arrangements, a pit, three burials, a possible oven and three flaking floors (Coutts et al. 1976: 24-26). The analysis of the stone tools from the excavations of FM/1 showed that the dominant raw material was quartz, comprising 80% of the waste flake assemblage. Other materials included diorite or greenstone, flint and volcanic glass. Only 20% of the tools were made from quartz, with 25% made from quartzite. Formal tools comprised a small percentage of the assemblage (6%). Formal tools included flake and blade tools, backed blades, thumbnail scrapers, fabricators and burins (Coutts et al. 1976: 26-32). Faunal analysis indicated a range of marine and terrestrial species consumed at the sites (Coutts et al. 1976: 33-42). The authors concluded that mounds represented multiple activity areas, are not function specific, and probably represent seasonal base camps or living areas. It was recommended that additional investigation of mounds was required in order to determine the antiquity of the sites, whether they were occupied seasonally and how they were constructed (Coutts et al. 1976: 42-43).

Rhoads & Bird (2000) conducted a regional survey of the south west Wimmera and includes landforms similar to the plains unit found in northern Glenelg Shire. The most common site types were scarred trees and stone artefact surface scatters. No earth mounds, quarries or rock shelters were recorded. At the regional level the distribution and characteristics of sites were strongly linked to the distribution and nature of water sources (2000: 30). Increased numbers of sites were associated with larger and more permanent lakes and swamps. At a local level different site densities were associated with different environments (2000: 30). Sites were rarest in sand plains associated with brown stringy bark woodlands. Sites were more common on alluvial plains associated with a mosaic of red gum forest and gum/box/buloke savannah woodland. Sites were most common on 28 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study lake shorelines and bordering dunes. Scarred trees were associated with preferred species such as red gum and grey box and most particularly with the mosaic savannah woodland (2000: 31).

The results conformed to those found in the heritage assessment of the Upper Wimmera by Archaeological Consulting Services (1997). From this investigation a number of implications for cultural heritage management were formulated: at the regional level the density of Aboriginal material will be related to the type and reliability of water sources such as permanent lakes and swamps; most sites will be scarred trees or artefacts scatters with fewer mounds and even fewer rock shelters and quarries; wetlands were important areas with surface artefacts scatters occurring primarily on lunettes and bordering dunes; watercourses are less significant due, in part, to the poor preservation resulting from European land practices; and woodlands surviving on crown land and road reserves have preserved many sites otherwise destroyed by European land practices (Rhoads & Bird 2000: 33-34). Rhoads & Bird (2000: Appendix 1) recommended that management procedures be put in place to protect Aboriginal sites in woodland areas (especially for scarred trees) and for lunettes and bordering dunes (especially stone artefact scatters); further cultural heritage investigations were required in the lunette and dunes area to identify areas of archaeological sensitivity; and additional cultural heritage investigations and management plans were also required for other areas identified including the Wimmera River area, Mount Arapiles, Mooree Reserve, Bow Lake, Tooroot Swamp, Mount Moffat Waterhole, Clear Lake, Dip Lake and the Toolondo Site Complex.

McConnell, Buckley & Wickman (2002) presented the Aboriginal Heritage Management in Victorian Forests report for the Department of NRE within the framework of the Regional Forest Agreement Program. This report followed on from a similar assessment conducted for the North East region of Victoria. An Aboriginal Heritage Management System was developed for forests in West Victoria. It proposed a set of principles for the management of Aboriginal values in DNRE managed forests. It recommended additional identification of Aboriginal heritage values and additional research at a regional level to mitigate disturbance of Aboriginal heritage values and for strategic planning and management purposes. A number of key objectives and mechanisms were proposed to achieve these desired outcomes. A system of Aboriginal Heritage Sensitivity Zoning for the areas under review was presented. For the Glenelg Shire region a number of preliminary predictive statements were presented (Figure 5):

• All areas within 2km of the present coastline have high sensitivity for Aboriginal sites; • All areas of stony rise country (part of the Newer Volcanics) have high sensitivity for sites; • River floodplains are of high archaeological sensitivity (for mounds and open sites); • A majority of sites (open sites & scarred trees) will occur in proximity to freshwater (swamps, lakes, creeks & rivers (including ephemeral watercourses); • Swamp edges are highly sensitivity areas, and sites will stretch from the waters edge to some point on higher ground; • In wet and periodically flooded areas sites are most likely to occur on rises within 100m of permanent water/wetlands; • High densities of sites occur in association with dunes;

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 29 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study • The trees which most commonly have scars due to Aboriginal use are River Red Gum, Grey Box, Messmate and other Stringybarks; • Savannah woodland communities have high sensitivity for scarred trees.

It was commented that a survey should be designed to produce data that can be used with existing site data to formulate sensitivity zoning (Figure 5).

Small-Scale Investigations:

The smaller scale investigations comprise mainly linear surveys associated with gas pipelines, transmission lines, water pipelines and optical fibre lines, both inland and along the coast of Glenelg Shire (Presland 1981; Ellender 1989; Wood & Lance 1990; Lance 1991; Wood 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004; Russell & McNiven 1994; McNiven & Russell 1994a & b, 1997a, b & c; Clark 1994; Edmonds 1995; Luebbers 1996; Heritage Consulting Australia Pty Ltd 2001; Wood & Builth 2003; Feldman 2005). Other small-scale investigations consist of area surveys associated with localised developments (Webb 1995; Marshall 1997; Everett 1998; Cusack 1999; Long & Edmonds 2000; Rhodes & Atkinson 2000; Luebbers 2001; Long 2001; Gunn 2002). It is beyond the scope of this study to review each of these small-scale reports. These smaller-scale surveys have identified a wide range of site-types to be found in the Glenelg Shire including shell deposits, artefact scatters, scarred trees, stone features and earthen mounds. The results of these small scale investigations have conformed to prediction models generated by regional investigations.

4.3 Aboriginal Site Distribution Model and Implications for Glenelg Shire

Based on the Aboriginal cultural heritage background of the Glenelg Shire, the following generalised site distribution model and implications for this investigation are:

• The Glenelg Shire has a rich and varied Aboriginal cultural heritage that includes areas of national and potentially international significance (Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape).

• There are currently 1002 Aboriginal sites recorded for the Shire.

• Although it is outside the scope of this study to definitively calculate the past survey coverage of the Glenelg Shire, at best 5% has been effectively surveyed (Figure 6).

• A wide range of Aboriginal sites have been recorded. The most common site-types recorded are stone artefact scatters (n=490, 40%), shell deposits (n=342, 28%), stone features (stone circles, fish-traps/weirs, etc, n=239, 20%) and earth features (mounds, n=119, 10%). Less common site-types include scarred trees (n=11, 1%), two burials and one quarry.

• The vast majority of sites have been recorded within areas of high ground surface visibility in disturbed contexts. Few sites have been recorded through sub-surface investigations.

30 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study • The most intensively investigated areas include the coastal regions (Discovery Bay and Cape Bridgewater) and the Mount Napier and Mount Eccles lava flows. This has skewed the sample of site-types recorded for the Glenelg Shire.

• The most common site-types for the coastal area are shell deposits and stone artefact scatters. Most of the shell deposits date to within the last 4,000 years with some shell deposits dating to the last 10,000 years. Two or possibly three phases of shellfish exploitation are indicated by the archaeology of the coastal region. The differences in the number of sites recorded for the different phases can be explained by the change of sea-levels and the effects of erosion.

• Rare site-types for the coastal area include earth mounds, burials and stone features.

• The stone artefacts in the coastal areas are predominantly manufactured from coastal flint. A range of artefact types is found but comprise predominantly flakes and debitage with some cores and formal tool types including backed blades.

• The remains of ovens, along with shell deposits and stone artefacts, indicate a range of activities was conducted in the coastal areas.

• The effects of erosion and ground disturbance by European activity have impacted upon the scientific significance of many of the coastal sites. Most of the midden deposits have been deflated and only a small proportion appear to be in situ and stratified. Sites in the coastal area will range from low to high scientific significance depending upon contents, condition and representativeness. The Tarragal Caves overlooking the Bridgewater Lakes have very high scientific significance.

• The most common site-types for the Budj Bim National Estate landscape incorporating the Tyrendarra lava flow comprise stone features including stone circles (‘houses’), fish-traps/weirs, channels, etc. Less common site types include stone artefact scatters and earth mounds.

• Although claims have been made for an age of the fish-trap system of the Tyrendarra lava flow up to 10,000 years BP, at this stage most ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggests the system dates to the immediate pre-contact and contact period.

• European activities in the area including grazing and rock-crushing may have disturbed or destroyed archaeological sites. Difficulties in the interpretation of natural from cultural stone features may have inflated the number of sites recorded for the stony rise landform. At the same time the effectiveness of surveys have been affected by variable (predominantly low) ground surface visibility which may result in missed sites.

• Despite the above issues, the volcanic plains landform and associated Aboriginal sites have high scientific significance as indicated by the listing of the area on the National Estate register as the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape and the listing

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 31 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study of the Tyrendarra area as an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA). This area is currently being considered for international listing.

• Areas outside the coastal region and lava flows have not been intensively surveyed at the regional scale. The most common site types for these areas include stone artefact scatters, earthen features (mounds), and scarred trees.

• A high proportion of the land has been disturbed by European land practices including farming, grazing, and native vegetation clearance. This has likely disturbed many as yet unrecorded Aboriginal archaeological sites. The clearance of trees has destroyed scarred trees. In areas with old growth forests dating prior to European occupation scarred trees are likely to occur. Ploughing and erosion disturb surface and sub-surface artefact deposits thereby affecting their scientific significance.

• Areas of highest sensitivity/potential for Aboriginal sites will be within 100m of watercourses and in the vicinity of swamps and lakes. Remnant lunettes on the margins of lakes will be particularly sensitive.

• Although burials are a rare site-type they are of very high scientific and cultural significance and may be found in coastal dunes, lake lunettes and earth mounds.

• The coastal foreshore, which is seeing greatest impact by recent development, is currently at high risk of losing archaeological sites of possibly high scientific significance.

• The Glenelg Shire contains landforms with archaeological sites that are demonstrated to have very high scientific significance and cultural heritage values. Management of these values varies according to the type of land ownership and custodianship. This ranges from none to active management including nomination to national and world heritage status. Management would benefit from a framework that encompasses the entire Glenelg Shire.

4.4 Discussion – Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The Glenelg Shire possesses an Aboriginal cultural heritage that dates back on archaeological evidence from the region to at least 11,000 years BP. Archaeological evidence from other regions of Victoria and Tasmania indicates that Aboriginal people likely occupied the Glenelg Shire for at least the previous 40,000 years. The Aboriginal cultural heritage of the Glenelg Shire has been assessed and recognised by State and Federal government agencies as having state and national significance as indicated by the listing of Tyrendarra and Lake Condah Area on various heritage registers. These same agencies have also recognised that this cultural heritage likely has international significance. As yet this has not been formally recognised by a World Heritage Listing, although efforts are continuing to achieve this outcome.

The various landforms and environments within the Glenelg Shire offered a rich and varied range of resources for Aboriginal people to exploit. A unique example of the ingenuity of Aboriginal people is the modification of the wetland system of the stony rises along the

32 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Mount Eccles lava flow for the harvesting of eels. This environment is also significant for its role as a refuge from which Aboriginal people resisted European colonisation. The coastal areas provided rich marine resources exploiting both rocky platform and sandy beach shellfish. The importance of the coastal resources is confirmed by the archaeological evidence of middens dating back 9,000 years representing two or possibly three phases of shellfish exploitation. The coast also provided coastal flint for stone tool manufacture. Inland areas were rich in lacustrine and terrestrial resources. Rivers and their tributaries, along with lakes and swamps, would have been prime locations for hunting, gathering, and meeting places as well as providing waypoints for routes of movement across the landscape.

The Mount Eccles lava flow areas and parts of the coast have been the focus of archaeological research for the last thirty years and are relatively well-known. This is reflected in the large number of registered sites along with state and national heritage listings. However, the inland areas are less well-known. They have not been subject to large-scale regional cultural heritage investigation, but rather limited linear or small area investigation. This is reflected in the lower number of registered sites. The known distribution and density of sites is therefore not an accurate reflection of the past occupation of inland areas by Aboriginal people.

There are a number of natural and cultural threats which impact upon Aboriginal sites. Coastal sea and wind erosion deflates and destroys middens, some of which are in situ. Some types of recreational use of dunes, rabbits and vegetation removal contribute to this process. European land practices have resulted in native vegetation removal, erosion and ground disturbance which either impact upon or destroy Aboriginal sites. The removal of mature native trees older than 200 years potentially destroys scarred trees. Ploughing causes ground disturbance of sub-surface in situ stone artefact scatters and mound sites. Extractive industries such as rock-crushing may destroy stone feature sites or Aboriginal stone quarries on lava flow landforms. Sand mining on inland lunettes may destroy stone artefact scatters and possibly also burials. Coastal development may impact upon registered Historic Aboriginal Places if all the necessary planning procedures have not been conducted. A recent example is the Convincing Ground Place at Allestree.

The current recorded sites of the Shire shed some insight into aspects of Aboriginal prehistory of the Glenelg Shire, but this is restricted to certain areas and time periods. Additional cultural heritage investigations would assist to fill in some of these gaps.

5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

It is beyond the scope of this investigation to give a detailed historical account of European history for the Glenelg Shire. A brief outline is presented below from secondary sources in order to provide a general background to the European cultural heritage values and their assessment below. Detailed and summary histories are available in Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd (1981), Bennet (1993), Hedditch (1996), Penney & Rhodes (1990: 11-49) and Kellaway & Rhodes (2002).

The first maritime charting of the Portland coast was by Lieutenant James Grant in late 1800 who named the main coastal features of the Shire of Glenelg. In 1802 the French scientific expedition led by Nicholas Baudin explored the coast between Cape Otway and Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 33 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Cape Grant. Subsequently Matthew Flinders also surveyed the coastline of the area in 1802.

However, the sealers and whalers were the first episodic visitors to the Portland area. They likely operated from Portland Bay by the late 1700s with reports of their activities in Bass Strait dating to the early 1790s (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 19). A sealer’s grave dated 1822 on Lady Julia Percy Island provides one of the few physical reminders of their early presence in the Portland district (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 19). By the late 1820s and early 1830s there were many reports of their operations in Portland Bay.

The Hentys also participated in the whaling industry conducting their activities at the Convincing Ground site (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 20). However, with the decline of the industry, the Hentys explored the inland country and by 1835 had explored distances up to 40 miles from Portland. Correspondingly, Major Mitchell came overland from the north and explored the inland areas of Glenelg Shire in 1836 and passed through the Portland Bay District. He described the Glenelg, Surrey and Fitzroy Rivers along with Discovery Bay. His good reports of the land combined with those by the Hentys and others resulted in the migration to the area by the ‘overlanders’ and the ‘overstraiters’ (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 25).

Large pastoral runs were rapidly taken up throughout the Shire during the late 1830s and 1840s with the most successful of these located in the Glenelg River basin on the Merino Tablelands (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 28). But the squatters had no government sanction to occupy the land and were not regulated until 1843 when the first leases were issued. By 1850 most of the land had been claimed by European settlers (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 29). However, tenure was insecure until Pre-Emptive rights were provided from 1847 over at least part of the runs (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 34). Tenure over the land resulted in squatters improving their property in their bid to gain freehold title in order to permanently settle the district.

From the 1860s the Victorian government passed a number of land reform Selection Acts which aimed to provide land for small-scale settlers to engage in a range of agricultural activities besides pastoralism (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 38-41). Democratic reformists stimulated by developments arising from the Victorian gold rush advocated land reform. However, although the Selection Acts targeted large landholdings in the Glenelg Shire they did not necessarily achieve the aim of providing land to small selectors, but rather delivered the land freehold to a handful of wealthy landowners. However, subsequent Acts proved marginally more successful and saw the establishment of a larger number of selectors.

Continuing efforts were made to democratise the land through the Closer Settlement Act of 1904. Large estates were purchased, sub-divided and sold. The first example in the Glenelg Shire was the purchase in 1900 of Wando Vale Estate which was sub-divided into 66 blocks and sold. These were more successful than the later Soldier Settlement Acts after WWI and WWII. These were small-holdings provided to returned servicemen but comprised poor land unsuitable for small-scale farming (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 46-50).

The valuable natural resources of Glenelg Shire enabled its rapid development (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002: 66-76). These included seals and whales, other commercial fishing stocks such as ‘couta, cray, haddock and shark. Forests supplied major industries by 34 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study providing timber for mills, fuel, building, fences, timber for the gold fields, and also the early industry of wattle bark stripping. From the 1920s plantation timbers were farmed within the Shire. Ample volcanic stone was used for dry-stone walls, buildings, bridges, and roads. Primary industry has traditionally concentrated on sheep grazing with fewer cattle. Produce has included wool, meat and dairy. Orchards, nurseries, and flourmills also comprised relatively early primary industries. Portland’s deep port provides easy bulk transport of commodities including grain, aluminium ingots, logs, forest products and livestock. The Portland Smelter has been a significant economic and tourist industry since the 1980s.

The rich European history of Glenelg Shire illustrates the tourist potential for the region including themes such as early exploration, whaling and sealing, first settlement (pre-gold rush), early pioneering experience, and historic buildings and homesteads amongst many others.

6 PREVIOUS HISTORIC CULTURAL HERITAGE INVESTIGATIONS

Stage one of regional historic cultural heritage study has been recently conducted for the Glenelg Shire (Kellaway & Rhodes 2002). Stage two of this study in currently underway (GSMR 2005). The study will conduct more detailed research and assessment of the approximately 100 sites identified in earlier studies (Hubbard & Neyland 2005). The City of Portland has been subject to an Urban Conservation Study (Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981). Detailed historic Aboriginal heritage studies have been conducted for the former Lake Condah Aboriginal Mission. There have also been numerous historic surveys as part of cultural heritage assessments for pipelines, cable routes and other developments in the region.

6.1 Previously Recorded Historic Sites

Seventy places are on the Register of the National Estate; of these fifty are historic places. The majority of these are located in Portland (n=43, 86%). Only four of these are located more than 25km inland from the coast. One hundred and forty-three places are listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and Heritage Inventory (see Appendix 5). There are one hundred and forty-four places on the National Trust of Victoria Register (Table 2). The majority of these are located in Portland (n=103, 72%). Only 15 (10%) of these are located more than 25km inland from the coast. On the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay Schedule there are one hundred and fifty-five heritage places. Twenty-seven of these are recorded as places on the Victorian Heritage Register (Glenelg Planning Scheme 30/06/2005). Many sites are listed on a number of databases. The current recorded sites reflect the range of historic activities in the shire including, early road works, homesteads and their associated structures, World War II, early industries, infrastructure, extractive sites, maritime and its associated activities, cemetaries, schools, churches and small township dwellings. Appendix 5 only cross-references those on the Victorian Heritage Register. The current recorded historic site trend is significantly biased toward coastal development, particularly around Portland.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 35 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Table 2 Glenelg Shire Heritage Places and Localities on Heritage Databases

Location RNE* VHR* NTRV* GSHO* Portland 43 81 103 81 Portland Bay to Cape 1 27 8 4 Duquesne Discovery Bay 14 Casterton & surrounds 2 1 8 4 Condah 1 11 5 Heywood & surrounds 2 4 Drik Drik 3 Henty 2 Hotspur 1 1 2 Tyrendarra 1 8 1 2 Bridgewater Lakes 1 1 Dartmoor 1 Grassdale 1 Allestree 1 Narrawong 4 1 Sandford 1 1 Tahara 1 1 1 Bolwarra 2 Merino 1 1 Other 5 1 4 Total 50 146 144 155 * RNE (Register of the National Estate), VHR (Victorian Heritage Register and Inventory, NTVR (National Trust of Victoria Register), GSHO (Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay)

6.2 Previous Historic Cultural Heritage Investigations

Large Scale Investigations:

An Urban Conservation Study for Portland (Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981) examined an area within a 10km radius of the Portland GPO. One hundred and twenty-nine sites were either recommended to be nominated, retained or were recorded and classified by the Register of the National Estate, the Historic Buildings Register, the Town and Country Planning Act and the National Trust (Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981: Section 3). A Conservation Area was recommended as an Area of Special Significance along with seven conservation or historic precincts (Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981: Section 4). In this study the potential for historic archaeology was not considered.

Kellaway and Rhodes (2002) conducted the first stage of a heritage study and environmental history of the Glenelg Shire. A number of themes were researched in the study including the natural environment and its alteration by European settlement, the peopling of the land from its first indigenous inhabitants to European colonisation and settling including the resistance by the local Aboriginal people, the development of the local and regional economy, the building of towns, transport and communication, the development of government, education and cultural life. Many important aspects of the historic material culture of the Shire are referred to but no assessment is made of historic archaeological potential.

36 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study The second stage of the heritage study has recently commenced (Hubbard & Neyland 2005 draft). The study will conduct more detailed research and assessment of the approximately 100 places including heritage areas or precincts identified in earlier studies and form the basis of a historic heritage database for the Glenelg Shire. Recommendations will be prepared for places identified as having cultural heritage value. Places assessed as having state or national significance will be nominated for the Victorian Heritage Register and the Register of the National Estate.

Lake Condah Mission and Surrounds:

Wesson (1981) recorded a number of historic structures on the stony rises in the Lake Condah area including ten complexes of structures comprising house sites, yards, pens and dry-stone fences. Chimneys and footings may represent the remains of timber buildings.

Gould and Bickford (1984) conducted an historical and site assessment of the Lake Condah Mission Station. The study concentrated on the surviving buildings of the complex. The history of the Condah Mission and others in Victoria was researched. The sequence of the mission development was investigated and compared to the physical remains visible on the site. More than 50 sites were identified including five standing ruins and the footings of ten structures. Also identified were tracks, roads, vegetation and a bridge.

Rhodes (1986) excavated the mission dormitory prior to its reconstruction. A hearth was recorded believed to pre-date the establishment of the Mission indicating earlier Aboriginal occupation.

Penney and Rhodes (1990) conducted research into the Post-Contact history and archaeology of the Lake Condah area. The historical research conducted by Penney was used to develop a predictive model for the archaeological survey conducted by Rhodes (Penney and Rhodes 1990: 1, 3, 43). Rhodes recorded 42 post-Contact sites comprising 55 individual structures, including rural complexes comprising stone buildings, stockyards, dry stone walls and other rural features. The results indicated limited rural use of the stony rises, such as, grazing livestock, with the majority of rural features found on flat or undulating land (Penney and Rhodes 1990).

The Land Conservation Council conducted a historic places investigation in southwestern Victoria (Story & Davies 1995). 2,200 places were identified and 700 were subject to recommendations for protection, management and investigation. Places were assigned to State, regional and local levels of significance. Specific historic places were recommended for protection in reserves, management zones and registration on the Victorian Heritage Register and the Register of the National Estate.

A draft heritage management plan for Lake Condah, including the Lake Condah Mission (Context Pty Ltd 1992a & b). The material heritage of the Mission was identified in at least five localities and comprised the main Mission complex, sites associated with the Mission to the east of Darlot Creek, the cemetery on Condah Estate Road, timber cottage(s) moved from the Mission to Little Dunmore and artefacts removed from the sites with some held by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. The significance of the mission was assessed as the following (Context 1992b: 11): Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 37 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

“The Lake Condah Mission Station is of state significance as one of the most intact examples of a nineteenth century Aboriginal mission remaining in Victoria, with the form of the Mission and the remaining structures demonstrating much about the lifestyle of those who lived there.

The Lake Condah Mission is of singular significance to Aboriginal people as a place that has been instrumental in the shaping of their present-day community. The whole of the Lake Condah Area, and particularly the complexes of Aboriginal sites, is important to Aboriginal people as the place which best embodies their spiritual and historical connections to their traditional country, beliefs and culture”.

Subsequently, a Conservation Management Plan for the Lake Condah Mission and cemetery was produced (Context Pty Ltd 2000). The aim of this plan was to develop detailed agreed outcomes for the preservation, conservation, and management not only of the Mission but also of the cemetery which was not considered in the earlier management plan (Context Pty Ltd 1992a & b).

Small-Scale Investigations:

A large number of small-scale cultural heritage assessments have been conducted in the Glenelg Shire. These predominantly consist of investigations required for a range of pipelines, cable routes and other developments in the region and have been conducted in conjunction with Aboriginal heritage studies. The following comprise a sample of reports that recorded historic sites:

Eslick (1983) conducted a historic survey of the Portland Area. Sixty-five of the recorded sites are listed on the Victorian Heritage Registry. Story & Davies (1995) conducted a study of historic timber industry sites in Victoria. Three sites were recorded for the Glenelg Shire and appear on the Victorian Heritage Registry. Vines (1995) surveyed the approaches to the Glenelg River Bridge at Nelson. Two historic sites were identified and listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. Wood (1997) surveyed two Telstra Optical Fibre Cable routes from Casterton to Lake Mundi and Mount Richmond to Gorae West. One ruined house was recorded for the former cable route. Cusack Heritage Management (1999) recorded one new historic site H7221-0283 in an investigation of seven extractive industry sites. The site consisted of the remains of sheds, tanks, early examples of farm machinery and two ruined late 19th century houses. Lane (2001) investigated the Tyrendarra lava flow and recorded four historic sites that are listed on the Victorian Heritage Registry. Wood (2001) investigated the SEA gas pipeline from Iona, Victoria to Adelaide, South Australia. Seven historic sites were recorded, five associated to the defunct Branxholme to Casterton railway, another was the former Bahgallah Road bridge, and an historic scarred tree. Wood (2003) investigated the SEA gas pipeline from Macarthur to the South Australian border. Two historic sites were recorded, D7222-4 a dry stone basalt wall, and D7222-3 a rubble-lined basalt laneway.

38 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 6.3 Historic Site Distribution Model and Implications for Glenelg Shire

Based on the historic cultural heritage background of the Glenelg Shire, the following site distribution model and implications for this investigation are:

• 155 recorded historic sites appear on various heritage registers for the Glenelg Shire (Table 2).

• The previous recorded historic sites are biased by the type and coverage of previous investigations. Predominately sites consist of structures such as houses, buildings, bridges, cemeteries, etc, that are to some degree intact and above ground.

• The greatest percentages of historic sites are located in cities and towns within 25km of the coastline. There are few registered sites that represent the heritage of inland towns and rural areas.

• Historic sites are indicative of a number of historic periods that represent the sequence of development of the Glenelg Shire including whaling and sealing; first exploration; first settlement, squatting and pre-emptive rights; closer and soldier settlement and subsequent periods.

• Historic sites are important resources to understand and inform upon significant themes in the history of Glenelg Shire including the resistance by the local Aboriginal people, the development of the local and regional economy (pastoralism, agriculture, dairying, orcharding, milling, fishing, natural and plantation timber, quarrying), the building of towns, transport and communication, the development of government, education and cultural life.

• Some periods or themes are represented by a larger number of sites than others. For example, the first settlement of Portland is over-represented in the historic sites registers compared to other periods and places.

• Historic sites representing different periods in the history of the Shire or which represent different themes in the development of the Shire will generally have a different array of site-types and distributions across the landscape. For example, evidence of fishing will be located on the coast; evidence of squatting and early pre-emptive rights often will be associated closely with natural water sources and better grazing lands; closer and soldier settlement will be associated with smaller land sub-divisions with houses and out-buildings more evenly distributed across landforms or evidence of timber industries will be located near forest resources.

• The uneven coverage of cultural heritage investigations suggests there is many as yet unrecorded historic sites in the Glenelg Shire. Although it is outside the scope of this study to definitively calculate the past survey coverage of the Glenelg Shire, at best 5% has been effectively surveyed for historic sites (Figure 6).

• Most extant recorded sites have not been assessed for their historic archaeological potential.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 39 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 6.4 Discussion – Historic Cultural Heritage

The Glenelg Shire possesses an historic cultural heritage that dates back before the first official settlement of Victoria. The history of the Shire reveals a rich history encompassing a sequence of periods and themes in the rural development of Victoria and Australia. The archaeology of the area has the potential to illuminate this rich heritage. Since the region has remained predominantly rural in nature, the most common historic features to be found are likely to be related to rural development consisting, for example, of the home stations and outstations of the squatting period or the farmhouses and outbuildings during Closer Settlement and Soldier Settlement. Other features such as dry-stone walls will be associated with these periods. The distribution of features will be related, in part, to crown land divisions for these periods.

Important themes relating to the history of the Shire will also be reflected in a range of site types to be found across the landscape. These themes include the development of the local and regional economy, the building of towns, transport and communication, the development of government, education and cultural life. For example, industries such as pastoralism, agriculture, fishing and forestry; or transport such as early exploring routes and droving routes, early settlers roads, Cobb & Co, railways and roads; will each have a characteristic range of sites and distribution across the Glenelg Shire landscape.

The abundance of sites reflecting historical periods and themes will be affected by their relative importance. Since the region has remained predominantly rural most sites will reflect its rural character and development. Some activities also leave behind more material culture evidence. For example, less evidence will remain of short-term episodic events such as exploring than longer-term continuous industry such as pastoralism and agriculture which involves modification of the landscape and the building of facilities. Sites in the rural hinterland may have a greater probability of survival since they are less likely to be destroyed by subsequent development. For example, evidence of whaling and sealing around Portland has possibly been removed by later settlement and building.

Future historic cultural heritage investigations conducted in the Glenelg Shire have scope to integrate assessments of the archaeological potential of historic sites to enhance the interpretation of the regional history. Historic archaeology has the potential to reveal aspects of history of the life, work and leisure of the people of Glenelg not revealed by historical documents or traditional heritage studies of the extant built environment.

7 AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY/POTENTIAL

Areas designated as archaeologically sensitive are those evaluated as containing potential for archaeological sites. These are usually areas that have poor ground surface visibility so it is possible that surface and/or sub-surface deposits may exist, but are currently obscured by factors such as, thick vegetation or sediment deposits. Archaeologically sensitive areas can also be areas that have not been surveyed. For example, when a desktop study indicates that sites may occur on certain landforms or near creek lines, these potentially sensitive areas can be identified. Areas may be deemed as being of low, medium or high archaeological sensitivity (Tables 3 & 4).

40 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Areas of archaeological sensitivity can only be discussed in a generalised way in a desktop assessment. Field survey and subsequent archaeological testing can more accurately define archaeological sensitivity. Glenelg Shire needs to develop and maintain maps and overlays recording sites and areas of sensitive.

Aboriginal Sites:

Areas of archaeological sensitivity for Aboriginal sites have been identified on the Volcanic Plains located in the southeast of the Glenelg Shire. They are predominantly associated with the Mount Eccles and Mount Napier lava flows. The highest sensitivity has been identified with the Mount Eccles, Lake Condah and Tyrendarra areas. The stony rises, banks and escarpments of creeks, swamps and other fresh water sources contain high sensitivity for stone features associated with eel ‘farming’ and associated camp-sites. These comprise fish-traps/weirs, channels, stone ‘houses’, occasional stone artefact scatters and mounds. Coastal dune systems have high sensitivity for shell midden deposits. These comprise mainly shell but often also contain stones artefacts, ovens/hearths and some bone. Coastal promontories also have high sensitivity for shell midden deposits but have a greater density of stone artefact scatters. River estuaries, swamps and lakes behind the dunes are also moderate to highly sensitive. Inland, rivers and their tributaries, lakes and swamps have been assessed as having moderate to high sensitivity for stone artefact scatters, mound sites and scarred trees. Burials are also likely on lake lunettes and within coastal dunes. Cultural scarring is likely to be found on mature indigenous trees (>200 years old).

The highest density of sites will be found in close proximity to any past or present water source. Sites will be found on the immediate edge and extending to adjacent level to gently undulating landform. Lower densities of sites are found away from water sources, but will be in higher concentrations on hill tops, ridge lines and saddles. Where landforms have been aggrading, sites are unlikely to be detected by means of ground surface survey and sub-surface testing would be required. In degrading landforms, sites are likely to be exposed and may have been destroyed. However, archaeological sites in degrading landforms are often highly visible.

Areas of sensitivity for Aboriginal archaeological sites in the table below provide only a very general indication of the sensitivity for the three areas considered in Section 4. They cannot be considered a substitute for cultural heritage investigation, including survey and sub-surface testing for specific areas.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 41 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Table 3 Areas of Sensitivity for Aboriginal Archaeological Sites

Area Typical Site Types Level of Potential/Sensitivity Coast (dunes/promontories/ Burials; shell midden High estuaries/swamps/lakes) deposits; stone artefact scatters Mount Napier/Mount Eccles Stone features (stone High (lava flows) ‘houses’, fish-traps/weirs, channels, etc); Mount Napier/Mount Eccles stone artefact scatters; Moderate (lava flows) mounds; scarred trees Inland Stone artefact scatters; Moderate – High (rivers and tributaries/lakes and mounds; scarred trees swamps/old growth trees) Inland Burials Low – Moderate (lunettes/mounds) Inland Plains Stone artefact scatters; Low – Moderate (moderate to steep hills >500m scarred trees from past or present water source)

Historic Sites:

Most of the region has some potential sensitivity for historic sites. Potential will be higher around areas where activities required the modification of the landscape and the construction of a range of structures, features and facilities. Furthermore, some activities leave behind more physical evidence than others, which affects the level of sensitivity or potential for historic sites. For example, there is higher potential around homesteads and along property boundaries where fencing (hedges, windbreaks and dry stone walls) has been planted or constructed and adjacent to natural water sources. Rural properties often contain buried deposits associated with the earliest periods of occupation (wells, bottle dumps, cisterns or foundations).

The earliest historic activities will be associated with sources of freshwater and/or trading points (such as in Portland). Unless part of ongoing maintenance/development, these earliest sites will comprise an archaeological deposit. Later historic sites, such as those representing small landowners, will reflect subdivision choices and will not necessarily be in close proximity to water. The archaeological deposit for each period will be quite distinct, with evidence of the earlier periods quite rare and therefore of higher scientific significance. Many early historic sites will also have an Aboriginal archaeological content due to similar campsite location choices and/or evidence of contact between indigenous and non-indigenous people.

Areas of sensitivity for historic archaeological sites in the table below provide only a very general indication of the sensitivity for the three areas considered in Section 5. They cannot be considered a substitute for cultural heritage investigation, including survey and sub-surface testing for specific areas.

42 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Table 4 Areas of Sensitivity for Historic Archaeological Sites

Period Location Typical Site Types Level of Potential/Sensitivity Whalers & Sealers; Islands & coast; Huts, industrial features; Low Early Explorers coast and inland cairns, campsites

First Settlement; Coast & inland Towns; old homesteads; rural Low - Moderate Squatting & Pre- in close features (fences, sheds, Emptive Right proximity to stockyards); buried deposits natural water (wells, bottle dumps, cisterns, sources foundations) Closer & Soldier Coast & inland Small farm complexes Moderate Settlement (fencing, sheds, stockyards); buried deposits (sells, bottle dumps, cisterns, foundations)

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 43 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Figure 7 Areas of Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivity/Potential

44 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 8 ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

No assessment of Aboriginal or historic archaeological sites was conducted as part of this desktop study. However, as there are previously recorded Aboriginal archaeological sites within the study area and a high likelihood that more are present, Aboriginal cultural significance is briefly discussed in Section 8.1.

8.1 Aboriginal Cultural Significance

Both prehistoric and historic Aboriginal sites and places will generally have specific significance to the Aboriginal people who possess custodianship, and more broadly, to Australian Aboriginal people.

It is important also to note that archaeological (scientific) and Aboriginal (cultural) significance does not necessarily follow the same assessment criteria. Archaeological sites or places that are not of high scientific significance can be of high cultural significance to the local Aboriginal community. It is up the relevant community to decide the Aboriginal cultural significance of any site or place within the area of custodianship. A non-Aboriginal person cannot decide on Aboriginal cultural significance. Although Aboriginal views are sought at the time archaeological sites are identified, they are not necessarily the same as those provided in an archaeological assessment. The Kerrup- Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation (c/- Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation) should be consulted in the first instance regarding input to the cultural significance attributed to a specific site or location.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 45 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 9 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

This section relating to the statutory requirements associated with archaeological sites has been included to inform users of this report of the legal obligations regarding heritage sites. Person/s breaching this legislation are liable to prosecution.

The following is a summary of the Victorian Cultural Heritage Legislation that protects Aboriginal and historic sites.

9.1 Aboriginal Sites

Victoria has both State and Commonwealth legislation providing protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage. With the exception of human remains interred after the year 1843, the State Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 provides blanket protection for all material relating to the past Aboriginal occupation of Australia, both before and after European occupation. This includes individual artefacts, scatters of stone tools, rock art sites, ancient camp sites, human burials, trees with slabs of bark removed (for the manufacture of canoes, shelters etc.) and ruins and archaeological deposits associated with Aboriginal missions or reserves. The Act also establishes administrative procedures for archaeological investigations and the mandatory reporting of the discovery of Aboriginal sites. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (AAV) administers the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Relics Act 1972.

In 1987, Part 11A of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 was introduced by the Commonwealth Government to provide protection for Aboriginal cultural property in Victoria. Immediately after enactment, the Commonwealth delegated the powers and responsibilities set out in Part 11A to the Victorian Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Currently, the Hon. Gavin Jennings MP holds this delegation, and the legislation is administered on a day-to-day basis by AAV.

Whereas the State Act provides legal protection for all the physical evidence of past Aboriginal occupation, the Commonwealth Act deals with Aboriginal cultural property in a wider sense. Such cultural property includes places, objects and folklore that “are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition”. Again, there is no cut-off date and the Act may apply to contemporary Aboriginal cultural property as well as ancient sites. The Commonwealth Act takes precedence over State cultural heritage legislation where there is conflict. In most cases, Aboriginal archaeological sites registered under the State Act will also be Aboriginal places subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Act.

The Commonwealth Act prohibits anyone from defacing, damaging, interfering with or endangering an Aboriginal place unless the prior consent of the local Aboriginal community has been obtained in writing. If no reply from an Aboriginal community is received to any permit application within 30 days, then an application for a permit may be made to the State Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. This is provided for under Section 21U(5-6) of the 1987 Act. The Schedule to the Act lists local Aboriginal communities and each community’s area is defined in the Regulations so that the whole of Victoria is covered. Any applications to disturb, destroy, interfere with or endanger an Aboriginal place, object or archaeological site should be made to:

46 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC GPO Box 4057 MELBOURNE 3001

Applications to excavate or disturb an Aboriginal archaeological site for purposes of archaeological fieldwork, should be addressed in writing to:

The Director Heritage Services Branch Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Department for Victorian Communities 9th Floor 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE 3000 Victoria (PO Box GPO 2392V MELBOURNE 3001)

General enquires relating to Aboriginal archaeological sites should be forwarded to:

The Site Registrar Heritage Services Branch Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Department for Victorian Communities 9th Floor 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE 3000 Victoria

(PO Box GPO 2392V MELBOURNE 3001)

Ph: (03) 9208 3273 Fax: (03) 9208 3292

In addition, all Victorian planning schemes require, under Clause 15.11 Heritage, Planning and Environmental Act 1987, planning and responsible authorities to identify, conserve and protect places of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, including historical and archaeological sites and to take into account the requirements of the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the views of local Aboriginal communities in providing for the conservation and enhancement of places, sites and objects of Aboriginal cultural heritage value. Such sites are included as a Heritage Overlay, which apply controls on potential development.

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sites occurring on Commonwealth land are protected under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 if included on the Commissions Register of the National Estate.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 47 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Issues relating to cultural heritage can also be obtained from

Graham Harradine Cultural Heritage Protection Officer South West and Wimmera Cultural Heritage Program C/o Post Office PURNIM VIC 3278

Ph: (03) 5567 1236 Fax: (03) 5567 1336

9.2 Native Title Issues

With the introduction of the Native Title Act 1993, the acknowledgement of indigenous ownership of land was legislated, and since this date native title claims on un alienated Crown Land have been lodged initially with the National Native Title Tribunal, and more recently to the Federal Court. Under this act, all freehold and Crown Lease land is exempted from any future claim (unless leasehold reverts to the Crown). Un-alienated Crown Land that potentially may be subject to claim includes all forms of water (to the low water mark) air above and subsoil below, and all land in which native title has not been extinguished under the act. Establishing native title within any area requires many conditions to be met. Essentially, claimants must be able to show that the area claimed has been continually occupied or in which direct links (physical, spiritual, traditional) have been maintained. Glenelg Shire needs to be aware that any Crown land, particularly archaeologically sensitive areas such as coastal areas, is likely to be subject to a Native Title claim in the further, particularly if development is proposed.

The Gunditjmara Native Title Group have a native title claim from the Glenelg, Wannon and Shaw Rivers. For further information, contact should be directed to:

Native Title Services Victoria Phone: (03) 9321 5300

9.3 Historic Archaeological Sites

Historic archaeological sites in Victoria are protected by the Heritage Act 1995. The following is a summary of the latest statutory obligations regarding non-Aboriginal historic archaeological sites:

1 All historical archaeological sites in Victoria (not included on the Heritage Register) are protected under Section 127 of the Heritage Act 1995. Under this section it is an offence to excavate, damage or disturb relics and sites whether they are included on the Heritage Inventory or not, unless a Consent has been issued under Section 129.

2 Under Section 64 of the Heritage Act 1995, it is an offence to damage, disturb, excavate or alter a place or object on the Heritage Register, unless a Permit is granted under Section 67.

48 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 3 Under Section 132 of the Heritage Act 1995, any person discovering or uncovering an archaeological relic is required to report the discovery to the Executive Director of the Heritage Council.

4 Schedule 5 of the Heritage (General) Regulations 2005 prescribes fees to undertake specified activities with respect to archaeological relics. These are currently $225.00 for Consent to uncover or excavate a relic; $420.00 for Consent to damage or disturb less than 50% of a relic or site $635.00 for Consent to damage or disturb more than 50% of a relic or site. Fees for permits to carry out works etc to a registered place or object are detailed in Schedule 3 of the Regulations. These fees range in scale from $100.00 to $7,160.00, depending on the nature of the works involved and the cost of the proposed works.

In addition, Heritage Victoria requires that funds be made available by developers to ensure the responsible management of all significant artefacts that are recovered during an excavation. As a condition on any consent or permit, there will be a requirement that a specified sum of money is submitted to Heritage Victoria prior to the commencement of works. The funds will be used to ensure the cataloguing and conservation of any significant artefacts that are recovered. Any unexpended funds will be returned to the client, minus a 15% levy that is used for the management of all excavation projects in Victoria.

Written application to disturb such sites should be lodged as early as possible in the planning stages of any works program, and must be directed to:

Mr. Ray Tonkin The Director Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 7/8 Nicholson Street East Melbourne Victoria 3002

Ph: (03) 9637 9476

Enquires relating to the Heritage Act, works, site management etc should be directed to:

Jeremy Smith Senior Archaeologist Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 7/8 Nicholson Street East Melbourne Victoria 3002

Ph: (03) 9637 9773

General enquires relating to sites, the Heritage Inventory/Register, reports, permits or consents, including application procedures and fees should be directed to:

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 49 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Liz Kilpatrick Heritage Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment Level 7/8 Nicholson Street East Melbourne Victoria 3002

Ph: (03) 9637 9285 Heritage Victoria has also recently requested that the following statements relating to sites listed on the Heritage Inventory be included within consultant’s reports.

All archaeological sites in Victoria are protected by the Heritage Act 1995. All known archaeological sites are listed in the Heritage Inventory. Regardless of whether or not they are listed in the Inventory, no one can knowingly excavate or disturb an archaeological site without the consent of the Executive Director.

Prior to the Heritage Act 1995, sites were protected under the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972. Thus, since 1972 there has been protection in Victoria for archaeological sites. The protection was not about the preservation and conservation of all sites. Under the AARP there was provision for archaeological areas to be declared an archaeological area that was intended to protect and conserve an archaeological site (S15). Activities for the remainder of archaeological sites were controlled through the requirement to gain a permit (S22).

With the advent of the Heritage Act 1995, archaeological sites continue to be protected in two ways. Sites considered to be of significance to the State are recommended for placement on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). The VHR exists to protect and conserve places and objects. All other archaeological sites are protected through the requirement to gain Consent from the Executive Director to disturb, destroy, or excavate an archaeological site.

Thus, the Victorian Heritage Register enables Heritage Victoria to preserve and conserve archaeological sites that are of significance to the State of Victoria. On the other hand, the Heritage Inventory enables Heritage Victoria to record and monitor sites that are not considered to be of State significance or when the significance is unknown.

The two levels of protection enable two different principles to be followed in issuing consents and permits. The guiding principal for places on the Register is to protect and conserve as much of the fabric of the place and the relics/artefacts as is possible. Alternatively, for places listed in the Heritage Inventory, recording, excavating and monitoring are the usual methods of assessing and managing the heritage values of a site.

Heritage Victoria also maintains a record of sites under a 'D' listing that accommodates sites of very low archaeological value, even though they may have local historic value. 'D' listed sites are typically those that have little structural or artefactual features, such as earthen formations (i.e. dams, railway formations). Sites registered under this system do not require Consent prior to any proposed development, but apart from this, are managed in the same way as Heritage Inventory sites. Therefore, 'D' sites may be subject to a variety

50 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study of conditions prior to impact, such as detailed recorded, additional historic research and archaeological monitoring.

10 CULTURAL HERITAGE OPPORTUNITIES, MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appropriate cultural heritage management seeks to avoid any adverse impact to cultural heritage sites. An adverse impact is any activity that reduces the scientific or cultural significance of a site or archaeological area. Any activity that exposes or disturbs in any way the fabric or content of a site reduces its heritage value. Similarly, sites can be impacted if their context is reduced to a point where there are no other related reference features in the local landscape to provide context and therefore interpretation of a site. This is referred to as the level of cultural landscape integrity.

Best cultural heritage practise seeks to avoid any impact to cultural heritage sites and places by appropriate input into development design. As this is not always possible, a mitigation strategy must be developed by a consultant, in conjunction with all relevant stakeholders, to mitigate/reduce adverse impact to cultural heritage values. Typical mitigation measures may include partial excavation to further assess a site in terms of its content, extent and significance. If a site demonstrates higher significance levels (cultural or scientific) a complete salvage excavation may be required prior to any redevelopment. Some sites such as scarred trees, monuments etc can be relocated to an appropriate location. In other instances monitoring of initial ground disturbance activities (such as clear, grade, level) may be an adequate mitigation measure. Monitoring is appropriate when the risk to a significant site has been eliminated, though collection, identification, recording and assessment of possible exposed artefacts are still warranted.

This cultural heritage desktop investigation has identified a number of management issues and opportunities regarding the cultural heritage of Glenelg Shire. These are outlined below.

10.1 Cultural Heritage Opportunities and Management Issues

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 51 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study centred on tourism, accommodation and aquaculture (www.windamara.com.au). At best 5% of Glenelg Shire has been subject to cultural heritage survey (Section 4).

Inland areas have been subject to minimal previous archaeological survey. Areas that have been surveyed are shown in Figure 6). Previous investigations have been primarily for the purposes of development including linear pipelines and cable routes as well as local area developments.

Aboriginal Affairs Victoria has released the new Aboriginal heritage bill exposure draft. The bill intends to “link the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage more directly with planning and land development processes” (AAV 2006). It aims to provide increased certainty for developers and planners – about their rights, responsibilities, obligations and processes in dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage. One outcome would be to avoid situations like the recent Convincing Ground controversy. The bill will result in mandatory and standardised requirements for heritage assessments prior to development. This bill presents an opportunity to implement best practice cultural heritage management and planning. Glenelg Shire should plan and develop strategies to ensure the new Aboriginal heritage bill can be incorporated into a standard planning framework. Council should be prepared for increased involvement by Aboriginal groups in the future management of Aboriginal cultural heritage and in the application of new Aboriginal heritage legislation. The new bill may wish to impose more stringent conditions than are currently imposed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, or legislated Aboriginal communities. 52 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study The rich Aboriginal cultural heritage of Glenelg Shire has been recognised as an educational and tourism opportunity by the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal initiatives including the Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project (LCSDP), their support for the listing of the Tyrendarra Area as an Indigenous Protected Area and the listing of the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape on the Register of the National Estate has facilitated the aims of the community to promote Aboriginal cultural heritage as a tourism draw card. The Victorian government as part of the Aboriginal Land and Economic Development Initiative has promised funding for the establishment of the Lake Condah facilitation group and to develop a new agreement to continue indigenous tours based at Mount Eccles National Park to Lake Condah and Tyrendarra. This will become an extension of the Bunjil Trail from Gariwerd to Lake Condah, Tower Hill and Deen Maar Island (Victorian Government press release 6 May 2005). Opportunities exist, in consultation with the Aboriginal community, to extend and enhance these opportunities to other areas such as the coastal areas between Portland and Discovery Bay in conjunction with the Great South West Walk. All efforts to facilitate world heritage listing for these areas would enhance Glenelg Shire as a cultural tourism destination.

The broad management aims for Aboriginal cultural heritage are to:

Historic Cultural Heritage:

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 53 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Currently there are 50 listings for the Register of the National Estate, 146 on the Victorian Heritage Register and Inventory, 144 listed with the National Trust and 155 on the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay (Table 2). Portland contains the highest number of historic places. A preliminary review of the various historic cultural heritage data-bases (Heritage Victoria Register, Register of the National Estate, Schedule to the Glenelg Shire Heritage Overlay, National Trust of Victoria Register) has identified a number of duplicate, inconsistent, or missing listings which should be clarified by a cultural heritage audit of these data-bases.

10.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this report the following recommendations are made:

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:

2. Several general areas of archaeological sensitivity for Aboriginal sites have been broadly identified, details of which are provided in Section 7 and Figure 7. A regional cultural heritage assessment and sample survey would serve to further refine these sensitive areas as well as generating specific management recommendations. As an interim measure all planning applications especially those in sensitive areas (Table *) should be subject to heritage assessment as part of a compulsory referral requirement.

3. It is recommended that Glenelg Shire consult with the relevant Aboriginal community and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria on the feasibility of conducting an interpretive review and audit of the existing regional Aboriginal prehistory. This may involve survey of inland areas that have up to the present not been the focus of intensive survey and investigation. This study may have several outcomes for the Glenelg Shire including establishing an inventory of existing interpretive localities, their condition, disturbance and overall effectiveness; providing additional interpretive material to be used for cultural tourism; and additional information for refining management recommendations in heritage planning and management. This goal seeks to better understand, support and improve existing interpretive sites.

4. In consultation with, with the support of the relevant Aboriginal community, it is recommended that Glenelg Shire take every opportunity to enhance or facilitate the promotion of Aboriginal cultural heritage values of projects that benefit regional cultural tourism. This may include current and future projects associated with the Great Southern Walk, the Bunjil Trail extension, the Lake Condah Sustainable Development Project, Aboriginal cultural tourism opportunities in the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape, Discovery Bay and other coastal areas. Glenelg Shire 54 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study should support and fund efforts to gain National Estate and World Heritage Listing for appropriate areas such as the Budj Bim National Estate Landscape. This process should also include a concerted effort to review funding opportunities from both private and government sectors.

In addition, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria requests the following are included:

5. If any suspected human burial remains are exposed at any stage during developments, then all works must cease in the immediate vicinity and the procedure outlined in Appendix 4 adopted.

Historic Cultural Heritage:

7. In consultation with Heritage Victoria, local historical societies, and any other interested stakeholders, historic sites with cultural tourism and archaeological potential should be identified and opportunities for archaeological investigation explored to enhance the cultural tourism potential of these sites. This can only really effectively be achieved by funding an historic archaeological review of the Shire. Heritage Victoria could be approached for funding assistance for such a project.

General Recommendations:

9. Identify significant archaeological sites and precincts, as well as immediate, medium and long-term threats.

11. Increase awareness of heritage values to Glenelg Shire inhabitants and visitors by providing high quality interpretation.

12. Encourage indigenous employment in all heritage pursuits (site identification, maintenance and tourism).

13. Promote a planning department that encourages and supports best current heritage practise and the redevelopment of properties that contain

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 55 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study heritage/archaeological sites in a sympathetic manner and in accordance with relevant Acts.

14. The consultant will ensure copies of this report will be forwarded to the Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (DVC), Heritage Victoria (DSE), the Kerrup-Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation (c/- Winda-Mara Aboriginal Corporation) and the South West and Wimmera Regional Cultural Heritage Program.

56 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study REFERENCES

Aboriginal Affairs 1993 Lake Condah Heritage Management Strategy and Plan. Victoria Unpublished Report.

2002 Guidelines for the Conducting and Reporting of Archaeological Surveys in Victoria.

2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. Parliament of Victoria.

Archaeological 1997 The Wimmera River Cultural Heritage Study Stage 1: Consulting Services The Upper Wimmera Basin. A report to the Goolum Goolum Aboriginal Co-operative, Horsham.

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance. (The Burra Charter). Sydney, Australia ICOMOS

Barwick, D. E. 1984 Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans. 1835- 1904 Part 1. Aboriginal History 8 (1-2): 101-131.

Bennet, G. 1993 Portland: Now and Then. Portland.

Birch, W. D. (ed.) 2003 Geology of Victoria. Geological Society of Australia, Victoria Division.

Bird, C. F. M. & 1991 Chronology and Explanation in Western Victoria and D. Frankel South-East South Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 26: 1-16.

1998 Pleistocene and Early Holocene Archaeology in Victoria: A View from Gariwerd. The Artefact 21: 48-62.

Bird, C. F. M., 1998 New Radiocarbon determinations from the Grampian- D. Frankel & Gariwerd Region. Archaeology in Oceania 33: 31-36. N. Van Waarden

BOM 2006 Bureau of Meteorology Web Site Accessed 24/04/2006 www.bom.gov.au

Bonwick, J. 1970 Western Victoria: Its Geography, Geology and Social Condition: The Narrative of an Educational Tour in 1857. 2nd Edition. Heinemann Australia, Melbourne.

Boutakoff, N. 1963 The Geology and Geomorphology of the Portland Area. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Victoria 22.

Bowdler, S. 1984 Hunter Hill, Hunter Island. Terra Australis 8. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 57 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Broome, R. 2005 Aboriginal Victorians: A History Since 1800. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Builth, H. 2000 “The Connection Between the Gunditjmara Aboriginal People and Their Environment: The Case for Complex Hunter-Gatherers in Australia.” In G. Moore, J. Hunt & L Trevillion (eds.), Environment – Behaviour Research on the Pacific Rim. Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney.

2003 The Archaeology and Socioeconomy of the Gunditjmara: A Landscape Analysis from Southwest Victoria, Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Cannon, M. 1990 Who Killed the Koories? William Heinemann Australia, Melbourne.

Christie, M. 1979 Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1835-86. Sydney University Press, Sydney.

Clarke, A. 1991 Lake Condah Project: Aboriginal Archaeology - Resource Inventory. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report 36. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

Clark, D. J. & 1986 Aboriginal Stone Houses on the "Allambie" Property, K. Geering Southwestern Victoria. A report to VAS.

Clark, V. & 1999 Western Highway Armstrong Deviation, Highway A. Murphy realignment Archaeology and Heritage Study’. Report to VicRoads.

Clark, I. D. 1990 Aboriginal Languages and Clans. An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria. Monash Publications in Geography.

1995 Scars in the Landscape. A Register of Massacre Sites in Western Victoria, 1803-1859. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

1998 Place Names and Land Tenure – Windows into Aboriginal Landscapes: Essays in Victorian Aboriginal History. Heritage Matters, Clarendon.

Context Pty Ltd 1992a Lake Condah Draft Heritage Management Plan. A report by Context Pty Ltd to the Victoria Archaeological Survey.

58 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study 1992b Lake Condah Draft Heritage Management Plan: Summary Report. A report by Context Pty Ltd to the Victoria Archaeological Survey.

2000 Lake Condah Mission & Cemetery: Conservation Management Plan. A report for the Kerrup Jmara Elders Aboriginal Corporation and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Corris, P. 1968 Aborigines and Europeans in Western Victoria. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Coulson, A. 1940 Caves in the Portland District. Victorian Naturalist LVII: 37-39.

Coutts, P. J. F. 1977a Summer Field Programme of the Victoria Archaeological Survey 1976-1977. Records of the Victoria Archaeological Survey.

1977b Salvage Operations. Records of the Victoria Archaeological Survey No. 4, (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria).

1978 The Keilor Archaeological Project. Records of the Victoria Archaeological Survey No. 8, Ministry for Conservation, Melbourne.

1980 Victoria Archaeological Survey Report of Activities 1978- 9.

Coutts, P. J. F., 1976 The Mound People of Western Victoria: A Preliminary D. Witter, Statement. Records of the Victorian Archaeological M. McIlwraith & Survey 1. R. Frank

Coutts, P. J. F., 1978 Aboriginal Engineers of the Western District, Victoria. R. K. Frank & Records of the Victorian Archaeological Survey 7. P. Hughes

Critchett, J. 1990 A ‘Distant Field of Murder’: Western District Frontiers 1834-1848. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Cusack, J. 1999 Extractive Industry Surveys: Archaeological Assessments of Seven Extractive Industry Sites within the Glenelg Shire Council Area. A Report by Cusack Heritage Management for Glenelg Shire Council.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 59 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Dawson, J. 1881 Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of (1981) Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia. George Robertson, Melbourne. (1981 edition Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Melbourne).

Dingle, T. 1984 The Victorians: Settling. Fairfax, Syme & Weldon Associates, McMahens Point.

Dodson, J. & 1992 ‘Dynamics of environment and people in the forested R. Fullagar, crescents of temperate Australia’. In J. Dodson (ed.) L. Head Australia and the South-West Pacific, pp 115-59. Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.

DSE 2006 Department of Sustainability and Environment, Know Your Area Web Site, Accessed 24/04/2006 www.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/knowyour.nsf

Edmonds, V. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of an OFC between Allendale East, Southeast SA and Nelson Southwest Victoria. A Report to Telecom Australia.

Ellender, I. 1989 An Archaeological Survey in S.W. Victoria. A report to the Kerrup-Jmara Council of Elders.

Eslick, C. 1983 Historic Archaeological Sites in the Portland Area. Occasional Report 10, Victorian Archaeological Survey.

Everett, C. 1998 An Archaeological Investigation of Proposed Windfarm Sites, Portland, Victoria. A report to Coltmans Price Bent Solicitors.

Feldman, R. 2005 Sandford-Casterton Pipeline. A report to Glenelg Region Water Authority.

Gallus, A. 1976 The Middle and Early Upper Pleistocene Stone Industries at Dry Creek Archaeological Sites near Keilor, Australia. The Artefact 2 (1): 75-108.

Geering, K. 1985a Management Recommendations for Aboriginal Stone Houses at Allambie, Near Macarther, South West Victoria. A report to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

1985b Report on VAS Field Trips to "Allambie" 12-16 March & 14-18 April 1985. A report to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Gibbons, F. R. & 1964 A Study of the Land in South-Western Victoria. Soil R. G. Downes Conservation Authority.

60 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Godfrey, M. C. S. 1980 An Archaeological Survey of the Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Volumes 1 and 2. A report to the National Parks Service, Melbourne.

1994 The Archaeology of the Invisible. Seasonality and Shellfishing at Discovery Bay Victoria: The Application of Oxygen Isotope Analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, School of Chemistry, La Trobe University, Bundoora.

2000 Access? and Protection? An Archaeological Survey of the Bridgewater Bay Dunes. A report to the West Coast District of Parks Victoria.

Godfrey, M. C. S., 1996 From Time to Time: Radiocarbon Information on C. F. M.Bird, Victorian Archaeological Sites Held by Aboriginal Affairs D. Frankel, Victoria. The Artefact 7: 13-17. J. W. Rhoads & S. Simmons

Gott, B & 1991 Victorian Koorie Plants: Some Plants used by Victorian J. Conran Koories. Yangennanock Woman’s Group, Hamilton.

Gould, M. & 1984 Lake Condah Mission Station: A Report on the Existing A. Bickford Condition and History. A Report for the Goumditch- Jmara Tribe and the National Parks Service.

GSMR 2005 Glenelg Shire Media Release 15/09/2005

Gunn, R. 2002 An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Limestone Quarry Site, Dysons Road, Tyrendarra East. A report to Brian Consulting.

Head, L. 1983 Environment as Artefact: A Geographic Perspective on the Holocene Occupation of Southwestern Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 18: 73-80.

1985 Pollen Analysis of Sediments from the Bridgewater Caves Archaeological Site, Southwestern Victoria. Australian Archaeology 20: 1-15.

Hedditch, K. 1996 Land and Power: A Settlement History of the Glenelg Shire to 1890. K. Hedditch, Geelong.

Heritage Consulting 2001 Southern Gas Pipeline (Victorian Section) Cultural Australia Pty Ltd Heritage Assessment. A report to NSR Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd and GPU Australia Ltd.

Howitt, A. W. 1996 The Native Tribes of South East Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 61 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Hubbard, T. & 2005 Glenelg Shire Heritage Study: Stage 2. Pamphlet by A. Neyland Timothy Hubbard Pty Ltd on behalf of Glenelg Shire.

Jenkin, J. J. 1988a “Quaternary.” In Douglas & Ferguson (eds.), Geology of Victoria. pp. 351-402. Geological Society of Australia, Victoria Division, Melbourne.

1988b “Geomorphology.” In Douglas & Ferguson (eds.), Geology of Victoria. pp. 403-426. Geological Society of Australia, Victoria Division, Melbourne.

Jenkin, J. J. & 1987 “Physical Resources”, In Connor & Smith (eds.), J. N. Rowan Agriculture in Victoria. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Victorian Branch, Melbourne.

Kellaway, C. & 2002 Glenelg Shire Heritage Study: An Environmental History D. Rhodes Part One. A report for Heritage Victoria and the Glenelg Shire.

Kenley, P. R. 1971 “Southwestern Victoria.” In J. G. Douglas & J. A. Ferguson (eds.), Geology of Victoria. pp. 365-373. Geological Society of Australia, Victoria Division, Melbourne.

Kenyon, A. S. 1912 Camping Places of the Aborigines of South-East Australia. Victorian Historical Magazine 2: 97-110.

Kerley, W. D. 1981 In My Country: Race Relations in the Portland – Warrnambool District, 1834 – 1886. MA Thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora.

Lance, A. 1991 Proposed Allansford-Portland Gas Pipeline Further Archaeological Studies. A report to Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria from National Heritage Studies Pty Ltd.

Lane, S. 2001 Tyrendarra Cultural Heritage Assessment Project. A report to the Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

2002 An Archeological Survey of Lot 43, Parish of Dunmore. Phd Research Report.

Long, A. 2001 An Assessment of Scarred Trees in the Cobboboonee State Forest, Heywood, South West Victoria. A report to DNRE & Portland Forest Management Area from Andrew Long & Associates Pty Ltd.

62 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Long, A. & 2000 Zumpark and Milltown Treefarms, Condah: Cultural V. Edmonds Heritage Impact Assessment. A report to Timbercorp Treefarms Pty Ltd from Andrew Long & Associates Pty Ltd.

Lourandos, H. 1977 Aboriginal Spatial Organisation and Population: South Western Victoria Reconsidered. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 12: 202-225.

1980 Forces of Change: Aboriginal Technology and Population in South Western Victoria. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.

1983 Intensification: A Late Pleistocene-Holocene Archaeological Sequence from Southwestern Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 18 (2): 81-94.

1993 Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Dynamics: Long and Short Term Trends in Australian Prehistory. Journal of Archaeological Research 1 (1): 67-88.

Luebbers, R. 1996 Archaeological Survey of a Cable Route on Paschendale Road, Paschendale, Victoria. A report to Telstra.

2001 Archaeological Sites Impact Assessment – PEP 151 – Lower Glenelg National Park and Adjacent Private Land. A report to Essential Petroleum and Gournditch Mara Native Title Claim Group.

Marsden, M.A.H. & 1975 Quaternary Evolution, Morphology and Sediment H. Mallet Distribution, Western Port Bay, Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Victoria 87: 107-138.

Marshall, B. 1997 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Clay Borrows at Portland, South-West Victoria. A report to Golder Associates.

Massola, A. 1968 The Aboriginal Fish-Traps at Homerton. Victorian Naturalist 85: 197-200.

1969 Journey to Aboriginal Victoria. Rigby Ltd, Adelaide.

McBryde, I. 1984 Exchange on South Eastern Australia: An Ethno Historical Perspective. Aboriginal History 8: 132-152.

McConnell, A. D. & 2002 Aboriginal Heritage Management in Victorian Forests: K. Buckley, (Volume 4) West Victoria Region. A report to the S. Wickman Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 63 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study McNiven, I. & 1994a Condah and Macarthur District Telecom OFC Routes: L. Russell An Assessment of the Potential Impact on Cultural Heritage. A report to Telecom Australia.

1994b Condah and Macarthur District Telecom OFC Routes: Stage II Archaeological Survey & Impact Assessment. A report to Telecom Australia.

1997a Condah & Chetwynd Districts Telstra OFC Routes (Southwest Victoria): Coojar-Coojar TO, Condah- Hotspur, Grassdale-Branxholme and Byaduk North- Byaduk-Macarthur. An Assessment of the Potential Impact on Cultural Heritage Sites. A report to Telstra Australia.

1997b Condah District Telstra OFC Routes (Southwest Victoria): Condah-Hotspur, …

1997c Casterton District Telstra OFC Route (Southwestern Victoria. Casterton – Strathdownie: An Assessment of the Potential Impact on Cultural Heritage Sites. A report to Telstra Australia.

Mulvaney, D. J. 1957 Research into the Prehistory of Victoria: A Criticism and a Report on a Field Survey. Historical Studies, Australia and New Zealand 8 (29): 32-43.

1964 Prehistory of the Basalt Plains. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 77.

Mulvaney, D. J. & 1999 Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards. J. Kamminga

Newby, J. 1994 Blackfellow Never Tired: An Investigation of the Interpretations of the Lake Condah ‘House’ Sites. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra.

Ollier, C. D. 1964 Caves and Associated Features of Mount Eccles. Victorian Naturalist 81: 64-71.

Presland, G. 1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Route of the Sydenham to Portland Transmission Line. A report to the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. VAS Occasional Report Series No. 2

Penney, J. & 1990 Lake Condah Project: Post-Contact Archaeological D. Rhodes Component.

64 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Rhodes, D. & 2000 An Archaeological Survey of the Old Coach Road, M. Atkinson Narrawong and Surrounding Land Zoned Rural. A report to Glenelg Shire.

Rhoads, J. W. & 2000 The Archaeology of the South-West Wimmera. A report C. F. M. Bird to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Rhodes, D. 1986 Lake Condah Mission Aboriginal Dormitory. Unpublished MA (prelim) Dissertation, La Trobe University.

Richards, T. & 1996 Archaeological Investigations at Cape Bridgewater, J. Jordan Victoria: Management Recommendations and Preliminary Excavation Report. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Melbourne.

Richards, T. & 2004 Cape Bridgewater Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Field H. Webber School. A Joint Project of Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Rosengren, N. 1990 Lake Condah Area: Lava Surface Features. A report to the Victorian Archaeological Survey from N & J Geo- Graphic Services.

Russell, L. & 1994 Coleraine-Paschendale-Merino-Digby-Tahara Telecom I. McNiven Optical Fibre Cable Route: An Assessment of the Potential Impact on Cultural Heritage Sites. A report to Telecom Australia.

Schell, P. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Hopkins River. A report to the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

1996 An Archaeological Survey at Tyrendarra. A report to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

2000a Cape Bridgewater & Bridgewater Bay Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Review; Volume 1: Management Plan. A report by Andrew Long & Associates to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

2000b Cape Bridgewater & Bridgewater Bay Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Review; Volume 2: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey. A report by Andrew Long & Associates to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Simmons, S. & 1981 Alcoa Portland Aluminium Smelter Environmental A. Djekic Studies Report No. 2, Supplementary Archaeological Survey. A report by Site Registry, Victoria Archaeological Survey. Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 65 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Story, A. & 1995 Historic Forest and Forest-Based Places in South-West P. Davies Victoria. Land Conservation Council.

Van Waarden, N. 1988 Comments on the Proposal to Nominate the Lake Condah-Allambie Sites for World Heritage Listing. A report to Victorian Archaeological Survey.

1990 An Archaeological Survey at Tyrendarra. A report to Victorian Archaeological Survey.

Van Waarden, N. & 1992 Lake Condah Aboriginal Sites: Heritage Significance S. Simmons Assessment, Parts 1 – 3. A report to Victoria Archaeological Survey.

Vines, G. 1995 Archaeological Survey of the Glenelg River Bridge Approaches. A report for VicRoads.

Walsh, F. J. 1987 The Influence of the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Plant Food Resources on Traditional Martujarra Subsistence Strategies. Australian Archaeology 25: 88- 101.

Webb, C. 1995 An Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources of Six Lightstation Reserves in Victoria. A report to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Wesson, J. 1981 Excavations of Stone Structures in the Condah Area, Western Victoria. Unpublished Masters Preliminary Thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

Wesson, J. P. & 1980 Alcoa Portland Aluminium Smelter Working Paper No.2, D. J. Clark Archaeology. A report by Archaeological Research Consultants Pty Ltd for Kinhill Planners Pty Ltd.

Westaway, M. C. 1998 Report on the Reconnaisance Survey of Bridgewater Bay, Discovery Bay National Park, AAV Site Numbers 7121/248, 7121/249 and 7121/250. A report by the Site Registry, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Williams, E. 1988 Complex Hunter-Gatherers: A Late Holocene Example from Temperate Australia. BAR International Series 423, Oxford.

Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd 1981 Portland Urban Conservation Study. A report to the Town of Portland and the Department of Planning.

Witter, D. 1977 The Archaeology of the Discovery Bay Area, Victoria. Memoirs of the Victorian Archaeological Survey.

66 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Wood, V. 1992 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Casterton – Chetwynd – Edenhope Telecom Optical Fibre Cable. A report to Telcom Australia.

1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Optical Fibre Cable Between Casterton – Dunrobin – Dergholm – Dorodong, Western Victoria. A report to Telecom Australia.

1997 An Archaeological Survey of Two Proposed Telstra Optical Fibre Cables: Casterton – Lake Mundi and Mt. Richmond – Gorae West, Southwestern Victoria. A report to Telstra.

2001 An Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Study of the Proposed SEA Gas Pipeline from Iona, Victoria, to Adelaide, South Australia. A report to Ecos Consulting Pty Ltd.

2003 An Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Study of the Proposed SEA Gas Natural Gas Pipeline: Macarthur to the South Australian Border, Victoria. A report to Ecos Consulting Pty Ltd.

2004 An Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Study of the Proposed Sea Gas Pipeline between … A report to Ecos Consulting Pty Ltd.

Wood, V. & 2003 A Report on Test Excavations Undertaken for the Sea H. Builth Gas Pipeline: Southwestern Victoria. A report to Ecos Consulting Pty Ltd.

Wood, V. & 1990 Proposed Allansford – Portland Gas Pipeline A. Lance Archaeological Survey. A report to the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria.

Zola, N. & B. Gott 1992 Koorie Plants Koorie People: Traditional Aboriginal Food, Fibre and Healing Plants of Victoria. Koorie Heritage Trust, Melbourne.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 67 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 1 – ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE GAZETTEER (Not for Public Circulation)

68 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 2 – ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DISTRIBUTION MAPS (Not for Public Circulation)

94 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 3 – ABORIGINAL HISTORIC PLACES GAZETTEER & MAPS (Not for Public Circulation)

110 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 4 – CULTURAL HERITAGE SURVEY COVERAGE MAPS

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 121 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 5 – HERITAGE VICTORIA REGISTER HISTORIC PLACES GAZETTEER

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 141 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Heritage Victoria Register and Inventory Sites

Site (HVR) RNE NTVR GSHO Malings Cart Track H7221-0299 Quarantine Complex & Quarry H7221-0277 Old Coast Road H7321-0277 WWII Complex H7221-0298 Darlot Creek Stone Enclosure H7221-0295 Darlot Creek Stone Enclosure H7221-0293 Taylors Rd House Complex H7221-0291 Talyors Rd Stock Enclosure &221-0294 Twin Engine – Lady Percy Island H7221-0289 USAF – B57 H7720-0000 Lake Condah Well H7221-0288 Cliff Street Tunnel H7221-0279 21 Hurd Street B3953 HO51 H7221-0100 Wattle Hill Methodist Chapel H7221-0039 14 Clarke Street H7221-0051 Davis Tannery HO116 H7221-0041 Brewery H7221-0062 Lake Condah Bridge Remains H7221-0239 Lake Condah – Complex E H7221-0224 Oakley’s Kiln H7221-0275 Lake Condah Dry Stone Structure H7221-0240 Woolwash 1 H7221-0203 Foresters Hall R3879 B872 HO48 H7221-0072 Windsor Cottage HO119 H7221-0090 Battery Point R16555 B3303 HO89 H7221-0183 Surrey River H1 H7221-0287 Annya Camp H7221-0280 Castlemaddie H6 H7221-0278

142 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Lake Condah – Complex H H7221-0237 Frederick Court Drain H7221-0268 Railway Bridge and Cutting HO123 H7221-0197 Lake Condah Dormitory B67 H7221-0219 Wattle Hill House H7221-0204 Cape Nelson Rd Cottage 2 H7221-0216 Oak Park H7221-0209 Narrawong Woolwash H7221-0273 Deacons Brickworks H7221-0052 Lake Condah – Complex B H7221-0234 Lake Condah – Complex C H7221-0277 Rocket Store HO38 H7221-0058 Town Well H7221-0050 Cape Nelson Rd Cottage 1 H7221-0215 Lake Condah – Complex F H7221-0235 Gorae Tramway H7221-0271 Anderson Point Whaling Station H7221-0282 Shaston H7221-0208 Diatomaceaous Earth Quarry H7221-0270 Portland Gaol HO118 H7221-0049 Johnston’s Hut H7221-0274 8 Glenelg Street R3885 H0727 Hanlon Park H7221-0015 Dawkin’s House H7221-0210 South Portland (New) Cemetery H7221-0044 Portland Pier Railway Station H7221-0195 Immigration Barracks H7221-0060 Bowden’s Kiln H7221-0276 Portland Lighthouse H7221-0135

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 143 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Cape Nelson Lighthouse Complex H7221-0217 Burvilles Rd Homestead H7221-0042 Parkers’ Brickworks H7221-0147 Richmond Cottage H7221-0026 Kenney’s Lime Burning Site H7221-0218 21 Clarke Street H7221-0053 Narrawong Homestead H7221-0284 Lane’s Kilns H7221-0277 Narrawong Sawpit H7221-0272 Lake Condah – Complex A H7221-0223 106 Hurd Street HO102 H7221-0108 Caledonian Inn B2968 H7221-0200 Botanic Gardens IP16557? B869, H7221-0084 G13020 Montana H7221-0213 Pioneer (Old) Cemetery H7221-0091 Birmingham’s Tannery H7221-0061 Fisher’s House H7221-0269 Lake Condah – Complex I H7221-0238 The White House H7221-0211 Lake Condah – Complex G H7221-0229 All Saints Roman Catholic Church Emerson’s House H7121-0021 Boyd’s Hut H7122-0002 Amos Road Stockyard H7121-0050 Log Bridge H7121-0040 Sammy Keyes Hut H7121-0007 Caldous H7121-0004 Kennedy Cemetery H7121-0012 Old Nelson Road H7221-0038 Devlin House B4267 H7121-0016

144 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Black Burial Vault H7121-0023 Punt Track Sawmill H7122-0001 Portland Inn H7221-0150 Ditch and Bank Fences H7121-0015 Cape Bridgewater Road H7121-0011 Warrock Homestead B1342 H7123-0005 Kittson Cemetery H7121-0035 Vances Inn H7121-0010 Echo Park Guest House H7121-0047 Echo Park Boathouse H7121-0048 Wilson House H7121-0006 Tarragal Downs Lime Kilns H7121-0008 Black House, Peacock Lane H7121-0022 Cottage, Peacocks Road H7121-0049 McKinleys Guesthouse H7121-0013 National School No. 741 H7121-0018 Bridgewater Cemetery H7121-0030 Former Portland Inn R15231 B3959 HO5 H2071 Former Bahgallah Road Bridge (over Glenelg River) H7122-0004 Taylors Road Drystone Building/Enclosure H7121-0292 Mortons – Historic Rural Complex H7221-0283 Ettrick Homestead H7221-0265 Convincing Ground Archaeological Site L10277 HH7221-0266 Lake Condah – Complex D (Murphy’s Hut) H7221-0231 Mt Richmond Methodist Church H7121-0042 National School No. 32 H7121-0029 Cheese and Butter Factory – Portland H7121-0026 ‘Halfway House’ Coach Changing Station H7122-0003 Bats Ridge Faunal Reserve, Lime Kilns H7121-0002

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 145 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Blair Mona ISP103665 HO161 H1897 Corkhill Ditch and Bank Fences H7121-0024 Bridgewater Saleyards H7121-0031 St Stephens Church and School ISP15607 B21 HO80 H1862 St Peters Anglican Church, Tahara R3899 B2855 HO162 H1912 Hotspur Bridge R16067 B2212 HO160 H1845 Cape Nelson Lightstation R3898 B1964 HO142 H1773 Customs House R3877 B683 HO36 H1844 Former Wesleyan Church IP15546 B353 HO58 H0643 Prospect R3868 HO98 H0241 Victoria House R3860 B880 HO83 H0236 Jays Laundry B351 HO21 H0244 Portland Club R3862 B681 HO17 H0235 Dwelling, 8 Glenelg St R3885 B3949 HO43 H0727 Residence, 70 Julia St R3872 B888 HO27 H0245 ANZ Bank R3856 B686 HO63 H0238 Stanton Drew R3852 B1397 HO95 H0243 Former National School HO54 H1647 Portland Court House R3878 B344 HO40 H1481 London Inn H3858 B3059 HO66 H0237 Former Steampacket Hote R3866 B684 HO12 H0239 Former Builders Inn B348 HO50 H0659 Portland Town Hall R3864 HO39 H0234 Maretimo R3897 B731 HO101 H0242 Casterton Railway Station HO134 H1663 Warrock R3741 B1342 HO132 H0295 Burswood R3854 B52 HO99 H0240 Lake Condah Mission R3908 B67 HV-Various

146 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 6 – GLOSSARY

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 147 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

TYPES OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Artefact Scatter: A surface scatter of stone artefacts is defined as being the occurrence of five (5) or more items of cultural material within an area of about 100 square metres (AAV 1993). Artefact scatters are often the only physical remains of places where Aborigines have camped, prepared and eaten meals and worked stone material.

Burials: burial sites may occur in association with campsites, in mounds or shell middens or in specific burial grounds that lack any other cultural material. Softer ground was chosen for burials, and any sandy area can be expected to contain burials. Burial sites can contain one or a number of individuals. Burial sites and cemeteries are a common archaeological site type in the san country adjoining the Murray River, though are a rare feature in the southern part of Victoria.

Ceremonial Site: An area used as a meeting place where large groups gathered for feasts, ceremonies or settlement of disputes, but they are difficult or impossible to identify from material evidence. In some instances they are mentioned in historical sources, or may be known to Aboriginal people through oral tradition. These sites will be highly significant to Aboriginal communities.

Contact Site: These are sites relating to the period of first contact between Aboriginal and European people. These sites may be associated with conflict between Aborigines and settlers, mission stations or reserves, or historic camping places. The artefact assemblage of contact sites will often include artefacts manufactured from glass.

Grinding Grooves: These sites generally occur on sandstone outcrops and to a lesser extent granite outcrops and result from the sharpening of ground stone hatchets/axe heads. Grinding grooves are often located on prominent hilltops.

Hearth: Usually a sub-surface feature found eroding out of a river or creek bank or in a sand dune - it indicates a place where Aboriginal people cooked food. The remains of a hearth are usually identifiable by the presence of charcoal and sometimes clay balls (like brick fragments) and hearth stones. Remains of burnt bone or shell are sometimes preserved within hearth.

In Situ: Refers to cultural material that is discovered as being undisturbed and considered to be in its original context. That is, material which, when identified is considered to be in the same location when the site was abandoned.

Isolated Artefact Occurrence: An isolated artefact is defined as being the occurrence of four (4) or less items of cultural material within an area of about 100 metres (AAV 1993). It/they can be evidence of an ephemeral (or one off) activity location, the results of an artefact being lost or discarded during travel or evidence of an artefact scatter which is otherwise obscured by poor ground surface visibility.

Midden Sites: ‘Midden’ is a term borrowed from the Danish. It originally applied to the accumulations of shell and other food remains left by Mesolithic inhabitants of that country. Australian midden sites are an accumulation of hearth and food debris, which has built up a deposit on the ground surface over a length of time. Middens are generally comprised of charcoal and either freshwater or coastal shell species, depending on the site’s location. Midden sites may also contain stone artefacts, and the food refuse of other native animals such as mammals. Their thick deposit of burnt shells and dark grey/black deposit can distinguish midden sites within the landscape. Coastal shell middens are often found in close association with rock platforms. Freshwater shell middens are found in close proximity to areas that provided freshwater mussels.

148 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Mound Sites: Mound sites are accumulation of hearth (fire place) debris, which has over time built a thick deposit on the ground’s surface. Mounds are generally comprised of charcoal; burnt clay balls and burnt food refuse such as native animal bones. Mound sites may also contain stone artefacts. On rare occasions mound sites may also contain human burial remains. Mound sites can be distinguished in the landscape by their characteristic dark grey/black deposit and height above the surrounding land. Mounds that have been utilised over long periods can obtain dimensions of over 100 metres in length and 1 metre in height. Mound sites are generally situated close to major streams, and large water bodies. In times of flood, mound sites often become marooned, and provide dry land points from which surrounding resources could have been exploited.

Rock Shelter/Cave: These are sites that are located within a rack shelter/overhang or caves. The archaeological deposits within such sites can vary considerably but are often predominantly lithic. Depending on their location, the archaeological deposit may also include midden deposits of shellfish, fish or terrestrial fauna. Due to the often undisturbed deposits at these sites, they are potentially very valuable sites and are generally considered of high scientific significance. Instances where rock shelter sites also possess art work on the stone walls are considered as rock shelter/art site combined.

Rock Wells: Rock Wells are natural cavities in rock outcrops that hold water. They are characterised by relatively narrow openings that limit evaporation. These water sources were commonly known to Aboriginal people and were kept clean and maintained by them. Since they are natural features, they are difficult to identify as Aboriginal sites. The most reliable indicator is the existence of a strong local oral tradition of Aboriginal use.

Scarred Tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines for the manufacture of utensils, canoes or for shelter; or resulting from small notches chopped into the bark to provide tow and hand holds for climbers after possums, koalas and/or views of the surrounding area. A scar made by humans as opposed to naturally made by branches falling off, etc is distinguished by the following criteria: symmetry and rounded ends, scar does not extend to the ground, some regrowth has occurred around the edges of the scar, and no holes or knots present in the heartwood.

Stone Arrangements: These sites are specifically patterned rocks located on the ground’s surface. It is often difficult to identify these sites within the filed and even more difficult to define their function unless Aboriginal oral tradition exists.

ABORIGINAL ARTEFACT TYPES

Artefact: Any product made by human hands or caused to be made through human actions.

Anvil: A portable flat stone, usually a river pebble, which has been used as a base for working stone. Anvils that have been used frequently have a small circular depression in the centre where cores were held while being struck. An anvil is often a multifunctional tool used also as a grindstone and hammer stone.

Axe: A stone artefact that has been ground on one or more sides to produce a sharp edge.

Backed Blade (Geometric Microlith): A blade has been abruptly retouched along one or more margins opposite an acute (sharp) edge. Backed pieces include backed blades and geometric microliths. Flakes that have been backed along one lateral margin and that come to a point at their distal end; they have a length of less than 80mm and are asymmetrical around the longitudinal axis. They are thought to have been hafted onto wooden handles to produce composite cutting tools or spears. Backed blades are a feature of the “Australian Small Tool Tradition”, dating from between 5,000 and 1,000 years ago in southern Australia (Mulvaney 1975).

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 149 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Blade: A long parallel sided flake from a specially prepared core. Blade flakes are twice as long as they are wide.

Bipolar: A core or a flake, which, presumably, has been struck on an anvil.. This is, the core from which the flake has been struck has been rotated before the flake has been struck off. Bifacial platforms tend to indicate that the flake has come off a heavily worked core.

Broad Platform: This is a term used to describe the shape of the platform on a flake.. A broad platform is wider than the body of a flake. Broad platform flakes are produced when flakes are struck off back from the edge of the platform on a core.

Bulb of Percussion: This is the conchoidal protuberance (percussion rings) formed under the point of impact when a flake is struck off the core.

Burin: A truncated flake (truncated wither by snapping or retouch) whose resulting flat end is used as a platform from which to strike a single flake from one of its corners, forming a triangular scar that runs down the margin of the original flake. This forms a chisel-like working edge.

Core: An artefact from which flakes have been detached using a hammer stone. Core types include blade, single platform, multiplatform and bipolar forms. These artefacts exhibit a series of negative flake scars, each of which represents the removal of a flake.

Core Types: Unidirectional Cores - These cores have scars originating from a single platform, and all the flakes struck from the core have been struck in the same direction from that platform. Bidirectional Cores - These cores have two platforms, one opposite the other; flakes have been struck from each of the platforms, and thus from opposite directions. Bifacial Cores - These kinds of core have a single platform, but the flakes struck from it have been detached from two core faces. Multidirectional Cores - These cores have two or more platforms and there is no clear pattern, either in the orientation of the platforms or in the orientation of the scars resulting from the striking of flakes from those platforms. Bipolar Cores - Nodules or cobbles that are flaked using an anvil. The resulting artefacts exhibit crushing on both their proximal and distal margins and often their lateral margins, where they have been rotated.

Cortex: Original or natural (unflaked) surface of a stone.

Complete Flake: an artefact exhibiting a ventral surface (where the flake was originally connected to the core), dorsal surface (the surface that used to be part of the exterior of the core), platform, termination and bulb of percussion.

Flaked Piece/Waste Flake/Debitage: A piece of stone with definite flake surfaces that cannot be classified as a flake or core. These artefact types are generally refuse materials discarded during the working of stone material.

Broken Flake: Defined by the part of the flake remaining, i.e., proximal (where the platform is present), medial (where neither the platform or termination is present), or distal (where the termination is present).

Focal Platform: This is a term used to describe the shape of the platform on a flake. A focal platform is narrower that the body of the flake. Focal platform flakes are produced when flakes are struck off near the edge of the platform on a core.

150 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

Geometric Microlith: Artefacts less than 80mm in maximum dimension which are backed at one or other end, sometimes at both ends, and sometimes on one lateral margin as well, the result being a form that is symmetrical around its transverse axis.

Hammerstone: A cobble or cobble fragment exhibiting pitting and abrasion as a result of percussion.

Implement: A general term for tools, weapons, etc, made by people.

Lithic: Anything made of stone.

Microlith: Small (1-3cm long) stone tools with evidence of retouch. Includes ‘Bondi Points’, segment, scrapers, backed blades, triangle and trapezoid.

Mortar: The lower stone associated with grinding plants for food and medicine and/or ochre for painting. These stones are usually large and flat, and when well used show deep grooves from repeated grinding.

Notched Tool: flakes that exhibit a small area of retouch forming a concave edge on their lateral or distal margins.

Pestle: The “upper stone” used to grind plants for food and medicine and/or ochre for painting. A pestle stone often doubles as a hammer stone and/or anvil.

Piercer: Artefacts with projections that have been created by retouch and extend up to 15mm beyond the body of the flake.

Primary Flake: The first flakes struck off a core in order to create a platform from which other flakes can then be struck.

Secondary Flaking/Retouch: Secondary working of a stone artefact after its manufacture. This was often done to resharpen stone tools after use, or in the production of formal tool types such as blade flakes and scrapers.

Scraper: A tool used for scraping. A flake with one or more margins of continuous retouch.

Thumbnail Scraper: A small flake with a convex scraper edge, shaped like a thumbnail and located opposite the flake’s platform.

OTHER TERMS

Archaeological Site: A place/location of either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal origin. Aboriginal archaeological sites have been formed prior to the European settlement of Australia, and may be in any of the forms outlined in section 1.

Post-Contact Aboriginal Site: Also referred to as Historic Aboriginal Site. These areas/sites/places/localities indicate contact has been made with European culture during the period of initial European settlement (e.g., glass in tool assemblages, massacre sites), or where activities culturally significant to Aboriginal people has occurred (camping, employment, travel routes).

BP: Before Present. The ‘Present’ is defined as 1950.

Cultural Heritage: Something that is inherited or passed down because it is appreciated and cherished. Categories of cultural heritage include: built structures and their surrounds, gardens,

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 151 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study trees; cultural landscapes; sites; areas; precincts; cemeteries; ruins and archaeological sites; shipwrecks; sites of important events; commemorative sites; contents of buildings and significant relics, objects, artefacts and collections of objects.

Cultural Landscape Integrity: The level of which the local landscape reflects the environment in which pre-contact Aboriginal people or early European settlers lived. The integrity includes all relevant aspects such as level and type of vegetation cover, hydrology, landforms and structures. A site located in a landscape of high cultural integrity has greater heritage value as it remains in context, and is therefore able to impart a greater level of information to the broader community.

Ethnography: The scientific description of living cultures.

Historic Archaeological Site: These are places where non-Aboriginal activities have occurred, and which little extant (standing) features remain. The bulk of evidence for historic occupation/utilisation is comprised of remains (artefacts, foundations, etc) that are located on the ground’s surface or in a sub-surface context. The primary heritage value of an archaeological site is scientific.

Historic Site: Sites/Areas that contain extant (standing) remains of pre-1950 non-Aboriginal occupation. Historic sites may or may not also contain archaeological remains (Aboriginal and/or historic).

Holocene, Recent or Postglacial Period: The time from the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age (c. 10,300 BP) to the present day.

Horizon: A term used to describe a layer of archaeological material that is in situ.

Heritage Place/Site: An area or region of land that represents a particular focus of past human activity, or that represents a concentration of in situ cultural material. A place includes any structures, buildings or works upon or integral with the land, and any artefacts or other physical relic associated with the land, or it may have no visible evidence of human activity, being rather the site of a past event of importance or the embodiment of a particular belief or legend Examples might range from an Aboriginal ceremonial ground, a pioneer’s house and contents, a shop, the remains of an early whaling station or a recent fish farm, Captain Cook’s landing place, a 40,000 year old Aboriginal campsite or a 1990s brick-veneer house, a shipwreck, an industrial or mining landscape, a bus stop, a Macassan trepanger campsite or the Surfer’s Paradise Caravan Park, a garbage dump, the local war memorial, a garden, an Aboriginal rock painting or a band rotunda.

Potential: Based on collated existing data and site inspection of an area or specific site may contain the potential for extant or archaeological deposits. Background research will present the most likely site types, contents and state of preservation. Relative levels of potential are described as Low (10-30% probability), Moderate (40-60% probability) and High (70% and above probability).

Obtrusiveness: Refers to how conspicuous a site is within a particular landscape, and thus the possibility of positive identification within a field environment. Some site types are more conspicuous than other. Thus a surface stone artefact scatter is generally not obtrusive, especially in area of low ground surface visibility, while a scarred tree is (Bird 1992).

Ordovician: The geological time period dating from 439-510 million years ago.

Pleistocene: The geological period corresponding with the last or Great Ice Age. The onset of the Pleistocene is marked by an increasingly cold climate, by the appearance of Calambrian mollusca and Villafranchian fauns with elephant, ox, and horse species, and by changes in foraminifera. The oldest form of man had evolved by the Early Pleistocene, and in archaeological terms the cultures classed as Palaeolithic all fall within this period. The date for the start of the Pleistocene is

152 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study not well established, and estimates vary from 3.5 to 1.3 million years ago. The period ends with the final but gradual retreat of the ice sheets, which reached their present conditions around 10,300 BP.

Silurian: A geological time period from 408 to 439 million years ago.

Stratigraphy: Layering.

Visibility: Refers to the degree to which the surface of the ground can be observed. This may be influenced by natural processes such as wind erosion or the character of the native vegetation, and by land use practices, such as ploughing or grading. It is generally expressed in terms of the percentage of the visible ground surface for an observer on foot (Bird 1992). For example 10% visibility equates to 10 cm2 per 1 m2 of ground surface that is not covered by vegetation or soil deposit. The following applies to descriptions of ground surface visibility within this report.

0% No Visible Ground Surface 0-10% Very Poor 10-30% Poor 30-50% Fair 50-70% Good 70-90% Very Good 90-100% Excellent

Raw Material: Organic or inorganic matter that has not been processed by people.

Slope Wash: A term used to describe a specific process of re-deposition of cultural material. Cultural material (most often stone artefacts) that is situated on any sloping land is vulnerable to the affects of slope wash. The term relates to the downward movement of cultural material primarily due to erosion of their original context. This downward movement is most often caused by clearing of vegetation that exposes the ground surface to the affects of water erosion. The result is that cultural material will move down the slope over a period of time. How far material may move is dependent on the gradient and the intensity of the erosion.

Use Wear: Tiny flakes or chips that have been broken off the edges of a stone artefact during use.

MARITIME

Barque: Vessel with aftermost mast fore-and-aft rigged and remaining (usually two) masts square- rigged.

Brig (Brigantine): Two masted square-rigged vessel, with additional lower fore-and-aft sail on gaff and boon to mainmast.

Cutter: Boat belonging to ship of war, fitted for rowing and sailing, small one masted vessel rigged like a sloop, but with running bowsprit.

Ketch: Two masted fore-and-aft rigged sailing boat with mizzen-mast, stepped forward of rudder.

Steamer Screw: Vessel propelled by steam - screw, revolving shaft with twisted blades projecting from ship, and propelling it by acting on screw principle.

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 153 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

REFERENCES

Aboriginal Affairs 1997 Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Victoria Surveys in Victoria. AAV, Melbourne.

Bird, C. F. M. 1992 Archaeology of the Goulburn River Basin. A Background Study. Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Clark, D. & 1980 Alcoa Portland Aluminium Smelter. Working Paper No. 2. J. P. Wesson

Mulvaney, D. J. 1975 The Prehistory of Australia. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Oxford University 1976 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. OUP, Oxford Press

Pearson, M. & 1995 Looking After Heritage Places - The Basics of Heritage Planning S. Sullivan for Managers, Landowners and Administrators. MUP

Heritage Victoria 2000 Victorian Heritage Strategy. Heritage Victoria, Department of Infrastructure.

Holdaway, S. & 2004 A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia’s Flaked N. Stern Stone Artefacts. Museum Victoria & AIATSIS, Melbourne.

154 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 7 – ADVICE ON THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 155 Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study Advice about the Discovery of Human Remains

Treatment of Any Suspected Aboriginal Remains Discovered in the Course of Development Work:

1. Legal Requirements

The Coroner’s Act 1985 requires anyone who discovers the remains of a “person whose identity is unknown” to report the discovery directly to the State Coroner’s Office or to Victoria Police. A person who fails to report the discovery of such remains is liable to a $10,000 fine. The Coroner’s Act 1985 does not differentiate between treatment of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal remains. The majority of burials found during development work are therefore likely to be subject to this reporting requirement.

In addition, Part IIA of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 requires anyone who discovers suspected Aboriginal remains in Victoria to report the discovery to the responsible Minister. The Director, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, holds delegated authority to receive and investigate such reports.

It should be noted that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is subordinate to the Coroner’s Act 1985 regarding the discovery of human remains. In the first instance, therefore, the location at which the remains are found should be treated as a possible crime scene and the developer and/or contractor should not make any assumptions about the age or ethnicity of the burial.

Victoria Police Standing Orders require that an archaeologist from Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, should be in attendance when suspected Aboriginal remains have been reported (Police Headquarters and the State Coroner’s Office hold after hours contact numbers for Heritage Branch staff). In cases where it is believed that the remains are Aboriginal, the Police will now usually invite representatives of the local Aboriginal community to be present when remains are being assessed. This is because Aboriginal people usually have particular concerns about the treatment of Aboriginal burials and associated materials.

2. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria - Suggested Procedure to be Followed if Suspected Human Remains are Discovered

• If suspected human remains are discovered during development, work in the area must cease and the Police or State Coroner’s Office must be informed of the discovery without delay. The State Coroner’s Office can be contacted at any time on ph. (03) 9684 4444.

• If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the remains are Aboriginal, the discovery should also be reported to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria on ph. (03) 9616 7777. Aboriginal Affairs Victoria will ensure that the local Aboriginal community is informed about the circumstances of the discovery.

• Do not touch or otherwise interfere with the remains, other than to safeguard them from further disturbance.

• Do not contact the media.

156 Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants Glenelg Shire Desktop Cultural Heritage Study

APPENDIX 8 – CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES OF THE BURRA CHARTER

Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, cultural heritage consultants 157 The Burra Charter The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance 1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance.

Conservation Principles Article 2 Conservation and management 2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved. 2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place. 2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. 2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state. Article 3 Cautious approach 3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the The traces of additions, alterations and existing fabric, use, associations and earlier treatments to the fabric of a place meanings. It requires a cautious approach are evidence of its history and uses which of changing as much as necessary but as may be part of its significance. little as possible. Conservation action should assist and not impede their understanding. 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. Article 4 Knowledge, skills and techniques 4.1 Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place. 4.2 Traditional techniques and materials are The use of modern materials and preferred for the conservation of significant techniques must be supported by firm fabric. In some circumstances modern scientific evidence or by a body of techniques and materials which offer experience. substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate. Article 5 Values 5.1 Conservation of a place should identify and Conservation of places with natural take into consideration all aspects of significance is explained in the Australian cultural and natural significance without Natural Heritage Charter. This Charter unwarranted emphasis on any one value at defines natural significance to mean the the expense of others. importance of ecosystems, biological diversity and geodiversity for their existence value, or for present or future generations in terms of their scientific, social, aesthetic and life-support value. 5.2 Relative degrees of cultural significance A cautious approach is needed, as may lead to different conservation actions understanding of cultural significance may at a place. change. This article should not be used to justify actions which do not retain cultural significance. Article 6 Burra Charter Process 6.1 The cultural significance of a place and The Burra Charter process, or sequence of other issues affecting its future are best investigations, decisions and actions, is understood by a sequence of collecting illustrated in the accompanying flowchart. and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy. 6.2 The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance. 6.3 Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner’s needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition. Article 7 Use 7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained. 7.2 A place should have a compatible use. The policy should identify a use or combination of uses or constraints on uses that retain the cultural significance of the place. New use of a place should involve minimal change, to significant fabric and use; should respect associations and meanings; and where appropriate should provide for continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of the place. Article 8 Setting Conservation requires the retention of an Aspects of the visual setting may include appropriate visual setting and other use, siting, bulk, form, scale, character, relationships that contribute to the cultural colour, texture and materials. significance of the place. Other relationships, such as historical New construction, demolition, intrusions or connections, may contribute to other changes which would adversely interpretation, appreciation, enjoyment or affect the setting or relationships are not experience of the place. appropriate. Article 9 Location 9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival. 9.2 Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other components do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be appropriate. 9.3 If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance. Article 10 Contents Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objects should be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate. Article 11 Related places and objects The contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained. Article 12 Participation Conservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the place has special associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place. Article 13 Co-existence of cultural values Co-existence of cultural values should be For some places, conflicting cultural values recognised, respected and encouraged, may affect policy development and especially in cases where they conflict. management decisions. In this article, the term cultural values refers to those beliefs which are important to a cultural group, including but not limited to political, religious, spiritual and moral beliefs. This is broader than values associated with cultural significance.