REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS - MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
A report prepared for MPM Development Consultants upon behalf of CM Piacentini
By Mr Brad Goode Consulting Anthropologist 79 Naturaliste Terrace DUNSBOROUGH WA 6281 [email protected]
Mrs Jacqueline Harris Consulting Archaeologist 26 Camelia Street NORTH PERTH WA 6006 [email protected]
Report submitted February 2013 to:
Mr Craig Pippin Senior Engineer MPM Development Consultants PO Box 2035 107 Beach Road BUNBURY WA 6231
The Registrar Department of Indigenous Affairs PO Box 3153 151 Royal Street EAST PERTH WA 6892
REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the following organisations and individuals who helped with the management of this Aboriginal heritage survey.
• Ms Shelley Coutts – MPM Development Consultants (Project Manager and Director) • Mr Craig Pippin – MPM Development Consultants (Senior Engineer) • Mr Sean O’Hara – South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Council (Senior Heritage Officer) • Mr Simon Keenan – Department of Indigenous Affairs (Senior Heritage Officer) • Dr Moya Smith – Western Australian Museum (Anthropologist) • Ms Mel Lamanna – Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd (Assistant) • Ms Lisa Butcher– Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd (Assistant)
Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 Native Title Claim group representatives
Ethnographic survey informants:
• Mr Greg Winmar • Mr Les Wallam • Ms Dawn Alone • Mr Joe Northover • Ms Annette Garlett • Ms Sandra Nebro • Ms Barbara Corbett- Councillor-Stamner (Barbara Corbett)
DISCLAIMER All of the information contained in this report is believed to be correct and accurate at the time it was recorded. The author does not take responsibility or accept any liability for errors or omissions contained in the report based upon information supplied by others.
*Note: This report, in terms of its assessment under section 5 of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, should be read in conjunction with the archaeological report by Harris (2013).
COPYRIGHT This report and the information contained herein, is subject to Copyright and may not be copied in whole or part without the written consent of the copyright holders, being Brad Goode and Associates Pty Ltd, MPM Development Consultants, CM Piacentini and Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 Native Title Claim group members who contributed to the survey.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS The Proponent – CM Piacentini The Consultant – Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd AHA – Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 AHR – Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 DIA – Department of Indigenous Affairs ACMC – Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee SWALSC – South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council GKB – Gnaala Karla Booja CHMP – Cultural Heritage Management Plan WAM – Western Australian Museum POS – Public Open Space
1 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CM Piacentini (‘the proponent’) is proposing to develop a residential subdivision upon Lots 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 at Glen Iris in Bunbury. The agents for the proponent, MPM Development Consultants, have commissioned Brad Goode and Associates to conduct a ‘Site Identification’ Aboriginal heritage survey, in order to determine whether any sites or places of significance, as defined by section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 would be affected.
The subject lots are bounded by the Preston River to the west, Moorlands and Jeffrey Roads to the northeast, Vittoria Road to the east and the Preston River and Kaeshagen Street to the south. The total survey area is 48.2 hectares.
As a result of archival research there are no previously recorded ethnographic Aboriginal heritage sites or places located within the development area.
One archaeological site and one archaeological other heritage place was identified to be located within the development area. The DIA extent for Other Heritage Place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact) affects – Lot 310. The DIA extent of Site ID 5449 Moorland Bunbury (Burial) extent affects – Lots 202, 310, 315, 314, 313, and 312 (see Harris (2013) for details).
Archival research has also determined that DIA site ID 19795 Preston River will be potentially affected by any obligations that the proponent may have in managing the section of ‘Regional Open Space’ (Lot 313) that separates the development area from the Preston River. Ground disturbing activities associated with this management may require consent under the AHA.
As a result of consultations with the seven nominated representatives of GKB native title claim group and in relation to these archaeological sites, the Nyungar community have defined that these places represent a highly significant cultural landscape that marks their ancestors’ connection to the area, and their social historical associations with community and kin. In particular the large Marri tree located on the south-eastern side of the Other Heritage Place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 has become the cultural symbol that now signifies and connects the contemporary Nyungar community to this landscape.
In terms of the development proposal and its affect upon the defined cultural values it is highly likely that the whole of the dune containing archaeological material and the former burial will undergo extensive modification, even if it is preserved as a park within the 10% requirement for ‘Public Open Space.’
In terms of mitigation the Nyungar community request that the sub-surface archaeological potential be investigated. This would assist interpretation of the social and scientific values that would otherwise be lost to the community from the sites destruction.
Post development a further mitigative strategy would be for the proponent to commission detailed historic and oral historic research as a basis for interpretation. This would assist the Nyungar community to understand the prehistoric to historic context of their ancestors’ lives in the area and the contribution made to the regions development.
In terms of the development proposal the Nyungar community would obviously wish the site and place to be preserved, however should the development proceed and should the site and place be destroyed, the final planning should be done in close consultation with the Gnaala Karla Booja working party at SWALSC.
2 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
As a result of the above survey the following recommendations can be made:
Should the proponent wish to proceed with planning to urbanise the above lots (where Aboriginal heritage sites and places exist) it is recommended that further planning is done in close consultation with members of the GKB native title claim group in order to minimise the effects to ethnographic and archaeological cultural heritage values.
Further consultation will be required in order that the GKB native title claim group members can assess how the final plans will affect these values prior to supporting a section 18 application under the AHA.
At present the GKB native title group are not in support of the proponent seeking such consent.
It is recommended that once a consensus upon management of these values is reached that the proponent will be required to make application under section 18 of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 for consent to use the land that may contain an Aboriginal Site, Site ID 5449 (Burial) and Other Heritage Place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact).
Should consent be given the following management requests should be given due consideration by the ACMC as conditions:
• That the proponent protects the Marri tree and as much of the dune that contains artefacts around the tree as possible as within POS. • That the skeletal remains salvaged are to be returned to this site and reburied near the tree with an appropriate ceremony. • That the wetlands on Lots 317, 316, 315 and 32 are protected and revegetated with indigenous species. • That all excavations and ground clearing work located within the DIA extent of the sites and places are subjected to archaeological monitoring, recording and salvage, with all material salvaged returned to the POS around the tree. • That the POS is landscaped into a memorial park with a Nyungar theme and historical interpretative signage is provided that outlines the significance of the area to the GKB native title claim group.
3 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 CONTENTS ...... 4 ISSUE ...... 6 REPORT OBJECTIVES ...... 6 BACKGROUND ...... 6 LOCATION ...... 8 ETHNOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 9
TRADITIONAL NYUNGAR CULTURE ...... 9 ETHNOHISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NYUNGAR LIFE ...... 11 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ...... 14
SITES REGISTER SEARCH ...... 14 REVIEW OF RELEVANT SITE FILES ...... 15 REVIEW OF RELEVANT ETHNOGRAPHIC REPORTS ...... 15 OUTCOMES OF ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ...... 17 IDENTIFICATION OF SPOKESPEOPLE ...... 18
THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ON HERITAGE ISSUES ...... 18 NATIVE TITLE CLAIMS OVER THE SURVEY AREA ...... 19 SELECTION OF SPOKESPEOPLE FOR THIS SURVEY ...... 19 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...... 21 AIMS ...... 21 METHOD ...... 21 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 21 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES ...... 27 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 30 A REPORT ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AT MOORLAND, GLEN IRIS, EAST OF BUNBURY ...... 33 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 34 INTRODUCTION ...... 36 PURPOSE ...... 36 STUDY AREA ...... 36 ENVIRONMENT ...... 36 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ...... 37
DESKTOP STUDY ...... 37 REVIEW OF HERITAGE SURVEY REPORTS ...... 38 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 40
4 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
SITE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 41 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ...... 41
SURVEY AREA ...... 41 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...... 42 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 43 CONCLUSIONS ...... 44 DISCUSSION ...... 44 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 46 APPENDIX 1: SITES REGISTER SEARCH ...... 48 APPENDIX 2: LETTER OF ADVICE ...... 49 APPENDIX 3: MAPS OF THE PROJECT AREA IN RELATION TO ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES ...... 50
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF THE SURVEY AREA...... 8 FIGURE 2: MR BRAD GOODE (ANTHROPOLOGIST) BRIEFING THE MEMBERS OF THE GNAALA KARLA BOOJA WC98/58 ABOUT PREVIOUS RESEARCH RELATED TO OTHER HERITAGE PLACE ID 4917 BUNBURY 06 AND SITE ID 5449 MOORLAND BUNBURY. VIEW TO THE NORTH WEST...... 21 FIGURE 3: MR BRAD GOODE (ANTHROPOLOGIST) AND MS SHELLEY COUTTS (MPM DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS) BRIEFING MEMBERS OF THE GNAALA KARLA BOOJA WC98/58 ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. VIEW TO THE NORTH WEST ...... 22 FIGURE 4: SIGNIFICANT MARRI TREE (CORYMBIA CALOPHYLLA) CULTURALLY MARKING SITE ID 5449 IDENTIFIED ON THE HILL. VIEW TO THE EAST...... 24 FIGURE 5: FROM THE RIGHT, MS SANDRA NEBRO, MR JOE NORTHOVER AND SEVERAL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GNAALA KARLA BOOJA WC98/58 INSPECT THE MARRI TREE MARKING THE SITES SIGNIFICANCE. VIEW TO THE SOUTH EAST...... 26 FIGURE 6: GROUP PHOTO SHOWING THE SURVEY TEAM CONSISTING OF THE CONSULTANTS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GNAALA KARLA BOOJA WC98/58 AT THE LARGE MARRI MARKING THE SIGNIFICANT AREA. VIEW TO THE SOUTH EAST ...... 27 FIGURE 7: HERITAGE PLACE, DIA 4917 BUNBURY 06. VIEW TO THE NORTH WEST...... 43
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES WITHIN PROJECT AREA 15 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES AND PLACES WITHIN VICINITY OF PROJECT AREA ...... 37
5 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
REPORT
Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey of lots associated with the Glen Iris – Moorlands Structure Plan, Bunbury, Western Australia
ISSUE CM Piacentini (‘the proponent’) is proposing to develop a residential subdivision upon Lots 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 at Glen Iris in Bunbury. This residential development is a component of the draft Glen Iris – Moorlands Structure Plan approved by the City of Bunbury in 2010.
In order to develop the final plans the proponent is first required to identify and manage all constraints inclusive of Aboriginal heritage. Subsequently the proponent commissioned an ‘Site Identification’ Aboriginal heritage survey in order to determine whether any sites of significance as defined by section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 exist within the development area
REPORT OBJECTIVES To report on archival research in order to determine if any previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites or places will be effected by the above project proposal.
To report on consultations held with representatives of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 Native Title Claim group in order to determine if any new Aboriginal heritage sites or places will be affected by this proposal.
To generate consensual management recommendations and statements of significance should the project proceed and require ministerial consent under section 18 of Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
BACKGROUND On 13th March 2012, Mr Craig Pippin, Senior Engineer from MPM Development Consultants commissioned Brad Goode and Associates to conduct a ‘Site Identification’ Aboriginal heritage survey for the proposed residential development for Lots 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 at Glen Iris in Bunbury.
A Site Identification Aboriginal heritage survey is defined as:
In this type of survey, sites are located and documented and the spatial extent and significance of sites to Aboriginal people is recorded. This information may be made available to the proponent in report form, subject to agreement from the relevant Aboriginal people. Alternatively, confidential information may be presented in a restricted report to the ACMC, usually via the DIA. The report should contain recommendations on steps to be taken by the proponent to ensure compliance with the AHA (Department of Indigenous Affairs 2002: 17)
Specifically the subject lots are bounded by the Preston River to the west, Moorlands and Jeffrey Roads to the northeast, Vittoria Road to the east and the Preston River and Kaeshagen Street to the south. The total survey area is 48.2 hectares.
Currently it is proposed to sub-divide these lots for housing under the terms of the ‘Greater Bunbury Region Scheme.’ Under the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme (GBRS) the subject lands are predominantly zoned Urban, with the exception of a central portion (Lot 312) which is
6 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
reserved for ‘Public Purpose – Relief Floodway’ and the areas fringing the Preston River, which is reserved as ‘Regional Open Space.’
Currently Lot 312 is the subject of an amendment to the GBRS to re-zone to ‘Urban’. Under the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No.7, the majority of the subject land is currently zoned ‘Development Zone – Residential.’ Land zoned ‘Development Zone’ requires that a Structure Plan be prepared and endorsed by both the Local Authority and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) prior to subdivision and development. Lot 312 is zoned ‘Special Use – Relief Floodway’ while Lot 313 is reserved as ‘Regional Open Space’. Subsequent to the GBRS amendment a local planning scheme amendment will be prepared to re-zone Lot 312 to ‘Development Zone.’
While specific plans are yet to be finalised it is proposed that the development area will consist of areas of:
• Local Open Space • Large Lot residential to the west • Areas of a range of housing densities (R20, R30 and R40) • Roads • Drainage • Sewerage, Water Reticulation, Power and Telecommunication Services
As a consequence of the above brief, an archaeological and ethnographic survey was undertaken by Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd.
Mrs Jacqueline Harris (Archaeologist) assisted by GKB representative, Mr Peter Michael, conducted an archaeological inspection on the 21st to 22nd of August 2012.
Mr Brad Goode (Anthropologist) assisted by Ms Lisa Butcher and Ms Mel Lamanna conducted the ethnographic consultations on the 20th of November 2012. Ms Shelly Coutts from MPM Development Consultants assisted the survey team with technical questions that relate to the land or the proposal.
7 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
LOCATION
Figure 1: Location of the survey area.
8 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ETHNOGRAPHIC & HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
TRADITIONAL NYUNGAR CULTURE Prior to European settlement Western Australia’s southwest was home to thirteen socio-dialectal groups who shared common traditions and language with local variations. These groups, known collectively as Nyungar land encompassed a triangle from Jurien Bay in the north to Esperance in the south-east (Berndt 1979, Tindale 1974, Tilbrook 1983). Before linguistic boundaries were formed these people were known as Bibbulmun and were said to be ‘the finest group in all West Australia’ (Bates 1938: 59-61). The word Bibbulmun means many breasts, a name derived, perhaps, from the fertility of the region or the great number of women and children among the seventy subgroups.
Unlike their inland neighbours who employed the ‘Old Australian tradition’ of circumcision (Berndt & Berndt 1980: 81). Nyungars restricted the physical marks of initiation to nasal septum piercing and cicatrisation. A boy at age nine or ten would be removed from his home camp to live with his maternal uncles for several years. During this time upper body cicatrisation and nasal septum piercing would take place and he would learn the lore of the country before returning to live with his immediate family, having passed into manhood (Bates 1985:151-162).
In regards to the Nyungar groups who traditionally occupied the Bunbury area Tindale (1974) recorded that the Pindjarup occupied an area from Pinjarra to Harvey, inclusive of the Leschenault Inlet and the lower reaches of the Murray River. To the south-east of the Estuary Tindale (1974: 244, 260) and Berndt (1979) both recorded that the region was home to the Kaneang. To the east were located the Wilman people who occupied the territory at Wagin and Narrogin, on the Collie, Hotham and Williams Rivers west of Collie. It is likely that our study area is occupied by the Kaneang. However these boundaries must be viewed as being fluid in nature and as such can only be considered as representative. Traditionally it is likely that people from the above three groups had ties and associations in the area as they do today.
The two primary social moieties of the Nyungar, the Manitchmat (white cockatoo) and Wordungmat (crow) were the basis for marriage between a further four semi-moieties or clan groups. The semi-moieties Tondarup and Didarruk were derivatives of the former and Ballaruk and Nagarnook derivatives of the latter (Berndt 1979: 82; Bates 1985: 74). It was strictly forbidden to marry within one’s own moiety. In fact, the only lawful marriage was seen to be the cross cousin marriage of paternal aunts’ children to the maternal uncles’ children. This form of social organization was identical in tribes across all of Western Australia (Bates 1966: 24- 25).
The basis for Aboriginal spirituality, land use and ownership lies in their concept of the Dreaming. In the Dreaming ancestral beings created the world and all within it thereby defining spiritual, social, moral and territorial division for its inhabitants. The spiritual essence of all ancestral beings not only transformed the landscape but also infused it with living spirit. The ancestral beings spirit is believed to remain in all significant sites. All generations are linked to the dreaming and to the eternal spiritual beings at these sites (Berndt 1979). The Nyungar revered one central creator spirit, the Waugal (after Moore 1842, Berndt 1979; woggal after Bates 1938 & 1985). The Waugal was believed to be responsible for creating all the sources of water in the south-west. It is the contemporary belief that the essence of the Waugal is still present in all these water sources now (Goode 2002b: 22). Historically Bates (1985: 219-221) notes that wherever the Waugal stopped or camped was considered sacred. As a consequence, these places were generally avoided (winnaitch). O’Connor, Quatermaine and Bodney (1989) provide a theoretical explanation of what they term “the ubiquitous Waugal myth.” The Waugal, they say, is defined as a water creative spiritual force with a serpentine physical manifestation. The Waugal is said to have created many of the south west rivers inclusive of the Preston River. It is now believed that its essence remains in such places as the Collie and Preston Rivers. With 9 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
regards to the significance of this mythology the author’s above state the imputation of religious significance to water sources is at least as old as recorded human history itself and that it is not surprising that in an arid country such as Australia this belief occurs in many totemic forms. O’Connor (1995) et al notes Waugal sites of significance at various locations on the Collie River at Collie, namely Bottoms Pool, Wuridjong Pool, Telfer Pool and Wellington Dam. More contemporary ethnographic accounts have documented that the whole of this river system, inclusive of the Leschenault Estuary to be of significance due to its association with the spirit of the Ngarngungudditj Walgu (Goode 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2007a, 2007b, McDonald 1995).
Aborigines throughout all of Australia hold two distinct and complementary forms of relationship to the land: esoteric (sacred, ritual, mythological and ceremonial) and economic (biographical, historical and habitation). Stanner (1965) clarifies their difference by using the terms estate, range and domain. Estate refers to the home ground or Dreaming place of a particular descent group. Range refers to the tract of country over which the group travelled for hunting and foraging, and included their estate. In short, range gave economic boundaries and estate offered a sense of place and of spiritual meaning for both the individual and the group as a whole. A descent group’s domain refers to the combination of both estate and range (Stanner 1965: 2). The strength of attachment to a particular place would vary from person to person and/or family to family but the associations with the land were, and remain today, crucial elements of Aboriginal society.
Traditionally South West Nyungars employed a highly mobile lifestyle within their defined domain (Stanner 1965). Movement by family groups was usually along a series of well-defined tracks or paths (bidi) which followed the corridors of easiest movement between seasonal camps, where resources were available and where annual aggregations occurred to conduct ceremonies at sites of significance. Bunbury was noted to be a place where traditionally many Nyungar groups gathered as the abundance of resources around the rivers and inlets enabled large seasonal aggregations to occur, however little was recorded in the areas early history as to the identity of these groups apart from there broad linguist categories.
Traditional places of movement and habitation post contact often translated into what Nyungar people define today as their families ‘runs’. A run was a series of camps and places of habitual occupation. These runs often followed pre-contact patterns of movement that now coincided with places where seasonal agriculture work was available (Haebich 1988: 1). Places like Bunbury today have a large Nyungar population of mixed descent from a variety of south west locations that has immigrated to the area for employment. Today it is difficult to definitely identify the areas traditional owners and currently there is much dispute with regards to the issue. Clearly many Nyungars in the Bunbury area today are relatively recent immigrants and hold knowledge of the area’s history based upon biographical associations with work patterns that have formed around European agriculture, rather than traditional culture. For these families this association is of great importance to their sense of cultural identity as local Nyungars. Many historical places of importance are reported during heritage surveys, however, as a result of the lack of connection to matters of traditional life they are not protected by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Places of historical importance to Nyungars unless significant events occurred at these places that mark events of importance to the States history are also not protected. During heritage surveys in the area Nyungars often report places that are of sentimental significance to their family and community but they may not qualify as a site under State Legislation. It could be argued that due to the attenuation of traditional culture in the region that these places of historical habitual association are what is of importance to contemporary Nyungars today and as such should be considered as important places and as sites under the Act. These places represent for many Nyungars families and communities places that mark their sense of collective social history and identity and as such are of interest to anthropologists studying post contact social change.
10 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ETHNOHISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS OF NYUNGAR LIFE The Bunbury area was first explored by Lieutenant William Preston, an officer on the HMS Sulphur and naval surgeon Dr Alexander Collie during an expedition in 1829 from the Swan River Settlement. The purpose of the expedition was to chart and examine the south-western coast and to look for suitable agricultural land for the future expansion of the colony. Passing through the channel between Garden Island and Cape Peron they chartered the water south to Murray River. Following this they travelled on to Port Leschenault and, upon entering the inlet discovered a river about three miles from their camp. They named it the Preston River, after the Lieutenant. On the same day they discovered another river just a few miles downstream of the Preston and named it the Collie River, in honour of the doctor. The explorers reported seeing a group of about 30 Aborigines at the mouth of the Collie River. They found themselves:
In the midst of natives who testified the greatest and most friendly eagerness to be allowed to approach us… carrying green boughs and without any weapons of offence or defence… after a very amicable interview during which we did not admit them close to the tents they returned seemingly very much gratified with what they had seen and with a few trifles which they had gotten (Martinick 1994: 15).
Surveyor-General Lieutenant Roe followed on from this first party in 1830 to survey the ‘very good’ land surrounding the Preston and Collie Rivers. He discovered valuable forestland and a range of hills that he named after himself (Sanders 1975: 3). During his explorations around the Preston and Collie Rivers, Lieutenant Roe reported no sightings of Aborigines but noted traces of old habitations that were constructed of boughs and grass. It is thought these may have been the remnants of Nyungars winter camps.
Lieutenant Henry William St Pierre Bunbury formed a post at Pinjarra on the Murray River in 1836 in order to investigate the district and was known for his good relations with the Aborigines. Before his return to England in 1837 he pioneered land exploration between Pinjarra and the emerging district of Vasse. An Aboriginal guide named Monang and others from the Pinjarrup tribe led the party to Leschenault Inlet, where the Collie and Preston Rivers flow into Koombana Bay. Lieutenant Bunbury met with Governor Stirling at Port Leschenault in December 1836. The Governor told Lieutenant Bunbury that Port Leschenault would be re- named Bunbury in his honour.
At the Leschenault Inlet the Gomborrup people lived well as food was plentiful and the land was rich (Sanders 1975: 99). Bunbury reported his encounters with hundreds of people from differing groups of Aborigines as he travelled from the inlet up the Collie and Preston Rivers and inland from the Preston River (Hallam 1979: 69). Interaction between Aborigines and settlers in the Bunbury region was commonplace by 1840 and was said to have been ‘a mixture of cordiality, mutual support and yet underlying suspicion and fear’ (Barker & Laurie 1992: 8). Although many settlers perceived them as “unattractive and dirty,” Preston and Collie formed a very different impression and had friendly communications with local Aborigines.
The early settler’s view of the Bunbury Aborigines and their culture can be gleaned from pioneer diaries and reports such as the one written by M Waller Clifton in 1841.
The opinion that they are in a state of starvation is altogether erroneous, for I never saw people more sleek and apparently well fed than they are, expecting indeed some of the women who only get the remains of what the voracious appetite of their husband leaves. In the district within 60 or 70 miles round us there appear to be but four tribes. Our immediate tribe bears the cognomen of the ‘Elaap’ Tribe, from their headquarters being at ‘Elaap’, which is the land immediately at the entrance of the Inlet up to the River Preston. They appear to be the least warlike and best disposed of all the tribes we hear of (Waller 1841 cited in Barnes, P 2001).
11 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Before 1890 the South-West region supported only small pockets of agriculture and a young timber industry and both were strained by extreme transport difficulties (de Garis 1993: 110). Although deposits of coal were known to exist at Collie in the 1880’s mining did not begin until the 1890s. Completion of the Bunbury harbour works in 1907 and further ongoing development of the South West’s railway system opened up greater possibilities for coal export. By the 1920’s heavy engines could run coal direct from Collie to Bunbury to be loaded onto ships. The first full cargo of Collie coal bound for South Australia left the Bunbury wharf in 1923 (Barker & Laurie 1992: 171-224). The South West’s hardwoods, on the other hand, had already found markets in the eastern colonies and overseas before the 1870’s. Before construction of a bridge across the Brunswick River in 1845, milled timber was placed on a lighter (semi submerged raft) and sailed to the port of Bunbury via the Collie River and Leschenault Estuary. A second bridge across the Collie River was built in 1844, and a third over the Preston River in 1848 (Sanders 1975; O’Brien 1996: 45).
The Following accounts document latter settler’s observations regarding the Aborigines at Bunbury. Account of Withers 1864:
In the morning there were about a dozen or so of blacks. We were very much afraid of them at the first but got used to them later. They used to do a lot of the rough work such as cutting wood and also scrubbing out the rooms. Tommy Banion a cripple, used to ride a pony for many years as [he] could not walk, used to mind cows for Mr Elliott, R.M. and also the town people on the Bunbury Commonage. Newmuk, Tommy Cattle and Harry; also 2 daughters. Noble Millan shot by policeman Butterworth at South Hampton, near Blackwood River at Jones Mill. He was supposed to be the one that speared Millen gate and Culbine at Green bushes. Peter Brown, John Brown, Tom Brown, Charlie Brockman (Half cast) his wife and 4 children, Charlie, Jim (Fred, Annie, Clara, Joseph and Tom and Mr.’s Harris) Sam Isaacs, half cast and his wife and sons (Withers 1864 cited in Barnes 2001).
Historical records for the area also attest to ongoing tension as indigenous and colonial people jostled to retain their own cultural practices as they came into close contact. Farmers across Western Australia regularly employed Aborigines as a convenient and cheap source of labour. Aborigines were generally offered little if any payment for work and were often given goods such as flour, sugar and tobacco in exchange for farm labour and domestic help (Shann 1926). Their importance to the colony was verbally acknowledged when in 1898 John Forrest said ‘Colonization would go on with very slow strides if we had no natives to assist us’
Near our survey area was the ‘Leschenault Mill’, built by William Forrest in 1849. This mill was located 5km up the Preston River at the junction of the Ferguson River (near where Site ID 17782 Boyanup Picton Road have been recorded to be now located). William Forrest built a mill race and a diversion dam between the two rivers to power his new mill. The home built by William Forrest is still occupied and still seen to this day are the nine olive trees planted by Forrest to represent each of his sons and the mill race (South West Life 8/9/2008 www.southwestlife.com.au/history1202.htm).
John Forrest, the son of William Forrest was born at the mouth of the Preston River. John Forrest spent over 36 years in state politics and was the first Premier of Western Australia. A monument to John Forrest is located in Bunbury, being a sculpture of John Forrest’s head. An interpretative board to the Forrest family’s historical association with the Preston area is located on the north-west embankment of the Preston River north of the South Western Highway adjacent to the proposed new Industrial Estate on Dodson Road. Contemporary Nyungar people state that their ancestors in the area worked for the Forrest family and that their contribution to the success of this families farming enterprise should also be recognized (Ted Hart, Denis Jetta per com 2008). Ms Barbara Corbett said that many Nyungars also worked for Ernie Forrest at the mill right into the 1940’s. 12 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
According to Haebich (1988) the move towards segregation of Aborigines and settlers was particularly evident in the south west around this period in history and as a result small isolated camping reserves were established outside of larger coastal towns. The establishment of these camping areas was thought necessary to keep the Aborigines together, away from the white community and also to be under the ever watchful eyes of the police (Haebich 1988: 103). Haebich (1988) records that in Bunbury in 1906 that the “Department ordered Aborigines camping near Bunbury to move to a new camp two miles south east from town following reports that sailors and local white men were taking alcohol to the camp and having sexual contact with the women” (Haebich 1988: 103). This report coincides with the statement made by Ms Barbara Corbett with regards to camps in the Picton area during a survey for Glen Iris where Ms Corbett said that Nyungars were forced to camp further out of town by Wadjela’s as the town grew. “We were moved around we had no choice where we stopped” (Barbara Corbett per com 12/08/2008). The camp Haebich (1988) identifies to the south-east of Bunbury, may well be the Preston River Camp where Nyungar families such as the Brockman, Calgarets, Corbett and Nettup’s have been reported to have lived. During this survey many of the informants said that Nyungars had been camping in this area well before their parent’s reminiscences of the 1940’s (Goode 2008).
By the turn of the twentieth century over half of the Aboriginal population in the south-west was of mixed race descent (Haebich 1988: 47). Colonial rulers saw children of one British parent as having potential if they could be trained to live as Europeans. The Industrial Schools Act of 1874 brought their removal to missions where they were prepared for servant-hood or menial apprentice work in the European community. Aboriginal parents of these children were afforded no comment in this process. In the Bunbury area Roelands mission was where children were removed to. The Depression of the 1930’s saw unemployed Nyungars receive a lower sustenance rate than unemployed Europeans. During this period Nyungar people were often employed to clear for farming the land they formerly lived on. Living more or less permanently in fringe camps, seeking out seasonal employment and supplementing their diet with game, fish and some bush tucker was a lifestyle which predominated for many Nyungar people until late into the 1960’s (McDonald et al. 1994).
The lives of the Nyungar families that have been recorded to occupy the camps along the railway lines in Picton very much reflect this pattern of subsistence and as such these places are now remembered as symbols of an important chapter in the matrix of Nyungar people’s sense of place and identity in the region. As Denis Hill stated “these camps were the first places where people stopped when they come to Bunbury, that’s why they are important to us” (Denis Hill per com 12/08/2008).
13 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival research involved an examination of the DIA Sites Register, a review of any relevant site files and a review of any unpublished ethnographic reports that relate to proposed development area at Glen Iris in Bunbury, Western Australia.
SITES REGISTER SEARCH The DIA Aboriginal Sites Register categorises places reported to be of importance and significance to Aboriginal people into two separate categories.
The first category contains sites classified as ‘Registered.’ Registered sites have been assessed by the ACMC as meeting the definition of section 5 of the AHA and are fully protected under the law. Disturbance to land that contains such sites requires a section 18 application for ministerial consent should proponents wish to use the land that contain these sites.
‘Other Heritage Places’ is the second category of places contained upon the Aboriginal Sites Register. These types of places include reported places ‘Lodged’ and awaiting ACMC assessment, and places where the information has been assessed but there is ‘Insufficient information’ to make a final determination under section 5 of the AHA but there is enough information to warrant these places temporary protection in Law. Disturbance to land that contains such places requires a section 18 application for ministerial consent should proponents wish to use the land that contain these places.
Within the category of ‘Other Heritage Places’ the final category is ‘Stored Data.’ Such places have been assessed by the ACMC but fail to meet the definition of section 5 of the AHA. Places in this category are not sites under the AHA and are not protected in Law. Proponents have no further legal requirements for such places should they wish to use the land unless further information is reported which would lead to such a place being reassessed as a site in terms of the definition of section 5 of the AHA.
In relation to this survey a search of the DIA Aboriginal Sites Register was conducted on the 14th of May 2012, in order to determine if there were any previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites or places that would be affected by the project proposal (see Appendix 1: Sites Register Search).
The search revealed that there are no ethnographic sites or places located within the subject Land.
The search identified one archaeological site and one archaeological other heritage place to be located within the development area. The DIA extent for Place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact) affects – Lot 310. The DIA extent of Site ID 5449 (Burial) affects – Lots 202, 310, 315, 314, 313, and 312. As these places are archaeological the specific details with regards to their nature, actual extents and scientific significance will be detailed in the accompanying report by Harris (2013)
In relation to this project the search also identified that Site ID 19795 Preston River borders the development area to the west within Lot 313 reserved for regional open space (adjacent to the survey area).
Should the proponent be obligated to conduct any ground disturbing activities within Lot 313 in relation to managing this reserve, which borders the development area, further consultations, archaeological inspections and a notice seeking ministerial consent pursuant to a section 18 application under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 or a regulation 10 application under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 may be required to proceed.
14 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
A Regulation 10 approval can only be granted should the activities be of a nature that does not diminish Aboriginal cultural values. Regulation 10 is most often sought for environmental restoration that does not involve major mechanical modifications to the land.
Table 1: Summary of Aboriginal heritage sites within project area
Location Site ID Name Status Access Restriction (GDA94 Zone 50)* Site Type mE mN Registered Aboriginal Sites 19795 Preston River R O N 417314 6308020 Myth Skeletal material/ Moorland, 5449 R O N 376489 6309748 Burial, Bunbury Artefacts/Scatter Other Heritage Places 4917 Bunbury 06 I O N 376596 6309756 Artefacts/Scatter * Please note: Coordinates are indicative locations that represent the centre of sites as shown on maps produced by the DIA – they may not necessarily represent the true centre of all sites.
LEGEND R – Registered Site, I - Insufficient Information, S - Stored Data, L - Lodged awaiting assessment, IA - Information Assessed, O – Access Open, C - Closed Access, N – File Not Restricted.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT SITE FILES
DIA 19795 – Preston River The Preston River is a component of the Collie River Site Complex. The Preston River was originally reported by Mr Meath Hammond and Mr Tom O’Reilly in 1995 and then reported again by Brad Goode in 2002(c) as a site of mythological significance. The site informant Mr Joe Northover reported that the values associated with the Preston River are linked to the Dreamtime story recorded for the Collie River. According to Mr Northover all these waterways are a part of the creative activities of the Ngarngungudditj Walgu.
The Preston River has been determined by the ACMC to be a ‘Registered’ site under Section 5(a), 5(b) and 39.2(a) and 39.2(b) in 2007.
DIA site ID 19795 Preston River will be potentially affected by any obligations that the proponent may have in managing the section of ‘Regional Open Space’ (Lot 313) that separates the development area from the Preston River.
Any activities that will negatively affect the cultural values that are associated with the Preston River will require the owner of the land to seek ministerial consent pursuant to a section 18 application under the AHA.
Activities that will not negatively affect cultural values but are ground disturbing in nature may require regulation 10 consent under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 if the traditional owners determine that these activities alter the site’s values.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT ETHNOGRAPHIC REPORTS Goode, B 2011, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the Eelup Roundabout Upgrade in Bunbury, Western Australia, a report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Main Roads Western Australia.
This report was commissioned by Main Roads for an upgrade proposed for Eelup Roundabout, that consisted of fully signalising the roundabout and constructing a third lane to address capacity and safety problems. Archival research conducted for this survey revealed that DIA 15 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
19795 Preston River would be affected on the south side of Bridge 5006 where excavations of the embankments would be required to construct the third lane, and footbridge abutments. Consultations were held with representatives of the Gnaala Karla Booja NTC group and no new sites were located during the survey.
The area of land that was formerly the path of the Preston River was reported to be of cultural importance as a place formerly used by traditional Aboriginal people for fishing, hunting and camping. It was further advised that the existing man-made course of the Preston River, where the proposed development works were proposed, was considered to be the ‘living water’ and of primary importance and significance to Aboriginal people.
As a result of the survey, it was recommended that Main Roads make application under section 18 of the AHA in order to use the land within 30m of the normal high water mark, prior to any ground disturbing works commencing. The representatives consulted supported this application and requested that propitiatory rituals and monitoring be allowed to be conducted prior to works taking place.
Goode, B and Harris, J 2008, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the Proposed Industrial Sub- Division of Lots 51, 52, 120, 123 and 63 Dodson and Olive Roads; Glen Iris, Western Australia, A report prepared for Thompson McRobert Edgeloe (TME).
Thompson Mc-Robert Edgeloe (TME) proposed to subdivide Lots 51, 52, 120, 123 and 63 Dodson and Olive Roads in Glen Iris at Picton to create a small Industrial Estate consisting of ten new lots. These lots would then require to be serviced with water, sewerage and power from external sources. As a part of the plan TME were required to provide for a foreshore management plan along the Preston River Reserve and to cede this land to the Crown as ‘Regional Open Space’.
As a result of archival research two previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites were determined to be affected by the proposed subdivision. The recorded extent of DIA site ID 17786 Preston River Camp was determined to overlay the north eastern portion of the Regional Open Space (Lot 120), proposed Lots 100, 101, 109 and the proposed Olive Road. The recorded extent of DIA site ID 19795 Preston River also overlayed a portion of the Regional Open Space (Lot 120). In order to progress the project ministerial consent under section 18 of the AHA was recommended to be sort for works within the above described site extents.
As a result of consultations with representatives with the GKB Native Title claim group the extent of DIA 17786 Preston River Camp was recommended to be revised to encapsulate an area along the Preston River foreshore from just to the south east of the railway line to just north of the South Western Highway. The revised extent then mostly overlays the Preston River Foreshore Reserve and is mostly contained within Lot 120. Within the revised extent several significant features were reported (see site file review above). The areas identified within this reported camp area were determined to be affected by the development proposal and would require consideration under section 18 of the AHA.
In regards to the development proposal members of the GKB Native Title claim group stated that they support the proposed redevelopment as the works planned (within the Regional Open Space) will enhance the landscape amenity of the Preston River foreshore which at the time was in a highly degraded state. It has been advised however that the ground disturbing works involving the construction of Olive Road and underground services for water and sewerage within the outer margins of the recorded site extent of DIA 17786 should be monitored by Nyungar community members. In regards to the former values of the area the Nyungar community requested that the areas historical significance be recognised by the provision of interpretation at the site along the Preston River foreshore. It was also requested that the DIA
16 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
consider reassessing the site under section 5(a) of the AHA and move it from the ‘interim’ to the ‘permanent’ register.
During the survey it was also identified that the registered site extent for DIA 19795 Preston River would be affected by the development proposal. During the consultations the Nyungar consultants advised that the Preston River and its embankments are of significance due to the association with the ‘Ngarngungudditj Walgu’ mythology.
Goode, B 2002, Report on a Section 18 Aboriginal Heritage Survey for works on the Preston River Bridge No. 430 on the South Western Highway, Picton, Western Australia, Unpublished report prepared by GHD Pty Ltd for Main Roads WA, South West Region.
This report was commissioned by Main Roads Bunbury Office, to conduct emergency works to repair the substructure of the Preston River Bridge No. 430, south east of Bunbury on the South Western Highway at Picton (SLK 152.21). These works were required to strengthen the piles of the bridge thereby preventing the need for engineers to place a restrictive load limit on the bridge, which would limit access to Bunbury by heavy haulage vehicles. A Section 18 approval was needed and consultations were held with 14 members of the Gnaala Karla Booja Native Title Claim group.
Approval for this work was given and supported with the condition that monitoring of works by an Aboriginal community member and an archaeologist would be conducted. As a result of this survey and the mythological significance of the ‘Ngarngungudditj Walgu’ Dreaming it was reported by the Aboriginal community that all the waterways that connected through the Leschenault Inlet were a part of the same spiritual mythological path of the above dreaming ancestor and therefore all the waterways such as the Preston River, the Ferguson River and their tributaries should be considered as a complex of sites.
OUTCOMES OF ARCHIVAL RESEARCH As a result of archival research there are no previously recorded ethnographic Aboriginal heritage sites or places located within the development area.
Archival research has determined that DIA site ID 19795 Preston River will be potentially affected by any obligations that the proponent may have in managing the section of ‘Regional Open Space’ (Lot 313) that separates the development area from the Preston River. Activities associated with management of this POS may require ministerial consent under section 18 of the AHA or consideration under regulation 10 of the AHR to proceed.
Archival research has also determined one archaeological site and one archaeological other heritage place is located within the development area.
The DIA extent for Site ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact) affects – Lot 310. The DIA extent of Site ID 5449 (Burial) affects – Lots 202, 310, 315, 314, 313, and 312.
As these places are archaeological, the specific details with regards to their nature, actual extents and scientific significance will be detailed in the accompanying report by Harris (2013).
During this survey these sites ethnographic significance and management recommendations will require investigation.
17 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IDENTIFICATION OF SPOKESPEOPLE
THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ON HERITAGE ISSUES Various authors have discussed the contemporary problem of who in the Aboriginal Community has the authority to speak on heritage issues within an area. O’Connor et al. (1989:51) suggest that when this question is posed to people in Aboriginal Australia, answers are usually framed by such terms as ‘the traditional owners’, i.e., those people who are defined by place of birth i.e. descent. Myers presents a broader and more contemporary view of ‘ownership’ based upon descent and association:
An estate, commonly a sacred site, has a number of individuals who may identify with it and control it. They constitute a group solely in relationship to this estate. Identification refers to a whole set of relationships a person can claim or assert between himself or herself and a place. Because of this multiplicity of claims, land holding groups take essentially the form of bilateral, descending kindred. Membership as a recognised owner is widely extended (cited in Machin 1993:22).
Myers then goes on to further clarifies the current perception of ‘ownership’ when he states:
....such rights exist only when they are accepted by others. The movement of the political process follows a graduated series of links or claims of increasing substantiality, from mere identification and residual interest in a place to actual control of its sacred association. The possession of such rights as recognised by others, called ‘holding’ (kanyininpa) a country, is the product of negotiation (Ibid.).
While the notion of descent is clearly an important criterion within Myers analysis, it must be seen in terms of the contemporary Nyungar situation. Nyungar tradition in the south west has been seriously eroded since colonisation, lines of descent have been broken and previously forbidden and mixed marriages have interconnected many Nyungar groups who would not have traditionally had a close association (Ibid.). Consequently, in contemporary times the criteria of historical ‘association’ seem to be important in regards to the ‘right to speak’ on heritage issues within an area:
Traditional subsistence no longer sufficed to support Aboriginals so they combined this with menial work on farms and over time new relationships to land developed. As a consequence, the more recent history associated with their involvement with European agriculture and labour patterns is often more relevant than the pre-contact mode of attachment to an old way of life and the roots of the identity as original owners of the land. Biographical associations are often tied to post-settlement labour patterns and identification. These can predominate. This is part of a dynamic process of ethnicity, identity and tradition (Machin 1995:11).
O’Connor, et al. (1989) identified several criteria for determining contemporary community spokes people. A spokesperson must have a long-term association with an area, usually as a young person, and had extensive contact with a member or members of the ‘pivotal generation of the culture transmitters’; those people whom, as children themselves, had contact with people who could pass on their traditional knowledge. A spokesperson must also demonstrate knowledge of the region’s natural resources, its hunting, fishing and camping grounds, its local water sources, and the flora. This is important because a person without this knowledge is unlikely to be seen by their fellow Nyungars as truly being from that country, despite having been born or lived in that area. In some cases, people from outside a specific region have established themselves by political activism. They are accepted by their fellow Nyungar because they may have participated in mainstream white pursuits, such as advanced education, or legal and political careers, that have empowered them within the broader community. As such, these people are a valuable resource to the local Aboriginal Community. The people consulted in this survey fulfil at least one of these criteria. 18 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
NATIVE TITLE CLAIMS OVER THE SURVEY AREA Currently lodged with the Register of Native Title Claims and the Schedule of Applications, held by the Commonwealth Native Title Tribunal, there is one registered Native Title application that overlays the project area. The Schedule of Applications includes registered applications, unregistered applications and applications still undergoing the registration test.
• Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 WAD6274/98 (Registered)
Applicants: Mr Derrick Smith, Mr Franklyn Nannup, Mr Harry Narkle, Mr Joseph Northover, Mr Joseph Walley, Mr Mervyn Abraham, Mr Peter Michael, Ms Barbara Corbett-Stammner, Ms Lorraine Bellotti.
SELECTION OF SPOKESPEOPLE FOR THIS SURVEY The selection of spokespeople for this survey was determined by the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC) who represent the Gnaala Karla Booja WC (98/058) Native Title Claim group in terms of heritage issues in the region. Mr Sean O’Hara of SWALSC in consultation with the working party for this claim provided the consultant a list of people to attend the survey.
As a result of this pre-consultation process, the following Nyungar people were selected to participate in the survey:
Gnaala Karla Booja (WC98/58) Native Title Claim group representatives
Mr Les Wallam is the son of Mr Lee Hart and Ms Mabel Wallam and was born in Bunbury. Mr Wallam’s grandparents on his father’s side were Jack Hart and Tottie Cockie. On his mother’s side his grandparents were Bob Wallam and Grace Gillespie. Mr Les Wallam spent his early childhood at Roelands mission and attended high school at Harvey. Mr Wallam is currently employed at Roelands Village as a Project Manager. Mr Wallam was selected to participate in this survey by nomination from the working party of the GKB Native Title Claim.
Mr Joe Northover was born in the Collie region to parents Joe Northover Snr and Kathleen Mears. Mr Joe Northover’s grandparents on his mother’s side are Phoebe Newell (Collie/Badjaling area) and Jack Mears (Roebourne). Phoebe Newel’s parents were Rosie Mippy (Collie) and Jack Newell (Wadjela’s from Collie). Mr Joe Northover’s grandparents on his father’ side is Percy Riley (Dumbleyung) and Bella Kelly (Collie). Mr Joe Northover is an applicant to the Gnaala Karla Booja native title claim is the former chairperson of the Ngalang Booja Council of Collie and was formerly employed as an Aboriginal Heritage Officer with the Department of Indigenous Affairs in Bunbury. Mr Northover is widely recognised as the primary informant of the ‘Ngarngungudditj Walgu’ mythology regarding the Collie/Preston River system. Mr Northover was selected to participate in this survey by nomination from the working party.
Mrs Barbara Corbett Stammner Councillor was born in Bunbury and is an applicant to the South West Boojarah and Gnaala Karla Booja native title claims and a member for the working parties. Mrs Corbett has strong historical ties to the region being the daughter of Mr Frank Corbett and the niece of Mr Dan Corbett who were schooled at the Bussell family’s Ellensbrook Mission at the turn of the 19th century. Mrs Barbara Corbett Stammner Councillor was born at Picton and claims traditional blood ties through matrilineal descent to the Southwest region. Mrs Barbara Corbett Stammner Councillor is the primary informant for DIA 17786 Preston River Camp and was selected to participate in this survey by nomination from the working party.
19 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Ms Annette Garlett was born in Pingelly to parents Mr Clem Collard, of Brookton and Ms Jane Hill, of Yornaning. Ms Garlett’s grandparents on her father’s side are Mr James Collard and Ms Mabel Bennell, and on her mother’s side are Mr Charles Hill and Ms Rachael Abraham. Ms Garlett attended school at Burekup and Bunbury and has over the years work in sales, retail and childcare. Currently Ms Garlett works at the South West Regional College of TAFE as an Aboriginal Development Officer, teaching cultural awareness to staff members and also volunteers at Djidi Djidi Aboriginal School. Ms Garlett has familial associations with the project area and shares a spiritual connection with the associated country. Ms Garlett is a member of the Gnaala Karla Booja Native Title Claim group.
Mr Greg Winmar is a member of the Gnaala Karla Booja Native Title claim group. Mr Winmar is Mrs Dorothy Winmar’s husband, and is related to Mr Joe Northover (they are first cousins). Mr Winmar is related to the Northover family and as such has authority to speak on matters pertaining to the Collie/Preston River.
Ms Sandra Nebro was born in York to parents Mr Anderson Nebro (born in Collie) and Ms Rose Ford. Ms Nebro’s paternal grandparents are Mr Donald Nebro and Ms Adele Dyer (born in Wagin) and her maternal grandparents are Mr Edward Ford and Ms Stella Garlett (born in Badjaling). Ms Nebro completed both her primary and secondary education at Bunbury before moving to Kalgoorlie to complete training to become an enrolled nurse. Ms Nebro went on to hold positions at Coolgardie and Bunbury Regional Hospitals and is now on the Deaths in Custody Watch Committee at the Bunbury Prison. Ms Nebro was nominated by the GKB Native Title Claim working party to attend the survey.
Ms Dawn Alone was nominated by the GKB working party. Ms Alone did not provide the consultants with biographical details.
20 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
AIMS • To establish contact with Aboriginal people who retain traditional or current knowledge pertaining to the region. • To determine if there are any sites of significance, as defined by section 5 of the AHA, within the project area. • To record any ethnographic information provided about identified sites. • To generate consensual recommendations from the Aboriginal community representatives in regards to any section 18 requests and to record management strategies for identified ethnographic and archaeological sites.
METHOD To arrange the survey the selected informants were contacted by phone with an onsite meeting arranged. At the commencement of the meeting the informants were briefed as to the details of the project with the aid of the project plans and previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites and places overlaid upon a large scale air photo map.
Ethnographic information was recorded in a notebook and photographs of the survey process were taken. GPS coordinates of any cultural features were recorded in the field and transferred to mapping software Arc-View V10 where final maps were produced.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESS On the 20th of November 2012 the consultants; Mr Brad Goode (Anthropologist) assisted by Ms Mel Lamanna (Ethnographic Assistant) and Ms Lisa Butcher (Ethnographic Assistant) met members of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 NTC group: Mr Joe Northover, Mr Les Wallan, Mr Greg Winmar, Ms Barbara Corbett, Ms Dawn Alone, Ms Sandra Nebro, and Ms Annette Garlett at the Shell Gateway in Bunbury at 2pm.
Figure 2: Mr Brad Goode (anthropologist) briefing the members of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 about previous research related to other heritage place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 and Site ID 5449 Moorland Bunbury. View to the North West.
21 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The group then proceeded to the survey area with Ms Shelly Coutts from MPM Development Consultants. Ms Shelley Coutts briefed the group as to the nature of the development. Ms Coutts advised that the proponent is wishing to develop a residential subdivision upon Lots, 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 at Glen Iris in Bunbury. This residential development is a component of the draft Glen Iris Moorlands Structure Plan approved by the City of Bunbury in 2010.
Figure 3: Mr Brad Goode (anthropologist) and Ms Shelley Coutts (MPM Development Consultants) briefing members of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 about the development proposal. View to the North West
Ms Coutts advised that specific plans of the subdivision are yet to be formulated due to the proponent’s requirement to identify all constraints before a final design is completed.
However in broad terms the estate will consist of urban lots (ranging in size), roads, drainage, power, sewerage, telecommunications, and water reticulation, public open space of approximately 10%, and commercial centres. Ms Coutts advised that Lot 313 which borders the Preston River will become a conservation buffer managed by the City of Bunbury when the development is completed. Ms Coutts advised that the proponent wishes to use sand from the centre of the development area (Lot 310 and 312) as fill to adjust the levels of low lying portions of the estate.
Following this briefing Mr Brad Goode advised the group that one previously recorded archaeological site and one place were located within the development area and they are likely to be affected should the development proposal proceed as it is currently planned.
Mr Goode advised that the DIA extent for heritage place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact) affects Lot 310 and that the DIA extent of Site ID 5449 (Burial) affects Lots 202, 310, 315, 314, 313, 32, 61, 62 and 312. Mr Goode advised that although the DIA extent is large the actual grave site was located within an eroded dune 200m east of the Moorland house which was built in 1839. This dune was formerly a sand quarry with works beginning in 1969. Quarrying has been conducted over a larger area where artefacts associated with heritage place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 have also been found (see Harris 2013).
In terms of the burial sites history, the grave was originally discovered on 19th April 1979 by Miss Debbie Lloyd whilst she was riding a horse through a paddock of the property owned by 22 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Mr Piacentini. The site was reported to the police. Detectives Wojtasiak & Crook attended the scene and located femur bones and upper and lower jaw bones with teeth. At a later date Detective Sergeant’s Keiley and Mitchell attended the scene and recovered all human bones (almost a complete skeleton) that were buried in the yellow sand, in a cut-away about four feet below normal ground level. Soil samples together with bone samples were taken for examination by the Police. Stone artefacts, a ceramic button, vegetable fibrous material were collected with these samples (Det. Sgt A.G. Mitchell, pers. comm. 19/4/1979; Dr M. Smith, pers. comm. 14/5/1979, sourced from DIA site file ID 5449 – Moorland, Bunbury).
On the 2nd of May Forensic Pathologist, Dr D Hainsworth reported that he had examined the bones and he concluded that they were Aboriginal male. Following the pathologists examination the remains were passed to Dr Moya Smith Anthropologist at the WAM who reported that the remains were from young adult Aboriginal female. Smith was critical of the findings and was also was critical of the police who had not exhumed the remains and other material in a scientific and systematic manner resulting in the loss of much information (Dr D Hainsworth, pers. comm.02/05/1979; Dr M. Smith, pers. comm. 14/5/1979, sourced from DIA site file ID 5449 – Moorland, Bunbury).
Dr Moya Smith advised that a blue glazed ceramic button recovered by the police may well have been associated with the skeleton. Mr Brad Goode advised the group that if this is in fact the case then it could point to a historical provenance for the grave. According to the report the vegetable fibre structure also found at the site indicated that it was a prepared mixture, similar to that used in padding in clothing and upholstery before the advent of synthetic fibres. This provides further anecdotal indications that the grave was likely to be an early historic grave as it was found with the button and fibre (Dr M. Smith, pers. comm. 14/5/1979, sourced from DIA site file ID 5449 – Moorland, Bunbury).
In discussions with the group regarding the burial, members asked if the grave had been dated.
Mr Brad Goode replied that Mrs Jacqueline Harris the archaeologist had advised that the grave had not been previously dated. When examined by the Museum the charcoal recovered from their test excavations could not be directly determined to be associated with the remains. Mr Goode advised that further test pitting at the site would reveal little as the mobility of the dunes since the recovery of the remains would have now destroyed any definable provenance for any material left in situ. (See Harris 2013)
Following this synopsis of the data pertaining to the burial the Nyungar people were asked to make comment upon the significance of the site and were asked to make recommendations regards the sites management should the development proceed.
The group advised that they were aware that this area was a part of the traditional walking trail from the Leschenault Estuary past the Sanctuary Golf Club following the Preston River to a series of camp sites at Picton. It was stated that the Preston River was an important source for food, water and provided ideal camp sites that continued to be used by Aboriginal people in traditional times and then well into history.
Ms Sandra Nebro remembers that her dad went to school over there [sic meaning Aboriginal School in Picton]. He had camped in Picton behind the school. Picton had been a major historical camp on the run through to the other camps along the Preston River after the First World War and before our time and living memories. Ms Nebro had been told that the Aunties (Rosie Newell Mippy) had used this section of the Preston River for the birthing of children in the vicinity of the camps.
Ms Barbara Corbett recalled that the camp behind the school at Picton had been Charlie Anderson’s camp when his sister had gone to the school. They did not camp there for long as 23 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
they were worried that the Police would take their children away to the missions. However this was a proper camp where Nyungar’s could live because there was a waterhole to use and it was owned by Forrest who let the Nyungar people live there.
Ms Nebro stated that in the 18th century the Nyungar people travelled from ‘Williams’ right through to this area following water systems.
Ms Corbett recalled that they couldn’t go to town after 6pm and that after the war many clans came to Picton. This was a gathering place. Ms Corbett could not recollect specific knowledge about people camping by the tree at Glen Iris but noted that the evidence now seen of their ancestor’s being there now marks this as an important part of this historical run to the GKB group.
Mr Joe Northover said that the Preston River camps were talked about a lot by the old people. Mary Morrison (Mingo), Charlie Mingo and Jacob Mingo lived back closer to Roelands while other families lived near the school and rail line in Picton. However in his lifetime he had no specific knowledge of people who had been camped by the tree at Glen Iris.
Mr Goode then asked if anyone had talked to them about burials at this location, Ms Nebro replied that “kids weren’t told about that stuff.”
Mr Wallam was curious whether burial sites and camps sites were usually found together? Mr Goode advised that they often were, as funerary rights were required and that the relatives would camp near the grave while this ceremony was conducted then move on. Mr Northover stated that as there were graves in the area people would have sat and done ceremony here. As such it is the opinion of Mr Northover this place is very important to the contemporary Nyungar community as it marks a place where our ancestors conducted such rites.
Figure 4: Significant Marri Tree (Corymbia calophylla) culturally marking Site ID 5449 identified on the hill. View to the east.
In terms of the development proposal and its effects upon the significance of this place Ms Shelly Coutts was asked to describe in detail to the group what was being proposed for Lot 310 and what impact that the proposal would have upon this place, artefact site and burial location. 24 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Ms Coutts displayed a subdivision layout plan created two years ago that showed Lot 310 to be a central urban area within the development plan. Ms Coutts stated that this plan will now be subject to some modifications as constraints are identified. Ms Coutts also stated that it is the intention of Mr Piacentini to utilise the sand contained in these dunes as fill for urban development and to lower the hill to facilitate the building process.
The group requested that the hill be preserved as public open space so as not to disturb the tree and surrounding area which they have determined as a mark of the cultural significance of the site.
Mr Goode asked the group what this hill meant to them now. Ms Corbett replied “You’ve got churches, we’ve got this tree.” Ms Alone stated that “this is our lighthouse.” Ms Nebro said that “this is where the oldies belong and should be buried.” Ms Garlett commented on the significance of the age of the tree being important and stated that the tree is a part of us. It is spiritually significant to us. It is a marker to show a place to camp and marks that we are near a river. Mr Les Wallam has brought TAFE students to the area to show the tree as a marker and uses this area as a valuable resource to educate people about Nyungar ways. This area was used for camps, and shade, it contains history and burials and is a cultural marker that shows our people were here. To affirm the trees importance Ms Nebro stated that Evelyn Brockman (traditional Elder from Picton) is from this area and is very knowledgeable about this land. Ms Nebro said Ms Brockman had specifically identified the tree as a marker. It was stated that traditionally the hill was also a good vantage point to see people coming. Ms Alone emphasised that the two dwellings on the property were being kept and was concerned that “they want to keep their house but won’t keep our tree.”
Ms Coutts explained that the developers were only required to provide 10% public open space and that normally public open space is placed where people can look out on it rather than being on high ground. Public open space is usually used as a drainage detention area and therefore requires a low site. Houses also typically overlook a park for visual amenity. For maintenance issues it is more suitable to have one big open space rather than several smaller spaces.
Ms Coutts asked the group if they would consent to the hill being lowered if the tree remained there undisturbed. Mr Goode explained that there was potential to expose artefacts and remains during that process. Ms Coutts proposed that if the tree stayed, a zone could possibly be created around it using a retaining wall and flattening out the rest of the hill.
Mr Wallam agreed that could be a compromise. However Ms Alone reiterated the need for a buffer around the tree to protect and recognise the values present.
Ms Nebro and Mr Winmar were also concerned that the skeletal remains had been removed from the site and taken to the Museum. All stated that it is culturally wrong to take their ancestors away from their country. People’s spirits cannot rest if they are taken away. All requested that the remains should be returned to the site and reburied near the tree.
Mr Brad Goode advised the group that he is involved with a project commissioned by the DIA and the City of Bunbury whereby 22 sets of skeletal remains salvaged from the greater Bunbury area are to be returned and reburied at the Back Beach Site ID 1068. It is likely that these remains have been reinterred there.
Mr Northover agreed the remains should come back, but was concerned the deceased may be from different groups and if that were the case they shouldn’t be buried together. Ms Alone said “the remains should be put back where they were found.” Ms Corbett said they (the spirit) won’t rest until they do. Ms Nebro said “that’s where they belong.” When questioned by Mr Goode as to why burial was important to Nyungar people and why they didn’t get cremated Mr Joe 25 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Northover stated strongly that cremation goes against the rules. They need to be buried to return to the land, to the mother. It’s about connection to the land. Traditionally bodies were buried where they were found. The body was positioned sitting in a womb position so they can go back the same way they came. If we are cremated we can’t go back to the womb. The consensus of the group was that this set of remains be returned here and reburied near the tree.
Mr Northover asked Ms Coutts if it could be recommended to create a memorial park centred upon the tree with a Nyungar theme using interpretative information and signs showing that this is an area of high importance for Aboriginal history and culture. Mr Winmar suggested a plaque like at the war memorial in Kings Park. Ms Nebro also wanted the signs to give recognition that this is their home.
Figure 5: From the right, Ms Sandra Nebro, Mr Joe Northover and several other members of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 inspect the Marri tree marking the sites significance. View to the South East.
Following this discussion regarding the burial site, Mr Joe Northover also identified that the group were concerned about the effects that urbanisation would have upon wetlands located within Lots 317, 316, 32 and 61. Mr Northover advised that wetlands are believed to have been created and are maintained by the Ngarngungudditj Walgu and are customarily used as places to gather food (turtles) and water.
Mr Northover advised that the group would also require the wetlands to be preserved as POS. The group suggested that signs could also be placed near the wetlands with cultural interpretation outlining the significance of wetlands to Nyungar people as sources of food and that the area be revegetated with indigenous species
As there is only a 10% allowance for POS that there may not be enough land available to preserve both the hill and the wetlands. As such Mr Goode asked the group to detail which is more important.
Ms Nebro stated that it was heartbreaking to develop any of the area. Ms Garlett said neither was suitable. Mr Wallam stated that all area is of equal significance.
26 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Mr Goode asked Ms Coutts if there is a buffer zone on the wetland. Ms Coutts stated that under EPA requirements we must also preserve wetlands over and above the 10% POS.
In terms of making the final decisions regarding the development plans and in terms of managing places where heritage values are known, Mr Northover requested an aerial photo of the area be sent to him and that the developers come back with plans for his assessment.
Mr Northover questioned Ms Coutts regarding the timeframe that it would take before planning was finalised and when work would commence.
Ms Coutts stated that it would be 6-12 months after reporting before planning would be finished.
Mr Northover requested the plans presented to the group should give choices and different scenarios for them to consider before their consent could be given. Mr Northover requested information on how much land the developer wanted to use and how much could be preserved.
The group reiterated that the tree is the most important aspect of the heritage values as it marks the area and infuses it with meaning to Nyungar people. Mr Northover emphasised that the group wanted to work with the developer in developing the final plan so that the estate can go ahead and the heritage values can be recognised and protected.
Figure 6: Group photo showing the survey team consisting of the consultants and representatives of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 at the large Marri marking the significant area. View to the South East
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION OUTCOMES As a result of consultations held with nominated representatives of the Gnaala Karla Booja WC98/58 Native Title group no new ethnographic sites of significance as defined by section 5 of the AHA were identified to be located within the survey area.
In relation to the previously recorded archaeological site and place, and in particular the burial, the Nyungar community have defined that these places represent a highly significant cultural landscape that marks their ancestors connection to the area and their social historical
27 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
associations with community and kin extending from the prehistoric past into the late historical period.
Within this cultural landscape the large Marri tree located on the south-eastern side of the site has become the cultural symbol that signifies and connects the contemporary community to this landscape. In a contemporary sense the Marri tree now symbolises the Nyungar communities association with the previous generations that formerly lived, camped and worked in the Picton area as it was a known landscape reference point as opposed to a known camp.
In terms of the development proposal and its affect upon the defined cultural values of the site it is highly likely that the whole of the dune containing archaeological material will undergo extensive modification even if it is preserved as a park within the 10% requirement for ‘Public Open Space.’ This is due to the topography of the landscape and its unsuitability to be left as a hill central to an urban area. It is also due to the need for suitable sands to be locally sourced for fill during the construction within the estate.
In terms of mitigation should the site be impacted under a ministerial consent notice it would be required by the Nyungar community that the proponent further investigates the sites sub-surface archaeological potential. This would assist the Nyungar community in their wish for interpretation of the social and scientific values that would otherwise be lost to the community from the sites destruction. This would also determine if further graves are present.
Post development a further mitigative strategy would be for the proponent to commission detailed historic and oral historic research as a basis upon which interpretation could be provided. This would be advantageous as it would assist the Nyungar community to understand the prehistoric to historic context of their ancestors’ lives in the area and to have the contribution made by the Aboriginal community to the regions agricultural development adequately recognised and valued by the broader society. Strategies such as explanation of the use of the resources present, the value of the wetlands, and the contribution made by Nyungar farm workers would also become a valuable educational resource for the local community.
In terms of the proposal the Nyungar community would obviously wish the site to be preserved however should the development proceed and should the site be destroyed that final planning should be done in close consultation with the Gnaala Karla Booja working party at SWALSC in order that the social historic values of such a place are given equal weight and consideration in the process.
In terms of managing legal obligations with regards to these previously recorded sites and places - Place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact) and Site ID 5449 (Burial) the proponent will be required to seek ministerial consent under section 18 of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 for consent to use the land that contains an Aboriginal site. At present support for this consent is not forthcoming from the GKB representatives until comment has been made on the final project plans.
Should the proponent seek this consent and should it be given by the minister then the proponent should recognise the significance of the area and work with the Gnaala Karla Booja native title claim group in order to develop a plan that recognises the above stated significant values by developing a plan in a manner that will minimise the impact upon the places where these values have been identified.
In terms of this planning it has been identified by the GKB group that the preservation of the tree and the dune area that contains artefacts were of primary concern and it was requested that these areas be protected in an area designated for ‘Public Open Space.’
28 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
It was further requested by the group that the original skeletal remains that were salvaged at this location in 1979 (DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury – see Harris 2013) be returned here to this location and reburied near the tree. Landscaping into a memorial park with a Nyungar theme along with historical interpretive signage was also suggested by the group to be included in the final design.
In relation to the wetlands present upon Lots 317, 316, 315 and 32, the group requested that they be protected and revegetated with indigenous species.
Archaeological monitoring and recording and salvage of artefacts were also requested as a mitigating strategy for ground clearing works that are proposed within the extents of the Aboriginal heritage sites and places.
RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the above survey the following recommendations can be made:
Should the proponent wish to proceed with planning to urbanise the above lots (where Aboriginal heritage sites and places exist) it is recommended that further planning is done in close consultation with members of the GKB native title claim group in order to minimise the effects to ethnographic and archaeological cultural values.
Further consultation will be required in order that the GKB native title claim group members can assess how the final plans will affect these values prior to supporting a section 18 application under the AHA. At present the GKB native title group are not in support of the proponent seeking such consent.
It is recommended that once a consensus upon management of these values is reached that the proponent will be required to make application under section 18 of the Western Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 for consent to use the land that may contain an Aboriginal Site and Site ID 5449 (Burial) and other heritage place ID 4917 Bunbury 06 (Artefact).
Should consent be given the following management requests should be given due consideration by the ACMC as being conditions:
• That the proponent protects the Marri tree and as much of the dune that contains artefacts around the tree as possible as within POS. • That the skeletal remains salvaged to be returned to this site and reburied near the tree with an appropriate ceremony. • That the wetlands Lots 317, 316, 315 and 32 are protected and revegetation with indigenous species. • That all excavations and ground clearing work located within the DIA extent of the sites and places are subjected to archaeological monitoring, recording and salvage, with all material salvaged returned to the POS around the tree. • That the POS is landscaped into a memorial park with a Nyungar theme and historical interpretative signage is provided that outlines the significance of the area to the GKB native title claim group.
29 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY Barker, A. J. and Laurie, M. 1992, Excellent Connections. A History of Bunbury 1836 – 1990, City of Bunbury: Bunbury WA.
Barnes, P. 2001, Marsden Hill and all that, Self Published
Bates, D. 1938, The Passing of the Aborigines, A Lifetime Spent Among the Natives of Australia, Butler and Tanner: London.
Bates, D. 1966, The Passing of the Aborigines, John Murray: London
Bates, D. 1985, The Native Tribes of Western Australia, I. White (Ed.) National Library of Australia: Canberra.
Berndt, R.M. (Eds.) 1979, Aborigines of the West, Their Past and Present, University of Western Australia Press: Perth.
Berndt, R. M. and Berndt, C. H. (Eds) 1980, Aborigines of the West: Their Past & Their Present, University of Western Australia Press: Perth.
De-Garis, B. K. 1993, Portraits of the South West. Aborigines, Women and the Environment, University of Western Australia Press: Perth
Department of Indigenous Affairs 2002, Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Heritage Assessment in Western Australia, Perth: Department of Indigenous Affairs.
Department of Indigenous Affairs 2008, Guidelines for Preparing Reports for Applications to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee under Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, Perth: Department of Indigenous Affairs.
Goddard, E. and Stannage, T., 1984. John Forrest and the Aborigines. In Reece, B. and Stannage, T. (Eds.). European – Aboriginal relations in Western Australian history. Department of History, University of Western Australia Press: Nedlands.
Goode, B. 2000, Ethnographic Survey of South-Western Highway, Waroona to Bunbury, Western Australia, A report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd. on behalf of MRWA.
Goode, B. 2002a, Ethnographic Survey of the Bunbury Outer Ring Road and the Bunbury Port Access Road, Bunbury Western Australia, A report prepared for Halpern, Glick & Maunsell.
Goode B. 2002b, Report on a Section 18 Aboriginal Heritage Survey for works on the Preston River Bridge No. 430 on the South Western Highway, Picton, Western Australia, Unpublished report prepared by Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey for Main Roads WA, South West Region.
Goode, B. 2007, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey for the Proposed Pipeline Installation Along the South Western Highway and Harris Road, Picton, Western Australia, A report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Aqwest.
Goode, B. 2008, Section 18 Ethnographic Consultations for Works on the Grand Canals Subdivision, Pelican Point and Bunbury Western Australia, A report prepared for the City of Bunbury
30 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Goode, B. 2011, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the Eelup Roundabout Upgrade in Bunbury, Western Australia, a report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Main Roads Western Australia.
Goode, B. and Harris, J. 2007, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey for the Bunbury Port Access Road – Stage 1, Western Australia, Report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Main Roads Western Australia.
Goode, B. and Harris, J. 2008, An Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the Proposed Industrial Sub- Division of Lots 51, 52, 120, 123 and 63 Dodson and Olive Roads; Glen Iris, Western Australia, A report prepared for Thompson McRobert Edgeloe (TME).
Green, N. 1984, Broken Spears, Focus Educational Services: Perth
Haebich, A. 1988, For Their Own Good: Aborigines and Government in the South West of Western Australia 1900 – 1940, University of Western Australia Press: Nedlands.
Hallam, S. J. 1979, Fire and Hearth, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Harris, J. 2013, A Report on an Archaeological Survey at Moorlands, Glen Iris, East of Bunbury, a report prepared for MPM Development Consultants.
Machin, B. 1993, Ethnographic Survey: Dunsborough Pipeline, An unpublished report prepared for the Western Australian Water Authority.
Machin, B. 1995, Ethnographic Survey: Jangardup Project, Unpublished report.
Martinick, W. G. and Associates 1994, The Wellington Forest Archaeological Survey and Historical Research Project, Unpublished report for The Wellington Forest Advisory Group.
McDonald, Hales and Associates 1994, National Estates Grants Programme. Aboriginal Heritage sites in the Lower Southwest. Heritage study, Unpublished report prepared for the Gnuraren Aboriginal Corporation.
McDonald, Hales & Associates 1995, Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey, Bunbury Bypass Road, Bunbury, Report prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell on behalf of Main Roads.
Moore, G.F. 1842, A Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in Common Use Amongst the Aborigines of Western Australia, Orr: London.
O’Brien, T. N. 1996, Some Abridged History of Bunbury 1658 – 1995, Leslie O'Brien Publishing: Garran ACT.
O’Connor, R., Quartermaine, G. and Bodney, C. 1989, Report on an Investigation into the Aboriginal Significance of Wetlands and Rivers in the Perth – Bunbury Region, Western Australian Water Resources Council.
O’Connor, R, Quartermaine, G and Yates, A. 1995, An Investigation into the Aboriginal Significance of Wetlands and Rivers in the Busselton to Walpole Region, Report prepared for the Western Australian Water Authority.
Sanders, T. 1975, Bunbury. Some Early History, Union Offset: A.C.T.
31 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Shann, E.O.G. 1926, Cattle Chosen, Westminster Press: London.
South West Life 8/9/2008 www.southwestlife.com.au/history1202.htm
Stanner, W. 1965, Aboriginal Territorial Organization: Estate, Range, Domain and Regime, Oceana, 33(1).
Tindale, N.B. 1974, Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, Australian National University Press: Canberra.
Tilbrook, L. 1983, Nyungar Traditions, University of Western Australia Press: Nedlands.
32 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
A REPORT ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS - MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
A report prepared for MPM Development Consultants
By Jacqueline Harris
January 2013
33 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An archaeological survey for Aboriginal heritage sites was commissioned by MPM Development Consultants at Glen Iris, east of Bunbury. The company, in accordance with the City of Bunbury Structure Plan, wishes to utilise the land for housing development. Sections of the land are within the 1:100 year floodway level and subject to further flood management study.
Glen Iris is a suburb within the City of Bunbury, some 4kms SE of the heart of Bunbury. Moorland, a property within the suburb of Glen Iris, is bounded by Preston River to the west and south, Moorland Avenue to the northeast, Jeffrey Road to the north and Vittoria Road to the east. The project area comprises an irregular polygon of Lots 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 measuring 1km NS x 900m EW at its longest axis, an area of 48.2 hectares.
The field survey was undertaken on the 21st to 22nd of August 2012 and was conducted by Mrs Jacqueline Harris, senior archaeologist, Mr Peter Michael Junior, archaeological field assistant and representative of Gnaala Karla Booja Native Title Group and Mrs Elmien Ballot, archaeological field assistant.
The sample survey of the project area to identify any archaeological sites incorporated three persons walking a series of transects spaced 20m apart. Predictive intensive transects spaced at 10m apart were conducted at specific areas of interest such as devegetated areas, sand dunes, river banks and swamp areas. It was estimated that the overall percentage coverage of the designated project area was around 50%. Ground visibility of the fields of pasture was around 10% but increased to 70% within the exposed sand dunes.
The farmland consisted of cleared undulating paddocks with a scattering of trees. The ground coverage consisted of pasture over white/yellow sandy sediment. The main feature on the property is the paleo lakes in the northern section that were once part of the Preston River. The terrain surrounding the water sources had been disturbed by rubbish heaps, sediment dumps, ruins and dumps of building materials, ditch digging as well as seasonal flooding. A series of north south tending exposed mobile dunes are positioned in the centre of the project area and have been previously disturbed particularly adjacent to the lake and randomly elsewhere with the removal of sand as costeans.
An online search of the site register of Heritage and Culture Division, Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA), was undertaken within the study area on the 3 May 2012 to determine if any sites were previously recorded in the vicinity of the project area. The search defined that one registered archaeological site and three heritage places lay within the vicinity of the project area.
No new archaeological site, as defined by Section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, was located within or in close proximity to the project area in the course of the survey. No isolated artefacts were located. One archaeological site and three heritage places were previously registered within the vicinity of the proposed project area. It is considered that the survey techniques employed in the field survey were sufficient to have located any major archaeological site present on the surface.
Two of the heritage places, DIA 4868 Bunbury 12 and DIA 4874 Bunbury 25 are located on the western side of Preston River, the other side to the project area, and are positioned one kilometre and 400m away respectively. The development plans will therefore not impact upon these heritage places. The other site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury and heritage place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, are located within the centre of the project area. They overlap each other and are situated in a series of dunes that directly abuts the paleo Preston River that now forms a tributary.
34 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The significance of the combined site/heritage place is substantial with a post contact burial and artefacts that can be dated from mid Holocene with the presence of fossiliferous chert to post contact with the appearance of glass artefacts and a button. Because the dunes are highly mobile, extensively disturbed by numerous costeans and partially excavated in the 1960s it is considered that limited integrity remains within the dune system.
The overlapping site and heritage place are in a precarious position sitting within a high series of dunes overlooking the remainder of the project area. The instability of the dunes and the relative position of height compared to the lower surrounding plain may preclude the long-term presence of the sand feature if it is surrounded by housing development as a result of safety, health and environmental concerns. Therefore if the surrounding land around the site is built upon, it is highly unlikely the dunal system can remain untouched even if the area was left as parkland unless it is significantly modified and landscaped. A partial disturbance of the sand dunes would be problematic for the same reasons.
One archaeological site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury and heritage place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, were previously registered within the project area and re-examined in the course of the survey. These sites are deemed to be of moderate potential because of the limited ability for excavating and addressing research questions. These site and heritage place are located within a precarious position in eroding dunes.
It is recommended that the site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury, and heritage place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, are avoided. It is unlikely however that these sites can avoid disturbance if the project area is developed for residential housing. Should the proponent wish to disturb the burial site and artefact scatter it is recommended permission is granted conditional that a mitigative salvage is undertaken to fully record the site and collect artefacts. Further it is recommended that mechanical sieving of the total dune system, or that portion which may be subject to disturbance, is undertaken and that this process is monitored by Aboriginal custodians and an archaeologist.
The most likely areas where archaeological sites, in particular, artefact scatters or burials may occur are banks of rivers, creeks, swamps and exposed sandy deposits. The removal or excavation of large quantities of sediment increases the risk of disturbing archaeological sites that may lie beneath the ground surface. It is recommended that the proponents inform any project personnel of their obligation to report any archaeological material, should this be encountered during earthmoving, as outlined under Section 15 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
If the proponents locate an archaeological site in the process of survey or ground excavation, it is recommended that work cease in the immediate area. Any skeletal material should be reported to Department of Indigenous Affairs and the Western Australian Police Service. Any artefactual material should be reported to Heritage and Culture Division, Department of Indigenous Affairs.
35 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE An archaeological survey for Aboriginal heritage sites was commissioned by MPM Development Consultants at Glen Iris, east of Bunbury. The company, in accordance with the City of Bunbury Structure Plan, wishes to utilise the land for housing development. Sections of the land are within the 1:100 year floodway level and subject to further flood management study.
The scope of services was provided in a written document to Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd by Mr Craig Pippin, Senior Engineer, MPM Development Consultants.
The objective of the investigation was to establish if archaeological sites were located within the proposed development area and determine the effects the proposal may have over any sites. To achieve an overview, data was assembled from previous work in the region, including information from Heritage and Culture Division at the Department of Indigenous Affairs, site files, previous survey reports, maps and environmental descriptions.
STUDY AREA Bunbury is located 175 kms south of Perth on the coast. Glen Iris is a suburb within the City of Bunbury, some 4kms SE of the heart of Bunbury. Moorland, a property within the suburb of Glen Iris, is bounded by Preston River to the west and south, Moorland Avenue to the northeast, Jeffrey Road to the north and Vittoria Road to the east. The project area comprises an irregular polygon of Lots 317, 316, 315, 310, 314, 202, 312, 32, 61, and 62 measuring 1km NS x 900m EW at its longest axis, an area of 48.2 hectares.
ENVIRONMENT
Climate The project area lies within the south-west region of Western Australia which is characterised as a dry Mediterranean climate consisting of hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Annual mean rainfall is approximately 727mm, most of which falls between May and August. The mean maximum temperature is 29.6°C in February, and the mean minimum is 7.3°C in July (www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables).
Geology & Topography The study area lies within the coastal plain that is part of the Perth Basin, a deep trough filled with Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks with a surface mantle of Quaternary deposits. The land falls within the Yoongarillup section of the Spearwood Unit of the Swan Coastal Plain. The Yoongarillup section comprises plains of marine deposits with low ridges and swales that contain yellow and brown sands over limestone with the northern sands shallow and the southern sands deep. (Beard 1981, DEC 1980)
Vegetation The vegetation of the Yoongarillup Unit is dominated by extensive woodland of tuart with a large number of peppermints, Agonis flexuosa. In patches this is replaced by an open forest of tuart-jarrah marri. The understorey includes Banksia, Macrozamia, Hibbertia and Jacksonia floribunda (DEC 1980).
36 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
DESKTOP STUDY An online search of the site register of Heritage and Culture Division, Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA), was undertaken within the study area on the 3rd of May 2012 to determine if any sites were previously recorded in the vicinity of the project area. The search defined that one registered archaeological site and three heritage places lay within the vicinity of the project area.
Table 2: Summary of Archaeological Aboriginal heritage sites and places within vicinity of project area
Location Site ID Name Status Access Restriction (GDA94 Zone 50)* Site Type mE mN Registered Aboriginal Sites Skeletal material/ Moorland, 5449 R O N 376489 6309748 Burial, Bunbury Artefacts/Scatter Other Heritage Places 4917 Bunbury 06 I O N 376596 6309756 Artefacts/Scatter 4868 Bunbury 12 I O N 375639 6309648 Artefacts/Scatter 4874 Bunbury 25 I O N 376080 6310205 Artefacts/Scatter * Please note: Coordinates are indicative locations that represent the centre of sites as shown on maps produced by the DIA – they may not necessarily represent the true centre of all sites.
LEGEND R – Registered Site, I - Insufficient Information, S - Stored Data, L - Lodged awaiting assessment, IA - Information Assessed, O – Access Open, C - Closed Access, N – File Not Restricted.
DIA 5449 – Moorland Bunbury (S00832) DIA 5449 was reported to be a burial and artefact scatter located in a yellow sand dune overlooking a river. It was recorded by Moya Smith in 1979 following a dig by Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB, Bunbury). The assemblage included an incomplete fragmented and eroded skeleton, 100 artefacts and a ceramic button. The stone artefacts were made from quartz and included microliths. It was located 200m east of a house “Moorlands” built in 1839. The dune had been disturbed in c.1969 by a mechanical scraper where 1.5m of topsoil was removed. The bones were then exposed from wind erosion where a local horse rider noted the eroding skeleton.
The majority of bone material was removed by the CIB but the Museum excavated with 1m2 including a sondage, plus a 50cm x 50cm adjacent sondage and a 50cm x 50cm test pit and recovered further phalanges, two teeth and a button at 15cm below the surface in disturbed ground. These bones were identified as an Aboriginal adult female. It was said to have probably been in a crouched position. Some fragments of hair, vegetable fibre or bark were recovered which are attributed to shoulder pads or bark wrapping.
The ACMC have determined that the artefact scatter is a registered site under section 5a and 39.2c of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 under resolution decision ID 4350, No123, Meeting ID 484 on 8/8/00.
DIA 4874 - Bunbury 25 (S01757) DIA 4874 was reported to be an artefact scatter located in a road cutting. It was recorded by Vera Novak, John Clarke and Cyril Peck in 1978 during a Bunbury National Estate survey. The assemblage consisted of a scattering of several artefacts. The artefacts were made from quartz and included flakes. The site extent was 50m x 15m. It was located in a road cutting along Bunbury Bypass Road about 300ms south of the roundabout on the east side of the road. 37 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The ACMC have determined that there is insufficient information to establish the accurate location and significance of the site under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and it is therefore placed as a non-site in the site file under resolution decision ID 6113, No 6113, Meeting ID 4404 on 29/10/09. However the site is still listed as a ‘heritage place’ on the register.
DIA 4686 - Bunbury 12 (S01751) DIA 4874 was reported to be an artefact scatter located in yellow sand. It was recorded by Vera Novak, John Clarke and Cyril Peck in 1978 during a Bunbury National Estate survey. The assemblage consisted of a dozen artefacts. The artefacts were made from quartz and included flakes and lumps. The site extent was 60m x 40m. It was located in a road cutting on the east bank of Wilson Road about 50m from the road and 800m north of the junction of Wilson Road and South West Highway.
The ACMC have decided that there is insufficient information to determine the status of the site and it is therefore placed as a ‘heritage place’ under resolution decision ID 4350, No 123, Meeting ID 484 on 8/8/00 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 until further information is provided.
DIA 4917 - Bunbury 06 (S01745) DIA 4874 was reported to be an artefact scatter located in a yellow sandpit. It was recorded by Vera Novak, John Clarke and Cyril Peck in 1978 during a Bunbury National Estate survey. The assemblage consisted of tens of artefacts. The artefacts, flakes & chips, bipolar cores, scrapers and a hand axe (collected) were mostly made from quartz with some examples of fossiliferous chert and gneiss. The site extent was 150m x 150m. It was located immediately south of an oxbow lake in a paddock, 800m northwest of the junction of Vittoria Road and South Western Highway.
The ACMC have decided that there is insufficient information to determine the status of the site and it is therefore placed as a ‘heritage place’ under resolution decision ID 4350, No 123, Meeting ID 484 on 8/8/00 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 until further information is provided.
REVIEW OF HERITAGE SURVEY REPORTS
Hammond, M. & O’Reilly, S. 1995, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey Bunbury Bypass Road, Bunbury, Western Australia, Prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell.
The study area comprised a proposed bypass road at Bunbury. The survey methodology consisted of systematic transects undertaken at 20m intervals along the proposed road easement. Five archaeological sites were located on exposed yellow sand and each contained quartz artefacts. These were deemed to be of low significance. Areas most likely to provide favourable campsites locations are elevated well-drained areas close to water and fish and game resources.
Edwards, K. 1997, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey of a proposed port access route, Bunbury, Western Australia, Prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell.
The study area extends along a proposed route from Leschenault Estuary to South Western Highway for a length of 5kms and a width of 150m to 600m. The survey strategy comprised an orientation around the proposed development area and a series of parallel foot traverses at intervals of 5-10m apart and more widely spaced traverses at road interchange areas. No archaeological material was located in the project area as a result of poor visibility.
38 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
McDonald, Hales & Associates 1998, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey Proposed Dallyelup Subdivision, Hareswood Road, Capel, Western Australia, Prepared for Alan Tingay & Associates.
The survey area comprised a 1km x 2km proposed housing subdivision off Bussell Highway south of Bunbury. The survey methodology concerned a series of east west transects spaced at 10m apart to cover some 90% of the project area. No archaeological material was located due to the dense undisturbed vegetation with low visibility.
Murphy, A. 1999, Archaeological Monitoring Programme: Dallyelup Subdivision, Capel, Western Australia, Prepared for Alan Tingay & Associates.
The initial phase of ground disturbance was monitored at the proposed subdivision. Parts of the land has been utilised for agricultural and pastoral purposes since the mid 1800’s. The purpose of monitoring was to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological material. When earth was removed from the ground the walls of the cut were examined for material or skeletal remains, hearths or living floors. The excavated material was also examined during removal by machinery. Spoil heaps were also examined.
The profile was consistent of a humic layer, a mixed sediment layer followed by a yellow sandy horizon. Fragments of bones from native and domestic animal were located. The lack of skeletal material located can be attributed to the small scale of the survey area, previous disturbance and Aboriginal occupation and burial customs. While local Nyungar people are usually buried in coastal dunes, the distribution is patchy and difficult to predict. Research suggests they are usually confined to recent coastal dunes. Thus developments on older dune systems would have a lower probability of uncovering skeletal remains.
Brown, S. 1984, A survey for Aboriginal Sites along the proposed Australind Bypass Road; prepared for Main Roads Department.
The survey area comprised a proposed bypass route of 17kms and an alternate route following Old Coast Road. The route passed through partially cleared or uncleared open forest for the northern and southern section. The middle section was composed of cleared or partially cleared farming land. The survey strategy comprised zigzag transects on cleared land and compass transects in open forest. Along the Old Coast Road selective transects were undertaken where ground visibility was high and extensive disturbance was absent. Two small archaeological sites and four isolated finds were located. Each of the sites was in close proximity to a swamp.
O’Connor, R. Quartermaine, G. & Yates, A. 1995, An Investigation into the Aboriginal Significance of Wetlands and Rivers in the Busselton – Walpole Region, Prepared for Water Authority of Western Australia.
The archaeological component was a desktop study of the Busselton – Walpole Region. The most common site in the region is the artefact scatter (44%), followed by burials (12%), scarred trees (7.5%) and stone arrangements (5%). The majority of sites are located on the Leeuwin Naturaliste ridge and coastal plain. Density is estimated to be one site/ 200 square kilometres but this may reflect the focus of research and/or development. Sites tended to be located near water sources such as rivers, creeks, lakes, swamps and estuaries.
39 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT During the 1980s a flood of industrial activity took place in the coastal plain and jarrah forest region and as a result many archaeological and ethnographic consultancy surveys and excavations were undertaken.
Pearce (1982) conducted a systematic survey over a large area of jarrah forest extending 70 kilometres north-south by four kilometres east-west. His results found an average of one site per kilometre similar to Hallam's survey on the Swan coastal plain (1986). The most repeated site was a small quartz artefact scatter with the occasional large piece of dolerite. Assemblages consisted generally of less than 50 artefacts with a few large sites containing thousands of artefacts over a wide area, suggesting regular use over time. Sites generally occurred near watercourses or swamps on gently sloping areas of sandy gravel near upper reaches of valleys. Frequently sites were located on disturbed ground such as tracks or roadsides.
A survey at Harris Dam by Veth, Ward & Zlatnik (1983) resulted in a density of five sites per square kilometre which exceeded previous findings, despite the fact that sites were only considered if they contained two or more artefacts. As expected, the majority of sites were located around the major drainage channel of the valley system on flat ground, with the largest sites lying adjacent to swamps on laterite surfaces. The majority of the stone tool assemblages suggest a temporal framework of mid to late Holocene.
Excavations were undertaken in jarrah forest by Pearce (1982a) and Anderson (1984) from which datable organic material was recovered. A sandy site on the edge of a swamp at Collie established occupation at 5810 ± 330BP in the deepest part of the forest; a cave at Boddington yielded a date of 3230 ± 170 BP (Pearce 1982a); while Anderson recovered a date of 1280 ± 80 BP at North Dandalup.
A large data base on site locations and assemblages exists as a result of a systematic study of the Swan Coastal Plain undertaken by Hallam (1986) in the 1970s and early 1980s. Hallam's objective was to explain the changing occupation patterns of prehistoric Aboriginal populations. Using numbers and types of sites within ecological zones as a means of comparison, Hallam describes the patterning and nature of archaeological assemblages from the littoral zone, through the coastal sand plain to the foothills and Darling Scarp.
She concludes that Aboriginal occupation was focused around lakes and swamps of the Bassendean Sands and Pinjarra Plains and these occupation sites double numerically in the last few hundred years before European contact. A broad chronology was developed based on the the presence of certain indicators within the assemblage. The presence of fossiliferous chert indicates the Early Phase, backed pieces and flat adzes the Middle Phase, quartz chips the Late Phase and glass or ceramic, the Final Phase. Schwede (1990), in a more recent analysis of quartz debitage, finds these chronological markers problematic, in particular, the Late Phase. She concludes that all phases were rich in quartz assemblages.
Of particular relevance to this survey, Anderson (1984) proposed a land-use model for prehistoric exploitation of the Swan Coastal Plain, and its hinterland, based on regional research into the relative proportions of surface artefact scatters and their associated artefact densities. This model suggests that, due to the variation in resources available in the three different environmental zones investigated, there was more intensive use of the coastal plain than either the adjacent forest or open woodland plateau. Pearce's (1982) study in jarrah forest around Collie supports Anderson's model of a low density of small camps suggesting highly mobile hunting groups exploiting the uplands.
Previous archaeological excavations within Hallam's geomorphic units have revealed Pleistocene dates of occupation around 38,000 years B.P. at Upper Swan (Pearce & Barbetti
40 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
1981), 29,000 B.P. years at Helena River (Schwede 1990) in the Pinjarra Plains and a more recent late Holocene date of 2,200 B.P. years (Pearce 1978) within the Bassendean Sands.
A variety of ethno-historical sources describe the activities of Aboriginal people on the coastal plain, their subsistence techniques and semi-permanent camps about wetlands during summer. Several sources mention that Aboriginal people dispersed in winter and hunted in the forested uplands. Based on these accounts Hallam (1979) has proposed that the forest was little exploited and the less dense woodland further inland was targeted.
From such research, predictive models of site location can be projected. There is a high probability that any sites located will be scatters of less than 10 artefacts and manufactured from quartz. These sites will occur adjacent to a water source and be situated on or near tracks or cleared areas. However, it is necessary to take into account the high level of disturbance caused by intensive use by European colonists in the forest and woodlands which may have largely obliterated archaeological sites.
SITE SIGNIFICANCE The significance of an archaeological site is determined by its ability to address regional and site-specific research questions and by its representativeness (Bowdler 1984). Significance is a mutable quality, changing as more sites are recorded, research questions are answered or new research directions arise. Research questions that sites in the Southwest may address include: a) the antiquity of colonisation of the southwest zone; b) social and technological changes that may have occurred in the mid-Holocene; c) specific patterns of occupation in regional zones; and d) dating of industrial sequences in the region.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY The field survey was conducted using a Garmin GPS 60CS on datum GDA, a 1:25, 000 topographic maps and an aerial photograph demarcating the proposed project area. The survey design was formulated using a combination of predictive and systematic transects throughout the project area.
The field survey was undertaken on 21st - 22nd August 2012 and was conducted by Jacqueline Harris, senior archaeologist, Peter Michael Junior, archaeological field assistant and representative of Gnaala Karla Booja Native Title Group and Elmien Ballot, archaeological field assistant.
The sample survey of the project area to identify any archaeological sites incorporated three persons walking a series of transects spaced 20m apart. Predictive intensive transects spaced at 10m apart were conducted at specific areas of interest such as devegetated areas, sand dunes, river banks and swamp areas. It was estimated that the overall percentage coverage of the designated project area was around 50%. Ground visibility of the fields of pasture was around 10% but increased to 70% within the exposed sand dunes.
SURVEY AREA The farmland consisted of cleared undulating paddocks with a scattering of trees. The ground coverage consisted of pasture over white/yellow sandy sediment. The main feature on the property is the paleo lakes in the northern section that were once part of the Preston River. On the banks of the paleo lakes and swamps were melaleucas, peppermint trees, and tuarts with bulrushes on the banks. The terrain surrounding the water sources had been disturbed by rubbish heaps, sediment dumps, ruins and dumps of building materials, ditch digging as well as seasonal
41 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
flooding. A series of north south tending exposed mobile dunes are positioned in the centre of the project area and have been previously disturbed particularly adjacent to the lake and randomly elsewhere with the removal of sand as costeans.
Two farmhouses, one historic, are present on the property, the more modern example surrounded by small horse enclosures. A high wide levy separates Preston River from the property with ~150m buffer. A sandy track meanders through the property that is used daily for exercises by horse and buggies from the surrounding farms.
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS No new archaeological site, as defined by Section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, was located within or in close proximity to the project area in the course of the survey. No isolated artefacts were located. One archaeological site and three heritage places were previously registered within the vicinity of the proposed project area. It is considered that the survey techniques employed in the field survey were sufficient to have located any major archaeological site present on the surface.
Two of the heritage places, DIA 4868 Bunbury 12 and DIA 4874 Bunbury 25 is located on the western side of Preston River, the other side to the project area, and are positioned one km and 400m away respectively. The development plans will therefore not impact upon these heritage places.
The other site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury and heritage place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, are located within the centre of the project area. They overlap each other and are situated in a series of dunes that directly abuts the paleo Preston River that now forms a tributary.
The buffered extent of DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury is a 700m in diameter circle while the physical extent of the site measures 3m x 3m. The excavations by CIB and WA Museum occurred in the vicinity of 376540mE 6309790mN. The buffered extent of DIA 4917 Bunbury 06 is an irregular shaped polygon of 250 x 200m while the actual extent of the artefacts scatter is 190m x 170m. The original recorder measured the site as 150m square. But allowing extra for a buffer and the fact that the artefacts are located within mobile dunes the 250m x 200m is considered an appropriate size. The large circular buffer of DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury therefore should be omitted from DIA site mapping. Robert Reynolds, DIA senior heritage officer, also reassessed this site some time ago (undated letter) and drew the same conclusion in regard to the site extent of both overlapping sites.
In the field survey no human bones were located. Several animal bones were noted as well as a desiccated long necked baby turtle. Some 36 artefacts were identified within the devegetated dunes. These were not measured but marked with a GPS in situ. They comprised flakes and chips and several nodules manufactured from quartz, crystal quartz, silcrete, glass and fossiliferous chert. Only five artefacts were collected when the heritage place was originally located in 1978. The recorders also noted “10s” of artefacts within the sand dunes.
Significance The significance of the combined site/heritage place is substantial with a post contact burial and artefacts that can be dated from mid Holocene with the presence of fossiliferous chert to post contact with the appearance of glass artefacts and a button. The position of the site follows the established occupation pattern with a moderately sized campsite adjacent to a river. The signature of the area is small quartz scatters indicating hunting and gathering forays by few people or very small temporary campsites.
Integrity It is considered that the skeletal remains from a young adult female have been recovered within the CIB dig and the Museum controlled excavation while the few remaining unrecovered parts 42 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
of the body may have been removed initially when the owner of the land, Mr Piacentini, excavated a large amount of sediment around 1969. It is possible that other burials may be present within the exposed dune system as it is anticipated that other artefacts may be present within the dunes.
Research Because the dunes are highly mobile, extensively disturbed by numerous costeans and partially excavated in the 1960s it is considered that limited integrity remains within the dune system. Therefore a controlled excavation is considered unnecessary and fruitless except to collect artefacts and possibly the few remaining fragments of skeletal material. For this reason monitoring of the dunes, should they be disturbed, is essential. However, it is considered that all material mechanically excavated from the dunes should be sieved prior to removal from the area.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS The overlapping site and heritage place are in a precarious position sitting within a high series of dunes overlooking the remainder of the project area. The instability of the dunes and the relative position of height compared to the lower surrounding plain may preclude the long-term presence of the sand feature if it is surrounded by housing development as a result of safety, health and environmental concerns. Therefore if the surrounding land around the site is built upon, it is highly unlikely the dunal system can remain untouched even if the area was left as parkland unless it is significantly modified and landscaped. A partial disturbance of the sand dunes would be problematic for the same reasons.
Figure 7: Other Heritage Place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06. View to the North West.
43 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CONCLUSIONS
DISCUSSION An archaeological survey was undertaken within land at Moorlands, Glen Iris that encompasses Preston River and the paleo river system. An historic home and the remains of a home are present on the property. A relict exposed dune system is present adjacent to the paleo river line in the centre of a potential housing development. The land was composed of mostly cleared woodland except for some riverine and scattered tree specimens on pasture with several areas of swampland.
Moorland was built for Henry Mortlock Ommanney, an early colonial surveyor who married Elizabeth Capel Bussell in 1839. He updated the survey of Bunbury in 1836 following Thomas Watson. After his family left for England in 1847, Harley Johnston, a surveyor, bought the Moorland property. Following his death in 1853, his widow, Mary, daughter of M W Clifton, continued to live there with her extended family (Clarke 1946).
Archival research indicates that numerous archaeological sites have been previously recorded in the Bunbury region. These consist of small quartz artefact scatters with additional pieces manufactured from silcrete, chert or fossiliferous chert. Artefacts are mostly flakes and chips but included in the assemblages are the occasional backed blade and hammer-stone. The contents indicate camping and hunting and gathering forays were undertaken at these locations. The prolific clusters of sites in the Bunbury area indicates the tract of land is a particularly resource rich area, surrounded by several water sources, Preston and Collie Rivers and tributaries as well as swamps and wetlands.
Excavations by Schwede (1993), some 2000m away on a similar high sand dune as the present project area, demonstrated that many artefacts are present in yellow sand dunes overlooking swamps. The excavations further revealed that there was limited stratigraphy in the highly mobile sands and that artefacts moved vertically for some 40cms as well as horizontally. As there were minimal artefacts and/or bone in association with charcoal the research potential is limited. It is considered that similar test pitting of unstable mobile sands adds limited knowledge to the research database.
Research demonstrated that the project area holds potential for a site due to the proximity of Preston River despite extensive disturbance to the environment from its usage as a working farm for 174 years. Previous studies (Hammond & O’Reilly 1995) located archaeological sites on exposed yellow sand dunes while Brown (1984) found sites near swamps. Favourable campsites locations such as in the present study were considered to be elevated well-drained areas close to water and food resources.
Archival research indicates the importance of a water feature with the location of artefact scatters. Because artefact scatter sites are frequent in the region close to a major river and water resources, there is a probability that other artefact scatters may occur at exposed sandy devegetated areas or may be uncovered following the removal of overlying sands by wind erosion or developers excavating or clearing the land. Within the cleared woodland, the likelihood of locating scarred trees is restricted as many of the original trees have been cleared.
Ground visibility was moderate in the previously cleared agricultural and pasture land. Archaeological research in woodland suggests artefact scatter sites are frequently found in disturbed ground, particularly in areas where, prior to disturbance, there is low visibility. Archaeological sites nevertheless require some land integrity for the sites to have any provenance and, thus, scientific significance. Previous disturbance from clearing, agriculture and farming however suggests there would be minimal unmodified sediment remaining, thus preventing the land from retaining surface and subsurface integrity. The high disturbance and limited visibility factor are seen as the major contributors to the lack of other archaeological sites located in the study area. 44 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
RECOMMENDATIONS One archaeological site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury and Other Heritage Place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, were previously registered within the project area and re-examined in the course of the survey. These sites are deemed to be of moderate potential because of the limited ability for excavating and addressing research questions. These site and heritage place are located within a precarious position in eroding dunes.
It is recommended that the site, DIA 5449 Moorland Bunbury, and Other Heritage Place, DIA 4917 Bunbury 06, are avoided. It is unlikely however that these sites can avoid disturbance if the project area is developed for residential housing. Should the proponent wish to disturb the burial site and artefact scatter it is recommended permission is granted conditional that a mitigative salvage is undertaken to fully record the site and collect artefacts. Further it is recommended that mechanical sieving of the total dune system, or that portion which may be subject to disturbance, is undertaken and that this process if monitored by Aboriginal custodians and an archaeologist.
The most likely areas where archaeological sites, in particular, artefact scatters or burials may occur are banks of rivers, creeks, swamps and exposed sandy deposits. The removal or excavation of large quantities of sediment increases the risk of disturbing archaeological sites that may lie beneath the ground surface. It is recommended that the proponent inform any project personnel of their obligation to report any archaeological material, should this be encountered during earthmoving, as outlined under Section 15 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.
If the proponent locates an archaeological site in the process of survey or ground excavation, it is recommended that work cease in the immediate area. Any skeletal material should be reported to Department of Indigenous Affairs and the Western Australian Police Service. Any artefactual material should be reported to Heritage and Culture Division, Department of Indigenous Affairs.
45 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J. 1984, Between Plateau and Plain, Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 4 A.N.U. Canberra.
Beard, J.S. 1981, Swan: Vegetation Survey of Western Australia, U.W.A. Press
Bowdler, S. 1984, Archaeological significance as a mutable quality, In S Sullivan & S. Bowdler (eds) Site Survey and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology R.S.P.S., A.N.U. Canberra: 1-9.
Brown, S. 1984, A survey for Aboriginal Sites along the proposed Australind Bypass Road, Prepared for Main Roads Department.
Department of Conservation and Energy 1980, Atlas of Natural Resources Darling System Western Australia.
Clarke, G.E. 1946, Early History of Bunbury, Clarke, Bunbury.
Edwards, K. 1997, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey of a proposed port access route, Bunbury, Western Australia, Prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell.
Hallam, S.J. 1979, Fire and Hearth: a study of Aboriginal usage and European usurpation in south-western Australia, A.I.A.S. Canberra.
Hallam, S.J. 1986, Prehistoric Aboriginal populations on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia, Final Report on the Project: Australian Research Grants Scheme.
Hammond, M. & O’Reilly, S. 1995, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey Bunbury Bypass Road, Bunbury, Western Australia, Prepared for Halpern Glick Maunsell.
McDonald, Hales & Associates 1998, Report on an Aboriginal Heritage survey Proposed Dalleyellup Subdivision, Hareswood Road, Capel, Western Australia, Prepared for Alan Tingay & Associates.
Murphy, A. 1999, Archaeological Monitoring Programme: Dallyellup Subdivision, Capel, Western Australia, Prepared for Alan Tingay & Associates.
O’Connor, R. Quartermaine, G. & Yates, A. 1995, An Investigation into the Aboriginal Significance of Wetlands and Rivers in the Busselton – Walpole Region, Prepared for Water Authority of Western Australia.
Pearce, R.H. 1978, A dated sequence from Walyunga, Western Australia, Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 61:1-10.
Pearce, R.H. 1982, Archaeological sites in the jarrah forest at Southwestern Australia, Australian Archaeology No. 14, 18-24
Pearce, R.H. 1982a, Archaeological Test excavation at Site S1519 for Western Collieries, Prepared for Western Collieries.
Schwede, M. 1990, Quartz, the multifaceted stone: a regional prehistory of the Helena River Valley on the Swan Coastal Plain of Southwestern Australia, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Australia. Nedlands.
46 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Schwede, M. 1993, An archaeological investigation of sites S2611, S2612 and S1740 at the Sanctuary, Pelican Point, Bunbury, Prepared for Pindan Constructions.
Veth, P., Ward, K. & Zlatnik, M. 1983, Preliminary survey for Aboriginal sites at the Harris River dam project area, Collie, including regional ethnohistorical data, Unpublished Report. www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables
47 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
APPENDIX 1: SITES REGISTER SEARCH
48 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
Search Criteria
2 sites in a search polygon. The polygon is formed by these points (in order):
MGA Zone 50 Northing Easting 6310410 376326 6310182 376508 6310134 376507 6310074 376432 6310037 376441 6310039 376784 6309917 376784 6309923 377009 6309834 377053 6309728 377054 6309339 376786 6309510 376477 6309594 376421 6309594 376262 6309793 376174 6309912 376183 6310311 376285 6310346 376289 6310362 376277 6310414 376326 6310410 376326
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 1 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
Disclaimer
Aboriginal sites exist that are not recorded on the Register of Aboriginal Sites, and some registered sites may no longer exist. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is on-going to identify additional sites. The AHA protects all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia whether or not they are registered.
Copyright
Copyright in the information contained herein is and shall remain the property of the State of Western Australia. All rights reserved. This includes, but is not limited to, information from the Register of Aboriginal Sites established and maintained under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA).
Legend
Restriction Access Coordinate Accuracy
N Accuracy is shown as a code in brackets following the site coordinates. No restriction C Closed M [Reliable] The spatial information recorded in the site file is deemed to be reliable, due to methods of capture. Male access only O Open F Female access [Unreliable] The spatial information recorded in the site file is deemed to be unreliable due to errors of spatial V Vulnerable data capture and/or quality of spatial information reported.
Status
L - Lodged ACMC Decision Made
Information lodged, R - Registered Site awaiting assessment I - Insufficient information S - Stored Data
Spatial Accuracy
Index coordinates are indicative locations and may not necessarily represent the centre of sites, especially for sites with an access code “closed” or “vulnerable”. Map coordinates (Lat/Long) and (Easting/Northing) are based on the GDA 94 datum. The Easting / Northing map grid can be across one or more zones. The zone is indicated for each Easting on the map, i.e. '5000000:Z50' means Easting=5000000, Zone=50.
Sites Shown on Maps
Site boundaries may not appear on maps at low zoom levels
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 2 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
List of 1 Registered Aboriginal Sites with Map
Site ID Status Access Restriction Site Name Site Type Additional Info Informants Coordinates Site No. 5449 R O N Moorland, Bunbury Skeletal 376489mE S00832 material/Burial, 6309748mN Artefacts / Scatter Zone 50 [Reliable]
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 3 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
Legend
Selected Heritage Sites
Registered Sites
Town
Map Area
Search Area
Copyright for base map information shall at all times remain the property of the Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia - National Mapping Division. All rights reserved.
Cadastre, Local Government Authority, Native Title boundary data copyright © Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2012).
Geothermal Application, Geothermal Title, Mining Tenement, Petroleum Application, Petroleum Title boundary data copyright © the State of Western Australia (DMP) (2012.5).
For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ Terms of Use statement at http://www.dia.wa.gov. au/Terms-Of-Use/
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 4 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
List of 1 Other Heritage Places with Map
Site ID Status Access Restriction Site Name Site Type Additional Info Informants Coordinates Site No. 4917 I O N Bunbury 06 Artefacts / Scatter 376596mE S01745 6309756mN Zone 50 [Reliable]
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 5 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
Legend
Selected Heritage Sites
Other Heritage Places
Town
Map Area
Search Area
Copyright for base map information shall at all times remain the property of the Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia - National Mapping Division. All rights reserved.
Cadastre, Local Government Authority, Native Title boundary data copyright © Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2012).
Geothermal Application, Geothermal Title, Mining Tenement, Petroleum Application, Petroleum Title boundary data copyright © the State of Western Australia (DMP) (2012.5).
For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ Terms of Use statement at http://www.dia.wa.gov. au/Terms-Of-Use/
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 6 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Aboriginal Sites Database
Map Showing Registered Aboriginal Sites and Other Heritage Places
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 7 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Map Showing Registered AboriginalAboriginal Sites Sites Database and Other Heritage Places
Legend
Selected Heritage Sites Registered Sites
Other Heritage Places
Town
Map Area
Search Area
Copyright for base map information shall at all times remain the property of the Commonwealth of Australia, Geoscience Australia - National Mapping Division. All rights reserved.
Cadastre, Local Government Authority, Native Title boundary data copyright © Western Australian Land Information Authority trading as Landgate (2012).
Geothermal Application, Geothermal Title, Mining Tenement, Petroleum Application, Petroleum Title boundary data copyright © the State of Western Australia (DMP) (2012.5).
For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Indigenous Affairs’ Terms of Use statement at http://www.dia.wa.gov. au/Terms-Of-Use/
© Government of Western Australia Report created 14 May 2012 11:34:50. Identifier: 918391. Page 8 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
APPENDIX 2: LETTER OF ADVICE
49 REPORT OF AN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SURVEY OF LOTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GLEN IRIS – MOORLANDS STRUCTURE PLAN, BUNBURY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
APPENDIX 3: MAPS OF THE PROJECT AREA IN RELATION TO ABORIGINAL HERITAGE SITES
50 376000 376500 377000
304
Moorland Avenue
317 Jeffrey Road
DIA 4874 BUNBURY 25 Status: I
316
Glen Iris 6310000 6310000 315 32
Moorlands Residential Development Area
310
Bunbury Bypass Bunbury DIA 4917 BUNBURY 06 Status: I 310 DIA 5449 MOORLAND, BUNBURY Status: R
314
DIA 4868 BUNBURY 12 Status: I
202 312 312
Public Open 6309500 Space 6309500 313
DIA 19795 Preston River Status: R
Map of Aboriginal Heritage Sites and Places in relation to Legend Moorlands Development Area, Glen Iris, Bunbury W.A.
Aboriginal heritage sites and places 0 40 DIA80 17786 160PRESTON 240 RIVER 320CAMP Status: R MPM Development Survey Area Meters 6309000 6309000 Cadastral Lots Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Scale: 1:6,000 (A4) Region Open Space DIA 17786 PRESTON RIVER CAMP Status: R Map Prepared: 30/01/2013 ´ COPYRIGHT This is the property of Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd and shall not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part, for any other purpose than was originally intended unless written consent is obtained by Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd. DIA 4867 BUNBURY 11 Status: S 376000 376500 377000 376400 376600
e u n e v A nd rla oo 61 M 60 58 59 48 57 56 047 038 046 55 029 044 045 063 042
6309800 043 064 6309800 49 028 039 065 DIA 4917 Bunbury 06 DIA 5449 Moorland, Bunbury 027 centre coordinate centre coordinate 026 040 376596mE 6309756mN 376489mE 6309748mN 025 .! 037 .! 024 50 030 031 54 023 066 DIA 4917 BUNBURY 06 Status: I 034 022 036 033 041 017 021 032 035 DIA 5449 MOORLAND, BUNBURY Status: R 018 019 020 51
53 52 6309600 6309600 Archaeological Table of Results WP Description Easting Northing WP Description Easting Northing 17 Artefacts 376541 6309704 42 Artefacts 376644 6309799 18 Artefacts 376542 6309696 43 Artefacts 376633 6309797 19 Artefacts 376559 6309682 44 Artefacts 376633 6309802 20 Artefacts 376559 6309685 45 Artefacts 376630 6309812 21 Artefacts 376553 6309699 46 Artefacts 376622 6309822 22 Artefacts 376560 6309728 47 Artefacts 376617 6309824 23 Artefacts 376558 6309741 48 circumference 376651 6309843 24 Artefacts 376549 6309743 49 circumference 376673 6309783 25 Artefacts 376549 6309756 50 circumference 376665 6309745 26 Artefacts 376547 6309764 51 circumference 376631 6309674 27 Artefacts 376541 6309771 52 circumference 376572 6309653 28 Artefacts 376553 6309779 53 circumference 376538 6309652 29 Artefacts 376549 6309806 54 circumference 376520 6309726 30 Artefacts 376580 6309735 55 circumference 376507 6309807 31 Artefacts 376580 6309731 56 circumference 376501 6309822 32 Artefacts 376565 6309706 57 circumference 376536 6309831 33 Artefacts 376564 6309710 58 circumference 376565 6309843 34 Artefacts 376603 6309720 59 circumference 376593 6309844 35 Artefacts 376607 6309708 60 circumference 376619 6309849 36 Artefacts 376607 6309714 61 circumference 376650 6309855 37 Artefacts 376612 6309715 63 artefacts 376636 6309798 38 Artefacts 376584 6309817 64 artefacts 376642 6309791
6309400 39 Artefacts 376609 6309781 65 artefacts 376644 6309790 6309400 40 Artefacts 376615 6309762 66 artefacts 376599 6309728 41 Artefacts 376615 6309709
Legend Map of Archaeological Survey artefacts located, DIA 19795 PrestonMPM River Environmental Status: R Glen Iris, Bunbury, W.A. Bunbury 06 Artefacts
Bunbury 06 Actual site extent 0 15 30 60 90 120 Meters Bunbury 06 Actual site extent points Aboriginal heritage sites and places Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Scale: 1:2,500 (A4) MPM Survey Area Glen Iris Map Prepared: 20/11/2012 Region Open Space ´ COPYRIGHT This is the property of Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd and shall not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part, for any other purpose than was originally intended unless written consent is obtained by Brad Goode & Associates Pty Ltd.
376400 376600