40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
© The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust and Ochre Imprints 2014
Cover Photograph: View of the club house and a driveway within the activity area - facing south.
ochre imprints pty ltd
ii ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014
CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Residential Subdivision 40-52 Elizabeth Drive, Rosebud
Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 12927
Sponsor: The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust (ABN 29 378 945 242)
Cultural Heritage Advisor: Petra Schell
Authors: Anna Kent, David Thomas and Sarah Collins
Issue Date: 20 May 2014
Assessment: Desktop, Standard and Complex Assessments (in accordance with r. 56 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007)
Size of Activity Area: Medium (in accordance with r. 68 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007)
Copies Issued To: Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd;
Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation;
Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria;
Schutz Consulting Pty Ltd;
The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust
Quality Control: Petra Schell
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints iii 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
iv ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been prepared for the Sponsor, The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust, in preparation for the proposed residential subdivision of the former Carrington Park Bowls Club, 40-52 Elizabeth Drive, Rosebud, c. 84 km south of Melbourne CBD. This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet was the evaluation authority for this CHMP.
The aims of the CHMP were to:
Identify the location, nature and significance of Aboriginal places within the activity area; Assess whether harm to Aboriginal places can be avoided by the proposed activity; and, Develop a framework for managing Aboriginal places, prior to, during and subsequent to the activity taking place.
Activity Area Location & Description
The activity area is 3.16 ha in size and is situated on the grounds of the former Carrington Park Bowls Club, Rosebud. Within the activity area lies a bowling green, club house, gravel car park and various sheds. Concrete driveways provide vehicular access from Elizabeth Drive to the bowling club facilities. The remainder of the activity area contains partially cleared open native and introduced woodland vegetation.
The activity area is located on a lower granite hill slope landform within dissected hilly terrain, sloping downwards from the north towards Waterfall Creek which lies c.140 m to the south. The land surface within the activity area has been subject to a range of ground disturbances including the clearing of native vegetation in the late nineteenth century; grazing and cultivation from the mid-nineteenth century; and mid to late twentieth-century commercial usage as a bowls club including levelling and introduction of fill for the bowling green, and construction of buildings, car parks, and associated infrastructure/services.
Activity Description
The proposed activity consists of the subdivision of land within the activity area into residential allotments (see Figure 3).
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints v 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Assessment Method
The assessment method for this CHMP involved background research, a field survey and subsurface testing of soil profiles in the activity area. Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, this assessment would be considered a Complex Assessment, although it was preceded by Desktop and Standard Assessments.
The background research (Desktop Assessment) aimed to:
Provide contextual information regarding Aboriginal cultural heritage in the region; Determine whether any registered Aboriginal places exist in the activity area; and Identify – if possible – the likely potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to occur in the activity area.
The aims of the field assessment (Standard Assessment) were to determine the nature, distribution and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage in locations to be impacted by the proposed activity. The field survey was undertaken to establish whether any surface Aboriginal cultural heritage was visible, and whether locations likely to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage were (or are) present.
Subsurface testing (Complex Assessment) was carried out in this instance because the Desktop and Standard Assessments could not rule out the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage, particularly in the southern section of the activity area, which both the Desktop and Standard Assessments identified as having increased archaeological potential due to its proximity to Waterfall Creek. The Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (r. 60) state that a Complex Assessment is required in circumstances were a Desktop Assessment or Standard Assessment show that Aboriginal cultural heritage is, or is likely to be, present in the activity area; and it is not possible to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area unless a Complex Assessment is carried out.
The subsurface testing was undertaken in order to determine whether subsurface deposits in the activity area were likely to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Assessment Results
The Desktop Assessment found that no previously registered Aboriginal places occur in the activity area. Eight Aboriginal places have been recorded within the geographic region. All of these Aboriginal places appear to occur in proximity to water resources, in sandy/silty well- drained soils within low lying land to the west of the activity area. Based on this data, the Desktop Assessment concluded that it is likely that Aboriginal cultural heritage will occur in the activity area, given its proximity to Waterfall Creek. However, given the extensive earth
vi ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 moving works that have been undertaken in the activity area, any Aboriginal cultural heritage may be displaced or removed.
Due to the possibility that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present within the activity area, it was considered necessary to progress the CHMP to both Standard and Complex assessments. A total of 0.18 hectares was surveyed during the Standard Assessment. Grass, leaf litter and in some places, chip bark mulch, resulted in very poor surface visibility and very poor effective survey coverage. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was located on the surface during the survey. In the light of the visibility constraints encountered during the Standard Assessment, one excavation pit (EP) and two shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated during the Complex Assessment. The EP and STPs were placed in the southern section of the activity area, avoiding areas of visible ground disturbance to the north and centre of the activity area and concentrating on the area in proximity to Waterfall Creek. No Aboriginal stone artefacts, or any other Aboriginal cultural heritage, were located during the Complex Assessment.
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Activity Area No tangible Aboriginal cultural heritage was found in the activity area as a results of the Desktop, Standard and Complex Assessments. No intangible Aboriginal cultural heritage (e.g. oral histories) is known to relate to the activity area.
Cultural Heritage Management Recommendations
A total of nine management measures (MM) are presented here, and these must be adhered to in order to ensure compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
These recommendations become compliance requirements once this Cultural Heritage Management Plan is approved.
SPECIFIC CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in the activity area during the preparation of this CHMP. Therefore, no specific management recommendations are required in order for the activity to avoid, or minimise, harm to known Aboriginal heritage.
OTHER CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following management measures address contingencies in the event that Aboriginal cultural heritage is uncovered in the activity area, and other matters.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints vii 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
MM1: Status and Distribution of CHMP
This approved CHMP is a legally binding document. A copy of the approved CHMP must be present on site for the duration of the activity.
Copies of the approved CHMP must be distributed to the following parties:
Secretary, DPC (s.64(1)(b); RAP (if one exists) or Aboriginal stakeholders who participated in the preparation of the CHMP; and, All owners of land encompassed by the activity area.
The Sponsor may provide copies of the approved CHMP to new land owners / managers at the completion of the activity.
MM2: Discovery of Unexpected Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
If suspected Aboriginal cultural heritage is identified, the following process applies:
Isolation to Protect Cultural Heritage
a) Relevant works within 25 m of the discovery must be suspended immediately and the place extent must be isolated from further disturbance by safety webbing or other suitable barriers. The cultural material should not be removed.
Notification and Inspection
a) The Site Supervisor must be notified immediately and a CHA and the RAP (if one exists; if one does not exist, OAAV must be notified) must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery;
b) A CHA and RAP representative will inspect the site within an agreed timeframe of being notified;
c) During this inspection an appropriate course of action for the investigation and management of any Aboriginal cultural heritage will be discussed and agreed;
d) Agreement to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage and how to proceed with works must be made in writing within a period not exceeding three working days from the on-site meeting by a RAP representative, the CHA and the Sponsor.
Investigation of Unexpected Cultural Heritage
a) The CHA, in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor, shall determine the most appropriate course of action to investigate the nature of the cultural heritage. This should include: viii ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
1) establishing the nature and extent of the cultural heritage through the application of minimally intrusive archaeological techniques such as surface survey, cleaning back exposed sections and augering.
b) If during the initial inspection and investigation the Aboriginal cultural heritage is determined to be:
1) not part of a previously identified and recorded Aboriginal place where existing management recommendations apply;
2) of archaeological / scientific significance (e.g. it is an intact cultural deposit), and / or;
3) of cultural significance to the RAP; then protection, impact mitigation or salvage measures may be required.
c) Options for the implementation of protection, impact mitigation or salvage measures should:
1) be explored by the CHA in consultation with the RAP and the Sponsor, and;
2) consider the application of the General Principles outlined below.
General Principles to apply upon discovery of unexpected significant cultural heritage:
a) Investigation of cultural heritage – further investigation may be required to confirm the nature and extent of the cultural heritage;
b) Protection of cultural heritage – all attempts should be made to protect the significant cultural heritage from being disturbed further by the activity. This should include written agreement on:
1) management of the cultural heritage during the activity (e.g. with the installation of fencing to prevent disturbance);
2) management of the cultural heritage during the site remediation works at the end of the activity.
c) Impact mitigation – if protection of all of the cultural heritage place is not possible, then consideration should be given to reducing the impact of the activity through the introduction of harm mitigation measures e.g. limiting impact on the cultural heritage so that a portion remains unaffected by the activity;
d) Salvage of cultural material and information – if the cultural heritage cannot be protected, salvage of all or part of the Aboriginal place may be required prior to the
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints ix 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
activity resuming and the impact to cultural heritage proceeding. The following parameters should be considered during the salvage process:
For Surface Cultural Heritage
1) recording spatial characteristics (e.g. dGPS records of artefact locations, mapping the place boundary, drawing detailed plans of place extent and features);
2) documenting fabric / raw materials (e.g. earth feature, silcrete quarry; shell types in shell midden);
3) creating a photographic record;
4) collecting cultural heritage.
For Subsurface Cultural Heritage
1) controlled excavation of cultural deposits;
2) salvage excavation must be carried out in accordance with proper archaeological practice and standards, and an archaeological report detailing the methods, analysis and results of the excavation should be prepared.
Works Proceeding
a) The CHA (with the approval of the RAP) will advise the Sponsor / Sponsor’s representative when suspended construction works can proceed;
b) In general, works may recommence:
1) when the appropriate protective measures have been taken;
2) where the relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records have been updated and / or completed;
3) where all parties agree there is no prudent or feasible course of action; or
4) once any existing dispute has been resolved.
Notification to OAAV
a) The Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria will be notified about the Aboriginal place via the submission of the appropriate Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registry forms.
If a salvage excavation has been conducted, the report should also be submitted to OAAV.
x ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
MM3: Unexpected Discovery of Human Remains
If any suspected human remains are found during any activity, works must cease. The Victoria Police and the State Coroner’s Office should be notified immediately.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains are Aboriginal, the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s Emergency Coordination Centre must be contacted immediately on 1300 888 544.
This advice has been developed by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and is described in the following five step contingency plan. Any such discovery at the activity area must follow these steps.
1. Discovery:
If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must stop to ensure minimal damage is caused to the remains; and,
The remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage.
2. Notification:
Once suspected human skeletal remains have been found, the Coroner’s Office and the Victoria Police must be notified immediately;
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains could be Aboriginal the DSE Emergency Co-ordination Centre must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544; and,
All details of the location and nature of the human remains must be provided to the relevant authorities.
If it is confirmed by these authorities that the discovered remains are Aboriginal skeletal remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of the human remains to the Secretary, DPC in accordance with s.17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
3. Impact Mitigation or Salvage:
The Secretary, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal human remains, will determine the appropriate course of action as required by s.18(2)(b) of the Act.
An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Secretary must be implemented (this will depend on the circumstances in which the remains
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints xi 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
were found, the number of burials found and the type of burials and the outcome of consultation with any Aboriginal person or body);
4. Curation and further analysis:
The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal human remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Secretary.
5. Reburial:
Any reburial place(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to OAAV;
Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure that the remains are not disturbed in the future.
MM4: Custody and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Material
It is the responsibility of the CHA to ensure that all Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered from the activity area (if any) is fully documented, bagged and labelled (including VAHR numbers).
Once scientific analysis of any cultural heritage is completed, this will be provided to an appropriate custodian.
The appropriate custodian will be assigned in the following order of priority:
Any RAP appointed for the activity area; Any relevant registered native title holder; Any relevant native title party (as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006); Any relevant Aboriginal person or persons with traditional or familial links with the activity area that has been identified as having traditional interests by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council; Any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relative to the activity area; the owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is recovered; the Museum of Victoria.
If no appropriate custodian is available the recovered Aboriginal cultural heritage will be reburied as close as is practical to the original find spot.
The CHA will manage and facilitate the implementation of these measures with the appropriate custodian/s (if any exist) and will advise the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria of any changes in the location of recovered Aboriginal cultural heritage.
xii ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Reburial details:
Reburial of Aboriginal cultural material should be undertaken within the boundary of previously excavated pits within the Aboriginal place to avoid additional disturbance to the place.
If excavated pits are no longer accessible, reburial should occur within an area protected from disturbance by the activity of the CHMP and either within the boundary of a protected Aboriginal place or as close as possible to the area where the material was recovered.
MM5: Safety RAPs, the CHA or any other personnel involved in inspecting, recovering and documenting Aboriginal cultural heritage shall abide by the Site Supervisor’s OH&S procedures and Victorian WorkSafe practice at all times. In addition:
In any matters relating to OH&S, the Site Supervisor shall have the right to require any party to vacate the construction area and, if applicable, the area managed by the Sponsor;
The Sponsor will at all times provide a safe working environment for RAPs, the CHA and any other personnel engaged in cultural heritage activities within the activity area;
It is the responsibility of RAPs, the CHA or any other cultural heritage personnel to ensure they comply with Personal Protective Equipment requirements required by the Site Supervisor.
MM6: Future Changes to the Activity
Future changes to the residential development layout and conduct of the activity can be made so long as they are confined to the area assessed by this CHMP. If changes require development outside of this area then a new CHMP may be required.
MM7: Handling of Sensitive Information
Outside of publically available information and information presented in this CHMP, no Aboriginal cultural heritage information will be distributed without the approval of the RAP.
All Aboriginal place dGPS co-ordinates must be removed from this CHMP prior to its distribution to all parties other than those listed in MM1 and OAAV.
MM8: Communication Between Parties
Notification of the following parties to the CHMP by the means as indicated is deemed to comply with the requirements for notice to be given under this CHMP.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints xiii 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Each party is to ensure that there is an electronic means of confirmation of notification. Telephone notification is to be confirmed by either fax or email within 12 hours of the telephone conversation.
Party to Name of Phone Fax Email Agreement Delegate The Sponsor TBA TBA TBA TBA Site Supervisor TBA TBA TBA TBA CHA TBA TBA TBA TBA
The CHA will notify all parties of any change in RAP status that occurs prior to the completion of construction works.
MM9: Provision for Review
Review of this plan can be undertaken at any time by a project delegate/s representing the Sponsor to ensure compliance with the management measures outlined in the plan.
If concerns are raised by the RAP, CHA or a third party a project delegate/s will review CHMP compliance within 7 days of such concerns being raised by completing the following checklist:
If the Project Delegate identifies any areas of non-compliance with the CHMP:
A meeting will be required between the CHA, Sponsor and the RAP to establish actions to address non-compliance;
This should be undertaken within 7 days, or as soon as is practical, from the completion of the ‘CHMP Compliance Checklist’.
It is noted that under Part 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Minister may order a cultural heritage audit if:
The Sponsor of an approved CHMP has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the recommendations in the plans (s.81a); or, The impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage of an activity to which an approved CHMP applies will be greater than that determined at the time the plan was approved (s.81c).
Maximum penalties for breaching the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 are more than $180,000 for an individual or more than $1 million for a company. xiv ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
CHMP Compliance Checklist
Management Measure Yes / No If No – Proposed Action to Remedy Non-Compliance Has the CHMP been distributed to the relevant parties (MM1)? Is a copy of the CHMP present on site (MM1)? Are Cultural Heritage Contingencies being adhered to (MM2 & 3)? Do the custody arrangements of any Aboriginal cultural heritage follow the requirements of the CHMP (MM4)? Are the OH&S requirements being followed by personnel involved in cultural heritage matters (MM5)? If there are changes to the conduct of the residential development confined to the area assessed by this CHMP (MM6)? Is cultural heritage information being handled as per MM7? Is communication in relation to cultural heritage matters being handled as per MM8? Has this review been undertaken within 7 days of any concerns being raised regarding compliance with the CHMP (MM9)? If the review has identified any areas of non-compliance, has a meeting taken place between the CHA, Sponsor and RAP to establish actions required to address non-compliance (MM9)?
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints xv 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
xvi ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Contents
PART 1 - ASSESSMENT ...... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Legislative Context ...... 2 1.2.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ...... 2 1.2.2 Other Relevant Legislation ...... 5 1.2.3 Why Was A CHMP Undertaken For The Activity? ...... 6 1.3 Location And Extent Of Activity Area ...... 7 1.4 Description Of Proposed Activity ...... 11 1.5 Aboriginal Stakeholders ...... 13 1.5.1 Communication with Aboriginal Stakeholders ...... 13 1.5.2 Participation in Standard and Complex Assessments ...... 13 1.5.3 Views of Aboriginal Stakeholders...... 14 2 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT ...... 15 2.1 Introduction ...... 15 2.2 Environmental Context ...... 15 2.2.1 Geographic Region ...... 15 2.2.2 Landforms and Underlying Geology ...... 17 2.2.3 Climate ...... 19 2.2.4 Flora and Fauna ...... 19 2.3 European Land Use History ...... 22 2.4 Ethnohistory ...... 26 2.5 Search Of The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register ...... 29 2.6 Previous Archaeological Investigations ...... 31 2.6.1 Regional Archaeological Assessments ...... 32 2.6.2 Localised Archaeological Studies ...... 33 2.7 Summary ...... 34 2.8 Implications ...... 38 3 STANDARD ASSESSMENT ...... 41 3.1 Introduction ...... 41 3.2 Aims Of The Standard Assessment ...... 41 3.3 Method And Coverage ...... 41 3.4 Assessment Results ...... 45 3.5 Implications and Discussion ...... 46 4 COMPLEX ASSESSMENT ...... 47 4.1 Introduction ...... 47
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints xvii 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
4.2 Aims Of The Complex Assessment ...... 47 4.3 Method And Coverage ...... 47 4.4 Assessment Results ...... 52 4.4.1 Stratigraphy of Landforms ...... 52 4.4.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Activity Area ...... 52 4.5 Discussion ...... 52 5 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 53 5.1 Introduction ...... 53 5.2 Aboriginal Places ...... 53 5.3 Information provided by RAPs or other persons ...... 53 5.4 Archaeological Sensitivity Of The Activity Area ...... 53 5.5 Areas Likely to Contain Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ...... 54 5.6 Conclusion ...... 54 6 CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 61 MATTERS ...... 55 PART 2 – CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT ...... 57 7.1 Introduction ...... 57 7.2 Specific Cultural Heritage Management Requirements ...... 57 7.3 Other Cultural Heritage Management Requirements ...... 57 REFERENCES ...... 67 APPENDIX 1: COPY OF ‘NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A CHMP’ ...... 71 APPENDIX 2: GLOSSARY ...... 75
xviii ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the activity area ...... 9 Figure 2: Existing conditions of the activity area ...... 10 Figure 3: The proposed activity ...... 12 Figure 4: Geographic region showing the underlying geology of the activity area...... 16 Figure 5: Geomorphology of the activity area...... 18 Figure 6: Ecological vegetation communities within the geographic region...... 21 Figure 7: 1949 Wannaeue parish map showing the activity area ...... 25 Figure 8: Survey coverage ...... 44 Figure 9: Location of subsurface testing ...... 49
PLATES
Plate 1: Soil in the north east of the activity area had been scraped, exposing granite bedrock ...... 42 Plate 2: Fill had been used in the construction and levelling of the bowling green and associated buildings ...... 42 Plate 3: Chip bark mulch covered a large portion of the south west part of the activity area...... 43
TABLES
Table 1: Cadastral information for the activity area...... 8 Table 2: Communication with Aboriginal stakeholders ...... 13 Table 3: Aboriginal places recorded within 1.5 km of the activity area...... 30 Table 4: Summary of localised Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments in the geographic region .... 37 Table 5: Surface visibility and effective survey coverage ...... 45 Table 6: Results of the excavation pit ...... 50 Table 7: Results of the shovel test pits ...... 51
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints xix 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following people for their involvement and assistance in completing the project: Daniel Turnbull (Boon Wurrung Foundation Limited); Anita Barker and Jodi Turnbull (Ochre Imprints); Megan Schutz (Schutz Consulting) and The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust.
xx ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
PART 1 - ASSESSMENT
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This Cultural Heritage Terminology Management Plan (CHMP) has Aboriginal cultural heritage and Aboriginal places are terms used been prepared in advance of throughout this report and their meanings are taken as follows ground disturbing activity from the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: associated with the proposed residential subdivision of the Aboriginal cultural heritage means ‘Aboriginal places, Aboriginal former Carrington Park Bowls objects and Aboriginal human remains’ (s.4).
Club, 40-52 Elizabeth Drive, An Aboriginal place is ‘an area in Victoria or the coastal waters of Rosebud, c. 84 km south of Victoria that is of cultural heritage significance to the Aboriginal Melbourne CBD. The activity people of Victoria’ (s.5). area is 3.16 ha in size, sloping All known Aboriginal places in Victoria are recorded on the down from the north towards Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (s.145). Waterfall Creek in the south.
The proposed activity will involve the subdivision of land into residential allotments (see Figure 3). The CHMP was commissioned by The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust (the Sponsor). The Sponsor is the landholder of the activity area.
This CHMP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) was the evaluation authority for this CHMP.
The aims of the CHMP were to:
identify the location, nature and significance of Aboriginal places within the activity area; assess whether harm to Aboriginal places can be avoided by the proposed activity; and, develop a framework for managing Aboriginal places, prior to, during and subsequent to the activity taking place. Petra Schell acted as the Cultural Heritage Advisor for this CHMP. Petra meets the requirements for a Cultural Heritage Advisor under Section 189 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, in that she has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) gained from the School of Archaeology at La Trobe University in 1993. In addition to this, Petra is a full member of the
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 1 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc. and draws on over 15 years of consulting experience in the assessment and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The Standard and Complex Assessments that were undertaken as part of this CHMP were undertaken by Anita Barker (Senior Project Archaeologist, Ochre Imprints) and Anna Kent (Project Archaeologist, Ochre Imprints). Anita has a Bachelor of Archaeology 2006 (Honours gained 2008) gained from the School of Archaeology at La Trobe University and has more than five years experience in cultural heritage management. Anna Kent has an Honours Degree in Arts (Australian Indigenous Studies) from Monash University (2013) and a Bachelor of Arts (Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology), from the University of New England (2012). She has over two years experience working as a consultant archaeologist within historical and Indigenous cultural heritage.
1.2 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
1.2.1 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 2006
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 provides blanket protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria. This means that Aboriginal cultural heritage is protected from harm and it is illegal to carry out an activity that can disturb Aboriginal places without the appropriate authorities under the Act (and its associated Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007). There are two principal mechanisms under the Act that remove the risk of illegal harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, namely:
Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Cultural Heritage Permit. These are briefly discussed below.
Cultural Heritage Management Plan
A CHMP is a report recommending measures to be taken to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage affected by a development or use of land. It must include recommendations for measures to be taken before, during and after a relevant activity. The underlying philosophy of the CHMP is to minimise harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, however it is the document through which provisions can be made to harm Aboriginal places legally. A CHMP must be approved by the appropriate registered Aboriginal party or where no party exists for the area, the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), before the activity may commence.1
1 The DPC replaced the Department of Victorian Communities, as referred to in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (OAAV) carries out the day-to-day administrative functions on behalf of the Secretary.
2 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
A CHMP usually involves a staged investigation of the risk posed by a proposed activity to Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Act and associated Regulations set out the requirements for different levels of investigation:
Desktop Assessment; Standard Assessment (Field Survey); Complex Assessment (Subsurface Testing; Controlled Excavation). The Sponsor (usually the proponent) of a CHMP must ensure that the plan is prepared in accordance with the prescribed standards outlined in the Act, their associated regulations, and approved forms. The CHMP must consider the following matters:
a) Whether the activity will be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage;
b) If it does not appear to be possible to conduct the activity in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, whether the activity will be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage;
c) Any specific measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage likely to be affected by the activity, both during and after the activity;
d) Any contingency plans required in relation to disputes, delays and other obstacles that may affect the conduct of the activity;
e) Requirements relating to the custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage during the course of the activity.
Section 46 of the Act specifies the circumstances in which preparation of a CHMP is mandatory:
When required by the Regulations;
When the Minister directs a CHMP to be prepared for an activity; or
When an EES is required for an activity.
Clause 6 of the Regulations states that a CHMP is required when:
All or part of the activity is a high impact activity; and
All or part of the activity area is in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity - which has not been subject to significant ground disturbance.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 3 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
‘High impact activities’ and ‘areas of cultural heritage sensitivity’ are defined in the Regulations. For activities which trigger a CHMP, a statutory authorisation cannot be granted for the activity without an approved CHMP.
A CHMP may be prepared voluntarily even when not required by the Act (s.45).
Cultural Heritage Permit
A Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) is issued by the Secretary of DPC to “carry out an activity that will, or is likely to, harm Aboriginal cultural heritage”. A CHP application is made to the Secretary of DPC and, where a Registered Aboriginal Party exists for the area, must be supported by that organisation before it can be issued.
A CHP is sought for those instances where there is a known Aboriginal place that will be harmed by an activity. The permit outlines the measures that must be taken in order to disturb that place lawfully. Archaeological investigations are often required to inform a CHP application.
Other key features of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 are:
The creation of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council to provide a state-wide voice for Aboriginal people and to advise the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on issues relating to the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage. A system of Registered Aboriginal Parties – approved by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council – to be involved in cultural heritage decision making processes, and in particular CHMPs. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Agreements to support the development of partnerships around the protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Provisions relating to enforcement including: cultural heritage audits, protection declarations and stop orders, inspection arrangements and penalties. Maximum penalties for breaching the Act are more than $215,000 for an individual or more than $1.1 million for a company.
4 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
1.2.2 OTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is intended to provide additional protection from injury or desecration of artefacts and areas which are of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples and traditions.
The Act provides for emergency declarations to be made for the protection of significant Aboriginal areas or objects which are under 'serious or immediate threat of injury or desecration'.
The Act protects 'significant Aboriginal areas' and 'significant Aboriginal objects'. A 'significant' area or object is one of particular significance to Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander tradition.
An application for protection of a specified area or object under threat can be made orally or in writing by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.
The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs can make declarations to protect areas and objects if the area or object is under threat of injury or desecration (used, treated or affected in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition) and State law does not effectively protect the area.
The Minister may make emergency declarations or long-term declarations. Emergency declarations last for thirty days, but may be extended for a further thirty days. The Minister may not make a declaration in relation to an area or object located in a State, the Northern Territory or Norfolk Island unless he or she has consulted with the appropriate Minister of that State or Territory. These declarations may "contain provisions for and in relation to the protection and preservation of the area from injury or desecration".
Officers authorised by the Minister under the Act may also make emergency declarations, lasting up to 48 hours in relation to Indigenous heritage areas and objects.
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides protection for the following types of heritage places and items:
World Heritage; National Heritage; and Commonwealth Heritage.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 5 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Any action that is likely to have a significant impact on heritage properties and places must be referred to the Minister for the Environment and undergo an environmental assessment and approval process.
There are provisions for emergency listing of the national heritage values of a place if the Minister believes that those heritage values are under threat. The Minister can list the place before referring it to the Heritage Council and must take reasonable steps to advise any owners or occupiers of the place. Any person may request that a place be included on the National Heritage List under the emergency listing provision, and, if the Minister does not list the place within ten business days after receiving the request, the Minister must:
Publish notice of that on the internet; and Provide to the person who made the nomination and anyone else who requests them, reasons why the Minister has not listed the place.
1.2.3 WHY WAS A CHMP UNDERTAKEN FOR THE ACTIVITY?
A CHMP for this project was a mandatory requirement under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, because:
The proposed activity is a high impact activity (Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, Division 1, 6(b)); and, The proposed activity area is located within an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity (Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, Division 1, 6(a)).
The proposed activity is defined as a high impact activity under r.46 ('Subdivision of land') and the activity area is located in an area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity, i.e. land within 200 m of a waterway (r.23 ‘Waterways'). The waterway relates to Waterfall Creek which is c. 140 m south of the activity area.
The Sponsor, The Trustee for Storemaker Unit Trust, submitted a Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP to the Deputy Director of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria dated 14 January 2014. No other parties were notified as:
No Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) had been appointed for the activity area; and The Sponsor is the owner of the land.
A copy of these notifications are provided in Appendix 1.
This CHMP has been registered as No. 12927 by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (OAAV).
A CD is provided in the rear of this CHMP, which includes:
6 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
The lithic assemblage database (if any); and An electronic version of this CHMP. Other documentation that has been provided separately to the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria includes: VAHR forms, including site inspection forms and representative photographs of every Aboriginal place (where relevant); Spatial data generated as part of the CHMP showing the activity area, ground survey areas (if any), subsurface testing or excavation pits or transects (if any); and An archaeological survey and excavation attributes form (where relevant).
1.3 LOCATION AND EXTENT OF ACTIVITY AREA
The proposed activity area comprises a 3.16 ha area covering the property at 40-52 Elizabeth Drive, Rosebud. The location and existing conditions of the activity area are shown in Figures 1-2.2 Cadastral details are provided in Table 1.
A check of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register undertaken during the Desktop Assessment (see Section 2) revealed that no Aboriginal places have previously been registered within the activity area or within 200 m of it (see Figure 4).
The activity area is bounded by Elizabeth Drive in the north, private properties to the north east and west and Arthurs Seat State Park in the east and south. The activity area is situated on the grounds of the former Carrington Park Bowls Club and contains a bowling green, club house, gravel car park and various sheds. Concrete driveways provide vehicular access from Elizabeth Drive to the bowling club facilities. The remainder of the activity area contains partially cleared open native and introduced woodland vegetation.
A dense layer of chip bark mulch covers much of the south west of the activity area. A subterranean conduit reportedly exists in the centre of the activity area. The existing conditions of the activity area are shown in Figure 2.
The activity area is located on a lower granite hill slope landform within dissected hilly terrain, sloping downwards from the north towards Waterfall Creek which lies c.140 m to the south. The land surface within the activity area has been subject to a range of ground disturbances including the clearing of native vegetation in the late nineteenth century; grazing and cultivation from the mid-nineteenth century; and mid to late twentieth-century commercial usage as a bowls club including excavation, levelling and introduction of fill for
2 N.B. the activity area currently contains less tree coverage than shown in Figure 2 provided in this CHMP, having been subject to clearing in August/September 2013
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 7 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD the bowling green, and construction of buildings, car parks, and associated infrastructure/services.
Parish Wannaeue County Mornington Local Government Area City of Mornington Peninsula Address 40-52 Elizabeth Drive, Rosebud 3939 Property Identifiers A\PS625594, 1\PS625594, 2\PS625594, 3\PS625594, CM1\PS625594
Table 1: Cadastral information for the activity area.
8 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Figure 1: Location of the activity area
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 9 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Figure 2: Existing conditions of the activity area
10 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY
The proposed activity consists of the subdivision of the activity area into residential allotments (Figure 3).
The proposed activity will involve some degree of soil disturbance to both surface and buried land surfaces.
Activities that will occur during the course of the development are:
Soil excavation for the construction of buildings. Soil excavation will affect both buried and surface soils;
Grading of soil during road construction;
Deep excavation for service trenches (gas, electricity, water); and
Landscaping activities in association with the public open space reserve.
All of the above activities will involve the removal of topsoil. The depth of excavation will vary according to ground conditions. The standard depth of excavation for pipes and services, to the top of the pipe, are:
750 mm for water and gas;
600 mm for electricity and Telstra;
900 mm minimum for drainage; and
1,300 mm for sewer.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 11 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Figure 3: The proposed activity
12 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
1.5 ABORIGINAL STAKEHOLDERS
1.5.1 COMMUNICATION WITH ABORIGINAL STAKEHOLDERS
No RAP was functioning for the activity area at the commencement date (14 January 2014) of the CHMP. Two Aboriginal stakeholders have interests in the activity area. These are:
Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC); and Boon Wurrung Foundation Ltd (BWF).3
These stakeholders were contacted regarding the CHMP and a representative from BWF was involved in the field component. Communication with the groups is summarised in Table 2. Participation in the fieldwork program by BLCAC and BWF is detailed in Section 1.5.2.
Date Group / Person Nature of Contact Reason 17/1/14 Fjorn Butler to Email Request for fieldworkers BLCAC and BWF 17/1/14 Sonia Murray Email Confirmation that a fieldworker would be (BLCAC) to Fjorn provided Butler 21/1/14 Fjorn Butler to Email Request for fieldworkers form sent BLCAC and BWF 21/1/14 Fjorn Butler to Telephone Confirmation that a fieldworker would be Robert Anthony provided (BWF)
Table 2: Communication with Aboriginal stakeholders
1.5.2 PARTICIPATION IN STANDARD AND COMPLEX ASSESSMENTS
Fieldwork took place on 28 January, 2014. Aboriginal field representative, Daniel Turnbull (BWF) attended the fieldwork. No representative from BLCAC was present.
3 BWF currently has an application for RAP status before the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council. The Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council declined the BLCAC (1 July 2011) RAP application. However the Council acknowledges that both BLCAC and BWF represent traditional owners of ‘Boonwurrung country’. It is possible that the study area is included in ‘Boonwurrung country’ and as such consultation with BLCAC and BWF is appropriate for this CHMP.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 13 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
1.5.3 VIEWS OF ABORIGINAL STAKEHOLDERS
The views of BLCAC and BWF regarding the CHMP were sought. No oral history relating to the activity area was provided by Aboriginal stakeholders during the preparation of this CHMP.
BLCAC and BWF were provided with an opportunity to comment on the draft CHMP, distributed to them on the 7th of April 2014. No feedback was provided at the time this report was finalised on 24 April 2014.
14 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
2 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section fulfils the CHMP requirements for a Desktop Assessment. It provides contextual geographical, environmental, historical and archaeological information for the activity area and the region surrounding it. The focus of the Desktop Assessment is on placing the activity area in a regional context to inform the expected nature of Aboriginal places in the activity area. This allows a comparative analysis and significance assessment to be undertaken if Aboriginal places are present in the activity area, and a predictive model to be established to inform the rationale behind, and methodology for, the Standard and Complex Assessments.
Part of the information contained in this section is derived from a previous archaeological assessment undertaken in the wider region (Schell & Barker 2009).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
2.2.1 GEOGRAPHIC REGION
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires a Desktop Assessment to include ‘an identification and determination of the geographic region of which the activity area forms a part that is relevant to the Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be present in the activity area’ (Section 57).
The activity area is located on a lower granite hill slope landform, c.140 m to the north of Waterfall Creek. The geographic region identified here has a diameter of 1.5 km to capture those landforms and Aboriginal places, which are more representative of, and relevant to, the activity area. In defining the geographic region in this way, a greater understanding of the nature of Aboriginal places across a range of landforms – and thus a more comprehensive assessment of likely site patterning within the activity area – is possible. The geographic region is presented in Figure 4 and underlying geology in Figure 5.
The following sections provide background information of relevance to the geographic region. Where information is limited on a given topic (i.e. climate, land use history, ethnohistory), data have been drawn from a wider area.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 15 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Figure 4: Geographic region showing the underlying geology of the activity area.
16 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
2.2.2 LANDFORMS AND UNDERLYING GEOLOGY
The geology of the activity area comprises Devonian Granite which has been dissected by Waterfall Creek (Queenscliff SJ 55-9 Edition 2, 1:250,000 Geological Map Series, Geological Survey of Victoria)(Figure 4). Holocene fluvial alluvium of gravel, sand and silt occurs to the west of the activity area within the geographic region, with Pleistocene aeolian dunes in the wider region. This mix of Pleistocene aeolian dunes and Holocene fluvial alluvium is the most common surface geology around Rosebud and that part of the Mornington Peninsula, extending to the south of the activity area, forming a wide coastal plain. Arthur’s Seat and the associated dissected granitic hills found within the activity area comprise shallow soils of generally pale or humic acidic sands (Duncan 1982, 46).
In terms of geomorphology (Figure 5), the activity area sits within a broader landscape containing plateaus and broad ridges (3.2.1)4 with shallow gritty texture contrast soils and deeper gradational soils on the steeper slopes. Coastal plains with ridges and dune fields (7.1.1)5 occur to the west of the activity area and are characterised by a series of low parallel northwest trending dune ridges that lie parallel to the present coastline, comprising deep sandy deposits overlying coffee rock at c.800 mm.
4 Victoria Resources Online Statewide, 3.2.1 Plateau and broad ridges (Arthur's Seat, Grantville-Drouin, Cape Woolamai) http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_3.2.1 5 Victoria Resources Online Statewide, 7.1.1 Coastal plains with ridges and dunefields (Brighton, Cranbourne). http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_7.1.1
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 17 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Figure 5: Geomorphology of the activity area.
18 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
2.2.3 CLIMATE
The past climate has undergone dramatic changes during the c. 40,000 year span of Aboriginal occupation in Australia (Kershaw 1995). Most significantly the last world glacial period, which began c. 80,000 years ago, lowered temperatures and sea levels. This cooling period peaked at c. 18,000 BP culminating in sea levels receding to 120 m below present levels and temperatures dropping to 6° to 10° colder than present. During this phase, Tasmania was joined to the mainland by a narrow isthmus of land and vast semi-arid grasslands extended over large areas of Victoria. As conditions ameliorated, the climate became milder but wetter and sea levels began to rise, inundating Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay c. 9,000-8,000 BP. These conditions reached a maximum extent between 6,000-5,000 BP, with seas levels on the Victorian coast rising c. 2 m before stabilising to present-day levels (Sullivan 1981, 3). Conditions then became slightly cooler and drier, and more comparable to today’s climate. Vast grasslands continued to predominate in Victoria over the last 5,000 years (Kershaw 1995).
Such changes in climate suggest that plant and animal resources would have undergone changes through time, influencing Aboriginal exploitation and occupation in the area. During cooler and windy periods, particularly between 18,000 – 5,000 years ago, the region would have been exposed to strong, cold, westerly winds. It can be assumed that, if the region was occupied during this period, areas with some protection from westerly winds would have been favoured during colder periods. The generally mild but seasonally variable climate of the past 5,000 years in the region would have been conducive to Aboriginal occupation throughout the year with possible seasonal movements to more sheltered locations in the cooler winter months.
The current climate of the region is generally described as temperate with warm, dry summers and cool winters with a mean maximum temperature of 18-21ºC and a mean minimum temperature of 6-9ºC. Average annual rainfall in the region is recorded as 600 mm (Bureau of Meteorology, January 2014).
2.2.4 FLORA AND FAUNA
Prior to European occupation, the geographic region contained Lowland Forest (EVC 16)6 dominated by Messmate (Eucalyptus oblique) and Narrow-leaf Peppermint (E.
6 Gippsland Vegetation Types: Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC’s) EVC 16 Lowland Forest. http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/wgregn.nsf/0d08cd6930912d1e4a2567d2002579cb/792894f6960a9b18ca2574ef 001a3ce2/$FILE/EVC%2016%20%20%20Lowland%20Forest.pdf
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 19 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD radiate)(Figure 6). Herb Rich Foothills (EVC 23)7 occur in the southern section of the activity area, characterised by medium to tall open forest with sparse understory containing Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus ovata) and Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. viminalis) species.
Along the Waterfall Creek corridor, vegetation communities include Swamp Riparian Woodland (EVC 83), Damp Forest (EVC 29) and Grassy Woodland (EVC 125). Gully Woodland (EVC 902) and Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodlands (EVC 3) also occur to the west of the activity area within the geographic region. South of Rosebud, Coast Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) was more common than Drooping She-Oak (Casuarina stricta). As the Banksia forests matured, and some trees died, the formation opened out to become Banksia woodland, where Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) could become established. Paperbark scrubs (Melaleuca ericifolia and/or M.squarrosa) grew along lines of water movement or on extensive areas of low lying ground. Mature plants reached 7.5 m tall with almost closed canopies, but frequent sufficient light penetrated to permit the development of some ground flora, including clumps of reeds (Calder 1986, 23-27).
Aboriginal people would have used the roots, tubers, seeds and leaves of many of these plants for food and medicinal purposes, as well as raw materials in the manufacture of tools, baskets, and ornaments. Nearby river systems and the adjacent coastline were utilised seasonally by Aboriginal people and would have provided shellfish and fish as well as plant staples (Zola & Gott 1992, 1-5, 19).
Native animals in the area include Eastern Grey Kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor), Common Wombat (Vombatus ursinus), Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus), Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and Common Ring-tailed Possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) (Menkhorst & Knight 2004, 44, 86, 118, 126). These animals would have been a rich economic resource occurring throughout the scrub and forests characteristic of the region prior to European settlement.
7 Ecological Vegetation Class bioregion benchmark EVC/Bioregion Benchmark for Vegetation Quality Assessment Bridgewater bioregion EVC 23: Herb-rich Foothill Forest. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/98072/Brid0023.pdf
20 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Figure 6: Ecological vegetation communities within the geographic region.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 21 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
2.3 EUROPEAN LAND USE HISTORY
Early Settlement
The first European activity recorded in the Port Phillip Bay area was associated with sealing. Sealing bases were well established on Bass Strait islands and along the coast of Van Diemen’s Land by the early 1790s. As seal numbers were depleted in these areas attention shifted to the seal colonies located on the Victorian coast where the sealing grounds of Westernport were exploited from the early 1800s until the early 1820s (Townrow 1997, 7-8, 15). The first detailed survey of the Port Phillip region was conducted in 1802 when Acting Lieutenant John Murray, in the Lady Nelson, explored the Port Phillip coastline. The Lady Nelson was a small vessel constructed with a removable keel which allowed her to navigate the shallow waters of the bay. Murray climbed Arthur’s Seat, naming it after a mountain in Scotland before continuing on to Sorrento where he hoisted the British flag and named the area Point King (Peatey 2004, 11).
Following Murray’s favourable report of the area, and in an attempt to prevent French settlement, Lieutenant Colonel David Collins arrived from England in 1803 to establish the first large-scale colonisation of the area. Over four hundred people, comprised of convicts, troops and some free settlers, were landed at Sullivan’s Bay near Sorrento. The colony was unsuccessful, however, mainly due to the lack of readily available fresh water and after just one year the settlement transferred to Van Diemen’s Land (Dingle 1984, 21). A further problem which beset the colony was the escape of convicts. The most famous, William Buckley, remained at large for 32 years living with the Wada wurrung people near Corio Bay (Morgan 1854, 63, 87). A second unsuccessful Victorian colony was later established at Corinella in 1826, but it too was abandoned a year later.
Permanent settlement of the Port Phillip area occurred after the village of Melbourne was established in 1835. By 1836 the European population of Port Phillip had increased to 177 people, who census records show, arrived in the settlement with 26,500 sheep, 100 cattle and 57 horses (Dingle 1984, 21). Among these early settlers was Edward Hobson, who along with George Smith established the earliest sheep runs in the district in 1837. Smith was granted a grazing license for land at ‘Woul Woul a Ballak’ (in the Point Nepean area) and Hobson at ‘Kangeronrg’ (Safety Beach). Hobson later increased his holdings by purchasing the ‘Woul Woul a Ballak’ and ‘Tootgarook’ runs from Smith (Peatey 2004, 23, 41-42). Hobson is also indirectly responsible for the naming of the township of Rosebud. Hobson owned a schooner
22 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 named Rosebud which he used to transport bagged lime and sheep from the Mornington Peninsula to Melbourne. On the return trip from Melbourne, the Rosebud carried a cargo of domestic goods, such as linen, cutlery and crockery. On one such return trip in 1855 the schooner was blown off course and broke up on sandbanks. Locals made the wreck site a meeting place and the name Rosebud became associated with the area. When the area was declared a village in 1872 the name Rosebud became official (Peatey 2004, 42-43).
Early Industry and Land Use Lime burning was one of the earliest industries established in Victoria. When European settlers began to construct more permanent buildings a need for lime, one of the main components in mortar, saw the development of the lime industry (Harrington 2000, 21). Lime burning was carried out at the short-lived colonies of Sorrento in 1803 (Morgan 1854, 5) and Corinella in 1826. As lime burning is a relatively simple process many ‘bush’ kilns were established where a ready supply of raw material was available. The first recorded ‘bush’ kilns on the Mornington Peninsula were established by Kenyon and Rowley in the 1830s. From 1836 lime burning activities in Victoria were concentrated at Geelong and on the Mornington Peninsula. A visitor to Melbourne passing through the Heads in 1839 recorded that the numerous fires of lime burners were visible on the shores of Port Phillip. By the late 1840s lime burning became the principal activity on the Mornington Peninsula, replacing grazing, cropping and fishing in economic importance (Harrington 2000, 21, 24). On Hobson’s Tootgarook station the damp condition of the soil made sheep farming unproductive and Hobson established three lime kilns (Peatey 2004, 42). By 1845, there were 17 kilns burning lime at the Heads. In order to operate these lime kilns a large amount of timber was required as fuel. In 1853, government concern at the timber shortage in the area led to a declaration that no timber or firewood was to be harvested from Arthur’s Seat or Point Nepean, unless for lime burning purposes. The long term timber harvesting had an ecological effect on the Mornington Peninsula with coastal tea tree species colonising areas where banksia, she-oaks and acacia species had previously dominated (Harrington 2000, 24).
Viticulture and orchards were established in the wider Rosebud region around the mid-late 1800s. Henry Adams, who purchased part of the broken up Arthur’s Seat run in 1881, set up a vineyard near the coast (Peatey 2004, 48). Another settler, George Chapman established an apple orchard on the ridge of Arthur’s Seat in 1854 (Moresby 1954, 5). Other activities on the adjacent coastline centred on fishing and tourism, with paddle ship steamers regularly travelling between Queenscliff,
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 23 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Sorrento, Portsea and Dromana from the late 1880s until the 1940s (Moresby 1954, 5, 23).
40-52 Elizabeth Drive The activity area is located in an area which originally formed part of the Arthur’s Seat pastoral run. In 1843 Andrew McCrea took up the Arthur’s Seat run of 21,800 acres of steep mountain slopes and uncleared scrub. Official records show that for its size the run was severely under stocked, with only 65 cattle and six horses. McCrae who was active in the movement to separate the Port Phillip colony from New South Wales, no doubt felt isolated from Melbourne, which was a two day trip away by horse. By 1850 McCrae had given up the run to return to Melbourne and the grazing license was transferred to James Burrell (Peatey 2004, 41, 50-54). Under the 1860 Land Sales Act three million acres of Victorian country land was divided into surveyed allotments of 80-640 acres and thrown open for selection (Cabena et al. 1989, 3). In 1861 Burrell was granted the pre-emptive rights on 640 acres of the original 21,800 acre run (Plan of Parish of Wannaeue County of Mornington, 1949).
In 1865 the activity area, like much of the original area encompassed by the earlier Arthur’s Seat Run, was surveyed, and subdivided for selection (Plan of the Agricultural Area of Wannaeue, 1865). Following the land boom of the 1880s developers and speculators became interested in coastal areas previously considered swampy and unproductive (McGuire 1985, 30). This likely influenced Samuel Field who in 1883 purchased Lot 31, including the activity area, from the Crown under the 1869 Land Act (Figure 7). The area remained largely unsettled, with a focus on land use practices associated with pastoral and agricultural activities until the early twentieth century.
In 1916 the area was described as lightly timbered with only six houses recorded in the vicinity (Schell & Barker 2009). It is likely that the area had been impacted by timber harvesting activities associated with lime burning. After this period numerous subdivisions in the area changed the character of the region from rural to semi- urban.
24 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Figure 7: 1949 Wannaeue parish map showing the activity area (outlined in yellow)
The activity area contains the former Carrington Park Bowls Club, which comprises a bowling green, club house, gravel car park and various sheds. The remainder of the activity area contains partially cleared open native and introduced woodland vegetation. The activity area has been subjected to a range of ground disturbances:
Clearing of native vegetation in the late nineteenth century;
Grazing and cultivation from the mid-nineteenth century; and,
Mid to late twentieth-century commercial usage as a bowls club including levelling and introduction of fill for the bowling green, and construction of buildings, car parks, and associated infrastructure/services.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 25 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Construction of a concrete driveway in 2012 and the clearing of vegetation in the south of the activity area in 2013.
2.4 ETHNOHISTORY
The following section presents historical information in order to gain insights into Aboriginal culture and land use. Information gathered from historical sources is biased and incomplete. It presents a European perspective of Aboriginal society at a time when traditional lifestyles were being severely disrupted. Post settlement observations should be viewed critically when attempting to understand a dynamic culture that according to general consensus (see Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999, 172) has survived in Victoria for at least 40,000 years.
The lives of Aboriginal groups in the wider Melbourne area were severely disrupted by the establishment and expansion of a European settlement. As a result little information is available regarding the pre-contact lifestyle of Aboriginal people in the area, especially the activity area. A full ethnographic search was outside the scope of this assessment. The following section broadly summarises major synthesis previously undertaken on Aboriginal associations with the wider Melbourne area in the pre-contact and post-contact period. No Aboriginal oral history has been gathered during this research.
Clan Organisation The basic unit of Aboriginal social organisation in Victoria was the clan; a group based on kinship through the male line with a shared historical, religious and genealogical identity (Barwick 1984, 105-6). The clan was a land-owning unit whose territory was defined by ritual and economic responsibilities (Barwick 1984, 106). Groups of neighbouring clans speaking the same dialect and sharing political and economic interests identified themselves by a language name. In many cases this name used the suffix (w) urrung, meaning ‘mouth or way of speaking’ (Barwick 1984, 105).
The activity area is located within the traditional language boundaries of the Bun wurrung (Clark 1990, 364, Figure 13), who made up one of the seven Kulin Nation language groups. The earliest reference to the dialectal tribe’s name dates from c.1836 and is associated with the Port Phillip Association surveyor, John Wedge (cited in Clark 1990, 363). The closest documented Bun wurrung clan to the activity area were the Bun wurung balug, who were associated with the area between Point Nepean and Cape Schank (Clark 1990, 368).
26 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Ceremonial and Social Life One of the first recorded contacts between Bun Wurrung people and Europeans occurred in 1801 when an exploration party aboard the Lady Nelson entered Port Phillip Bay (Broome 2005, 3). By 1812 sealers were visiting the region on a seasonal basis (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984, 82). The relationship between Bun wurrung and the sealers is not well documented, however it has been reported that sealers carried out raids on Bun wurrung territory, murdering men and stealing women (Massola 1974, 45). Aboriginal life was severely disrupted by contact with settlers, sealers and whalers to the Port Phillip region. European diseases such as influenza and smallpox decimated local populations, who were often affected by these diseases before they physically encountered European people (Broome 2005, 7). Contact with Europeans also limited access to traditional lands and resources impacting on traditional social life, customs and economies (MacFarlane 1983, 463).
The first Europeans to explore inland in the region were a small group led by William Hovell in 1827. Near the Eumemmerring Creek Hovell was met by members of the Bun wurrung, who accompanied him part of the way. Hovell noted that some of the men and boys present had a front tooth missing, indicating that tooth evulsion was practiced. However, it appears that this practise did not continue long after European contact. An early European settler in the region, Gordon McCrae, recorded that it was common for Bun wurrung people to wear ‘opossum skin rugs’. These cloaks had the skin on the inner surface scored in various patterns and were rubbed with red ochre. McCrae also noted that Bun wurrung people generally wore forehead bands of netted fibre, often coloured with red ochre, in which they stuck ornamental feathers (Gunson 1968, 3-4).
Intertribal relationships with neighbouring groups varied, with the Bun wurrung enjoying good relations with the Woi wurrung, with whom they shared a similar vocabulary and culture (Broome 2005, xxi; Clark 1990, 363). William Thomas, Assistant Protector, witnessed large traditional gatherings between the Bun wurrung and the Woi wurrung groups where inter-tribal matters were settled peaceably. However, relations with the Kurnai people from Gippsland were generally hostile, and raids were regularly carried out by both Bun wurrung and Kurnai groups (Gunson 1968, 5-7).
Exploitation of Resources William Thomas, whose Protectorate district encompassed the activity area (see below for further information regarding the Protectorate), kept detailed journal
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 27 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD records from 1839 and recorded most of the little documented information available regarding the lifestyle of the Bun wurrung (Clark 1990, 367). Thomas observed clans living a hunter-gather lifestyle, moving within their lands to make use of seasonal plant and animal resources (he noted that coastal clans travelled by canoe to French Island to obtain eggs), trading opportunities and to meet ritual and kinship obligations.
Seasonal travelling routes undertaken by Aboriginal groups traversed the Arthur’s Seat area, and several camping locations were documented in the wider region including Buckermerderrewarra (south of Arthur’s Seat). In spring 1839 Thomas observed 12 ‘miams’ at a place two miles south of Arthur’s Seat. Family groups would use these locations as bases for hunting trips in the wider area, and rarely moved more than six miles (10 km) a day (Sullivan 1981, 31-33).
The diet of the Bun wurrung people consisted of a wide range of plants, animals and littoral resources. Animals such as possum and kangaroo and smaller game such as bandicoots, rats and lizards were staple resources. Littoral resources from the nearby coast, comprised of shell fish and fish, were consumed in great numbers (Gunson 1968, 9; Sullivan 1981, 22).
Traditional plant foods such as Coast Wattle (Acacia sophorae) and Coast Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) would have formed an important part of the coastal economy. Cumbumgi (Typha sp.), Water Ribbons (Triglochin procera) and Marsh Club-Rush (Bolboschoenus medianus) were available in aquatic environments associated with flood plains, swamps and rivers. Other staple plant foods such as Murnong (Microseris lanceolata) and Bracken Fern (Pteridium esculentum), which were noted in historical accounts as a staple plant food, were widely available throughout the Port Phillip area (Zola & Gott 1992, 7-8, 12, 36, 20-22).
The rapid pastoral development of the Port Phillip region severely impacted upon these traditional economies (Zola & Gott 1992, 1). By 1870, supplies of traditional staple plant foods such as Murnong were severely diminished due to European agricultural and pastoral farming practices (Zola & Gott 1992, 4). Following the loss of traditional resources Aboriginal people were forced to depend upon rations available from Government Protectorates and missions, which were established throughout the area from the 1840s.
Protectorates Settlement throughout Victoria severely disrupted Aboriginal lifestyles and conflict was inevitable. The Government struggled with how to protect both Aboriginal people
28 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 and European settlers. Protectorates, reserves and missions were established to provide bases for displaced Aboriginal communities (Caldere & Goff 1991). In 1837, the Government appointed James Dredge, Edward Stone Parker, Charles Sievwright and William Thomas as Assistant Protectors of the Port Phillip Region under Chief Protector, George Augustus Robinson (MacFarlane 1983, 365-366). From 1839- 1843 the Bun wurrung sought refuge in various stations set up by Thomas around Westernport (Barwick 1998, 31).
In 1839, Thomas recorded that the ‘Bonurong’ (sic) tribe, which claimed the country from Port Phillip to Westernport along the sea coast, consisted of approximately 83 people. However, he noted that this figure was subject to error as it only recorded tribal members with whom he was acquainted (MacFarlane 1983, 603, 607). Thomas established a temporary Protectorate station at Arthur’s Seat in c. 1839 and a permanent Protectorate station at ‘Narre Narre Warren’ in 1840-43 (Clark 1988, 3, Figure 1). Thomas hoped that the stations would encourage Aboriginal people to take up an agricultural lifestyle but spent most of his time unsuccessfully trying to keep Aboriginal people out of Melbourne. Thomas was increasingly forced to leave Westernport to deal with Aboriginal camps around Melbourne (Gaughwin & Sullivan 1984, 84-85). An 1839 census of Aboriginal people living in and around Melbourne recorded 12 Boonwoorong people (Lakic & Wrench 1994, 112-113). In 1847 an influenza epidemic further depleted their population.
Some Aboriginal people in the Mornington Peninsula - Westernport region were able to live outside of Aboriginal Missions in the latter half of the 1800s. Thomas managed to secure 832 acres of land at Mordialloc in 1852 at a location where Aboriginal people had camped since 1835. He spent years trying to ‘defend the interests of the Bunurong’ who had strong attachments to the Mordialloc Reserve, by preventing its cancellation. Despite his efforts the Mordialloc Reserve was eventually revoked and sold in 1863, with some of the Aboriginal residents moved to Coranderrk Aboriginal Station, and the remainder staying in camps at Mordialloc and Cranbourne where the last of them died in 1877 (Barwick 1998, 35, 52 & 66; Clark & Heydon 1998).
2.5 SEARCH OF THE VICTORIAN ABORIGINAL HERITAGE REGISTER
A review of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) maintained by OAAV was undertaken on 15 January 2014. A total of 8 previously registered Aboriginal places occur within the geographic region; no places are located within the activity area (Table 3). No Aboriginal historical references have been registered in the
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 29 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD geographic region.8 The distribution of these places is indicated in Figures 4 and 5 above.
All Aboriginal places registered within the geographic region are artefact scatters (n=8). Artefact scatters are locations where stone artefacts and other cultural material (i.e. hearth stones, ochre, charcoal, and bone) are present on the ground surface and/or in subsurface deposits.
The artefact scatters within the geographic region contain stone artefacts and occur within proximity to water resources. These stone artefacts occur in greater frequency as subsurface deposits up to 550 mm deep, with only two surface exposures recorded.
Aboriginal Component Type Place Contents Place Context / Place No. Landform
7821-0462 Artefact Scatter Isolated silcrete core Surface/Sand Dune
7821-0598 Artefact Scatter Isolated silcrete core Surface/near creek
7821-0604 Artefact Scatter Low density scatter (n=15) of silcrete, quartz and Subsurface/Sand fine grain basalt artefacts. Dune
7821-0781 Artefact Scatter Low density scatter (n=13) of silcrete, flint, Subsurface/Low Rise coastal flint, quartz and quartzite artefacts.
7821-0816 Artefact Low density scatter (n=4) of silcrete flakes Subsurface/Rise Scatter/Object Collection
7821-0867 Artefact Scatter Low density scatter (n=2) of quartz and quartzite Surface/Sand Dune flakes
7821-0877 Artefact Scatter Low density scatter (n=2) of silcrete flakes Subsurface/Sandy Rise
7821-0884 Artefact Scatter High density scatter (n=113) of silcrete and Subsurface/Sand coastal flint artefacts. Dune
Table 3: Aboriginal places recorded within 1.5 km of the activity area.
The largest Aboriginal place is VAHR 7821-0844, a high density subsurface artefact scatter located within a 50 m2 area on the lower slope of a sand dune adjacent to a
8 'Historical references' are listed on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registry and comprise locations where Aboriginal people are known to have associations in the post-contact period (i.e. locations where Aboriginal people lived, worked, gathered traditional resources, etc.). The information used to list and map historical references is derived from historical records and Aboriginal oral history.
30 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 natural soak. The remainder of the Aboriginal places registered within 1.5 km of the activity area are low density stone artefact scatters comprising diffuse and/or isolated artefacts predominately manufactured on silcrete and fine-grained basalt. Flint, quartz, and quartzite stone artefacts are also represented.
All of the Aboriginal places appear to occur in sandy/silty well-drained soils within low lying land to the west of the activity area. Distance to water does not appear to be a significant factor in the distribution of Aboriginal places, likely due to the widespread presence of localised soaks and minor water courses in this area. Most of the Aboriginal places occur on slight rises and dunes.
2.6 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
This review of previous archaeological reports aims to provide an indication of the nature of Aboriginal places likely to be present in the activity area. Previous archaeological investigations that have been carried out in the geographic region broadly fall into the following categories:
Larger research studies which encompass the geographic region and provide a broad overview of the nature of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area; and
Localised archaeological investigations undertaken in the geographic region as part of cultural heritage management assessments.
These reports are listed, and most are summarised, in Table 4. Those reports which warrant more detailed discussion are presented in text below. In this instance, one previous archaeological investigation is of particular relevance to the activity area within the dissected granitic hills. This regional archaeological assessment provides an overview of the nature of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the wider area (Sullivan 1981).
The majority of the localised assessments discussed were carried out on the lowland coastal plains south west of Arthur’s Seat and do not directly represent landforms found within the activity area (TerraCulture 2003; Griffin & Karamanlis 2006a; Griffin & Karamanlis 2006b; Schell & Barker 2009; Ford & Loizou 2010; Cummins et. al. 2011; Murphy & Morris 2012; Barker 2013).
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 31 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
2.6.1 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Mornington Peninsula Regional Study (Sullivan 1981)
An Aboriginal archaeological study of the Mornington Peninsula was undertaken in 1979-81 (Sullivan 1981). The study area was divided into three zones: the northern hills and plains, the uplands, and the south west Peninsula. The activity area falls within the Uplands zone, extending from Arthur’s Seat to Cape Schank, which is described as rolling hills covered by open forest. The South West Peninsula zone occurs to the west of the activity area and is described as Quaternary dunes and large alkaline swamp area, including Tootgarook Swamp (Sullivan 1981, 8). As the Uplands zone encompasses the activity area, the results for this zone are discussed in more detail.
The study area was sample surveyed by Sullivan with 774.9 ha away from the coast examined with effective survey coverage calculated at 1.2% (Sullivan 1981, 60, 65). A total of 328 Aboriginal places had been registered on the Mornington Peninsula, of which 289 were identified during Sullivan’s survey. Only seven of these Aboriginal places were situated in inland locations within the Uplands zone. All of these Aboriginal places comprised stone artefact scatters located on disturbed or ploughed land and immediately adjacent to creeks or springs (Sullivan 1981, 74).
The stone artefact assemblage documented by Sullivan (1981, 82-94) was dominated by angular fragments and flakes of silcrete, chert, marine chert, quartz, quartzite, basalt and other siliceous stone. Most Aboriginal places contained a wide range of stone artefact raw material types, with a large component of silcrete or chert. Blades formed 2-23% of the assemblages and cores formed 1-9% of the assemblages. Most cores were small blade cores, and bipolar production cores were also recorded. The majority of tools and debitage fell within the size range of 9–24 mm. Formal tools comprised backed blades, Bondi points and geometric microliths. Thumbnail and flake scrapers were also present as was evidence of edge-damage.
Sullivan stressed that her discussion of Aboriginal place distribution within inland areas was preliminary, as it was based on ‘a limited and opportunistic sample of the inland units’ (1981, 59). On a regional basis Sullivan argued that the results of the survey indicated that Aboriginal people exploited shellfish and other resources on the Port Phillip Bay and Uplands coastal margin, particularly at the mouths of creeks joining Bass Strait. In comparison, the Westernport coastline was less intensively utilised with sites concentrated around swamps in the hinterland. It was argued that the nature of Aboriginal places on the Mornington Peninsula was consistent with the
32 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 ethnohistorical data, which pointed to the regular movement of Aboriginal people between the south west Peninsula (Bass Strait coastline) and large swamps in the Westernport plains, outside the study area (Sullivan 1981, 96). Sullivan argued that the lithic analysis indicated that the flake and blade industry dominated assemblages and that characteristics of the assemblages placed them within the microlithic tradition dating to the last 6,000 years BP. This suggests that the Mornington Peninsula was visited more regularly by Aboriginal people in the Holocene, after the increase in sea levels and stabilisation of the current coastline (Sullivan 1981, 96).
2.6.2 LOCALISED ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES
Eight archaeological studies, which involved field surveys and/or subsurface testing programs, have been carried out in the geographic region, albeit within low lying sandy areas rather than the dissected hilly terrain found within the activity area. The majority of these resulted in the identification of Aboriginal stone artefacts within elevated sand deposits close to water resources. The artefacts were identified in both surface and subsurface contexts, with all occurring in low densities, apart from Barker (2013), which resulted in the identification of 113 stone artefacts (discussed in greater detail below). See Table 4 for further information.
31 McArthur Avenue, Rosebud (Barker 2013)
Barker (2013:1-13) prepared a CHMP for a proposed residential development of a 5161m² parcel of land at 31 McArthur Ave, Rosebud, c.900 m south west of the current activity area. The study area was characterised by an undulating Pleistocene dune system and comprised an extant house and outbuildings.
The Desktop assessment determined that Aboriginal places are likely to be located on high ground (sandy dunes) adjacent to swamps and freshwater sources, particularly on the crests and upper slopes of the sand dunes adjacent to the swamps and watercourses (Barker 2013:29).
No Aboriginal places were identified during the Standard Assessment. This was attributed to poor ground surface visibility (1%) and disturbance caused by construction of extant features (Barker 2013:31-33).
A total of one 1x1 m excavation pit and thirty 40cm x 40cm shovel test pits were excavated across the study area, focusing on the southern and western section of the study area that were less disturbed. A total of 113 stone artefacts (VAHR
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 33 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
7821-0884) were identified in the excavation pit and three surrounding shovel probes in sandy loam between 160-550mm below the ground surface along the southern boundary of the study area. 111 of these artefacts were identified in test pit 1 and STP 9, within a discrete deposit, interpreted as a knapping event. Barker (2013) argued that all stone artefacts within the study area were identified within an undisturbed and in situ soil horizon of light grey fine grained sand between 160-550mm, with the upper 200 mm of soil disturbed by prior land use activity (Barker 2013:45-55).
Stone artefacts were dominated by angular fragments, with lesser densities of complete and broken flakes, blades, cores, and tools, including backed blades, a waisted tool, and a complete scraper. Stone artefacts were made predominantly on coastal flint, available along the Rosebud coastline, and silcrete. Barker (2013:51-53) noted that the high frequency of flaking debris, along with the presence of tools would suggest that activities on site included stone artefact manufacture and/or maintenance, supported by the high proportion of angular fragments. The assemblage was broadly dated to the ASTT.
The report concluded that VAHR 7821-0884 was located on the lower slopes of a dune adjacent to a low point that forms a natural fresh water source (Barker 2013:55-63).
2.7 SUMMARY
The review of previous archaeological studies and the VAHR determined that the archaeological character of the wider region surrounding the geographic region is dominated by the presence of low density stone artefact scatters (with the exception of Barker 2013), generally identified in subsurface deposits up to 650 mm below the ground surface in unconsolidated Holocene sands, particularly within elevated landforms close to water resources (i.e. creeks, drainage lines, former swamps) found to the west of the activity area. Sullivan (1981) identified that in the dissected hilly terrain of the granitic uplands, stone artefact scatters occur on the ground surface within areas of disturbance (i.e. ploughed areas) in proximity to creeks or soaks. However, these Aboriginal places are not represented within the geographic region largely due to the lack of archaeological investigation within this landform.
Based on this information, a broad predictive model for the possible location of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area can be developed. The results of the
34 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Desktop Assessment suggest that it is likely that Aboriginal cultural heritage will occur in the activity area, given its proximity to Waterfall Creek. These places may occur as surface or shallow subsurface stone artefact deposits made on silcrete and chert, and date to the Holocene period (5,000 years to present). However, given the presence of extant structures with the activity area, extensive ground disturbance may have displaced or removed any stone artefact bearing soils. This predictive model assumes that the dissected granitic hills within the activity area will contain similar Aboriginal cultural heritage as the aeolian and alluvium plains to the west of the activity area.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 35 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Author/s Location / Landforms Type and Coverage of Results. Archaeological Sensitivity & Assessment Interpretation
TerraCulture McArthur Ave, Rosebud Pedestrian field survey, fair to good Single silcrete core (VAHR 7821-0462) identified on Potential for subsurface Aboriginal stone artefact (2003) ground surface visibility. the ground surface near a large pit. deposits to occur in sand throughout the activity Sand dunes adjacent to a former area below level of extensive ground freshwater swamp disturbance.
Griffin & Bayview Road, Rosebud Pedestrian field survey, 90.4% No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified. This Three areas of archaeological sensitivity were Karamanlis effective survey coverage. result was attributed to the presence of a gravel track identified within road reserve: areas of sandy Sand dunes adjacent to a small (2006a) within the study area. rises; some areas around large gum trees; the unnamed creek. banks of a small creek. Griffin & Bayview South Retarding basin, Pedestrian field survey, 77.2% No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified. This Aboriginal places have the potential to occur in Karamanlis Bayview Ave, Rosebud effective survey coverage. result was attributed to poor ground surface visibility sand deposits underneath fill within the study (2006b) and previous disturbance of the study area. area, and within undisturbed areas in the Sand dunes southern section of the study area. Schell & Barker Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud Pedestrian field survey 632 m2 VAHR 7821-0781 was identified within a low sandy Diffuse stone artefacts are a relatively common (2009) effective survey coverage. Excavation rise comprising 13 artefacts made on silcrete, quartz, occurrence in the local area, and appear to be Undulating coastal plain close to of 17 STPs and 3 EPs. quartzite and flint identified at depths of c. 250-860 frequently identified in subsurface contexts on creeks and localised water sources mm. low sandy rises, which are considered to be of high archaeological sensitivity. Ford & Loizou Bayview Ave, Rosebud Pedestrian field survey, 0.73% Four silcrete stone artefacts recorded as VAHR 7821- Place was interpreted as transient use of (2010) effective survey coverage. Excavation 0816, occurring in fine grey sand up to 350 mm deep. localised water resources by Aboriginal Sand dunes bisected by drainage of 2 1x1m test pits and 91 shovel Place is located on a sandy rise. populations, and a common occurrence in the line probes. region. Cummins et. al. 329 Jetty Road, Rosebud Pedestrian field survey, 20% effective A total of three Aboriginal archaeological places Aboriginal places are most likely encountered on (2011) Sandy rise adjacent to a possible survey coverage. Excavation of a (VAHR 7821-0866 to -0868) were identified along the the top of the dune crest. former swamp deposit 1x1m test pits and 41 shovel probes. highest part of the sandy rise/dune. Places comprised low density stone artefact deposits (n=1-5) up to 650 mm below the ground surface in fine sand, made on quartz, silcrete and mudstone.
36 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Murphy & Morris 431 Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud. Pedestrian field survey (<1% effective One Aboriginal place was identified (VAHR 7821- The elevated sandy rise in the south western (2012) Linear alignment (2.4 km), Kororoit survey coverage) and manual 0877), comprising two silcrete artefacts at depths of 9 section of the study area is sensitive for Creek valley, Sunshine West to subsurface testing of one 1x1 m and 33cm in sandy deposits. Aboriginal cultural heritage. Laverton North. excavation pits and 24 400 x 400 mm shovel test pits.
Table 4: Summary of localised Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments in the geographic region
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 37 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
2.8 IMPLICATIONS
The Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (r. 58) state that a Standard Assessment is required in circumstances where a Desktop Assessment shows that it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in the activity area. Further, the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (r. 60) state that a Complex Assessment is required in circumstances where a Desktop Assessment or Standard Assessment shows that Aboriginal cultural heritage is, or is likely to be, present in the activity area; and it is not possible to identify the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area unless a Complex Assessment is carried out.
The Desktop Assessment determined that no previously registered Aboriginal places occur in the activity area, but that an area likely to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage may occur in the activity area. This comprises dissected granitic hills within proximity to Waterfall Creek, outside of those areas extensively impacted by the construction of the bowling lawns, club building and out buildings.
There is very limited archaeological investigation across landforms present within the activity area in the geographic region. Within the wider Mornington Peninsula region, Aboriginal places on granitic hilly terrain are known to occur as surface exposures of stone artefacts in close proximity to water resources (i.e. swamps, soaks, creeks) (Sullivan 1981).
The age of Aboriginal places on the Mornington Peninsula has been discussed in detail by Sullivan (1981) who suggests that on the basis of the lithic assemblage Aboriginal places date to the last 6,000 years BP, after the stabilisation of the current coastline. Sullivan argues that Aboriginal people did access the Mornington Peninsula before this time but less regularly, resulting in a lack of evidence of this earlier period of occupation. Her view is supported by the more recent dating of a shell midden adjacent to Tootgarook Swamp to 6,622 +/- 87 BP (Murphy & Thomson 2008, 34-42). This shell midden, a small deposit of rocky and sandy shell species, may reflect transient occupation of the Mornington Peninsula – with an emphasis on elevated rises adjacent to swamps – at a time when the current coastline was starting to stabilise. This occupation pattern – and particularly the emphasis on elevated landforms adjacent to large swamps – appears to have become more pronounced in the last 6,000 years BP as Aboriginal occupation increased.
The implications of the Desktop Assessment are that hill slopes adjacent to water resources in the activity area may contain Aboriginal cultural heritage. Stone artefacts in disturbed surface and shallow subsurface deposits are the most likely Aboriginal cultural heritage material predicted to be present. It is considered unlikely that dense Aboriginal cultural heritage material will be present – due to extensive ground disturbance that has occurred
38 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 within the activity area. Scarred trees are unlikely to be present as they are a rare occurrence and little mature native vegetation occurs in the activity area. Aboriginal cultural heritage, if present, is most likely to date to the last 6,000 years BP.
The land use history of the property has involved excavation, levelling, removal of vegetation, and the construction of a commercial building, bowling green, various sheds and associated underground infrastructure. These activities will have impacted soil horizons to variable depths. Aboriginal cultural heritage is unlikely to be in situ, if present, because of these impacts. Locations that have been particularly affected by ground disturbing works in the activity area comprise the location of the bowls club, green and driveway, and alignments of underground infrastructure.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 39 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
40 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
3 STANDARD ASSESSMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Standard Assessment undertaken as part of the preparation of this CHMP involved a pedestrian archaeological field survey. The aims, method, coverage and results of the field survey are presented in this section.
The field survey work was carried out on 28 January 2014. The archaeological field program was supervised by Anita Barker, assisted by Anna Kent (both of Ochre Imprints). Aboriginal field representative, Dan Turnbull (BWF) also provided assistance. Aboriginal participation in the field survey is also outlined in Section 1.5.2.
3.2 AIMS OF THE STANDARD ASSESSMENT
The aims of the field assessment were to determine the nature, distribution and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage present in the activity area. The Standard Assessment was undertaken to establish whether any Aboriginal cultural heritage was visible on the surface, and, in light of the results of the Desktop Assessment, to examine the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area.
3.3 METHOD AND COVERAGE
The survey involved an examination of the activity area by means of a pedestrian survey, in order to identify surface exposures of visible Aboriginal cultural heritage, and to assess visually the general archaeological sensitivity of landforms present in the activity area.
The survey team comprised three people, and involved:
The opportunistic survey of the grassed and exposed soil parts of the activity area, focussing on areas with no visible ground disturbance;
Any artefacts found were to be flagged, labelled and recorded in the field;
A differential GPS (Topcon GMS-2) was to be used to record the location of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage;
Mature native trees, if present, were inspected for signs of Aboriginal bark removal and / or other cultural scarring practices.
The activity area was identified as forming part of a lower hill slope landform, sloping downwards from the north of the activity area towards Waterfall Creek in the south.
It was evident that a large component of the central and north parts of the activity area had been disturbed by previous earth moving works associated with the construction and
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 41 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD landscaping of the bowls club grounds. Excavation, levelling and scraping of the soil surface and the introduction of fill was noted to have occurred in the past (Plates 1-2).
Plate 1: Soil in the north east of the activity area had been scraped, exposing granite bedrock - view north
Plate 2: Excavation and levelling of the original land surface, followed by the introduction of fill, is evident over the area occupied by the bowling green. View from central east margin, facing west.
42 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Additionally, a portion of the south west part of the activity area was densely covered in chip bark mulch, limiting ground surface visibility significantly (Plate 3). As a result, pedestrian survey was largely limited to the few grassed and undisturbed areas of the southern and eastern parts of the activity area, and the exposed ground surface in the north east of the activity area on which previous soil scraping down to granite bedrock was evident. Whilst the ground surface visibility was good where previous soil scraping was evident, the ground surface visibility of the grassed and undisturbed surveyed areas was very poor due to dense grass, leaf litter and, in some places, chip bark mulch.
Plate 3: Chip bark mulch covered a large portion of the south west part of the activity area - view east.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 43 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Figure 8: Survey coverage
44 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
) per artefact ) per artefact 2 Exposure Type Exposure Type Landforrn Area Surveyed (a) (m²) Visibility (%) (%) (v) Visibility Rating Background Effect Rating (b) Effective Survey Coverage (ESC) (m²) Surveyed ESC % of Area Number of Artefacts m² Density Artefact Area (m Grassed Lower 4,150 2% 0.02 1 83 2.00% 0 n/a n/a / leaf Slope litter / chip bark mulch Exposed Lower 1,770 90% 0.9 1 1,593 90.00% 0 n/a n/a granite Slope Track Lower 1,764 5% .05 1 88.2 5.00% n/a n/a Slope Total 7,684 1,752.5 22.96% 0
Table 5: Surface visibility and effective survey coverage (= a x v x b)
An analysis of the survey coverage results reveals that the field survey covered approximately 24% of the activity area, and that approximately 0.18 ha or approximately 6% was effective survey coverage (Table 5). The very poor effective coverage result was due to the low surface visibility with grass, leaf litter, chip bark mulched areas and widespread presence of infrastructure obscuring ground surface visibility.
The weather during the Standard Assessment was hot and sunny with periods of gusty wind in the afternoon. The maximum temperature was c. 37ºC.
3.4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified during the Standard Assessment, and no scars were noted on the mature trees growing within the activity area. No caves or rockshelter features were present in the activity area.
The changes in land topography by excavation and levelling was evident across the area occupied by the bowling green, club house, access road, car parking and landscaped grounds. This provides evidence of extensive earth works and, indicates that the original land surface has been significantly modified (as per Figure 8).
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 45 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
3.5 IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in the activity area during the Standard Assessment. The Standard Assessment was hampered by poor ground surface visibility. As a result, the Standard Assessment was insufficient to determine the presence or absence of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the activity area with any certainty.
The Standard Assessment did confirm that many parts of the activity area are unlikely to contain cultural heritage because of the nature and extent of previous earth moving works. However, some parts of the activity area (i.e. the southern section) appeared to have been subject to less ground disturbance.
The CHMP was progressed to a Complex Assessment to determine the potential for the less disturbed areas of dissected hilly terrain within the activity area to contain subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage. The southern part of the activity area was therefore chosen for focus as part of the Complex Assessment.
46 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
4 COMPLEX ASSESSMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A Complex Assessment was undertaken as part of the preparation of this CHMP because the Desktop and Standard Assessments could not rule out that Aboriginal cultural heritage occurred within the activity area. The aims, method, coverage and results of the Complex Assessment are presented in this section.
The subsurface investigation was carried out over one day on 28 January 2014. The archaeological field program was supervised by Anita Barker and assisted by Anna Kent (both archaeologists with Ochre Imprints). Aboriginal representative, Daniel Turnbull (BWF), provided field assistance.
4.2 AIMS OF THE COMPLEX ASSESSMENT
The Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (r. 60) state that a Complex Assessment is required in circumstances where a Desktop Assessment or Standard Assessment show that Aboriginal cultural heritage is, or is likely to be, present in the activity area; and it is not possible to identify the extent, nature and significance of that Aboriginal cultural heritage unless a Complex Assessment is carried out. In this instance, subsurface testing (Complex Assessment) was considered warranted in order to determine whether Aboriginal cultural heritage was present in subsurface deposits in the activity area, particularly in the vicinity of Waterfall Creek, where the deposits have been least impacted by mechanical earth moving works.
4.3 METHOD AND COVERAGE
The subsurface testing method involved the manual digging of an excavation pit (EP). An excavation pit was excavated in order to determine the stratigraphy of the landform (dissected hilly terrain) and the archaeological sensitivity of subsurface deposits. Shovel test pits (STPs) were also utilised to determine the extent of any Aboriginal cultural heritage identified in a subsurface context.
The precise location of the EP was determined in consultation with the Aboriginal representative and was chosen in order to avoid locations of existing infrastructure and obviously disturbed deposits. The following methodology was applied to the subsurface testing program:
1 x 1 m excavation test pit (EP) to be excavated by shovel and trowel to an underlying sterile mineral pan deposit, proceeding in 100 mm spits until Aboriginal
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 47 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
cultural heritage was located, thereafter (if present) proceeding by trowel in 100 mm spits;
400 x 400 mm shovel test pits (STPs) to be excavated in 100 mm spits to an underlying sterile mineral pan deposit;
An automatic level to be used to assist in the excavation of deposits in horizontal spits of a uniform depth;
All excavated sediments to be fully sieved through 5 mm mesh;
Written and photographic documentation to be prepared for each EP and STP. This includes the taking of pH readings to test for the acidity of the deposits (the greater the acidity, the lower the chances of bone preservation) and Munsell chart readings of the deposits to standardize colour descriptions;
The locations of all Aboriginal cultural heritage (if present) identified during manual excavation will be documented prior to their removal for further analysis and cataloguing;
A dGPS to be used to record STP and EP locations and the location of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage (if present); and,
All Aboriginal cultural heritage identified during subsurface testing (if present) to be individually catalogued and collected. A total of one EP was excavated during the subsurface testing program. In consultation with the Aboriginal field representative, the EP was placed in the south of the activity area, avoiding areas of obvious soil disturbance and targeting the area closest to Waterfall Creek. A further two STPs were undertaken. One STP was placed to the west of the EP, further upslope. Another STP was placed in the southeast of the activity area, to the east of the EP. The locations of the EPs are provided in Figure 9. A description of the results of the EP and STPs is provided in Tables 6-7. No further excavation was undertaken as no Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified and the subsurface testing had examined the land surfaces and subsurface deposits least impacted by previous disturbance. See Section 4.5 for further discussion.
The major obstacle encountered during subsurface testing was the presence of a compact, dry mineral pan which prohibited deeper manual excavation.
48 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Figure 9: Location of subsurface testing
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 49 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Excavation Pit EP1 (1X1 m) Grid Reference Located on lower slope of dissected hilly GDA 94 MGA Zone 55 terrain. E 843113 N 5745299 Soil Horizons Maximum Depth: 1. 0-270 mm: Munsell 10 YR 3/2 pH 4.5 North west 860 mm Very dark, greyish brown, loose, dry, sandy topsoil North east 930 mm with fine tree roots throughout. Worms, insects and South east 980 mm chip bark mulch also present. South west 920 mm 2. 270-570 mm: Munsell 10 YR 4/1 pH 5.5 Disturbance: Tree roots, worms, Dark grey, loose, dry sand with occasional tree roots insects and chip bark mulch. and worms. Burnt tree roots (<1%, <10 mm). Gradual transition to context 3 below. Obstacles: Unable to continue hand excavation through dry, 3. 570-950 mm: Munsell 10 YR 5/2 pH 6 compact mineral pan. Greyish brown, loose, dry sand. Excavation ceased upon reaching compact, dry, compact, undulating mineral pan. Unable to auger through mineral pan. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage: None.
EP1 North Baulk
EP1 North Section
Table 6: Results of the excavation pit
50 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 Landform General Stratigraphic Description Disturbance Cultural Materials Located Cross Sections of STPs 1 & 2 Lower 0-270 mm: Very dark, Tree roots, None. slope of greyish brown, loose, worms, dry, sandy topsoil with dissected insects and fine tree roots hilly throughout. Worms, chip bark terrain. insects and chip bark mulch in mulch also present. upper 270 270 mm+: Dark grey, mm. loose, dry sand with occasional tree roots and worms. Burnt tree roots (<1%, <10 mm). Gradual transition to lighter coloured greyish brown, loose, dry sand in STP 2 - similar to EP1. Excavations ceased upon reaching dry, compact mineral pan. Unable to excavate further.
Table 7: Results of the shovel test pits
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 51 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
4.4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
4.4.1 STRATIGRAPHY OF LANDFORMS
During the Complex Assessment a total of one EP and two STPs were excavated. Both the EP and STPs were excavated until a distinct, dry, compact mineral pan horizon was reached, prohibiting further excavation. An auger probe was attempted during excavation of the EP, yet was unable to penetrate through the mineral pan. Both the EP and STPs made evident a uniform soil profile characterised by deposits of dry, loose sand, becoming increasingly lighter in colour with depth until reaching a distinct horizon of undulating, dry, compact mineral pan.
4.4.2 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE ACTIVITY AREA
The Complex Assessment did not uncover any Aboriginal cultural heritage. This result suggests that the lower granitic hill slopes in the southern part of the activity area are not as archaeologically sensitive as predicted by the Desktop Assessment. This result is discussed in further detail below.
4.5 DISCUSSION
The CHMP established that many land surfaces in the activity area have been subject to extensive earth moving works that will have destroyed or heavily disturbed any Aboriginal cultural heritage.
In the very southern part of the activity area, where land surfaces are relatively undisturbed, no Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified, despite the proximity to Waterfall Creek. This result suggests that the granitic hill landforms are less archaeologically sensitive than the aeolian landforms which lie to the south west of the activity area. On the basis of these results, the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area is expected to be low. The most likely Aboriginal cultural heritage to be present is predicted to be stone artefacts in subsurface contexts.
The result of the Complex Assessment does not support the findings of the Desktop and Standard Assessments which considered that the southern part of the activity area had increased archaeological potential. This finding is attributed to the landforms present in the activity area which appear less archaeologically sensitive than the aeolian sands to the south west.
52 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
5 ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Aboriginal cultural heritage exists in many forms and may be expressed through tangible remains, such as archaeological features and artefacts, and the intangible values associated with a place, such as oral traditions and its aesthetic, historical, social or spiritual values. This section provides a discussion of the potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to be present in areas that will not be disturbed by the activity and a review of the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area.
5.2 ABORIGINAL PLACES
No Aboriginal places were identified in the activity area during the Desktop, Standard or Complex assessments.
5.3 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RAPS OR OTHER PERSONS
None of the Aboriginal stakeholders who were involved in the preparation of the CHMP provided any specific information about the Aboriginal cultural values in the activity area.
5.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF THE ACTIVITY AREA
Archaeological places frequently consist of buried deposits of material which is not visible on the ground surface due to a range of factors (cf. sedimentation, vegetation cover, etc.). It is usually not possible to identify every archaeological place within a given area due to these factors, or because the size of an area is too large to survey fully. Most heritage impact assessments rely on predictive modelling to define areas of archaeological sensitivity.
An area of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity potentially contains Aboriginal cultural heritage. Areas of archaeological sensitivity are rated from low to high, depending on the relative probability that archaeological deposits will be present. The known registered Aboriginal place distribution and the types of landforms present influence the end rating. The conditions that generally apply for each rating level that is used in the report are described below, though it is stressed that other factors may come into play depending on the individual area.9
Low: No registered Aboriginal places are present or Aboriginal places are confined to single stone artefacts. Landforms in the activity area are not known to be associated with Aboriginal places (aside from isolated stone artefacts) in the wider region.
9 For instance, an area may contain registered Aboriginal scarred tree places, but the potential for any other places to occur in the area may be non-existent due to the absence of further mature trees.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 53 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Moderate: No registered Aboriginal places or registered Aboriginal places of low-moderate significance are present. Landforms in the activity area are known to be associated with Aboriginal places in the wider region.
High: No registered Aboriginal places or registered Aboriginal places of moderate to high significance are present. Landforms in the activity area are known to be associated with significant Aboriginal places in the wider region.
The Desktop Assessment, and subsequent Standard and Complex Assessments have demonstrated that the activity area has low archaeological sensitivity.
5.5 AREAS LIKELY TO CONTAIN ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE
No areas likely to contain Aboriginal cultural heritage were identified in the activity area during the Desktop, Standard and Complex Assessments.
5.6 CONCLUSION
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was located in the activity area during the Desktop, Standard and Complex assessments. Although it is possible that tangible Aboriginal cultural heritage is located in areas of the activity area which were not tested, this is considered to be unlikely given the extent of the disturbance of the landforms and results of the surface and subsurface testing in the activity area. No oral traditions are known to be associated with the activity area. Consequently, the activity area can be considered as having low archaeological and cultural heritage sensitivity.
54 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
6 CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 61 MATTERS
CHMPs are required to address matters raised in Section 61 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. These matters concern the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage prior to, during, and after the activity. A discussion of these matters is provided below. The matters raised in this section inform the management requirements presented in Section 7.
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in the activity area during the Desktop, Standard and Complex assessments. Sections 61a-c of the Act, therefore, which relate to the avoidance and minimization of harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, and specific measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage, do not apply.
Section 61d any contingency plans required in relation to disputes, delays and other obstacles that may affect the conduct of the activity.
Processes to be followed in relation to disputes, delays and other obstacles are outlined in the management requirements (Section 7.3). However, in the absence of an appointed RAP for the activity area no dispute resolution process is provided for here. Procedures are provided for other factors that may affect the conduct of the activity, such as contingency measures to deal with the discovery of previously unidentified Aboriginal cultural heritage and suspected human remains.
Section 61e requirements relating to the custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage during the course of the activity.
The custody and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be uncovered during the activity is addressed in Section 7.3.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 55 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
56 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
PART 2 – CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
7 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents measures for managing Aboriginal cultural heritage, prior to, during and after the proposed activity. A total of nine management measures (MM) are presented here, and these must be adhered to in order to ensure compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
These recommendations become compliance requirements once this Cultural Heritage Management Plan is approved.
7.2 SPECIFIC CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified in the activity area during the preparation of this CHMP. Therefore, no specific management recommendations are required in order for the activity to avoid, or minimise, harm to known Aboriginal heritage.
7.3 OTHER CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following management measures address contingencies in the event that Aboriginal cultural heritage is uncovered in the activity area, and other matters.
MM1: Status and Distribution of CHMP
This approved CHMP is a legally binding document. A copy of the approved CHMP must be present on site for the duration of the activity.
Copies of the approved CHMP must be distributed to the following parties:
Secretary, DPC (s.64(1)(b); RAP (if one exists) or Aboriginal stakeholders who participated in the preparation of the CHMP; and, All owners of land encompassed by the activity area.
The Sponsor may provide copies of the approved CHMP to new land owners / managers at the completion of the activity.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 57 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
MM2: Discovery of Unexpected Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
If suspected Aboriginal cultural heritage is identified, the following process applies:
Isolation to Protect Cultural Heritage
a) Relevant works within 25 m of the discovery must be suspended immediately and the place extent must be isolated from further disturbance by safety webbing or other suitable barriers. The cultural material should not be removed.
Notification and Inspection
a) The Site Supervisor must be notified immediately and a CHA and the RAP (if one exists; if one does not exist, OAAV must be notified) must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery;
b) A CHA and RAP representative will inspect the site within an agreed timeframe of being notified;
c) During this inspection an appropriate course of action for the investigation and management of any Aboriginal cultural heritage will be discussed and agreed;
d) Agreement to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage and how to proceed with works must be made in writing within a period not exceeding three working days from the on-site meeting by a RAP representative, the CHA and the Sponsor.
Investigation of Unexpected Cultural Heritage
a) The CHA, in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor, shall determine the most appropriate course of action to investigate the nature of the cultural heritage. This should include:
1) Establishing the nature and extent of the cultural heritage through the application of minimally intrusive archaeological techniques such as surface survey, cleaning back exposed sections and augering.
b) If during the initial inspection and investigation the Aboriginal cultural heritage is determined to be:
1) Not part of a previously identified and recorded Aboriginal place where existing management recommendations apply;
2) Of archaeological / scientific significance (e.g. it is an intact cultural deposit), and / or;
3) Of cultural significance to the RAP;
58 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927 then protection, impact mitigation or salvage measures may be required.
c) Options for the implementation of protection, impact mitigation or salvage measures should:
1) Be explored by the CHA in consultation with the RAP and the Sponsor, and;
2) Consider the application of the General Principles outlined below.
General Principles to apply upon discovery of unexpected significant cultural heritage:
a) Investigation of cultural heritage – further investigation may be required to confirm the nature and extent of the cultural heritage;
b) Protection of cultural heritage – all attempts should be made to protect the significant cultural heritage from being disturbed further by the activity. This should include written agreement on:
3) Management of the cultural heritage during the activity (e.g. with the installation of fencing to prevent disturbance);
4) Management of the cultural heritage during the site remediation works at the end of the activity.
c) Impact mitigation – if protection of all of the cultural heritage place is not possible, then consideration should be given to reducing the impact of the activity through the introduction of harm mitigation measures e.g. limiting impact on the cultural heritage so that a portion remains unaffected by the activity;
d) Salvage of cultural material and information – if the cultural heritage cannot be protected, salvage of all or part of the Aboriginal place may be required prior to the activity resuming and the impact to cultural heritage proceeding. The following parameters should be considered during the salvage process:
For Surface Cultural Heritage
1) Recording spatial characteristics (e.g. dGPS records of artefact locations, mapping the place boundary, drawing detailed plans of place extent and features);
2) Documenting fabric / raw materials (e.g. earth feature, silcrete quarry; shell types in shell midden);
3) Creating a photographic record;
4) Collecting cultural heritage.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 59 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
For Subsurface Cultural Heritage
1) Controlled excavation of cultural deposits;
2) Salvage excavation must be carried out in accordance with proper archaeological practice and standards, and an archaeological report detailing the methods, analysis and results of the excavation should be prepared.
Works Proceeding
a) The CHA (with the approval of the RAP) will advise the Sponsor / Sponsor’s representative when suspended construction works can proceed;
b) In general, works may recommence:
1) When the appropriate protective measures have been taken;
2) Where the relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records have been updated and / or completed;
3) Where all parties agree there is no prudent or feasible course of action; or
4) Once any existing dispute has been resolved.
Notification to OAAV
a) The Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria will be notified about the Aboriginal place via the submission of the appropriate Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Registry forms.
If a salvage excavation has been conducted, the report should also be submitted to OAAV.
MM3: Unexpected Discovery of Human Remains
If any suspected human remains are found during any activity, works must cease. The Victoria Police and the State Coroner’s Office should be notified immediately.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains are Aboriginal, the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s Emergency Coordination Centre must be contacted immediately on 1300 888 544.
This advice has been developed by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and is described in the following five step contingency plan. Any such discovery at the activity area must follow these steps.
1. Discovery:
If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must stop to ensure minimal damage is caused to the remains; and,
The remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage.
60 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
2. Notification:
Once suspected human skeletal remains have been found, the Coroner’s Office and the Victoria Police must be notified immediately;
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains could be Aboriginal the DSE Emergency Co-ordination Centre must be immediately notified on 1300 888 544; and,
All details of the location and nature of the human remains must be provided to the relevant authorities.
If it is confirmed by these authorities that the discovered remains are Aboriginal skeletal remains, the person responsible for the activity must report the existence of the human remains to the Secretary, DPC in accordance with s.17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
3. Impact Mitigation or Salvage:
The Secretary, after taking reasonable steps to consult with any Aboriginal person or body with an interest in the Aboriginal human remains, will determine the appropriate course of action as required by s.18(2)(b) of the Act.
An appropriate impact mitigation or salvage strategy as determined by the Secretary must be implemented (this will depend on the circumstances in which the remains were found, the number of burials found and the type of burials and the outcome of consultation with any Aboriginal person or body);
4. Curation and further analysis:
The treatment of salvaged Aboriginal human remains must be in accordance with the direction of the Secretary.
5. Reburial:
Any reburial place(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to OAAV;
Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure that the remains are not disturbed in the future.
MM4: Custody and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Material
It is the responsibility of the CHA to ensure that all Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered from the activity area (if any) is fully documented, bagged and labelled (including VAHR numbers).
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 61 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Once scientific analysis of any cultural heritage is completed, this will be provided to an appropriate custodian.
The appropriate custodian will be assigned in the following order of priority:
Any RAP appointed for the activity area; Any relevant registered native title holder; Any relevant native title party (as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006); Any relevant Aboriginal person or persons with traditional or familial links with the activity area that has been identified as having traditional interests by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council; Any relevant Aboriginal body or organisation which has historical or contemporary interests in Aboriginal heritage relative to the activity area; the owner of the land from which the Aboriginal heritage is recovered; the Museum of Victoria.
If no appropriate custodian is available the recovered Aboriginal cultural heritage will be reburied as close as is practical to the original find spot.
The CHA will manage and facilitate the implementation of these measures with the appropriate custodian/s (if any exist) and will advise OAAV of any changes in the location of recovered Aboriginal cultural heritage.
MM5: Safety RAPs, the CHA or any other personnel involved in inspecting, recovering and documenting Aboriginal cultural heritage shall abide by the Site Supervisor’s OH&S procedures and Victorian WorkSafe practice at all times. In addition:
In any matters relating to OH&S, the Site Supervisor shall have the right to require any party to vacate the construction area and, if applicable, the area managed by the Sponsor;
The Sponsor will at all times provide a safe working environment for RAPs, the CHA and any other personnel engaged in cultural heritage activities within the activity area;
It is the responsibility of RAPs, the CHA or any other cultural heritage personnel to ensure they comply with Personal Protective Equipment requirements required by the Site Supervisor.
62 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
MM6: Future Changes to the Activity
Future changes to the residential development layout and conduct of the activity can be made so long as they are confined to the area assessed by this CHMP. If changes require development outside of this area then a new CHMP may be required.
MM7: Handling of Sensitive Information
Outside of publically available information and information presented in this CHMP, no Aboriginal cultural heritage information will be distributed without the approval of the RAP.
All Aboriginal place dGPS co-ordinates must be removed from this CHMP prior to its distribution to all parties other than those listed in MM1 and OAAV.
MM8: Communication Between Parties
Notification of the following parties to the CHMP by the means as indicated is deemed to comply with the requirements for notice to be given under this CHMP.
Each party is to ensure that there is an electronic means of confirmation of notification. Telephone notification is to be confirmed by either fax or email within 12 hours of the telephone conversation.
Party to Name of Phone Fax Email Agreement Delegate The Sponsor TBA TBA TBA TBA Site Supervisor TBA TBA TBA TBA CHA TBA TBA TBA TBA
The CHA will notify all parties of any change in RAP status that occurs prior to the completion of construction works.
MM9: Provision for Review
Review of this plan can be undertaken at any time by a project delegate/s representing the Sponsor to ensure compliance with the management measures outlined in the plan.
If concerns are raised by the RAP, CHA or a third party a project delegate/s will review CHMP compliance within 7 days of such concerns being raised by completing the following checklist:
If the Project Delegate identifies any areas of non-compliance with the CHMP:
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 63 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
A meeting will be required between the CHA, Sponsor and the RAP to establish actions to address non-compliance;
This should be undertaken within 7 days, or as soon as is practical, from the completion of the ‘CHMP Compliance Checklist’.
It is noted that under Part 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Minister may order a cultural heritage audit if:
The Sponsor of an approved CHMP has contravened, or is likely to contravene, the recommendations in the plans (s.81a); or, The impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage of an activity to which an approved CHMP applies will be greater than that determined at the time the plan was approved (s.81c).
Maximum penalties for breaching the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 are more than $180,000 for an individual or more than $1 million for a company.
64 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
CHMP Compliance Checklist
Management Measure Yes / No If No – Proposed Action to Remedy Non-Compliance Has the CHMP been distributed to the relevant parties (MM1)? Is a copy of the CHMP present on site (MM1)? Are Cultural Heritage Contingencies being adhered to (MM2 & 3)? Do the custody arrangements of any Aboriginal cultural heritage follow the requirements of the CHMP (MM4)? Are the OH&S requirements being followed by personnel involved in cultural heritage matters (MM5)? If there are changes to the conduct of the residential development confined to the area assessed by this CHMP (MM6)? Is cultural heritage information being handled as per MM7? Is communication in relation to cultural heritage matters being handled as per MM8? Has this review been undertaken within 7 days of any concerns being raised regarding compliance with the CHMP (MM9)? If the review has identified any areas of non-compliance, has a meeting taken place between the CHA, Sponsor and RAP to establish actions required to address non-compliance (MM9)?
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 65 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
66 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
REFERENCES
Barker, M. 2013. Proposed Residential Subdivision at 31 McArthur Avenue, Rosebud: Desktop, Standard and Complex Assessments: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 12759. Unpublished report to Dan Lavin P/L.
Barwick, D. 1984. Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans 1835-1904. Aboriginal History, 8, 100-31.
Barwick, D. 1998. Rebellion at Coranderrk. Aboriginal History Monograph 5, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Melbourne.
Broome, R. 2005. Aboriginal Victorians: A History since 1800. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
Cabena, P., H. McRae & E. Bladin. 1989. The Lands Manual: a finding guide to Victorian Lands Records 1836- 1983. Royal Historical Society of Victoria.
Calder, W. 1986. Peninsula Perspectives. Jimaringe Publications, Melbourne.
Caldere, D. & D. Goff. 1991. Aboriginal Reserves and Missions in Victoria. Department of Conservation & Environment, Melbourne.
Clark, I. 1988. The Port Phillip Journals of George Augustus Robinson: 8 March – 7 April 1842 and 18 March – 29 April 1843. Department of Geography, Monash University, Melbourne.
Clark, I. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800-1900. Monash Publications in Geography 37.
Clark, I., & Heydon, T. 1998. The Confluence of the Merri Creek and Yarra River: A History of the Western Port Aboriginal Protectorate and the Merri Creek Aboriginal School. Unpublished Report to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
Cummins, D., Berelov, I., Birkett-Rees, J., & B. Ward. 2011. 329 Jetty Road, Rosebud, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 11653. Unpublished report to Breese Pitt Dixon Pty Ltd.
Dingle, T. 1984. The Victorians Settling. Fairfax, Syme & Weldon Associates, NSW.
Duncan, J. S. 1982. Atlas of Victoria. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne.
Ford, A., & R. Loizou. 2010. Peninsula Manor Retirement Village, 1 Bayview Ave, Rosebud, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 11211. Unpublished report to Huon Health Care P/L.
Gaughwin, D. & H. Sullivan, 1984. Aboriginal Boundaries and Movements in Westernport, Victoria. Aboriginal History 8(1): 80-98.
Griffin, D., & P. Karamanils. 2006a. An Archaeological Survey of Bayview Avenue, Rosebud, Victoria. Unpublished report to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 67 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Griffin, D., & P. Karamanils. 2006b. An Archaeological Survey of Bayview South Retarding Basin, Rosebud, Victoria. Unpublished report to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.
Gunson, N. 1968. The Good Country; Cranbourne Shire. F. W. Cheshire Publishing Pty Ltd, Melbourne.
Harrington, J. 2000. An Archaeological and Historical Overview of Limeburning in Victoria. Heritage Council Victoria.
Kershaw, P. 1995. Environmental Change in Greater Australia. Antiquity, 69, 656-75.
Lakic, M and Wrench, R. (eds.). 1994. Through Their Eyes: An Historical Record of Aboriginal People of Victoria as Documented by the Officials of the Port Phillip Protectorate 1839–1841. Museum of Victoria, Melbourne.
McGuire, F. 1985. Chelsea: A Beachside Community. Argyle Press Pty Ltd, Mentone.
MacFarlane, I. 1983. Historical Records of Victoria Foundation Series Volume 2B: Aborigines and Protectors 1838-1839. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne.
Massola, A. 1974. Notes on the Aborigines of the Wonthaggi District. The Victorian Naturalist, 91: 45-50.
Menkhorst, P. & Knight, F. 2004. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Morgan, J. 1854 (1967). The Life and Adventures of William Buckley. Heinemann, London.
Moresby, I. 1954. Rosebud: Flower of the Peninsula. Fraser & Morphet, Prahran.
Mulvaney, J. & Kamminga, J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW.
Murphy, A. & A. Morris. 2012. 431-437 Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud, Residential Development. Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 12288. Unpublished report to 431 Waterfall Gully Pty Ltd.
Murphy, A. & S. Thomson. 2008. Boneo Park Equestrian Centre, 220 Boneo Road, Boneo: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 10363. Unpublished report to Scott, Karen & Fiona P/L.
Peatey, R. 2004. Setting the Spirit Free: The Pioneers of the Southern Mornington Peninsula. R. Peatey, Rosebud.
Schell, P. and A. Barker. 2009. 300 Frankston-Dandenong Road, Seaford: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 10583. Unpublished report to Seaford Properties P/L.
Sullivan. H. 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Reports Series No. 6.
Terra Culture. 2003. An Archaeological Survey, Mt. Arthur Avenue, Rosebud. Unpublished report to Brian Forshaw - Elan Trading Corporation P/L.
Townrow, K. 1997. An Archaeological Survey of Sealing & Whaling Sites in Victoria. Heritage Victoria.
68 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Zola, N., & B. Gott. 1992. Koorie Plants Koorie People : Traditional Aboriginal Food, Fibre and Healing Plants of Victoria. Koorie Heritage Trust, Melbourne.
Internet sources:
Bureau of Meteorology, available from http://www.bom.gov.au [accessed 19/01/2014].
Victoria Resources Online Statewide, 3.2.1 Plateau and broad ridges (Arthur's Seat, Grantville-Drouin, Cape Woolamai) http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_frame work_3.2.1 [accessed 19/01/2014].
Victoria Resources Online Statewide, 7.1.1 Coastal plains with ridges and dunefields (Brighton, Cranbourne). http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_7.1.1 [accessed 19/01/2014].
Maps:
1949, English, Map, Single map edition: Wannaeue, County of Mornington / drawn and reproduced at the Dept. of Lands and Survey, Melbourne, Victoria. [cartographic material] / Victoria. Department of Crown Lands and Survey. Source State Library of Victoria.
Queenscliff SJ 55-9 Edition 2, 1:250,000 Geological Map Series, Geological Survey of Victoria.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 69 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
70 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
APPENDIX 1: COPY OF ‘NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A CHMP’
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 71 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
72 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 73 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
74 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
APPENDIX 2: GLOSSARY
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 75 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
This glossary utilises definitions taken from the following reference books:
o Bahn, P. 2004. The New Dictionary of Archaeology. Penguin Books, London. o Holdaway, S. & N. Stern. 2004. A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia’s Flaked Stone Artefacts. Museum Victoria, Melbourne.
ASSTT Australian Small Stone Tool Tradition
Backed / Backing Any stone artefact on which one (usually) or more margins contains consistent retouch, opposite a sharp working edge.
Blade Blade: Any stone artefact retaining observable and complete fracture planes, platform, lateral margins and termination and has a length more than twice its width.
Broken Blade: Any stone artefact retaining partial diagnostic features of a blade.
BP Before Present
Chalcedony Very fine grained cryptocrystalline silica quartz found in a range of colours from transparent to opaque. Branded forms include agate, jasper and onyx.
Chert Very fine grained siliceous rock of organic and inorganic origin with no macroscopic visible grains.
Core Any stone artefact retaining more than two negative scars of previous flakes struck from the piece.
Cortex The original surface of the stone prior to the flaking episode. This may be further divided into nodule, pebble and terrestrial cortex indicating the original source of the material (i.e. pebble indicates a river or beach source).
Flaked Piece/ Any stone artefact retaining evidence of cultural modification (i.e. fracturing Angular Fragment consistent with stone tool manufacture) but no diagnostic features associating it to other artefact class categories.
Edge Damage Minor retouch or use-wear that is unable to be described as formal retouch. May also be a result of post deposition breakage.
Flake Broken flake: Any stone artefact retaining partial diagnostic features of a flake.
Complete/Whole flake: Any stone artefact retaining observable and complete fracture planes, platform, lateral margins and termination.
Distal Flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the platform but
76 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014 CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN NO. 12927
retains the termination.
Left Split Flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the right portion of the flake (the left is retained) when oriented platform down and dorsal surface exposed.
Proximal Flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the termination but retains the platform.
Right Split Flake: Any flake on which the breakage removes the left portion of the flake (the right is retained) when oriented platform down and dorsal surface exposed.
Flint A member of the chalcedony group of silica minerals characterised by its dark (black, grey or brown) colour resulting from included organic matter.
Geometric A piece on which at least one end and sometimes one lateral margin is Microlith backed forming a tool that is ‘symmetrical around its transverse axis’ (e.g. triangles, trapezoids) (Holdaway & Stern 2004: 262).
Manuport Any object, generally stone material, transported and deposited by humans.
Platform Cortical Platform: A platform retaining cortex.
Crushed Platform: A platform which retains the diagnostic features of a proximal flake but on which too much damage has occurred to identify its features.
Facetted Platform: A platform on which negative flake scars (≥1) are present.
Plain Platform: A platform surface that shows no evidence of preparation, cortex, or negative scars.
Overhung Platform: A platform surface that shows evidence of overhang removal prior to being struck.
Quartzite A metamorphic rock; ‘a quartz-rich sandstone that has been recrystallised by heat, by pressure, or by both… [it is] granular (or sugary) in texture and varies in grain size’ (Holdaway & Stern 2004: 24).
Quartz A mineral that, while not ideal for flaking due to its irregularity (difficult to predict fracturing behaviour), was often utilised for artefact production.
Tool Complete Tool: Any piece retaining edges modified by use or consistent retouch.
Issue Date: 20/05/2014 ochre imprints 77 40-52 ELIZABETH DRIVE, ROSEBUD
Broken Tool: Any piece retaining a partial edge modified by use or consistent retouch.
Formal Tool: Any tool that is unambiguously a known tool type (cf. artefact type Holdaway & Stern 2004).
Tachylyte A fine grained grey to black volcanic material, often with a thin grey weathered cortex.
Scraper Scraper: Any piece with systematic retouch along part of its margin.
Thumbnail Scraper: Small semi-discoidal flake with unifacial and systematic steep retouch around a curved margin.
Stone Artefact Oriented Length: In this case, the distance from the impact point to the distal Dimensions margin in the direction of flaking.
Maximum Dimension: The largest measurement possible to take on a stone artefact.
Oriented Thickness: In this case, measured at right angles to the oriented width and oriented length.
Oriented Width: In this case, the width of the artefact at the mid point at right angles to the oriented length.
Quadrants:.artefact is oriented with proximal end down and dorsal side facing observer.
Retouch Scalar: Shallow scale like scars on margin with feather terminations. Usually small rounded scars.
Step: Small, abrupt flake scars on margin, with step terminations.
Silcrete A sedimentary rock; ‘formed through the impregnation of a sedimentary layer with silica [consisting] of quartz grains in a matrix of either amorphous or fine-grained silica’ (Holdaway & Stern 2004: 24).
Stone Artefact A piece of stone that has been formed by Aboriginal people to be used as a tool or is the bi-product of Aboriginal stone tool manufacturing activities. Stone artefacts can be flaked (i.e. to make points and scrapers) or ground (i.e. ground-edge axes, grinding stones).
VAHR Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register
78 ochre imprints Issue Date: 20/05/2014