La Trobe University, Bundoora

Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 13756 Sponsor: La Trobe University ABN: 64 804 735 113 Cultural Heritage Advisors: Melinda Albrecht, Ricky Feldman and Penelope Spry Author: Melinda Albrecht and Penelope Spry Date of Completion: 26 April 2016

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Photo Caption (Coverplate): Investigation Area Five_view north_Penelope Spry_04Feb2016

The consultants would like to thank the following people for their involvement and assistance in completing the project: Bobby Mullins, Ron Jones, Allan Wandin (Wurundjeri Elders); Delta Freedman, Alex Parmington and Sean-Paul Stephens (Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council Inc.); Trevor Downe and Brendan Wandin (Wurundjeri Field Representatives); Jen Chaput, Julie O’Brien, Andrew Vamvakaris, Vern Steele and Mark Rose (La Trobe University); Dr Josara de Lange, Dr Jacqui Tumney and Louisa Roy (GIS; Andrew Long and Associates).

La Trobe University, Bundoora

Cultural Heritage Management Plan

Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number: 13756 Sponsor: La Trobe University ABN: 64 804 735 113 Size of the Activity Area: Large Assessment: Desktop and Standard Cultural Heritage Advisors: Melinda Albrecht, Ricky Feldman and Penelope Spry Author: Melinda Albrecht and Penelope Spry Date of Completion: 26 April 2016

This page is intentionally left blank La Trobe University CHMP 13756

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been prepared by the Sponsor as a voluntary CHMP under s. 45 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act). When is a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) required? A mandatory CHMP is required for an activity if (Regulation 6) – (a) all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.

Is this activity area an area of cultural heritage sensitivity? Regulation 22 Registered cultural heritage places (1) A registered cultural heritage place is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (2) Subject to sub regulation (3), land within 50 metres of a registered cultural heritage place is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (3) If part of the land within 50 metres of a registered cultural heritage place has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. Regulation 23 Waterways (1) Subject to sub regulation (2), a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (2) If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significance ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. waterway means— (a) a river, creek, stream or watercourse the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic); or (b) a natural channel the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic) in which water regularly flows, whether or not the flow is continuous; or (c) a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh, being— (i) a natural collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) into or through or out of which a current that forms the whole or part of the flow of a river, creek, stream or watercourse passes, whether or not the flow is continuous; or (ii) a collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) that the Governor in Council declares under section 4(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) to be a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh; The proposed activity area encompasses land within 50 m of previously registered cultural heritage places and within 200 m of Darebin Creek. Therefore, the activity area is located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, as defined in Regulations 22 and 23 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic).

Is this activity a high impact activity? No high impact activities have been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan, as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic).

Sponsor The Sponsor of this CHMP is La Trobe University (ABN 64 804 735 113). i

Cultural Heritage Advisor This CHMP has been authored by qualified archaeologists and heritage consultants from Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd (ALA), who have been experienced in professional Aboriginal heritage assessment and evaluation since 1991, in accordance with section 189 of the Act. The cultural heritage advisors and authors of this CHMP are:  Ricky Feldman, Executive Director, Andrew Long and Associates  Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates  Penelope Spry, Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates

Registered Aboriginal Party At the time the Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP was submitted, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council for land including the activity area was the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Incorporated (WTLCCHCI).

The WTLCCHCI remains the sole RAP appointed for the activity area at the time this CHMP was submitted for evaluation. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Activity Description La Trobe University is currently working on plans for the development of the University’s Melbourne campus, located in Bundoora. As part of this strategy, La Trobe University is seeking community feedback on the aesthetic, historical, scientific, social and spiritual values of the Melbourne campus. No specific activity has been proposed in relation to the current cultural heritage management plan. However, La Trobe University are committed to engaging with the Wurundjeri Council to be aware of the cultural values and archaeological potential of the University campus to inform potential designs for future development. The activity area comprises the Melbourne campus of La Trobe University. The activity area is situated in the north- eastern suburb of Bundoora, at the intersection of Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive, approximately 14 km from the Melbourne CBD. Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek, directly intersects the study area. Darebin Creek forms the western boundary of the current activity area. The activity area is situated within the City of Darebin municipality and represents an approximate total land area of 258 ha. The activity area is zoned ‘Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2)’ under the Darebin Council Planning Scheme. All works undertaken within the activity area must be permitted under the Public Use Zone - Education Darebin Planning Scheme, in accordance with Clause 6.1(a) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic). As the activity area encompasses an area of more than 40 hectares, it is considered a large activity as established by Regulation 68 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic).

Desktop Assessment By comparing the results of the background research and the archaeological investigations previously undertaken within the geographic region, the following implications can be drawn:  The activity area includes a generally modified landscape containing the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University, with recreational sports fields adjacent to Darebin Creek, as well as the La Trobe wildlife sanctuary situated in the north eastern section of the activity area.  The activity area falls within a region that was most probably associated with the Woi wurrung Aboriginal group. The Woi wurrung clan most closely associated with the geographic region were the Wurundjeri willam, who identified with the Yarra and Plenty rivers.  The activity area has been re-vegetated largely with native vegetation and also contains some remnant mature native vegetation such as River Red Gums. The geology of the activity area comprises: o Melbourne Formation (Sxm): generic o Greensborough Basalt (Nug): generic o Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr): generic ii

o Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo): generic o Sub-basaltic sediments (Nxp): sediments under the Miocene basalts o Alluvium (Qa1): generic  At the time of the commencement of this CHMP there were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area. These comprise two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters, (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366).  There are a total of 50 registered Aboriginal places in the geographic region containing the activity area. These Aboriginal places include 39 artefact scatters, one quarry, one low density artefact distribution (LDAD) and 9 scarred trees.  There have been a number of previous archaeological investigations undertaken in the geographic region. However, aside from an archaeological survey of a small section of the activity area (Thomson 2002) there have been no comprehensive archaeological investigations conducted for the current activity area.  Weaver’s 1992 survey of Darebin Creek indicate a level of modification has taken place to land surfaces associated with the creek. Weaver noted that the presence of silcrete outcrops at Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park is likely to have attracted Aboriginal people to the current geographic region, and the northern section of the Darebin Creek area, which takes in the south western section of the activity area, may have higher potential to contain further Aboriginal sites.  Cekalovic (1999, 26) recommended that mature river red gums located adjacent to the north western section of the current activity area be examined for Aboriginal cultural scarring. Due to modifications that took place to this area during the development of the former Larundel Hospital, there is minimal archaeological potential across the remainder of this area.  The results of Thomson’s survey of the Research and Development Park adjacent to La Trobe University and within the south eastern section of the current activity area suggest that most of this land has subject to vegetation clearance with some sections of bush land, and contains university buildings. Thomson assessed the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road to be of moderate archaeological sensitivity as it covers a high point in the landscape, and also contains some mature eucalypts.  Recent CHMPs in the geographic region (Barker 2012, McAlister 2014 and Matic 2015) indicate that disturbances caused by the modifications to the residential areas surrounding La Trobe University have impacted on any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may have been located in these areas. Shallow soil profiles have also been noted, along with the presence of fill and introduced materials.  Watercourses within the activity area include Strathallan Creek, and landforms associated with the nearby Darebin Creek.  The registered Aboriginal places within the current geographic region are generally associated with landforms adjacent to creek margins and water sources.  The land comprising the activity area has been subject to agricultural, residential, recreational, medical and educational uses since European settlement. These previous and current land uses will have modified the landforms of the activity area, bringing about various levels of disturbance. The results of the desktop assessment have demonstrated that it is possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage will be present within the activity area. On this basis, a standard assessment was carried out in accordance with s 58(1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic).

Standard Assessment The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 4 February 2016. A total of six Investigation Areas (IA) were identified, based on particular landform features and levels of disturbance noted during the standard assessment. The IAs were giving an archaeological sensitivity and a disturbance rating, which were then multiplied to provide an Archaeological Potential Rating (APR) for each investigation area. At the completion of the survey, IA-5 was identified to have undergone the highest level of ground disturbance, largely due to the construction and maintenance of the University campus. Investigation areas IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, IA-4a were identified to have undergone a moderate level of ground disturbance. Investigation area IA-4b experienced a low-moderate level of ground disturbance through the iii

impact of land clearing and parkland maintenance. The six investigation areas had an effective surface visibility ranging from 1-15%. In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the activity area. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922- 0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The two previously registered scarred trees VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668 were re-identified and subject to a thorough investigation as part of the standard assessment. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places, including three artefact scatters, (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366) were also subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment. No physical manifestation of these places was identified. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment support the findings of previous archaeological investigations relating to proposed activities within and adjacent to the current activity area. The standard assessment demonstrated evidence of previous disturbance associated with the development and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus, in

association with the agricultural, residential, recreational and medical uses of the activity area since European La Trobe University CHMP 13756 settlement (Weaver 1991, Barker 2012, McAlister 2014 and Matic 2015). These previous investigations indicate that there is a varying level of previous disturbance within the activity area, affecting the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage material in these areas. The results of this assessment also support the results of Weaver and Thomson who indicate that the Darebin Creek reserve and the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road to contain moderate archaeological potential (Weaver 1991 and Thomson 2002). The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that the levels of previous disturbance within the activity area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Therefore, a complex assessment in order to enable a proper investigation of the potential for sub-surface Aboriginal cultural heritage places to be present, and to identify the nature, extent and significance of any Aboriginal cultural heritage as established under Regulation 60 (1b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), is not required.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage The current evaluation has assessed the Aboriginal cultural heritage potential of the activity area. The results of the evaluation have demonstrated that six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places are located within the activity area. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprise two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922- 0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The two previously registered scarred trees VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668 were re-identified and subject to a thorough investigation as part of the standard assessment. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219, VAHR 7922-0986 and VAHR 7922- 1366 were also subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment. However, no physical manifestation of these places was identified. A total of six place inspection forms outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that levels of previous disturbance within the activity area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. Apart from areas where Aboriginal sites were identified, the results of the evaluation have demonstrated that there is a moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-1 and IA-4b, a low-moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-2, IA-3 and IA-4a, and a low potential for potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-5.

Section 61 Matters This section reviews the matters to be considered in relation to the approval of a management plan for the activity. Will the Activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal Heritage? Not applicable. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Will the Activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal Heritage? Not applicable. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Specific measures required for the management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage likely to be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Therefore, there are no specific management measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the current activity area.

Contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage, as per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 are set out in Section 9.

Specific Cultural Heritage Management Requirements This section outlines the specific cultural heritage management requirements to be considered in relation to the approval of a cultural heritage management plan. There are no specific management measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the current activity area, as no specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan.

Recommendations No specific activity has been proposed in association with this CHMP. Therefore, no specific management measures are required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area. The following recommendations have been formulated with the RAP. The recommendations contained in this current CHMP are intended to inform, align expectations and establish a set of guidelines to inform the nature of future heritage works at the La Trobe University Campus, Bundoora. Note that all future development activities within the current activity area will be separately subject to the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). The results of the assessments undertaken as part of this CHMP have demonstrated that there is a moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-1 and IA-4b, a low- moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-2, IA- 3 and IA-4a, and a low potential for potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-5. These archaeological potential ratings may be applied to future CHMPs within the activity area as a basis for consultation with the RAP and in preparation of appropriate methodologies for undertaking complex assessments, if required. By incorporating the results of the current CHMP into future development plans at the University Campus, the impact of future developments on Indigenous tangible and intangible cultural heritage values may be more appropriately managed. Both the Wurundjeri Council and La Trobe have specified that they would like to establish a more formalised consultation process regarding future development within the activity area. This may involve the following:  Establishing a consultation process between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council regarding relevant future developments within the activity area;  A focus on the rehabilitation of the Darebin Creek landscape through consultation with the Wurundjeri Council and the Wurundjeri Green Team (Narrap Team);  A collaboration between the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Wurundjeri Council to ensure the alignment of indigenous values with those of the Wildlife Sanctuary; and v

 Increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri to participate in future campus development, the preparation of a reconciliation plan and involvement in managing Indigenous cultural values within the activity area.

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Reason for Conducting the Cultural Heritage Management Plan ...... 3 1.2 The Name of the Sponsor ...... 4 1.3 The Name of the Cultural Heritage Advisor ...... 4 1.4 Location of the activity area ...... 4 1.5 The Owners and Occupiers of the Land ...... 4 1.6 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan...... 5 1.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties ...... 5 2. Activity Area ...... 9 2.1 Description of the Activity ...... 9 2.2 Extent of the Activity Area ...... 9 3. Documentation of Consultation ...... 11 3.1 The Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan ...... 11 3.2 Registered Aboriginal Parties ...... 11 3.3 Participants in the Assessment ...... 12 3.4 Summary of Consultation ...... 12 4. Desktop Assessment ...... 15 4.1 Method of Assessment ...... 15 4.2 Obstacles ...... 15 4.3 Persons Involved in the Desktop Assessment ...... 15 4.4 RAP Information ...... 15 4.5 Geographic Region ...... 16 4.6 A Review of the Landforms or Geomorphology of the Activity Area ...... 16 4.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register Search ...... 25 4.8 Review of Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts of Aboriginal Occupation ...... 33 4.9 Review of Reports and Published Work about Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Region ...... 35 4.10 A Review of the History of the Use of the Activity Area...... 41 4.11 Conclusions ...... 43 5. Standard Assessment ...... 45 5.1 Introduction ...... 45 5.2 Previously Registered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places...... 45 5.3 Method of Assessment ...... 45 5.4 Obstacles ...... 47 5.5 Participants Involved in the Standard Assessment ...... 47 5.6 RAP Information ...... 47 5.7 Results ...... 48 5.8 Archaeological Potential Ratings ...... 59 vii

5.9 Conclusions ...... 61 6. Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment ...... 63 6. 1 Introduction ...... 63 6. 2 VAHR 7922-0210 - DAREBIN 5 ...... 64 6. 3 VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6 ...... 65 6. 4 VAHR 7922-0219 - DAREBIN 7 ...... 66 6. 5 VAHR 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1 ...... 67 6. 6 VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 68 6. 7 VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 69 6. 8 Results of the Assessment ...... 70 7. Section 61 Matters ...... 73

7.1 Introduction ...... 73 La Trobe University CHMP 13756 7.2 Will the Activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal Heritage?...... 73 7.3 Will the Activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal Heritage? ...... 73 7.4 Specific measures required for the management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage likely to be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity ...... 73 8. Specific Cultural Heritage Management Requirements ...... 77 8.1 Introduction ...... 77 9. Recommendations ...... 79 9.1 Introduction ...... 79 9.2 Recommendations ...... 79 10. Contingencies ...... 81 10.1 Introduction ...... 81 10.2 Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Found ...... 81 10.3 Custody and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Recovered ...... 84 10.4 The Management of the Discovery of Human Remains ...... 84 10.5 Dispute Resolution ...... 85 10.6 Authorised Project Delegates and the Handling of Sensitive Information...... 88 11. References ...... 89 12. Site Gazetteer ...... 93

TABLES

Table 1: Owners and occupiers of the activity area ...... 5 Table 2: Participants in the Assessment ...... 12 Table 3: Summary of Consultation ...... 12 Table 4: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places located within the Geographic Region ...... 27 Table 5: Historical Aboriginal references located within the Geographic Region ...... 31 Table 6: Participants involved in the Standard Assessment ...... 47 Table 7: Investigation Unit IA-1 ...... 49 viii

Table 8: Investigation Unit IA-2 ...... 50 Table 9: Investigation Unit IA-3 ...... 51 Table 10: Investigation Unit IA-4a ...... 52 Table 11: Investigation Unit IA-4b ...... 53 Table 12: Investigation Unit IA-5 ...... 54 Table 13: Archaeological Sensitivity / Disturbance Ratings ...... 59 Table 14: Archaeological Potential Ratings ...... 60 Table 15: Previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within activity area ...... 63 Table 16: Extent and significance for 7922-0210 – DAREBIN 5 ...... 64 Table 17: Extent and significance for 7922-0218 – DAREBIN 6 ...... 65 Table 18: Extent and significance for 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 ...... 66 Table 19: Extent and significance for 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1 ...... 67 Table 20: Extent and significance for 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 68 Table 21: Extent and significance for 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 69 Table 22: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management requirements ...... 77

MAPS

Map 1: Location of the Activity Area ...... 7 Map 2: Map of the Activity Area ...... 8 Map 3: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region ...... 21 Map 4: Geology of the activity area ...... 22 Map 5: 1750s Ecological Vegetation Classes Pre 1750 for the activity area ...... 23 Map 6: Standard Assessment map demonstrating all Investigation Areas ...... 55 Map 7: Map demonstrating all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area ...... 56 Map 8: Digital terrain model of the activity area ...... 57 Map 9: Archaeological Potential Ratings ...... 58 Map 10: Map demonstrating all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area showing site re-identification results ...... 71

PLATES

Plate 1: Areas of exposure and pedestrian pathway within IA-1_facing south_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas ...... 49 Plate 2: Poor ground surface visibility and within IA-1_facing north_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas ...... 49 Plate 3: Areas of exposure and vegetation removal within IA-2_facing southeast_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas. 50 Plate 4: Built structures and pedestrian pathways within IA-3_facing northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry 51 Plate 5: Poor ground surface visibility within IA-3_facing north_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry ...... 51 Plate 6: Areas of exposure within IA-4a_facing northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry ...... 52 Plate 7: Artificial swampland within IA-4a_facing northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry ...... 52 Plate 8: Scatter of native trees within IA-4b_facing north_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas ...... 53 Plate 9: Large carpark areas within IA-5_facing west_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry ...... 54 Plate 10: Poor ground surface visibility and pedestrian footpaths within IA-5_facing north_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry ...... 54

FIGURES

Figure 1: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0210 – DAREBIN 5 ...... 64 Figure 2: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0218 – DAREBIN 6 ...... 65 Figure 3: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 ...... 66 Figure 4: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1 ...... 67 Figure 5: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 ...... 68 Figure 6: Detailed extent plan of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD ...... 69

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ...... 97

Appendix 2: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (WTLCCHC) ...... 101 La Trobe University CHMP 13756 Appendix 3: Response to NOI from WTLCCHC ...... 105 Appendix 4: Qualifications ...... 109 Appendix 5: Darebin Planning Scheme and Schedule to Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2) ...... 113 Appendix 6: Heritage Significance Assessment ...... 119 Appendix 7: Glossary of Terms ...... 123

ABBREVIATIONS ACHRIS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Information System ALA: Andrew Long + Associates Pty Ltd AV: Average BP: Before Present (Years) CHA: Cultural Heritage Advisor CHMP: Cultural Heritage Management Plan CHP: Cultural Heritage Permit E: East IA Investigation Area IU Investigation Unit LDAD Low Density Artefact Distribution Ma Million years ago N: North NE: North East NW: North West OAAV: Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria RAP: Registered Aboriginal Party S: South SE: South East SW: South West SU: Survey Unit TA: Testing Area VAHR: Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register W: West WTLCCHC Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

xii

PART 1 – ASSESSMENT

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Reason for Conducting the Cultural Heritage Management Plan

This Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) has been prepared by the Sponsor as a voluntary CHMP under s. 45 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) (the Act). When is a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) required? A mandatory CHMP is required for an activity if (Regulation 6) – (a) all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.

Regulation 23 Waterways (1) Subject to sub regulation (2), a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. (2) If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significance ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. waterway means— (a) a river, creek, stream or watercourse the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic); or (b) a natural channel the name of which is registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Vic) in which water regularly flows, whether or not the flow is continuous; or (c) a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh, being— (i) a natural collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) into or through or out of which a current that forms the whole or part of the flow of a river, creek, stream or watercourse passes, whether or not the flow is continuous; or 3

(ii) a collection of water (other than water collected and contained in a private dam or a natural depression on private land) that the Governor in Council declares under section 4(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) to be a lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh; The proposed activity area encompasses land within 50 m of previously registered cultural heritage places and within 200 m of Darebin Creek. Therefore, the activity area is located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, as defined in Regulations 22 and 23 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic).

1.2 The Name of the Sponsor

The Sponsor of this CHMP is La Trobe University (ABN 64 804 735 113). La Trobe University CHMP 13756

1.3 The Name of the Cultural Heritage Advisor

This CHMP has been authored by qualified archaeologists and heritage consultants from Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd (ALA), who have been experienced in professional Aboriginal heritage assessment and evaluation since 1991, in accordance with section 189 of the Act. Qualification details can be found in Appendix 4. The cultural heritage advisors and authors of this CHMP are:  Ricky Feldman, Executive Director, Andrew Long and Associates  Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates  Penelope Spry, Project Manager, Andrew Long and Associates

1.4 Location of the activity area

The activity area comprises the Melbourne campus of La Trobe University. The Melbourne campus is situated in the north-eastern suburb of Bundoora, at the intersection of Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive, approximately 14 km from the Melbourne CBD. Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek, directly intersects the activity area. Darebin Creek forms the western boundary of the current study area. The activity area is situated within the City of Darebin municipality and represents an approximate total land area of 258 ha (Map 1 and Map 2).

1.5 The Owners and Occupiers of the Land

The Sponsor, La Trobe University, is the occupier of the land and responsible for coordination of all works associated with the activity area.

The owners and occupiers of the land within the activity area are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Owners and occupiers of the activity area

Parcel Description(s) (SPI Number) LGA Owner/Occupier

1\PS443003 Darebin La Trobe University 1\PS443004 Darebin La Trobe University

10J1\PP2856 Darebin La Trobe University

F\PS426378 Darebin La Trobe University

A\PS426371 Darebin La Trobe University

16U\PP2856 Darebin La Trobe University

1\PS444016 Darebin La Trobe University

1.6 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

In accordance with the requirements of s. 54 of the Act, a formal Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP (NOI) was submitted to the following entities:  the Secretary, Department of Planning and Community Development (27 August 2015) (Appendix 2); and  the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed for the activity area (27 August 2015) (Appendix 2). The RAP (the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Inc.) responded to the NOI on 27 August 2015 (Appendix 3), indicating that they intended to evaluate the CHMP.

1.7 Registered Aboriginal Parties

At the time the Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP was submitted, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council for land including the activity area was the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Incorporated (WTLCCHCI). The WTLCCHCI remains the sole RAP appointed for the activity area at the time this CHMP was submitted for evaluation.

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Map 1: Location of the Activity Area

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Map 2: Map of the Activity Area

ACTIVITY AREA

2.1 Description of the Activity

La Trobe University is currently working on plans for the development of the University’s Melbourne campus, located in Bundoora. As part of this strategy, La Trobe University is seeking community feedback on the aesthetic, historical, scientific, social and spiritual values of the Melbourne campus. No specific activity has been proposed in relation to the current cultural heritage management plan. However, La Trobe University are committed to engaging with the Wurundjeri Council to be aware of the cultural values and archaeological potential of the University campus to inform potential designs for future development. The activity area comprises the Melbourne campus of La Trobe University. The activity area is situated in the north-eastern suburb of Bundoora, at the intersection of Plenty Road and Kingsbury Drive, approximately 14 km from the Melbourne CBD. Darebin Creek forms the western boundary of the current activity area. Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek, directly intersects the study area. The activity area is situated within the City of Darebin municipality and represents an approximate total land area of 258 ha (Map 2 and Map 3). The activity area is zoned ‘Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2)’ under the Darebin Council Planning Scheme. All works undertaken within the activity area must be permitted under the Public Use Zone - Education Darebin Planning Scheme, in accordance with Clause 6.1(a) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic). As the activity area encompasses an area of more than 40 hectares, it is considered a large activity as established by Regulation 68 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic).

2.2 Extent of the Activity Area

The activity area encompasses the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University and is located in Bundoora. It is bordered by Crissane Road to the south, residential areas to the east, the Strathallan golf course and residential estates to the north and Plenty Road to the west. Map 1 and Map 2 define the activity area and also provide information about the general location of the activity area. There are several terms that are often utilised within the CHMP. The definition of these terms is as follows: Activity Area: as defined by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Regulations 2007, means the area or areas to be used or developed for an activity. Investigation Area: The activity area is assessed during the standard assessment and divided into Investigation Areas generally based on the landform of particular sections of the activity area.

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION

3.1 The Notice of Intention to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

The Notice of Intent to Prepare a CHMP was submitted to the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) present for the activity area on the 27 August 2015 (Appendix 2). The WTLCCHCI responded to the Notice of Intent on 27 August 2015 (Appendix 3) and indicated that they intend to evaluate the CHMP.

3.2 Registered Aboriginal Parties

At the time this CHMP was being prepared, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) appointed by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council for land including the activity area was the Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Incorporated (WTLCCHCI). The WTLCCHCI remains the sole RAP appointed for the activity area at the time this CHMP was submitted for evaluation. The Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council were granted RAP status on 22 August 2008. The RAP was present and was consulted throughout the preparation of this CHMP. The Wurundjeri Council was consulted throughout the preparation of this CHMP. An inception meeting was held with Alex Parmington (Manager – Cultural Heritage Unit); Ron Jones, Bobby Mullins and Allan Wandin (WTLCCHCI Elders); Jen Chaput, Andrew Vamvakaris and Mark Rose (La Trobe University) and Melinda Albrecht (Andrew Long and Associates) on 11 September 2015, prior to the commencement of the testing programme. It was agreed that a cultural values assessment of the La Trobe campus would be undertaken as a separate report (see section 4.9 for details). The main objective of the cultural values assessment was to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus, by working with Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Incorporated (WTLCCHCI) to research and document the Indigenous cultural values of the La Trobe campus and surrounding areas. Representatives of the WTLCCHC participated in the standard assessment conducted on 4 February 2016. Consultation during these assessments included informal discussions regarding fieldwork methodologies, likely Aboriginal cultural heritage values associated with the activity area, and the results of the desktop assessment. The representatives consulted for this CHMP are included within Table 2. A final recommendations meeting was held at the completion of the standard assessment (8 March 2016) with Sean-Paul Stephens (Cultural Heritage Officer – Cultural Heritage Unit); Allan Wandin, Bobby Mullins and Ron Jones (WTLCCHCI Elders); Jen Chaput, Andrew Vamvakaris and Vern Steele (La Trobe University) and Ricky Feldman and Penelope Spry (Andrew Long and Associates) to discuss the results of the standard assessment and the management recommendations of the CHMP.

3.3 Participants in the Assessment

The participants in the assessments undertaken for this CHMP are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Participants in the Assessment

Participant Organisation Position Component Date(s)

Ricky Feldman ALA Executive Director Recommendations 8 Mar 2016 Meeting Melinda Albrecht ALA Senior Project Manager Inception Meeting 11 Nov 2015 Penelope Spry ALA Project Manager Recommendations 8 Mar 2016 Meeting Standard 4 Feb 2016 Assessment Alex Parmington WTLCCHC Heritage Officer Inception Meetings 11 Nov 2015 Sean-Paul Stephens WTLCCHC Heritage Officer Meeting 8 Mar 2016

La Trobe UniversityRon Jones CHMP 13756 WTLCCHC Elder Meetings 11 Nov 2015 8 Mar 2016

Bobby Mullins WTLCCHC Elder Meetings 11 Nov 2015 8 Mar 2016

Allan Wandin WTLCCHC Elder Meetings 11 Nov 2015 8 Mar 2016

Brendan Wandin WTLCCHC Representative Standard 17 Dec 2015 Assessment Trevor Downe WTLCCHC Representative Standard 17 Dec 2015 Assessment

3.4 Summary of Consultation

The Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council (WTLCCHCI) provided representatives who participated in the planning, execution and recording of the standard assessment for this CHMP. The WTLCCHCI was informally consulted for this CHMP throughout the planning, execution and recording of the standard assessment, and took part in discussions relating to the testing methodology, the results and the recommendations of the project. Table 3: Summary of Consultation

Date Mode Sender Recipient Communication 26-08-15 Email ALA WTLCCHC Request to book a project inception meeting with WTLCCHC to provide project background and discuss proposed standard and complex assessment methodologies. 26-08-15 Email WTLCCHC ALA Confirming a project inception meeting has been scheduled for 11 Nov 2015. 27-08-15 ACHRIS ALA OAAV NOI submitted. 27-08-15 Email ALA WTLCCHC NOI submitted.

Date Mode Sender Recipient Communication 27-08-15 Email OAAV ALA Acknowledgment of receipt of Notice of Intent to prepare CHMP and issuance of CHMP Number 13756. 27-08-15 Email WTLCCHC JC, ALA Response to NOI. WTLCCHI Intention to evaluate this plan when complete. 11-11-15 Meeting Project inception meeting to discuss the MA, JC, voluntary CHMP for La Trobe University MR, AV, Bundoora Campus. Investigation of AP, BM, archaeological sensitivity and cultural heritage RJ, AW values of activity area to advise future development within activity area. Specific high impact activities will be subject to complex assessment CHMPs if required, and the current CHMP (to standard assessment level) will inform future works and additional CHMPs. CHMP will comprise an on-ground walk over by Wurundjeri Elders to record cultural values and any oral information relating to the activity area. This cultural values assessment will occur in conjunction with a standard assessment. 18-01-16 Email ALA WTLCCHC Request to book WTLCCHC field representatives for standard assessment fieldwork on the 4 Feb 2016. 18-01-16 Email WTLCCHC ALA Confirmation of receipt of invitations to participate in standard and complex assessment fieldwork, and advising nominated representative for fieldwork on 4 Feb 2016. 18-01-16 Email ALA WTLCCHC Request to book a project recommendations meeting with WTLCCHC to discuss standard assessment results and review of proposed cultural heritage management recommendations. 18-01-16 Email WTLCCHC ALA Confirming a project recommendations meeting has been scheduled for 9 Feb 2016. 05-02-16 Text WTLCCH/ALAC ALA/WTLCCHC Confirming WTLCCHC representative names and dates worked during complex assessment. 05-02-16 Email ALA WTLCCHC Request to post-pone recommendations meeting to review standard assessment results and proposed cultural heritage management recommendations. 05-02-16 Email WTLCCHC ALA Confirming a project recommendations meeting has been scheduled for 8 Mar 2016. 08-03-16 Meeting Project recommendations meeting to review PS, RF, JC, the standard assessment results and CHMP VS, AV, VS, recommendations. SPS, BM, Agreement that future high impact activities RJ, AW within the activity area will be subject to complex assessment CHMPs if required, and the current CHMP (to standard assessment level) will inform future works and additional CHMPs. CHMP recommendations to include increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri Council to

Date Mode Sender Recipient Communication participate in future campus development. By incorporating the results of the CHMP into University development plans, impacts of future developments on Indigenous tangible and intangible cultural heritage values may be minimised.

Abbreviations: ACHRIS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Information System ALA Andrew Long + Associates (the CHA) AP Alex Parmington (WTLCCHCI Heritage Advisor) AV Andrew Vamvakaris (La Trobe University) AW Allan Wandin (WTLCCHCI) BM Bobby Mullins (WTLCCHCI) JC Jen Chaput (La Trobe University) MA Melinda Albrecht (ALA)

La Trobe MRUniversity CHMP 13756 Mark Rose (La Trobe University) OAAV Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria RJ Ron Jones (WTLCCHCI) SPS Sean-Paul Stephens (WTLCCHCI) WTLCCHC Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Inc. VS Vern Steele (La Trobe University)

DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

4.1 Method of Assessment

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the desktop assessment. The aims of the desktop assessment are threefold:  to determine the level of previous investigation of the activity area and the surrounding region;  to determine the presence of registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area; and  to determine the environmental context of the activity area with regard to landform and geomorphology. The methods used to undertake the desktop assessment included:  using appropriate sources, including Victorian government on-line information, reviewing and summarising relevant environmental background;  searching the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) and other research sources (for example, consultancy reports, academic research etc.) for information relating to the activity area and the geographic region (a VAHR search was undertaken on 28 August 2015); and  reviewing and analysing this information to identify or characterise the Aboriginal cultural heritage site types and locations likely to be present within the activity area.

4.2 Obstacles

There were no obstacles to undertaking the desktop assessment.

4.3 Persons Involved in the Desktop Assessment

The desktop assessment was completed prior to the commencement of the standard assessment, and subsequently updated during the drafting of this CHMP. The following individuals were involved in completing the desktop assessment:  Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long + Associates  Penelope Spry, Project Manager, Andrew Long + Associates

4.4 RAP Information

Please note that no oral information was collected during the desktop assessment.

4.5 Geographic Region

It is important to understand the geographic and environmental context of the activity area in order to gain a better understanding of the possible resources available to Aboriginal people prior to European contact. In addition, this information assists in determining whether natural environmental processes (e.g. weathering of land surfaces) will have impacted on Aboriginal cultural heritage places. The activity area encompasses the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University and is located in Bundoora. It is bordered by Crissane Road to the south, residential areas to the east, the Strathallan golf course and residential estates to the north and Plenty Road to the west (Map 2). The geographic region containing the activity area has been defined as the area within a 1km radius of the activity area to take in the following geological units:  Melbourne Formation (Sxm): generic  Greensborough Basalt (Nug): generic

 Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr): generic La Trobe University CHMP 13756  Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo): generic The geographic region containing the activity area focuses on landforms and geological units that are present within the activity area. The current geographic region is deemed to be a sufficient sample size to provide a good understanding of the nature of Aboriginal cultural heritage places across landforms present within the activity area, and also to inform any predictive modelling relating to site patterning within the activity area.

4.6 A Review of the Landforms or Geomorphology of the Activity Area

The activity area is located largely within the Eastern Uplands (Moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes sub-unit) geomorphological unit as defined within Victoria’s Geomorphological Framework, with a small section of the south western portion of the activity area located in the Western Plains (volcanic plains sub-unit) geomorphological unit:1

4.6.1 Landforms / Geomorphology Eastern Uplands The Eastern Uplands are centred on the main divide in eastern Victoria (commonly referred to as the Great Dividing Range) separating streams draining north to the Murray River from those flowing southwards directly to the sea. A dendritic pattern of narrow ridges and valleys characterises much of this deeply dissected landscape on either side of the range. Occasional isolated summits occur on the narrow divides or stand above the remnant plateaus or broad ridges. South of the Great Divide the streams have steeper gradients and deeper valleys, and as they approach the Eastern Plain, having narrower alluviated valleys than those in the north. The southern boundary of the Eastern Uplands is the southern edge of an uneven bench-like platform known as the Nillumbik Terrain, which can be traced bordering the Eastern Plain from near Orbost to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The Eastern Uplands extend to the coast from Cape Conran to Rams Head, where the Nillumbik Terrain is absent, and is fringed with coastal sand dunes in parts.

1 http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 28-08-15 http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework_1.4.5 - accessed 28-08-15

Dissected landscapes at a range of elevations This sub-unit includes the range of landforms that extend from remnant plateau surfaces to the emergence of the drainage systems onto the Northern Riverine Plains in the north and the Gippsland Riverine Plains to the south. Diverse landforms within this subunit include high ridges and deep valleys formed by dissection by the major stream systems, prominent summits at high elevation and intermediate elevations, and escarpments. These steep landscapes extend down from the steeper, elevated landscapes and gradually become landscapes of low ridges and isolated hills, with shallow valleys and some low level plateaus. This sub-unit includes the moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes. Moderately dissected ridge and valley landscapes These landscapes are the end result of geomorphological processes that are still ongoing elsewhere within sub-unit 1.4. Streams have commonly attained a relatively stable grade; valleys are wider and stream terraces have formed; the divides are lower and valley-side slopes generally less steep. Alluvial/colluvial fans have accumulated at the base of some slopes. Ridge-tops have become more convex (rounded) and their elevations are lower. Small alluvial flats have formed where local barriers to stream down-cutting slow stream velocities. Maximum elevations are 700m, with up to 200m of local relief. Western Plains The Victorian Western Plains are made up of low-lying undulating plains formed on both volcanic and sedimentary lithologies. The landscapes of this geomorphological unit are formed on some of the youngest rocks of Victoria. Soils on the Western Plains reflect the underlying lithology and age of the rocks. The youngest landscapes — the stony rises — have skeletal uniform or gradational soils, whereas the earlier lava flows have deeper soils varying from friable gradational to strongly texture contrast soils. The friable, finely structured brown gradational soils developed on volcanic ash (tuff) around the Red Rock volcano represent some of the most valuable cropping country. The soils developed on the Pliocene sand plains are often sandy, sometimes ferruginised or podsolic (sands with coffee rock or sand over clay) soils. Further south on the marls and limestones, the soils vary from clay-rich (medium or heavy textured) gradational to strongly texture contrast soils and generally heavy (uniform) clays. Much of the area comprises natural grasslands plain, bounded by the Western Uplands to the north, and the coastline and Otway Range - part of the Southern Uplands of Victoria to the south. Volcanic Plains The volcanic plains were built up by sporadic volcanic eruptions over a period of about 5 million years, and are known geologically as the Newer Volcanics, the deposits which form the Newer Volcanic Province of Victoria, which includes parts of the Western Uplands, the Western Plains, and the area across the border around Mt Gambier. Much of the plains were formed from lobes of lava which flowed from the eruption points, overlapping to form a veneer of basalt lava flows. The flow varies in thickness according to both the underlying topography and the present-day surface. The flows are interleaved in places with pyroclastic deposits (scoria and tuff) and discontinuous buried palaeosoils of variable thickness. Drainage across the volcanic plains is generally poorly developed. While grasslands are common on much of the plains lava, and on many of the cones, dense trees commonly mark the young stony rise flows, and large scattered Red Gums are found on the deeply- weathered older flows, for example south of Hamilton. 2 The activity area includes a generally modified landscape containing the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University, with recreational sports fields adjacent to Darebin Creek, as well as the La Trobe wildlife sanctuary situated in the north eastern section of the activity area. The activity area has been revegetated

2 http://vro.depi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework - accessed 28-08-15

largely with native vegetation and also contains some remnant mature native vegetation such as River Red Gums. The geology of the activity area comprises:  Melbourne Formation (Sxm): generic  Greensborough Basalt (Nug): generic  Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr): generic  Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo): generic  Sub-basaltic sediments (Nxp): sediments under the Miocene basalts  Alluvium (Qa1): generic Melbourne Formation comprises Silurian deposits (approx. 443.8 Ma to 419.2 Ma3) of siltstone and sandstone, that are mainly thin-bedded. Most beds show undisturbed Bouma sequences deposited by low density turbidity currents. Red Bluff Sandstone Red Bluff Sandstone (Miocene to Pliocene, approx. 23 Ma to 5.3 Ma) comprises fine to coarse-grained sandstone and conglomerate containing local ironstone. Greensborough Basalt consists of blue-grey basalt Miocene deposits, and Newer Volcanic Group basalt La Trobe flowsUniversity comprise CHMP 13756 Miocene to Holocene deposits of olivine tholeiite, quartz tholeiite, basanite, basaltic icelandite, hawaiite, mugearite, minor scoria and ash, fluvial sediments including sheet and valley flows and intercalated gravel, sand and clay4. Sub-basaltic sediments occur under the Miocene basalts, and these consist of conglomerate and sandstone. Alluvium of gravel, sandy and silt is also present within the activity area.

4.6.2 Environment The climate of Australia has altered and fluctuated since the time of earliest human occupation within the Pleistocene period around 40,000-60,000 years ago. The Pleistocene period is conventionally dated from two million to 10,000 years ago (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 103; Aguirre and Pasini 1985; Lourens 2008, 239). During the Pleistocene, lower sea levels were present across Australia, and the southern coastline extended southwards, connecting Tasmania to the Australian mainland (Cosgrove 1999, 362). During the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene, (Holocene period generally dates from around 10,000 years ago to the present day, sea levels began to rise in response to post-glacial marine transgression resulting from the melting of Late Pleistocene ice sheets (Lambeck and Nakada 1990, 143). This rise in sea levels separated Tasmania from the mainland, and reduced the Australian coastline. Victorian sea levels stabilised and reached modern levels before around 6000 years BP (Lambeck and Nakada 1990, 149). During the period of Aboriginal occupation of the Melbourne region, the climatic conditions varied greatly in regards to temperature and rainfall levels. During the Last Glacial Maximum of the Pleistocene period (21,000-15,000 years BP), temperatures were approximately 6-10 degrees lower than today (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 116). During the late Pleistocene period, there was less rainfall and less precipitation throughout the continent, reducing the woodland forest areas of southern Australia and resulting in a predominance of grasslands. Within this time, there is evidence for dry/shallow lakes with conditions likely to have been too dry to support swamp or open-water environments (Bowler 1981, 436-437; Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 76). The inland of Australia was characterised by arid and dry conditions and it is likely that Aboriginal people during this period would have experienced severe drought. Within southern Victoria these climatic conditions generally discouraged tree growth, although some trees survived in particularly sheltered and watered areas (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999, 116). In the late Pleistocene to early Holocene (around 12,000-9,000 BP), warmer temperatures and increased precipitation resulted in the expansion of woodland and forest areas dominated by Eucalypts (Aitken and

3 http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2015-01.jpg - accessed 28-08-2015 4 http://er-info.dpi.vic.gov.au/sd_weave/registered.htm - accessed 28-08-2015

Kershaw 1993, 67). At this time, the Tadpole Swamp (now located within the Cranbourne botanic gardens) was formed, possibly supported directly by precipitation or, as is more likely, a rise in the regional water table caused by wetter conditions (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 76). At Tadpole Swamp, pollen and charcoal sample analysis of sediment cores indicate that permanent wet conditions in the Cranbourne area were in existence after 8,500BP. The highest moisture levels occurred between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago as evidenced by the expansion of wet sclerophyll taxon Pomaderris in the understorey (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 77). Similar peaks in Pomaderris also occurred in data from the Gippsland Lakes and with the period of highest lake levels in the volcanic crater lakes from the Western Plains (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 77; Kershaw et al. 2004, 154). The analysis from Cranbourne also displays the fluctuating environmental conditions of the Holocene, with data indicating that after 5,000 years ago, vegetation in the Cranbourne area became more diverse with an increased representation of understorey vegetation relating to Eucalyptus (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 78). Aitken and Kershaw suggest that it is likely that the eucalypt canopy became more open with an understorey mosaic of heath, bracken and grassland, possibly as a result of climatic variability with lower rainfall experienced in the Late Holocene, and also the possible result of increased burning indicated by relatively high levels of charcoal (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 78). Palaeoecological studies of the Gippsland Lakes also indicate that lower levels of moisture were available during the late Holocene, with fluctuating fresh water conditions experienced at Lake Wellington (Reid 1989, 48). Data from crater lakes in south western Victoria also show a decline in water levels during the mid-Holocene, with a more substantive decline after approximately 5,000 years, and water levels oscillating perhaps as a result of fluctuating temperatures until the later Holocene from around 1.8-1.3 thousand years ago (Wilkins et al 2013, 8, 10). Aitken and Kershaw’s investigations at Cranbourne also highlight vegetation changes during the period of European occupation, with analysis from Tiger Snake Swamp within the Cranbourne botanic gardens revealing the addition of exotic vegetation including pines, docks and sorrels, plantains and asters/daisies, and an increase in shrub understories of woodland vegetation or the replacement of woodlands by shrubland and heath vegetation (Aitken and Kershaw 1993, 78). This general increase in grasses is partially a response to vegetation clearance activities, with bracken and Casuarina showing a marked decline. The climate of the geographic region is generally described as temperate with warm dry summers and cool winters. The mean annual rainfall for the geographic region is approximately 659.9 mm (Bundoora La Trobe University Weather Station). 5 As the region has been extensively cleared, modifed and developed it is difficult to determine the original vegetation pattern, although some mature native trees such as River Red Gums, are situated within the geographic region and also the current activity area. Pre 1750 ecological vegetation classes that may have been present within the activity area consist of: Victorian Volcanic Plains Bioregion  Stream bank shrubland  Plains grassy woodland  Riparian Woodland/Stream-bank Shrubland Mosaic  Creekline Grassy Woodland Gippsland Plain Bioregion  Grassy woodland  Creekline Grassy Woodland

5http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086351.shtml – accessed 28-08-2015

 Plains grassy wetland  Plains grassy woodland Aboriginal occupation often focused on waterways, and areas adjacent to water sources, including swamps, and these areas would have provided a wide range of food and material resources for Aboriginal people. John Helder Wedge explored and surveyed lands purchased by the Port Phillip Association and looks at land around Plenty River in the east, and the lower reaches of the Yarra River (Forster 1968, 3). Wedge noted that wildlife in the more open country included emus and kangaroos with wild ducks, geese, cranes and black swans as well as wild native dogs around the swamps and water courses. Wedge also noted that Aboriginal people utilised the following native foods: kangaroos, kangaroo rat, fish, edible roots from various plants, black swans, ducks, birds and various reptiles including snakes (Forster 1968, 3-4). Water rushes and marsh vegetation as well as a number of plant-food resources important to Aboriginal people would have grown in nearby watercourses and swamps. The rivers, creeks, lagoons and swamp areas, would have supported various species of fish, eel, frogs, tortoises and other aquatic species as well

as various birds, kangaroos, wallabies, wombat, possums and emu inhabiting the plains of the wider La Trobe University CHMP 13756 geographic region. Plants were used for non-culinary purposes; such as making nets, baskets, and ornaments. Grasses such as Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra), were used in the manufacture of fishing nets (Zola and Gott 1992, 58), while tussock grass fibres were used to make string for bags, baskets and mats.

Map 3: Map of activity area showing VAHR information and geographic region

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Map 4: Geology of the activity area

Map 5: 1750s Ecological Vegetation Classes Pre 1750 for the activity area

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

4.7 Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register Search

A search for Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region and registered on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) was undertaken on 28 August 2015. The results of the search are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. According to the Victorian Aboriginal heritage register (ACHRIS), at the time of the commencement of this CHMP there were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area. These comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The 50 Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the geographic region include (Map 7):  39 artefact scatters  9 scarred trees  One quarry  1 low density artefact distribution The following salient points emerge from a review of these sites:  Artefact scatters within the geographic region generally contain low numbers of Aboriginal stone artefacts (many between 1-4 artefacts). It should be noted that many of these artefact scatters were recorded in less recent times and data about artefact numbers was not provided on the site cards. Most of the artefact scatters within the geographic region are surface artefact scatters. Again, as many of these artefact scatters were recorded in less recent times, subsurface testing generally was not undertaken at these artefact locations.  Silcrete is the predominant raw material present represented within artefact scatters/low density artefact distributions, with smaller numbers of quartz, quartzite flint/chert, and very occasional siltstone and sandstone. Artefact scatters have been recorded on elevated landforms, and on landforms associated with waterways such as Darebin Creek as well as on the flat floodplains. All of the scarred trees within the geographic region are red gums, generally of good health containing one scar. Most of the scarred trees have been found on the flat to gently undulating plain landform.  In 2015, Biosis (Venosta, Yugovic and Vines 2015) undertook a management plan for flora, fauna and habitat management within the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary which forms part of the current activity area. A part of this management plan discusses cultural heritage management of the wildlife sanctuary, and Venosta, Yugovic and Vines state that Aboriginal archaeological sites are likely to occur in proximity to reliable water sources and on vantage points (Venosta, Yugovic and Vines 2015, 16).  According to Venosta, Yugovic and Vines, an archaeological survey was conducted by Freslov in 1996 within the La Trobe wildlife sanctuary (Venosta, Yugovic and Vines 2015, 16). Venosta, Yugovic and Vines state that a copy of the survey report has not been found. This study recorded an artefact scatter within the sanctuary, comprising nine silcrete flaked artefacts including cores, flakes and angular fragments that were located near the edge of the former Mont Park hospital rubbish tip. The artefacts were located in a disturbed context and recorded as VAHR 7922-0926, although Venosta, Yugovic and Vines (2015) suggest that there is potential for further Aboriginal archaeological evidence to occur in association with this artefact scatter. It is unclear where Venosta, Yugovic and Vines obtained this information, as the registered Aboriginal place VAHR

7922-0926 is actually another site located in another location outside of the current activity area, which was not recorded by Freslov.  According to ACHRIS, there is an artefact scatter located in the La Trobe wildlife reserve, 7922- 0986, which was recorded by Freslov in 2005. This scatter consists of one quartz bipolar flake fragment found on gently inclined land in the reserve area. Freslov recorded the site as being in a highly disturbed location.  Venosta, Yugovic and Vines (2015, 17) also mention a possible ‘canoe tree’ that has been indicated on maps of the reserve but is not listed on ACHRIS. Venosta, Yugovic and Vines reassessed this tree at the time of their 2015 management plan and do not believe that it is of Aboriginal origin. This decision was based on the irregular shape and form of the scar, as well as limited regrowth, absence of weathering on the exposed heartwood, and the fact that the scar extends all the way to the ground.  There is also one Aboriginal historical reference located in the geographic region. This reference relates to the Bundoora Park Police Barracks, and refers to a place where Aboriginal trackers were housed/camped/worked up to the 1950s. According to the information from ACHRIS, the La Trobe University CHMPAboriginal 13756 trackers lived in a prefabricated railway fettlers hut (c. 1910).

Table 4: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places located within the Geographic Region

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform (m) Subsurface range of Material (mm) Artefacts 7922-0033 BUNDOORA Scarred - - - - - Scarred tree reported by Preston - PARK 2 Tree historical society 7922-0076 BREW 1 Artefact 10m x 4m Surface - - S Probably stratified; site eroded – Gully, ravine, scatter/ scatter/ likely not an earth feature but an canyon Darebin Earth Exposure artefact scatter eroding from Creek Feature of cultural bank of creek; worked flakes material in bank 7922-0077 BREW 2 Artefact 50m x 30m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion, located Terrace Scatter associated with Darebin Creek; 7922-0078 BREW 3 Artefact 75m x 30m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion by wind, ploughed Flat, level land, Scatter adjacent to Darebin Creek; terrace worked flakes 7922-0079 BREW 4 Artefact 20m x 20m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion by wind, adjacent Sloping irregular Scatter to Darebin Creek; worked flakes land, terrace 7922-0080 BREW 5 Quarry 4m x 4m - - - Qtz, FG Worked flakes and cores Flat level land, terrace 7922-0081 BREW 6 Artefact 20m x 5m Surface - - FG Heavy erosion; worked flakes Flat level land, Scatter terrace 7922-0206 DAREBIN 1 Artefact - Surface - 2 S Disturbed eastern side of creek Undulating Scatter on terrace; 1 silcrete blade with terrace, Darebin retouch and 1 fine grained Creek silcrete fragment 7922-0207 DAREBIN 2 Artefact - Surface - 1 S Broken blade with retouch Undulating Scatter located on track at terrace terrace, Darebin Creek 7922-0208 DAREBIN 3 Artefact - Surface - 3 S 1 silcrete blade, 1 medium Undulating Scatter grained silcrete, 1 very fine terrace, Darebin grained silcrete Creek

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform (m) Subsurface range of Material (mm) Artefacts 7922-0209 DAREBIN 4 Artefact - Surface - 1 S 1 very fine grained silcrete flake Undulating Scatter with use wear terrace, Darebin Creek 7922-0210 DAREBIN 5 Artefact 14m x 3m Surface - 4 S Flaked fragments, worked flakes, Undulating, Scatter unspecified chipped stone irregular, sloping artefacts 7922-0218 DAREBIN 6 Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating Tree scar floodplain 7922-0219 DAREBIN 7 Artefact - Surface Surface 1 FG Flake Undulating Scatter floodplain 7922-0220 DAREBIN 8 Artefact - Surface - 1 S Core fragment, waterworn Undulating terrace Scatter 7922-0221 DAREBIN 9 Artefact 20m x 5- Surface - - S Worked flakes, waste flake, Sloping, irregular

La Trobe University CHMP 13756 Scatter/ 10m unspecified chipped stone land; edge of Mt Quarry artefacts; exposure of rock, Cooper outcrop 7922-0224 DAREBIN 12 Artefact 150m x 30m Surface - - S Worked flakes, cores, fragments, Darebin Creek Scatter unspecified chipped stone floodplain artefacts 7922-0225 DAREBIN 13 Artefact 30m x 10m Surface - - S, F/C, Q, Erosion; worked flakes, worked Sloping irregular Scatter Qtz cores, unspecified chipped stone land, terrace artefacts 7922-0512 BUNDOORA Artefact - Surface - 1 S 1 flake/scraper Centre of golf REPAT 2 Scatter course; undulating 7922-0513 BUNDOORA Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating plain REPAT 3 Tree scar 7922-0514 BUNDOORA Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating plain REPAT 4 Tree scar 7922-0533 BUNDOORA Artefact - Subsurface - 2 S Worked flake/tool Volcanic lowland REPAT 7 Scatter plain

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform (m) Subsurface range of Material (mm) Artefacts 7922-0557 MACLEOD Artefact - Surface - 1 Ss Hammerstone Undulating land REPAT. Scatter HOSPITAL 1 7922-0668 WAIORA ROAD Scarred - - - - - Red gum tree in good health Hill slope 1 Tree with one scar 7922-0683 FAIRWAY DRIVE Artefact 30m x 60m Surface - - S Worked flakes Flat level 1 Scatter floodplain 7922-0686 FAIRWAY DRIVE Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool; unretouched Floodplain 2 Scatter waste flake 7922-0687 FAIRWAY DRIVE Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool; Undulating land, 3 Scatter hill slope 7922-0688 FAIRWAY DRIVE Artefact 41m x 31m Surface - - S, C, FG Worked flakes, unspecified Flat floodplain 4 Scatter chipped stone artefacts 7922-0689 FAIRWAY DRIVE Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating land, 5 Tree scar hill slope 7922-0690 BUNDOORA Artefact 45m x 2m Surface - - S Worked flakes, unspecified Sloping irregular HOMESTEAD Scatter chipped stone artefacts land 7922-0691 HARDIMAN Artefact - Surface - 1 S Unretouched waste flake Flat land STREET 1 Scatter 7922-0692 DAM QUARRY Artefact 31m x 10m Surface - - S Stone outcrop; hammerstones, Undulating Scatter and likely pitted stones, worked flakes, subsurface cores, microblade technology, unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0693 SNAKE GULLY Artefact 35m x 10m Surface - - S Stone source area; outcrop; Flat, level land DRIVE 1 Scatter worked flakes, microliths, unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0694 SNAKE GULLY Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating plain DRIVE 2 Tree scar

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform (m) Subsurface range of Material (mm) Artefacts 7922-0695 SNAKE GULLY Scarred - - - - - Red gum in good health with one Undulating hill DRIVE 3 Tree scar slope 7922-0696 PLAYGROUND Artefact 10m x 15m Surface - - S, F/C, O Worked flakes, cores, microliths, Flat level land DRIVE 1 Scatter unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0697 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Hills and ridges DRIVE 2 Scatter 7922-0698 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Flat to undulating DRIVE 3 Scatter land 7922-0699 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Unretouched/ waste flake Flat to undulating DRIVE 4 Scatter land 7922-0700 PLAYGROUND Artefact - - - 1-4 S Worked flake/tool Flat to undulating DRIVE 5 Scatter land

La Trobe University7922 CHMP-0701 13756 PLAYGROUND Artefact 30m x 30m Surface - - S Worked flakes, cores Flat, level land DRIVE 6 Scatter 7922-0706 MT COOPER Artefact - - - 1 S Worked flake/tool Hills and ridges; hill SCENIC DRIVE 5 Scatter slope 7922-0707 MT COOPER Artefact - - - 3 S 2 worked flake/tools; 1 Hill slope SCENIC DRIVE 6 Scatter unretouched waste flake 7922-0708 FAIRWAY DRIVE Artefact 25m x 110m Surface - - S Worked flakes, scraper, Flat level land 3 Scatter unspecified chipped stone artefacts 7922-0709 PROSPECT HILL Artefact - - - 1-4 S Unretouched waste flake Hill adjacent to DRIVE Scatter Snake Gully 7922-0986 LATROBE Artefact 5mx5mx0m Surface Surface 1 Q Bipolar flake fragment Undulating WILDLIFE Scatter volcanic plain RESERVE 1 7922-1083 BUNDOORA Artefact - Subsurface 220mm 9 S, SS Flakes, angular fragments Crest of PARK 3 Scatter escarpment/cliff

VAHR Place Name Place Type Dimensions Surface / Depth Number Raw Contents Landform (m) Subsurface range of Material (mm) Artefacts 7922-1091 BREW NEW 1 Artefact - Surface - 2 S, Qtz One silcrete flaked piece, one Escarpment Scatter quartzite broken proximal blade overlooking Darebin Creek 7922-1092 PLAYGROUND Scarred - - - - - River red gum with two scars Gently inclined DVE SCARRED Tree located within registered place floodplain TREE extent of artefact scatter, 7922- 0701 7922-1366 LA Trobe Low Density - - - 1 S Flake - University LDAD Artefact Distribution S = Stone, (S) = Silcrete; (Q) = Quartz, (Qtz) = Quartzite, (CG) = Quartz Crystal, (F/C) = Flint/Chert; (FG) = Fine Grained Siliceous, (In) = Indeterminate; (Gl) = glass; (H) = Hornfels; (B) = Basalt; (BG) = Basalt/Greenstone; (BC) = Black Cobble; (C) = Chert; (J) = Jasper; (M) = Mudstone; (O) = Other; (Si) = Siliceous; Ss= Sand stone (SS) = Siltstone, (I) = Ironstone; (IG) = Igneous, (U)=Unknown, (T/B) = Trachyte/Basalt, (MG) = Microgranite, (V) = Volcanic, (T)=Trachyte

Table 5: Historical Aboriginal references located within the Geographic Region

Historical Reference No. Historical Reference Name Historical Reference Type Information Location 5.3-4 Bundoora Park Police Barracks 5.3 Locations where Native Police Bundoora Park once had Bundoora Park west of were housed/camped/worked a Mounted Police Plenty Road Barracks which employed Aboriginal trackers up to the 1950s

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

4.8 Review of Historical and Ethno-Historical Accounts of Aboriginal Occupation in the Geographic Region

In this section the available ethno-historical information relating to Aboriginal people in the geographic region is briefly reviewed. This information can assist in formulating a model of Aboriginal subsistence and occupation patterns in the geographic region. In conjunction with an analysis of the documented archaeological record of the area (See Section 4.9), the ethno-historical information also assists in the interpretation of archaeological sites occurring in the activity area, and in predicting the location of archaeological sites and site types. There are several problems concerned with correctly identifying and describing 19th century Aboriginal groups in Victoria, largely as a result of discrepancies in early European accounts and the difficulties early settlers had in understanding Aboriginal languages and social systems. Furthermore, the devastating effects of European settlement, such as the loss of traditional lands and resources, the spread of disease, social breakdown and removal of both groups and individuals to reserves and mission stations have added further complexities. As a result, it is hard to identify and document the specific Aboriginal clan groups in the geographic region both before and after the period of initial European settlement. The ethno-historical information presented within this report is based on the observations and writings of men from the nineteenth century, and certain contextual limitations should be considered when reading these accounts. As pointed out by Barwick (1984, 103), “…their jealousies, ambitions, loyalties and roles in colonial society shaped their inquiries and the content of their publications”. These nineteenth century authors were writing from an Anglo-centric and gender biased viewpoint for a colonial audience who had a very limited and generally negative view on Aboriginal life, heritage, and culture. Despite these shortcomings, nineteenth century ethnographical accounts are a useful resource; the information has often been provided to the author by Aboriginal informants or by first- hand observations and experience. Such information may include knowledge regarding regional Aboriginal stories, life, culture and beliefs, and this data has been utilised to inform the ethno- historical section of this report. A language group consisted of independent groups of closely related kin, or ‘clans’, who were spiritually linked to designated areas of land through their association with topographic features connected to mythic beings or deities (Barwick 1984). Clan lands were inalienable and clan members had religious responsibilities (e.g. conducting rituals) to ensure ‘the perpetuation of species associated with the particular mythic beings associated with that territory’ (Berndt 1982, 4). Traditionally, reconstructions of tribal boundaries have been based on language groups documented in the ethnographic and ethno historical literature. It is important to note, however, that these reconstructions do not necessarily reflect the spatial distribution of Aboriginal peoples prior to European settlement and instead provide an approximate guide to Aboriginal tribal boundaries during the contact period. During the early phase of European exploration, the few observations made of Aboriginal groups were generally limited to distant sightings of Aboriginal people and their fires (Sullivan 1981, 13). The activity area is located within the traditional language area of the Woi wurrung who are part of the Kulin Nation language group. The Woi wurrung clan most closely associated with the geographic region were the Wurundjeri willam, who identified with the Yarra and Plenty rivers (Clark 1990, 385). Clan boundaries were defined by mountains, creeks and rivers, and clans were very familiar with the geography of their territory and the seasonal availability of resources within it. At European settlement, Bebejan was ngurungaeta (clan head) of the Wurundjeri willam whose territory included the area around Darebin Creek (Howitt 1904, 309). Bebejan was the father of William Barak (Clark

1990, 365). The majority of references to Wurundjeri willam describe Aboriginal associations with either the Yarra River or Mount William, west of Kilmore (Presland 1985). The Wurundjeri willam had an extensive network of political, economic and social relations with neighbouring clans, including those from other language groups. Marriage was sought from the Bunjil moieties of the Bun wurrung (spelling according to Clark 1990, 364) to the south, the Taungurong to the north and a clan near Mount Macedon and Lancefield (Barwick 1984, 104). The development of the township of Melbourne resulted in the loss of traditional lands and resources, the spread of disease, social breakdown and removal of both groups and individuals to reserves and mission stations. Aboriginal people from other clans and language groups were attracted to Melbourne for a variety of reasons, making it difficult to identify and document the ethno history and post-contact history of specific Aboriginal clan groups after the period of initial settlement. A Government Mission was built in 1837 on an 895-acre site, south of the Yarra River (east of Melbourne Botanic Gardens), with George Langhorne responsible for the running of the mission. The objective of the mission was to ‘civilise’ Aboriginal people and those who decided to live at the mission were provided with rations in exchange for agricultural endeavours. Children were also provided with

rations for attending school classes. Woi wurrung people were mainly associated with the mission La Trobe University CHMP 13756 although a few Bun wurrung individuals and members of other language groups were noted as being affiliated to the mission in 1838 (Clark and Heydon 1998, 27). In 1839 a census requested by George Robinson, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Port Phillip Protectorate, of Aboriginal people living in and around Melbourne found that the probable Aboriginal population at this time consisted of 140 Woi wurrung, 50 Wada wurrung and 12 Bun wurrung people (Lakic and Wrench 1994, 110, 113). However, it is likely that the numbers of Aboriginal people in Melbourne varied greatly throughout this period and was subject to the influx of various groups and individuals. From the 1830s onwards, Aboriginal people continued to camp in the vicinity of the township of Melbourne. Mostly they were Aboriginal people belonging to Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung clans, and their preferred camping places were along the south bank of the Yarra River, opposite the settlement of Melbourne, and Government Paddocks (between Princess Bridge and Punt Road) (Clark and Heydon 1998, 25). Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung people camped from the falls (near Princess Bridge) for approximately 1.5 kilometres south east along the river. A particularly favoured location for camping was on the hill overlooking ‘Tromgin’, a swamp south of the Yarra River. Robinson and Thomas, an Assistant Protector, reportedly spent much time throughout the late 1830s to mid-1840s attempting to ‘break up’ Aboriginal camps by the Yarra River and discouraging Aboriginal people from visiting the township itself (Clark and Heydon 1998, 34–5, 40, 49). In 1840, Thomas noted that: By what I can learn, long ere the settlement was formed the spot where Melbourne now stands and the flats on which we are now camped [on the south bank of the Yarra] was the regular rendezvous for the tribes known as Warorangs, Boonurongs, Barrabools, Nilunguons, Gouldburns twice a year or as often as circumstances and emergences required to settle their grievances, revenge deaths… (Thomas in Presland 1985, 35). The population of Woi wurrung and Bun wurrung people declined steeply in 1847, caused by an influenza epidemic, leading to deaths and the dispersal of Aboriginal people from camps by the Yarra River (Clark and Heydon 1998). Through the influence of the Government, Missionary Societies and the new ‘landowners’, the number of Aboriginal people in the area dwindled as a result of high mortality rates and forced movement out of the township. Complaints from settlers who wanted to exclude Aboriginal people from their newly acquired land, and move them further into the ‘bush’ and requests by Aboriginal people themselves for a ‘station’ of their own, led to the establishment of an Aboriginal reserve known as Coranderrk, near Healesville in 1863. The majority of Woi wurrung people lived at Coranderrk from

1863 to the early 1900s when the introduction of the Aborigines Act 1909 requiring all ‘half castes’ to leave Mission Stations, resulted in Aboriginal people moving back to Melbourne, attracted by work opportunities (Rhodes et al. 1999, 88-89).

4.9 Review of Reports and Published Work about Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Region

In the past 20 years the broader Melbourne region has been the subject of numerous cultural heritage assessments, commissioned by both public and private agencies involved in housing developments and various associated infrastructure projects including (for example) wastewater facilities, roads, schools and golf clubs. As a consequence, archaeologists working with Aboriginal community groups have achieved reasonably extensive survey coverage. However, while this has resulted in the documentation of many Aboriginal archaeological sites across metropolitan Melbourne, these archaeological assessments have mostly involved only fairly superficial examinations of the geographic region. The currently known distribution of Aboriginal cultural heritage places across the geographic region needs to be considered in the context of these limitations. A number of archaeological investigations have been carried out both within the activity area and across the wider geographic region that are relevant to the current project. The previous archaeological research consists of regional studies, which assist in characterising the general pattern of archaeological site distribution across a broad region, and localised studies, generally undertaken for cultural resource management purposes, which may assist in developing an understanding of archaeological sensitivity and the extent and scope of prior investigation in a relatively limited area or environment. There has been one previous archaeological investigation undertaken within part of the activity area for this CHMP (Thomson 2002). There are also a number of previous archaeological investigations that have been conducted within the current geographic region, and those of relevance to the current activity area are summarised below.

4.9.1 Regional Studies The following studies have examined the archaeology of geographic region within a regional, rather than a localised context.

The Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park (Ellender 1991) In 1991, Ellender conducted an archaeological assessment of Aboriginal sites within the Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park, focusing on the Plenty river and gorge located to the north and north east of the current activity area. Ellender noted that a great amount of tree clearance has occurred within the study area, which is unfavourable for the identification of culturally scarred trees (Ellender 1991, 13). The desktop assessment undertaken by Ellender revealed that the majority of registered Aboriginal places in the study area consisted of scarred trees, artefact scatters, and isolated artefacts. These Aboriginal places were more likely to be situated on the high ground above the Plenty River or on gentle spurs leading down to the river. Scarred trees could also be located on the floodplains. Raw materials would probably consist of silcrete, quartz, basalt or chert which could all be sourced from the gorge (Ellender 1991, 16). Ellender divided the study area into two main landscape units, terrain above the break of slope and terrain below the break of slope with the latter subdivided into spurs and river terraces. According to Ellender, Aboriginal people would have utilised the landscape units differently, with the terrain above the break of slope on the west being exposed and rocky and well- wooded on the east (Ellender 1991, 17). The spurs would have formed conduits between the plains

and the river area, but would have been too steep for camping, whereas the river terraces would have been preferable for camping, comprising flat areas with the river close by, sheltered from the wind and elements. There were 39 previously registered Aboriginal places located in the study area. During the field survey a total of 18 new Aboriginal places were identified (Ellender 1991, 23), with 57 Aboriginal places located in the study area. Artefacts were identified on all landscape units, scarred trees were only found above the break of slope or on spurs, with 72% of Aboriginal places located above the break of slope and 28% (18% on spurs and 10% on terraces). Surface testing took places at four Aboriginal places, including 7922-0290, 7922-0236, 7922-0137 and 8922-0288. Some disturbance was noted within these sites, however all of these sites contained evidence for subsurface archaeological deposits. Ellender assessed the following areas to be of the highest archaeological sensitivity: high peninsulas with flat or gently sloping tops that project into the meanders of the river and the low river terraces above flood level (Ellender 1991, 43).

Lower Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey (Weaver 1992) Weaver (1992) sample surveyed the Darebin Creek from Settlement Road in Bundoora, c. 14.5 km

La Trobe Universitysouth CHMP to 13756its confluence with the Yarra River (Weaver 1992, 3). It is unclear precisely which parts of the creek received survey coverage, however dense vegetation and the extensive modification of land surfaces hampered ground surface visibility, with visibility generally restricted to maintenance tracks and areas of erosion along the creek bank. It was noted that the northern section of the study area, within which the current activity area is situated, contained the highest levels of ground surface visibility due to these areas having been burnt less than a month prior to the survey, and also the presence of more parkland and open space in this area (Weaver 1992, 27). A total of 13 Aboriginal places were identified during the survey. These sites comprised of three stone artefact scatters, six isolated stone artefacts, three stone outcrops and one scarred tree (Weaver 1992, 24). Over half of these Aboriginal places were identified in the area between Plenty Road and Dougharty Road, in the vicinity of the current activity area, and these sites consist of one scarred tree, 7922-0218, two artefact scatters (7922-0210 and 7922-0225) and four isolated artefacts (7922-0206, 7922-0207, 7922-0208 and 7922-0209). In addition, there were eight previously registered Aboriginal places within the study area prior to Weaver’s survey, consisting of one scarred tree and seven artefact scatters. A total of six of these previously registered Aboriginal places are located in the area between Plenty Road and Dougharty Road (7922-0076, 7922-0077, 7922-0078, 7922-0079, 7922-0080 and 7922-0081). The stone outcrops, characterised by pale grey fine-grained to coarse-grained silcrete boulders, were located on the eastern slopes of Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park. The actual use of these outcrops as sources of stone tool raw material was not established during the survey due to dense vegetation which prevented a full visual inspection of the stone outcrops. However stone artefacts were located in close vicinity to two of the stone outcrops (Weaver 1992, 26, 28). In addition, Weaver noted the presence of a previously identified extensive stone artefact scatter adjacent to the stone outcrops (7922-0030). The Aboriginal heritage place 7922-0030 was identified during landscaping of the Bundoora Park Public Golf Course with more than 2,000 artefacts collected from this location. Weaver examined the previously collected stone artefacts, which were predominantly flaked stone artefacts, made from fine-grained materials such as silcrete and quartzite. An edge-ground axe fragment was also represented in the collection (Weaver 1992, 18). The stone artefact scatters and isolated stone artefacts identified during the field survey were predominantly located within a 1 km stretch of the Darebin Creek corridor, south of Plenty Road. A total of 83 flaked stone artefacts and an axe blank were recorded at these sites, representing sample recordings at 7922-0224 & -0225 and all stone artefacts identified at the remaining sites. The main raw material present in the flaked stone artefact assemblage was fine to medium-grained silcrete, with small amounts of chert, quartz and quartzite also documented. A range of flaked stone artefact

types were represented including cores, blades, scrapers, flakes and waste flakes. Over half of the flaked stone artefact artefacts showed evidence of use wear, and or retouch. Cortex was identified on 14 of the silcrete artefacts (Weaver 1992, 24-25). A scarred tree located during the survey was identified on the creek floodplain, c. 100 m from the creek, within a small stand of remnant River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis) (1992, 26). Weaver highlighted several points in her discussion of the results of the survey (1993, 28-9):  Nine newly identified Aboriginal sites and six previously registered Aboriginal sites are concentrated within a 1.5 km section of Darebin Creek, south of Plenty Road. A smaller concentration of Aboriginal sites is located at Bundoora Park.  Stone artefact occurrences were the main site type recorded, and the main source of raw material appears to be silcrete outcrops in the Mount Cooper area, in Bundoora Park. However, the actual use of silcrete stone outcrops in this area could not be verified during the field survey. This is supported by the general absence of cortex on the silcrete stone artefacts identified during the survey, suggesting the source is more likely to be derived from an outcrop of rock than river pebbles.  The existing distribution of Aboriginal sites in the study area, with clear site concentrations in the north of the study area, is suggested to be partially a reflection of the higher level of surface visibility in this area. However, Weaver does indicate that the presence of silcrete outcrops at Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park is likely to have attracted Aboriginal people to the northern part of the study area. In addition, the northern section of the study area was highlighted as having higher potential to contain further sites.  Weaver suggests that there is potential for archaeological sites to exist in the southern section of the study area but that these were obscured by lack of surface visibility, and may be covered by fill on the floodplain.

Aboriginal Archaeological sites in the Darebin Municipality (Marshall and Schell 1996) Marshall and Schell were commissioned by Optus to undertake a brief overview of the known Aboriginal heritage places in the Municipality of Darebin, including information on the distribution and significance of these sites. Marshall and Schell ascertained that there were 33 registered Aboriginal heritage places within the municipality of Darebin, with the majority of these site types comprising surface scatters, closely followed by isolated artefacts (Marshall and Schell 1996, 1). Quarries were also a frequent site type. Marshall and Schell also noted that there were surprisingly few scarred trees recorded within the Darebin region, which they believed is an under-representation, as the municipality has many large native trees which may contain Aboriginal scarring (Marshall and Schell 1996, 1). Marshall and Schell recommended that as scarred trees are the site type which will be most affected by the installation of overhead cables, that damage to all mature native trees should be avoided (Marshall and Schell 1996, 4).

4.9.2 Localised Studies There are several localised studies in the geographic region that have relevance to the current project, and these are summarised below.

Former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston (Weaver and Perham 1995a; Weaver and Perham 1995b) Weaver and Perham (1995a and 1995b) conducted and field survey and subsequent subsurface testing at the location of the former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital. The study area is located approximately 800m north east of the current activity area. The study area formerly contained swamps and small water courses, and would have supported a variety of food and material resources for Aboriginal people (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 5). The study area was part of ‘Bundoora Park’, property of Samuel Gardiner, and was later developed into a horse stud containing a two storey brick homestead and various outbuildings (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 6). The homestead eventually became part of the Bundoora Park historical centre. During the 1920s, the study area was utilised as a convalescent

farm and hospital intended for patients suffering psychiatric disorders as a result of war service. Since La Trobe University CHMP 13756 the 1970s, more than 2,000 Aboriginal stone artefacts have been located in the Bundoora Park area, including the Aboriginal place, VAHR 7922-0030, including artefacts made from bottle glass (Weaver and Perham 1995a, 8). Weaver and Perham conducted a field survey of the study area, recording 8 Aboriginal places including three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0511, -0515 and -0516), three isolated stone artefacts (VAHR 7922-0512, -05517 and -0518), and two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0513 and - 0514). Subsurface testing took place in the vicinity of the Aboriginal places, VAHR 7922-0511, VAHR 7922- 0515 and VAHR 7922-0516 which were located in association with a line of sugar gum trees in the north eastern section of the study area (Weaver and Perham 1995b). A total of seven rotary hoe trenches were excavated, approximately 50-60cm wide with an average depth of 15-20cm. Subsurface artefacts were found, generally located beneath the sugar gum tree line and drip line (Weaver and Perham 1995b, 11). The majority of these artefacts comprised silcrete lithics, as well as some chert, and one quartzite artefact.

Former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, Plenty Road Bundoora (Cekalovic 1999) In 1999, Cekalovic undertook an archaeological desktop assessment of the former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, located on Plenty Road in Bundoora, directly adjacent to the north western section of the current activity area. Construction commenced on the former Larundel Hospital during the 1930s, with World War Two interrupting the development of the hospital. The hospital was first utilised as a psychiatric facility in 1949, and construction of facilities continued into the 1950s (Cekalovic 1999, 16). The hospital did not officially open until 1953. Continued development of the facility occurred during the 1960s, with the number of patients declining during the 1970s (Cekalovic 1999, 17). Cekalovic assessed the study area to have minimal Aboriginal archaeological potential, with the only area that may have some potential being the south eastern corner of the study area which contains many river red gums that predate the hospital development (Cekalovic 1999, 24). Cekalovic concluded that it was unlikely for Aboriginal stone artefacts to be located in the study area due to the heavy disturbances that have taken place during construction activities and vegetation plantings. Cekalovic recommended that the trees located in the south eastern corner of the study area be examined for Aboriginal cultural scarring (Cekalovic 1999, 26).

La Trobe Research and Development Park Bundoora (Thomson 2002) Thomson (2002) conducted an archaeological survey within the Research and Development Park adjacent to La Trobe University and within the south eastern section of the current activity area. Most of the land that was surveyed has been cleared of vegetation, and contains a number of university buildings, with some bush land still remaining in sections of the park (Thomson 2002, 5). The overall ground surface visibility of the survey area was poor, with an estimated 2% of the area effectively surveyed with tracks providing up to 90% surface visibility (Thomson 2002, 20). No new Aboriginal heritage places were identified during the assessment, however Thomson identified a small area of moderate sensitivity that covers the highest point of the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road. This area contains two large remnant eucalypts, and lies immediately adjacent to a previously recorded Aboriginal scar tree (Thomson 2002, 20). During the field survey, this area contained 0% of ground surface visibility due to the heavy grass cover. Due to the moderate sensitivity of this location, Thomson recommended subsurface investigation of this area.

Wurundjeri community investigation, Bundoora Park (Stellini 2003) In 2003, Stellini reported on the Wurundjeri community investigation at Bundoora Park, consisting of a field survey of the study area. At the time of the investigation there were 13 previously recorded Aboriginal places within Bundoora Park including silcrete quarries, scarred trees, artefact scatters and Aboriginal places consisting of multiple features (Stellini 2003, 14). The construction of the golf course and landscaping activities within Bundoora Park have brought about a level of disturbance to the study area, which has likely impacted on the Aboriginal cultural heritage within this area (Stellini 2003, 16). Stellini noted poor ground surface visibility during the field survey of the study area, with soil exposures present along fence lines, roads, and other features (Stellini 2003, 18). A total of 22 additional Aboriginal places were recorded during the field programme, with three sites also recorded on unfenced private land adjoining Bundoora Park. Some limited subsurface investigation also look place at the time of the survey (Stellini 2003, 24), focusing on two areas within the park. One of these areas consisted of an Aboriginal place originally recorded by Weaver in 1991 (VAHR 7922-0221), and five shovel probes identified 39 artefacts. There were also three shovel probes excavated along Darebin Creek, and one of these probes contained 19 artefacts (VAHR 7922-0710). Other Aboriginal place types included artefact scatters, isolated artefacts, three scarred trees and one quarry with artefact scatter (Stellini 2003, 26).

38 Douglas Street Rosanna (Barker 2012) In 2012, Barker completed a CHMP for a residential development in Rosanna, located approximately 1.95KM south east of the current activity area. The activity area is situated within 200m of a named watercourse (Salt Creek). The activity area contains an existing dwelling, and includes a shed and underground pool, as well as paving and landscaping. A standard assessment was undertaken, and a reasonably low level of ground surface visibility was noted (Barker 2012, 17). Barker noted that the majority of the activity area appeared to have been built up with fill to form an even building surface. A complex assessment was then undertaken and two 1x1m test pits were excavated. Shallow soils were present, with clay encountered around 100mm. Some fill and introduced materials were present in soil sediments. There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified. Barker concluded that the disturbances caused by the modifications to the activity area during the residential construction would have impacted on any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may have been located in the shallow topsoil.

20 Lowell Avenue, Kingsbury (McAlister 2014) McAlister conducted a CHMP for a residential subdivision in Kingsbury, located approximately 500m north west of the current activity area. This activity area is situated within 200m of Darebin Creek and contains an existing dwelling, concrete driveway and associated structures (McAlister 2014, 1). There is a surface artefact scatter located outside of the activity area within the Darebin Creek Reserve. A standard assessment was undertaken, and poor ground surface visibility was noted (McAlister 2014, 26). Due to the low surface visibility, it was difficult to assess the archaeological sensitivity of the activity area, and a complex assessment was undertaken. A 1x1m test pit and four shovel test pits were excavated across the activity area. Fill deposits were noted in several of the test pits, and introduced materials were also present (McAlister 2014, 31). Soils were compact and shallow (clay was encountered at approximately 200mm). There was no Aboriginal cultural heritage identified, and the consultant concluded that modifications to the activity area from the construction of the dwelling and associated structures has brought about a significant level of disturbance.

7 Argyle Street, Macleod (Matic 2015) La Trobe University CHMP 13756 Matic (2015) conducted a CHMP for a residential development at Macleod, located approximately 1.1km east of the current activity area. The activity area is situated within 200m of Mile Creek and contains an existing dwelling, garden and driveway as well as a small shed. A standard assessment was undertaken, and ground surface visibility was hampered by lawn growth and the existing structures (Matic 2015, 22). Matic noted significant levels of previous disturbance around the location of the dwelling and structures. The garden area was deemed to be possibly less disturbed and a complex assessment was undertaken. A 1x1m test pit and eight shovel test pits were excavated, and soils were found to be shallow with thin topsoil overlying clayey silt with ironstone gravels and clay across the base. No Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified. Matic concluded that the sloping topography of the activity area may have deterred Aboriginal people from using this area, with more suitable flatter landforms located nearby (Matic 2015, 31).

La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Values Assessment (Spry et. al 2016) Andrew Long and Associates was commissioned by La Trobe University to undertake a cultural values assessment of the Melbourne campus in 2015. The main objective of the cultural values assessment (CVA) was to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus, by working with Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Incorporated (WTLCCHCI) to research and document the Indigenous cultural values of the Melbourne campus and surrounding areas. A targeted cultural values recording was undertaken over a one-day period on 17 December 2015. Invitations had been extended to three female Wurundjeri Elders and three male Wurundjeri Elders (two representatives from each Wurundjeri family) to participate in the cultural values recording. Present at the cultural values recording was Ron Jones (Wurundjeri Elder, representing the Nevin family) and Allan Wandin (Wurundjeri Elder, representing the Wandin family). The cultural values recording documented landscapes and archaeological sites of cultural value to the Wurundjeri through stories and discussions that substantiate the associations between the Wurundjeri community, the study area and wider region. Consultation as part of the cultural values assessment resulted in the formation of a number of key statements and findings.  The study area is a small component of a much wider cultural landscape. The importance of the wider region as a cultural landscape has been demonstrated through a combination of known material remains (i.e. archaeological sites) and sociocultural significance detailed by the Wurundjeri Elders throughout the cultural values recording.

 The study area is a significant landscape with tangible and intangible connections for the present day Wurundjeri community due to its multi-layered past and present social history.  Darebin creek and its tributaries are of substantial cultural significance to contemporary Wurundjeri people. The creek remains an important cultural link to Wurundjeri’s pre-contact and post-contact heritage in the study area.  The ultimate focus of the Wurundjeri is to return the environment to its original condition. For Indigenous people, natural and cultural values are often indivisible. Therefore, Indigenous cultural values encompass native flora, fauna and geological features. The incorporation of Indigenous cultural values into future developments within the Melbourne campus can be obtained through a collaborative approach between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council. Potential next steps outlined include:  Increased communication between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council regarding future developments within the study area (particularly in relation to Darebin creek);  A focus on the rehabilitation of the Darebin creek landscape through consultation with the Wurundjeri Council and the Wurundjeri Green Team;  A collaboration between the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Wurundjeri Council to ensure the alignment of indigenous values with those of the Wildlife Sanctuary, through: o The engagement of the Wurundjeri Green Team to assist in the long-term restoration of indigenous habitats within the Wildlife Sanctuary; and o To provide an opportunity for groups to engage with Indigenous educators by incorporating an Indigenous education programme provided by the Wurundjeri Education Department.  Discussions around increasing awareness of Indigenous cultural values within the study area in order to better understand and capture the Indigenous cultural values associated with the Melbourne campus; and  Increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri to participate in future campus development, the preparation of a reconciliation plan and be involved in managing Indigenous cultural values within the study area.

4.10 A Review of the History of the Use of the Activity Area

Aboriginal peoples’ occupation of the geographic region likely extends over thousands of years. This occupation would have taken the form of temporary camps used on a seasonal basis, making use of diverse resources in the area. The landscape was undoubtedly well known to generations of people and it is probable that associations extended to spiritual attachments. Historical European land use within the activity area will have impacted upon the preservation of archaeological materials relating to pre-existing Aboriginal occupation of the area. Vegetation clearance, agriculture, cultivation, the sub-division of lots and construction of buildings will have contributed to the disturbance of surface and shallow subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage.

This section contains a brief synthesis of the historical development of the geographic region containing the activity area during the 19th century. The following synthesis represents a generalised historical sketch of the development of the region. In 1835, Captain William Lonsdale arrived in Melbourne and became the first Administrator of Port Phillip (Newnham 1956, 8). At the time, the European settlement consisted of around 224-186 males,

and 38 females occupying 43 residences. The residents were informed that His Majesty’s Government had authorised the settlement at Port Phillip, and that a survey of the land would be undertaken and that land would then be available at public auctions. Later that year the first overlanders arrived with cattle and established a cattle run near Gardiner’s Creek (Newnham 1956, 9). The first public auction sale of land took place on 1 June 1837, and 100 city lots were rapidly purchased. By the end of 1837, Melbourne’s population was 1,300 people, and Melbourne’s first newspaper, the Melbourne Advertiser came out on New Years’ Day 1838. In 1839, Charles Joseph La Trobe became the first Superintendent of the Port Phillip District, and the first Governor when the Colony of Victoria was established in 1851. Later that year, gold was discovered in the Ballarat region, triggering the era of the Victorian gold rush. The population of Victoria expanded during this time, with 77,000 inhabitants just prior to the first major gold rush and in 1854 to 237,000 people, and 410,000 people in 1857, and in 1861, 540,000 people (Cannon 1993, 1). The gold rush brought about a boom in the development of Melbourne, with the number of buildings in and around Melbourne multiplying by the end of 1852 from 1,000 to 5,000 (Cannon 1993, 6). By

La Trobe Universitythe mid CHMP -137561850s, the inner-city of Melbourne in areas such as Collingwood and Richmond were characterised by industries set-up along the flat northern bank of the Yarra (Davison 1978, 44), with the Yarra River being utilised as both a reservoir and a sewer. The Yarra pollution Act was passed in 1855 to restrict any further pollution of this water source, however further industrial developments in the Melbourne region during the 1860s continued to build up the riverside suburbs. The southern and eastern suburbs of Melbourne flourished during the end of the 1850s, with substantial middle- class villas and mansions being constructed (Cannon 1993, 7). In 1858, the first Spencer Street Station (now Southern Cross) was constructed, and opened in 1869 (Australian Railway Historical Society). During the late 1850s, better roads and the establishment of railways accelerated the suburban boom of Melbourne (Cannon 1993, 250). By the late 1880s, mixed farming of this area became more common, with a focus on dairying and the cultivation of crops such as oats, peas and potatoes (Peel 1974, 43). Market gardening along the Darebin Creek was also occurred, predominantly between the years of 1919-1935. After 1940 the area surrounding Darebin Creek was rapidly developed for industrial uses such as the construction of factories, and for recreational purposes, for example the development of parklands, ovals and golf courses (Feldman 2004, 14). These types of development involved the extensive modification to the banks of the Darebin Creek and associated floodplains, including the introduction of fill and the levelling of ground surfaces (Weaver 1992, 16). In the 1940s, a post-war development boom was evident in the area with the construction of factories, parklands and recreation reserves occurring along both sides of Darebin Creek. These developments resulted in extensive disturbance to the Darebin Creek corridor, with the introduction of fill, levelling of surfaces and modification to the course of the creek (Weaver 1992, 16). In 1967, the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University opened (Thomson 2002, 13) which would have brought about further alteration to the landforms within the region. Modifications to the Darebin Creek continued during the 1970s and 1980s, with the establishment of the Bundoora Park Golf Course and parklands (Weaver 1992, 16). During the mid-1980s, parts of the Darebin Creek near La Trobe University were cleaned out and channelised (Weaver 1992, 16). The Darebin Creek tributary, Strathallan Creek, is the only tributary of the Darebin Creek that has not been channelled. Strathallan creek runs directly through La Trobe University, and the conservation of this creek has undertaken by the university through a series of ponds, wetlands and moats (Thomson 2002, 7). The current activity area includes Crown Allotment 10 in the Parish of Keelbundora, and was originally purchased on 12 September 1838 by Neil Campbell who came from Scotland (Venosta et. al 2015, 8). Campbell purchased large portions of land in Bundoora and Darebin, which he sold in 1842 to Malcolm

McLean (or Allan McLean) who established the grazing property later known as ‘Strathallan’ (Forster 1968, 16; Venosta et. al 2015, 9). McLean donated the land that is currently utilised as the Preston cemetery, which was then known as Strathallan cemetery. Strathallan Creek was named after Malcolm McLean. Around 1908, the Victorian government purchased the land that included the current activity area to establish a mental hospital, due to overcrowding at the Kew and Fairfield facilities (Venosta et. al 2015, 9). The first buildings constructed around 1911-1913 and included the Farmers Workers Block (currently known as the Kingsbury Centre), the Paying Patients Wards, an administration building, laundry facilities and a railway line (Venosta et. al 2015, 10). Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, additional buildings were constructed, including a nursing home, hospital block and mortuary, isolation wards and a kiosk. The hospital grounds were also extensively landscaped, and a nursery was developed as well as croquet lawn, a Nymphaea pond, and a large orchard was also built prior to 1914 (Venosta et. al 2015, 10). Patients of the Mont Park asylum worked as blacksmiths, carpenters and farming, with excess produce sold. From 1924, the Bundoora repatriation hospital joined the Mont Park establishment, and in 1938, Larundel also became part of Mont Park. The location of the current La Trobe wildlife sanctuary is largely modified from through a long site history of agricultural land use. The sanctuary also encompasses areas of Mont Park that were utilised for recreation, such as the cricket pitch and oval, tennis courts and gardens. During the 1960s, there were plans to open another university in Melbourne and the landscaped grounds of the Bundoora land including the current activity area were chosen for the site of La Trobe University (Venosta et. al 2015, 13).

4.11 Conclusions

By comparing the results of background research and archaeological investigations previously undertaken within the geographic region, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the likely nature of Aboriginal archaeological materials and cultural heritage places within the activity area:  The activity area includes a generally modified landscape containing the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University, with recreational sports fields adjacent to Darebin Creek, as well as the La Trobe wildlife sanctuary situated in the north eastern section of the activity area.  The activity area falls within a region that was most probably associated with the Woi wurrung Aboriginal group. The Woi wurrung clan most closely associated with the geographic region were the Wurundjeri willam, who identified with the Yarra and Plenty rivers.  The activity area has been re-vegetated largely with native vegetation and also contains some remnant mature native vegetation such as River Red Gums. The geology of the activity area comprises: o Melbourne Formation (Sxm): generic o Greensborough Basalt (Nug): generic o Red Bluff Sandstone (Nbr): generic o Newer Volcanic Group basalt flows (Neo): generic o Sub-basaltic sediments (Nxp): sediments under the Miocene basalts o Alluvium (Qa1): generic  According to ACHRIS, at the time of the commencement of this CHMP there were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place within the activity area; two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters, (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366).

 There are a total of 50 registered Aboriginal places in the geographic region containing the activity area. These Aboriginal places include 39 artefact scatters, one quarry, one low density artefact distribution (LDAD) and 9 scarred trees.  Although there have been a number of previous archaeological investigations undertaken in the geographic region, aside from an archaeological survey of a small section of the activity area (Thomson 2002) there have been no comprehensive archaeological investigations conducted for the current activity area.  Weaver’s 1992 survey of Darebin Creek indicate a level of modification has taken place to land surfaces associated with the creek. Weaver noted that the presence of silcrete outcrops at Mount Cooper in Bundoora Park is likely to have attracted Aboriginal people to the current geographic region, and the northern section of the Darebin Creek area, which takes in the south western section of the activity area, may have higher potential to contain further Aboriginal sites.  Cekalovic (1999, 26) recommended that mature river red gums located adjacent to the north western section of the current activity area be examined for Aboriginal cultural scarring. Due La Trobe University CHMP to13756 modifications that took place to this area during the development of the former Larundel Hospital, there is minimal archaeological potential across the remainder of this area.  The results of Thomson’s survey of the Research and Development Park adjacent to La Trobe University and within the south eastern section of the current activity area suggest that most of this land has subject to vegetation clearance with some sections of bush land, and contains university buildings. Thomson assessed the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road to be of moderate archaeological sensitivity as it covers a high point in the landscape, and also contains some mature eucalypts.  Recent CHMPs in the geographic region (Barker 2012, McAlister 2014 and Matic 2015) indicate that disturbances caused by the modifications to the residential areas surrounding La Trobe University have impacted on any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may have been located in these areas. Shallow soil profiles have also been noted, along with the presence of fill and introduced materials.  Watercourses within the activity area include Strathallan Creek, and landforms associated with the nearby Darebin Creek.  The registered Aboriginal places within the current geographic region are generally associated with landforms adjacent to creek margins and water sources.  The land comprising the activity area has been subject to agricultural, residential, recreational, medical and educational uses since European settlement. These previous and current land uses will have modified the landforms of the activity area, bringing about various levels of disturbance. The results of the desktop assessment have demonstrated that it is possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage will be present within the activity area. On this basis, a standard assessment was carried out in accordance with s 58(1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) (see Section 5 for details).

STANDARD ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

This section outlines the aims, methods and results of the field survey undertaken for the activity area, including descriptions of individual investigation areas.

5.2 Previously Registered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places.

There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922- 0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366) (Map 7).

5.3 Method of Assessment

The aims of the current field survey were threefold:  to re-inspect previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area (i.e. 7922-0218, 7922-0668, 7922-0210, 7922-0219 and 7922-0986 and 7922- 1366);  to inspect all areas with ground surface visibility for Aboriginal archaeological sites within the activity area; and  to undertake a general assessment of the overall archaeological potential of the activity area. The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 4 February 2016. Participants in the field survey are listed in Table 6. The field survey methodology was dictated by the need to systematically examine the entirety of the activity area. A suitable methodology for the conduct of a ground surface survey was discussed with the Sponsor and Wurundjeri at a meeting on 11 November 2015 (see Section 3 for further details). During the meeting, the nature and likely extent of significant ground disturbance across the activity area were incorporated into decisions about how the ground surface survey for the standard assessment should be conducted. A systematic pedestrian survey was undertaken within the activity area, with each member of the field team spaced approximately 5 m apart. This spacing enabled each individual to examine all surface exposures within the activity area in accordance with archaeological practice outlined in Burke and Smith (2004, 65-69). Pedestrian spacing was sufficient to identify any areas of significant ground exposure. The average ground surface visibility of the activity area ranged between 1-15 percent at the time of the survey. There were very few areas containing patches of exposed soil within the activity area, these exposed areas provided some surface visibility and these areas were targeted.

As a component of the field survey and as a means of informing the conduct of the subsequent complex assessment, the activity area was divided into five Investigation Areas (IA). These are based on a combination of location, landform and levels of ground disturbance (Map 6; Table 7 to Table 12). Each investigation area was assessed in terms of the overall archaeological sensitivity and the overall disturbance of the area. The initial archaeological sensitivity rating was based on the outcomes of the desktop assessment, and was subsequently modified as a result of observations made during the field survey. For example, previously identified places within the geographic region containing the activity area were generally located in association with water sources and on landforms such as on elevated rises and ridges. Previous archaeological investigations within the geographic region have also indicated that Aboriginal cultural heritage places such as stone artefact occurrences are present on landforms located in proximity to watercourses (along Darebin Creek) and on elevated rises. On the basis of this data an initial higher sensitivity was expected in similar areas within the activity area. Following this methodology each investigation area was assigned an archaeological sensitivity rating, reflecting the environmental and cultural value of a location, and a disturbance rating,

La Trobe Universityreflecti CHMPng 13756 the compound impact of past and present land uses.  Archaeological sensitivity ratings ranged from moderate-high to high, and were based on a variety of factors including proximity to water, landform, elevation, vegetation type, RAP viewpoints and the presence or absence of identified cultural heritage.  Disturbance ratings were based on a range from moderate to high, with the ratings values sequence reversed. The disturbance ratings assigned to each investigation area were based on factors such as the extent of landscape modification by activities such as the former hospital buildings and grounds, the ongoing development and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus and agricultural development and uses of the adjacent areas (Map 9). The majority of the activity area had poor ground surface visibility, with built structures, pathways, dense grass and trees across the undulating landform which comprised the activity area. In accordance with Regulation 59(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic), the field survey included the examination of all mature indigenous trees within the activity area and checked for the presence of caves and rock shelter.

Investigation Areas (IAs) In order to appropriately describe the varying locations, land forms, potential archaeological sensitivity, remnant vegetation, and the extent of ground surface disturbance encountered during the field survey, the activity area was divided into a number of investigation areas (numbered IA-1 to IA- 5) (Map 6, Table 7 to Table 12). IA-4 was further divided into two landform units, IA-4a and IA-4b (see Map 6), to distinguish between the levels of modification present within landform units of the Investigation Area. IA-1 IA-1 is characterised by the Darebin Creek Reserve within the La Trobe campus. IA-1 is bounded by Darebin Creek to the west, Plenty Road to the north, the La Trobe sports grounds to the east and Crissane Road to the south. IA-1 has a total land area of 18 ha. IA-2 IA-2 is characterised by vacant land within the La Trobe campus. IA-2 is bounded by the Preston Cemetery to the west, Plenty Road to the north, Kingsbury Drive to the east and the La Trobe sports ground to the south. IA-2 has a total land area of 5 ha.

IA-3 IA-3 is characterised by agricultural land within the La Trobe campus. IA-3 is bounded by Plenty Road to the west, Trott Avenue to the north, the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary to the east and Ring Road to the south. IA-3 has a total land area of 15 ha. IA-4a IA-4a is characterised by the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary. IA-4a is bounded by La Trobe Avenue to the west, Main Drive to the north, residential developments to the east and IA-4b to the south. IA-4a has a total land area of 36 ha. IA-4b IA-4b is characterised by parkland between Waiora Road and Forensic Drive. IA-4b is bounded by Forensic Drive to the west and south, Terrace Way to the north, Waiora Road to the east. IA-4b has a total land area of 5 ha. IA-5 IA-5 is characterised by heavily developed parts of the University campus. IA-5 is bounded by the Darebin creek reserve to the west, Plenty Road to the north and Crissane Road to the south. IA-5 has a total land area of 117 ha. In accordance with Regulation 59(3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic) the field survey included the examination of all mature indigenous trees within the activity area. There were a large number of mature eucalyptus trees growing within the activity area and these were all inspected for cultural scarring, with no previously unrecorded scarred trees identified.

5.4 Obstacles

Given activity area’s close proximity to roadways and built-up areas, ground surface visibility was limited in sections of each IA. Dense ground cover of introduced grass and weed species was particularly evident in investigation areas IA-1, IA-2, IA-3 and IA-4b. University development, including asphalted and paved surfaces (e.g. roadway, gutters, footpaths, bus stops) occupied most of investigation area IA-5, and sections of investigation area IA-3. Investigation area IA-4a demonstrated variable ground surface visibility through thick shrubbery, tall grasses and compacted track surfaces.

5.5 Participants Involved in the Standard Assessment

The participants in the standard assessment are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Participants involved in the Standard Assessment

Participant Organization Position Date Penelope Spry ALA Project Manager 04-02-2016

Vaia Liousas ALA Lead Field Archaeologist 04-02-2016

Brendan Wandin WTLCCHCI Representative 04-02-2016

Trevor Downe WTLCCHCI Representative 04-02-2016

5.6 RAP Information

As set out in Regulation 59 (2) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic), the standard assessment may include the collection and review of oral history relating to the activity area.

Please note no oral information was provided by Wurundjeri representatives on the day of the standard assessment.

5.7 Results

For the purposes of the CHMP field survey the activity area was divided into six investigation areas (see Section 5.3 and Map 6). Location, landform and topographic features were taken into consideration in the establishment of investigation areas. In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the activity area. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage places were identified during the standard assessment. Summary descriptions of all Investigation Areas (IAs) and Investigation Units (IUs) are presented in Table 7 to Table 12.

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Table 7: Investigation Unit IA-1

Survey Area IA-1 Aboriginal Place Identified Yes (Previously Identified) Darebin Creek Reserve Survey Method Pedestrian Type Scarred Tree Sampling Strategy Systematic List VAHR 7922-0218 (DAREBIN 6) Type Artefact Scatter List VAHR 7922-0210 (DAREBIN 5) No. of Participants 2 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Rating Moderate-High (4) Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate (3) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with very little ground % ground cover on 100 surface visibility (~2%) within parkland exposure(s) comprising IA-1. IA-1 is moderately disturbed % surface visibility on 0 from reserve maintenance, artificial drainage, exposure(s) graded gravel vehicular track and vegetation removal. The site has been cleared of the majority all native vegetation and features modified nat8ve trees and shrubs in close proximity to the creek. IA-1 is situated to the east off Darebin Creek. Able to relocate Aboriginal Places VAHR 7922- 0218 (DAREBIN 6). Unable to relocate VAHR 7922-0210 (DAREBIN 5). % ground cover off 95 exposure(s) % surface visibility off 5 exposure(s) Average ground surface 2 visibility Effective survey 3600 m2 coverage Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform and Land Lowland systems Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating floodplain

Water Darebin Creek to the west. Plate 1: Areas of exposure and pedestrian pathway within IA-1_facing Disturbance Low-moderately disturbed south_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas

Previous + Current Land Darebin Creek bushland use reserve maintenance, artificial drainage, graded gravel vehicular track and vegetation removal Vegetation Vegetation Condition Remnant native and modified native vegetation Vegetation Type Grassland and Forest Major Vegetation Types Melaleuca and Red Gum

Plate 2: Poor ground surface visibility and within IA-1_facing north_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas

Table 8: Investigation Unit IA-2

Survey Area IA-2 Aboriginal Place Identified NO Vacant Land/Disused Car Park Survey Method Pedestrian Type -- Sampling Strategy Systematic List -- No. of Participants 2 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Low-Moderate (2) Rating Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate (3) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with some ground surface % ground cover on exposure(s) 80 visibility (~15%) within vacant land comprising IA-2. IA-2 is moderately disturbed from construction of: % surface visibility on 10 Kingsbury Drive, artificial drainage, pedestrian exposure(s) concrete pathways and landscaping associated with University development. The site has been cleared of the majority of native

La Trobe University CHMP 13756 vegetation.

% ground cover off exposure(s) 90 % surface visibility off 10 exposure(s) Average ground surface 15 visibility Effective survey coverage 7500 m2 Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform and Land systems Lowland Slope Very gently inclined (>0.5- 1.6) Locality Landforms Undulating floodplain/ Drainage line Water Strathallan Creek to the east and south. Darebin Creek to the west. Disturbance Moderate-highly disturbed Previous + Current Land use Artificial drainage, concrete pedestrian pathways and vegetation removal and University development. Vegetation Vegetation Condition Urban, native and exotic Vegetation Type Grassland/urban Major Vegetation Types Cleared

Plate 3: Areas of exposure and vegetation removal within IA-2_facing southeast_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas

Table 9: Investigation Unit IA-3

Survey Area IA-3 Aboriginal Place Identified NO Agricultural Department Survey Method Pedestrian Type -- Sampling Strategy Systematic List -- No. of Participants 2 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Rating Low-Moderate (2) Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate (3) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with very little ground % ground cover on exposure(s) 1 surface visibility (~1%) within agricultural department comprising IA-3. IA-3 is moderately % surface visibility on 90 disturbed from construction of: Artificial drainage, exposure(s) agricultural development and associated buildings, concrete pedestrian pathways and large scale vegetation removal. The site has been cleared of the majority of native vegetation and features occasional scatters of native trees. IA-3 is situated either side of a tributary of Strathallan Creek. % ground cover off exposure(s) 95 % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface visibility 1 Effective survey coverage 1500 m2 Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform and Land systems Lowland Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating Plain Water Darebin Creek to the west. IA-3 is situated either side of a tributary of Strathallan Creek. Plate 4: Built structures and pedestrian pathways within IA-3_facing Disturbance Moderately disturbed northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry Previous + Current Land use Artificial drainage, agricultural development and associated buildings, concrete pedestrian pathways and large scale vegetation removal Vegetation Vegetation Condition Agricultural Vegetation Type Grassland/Crops Major Vegetation Types Cleared

Plate 5: Poor ground surface visibility within IA-3_facing north_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry

Table 10: Investigation Unit IA-4a

Survey Area IA-4a Aboriginal Place Yes (Previously Identified) Wildlife Sanctuary Identified Survey Method Pedestrian Type Artefact Scatter Sampling Strategy Systematic List VAHR 7922-0986 (La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1) No. of Participants 2 Historical Place NO Identified Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Low-Moderate (2) Rating Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate (3) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with very little ground surface % ground cover on 5 visibility (~5%) within the Wildlife Sanctuary comprising IA- exposure(s) 4a. IA-4a is moderately-highly disturbed from: Wildlife % surface visibility 99 Sanctuary maintenance, the development of artificial swamp on exposure(s) areas, prior agricultural land use, prior areas of Mont Park that were utilised for recreation, such as the cricket pitch and oval, tennis courts and gardens.

La Trobe University CHMP 13756 IA-4a is situated either side of a tributary of Strathallan Creek. Unable to relocate VAHR 7922-0986 (La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1). % ground cover off 95 exposure(s) % surface visibility 0 off exposure(s) Average ground 5 surface visibility Effective survey 18000 m2 coverage Environment Environmental Inland Settings Landform and Land Lowland systems Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating Plain Water Darebin Creek to the southwest. IA-4a is situated either side of a Plate 6: Areas of exposure within IA-4a_facing northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry tributary of Strathallan Creek. Disturbance Moderately disturbed Previous + Current Wildlife Sanctuary maintenance, Land use the development of artificial swamp areas, prior agricultural land use, prior areas of Mont Park that were utilised for recreation, such as the cricket pitch and oval, tennis courts and gardens. Vegetation Vegetation Remnant native vegetation and Condition modified native vegetation. Vegetation Type Grassland and Forest Major Vegetation Red Gum Types

Plate 7: Artificial swampland within IA-4a_facing northeast_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry

Table 11: Investigation Unit IA-4b

Survey Area IA-4b Aboriginal Place Identified Yes (Previously Identified) Parkland

Survey Method Pedestrian Type Scarred Tree Sampling Strategy Systematic List VAHR 7922-0668 (Waiora Road 1) No. of Participants 2 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Rating Moderate (3) Visibility Disturbance Rating Low-Moderate (4) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with very little ground % ground cover on 5 surface visibility (~5%) within parkland comprising exposure(s) IA-4b. IA-4b is low-moderately disturbed from % surface visibility on 99 parkland maintenance, vegetation removal and exposure(s) landscaping associated with the park development. The site has been cleared of the majority of native vegetation. Able to relocate VAHR 7922-0668 (Waiora Road 1).

% ground cover off 95 exposure(s) % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface 5 visibility Effective survey coverage 2500 m2 Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform and Land systems Lowland Slope Moderately inclined (5.6-18) Locality Landforms Hill slope Water Darebin Creek to the southwest. Disturbance Low-moderately disturbed Previous + Current Land use Parkland maintenance and vegetation removal Vegetation Vegetation Condition Urban and exotic Vegetation Type Grassland Major Vegetation Types Cleared

Plate 8: Scatter of native trees within IA-4b_facing north_4Feb2016_Vaia Liousas

Table 12: Investigation Unit IA-5

Survey Area IA-5 Aboriginal Place Identified Yes (Previously Identified) Built-up sections of La Trobe Melbourne Campus Survey Method Pedestrian Type Artefact Scatter Sampling Strategy Systematic List VAHR 7922-0219 (DAREBIN 7) Type Artefact Scatter List VAHR 7922-1366 (La Trobe University LDAD) No. of Participants 2 Historical Place Identified NO Transect Width 5 m Type -- Transect Spacing 5 m Archaeology Sensitivity Low-Moderate (2) Rating Visibility Disturbance Rating Moderate-High (2) Exposure(s) Comments Dense grass coverage with very little ground % ground cover on 1 surface visibility (~1%) within IA-5. IA-5 is exposure(s) moderate-highly disturbed from La Trobe % surface visibility on 90 Campus development and maintenance, exposure(s) subsurface utilities, drainage, pedestrian pathways, vegetation removal and associated La Trobe University CHMP 13756 landscaping. IA-5 is situated either side of Strathallan Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek. Darebin Creek to the southwest. Unable to relocate VAHR 7922-0219 (DAREBIN 7) or VAHR 7922-1366 (La Trobe University LDAD) % ground cover off 95 exposure(s) % surface visibility off 0 exposure(s) Average ground surface 1 visibility Effective survey 11700 m2 coverage Environment Environmental Settings Inland Landform and Land Lowland systems Slope Gently inclined (1.6-5.5) Locality Landforms Undulating Plain Water Darebin Creek to the southwest. IA-5 Plate 9: Large carpark areas within IA-5_facing west_4Feb2016_Penelope is situated either side of Strathallan Spry Creek, a tributary of Darebin Creek. Disturbance Moderate-highly disturbed Previous + Current Land La Trobe Campus development and use maintenance, subsurface utilities, drainage, pedestrian pathways, vegetation removal and associated landscaping. Vegetation Vegetation Condition No vegetation, exotic vegetation, modified native vegetation and remnant native vegetation.

Plate 10: Poor ground surface visibility and pedestrian footpaths within IA-5_facing north_4Feb2016_Penelope Spry

Map 6: Standard Assessment map demonstrating all Investigation Areas

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Map 7: Map demonstrating all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area

Map 8: Digital terrain model of the activity area

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Map 9: Archaeological Potential Ratings

5.8 Archaeological Potential Ratings

As noted above the field survey included a characterisation of each Investigation Area in terms of overall archaeological sensitivity and disturbance. These ratings have been utilised by ALA to assess the cultural heritage sensitivity and disturbance of landforms for previous Cultural Heritage Management Plans. To reiterate, the archaeological sensitivity ratings ranged from low to low-mod, and were based on a variety of environmental and social factors including proximity to water, landform, elevation, vegetation type, and the presence or absence of identified cultural heritage. Disturbance ratings also considered the results of the desktop assessment and were based on a range from high to none, with the ratings values sequence reversed:

Table 13: Archaeological Sensitivity / Disturbance Ratings

Archaeological sensitivity Rating Disturbance Low 1 High Low-moderate 2 Moderate-high Moderate 3 Moderate Moderate-high 4 Low High 5 None

As noted elsewhere, the majority of the activity area has been subject to disturbances associated with the construction and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus, the pre-existing hospital grounds and associated streets, road reserves and landscaping. Although these activities would have brought about a moderate level of ground disturbance to almost all sections of the activity area, the land within IA-I4 has been assessed as containing a slightly lower lever of prior disturbance (low- moderate) as it an area least effected by construction and demolition processes, however it exists in area heavily impacted upon by land clearing and pastoral activities. The results of the background research for the activity area contributed to the information regarding the archaeological sensitivity for the investigation areas. Previous archaeological work in this region has demonstrated a pattern of Aboriginal occupation strongly influenced by the drainage pattern, with outlying nodes based on significant elevated rises. The majority of artefact scatters identified were located on landforms that are associated with waterways including creek lines and alluvial terraces. There are six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area, and the sensitivity rating for the activity area has been assessed as low-moderate (IA-2, IA-3, IA-4a, IA-5), moderate (IA- 4b) and moderate-high (IA-1). The land within the activity area is moderately to moderately-highly modified, and contains large-scale University development. The resultant values of the archaeological sensitivity and disturbance ratings were multiplied to achieve an overall Archaeological Potential Rating (APR) for each Investigation Unit within the Investigation Area (see Map 9 and Table 14). The APR indicates the likelihood for archaeological deposits to occur within the activity area, given both the intensity of Aboriginal use of the landscape, and the probability that any evidence is likely to have survived past and current land uses. The resultant archaeological potential rating will be used to assist in informing the results of the desktop and standard assessment undertaken within the activity area.

Table 14: Archaeological Potential Ratings

Investigation Archaeological Disturbance Rating Archaeological Unit Sensitivity Rating Potential Rating

IA-1 4 3 12 IA-2 2 3 6 IA-3 2 3 6

IA-4a 2 3 6 IA-4b 3 4 12

IA-5 2 2 4

Key: Archaeological Sensitivity Disturbance Archaeological Potential 1 Low 1 High 1-4 low

2 Low-moderate 2 Moderate-high 5-7 low-mod La Trobe University CHMP 13756 3 Moderate 3 Moderate 8-12 mod 4 Moderate-high 4 Low-moderate 13-17 mod-high 5 High 5 Low 18-25 high

5.9 Conclusions

The field survey was conducted over a one-day period on 4 February 2016. A total of six Investigation Areas (IA) were identified, based on particular landform features and levels of disturbance noted during the standard assessment (Table 7 to Table 12). These IAs were giving an archaeological sensitivity and a disturbance rating, and these ratings were then multiplied to provide an APR for each investigation area. At the completion of the survey, IA-5 was identified to have undergone the highest level of ground disturbance, largely due to the construction and maintenance of the University campus. Investigation area IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, IA-4a were each identified to have undergone a moderate level of ground disturbance. IA-4b experienced a low-moderate level of ground disturbance through the impact of land clearing and parkland maintenance. The six investigation areas had an effective surface visibility ranging from 1-15%. In accordance with r. 59 (3) the field survey included the examination of all potential mature trees for signs of scarring. The field survey identified no caves, rock shelters or cave entrances within the activity area. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922- 0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The two previously registered scarred trees VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668 were re-identified and subject to a thorough investigation as part of the standard assessment. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places, including three artefact scatters, (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366) were also subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment. No physical manifestation of these places was identified. No further Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment support the findings of previous archaeological investigations relating to proposed activities within and adjacent to the current activity area. The standard assessment demonstrated evidence of previous disturbance associated with the development and maintenance of the La Trobe University campus, as well as the agricultural, residential, recreational and medical uses of the activity area since European settlement (Weaver 1991, Barker 2012, McAlister 2014 and Matic 2015). These previous investigations indicate that there is a varying level of previous disturbance within the activity area, affecting the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage material in these areas. The results of this assessment also support the results of Weaver and Thomson who indicate that the Darebin Creek reserve and the area between Forensic Drive and Waiora Road to contain moderate archaeological potential (Weaver 1991 and Thomson 2002). The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that the levels of previous disturbance within the activity area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Therefore, a complex assessment in order to enable a proper investigation of the potential for subsurface Aboriginal cultural heritage places to be present, and to identify the nature, extent and significance of any Aboriginal cultural heritage as established under Regulation 60 (1b) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), is not required.

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

6. 1 Introduction

This section presents an overview of the Aboriginal heritage values of the activity area, considering evidence from each task undertaken as part of this evaluation, namely desktop and standard assessments. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP (see Map 10 and Table 15). Previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area comprised two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one Low Density Artefact Distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). No Aboriginal cultural heritage places were identified within the activity area during the assessments for this CHMP.

Table 15: Previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within activity area

VAHR # PLACE NAME PLACE TYPE PLACE CONTENTS

7922-0210 DAREBIN 5 Artefact Scatter Four silcrete flakes

7922-0218 DAREBIN 6 Scarred Tree Red gum in good health with one scar 7922-0219 DAREBIN 7 Artefact Scatter 1 silcrete flake

7922-0668 WAIORA ROAD 1 Scarred Tree Red gum tree in good health with one scar 7922-0986 LA TROBE WILDLIFE RESERVE 1 Artefact Scatter 1 quartz flake Low Density Artefact 7922-1366 La Trobe University LDAD 1 silcrete flake Distribution

6. 2 VAHR 7922-0210 - DAREBIN 5

DAREBIN 5 (VAHR 7922-0210) was registered by Weaver as part of the Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey in 1991 (for further details please see Section 4.9). The Aboriginal Place comprises four surface flaked fragments in close proximity to Darebin Creek. Weaver recommended controlled vehicle access and re-vegetation to prevent further erosion of the place (1991, 44). The extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0210 is outlined in Table 16 and Figure 1. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. No physical manifestation of this place was identified. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 16: Extent and significance for 7922-0210 – DAREBIN 5

OAAV No. 7922-0210 – DAREBIN 5

La Trobe UniversityExtent CHMP Information 13756 Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E327142 N5822744 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Artefact Scatter Scientific Significance: Medium Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 1: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0210 – DAREBIN 5

6. 3 VAHR 7922-0218 – Darebin 6

DAREBIN 6 (VAHR 7922-0218) was registered by Weaver as part of the Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey in 1991 (for further details please see Section 4.9). The Aboriginal Place comprises a Red Gum in good health located beside a track parallel to Darebin Creek. Weaver recommended that all trees, in particular old Eucalypts, be retained in all open space along the Darebin Creek (1991, 44). The extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0218 is outlined in Table 17 and Figure 2. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. The single heartwood removal scar located on the scarred tree has been well preserved. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 17: Extent and significance for 7922-0218 – DAREBIN 6

OAAV No. 7922-0218 – DAREBIN 6 Extent Information Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E327042 N5822934 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Scarred Tree Scientific Significance: Medium Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 2: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0218 – DAREBIN 6

6. 4 VAHR 7922-0219 - DAREBIN 7

DAREBIN 7 (VAHR 7922-0219) was registered by Weaver as part of the Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey in 1991 (for further details please see Section 4.9). The Aboriginal Place comprises an isolated flake in close proximity to Strathallan Creek. Weaver contended that the isolated artefact contained low scientific significance as artefacts of this type are commonly found elsewhere within the Melbourne Metropolitan region. As this artefact was recorded in a disturbed or landscaped area, there is no archaeological reason why these sites should not be disturbed if the need should arise (1991, 44). The extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0219 is outlined in Table 18 and Figure 3. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. No physical manifestation of this place was identified. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 18: Extent and significance for 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 La Trobe University CHMP 13756 OAAV No. 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7 Extent Information Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E327632 N5822924 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Artefact Scatter Scientific Significance: Low Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 3: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0219 – DAREBIN 7

6. 5 VAHR 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1

Waiora Road 1 (VAHR 7922-0668) was registered by Thomson after the completion of the Cultural Heritage Survey of La Trobe Research and Development Park in 2002 (for further details please see Section 4.9). The Aboriginal Place comprises a Red Gum in good health located approximately 100m west of Waiora Road and 80m northeast of Forensic Drive. The extent and significance of VAHR 7922- 0668 is outlined in Table 19 and Figure 4. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. The single canoe scar located on the scarred tree has been well preserved. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 19: Extent and significance for 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1

OAAV No. 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1 Extent Information Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E329024 N5822980 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Scarred Tree Scientific Significance: No data recorded Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 4: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0668 – Waiora Road 1

6. 6 VAHR 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1 (VAHR 7922-0986) was registered by Frevlor in 2005. The Aboriginal Place comprises an isolated quartz flake and is located parallel to a walking track within the La Trobe Wildlife Sanctuary. As the Aboriginal Place is in a high impact, highly disturbed location, no specific recommendations were provided by Frevlor. The extent and significance of VAHR 7922-0986 is outlined in Table 20 and Figure 5. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. No physical manifestation of this place was identified. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 20: Extent and significance for 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

OAAV No. 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

La Trobe UniversityExtent CHMP Information 13756 Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E328358 N5823909 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Artefact Scatter Scientific Significance: No data recorded Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 5: Detailed extent plan of 7922-0986 – La Trobe Wildlife Reserve 1

6. 7 VAHR 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD

La Trobe University LDAD (VAHR 7922-1366) was registered by Phillips (OAAV) in 2014. The Aboriginal Place comprises an isolated quartz flake in close proximity to Strathallan Creek. The extent and significance of VAHR 7922-1366 is outlined in Table 21 and Figure 6. The Place was subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment of the current CHMP. No physical manifestation of this place was identified. A detailed place inspection form outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

Table 21: Extent and significance for 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD

OAAV No. 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD Extent Information Map sheet: Epping 7922 Grid reference: E 328293 N 5823542 (Primary Coordinate on VAHR) Site Type: Artefact Scatter Scientific Significance: No data recorded Aboriginal Community Significance: No data recorded

Figure 6: Detailed extent plan of 7922-1366 – La Trobe University LDAD

6. 8 Results of the Assessment

The current evaluation has assessed the Aboriginal cultural heritage potential of the activity area. The results of the evaluation have demonstrated that six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places are located within the activity area. There were six registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area at the commencement of this CHMP. These comprise two scarred trees (VAHR 7922-0218, VAHR 7922- 0668), three artefact scatters (VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219 and VAHR 7922-0986) and one low density artefact distribution (VAHR 7922- 1366). The two previously registered scarred trees VAHR 7922-0218 and VAHR 7922-0668 were re-identified and subject to a thorough investigation as part of the standard assessment. The remaining previously registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places VAHR 7922-0210, VAHR 7922-0219, VAHR 7922-0986 and VAHR 7922- 1366 were also subjected to a thorough inspection as part of the standard assessment. However, no physical manifestation of these places was identified. A total of six place inspection forms outlining these findings was submitted to the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on 18 February 2016.

La Trobe UniversityNo further CHMP 13756 Aboriginal cultural heritage was identified within the activity area by the completion of the standard assessment. The results of the standard assessment confirm the findings of the desktop assessment, which indicated that levels of previous disturbance within the activity area would affect the likelihood of identifying intact Aboriginal cultural heritage. Apart from areas where Aboriginal sites were identified, the results of the evaluation has demonstrated that there is a moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-1 and IA-4b, a low- moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-2, IA-3 and IA-4a, and a low potential for potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-5.

Map 10: Map demonstrating all registered Aboriginal cultural heritage places in the activity area showing site re-identification results

This page is intentionally left blank La Trobe University CHMP 13756

7. SECTION 61 MATTERS

7.1 Introduction

This section reviews the matters to be considered in relation to the approval of a management plan for the activity (Section 7.2 to 7.4).

7.2 Will the Activity be conducted in a way that avoids harm to Aboriginal Heritage?

Not applicable. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan.

7.3 Will the Activity be conducted in a way that minimises harm to Aboriginal Heritage?

Not applicable. No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan.

7.4 Specific measures required for the management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage likely to be affected by the Activity, Before, During and After the Activity

No specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan. Therefore, there are no specific management measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the current activity area.

Contingency plans for the possible discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage, as per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 are set out in Section 10.

This page is intentionally left blank La Trobe University CHMP 13756

PART 2: CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

SPECIFIC CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

8.1 Introduction

This section outlines the specific cultural heritage management requirements to be considered in relation to the approval of a cultural heritage management plan. There are no specific management measures required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the current activity area, as no specific activity has been proposed in association with this cultural heritage management plan (Table 22).

Table 22: Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the activity area and management requirements

VAHR # PLACE NAME PLACE TYPE PERMISSIBLE MANAGEMENT IMPACT RESPONSE

7922-0210 DAREBIN 5 Artefact Scatter No N/A

N/A 7922-0218 DAREBIN 6 Scarred Tree No N/A 7922-0219 DAREBIN 7 Artefact Scatter No N/A 7922-0668 WAIORA ROAD 1 Scarred Tree No LA TROBE WILDLIFE N/A 7922-0986 Artefact Scatter No RESERVE 1 La Trobe University Low Density Artefact N/A 7922-1366 No LDAD Distribution

This page is intentionally left blank La Trobe University CHMP 13756

RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Introduction

No specific activity has been proposed in association with this CHMP. Therefore, no specific management measures are required for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the activity area. The following recommendations have been formulated with the RAP.

9.2 Recommendations

The recommendations contained in this current CHMP are intended to inform, align expectations and establish a set of guidelines to inform the nature of future heritage works at the La Trobe University Campus, Bundoora. Note that all future development activities within the current activity area will be separately subject to the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). The results of the assessments undertaken as part of this CHMP have demonstrated that there is a moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-1 and IA-4b, a low-moderate potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-2, IA-3 and IA-4a, and a low potential for potential for materials of cultural origin representing Aboriginal heritage places to be located within IA-5 (Map 9). These archaeological potential ratings may be applied to future CHMPs within the activity area as a basis for consultation with the RAP and in preparation of appropriate methodologies for undertaking complex assessments, if required. By incorporating the results of the current CHMP into future development plans at the University Campus, the impact of future developments on Indigenous tangible and intangible cultural heritage values may be more appropriately managed. Both the Wurundjeri Council and La Trobe have specified that they would like to establish a more formalised consultation process regarding future development within the activity area. This may involve the following:  Establishing a consultation process between La Trobe University and the Wurundjeri Council regarding relevant future developments within the activity area;  A focus on the rehabilitation of the Darebin Creek landscape through consultation with the Wurundjeri Council and the Wurundjeri Green Team (Narrap Team);  A collaboration between the Wildlife Sanctuary and the Wurundjeri Council to ensure the alignment of indigenous values with those of the Wildlife Sanctuary; and

 Increased opportunities for the Wurundjeri to participate in future campus development, the preparation of a reconciliation plan and involvement in managing Indigenous cultural values

within the activity area. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

9. CONTINGENCIES

10.1 Introduction

On the discovery of further Aboriginal cultural heritage, the following contingency plans are to be implemented during the activity, as per Clause 13(1) Schedule 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007

10.2 Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Found

In the case of the discovery of suspected human remains, separate procedures relating to the discovery of suspected human skeletal remains must be adhered to (Section 10.4).

If Aboriginal cultural heritage is discovered and it is determined that the heritage is (a) located outside an existing managed Aboriginal cultural heritage place, or (b) constitutes a different site type to the existing managed Aboriginal cultural heritage place, the following steps must be applied where practicable:  If Aboriginal cultural heritage is discovered, the person in charge of works must suspend any ground disturbing works that are within 25 m of the Aboriginal cultural heritage, between the edge of the activity area and the existing tracks. The Aboriginal cultural heritage must remain in situ and should be isolated via the installation of safety webbing or other suitable barriers along the 25 m buffer, within the activity area and not interfering with regular rail operation.  Works may continue outside of the established 25 m barrier, however, if additional archaeological deposits are identified, then these works must also be suspended in accordance with the actions prescribed in the previous dot point.  The person in charge of works must notify the Cultural Heritage Advisor (CHA) and the RAP, of the find within 24 hours of the discovery.  Within two (2) working days of notification, the CHA is to attend the site and evaluate the find to determine if it is part of an already registered Aboriginal cultural heritage place or should be registered as a new place and to update and/or complete site records as appropriate and advise on possible management strategies. This must be done in consultation with the RAP, or relevant Traditional Owner Groups, if they choose to participate.  Within a period not exceeding three (3) working days of the discovery a decision/recommendation must be made by the CHA in consultation with the Sponsor or Sponsor’s delegate (hereafter, referred to collectively as the Sponsor), and the RAP, if they choose to participate, as to the process to be followed to manage the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a culturally appropriate manner, and how to proceed with the works.

 It is preferable to avoid impacts to all Aboriginal cultural heritage. Where this is not achievable attempts must be made to minimise impact to Aboriginal cultural heritage.  Following the inspection, if it is determined that the Aboriginal cultural heritage discovered comprises a low density artefact distribution (LDAD), this material is to be recorded in situ and then removed from the works area, transported and stored at the nominated location. All relevant Aboriginal cultural heritage records are to be updated and/or completed. In order to determine the nature and extent of the newly identified Aboriginal cultural heritage the following measures must be undertaken: o The CHA must inspect the Aboriginal cultural heritage within two (2) business days of its discovery. o The Sponsor and the CHA must discuss the possibility of avoiding and minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible. o In the event that the place is determined to comprise an LDAD, no further management is required, following the appropriate removal of the heritage from the

works area. However, where avoidance is possible, this is preferable. La Trobe University CHMP 13756 o Any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered under the contingency arrangements is to be secured by the CHA. The storage location must be communicated to the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC).  In the instance that the CHA in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor determines that the Aboriginal cultural heritage is a scarred tree, the following measures must be undertaken: o The scar and the trunk of the tree may be not be harmed by the activity o The safety webbing or other suitable barrier that has been established around the trunk of the tree must include a suitable buffer to protect the roots of the tree. The CHA and a qualified arborist will determine the precise extent of safety webbing or barrier. . There is to be no unauthorised access by personnel, vehicles or machinery within the fenced area. Authorisation may only be granted by the Sponsor or Sponsor’s delegate for emergency or CHMP compliance purposes, or other purposes as agreed with the CHA (e.g. grass mowing, arboricultural or other approved environmental management task). o Harm is only permitted to the place extent of the scarred tree (e.g. the root zone) if a suitably qualified arborist assesses the tree and confirms the proposed impacts will not adversely affect the health of the tree. o Temporary fencing may be removed after ground disturbing works in the vicinity are complete.  In the instance that the CHA in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor determines that the Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises an artefact scatter that does not meet the criteria for LDAD registration, or if there are any other Aboriginal site types found (with the exception of scarred trees), a salvage excavation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage must be undertaken in a manner considered appropriate by the CHA. A salvage strategy may comprise the following: o The CHA will facilitate the involvement of the RAP, if they choose to participate, in the on-site investigation and assessment of the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage. o The Sponsor, the CHA and the RAP must discuss the possibility of avoiding and minimising harm to the Aboriginal cultural heritage, where possible.

o Where harm cannot be avoided, the CHA and the RAP, if they choose to participate, must salvage the cultural heritage with the initial aim of establishing the extent, nature and significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage. o Salvage excavations must include controlled excavation (as per r.61(7) and Guide to Preparing Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans) o Subsequent aims of the salvage excavations could be to establish: . The relative and absolute (if possible) age of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage; . The character of the excavated artefact assemblage if extant; and . As far as possible, the nature of occupation of any identified Aboriginal cultural heritage. o In cases where cultural material is considered in-situ and where suitable material is available, appropriate age determinations (e.g. radiocarbon, TL, OSL) are to be made to establish the age of the cultural material. o Any artefacts recovered during excavations are to be secured by the CHA until the salvage has been concluded. Artefacts must be held in a secure location, together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation during the activity. o Details regarding the methodology of any collection or salvage of Aboriginal cultural heritage located during the project must be determined by the CHA. Without limiting the options, the CHA will: . Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage; . Label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance; . Ensure all excavated deposits are sieved, and the presence of any additional cultural heritage material recorded in detail; . With the RAP, if they choose to participate, arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. o Any excavations must take place in accordance with Regulation 61(3-7) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and be supervised by a person appropriately qualified in archaeology. This person must also facilitate the involvement of the RAP, if they choose to participate, in these excavations and subsequent management discussions. o The suspended works may recommence at completion of the salvage excavation. o A report detailing the findings of any collection, salvage or analysis of material recovered as a result of contingency arrangements must be complete and lodged with the Heritage Registrar, OAAV as soon as possible and within a maximum of 6 months. This report must include plans and/or maps that accurately present the location and extent of any excavation, and the details of any exposed sediments and stratigraphy.  In the instance that the CHA in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor determines that the Aboriginal cultural heritage comprises an obtrusive site type (e.g. scarred tree, quarry, etc.) an appropriate management response will be determined by CHA in consultation with the RAP and Sponsor.

 Failure of parties to reach an agreed course of action in this manner must be classed as a dispute under this agreement.  Work may recommence within the area of exclusion: o When the appropriate protective measures have been undertaken in accordance with the Cultural Heritage Advisor recommendations following consultation with the RAP and Sponsor; o When the Cultural Heritage Advisor is satisfied that the necessary information has been collected to facilitate the completion/update of Aboriginal cultural heritage records; o Where all parties agree there is no other prudent or feasible course of action, or; o Where relevant, the Sponsor and the RAP must ensure that the above steps are followed and that legal obligations and requirements are complied with at all times.

La Trobe University10.3 CHMP Custody 13756 and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Recovered

Any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered or salvaged from the activity area remains the property of the WTLCCHC. It will be the responsibility of the CHA to: o Catalogue the Aboriginal cultural heritage. o Label and package the Aboriginal cultural heritage with reference to provenance; o With the WTLCCHC, arrange storage of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in a secure location nominated by the CHA together with copies of the catalogue and assessment documentation. o Facilitate the reburial of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in an appropriate location, preferably in close proximity to the original find spot, upon completion of the activity. o Aboriginal cultural heritage material is to be placed in a non-plastic, permeable container for reburial. o The location of the reburied material is to be recorded and clearly entered on the existing site card for the registered place. In compliance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the custody of any Aboriginal cultural heritage recovered from the activity area during the production of the CHMP or located during the contingency arrangements is assigned according to the following order of priority, as appropriate; o Relevant RAP that is registered for the land from which the Aboriginal cultural heritage is salvaged; o Relevant Native Title holder; o Relevant Native Title party; o Relevant Aboriginal persons with traditional or familial links; o Relevant Aboriginal organisations with historical or contemporary links; o Owner of the land; o Museum Victoria.

10.4 The Management of the Discovery of Human Remains

The following steps must be taken if any suspected human remains are found in the activity area:

1. Discovery:

 If suspected human remains are discovered, all activity in the vicinity must cease immediately; 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 State Control 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, Department of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic). 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 Section 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 site(s) must be fully documented by an experienced and qualified archaeologist, clearly marked and all details provided to AAV;  Appropriate management measures must be implemented to ensure that the remains are not disturbed in the future.

10.5 Dispute Resolution

It is the responsibility of the parties involved in the preparation of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to reach agreement on a dispute resolution procedure to be implemented after a CHMP is approved and include this

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), formal dispute resolution processes are available (Alternative Dispute Resolution, or ADR, and Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal, or VCAT),

however, given the costs involved in these processes it is in the best interests of all parties to treat these as last resort options and negotiate a resolution between parties.

Informal Dispute Resolution

Principles:

 All disputes will be jointly investigated by the RAP and the Sponsor.  Where a breach of the management plan recommendations has been found to have occurred, the RAP and the Sponsor will agree the best method of correction or remediation.  Any correction or remedial activities required (e.g. repairing damage to sites) will be overseen by a RAP representative and will take place in accordance with their instructions.  The sponsor and its contractors will not undertake any such operations without receiving the consent of the RAP.

 The RAP will use their best endeavours to minimise delays to work schedules while not La Trobe University CHMP 13756 compromising cultural places or values.  Only issues directly related to cultural heritage management will be handled through the following dispute resolution mechanism. Process:

Authorised Project Delegates (APDs) of each party (RAP and sponsor) will attempt to negotiate a resolution to any dispute related to cultural heritage management of the activity area. They will attempt such resolution within 48 hours of a notice being received that a dispute between the parties is deemed to exist. If the APDs cannot reach agreement, alternative APDs of both parties will meet to negotiate a resolution to an agreed schedule.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

ADR includes preliminary assistance in dispute resolution, such as the giving of advice designed to ensure that:

a) the parties are fully aware of their rights and obligations; and

b) there is full and open communication between the parties concerning the dispute (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.112(1)).

It is possible that one or more RAPs may be established during the course of the activity. If a dispute between two or more RAP(s) arises in relation to the evaluation of a Management Plan for which approval is sought (under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.62):

 the Sponsor or a RAP (or both) may refer the dispute to the Chairperson of the Aboriginal Heritage Council for ADR (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.113(1)). Within 30 days after the referral, the Chairperson must arrange for the dispute to be the subject of: o mediation by a mediator; or o another appropriate form of ADR by a suitably qualified person (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.113(2)).

 Mediation or other ADR must take place within 30 days after the date on which the dispute is referred to the Chairperson of the Council (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s. 113(3)).  The costs of ADR are to be paid by the parties in the proportions that the parties agree among themselves, or if the parties cannot agree, in equal shares (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.114). Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)

A Sponsor may apply to VCAT to review a decision of (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.116) a RAP not to approve a Management Plan, if:

 each relevant RAP has decided to refuse to approve the Management Plan under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.63; or  if:  a relevant RAP has decided to refuse to approve the Management Plan under Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.63; and o the dispute arising from that decision has been referred to the Chairperson of the Council for ADR; and o the Chairperson has certified in writing that ADR has failed, or is unlikely to resolve the dispute, or o the Secretary not to approve a Management Plan under section 65. An application for review to VCAT must be made within 28 days after the later of (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s. 116(3)):

 the day on which the applicant is notified of the decision not to approve the Management Plan, or  if the applicant has requested a statement of reasons for the decision from the RAP or the Secretary (as applicable), the day on which the statement of reasons is given to the applicant or the applicant is informed that a statement of reasons will not be given, under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. The parties to a proceeding in VCAT are the Sponsor and the relevant RAP or the Secretary (as applicable) (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.117).

VCAT has the power to (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.118):

 approve the Management Plan; or  approve the Management Plan with amendments; or  refuse to approve the Management Plan. However, before deciding to approve a Management Plan, VCAT must be satisfied that the Management Plan makes sufficient provision for the activity to which it relates to be managed so as:

 to avoid harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage in the area to which the Management Plan applies; and  to the extent that harm cannot be reasonably avoided, to minimise harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic), s.120).

These arrangements do not preclude any legal recourse open to the parties being taken but the parties agree the above avenues will be exhausted before such recourse is made.

10.6 Authorised Project Delegates and the Handling of Sensitive Information

For the purpose of communication between, the following persons will act as project delegates: RAP Authorised Project Delegate: Sean-Paul Stephens, Wurundjeri Council: Sean- [email protected] Sponsor Authorised Project Delegate: Jen Chaput, La Trobe University: [email protected] Cultural Heritage Advisor Authorised Project Delegate: Penelope Spry, Andrew Long and Associates Pty Ltd: La Trobe [email protected] CHMP 13756

Any change in personnel appointed as APDs in one party will be promptly notified to all other parties. The parties will agree upon what constitutes sensitive information and will maintain the confidentiality of all communications regarding information agreed to be such. Note: These contingencies cannot prescribe the duties of future RAP(s). RAP(s) may take part in the contingencies outlined in this CHMP, if they exist and wish to do so.

10.7t11 REFERENCES

Aguirre, E. and Pasini, G. 1985. ‘The Pliocene-Pleistocene Boundary’, in Episodes, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 116- 120. Aitken, D. L. and Kershaw, P. 1993. Holocene vegetation and environmental history of Cranbourne Botanic Garden, Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 105 (1): 67-80. Barker, M. 2012. Three-unit development: 38 Douglas Street Rosanna. CHMP 12114 for Patrick and Merilyn Kennealy. Barwick, D.E. 1984. ‘Mapping the Past: An Atlas of Victorian Clans, 1835-1904’, Aboriginal History 8(2), 100-130. Berndt, R. 1982. ‘Traditional Concepts of Aboriginal Land’, in Berndt, R. (ed.) Aboriginal Sites, Rights and Resource Development. Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Fifth Academy Symposium, 11th November 1981, Proceedings. University of Western Australia Press, Perth, 1–11. Bowler, J. M. 1981. Australian salt lakes – a palaeohydrologic approach. Hydrobiologia 82: 431-444. Burke, H. and Smith, C. 2004. The Archaeologists Field Handbook. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest. Cannon, M. 1993. Melbourne after the gold rush. Loch Haven Books, Main Ridge Victoria. Cekalovic, H. 1999. An archaeological desktop assessment of the former Larundel Psychiatric Hospital, Plenty Road, Bundoora Victoria. A report to Urban Land Corporation. Clark, I. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: an Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800–1900. Monash Publications in Geography, No. 37. Clark, I. and 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. Cosgrove, R. 1999. Forty-two degrees south: the archaeology of Late Pleistocene Tasmania. Journal of World Prehistory. Vol. 13 No. 4: 357-402. Davison, G. 1978. The rise and fall of Marvellous Melbourne. Melbourne University Press. Ellender, I. 1991. The Plenty Gorge Metropolitan Park: the archaeological assessment of Aboriginal sites. Report to Board of Works. Feldman, R. 2004. Darebin Creek Trail Project. Cultural Heritage Assessment. Unpublished report to Parks Victoria. Forster, H. W. 1968. Preston Lands and People 1838-1967. F. W. Cheshire Publishing Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Howitt, A. W. 1904. The native tribes of south-east Australia. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Kershaw, A. P., Tibby, J., Penny, D., Yezdani, H., Walkley, R., Cook, E., and Johnston, R. 2004. Latest Pleistocene and Holocene vegetation and environmental history of the Western Plains of Victoria, Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 139-161.

Lambeck, K. and Nakada, M. 1990. “Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change along the Australia coast”, in Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology (Global and Planetary Change Section), 89 , pp. 143-176. 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. Lourens, L. J. 2008. ‘On the Neogene-Quaternary Debate’ in Episodes, Vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 239-242. Matic, A. 2015. 7 Argyle Street, Macleod residential development. CHMP 13403 for New Age One Pty Ltd. Marshall, B. and Schell, P. 1996. Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in the Darebin Municipality: a brief review. Unpublished report to Optus. McAlister, R. 2014. Proposed residential subdivision: 20 Lowell Avenue, Kingsbury. CHMP 12943 for Brett Iredale.

Marquis-Kyle, P. and Walker, M. 1992. The Illustrated Burra Charter. Australia ICOMOS, Sydney. La Trobe University CHMP 13756 Mulvaney, D. and Kamminga, J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., St Leonards. Newnham, W. H. 1956. Melbourne, the biography of a city. F. W. Cheshire Melbourne. Peel, L. 1974. Rural Industry in the Port Phillip Region 1835-1880. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Presland, G. 1983. An Archaeological Survey of the Melbourne Metropolitan Area. Unpublished report to the Victoria Archaeological Survey. OAAV report no. 20. Presland, G. 1985. Aboriginal Melbourne. The lost land of the Kulin people. (Melbourne: McPhee Gribble) [Revised edition of Land of the Kulin] Reid, M. 1989. Palaeoecological changes at Lake Wellington, Gippsland Lakes Victoria, during the late Holocene: a study of the development of a coastal lake ecosystem. Honours thesis, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University. Rhodes, J. Debney, T., Grist, M. 1999. Maribyrnong Aboriginal Heritage Study. Unpublished Report to the City of Maribyrnong. Spry, P., Albrecht, M., and Feldman, R. 2016. La Trobe University Melbourne Campus Cultural Values Assessment. A Report for La Trobe University. Stellini, T. 2003. Wurundjeri Community Investigation, Bundoora Park. A Report on Activities of the Aboriginal Community Heritage Investigations Program. Aboriginal Affair Victoria. Sullivan, H. 1981. An Archaeological Survey of the Mornington Peninsula, Victoria. Victoria Archaeological Survey Occasional Report No.6. Sullivan, M. and Simmons, S. 1979. ‘Silcrete: a Classification for Flaked Stone Assemblages’, The Artefact 4: 51-60. Thomson, M. 2002. A cultural heritage survey of the La Trobe University Research and Development Park, Bundoora. Unpublished report to CRI Australia Pty Ltd. Venosta, M., Yugovic, J. and Vines, G. 2015. La Trobe University Wildlife Sanctuary management plan. Plan prepared for La Trobe University.

Weaver, F. 1992. The Lower Darebin Creek Archaeological Survey: A Survey for Aboriginal and Historic Archaeological Sites, Forming the Heritage Component of the Darebin Creek Concept Plan. Unpublished Report to Melbourne Water. Weaver, F. and Perham, G. 1995a. Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston. A survey and assessment of Aboriginal and historical archaeological sites. Report to the Office of Major Projects, Victoria. Weaver, F. and Perham, G. 1995b. Former Bundoora Repatriation Hospital, Plenty Road Preston. Sub- surface testing in the vicinity of three Aboriginal sites. Report to the Office of Major Projects, Victoria. Wilkins, D., Gouramanis, C., De Deckker, P., Keith Fifield, L. and Olley, J. 2013. Holocene lake-level fluctuations in Lake Keilambete and Gnotuk, southwestern Victoria, Australia. The Holocene published online 6 February 2013, pp. 1-12. Zola, N. and Gott, B. 1992. Koorie plants Koorie people: traditionally Aboriginal food, fibre and healing plants of Victoria, Melbourne Koorie Heritage Trust.

LEGISLATION: Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic) Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (Vic)

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

SITE GAZETTEER

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

VAHR # PLACE NAME PLACE TYPE PLACE CONTENTS

7922-0210 DAREBIN 5 Artefact Scatter Four silcrete flakes

7922-0218 DAREBIN 6 Scarred Tree Red gum in good health with one scar 7922-0219 DAREBIN 7 Artefact Scatter 1 silcrete flake

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

Appendix 1: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Purposes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

100

Appendix 2: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (WTLCCHC)

101

This page is intentionally left blank. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

102

103

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

104

Appendix 3: Response to NOI from WTLCCHC

105

This page is intentionally left blank. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

106

107

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

108

Appendix 4: Qualifications

109

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

110

 Ricky Feldman, Executive Director, Andrew Long + Associates Pty Ltd Bachelor of Science, The University of Melbourne (1998) Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Archaeology, The University of Melbourne (2001) Industry experience – 14 years.

 Melinda Albrecht, Senior Project Manager, Andrew Long + Associates Pty Ltd Bachelor of Arts (Hons) Classics and Archaeology, University of Melbourne (1997) Master of Arts Archaeology at La Trobe University (2004) Industry experience – 8 years.

 Penelope Spry, Project Manager, Andrew Long + Associates Pty Ltd Bachelor of Arts in Classics and Archaeology (University of Melbourne 2010) Masters in Archaeological Science (ANU 2013) Industry experience – 3 years.

111

This page is intentionally left blank. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

112

Appendix 5: Darebin Planning Scheme and Schedule to Public Use Zone - Education (PUZ2)

113

This page is intentionally left blank. La Trobe University CHMP 13756

114

115

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

116

117

This page is intentionally left blank La Trobe University CHMP 13756

118

Appendix 6: Heritage Significance Assessment

119

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

120

ABORIGINAL SITES – ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The assessment of cultural heritage value or ‘significance’ is a fundamental component of the heritage management process, in that it assists in determining which sites, places, landscapes, environments and items are of sufficient importance that they require preservation.

As such, the significance assessment process underpins the legislative framework for heritage site protection by establishing a framework within which various types (assessment criteria) and levels (significance ratings) of heritage value can be defined. The effective assessment of these values will in turn facilitate the formulation of appropriate management decisions for a specific heritage item, whether a building, archaeological site, place or landscape.

Section 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 defines ‘cultural heritage significance’ as including:

 archaeological, anthropological, contemporary, historical, scientific, social or spiritual significance; and

 Significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition.

Note that Aboriginal tradition is not static and unchanging from a distant ‘authentic past’. ‘Tradition’ is the handing down of beliefs from one generation to the next but that does not mean that significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition’ requires an immutable value from ‘time immemorial’. A scatter of discarded waste flakes from a one-off utilitarian task may acquire ‘significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition’ with the passage of time and cultural change.

A statement of the significance of the Aboriginal cultural heritage found, discovered and/or subject to investigation in terms of this definition of ‘cultural heritage significance’ is an essential step in the process of developing cultural heritage management recommendations. All Aboriginal cultural heritage may have ‘cultural heritage significance’, but the preservation of all Aboriginal cultural heritage is not possible. Therefore, a process of assessing significance is necessary to determine which elements of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in an activity area require management. In this context, ‘management’ is not synonymous with ‘preservation’, but may involve salvage or controlled excavation.6

A process for establishing cultural significance is outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance, otherwise known as ‘The Burra Charter’ (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992). The Burra Charter is, in turn, based on preceding international charters formulated by ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites).

The revised Burra Charter defines cultural heritage significance as the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.

The Burra Charter, and its associated documents define the basics principles, processes and practices upon which statutory assessments of heritage significance are based. In most cases the wording of the various sets of criteria will differ slightly: for example, the criteria used by the Victorian Heritage

6 Source: Guide to preparing Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plans (AAV May 2007)

121

Council are worded differently to those used by the Australian Heritage Commission. All, however, are based on the same principles and incorporate general criteria such as the following:

 Association with special events, developments or phases.

 Rarity due to its association with a distinctive way of life, custom, process, land use, function or design no longer practised.

 Importance for demonstrating principal characteristics of a particular type or class of human activities (for example stating a stone quarry is a classic example of its type as it has all the features typically associated with utilised stone sources in good condition).

 Aesthetic value to the local community (for example as a landmark).

 Value for demonstrating a particular technical or creative process.

La Trobe University Strong CHMP 13756 or special association with a particular community or ethnic group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

 Special association with a famous person or group of people.

Generally these criteria can be grouped into three main categories: social (I), scientific (II) and historical (III), depending on the nature of a given place or item.

It should be noted that the approach advocated here is specifically designed for the assessment of archaeological sites, and may not necessarily apply to the assessment of other types of cultural heritage.

Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment

As required in the project brief, an assessment of the significance of the cultural heritage associations recorded during this project, and relocated previously recorded sites has been made. Assessment of archaeological site significance can be complex and encompass a range of heritage values. The heritage values of a site or place are broadly defined as the “aesthetic, historic, scientific or social values for past, present or future generations” (Marquis-Kyle & Walker 1992, 69).

The assessment of the significance of Aboriginal sites is a complex process, and involves the consideration of both scientific value and cultural value to the local Aboriginal community.

It should be noted that Aboriginal cultural significance may reflect Aboriginal community values not only in regard to individual sites and groups of sites but also in terms of the general landscape. Aboriginal values do not necessarily correspond to the scientific values placed on individual sites, but will reflect the social, educational and aesthetic values of such locations. These values may include ancestral or traditional associations, concern over environmental issues, possible uses of sites for interpretation and education and the importance of highly visible sites as tangible markers of Aboriginal occupation in a region.

122

Appendix 7: Glossary of Terms

123

This page is intentionally left blank

La Trobe University CHMP 13756

124

Terminology Used in this Report for Heritage Places

General Terms

Activity Area: The area or areas to be used or developed for an activity. Registered Cultural Heritage Place: An Aboriginal place recorded in the Register. Types of Aboriginal Prehistoric Archaeological Sites Artefact Scatter: A scatter of stone artefacts which is defined as being the occurrence of one (1) or more items of cultural material within 100 linear metres, with a distance of no greater than 20m between each item. Artefact scatters are often the only physical remains of places where Aborigines have camped, prepared and eaten meals and worked stone material. Burial: A burial site is usually a subsurface pit containing human remains and sometimes associated artefacts. Quarry :( stone/ochre source): An Aboriginal quarry site occurs where stone or ochre is exposed and has been extracted by Aboriginal people in the past. The rock types most commonly quarried for artefact manufacture in Victoria include silcrete, quartz, quartzite, chert and fine-grained volcanics such as greenstone. Scarred Tree: Scars on trees may be the result of removal of strips of bark by Aborigines for the manufacture of utensils, canoes or for shelter; or resulting from small notches chopped into the bark to provide hand and toe holds for climbers after possums, koalas and/or views of the surrounding area. Shell Midden: A scatter and/or deposit comprised predominantly of shell, sometimes containing stone artefacts, charcoal, bone and manuports. These site types are normally found in association with coastlines, rivers, creeks and swamps - wherever coastal, riverine or estuarine shellfish resources were accessed and exploited. Aboriginal Artefact Types Backing: Steep retouch on an artefact (e.g. backed blade). Blade: A flake that is at least twice as long as it is wide. Block Fracturing Techniques: These consist of bipolar flaking, bending and flaw propagation. These techniques do not result in concoidal flakes and can be difficult to identify. Blocky Piece: A piece of stone showing no diagnostic evidence for concoidal or block fracturing techniques (e.g. flake scars, crushing). Typically these items are foreign to the area and occur in association with diagnostic flaked artefacts of the same material (see also Manuport). Concoidal flake: A flake possessing a positive bulb of percussion which can be found on the ventral surface of the flake close to where it was struck from the core. Concoidal fracturing can also be produced by natural processes. Core: An artefact from which flakes have been detached using a hammerstone. Core types include single platform, multi-platform and bipolar forms. Cortex: Original or natural (unflaked) surface of a stone. Debitage: Small unmodified flakes, flaked pieces and blocky pieces produced as part of the flaking process, but discarded unused. Flake: A stone piece removed from a core by percussion (striking it) or by pressure. It is identified by the presence of a striking platform and bulb of percussion, not usually found on a naturally shattered stone.

125

Flake Scar: A negative impression on a piece of stone or rock surface from which a flake has been removed. Generally a flake scar will show the characteristics of a flake in reverse (i.e. negative bulb of percussion). Flaked Piece: A piece of stone with definite flake surfaces which cannot be classified as a flake or core. Formal Tool: An artefact which has been shaped by flaking, including retouch, or grinding to a predetermined form for use as a tool. Formal tools include scrapers, backed pieces and axes. Geometric Microlith: A blade that has been trimmed on one or two margins to produce a symmetrical backed piece which is roughly triangular in plan. Hammerstone: A piece of stone, often a creek/river pebble/cobble, which has been used to detach flakes from a core by percussion. During flaking, the edges of the hammerstone become 'bruised' or crushed by impact with the core. Implement: An artefact that has been designed, but not necessarily utilised (Hiscock& Mitchell 1990, 26). Manuport: Foreign fragment, chunk or lump of stone which shows no clear signs of flaking but is out La Trobe Universityof geological CHMP 13756 context and must have been transported to the site by people. Microlith: A flake or blade that has been abruptly retouched along one or more margins opposite an acute (sharp) edge. Backed pieces include backed blades and geometric microliths. They are thought to have been hafted onto wooden handles to produce composite cutting tools. Backed pieces are a feature of the ‘Australian small tool tradition’, dating from between 5,000 and 1,000 years ago in southern Australia (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999: 234-236). Percussion: The act of hitting a core with a hammerstone to strike off flakes. Retouch: A flake, flaked piece or core with intentional secondary flaking along one or more edges. Tool: An artefact that shows evidence that it has actually been used (e.g. edge damage) (Hiscock & Mitchell 1990, 26). Thumbnail Scraper: A thumbnail scraper is defined as a microlithic flake with regular unifacial retouch. Utilised Artefact: A flake, flaked piece or core which has irregular small flake scarring along one or more margins that does not represent platform preparation. Stone Artefact Raw Material Type Basalt: A coarse grained basic volcanic material formed by the cooling of mafic lava at the earth’s surface. Basalt generally does not generally fracture concoidally and is therefore rarely used for the manufacture of flaked stone artefacts. Basalt is more commonly used for the manufacture of ground edge axes. Chert: A sedimentary rock type composed of amorphous silica which is extremely dense, compact, dull to semi-vitreous and cryptocrystalline. It is formed by silica crystallising from out of solution in ground water. Used for flaked stone artefacts. Flint: A variety of chert which forms in limestone, characterised by a micro-crystalline texture (no grains visible), dull surface lustre and translucent appearance. Highly suitable for concoidal fracturing and the manufacture of flaked artefacts. Greenstone: A rock type formed by the high grade action regional metamorphism of many different types of rocks, commonly mafic to intermediate volcanics and cherts. Greenstone is commonly used for ground edge axes.

126

Hornfels: A rock formed from the contact metamorphism of fine grained sediments, which are usually rich in silica. In appearance this rock type is dark grey to black, and can resemble basalt. Used for flaked stone artefacts. Quartz: A mineral composed of silica with an irregular fracture pattern. Quartz used in artefact manufacture is generally semi-translucent, although it varies from milky white to glassy. Glassy quartz can be used for concoidal flaking, but poorer quality material is more commonly used for block fracturing techniques. Quartz can be derived from waterworn pebble, crystalline or vein (terrestrial) sources. Quartzite: A very hard, sometimes almost glassy metamorphic rock formed from compression of sands or sandstones which consist entirely of quartz sand grains. It has a similar appearance to sandstone but can be distinguished by its crystalline structure as opposed to the granular structure of sandstone. It is generally coarse grained in texture. Used for flaked stone artefacts. Silcrete: Soil, clay or sand sediments that have silicified under basalt through groundwater percolation. It ranges in texture from very fine grained to coarse grained (Sullivan & Simmons 1979, 56). At one extreme it is cryptocrystalline with very few clasts. It generally has characteristic yellow streaks of titanium oxide that occur within a grey and less commonly reddish background. Used for flaked stone artefacts. Glossary bibliography Hiscock, P. and S. Mitchell. 1990. Type Profiles: Stone Artefact Quarries, Stone Reduction Sites and Ochre Quarries. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission. Mulvaney, D. and J. Kamminga. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd., St Leonards. Sullivan, M. and S. Simmons. 1979. ‘Silcrete: a Classification for Flaked Stone Assemblages’, The Artefact 4: 51-60.

127