I

I REGIONAL STUDY OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE I CENTRAL LOWLANDS HUNTER VALLEY I ELECTRICITY COMMISSION HOLDINGS I A Report to the Electricity Commission of NSW

I In Three Volumes I July 1990 I I

I I I I I

I C§j. I I I I Volume 3: Assessment of Aboriginal Sites I MARGRIT KOETTIG I I REGIONAL STUDY OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE CENTRAL LOWLANDS HUNTER VALLEY ELECTRICITY HOLDINGS

ERRATA

VOLUME 1: p.8, 3rd para: 0.77% should read 7.7% p.9, 4th para: illustrated in section 7.7. should read discussed in section 7 p.ll,lst para: section 8.5 should be section 6.3. p.18,4th para: (0.77%) should read 7.7%

VOLUME 3: p.25, last para: section 3.5 should be section 4.5. p.35, 3rd para: section 3.5.2 should be section 5. I I' I I REGIONAL STUDY OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE I CENTRAL LOWLANDS: HUNTER VALLEY I ELECTRICITY COMMISSION HOLDINGS

I A Report to the Electricity Commission of NSW. I I July 1990 I I I I I 'I

I Volume 3: Assessment of Aboriginal Sites

I MARGRIT KOETTIG I I I I I I CONTENTS I I 1

1.0 Introduction to the Report ...... ••••..••.••....7 I 1.1 Project Brief ...... 8 1.2 Methodology ...... 8

I. 2.0 Aboriginal Consultation ...... •...... •..•.... 10

3.0 Environmental Setting ...... ••.• 11 t 3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.2 Geology and Landforms ...... 11 3.3 Vegetation ...... 12 I 3.4 Land Systems ...... 12 I 4.0 The Hunter Valley Project ...... ••...... 13 4.1 Introduction ...... 13 4.2 Types of Sites ...... 13 I 4.3 Distribution of Sites ...... 14 4.3.1 Introduction ...... 14 4.3.2 Sub-regions ...... 14 I 4.3.3 Land-systems ...... 16 4.3.4 Land Units ...... 16 4.4 Stratigraphic Context of Stone Artefacts ...... 17 I 4.5 Age of Occupation ...... 18 4.5.1 Datable Material ...... '...... 18 4.5.2 Stone Artefact Sequence and Technological Change ...... 19 I 4.6 Summary ...... 20

5.0 Update of Data Base 1984-1989 ...... 22 I 5.1 Introduction ...... 22 5.2 Site Distribution ...... 22 5.2.1 Sub-regions ...... 22 I 5.2.2 Land Systems and Land Units ...... 23 5.3 Stratigraphic Context ...... 23 5.4 . Age of Occupation ...... 24 I 5.4.1 Datable Material ...... 24 5.4.2 Technological Analysis ...... 25 1 5.5 Summary ...... 26 I I I- I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally - I 6.0 Limitations of the Data Base .•••.•.•.....•.•.••.• 27 6.1 Introduction ..... _...... 27 I 6.2 Types of Limitations ...... 27 6.2.1 Data Collection Methods ...... 27 6.2.2 Site Detectibility ...... 30 I 6.2.3 Site Definition ...... 32 6.2.4 Site Exposure ...... 33 6.2.5 Recording Site Content ...... 35 I 6.3 Summary ...... 36

7.0 Significance Assessment ••..•.••....••••.••..••• 37 I' 7.1 Introduction ...... 37 7.2 Evaluation of Significance ...... 37 7.2.1 Introduction ...... 37 I 7.2.2 Levels of Assessment ...... 37 7.3 Areas of Known Aboriginal Significance ...... 40 7.4 Areas of Known Archaeological Significance ...... _. . 40 I 7.4.1 General - Subregions ...... -:-. . 40 7.4.2 Local - Land Systems ...... 40 7.5 Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity ...... 41 I 7.6 Areas of Aboriginal Sensitivity ...... 42 7.7 Areas of No Archaeological Interest ...... 42 I 7.8 Summary ...... 43 8.0 Archaeological Work Carried out in Present Commission Holdings4S 8.1 Introduction ...... 45 I 8.2 Bayswater ...... ;...... 45 8.2.1 Surveys Undertaken ...... 45 I 8.2.2 Final Recommendations for Sites ...... 46 8.2.2.1 Preservation ...... 46 8.2.2.2 Mitigation Works Required ...... 46 I 8.2.2.3 Consents to Destroy ...... 47 8.3 Mount Arthur Soutb/North ...... 47 8.3.1 Survey at Mount Arthur South ...... 47 I 8.3.2 Survey at Mount Arthur North ...... 47 8.3.3 Salvage Work ...... 48 8.3.4 Final Recommendations ...... 48 I 8.3.4.1 Preservation ...... 48 8.3.4.2 Mitigation Works Required ...... 48 8.3.4.3 Consents to Destroy ...... 49 I 8.3.4.4 Other ...... 49 8.4 Ravensworth ...... 49 8.4.1 Survey Work...... ' ...... 49 I 8.4.2 Final Recommendations ...... 50 8.4.2.1 Preservation ...... 50 8.4.2.2 Further Archaeological Investigations ...... 50 I 8.4.2.3 Mitigation ...... 50 8.4.2.4 Other Recommendations ...... 50 8.4.2.5 Consents to Destroy ...... 50 I 8.5 Liddell ...... 50

I Page2 I -_. ------~ I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 8.6 Swamp Creek ...... 50 8.7 Transmission Lines ...... 51 I 8.8 . Conclusions ...... 51 9.0 Development Impact and Management Strategies .••...•.. 53 I 9.1 Introduction ...... 53 9.2 Development Impact on Aboriginal Sites ...... 53 ·9.3 Management Objectives ...... 53 I 9.4 Current Management Procedures Used by the Commission .... 55 I 10.0 Bibliography ...... 57 11.0 Appendices ...... I, 11.1 Appendix I: The Brief ...... 11.1 Appendix ll: Description of Sub-regions in the Hunter Valley (from Hughes 1984) ...... 11.3 Appendix Ill: Descriptions of Aboriginal Site Types in NSW t (NPWS Resource Sheet) ...... 11.4 Appendix IV: Predictive Models Proposed by Hughes (1984) I 11.5 Appendix V: List of Sites on Conimission Property ...... I I I I I, I I I I 'I

I Page3 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I TABLES CONTAINED IN. THE TEXT

I Table 1. Characteristics of the Major Parts of the Land Systems I Table 2. Distribution of Sites Along Redbank Creek I Table 3. Evidence from Dated Sites Table 4. Distribution of Sites in Land Units

I Table 5. Distribution of Sites in Land Units - Comparison Between Results of Surveys Prior to HV Project and Those Later.

I Table 6. Characteristics Distinguishing Artefacts from Units A and B at SGCD16 I Table 7. Surveys Undertaken to Completion of Hunter Valley Project I Table 8. Surveys Undertaken Since Hunter Valley Project Table 9. Distribution of Sites- Proximity to Creeklines

I Table 10. Distribution of Sites per Land Unit at Eight Survey Locations I Table 11. Visibility at Mt Arthur North I Table 12. Summary of Site Descriptions for Sample Survey Areas Table 13. Artefact Densities at Open Sites-Excavated and Collected Samples

I Table 14. Variation in Artefacts at Sites I Table 15. . Types of Development I I, I I I

I Page4 - I

I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Figure 24. Distribution of Coal Reserves in the Hunter Valley

I Figure 25. Location of National Parks and Reserves in the Hunter Valley I Figure 26. Location of Sites in State Forests in the Hunter Valley I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I Page6 - I I . Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 1.0 I INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT , I I I This report presents the results of a review of Aboriginal sites in the Hunter Valley I Region. This review was undertaken for the Electricity Commission of NSW. The Electricity Commission's current land holdings in the Hunter Valley contain I Aboriginal sites. Other areas ofland, which the Commission may acquire in the future, are also likely to contain sites.

I The main aim of the present study is to provide information which will assist the Commission in planning future developments for the region and to manage Aboriginal sites on existing Commission holdings in a responsible manner. The I existing holdings are shown in Figure 1 (This map is based on information supplied by the Commission). .

I The Commission's main area of concern within the Hunter Valley is land within which coal reserves are likely to occur. Thus, for the purposes of the present study, the area between Cessnock, Murrurundi and Merriwa (i.e. basically the area within the I 1:250,000 Singleton map sheet) has been targeted for particular attention. This is also the area within which most archaeological survey work in the Hunter Valley Region has been concentrated and it will be referred to as THE STUDY AREA throughout I the text. I This report presents background information relevant to an assessment of the archaeological resource in the whole Hunter Valley Region at a general level, a more specific assessment of the archaeological resource within the Study Area and a set of I recommendations for its management. The recommendations are in two sections relating to:

I 1) the MANAGEMENT of sites and future work required within current Commission property and

I 2) the archaeological work likely to be required in areas to be acquired in the future.

A set of maps accompanying the report provides the basis for discussion about the I location of sites, the reasons for their currently known distribution, and the identification of areas which are considered to be particularly archaeologically I sensitive and therefore should be excluded from development.

I PageJ I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally

1.1 Project Brief

I The brief specified that the consultant prepare a detailed planning document and predictive model which categorise land in the Hunter Valley into the following:

I • areas of known HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE/ARCHAEOLOGICAL (Le. land which contains sites of demonstrated archaeological significance and which may I be a constraint on future developments) • areas of known HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE/ABORIGINAL (as above)

• areas of HERITAGE SENSITIVITY/ARCHAEOLOGICAL .AND I ABORIGINAL (Areas of land not yet surveyed, but which may contain sites) • areas of NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL' INTEREST. (Areas of land which are considered unlikely to contain archaeological sites or insitu remains because of I geographic location, geomorphological context or the likelihood of post depositional disturbance).

I A full copy of the brief is attached as Appendix 1. I 1.2 Methodology In fulfilling the requirements of the brief and preparing the final report a number of I tasks were undertaken. These are listed below. . • A brief description of the environment of the whole Hunter Valley to provide a I setting for the archaeological work to be discussed (Section 2).

• A summary of the Hunter Valley Project by Hughes et al (1984) which provides a I synthesis of archaeological work undertaken to 1983 (Section 3)

..• A synthesis of the results of archaeological work undertaken between 1983 and I 1989 to update the data base (Section 4).

• A review and discussion of the limitations of the data base and how this affects the I reliability and scope of any predictive models, and hence their value for identifying areas of archaeological sensitivity (Section 5).

I • A discussion of the predictive model for the Central Lowlands Sub-region of the Hunter Valley based on the current data base. This is the area most relevant to I Commission interests (Section 6). • A general discussion of predictive models for other sub-regions within the Hunter I Valley (Section 6). • A set of maps (1:250,000 scale) showing the following information about the I . Hunter Valley.

I PageS I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I * the distribution of land systems which are referred to within the text.

I * a generalised topography to illustrate the broad form of the Valley. I * the distribution of sites so far recorded in the Study Area. I * the distribution of rock shelter sites in the Study Area. * the distribution of open artefact scatters in the Study Area.

I * the distribution of archaeological surveys undertaken to 1989 in the Study Area.

I * the distribution of National Parks and Reserves in the Study Area. I * the distribution of State Forests in the Study Area. • Copies of the original overlays and base maps for the above set will be presented I to ECNSW and the National Parks and Wildlife Service with the final report. • A set of maps at the 1:25,000 scale showing the current Commission holdings, I where known sites are located and which areas within these holdings have already been surveyed. I • A brief history of archaeological work within each Commission holding, recommendations made, any further work carried out, identification of any further I work to be carried out, mitigation works undertaken etc. • An assessment of sites within each of the holdings which have not been destroyed or for which consents to destroy have not been given by NPWS. Identification of .1 areas where survey work will be required in the future (Section 7).

• An assessment of the archaeological resource in the Central Lowlands subregion I in terms of development impact, amount of the resource already destroyed, number of sites being preserved, contexts of the sites being preserved, definition I of areas of archaeological sensitivity (Section 8). • A set of management criteria for the sites and areas of archaeological sensitivity in the study area (as previously defined) and specifically for Commission owned I land (Section 9).

• An inspection of some sites where mitigation works were undertaken in line with I recommendations given by the archaeologist and assessing its success or failure. I • Consultation with the Local Aboriginal Land Councils. All figures and longer tables are located at the end of the main text. Some small tables I are contained within the body of the text.

I Page9 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTRION 2.0 I ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION I I I The study area encampasses primarily two local land councils: the Wanaruah and I Mindaribba LALCs. ~eir areas are shown in Fig. 2. Both councils were contacted at the commencement of the project. Ms Frieda I Archibold of the Wanaruah and Ms Evelyn Barker of the Mindaribba were informed that the project was being undertaken. It was proposed that the consultant meet representatives of both Land Councils through attending a general meeting of each I land council and outlining the results of the investigation. Thus, a meeting was considered appropriate at a stage of the project when the background literature review I had been completed and maps had been finalised. Land Council meetings were scheduled for February 1990. The Wanaruah LALC meeting was held on the 2/2/1990. The Mindaribba LALC meeting was held on the I 13/2/1990. At both meetings it was felt that the Land Council would prefer to see a copy of the draft report before preparing a statement of their particular concerns.

I In line with the resolutions of both meetings, copies of the draft report have been forwarded to each Land Council for their comment and response. Ms Wilma Moran, archaeological research officer with the ECNSW, has attended meetings with both I Land Councils and is continuing discussions regarding the recommendations made in I this report. I I I I I

I PagelO I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 3.0 I ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I I I I 3.1 Introduction In the 1960's, CSIRO carried out a study of the Hunter Valley Region (1963) and classified the landforms into a number of subregions (Fig.3) and landsystems (Fig.4). I A study of the archaeological resource within that region carried out in 1983 (Hughes et al1984) used this descriptive system as the basis for discussing the distribution of I known Aboriginal sites and it is also referred to in this report. 3.2 Geology and Landforms I The Hunter Valley Region is divided into the following nine major subregions (Fig.3).

I • Mt Royal Range I • Liverpool Ranges • Northeast Mountains

I • Barrington Tops I • Merriwa Plateau • Central Goulburn Valley

I • Southern Mountains I • Central Lowlands • Coastal Zone

I To a large degree geology determines the landforms characteristic of each of these I subregions. Descriptions of these subregions (taken from Hughes 1984) are presented inAppendix I IL These nine subregions fall into five major landforms (Fig.5).

I Page11 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I rugged ( ranges characterised by very steep mountains) along the northern portion of the Valley (Liverpool Ranges, Mt I Royal Range, Barrington Tops) .

rugged (ranges characterised by heavily dissected sandstone) I along the southern portion of the Valley (portion of the Central Goulburn Valley and the Southern Mountains).

I hilly to undulating along the central portion of the Valley (portion of the Central Goulburn Valley and the Central I Lowlands) I flat along the banks of the Hunter River and the coastal zone The Hunter Valley consists of large areas of rugged terrain in the north and south, with a central corridor of hilly to undulating landforms. The Hunter River, its main I tributaries the Goulburn, Wollombi, Paters on and Williams Rivers and a network of minor creeks, drain the Valley eastwards towards the coast.

I 3.3 Vegetation

In the relatively inaccessible parts of the Hunter Valley Region, the vegetation is I primarily eucalypt woodland, with rainforest occurring in parts of the Barrington Tops area. In the more accessible part of the Hunter Valley, the vegetation has been cleared I of the original open woodland and is principally grasslands with small remnants of original woodland and isolated trees. This corresponds closely to the central corridor I of hilly to undulating land. 3.4 Landsystems

I Forty three landsystems have been identified in the Hunter Valley Region (FigA), primarily on the basis of lithology, topography, vegetation, climate and soils. Each of these is divided into a number of land units such as valley floor, slopes, ridges. Table I 1 presents a summary description of these landsystems (taken from the CSIRO I report). I I I I

I Page12 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 4.0 I THE HUNTER VALLEY PROJECT I I I I 4.1 Introduction In 1984 the National Parks and Wildlife Service commissioned a study of the I archaeological resource of the Hunter Valley Region. This overview was co-ordinated and the results synthesized by P.Hughes (1984). Individual components were contributed by H. Brayshaw (ethnography), S.Bassett I (summary of archaeological survey work to 1983), P. Hiscock (analysis of technological characteristics of a number of stone artefact assemblages), M. Koettig (field surveys in selected areas of the Merriwa Plateau and North-east Mountain I Subregions).

Hughes used the CSIRO descriptive system of the environment as the framework I within which to analyse the distribution of sites in the Region, and to formulate a I predictive model to be used by archaeologists working in the region. The results of his analysis of archaeological data are summarised below.

I 4.2 Types of Sites

Ten types of sites have been recorded in the Hunter Valley Reg~on. These are I described briefly below and fuller descriptions are presented in Appendix Ill. occupation sites: three main forms of occupation sites occur - rock shelters with I deposit, open artefact scatters, and shell middens. • grinding grooves I where edge ground axes are sharpened. • quarries or raw material resource areas I these are usually outcrops of stone or gravel beds exploited for artefact manufacture, or ochre deposits from which pigment were obtained.

I • art sites these are engravings on open expanses of rock or paintings, drawings and I engravings in rock shelters.

I Page13 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • scarred trees scars resulting from the removal of bark for making such items as containers, I shields, and canoes. burial sites I • stone arrangements • carved trees I • ceremonial grounds I • mythological sites • missions

I 4.3 Distribution of Sites I 4.3.1 Introduction The distribution of known sites in the Hunter Valley was discussed at three levels: i sub-regions, land systems and land units. I 4.3.2 Subregions The distribution of some site types is determined by the underlying geology of a particular area or the restricted availability of certain resources. Thus, rock shelters I with occupation deposit and art, engravings and grinding grooves are confined primarily to areas of sandstone and are rare in other geological areas, occurring in isolated outcrops of an appropriate type of rock. Shell middens are confined to the I coastal fringe or parts of rivers where molluscs can be found. However, most of the other types of sites are to be found right across the region.

I In discussing the distribution of sites in each of the subregions, Hughes noted that: I lithe numbers ofsites recorded in each subregion reflect the degree to which they have been subject to archaeological investigation RA THER THAN inherent variations in the frequency of sites". I (1984:51).

A brief summary of his findings as well as his predictions for the distribution of sites I within each sub-region are presented below (1984:67-68). I The Coastal Zone In 1984, only 6% of the 1650 sites recorded in the Hunter Valley, had been recorded in the coastal zone. Most of these had been recorded as part of private research by I L.Dyall in the 1960's. The sites were mostly shell mid dens and open artefact scatters, though some burials had also been recorded. Ten consulting reports had been I undertaken, but these resulted in few new recordings.

I Page14 I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I * Prediction: shell middens and open sites with scatters of stone artefacts I will be co-dominant. Southern Mountains I In 1984, 10% of all known sites within the Hunter valley Region, had been recorded in the Southern Mountains subregion, and 80% of these were rock shelters with art. I Virtually no systematic surveys had been undertaken in the subregion. * Prediction: rockshelters with occupation deposit and/or rock art, open sites with artefact scatters and axe grinding grooves will be located. I Rock engravings will occur infrequently but these will nevertheless be regionally very significant as they are likely to be extremely rare in I other landscapes. ' Central Goulburn Valley

I Approximately 26% of all sites were recorded in this subregion. Eighty percent of these sites were recorded during one project along the Goulburn River and its I tributaries (Haglund 1981). Nearly 60% of the sites in that study were rock shelters and 30% open artefact scatters.

I * Prediction: as for Southern Mountains and Central Lowlands. I Central Lowlands Over 50% of all sites had been recorded in this subregion and more than 90% of these were open artefact scatters. This subregion had been subjected to the most intensive I archaeological survey work in the region, reflecting the fact that it is under the most development pressure. Almost 95% of the sites were recorded during consulting I projects, of which 84 had been carried out. * Prediction: open sites with scatters of stone artefacts will be the predominant types; axe grinding grooves the next most common type I will occur much less frequently. The occasional rockshelter with occupation and/or art will occur in massive sandstone outliers on the I margins of this sub-region. I Merriwa Plateau A total of 25 sites (%) had been recorded in the spbregion and they were all open artefact scatters. Eighteen of these sites were located during non-systematic surveys I carried out as part of the Hunter Valley Project (Koettig 1984). These spot surveys were designed to ascertain how consistently archaeological material could be found in areas of high archaeological potential (Le. next to creeks). It was found that, in most I locations along creeklines where there was some visibility, artefacts were found.

* Prediction: rockshelters with occupation and/or art and open sites with I scatters of stone artefacts are likely to be co-dominant. The former will

I Page15 I ---- I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I occur specifically in the rocky sandstone hill country whereas the latter will be much more widely spread. Axe grinding grooves will also occur I on sandstone where it is present. I Northeastern Mountains A total of 96 sites had been recorded and 43 of these were recorded during the I non-systematic survey undertaken as part of the project (Koettig 1984). As in the previous subregion, these spot checks were designed to test whether sites were consistently found in areas of high archaeological potential. It was found that I sites were consistently found in areas of relatively high archaeological potential i.e. near creeks, but were also found on RIDGELINES well away from obvious I watercourses. * Prediction: insufficient data are available for any individual I landsystem, however available site information indicates strongly that open artefacts scatters will be the predominant type of site found.

I 4.3.3 Landsystems

Most of the archaeological investigations had been concentrated on 8 of the 43 I landsystems: Glendower (Gd), Killarney (K), Hunter (Hu), Beresfield (Bf), Erlington (E), Lees Pinch (Lp), Ogilvie (0) and Three Ways (Tw). These landsystems cover 48% of the Hunter Valley and approximately 80% each of the Central Lowlands, I Central Goulburn Valley and South Eastern Mountains sub-regions. I The predictive models presented by Hughes are included as Appendix IV. I 4.3.4 Land Units Hughes provides an example of how sites are distributed within one survey area (Redbank Creek), to illustrate that certain land units are more archaeologically I sensitive than others. The Glendower and Killarney landsystems are included in this survey area and a number of land units are represented: K1, K3, Gd1, Gd3, Gd4 (Fig.6). The K3 and Gd4 landunits (main valley floor) are associated with a higher I density of sites than the other land units (112 per sq.km as opposed to 10 per sq.km).

Hughes proposed that on available evidence, the most archaeologically sensitive parts I of the Glendower and Killarney land systems were those land units adjacent to watercourses. Sites had been recorded on hills and on slopes, but these tended to be I more widely scattered and contained fewer artefacts than sites along creeks. For the analysis of the data recorded at Redbank Creek, the creeks were divided into sections A-F (Fig.7) and there were more sites recorded along the main creek than I along its tributaries (see Table 2). I Hughes proposed that sites diminish in frequency along minor creeklines, though he stressed that it was not possible to predict actual site density, firstly because of

I Page16 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I different site definitions used by recorders and secondly, because of variable site I detection conditions (1984:69). In the more rugged terrain of the Central Goulburn Valley in the Kerrabee Dam study, Haglund (1981) found that even along the Goulburn River (a major watercourse) two I areas of similar size contained very different numbers of sites (9 in sample K and 45 in sample D). The reason for such variation is not clear. No analysis was undertaken I of the topographic or land unit distribution of the sites found in this study. Hughes' analysis of site distribution in the Lees Pinch land system which characterises the Central Goulburn Valley sub-region notes that rockshelters with art and/or I occupation deposit may occur anywhere in the landscape of all three land.units. It is predicted that the same can be expected in the Southern Mountains sub-region or any I landscape where usable overhangs have formed. I 4.4 Stratigraphic Context of Stone Artefacts. Artefacts excavated from ro.ck shelters, were present throughout the depth of the excavated deposit, though at some sites the amount of archaeological material I diminished considerably towards the base.

Artefact scatters in open contexts appear to be confined to the upper Unit A of the I texture contrast soils which are characteristic of most areas where archaeological I' surveys have so far been undertaken. "Briefly, texture contrast soils consist of an A horizon of massive, sandy to silty material which gives way abruptly down the profile I to clayey material of a blocky structure. These soils are prevalent in the Central Lowlands, Central Goulburn Valley and the lower, I western pans ofthe Nonheastern Mountains. 11 (Hughes 1984:26). The pedogenetic status of these soils is currently uncertain, thus they have been described in terms of their most obvious sedimentological division: Unit A and Unit I· B (Fig.8).

The upper Unit A tends to be less than 50cm in depth and is a distinctive grey to buff I coloured silt, often containing gravel. The underlying unit B is a heavy red to orange I clay, which is several metres thick and during very dry conditions is prone to cracking. At present the age of either unit is unknown. Hughes suggests that Unit B may be very much older than Unit A because of its weathered condition (1984:28). He also I suggested that because mid-late Holocene artefact assemblages are found towards the base of the A Unit in many cases, that this Unit may be younger than 5,000 years in I age. This proposition remains to be tested. I

I Page17 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 4.5 Age of Occupation

I Up to 1983, archaeological evidence suggested that the Hunter Valley was not occupied by Aborigines until the second half of the Holocene (i.e. less than 5,000 years I ago). I This conclusion was based on two lines of evidence: 4.5.1 Datable Material

I Dated material had been recovered from several rock shelter sites in the southern and western portions of the Hunter Valley (Moore 1970, Haglund 1981) (Fig. 9). I I Table 3: EVIDENCE FROM DATED SITES AS AT 1983 SITE NAME DEPTH OF DEPOSIT DEPTH OF DATE I DATED MATERIAL I cm cm Sandy Hollow 100 45-60 1300 + -100BP Milbrodale 46 15-30 141O+-90BP I Bobadeen 90 64-66 5150+-170BP BigL 95 8th spit of 11 2495 +-105BP Yengo 95 8th spit of 12 2350 + -85BOOP I KD/31 62 36-42 2720 + -120BP KD/33 50 18-22 2160+-90BP KD/40 42+ 36-42 810+-100BP I KD/41 85 64-70 3710+-120BP* I *likely to be contaminated I In most cases the charcoal used for the radiocarbon dates was not from the base of the site. There does not appear to be any site which would be much older than 5000 I years BP, i.e. based on the depth of the dated material relative to the base of the deposit, except, perhaps, Bobadeen, where another 30cm of possible archaeological I deposit continues below the level dated to 5150 years BP. Evidence from areas adjacent to the Hunter Valley indicates that Aboriginal occupation was established 20,000 years ago in the Liverpool Plains to the north I (Gorecki 1984), 11,000 years BP in the Mangrove Creek area to the south (Attenbrow 1987) and 13,000 years BP at the western edge of the Cumberland Plain (Kohen et al I 1984). Thus, it is to be expected that older sites could be found in the Hunter Valley. I Pagel8 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Hughes concludes that, because no early assemblages had been recorded, Pleistocene occupation must have been so sparse that either, it could not be detected at open sites I or that it had not been recognised (1984:76). He also suggests that higher ground along the edge of the floodplain of the Hunter River, where archaeological investigations had not then been undertaken, could be associated with Pleistocene material. Older I sites on the actual floodplain would have been destroyed by the movement of the river channel or buried under alluvium.

I 4.5.2 Stone Artefact Sequence and Technological Change.

The earliest artefacts recorded at open sites in the Hunter Valley appeared to be I backed blades, which are part of the assemblage referred to as the Bondaian. This assemblage has been dated to less than 5,000 years BP in stratified sites in I South-eastern NSW (Attenbrow 1987) Field recordings of artefact assemblages in the Hunter Valley had failed to identify I assemblages likely to be older than the Bondaian. This could be a function of one or a number of the following: the type of descriptive system used (based on type specimen), the fact that older assemblages have rarely been described and therefore I their morphology is not known, that such assemblages are not located in the types of locations where archaeological material has been recorded, that they are extremely I rare or that they do not exist. Hiscock (1984, C-813) had undertaken the technological analysis of artefacts from sites at Warkworth (Redbank Creek) and also as part of the Hunter Valley Project, I reanalysed the material from Sandy Hollow (1984, C-930).

On the basis of the analysis of artefacts from three sites at Redbank Creek, Hiscock I found that:

• reduction procedures for the production of backed blades was highly standardised I for both silcrete and indurated mudstone, the most commonly used raw materials I • that blades were not representative of backed blade production, as was the case in other assemblages elsewhere in NSW, suggesting that different reduction I strategies were employed for the manufacture of that artefact type. • that there were identifiable patterns of behaviour associated with backed blade production. Hiscock found that flakes of silcrete were removed from the knapping I area and heat treated. Using technological criteria to describe the stone artefact assemblage from Sandy I Hollow, Hiscock identified two phases within the Bondaian. (Phases I and II) and a pre-Bondaian assemblage without backed blades, which was stratigraphically below the Bondaian. The dating of these assemblages was not well established at this site, I so the absolute chronology of these phases was presented by Hiscock as very tentative. It appears that on extrapolated evidence, that the Bondaian Phase I commenced at approximately 1300 BP and Bondaian II, at approximately 800 BP (Hiscock 1986:41). I Using an age-depth curve Hiscock calculated that occupation at the shelter commenced at approximately 2000 years ago, thus the pre-Bondaian was dated to

I Page19 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I between 2000 and 1300 years BP. These dates do not correspond to dates established for the commencement of the Bondaian in other areas of NSW (Attenbrow 1987) and I should not be considered definitive for the Hunter Valley.

The Bondaian I artefact assemblage was characterised specifically by the presence of I facetted platforms and the introduction of backed blades. Other changes in technology were more subtle, (e.g. variations in the amount of platform preparation) rather than being characterised by the presence or absence of particular technologiCal attributes. I The Bondaian assemblages as a whole were characterised by much greater control over platform preparation than was the pre-Bondaian.

I Hiscock then analysed artefacts from 15 knapping floors from open campsite locations in the Mount Arthur North and South areas south-west of Muswellbrook. He found I that the 3 phases identified at Sandy Hollow were represented within even that small sample (1986). He found that the Phase I Bondaian was the most frequently I represented (10) and the pre-Bondaian rare (1). These analyses by Hiscock showed that it is possible to seriate open artefact scatters using technological characteristics. On the basis of the Redbank Creek sites he also I suggested that regional variation in backed blade production strategies is to be expected and that specialised activity areas such as heat treatment locations should be part of campsite structure. The collection of data to test these propositions will I involve much more detailed recording of assemblages than had been carried out in the past. The excavation and analysis of assemblages from dated contexts, including rock shelters, in a number of locations in the Hunter Valley is required to establish I the range of variation in site structure and content across the landscape. A greater concentration on describing artefact assemblages was recommended by Hughes for I future consulting projects in the region (1984:90). I 4.6 Summary Hughes' review of the archaeological data for the Hunter Valley in 1984 found that most of the archaeological investigations had been concentrated in the Central I Lowlands sub-region, and thus predictive models for site distribution could be developed with any degree of confidence only for this type of landscape. Hughes I concluded that: • sites are found across the whole of the Hunter Valley

I • a variety of site types have been recorded in the Hunter Valley

• in areas where few sites had been previously recorded (the NE Mountains and I Merriwa Plateau) limited surveys undertaken as part of the study indicated that sites will be found in part of the Hunter Valley.

I • the Central Lowlands sub-region is characterised by open campsites I • in the Central Lowlands sub-region sites are consistently found along watercourses, irrespective of the size of the watercourse.

I Page20 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • in the Central Lowlands sub-region there seems to be a tendency for sites to I diminish in size with a diminution in size of watercourse. • in the Central Lowlands sub-region archaeological material appears to be relatively sparse on hills and slopes, though sites are found consistently in this type I of topographic location.

• archaeological evidence does not appear to be older than approximately the I mid-late Holocene.

• technological analyses may assist in the dating of stone artefact assemblages (and I therefore sites) which cannot be dated by direct means.

Because of the limited amount of analysis which had been undertaken on sites at the I time of the Hunter Valley Project, the types of predictions about sites was primarily for the Central Lowlands sub-region, and was also at a very broad level. Hughes' I models are basically related to: • the types of sites so far recorded within each of the sub-regions (Le. only at their I most obvious morphological level [shelter, scarred tree, open artefact scatters]) The range of variation within anyone of these types has not been identified in any I way. • the distribution of sites within the land units was described for only 8 of the 43 landsystems found in the Hunter Valley Region, as the data base for the other land I systems was too limited to be of analytical value. I I I I I I I I

I Page21 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 5.0 I UPDATE OF DATA BASE 1984-1989. I I I 5.1 I Introduction Thirty two consulting projects have been undertaken in the study area since the completion of the Hunter Valley Project (Hughes 1984); of which twenty-eight I investigated new areas.

Twenty-eight of the consulting projects were located within the Central Lowlands I sub-region, thus the data base on the distribution of sites has been extended for this sub-region, but not the other sub-regions. A total of 195 sites were recorded of which 191 were open artefact scatters. Two sites were classed as "possible scarred trees" (P. I Dean-Iones 1986) and there were one definite scarred tree and a set of grinding grooves.

I A research project which follows on from the previous work at Kerrabee Dam in the Central Goulburn River sub-region (Haglund 1981) is currently being completed I (Haglund in prep ). Most of the surveys were relatively small in area (11 were less than 1 sq.km and 4 were I linear surveys less than 60m in width). Six surveys included areas 1-5 sq.km and one survey was larger than 10 sq.km.

I Four projects were follow up work arising from recommendations presented in the survey report: monitoring of construction, test excavations to determine whether I sub-surface material was present, further recording of sites and salvage excavations. The results of this work are summarised below and briefly compared to the results of I the Hunter Valley Project. I 5.2 Site Distribution 5.2.1 Sub-regions

I Twenty eight of the survey areas were located within the Central Lowlands sub-region. One linear survey crossed the Central Lowlands and NE Mountains sub-regions (Koettig 1986). Another of the surveys was in the Southern Mountains and three in the I Central Goulburn Valley.

I Page22 I' I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I The emphasis on survey work, because of the type of development being undertaken continues to be in the Central Lowlands sub-region. Hughes had predicted that this I would be the pattern (1984). I 5.2.2 Land Systems and Land Units Table 4 sets out the landsystems represented within each of the survey areas (linear surveys are not included). The Killarny LS was represented in 11 of the survey areas I (58%) and the Glendower in 10 (53%). The only other landsystems represented were the Brays Hill (11 %), Hunter (16%) and Ogilvie (5%), each in very small area only. It is of interest that sites were not recorded in some of the larger survey areas on the I Killarney and Glendower land systems which had been previously consistently associated with sites (i.e. near Pokolbin,Brayshaw 1985,[C-943j and near Grasstree, I Byrne 1985, [C-955]). The number of sites recorded is roughly in proportion to the area of each of the I landsystems represented in the areas surveyed i.e. most sites were found in the Killarney (96) and Glendower (61) landsystems which cover most of the land surveyed. Sites were found in all landunits within the Killarney and Glendower I landsystems, though in different proportions. K2 had the least sites within the Killarney landsystem. Gd1 was associated with a much larger number of sites than the other landunits in the Glendower land system. This was not found to be the case in I Hughes' study, which found that the largest number of sites was in the Gd3 land unit and relatively few were found in Gdl (1984). Table 5 compares the results of the two data sets. Obviously such variation needs to be assessed in terms of the relative I proportion of each land unit in each survey area, but this analysis could not be undertaken for the present project.

I One of the longer linear surveys (Singleton to Glennies Creek Dam, Koettig 1986) crossed4landsystems: Glendower, Killarney, Timor and Walleroo. Ten of the 11 sites were found on the Glendower landsystem (which included approximately 1/4 of the I route) and one on the Walleroo landsystem (which included approximately 1/2 of the route). The Walleroo and Timor landsystems were associated with poor surface visibility and it was recommended that test excavations be undertaken in 6 locations I of high archaeological potential (along watercourses as per the model proposed by Hughes). Sites were found in 5 of the 6 locations tested, thus substantiating the proposition that the banks of watercourses are likely to be consistently associated with I open campsites. It appears that this may be the case irrespective of the landsystem within which a survey area falls. I 5.3 Stratigraphic Context.

I Most of the open artefact scatters recorded were within the upper Unit A of the soil and distributed across the surface of the eroding Unit B.

I At two sites SGCD15 and SGCD16, located within the Walleroo land system near Glennies Creek Dam (Koettig 1987), artefacts were found up to 1m below the ground surface within a texture contrast soil, classed as a solodized solonetz soil. This soil I consists of an upper loamy A horizon up to 30cm in depth a:nd a clay B horizon,

I Page23 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I characterised by massive columns, here about 15cm in diameter.

I A hearth was also found at the same depth in an alluvial terrace at the foot of the slope atSGCD16.

I Artefacts had not been found in such contexts previously. No excavations and little survey had been undertaken in the North East Mountains in general or within the Walleroo land system in particular or on alluvial terraces anywhere in the Hunter I Valley Region. I 5.4 Age of Occupation I 5.4.1 Datable Material Additional data about the age of occupation in the Hunter Valley has come to light ,I as the result of work undertaken for 3 projects since 1984. • During the excavations at SGCD16 (Fig.9), artefacts were found at a depth of 1m il in the soil (Koettig 1986). Radiocarbon dates from two charcoal samples confirm the results of previous geomorphological studies in other areas, that this type of soil takes more than 10,000 years to form. The artefacts within the soil are therefore of an age in excess of 10,000 years BP. Charcoal from the hearth yielded I a date of +20,000 years BP, thus indicating that Aboriginal occupation commenced in this area by at least the Late Pleistocene (see Koettig 1987 for full details). A second location SGCD15 may also contain early material, but the I results from this site were less conclusive. Artefacts from three other sites were I mid-late Holocene. • Kerrabee Dam. In 1988 Haglund completed additional excavations and analysis of artefacts from three rockshelters in the Goulburn River National Park. These I sites had been, originally excavated during the Kerrabee Dam project (Haglund 1981). Basal dates for the three sites (Fig.9) were: 2090 BP (KD/40), 3710 BP I (KD/41), 4740 BP (KD/33) (Haglundinprep). • Pokolbin. As part of a test excavation program a hearth was excavated at an open site near Pokolbin, POK4 (Fig.9). Charcoal from the hearth was dated to 2820 I years BP (Koettig 1989).

While confirming that most of the dated archaeological evidence seems to be from I the mid-late Holocene, it is evident that earlier archaeological material does occur in the Hunter Valley and that such material will be well within clay deposits. At present it is impossible t9 predict where older sites will occur, though some of the types of I contexts have been identified.

The presence of a hearth within the upper alluvial terrace at SGCD16 indicates that I this type of context is likely to contain archaeological material. Hughes had suggested that this type of geomorphic feature along the edge of the Hunter River flood plain may prove to contain earlier sites (1984:76). It appears that this is likely and that in I .fact other river systems in the Hunter Valley should also be regarded as likely to be

I Page24 I ,-~------~------I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I associated with late Pleistocene occupation. Solodized solonetz soils are another I possible context for older sites. The present evidence suggests that early Holocene and Late Pleistocene sites could occur well down in the Unit B horizon of texture contrast soils and in river terraces. I One of the priorities of future investigations will be to undertake studies of the geomorphology of the Unit B soil in the Central Lowlands sub-region to determine whether this material does in fact pre-date possible human occupation (Hughes 1984:) I or formed within the period of human occupation, and therefore would require more intensive archaeological investigation.

I 5.4.2 Technological Analysis I The artefacts from the sites SGCD9, 12, 13 and 16 on Fal Brook were described (Koettig 1987) using the same technological criteria as those used by Hiscock (1986) in his analysis of the assemblage from Sandy Hollow. Unfortunately the artefact I numbers at most of the sites were too low for a successful application of this technique. At each of these sites only test excavations were undertaken and the aim of the project was to discover whether sites were located in certain types oflocations, rather than to I obtain large artefact samples, which are more appropriately obtained as part of salvage excavations.

I The assemblages were also described in more general morphological terms and it was evident that the artefacts from the late Pleistocene contexts at SGCD16 were quite different to those which have been described as late Holocene and there was a I difference in the predominance of different raw materials from the upper soil horizon to that in the lower clay horizon. Indurated mudstone and silcrete were much more frequently represented in the assemblage from upper unit A whereas volcanic rock I was much more frequent in the Unit B. Large cores of that material were found in the Unit B, but were rare in the Unit A. The main variations are shown in Table 6 (from I Koettig 1987). There were no backed blades present. Haglund (in prep) analysed the assemblages from three sites along the Goulburn I River, using the same technological criteria as those used by Hiscock in the analysis of the material from Sandy Hollow. She found that there was some variation b~tween the assemblages from the sites and that the three phase sequence of artefact change I identified at Sandy Hollow was not replicated. It appears that the assemblages from the Goulburn River may represent a different technological tradition to that at Sandy Hollow. Though the Bondaian I assemblage was identified as being present in all the I Goulburn River sites, the assemblages predating and post dating this phase are different. Haglund indicates that unfortunately the observed variation between sites may be largely due to methodological problems and therefore these results are in no I way conclusive and need to be tested through analyses oflarger assemblages than were analysed for this project.

I Backed blade manufacture at the GoulburnRiver sites appears at approximately 3,500 years BP, thus extending the age of the Bondaian to earlier than the evidence from I Sandy Hollow (see section 3.5). Hiscock's method of analysis promises to be extremely useful for detecting regional

I Page25 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I variation and temporal changes in assemblage composition, particularly at open sites I where direct dating methods are more limited. 5.5 Summary I Work undertaken sinc~ the Hunter Valley Project has provided additional information about the prehistory of the Hunter Valley as well as the pattern of impact I on the archaeological resource. It has shown that archaeological evidence of early Holocene or Late Pleistocene I occupation can be found at open sites in the Hunter Valley. The distribution of the latter type of site cannot yet be predicted, as only one such site has been found to date. However, those particular areas where solodized solonetz soils occur and alluvial I terraces border rivers or creeks, need to be included as areas of high archaeological potential for early sites. The distribution of artefacts up to lm below the present ground surface indicates that archaeological material occurs at greater depths than I had been previously believed. The age of the Unit B, of the texture contrast soils elsewhere in the Hunter Valley needs to be determined so that it is possible to assess I whether this part of the soil profile is potentially artefact bearing deposit. Analysis of the technological attributes of stone artefacts has shown that it is an important analytical technique in helping to define variation in artefact assemblages I both at open campsites and shelter sites, across the landscape and through time. However, larger excavations than those undertaken in the past will be required to ensure that there is sufficient material (Le. large enough numbers of artefacts) for the I analyses to be statistically viable. I A number of functionally different activity areas have been identified at open campsites e.g.hearths, artefact production, heat treatment locations (by implication). It is likely that other behaviours may also be represented at such sites, and the I investigation of site structure should be a high priority in future excavations at such sites.

I The geographical distribution of survey areas covered by consulting reports undertaken in the study area illustrates that the Central Lowlands continues to be the sub-region within the Hunter Valley most affected by development pressure and It is I particularly important in this sub-region that appropriate techniques are employed to characterise the archaeology so that a representative sample of sites can be identified I and preserved. I I I I' Page26 I. I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 6.0 I LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA BASE I I I 6.1 Introduction I The value of a data base for predictive purposes is only as useful as the level of the I systematic work on which it is based. There are a number of major limitations on the archaeological data base for the Hunter Valley which are discussed below. An understanding of these limitations is I very important for reaching an understanding of the value of predictive models which have been produced to date.

I The emphasis in this section is on open artefact scatters, as this is the type of site most commonly encountered in the study area (though the issues raised in fact apply to all site types). The types of limitations will be described and then examples will be I discussed to illustrate specific problems. I 6.2 Types of Limitations I 6.2.1 Data Collection and Survey Methods. The manner in which any research design has been developed and implemented affects where and how many sites are recorded within any survey area. In the Hunter I Valley, survey strategies have varied considerably. Often only small sections of the total development area have been inspected or specific topographic units/zones have been intensively inspected. Other areas considered to have "lesser" archaeological I potential have been left unsurveyed.

Tables 7 and 8 show that most surveys are sample surveys rather than total surveys. I Prior to 1984, 70% of surveys were sample surveys and after 1984 only 40% were sample surveys, and 60% were classed as total surveys. This may reflect in part that there was an increase in survey intensity, but more significantly reflects the fact that I a greater proportion of surveys were small or transmission lines, where total survey is more frequently seen as an appropriate survey strategy. It is almost impossible, I especially with large survey areas, to determine what percentage of the total development area was inspected. In most cases the surveys were confined to the edges of creeklines and only very small portions of other topographic units (hills, slopes, I ridges) were sampled. There is thus a strong bias in the data base towards the valley floor, especially the edges of watercourses.

I Page27 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I The variation in sampling/survey strategy biases models of site distribution across the landscape and therefore the identification of high and low archaeologically sensitive I zones (Le. based on the presence or absence of sites, high or low density of sites, in certain parts of the landscape). .

I A number of surveys have been selected to illustrate various aspects of the following discussion:

I • Hunter Valley N 0.2 (Brayshaw 1981; C-148) This survey consisted of a number of survey transects on foot, primarily along creeklines. Not all creeklines were included in the sample, hence there was a form I of sampling within that topographic category. A small proportion of the adjacent slopes and hills were included (Fig.l 0). This survey strategy is very typical of most I of the large surveys undertaken prior to 1984. • Bayswater No.2 (Hughes 1981; C-449) ...1 The survey consisted of a number of survey transects on foot and several by car. Creeklines, ridges and slopes were included, but the latter two topographic units , I were not well represented. (Fig.ll). • Mount Arthur South (Koettig and Hughes 1985; C- 1203) The survey areas included mostly the creekflats. Only very small sections of slopes I and ridges were included in the survey (Fig.12)J thus they were not representatively sampled.

I • Redbank Creek (Koettig and Hughes 1983, C-491) This survey included an intensive survey of the slopes and ridges, as well as the creeklines within the survey area (Fig. 6). All topographic units were well I represented.

• Mt Thorley (Hughes and Silcox 1983, C-436) I This survey area included a relatively large area of ridges and slopes (Fig. 13).

• Glennies Creek Coal Authorisation (Brayshaw 1986, C-1008) I The survey concentrated on the creeklines. Some hills and slopes were also included but the relative proportion of each topographic unit was not I representative (Fig.14). , • Singleton North (Stern andAttenbrow 1981, C-2S) This survey included all topographic units, though there was an emphasis on I creeklines (Fig.15).

• Wattle Pond and "The Retreat" (Dallas and McDonald 1986, 1987, C-1088 and I C-1280) I This survey was a total survey of all topographic units (Fig.16) Distribution of Sites - Proximity to Creeklines I Table 9 shows the distribution of sites according to their location more or less than lOOm from a creekline. The location of sites were worked out from the maps supplied I Page28 I ------I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I in the reports.

I It is evident that sites were recorded most frequently along creeklines, even where all topographic units are included (e.g. Redbank Creek, 'North Singleton, Mt Thorley). The Wattle Ponds survey (1986) suggests, however, that in some areas large numbers I of sites may also be found well away from the creeklines. In fact there appears to be considerable variation between areas very close together i.e. no sites were found more than lOOm away from creeks in the North Singleton survey area, which is only 3km I south of the Wattle Ponds survey area.

The standard model of site location/distribution (sites being focussed along I creeklines) needs to be tested more thoroughly in areas away from creeklines to ensure that the model is not simply a self fulfilling one. All surveys in larger areas must include a large proportion of land away from the creeklines to adequately test the I , model and identify real variations in the pattern of site distribution. I I Table 9 : DISTRIBUTION OF SITES - PROXIMITY TO CREEKLINES SURVEY AREA NO. SITES WITHIN lOOm NO. SITES + lOOM I OF A CREEKLINE FROM A CREEKLINE I HUNTER VALLEY NO. 2 13 2 BAYSWATER NO.2 7

I MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH 135 1 I REDBANK CREEK 60 6 I MTTHORLEY 31 5 GLENNIES CREEK 39 2

I NORTH SINGLETON 54

WATTLE PONDS + 35 10 I liTHE RETREAT' I I Distribution of Sites - Land Units Each of the above survey areas was divided into the landunits within their area (Figs.6J I 9-16) to illustrate how sites are distributed according to these land units. Table 10 shows how sites are distributed in the various survey areas. The average

I Page29 I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I density of sites appears to be highest for the land units Killamey 3 (K3), Glendower 3 (Gd3) Glendower 4 (Gd4) and Blairgowrie 1 (Bll). Blairgowrie 1 is an area of hills I and slopes and the other three land units include the main valley floor within the respective land systems. This indicates that the land units associated with the main valleys are consistently archaeologically sensitive, but that other more hilly land units, I such as Blairgowrie 1, can also be archaeologically sensitive. The area of Blairgowrie 1 which was surveyed, is very small and the density of sites for that area may not be representative of the density of sites in this type of landunit in general. This can only I be clarified through survey of a greater area of this particular land unit.

The land units K3, Gd3 and Gd4 comprise a much more specific landform unit (only I the valley floor) than do Kl,K2 or Gdl, which include large areas of hills and slopes as well as creeklines. Thus; the density of sites may be much lower in those units because the relative proportion of the creekflats is much smaller than in the first three I land units. If sites do in fact occur primarily along the creeklines then the comparison of site density between land units is not valid and a density of sites along individual creeks (within a certain distance of that creek) would be more informative. The I usefulness of land units as an analytical tool needs to be considered in this type of I perspective. 6.2.2 Site Detectil?ility I Open artefact scatters are revealed only through some form of ground disturbance (natural erosion such as sheet wash and gullying, man made exposures such as tracks, ploughed fields, dams etc). The amount of ground surface visibility and exposure is I critical for discovering such sites during surveys, especially along slopes and creekflats. On hills and crests there is sediment loss and sites are much less likely to be buried. Slopes and flats are areas of sediment accumulation and therefore objects are likely I to be buried beneath the accumulating deposits. Tables 7 and 8 show that in many cases the ground surface visibility within survey areas, was described as poor or less than 10% (in the 22 of the total of 46 reports where some indication of ground surface I conditions was given). Up to the mid 1980's ground surface conditions were rarely described though sometimes very general descriptions were given e.g. "lots of grass cover". Any quantification of the relationship between ground surface conditions and I the number of sites found is impossible. Thus it is very difficult to assess how the distribution of sites in anyone survey area reflects the degree of ground disturbance, I as opposed to providing a picture of cumulative Aboriginallanduse over time. In one survey area, Mount Arthur North (Fig.17) (Koettig and Hughes 1985), an attempt was made to quantify the amount of exposure along several creeklines within I the survey area and relate this to the amount of exposure present. I The results are presented in Table 11. I I

I Page30 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I TABLE 11 : VISIBILITY IN THE MOUNT ARTHUR NORTH SURVEY AREA

I CREEK LENGTH LENGTH %of NO. PROJECfED NAME OF CREEK OF CREEK OF SITE EXPOSURES EXPOSED SITES DENSITY I km km ** km bank I Upper Whites 3.6 0.36 10 26 260 I Lower Whites 10.4 2 20 21 109 B 7.4 1.2 17 9 56

I C 5 0.95 18 22 116 I E 4.4 0.6 14 5 37 I Quarry(toG + G) 3 1 33 6 18 Quarry (pastG) 2 0.3 15

I (taken from Table 4 of the report) I * * the estimated Eercenta~e of e::!E0sure alon~ the creek flats I Table 11 shows that the section of Upper Whites Creek, Lower Whites Creek and one of its tributaries Creek C, contained similar NUMBERS of recorded sites (a site is I any manifestation of past Aboriginal activity e.g. stone artefacts, hearth). However, when the number of sites is seen in relation to the degree of visibility (i.e the approximate percentage of exposures along the banks) along each of these creeks, I then Upper Whites Creek would appear to be associated with the highest number of sites within the catchment system. Creek C appears to contain a similar amount of material to Lower Whites Creek. It is interesting that Creek E which drains into the I Hunter River and is closest to that major river, has much fewer actual and projected sites. These calculations assume that the visible spread of material is representative of the spread of archaeological material along each creek, which may not in fact. It is I likely that the low numbers of sites along Quarry and G Creeks is representative because of the high proportion of ground surface visibility (33% of the creek section I surveyed). No other survey reports have provided quantified/quantifiable data on the relative amount of exposure across the various sections of the landscape, thus it is impossible I to compare the above results with those from other areas. Usually an observation is I made such as: "there was little exposure on Station Creek, but in other areas

I Page31 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I extensive sections of exposure were culturally sterile (Brayshaw I 1986). "Despite a close inspection ofnumerous exposures on ridge crests and hillslopes, no archaeological remains were observed" I (Hughes 1981).

Even though some surveys have included areas of hills and slopes it is not possible to I gauge how much exposure was present in these topographic areas relative to the amount along the creeks. It is possible. that the edges of creeks are more prone to erosion than the slopes, depending on the gradient of the slopes in a particular survey I area. Differences in the amount of erosion between creeks will depend on their size, the size of the catchment, the gradient of the catchment and the landscape within I which the partic:ular creek is located, the base lithology, the amount of clearing that has occurred, the amount of grazing or ploughing which has occurred. From Table 11 it is evident that there is considerable variation in the amount of exposure (and thus I visibility) along the different creek sections (10-33%). This would be true of any area of land. There will also be considerable difference between the amount of surface exposure and visibility depending on the weather conditions - the amount of rain, and I therefore the amount of grass cover. The surveys undertaken between 1980 and 1984/5 were undertaken during and after a prolonged period of drought and hence exposure would have been more extensive than at other times when conditions were milder and I the grass cover thicker.

The problem of site detection has important implications for assessing the variable I distribution of sites across the landscape. Hughes suggests that major creeklines contain more sites than minor creeklines (1984). Obviously if this conclusion is based purely on the NUMBER of sites recorded on the surface of the ground, the conclusion I could be based on a totally biased data base (e.g. larger creeks may be prone to more erosion than smaller ones).

I A great deal more detailed survey and test excavation data is required before it is possible to assess or predict which watercourse will be associated with large or small I amounts of archaeological material, and the actual distribution of that material. Hughes' general model of site distribution was tested along a pipeline survey between I Singleton and Glennies Creek Dam (Koettig 1985, C-1091). Test excavations were undertaken at 6 locations where there were no artefacts visible on the surface of the ground. All locations were on creekbanks or flats within lOOm of the respective I creeklines and artefacts were present at 5 of these. This confirms that this type of topographic location is very archaeologically sensitive. It also illustrates that sites will be present in areas where archaeolQgical evidence is not visible on the surface and I can only be de~ected through sub-surface testing. I 6.2.3 Site Definition Open sites (and also other types of sites), have been variably recorded. In some cases individual exposures have been recorded as separate sites and in others they have been I grouped together as one larger site. Many recorders have used the National Parks and I Wildlife definition of a site as: "2 artefacts within SOm of each other". Other recorders Page32 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I have chosen to define sites on the basis of a certain artefact density e.g. more than 1 artefact per 10 sq.m. of area, and classed lower densities of artefacts as "background I scatter" and not sites. This leads to considerable variation between reported site numbers in different survey areas, which is not related to different amounts of I archaeological evidence being present on the ground. At Mount Arthur North or South, the "background scatter" was almost continuous along the survey transects (Koettig pers obs). The total number of sites in both areas I would have been much higher if all locations with 2 artefacts had been classed as sites. If the survey at North Singleton (Stern andAttenbrow 1981) had excluded areas of low artefact density (Le. 2 or less), then a much smaller number of sites (40 as opposed to I 52) would have been recorded in that area (Table 12). This obviously affects any discussion of variations in site numbers, density, distribution between survey areas. If the problems of site detection as discussed above, are added to this, the comparison I of results from different survey areas becomes even more problematic. I 6.2.4 Site Exposure The degree to which artefact scatters have been exposed can affect whether a site is I classed as small or large and often insignificant or significant, as size is often used as criterion for assessing significance.

I A small number of sites have been excavated in the Central Lowlands and in all cases it was impossible to predict how much archaeological evidence was buried below the ground. At some locations no surface artefacts had been noted during the survey and I the excavations were to test whether sites were present in "likely" locations (Koettig 1987, 1988). Examples of how different the surface evidence was from the sub-surface I evidence is shown in Table 13. These results are taken from several excavation reports. It is evident that in almost all cases there were considerably more artefacts below the surface than were present on the surface. In those areas where several squares were I excavated (Redbank Creek, Plashette Dam, Hunter Valley N 0.2, Pokolbin) it is evident that there was considerable variation in the amount of artefactual material I distributed across each site. The process of erosion can reveal and conceal artefacts continuously. A hypothetical I site in four stages of erosion is illustrated in Fig. 18. Fig.18/A shows the archaeological material in-situ (prior to erosion). Figs.18/B-D show the progressive invasion of sheet wash erosion and gullying into the site area on the edge of the bank and how artefacts I are gradually revealed, firstly exposed on the surface of the Unit A, then the artefacts are dispersed across the Units A and B. As the artefacts move down the eroding face of Unit B, they become incorporated into redeposited soil at the base of the slope. I This sequence assumes that there has been no wet weather and the lighter silt from Unit A is blown away and the artefacts remain as lag on the surface. In wet conditions artefacts can be buried by the silt washing from Unit A across the eroding surface, and I a site which was very obvious can "disappear". In dry conditions artefacts drop into the cracks which are. characteristic of the clay Unit B and in wet conditions, as the clay I swells the artefacts are incorporated into the soil and again would "disappear". Thus, the degree and nature of the exposure on which a site occurs needs to be fully

I Page33 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I assessed (through some form of test excavation) before it is possible to determine site I size or extent. The above example deals only with the situation where artefacts are contained within the upper Unit A. If artefacts have eroded out of Unit B, they would become part of I the artefact lag on the surface of the ground, and unless they are morphologically different from the later assemblages would be indistinguishable from them.

I Table 12 (for those sites where the information was recorded) shows that large numbers of artefacts have been recorded as being on Unit B. These sites would be the most disturbed. It is always possible that artefacts may still be in-situ in any Unit A I deposit that is still present beyond the eroding face. Many sites are recorded as consisting of artefacts on Units A and B or just A. The number of artefacts located on I the surface of Unit A deposit could provide a completely umepresentative picture of the amount of archaeological material present at the site because only the top of the deposit had eroded away. An assessment of whether artefacts could extend beyond I the visible artefact scatter is usually not provided. The relative proportion of the different levels of exposure and the artefacts associated with them have also not been I recorded. In order to see whether certain classes of artefacts numbers or artefact densities were associated with recorded levels of exposure (with soil units A, A and B, B) the I information from two areas where large numbers of sites had been recorded was compared. The areas are Redbank Creek and Mount Arthur South.

I This comparison shows that Unit B is not necessarily associated consistently with sites containing the smallest number of artefacts or the lowest artefact densities (Fig.19). In fact the smallest sites (Le. total number of artefacts) were most frequently I associated with sites where only Unit A was exposed. The density of artefacts does not appear to vary according to the particular soil units ascribed. In both survey areas the proportion of sites on each soil unit within each density class varies in a similar way, I except that at Mount Arthur South they increase together and at Redbank Creek they decrease together. It is impossible, on the basis of the presently available data from I these survey areas, to determine a reason for this pattern. In order to determine whether the artefacts visible on the ground surface are in any I way representative of the type of archaeological material present at a site as a whole, it would be necessary to undertake test excavation beyond the limit of the visible I material. It is possible that some areas have been more heavily eroded e.g. certain landholdings from overgrazing, or certain types of creek systems because of their catchment size, I degree of clearing, angle of slope, etc. Thus, variations in the numbers of sites in certain areas or between different creek systems may in fact reflect ground surface conditions rather than any archaeological patterning. Any models of site distribution I based on the currently available data base must be seen as proposing testable hypotheses, not being the basis for firm predictions of where sites will or wont occur I in the landscape.

I Page34 I 1- Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 6.2.5 Recording Site Content I The level to which a specific site has been recorded affects how useful the data is for comparative purposes. Prior to the survey at the Plashette Dam (Koettig and Hughes 1985) area, artefacts were usually not recorded in a quantifiable manner and the I characterisation of an assemblage was on the basis of a limited number of morphologically distinct "tool" types such as backed blades.

I The kind of recording undertaken at any time is in part related to the types of archaeological questions being asked at the time and these will change over time.

I Ten years ago open campsites were not generally regarded as important types of sites, but research work since then, has highlighted the potential of this type of site for answering a variety of important research questions (see section 3.5.2.). Thus, this type I of site is now regarded as much more significant, because of the work which has taken I place over that time period. Table 14 shows that at sites in different survey areas there was considerable variation between sites in terms of the density of artefacts recorded, the total number of I artefacts recorded, types and proportions of raw material represented and the assemblage composition (i.e presence of certain types of artefacts such as backed blades, retouched pieces). However, because of the problems associated with site I detection, as well as variability of recording over time, meaningful comparison of assemblages from different sites is not possible.

I The range of variation within the category OPEN SITE in terms of their archaeological/cultural variation cannot be determined on the basis of present levels I of recording. It has been shown that artefact scatters can be characterised through detailed technological analysis of the assemblages (section 5.4.2). At present this type of I analysis is still in its early stages (in terms of the number of assemblages described) and a great deal of work is required to begin characterising assemblages according to I the reduction sequences used at specific sites across the region. At many open campsites, hearths have been recorded. These can provide direct dating I for occupation if they are in-situ (Koettig 198~ 1988). Other methods of dating such as thermoluminescence dating, has not yet been attempted.

I It is essential that more stone assemblages be dated both through direct dating and indirect dating means so that a clearer idea of Aboriginal occupation over time can be gained, especially now that Late Pleistocene occupation within the Hunter Valley I has been established.

Excavation of open campsites indicates that there is inter and intra-site variation, I which is not just due to taphonomic processes (Le. site structure). I No attempt has yet been made to examine this variation and interpret such variation in terms of human behaviour.

I Page35 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I It seems that there are at least major two types/classes of campsites:

I • individual knapping floors with a background scatter of artefacts, or

• denser concentrations of artefacts over a large area, without discernible knapping I floors.

A knapping floor is here defined as a discretellocalised concentration of artefacts of I one raw material which appears to represent one knapping event. Knapping floors have to date been found only in the UnitA. Where earlier artefacts have been recorded I in the Unit B of the soil, they were very sparsely distributed throughout the deposit. 6.3 Summary

Models can be formulated at a number of different levels, from general to very specific. The level and value of any enquiry is limited by the research questions being asked, the amount of data retrieved and the methods ·of analysis used. These will change over time as more detailed investigations extend the data base, theoretical approaches are modified and methods of analysis become more sophisticated.

The currently available data base can be used to predict generalised site distribution e.g. more archaeological material evidence appears to be found along larger creeks I than smaller creeks or on ridges. I However, the previous discussion sets out the limitations on how that model has been developed (ground surface visibility, site detection, site definition, etc) and indicates that a great deal more detailed investigation will be required if we are to understand I the distribution of archaeological evidence across the landscape and develop predictive models which will be useful for the planning process. I I I I I I I I Page36 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 7.0 I SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT I I I I 7.1 Introduction The brief specifies that this study identify areas of:

I • known archaeological sites I • known Aboriginal significance • archaeological and Aboriginal sensitivity

I • no archaeological interest I 7.2 Evaluation of Significance I 7.2.1 Introduction liThe concept ofsignificance is a broad one. The heritage value of a site encompasses its 'aesthetic, historic, scientific or social I significance, or oth-er special value, for future generations as well as for the present community' (Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, S4 [ll). All of these values are at least theoretically I taken into account by cultural resource managers in site assessment, listing and management" (Sullivan in Sullivan and I Bowdler 1984:vi). 7.2.2 Levels of Assessment

I Aboriginal Sites are assessed in several ways: I • value to the Aboriginal community I • value to the scientific community • value to the general public, which includes educational and heritage value.

I • degree of destruction of the resource or value as a non-renewable resource.

I Page37 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I The Aboriginal Community

I "AIl sites are important to Aboriginal people, not just sites of traditional sacred significance, because they are a link with our ancestral past and a tool for our childrens' future" (Morris and I Cook in Ross ed 1986:37).

The significance of sites must be determined through consultation with the Aboriginal I community, usually through the Local Land Council. The Local Land Councils encompassed by the present study will be providing a statement of their concerns and I interests. I Sites are of significance to Aborigines as evidence of: • their long cultural history

I • Their occupation of the continent through periods of changing environmental conditions

I • their contact with Europeans I • their life since European settlement • revival of their cultural identity

I Scientific Significance

Aboriginal sites provide a unique record of a past way of life, which can be investigated I through research. Sites can provide information on such questions as the length of occupation in an area, ways of exploiting the environment, changes in the patterns of exploitation through time, identification of different cultural traditions, identification I oflanduse patterns, Aboriginal perception of their environment ( through art), contact I between Aboriginals and Europeans (through adaptations of new technology and art). The scientific significance of specific sites can be assessed in terms of a number of I criteria: • integrity: the degree of disturbance to a site, which affects its usefulness for archaeological investigation. In almost all cases only the visible artefacts are I assessed. Because no attempt is made to determine the nature of the archaeological material beyond the area of exposure, the assessment of the site is made on the basis of the most disturbed part of the site. There is now enough I information available to indicate that many open artefact scatters are likely to extend beyond the exposure where artefacts are revealed. Assessment of site I integrity is likely in many situations to require sub-surface test excavation. • structure: a sites stratigraphy, distribution of archaeological features, extent. In many locations it will be necessary to undertake test excavations in order to assess I these aspects of a site I Page38 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • contents: the range of archaeological material present and the composition of the assemblages within each class of archaeological feature e.g. at open artefact I scatters the number of stone artefact reduction strategies employed, their ages, their distribution etc.

I • representativeness: the representativeness of a site or suite of sites can be specified at a number of levels, both for current research and for future research. It is based on an assessment of the structure and content of a site and its regional I and local context. Representativeness is also based on the rarity or commonness of a particular site type. Thus a site may be rare at the local level while relatively I common at a more regional level. Current assessments of a site or suite of sites is based on the lever of research so far undertaken within any area as well as the potential of the sites to provide I archaeological data for the future.

Because of changes in the theoretical and methodological approaches within the I discipline, it is vital that some representative site of the various types so far identified be preserved. A representative sample should include examples of sites typical of each I broad site type, each subset, each geographic area, each time period etc. Not all sites are significant or worth preserving. A site which has been badly degraded I and/or contains limited archaeological evidence will be of considerably less value than one which is undisturbed. Each site needs to be assessed for its scientific value and obviously those which are well preserved are the ones which should be preserved if I at all possible.

ItCultural resource management is designed to encourage the I LEAST LOSS of information concerning the past lifeways, prehistory or cultural identity. It is not about conselVation of all I sites It (Sullivan and Pearson 1983:4). The General Community

I The importance of Aboriginal culture to the wider community and therefore the significance of sites represeming that culture, has been recognised at the government I level through legislation and the adoption of Aboriginal studies in the school curricula. This will lead to an even greater awareness of the type of archaeological evidence which is still available for the study of Aboriginal prehistory and will create pressure I for access to sites in all areas. It will also create a need for a greater understanding of archaeological material i.e. its interpretation.

I Development Impact

Development impact affects the degree to which sites become more valuable, in that, I as more are destroyed, the rarer they become. Particular areas of the Hunter Valley have been subjected to high levels of development, especially through mining. This will place increasing pressure on. the preservation of the remaining archaeological I resource.

I Page39 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I The value of a specific site or suite of sites also needs to be assessed in terms of the I degree of impact/destruction of the archaeological resource in a particular region. 7.3 Areas of Known Aboriginal Significance

I At a general level all sites are of significance to the Aboriginal community. Statements on the views of the members of the Wanaruah and Mindaribba Local Land Councils i I about site management in the Central Lowlands are being prepared by representative of those land councils.

I 7.4 Areas of Known Archaeological Significance I 7.4.1 General - Subregions The data base indicates that sites are found in all parts of the Hunter Valley. This is well illustrated in Figs 20-22. Fig.20 shows the distribution of all sites, Fig.21 the I distribution of shelter sites and Fig.22 the distribution of all open artefacts scatters ( campsites).

I The distribution of shelter sites and open campsites reflects the difference in underlying lithology between the Central Lowlands and Southern Mountains I subregions. The latter consists of sandstone where shelters form and the former is characterised by very few outcrops of sandstone.

I The above distribution of sites corresponds very closely with the distribution of areas where intensive archaeological surveys have been undertaken (Fig.23). The Central Lowlands subregion has been subject to the most investigation and the Merriwa I Plateau and NE Mountain subregions the least. The limited survey work undertaken in these two latter subregions (Knettig 1984) indicated that sites are also numerous in I these subregions, especially along the edges of watercourses. At a general level all parts of the Hunter Valley must be regarded as archaeologically I sensitive. 7.4.2 Local- Landsystems

I In those landsystems where relatively large amounts of survey work have been undertaken large numbers of archaeological sites have been found. Surveys have been I confined to a limited number of landsystems because these are where development has been concentrated. No landsystems have yet been identified which could be regarded as archaeologically sterile. It is possible that there are some landsystems in I the Liverpool Ranges or Barrington Tops areas where sites will not be found because of the very steep terrain, but such areas have not been specifically identified. The very rugged terrain of the Southern Mountains is characterised by numerous sites in all I land. units. Thus the degree of topographic variation is not a direct index of the presence or absence of archaeological evidence. However, in some types of steep terrain (i.e. excluding sandstone where shelters form on the slopes and are often I occupied) sites might be more focussed along flats and ridgetops as these are the areas of most suitable access and also suitable for camping.

I Page40 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Hughes proposed that watercourses were the most archaeologically sensitive land units within each landsystem (refer Appendix IV). This conclusion has been generally I supported since his assessment. However, the numerous limitations on site detectability and the fact that this land unit is over-represented in the data base means that such conclusions need to be further systematically tested. The question ofwhether I archaeological material found in different land units or topographic units (Le. the content of sites) represent the same human activities (e.g. artefact manufacture, maintenance of artefacts, procurement of resources etc) remains to be investigated. I Hughes proposed that smaller creeks were associated with smaller and fewer sites. The fact that almost all sites have been classified on the basis of the surface evidence noted during the field inspection is a serious problem in the assessment of just what I "type" (i.e. in terms of extent, size) of site is found in which land unit or topographic unit. .

I It is evident that "large" sites are found along large creeks as well as minor creeks. "Small" sites are found along all types of creeks. The discussions in the previous sections have shown that surface evidence is not necessarily a good indication of the I . amount of archaeological present at a specific location. Much more detailed recording of the specific ground surface conditions in the survey area, at the location of the site I and test excavations at sites and also along areas likely to contain archaeological material will be required before comparative analyses can be made.

I At present it is not possible to confidently predict which creeks will not be associated with sites. It can be said that all larger creeks will definitely be associated with sites I and that all creeks are likely to be associated with archaeological sites. 7.5 Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity.

I Archaeological Sensitivity at the Broad Level I As discussed above, the present data on the distribution of sites suggests that all parts of the Hunter valley should be regarded as archaeologically sensitive.

I Archaeological sensitivity can be defined in a number of ways. The definition most commonly used is "density of material/sites". Thus, areas with large numbers of sites (e.g. Saddlers Creek in Mount Arthur South), or the potential to contain large I numbers of sites (major watercourses), are regarded as being especially sensitive. I However, other criteria can be used, For example: • specific locations: the discovery of the late Pleistocene site SGCD16 in an area of solodized solonetz soil suggests that this type of soil in other locations could I contain other such sites. The discovery of a Late Pleistocene hearth in an alluvial terrace at SGCD16 suggests that this type of geomorphic feature could contain I sites anywhere in the Hunter Valley. • specific types of sites: sites of a certain complexity and range of archaeological I features.

I Page41 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Because larger creeks have been consistently associated with sites and are "sensitive", it is predicted that any larger creekline is sensitive whether archaeological evidence I has been recorded there or not. The archaeological potential of such areas would require" testing through subsurface excavation.

I The discussion in section 5 illustrated a number of methodological problems which limit the type of predictive models which can be produced at this time. While at a very general level it is possible to identify areas of high archaeological sensitivity (large I creeks and river banks, alluvial terraces) it is not possible to identify areas of low archaeological sensitivity with the same certainty (Le. lesser creeks with fewer sites, other types of soils). Areas which have been heavily developed within which sites are I likely to be very disturbed are the only areas currently identifiable as areas of low archaeological sensitivity.

I The question of why areas with fewer sites or smaller sites should be regarded as "less sensitive" has not been addressed yet. Areas with fewer sites or smaller sites form part of the total pattern of Aboriginal occupation of the landscape, and thus are just as I important for investigating the prehistory of an area as are areas with large sites or a high density of sites. They are part of the archaeological picture and thus should be I included in any representative sample of sites to be preserved and should also be studied as part of any present investigations into sites, especially while the range if I variation within this class of site is being established. Thus, ALL CREEKLINES NEED TO BE REGARDED AS SENSITIVE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OTHERWISE (THROUGH SURVEY AND SUB I SURFACE TESTING).

Sites in all types of topographic unitslland units should also be preserved to include I the types of sites represented in those parts of the landscape. I Archaeological Sensitivity at the Local Level The detection of open campsites can be problematic if there is little ground surface visibility. Thus in areas which have been defined as having high archaeological I potential (Le. creek banks and flats), sub-surface testing will need to be a part of the initial assessment procedure. If there is very limited exposure/visibility in other parts I of the landscape then testing must also be considered an appropriate investigative technique in those locations. "

I 7.6 Areas of Aboriginal Sensitivity

Statements are being prepared by the Wanaruah and Mindaribba Local Aboriginal I Land Councils and these will deal with this aspect. See also section 4.4. I 7.7 Areas of No Archaeological Interest

The previous discussions indicate that basically there are no areas where it can be I confidently predicted that sites will not occur or that sites will not be significapt.

I Page42 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 7.8 Summary

I Archaeological investigations are continually providing new data, refining research objectives and understanding the resource. The fact that there has been such a shift in the perception of what range of archaeological information could be obtained from I open artefact scatters is an example of how dynamic archaeology is. I Before the 1980's open campsites were not generally regarded as archaeologically interesting. At that time shelter sites were regarded as much more important because the archaeological material was stratified and could be relatively dated as well as dated I by C14. The dating of archaeological material is extremely important to the interpretation of prehistory: how people used the landscape and how such use persisted or changed over time. Open scatters of artefacts, often consisting of small numbers of artefacts (from surface indications) were not readily datable and hence their usefulness was regarded as limited.

Since that time excavations both in the Hunter Valley and other parts of NSW have shown that surface evidence is an umeliable indicator of the nature of the site (section 5). It has been shown that many open sites are structured (stratified or consisting of a number of different use areas) and contain different archaeological features (knapping debris, hearths, pits, possible heat treatment areas). The use of technological analyses to seriate artefact assemblages provides a method for relatively I dating artefact which could not be dated otherwise. Charcoal from hearths provides material which can be directly dated. Palynological and residue studies may provide I further information about what the hearths were used for. The above types of analyses could be used for the investigation of campsite I layout( structure) and variation in stone artefact manufacture across the landscape and through time. Thus open artefact scatters have become a significant type of archaeological site within the last decade because of advances in archaeological I methodology and research. Tables 7 and 8 show that within the Study Area large numbers of recorded sites have been destroyed by development and that few have been investigated in any detail (i.e. salvaged). In some areas (Mount Arthur South) I suites of sites have been preserved, but in most other survey areas the majority of recorded sites have been destroyed, as well as an equal or greater amount of archaeological evidence which was never identified. The discussion of site detectibility I implies that much more of the archaeological resource has been destroyed than the number of sites actually recorded because they were not visible at the time of the I specific survey. • Thus the most immediate needs for site survey and assessment in relation to open I artefact scatters in the Hunter Valley, especially in the Central Lowlands are: • more systematic survey strategies including representative samples of all ,I topographic and landsystem units. .

• more detailed recordings of the exact nature of the ground surface conditions I across each of the areas sampled. I Page43 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • more detailed recordings of the conditions at each site recorded (exact I relationship of the exposure to the artefacts, degree of erosion, • investigation and adequate recording of site structure and content. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page44 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 8.0 I ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK CARRIED OUT IN I PRESENT COMMISSION HOLDINGS. I I

I 8.1 Introduction

I The following lease holdings will be included in the present review: Liddell Power Station; Bayswater (Plashette Dam); Ravensworth; Mount Arthur South; Mount Arthur North; Swamp Creek. The boundaries shown in Fig. 1 are for the purposes of I the present report and are not necessarily the divisions used by Elcom.

A set of topographic maps (1:25,000) accompanies the report on which the following I information is marked:

• the boundaries of the current holdings from information supplied by Elcom I personnel

• the location of sites recorded by L.Dyall during preliminary reconnaissance I surveys in the 1970's I • the location and extent of intensive surveys undertaken since Dyall's surveys the location of sites recorded during intensive surveys undertaken since the work of I L.Dyall. A full list of the sites and their grid eferences are presented inAppendix V.

I In the following section the following information is presented for each of the holdings and the Transmission Line routes:

I • summary of archaeological work undertaken so far I • recommendations made and mitigation works undertaken. I 8.2 Bayswater 8.2.1 Surveys Undertaken

I In the 1970's L.Dyall (1976) carried out surveys along Saltwater Creek and its tributaries as part of a wider general assessment of archaeological sites on

I Page45 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Commission owned lands. He identified 6 sites and collected artefact samples from I "a number of locations". In 1982 a more detailed archaeological survey was commissioned of the area within the Bayswater holding to be covered by the Plashette Dam (Koettig and Hughes 1982). I The survey lead to the recording of 86 artefact scatters in exposures where artefact densities exceeded approximately 1 artefact per 10 sq.m (1/10 per sq.m). Those exposures where there were less than 1/10 artefacts per sq.m. were not recorded as I sites, but referred to as background scatter. Along the creekbanks ground surface visibility was estimated to be approximately 5-10% for a 50m wide strip, falling to 1-5% beyond that strip. Much of the land had been repeatedly ploughed and there I was extensive and often massive gully erosion, so many of the sites were in highly disturbed contexts. Only a few sites were associated with areas of potential insitu deposit adjacent to the exposures which revealed them. Salvage work, mostly in the I form of surface collections, was undertaken at 6 sites: SC2, SC8, SC24, SC44, SC52, SC80. The results of this work are contained in the report by Hiscock and Koettig I (1985). The analysis of the evidence showed that surface collections were not representative I of the full range of artefacts at a site. Smaller artefacts (-2cm) were usually not recovered from surface collections. The analysis of the material from the excavated sites showed that there was inter and intra-site variation in the amount of material I recovered, the range of raw materials present, the morphological characteristics of the assemblages. The artefacts all appeared to be derived from the upper Unit A. No I artefacts could be assigned to the Unit B. For a full summary of the results see Hughes Vol.l (1985).

I 8.2.2 Final Recommendations for Sites I 8.2.2.1 Preservation A number of sites wwere to be preserved because they lay beyond the impact zone. I These sites were: I SC1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 62, 74. No specific recommendations were given for their management. There is no information available about the condition of these sites. There does not appear to I have been any inspections of the sites since the survey. I 8.2.2.2 Mitigation Works Required. For sites SC8 and SCl1, which were to be only partly affected by the development, I recommendations were made that fences should be constructed to protect the remaining insitu archaeological material. This was undertaken by the Commission in I 1983: contract 3180. In February 1990 M.Koettig and a representative from the Wanaruah Local I Page46 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I Aboriginal Land Council inspected these sites. It was found that the sites had been fenced off and were well protected. They had not been affected by further erosion and I appeared to be in the same condition as when originally recorded i.e. not damaged further.

I 8.2.2.3 Consents to Destroy. I· NPWS issued consents to destroy the following sites (31st May 1983): I • parts of sites SCZ, 8, 11 • all of sites SC12-36, 38-60, 64-68, 71-72, 75-86 I • consents were issued for destruction due to inundation for the following: SC37, 61, 63, 69, 70, 73. These sites are along the edge of the lake-full limit of the lake.

I 8.3 Mount Arthur South and Mount Arthur North I 8.3.1 Survey Undertaken at Mt Arthur South This holding was included in the preliminary survey work carried out by Dyall in the I 1970's and he found that sites were present along Saddlers Creek and its tributaries. In 1983 a detailed survey and assessment was carried to more fully determine the nature of the archaeological material within the area which was to be affected by mining (Koettig and Hughes 1985).

The survey was confined primarily to the creeklines where exposure was greatest. Only very small segments of other topographic units were sampled because of overall dense grass cover. Saddlers Creek lies beyond the actual impact area and it was included in I the survey to provide a measure of how many sites would not be affected by the development.

I A total of 136 sites were recorded, of which 71 were located beyond the impact area, I though many were extremely close to the boundary of that area. . For a full summary of the results see Hughes Vol.1 (1985).

I 8.3.2 Survey Work Undertaken at Mount Arthur North L. Dyall included this area within his surveys and found several sites along Whites I Creek and its tributaries.

The actual impact area to be affected by mining was surveyed in greater detail in 1982 I (Koettig and Hughes 1985) and a total of 93 sites were recorded. As at Mount Arthur South the survey was confined to the creeklines where visibility was greatest. It was also assumed that this topographic unit would include the areas of most archaeological I potential. I Page47 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 8.3.3 Salvage Work

I The salvage work recommended for a number of site within the two holdings was undertaken as one project (Hiscock and Koettig 1985).

I The main aim of the salvage programme were to obtain a well documented collection of artefacts from a number of sites which were representative of material at sites in the two study areas and would be useful for future archaeological investigations. The I sites were selected on the basis of a number of criteria: I "A range of sites was to be selected on the basis of their archaeological contents and landscape settings. It was proposed that a very limited number of sites be investigated comprehensively aJ:?d on a large scale, in order to obtain comprehensive reference I collections. Site characteristics used for selection were: I relatively undisturbed Unit A high density of artefacts and wide range of raw materials.

A larger number of sites were to be investigated at a smaller scale to obtain data on I a number of specific questions about artefact manufacture. A number of knapping locations were selected for that purpose. (Koettig and Hughes 1985:63).

I Artefact samples were recovered from 23 of the 229 sites in the two study areas: I • Mt Arthur South: MAS21, 12,24,39,44, 46, 47, 48. I • Mount Arthur North: MAN1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 61, 84. The artefacts from the larger excavations were not analysed, because no funding was made available. Some of the material from the knapping floors was analysed (Hiscock I and Koettig 1985). Soil samples were collected from the hearths excavated and also the rocks were collected and this material has been deposited with the Australian I Museum. 8.3.4 Final Recommendations

I 8.3.4.1 Preservation

Mount Arthur South: 71 sites were not to be affected by the development: MAS 1-8, I 15, 3~, 51, 76-78, 80-136. No recommendations were made about management or I conservation strategies. Mount Arthur North: MAS 91 Lies outside the impact area and therefore would not I be destroyed. No active conservation strategies were provided. 8.3.4.2 Mitigation Works Required

I Mount Arthur South: it was recommended that a barrier be constructed along the northern edge of the impact area to ensure that the sites along Saddlers Creek would I Page48 I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I not be disturbed during mining and associated activities at the site.

,I Mount Arthur North: none I 8.3.4.3 Consents to Destroy I NPWS issued consents to destroy the following sites (12/August 1986): Mount Arthur South: MAS9-14, 16-38,40-50,52-75,79

I Mount Arthur North: MAN1, 3, 4-19, 21-86.

8.3.4.4 Other

Although he recommended that sites within the impact areas be destroyed, Hughes concluded that the sites in Mount Arthur North and South could still provide research material and ths he recommended the following:

,I IfWith regard to Mount Arthur North and South we recommend that NPWS give consent to destroy these sites with the following proviso. Before construction work begins the opportunity should be given to archaeological researchers, those involved in teaching courses in archaeology, and to the local Aboriginal community,

to undertake further investigation of these sites If (Hughes .1 1985:27).

There were no specific recommendations made about how this should be facilitated, I nor is there any information to suggest that the recommendation was acted upon. I 8.4 Ravensworth I 8.4.1 Survey Work The Ravensworth holding consists of two parts: Ravensworth N 0.2 and Ravensworth I South. L. Dyall carried out survey work along Bayswater Creek and some of its western tributaries over 5 days in 1976, 1979 and 1982 (Dyall1979, 1982). This survey extended I well beyond the present boundaries of the present holdings. He found several sites and carried out surface collections at 5 of these (his nos: 105,089; 112,087; 131,040; I 140,061; 141,061; 141,064). In 1983 H.Brayshaw undertook a preliminary assessment of the Ravensworth South area and recorded 18 sites. She recommended that further survey and recording work I would be required before a final assessmeIit of the archaeological resource could be I made. No archaeological survey work was undertaken in the Ravensworth N 0.2 area. In 1984 Brayshaw and Haglund carried out additional recording and some limited I Page49 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I collection and excavations in the Ravensworth South p·ortion. Additiona1.survey was undertaken in a number of locations: a proposed rerouting of Bayswater Creek and I an access road. A further 9 sites were located, one of which had been recorded by Dyall (NPWS 37-6-3). Small scale excavatiqns were carried out at 4 sites (Brayshaw and Haglund (1984). This work lead Brayshaw and Haglund to conclude that further I archaeological work would be require at sites 1, 4, 11, 12 before their destruction and possibly site 20 if the road route were relocated.

I 8.4.2 Final Recommendations I 8.4.2.1 Preservation Sites 5, 6, 8 and part of 7 were not to be affected by the development as then defined, I and were therefore not under immediate threat. No specific recommendations for their preservation or conservation were made.

I 8.4.2.2 Further Archaeological Investigations

It was recommended that sites 1, 4, 11 and 12 be further investigated prior to their I destruction. However, subsequent discussion between the archaeologist and NPWS staff concluded that such work would not be required and that the sites could be I destroyed without further investigation. 8.4.2.3 Mitigation

I None

I 8.4.2.4 Other Recommendations

NPWS issued a permit for the Wanaruah Local Aboriginal Land Council to collect I artefacts from sites in which they were interested. I 8.4.2.5 Consents to Destroy I NPWS issued a consent to destroy the following sites (31/May 1986): 1, 2-2A, 3, 4, 7A, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, A, B, C, D, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20-20A, 20B, 20C, I 37-3-3,37-3-4. 8.5 Liddell

I No survey work appears to have been carried out prior to the construction of the Lake I and power stations within this area. 8.6 Swamp Creek

I No survey work has been undertaken in this area. I Page50 I I. Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 8.7 Transmission Lines

I A number of transmission line surveys have been undertaken in the Hunter Valley Region. Only those crossing the Singleton 1:25,000 map sheet will be included here.

I Tomago to Eraring (C·90): only a small section of the route is within the presently defined study area. The survey was carried out in 1982 by Bowdler and Gollan. None I of the sites found were affected by the line. Bayswater to Mount Piper (C.I097): a number of people were involved in the survey I of sections of this pipeline and the results were compiled by R. Aikin (1985). Along portion 1 of that route, between the Goulbum River and Bayswater, 24 sites were recorded. One site, BMP23, was threatened by construction of a service road. It was I recommended that the road route be relocated to avoid the site. I There is no information in NPWS or Elcom records as to whether this was carried out. Aberdeen to Muswellbrook: Denis Byrne (Byme 1987) carried out a survey of this route and recorded one open artefact scatter. It was recommended that the site be I avoided by construction activity to ensure its preservation. The site was to be flagged so that it could readily be identified by Elcom personnel.

I Muswellbrook to Barnard River (C.156): one site was located within the area of the Singleton sheet. This site was described as being 500m NW of the T/L and judged not I likely to be affected by the line construction. No specific management recommendations were made.

I Kurri Kurri to Alean (C· 783): the transmission line was 4km long and 30-45m wide. Five sites were located and only one (Site 3) was located near a tower site, but was not directly affected by its construction. It was recommended that all sites be temporarilly fenced during construction to ensure their protection. Site 3 was close to a tower site.

I There is no information in Elcom records as to whether such fencing was undertaken. I 8.8 Conclusions The above review and the accompanying maps indicate that only portions of some I Commission holdings have been subject to intensive survey and that the coverage of those surveys has been very variable. Some holdings such as Swamp Creek have not I been surveyed at all. A set of 1:25,000 scale maps which accompany this report, show the Commission I holdings as well as the following: • areas which have been adequately surveyed where no further survey work will be I required.

I Page51 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • areas which have been destroyed and no further survey work will be required.

I • areas where intensive survey work will be required

• areas which should be preserved because of the obvious richness of the I archaeological resource. I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I Page52 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 9.0 I DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT I STRATEGIES I I I 9.1 Introduction

I Numerous types of developments have affected and continue to affect archaeological sites in the Study Area: urban expansion, roads, water storage dams, electricity generation stations, sandmining, extractive industries, other industrial industries, and I rural practices. Because Elcom is involved in mining, construction of transmission lines and associated facilities and plants, these activities are concentrated on in this I section. The types of management strategies discussed are applicable to all types of I development. I 9.2 Development Impact on Aboriginal Sites A summary of the types of activities associated with Elcom developments and the probable affect of such activities on sites is described in Table 15. While this list may I not be exhaustive it highlights how vulnerable sites are to any kind of activity which disturbs the ground surface.

I The only activites which do not necessarily destroy the ground surface and where certain types of sites (open campsites, quarries, stone arrangements etc) could be preserved, are water storage dams, transmission lines between towers and possibly I buffer zones. In the latter zones, sites could also be under threat (from clearing, I landscaping, tree planting). 9.3 Management Objectives

I This section deals only with the archaeological considerations reI event to management. The Local Aboriginal Land Councils statement will set out the concerns I of those bodies. I The future management of Aboriginal sites in the study area is important because: I Page53 I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • A large number of sites have already been destroyed. An unknown number of sites, other than those recorded, have been destroyed because impact assessment is a I recently adopted procedure. Before these requirements sites were not assessed prior to destruction. The discussion on site detectibility has also highlighted the fact that even where surveys have be·en undertaken many buried sites must have I been destroyed as they could not be detected by surface inspection.

• Aboriginal sites represent a unique archaeological resource which is irreplaceable. I Once a site has been destroyed (unless there has been some salvage) all archaeological information is lost.

I • Sites are under constant threat from direct and also indirect impact (e.g. tourism and other recreational and educational requirements, rural activities).

I • Natural deterioration, while usually minor in comparison to development, also occurs.

I The principal management objectives for the conservation of Aboriginal sites should I be to ensure that: • representative samples of sites are preserved. The preservation of sites should always be the first consideration in site management. Because of the increasing I threat to sites from development the preservation of suites of sites has become an urgent matter. The Lowlands sub-region is the area of greatest coal reserves (Fig.24), thus, there will be continuing large scale impact on sites. This part of the I study area has no areas where sites will be preserved in National Parks, Reserves or even State Forests (Fig.25 and Fig.26). While there is likely to be some crown land remaining this was not mapped for the present study. Thus an active strategy I must be developed to set aside portions of land within development proposals ( especially large scale ones) which will be purely for the preservation of Aboriginal I sites. • site survey is undertaken within the framework of a regional strategy. Each development is currently treated as an isolated phenomenon and management I recommendations usually refer to only the sites within that particular area. While comparisons are made with sites in other locations and recommendations take into account the regional perspective, they are not part of a regional strategy. This is I especially significant for the long term preservation of representative samples of sites in areas where no sites are preserved by default (i.e. those within National parks and Reserves). There needs to be a concerted effort made to preserve suites I of sites in conservation zones. A mangement strategy should be devceloped through consultation between all mining interests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Local Aboriginal Land Council and archaeologists. ECNSW has set I an example by commissioning the present study, of how an integrated management approach can be achieved within their holdings. However, the management I concerns raised by this study extend to areas beyond these borders, and therefore all other developers and government agencies responsible for site management I must be involved in a regional approach. I Page54 I ------~~-,-:------;------,------,------:---:------,

I Regionai Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • no sites are needlessly destroyed. Often sites can be preserved/ protected within the development. Linear developments such as transmission lines, roads, coal I haulage routes can be adjusted to avoid sites. Dams can have their maximum level lowered to avoid an important site, the boundaries of mining areas can be adjusted to avoid a site or suite of sites, associated facilities to mines can be relocated to I avoid sites etc. It may be necessary to construct barriers to ensure that sites close to development are not disturbed, during the construction phase as well as subsequent use of the facility being built. It may be appropriate to leave barriers ·1 in place so that future work, such as maintenance of transmission lines, does not affect sites.

I • sites which are to be destroyed are adequately recorded. Destruction of sites is a management option. However, the detailed recording of any sites to be destroyed is vital so that a record of those sites is available for developing a better I understanding of prehistory at the local and regional levels. Recording includes I excavation/salvage. • there has been no evaluation of the types of preservation strategies recommended for Aboriginal sites in the Hunter Valley. Site surveys have been undertaken for I over a decade now and a number of management strategies have been recommended to preserve sites. These include: turfing open artefact scatters and retaining those areas for open space within a development, fencing off sites close I to development, stabilisation of erosion, creation of buffer zones around sites, etc. To date there has been no assessment of how effective such strategies have been for long term preservation of sites (e.g. are sites in fact avoided when work is in I progress? are buffer zones adequate in size? etc. Enquiries about whether fencing of sites had been undertaken for the protection of sites along a ECNSW transmission line in the Hunter Valley could not be answered by the District office I (D.Bell pers comm). Such information is not sought by the National Parks and Wildife Service for their records. In fact once a site is recorded there is very rarely any follow up monitoring of the condition of that site by the developer or the I National Parks and Wildlife Service. I 9.4 Current Management Procedures Used by Elcom ECNSW is in the ideal position of having an archaeologist on staff. This should provide I the situation for input from an archaeologist at the very beginning of the planning process. If areas of high archaeological sensitivity can be identified before the development design is commenced, then these can be recognised as legitimate I constraints and the development designed to ensure avoidance of such areas.

While survey and assessment of sites within these areas of high sensitivity and the I actual development areas would still be required; the conscious preservation of zones within the development will be a very important committment to the management of I Aboriginal sites. From the review of previous surveys in Commission holdings in section 7, it became evident that there is a need to provide information on how recommendations are I implemented and the results of that implementation reported. The Commission needs I a set of guidelines whereby management recommendations are: Page55 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I • assessed (Le. how are recommendations to be implemented, at what stage is there liaison with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, other relevent government I departments and the Local Aboriginal Council?)

• implemented (who is to ensure that the recommendations are carried out and I provide a report on their implementation, both for internal reference and also I National Parks and Wildlife Service). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page56 I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 10.0 I BIBLIOGRAPHY I I I A: SURVEY REPORTS HELD AT NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE I SERVICE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '-1

'- I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 1 2Jan90 15:36 C-10 9 7 Ai ken, G. 0 0 N0 V1 9 8 5 I An Archaeological Survey of the Bayswater to Mt Piper Transmission Line. C-39 Attenbrow, V. OOOCT1977 I Proposed 66kV power line from Rylstone to Bylong by Hartley County Council.

-I C-47 Awabakal Co-operative Ltd OOJAN1982 Kerrabee Dam Site: anthropological survey carried out by the Awabakal Co-op Limited for Hunter development board, 18 Jan. I to 14 Mar. 1982. C-932 Bassett, S.L. 00NOV1984 NSW NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeology Project Stage 1 I Volume 5: Hunter Valley Archaeological Consulting Reports; a Summary. I C-147 Brayshaw, H. 00AUG1980 Archaeological survey of route of road upgrading through Cox's Gap, near Sandy Hollow.

I C-166 Brayshaw, H. OOMAR1981 Archaeological investigation of Muswellbrook Coal Mines.

I C-146 Brayshaw, H. OOJUL1981 Archaeological survey of proposed Rail Spur - Mt Thorley to I Warkworth/Lemington. C-140 Brayshaw, H. 00JUL1981 Archaeological resources and proposed developement in the I Hunter Valley Region. C-91 Brayshaw, H. OOAUG1981 Archaeological survey of proposed extensions to Howick-Liddell I open cut coal mine. C-145 Brayshaw, H. OOAUG1981 I Archaeological surv~y of proposed enlargement of Glenbawn Dam. C-148 Brayshaw, H. OOSEP1981 Archaeological survey of Hunter Valley No. 2 authorisation I area and out-of-pit overburden emplacement area.

C-167 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1981 I Archaeological survey of Muswellbrook coal lease. C-173 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1981 I Archaeological survey of Cessnock westward urban expansion. C-164 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1981 Archaeological survey of Glendell open cut coal mine at I Ravensworth.

C-165 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1981 I Appendix B: Archaeological survey, Ravensworth coal washery and rail loading faciIi ty near Liddell. I C-176 Brayshaw; H. OONOV1981 I I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 2 2Jan90 15:36 Archaeological survey of revised Wambo Balloon Loop - I Mt Thor ley tOo Warkworth/Lemington rail spur. C-143 Brayshaw, H. OONOV1981 I Archaeological survey of Bellambi Coal Lease, Aberdeen.

C-132 Brayshaw j H. OONOV1981 Archaeological survey of authorisation 89, proposed site of I Bloomfield Collieries coal mine at Rix's Creek, Singleton. C-142 Brayshaw, H. OONOV1981 I Archaeological Survey Of Muswellbrook Common C-156 Brayshaw, H. OOJAN1982 Archaeological survey of proposed route of 132kv I transmission line between Muswellbrook and the Barnard River.

C-144 Brayshaw, H. OOFEB1982 I .Archaeological survey for proposed urban developement 2.5km south east of Muswellbrook.

C-138 Brayshaw, H. OOFEB1982 I Archaeological survey of Hunter Valley extended open cut coal mine near Liddell.

I C-174 Brayshaw, H. OO~IAR1982 Archaeological survey for urban expansion at Weston, I City of Greater Cessnock. C-175 Brayshaw, H. OOMAY1982 Archaeological survey of gravel extraction site near Aberdeen, I associated with the enlargement of Glenbawn Dam. C-1 7 2 B r ay s haw, H. Mo r r is, G• S , 00 J UL 1 98 2 Archaeo~ogical survey of proposed Black Hill Coal Mine near I Muswellbrook, ypper Hunter Valley,

C-104 Brayshaw, H. OOAUG1982 I A brief archaeological investigation of an area to be mined by open cut method at the Buchanan Lemington mine, near Warkworth Hunter Valley.

I C-1310 Br ay s haw, H, 0 0 AU G 1 9 8 2 Additional archaeological information relating to authorisation 89, proposed site of Bloomfield Collieries Coal I Mine at Rix's Creek, Singleton. C-171 Brays haw, H, 0 OAUG 19 8-2 I Archaeological survey of Hunter River Alluvial Flats Buchanan/Lemington Coal near Warkworth N. S. 'H.

C-1 7 0 Bra y s haw, H, 000 CT 1 982 I Archaeological survey of gravel extraction site on the Page River east of Scone in the Upper Hunter Valley. I C-129 Brayshaw, H. OODEC 1982 Archaeological survey of planned urban developement area, I Kurri Kurri, East Hunter Vally. I I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 3 2Jan90 15:36 C-115 Brayshaw, H. OOMAR1983 Reconnaissance survey of Ravensworth No 2 colliery proposed mining extension and diversion of Bayswater Creek.

C-178 Brayshaw, H. OOAPR1983 Archaeological survey of a gravel extraction site on Sandy Creek llkm west of Aberdeen in the Upper Hunter Valley. I C-163 Brayshaw, H. Swan, G. OOJUL1983 Archaeological survey of additional mining extension proposed at Howick Liddell, NSW.

I C-I02 Brayshaw, H. OOJUL1983 Archaeological report of a gravel extraction site in the I Hunter River, near Aberdeen. C-101 Brayshaw, H. Haglund, L. OOAUG1983 Archaeological investigations in the Hunter Valley No. 2 I Authorization Area. C-169 Brayshaw, H.. OOAUG1983 Archaeological survey of proposed sand and gravel extraction site on the Goulburn River, "The Glen", near Denman, NSW.

C-I05 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1983 I Archaeological survey of a proposed mine extension at Buchanan Borehole Collieries mine at Lemington near Warkworth in the I Hunter Vally. C-98 Brayshaw, H. OOOCT1983 Archaeological investigations at Rix's Creek in the Hunter I Valley, NSW. C-124 Brayshaw, H. OOFEB1984 Archaeological investigation on Buchanan Borehole Collieries' I Lemington Holding. C-928 Brayshaw, H. OONOV1984 NSW NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeology Project Stage 1 I· Volume 2 - The Hunter Valley and its Aboriginal Inhabitants: Ethnohistorical Study.

I C-919 Brayshaw, H. Haglund, L. OONOV1984 Archaeological investigations associated with Ravensworth I No 2, southern extension. C-828 Brayshaw, H. OODEC1984 Archaeological Survey at Wambo near Warkworth, NSW I C-953 Brayshaw, H. OOFEB1985 Archaeological investigation of 132kv transmission line I route near ~luswellbrook, NSW. C-869 Brayshaw, H. OOFEB1985 Archaeological survey of authorisation 341 south of I Hunter Valley No 1 Mine , NSW C-943 Brayshaw, H. OONOV1985 I Archaeological survey, Pokolbin Park Estate, Cessnock. I I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 4 2Jan90 15:36

C-1225 Brayshaw, H. 00JUN1986 I Archaeological survey at the CSR Lemington mine Hunter Valley NSW

I' C-1008 Brayshaw, H. 00SEP1986 Archaeological Survey of Glennies Creek Coal Authorization I Areas 81 and 308, Hunter Valley, NSW. C-1336 Brayshaw, H. 00APR1988 Rothbury country club resort archaeological survey, Cessnock, I NSW.

C-1357 Brayshaw l H. 00MAY1988 Reconnaissance survey for archaeological sites, authorisation I 219 Bulga, Hunter Valley, NSW.

1617 Brayshaw , H.C. 00JUN1989 I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Southern Extention (A72) Howick Mine near Liddel NSW

C-875 Byrne, D. 00JUN1985 I Investigation of an Aboriginal archaeological site at Sandy Hollow, Goulburn Valley, NSW.

I C-955 Byrne, D. 00JUL1985 Archaeological survey at Grasstree Ridge,near Muswellbrook, I Hunter Valley, NSW C-1279 Byrne l D. OOJ AN198 7 Survey for Aboriginal archaeological sites along the route of the proposed 330 kv Liddell to Muswellbrook transmission line in the Upper Hunter valley, NSW.

C-l086 Dallas; M. 00MAR1985 I Report on Archaeological Investigations at Farley Downs ,NSW. C-l088 Dallas, M. McDonald, J. 00AUG1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Singleton Shire Council Land Developements, known as Wattle Ponds and the Retreat.

C-1280 Dallas, M. McDonald , J. 00FEB1987 Appendix 3, Report on additional survey and complete site management requirements for the "retreat" and "Wattle Ponds" I at Singleton NSW. C-1571 Da 11 as, trL 0 0 J UN 1 9 8 8 Monitor for Aboriginal Relics, Rural residential Subdivision­ I Singleton Heights. C-1402 Dallas, H. 00SEP1988 United Collieries coal lease; Warkwort~, I Hunter Valley, New South Wales: additional archaeological survey (correspondance). I C-1559 Dallas, M. 00aCT1988 Arch. monitor & Aboriginal consaltation for Singlaton shire I council, Singleton Heights subdivision. I I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 5 2Jan90 15:36 1659 Dean Jones, P. OONOV1989 I A/S Proposed Waste Disposal Site, Muswellbrook NSW 1629 Dean-Jones, P OOJUN1989 Report on Archaeological Survey of the Rail Loop & Coal I Stockpile Facility for Dartbrook Mine Project Aberdeen NSW

C-1000 Dean-Jones, P. OOMAY1986 I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Extension to the Cessnock City Council's Sanitary Landfill Site.

C-1374 Dean-Jones, P. OOAPR1988 I An archaeological survey of part of portion 12 & 28, parish of Corrabare, County of Northumberland, NSW.

I C-1505 Dean-Jones, P. OONOV1988 Archaeological survey of a proposed gravel extraction site, 'I 7 km upstream of Sandy Hollow on the Goulburn River. 1628 Dean-Jones, P. OOJUL1989 A/Survey of Proposed Tailings Dam Site & Rejects Disposal Site I Dartbrook Underground Coal Mine Project 1660 Dean-Jones, P. OOOCT1989 I A/S Grasstree Hill, Huswellbrook, NSW C-783 Djekic, A. OOJUN1984 An Archaeological Survey of the Route of the Kurri-Kurri to Alcan 132Kv transmission line.

C-302 Dyall, L. OOSEP1975 Warkworth Coal tender area interim report on Aboriginal relics.

C-310 Dyall, L. OOHAR1977 I Environmental studies: Ht Arthur project (Hunter Valley): Full report.on Aboriginal relics.

C-307 Dyall, L. OOOCT1978 I Aboriginal relics in the Fal and Carrow Brook Valleys, St Clair - Car row Brook area, Hunter Valley, NSW.

I C-296 Dyall, L. 06NOV1979

Survey for Aboriginal relics on the Dray ton Coal Lease j ·1 Huswellbrook. C-317 Dyall, L. OOJAN1980 Report on survey for Aboriginal Relics: Black Hill coal lease, I Husswellbrook.

C-316 Dyall j L. 16SEP1980 Report on Aboriginal relics from Ht Arthur North Coal Lease; I Muswellbrook.

C-318 Dyall j L. OODEC1980 I Report on Aboriginal relics on Wambo Coal Lease, Warkworth.

C-295 Dyall j L. OODEC1980 I Report on Aboriginal relics on AGIP Coal Lease, Warkworth, I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 6 2Jan90 15:36 I Hunter Valley, NSW. C-311 Dy a 11, L. 00 A P Ri 9 8 1 Saxonvale coalmining authorization - Report on Aboriginal I relics. C-14 5 3 D y a 11, L. 00 J U Ni 98 1 Aboriginal Axe sharpening grooves located outside BHP's I Saxonvale mine property. C-14 5 5 Dy a 11, L. 00 J UN 19 8 1 Aboriginal axe sharpening grooves located on BHP"s Saxonvale I Coalmine property.

C-298 Dyall, L. OOJUL1981 I Aboriginal relics on the !

C-297 Dyall, L. OOAPR1982 A preliminary assessment of Aboriginal relics on the area of the Foybrook power station project.

C-380 Haglund, 1. OOJUL1980 Preliminary survey to assess archaeological resources in the I area of the proposed Kerrabee Dam C-1197 Hag 1 un d, 1. 0 0 J UL 1 9 8 1 Archaeological investigation in the area of the proposed I Kerrabee Dam - Parts I, 11, Ill. C-3 91 Hag 1 u n d, L. 0 0 AU G 1 9 8 2 Archaeological survey of proposed routes for conveyer belt and I haul road linking Hunter Valley No.2 mine authorisation area with Hunter Valley No.1 mine. I C-396 Hagl und, L. OONOV1982 Archaeological survey of proposed coal exploration drift site I near West Brook, NSW. C-358 Haglund, L. OONOV1982 Archaeological survey of Pikes Gully Colliery area, Liddell, I NSW. C-375 Haglund, L. OODEC1982 Archaeological survey of area centred on Tulky Hill near I Glendon Brook, NSW. C-983 Haglund, L. OOAPR1984 Archaeological survey of proposed development site at Denman I Hunter Valley, NSW.

C-813 Hiscock, P. OOJ.t..N1984 I An Analysis of the Prehistoric Stoneworking Technology represented at Sites 5,12, and 13 at Redbank Creek, I United Collieries Coal Lease, Hunter Valley, NSW C-930 Hiscock, P. OONOV1984 NSW NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeology Project Stage 1 I Volume 4: Data Recorded on Artefacts in Square AA I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 7 2Jan90 15:36 -I at Sandy Hollow 1 C-1204 Hiscock , P. Koettig , M. 00APR1985 Archaeological investigations at Plashett Dam , Mount Arthur North and Mount Arthur South, in the Hunter valley, NSW. I Vol 3a: The salvage excavation & collection of

archaeological sites. Vol 3b: Tables 1 figures & plates. I C-l009 Hiscock , P. 1986 NSW NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeology Project Stage 1. Volumes 4a & b - A Technological Analysis of Stone Artefact I Assemblages from the Hunter River Valley Region. C-449 Hughes, P.J. 000CT1981 An archaeological survey of the Bayswater No.2 colliery, I proposed lease extension area, Muswellbrook, Hunter Valley.

C-441 Hughes, P.J. 00SEP1982 A preliminary report on archaeological survey and salvage work in the saltwater creek Plashett Dam site area, Hunter Valley) NSW.

I C-436 Hughes) P.J. Silcox , R. 00JUN1983 An archaeological survey of the Mt Thorley project authorisation area Hunter Valley, NSW.

C-803 Hughes) P. J • OOJ AN1984 Hunter Valley Archaeological Project - Progress Report I to 31st January 1984 and Proposed Further Work C-751 Hughes, P.J. Lance , A. 00JAN1984 An investigation of an archaeological site at tRose Park' I via Denman,Hunter Valley, NSW.2328.

C-435 Hughes j P.J. 00FE.B1984 I An archaeological survey of a proposed highway realignment) Belford, Hunter Vallley, NSW. I C- 9 2 7 Hug h e s, P. J . 00 NO V19 84 NSW,NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeology Project Stage 1, Volume i-An Overview of the Archaeology of the Hunter Valley! I Its Environmental Setting and Impact of Developement: C-936 Hughes , P.J. 00APR1985

Archaeological investigation at Plashett Dam j Mount Arthur I North and Mount Arthur South in the Hunter Valley,NSW VOL 1. C-471 Kamminga , J. 000CT1978 I Archaeological survey of the Dray ton Lease Area,Upper Hunter Valley NSW.

C-491 Koettig, M. Hughes j P.J. 00HAY1983 I Archaeological investigation United Collieries Coal Lease Warkworth , Hunter ValleylNSW.

I C- 9 2 9 Ko e t t i g j M• 00 NO V1 984 NSW NPWS Hunter Valley Region Archaeological Project Stage 1 Volume 3: Archaeological Investigation in the Merriwa Plateau I and Northeastern Mountain Subregions. I I I Reports for Singleton 250K Page 8 2Jan90 15:36

C-1203 Ko e t t i g, ~L Hug he s, P. J . 00 J UL 1 98 5 I Archaeological investigations at Plashett Dam, Mount Arthur North & ~!ount Arthur South, in the Hunter Valley, NSW. I Vol 2: The archaeological survey C-999 Koettig, M, 00MAY1986 Assessment of Aboriginal Archaeological Sites in the Dungog ,I Shire. C-1091 Koettig, M. OOJUN1986 Assessement of Archaeological Sites along the proposed I Singleton to Glennies Creek Water Pipeline Route and the Res~rvoir Site at. Apex Lookout,Hunter Valley,NSW.

C-1048 Koettig, M. 00AUG1986 Test Excavations at Six Locations along the Proposed Pipeline Route between Singleton and Glennies Creek Dam, Hunter Valley Region, NSW.

C-1179 Koettig, M. 00MAR1987 Monitoring excavations at three locations along the Singleton to Glennies Creek pipeline route, Hunter Valley, NSW.

C-7 6 2 ~1c I n t y re, S. 00 AP Ri 984 Archaeological survey of the proposed extension of the gravel quarry in the Cessnock State Forest,Abermain,

C-588 Moore, D, OOSEP1970 I Diary notes on excavations in Hunter River Valley: field trip to excavation in Wollombi area, 27/8/70 to 2/9/70. I C-594 Needham, W•. OODEC1979 Survey of Aboriginal sites in the Wollombi region, NSW.

1661 Rich E. OONOV1989 I Aboriginal Historic Sites in North East NSW

C-635 Ross, B. OODEC1980

I Archaeological resources assessment; 132kv transmission line j Sandy Creek - Muswellbrook. I C-669 Stern, N. 00JUL1981 Salvage excavation and surface collections at Nine Mile Creek, Saxonvale Coal Mine, Hunter Vally.

I C-25 Stern, N. Attenbrow, V. 00DEC1981 North Singleton proposed housing subdivisions - survey for I archaeological sites. I I I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I B: OTHER REFERENCES

I OTHER REFERENCES I Attenbrow V. 1987 The Upper Mangrove Creek Catchment: Study of Quantitative Changes in the Archaeological Record. I PhD Thesis, Sydney University.

Gorecki P. et a11984 I "Coexistence of humans and megafauna in Australia, improved stratified evidence." Archaeology in Oceania 19:114-119.

I Hiscock P. 1986 'Technological Change in the Hunter Valley and the Interpretation of Late Holocene Change in Australia." . I Archaeology in Oceania 21:29-39.

Haglund L. in prep Analysis of Material from Sites in the Goulburn River Valley.

I Kohen J. et al1984 "Shaws Creek KllI Rockshelter: a prehistoric occupation in the Blue Mountains piedmont, eastern NSW." I AO 19 (2): 57-73.

RossA 1986 I Planning for Aboriginal Site Management: A Handbook for Local Government Planners I NPWSpub. Sullivan S. & Pearson M. 1983 Principles of Cultural Resource Management. I Riverina CAB, Division of External Studies, School of Applied Sciences. I Sullivan S.& Bowdler S. 1984 Site Survey and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology. I Dept. R.S.Pac. S. ANU Canberra. Storey R. et a1 1963 General Report on the Land of the Hunter Valley. I Land Research Series No.8. CSIRO. I I I I 'rABLE CHARAC'rERISTICS OF THE MAJOR PARTS OF THE LAND SYSTEMS (From 'CSIR'O' Study).

I . Land I Geology Topography Rainfall I Soils Vegetation System (in.) I Rouse Palaeozoic granite Hilly 24 Skeletal soils and bare rock Savannah woodland of box, gum, and ironbark, some thinned or I cleared

Ulan Palaeozoic granite Undulating 24 Pale brown sandy and gritty Savannah woodland of box, gum, I earths, some outcrop and iron bark, mostly cleared Alston Devonian limestone Rugged 28 Much outcrop with shallow crack- Anomalous woodland of large- ing clays in pockets flowered bundy and grass-tree

Mt. Butterwicki Carboniferous sediments and Rugged 30-40 Mostly shallow brown podzolic Tall mixed woodland, mainly I some lavas soils, brown earths, and skeletal gums and stringybarks. or wet soils sclerophyll forest, mostly thinned or cleared I Benmore Devonian and Carboniferous Rugged 26-30 Shallow brown earths, podzolic, Savannah woodland of box and sediments solonetzic, and skeletal soils gum, mostly thinned or cleared

Wallaroo Carboniferous mudstone, tuff, Hilly 30-40 Mostly brown podzolic soils and Tall mixed woodland, mostly I and chert some earths and skeletal soils thinned or cleared Upper Rouchel Devonian and Carboniferous Hilly 24-30 Brown solonetzic soils, skeletal Savannah woodland of box and tMs, chert, mudstone, and - soils, some podzolic soils and gum, mostly thinned or cleared I minor Iavas earths Vacy Carboniferous mudstone and Undulating - "28--40 Mostly deep brown podzolic soils Tall mixed woodland, some chert, tuff thinned or cleared I I I I Timor Carboniferous sediments Undulating 24 Mostly .brown solonetzic soils, Savannah woodland of box and some degraded black earths gum, mostly thinned or cleared I Rainforest Carboniferous sediments capped Rugged 40-60 Mostly stony krasnozems, associ- Rain forest by Tertiary basalt ated clayey humic skeletal soils, and some podzolic soils

Mt. Royal Carboniferous sediments capped Rugged 40-50 Krasnozems, brown earths, and Wet sclerophyll forest r I by Tertiary basalt podzolic soils > Z Cranky Corner Carboniferous lavas with some Rugged 30-40 Skeletal soils and rock outcrop with Tall mixed woodland, mainly conglomerates and glacial beds some shallow cracking clays, solo- gum. stringybark, and ironbark, " I netzic soils, and podzolic soils some thinned or cleared Colonel Carboniferous and lower Per- Rugged 26 Skeletal soils with some earths and Savannah woodland of box and rnian lavas with some conglom- solonetzic soils gum. with ironbark in the south, I erate and glacial beds some thinned or cleared Barigan Tertiary basic intrusives Hilly to 26 Bare rock, loamy skeletal soils, Anomalous woodland of white rugged and shallow stony red earths I box over dense shrubs

con-I Hilly Shallow podzolic soils, skeletal Tall mixed woodland, mainly Moonibung -Carboniferous la vas, tuffs, 28-32 < I· glomerate, and glacial beds soils, and some shallow cracking gum and ironbark, mostly thinned > r clays or cleared h; -< Apis Carboniferous, Permian, and Hilly 26 Clayey skeletal soils and often Savannah woodland of box and I Tertiary lavas and intrusives stony shallow cracking clays gum. with ironbark in the south, mostly thinned or cleared I Parkville Carboniferous and lower Per- Undulating 26 Cracking clays with solonetzic Savannah woodland of box, I mian lavas and glacials, Ter- soils and degraded black earths gum, and iron bark, mostly tiar) basic igneous intrusives cleared i I I· ....

I TABLE I (Continued) . -0'\

Land I Geology Topography Rainfall Soils Vegetation I System (in.) Ogilvie Permian conglomerates, sand- Rugged 22-32 Skeletal soils, some shallow earths, Savannah woodland, denser than stone, and shale solonetzic soils, and degraded usual, of box, gum, and iron bark black earths in the west; wet or dry sclero- I phyll forest in the east Redhead IPermian sandstone Hilly 40 Podzolic soils and coastal sands, Heath or dry sclerophyll forest bare rock on cliffs I Elrington Permian and Lower Triassic Hilly 32-40 Podzolic soils with some skeletal Dry sclerophyll forest shale, sandstone, and conglom- soils and earths erate

Glendower Permian shale, sandstone, and Hilly 22-30 Solonetzic and podzolic soils, Savannah woodland of box, I conglomerate earths, skeletal soils, some crack- gum, and ironbark, mostly ing clays and degraded black thinned or cleared earths I Beresfield Permian and Lower Triassic Undulating 32-40 Podzolic soils Dry sclerophyll forest, 50% shale, sandstone, and conglom- cleared erate

Killamey Permian shale, sandstone, and Undulating 22-30 Mostly podzolic and solonetzic Savannah woodland of box, I conglomerate soils, small patches of shallow gum, and ironbark, mostly earths, skeletal soils, cracking thinned or cleared - clays, and degraded black earths I Bray's Hill Permian calcareous sandstone Hilly 22 Cracking clays with associated Eucalypt tree savannah, mostly and shale degraded black earths and solo- cleared, with plains grass netzic soils I I I

I Blairgowrie I Mainly Permian calcareous I Undulating 22-24 I Cracking clays with associated Eucalypt tree savannah, mostly sandstone and shale, also on . i degraded black earths, solonetzic thinned or cleared, with plains Carboniferous lavas and glacials I I soils, and some podzolic soils grass i and Tertiary basic intrusives

I I Watagan sandstone and minor Rugged 36-40 Predominantly sandy, humic, skel- Wet sclerophyll forest Triassic I shale etal soils and shallow sandy earths, and some podzolic soils

Three Ways Triassic sandstone with sub- Rugged 24-36 Sandy skeletal soils, sometimes Dry sclerophyll forest I I I t'" ordinate shale beds humic, some earths > Z Lee's Pinch Triassic sandstone and minor Rugged 22-30 Bare rock and sandy, gritty, or Shrub woodland of iron bark and " shale gravelly skeletal soils, minor areas gum I with podzolic soils and earths

Munghorn Gap Triassic sandstone Fairly deep sandy earths and some Dry sclerophyll forest or shrub o Plateau 26-30 .." I skeletal soils woodland of iron bark and gum GreenhiIls I Triassic and J urassic sandstone Undulating 22 Shallow brown or yellow earths, Savannah woodland of box, I and shale Iskeletal sotls, and some solonetzlc ,,,urn,cr and Ir onbark mos tyI I soils I cleared I ; ,------I Roscommon 1 J urassic shale, sandstone, and i Undulating 22 Deep krasnozems and shallow Eucalypt tree savannah. mostly I I Tertiary basalt stony krasnozems cleared I ! Liverpool I Tertiary basalt I Rugged 30-40 Clayey humic skeletal soils, shal- i Savannah woodland of box and I low cracking clays, and small areas gum, some thinned or cleared with alpine humus soils I ------,------,I Ant Hill i Tertiary basalt I Hilly 22-30 Dark, rather shallow, stony crack- I Savannah woodland of box and ing clays I gum, mostly thinned or cleared I I Bow ! Tertiary basalt I Undulating 22 Deep black and dark cracking i Eucalypt tree savannah, mostly I clays, sometimes stony thinned or cleared, with plains grass I ------~------

I TABLE I (Continued) 1 oc Land Rainfall System Geology Topography I (in.) I Soils Vegetation I Tubrabucca Tertiary basalt Plateau i , 30--60 Leached krasnozems and transi- Eucalypt subalpine woodland or tional alpine humus soils with or wet sclerophyll forest ·1 without basalt floaters, minor i areas with alpine humus soils, skel- I i etal soils, and sphagnum peats Avicennia Estuarine alluvium Flat I 40 Waterlogged, saline, brown, heavy, Scrub (mangroves) and open mud I clayey regosols flats Nesta I Estuarine alluvium Flat 38-40 C I Permanently wet or moist peaty Fen :> (swamp) vegetation. mostly r , meadow soils cleared ::;:5 Hexham Recent alluvium Flat ! 40 Acid swamp soils and meadow Fen (swamp) vegetation, :> mostly ~-< I soils and some clayey regosols cleared I :> Hunter z Quaternary alluvium Flat 24-40 v I Wide range of soils, cracking clays, Cleared and under cultivation or chernozemic, solonetzic, podzolic pioneer grasses soils, and regosols

Yarramoor Quaternary basaltic alluvium Flat 22 Dark and black cracking clays and Eucalypt tree savannah, mostly some alluvial regosols thinned or cleared Sandy Hollow Quaternary colluvium Undulating 22-26 I Mostly brown earths and solo- Savannah woodland of box, gum, netzic soils and iron bark, mostly cleared Duck Hole Aeolian sand Undulating 38-40 Sandy aeolian regosols and humus- Dry sclerophyIl forest to hilly iron podzols, small areas with peaty I meadow and acid swamp soils Warkworth Quaternary aeolian sand I Undulating 24-28 I"",-, ,i"i''''''"''l, =d, ,~ IAno",,),~ __d, mostly I , Han regosols cleared, or heath I I I I I I I I I I I I I'

TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF SITES ALONG WATERCOURSES AT REDBANK CREEK

I Creek Section Number of Average Number Sites Of Sites per km I A 37 12.3 B 10 12.5 ·1 C 5 6.25 D 7 3.5 E 3 2.5 I F 2 1.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 4 : DISTRIBUTION OF SITES IN LAND UNITS

I SURVEY AREA NUMBER LAND SYSTEMS INCLUDED IN SURVEY AREA AREA (Sq km) OF SITES (NPWS Catalogue No) I Gd K Hu Bh 0

828 3.5 5 X X I 869 2 11 X 919 5.2 24 X 943 3.8 0 X 955 6 0 X X I 983 0.57 14 X 1008 12 30 X X 1986 2 X X I 1225 3 4 X X 1280 5.8 45 X 1336 2.25 0 X I 1357 18 11 X 1374 0.5 0 X 1505 0.4 2 X 1573 0.68 6 X X I 1617 1.8 8 X 1628 0.8 2 X X X 1629 0.2 6 X I 1659 0.13 0 X NO OF I SURVEYS 10 11 3 2 1

NB Linear surveys not included

I KEY

Gd Glendower Bh Bray's Hill I K Killarney 0 Ogilvie Hu Hunter I I I 'I I I I I ------

-TABLE'- 5 : -DISTRIBUTION- --- OF SITES IN LAND ----UNITS - COMPARISON BETWEEN-- RESULTS ------OF SURVEYS PRIOR TO HV PROJECT AND THOSE AFTER

LAND SYSTEMS AND LAND UNITS

Gd K Hu Bh 0 2 3 4 3/4 2 3 1/3 2 1/2 3 4 1 2 1/2 Prior to Hunter Valley 7 2 149 27 91 90 3 157 142 6 10 8 9 Project

Relative Percentage <1 <1 55 10 33 23 1 40 36 25 42 33 100

After Hunter 53 2 6 39 9 48 6 Valley Project

Relative Percentage 87 3 10 42 10 48 34 34 34 100

KEY

Gd Glendower Bh Bray's Hill K Killarney o Ogilvie Hu Hunter TABLE 6: CHARACTERISTICS DISTINGISHING THE I ARTEFACTS FROM UNITS A AND B AT SGCD16. I I

CRITERIA UNIT A UNIT B I INDICATING CHAmE

Raw Materials (>10% in either unit) I indurated mudstone 33' 19% silcrete 16' 5% I volcanic 12% 36% "weathered" 24' FGB l' 10% I ? l' 10%

Cores:flaked artefacts 1:10.5 1:3.3 I I ~~ : r'h: H/S: all artefacts 1: 38 1: 21 ,~,,, . I.S:~ • ,K"~ :~~ I Cores <200 cucm 88' 25% .:( I Cores >200 cucm 12% 75% INDICATING LITTLE OR NO CHAN3E

I Flake:broken flake 1.3:1 1. 1 : 1 I Flakes:flaked pieces 2:1 2.1: 1 R/U:flakes 1 :9 1: 6

I

I I., I .r I I 85 I .. -- -- SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN UP TO THE-- COMPLETION-- OF THE HUNTER-- VALLEY-- PROJECT - -TABLE-- 7 : - - --

REPORT AREA OF PERC'TAGE TYPE OF SURVEY VISIBILITY NO. OF NO. OF SITES POTENTIAL NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NUMBER SURVEY SURVEYED Total Sample SITES OPEN TESTED AREAS SITES SITES SITES REC. FOR (NPWS) SQ. Km SITES TESTED DESTROYED PRESERVED SALVAGE (L=linear)

25 2.4 x Good 54 54 53 91 14.5 x Good 9 9 9 98 (see 132) 13 or 18 5? 4 101 (see 148) 12 1 3 102 0.06 Riverbed 0 104 2 x Poor 5 5 Further survey recommended 105 . 2 x Poor 5 5 Possibly some salvage required 115 5.2 reconnaissance ? 18 18 All to be more fully recorded before a final assessment (See 919) 124 (see 105) 5 129 2 x Good 0 132 13 x v. poor 18 18 138 0.15 x poor 4 4 4 142 3.5 x v. disturbed 1 1 1 143 20.5 x ? 6 6 6 144 0.46 x ? 1 1 1 145 ? Disturbed 4 2 4 146 22 L(100m) x Moderate 1 1 1 147 8 L x Moderate 0 148 16 x ? 12 12 156 90 L(45m) x Poor 1 1 163 4 x ? 2 2 2 164 0.6 x Good 3 3 3 165 2L x Good 1 1 166 6 x ? 1 (monitoring & further survey) 167 8.5 x ? 0 169 0.15 x ? 0 170 0.14 x Poor 0 171 0.3 x Good 1 172 6.5 x ? 6 6 6 173 5 x Poor 0 174 0.87 x Poor 0 175 0.3 Riverbed 0 176 4L x ? 0 178 0.5 x ? 0 .. --TABLE 7 : --SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN'- -- UP TO THE -COMPLETION-- OF THE HUNTER- -- VALLEY PROJECT- (Continued) ------NO. OF REPORT AREA OF PERC'TAGE TYPE OF SURVEY VISIBILITY NO. OF NO. OF SITES POTENTIAL NO. OF NO. OF NUMBER SURVEY SURVEYED Total Sample SITES OPEN TESTED AREAS SITES SITES SITES REC. FOR (NPWS) SQ. Km SITES TESTED DESTROYED PRESERVED SALVAGE (L=linear)

358 12 @50% x Poor 2 2 2 375 3.2 10-80% x <10% 1 (Currently in planned buffer zone; if development occurs, no further archaeological investigation required) 391 11 L 100% x Poor 6 5 2 4 396 0.02 100% x Poor 0 435 3 L (90m) 100% x Good 1 1 1 (potential) 436 21 ? ? <10% 36 36 28 8 (not affected) 449 7 ? x Poor 7 7 7 471 23 reconnaissance ? 0 No further work recommended 491 9 50% x @20% 66 66 30 36 3 751 1 100% x Riverbed 0 762 0.4 100% x Poor 0 783 4L (40m) 80-100% x <10% 4 4 4 (not affected) 1197 28 x ? 347 87 2 • 5# 347(in Goulburn River NP) 30 (. = Shelter Sites, # = (PAD), 0 = open) 1203 and 1204 Plashett @7 <20% x moderate '86 86 82 4 6 MAS <5% x moderate 136 135 66 70 8 MAN <10% x moderate 93 93 92 1 14 TABLE 7: SURVEYS UNDERTAKEN UP TO THE COMPLETION OF THE HUNTER VALLEY PROJECT (Continued) ------DY ALL SURVEYS (Only those areas Included here where no additional survey has been undertaken)

NO. OF NO. OF REPORT AREA OF PERC'TAGE TYPE OF SURVEY VISIBILITY NO. OF NO. OF SITES POTENTIAL NO. OF SITES SITES REC. FOR NUMBER SURVEY SURVEYED Total Sample SITES OPEN TESTED AREAS SITES SALVAGE (NPWS) SQ. Km SITES TESTED DESTROYED PRESERVED (L=linear) (17 not affected by current 300 14 ? 21 18 5 development) (Grooves to be fully recorded) 302 x ? 16 15 16 307 20 x Poor 6 6 6 311 35 x ? 10 8 9 318 11 x ? 7 7 ----TABLE 8 SURVEYS- UNDERTAKEN-- SINCE- THE- HUNTER--- VALLEY PROJECT------NO. OF REPORT AREA OF PERC'TAGE TYPE OF SURVEY VISIBILITY NO. OF SITES ARCH'L NO. OF NO. OF SITES REC FOR NUMBER SURVEY SURVEYED Total Sample SITES TESTED POTENTIAL SITES TO BE SITES TO BE SQ. Km TESTED DESTROYED PRESERVED SALVAGE (L=linear)

783 4L(40m) 80-100% x <10% 4 4 828 3.5 10-80% x ? 5 3 2? (avoidltest) 869 2 10-80% x <10% 11 11 875 0.36 100% x 0-100% 1 1 1 919 (see 115) 80-100% ? 24 24 0 4 (collection completed) 943 3.8 80-100% x ? Numerous 0 exposures 953 12 L(30m) 95% x ? 4 2 2 (not affected) 955 6 80-100%? x 20% 0 983 0.57 80-100% x Variable 14 8 (1 part) 6 (further investigation required) 1000 0.25 ? x? 2 2 (Poss. scarred trees) 1008 12 ? x 15-40% 31 30 1 (not affected) 2 1048 5 6 5 (part) 5 1086 ? 10-80% "good" 2 2 1088 (see1280) good 22 (superceded in 1280) 1091 25 L(5m) 100% x Variable 11 1 (part) 8 «5% overall) 1179 (see 1091) 1225 3 ? x ? 4 4 1279 18 L (60m) ? x 5-40% 1 1 (to be flagged by ELCOM) 1280 5.8 80-100% x Good? 23 3 43 2 10 (monitoring) 1336 2.25 ? Poor 0 1357 18 ? x v. poor 7 6 (further recording & survey recommended) 1374 0.5 ? x 60-90% 0 1402 1 100% x ? 0 1505 0.4 100% x 10-50% 2 1559 (see also 1280) 0 (monitoring) 1571 (see1280) 1573 0.68 100% x variable 6 5 2 6 6 «10% overall) 1617 1.8 ? x very poor 8 8 1628 0.8 ? x <1% 2 2 1629 0.2 100% x <1% 6 6 1659 0.13 100% x <10% 0 1660 0.04 100% x very disturbed 0 DISTRIBUTION OF SITES PER LANDUNIT AT EIGHT SURVEY LOCATIONS --- - - 10 ------TABLE: ------

SURVEY AREA LANDUNIT Hu 0 K 1 K2 K3 Gd 1 Gd 3 Gd 4 Bh 1 BL 1 REDBANK CREEK

Number of Sites 14 19 14 7 8 Approximate area (km2) 1.32 0.2 2.4 0.32 0.04 Site density 11 95 5 19 200

MOUNT THORLEY

Number of Sites 12 22 2 Approximate area (km2) 2.3 0.8 0.9 Site density 5 28 2

WATTLE PONDS +

Number of Sites 45 Approximate area (km2) 3.6 Site density 13

NORTH SINGLETON

Number of Sites 54 Approximate area (km2) 2 Site density 27

GLENNIES CREEK

Number of Sites 11 3 17 0 Approximate area (km2) 4.8 2.2; 1.6 1.28 Site density 3 1 v 10

MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH

Number of Sites 8 75 13 14 9 14 2 0.3 Approximate area (km2) 0.7 2.2 1.5 0.6 0.5 1.5 0.1 Site density 12 34 9 23 17 9 20 3

SUMMARY O.F SITE DENSITY 8 5 28 7 25 15 9 20 3 '------TABLE: 10 DISTRIBUTION OF SITES PER LANDUNIT AT EIGHT SURVEY LOCATIONS ( ....•.....•.••. contlnued)

SURVEY AREA LANDUNIT K 1 K2 K 3 Gd 1 Gd 3 Gd 4 Bh 1 BL 1 Hu o HUNTER VALLEY NO.2 2 1 Number of Sites 2 2 4 4

BAVSWATER NO.2 Number of Sites 6 I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS

SITE LS La AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM I ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE m2 m2 m2 m2 I 1) HUNTER VALLEY NO. 2 (BRAYSHAW) A 0 2 B Gd 3 24 2 I C Gd 4 18 18 gullying 9 1/2 D Gd 4 500 500 track @100 1/5 E Gd 3 75 75 track 10 1/8 I F Gd 3 1000 1000 sheetwash/gullying 30 1/30 G K 3 250,000 ploughed @300 1/800 H Gd3/Hu 360,000 ploughed "dense" I I Gd 4 track sparse 1/m J K 3 1000m+ <30 (in length) K Gd 1+4 track sparse I L Gd 1 track "number of" M Hu grinding grooves (3) N Gd 4 500 track, sheetwash @20 1/25 0 Hu 700 track 12 I (in length)

I 2) BA YSWATER NO.2 (Hughes) Gd 20 ? gullying 2 (in length) I 2 K 3 600 600 Unit A sheetwash @3000 5/1 20/1 3 Gd 1 225 UnitB 45 1/5 4 Gd 100 Unit A 5 1/20 I 5 Gd +200 Unit A +40 1/5 6 Gd 75 trampled 375 5/1 20/1 I 7 Gd extensive 125 Unit A 4 1/40 I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 3) MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH SURVEY : KOETTIG AND HUGHES 18 K 600 200 UnitsA+B 19 ' 1/10 1/5 19 K 450 80 55 1/5 1/1 I 46 K 52 K 36 36 UnitsA+B 51 2/1 5/1

1 K 3 150 150 UnitsA+B E2000 1/4 20/1 I 2 K 3 20 180 disturbed E21 1/9 1/1 3 K 3 54 54 disturbed 500 1/1 10/1 4 K 3 70 45 disturbed E200 1/2 5/1 5 K 3 450 colluvial E90 1/5 11/1 I 6 K 3 UnitsA+B 1/1 4/1 7 K 3 75 75 E75 1/1 130/1 8 K 3 800 ploughed E80 1/10 111 9 K 3 675 675 UnitsA+B E700 1/1 10/1 I 10 K 3 60 50 UnitsA+B E5 1/10 1/2 11 K 3 220 100 UnitsA+B E12 1/8 4/1 12 K 3 40 40 reworked 23 1/1 13 K 3 150 12 UnitsA+B E6 1/2 I 14 K 3 150 150 disturbed E7 1/20 6/1 15 K 3 150 150 UnitsA+B 300 2/1 10/1 16 K 3 70 20 E6 1/3 90/1 17 K 3 16 16 UnitsA+B E16 1/1 111 I 38 K 3 45 45 UnitsA+B 31 1/1 9/1 39 K 3 70 70 UnitsA+B E500 3/1 120/1 40 K 3 80 80 UnitsA+B 18 1/4 5/1 41 K 3 45 210 UnitsA+B 18 1/3 3/1 I 42 K 3 30 12 UnitB 23 2/1 10/1 43 K 3 21 21 UnitsA+B 14 1/1 3/1 44 K 3 45 K 3 100 200 UnitsA+B 23 1/4 211 I 76 K 3 300 31 1/10 4/1 77 K 3 120 16 Unit B E64 4/1 78 K 3 1000 30 UnitsA+B 60 2/1 79 K 3 30 30 Unit A 25 1/1 80 K 3 4 4 UnitsA+B 30 7/1 20/1 I 81 K 3 4 4 reworked 8 211 82 K 3 40 40 UnitsA+B 22 1/2 5/1 83 K 3 20 20 UnitsA+B 35 1/1 5/1 84 K 3 30 30 17 1/2 11/1 I 85 K 3 40 40 UnitsA+B 96 2/1 38/1 86 K 3 45 45 UnitsA+B 42 1/1 6/1 87 K 3 20 20 UnitB 19 1/1 9/1 88 K 3 13 13 ? 28 2/1 7/1 I 89 K 3 90 90 UnitsA+B 55 1/2 5/1 91 K 3 1500 12 UnitB 44' 3/1 6/1 92 K 3 320 25 UnitB 23 93 K 3 30 10 UnitsA+B 31 3/1 18/1 I 94 K 3 200 200 UnitsA+B 69 5/1 8/1 85 K 3 48 14 UnitsA+B 103 7/1 44/1 96 K 3 1500 20 UnitsA+B E1000 16/1 57/1 97 K 3 30 8 UnitB E100 1/1 13/1 I 98 K 3 60 25 UnitsA+B 33 1/1 7/1 99 K 3 90 90 UnitsA+B 30 1/3 100 K 3 150 100 UnitsA+B 51 1/2 5/1 101 K 3 60 UnitsA+B 61 1/1 18/1 I 102 K 3 35 UnitsA+B 35 1/1 3/1 103 K 3 180 1 UnitsA+B 46 46/1 46/1 104 K 3 20 20 UnitsA+B 31 1/1 8/1 105 K 3 320 320 Unit B 14 1/22 5/1 I 106 K 3 180 120 UnitsA+B E3000 26/1 29/1 107 K 3 20 22 UnitsA+B 30 1/1 7/1 108 K 3 200 100 UnitsA+B E100 1/1 13/1 109 K 3 120 120 Unit B E120 1/1 6/1 I 110 K 3 40 40 UnitsA+B E600 15/1 73/1 I n I u'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~-~~~~~ ~ - ... ' _.... """"" "- c I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued)

I, SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 3) MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH SURVEY : KOETTIG AND HUGHES (continued) 111 K 3 60 60 UnitsA+B E360 6/1 6/1 112 K 3 320 320 UnitsA+B 206 103/1 I 113 K 3 30 30 UnitsA+B E1500 50/1 7211 114 K 3 60 60 UnitsA+B E350 5/1 25/1 115 K 3 25 25 Units A+B 106 5/1 25/1 116 K 3 480 80 UnitsA+B E2000 25/1 50/1 I 117 K 3 240 240 UnitsA+B E24 1/10 1/1 118 K 3 24 2 UnitsA+B 19 10/1 10/1 119 K 3 16 16 UnitsA+B 38 2/1 15/1 120 K 3 150 60 UnitsA+B 34 1/2 7/1 I 121 K 3 90 90 UnitsA+B 58 1/2 6/1 122 K 3 600 UnitsA+B 1/20 123 K 3 80 91 1/1 20/1 124 K 3 60 60 UnitsA+B 75 1/1 . 10/1 I 128 K 3 150 150 UnitsA+B E300 2/1 211

25 Gd 1 150 60 26 1/2 26 Gd 1 20 20 UnitsA+B 28 1/1 17/1 I 27 Gd 1 8000 140 ? 64 1/2 28 Gd 1 450 325 UnitB 200+ 1/2 4/1 29 Gd 1 100 75 Unit A 16 1/4 60 Gd 1 100 75 Units A+B E25 1/3 3/1 I 61 Gd 1 8 8 ? 16 2/1 5/1 62 Gd 1 80 20 reworked 79 4/1 10/1 63 Gd 1 4800 4800 ? E5000 1/1 4/1 64 Gd 1 30 30 UnitsA+B 12 1/2 3/1 I 65 Gd 1 150 90 colluvial 129 2/1 101/1 70 Gd 1 36 36 UnitB E12 1/3 1/1 71 Gd 1 10 10 reworked 32 3/1 18/1 72 Gd 1 4 4 Unit A 22 5/1 2211 I 74 Gd 1 900 10 colluvial 12 1/1 75 Gd 1 30 colluvial 22 1/1 5/1

I 23 Gd 3 100 50 8 1/10 3/1 24 Gd 3 70 45 UnitsA+B 51 2/1 4/1 30 Gd 3 150 300 Unit A 85 1/2 32 Gd 3 50 80 Unit A 107 2/1 33 Gd 3 100 50 UnitsA+B E50 1/1 6/1 I 54 Gd 3 75 75 22 113 311 55 Gd 3 50 14 reworked 39 3/1 10/1 56 Gd 3 300 300 UnitsA+B 60 1/5 3/1 57 .. Gd 3 15 15 UnitsA+B 94 20/1 20/1 I 58 Gd 3 100 3200 UnitsA+B 1/5 4/1 59 Gd 3 20 8 UnitsA+B 33 1/1 4/1 66 Gd 3 40 40 UnitsA+B 17 1/2 67 Gd 3 30 30 19 1/2 5/1 I 68 Gd 3 10 10 Unit A 17 2/1 69 Gd 3 12 12 Unit A 22 211 73 Gd 3 4 4 23 6/1 8/1

I 129 Gd 4 450 300 Unit A 11 1/13 5/1 130 Gd 4 131 Gd 4 4 2 ? 22 11/1 15/1 132 Gd 4 300 SOO UnitsA+B 146 1/4 15/1 I 133 Gd 4 15 15 ? 12 1/1 '134 Gd 4 5 5 Unit A 33 6/1 135 Gd 4 50 50 colluvial E25 1/2 4/1 I 136 Gd 4 45 45 ? , 33 111 I I I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued)

SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM I DENSITY NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY m2 m2 I 3) MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH SURVEY : KOETTIG AND HUGHES (continued) 20 Bh 1 200 80 colluvial 14 1/10 3/1 21 Bh 1 380 1600 UnitB E8000 5/1 11/1 22 Bh 1· 120 120 Unit B E150 1/1 2/1 I 8 1/5 3/1 31 Bh 1 50 50 colluvial 47 Bh 1 48 Bh 1 I 49 Bh 1 20 3 Unit A 17 6/1 50 Bh 1 51 Bh 1 I 53 Bh 1 100 100 ploughed 34 1/3 5/1 34 BI 64 15 colluvial 42 3/1 35 BI 110 110 UnitB 35 1/6 3/1 36 BI 3200 3200 reworked 15 1/12 7/1 I 37 BI 400 300 34 1/10 5/1

126 BI 3 800 800 ploughed? E4000 5/1 10/1 I 127 BI 3 400 400 ploughed? EBOO 2/1 I 125 Hu 300 3 K 70 25/1 50/1 NOTE I E = Estimated (based on a calculation of average density x area of site, or total of sample x area of site) I I I I I I I I I I I -- - I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY rn 2 rn 2 I 4) REDBANK CREEK SURVEY KOETTIG AND HUGHES 6 K 1 6250 1600 UnitB 122 1/14 11 K 1 ? I 12 K 1 80 80 UnitsA+B 1/5 14 K 1 100 100 Unit A 5 1120 17 K 1 7000 120 UnitsA+B 10 1/12 18 K 1 120 2 UnitB 3'4 17/1 22 K 1 132 12 UnitB 30 2/1 I 23 K 1 50 50 ploughed 85 2/1 24 K 1 120 120 ploughed 31 1/4 47 K 1 120 120 UnitB 5 1/24 48 K 1 45 45 Unit A 6 1/7 I 49 K 1 600 600 UnitsA+B 86 1/7 52 K 1 600 600 UnitB 5 1/100 56 K 1 15 15 UnitB 4 1/4 I 57 K 1 100 100 UnitsA+B 11 1/8 5 K 3 7000 7000 30/1 8 K 3 25 25 UnitB 3 1/8 9 K 3 ? I 10 K 3 50 50 UnitsA+B >150 3/1 15 K 3 450 450 UnitsA+B 12 1/45 16 K 3 70 60 UnitsA+B 27 1/2 19 K 3 10 10 Unit A 11 1/1 I 20 K 3 76 6 Unit B 26 5/1 21 K 3 40 40 Unit A 16 1/3 32 K 3 40 40 UnitsA+B >50 5/1 33 K 3 20 20 UnitB 43 2/1 I 34 K 3 20 20 Unit A 10 1/2 42 K 3 50 50 UnitB 70 2/1 43 K 3 24 6 Unit B 2 1/3 44 K 3 75 75 Unit A 15 1/5 I 45 K 3 350 350 UnitsA+B 241 1/1 46 K 3 25 25 UnitsA+B 6 1/4 50 K 3 30 30 UnitsA+B 11 1/4 I 51 K 3 >15 154 Unit A 9 1/2 1 Gd ? 13 Gd 37 Gd ? 38 Gd 10 UnitB 5 5/1 I 39 Gd 40 Gd 200 200 UnitB 4 1/50 41 Gd 20 20 UnitB 6 1/4 53 Gd 30 30 Unit B 2 1/15 I 54 Gd 750 10 Unit B 11 1/1 55 Gd 45 45 12 1/4 62 Gd 1000 1000 Unit B 7 1/140 63 Gd 1200 1200 ? >15 1/120 I 64 Gd 900 900 UnitB 4 11180 65 Gd 7600 1600 UnitB 48 1/36

I 4 Gd 3 24 24 Unit B @12 1/2 30 Gd 3 600 40 UnitB 13 1/3 58 Gd 3 75 75 Unit A 15 1/4 59 Gd 3 50 50 UnitsA+B 129 2/1 I 60 Gd 3 100 100 Unit A 8 1/12 61 Gd 3 ? ? 30? 66 Gd 3 75 6 UnitB 83 13/1

I 25 Gd 4 24 24 Unit B 12 112 26 Gd 4 60 1 UnitB 14 14/1 27 Gd 4 50 50 UnitB 4 1/13 28 Gd 4 100 100 UnitB 13 1/8 I 29 Gd 4 300 300 UnitS 22 1/15 31 Gd 4 450 450 ' UnitsA+B 110 1/5 35 Gd 4 20 20 UnitS ? 1/1 I 36 Gd 4 400 400 UnitS 52 1/7 I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 5) MT THORLEY SURVEY : HUGHES AND SILCOX

1 K 2 1200 salt scald, gullying @1200 1/1 60/1 I 2 K 2 1350 salt scald, gullying 264 1/5 20/1 3 K 2 3200 bulldozed 67 115 5/1 4 K 2 12 track 6 1/2 1/1 5 K 2 1000 480 bulldozed 11 1/60 I 6 K 2 8000 drain, exposures 5 1/1600 7 K 2 3 bulldozed 2 1/2 8 K 2 20 tracks 3 115 9 K 2 25 tracks, dam 5 1/5 10 K 2 2400 gullying 10 1/250 I 1/2 11 K 2 3 gullying 2 12 K 2 extensive 5 deep gullying 3 1/2

15 K 3 + 1710 salt scald @570 1/3 I 16 K 3 4085 salt scald @3500 1/1 17 K 3 165 salt scald @55 1/3 18 K 3 266 salt scald 90 1/3 19 K 3 300 salt scald @100 1/3 I 20 K 3 10,000 salt scald @200 1/50 21 K 3 7,500 salt scald 700 1/10 22 K 3 GOO salt scald @50 1/12 23 K 3 4000 salt scald @100 1/40 I 24 K 3 400 salt scald @50 1/5 25 K 3 200 salt scald 20 1/5 26 K 3 sheetwash <50 1/5 27 K 3 sheetwash <50 1/10 I 28 K 3 350 sheetwash 150 1/2 10/1 29 K 3 150 sheetwash @80 1/2 30 K 3 100 sheetwash @20 1/5 31 K 3 400 sheetwash @200 1/2 I 32 K 3 100 sheetwash, gullying @25 1/4 33 K 3 500 sheetwash, gullying @100 1/5 34 K 3 50 salt scald, gullying 7 1/7 35 K 3 100 salt scald, gullying 7 1/13 I 36 K 3 20 salt scald, gullying 6 1/3 13 Gd extensive 12000 sheetwash 46 1/250 I 14 Gd GOO sheetwash 9 1/70 NOTES Sites 1 & 2 were on an exposure that continues for approximatley 500m along the creekline (a scald area) I Sites 15 to 25 were located on an extensive salt scalded area which was a patchwork of grassed areas and exposures; difficult to quantify. I KEY: @ =approximately (based on estimate) I I I I I I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 6) GLENNIES CREEK SURVEY BRAYSHAW 16 K 245 70 exposed clay 10 1/7 17 K 5 deflated 2 I 18 K Unit A 2 19 K 400 gullying @1000 8211 20 K 21 K 35 intermit~nt exposures 4 I 22 K 25 gullying 9 1/3 23 K 15 2 3 24 K gullying 15 25 K sparse ground cover 19 1/3 I 26 K sheetwash 4 1 K 2 15 silt & gravel 3 1/5 2 K 2 on buff silt c21 + 1/3 I 11 K 2 16 ants nest 4 1/4 3 K 3 400 eroded 52 1/8 6/1 4 K 3 sheetwash 5 K 3 sheetwash Unit A I 6 K 3 600 gullied 30 7 K 3 225 silt on clay 8 8 K 3 300 6 Unit A 7 9 K 3 90 gulliedl sheetwash >15 31/1 I 10 K 3 480 eroded >56 8/1 12 K 3 1000 1 scoured 3 3/1 13 K 3 80 23 8/1 14 K 3 2100 ploughed 43 2/1 I 15 K 3 1000 ploughed 27 K 3 gullied 9 28 K 3 gravel & clay 13 29 K 3 450 200 sheetwash, Unit A 10 I 30 K 3 150 sheetwash, gullying 15 4/1 31 K 3 50 8 sheetwash, gullying 5 I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 7) NORTH SINGLETON : STERN AND ATTENBROW SR-S 1 Gd 3 300 UnitC 2 I 2 Gd 3 UnitC 63 3 Gd 3 1000 3 UnitC 3 1/1 4 Gd 3 4800 UnitC 16 5 Gd 3 180 5 UnitC 6 1/1 I 6 Gd 3 450 UnitC 24 9 Gd 3 8000 UnitC 49 10 Gd 3 2400 UnitC 7 11 Gd 3 10 UnitC 14 12 Gd 3 150 UnitC 6 I 13 Gd 3 300 UnitC 3 14 Gd 3 204 UnitC 3 15 Gd 3 80 UnitsA+C 7 16 Gd 3 UnitS 4 I 17 Gd 3 1 UnitC 2 18 Gd 3 900 Unit A 3 19 Gd 3 1500 UnitC 3 20 Gd 3 1600 UnitsA+C 6 I 21 Gd 3 600 UnitC 2 22 Gd 3 large UnitA+C 3 23 Gd 3 large UnitS 23 24 Gd 3 330 Unit A 5 .1 25 Gd 3 large UnitC 3 26 Gd 3 UnitS 3 27 Gd 3 1200 5 UnitC 2 1/2 28 Gd 3 1200' UnitsA+C 2 I 29 Gd 3 UnitsA+C 4 30 Gd 3 90 UnitsA+C 2 31 Gd 3 small UnitsA+C 4 32 Gd 3 800 UnitC ·2 I 33 Gd 3 UnitsA+C 3 34 Gd 3 UnitsA+C 3 35 Gd 3 3000 UnitC 2 36 Gd 3 2000 UnitsA+C 2 I 37 Gd 3 600 UnitC 3 38 Gd 3 3000 UnitC 3

I PA-S 1 Gd 3 4200 UnitsA+S 65 2 Gd 3 1500 UnitsA+S 2 3 Gd 3 40 UnitS 2 4 Gd 3 12 UnitS 2 I 5 Gd 3 2000 UnitS+C 10 6 Gd 3 70 UnitsA+S 16 7 Gd 3 480 UnitS >60 8 Gd 3 2100 Unit A 75 I 9 Gd 3 110 Unit A 14 10 Gd 3 33 Unit A 48 11 Gd 3 25 Unit A 12 12 Gd 3 2000 UnitC+A 21 I 13 .Gd 3 200 UnitC 4 14 Gd 3 3000 UnitA+C 15 15 Gd 3 140 40 Unit A 10 1/4 I 16 Gd 3 Unit A 7 I I I I I TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF SITE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SAMPLE SURVEY AREAS (continued) I SITE LS LU AREA OF AREA OF NO. OF AVERAGE MAXIMUM NO. EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS TYPE OF EXPOSURE ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 m2 I 8) SINGLETON SURVEY (WATTLE PONDS & "THE RETREAT" ) : DALLAS AND MACDONALD Gd 2200 bulldozed road, 15 2/1 erosion scours I 2 Gd 1 1200 120 sheetwash 6 1120 2/1 3 Gd 1 5000 sheetwash 29 1/170 67/1 4 Gd 1 125 3 1/42 q Gd 1 800 45 sheetwash 3 1/15 2/1 6 Gd 1 50 4 track 10 2/1 I 2/1 7 Gd 1 1500 deflated, low visibility 4 8 Gd 1 gravelly 2 9 Gd 1 875 270 deflated 17 1/51 3/1 10 Gd 1 1200 155 5 1/31 2/1 I 3 1/66 11 Gd 1 200 scoured 12 Gd 1 225 sheetwashl gullying 7 1/32 2/1 13 Gd 1 ? sheetwash 50+ 5/1 14 Gd 1 2000 tract 12+ 1/167 4/1 I 15 scarred tree 16 scarred tree 17 Gd 1 2500 bulldozed, sheetwash 5 18 Gd 1 200 20 gullying 3 1/7 2/1 I 19 Gd 1 400 3 sheetwash 6 1/2 5/1 20 Gd 1 3200 <1000 34/1 21 Gd 1 3600 <200 9/1 22 Gd 1 2500 degraded >1000 28/1 I 23 Gd 1 2000 40 disturbed gravel 8 1/5 2/1 24 Gd 1 1200 30 limited visibility, 7 1/4 2/1 leaves & gravel 25 Gd 1 1200 150 relatively undisturbed 18 1/8 6/1 I 26 Gd 1 300 15 relatively undisturbed 6 1/2 3/1 27 Gd 1 3300 24 Unit A @ 5cm thick 38 2/1 16/1 28 Gd 1 30 2 disturbed! track 2 111 1/1 29 Gd 1 150 18 disturbed! track 5 1/4 1/1 I 30 Gd 1 1000+ 6 fair 4 1/2 1/2 31 Gd 1 450 150 good! Unit A 9 1/17 2/1 32 Gd 1 450 300 good! Unit A @100 1/3 16/1 33 Gd 1 60 40 sheetwashl gullying 54 1/1 17/1 I 34 Gd 1 90 60 gullyingl sheetwash 47 1/1 1211 35 Gd 1 300 50 good! Unit A 8 1/6 2/1 36 Gd 1 250 15 sheetwashl gullying 3 1/3 1/1 37 Gd 1 1000 60 good 6 1/10 1/1 I 38 Gd 1 750 15 ploughed 7 1/2 3/1 39 Gd 1 1500 1500 good 13 1/115 1/1 40 Gd 1 450 220 excellent @150 1/2 2211 41 Gd 1 6 4 excellent 8 2/1 3/1 I 42 Gd 1 4800 30 good 6 1/5 1/1 43 Gd 1 300 150 sheetwash 21 1/7 2/1 44 Gd 1 4800 349 tracks 61 I 45 Gd 1 2400 2400 good several hundred 25/1 I I I I I I -I

TABLE 13 ARTEFACT DENSITIES AT OPEN SITES· EXCAVATED AND COLLECTED I SAMPLES AREA! SURFACE COLLECTION EXCAVATION I SITE NAME AREA NO. OF AVERAGE *MAX AREA NO. OF ARTEFACTS DENSITY m2 ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 Surface Excavation m2 m2 m2 I HUNTER VALLEY NO. 21 G 22 393 18 58 8 80 88 I 12 228 19 41 37 14 51 H 25 19 1 1 2 65 67 25 12 0.5 1 1 79 80 25 72 3 1/2 ' 27 56 I 25 53 2 25 72 3 I 0 450m 325 ? 0.5 70 140 of track 0.5 41 82 I 0.5 82 164 RED BANK CREEK! RBC5 4.5 256 1558 427 6.25 78 81 25 I 1.5 17 17 17.25 134 814 55 I RBC12 13.5 51 4 7.5 90 10+ RBC13 14 162 12 3 80 18 11 40 7 1 99 99 I 18 45 5 3 5 1

SINGLETON - GLENNIES CREEK DAM I SGCD12 2 8 4

SGCD13 3.7 157 42

I SGCD9 4 8 2 1.43 57 40 I- SGCD15 1.5 32 16 SGCD16 isolated find highly variable across site - but I generally low density. * given if collection area gridded into 1 m2 units I I I I I I I : -0_' • ~ AREAI SURFACE COLLECTION EXCAVATION I SITE NAME AREA NO. OF AVERAGE *MAX AREA NO. OF ARTEFACTS DENSllY m2 ARTEFACTS DENSllY DENSllY m2 Surface Excavation . m2 I m2 m2

PLASHETTE DAMI I SC2 30 182 6 1.25 56 10 195 20 44 479 11

I SC8 100 1315 13 1 156 156 50 405 8 1 66 66 80 411 5 0.25 2 30 120 I 17 356 24 0.25 29 116

SC24 25 112 48 96 I 25 1/2 34 68 25 112 199 398 25 1 17 17 I 25 1 256 256 1 31 31 1 17 17 1 1 1 I 1 13 13 SC44 36 146 4 I SC52 130 73 0.5 198 199 1 374 274 0.5 I 225 182 0.5 SC80 50 157 3 1 46 46 25 90 2 1 38 38 25 66 1.5 1 26 26 I 25 57 1 1 36 36 1 44 44 1 19 19 I 1 4 4 112 30 120 1/2 49 196 I 1/2 28 112 I I I I I I I I

AREA! SURFACE COLLECTION EXCAVATION I SITE NAME AREA NO. OF AVERAGE *MAX AREA NO. OF ARTEFACTS DENSITY m2 ARTEFACTS DENSITY DENSITY m2 Surface Excavation m2 I m2 m2

MOUNT ARTHURI I MAN 1 9 18:3 20 40 28 0.5 I MAN 3 0.75 115 153 MAN 9 2 529 252 3 694 231 48 403 8 I 17.5 70 4 MAN 10 0.4 1.1 0.4 105 262 2 109 0.25 I 1 52 1

MAN 20 ? 70 0.8 395 494 I ? 109 0.5 ? I MAN 24 1.3 318 245 2 657 328 MAN 27 9 107 12 0.3 155 517 ? 94

I MAN 31 35 119 3 180 270 1.5 I MAN 33 52 52 MAS12 3 76 25 I MAS44 7 7 MAS46 1.2 90 75 I MAS48 2 42 21 3 17 5

I NINE MILE CREEK 1 100 15 0.15 32 32 2 100 154 1.5 21 21 I 3 100 120 1.2 I I I I I I I

AREA! SURFACE COLLECTION EXCAVATION I SITE NAME AREA NO. OF AVERAGE *MAX AREA NO. OF ARTEFACTS OENSllY m2 ARTEFACTS OENSllY OENSllY m2 Surface Excavation m2 I m2 m2 GOULBURN RIVER KO/30 16 196 12 53 1.25 573 458 I 1 433 433 0.45 61 136 i KOI7 22 64 3 12 1 83 83 I 0.5 69 138 0.25 16 64 I POKOLBIN POK1 55 67 0.25 0 0 0.25 5 20 0.25 8 32 I 0.25 6 24 0.25 10 40 0.25 12 48 0.25 18 72 I 0.25 38 152

* Only range of variation included - a total I of 19 test excavations - 152 maximum density

POK2 3 14 3 0.25 4 12 I 0.25 4 12 0.25 4 12 0.25 10 40 I 0.25 0 0 POK3 3.5 30 10 0.25 33 132 0.25 78 312 0.25 27 108 I 0.25 14 56 . 0.25 14 56 0.25 10 40 I 0.25 9 '36 POK5 3 27 9 0.25 36 144 0.25 57 228 I 0.25 98 392 0.25 55 220 I 0.25 49 196 I I I I I I ------­TABLE 15 : TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IMPACT

TRANSMISSION LINES

1) Construction of towers Ground excavated I disturbed by vehicles I machinery. 2) Access tracks to tower sites Clearing I construction of road involves disturbance. 3) Stringing of lines Clearing could destroy scarred trees, vehicles could impact on engravings, vehicles could disturb the ground surface and disturb archaeological material. 4) Access along the line for maintenance and fire reduction As above. 5) Sub-station Construction of buildings would lead to disturbance or loss of any site on or below the ground surface. 6) Laying of underground cables Excavation would lead to the destruction of ground surface and open sites.

MINING • OPEN CUT

1) Actual mining Total destruction of the land surface and destruction of all sites. 2) Access road Road construction destroys the ground surface. 3) Construction facilities Destruction of the ground surface and thus any sites on or within the top 1 metre at least. 4) Soil dumps Covering of the ground surface, burial of any sites and therefore because the sites are inaccessible they are as good as destroyed. Any redepositing of the soil, eg for landscaping, filling holes, could destroy the site if bulldozing of the original land surface takes place. 5) Coal stock piles As above. 6) Water management systems Sites would be below water. Artefacts scatters in the open or in shelters could be preserved. Art in shelters would be affected. It is likel,y 'that contaminated water would affect organic matter in archaeological deposit. ------! TABLE 15 : TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT (continued)

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IMPACT

MINING • UNDERGROUND

1) Construction around access area to the mine Destruction of the ground surface and therefore of sites. 2) Construction of facilities As above. 3) Coal stockpiles As for open cut. 4) Water management systems As for open cut. 5) Subsidence Could lead to the destruction of sites within the subsidence area, and from any mitigation works undertaken to repair such subsidence, eg bulldozing over the top. 6) Coal washing plants Destruction of the ground surface and therefore sites.

RAIL LINE

Movement corridors for the coal such as conveyors, haul roads Destruction of the ground surface and therefore sites.

POWER STATIONS

1) Coal, gas turbine, hydro Ground surface destruction or long term inaccessibility, therefore destruction of sites. 2) Water storage Total ground surface coverage, sites become inaccessible. 3) Ash storage As above 4) Buffer zone Could involve tree planting or rehabilitation which would lead to disturbance or destruction of sites. Also includes maintenance of natural areas, grazing, recreation, forestry, construction of roads and tracks. Most of these activities will have some impact on sites. 5) Garbage tips Destruction of the ground surface and therefore sites. 6) Conveyors Destruction of sites 7) Coal storage Destruction of sites ------!

t;l H (j) Cl ::0 trJ

MOUNT ARTHUR t"l o NORTH N n :x:­ t-3 H o l Z o t;l

trJ t"ln­ o :s: p:: o t"l t::l H Z (j) (Jl

BAYSWATER [j

MOUNTARTHUR SOUTH c:J

/i1l"1., Singleton o 4km "1

I FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF ABORIGIANL LAND COUNCILS I I I I /-- I . r--J '" J' I • ssilis.y.;-/'______--.--.- .Scone I I eMerriwa .Muswellbrook ) ( I .Oenm'an ( .Gresford I WANARUAH .s,.gle<.{1" 7 I .r- 1 .....,dNDARlBBA :; Ko d 5 ", ,../("\ .ces~jJCk et no" ) r ~ "\.._ I _ _ ePutty --V I I I I I I I I I...... - 1______(\ /...... >1j -',...... \ -- H "'\ I ...., G"l Cl l' \ ~ I) ", ..J t1j w I I ( .. / I I / rn' ./ Cl " I ( to - - - - I I -- t ~ , I t1j G"l \ H MERRIWA PLATEAU \ 0 z I rn / 0 NORTHEASTER >1j / / t-3 - \ t:I: - MOUNTAINS t1j \ t:I: Cl , Z - t-3 t1j OS ....." , ~ • / r\ ".. "' ......

o 50 • • k m I

I FIGURE 4: LAND SYSTEMS OF THE HUNTER VALLEY (Provided by the CSIRO) I I CONTAINED IN FOLDER AT BACK OF REPORT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -,.,-= I FIGURE 5: MAJOR LAND FORMS OF THE HUNTER VALLEY

I I I

I Barrington Tops Liverpool and I Mt Royal Ranges I ~;~ Southern Mountains I m- Merriwa Plateau' o N..E. tvb.Jntains I ~ Goulburn Valley I Central LowkJnds I I I .1 I I I I MAJOR TYPES OF COUNTRY I ------

':rJ H (j) c:: :c I.'iI

en

Cl H //G~/3// 088rn :c //" t"' H // ""Zc:: III ~ Cl 8 H Gd 1 C::O Z Z , H80 m ':rJ .~. ~ m J/. _----_, H 8 /. ~/ '\ ~ I.'iI / '" . I m ./ / :Gd 3 ""8 / / :c I I.'iI I Cl Gd 1 I III I I ""Z , o 1 km ~ () :c I.'iI • I.'iI ~ • H • Z , :c / I.'iI / t"' ... / 8 H"" 0 Area of intensive survey on foot Z

Figure 17. Example of an observed relutiollship IJelwet'll sitelocaLiou cllld trequency of occurrence, and environmental setting in terms of land systems alld lUlld units. I FIGURE 7: ANALYTICAL UNITS FOR REDBANK CREEK I

z ) I ~ // I // ~ ij 0 I .u ij <~ en CtI I CIJ "/J <~ I .'i • I I I I -- ... - I . I I " , I , , ", ,~ o " ,I , , \ I ,I \ \ , \ o \ \ \ 0 I \ \ . \

I I I I I 01: _ I o ... I I '" '" I ,I ~ I~ . , ...... ~ , I I I ...... '\ ' _------... " I \ I \ o I I \, I ------I

I'%j H (j) Cl ::0 I:xj ro ARCHAEOLOGY SOIL UNITS SEDIMENTUNITS (/) (see text) (see text) o H t-t Relatively low density of stone artefacts Cl Few knapping floors and backed blad~s Al Z ------..;-- H 8 UNIT A (/) 8 Relatively high density of stone artefacts t< A2 tU Knapping floors and backed blades common H Cl :t:< t-t o No stone artefacts I'%j

8 ::r: I:xj Bl t-t o :<1 t-t :t:< Z o ------UNIT B (/) (/) Cl tJj ::0 I:xj (j) B2 H o Z

C I ....-- ---.------_.-_.------

("

. I ------I FIGURE 10: HUNTER VALLEY 2 SURVEY AREA I f I

"C I (.!j ---..... >->- ....'"QJ ...... ~ CtI CtI 0 -c -c .... c= c= ~ ~ >- I 0 0 QJ .::.:: QJ .J:I .J:I ;;:. Cl: .... Cl: :=:: en ::::l ~ .... en .....I -I en c...;

f " I I : I J f\ ,I I \ ) "'\ t *1 I • \. I I I I ,. I I I I I "C , J (!) C"') "C I / - (.!j I I I I I I I I I I

I FIGURE 11.• BAYSWATE R NO. 2 I I I / I -, '" \ I I \ , I - D--.-I I I , \._~ \ ~ " I I \ , ~ \ J I ~).. \ ", \ ,, I I \ '\' I \ \. I ..... "' "'>\ "-- :; \ I (, \ / ----( . ... ~ ( I ,c:::, \ /I \ \ J I ~ I * Sit e route (foot) I ...... - Survey I I I FIGURE 12-. MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH I I I I I I I I 1I I I • I I I

I o I I I I I

I FIGURE 13: MOUNT THORLEY I z I I I I I

I \ / I 1I I I I

I "0 '">- '" '"> .- -::I I Cl)- Cl) • I I I I ~ I /' I I I FIGURE 14: GLENNIES CREEK AUTHORISATIONS 81 AND 308 I I

I • ""- I I I I o N' :::.:::: I • I I I I I I I

I .Site I I I I

I FIGURE 1J: NORTH SINGLETON I I I I I I I

I / I I I I I I~ I

• Site I Survey I il I. I

I FIGURE 16: WATTLE PONDS AND "THE RETREAT" I I I I I

I .~ • .. ) • i I • ---.j r-~ __-=- J • ~T' --.. ~ •• • I . "- . / (---• ,--..--~ .,/. ·1 / I I I I I o 1

Lo-'--_---1'km -I • Site I I I I ------..

of' N .1 \0 , I ,'4 .~ ~ Iozj 01 NMAN ,. " . :;.. ~~\ ..... ~H , I t:rJG} , '.' ~Cl ~ I ~~~~. t:rJ . ::::. ..':-';:;:l.~;~?!; \ Figure 21. The Mount Artnur North p~ojec·t:~~r:~a:.::~,::: .~~)-, -..J showing distribution of sites located in. the·;.~··;F;:·~·f. \ . - ; I- :. :~:~:";':-':' t· \ t;-i ." \ L' . ' . O. .. _1-!!!~'''--''4 (l ------... J . \ \ .;.? .~. :~':" '.- .. ' ~ ...\ 1-3 ...... ,,~ .: -~:"-~~ ...... : ....--:. .., H ---- " , 0 ....._- Projact.·.af·e~. Z

88 J ~~.~ _ :~. ~) ~.: :\87 ~ .: -'. 0 ·91 ~ Iozj ·90 . Impact· area' 70 tJl H 60~164:65_._ 66 / 1-3 t:rJ G 55 ••• •• -...! T • 69 tJl ".,.-" / '\S8626367~8 H 56 Z /' 52 •• 53 57 . 1-3 I:Il ;5~;'5' / ;; 59 t:rJ :s: 0 Cl Z 1-3

~ ~ 1-3 MI I:Il Allh• .. Cl ~ Z 0 ~ 1-3 I:Il _ 2 tJl ,. us.~·27 Cl 12 1517·r,~6 ~ <1 t:rJ \ E: ~'~3~6.25 ,, t<: ..I.~. ~.7i"~ 0 11. ,f 1 !W' , _~3 •• ;....t8 . 23 , "--er ' \. SOUTH , . \ 9 ~Lm , " MUS'II(lUROOK \ x " / '- FIGURE 18: EXAMPLE OF THE PROCESS OF EROSION AT AN OPEN I CAMPSITE.

A

I Unit· I B

B •• •• • --- _. ~ ! - - - -•• - -••• - - - - -• - . -••• - - _._.- !!• •• _. _. - _. -- ,h';/C» ~"

~- ... .., w '-, ~.

I 1= ""_-._ ••• c 1", / < I~~~ 1- ••• i

I D

A= before erosion commences,

I • Unit A over Unit B. B= sheet erosion reveals some archaeological material across the Unit A. C= sheet wash and gullying expose the base of Unit A and also Unit B/ the artefacts are redeposited in the reworked soil at the base of the slope I D= mostly Unit B exposed/ artefacts have been moved and incorporated into the reworked deposit at the base of the eroding face. ··1 FIGURE 19: DISTRIBUTION OF SITES IN RELATION TO SOIL UNITS I A= Unit A, A+B+ Units A and B, B=Unit B I MOUNT ARTHUR SOUTH 10Q A n'"10 kB n=60 I 90,- B n=-13 I 80 ... 7(1-

I 6(1- I .% 5Q 4(1-

I 30 ... :: I 2Q :: I 10_ . O~u-~~~ __~~~~~~ __~ I REDBANK CREEK I 100_ I 9Q A n"-8 M-B n:12 8(L B n=30 I 7Q I %50- I 40_ I 30- I 2Q 1(L

I O~=-~~~ __~~~~~~ __~ 2-10 11-20 ?I-30 31-40 41-S0 S1-100 101-200 >200 < Ys ~S-~ 11 2k19i' 1~-291 }291 I ARTEFACT NUMBERS ARTEFACT DENSITY I I I I KEY FOR FIGURE 20 TO 23: SYMBOLS FOR SITE TYPES I

I o She Iter '11 depos I t + Open camp site

I X Mldden I o Shelter w mldden * Shelter VI art I Isoleted find Axe grindIng grooves I a Bora/ceremonlal Burial

I E Rock engrevln~

Scarred tree

I Carved tree I Net Myth/Ritual o Quarry I Ochre quarry F Fish trap I s Stone arrangement Mound

I- • Mla Mla

Water hole/well

1 c Contllct/Mission I G Abraded grooves A Aboriginal Place I Ab 0 r I 9 I n a I are a H HI~t.orle ~Ite I Protected Abor. Area I I I FIGURE 20 LOCATION OF ALL TYPES OF SITES IN THE HUNTER I VALLEY

•• • • • • • • • + + • • • - • • • • .t : .... JI • • ++ • + e + ..... • ~ +T ... • • e • • • a a ... • .... • • • • It .. + • • ... • ... .•" • ... -,: .'M~.. * ,.: • ... . T ...... + . . o ... + +to-! + '

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .- ,.. • • • · .. • • • • • .. • ." • • • • • a • o • •o •• • • • .ta . • • o • I • • • • • • • • • •• • J • • • e • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o .~ . • • • • • I· . . • • • • • • • • • " ••• • • • • . r.l • • •• ..; '1 • • • • • • t.. • • • • • ( • • \ • • • a • Io • \ ... ·1 +"- • • ., • \ • o • • i .. o ( Ic • • o • • '" ''-,) • •••••• ...... " • I • • .. • • • o o • • • • • I • r· J • o • o \ • • • .~.. . J • • J I • " .-. .f • • i .-· • • i • j " I • • • I • o o • ., . • ••• ) • • /- I • o • • •• • a • • • • I • " • I FIGURE 22: LOCATION OF OPEN CAMPSITES IN THE HUNTER VALLEY I .:... -li-- ---_.. - .... _------... - .-

=------~~------..-:+- ;+.. .. ------~------~----~ +.*! • •• • • • .. • • .. .. • • • • • • • • • .~ • • • • • .. . • • .. • -.. • • • • • + • .. .. • .. • .. • • + + • + .. .. + ~.: + .. + • +.. +...... + • .... + • _ ·../J .. + 1 .. • / t IJ • • • 00 + + • • i ! • ...... t.. • + • • J • .. .. + ++ • .. .. • I • • .. + • ,,-r·-·, J • • .+ • i: ' ..... • • • x. • • .. (J ..J ~. j. + • I • J + :f + • .... ") ••• • • • ~. ·1."; • • • • . .-... • \ • .. " i I • Cl) • • ) • .. . • • 0- • .. • + • -' ... • l. to • ( I • • • \ • • c • \"\ • • ."'\ • .) -I + + • .. • ) • • ( .. • • .. .. "' \"') • • ••••• I ''''''"\ • • • • • • • \.\ • • I • .. • (j + • + +++ • r . .I +~+ \ • ..* • .--. .../ I • • J • ~.j • ( • I + • • • • • + • • • • • I • • • • • •• • • • +. • I :::\ • I I FIGURE 23: LOCATION OF AREAS WHERE INTENSIVE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT (Dyall surveys included .where areas h?ve I been impacted or no other surveys done) I ------• • •• ~------~----~------~.~------r~J:'~--'l. d {Jj I __:r ~------.~------~~-,a • 01 ft • :;r I ,..:' • .0 .. · e' ~\.:: .. e. --W & • • • • • jlO I • f ...... • • ...... cr . . , \.)-"~"'" ..... ~ .::/' . :; ...• fJ .• :'. . • . / • ." '. : ...... •.....: ~:...... : ..... , ~ .. , .'. t::-.r-- .~ ..:-...... , 1....'-, '. .... -~I ...... ,., -." 1:,"1; .JJ <'. : ...... '-l) " . 'e' ··

• ------.. -,-- • • • • • . • : ~ • • ~ ~ ij. • I • • • • ~ • I • • ~ • / .. . \ • • ~\ • I • I • I • • l • \ • • ••••• \ . • .\. • • • .>. • \. ~\;, ,- • ~ ~ • \ ~ ~ li \ ~--I' • • @-r~ • I ~~ .'-' • A. i:~~ .J' : ~~ ~ ) • . ./ • I <.tl\., .... ~ -;';1 - -I <.:;-"'? i • - ~if • i • I I • I . .J I . • l • r... .. , C,( • • ,,~ ~ • '> • \" Jrl _:J -'>.i.f • , • / • \ . . • • ._:.i I • f • '... • ,/' • I I I

------·1 ------"

txj H Gl Cl ::0 r' , L%J , '"" N ... of:> tI H '- -iIIIIa ... _ _ . "'" ,,­ m - 1-3 ::0 H -- IJj Cl 1-3 H '· ...... 1/ o "- .. Z o ...... ) N - txj .... Cl -- ~ o ;, tt~ tt L%J ~ , m L%J \ , ,, m txj -. # 11 o a

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ::x: s:: JUNE 1981 o.Q ::r OffICIAL COAL DISTIIICTS NEWCASTLE CD Ul CDUII RY HOLDINGS, AUT tH "USAI ION AND tXf"l(JHA'IUN AULAS ->

UNOE IIGROUND MINES 1251 \0 (Xl OPEN CUI MINES 1121 *• of:> l:lNII1Al WAStU.AltS '4' o 50 km 51AIl HIGItWAYS * lXI511NG RAILWAYS -- AAtlWAV UNo£n CONSTnUCTlON .....--..-

PROPUSED "Aft. SPURS .... 40++ ... AND BALLOON LOOPS ......

Figure 15. The nature and extent of present and projected coal mining projects in the lI11nt~rV:>lley

I FIGURE 26: LOCATION OF STATE FORESTS I I

------. -,--. • • • • . . • • • • • .1'1 • • U • • • •,...._.1" r-j • • "-- • ~~-;, r"· ..... r i • in r­ • J:.,..II.i• • ... • • " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . I- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - ... ~ . • • • • • • ,..' • • 'I. • • • • i • • • • • • • • \ • • \.., • L.. • • • • ",~ • \ • • '\ • '", • • • • • • • • l., • \ • • • • • • • " ;;1' " :i • 'il • • • • • • • • ...... • : ', . , • • • ~ ..... • \ • • • j • • / -' • • ,. •••• r'~' • • • ./ • / I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I SECTION 11.0 I APPENDICES I I I 11.1 APPENDIX I: THE BRIEF I I I: I I I I I I I I I I ;1 I -- I I .... - I ref:HunterValley.Regional CONSULTANT'S BRIEF I REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE HUNTER VALLEY. I Background To the Study: The'Electricity Commission of NSW is responsible for electrical power gene~ation in NSW. The COmmission's holdings in the Hunter Valley include both power stations' and coal mines. The area is well known for its rich coal deposits and I the COmmision is likely to remain active in this area. The Hunter Valley is also known for its diverse archaeological resource which include both Aboriginal and early historic sites. The Commission's more I recent developments in the area have been preceeded by archaeological surveys and in some cases salvage excavations. I To ,facilitate planning of future Commission developments and to ensure the responsible management of sites already identified on Commission property, I it is necessary to undertake a Regional Heritage Study of the Hunter Valley. The Aim of the Study: I The study aims to provide a detailed planning document which will be used by the Commission to plan future developments in the region and to manage existing Commission holdings in an responsible manner.

I It is envisaged that this document will be of value to other' bodies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council, Local Councils and I other developers in the area. The Scope of the Study; The consultant will prepare a.detailed p'arJling document and nredictive model I which categorizes land in the Hunter Valley into the following groups: aj 'areas of known HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE/ARCHAEOLOGICAL (Le. contains sites of demonstrated archaeological significance and which I would be likely to be a constraint on future developments ) , b} ,areas of known HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE/ABORIGINAL. (as above).

..... 1 d lareas of HERITAGE SENSITIVITY/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL/ABORIGINAL. (These are areas not yet surveyed, but which are considered likely _ I to contain si'tes. d)~areas of NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST. (These are areas which are not considered likely to contain archaeological sites or I insitu remains because of their geographic location or the likelihood of post depositional disturbance). e) areas of known HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE/NATURAL. f) areas to be regarded as of HERITAGE SENSITIVITY/NATURAL. (These I are areas not yet surveyed, but which are likely to contain items of the natural environment which are of heritage value.) Particular emphasis will be placed on Commission owned property and if I further survey work is required to provide information to facilitate predictive statements they will be carried out on Commission property. I The study will summarize all archaeological work carried out in the region ru1d will include both Aboriginal and Historic sites. The work will rely heavily I

I " I

on two existing documents; 1)The regional Prehistory of the Hunter Valley which is a partially completed draft document compiled by the NPVS and, 2)The Hunter Valiey Heritage Study, which is-an annotated list of historic structures in the Hunter I Valley prepared for the Heritage Council of NSV. Particular emphasis will be placed on work which has been carried out on Commission property so that an overview of the archaeological resource as it I pertains to the Commission is achieved. In parti_cular the consultant will be expected to compile- _ I 1) A list of all archaeological relics and sites recorded on Commission property together with an indication of whether these were recorded as being of significance. This list should also indicate which sites the Commission has received consent to destroy or excavate. I 2) A list of any Commission properties in the region which have not been surveyed. I ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION: The consultant will be required to liaise with the relevant Aboriginal communities in accordance with normal Commission practice. In particular I input should be sought from Aboriginal communities regarding areas of Aboriginal SIGNIFICANCE and SENSITIVITY. I Details of the consultation proceedure followed should be included in the -final report. This should include the names of individuals and commun~ti~e~ consulted. I • Timing:

I Twelve months have been allowed for the completion of the project, and the conultant will be required to provide'bi-monthly progress reports. Commencement date: April 7th, 1989 I Progress Reports: June 2nd, 1989. July 28th,1989. Sept. 22nd-, 1989. Nov. 17th,1989. I Jan. 12th, 1990. I Draft report: March 5th,1990.

One month will be required to assess the draft report internally and the final I report will be due by no later than 1st June 1990. I PROPOSALS: Consultants interested in being considered for this project should submit a detailed proposal outlining the way in which they would carry out such a study and including a detailed quote for all work proposed. This proposal I should be submitted to: Ms Sus an Mclntyre Planning and Development Group I Environmental Services Section I

I " 1'1 I Electricity Commission of NSW P.C. Box 5257 GPO SYDNEY. 2001 I The proposal, must be recieved no later than 4pm~ March 24th, 1989. It should include a detail estimate of costs for all aspects of the job. I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , .,:.,:".::... ;~~-.,:.: ,...... 1-, ... . .1 __ ...... _...... ~ ...... , ...... Ioo.. io ...... ~_~ ____ ...... ___ .. __ •••• - - -. - - ",,,',, "" '"",,,, , ~~~)<,-'. .. ---=~~==.:-~o:~,,:~-~- ....__ 1-. ----.--- -. '- "'

KIlOI1E1R£S

F NofO--k. ~ b\..,~W/j e..c.c"l'Y'fYl-,SSlO.... 1&r.dhc(J-(~

o...... cl l~ ,::... -KL H",.....G...: I ~PfIQPOS8) fO't1IIIOOK

D HINE alilERY HCI.DNG Ct. 1

o HINE AUllIOO'S.lTlCHMO.

MIUHO (DNVE'rOl

r~'C..-h,.;c. g\-J~e.~ _A- _ " a s.~ ~~_. .e..cC'C'i.S, -II -the.. ., \\v ~\--Q..r\j~ •. ~ c.~\:"'-K.....~v-t\..0i . Mv....,..n,J>-'C\,N('d-~,:;.., -\\..e. I • ~ • • , • • I • • • • • • nCJ.<"'tl-.

£..e.e 'i2::.lNul<~'T"'"

If\'i'~\-\: qoeo I

CWlHA ~ KlZ " JEJUIY fUlNs • .'

"~.,;."'"

of'· I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 11.2 APPENDIX IT: DESCRIPTIONS OF SUB-REGIONS IN THE I HUNTER VALLEY (HUGHES 1984) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1'-'

I Central Lowlands

I Through the centre of the Hunter Valley a belt of lowlands developed on relatively weak sedimentary rocks extends from Murrurundi to I Newcastle. While the general altitude gradually rises inland from sealevel to SOOm at ~urrurundi, the local relief in any gi'len loc.:llity rarely exceeds 60m. The landscape is undulating or gently hilly, with an I abrupt t-ransition to the steep_ country on either side. The country round Lake Macquarie is generally similar and i,s likewise ov:erlooked by steep I sandstone hills immediately to the west. A line of alluvial flats between 0.5 and 2.5km extends along the Hunter River and its major I tributaries where they flow through the lowland belt. I Coastal Zone

In the neighbourhood of the coast the landscape is very complex with I many different types of country in close juxtaposition. East of the Hunter River mouth there is a landward sequence of parallel belts of I active dunes, forested dunes, swampy flats, and undulating sand flats; a small area of similar country also occurs in the Redhead-Swansea area on I the east side of Lake Macquarie. Around the Hunter River mouth occur mangrove, brackish, and freshwater swamps, together with flats on fine­ textured riverine and marine alluvium. From Newcastle to Redhead I undulating to hilly country on sandstones and shales extends to the sea _ where it terminates,in high wave-cut cliffs or steep hill-sides plastered I wi th wind-blown sand. I I Merriwa Plateau North of the Goulburn River is an area of rolling to hilly basalt I country here termed the Merriwa Plateau. It rises northwards from around 300m above sealevel near the Goulburn River to about 450m at the foot of the Liverpool Ranges which mark its northern limit. The Merriwa Plateau I is crossed by parallel south-flowing streams which in the lower sections of their 'courses have cut valleys up to 90m deep in the plateau surface. I On its western margin the Merriwa Plateau passes into country of broadly similar topography developed on Triassic and Jurassic sandstone with some I shales, which extends to the western boundary of the Hunter Valley. I I I I Liverpool and Mt Royal Ranges The northern ,.atershed of the Hunter Valley is formed by the rugged I Liverpool and Ht. Royal Ranges rising to over l200m above sealevel and I composed of basalt. Barrington Tops I The more extensive plateau known as the Barrington Tops, delimits the Hunter Valley to the northeast. It ranges in altitude from 1200 to I 1650m above sealevel and consists of basalt overlying folded I Carboniferous sedimentary rocks. Northeastern Mountains I In the northeast is a tract of mountainous country about 15-25km wide I traversed by deep valleys draining from the high Mt Royal Range and from the Barrington Tops. This tract is formed on resistant, folded, sedimentary rocks and lavas of Devonian and Carboniferous age with basalt , I caps in the higher areas, and it ,can be divided into three belts concentric to the Barrington Tops. Adjacent to the high watershed areas I steep, narrow ridges rising to 1200m above sealevel are found with slopes cut by deep ravines tributary to the'upper valleys of the Williams River, I Paterson River, Glennie's Creek, Rouchel Brook, and Hunter River. On the as the lower Hunter River to reach the sea at Newcastle. In the east, the Williams and Paterson Rivers drain the high country of the Barrington I Tops and join the Hunter River near its mouth.

The watershed of th~ Goulburn River coincides with the Great I Dividing Range, which here swings west in a vast loop, so that the Hunter Valley extends much further inland than most coastal valleys of New South I Wales. The major types of country described by Story et al (1963), and I referred to in this report as subregions of the Hunter Valley, are outlined below. I Southern Mountains I The southern one-third of the Hunter Valley is occupied by :1 wide

tract of rugged ~ountains on !riassic sandstone. The highest ridges rise I to about 1000m above s~alevel while the intervening valleys are as much as 450 metres deep and have steep Sides, often consisting in part of I spec tacular cliffs. I I· I Central Goulburn Valley

Along the Goulburn River is a belt of country about 10-lSkm wide I with irregular plateaux and ridges rising to 300-400 metres above sealevel, and broken by steep-sided valleys 90-1S0m deep. The plateaux I and ridges generally consist of Triassic sandstone but some are capped by basalt, particularly on the northern margin of this belt. Where the I valleys are cut in hard sandstone they form gorges, notably along the Goulburn River itself; elsewhere the valleys widen out into undulating I lowlands on less-resistant Permian rocks, fringed by steep escarpments, e.g. a round Wollar. Included in this belt is a small area of low rocky I granite hills and broad open valleys south of Ulan in the extreme west. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 11.3 APPENDIX ID: DESCRIPTIONS OF ABORIGINAL SITE I TYPES IN NSW (NPWS RESOURCE SHEETS) I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I I

"':~ I i~ Abori~inal Heritage '~} NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Aboriginal Sites of I New South Wales I Resource Sheet 1

associated with fireplaces. I Introduction may also contain fish and animal bones, stone tools and Recent studies have shown Aborigines have lived in the charcoal from campfires. These them to have significant scien­ area known as New South remains show how the tific and cultural value. It is I Wales for at least 45,000 years. Aborigines used the surround­ important that artefacts are Many traces of their occupation ing habitats. not removed from the position remain as Aboriginal Sites. in which they are found. Rock shelters with I An Aboriginal site is any place archaeological deposit which has the remains or In outcrops of rock such as prehistoric and historic occupa­ Aboriginal Reserves sandstone or granite, over­ and Missions I tion, or is of contemporary hangs may form cave type significance to the Aboriginal shelters. Ashes from fires, Amongst the important places community. There are over sediments and material fallen to today's Aborigines are 18,000 known Aboriginal sites from the roof accumulate in the Aboriginal missions or re­ I in new South Wales. They protection ofthe shelter. serves. Although Aborigines range from large shell middens Fireplaces, discarded tools and were often moved to reserves on the coast to small surface food remains become part of by force and were restricted by scatters of stone on the inland the deposits. Archaeologists harsh regulations and often I s~mi-arid plains. Aboriginal can excavate these deposits in insensitive white overseers, the SItes are found in towns and order to study the patterns of reserves became home to many cities, on popular beaches, Aboriginal life. Their scientific people, where they and their I along river banks and tracks, value when undisturbed is families were born, lived and on open plains and in dense high. died. Historic cemeteries at forests. Different environments many reserves are still cared and different Aboriginal prac­ Open camp sites for by the local Aboriginal I tices produce different types of These sites are mostly surface community, even if they no sites. European development scatters of stone, sometimes longer live at the reserve. has destroyed many sites. The sites which remain need to be I protected as far as possible.

Occupation Sites I These are places with evidence of past habitation. They include stone tools, fireplaces I and occasionally food remains such as shells, bones and plant seeds. I There are three main types of occupation sites:- Shell mid dens I These f;ites occur on the coast and along the edges of rivers and lakes in both coastal and I inland zones. A midden is a deposit composed of the re­ Rock pecking, lv[ootwingee I mains of edible shellfish. It I I

Paintings Engravings do not interfere with the area I Aboriginal paintings which Rock engravings are usually in any way. survive today are all on the found where a suitable out- walls and ceilings of rock crop of fairly flat, soft rock Natural sacred sites I shelters, caves and overhangs. occurs or in rock overhangs. Many features of the land- Red and yellow ochre, white People, animal shapes and scape, such as mountains, pipeclay and charcoal were tracks and people shapes are rocks, waterholes, etc., are used to make stencils of hands common subjects. Abstract or regarded as sacred sites by I and objects and to paint or non-figurative designs, such Aborigines. They are places draw animals, animal tracks, as circles and geometric created by Dreamtime ances- people and people-like figures. figures are also common. tors or associated with them. They can usually only be I identified by Aborigines and Quarries and axe Scarred trees These are trees from which a are highly significant to them. grinding grooves section of the bark and/or I Quarries may be found where wood has been removed for outcrops of siliceous or igne- making canoes, shields, ous rock have been used as a containers (coolamons) and source of stone tools. Siliceous other weapons and utensils, or I rock is relatively easy to flake which have toeholds cut in and was used for making most them for hunting possums or of the stone tools. Igneous rock gathering honey. was preferred for edge-ground I tools (mainly axes) because it Carved trees is very hard. The axes were Carved trees are becoming made and sharpened by rarer in New South Wales as rubbing a roughly shaped the trees decay and fall over, I igneous 'blank' on sandstone. or are burn t. The Aborigines This left broad flat grooves in used carved trees to mark the rock. Narrow grooves were burial and ceremonial sites. I made by sharpening smaller Usually a section of the bark The White Lady, implements, such as chisels. of the tree was removed and a Natural Sacred Site Rubbing grooves usually occur carving made on the exposed on flat sandstone surfaces wood. These trees are still Legislation I I near water. Sandstone was significant to particular Aboriginal sites are a very also quarried for use as port- Aboriginal groups. Advice on important part of Australia's able grinding stones for grain the preservation of these relics cultural heritage. Many are and for making axes. may be obtained from the on the register of the national I National Parks and Wildlife Estate. Equally important is Service. the significance these sites Ceremonial grounds have for Aboriginal communi- I These are sites where initia- Burials ties. To Aborigines, the sites tion ceremonies, marriage A variety of methods to dis- provide a direct link with their alliance ceremonies, tribal pose of the dead were used, traditional culture. It is meetings and other important depending on the particular important to preserve as many I social functions were held. practices of the different of them as possible. They are places of great groups. Aborigines were significance to Aborigines. amongst the first people to The National Parks and Bora grounds, which featured cremate their dead. Some Wildlife Service is responsible I one or two raised earth rings cremation sites in New South for the protection and preser- were used for male initiation. Wales are known to be 26,000 vation of all Aboriginal relics years old. Burials in rock in New South Wales. It is shelters, middens, camp sites illegal to disturb, damage, I Stone arrangements deface or destroy a relic or Arrangements of stone range and burial grounds are com- mon in New South Wales. Aboriginal Place without a from simple mounds to com- permit from the Director of plex ceremonial areas. Stone Burials may be marked by I stone arrangements, carved the National Parks and Wild- arrangements may be practi- trees, or other features. life Service. If you find a site cal - hunting hides or fish you should report it to the traps, or ceremonial - for Burials are very important to Director. Aboriginal sites in I initiation or other religious Aborigines and are regarded N.S.W. are not the basis for a purposes. We do not now know as an significant part of their land-rights claim. The Service the purpose of many, but some heritage. Disturbed burials and Aborigines are interested are still important and very are usually reburied by Abo- in recording and preserving I significant to Aboriginal riginal people. Please show sites, not in interfering with groups. respect for any such site and the rights of land holders. I I I I Aboriginal Heritage .~ NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I I Shell Middens I Resource Sheet 2

I What is a shell midden? Different types of shells can creeks and rivers and along the indicate different habitats banks of inland rivers, creeks The word "midden" means being used or changes in the and lakes. I rubbish dump and a shell diet over time. midden is a place where debris Middens may be found in the open or in rock shelters, often from eating shellfish has accu­ Where do you find mulated. Shell middens can while those in the open have I also contain such things as the shell middens? been disturbed by erosion bones of fish, birds and mam­ Shell middens are found those in shelters are better mals used for food, and tools throughout Australia, usually preserved. made from stone, shell or bone. close to a shellfish source. They I are generally found on the The specific location of a site is Shell middens provide a lot of coast but can occur around influenced by a variety of information about Aboriginal inland lakes, swamps and river factors: availability of shellfish, I actitivites in the past. The banks. In New South Wales aspect, accessibility and the types of shells present can middens are located on head­ nature of the immediate area. indicate the season and the lands, sandy beaches and A site's location will reflect a I acquatic habitat being used dunes, around estuaries, compromise between all these when the site was occupied. swamps, the tidal stretches of factors-middens are usually I I I I I I I I

Eroding Midden I I found within a reasonable middens made entirely of pipis middens may contain the bone distance of fresh water on are found. of estuarine species such as I level, sheltered surfaces. flathead or bream. The rock platform species Types of shell middens most commonly found in shell Bird bones found in sites can I middens are gastropods in­ indicate the season during Middens range from thin cluding limpets, turban shells, which the middens were scatters of shell to deep lay­ periwinkles, nerites, tritans occupied. For example, mut­ I ered deposits which have built and cartrut shellfish. Some tonbirds are only available up over time. The size of a site of these are also found in during their spring migration may relate to its location. For estuaries. to the south. I example river-bank middens tend to be smaller than estu­ The major estuarine species Mammal bones such as seal or arine and coastal middens. found in middens are bivalves wallaby can indicate an I Such small sites may repre­ including: cockles, whelks, emphasis on marine or land sent short term occupation, mud oyster, rock oyster and resources for a particular site. even the debris from a single both edible and hairy mussels. I meal. Other archaeological Artefacts remains Middens may contain evidence I Few middens are comprised Evidence of other Aboriginal of stone working and stone only of one species of shellfish activities found in shell mid­ artefacts. The presence of although a large proportion of dens can include stone, bone stone can indicate trade or sites south of Newcastle con­ or shell artefacts and bone transport of raw materials. I tain species from just one from animals used as food. habitat: rock platforms. Mid­ Sometimes they contain Artefacts of material like shell dens containing rock platform burials. Small middens, which or bone, such as fish hooks or species are usually found near may not have been occupied I barbs, occur occasionally in rock platforms. Rock platform for long generally have less the upper layers of shell species may also be common varied remains than larger middens. I in middens where shells from sites. more than one habitat are present. Bone Legislation I Middens consisting entirely of Middens commonly contain The National Parks and Wild­ estuarine species are most the remains offish, sea birds, life Service is responsible sea mammals and sometimes under the Act 1974, for the uncommon and those of solely land mammals. Bone as well recording and protection of I beach species are unknown to as shell can indicate the use of Aboriginal sites in New South the south of Newcastle. In the particular habitats. For ex­ Wales. When visiting a midden area north of Newcastle, the ample, fish bone in middens of site, remember that it is pro­ pipi, a beach species, was of rock platform species will tected by law, and do not do I considerable importance in the usually be from reef species anything which is likely to I Aboriginal economy and such as snapper. Estuarine damage the site in any way. I I I I I I

I Aboriginal Reritage "",*. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Open Sites I Resource Sheet 3 I Open sites shaped flakes and small chips Where are open sites of stone are a by-product of this found? I Open sites are Aboriginal process and it is the 'debris' Open sites are the most com­ habitation sites found in the that forms the flaking floor. mon site in all areas except the open. They are the places coastal fringe and regions like I where people lived and contain Not all open sites have evi­ the Sydney Basin where nu­ evidence of Aboriginal activi­ dence of stone tool manufac­ merous rock shelters were ties such as the manufacture of ture. Some have an assortment used. Undoubtedly there are stone tools. of flakes, cores and finished campsites in these areas, but I implements, which have appar­ dense vegetation makes them Open sites usually consist of ently been produced elsewhere, hard to see. scatters of stone artefacts carried onto the site, use and I although they may be associ­ then for some reason discarded. Open sites can be found on ated with food debris, charcoal Hearths can also be found at riverbanks, plains, hillsides, and implements of shell or open sites. They are usually crests, ridges and saddles. I bone. Often they have the indicated by a concentration of They are usually in a reason­ remains of a cooking fire or charcoal or charred hearth ably level position near fresh earth oven. stones. In some areas of west­ water. Places with many ern NSW clay balls were made resources, such as river I A range of activities were and used as hearth stones margins generally have more carried out at open sites, such because of the absence of open sites than places with as the preparation and cooking suitable rocks. fewer resources. of food and the production of I wooden implements. Under normal conditions ofpreserva­ tion, however, these sorts of I activities often leave no trace after only ten or twenty years. I Open sites vary in size, number of artefacts, the sorts of stone tools present and the raw materials used in their manu­ I facture.

At some sites it is possible to I find activity areas where stone material is concentrated and one type of stone is common. These are interpreted as I flaking floors where Aboriginal stone tool-makers sat and struck stone flakes from suit­ I able pieces of rock called cores. o'--====--==, 40mm Flakes and cores were then fashioned into implements by I further chipping. Irregularly A large scraper from an open site in the mallee country I I I I Open sites are difficult to be used to date the com­ avoid the danger of flooding. detect as they can be large mencement of Aboriginal Other factors likely to influ­ I and scattered. They may also ocupation of a site and its ence the selection of a site be buried by deposits which environment. include shelter from prevail­ can reach a metre or so in ing winds, availability offood depth. Vegetation may be Layers of deposits over time and other resources such as I growing over the site or it may seal and preserve evidence of firewood, and accessibility to be obscured by leaf litter. past Aboriginal activities. the site. In rarer circum­ Changes in the density of stances the location of a I stone material between layers valued resource, such as an What is the may have been caused by outcrop of volcanic stone or changes in the number of suply of ochre, may have I significance of people living at a site. outweighed other considera­ open sites? Changes in the type of stone tions.Seasonalabundanceof All Aboriginal sites are signifi­ artefacts can suggest different some plant or animal cant to Aboriginal people activities being carried out in resources may also have I because they are evidence of the site. The presence of stone affected the position. the past Aboriginal occupation which is not locally available of Australia and are valued as can indicate trade or carrying I a link with their traditional of raw materials. culture. They also have a How to view an scientific significance and can The location of a site is of open site I provide information about interest as it reflects the Contact the relevant National stone technology. influence of different factors. Parks &Wildlife Service Reasonably level ground was District Office for information Undisturbed open sites can be preferred for camping and about the location of Aborigi­ I excavated to reveal hearths most sites are close to fresh nal Sites which the public may containing charcoal which can water but high enough to visit in your area. I I o 2 3 cm I ! ! I I I I I -~- 0- ~Q}- I I Artefacts made of stone and shell from an open site in mallee country I I I I I Aboriginal Heritage ,...... ,. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Stone Artefacts I Resource Sheet 4 What is a stone The flaking process produces a were shaped on suitable surfaces artefact? large amount of stone material such as sandstone outcrops. In I including unused flakes, used the Sydney district there are An artefact is anything which flakes, hammerstones, used cores hundreds of grinding grooves has been made or modified by and finished tools. This material thought to be places where stone humans. The term 'stone arte­ can be recognised by the charac­ tools were manufactured. Edge­ I fact' includes both the finished teristic marks on the stone pro­ ground axes or hatchets were implement and the debris duced by the blow of the ham­ the most common type of ground which is a by-product of its merstone. For example, the new tool. Dishes for grinding grain or I manufacture. surfaceofaflakeincludesaround ochre were also common. These 'bump' while the core has a hol­ were often shaped by pecking Stone artefacts are the most low on its surface where the flake and had ground surfaces caused I common form of archaeological once was. by wear. evidence found in Australia. In areas where the landscape has Grinding not been drastically altered by Archaeological evidence of stone I European settlement such arte­ grinding is not as common as facts can be found lying on the that of flaking. Hard, volcanic surface, often in quite large stones which could hold an edge, I numbers or exposed by erosion, such as dolerite or basalt, were road works, ploughing, etc. preferred. The selected piece of stone was usually then shaped I How were stone by flaking before it was ground. artefacts made? Two main methods were used to Grinding finished shaping the manufacture stone tools: per­ tool, as well as sharpening the I cutting edge. Ground imp lemen ts cussion flaking and grinding. Grinding Stone Percussion Flaking I To make stone tools by percus­ What were stone tools sion flaking, the Aboriginal tool­ used for? maker first had to select an The only implements which early I appropriate raw material. Pref­ settlers described in detail when erence was given to fine-grained they arrived and settled at Port silica based rocks, such as quartz, Jackson were edge-ground axes. quartzite, silcrete and chert. These were mounted on wooden I These all have reasonably pre­ handles and seemed to be used dictable flaking qualities. as all-purpose tools for a variety of wood-working. I Once a suitable peice of rock, known as the core, was selected Other stone tools were also used it was struck by a second piece, in wood-working. Some were set I the hammerstone, and smaller into handles and used as adzes, thin pieces of stone, called flaks, chisels, saws or knives. Others were chipped off. This process may have been used as spear had one of two aims - to detach a points, in the preparation of plant I usable flake or to shape the core and animal foods or to make nets, itself in to a tooL Percussion fiaking baskets and other tools I I -I I Aboriginal Heritage ~ NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Aboriginal Burials I Resource Sheet 5

I Aboriginal Burials holes are dug for construction Funeral rites, such as cremation Aboriginal burial grounds are works, or when sand is quarried. and the scattering of red ochre most significant sites to living over the body before burial, indi­ I Aborigines. Like all people, Abo­ Burials were sometimes single, cate Aboriginal religious befief rigines are particularly con­ or in scattered groups although in an afterlife as long as 30,000 cerned about modern cemeteries very major burial grounds also years ago. These funeral rites in where their relations and friends occur. In the case of large or Australia are older than similar I lie buried. Aboriginal communi­ significant burial grounds, the ones anywhere else in the world. National Parks and Wildlife ties also maintain many historic Ancient human remains from mission cemeteries. Service tries to protect the buri­ als from further erosion. At Australia are also very impor­ I Unlike Europeans, however, Snaggy Bend, near Wentworth, tant in providing evidence of Aboriginal people feel equally over 100 skeletons were eroding Aboriginal ancestry and origins, respectful about prehistory bur­ out of a small sand dune close to and in the study of human evolu­ I ial grounds. This is because the Murray River. This burial tion. Aboriginal philosophy sees the ground has been fenced with Protection ofburial sites inter-relatedness of all Aborigi­ rabbit proof netting and wind­ nal people with each other as breaks constructed across it to Like all sites, Aboriginal burials are protected under the National I well as with the land. So Aborigi­ trap sand. nes feels as strongly about a Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974. 20,000 year old burial as they do Signs are also erected at some Often, however, burials are ac­ I about the grave of a relative who graves and burial grounds. The cidentially disturbed because passed away recently. grave of George Dutton, the last they are not obvious until they man to be initiated in northwest are uncovered by quarrying or Aborigines sometimes cremated NSW, is marked at the Wilcan­ digging. Usually the workers I their dead or placed their bones nia cemetery by a sign fixed to a involved report any skeletons in trees and rock ledges. More headstone of natural rock. discovered to the police, who often the deceased were buried, inform the National Parks and often in sand dunes or soft soil, or Aboriginal burials are particu­ Wildlife Service. Arrangements I in caves and midden deposits. larly important because they are then made to rebury the Bodies were sometimes fully demonstrate the antiquity and skeletons as close to the original stretched out, sometimes buried continuity of Aboriginal tradi­ burial place as possible and to I in a crouched position, head tions in a way no other site can. prevent any further disturbance. upright or with the body on its side. Sometimes, the grave was marked with gypsum markers I and women's clay mourning caps or by carving trees, or heaping logs or stones on the grave. I Aboriginal people have lived in Australia for at least40,000 years and during that time several I million individuals lived and died in NSW. Now, with disturbance of the soil through agriculture, erosion and development, Abo­ I riginal burials are often uncov­ ered. In many cases, the bones break up when exposed to sun I and rain and crumble to dust, without being noticed. In other I cases, burials are disturbed when Grave marking I I I r"~'< \::C;1 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Aboriginal Heritage I Aboriginal Carved Trees Resource Sheet 6

What is a carved tree? An Aboriginal carved tree I contains figures or patterns which have been carved into the bark or wood. Although I they have a wide-spread distri­ bution in Australia, carved trees are concentrated in New I South Wales and south-eastern Queensland. Within this area most carvings are geometric and linear designs, although I figurative carvings also occur.

Most designs which exist today I appear to have been carved with a metal tool such as a steel hatchet, which determines their maximum age at about I 200 years. It is possible how­ ever, that some of the existing designs may be older ones I which have been re-carved with a metal tool. I What is the significance of carved trees? I It is difficult to explain the meaning or use of carved trees as much information is lacking. In many cases, however, it I seems that carved trees sites are associated with either I burials or ceremonial grounds. It appears that burial trees in some way identified the social I or kinship ties of the dead person (who in most cases was reputed to be someone of importance). Carvings on trees I associated with burials are found mainly in the central west of New South Wales and I particularly along the Bogan, Many carved trees are regarded as sacred and should not be shown. Lachlan and Macquarie Rivers Since Yuranigh's Grave, above, is not 11. sacred tree the National Parks I and their tributaries. and Wildlife Service has Aboriginal approval to display this photograph I I I Carved trees, associated with tion of those undergoing reduced this number consid­ burial sites, are usually in initiations. Carved trees erably. Today only about 250 I groups of two or more trees, associated with ceremonial trees survive in rural areas and as many as seven have grounds occur throughout the and museums throughout been recorded, arranged eastern two thirds of New New South Wales. I around an earth burial South Wales particulary in mound, with the designs the northern part ofthe The National Parks and facing the grave. state. Wildlife Service has under­ taken protection measures to I The most common carving Carved trees have also been minimise the decay and technique for these trees was recorded facing the pathways destruction of remaining the removal ofthe outer bark and earth circles of initiation trees. I and sapwood from a portion grounds. One such site of the trunk. The most fre­ contained as many as 120 Carved trees are also sig­ quent shape was an oval or trees. The range of designs is nifcant to the descendant s of I rectangular section one to very broad from "cut-out" those for whom the carving two metres in length and shapes in the forms of ani­ designs on trees was an from a half to one metre in mals to geometric and linear important part of initiation I width. The designs were then designs similar in style to ceremonies and burial of the carved into the inner wood of those found on trees dead. The National Parks the cleared panel. The most associated with burials. and Wildlife Service regu­ commonly used trees were larly consults with the rele­ I Boxes though carved Cypress Boxes were the most common vant Aboriginal communities Pines are not uncommon. trees carved. On the New about the management and South Wales north coast . protection of these trees. I The designs themselves preference was given to display a wide variety of Bloodwoods and gums. Here combinations of geometric the carvings were done into Legislation and linear forms. Near the outer bark on the trees, The National Parks & Wild­ I Molong at Yuranigh's Grave, and the carvings extend all life Service is responsible, four trees were carved by the way around the trunk under the Act 1974, for the local Aborigines and three and up to eight metres above recording and protection of I survive today. Yuranigh was the ground. Aboriginal sites in New the explorer Mitchell's guide, South Wales. so he also has a marble Protection of I headstone erected by carved trees The survival of these fragile Mitchell. Although there were and vulnerable artefacts will probably thousands of carved require the participation of Carved trees at ceremonial trees in existence at the time Aboriginal people, as well as I grounds were associated with of European settlement, land the respect and support of initiations and are believed to clearance, bushfires, natural the wider Australian I have been used in the educa- decay and vandalism have community. I I I I I I I I Aboriginal Heri tage ~ NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I I Stone Arrangements I Resource Sheet 7 Stone arrangements linked by a pathway. In New What is the Aboriginal people are not South Wales most stone significance of I usually thought of as builders, arrangements of this kind are stone arrangements? yet stone constructions of found in the northwest, Some stone constructions or various kinds are common reflecting cultural ties to arrangements were built for I throughout New South Wales central Australia. practical purposes such as at least in places where stone fish traps. The best known is available. In stone arrangements the example is at Brewarrina, I standing stones are often on the Darling River. Here a What are the stone propped up by a careful complex of stone walls was arrangements? arrangement of small stones built to connect several The most common stone at their base. In the forests of small islands and to provide I arrangements consist of stones the Great divide, stone a series of enclosures where in patterns, such as circles mound or cairns often occur fish could be trapped and and semi-circles, pathways in sets, or alone on ridges and easily caught. I and lines. Many such stone saddles. They are particularly arrangements mark cermonial subject to destruction by Some stone arrangements grounds and are often similar fire-trail making or logging, may have acted as markers I in shape to bora grounds, unless people know to watch of tribal boundaries, or of consisting of one or two circles, out for them. particular places. For example a set of a dozen or more oval or circular stone I mounds are often found near stone quarries. They may have been used to I mark ownership, or for ceremonial activities associated with quarrying. I Protection of stone arrangements Stone arrangements, like all I other Aboriginal sites, are protected under the National Parks & Wildlife I Act, 1974. They are prone to disturbance during land clearing. Many Aboriginal I stone arrangements may not be recognised as such, because of beliefs that Aborigines were either not I inclined to, or weren't capable of, building in stone. They were thought to be the I work of early European Stone Arrangement settlers. I I I

I ~ Aboriginal Heri tage It'~~•. ~ NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Axe Grinding Grooves I Resource Sheet 8

I What are axe grinding and to keep it cool since the weathered examples appear grooves? friction of rubbing made the very shallow and small and are Axe grinding grooves are a stone hot. difficult to detect. I type of Aboriginal site formed Most sites are on level rock out­ Double grooves, where two as a result of the shaping and crops which form the beds of separate grooves have appar­ sharpening of stone imple­ seasonal streams or on out­ ently been worn together to I ments called edge-ground axes crops around more permanent form a single, large groove are or hatches. These were made of watercourses and waterholes. occasionally found. Some less hard volcanic stone and In areas where sandstone does common grooves consist of a fastened to a wooden handle not outcrop, stone for grinding normal sized, fairly shallow I for use. was quarried and carried long groove which has had a deeper, Axe grinding groove sites can distances. narrow groove formed along the base. consist of a single groove Description of the I although the majority have The deeper grooves are more than one. Sites with grooves Grooves can vary in size and thought to be the result of twenty to sixty individual spears or some other thin grooves are not uncommon and shape. In the Sydney region, I where the occurrence of grind­ implement being ground, or some have more than 200. possibly, of the edge of the axe Experiments suggest that ing grooves corresponds roughly to outcrops of Hawkes­ being cut back to provide a new approximately six hours of surface for working to an edge. I rubbing are required to bury and N arrabeen sandstone, produce each groove. .the majority are roughly Age of axe grinding elliptical in shape. Where are axe grind. grooves I They range from around half a The rate at which sandstone ing grooves found? centimetre in depth, 10-15 weathers is unknown so the Grinding groove sites are usu­ centimetres in width and 30-40 exact age of the grinding ally found on stone close to a centimetres in length. The age grooves cannot be established. I stream or rock hole. Water was and state of preservation of the The shallowest, worn examples necessary to clean the stone grooves affects their size. Badly are likely to be the oldest and the deeper. The more clearly I defined ones are probably the youngest. A guide to the age of the axe­ I grinding grooves is provided by the age of deposits on which edge-ground axes are found in south eastern Australia. Edge­ I ground axes have been exca­ vated, dating to no more than 2,000-3000 years ago, although I in the north, edge-ground axes have been recovered from sites dating to about 18,000 years. I Legislation The National Parks & Wildlife Service is responsible, under I the Act 1974, for the recording and protection of Aboriginal I Are Grinding Grooves sites in New South Wales. I I I I Aboriginal Heri tage NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Aboriginal Reserves I and Missions I in New South Wales Resource Sheet 9 I Amongst the important places the local Aboriginal commu­ In 1833 the Aborigines Protec­ to today's Aborigines are nity, even if they no longer live tion Board was appointed and I Aboriginal missions or re­ at the reserve. in that year a further 25 serves. Most of the reserves reserves were established. Of and settlements in New South the more than 100 Aboriginal I Wales were government insti­ As European settlement reserves notified before the tutions, and they were often spread through New South year 1900 the majority were a called missions. Although Abo­ Wales, Aboriginal people response to either Aboriginal rigines were often moved to suffered a rapid and total requests or the validation of I reserves by force and were dispossession of their tradi­ existing occupation. restricted by harsh regulations tionallands. Despite repeated and often insensitive white demands by Aborigines and by I overseers, the reserves became Missionaries for secure title to Most of the Aboriginal popula­ home to many people, where areas of land often already tion were not resident on re­ they and their families were occupied or farmed by them, serves however, and after the born, lived and died, away from few reserves were created turn of the century the policy I their traditional areas. until the 1880's when most of of the Board was to encourage the land in New South Wales Aborigines to seek employ­ Historic cemeteries at many had been taken up by white ment in towns.This forced I reserves are still cared for by farmers and pastoralists. more people off the reserves. I I I I I I I Distributing blankets to Aborigines I I I The Depression ofthe 1930's Bridge in the country of the Former reserve areas are his­ caused many Aborigines to Lachlan River people, where torically important to I return to the reserves and many now live. Yet they still Aboriginal people as they stations. have strong ties both to symbolise their survival and Carowra Tank and Menindee, cultural continuity in this I Some stations had a long his­ where relatives are buried. century despite the adversity tory. The station at Brewarrina, they also represent. for example, operated from 1886 Reserves were often located I till 1966. Most were short-lived, on rivers outside country People made their homes in as the Aborigines Protection towns, and varied in size from these places and former resi­ Board closed smaller ones and camping reserves to large dents have strong attach­ moved people elsewhere. The blocks which were farmed and ments to the old 'missions'. I dislocation of Aboriginal people supported many families. There are cemeteries on most of the old reserves, even those from their homelands was In spite of this, the large intensified. which ran for only a few reserves were gradually years, and some of these have . I reduced in size so that by the Perhaps the most tragic been carefully maintained by 1960's an were less than 1000 former residents and their example is the history of the acres. I Ngiyampaa people of western relatives. New South Wales. In 1926 they By the 1970's many reserves were institutionalised in a had been revoked, the land Legislation I community at Carowra Tank, often going to local white The National Parks and Wild­ near Ivanhoe. Their forced exile farmers. The surviving re­ life Service is responsible began when they were shifted in serves were transferred to the under the act 1974, for the 1933 to Menindee. NSW Aboriginal Lands Trust . recording and protection of I and, following the NSW Abo­ Aboriginal sites in New South In 1949, they and the Darling riginal Land Rights Act 1983, Wales. This has included the River people from the Menindee title to these has been trans­ investigation and preserva­ I Aboriginal Station were shifted ferred to local Aboriginal tion of old mission cemeteries again this time to Murrin Land Councils. on several former reserves. I I I I I I I I I I I I ~i~~ I~< Aboriginal Heritage \....,..J NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Stone Quarries or I Workshops I Resource Sheet 10 Stone quarries or work­ South Wales the variety of Identification of shops are a type of Aborigi­ material quarried included quarries I nal site which can provide sandstone for grindstones, Once a quarry was abandoned, valuable information about chert, silcrete, flint and fine the pits which were dug to stone tool manufacture and grained volcanic rock for flaked obtain the rock, became full of I the complex patterns of tools. Basalt., fine-grained organic matter, soil and flaking trade in traditional metamorphosed sandstones debris. Today, all that can be Aboriginal society. and volcanic rocks were used seen are depressions in the I for edge-ground axes. ground or benches cut into The use of stone hillsides. However, a large Stone was an important re­ What is a quarry? quantity of flaked and chipped source for Aboriginal societies. The desired stone had to be stone is produced by the I It was used to manufacture quarried from the ground or practice of breaking and essential items, such as flaked from exposed rocks. The trimming the quarried stone. tools and seed grinders, as well Aborigines broke the large I as ceremonial and sacred rocks by hammering them with items. Stone was also used for other stones. Often fires were This flaked stone occurs as structures such as shelter lit against the rocks to make distinctive, thin layers called walls and fish traps. them easier to break. The "flaking areas" or "floors" on I broken stone was prised out of the ground or as horizontal The Aborigines chose the ground using bare hands or platforms built up across a particular types of stone for wooden levers. Before leaving slope. A quarry site usually has I particular purposes, and they the quarry the stone was a number of flakes with a were selective, using only the trimmed to a suitable size and distinctive fracture and some I best quality material. In New shape for carrying. partl;y shaped implements. I I I I I I I I

The flaking floor is usually quarries. in this way, New South Wales I next to the source of stone, i.e. information on ancient trading quarries exposed rocks or a boulder patterns can be obtained. The National Parks and which will show signs of ' The distance a type of stone is Wildlife Site Register lists flaking and battering. I found from its source can give over 160 quarry sites in New an indication ot the value it South Wales. There are Quarry sites vary in size, they had for its users. Ground edge certainly more to be found. may be one or two flaked axes of greywacke (a volcanic Some of the recorded quarries I boulders or a single pit but a stone), quarried from a site are associated with other site is usually a cluster of types of sites such as open quarry pits and flaking floors. near Tamworth, have been found as far away as Wilcan­ camp sites, axe grinding I nia. Many small flake and grooves, stone arrangements Archaeological value blade artefacts of a distinctive and carved trees. Early Europeans who ob­ banded white chert were I served Aborigines quarrying found in an archeological site Legislation noted that the working of a near Grafton. This chert came Under the National Parks and particular quarry was from volcanic rocks north of Wildlife Act, it is an offence to I restricted to an individual or a Lismore. However, not only destroy, deface or damage any group who had special rights high quality stone materials Aboriginal relic in New South to that area. These rights were involved in trading. Wales. were usually inherited. I Aborigines who wanted stone The availability of the stone Quarry sites are a scarce and from a quarry where they had was also a factor. In semi-arid non-renewable resource - a areas of the state, where stone no rights often exchanged link with a way ofUfe which outcrops are rare, the sand­ other items for the stone they no longer exists. It is impor­ I wanted. stone used for grinding slabs to prepare seed foods was tant not to disturb these sites Stones have variations in obtained by trading. Ochre in any way. If you find a site I their mineralogy, texture and also had a special value you should report it to the chemistry which allow them to related to its religious National Parks and Wildlife Service. I be tracked back to individual significance. I I I I I I I I I I

I ~ .. ~~ Aboriginal Heritage (~! NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I I Ceremonial Sites Resource Sheet 11 I Aborigines carried out was specially and elaborately corroboree (a dance and song many religious ceremonies, decorated for the ensuing cycle) passed on from the next and constructed quite secret ceremonies and tribal group. Some famous I elaborate places in which to revelations. cycles travelled for thousands hold them. Ceremonial of kilometres across Australia, grounds were cleared of Initiation sites, some still and were often performed in a I trees and vegetation and decorated with carved trees, language known only to the often surrounded by a occur on the coast of New initiated performers. raised earth ring. Some­ South Wales and in the central Ceremonial grounds, especially I times, at initiation grounds, west and tablelands. earth rings, are often difficult there were a pair of such to see, because they are now rings, connected by a path Some of the ceremonial sites grown over with vegetation, I with raised earth sides. The such as initiation grounds, are and the earth ring has slumped area was often surrounded still very important to and flattened. Such sites by carved trees and had Aborigines, and visits to them sometimes show up better from earth figures of important are restricted to certain the air than from the ground I cultural heroes. Sometimes members of the Aboriginal because of the change in rings and paths were made communities. Other vegetation pattern caused by of stone. "ceremonial grounds" are the earth ring. I places where everyone gath­ At such si tes young men were ered for public celebrations, Legislation ceremoniously taken from their and corroborees, and for The National Parks and Wild­ parents and moved from one formalised tribal fighting. life Service is responsible I ring along the path to the under the Act 1974, for the second ring which was the Sometimes a special ground recording and protection of I preserve of initiated men and would be built to show a new Aboriginal Sites in NSW. I I I I I I

With the permission of the Thungutti elders,this ring was constructed in 1976 by I Aboriginal sites officer, Ray Kelly for the filming of "The Chant ofJimmy Blacksmith" I I ------~ I I Aboriginal Heritage (~ NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Aboriginal Scarred Trees I Resource Sheet 12

What is a scarred tree? Larger sheets of bark were usually used to remove I used for other purposes, bark.Digging sticks or other Aborigines used trees and their especially for making shelters, hardwood tools were occasion­ products extensively. Trees for coffins and wrappings for ally used. Sometimes the which show evidence of the dead. Bark was also used marks of the tools can be seen I around the edges ofthe scar, if Aboriginal use, are known as for making smaller artefacts, scarred trees. it has not regrown. The bark o'n including coolarnons the edge of the scar is often I Some are still living, and so the (containers) and shields. thickened, showing a notice­ scarring is changing and in These leave a smaller, oval able lip around the scar. It has some cases growing over. shaped scar on the tree. often regrown extensively, Others are dead and are sometimes closing up and I threatened by decay, insect Stone axes or other large, leaving a vertical ridge as the attack and bushfires. heavy duty stone tools were only evidence of bark removal. I Scarred trees can be divided into three groups - trees from which bark has been removed for use; trees from which wood I has been removed for use; and trees which show evidence of I hunting or climbing. Use of bark The most obvious example of I trees from which bark has been removed is the canoe tree. The bark was removed to make the canoes for use on inland rivers, I lakes, bays and estuaries and the open seas. Trees which still bear evidence of canoe-making I are concentrated on the inland river systems, where the big river red gums were used. I Those on the coast have often disappeared because of settlement, clearing and bushfires. The scars are long I ovals and up to three metres long. Sometimes a tree has more than one scar which can I be four or five metres above the ground. These trees are sometimes located a long way from present watercourses, I at the edge of the former extensive flood plains of the big I inland rivers. Removing bark from a tree I I ~- I

I Use of wood possum and koala, first check- natural processes leave exten- Fewer examples of trees from ing for tell-tale signs such as sive scars. which wood has been removed claw marks or homing bees. Natural bark removal and by Aborigines have been Hunters climbed with a stone consequent scarring can occur I recorded. This is probably axe in their hair belts, using - from the fall of a large branch, - because they are harder to them to cut shallow toe holds, which rips bark off; from bush recognise and do not survive which often go diagonally fires; or from insect or animal in large numbers. Boomer- around the tree. I activity, e.g. birds stripping a angs, spear throwers, some tree of bark in search of coolamons, spears, digging Both animals and bees inhabit insects. Trees often have bark sticks, clubs and shields are old trees with hollows which I missing at their base because all made of wood. Coulamons provide shelter. Often the offire or other accidents. were often made from gnarls hunter's partner would kindle These scars are often ragged caused by disease or insect a small fire at the base of the and uneven, have peaked ends I activity. These were removed tree and the quarry would be and are strangely placed. in one piece and hollowed out. smoked out or driven to the Sometimes, such a scar might Often this leaves the same top of a hollow trunk. It was then sometimes necessary to bear a convinving resemblance I sort of scar as bark removal. '. to human activity. Hardwood was used for most cut a hole to extract the animal or gather the honey. artefacts, except for the big, Natural scarring is much Toe holds and evidence of -I soft shields, which were made more common than Aboriginal these chopped holes can still for lightness. scarring. Scars made by be found on some trees. Often / people in removing bark tend Selection of wood for boomer- the toe holds are simply small horizontal scars where the to be regular and above I angs was most important. ground level, and will often They were cut from a carefully . bark has healed over. The~e is still plentiful evidence,of show axe marks or other selected elbow, which allowed related evidence. the toolmaker to take advan- Aboriginal use of trees and I tree products. tage of the natural grain. This Experienced recorders recog- helped produce an aerody- nise the shape and character- I namically sound boomerang. Who made the marks? istics of some distinctive types There are many "boomerang" Often trees have evidence of of Aboriginal and European trees in arid Australia, charac- cuts by metal tools, which use. The surveyor's shield, terised by missing slabs of were introduced into Aborigi- usually a half oval or gothic I wood with cut marks at each nal society early in the white arch and often with a broad end and taken from an elbow settlement period. Metal tools arrow or carved figures or or a bent branch. In NSW . ' were traded or taken by letters is readily recognisable. I gldgee wood was favoured for Aborigines and carried as making boomerangs. highly prized items down the New South Wales National extensive Aboriginal trade Parks and Wildlife Service is I Evidence of hunting routes, reaching many parts of working on identifying and and climbing Australia long before local categorising scarred trees, Dense timber or rainforest white settlement. Sometimes setting criteria for their covered much of Australia's it is difficult to tell whether a recognition and developing I coast and hinterland before cut was made with a metal techniques for their physical the coming of Europeans. tool, but metal-made cuts tend conservation. Aboriginal Aborigines lived in an these to be sharper and cleaner than groups are also actively I areas and used forest products stone-made cuts, which are involved in identifying and extensively. Both men and flatter anci wider. protecting such trees. women were skilled tree climbers. Using vines andlor Trees can be scarred in many Legislation I toe holds to reach great ways, and not all scarred trees The National Parks and heights. The rainforest dwell- are of Aboriginal origin. Early Wildlife Service is responsible ers who climbed great branch- white settlers used bark under the Act 1974, for the I less trees with what seemed extensively for canoes and recording and protection of magical ease were especially housing. Surveyors occasion- Aboriginal Sites in New South I skilled. They sought honey, ally mark trees and some Wales. .:- I I I 1:.... ""':'~>.:2. I Aboriginal Heritage \,....".... Ir-~ NSW N a t'IOn al p arkg an d Wl"Id" life Ser'Vlce. I Rock Engravings I Resource Sheet 13

What are rock are very few figurative designs significance to Aboriginal engravings? in this area. people, and they should not be I Rock engravings, carvings or visited without the pennission peckings are pictures carved How old are the of the Aboriginal community. into rocks. They are usually on engravings? Like the rock paintings, it is Engraving sites are easily open, flat surfaces of rock, damaged. When visiting an I although some engravings have not easy to tell how old engrav­ ings are. There is growing engraving site, take care not to been found in rock shelters and tread on the engravings. This on vertical rock faces. The evidence that the pecked motifs from far west New South Wales causes the rock surface to erode outlines of the pictures were and flake off. Never put sand or I probably made by hitting the are more than 7,000 years old. This is based on the age of a chalk or crayon or any other rock surface with a sharp stone substance into the engraved to make small holes or pits. weathering varnish which has fonned on the rock surface. grooves. This also causes an I This is sometimes called 'peck­ acceleration of the erosion ing'. Some pictures are filled in The engravings in the Sydney process. If engravings are hard with peck marks. In others the area have not been able to be to see, visit them in the early I rows of pits are joined to fonr.. a dated in this way. However, morning or late afternoon, when groove, by rubbing with a stone. most of the engravings are over the low angle of the sun's rays Where do you find 200 years old, and many may casts a shadow across the rock engravings? be more than 2000 years old. In grooves. A mirror can also be I Sydney there are also a few used to cast a shadow across There are three main areas in engravings from the period of the groove and make it easier to New South Wales where rock first contact with the British engravings are found. The most see. settlers, such as sailing ships I extensive concentration is in and people in European the sandstone area of the Legislation Sydney Basin. Here the engrav­ clothing. The National Parks and Wild­ I ings are outlined figures of life Service is responsible under humans, fish, kangaroos, Why are rock the Act 1974, for the recording weapons, and other motifs engravings important? and protection of Aboriginal which are believed to be Like paintings, rock engravings sites in New South Wales. I mythical or supernatural provide important infonnation When visiting a rock engraving beings. These engravings are about Aboriginal material site, remember that it is pro­ life-sized or sometimes gigantic. culture and social life. Many tected by law, and do not do sites are regarded as being of anything which is likely to I In the far west of the state, sacred or ceremonial damage the site in any way. north of Broken Hill, there are several engraving sites. Here I the designs have pecked out­ lines, and have usually been infilled by pecking as well. Many of the motifs here are I tracks and 'abstract' patterns, although animals, birds, humans and other more I 'figurative' designs also occur. In northern New South Wales there are engravings in the soft I sandstone outcrops of the Clarence River Valley. The mofits here are mainly tracks I and lines ('tally marks'). There Rock engravings. Ku·ring-gai Chase National Park I I

~~ I Aboriginal Heritage 1..,J NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service I Rock Paintings I Resource Sheet 14

I What are rock drawing rather than a paint­ tails, and even a kangaroo skin ing. water bag are all motifs which paintings? have been recorded in stencil Rock paintings are pictures Where do you find· art around Sydney. I which have been painted, onto a rock surface, usually in a rock paintings? Possibly the most spectacular rock shelter or near the mouth Rock paintings may be found painted sites in New South of a cave. The 'paints' used throughout New South Wales, Wales are those found in the I were made from materials wherever suitable rock surfaces Cobar region. Here some rock found locally or traded from in rock shelters or overhangs shelter sites have walls which another source. occur. Different parts of the are covered in densely packed, I state have different art styles. superimposed paintings of a Red and yellow ochre, white In the Sydney area stencil art variety of figures. pipeclay, gypsum (copi), and is very common. Stencils were There are humans, kangaroos, I charcoal were the most com­ made by blowing wet paint emus, echidnas, grid patterns, monly used elements. These from the mouth over and animal tracks, hand stencils, were ground up and mixed around an object held against .and many more motifs depicted with water to make a paste. the rock. Hands were the most in this art. Several of the I The paste was applied to the commonly stenciled items, but figures are in 'scenes,' which rock surface with 'brushes' many other things were also are believed to be corroborees, made of chewed twigs or with used. Human and animal feet, hunting scenes, or illustrations I the fingers. Sometimes dry boomerangs, stone and steel of special events. The figures pieces of ochre or charcoal were axes, woomeras, clay pipes, are painted in white, red, I rubbed on the wall making a baskets, shields, kangaroo yellow and black pigments. I I I I I I I Rock painting, Cobar region I I I I

I How old are the have been painted less t4an first gaining permission of the paintings? 200 years ago. Aboriginal community. The age of most pain tings is I difficult to determine. In some Painting sites are very fragile. excavated sites pieces or Why are rock paint­ They are easily damaged, and flakes of ochre have been ings important? particular care must be taken found buried amongst the The meaning of some paint­ not to touch the painted walls I debris of the floor deposits ings is sometimes difficult to of a shelter or to accidentally which have been dakd. Some interpret. However, other brush up against the art. painting sites dated in this paintings provide important I way may be over 13,000 years information about tools and old. weapons, or hunting methods Legislation or ceremonial gatherings. The National Parks and However, few paintings They may, therefore be of Wildlife Service is responsible I under the Act 1974, for the survive for such long periods, great importance to people recording and protection of and most of the painting sites who are interested in finding in New South Wales are out about Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal sites in New South unlikely to be more than 5,000 Wales. years old. A lot of art is also of signifi­ I cance to Aboriginal people. When visiting a rock painting .. Sometimes paintings depict Many sites were and still are, site remember that it is items such as steel axes, regarded as being of sacred or protected by law and do not ships, c1aypipes, cattle or ceremonial significance, and "do anything which is likely to I horses. These pictures must should not be visited without F, damage the site in any way. / I ,.- I I I I I I I I I I I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I . 11.4 APPENDIX IV: PREDICTIVE lVI0DELS PROPOSED BY I HUGHES (1984) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I LAND SYSTEMS OF THE HUNTER VALLEY .1 I

BERESFlELD LAND SYSTEM (159 SQ. MILES) I Geology.-Permian and lower Triassic shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. RainfalI.-32-40 in. I. Locality.-Seaward end of the central lowlands. Elevation.-0-4oo ft. Local Relief.-Less than 100 ft. ·1 Wooded Area.-50%. I~--~I ALLUVIUM ,I ~WDn~tl SANDSTONE

I~.:::==J SHALE I

) Area / Unit Land Forms (%) / So~s Vegetation

1 95 Undulating lowlands; slopes gen- Predominantly podzolic soils (mainly I erally less than 10%. steepening Dry sclerophyll forest of gums. iron- Binnie. also Vaux. Buttai. Singleton). barks. and stringy barks. and including locally to 25% at heads of widely- often with medium to strongly acid Angophora costata, E. glll1lmifera, and spaced shallow valleys; stony clay subsoils E. pilalaris; shrubs usually dense. Leg- colluvial iill in hollows uminosae common; usually good ground Cover of lmperu/a cylllldrica, Th(llIIeda aUjlralis. and non-grassds, where cJeared p(J~palum dilutallllll dominant, with Sellecio laulus and -- Sporobolas spp. ~ 5 Terraced alluvium in valley floors; Restricted observations; soils vari.. Cleared and under Pa,palum dilata- sand. silt. and clay; up to mile ! able; podzolic soils, earths, meadow turn, Senecio IUU1US, and Sporobolus wide; subject to flooding on lower soils. and alluvial regosols spp. I: levels

Predicted Archaeology I 1 : Axe grinding grooves will occur on outcrops of sandstone.

All Units: Open sites will be concentrated along creek banks I in both units. Shell middens may occur close to the estuarine and open coasts. I I I I I I ......

I R. STORY, R. W. GALLOWAY, AND R. H. M. VAN DE GRAAFF I

ELRINGTON LAND SYSTEM (156 SQ. MILES) I Geology.-Permian and lower Triassic shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. Rainfall.-32-40 in. Locality.-Seaward end of the central lowlands. I Elevation.-20-500 ft. Local ReJief.-Up to 300 ft. Wooded Area.-90 %. I I::::::::::: IALLUVIUM ·1 b;:::::::~~:l~N SANDSTONE I

I r=-::-=--::::I--- SHALE

/

I Unit Area (%) Land Forms S~i1s Vegetation -- / I 80 Rounded hills and lower slopes of Main)y podzQlic soils (Binnie com- Dry sclerophyll forest, 40 ft, of gums, escarpments; slopes generally 10- monest); occasional earths likely; 30% but locally steeper on occa- ironbarks, and stringy barks, and in .. soils sometimes gravelly; also coarse.. eluding Angophora costalD, E. acmeni~ I sional outcrops; some slumping textured non-humic skeletal soils oides, E_ pilularis, and a little E. sal- particularly on shales; colluvial igna and Syncarpia glomulifera; Legu- fill of stony clay in valley heads. minosae and Proteaceae prominent in partially dissected by gullies a fairly dense 6 ft shrub layer; good ground cover of herbs and leafy grasses (lmperata cylindrica, Paspa- lum dilatatul1I, Sporobolus spp., I -- Themeda australis) 2 IS Undulating foot slopes; gradients Predominantly podzolic soils, Binnie Dry sclerophyll forest (similar to less than 10%; no outcrop (similar and possibly others (similar to Beres- Beresfield land system, unit I) to Berestield land system, unit 1) field land system, unit I); locally yel- low earths (Growee) on colluvial I -- aprons below steep sandstone slopes 3 <5 Terraced alluvium; sand and clay; Restricted observations; coarse .. to Dry sclerophyll forest with an admix- less than i mile wide; liable to fine-textured alluvial regosols (Rou- ture of non-eucalypt trees; shrubs and I flooding on lower terraces chel, Maitland, Errington) ground layer as for unit I I Predicted Archaeology 1: Possibility that sandstone rockshelters with art and/or occupation deposit will occur in the escarpment. I 1&2:Axe grinding grooves will occur on outcrops of sandstonve. 2&3:0pen sites will occur and these will be concentrated I along the creeklines. I I

I I

l LAND SYSTEMS OF THE HUNTER VALLEY I I I 1 I I I

GLENDOWER LAND SYSTEM (656 SQ. MILES) I Geology.-Permian shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. Rainfall.-22-30 in.

Locality.-Centrallowlands and central Goulburn v~ey. I Elevation.-200-17oo ft. Local Relief.-Up to 300 ft. Wooded Area.-20%. I I~::~ IALLUVIUM - ~

CONG1.0MERATE I ~1~=:f]000"" I~:::.~j SHALE I Area Unit (%) Land Forms Soils VCllctation / 65 Moderately steep rounded hills, Wide range of soils; predominantly Savannah woodland of box, gum, and I outcrops of sandstone or con­ texture-contrast soilsl solonetzic soils ironbarks, mostly thinned or cleared, glomerate frequent, especially to­ (Overton, Clailricard, Piercefield) in trees 30-40 ft, ironbarks, E. albens, wards summits; slopes generally drier parts,as well as podzolic soils E. moluccana, E. melliodora, E. tere­ 10-25%; frequent gullying and (Binnie, Vaux, rarely Pokolbin) in ticornis, E. maculata, E. dawsonii, sheet erosion wetter I1"rts; brQwn earths (Cumbo, and Angophora floribunda; shrubs Woolooma) on certain sandstones, sparse; commonest grasses Aristida, conglomerates, and sandy colluvium; Chloris, Danthonia, and Dlchanthium ---1----·1------1 cracking clays (Segenhoe, Guan, spp. and Stipa setacea 2 20 Moderately steep hills up to 200 ft Kmi) without stony rubble and fr... 1------­ high, composed of lime-rich quently with linear gilgai, and de- Savannah woodland

KlLLARNEY LAND SYSTEM (539 SQ. MILES) Geology.-Permian shale, sandstone, and conglomerate. I. , I ',' J Rainfall.-22-30 in. Locality.-Inland partS of the central lowlands; central Goulburn valley. I Elevation.-200-17oo ft. Local Relief.-Less than 100ft. Wooded Area.-20%. I I

I ~-:::-~ISHALE-- ooo~ o~~~ CONGLOMERATE I ~~~ 0 " Area Unit (%) Land Forms Soils Vegetation I I --I 7S Undulating lowlands with widely- Soils very variable; predominantly Savannah woodland of box, gum, and I spaced broad, shallow valleys; podzolic soils, (Bionie, Vaux, some- iron bark, mostly thinned or cleared, slopes generally less than 10%; times Pokolbin and Rosscole) especi- trees 30 ft high, E, aJbens. E. dawsonil, local relief less than lOO ft; occa- ally towards the wetter east; solo- E. maculala, E. leret;corn;s, and iron- sional outcrops near hill tops; up netzic Soils (Overton, Strathearn, barks; shrubs rare; ground cover of to 10 ft of stony colluvial fill in Clanricard, Pierccfield, Togar, and Themeda auslralis where protected, valley heads; gravelly surface wash possibly others) co-dominant and otherwise Arislida, Ch/oris, Dan- I in areas adjacent to steep hills; more extensive in drier centre and Ihonia, and Dichanlhium spp., and C?nsiderable sheet and gully ero- west; smaller patches with cracking Slipa selacea, with 'Medicago and Slon clays (Segenhoe), degraded black Trifolium spp. earths (Rowan, Ellis), brown and yellow often shallow earths (Cumbo, Growee, especially near Wollar and Ulan); dominant soils different from I area to area. 2 20 Undulating lowlands with closely- Similar range of soils to unit 1; more spaced, small shallow valleys; shallow coarse-textured earths; also ~opes less than 10%; local relief skeletal soils; soil families observed less than SO ft; frequent outcrops include Cumbo, Clanricard, Pierce- -I and stony surfaces; little or no col- field, Overton, Bionic luvial fill; very active sheet erosion 3 <5 Terraced alluvium in main valleys Large range of soils due to widely Cleared and under cultivation or of unit I; sand, silt, and clay, differing ages, parent materials, and pioneer grasses sometimes overlying coarse iron- drainage status; chernozems, solo- stone lIfavc1; up to -t mile wide netzic soils, earths (Woolooma, I, Cumbo); solonchaks in valley bot- toms patchy but common; salt en- crustation common on creek banks I Predicted Archaeology 1&3 High to very high frequencies of open sites with often high densities of artefacts will occur on banks of major I creeks, especially at creek junctions. Medium to locally very high frequencies of sites and densities of artefacts will be low to very low more than lOOm from creeks. Very I low frequencies of open sites will occur on hillslopes and hillcrests. -I 2 Generally very low frequencies of open sites with low densities of artefacts will occur; frequencies will be I locally high along the more pronounced creeklines. All Units: Occasional goups of axe grinding grooves will occur on sandstone outcrops, especially in I creekbeds. I I

I R. STORY, R. W. GALLOWAY, AND R. H. M. VAN DE GRAAFF I

LEE'S PINCH LAND SYSTEM (1386 SQ. MILES) I Geology.-Triassic sandstone and minor shale. Rainfall.-22-30 in. Locality.-Southern mountains. I Elevation.-500-3300 ft. Local Relief.-Up to 2500 ft. Wooded Area.-lOO%. I ~ ~~I ALLUVIUM E-~~ I I r.{.~:~;[~:.::;i~~~l SANOST~N~ I 1==---:...::: 1SHALE ,

Area I Unit (%) Land Forms Soils Vegetation I -- , I 30 Rugged hills with rounded sum- Mainly shallow coarse-textured skel- Shrub woodland of ironbark and gum mits; irregularly benched slopes etal soils and bare rock; in moist cool 40-80 ft high, ironbarks common, often littered with boulders and sites humic surface soils; infre- with E. punctata, E. aggiomerata, and with very frequent sandstone out- quently on interbedded shales or E. obionga, and with scattered or crops including low cliffs up to arkosic sandstones shallow podzolic dense Callitri. endlicherl, Casuar;na I 30 ft high; fairly narrow flat- soils (Binnie, Pokolbin); in stable toru[osQ, and Persoon;a spp. below; floored valleys 400-1000 ft deep sites coarse-textured earths shrubs usually abundant and mixed, Leguminosae common; ground cover poor, of grasses and herbs --2 30 Rugged hills margined by sand- Similar to unit I; predominantly As for unit I, but with more herbs, stone cliffs 50-500 ft high usually coarse.. textured non-humic skeletal shrubs, and non-eucalypt trees in I overlooking steep shaly slopes soils; probably more bare rock ravines and at bases of cliffs littered with boulders; cavernous weathering of the cliffs; narrow inaccessible valleys SQO..,<500 ft deep --3 35 Stony, hilly plateaux with ridges Restricted observations; similar to Shrub woodland of ironbark and gum I and escarpments up to 200 ft high; units 1 and 2; deep yellow earth 30 ft high, including E. puncta ta, E. very steep margins including cliffs (Mulbring) in level, stable site on trachyphioia, and stringybarks; ground up to lOO ft high; narrow gorges plateau cover poor; many non-eucalypts in along the major rivers . ravines and at bases of cliffs --4 <5 Sandy alluvium occupying valley Restricted observations; deep sandy Shrub woodland of ironbark and gum floors in unit I; liable to frequent stratified alluvial regosots (Rouche!); with an admixture of non-eucalypt I flooding and deposition of sand in sedimentation in valley bottoms fre- trees, sometimes cleared and under middle and upper reaches quent and calamitous owing to low pioneer arasses soil stability on sandstone hills -- I Predicted Archaeology I 1&4:0pen sites will occur on largely flood-free parts of the valley floors. Shelters with occupation deposits will tend to occur more I frequently in Unit 1, adjacent to creeklines, especially the larger creeks of Units 1 and 4. I 1,2,3: Sandstone rockshelters with art and/or occupation deposit might occur anywhere in the landscape. I I I ------~ I

I LAND SYSTEMS OF THE 'HUNTER VALLEY .. I

I · ," OGILVIE LAND SYSTEM (233 SQ. MILES) Geology.-Pennian conglomerate, sandstone, and shale. I Rainfall.-22-32 in. Locality.-Northern edge of southern mountains. Elevation.-2S0-1S00 ft. Local Relief.-300-700 ft. I Wooded Area.-lOO%. I, I I I

Unit Area (%) Land Forms S9ils Vegetation -- " I I 85 Sleep hills and escarpments sev- Skeletal soils of various textures; Savannah woodland of box, gum, and eral hundred feet high; frequent earths (Baerami observed); solonetzic ironbark, denser than usual and about outcrops of sandstone and con- soils (Qverton, Clanrieard); degraded 40 ft high; broad-leafed shrubs fre- glomerate forming cliffs up to black earths (Rowan, Ellis); soils often quent on cool slopes, scanty otber- 50 ft high and providing much shallow, witb fragments of sandstone wise; ground cover of grasses and bloCkr surface rubble; ocea- or shale non-grasses 1I00d on cool slopes, poor sionu bench"" up to 300 yd wide otherwhc ----- on thick, r~istant ~andstonc or 2 15 conglomerate beds; closely- Restricted observations; analogous to Wet or dry sclerophyll forest, boxes spaced ravines on shales often unit 1 but wetter; presumably coarse.. absent, smaller non-euealypt trees partly choked with sandstone to medium-textured skeletal soils, some frequent where sheltered; fairly dense rubble; slumping, gullying, and humic; shallow earths and podzolic mixed shrubs; dense ground cover of sheet erosion active, especially soils (Pokolbin seen) grasses and non-grasses I where cleared

I Predicted Archaeology 1&2:Rockshelters with art and/or occupation depositmight occur anywhere in the landscape; those with occupation I depsoit will tend to occur adjacent to creeklines. The shelters with the greatest amount of occupation deposit will be located on the footslopes adjacent to the I Glendower L/S. I I I I I I l

I R. STORY, R. W. GALLOWAY, AND R. H. M. VAN DE GRAAFF

'~

I , !

I THREE WAYS LAND SYSTEM (567 SQ. MILES) Geology.-Triassic sandstone with subordinate shale. Rainfall.-24-36 in. I Locality.-Southern mountains. Elevation.-500-3500 ft. Local Relief.-400-2500 ft. I Wooded Area.-lOO%. I I I t;i:;:.~~~r~~~ SANOSTO"NE I..::: ..:::1 SHALE

/

Unit Area I (%) Land Forms Soils Vegetation 1 50 Rugged hills with rounded sum- Restricted observations; mainly shal- Dry sclerophyll forest of Angophora mils; irregularly benched slopes low coarse-textured skeletal soils, spp., E. eximia, E. Iraehyphioia. and often littered with boulders and sometimes humic; some coarse.. tex.. stringy barks with a rich flora of dense with very frequent sandstone tured brown earths (Cumbo); much 40ft shrubs and herbs; patches of non- I outcrops; narrow ridges with outcrop (similar to Lee's Pinch land eucalypt trees and'shrubs in sheltered sub horizontal crests; narrow system, unit I) places; grasses uncommon valleys 400-1000 ft deep (simi- lar to Lee's Pinch land system, unit I, but valleys narrower) --2 30 Rugged hills margined by sand- No records; presumably similar to As for unit I, but with more herbs, I stone cliffs 50-500 ft high, usu- unit 1 shrubs, and non-eucalypt trees ally overlooking steep shaly slopes littered with boulders; narrow, inaccessible valleys 500- 2500 ft deep (similar to Lee's Pinch land system, unit 2) I 3 20 Moderately sloping (25% or Restricted observations; similar to Anomalous woodland usually 50 ft less) ridge tops and upper hill units 1 and 2 but soils somewhat high, of E. erebra with poor cover of slopes, only occasional outcrops deeper and earths more common I shrubs and herbs below Predicted Archaeology

I 1: Open sites will occur infrequently on the relatively flood-free valley floors of the major creeks. Sandstone rockshelters with occupation deposit will occur I most commonly adjacent to the major creeks.

I All Units Sandstone rockshelters with rock art and/or occupation deposit might occur anywhere in the I landscape of all three units. I I I -=------~-- I Regional Archaeological Study: Hunter Vally I 11.5 APPENDIX V: LIST OF SITES ON ECNSW PROPERTY I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I The sites within Commission Holdings have been underlined. The site list is for all sites on the Singleton 1:250,000 I sheet provided through NPWS. ,I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .- I"-!S'.','.JlPI.·.IS Abor.igin.3.1_ Sites __ R.egi<::~te!" __ .J~3.ge._7. __ .!?riJlted_.9t1aY9Q ?:J.t. ______. __ .. __ . _._. _____ ---

Siteid Siten~!e E2S0k N250k Cale from 2S0K "Em N2SK 3itetype(s} - 37-L-Om Goulburn.River .. ______.__ ._ .. _.. . ______._. _:J21L _43 _ .23970.0 __ 6421500 ... _ .. _ ._ ... _. ______Shelter deposit I 37-1-0314 Goulburn River .. ____ . 3212 _ 4} _ 239700 .. 6421500 ___ .~helter depos,it.. __ 37-1-0375 _ .. Policems Track ______..... __ ___ ... _ . _ 3212 ... 43 .. __ _239700 6421500 . ______.. ______. AxurindingjJ~o~ 37-1-0316... ___ Tunbridge Creek .. _ .. ___ .._. ... '.... _. __ ._ ._3210'. _ 46 245000 6-421800 .3helter c deposit 37-1-.0371 . Tunbridge Creek. _. ___ . ______' . . ..__ ...._ 3208 H 239300 6421600 Open mpite I 31:1-0378.. . Tunbridge Creek __ . ______.. _ . .. . _ 3204 .. .38 238900 6421000 ._ _ ... ._. . _ Opeo .. camp site.. - 1- ---~~~i~~;~~ --'-- i~~i:~:~~~ '-~ .~- -~-."':-.~ -.... ------'-~-~.-~ ..~;;;;.!~ ~~~~~~ :!;;;~~ ------.~;:~-~::;.-;~~:-- 37-1-0382 Goulburn River _.. __ " __ .. _ J01S 74 221600 6424000 _... Shelter e depos~t ~·~_·.31~~1:0383 . '~'. Glenburnie. _.--.:.~- =-~~-=-~_. .Herriwa __ . __ .. ____ . __ . ___ m5~ :_192 . _ .251600 _..6435300... _ .. _ ._ __. ______BurjaL ___ .~, I 37-1-0384 Goulbourn River 2204 4232 mm 6423200 22046 642328 .. Shelter ~._deposit. ___ 37:1:0385 _. _.. Goulbourn River ______.. __ ... ______,_. ___ . ______2201..._ .422a... _220700 6422800 22073._ 642286._. __ .shelter.cdepos.lt ____ .31..:1:038.6 ____ Goulbourn..Riyec_.______"._. ____ .______J20J.. _4206 ____ 220400 . 6420600 .. )2046 _ 642042 ____ Jxe_g[~ndinur.!J.Q~ ---. 3H-0387 . -- Goulburn R. ------.. -.------. ------. '--' ______.113'-_4223 __ .. 219200 .. 6422300 .21972 .. 642238... ____Op.en mp .site __ I .__ . 37:-1-0388. __ .._ Killo. Creek._. __ ._____ ._____ .. ___ .. ____ ._. ______J.342._.H29 __ 234200 _6442900_)3425 ___ 474290 __ ._Jearr~d tree_. _ __ .31+0389 . _... Goulburn River _ . ______. ______.... __ . __ .____ . ______. 2208...._4231.. ___ 220800...6423200 22082_ 642313 ___ Op~n.. mp..sit.e._ ... __ ..1.7.:1-.0390 __ -- }illy. Wally _Ck ____ . ------.. ___ ... __ ._._____ .2227 ___ 4472 _ ... 222700 6447200 ___ 22279 . ..J4P29___ OpeLmp.~ite_ -~;~~i~~;:~ ~!~:~iCk---- .------~------;~:;-- -1:;;----·~~!;~~-- ~::~;~~ -.~~:;! ---:!!~~~-- -~~:~J~;~~r:~t~ ~ I --_, .... ,, ___.--. . ______... -... ------.. _ .•. __ •. ______.. - ._. __._ • __ . ____- r"._ r"_ .~ ____ 37-1-0391 _. . Fm Springs Creek ______. _ _ __ .. ___. ______._.H50 _... 4403. ___ 145000 6440300 _ 24502 _.W03L __ .Scarred tre~ __. _ I._~ __ ;~~i~.~~;~ .'__ :. ~~~i~~~~~_~i:r __ ~ '.~~_ ~~~.-=_==: __ ~~-__ ·_-~.~.-==_===.~=;~~L·_·~;;r - ;?o;~~ -. :1~~~~~ :~;~;;-- -!1;;~1-.::-·.. -~::1~~·~n~i~~tg~~~ _____ U:.1~_03J6 ____ J.oulbourn.}.iv~L ______. ____ 210L_J2}O_'_22010.Q_6JJ3J'.0_Q_m.1.LJ!110L_pp!-n mp __sJ.t.L':" I :=- --;~~~_~~~L=.. j~~!~~~~~~~~.~~=-==-~-=~·~swelb~~o~~------;;it~~~~~35 ---;~;!_~~ -~:;;j~1=~~:~~t~~~_~~~ ~~~~:~_i~~;~it. ._ 31':2:0001... ___ MAUS ______Hount Arthur.JQ~th_____ .2JjL._U05 __ 295900 __ H20.500_2959_0_._b.420_50~_ ..Qpe.n_muJte _ __ . .3}-2::0.o03 _._.~a~lt_. ___~ount }rth~UQ.rth 38]1.. __10.. ____ 30.0500_J4196 QO_.30.0·tL. 6H~?O. ___O~~l1..~amp_ s.i~_ ._.. 37-2:000L· --- HasJ2 ______. ..Houn.t. A~thuUou.th m.G_9JJO. __ 295500 .641.1300_._29.530. __ .6411.2.0 ___.Open .. mp _s~te _ 1__3J:2:000~ __ Han_.9 ___ . ______.Hount prthurJtorth _____~lm __ J___ 30060L6419.42_0_~Q04t...ltmO__ .....9p.~cn0_a.~p..JJJ~_ 37-2-0006 Has 11 .... _ .. ___ ..... Hount Arthu~ .South ___ ._._ ... ___ 3820 .. 9920 .295500.6411300 29520 .641120._ Open mp site _ 3}:2-0001 __ JanJ___ . __ · ____ ~punt.P~thuUo.r.tlL __._331L_8 _____ )OP600 ._6_4lJJO~JQ.Q.5_L_H1J.4.9.. __0p~f!...~amp_}_H~_ 37-H008 . ManJ____ _.HounUrthur_ NottlL ____ 38U ___ t ___30050L6U?40.L30040 __ 6419.i,O __ .__ Ope~.!_amp_?iJ~_ I .__ }t.Z:OOOL _. __HanJ_ JountjrthuJ J.ort~ 3EL_..l __.39_0.60L 64.19.10.LIQ05.0. __ 04 19.~__ .Jp.~r._.~mL si t_e_ -----rr+mr Han 5 Hount Arthur North 3878 0 300600 6418700 30040 641860 Onen cam n site I ... ~·37~2=OOl)~~~. ~~Han~4=-~==~ _____. __ Mount j;thu'lHqriD _ i?19 - £=_-:-=300700~~6419-000 __ 3006:O=~~~6~-1 920. ____~ o~e_~:..a~;~sTt~. __ __ . 37-.2-0014 '.. _ Man_L_ _Mount_ArthuUor,th ______38U. __L. __ ._J007'OO _.64.1 9.000_30.059_6-419J0. _____ Ope.£!3amp ..sJt.e_- _ 37-2:QO~5 Ma.nJ_ Hounl_Ar.tD.uUorth ___~8]J..-Jl?_7 _.3_09LO.!l'-_HJ,.8..~0_UO_OJQ_64184.0 __ . ...Qp..eJ' C~Q..J.tiL 37-_2-:0020 - -- Oarthrook ______. ____ . ______3J10 ____ .2.5t __3.03lO0 ___ 64.42000 ---- .-. ______Ca.r..V~~.J.~L __ I _ 31-HUZl •___ .UppeUaddler)Jr.~ek__ . ______._. _.J85.L._?H.3 ___ .298600 _641}400 ____ .___ . ___ .. _9pefl.5~_!LS_HL_ . __ .37-2-0022 n_ Upper. Saddler's. Creek ______.______3.81.1_ ._~94.8 __300100. 6~139.00______.____ . .-9p.eua!p_~~.te __ ._. 37-2:0023 - Jhite.'s_Creek ___.______3JLLJ1 __ J00300_647_Q7_0L ______. _____Qp~p,s.a.!p_li1e _ _ .37.:-.2-0024 _____ Upper_ Saddler.'.s_CJeek ______. ____ .______"Jn~_..J.959._)004.00 __ 641~900 ____ .______3Ptr,_r.Hp_ s.i~~_ 1....37-2-0025 _ .... _ White's..Greek ___ .______.______. ___ ....J87L_..J __ .__ }00600__ 6_4~9!O.0 ___. ______9p!_D __mp_sit~ _ _ _37-2-0026 ._ ... Upper.Saddler's Cree~. ______. __ .. ______.. _.___ .3879 .. __ ...9966 .. 300800.6415600. ______._._. ___ .pp'?n_mp_s.ite._ . 31..-2-002.1. --. _Jhite's_Creer. ____ .. ___ .___ 3888 1.3. ___ )01500 . ~4J910'L ___. ___ .___ jp~n ~a!~. ..s.i.tL I _._37.:N028 __ . Ramrod Creek ______. ____ .. ~ .. ____ . ___3.8..9..1_,,62.._. __ 3017_00 _.6414400 ____ ._ ._. ______OP.ej'g~P.Ji.te __ _ ~..31.::2:00s- _.Sal bater_ ~reek ______. ____ ' __ .. ______J8~1_Jm. ___ ..102000_ 640))0.0__ .__ . ______.~P~~S~~p ~.i_t.L __ -=--~2-~~_ - Saltwater Creek ______.. _ .,.Saltwater Creek ~est Bank __ ._ 3891 .._9813_ 3020006.\01100 . __ . ___ .. Open_mp_site .. __.3]:2-;.~_0~1----SaltwateUreeL------.----- ___3.8}5 __ 9815 __ 302400_ 640mO ____ ~ . ___._. __ .~~~_gLi.ndJ.ng grc I ___ .31.-H032 __ .___ Rmod .Greek ______. ___ . ____. ___ 3900 __30_ .._ 301600 _ 6421500 ______. _____._ Open.. mp ..site._. ___ 31.: 2.:0033 ____ SaltwateUUp.o.tsneds .______Jl~ __ 989}__ 303400 __~401}9L _____..-.2p..e.P'--~a!p_sjt~_ 37-2-0034 . Saltwater Creek. . Saltwater Creek EasUank 3908 9932 303500 6412500 _____ ._ ... __ Open_':amp site. 1 37--2-0035 Ponds Creek._. ______.. __ Parnell's Cree~"_ .... __ .' _ )}09 9865 mm 6106400 Open mp site _ ._ 37:2:-0036 ___ ._ .,ponds Creek. _____ .____ .__ ._}mell 's C~eek __ ._. _____3,V3 _.9868 30HDO. 6406}OO _ ._. _____ . . ______0pen_.mp_~it~_ __31: 2.:.9 03L ___Lidde 11 Pom Station 3970 9953 309100 6414500 Open mp site I __ ~7.:2-0oIL ___ Emu_Cr·e~k _ _=~~·:~__ ===~.=-=--_. ______J.9.8.6__ 9889.~3-1·07006408.foo===--_~-=-=: __ ._ . ..op;-D~-ca.mp~si.te~ -.-J1_:2.:0039 __..E.!u_Creek 3993 9889 311300 6408700 Open mp site 37-2-00~O Lower Saddler's Creek -'------mO--99i7-- -29i-ioo -·6m90f-----·----On·~nca;;i site- -:-·~=}7:2:.0041:=~saddl-er:s. C~~~k~_===~~=·__ ~~~==-_~~=_=]li}=~J-C~)9300C64-(0:5-0~·-·-=~ .. ------O;~Q~~a~p.~;it·e= 1 ~-i-n£LL ~1~~," :::~~cr'~ C:~e~ 3f21 ?Q2Q 2c~600 &412100 Ccen ::m sit~ I I .-=-._N.s.~LNP.l'.1S. flbox:.iqiLlaL..site!LBegist.e../:'. __!?ag.€.- .. 8

1 siteid Sitenm E2S0k N2S0k Calc fro! 250K £25K N25K Siieiype(s ..- J.1:H04L... _SaddleLLCreek______.. ______..Jl9L~OL._122800._Homo Open....mp.ite_ . I ._ .. 31-2~OO·44. __ -Saddler-'s_.CreeL ___. ____ . ___ ....___ .. _ .. _._.-3.ll2_. __ J91L. __ 192900 _6410400.. __ ._____ . ____ Open .mp...s~te __ ._.37:2:0045. _._Worondi P.i vulet H~lrLCreeK mQ~.O ___266900 J41Q8QQ _____._. ____ ...Qp.eR.!.~mp_s.*.::..- ___ 37-H.04L __ ..Jybong CreeL ___ . ______To~!y.'.s...Gu1l1 __355L_400 __m40Lmm_n --- _. ____npep_m!L:~te- 3H::004L __ .-Pikes_Gully ______.. _. __. ___ . ______li6]_ ..993~~.30890L6mOOO ____ OpelLmo .. sLte. _ 1 _. 37-2-0048 .._.Pikes. Gully ..... ______.... _ ... _.... _. _____. __ .. _J.m_....993L_30940L 6U300L _____ .. _____._ .. Ooe!Lmo..sit~ _ __ .37:2-0049 _.. __ .Pikes_Gully_ .. ______.. __ .. _. _.____ 3381_9934_310z0L6U2800 ___Oper~.mp. site __ _--37-2:QOSO ..._ Pikes..Gully "-" ...- ...... __ .. ___.396L.-993L_J0890L6H300O" __ ... -- .-.OpeLmp...site_. I U-2-:QOSL .--.l'ikes .. Gully . __ .. _____ 398L-9.9.34 _Jl030LH12800 ______. _____ 0pen .. ca!p.site_. =.3H-OOSL. __ . HAN 13. ___ ... _""_"__ ' ~UrthuLNor.tL __. __.38.B_.10 ___300200 ... 6420500 ... 30000_ mO.60. __..open-cm .. site:- _37-H053.. __ KAUL .------. .-3.81L3.920--.l955D.L64U3.QL29.llL_H 11 ?O Ow....c.amp..s.LtL ... _.37-?:.0054 .. _Han...ll______.-Jerrys...PlaL~~___ 38IL...1D--~0020Q.... 6410£OL3!l.O_1 _.6l.106 __0pe!LCa!!LS~.te_ I _ rr± 005 L..-JiAH..15 ____ . HULthur North. ~.811 2? ~O.OOOLH101.00~9.990_641.O.8.0 __.0pelL':.a!IU.lte_ .31_-2.:005b.. ___ HAUL. _JlU.!:thur.Hor.th-_. 3B1L._??___ 300000_b41Dl.O.O_J9J9.D...._6.m2.0..~pen..camP..S~te- ~7-.l-0Q.5.1 _MAH_17 ~.Ur.thur _Mo.r..tp~ ____nn_~21LJ9j]O.O._H211.0.L19.970 .. _6.42l1.0 __ ._Ope.u.a!p_s.lte_ .. I ._1l::1::0nsa. ~.an.1L ___.. ______J.er.rys..P.lain~ m~ .. 42LL....19950Q_H2120L299.SL_64?1?n op.en..r..a!p...site._. _ ~.I=Hm--.J!anlJ Jer.ryUlains. J.9.iL_~113._..1.9940L6~mOL2mLu.2.m __Op..eLmlU.it.e_ _._3I:l::00bD.._._Hap_ln__ .__ ----.. ?m 4lli __lmOL641HOD....19.93L_H2HL_._~npelLCa~!L.si.te_ I ._37:2:006L __H~Ul ______HUr.thur .Ho.r..tL-____m ..L..1.0 __300200_6420.5DO_30015_.6!.205L __Op~JLr.a~p-si.t.~_ ! 11+0062 .. ___ linker:s..cree~.. __ .LiddelL ~9.4.L~q955 .. _1Um.L64HIOO ____. ______ODen.!.!muite_::::. l7-?-0063 Lidde 11 Tinkers Jeee.k ______'1.4..L..J.m __3.0700.L.6.41.4lD.0 ORe.Ha!uj,t,L .... 31-2-0064 ._ Liddell .. _..... ___._ ...... linkers Creek ____ ..... _3953 _ 9968 3!i7600 .6415900. Open mo site'. I .3l:1:D06~ I iddp11 ~~.eLGullll-____.J16L..J.938 .. L-_J.08400._.H13100.. ______..ope_n_ta~R-s,itL. __ll:.HQ6L .. _Sandy_Hollo.~ ~andy_Hollo!!_Ho 1 3529 ,3 ?6870L6HB40L 'shelteu_.de!lQsit --..ll-?-aa6_7 __cas.tleJl.ock Sl1rinV..r.eek J.11L...150_J8690Q_Wm.o ______G.m.eLtr..e.e. __ 1----l1.~2..-:aO&L_Saddle.t.'..s .. C!eeK ____. ____380G._9920 __?93bOL6ill10O" .Op.e!Lmo.llte _ __H.:1::0069 __Saddler.'.LG.r.eek 38.2L_W'L-295500._Hill.O.O. OpeJLC.amU.HL n ~_:l:7::-._2...... ?:_:nnO._.71·.n_·1- _ ::_rid_rld-llPp::~:-~~.pe.pe.k~ .--_.. -. l81D __223D __19.55DL641210 0p.eJLmp-sitL_ I ~ _ -->I" .... - '..J. _ 3.81O.._~9.2.0~HO.0_6~ 111QL____ Om_mu.iJe_ . 37-.2-007? .;._ _ Saddler.' s.. Creek. ___._ ... __. __ _ . ____._381L ._3890_ .. 294600.....6408500.. __._ .. _____... _.Om~t:a~p-site_ 31-?:OOn .. ___ .Saddler.'..LC.ree~~ ______. _____. J,8.30_992L_296400 _64113.00.... __ . ______0pen .. muit,L _...,....Jl:HU74 .. --.Saddler.'..s..Creer______. ______._383n~_9Jl0 _._ 2.9HOL6410400 ______Coen.!.a~p_slte _ I _ 31..-.2:007.5 Saddler~LC.r..ee.k ... ______Jm __ 9.9.0.0_JJ550.0~jn9!.0.0 __ . ______Op~,u.a~Ls..i~ _ ___3.7:1:.007 b._._Saddler~s..creek 3820~q.9f0_29 550 LJUO 3.0 O__ . _____0p,e n....:amlL~; te_ __ -.ll:1:QOIL-_SaddleL.Lcr..ee~ .mL..J130_.2.2.730L.b412.200 OP..eLC~.!LS. .iJL. 1.. _H-?-0078 Saddler. ~s .. CreeL_. ______. 3849. __9.nL_198100 _6HOSOL _____ .. __ .. Ope n....:.a!U i.te __ _ ._3.1.:.2.:00~S.altwate.LCreek }8J..O_~9J.0_301.9.0.L.6.41210_t ______Op~1l ca.~lui.t.L_ --.. -~.. 77~1.?~no.nO,p.8".lo. .-~:_dldltu_e.tr.-.e' Sr-r.~rrpp••. :.,.k.. . _____.. _38.70_..9.9.30. __ 30000L64l2.30L --.. -. ___Opep.,!.a!p .. sLte_ -.--J _ ~"ft". ~, ______I2.1..L_....1i5.L-J'037.00_64.l,.m.L ______..ID"'U_a!p._.sj~ I . .U.:2:008L .__ Saddler~s .. Creek. .. _._._. ______3860_9915._299100._6~1.0JOO____ ope n..c:.a!u it.e_ 37-2-008.3 Sal.twate.U.reeK 3890 98~.o.._3011~.0_640770.. Q OP.en ca.~v.~tL_ .3.7:-2:0084 5altwateUreeL_._.______. 3.BJ.O._mO. __ 301900 _640mO_ ___ Open_mp_sUL I 3}-2,:'0085 Sal,twateUceek mQ_ Q}-Qn __303.8.00_._~40810.0 . _____O.P?,n ~a.!p_s.UL _37-2-0086 ._.saltwater Creek. _.. _ .. _.__ ...... _ .._. ____._ .... __ 387.0_ .. 9880 .... 300100 .6407700 ...... _ .._ .. ___._Open .. mp site .. __ 31:2:.0.081.. __S.al twateI'!'.ce?,.!<.___ 39 Qi. ...J..9.0 .. 5. __ }0350.0 _HIOO.oJ______.Qg~.D ca~lUj1!,,-- 1 3}:2:0088 __. SaltwateUreek._._. _____. m.D_9.950-J02.iOL641HO.o. . _____Op~l)~1mp silL . _. _.3.7.:2:.008? Sal t.wate.LCr~ek 38].Q_J51.O_900.1.0.0_J40.8i9~ Open cJ~.Juj_ti _ __. .3H.-0090 __Saltwater. Creek______.______.387L_ 9890 __ .300100_.6408600_ ... ______. __Open_mp_si.tL 1_3I:.2::;00.2.1~imanUree~ .----.l12L_.99JO_~0~60.0 _6J1.1JO~_ Op?-r....::.a..a!P_ site __ . _37+00n. __Saltwater Creek __ ._ .... _._. __ .___ . __3900_9950 _J02700. 6414100 ___ .. ___ . _ .__ ._Open..ca!p_site .. _ __3l:2:.009} __ HusclUJ.e~k 3JJO_~ ___30.s30.L 6{2~10.0 __. Op~Q.S.amp _2.UL --- 37:.2:009C __Saltwater.. Creek ______- -.__ .. ____3.91.Q __99,40. _ 303700 _ 641320.0__ .. _____Op~J1..pmUi.te __ . __37.:2-0095~SaltMate.r_Creek .. ___ .... ____. 3.880 __ .9~JO __ 301000 _640680.0 ___ ._. _____ Open ..mp._~i.te _ I ___u':1:0096 __ RmoH.r.eek 3.9.30 _.J0 __3.05.300 ._.6422400_. ______Qpen.. camu.it.e_ _J7-t.OQ17__ Th.eJ..i.!P~~ OraJlolL~ 3900 9J.8.L ...lm.oO 64163..00 Open mp site ._37: 2-.0098 __B lacUiU ~uscle_Creek ______39.40 __ ..00 ..... _,306200 .6424300 __. __ ... _. __jp~Lcamp-.s5.te _ I _ -,-,37-,-2-00J.L_--.lhe_EJ.~pJ.e oray ton_ 2 3~80 mQ_3.. 0_Q200 mmO______~en ~a.~p_1itL __37.:.2~.0.100 __J.he..Pi!ple. ___. ____ "Oray.ton 1 3.8,9.0._9980 ___ 301800 _ 6416900. ___ .. ______Op~J1 ca.!Ls.,ite_ __37-2.::0)OJ __ ~P.SJ.lLC.C~g.k 3930_~0 __ }0.~3.0LJ425).90 O~n c·~~p si~ 1 . .17-2-0102 .. _ . 8rushy ~ill._ ... _ ..... __ ...... _.. ___ ...... ___v' ._.. ___ .397_0. __374. ___ 308400. 6mOOe. _"_' . _. _____}.o:.~._engr.ayi.(!.gj I ____ t'LS1~1__ NP\h.l~L..Ab9r:.igil}at_~i te_~_.Be~ii_st8_1' ___J:[email protected]...... J:rJ[!J.ecL2.t1-:3_)~9Q-,~;_l6 ______I Siteid Sitenm -- E250k N250k Calc fro! 250K Em ~25K Sitety~e(s

6406100 944 6406300 988 6408300 717 6409300 854 6408800 830 6408700 734 I I

Si teid sitename E250k N2S0k Cale fro! 250K Em. N2SK Sitetype{s' I I _.JY51LNF'I~! :LfiboJ:it;;lina_'_Si iB.~.e.g.is.:te.r. __Pag..e_.l._l _J:~.. ri.oie.cL2t1a~!.9.fL9~6.--.---.------.. I Siteid sitenm E250k H2S0k Calc fro! 250K E25K '3itetype( ~ .J 37-1-0226 . . Saltwater. Creek...... ------... No.33 .. -- ... ___. ______3018 __ 411L_. 302800 _6411100 _3028L641112.... ___... Cpen_mp .s·Lte .. _ _~-::3i~2-o2n Saltwater.CreeL ____.. __ .. No..3L._ ._____ ... _._...... 3lli_ ..J920 ___ 30230L&UH.OL15L-...J.108---QpeP-.Ca~!l...s~~-: I _._ 31 :2-0228 _. __jaltwateLC reek. ______No ~35 __.. _. ....J.9.. 0~J15_3.02800 _641l9.0~ ...J8.L---.l0.8t _____Op.eu~mp-s l.~e... - ...... :...... 3H.:.Om.... _ Saltwater-Creet ._. No .36. __ .... ______12.lL_9.92L_304200_bill40U.98.... __ ...l09 0___ Cpen. mo....sitL 1.. ~_3.I:Hm _ .. _.Salt~ater...... C.reek. ______.... No.. 3L _____. _____ .mO" __ j9.1_~ _304600 _6AUOOLm_l06t ___.Op.eul.~p ..site __ Of 37-2-0231 .. Saltwate.r.. Creek .. _.... _. ___ .___ ..... No. 38...... _ ..... _. __. ___ 392L .. .9915. _ 304600 _6411000 m...... lOlL.. - .... Open mp.. slte_ .. _L3.7.:1:OBL __Salbater...... C.reek. Ho.l9._.. U20_9J15---..J04600_6411000-US--108J OpelLCa!p_.si.te __ __ ~1.::2::0m ___. Saltwater_ CreeL_ .No~40_ .______mL_9.m ___ 30mL6mOOLm__ 1019___ 0pe!l...!:a~!l.. ..sitL +3J.:2:0234 __SaltwateLCreek No.4L._.. 3115_..9915_304200..-6Ul.0.OO_415___ 1083.. ___.0pen~amp_site._ 1-it-31-2::0m .. ___ Saltwater_CreeL ______~o.42_ .. ______J..91..L....9915_30mO_.6_4l1000 ... _40.7~_JO.83 __Jpep._mp_.s~te .. ;..... _U_J7:Z-.023L ___ Saltwater...Creek. ______.. __ ..No._43.._ .. __ __391LJ915_._30420L6~1.l000_69L_1085 ___0pen....c.a!P_.5.ltL .. 1...... lLJl::1:023L_SaltWater. Creek... Ho~4L mj_989fi__ 30mL640.810U15_ .. 852 Ooeuamp...site...... 3.7.~2:-.023L--sal twater.. Cr..eek .. _Ho,4.L ___.. 3.91L.....9.. 89 .. L_30380.LJ40mO_W __86.5 ._.OpelLmLs.i t.e_ 37-2-0239. - . Saltwater Creek.. ... - .... - .... -. Ho.46 - ....___ .. _ ... ___ 3905.. _. .9890,. 303300 6_408700 .. m..... m ...... ___.Jpen .. cm s~te td7..:2.:.02.4.0 __Salhate.Ureek NO. ..41 3.9.1S_ ..9JJ5 __ 30mO _6..411000_3.90._. __ 107L __ .. _Open....ca.!p_s.l.t.e_ . I • ...... J.pI..--t ..2.-024L __SaliwateLCree~. ______-.-J!0_4.8.. -.-3.8J~~ _....98R5---..J02.400._..lA.081O_0 _825_' _810 OpelLmUlte_ I ~_J1.:1:.m2.... __Salt~ater...... creejc NoJJ______J.9..lJ.n~~Q.885 __ 30280L.6J082.0L2.6L-81O Oo.en_c2.ep_'s.Lt.e_ +_.37-270243 .. ___ Saltwater. .Creek.. ______Ho.5!L __ .. _____--.3.9.n.0_9885 .. _30280L 640820L17L __ .810 .. ____0nen _c.amu.~tL .. -1.Ul.:.2:024L_ ..... SaltwatetCr.eeL ______Ho ..5L_ .. _ 3'l..O.O._988L....J02800_64.08100._101_83L ___Ooert_mp_slte_ I Jr 3l·.~-OHS ... Saltwate.r.. Creek. __ Ho.5L .... _ mO_ .. J89L __ .30280L640B700 .... m _... 875 _____ Open .. mo...sit~~-:-...... :..:....lI:-Z .. :02H __Saltwater. .. CJ:ee¥ _Ho...SL ______~O~.m_3Q180LW910.L ..l0.0_..10.L Open.!'3~lu.i..te_ _!~_31-2-0HL_ ... _.Saltwater ... Cr-eek .No.S4.. ______39UL-J8.9L-1O'280L640910!L_19L __.91L __. __ Opep_ca:!j) .. .5.1te.:.... 11 • 1-trJl:2::Q24P-. __~allw~teLCreek --.lloJ~ 3QO_O ~Q8J_~_.30280L.640J1QUR~7 __915 ______0pen_,:a~p. SltL .-tll7..~2:::0249 . __Salbate.r .. Creek.___ _ Ho.5L-______mO,_J895~_lU280o...... 640910L21_~ __Ql_~ ___Qw~ mlL.sit~ ~.:2..'::0250 ___.Saltwa.te..r...... Cr.eek ______K0.57 lQ~n /~Q~9._~_302BOLHOmL21~o __91L ___ Q!lep" mp-s.i.t<>~_ ...Jl, 37+.U25L-__Saltwater .. Creek. .No...58 ____.. __.. __--38.25....._ 9895_.302400.... Humo.... .26_n __9lQ ___.. Oo.e!LCa~!l .. ~i te_ I =ti=37~.2::Q251...-.-SaltWate.r....cr.eek Ho~5J mL_9a.9~~_30280L6+0J.IIJ.L21.0..--91~_--.-0pe.n..!..3!p_site_ I 31.::2::.om __~aliwateLCt:ee!< Ho.6!L____ ... ~'O'L..9900 __ 30280L640J.~0.L262._ .. m . O~e!LCa!p...sitL . .. !I 37-'-om_~altl!a.teLCLeeL Ho.~6L ~8i5__ 2.9.00_302+0.L6t0.9.tIJ.Lj.4.L __ 9..45 ____0P.~!LC.a~p-site_ I . ~ __ 37.-.2-0m ... _ .Saltwater .. Creek_.. ____._Ho.61 .. ______. ___ ._.3021.._ 4099. _ 30220L 6+0990LJ]22L .. 64099_' _. __ ... Open muite_ ._~;_37-2-025L ... Saltwater.CreeL ___. _____ No .. 63 __ ._ .. _ .______.. _._ .3026_ .. J097...._. 302b00 640970L 30262.. _640978 _.. __ ..... Qpen .mp site. .. +-.l1-.2-025L-- .. Saltwater_Creek. ______. __ .. No.6L __ .. _ .. ____.. __3900_9895 _ 302800 . 6409100....303. __ .. 91.5. __ .. ___0pe!1J.~]p.sitL 1.. ~:_' U.:l-0m __Saltwa.te.LC.ree~~ No...6.5__ .______m5_.mO_J.0,330L H09 ..60 .. 0_m ... _m__ ---.Jp-~lL~..a!~U .. UL __i_: l7:Hm___ s.al.twateLC.r.eet ~o. .66_.... 3Q3.L_4091 __.30320L6409]..O.O_30m .. _64.0nL ___Op?ua~p-si.te~ _I:_3..7.:2:.016 O__ Saltwate U.r.eek No.. ...67 J..9.. 0_Li9n ..L_ m.300_6U.0.O.. O_LJ.U __ 1005 Ope~LmlU_iJL ... -H.....3.I:1 ...:U16L __ .Sal bateLCreek ______Ho .68. m5_~Q9.lO_J0330L 64lOS0Lm _. ...-l03L ___Ope r,....ca!p_.s i te __ I -LJ.I:1:0J6.~Salt.wateUr.e.ek ~oJ_6J. . __181L....1UO __ ~02.3.0~_6.41~_5j_t....21S__ ~~.21 __~~ .. n_~~JlLtilL -l3.I:1:Q16L_._Salhater...... Cree~ .ll.oJ.0 _____·_. ____319.5_9310_ .. 302300_641050L26.S_ ...1032. __0p.en....ca!u.itc ,_~ .. p7..:2:0264-_sal twate.U.reek. ______No ... 71 390.0_U1.0_J02800... 6419.S0.0 __ Z82 __1Qi5. __jp~n.!- ..a~Ls .. H.~ .. _ I _ -H_31-2:-026L ___ Saltwater. CreeL ____..... Ho.7.2 ____.. ______JOV __ .. 4115 _..302700 641150L3027.L 6Hl50 ___ 0pen_mp. site --LU.:.2.:.02..6.. 6 __ ~a .. l.hate.Uree,~ No.}3 39.QO__ 9_UO _3.o.2800_W.2J10_2J_L-.l.~8_0 Op~~.J.aJlLsjJL .-.+UH-0267 ... _ Salhater .. Creek _. _____Ho.H . ______3nO __9925 _303700 ..6411900 _,375_. __ 1132.. __ ..... Open_mp site_ --LLU.:2::0268 __Sa.l hateUreek NQ.,]5__ 3915 9920 304200 6411400 388 llOS ODen cm site 1.. -J_.37..-H269 __ . Sal hate"UreeL_. Ho. 76. 3..915 9J-io~- 304200~~6iil·400.j·io _..1Qji-=-_ ..OP;U .. ~l;~s.it~= ~_3.1.:2.. :0270 ___Salt~ateUree.k _____No~J1 3..9J.L __n15 __}0.3.I0 .. L~il19_0.Q_3.6_L_~"!1..6.L ____0piP. ca_~L?j1e_ _:_, U:2.:0271 __..HAN ?l ______.MUr .. thu Uor.th ___.. __3.82.3_12. __295600 ._6419..70.0 _2.9.52LJ~ 1980__ "'Op.e.n .... ~.a~p_sjtL 1_:_3..7..:2.:.Qm __$~lt~.ater.....C.r.eeUJ Plas.heU 3910 99 1.5__ 3.037.0 L6.H.19.o.. 0 __ lU8_0_H..1..0JO . Open ~.m_?jte_ : 37-2-0273 Saltwater Creek 80 Plashett __ 3910 9910 303700 6410500 30370 641030 0~en mp sit~ ._37..:.2.:02.l4. ___saltwateLcreeU1 _____.MumlbrooK ______3..U0 __..9910 __ 303700 _6410500_30m __ .64.l.o.20__ 0p~n_mp ~.i.t~_ 1.__ 37±0275 ____Saltwater..CreeU2 Hus~ellbrook 3..910_..3905...._..30370.0 .. Hl000L303S.7~4099.9.. __....open_muite __3 ..I.:2..:.0.2U __ Saltwat.eureeU3 Plasoett 3J..1O__ ?J10 __3.o~l.o.0_641Q~~.L10~6 .. LJ10.2.2_0 Opp,.n .. ..::~;..]p_Jite_ .. ,,_' 3H-027L __SaltwateUreeU+ __.. _ .. __ Plashett .. ______3.930 _ .. ?885..._ 305600. wmo }Om ... 640853 .. __ Gpencamp site_ ...... 37-2-0278 . __ SaltwateUreek 85 _.... _ . __ ... ______._3935 .. 9885. 306000 m83QO 30545 640843 _ Open camp 3ite 1_...:.:... ..3I:2.:.02.79 __SaltwateLCrL86 ~lashett____ 3.m._..JBB5 __30560L 6~OB20L.30523 _ 64083L __0pen. n!uite _ _ ..:_..3}:2:0_280 __ Howic.!UiddeU J. ~owicUiddelUp~[lj.uL1i!\.e.-J15_6_9..81L_3.. 080.00_6~.QJ.3.0_0_3_0.. ~2 .. 0..-i4..0.li1 ___ Qp!-lU.a .. ~p .. J_U.",,- _... :_J7..-.?':Q28~~ALL .. __HUrthur .. No~t.~ ____3..8..U_8_ .. __}00500 ... .641~400_3.0040_ . H1?40 ___ Open ...c.a~p..si.te .. _ 1__3]...:.2.:.Q .. 21L_~ .. addl..ers Cre_e.k 3~55 9945 298600.. _6.H360L2971..5_JH27J___ O,Pen c_a.~p site ___37.:.2.:.0283 ___Saddl.er .. Ure.ek.. 3.8.5.5__ 9..,QJO_m600_6U3.1.09_2.9}..1~_6.m7j __ OP..e.ru.a.~p_s ..Ue .. _ -t-3}..:.2.. :028§ __ .,Saddler..s_C..ceek 3880_...... 11IL-J00100_6Jt5.J..Q9__ 29774_H..11Q5 __ -.-1~n ca~p. sit..e.... I ;1..3.7-H285 ____ Saddlers Creek .. ______.. _. __ .. ______.. ___..3.880 __ J980 .. _.300900. 64l6800_ .. 29778 _. 641308 .. _ ... _Open_~,!~p_.s.it~_ I I _HSI.(.. NPI.A.I~~_J!b.9.J::.igiDa:t_~j;EJ.?_-B~gi?te,-~. __~~tge.J_2_-.-print.§d_?_M~)~.1.O_2~1:~~ ___ -,-______. ___ . __ . ______I Site id Sitenm E250k H250k Ca le fro! 250K Em N2SK Sltetype(s I I --Sf\l~St·~.·I'hl:ld-NPI'hJ'3 AQodgin8.1.-_S.i.te~.8.egister ______J~_ag~Ll~_-.erj.JJte_d _'may9JJ.....2:.H? 1 ~ Sitenm E250k N250k Gale from 250K Em N25X Sitetype(s) I I

I Siteid Sitenm E250k N250k Cal~ from 250K E25K H25K ~!_Jl:.1-040L .. __ .HAUL__ __.Ht _Arthur...South ____..J84.5 __990L_-197800._6409?OQ-19.79L .. 641010 ___.. Opp.u_mp_.si.te_ L 31-2:-0407 .. HAS 63 .. _ . ______._. Ht. Arthur SoutL ____._. __ 384L __ 9905--._298100 _.6409900.. 1981L .. 6HOOL ___ Opep_ mo_ s~t.~- '.- I .1_.lI~1-.0408 _.. ____ HAS. 64 _. ___ .~_. __ HUrthur South ______3.8AO __ 190L_197300 _..640950.0. _.2.9720 __&40930 _____ ..0per" camp Sl.te:_ .J._ 3.7-1-:0409 ____ HAS_ 65 _ .__ .__ ._. ______HUrthur.South ______384L..991S_29800LHillOO . ..19.81L _bUOBL __ Onen_.c.amuite:...._ ...... :.....l7.::2..-0410 .___ .__ HAUL .__ . ______.. MUrthuUouth. __ .______1SAS_J91L_ 2~7800 ___ 64 UBO.Lmao.. __ H1190 ____ Onep".mp .site -- 1 1: 37-2.-0411 HAS 6] ._. ___ . __ .______. Ht Arthur South ._____ ... __ 3845-._9930 ___ .297700. 6U220n... 2.977.0_. 641230.... __ Onen_~amp_site __ _.J~_11.::NH2.. .__ HAS 68 ___.. ______Ht Arthur.. SoutL 324S_mO __?9770L.H1220L.2.9780 __H1HO.. ____Open .. ca!uLte __ i~·37-2-0413 - .. HAS 69 .-----. ------Ht Arthur South --- .-- --.- _.3348 __ - _9930. __ 298000 - 641220!L19800. 64115L. -- _.Qoen _mo...si tL. "1~.37-2-04H . _____ HAS 70 . ___ . __ ._. _____ . _Ht. Arthur.South ___ .____ .J8S.0_J9JO . _ 298200. 6412200 _.29860 _ bUm __ ._ ... Open camp s~te __ I , if 37-2:0415 HAU L_._ _ _.. ____ . ____ ._ Ht Arthur.South. ___ .. ___ .... ___ .... 3850 ,_ 992S _._ :?98100 6411800 .19870.._ 64119L __ ._ Onen mp. Slte ~- -IP7.:.2::0U6---MAU? J.UrthuUout~~ ___~.8.5.0_jJ20_.-198200.-6jmQL29B8L~111L-_OpeJLC.a~p_5.itL- I_~ _17-2-0417 . -- HASJ3 .---______MUr.th!!r So!!tL _____3.B4I_,_2.91Q_.1?780U.H220L1.91BL. H1230 ___ 0per~c.a~p_s~tL __ --lP7-~l:.Q41L __.MAS_H___ MUr:thuUQ!.!.th. ____-.3.860_9_UL_.29JlO.D.._H10lOL.2JJ.S'O_W03.0 __ 0p.e~u.a.!p_s_:!~ --H..ll:2:-041L _____ HAS_ 75 ___ HUr.thur . So!rth ______.J8.6.0_ Q.91L_29,9101L _64l09.DO_2.9.9SL_6.4lO4L __flpen..mp_s.lte_ ~.31±Om __HAUJ - HU.Lthur:Jouth. _____3.800_m.O_-.l9360_0 __ 6JJ120_L2.9.36.O"_HLO9..0 ____Op.e.u.a~vile_ I' • I _...l.pl-.HUL __ .HALL ______-Hl ~.r.thur_lo!!tL_ ___..3.82D-_jJ.20 __?q5S0L641!300 .. ..19520_641m __Opeuamp...51te_ .J:....31:2.:.0m. __HAU K.Ur:thuUouth. _____J.8lL_9.910 _...19 S.OOL 641130Lm lLJ41lSL-.Op.eLCa~u Ue_. i' • ._":....17-2::0.42L_. __ . H.~S. L-______MUrthur South 381s.._9.9.20 __?9500L6Um'O....19.5.10_64115.L __Oper....c.a~p-s.l1e _ __ Jl=1~042L __HAU ______Ht~rthur Jouth ______381S_992L-.295000_641130L29.5.00. __ 64USO__ 'Jpen_ca!uite_ I .-;-37,::FOW.-. HAS 39.._ .... ______HUrthur_.SoutP- ______3815 ..__ 991L_195000 _6H13OL29480 _.6UEL .. ___ .. 9Den_mo_site.-:.:. __1L:2:.0W __ HAUL_ HUr:thuUQutp~ ____ ~.81O.--9.8J5_294600 _.6409.0.0.0....J94~L_.&A_O_a9.0. __0m.!.a!!P_S.Ue_ 37-2-0m ______MAS16 ..-.--.-.------Mt Arthur South .-.----- ... 3825 9925.29,59006411700.29550.041180 Openmpslte'- .,'1 . 1--r3 7.::1::042L ___ MAS~L______~t P.rthu r south 3815._9 '1.3 L,_.19.5900 __ .6HillL29 56L_64120L __Op?!L.':a-np_ si tL- -tH-7..-1~0422---MU 8 .Ht. Arthur .-South 38 2L;-9.93L-.1J 59.0LH l12D.L29.56.L_l4UOO__ Dpeua,]!Ls lie __ f-n.:2:N3L-HAS-4 MUrthur_ Sout1L- J.8~L-..9Q?O-2.9.S.50L6~111QL2.mO-....64mL--..-Dp?n...camu.i.tL- _.,U.l~l~.Q.HL_J1AS_L _____. ______Mt.Ar.thuLSoutL. ____---.3.82L-9..22L-19i50L6H1lUUmL64~_ Opep._mn _~; t~ _ I _ U_JI.:-2.::0HL __MAS_l_ HLAr.thuL South ~.a2L_9.91L-2? 5.5QQ_oA 117..QL2.m_0_6J1llL __Op?'lLC.a~p_~i t~ .-:: 17_-N431 .. ___ HAS. 80. ______.___ Mt.Arthur...SouttL 38D.L.._99Z0 __29380L641120U9.38L _6UllO_...... open...muitL_ ----lJ1.:H434._----'lAUl ___HUcthur_ Sout~ __3.8.0L~.9.20_19.170.0_6.Um.LJm_L_HIUO __ Op,eLC.a!p sUe_ 1 r l37-2-0m HAS 22 .... -' ------. Ht Arthur South_. - -. --.-. .3800 9920 - 293600 64mOO. 29360 641110. --- .. Open mo sHe .. ..1/7-2-0436 . . HAS 83 __ .______. ______._. Ht Arthur South ____ .. _____ 3800 ____ 9920 ___ 29360L6411200 _zmo_ . 641110 __ Open_mp _site __ !I 3H-041L_ - MAU4 ... -- ___. ___ . ______MUrtnur. South______..J.80L-.9.m __ .293600 - .6Hl1D0_19350. __ HillO. __Open..c·1!lLsite __ _ I j[~].:1:0438_. _HAU5 .____ .___ HUrthur Soutp~ ___:380.0 __9..n0 __ J?3&OO_641120Ll~.34L_64!1.1L __Op?'J)~:J~uit~-- . IJ7=1-:043L._ -.MAUL. __. ______.l!LP.rthur JOl!t1L-___..J7.95 ___ .9nn_m20L6HmO_?9.m __ 641UL ___ O~enJ.a~uite- )rU-:2-0440---~~~U7 HUrthur J.out~~ JliL..J~.2L_ 2mOLHll2.0.L2.9.m_6!1ll~OO?11.!.a~!LS.iiL_ -+r-37::2-0HL--MAS BL __ ._._. __.. ______MUrthur South 3l90_991L__ .292700. _6 HO 8O.L29160 __ J4101L-Qoerr_mo_.site __ • 1__ !U.7±Qt42 __..MAU9 HUrthuUoutL _____:319_0.--9.9.15_2.92700_HlO.8.0.L2..9J5.0_Hl.O.&_0 __ Op.::lLc.a~!l._sjJe_ ~!!.31:.2.:.QH3.---_HAUO ______._MUrthuLNQr.tIL ___.--.JllL..mS_292I00_641080L2925.L_H1060 __ 0peua!p_site_ ·JU1.:t-.O.HL-HAU2 JUtthuUo.uth _319_2 __99.o.5_2JZ9.00_64.0~.o.'LJ1210_6~lHO ___ Op~lL~~!P_.tit~_ I -H-37":-2.:0HL- ... HAS. 9L_____ MUr.thur_.Sout~~ __-.JJ9.LJ.905_2.92900._6~O.980.L2.92.90_641Q2o.. __0~en_camuLte _ __ ~U:.2:0H_6 __HASi3 ~.L~rJhuJ:.Jpu.th UJL..110.5.._m8.0.L~40J_8IJ..Lli2.8..Q~A1.O.1J..0_~_eJ)~:...a!utt§_ .. ~l 31:_2:0W __HAUt ______HUr.thur. South 37.9.0_' _9.905 ___ .292800 J40?80L2328L _6~O.9?O __0pen_mu.ite __ _JL37-HH.8 ___HAU.s MUr:.thuUouth mO__ 't.9.0.0 __2..9JgOtJ.4Q~J0.9_U.£.6..0_H_O_nn. ___ Op.~ll!-a~p_s.i..t.e_ I .Ji 31-1-0449 __ .. _ .. HAUL______.HUrthur _South_. ______J7.90._J.900. ___ 292800 _6409400 _. 29260 _ 640.9.60 ____Open_ camp .sHe_ _";":,..31:2:0450 __HAU7 ____Ht_Ar~hur ... South ______3}.9.0_ ._.9.9.00. __ .292S00 __ 640?4.o.0_291.50 ___ b..~O_?_6_0_. __0~.P.11~:~.~P_s.i_t.e_ .. ...:.J7:2.:045L-.-MAU8 ______.Mt. Arthur..South _____3.7JO __9900_2?2S00_ 6109400_n24.0_640.9.S.0___ 0p?-D~:a!u.ite _ 1__ 3].:.2.:045L_HAU9 HUr.thuUout~ 3}J5. __9.8J.5_._n230L6~08_9_00_2J20_0_64.9JJO_-.open c_a.~p_sit~__ ._. 37:2-0453 .____ HAUOO. ______MUrthur_ South __ ... ___ 3785 .. _ 9900.._. 2?2300 __ 6409400 _29220 __ 640950 ____Open mp_site_ -37-?-Ol5.4 __HAU0.1 ______. ___ .Mur:.thur_ South_____ . __ )l8.5_-'110_0_2J23.0.0~.40J.4.0~....J.9220 __6}.p.?_6L_O~?D..!J!P_i.i1~ _ 1_ 37:.2:0455 .__ HAs..10~? ______.___ HUrthur._South._ ._____ 3.7.85_J90L._292300 6'40HOO ._29200.._HOm ____Open_muit~ _ __U:.2.:.04~0 __ HAU.0.3 ML~r:.thuUou~h 378.L..1J00._411.3_0_L64.0}JOL.2JllL_i4.9970__ 0p~,-c..a~Ls.H.e_ I ~~-;~:~~~!;~ ---~- -_·~:;-.i~!-=-~=-=~=-=·-~~ :~~~~~. ;~~~~ --~~~~~.~.;:~ -;:~; .. -. ;;;~~~ !1~:~~~' -~:;!~-- ~!i~~~-.. -~~~:~ ~:~~ .!~~: -- ..,._.37:2-0459 ___ MAS10L Ht. Arthur South ______3.7.9L __ 99!O _._2?2700 . H1030L29060 __64lOL ____Open._muit~_._ ._._:31:.2.:0m __HAU.07.. HUrJh.uUou.th 3790 99lL_m}00_0~~03.0_0_21V..o 64!OLO__ 9~:e.D~Amc_?HL_. -.l-J.7.:HH.l __.HAU08 MUr.thur South l71D_9H0 __ Jn700 _6m300_2.9.n0~41030 ___0p~n mu5.te _ 1_ '_3J-=-2_:0J6.2 ____ ..HAU09 Ht Art~uLSouth n~LJ..9J..o_2_~2]_0_0__ 6~10J.OL_t~2lO_J'!JP.~O ___ ~~"L::1!p' __ ~ite_ -I- 37.:2:.0463 ___. HAU10 ______JUdhur South ______3.7J.O __ 9310 __ 2.92700 _ oH03.00__ 2.9.25Q_OA 103.0.... __Op?-lLmuit~_ -Wl:.2':0.g~ __ .MAS.ll~ HUrthur_ Sp.ut.h 3790 _~li. __ 2.'!.2}OO_04lO.8.0_0_2JPO 6H0_0__ 0P.sp. mp sUe_ 1 ~.. 37-.2-0m . _.. HAS 112. __ ._____ . ___ .. ___ Ht Arthur South _. __ . __ . ___ .3790 _ 9915 __ ..192700 6410800 21240 641070 _" __ Open mp_site '" I I __t:{9. I,(. tl~I.~L~bgr:i,gJ.llill__ Si. t~.~Y.~_g_i.~ t,~T_J~§!~~-.l?L:i"nt~d_~J'ta_y9.0 __'1 ~16__ . ______._____ .__ .__ _ I Siteid Sitenm· E250k N250k Calc fro! 250K E25K N25K Sitetype(s I I ____ If.3'/>,I._NPI,Io.l3. Abo_riginal_ .S.ite~P..egiste j-__Y-ag.E:L...16_~r; o:t!ad __Way9n __ <;:.~16 __ _ ._--_._-_._----- I Siteid Sitenm E250k N250k Cale fro~ 250K E25K N25K Sitetype{s . 3703-0012 ..St.Clair .. -. ------. St.Clair 2 - .. ------429L_J.. __ .-. mm 6419800. m55. _64194L ______Open mp_s.i..te --- _.l7.::H013 Baybuck HilL_ .. ______._____ Baybuek Hill 4. ______.. ___ ._4173 ___ .12. __ 33670LW0400 m86 . 641990 ___ . _'Open mp .s~~.~. _ I · _ 37-3-,00 lA __ . _BaybucUill ______BaybucUill 5______m.6 __ .. 35. __ 337000 _..6422600 _,3367,4.. _64224& ______OpeJ!_mp _s.l.te,;- ___ 37-3:0015.. .. - .Baybuek. Hill ____ .__ .______.Baybue~, Hill L .______4171_ 3.9. ___ . 336S00 _6422900 _33629 __ 642286. _____ open_mp_s~te. ______37-3-0016 .. __ . _CambmelL __. ______. ___ Oaklands J ______J013 .. _ 9832,._..313300 __ 6403500 __ . ______._. Open::.amp slte_ 1 · 37-3-0017 CambmelL _____ .. _ .. __ .. _ Bo~mans Creek _ __ ... ___ ....40SL __ 9846 316900 _ 6404900... _. _ ...... Cpen camp site. · _37-3-.0018. __ . .Falbrook ____. ____ ... Arizona ..... _.. ______4131. J933 ... 324400 6413000.. . ___ . Stone amngmn! _-- 31:3:0019 . --- Glennies. Cree~_ -- ______.. ..5ydenham. - .. ___. ___ 1..134_..9.881... _..324200 . 6408200 ____ .. _._ - ---. - Seamd..tr:e.._. - _37..:3-D02L __ .Mt OH ye_ ,~bodginaUission __ ... _St. Clair Missi.on_. __ .____ mo __ ._n6L __ .332900 . ,6415600___ .. _. ___ .______...Cq,ntaet. Jmlon 1_. ,37+002.1. .___ Falbrook .._____ .______Ar.irona. __ ._... ______1..137 ___ 9933 .___ J2HOO._ .6413000_ .. _.... ____ . __._~ ___ Axe_,grinding"gI;Qc _. _.37-H02L .. _ .. Lake Glenbm _____._. ___ -----:------... ----- .... __t011 ___UL __ .312300_ 6H.7300 __ ---... ----__ ~car.r_ed. tr.?-e_· ___ ..3.7-3:0023 .... .Ta!horough.Gully ______.... __. ____ .______._____ 4024..._.J63.. ___ ..313400 6452100 ...... __ . ______Open.mp site __ 1____H:H02L_ .. Redbank_ Cr.eek ______Hunter..Ri ver __. ______J_OBL_382. ___ 319.0.0.Q _645.1,000 ____ .____ . __ SGafle.O.r.e~ _ .___ 37-H02.5.. _____ Glennies CreeL______. ______.______.. _._4.0.9L_9881 ____ 321000 .. 6408200. . . .. ______..open.!.amuite- ___ J7.-H026 .. - __ Glennies Creek. ______.. _.. ______. ____ .____ ...4.09L._9876._ 320900 6401700 __ . _. _. _____ .Open mp_site_. 1_. __ 1I::3:0017 __ . __ Glennies._Cree~~ ______.. ______.UO~1 _988L..J2120L6.1,08200 ______. ___Open._muit.e __ _~E:.3..:0m _~J.idde 11 ___Bays.~ater _c..r.eeL_ mO_9.932._J1310L6412JOL ___ ... __ .____ .,op.e.uamp_ s.ite_ --_3.7-H029. _. _.stringybarUreek ______. ______m.L __ 9.990_._J200.00 ... 641810L ______0peua~p_sit.L 1.___ 3L+0030 __Stringyha r.Ur.eek __ .. _. ______--.I..0.90_J99S_J2000L.6418.60D.. ______.--0pep'- mp_ si,tc ...... ;.....31'::.1:.003L. __ .5tringybarUreek _____ .______4.080._ ... mo __ J19100 _6HI200 _. ___ ._. ______.ope!Lm!uit~.:::.. ___ r1.:H03L_j.ornnu.r.m~ ___ 40.50_1.0 __3163.00 _641.9,9,OO._. ______OP.8!LCUp_..s_i..te_ .. _. .37:-:J-0033 .. _.Farrells .Creek.. _____ .. _ ... _____ . ____ .. _. _____ ._ 4020 .. __ .9830 . m~oo 6.1,03.1,00. . ______. Open .m!) site'.. 1__ ._....J.I=.3:.00 3L_Le.ming.ton Le!i!l&t.onJ _____~_OJo_m07_J13000_.J402~00_ OP?-lLeamp ...5_i.te.....: ._1I:.H035 ____ Lemington ______.Lemington. ~______. _4010 7"": 9B30_31300L6403400 ______Ooen_mui te_ _._-..-31-..3:.0036 _Jl,mnswor..tL_ ~a.vens~or..ttLB 4,0,lO.::._.l9JO_313100_641.mO____ OpeD...G.~~P..1ite.._ 1_ .1l:l:00.37. Rmns!!o.r_th_. __ RavenswortU ______!.oio... .. _2.93L_ 3W.DL.mmO ______Opeua~!U.itL __31:.H038 __S_tr:ingybarX....cr:e~k 4.09_L_99JL_m50.0_H1.860~_____ . 9P..e.. [L~a.!LS_U~_ ___ 3I=.3:003L_..s.tringYba.r~. __ cr.eeL ______.. ___ . ___·to.6.0 ___ 9960._.Jm.00._64LmO ______~· __ Open __ c.a!o_.site _ __.37..:3:004Q __.Bomns...CJ.ee~~ ______.. __ 40J.S__ 2n __ 320400_642.0~0_O ______~.~u.Li..Pcdi_n9....gr.J· 1 . __ .3U-0041 ____ .BowmanLCr.ee~______.. ______4090 __20 ___ ... 320000 _6420900 __.. ____ .____ .. Open _muitc _37-.3-::004L_Bom.ns.. Cr.eek_ .______._4..0~O_20 __J19l0.0_j.l,Z'0809 ______Q!;.~n_mp_si.tC --.3H:004L ... --Bomns .CreeL ______. ____ .______AD.7.0_10 _._.318200 .... 641990Q ____ .______Open_mp __sitc 1.__ 17.:1:.0044 .__ Bo.m.n.U:"r.eek· (OJO_J.0 __31]J.o.0_6!.20~0_Q ____. pp~iL~~m.Q_s it 'L.. .. _3.I=.H045..._._Smp__ CU. !10.0 ___ 99.70 __.3.21000 ___ W.6}00 ___ . ______"'Op.e.n...ca~p..J..i..tL ____ 37~.H04.6__ Smp_Creek SmpSJeeU mO~LO_ -- J21900 __ J4.1HOO______Opens.a~p __s.HL 1.__ ._3.7.:.H04L __CedaLCreeL ______Cedar CreeLL______4050_.25 . ___ .31b300 642130L _____ ._ ..... ______Open..ca!p. site .. . _37:.3:.0 048 __C.er;iaLC.r.ee k _C.edaLC_r.ee~ B .I,.OJO_3_0__ 3l5~00_.Jmm______._Op_eJLi~p_.?il'L.. ___ ..37-3.-0049. _.. _.CedaUreek. ___ . ___ ._._.___ Cedar Creek .C. ______J040 ___ 40 ... 315400 ..6422600 .. __ . __ .. __ ...__ ._.Open.mvite._ __ U:3.:0050 __Jo,rkUJeek .. _Y.orkUreek A to..8.0__ J960 ___ 319.200 _6415.400. ____. __ .. ____ .. _Opens·l.mp_~itL 1. ____ 37-3-.005L ____ Jorks .Creek ______.Yorks. CreeU ___. ____ J090 ___ 9970 ____ 320100 . .b416300_ ..... _ .. ___ .__ . _Open _mp_ s.ite_ U-H_0.52 LiddeJl B.mJ!a.t~LCu!~!. .1,011 9946_31nO.LW~0_00 ____.____ 9p.e.~s~mp_ii..t_L _.32:-3:00S3.. _liddell ______Jaymter_ CCeeL _____.I,Ol.L_9.9H __ .3129.o.L64HOOO. ----._ ---- _____Op.e.n __ ~BU.ite _ ___3.I:3:90S4 _..Li.dqeJl ~p.y_s.wateUJ.~~L ______401_~_9J}.S. __~1~.0_OLJJJ3J9_0____ OP!-ll e~!L~liL I . __ ... .37:3:-0055 _____ liddell __..Bays water LJeeL ______401Q_9947 __31280LHW.OO_. __. __ . ______Opel1.. c.amu_i"te_ .3..7.-3-00S6. S,t,c.ingyb.arU.reek .Hebd.e.n __ .. ___ .__ . 4P1L - ~9bL_Jl6iOO_.~41~_OOO ______-- _Jp~.n mP...._s_L~:.... .___ 37:3.:00.57.... ___ Joy Brook.. Hebden ______4.0..4..S_.}95S ___ }16000._.641480.0______.. ______0pen.la~p_.si..te _ I ___37-3:.0061 __JeUY-'-? __ ~lai.n.s BBC_ 9______mJ~.806 __ 31~1.0_0_ .. 6J.0120L_.:... . ______~p~!lS.a~Ls.U~_ .37-3-0%2 SUlair 1 ___ ... _ ... __ . _.4190' .999& __ 338300 6419000 ...... ____ . Op~n .. mp_site __ 3J.:J:0063____ .GCC.1 . ------.. - --. -- Cas;eil_. ______._U.~._9855 ___ m_50L_~4.0?900 JP6L.. 640580. __.9p~~..5.:HLsit~ _ 1_____ .31_-3-0064_._GCCL___ ._Camll ______. ____ 4.164_._9847 ._.J2110.o_.6405200 ___ m20 __6.1,04LL __ ep~n_mp.site. _ .. J7:.3.:0065 __GCC3__ Cmell 4160 9840 326700 6404500 22707 640Hl Open mp site I '~-. -_~~;~~~~~~:L~_~-~~~~~==-::=-~-=--= .~~::::}f~ --'--- ___ -~~_ -~- _:-~~! ~.- :~!f=~~~i~~~'~!1'~'f~~f~-;i'!;f=:'1~~!:!~_~ ~;~~~~::~}i~:~ __ ._ 37:.3-0068 ... ___ GCCb _____. _Camll_. ______. ____4.155 _ .9847 _ 326200 .. 6405200 _.32679 . 640.166. ____ Open_ ca!p .. 5ite _--R: 3:.90~.L __G~C7 Ca~HeJt __. 4HI_J.B5_ A_. _ 3,269.00 __ .§~05~Lm~~._6~04 71.._~~~:!~.!.P.3J.~:.... __ 37.:3:.007.0 ___ GeC8 Camll __ .. ______. __ 415L_ 9855 .. __326200 __ 6405900._326Z1 ___ 640_480. ___ . __ Open. ~a~p. site I _--.:..;37-,-3-0.011 __G~C9 C?~.~.e~l 4151 9850 325?00 6405400 32667 640419 Open mp site __,3,7.:J:.O.OU __JCC1.0_ ._5mell---- 4i.~f-98~5L.·~-.3;6P·O-(·6..{06}90~}26..sCJJ;OUL ___ J~nj.a~pjT~e~ _JJ.:~).:O.O.7.3__ GC~1.1 __ . Cmell 4160 9859 326700 6406300 32651 6A0531 O~~n mp site I "37-3-0074 GCm _.______'Cas~e-li --~.~~== 41~-9 _ ~ ?84~32S700-'64Q5'20-0 _ 3263CJ§QS08 ___ ~_ epen.:.l.-~P 3it~~ I

I Siteid 5itenm EZ50k HZ50k Ca le fro! 250K E25K H25K Sitetype' .___ .37:6-0224 __ Singleton .______Pioneer_.Ave_J4. ______J18L_.975I ___ 329100 .J3_9.7.000 ______Open __ mp~site -----3.1:H22L-singleton--- ______P.ionee.r..AvdL ____ .______418L __ 91.5.7__ 329100_6.3.91000 ______. ____ Opeu.amp ...s~te- ______.3.7:6-:0226____ .SingletoL_____ ~ioneeUve .1L.__ _. __UB-4._-1_I58._J22000 JJ9UQO ______.Open_mp_s-l~e..:.. 1_ .. 37-Hm .... Hambledown HilL ___._ . ______._. ____ . ______H2L .. 970L _ 323700 6392000 ___ .__ .__ . ___ . __ Open_mo __ s:i.t'e_ ____ 37:6.:0230 ----Singleton____ Old Fm ____. ___ ._H22 __ J68L_J23500 _6389800 --.. ------_Open __mui.t.e_. ___3I:.6:0231 ____ Singlet.orL ______Reservoir. HilL __ .______H4.L_9HL_ 32530L6.39S_90L ______. __ .. ___ .Open ca~p_site _ 1___ 37-6-0232 __ .. Sipgleton. __ .______V.A/H.S ._. ___ .______~108 _9759 3221006397000 __ ._. ___ .____ .___ .Openmpsite ___ 3_7:6:_0133 __Singleton ____ . - ______BR37 ______J16L_ 9784...... 321.000 _.6399.400.. __ - ______Open __muite _ ___37..::6-mL_ ... Singlet9n .______Bridge!an_Joad ______4J6}_ ...977.5 ___ m£00 __ 63_9860o______._Op_elia!LSi.t~ _ 1_--..-J.l:6:.023.S ___ Rixs_.C.r.ee~c ______HiD... _9803 ___ .32220o __ .. 6401100..._. ______.____ -'Opef!._camp_s.H~ - ___37~_6:.QnL ____ Rixs_~~eek ______4JU .__ ~803 ____ 322600.. HOl100 ______. ____ Op~11_mu.i1e_ ---J.1:.6:.Q23L- __ RixLCr..eeL ______. m.L __ 9802. __ 32560LH01.00L ______. ____"OpeHa!p-s~te-- 1__31:6:0_23L __Rixs_.-Creek.. ______4.151 ___98.0_L_32620LHQ1100 OpeLG.amLSJtL ____ 37.+0239 ___ .Rixs_.creeL ______Jm_9808. __ mm __ 6401600 _____ .______Op~n_mp-si te_ 37-6-0240 Rixs Creek Stone _QuarrLGull.L ___._~.14.6 ___ j]9.3 __32.5.500 __ 640_Q200______9P~LLG~!p_si.te__ __Jl:_6.:02U ____PixLCreek._ _stone..QuarJ-Y._Gully _____USL...JI98 __326.500_6J0010L ______Ppen_.ca!ui.te _ I __31-J:O_242_Jixs_Cr:.eek tHL_9J9J __ J250.D.L6l0l60_L ______.QP.en e.a~u.it.e_ ___31~6:-.024L __ Rixs_C.reek______HlO ____ 217L_322Z0L6398100 ______0pelLmuite_ __ 31.. -_6:02H ___ Rix_ureek _____jJ1t_-1J72_32_2JOO __ 6_m100______0P..eJLCamL$H~ 1__ J_H.::0245 ___Rixs_c.ree~~ ______. ______U1L_J]1.8._jmOLm8_80L ______OperJa!p-sjt~ _~_Jt.6:0246 __.RixUr..e_ek 41.2_n,_~m_ml0n,__ ~~981'O'O OP.en .c.imuj1~_ -.--3.7.:.6:.02.4.L--JixLC.teek ~123~~W_ .. 3.2.3.+00 __63_mOO ___ .______~C:£!e(Lca!p __ si.t..e_ ---.-31:.6:.024 L_Ri xU.r.ee_k UIl __9m_32m~_6.318J09___ O.p..en c?"~ult.L 1__Jl: 6-0 24 9 _. __ Rixs Jreek mo __ .971~_3WOO_6.m6_00 ______0.P.en..c?~P_S-Lte.. 37+0.2.5_0___ RhcL~r.e..e_L__ 412J.~_JtQO_3.2.35.09_~m~OO Open ca_~ silL __31:_6..:mL..-RiXs._Cree~ _illL..ll9_3_32.40.00_6~0010L_.. _____Open...ca~P_Site... I __3H.:QZ_5L-RhU.re.ek 4U..L_t1J~_3.2JJQ_O__ m_U_O_O Open ~;.~ujte __3l:6..:0253. __Rixs..C.r.e.ek 4.0JL_...2I66_J1.650_LmmL161L_9U1 __Op.eo _c_amu Lt.e_ --3.1:.6.:0JS.4--.WOllQ!bi 4059 92.83_31am--.i3..SJ19_0_!.8t ___5lb ____ S_b.elt~l..Lart 1___37.:.6:-0255 ____ Bagnell~ __ Cr.ee¥~______U22 __ 93U____ 32HOL6356.600 ______S.tcnurr_ange~e .. __U:_6..:0256 __ Yango..c.reeUoad ___U29_J2}1 __ J2480t .6.35_2~09.._. ______S_~el.tei u.r.L ---3H:0257 - ____ co!bn______.Wonarua Park ______.4186 __9759 ___ 329200. __ 6397200 ______8uriaL_- __. __31:6..::01.51 __Wollp_p.b_i (2~__ njj __ 33110_0.-635J.~0 .. Q l~e.l.te.. L_~ __ Q.§Q.Q.~ 1~1:6::a15J___ Wollo!bL TalllieJ:a_G.r.o~~ Hl8.._U3~.32.'1.20L.6.35.8.8.00 ______J_belt:~r_L~ep.9_~ ____.31.:6~.26_0 __ SJoc.k.y.a[d...c.r.eek 4079 nU_UQ.. ill_61illOO ___ 5.h~lJ~r earL __ 31.::6::026L_StockXard..Creek ___40B1_Jm .. _ mm _63..56900 __. ______._____ .she.l teL!._ m.. __ 1__ ,,-,-37-HJ6_L_8B_C 1 ~erm_l.. kins fJ.21 9796 .3111.00 6400300 1376 36 Op~IL.9_m sitL .__ 31:H263 __.88U ______J_er.r!s_~lains___ 402L __ 9U8_3_H1O.O__ HOOJO_0_138t __5_7 _____Op..e!LC_affi,u.i.k 3H-O_2~_4 ___~B~ 6 J!--:.rrYs eJ.;.l_ns 4020 978?_3JJQ.Q.LP.39960_0 1376 9954 Op~~ mp.-?ite ___3J:_H265 ___BBU J_ern'_s_11a.i.os 40J1_2.1.9_S_31.50_0LJJQ020LHLL __ ~ Op..eJLCJ_!p_~.iJ~_ I __U..:~.:.o_2.66 __ BBC 8 Jerrys ptaj.ns 4032 9798 31.liOU400~_0~_H8L_U OQin ca~~_.~.HL __ 3.7.:6:026L .. _KurrL KurrUOLL ______. ______mo ___ 9450 __J6030L6369.50LJ5942.. _636946 ___ -'Open mp_sH_e_ 1___ 3.1..::6.:0_268 ___Ku.r.cuurrLJo_z. 4~Z_0_9~~L-~_6010.0_6.3l0_40Uji~__ .6.3.Q2.61 __0jl~iL_mp sit.t .. ___31.:6.:026.9. __KurrUur.rUo~3 ___ .______J5.20 __94.60_36030L6.3IOm _3.5.9JLJ.3.6jlL __OpeJua~p siJ§ _ ___U.::6:0270 ___KuUU.l!r.rU.o.4 4~21-2.46t_~6_03_00._JmlglJ5?!LJ]6~_81 __Jp_en ca.~p SUi __ 3.7.:6 __ :027L_.KUrrU:urri..NO~5 4.510_ ...9.470 ____ 36020o...6.371_30LJ5_95L _63.6.98L __Op_€l1....Q.~~P-S.i.t~ _ ___3l:..6:.0Z12 __ ReUanLCceeU2 _____J_m __ nSJ __ m5_00_~39.mLJJ3JO ___ 6J~?.5_0__ 0pen s.a~jL~J.te_ 1_____ J7:_6:02IL_ Wa!bo_l. _ Warkworth ..Collier-Y. ______4004_97.30_ .312_600... 639420L3126.9 __ 639A 29 ___ !Jpel1_mp .sHe. __ ~l:..6:.02) C __Jambo __ 2 Ja ~kwor:.tb______4.~_2_9}10 __3)2IQLH99790 _3H~Q.._ 6394 23 ___.Qpg.D ca!p_~H~_ __ lH::021.5 __Red_BanlL(mUO 4_0.1.+ __97.55 ____ 313S00 _63.9.6S00_3UZ.5_6_396.2.S __Jpeil.!. .. a!p j.ile_ 1--' H:6-02]} Baysw_at~Ur.ee!U_O ~a!bm~n 40JL181.2__ 314500_J49noO_3JJ51_64068~ __Op~rJ...~a~p_~it.e _ _.37:6-:0278_ __Baymter..Creet-1L ______CambetwelL _4026 __ .9872_. __ .314.400 .. _640.u00_3lH2 __ b4071.L_0p~G_mp_site ____ .37-6-0279 - Baymter_ CreeU2__ Cambmell __ .______402t ___ 9872 _ ~14.500 _.6407200 31450 640700 .... ___ Open mp_site 1 __ .__ 37-6-02S0 ___ .BaymteLCr.eeU3_ Ca!bmell .. ______._4027 ___ 9873 _. 31450o_. 640mO 31453._ 640710 _ Open camp site __31:H281_--.JQ!~9 Wonarua Park Council Reserve 4186 9759 329200 6397200 Burial . 31-6-0282 Eaymt.er..1r.eeU Ca~b-~weU=-==--===~_O_3} - j_873_Ji5400_6~OJiOL_31~06__ M9_~5_Q __. _Ope-i~.~_a!p_sLte- __ll:..6..::0.283 __ aaJ.~M.a_t~r Creel< C G~!b_eL~el.1 4038 98.I.L_3.1550_0_6~mO_LJJIJ,L..JiQH1... __~~n ml1._1.ite 1___3J..:6_:028L_BaymteUr.eeU _____Ja!ber_well 4040 9874 315iOO H07400 31555 640700 Cn~n ~~!n ~ite __37-6.:.O.2.85 ___tuJkYJ.ill.." ------4-3i6--9764---341io·0--6-3-97eOO--- .. -.- - --o;~n~;:!~~~iig 1___ 37.:6:_0Z:~ __ElderSlie____ u2:z=mL34i6~00=6JJ15_0_0______Qpe-'lJa!p_site_ I

Sitetype( I Site id Sitenm E250k H2S0k Ca le frol 2S0K E25K N2SK __ 31-+0287 ..._ HUhorley __ MI..1.~ ______4.09.5.--J63L._32liOO __ 63S5tOO.-2.08.7_8m Ops~~m!l.,sitL .__ .J1_-6.-02S8.. ___HUhorley._ ------. KIi.-.------. ___ 4D9S_J632.. ___ UllOO _~38S40Ll0SL....85n2---_0pen.mp-.3ite- __3.1.::Hm ___liUhor.ley t!LL...._. 40.~Hi._3208.0.0._638m.oJO.S~8583. ____..ope.ua.mp-site.:. 1_ .. _.ll::6::.0290 __._}lLThorle~____ ---1iU---- mL-96J5_3208DLBlliOUMO-.-86J.L--_tipeILmp..sife-- __ 31=6:-.02.9_1 _. ___ MUhorle.¥-______._HL5 ____. ____ .!nll-..9~5n __ 32080L~3al.D.OO_?OlL....868G. ____Op?uaap . .silL -----3J-6.~019L __.Mt. Thor ley ______._.HL L ____ . _. 409L-965L _320BOIL .638Z600-1015-.. '870 R.. __.Jlpe.!LCa!p...site.... 1__ ~1::6::0m--HUhorle¥ MU 1.Q9_? _96S8~20aOU.m.B.o.L2.!!O.6. m,~ npe.n..ca~p_iliL . 3H::0294.--!lUnor-ley ~I 8 ___, __ 4ML_96.S.IL...... J20800.....b18lO0UM2.- 8718 flpe.n_ca~llL ~l:H195.. __MUhOrlPY H~. 401L...l6S.D_31OS0Umo.oUOl ~~JliL ~.enJ...a.~p_s.ilL 1 ------31:-.6.-029L_._HUhor:le..y_ KUO ______._4Q9L_..J65L_320BOLJl8180L.2010 __.S743 ___i1peua!!Ls.it~. --31-H?9L-JUhorlev HT 11 -1O~jH~~ _m.aQQ...138.6.6.QUO.R_J6.o7 OpatLc.amp...slt.L __ JH::029L--HUhOtl~ KI!? 40I~96A.S_m5DU3m~IL..l9J.i_864! Dp.etLc.a~r ~itp 1__ .>LJ31-'J-6~-mL---1IUhorle}'. .J!L 13 A.OILJ.~~3mOLilllill....l205~.7 27 .Op.e.n_c.a!L~ ~ tL 1. --31:.~:030L ___ MUhorle.y --1I.UL______4.Ql8. __9.~_~~_31..9.5.QL6l8ill!L193D _ _.lliL___ npfn..c.a!!p-s.ltL 37-.6:.03JJL-l1.Uhn.rle~ HI 1~ ml--.9.ill._31820.U_m.56.0.Llli.8_84.5L ___ ~p~"ua~p_sitL _---"3u.:l-:~030L--KUhorl~y ~J..l.6. .in6L...9HL_31820Lm5ill....l17~_-aW np?!LCa!!lLSitL I __-.ll±OlOl--MLlhorlpy liLlL- J.D.6L.-Jl~ml0~n _U858.0 n 1]Q2 ~.m Op?.ua!p..s.i tp_ .--11::k030L-_HUhor.ley__ __1!LlR__ mL_9.m __ 31.83.o.0-63a5.90Ll19_~ __855.L __ . __OpetLmp..sitL __ ..Jl:.6:030_~ __HLThorley _ liU9 (Q~_~_9J3L...JmOO_m5J.D.LillJ_8m____ Op?.tLC.a!p-s.it.L 1__ 31-:-6.:-.0306. _____ HLIhorley .. ______HL2L _ _ !DH_._9635 __31830L638560Lj]]L_. 8m___ Open._mp...sit~ ~Eb:.Q3D7__ MUhQrle1 -'!UL____ .. ____ ~6.L-J.6~S_31B3_0L~8.5.6.0UL8.5 __am ____ Qpe.ua~l4s.itL ::6.-030L-HUhorle . .HU_? ______4Dli-J.6lS..._ !a40Ul85.60Ll&OL-.&.5.1L--_OIle.n.!'2!P_.lltL --- 31 y ' __ Jl:.~0309 __ HUhor:le.y- ---.JIL1L_ 4~631~f18200 _.h.38mLL7.6L_a53L ____Opeua!p_s.~tL 1___.31.::6.-:0m ___ MUhodey !!L1L- 4Q~63t_._31810L638550L1714_...B51L ___Open..ca~p_.slte-- --11±O~1J ~.i.lhnrley HT 25 JO~3L1l8lOLm5~no !7~1 B.S1L_.-Dp?.tLC.a!uit.L ----ll~.6:_Q312 MUhotle..y Ii.U~ HJ8 9.615 3?3?"n m6ill...13.lO-8b.0~ .Ope.!LCa!lL~ite.... 1 -Zl:.6.::031~ H.uho.rl~y HI 27 UlL~.6..i~~_liillO._m~.6.QLllQ~.6.Q~..--Op.e.!L. .c.a!p-illL _~3,J.::7·.. 6:_OllL.-HUbotley .__ liUL illLjb4_~_3illOO"..l386.6.!lL23.0L-8~q~ npeJl..ra!!LsitL 37-6-"115 Ht Thnrl~v HI 2Q .ill R q6.!~23?on ~3R6~QL ?2Q~.. __ R5q? Open.!..aLlP ~jtL I __lH::.n31L--~_Uhor:le.~ --.l!U~ ______ill8_9H_' _,32l1O.U386b.o.o_lllL mR npe.n..m!LS.llL __31:6-:031L ___ HUhor leJ ______.J!L 3L.____ . ______J 118. ___ 9645. ___ 3232.00._63866.0L 2288 .__ J586 ___._0p~n _camp 5itc ._._11+.0318.-_ MLIhor:ley ______. ___ HUL ______. ___Hln_ 963.8. .... 312500 .. H8b.OOL2128 _.a5n. ___QpeLmp_~ite.. __-,,-37L-:LH}1~LIh.orley KIlL.._ j~161B_J.US_Q.o q86.o0.L212.~~.s37 O~1lia.~p sitL 1_----11::kQ32L __HLIhorley__ ~J 34_ mO._9.m._ 31880L638ill.iL1Blll __am ____OpeLmp..sitL -Z7-~-D.32L-J.U~o.rlev I!U5 !0l~3.5_m.80U3mnU~.5.\q np.91Lmp site __ 1H::0321 __.HUhOrle~ HUb. m.O_~.6.3_~ _.318800 .....6385600...18.4.5 __85.4.4 Opeua!p s.itL 1__ ll:±:Om __RedbanUre.eL ~o~U. 101t__ ...J}5.5 __Jlm.U.3.9.6.5.0.o.J.lli~6J5. Q~11'!'3'!~lU.LtL ____3.l:H32L-RedbanUree! t!!l.J~ __!.ol1 __ 91'i~~ _' mSQlJ...... 6llm.Lill_' _..9.6.5_n __OP?ILC.a!!l_.s.ltL 37+03.2.5__ Redban~..J.r..e~k Jlo.J7 tQl~5~31l5~O...J39610.LJ.2JO~lQ Op~n e.~.Lsite __-"-J37,--~O.UL_- _RedbanUJeek ~o~4.L..._ 40LL.....m.5_3L3500_6.3mQLl2.s.0~J50 Ope.ua!u.ilL I __3"...7...,-6-11.327 Ile.d.b.allk C~e..e~ ~.o-,J9 401.4 9755 3J350U39650Ll1~~50 Op!." mp sitL __3.1:6.:U328 ___ RedbanUr?ek ---.Ho... 50 tQLL-9.l55_3U500_6.3.96.50n. ....12:35 __ 9m Op~l1.!.a!uLt.L __3J:6~032L_RedbanUreek __No.H_._ 4.0_H_JJ.55 __3.13S0o.JJJ.6S.00_1280 __ J.640. ___0p.e~.saBP..sitL 1__ 31-~-03.3L_~R,edbanUree~ __ . NoJt J.QlL....mL_3mOO._m.65.0.0....l3.1O"' __~6JS Op!:O....C.a!uite_ .__ n:6~.0331 _____ R~dbanUr:eek____ .No, H__ 4.o.1.L. _Jm__ 3l3.S.0.L9.3JJ5P.0_1300 ___ 9.6.35. _____0pe"~.!_3mlLs.it.L __ 3.7-.6:.0331 .__ Jump. Up_CJeek. ______No •. ~ mc_~635_3384.00_6386000_ _Opeo...mp_s.i.t.e _ ___37-H315 __ Coog,e.wai 4308 9215 3.U}9.u~moo Shelt.er c aL 1.. ---.-l7.:.6:.0m~~ourinjade 4.ta7_J33]__ 330000_6J586.0_0 ______S.h~l.t~r ucL 3H-0.33L.... Bays~ateU_ce.e!U4_ CaEbemll ______4.Q.2J. __18]~31.4~0.0._6J.oD_O.LIli30_6JO]!L2 __ Op?-" ca.~Q..liJ?,,- H-6-0m Baymte.!:_CreeU5 Ca~bmelL__ 4.0.2L...J8U_314500 __ .HDllOO_3.Ltti _6JOW__ Op.en_mp __siJe_ I 37+QU9 a~'ys.w.a.ter ~Le~.Lg Camb_elwel.l 4035 98§6--1Jll.Q9_HQ.670L)H8LJiQi2.2___ Qp~.n.SJ~p_1UL -.-l.I.±.mL.... BayswateLC.mUl C.amb.e.mlL 4Q2.6._.~8.6J__ .314~.OO_H.070.0.0_31U6_W_63L_~pen_~.aep_s.itL . 3}-6-034L-8ays.~ateLCteeU.8 .Camberwell ___. 4,0,2,5__ .,986J_3H390 _6~0.6909_}136L._6~0b.3.5 ___0p~o ..mp_site_ I -.3l:6-0.3~~ay.sl!ateLC.r:eek Iq Cambmell ---..J.o.lB.-.-2856__ 3.lt6.00_6JO.5,B.0.O _.3UJ3_640.56.L __Open..eamv_i.t?_ 37-6-0~43 B~'y?J!.a1eJ Cr.eek 20 ~a!~~l!,en 4030 9.81L-lWOO 6409400 31417 640944 QQ.en ca~p....?ite ---.Jl+03H B.aymteLC.r..ee~ 1 Caabe.r.weU 40.2L..J8.8.I __ J1.4)_OL.640_B.6.00~H40_H9~~L __·_0.p.ep0.a~.LtUL 37-6-0,345 Bayswa.t~tlLe?-!' 2 ~aeb.e.Lw~.ll 402L..J.8_8_0_3J~..5!Q._6..40800L]JJ6~_140!9]___ ~p'en ~~~jl site_ 1__3].:.6::0346 BayswateLCre.eU Ca!h.e.DLelL_ 4O.21_9.8l9_3W.O.0._6iOD_OO_31.4:U_6A,Om Op~n q~p' silL __U:J::g,~4_7 __Jay.m.t.er Cteek 4 - C_i!bm~ll 4026~7~Jl.H.Q9_.H0770_0._~43L_H.Ql5.2___ 0~D mn site 1__ 31:!.:'Q31..L_8ay?~ate.UJ.eeUj.E!uct ~a.~ber.~e.ll 40_2J----.Wl_3112.QL.H.QllO.LJ1U1._H06}j__ Qp~J).J.~!uiie_ I

I Siteid Sitenm E2S0k H2S0k Ca le from 2S0K E25K H25K Sitetype(s