Archaeological Technical Report - Blacktown City

Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP 30211 in Riverstone NSW

Archaeological Technical Report

Prepared for

Elite International Development Pty Ltd

May 2018

R e s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f L o ts 1 & 8 DP 3 0 21 1 i n R i ver s t on e N S W - AT R

© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D ii

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP 30211 in Riverstone NSW

Project Number 17SYD - 7752

Project Manager Tyler Beebe

Prepared by Tyler Beebe, Lorien Perchard

Reviewed by Alistair Grinbergs

Approved by Karyn McLeod

Status Final

Version Number 3

Last saved on 10 May 2018

Cover photo Transect C, ELA 2017

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2017. Residential Development of Lots 1 & 8 DP

30211 in Riverstone NSW. Prepared for Elite International Development Pty Ltd.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Elite Development Pty Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Elite

Development Pty Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on

the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers

should obtain up to date information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon

this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific

assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 29/9/2015


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iii

Contents

Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. viii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Details of the Proponent ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Brief .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Purpose and Objectives of the archaeological assessment ......................................................... 1

1.5 Statutory Control ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.5.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) ............................................................................... 4

1.6 Investigators and contributors ...................................................................................................... 4

2 Archaeological background ...................................................................................................... 7

2.1 AHIMS search results ................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Previous archaeological assessments ......................................................................................... 8

3 Landscape context ................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Landforms and topography ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 13

4 Regional character and predictive model .............................................................................. 15

4.1 Regional character ..................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Predictive Model ......................................................................................................................... 15

5 Research design and sampling strategy ............................................................................... 16

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Background................................................................................................................................. 16

5.3 Research design ......................................................................................................................... 16

6 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 18

6.1 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................ 18

6.2 Test excavations ......................................................................................................................... 18

6.2.1 Lot 1 DP 30211 ........................................................................................................................... 18

6.2.2 Stage 1 test pits .......................................................................................................................... 20

6.2.3 General procedures .................................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Lithic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 20

6.4 Care and control ......................................................................................................................... 21

6.5 Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 21


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iv

7 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 22

7.1 Archaeological survey results ..................................................................................................... 22

7.1.1 Identified disturbances within the study area ............................................................................. 22

Lots 1 and 8, DP 30211 ........................................................................................................................... 22

7.2 Test excavation results ............................................................................................................... 27

7.2.1 Soils and stratigraphy ................................................................................................................. 27

7.2.2 Test Pits ...................................................................................................................................... 32

7.2.3 Lithics .......................................................................................................................................... 32

7.2.4 Identification of new Aboriginal sites and registration on AHIMS ............................................... 32

8 Analysis and discussion .......................................................................................................... 34

8.1 Artefact Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 34

8.2 Response to research design questions .................................................................................... 34

8.2.1 What is the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the

study area? .............................................................................................................................................. 34

8.2.2 What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the

assemblage? ........................................................................................................................................... 34

8.2.3 What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites? ............................................ 34

8.2.4 Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping

floors or other foci or activities areas? .................................................................................................... 35

8.2.5Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study

area? ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

8.2.6 How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source? .............................. 35

8.2.7 What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by

Aboriginal people? ................................................................................................................................... 35

8.2.8 How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region? .................................... 35

8.2.9 How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region? ................ 35

9 Scientific values and significance assessment .................................................................... 36

9.1 Scientific Significance ................................................................................................................. 36

10 Impact assessment .................................................................................................................. 38

11 Management and mitigation measures .................................................................................. 39

12 Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 40

12.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 40

12.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 40

13 References ................................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix A – AHIMS search results ................................................................................................... 43

Appendix B – Artefact Catalogue ........................................................................................................ 47


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D v

List of figures

Figure 1: The study area ............................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Indicative development plan (Courtesy of Diversi) ..................................................................... 3

Figure 3: AHIMS sites within 1 km of the study areas................................................................................ 6

Figure 4: Soil landscapes and hydrology of the study area ..................................................................... 12

Figure 5: Lot 8, front of the lot looking towards the rear .......................................................................... 23

Figure 6: Lot 8, livestock paddock at the rear of the property .................................................................. 23

Figure 7: Lot 1, erosion associated with equestrian activities ................................................................. 23

Figure 8: Lot 1, landscape modifications .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 9: Lot 1, erosion and landscape modification................................................................................ 24

Figure 10: Lot 1, landscape modification ................................................................................................. 24

Figure 11: Lot 1, residential disturbance .................................................................................................. 24

Figure 12: Lot 1, residential disturbance, view towards rear of property ................................................. 24

Figure 13: Survey units ............................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 14: Assessed disturbance level .................................................................................................... 26

Figure 15: Excavation and sieving within Lot 1, Transect E .................................................................... 27

Figure 16: Looking back along Transect E ............................................................................................... 27

Figure 17: Transect C-1, north section ..................................................................................................... 28

Figure 18: Transect C-4, north section ..................................................................................................... 28

Figure 19: Transect D-3, north section ..................................................................................................... 28

Figure 20: Transect D-6, north section ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 21: Transect E-1, north section ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 22: Transect E-5, north section ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 23: Transect E-9, east section ...................................................................................................... 30

Figure 24: Transect F-7, north section ..................................................................................................... 30



Figure 27: Testing locations and transects .............................................................................................. 31


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vi

Figure 28: ID.12 Silcrete core ................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 29: 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957 site extent ...................................................................................... 33

List of tables

Table 1: Test excavation field personnel .................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Aboriginal site types recorded within 1 km of AHIMS search areas ............................................ 7

Table 3: Aboriginal archaeological assessments completed in the vicinity of the study area.................... 8

Table 4: Survey coverage ........................................................................................................................ 22

Table 5: Landform summary - sampled areas ......................................................................................... 22

Table 6: Identified sites within the study areas ........................................................................................ 32

Table 7: Artefact Types ............................................................................................................................ 34

Table 8: Assessed site impacts ................................................................................................................ 38

Table 9: Impacts and mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 39

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ACHAR Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

ARD Archaeological Research Design

ATR Archaeological Technical Report

DECCW (Former) Department of Environment Climate Change and Water

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

LEP Local Environmental Plan

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit

SHI State Heritage Inventory


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vii

SHR State Heritage Register


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D viii

Executive summary

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) has been engaged by Elite Development Pty Ltd to prepare an Aboriginal

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) and accompanying Archaeological Technical Report

(ATR) for the proposed residential development of adjacent lots (Lot 1 DP 30211 and Lot 8 DP 30211)

within the suburb of Riverstone NSW, and the proposed residential development of Lot 2 DP 1208526

within the suburb of Schofields NSW. This assessment report has been undertaken to identify Aboriginal

objects and other cultural heritage values within the project areas in support of an application for an

Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) as required under Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act

1974 for the proposed works.

The proposed subdivision includes the establishment of two precincts (A & B) containing up to 270

dwellings at the Riverstone location and the construction of 44 dwellings at the Schofields location.

Activities associated with the proposed subdivision include earthworks, roadworks, and civil infrastructure

works.

An archaeological survey was conducted in order to identify any previously unregistered sites, any

sensitive landforms that may have archaeological potential, and areas of disturbance. No previously

unregistered sites were recorded as a result of the survey, but the survey did result in the identification of

areas of disturbance and archaeological potential. The entire Lot 8 DP 30211 was determined to be

significantly disturbed from residential development and current landscape use. The majority of Lot 1 DP

30211 was also found to be significantly disturbed. The entire southern portion of the lot is currently being

used for horse adjustment which has resulted in significant disturbances resulting from erosion, landscape

modifications, and artificial dam constructions. Two locations along the northern boundary of the lot were

determined to be less disturbed and were identified as having archaeological potential. Lot 2 DP 1208526,

in Schofields, had been found to be significantly disturbed by a sewer easement and past market

gardening practices. A location along the western boundary of the lot adjacent to First Ponds Creek was

identified as having archaeological potential.

A test excavation program was conducted at the two locations within Lot 1 DP 30211 Riverstone and one

location within Lot 2 DP 1208526 Schofields. The testing program was conducted under the Code of

Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010a).

The test excavations were carried out over a five day period with ELA archaeologists and four

representatives of the registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs). The transects were labelled sequentially from

A-F across the two locations, however for reporting purposes the two locations will be reported on

separately

The test excavation program with in Lot 1 consisted of a total of 33 stage 1 test pits across the two testing

locations. All test pits were 50cm x 50cm in size and resulted in the retrieval of 8 lithic artefacts. Low

density subsurface artefact scatters were identified at both testing locations, resulting in the identification

of two new Aboriginal sites Riverstone Road 1 (AHIMS# 45-5-4956), and Riverstone Road 2 (AHIMS#

45-5-4957). Due to the very low artefact numbers and low site integrity, the sites were assessed as having

low scientific and archaeological significance.

It is recommended that an AHIP application should be lodged with the Office of Environment and Heritage

for part of Precinct B within Lot 1 DP 30211. No further archaeological investigation is warranted.


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Detai ls of the Proponent

Elite International Development Pty Ltd

C/- Diversi Consulting

PO Box 6662

Baulkham Hill NSW 2153

Contact: Mr David Gerardis

1.2 Project Brief

Elite International Development Pty Ltd proposes the residential subdivision of adjacent lots 1 and 8 DP

30211 Riverstone NSW, within the Blacktown Council Local Government Area (LGA). Both lots are

located within the Riverstone East precinct of Sydney’s Northwest Growth Centre. The increase in the

residential development of this precinct is a result of the rapid development of the growth centre.

The development of Lots 1 and 8 will involve the subdivision and construction of up to 270 dwellings. The

area is approximately 12.6 hectares in size (Figures 1 & 2).

Previous Aboriginal assessments conducted within the Northwest Growth Centre in proximity to our study

area identified that Aboriginal sites and areas of archaeological sensitivity may occur within the study

area. Elite International Development Pty Ltd engaged Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) to prepare an

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) to support the development application and

any approvals required for the proposed works. As part of the assessment, the Archaeological Technical

Report (ATR) has been prepared to document the archaeological values within the study area. This

information will be used to guide and manage the archaeological and cultural heritage resource.

The ATR and ACHAR will support an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) application under the

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) for the proposed residential development works and for

Aboriginal objects that may be harmed by the proposed development.

Proposed activities associated with the residential development in include bulk earthworks and landscape

modifications at both locations

This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (OEH

2010a).

1.3 Study Area

The study area is located in Riverstone NSW, within the Blacktown LGA, approximately 50km northwest

of Sydney CBD.

1.4 Purpose and Object ives of the archaeological assessment

The purpose of the archaeological investigation is to understand the presence, nature and extent of the

Aboriginal archaeological resource within the areas of proposed works. The cataloguing and analysis of

the recovered artefacts will inform the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the site and in turn

management of the heritage resource.



Figure 1: The study area



Figure 2: Indicative development plan (Courtesy of Diversi)



1.5 Statutory Control

1.5.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

Aboriginal cultural heritage is afforded protection under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife

Act 1974 (NPW Act). The Act is administered by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) which

has responsibilities under the legislation for the proper care, preservation and protection of ‘Aboriginal

objects’ and ‘Aboriginal places’.

Under the provisions of the NPW Act, all Aboriginal objects are protected irrespective of their level of

significance or issues of land tenure. Aboriginal objects are defined by the Act as any deposit, object or

material evidence (that is not a handicraft made for sale) relating to Aboriginal habitation of NSW, before

or during the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction (and includes Aboriginal

remains). Aboriginal objects are limited to physical evidence and may be referred to as ‘Aboriginal sites’,

‘relics’ or ‘cultural material’. Aboriginal objects can include scarred trees, artefact scatters, middens, rock

art and engravings, as well as post-contact sites and activities such as fringe camps and stockyards.

Part 6 of the NPW Act provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and places by making it an

offence to destroy, deface, damage, move them from the land. The Due Diligence Code of Practice for

the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010c) as adopted by the National

Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (NPW Regulation) made under the NPW Act, provides guidance to

individuals and organisations to exercise due diligence when carrying out activities that may harm

Aboriginal objects and to determine whether they should apply for consent in the form of an Aboriginal

Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP). This code of practice can be used for all activities across all environments.

The NPW Act provides that a person who exercises due diligence in determining that their actions will not

harm Aboriginal objects has a defence against prosecution for the strict liability offence if they later

unknowingly harm an object without an AHIP. However, if an Aboriginal object is encountered in the

course of an activity work must cease and an application should be made for an AHIP.

The Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a)

assists in establishing the requirements for undertaking test excavation as a part of archaeological

investigation without an AHIP, or establishing the requirements that must be followed when carrying out

archaeological investigation in NSW where an application for an AHIP is likely to be made. OEH

recommends that the requirements of this Code also be followed where a proponent may be uncertain

about whether or not their proposed activity may have the potential to harm Aboriginal objects or declared

Aboriginal places.

The OEH was notified in writing of the commencement, location and dates of the test excavation on 11

October 2017 and provided with a copy of the sampling strategy in line with Requirement 15c in the Code

of Practice.

1.6 Investigators and contributors

Test excavations were conducted by ELA archaeologists with assistance from the following Aboriginal

organizations (Table 1) over a period of 3 days, Didge Ngunawal Clan, Aboriginal Archaeology Services

Inc., Darug Land Observations, and the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council. Test excavations were

directed by Tyler Beebe, ELA Archaeology Consultant.



Table 1: Test excavation field personnel

Organisation Name

Eco Logical Australia Tyler Beebe

Eco Logical Australia Andrew Crisp

Didge Ngunawal Clan Tanya Laughton

Didge Ngunawal Clan Jack Thomson

Aboriginal Archaeology Services Inc. Andrew Williams

Darug Land Observations Pty Ltd Luke Balaam

Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council Steven Knight

This report has been prepared by Tyler Beebe with assistance from Lorien Perchard, Archaeology

Consultants with ELA, with review by Alistair Grinbergs, ELA’s Principal Consultant.

Tyler Beebe has a Bachelor of Arts (Anthropology cum laude) from Hamline University in the USA and a

MA (Environmental and Cultural Heritage) from The Australian National University. Lorien Perchard has

a Bachelor of Arts and Science (Archaeology Honours) from the University of Queensland. Alistair

Grinbergs has a Bachelor of Arts (Archaeology Honours) from the Australian National University and a

Graduate Diploma of Applied Science (Cultural Heritage Management) from the University of Canberra.



Figure 3: AHIMS sites within 1 km of the study areas



2 Archaeological background

2.1 AHIMS search results

AHIMS register search was undertaken by ELA on the 18 July 2017. A search covering Lot 1 DP 30211

with a buffer of 1km at the Riverstone location resulted in the identification of 19 AHIMS sites. The site

types identified within the search area are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Aboriginal site types recorded within 1 km of AHIMS search areas

Site Type Number of sites Percentage of all sites

Artefact 10 53%

PAD 6 31%

PAD with Artefact 2 11%

Artefact, PAD, and Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) 1 5%

Total number of sites 19* 100%

* five sites are listed as partially or totally destroyed

There are no previously registered sites located within our study area.



2.2 Previous archaeological assessments

A number of archaeological investigations have been conducted in the area over the past 30 years as

response to the planning and rapid development of the Northwest Growth Centre. The results of some

of the key assessments within the vicinity of the study area are detailed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Aboriginal archaeological assessments completed in the vicinity of the study area

Assessment Key Findings

City of Blacktown

Archaeological

Assessment

Kohen (1985)

In 1985, Kohen completed one of the earlier surveys of the area. The survey was for four

areas of industrial land within the city of Blacktown. A total of 25 sites were located

comprising 9 isolated artefacts, 15 small surface scatters (>50 artefacts) and one larger

surface scatter of over 50 artefacts (1985:31).

Kohen found that the potentially significant sites in the area were more likely to be located

adjacent to creek lines and on ridge tops (1985:39). Where there are ridge tops adjacent to

and above the flood zone of a creek line the potential for sites increases (1985:31).

Archaeological

Assessment at

Rouse Hill

Development Area

Sewage Master

Plan

McDonald (2002)

In 2002, McDonald completed an archaeological assessment of indigenous cultural heritage

values for the Rouse Hills Development Area Sewage Master plan for GHD on behalf of

RDI. The study involved a desktop review of two trunk drainage lands along Eastern, South

and Killarney Chain of Ponds Creeks. The study found 46 areas within the trunk lands as

having low levels of existing disturbance and having good potential to preserve intact

archaeological sites, including 14 areas along Eastern Creek (McDonald, 2002:4).

The study recommendations that any proposed impacts to areas identified as having good

archaeological potential including those along Eastern Creek development should be

avoided. Where it cannot be avoided, development should be preceded by subsurface

investigation in order to undertake an assessment of Aboriginal heritage. Registered

AHIMS sites should be avoided (McDonald, 2002:18).

Riverstone West

Precinct, Aboriginal

archaeological

heritage

assessment

GML (2008)

This report was prepared for North West Transport Hub to meet the requires of the Growth

Centres Commission’s Riverstone West Precinct Working Group, a 273 hectare parcel of

land (GML, 2008:1). The study area is bound by the Blacktown – Richmond Railway on the

east side, Bandon Road to the north, Eastern Creek to the west and Garfield Road to the

south. The study noted the considerable number of sites recorded in the area in the past

and tried to reconcile the number of the sites as duplicate recordings by different

consultants.

Recommendations from the study included reconciling the existing recorded sites in the

study area into 10 artefact / open camp sites and 1 isolated artefact. An additional three

open campsites were recorded, 2 isolated finds and 2 PADs45-5-0313 included the

previously recorded site 45-5-0582 and IF5 and artefact recorded around the roots of a

fallen tree. The site was identified as having low significance and sensitivity.

The study recommended that any sites identified with the moderate to high sensitivity be

conserved in situ. Sites identified of low archaeological sensitivity were also recommended

for conservation, but where this could not be achieved a section 90 permit would be

required. (GML, 2008:83-84).

Aboriginal Heritage

Assessment – Alex

ENSR conducted Aboriginal heritage assessments of two precincts within the Northwest

Growth Centre, the Alex Avenue and Riverstone Precincts. The study identified 37




Avenue and

Riverstone Growth

Centre Precincts

ENSR (2008)

Aboriginal sites, 25 within the Riverstone Precinct and 12 in the Alex Avenue Precinct. The

site types consisted of isolated findspots, artefact scatters, potential archaeological

deposits, natural silcrete occurrences, and two potentially scarred trees (ENSR 2008).

The assessment identified multiple sites of high archaeological significance, including the

A7 Archaeological Complex site along First ponds Creek. ENSR also suggested that the

areas of natural silcrete occurrences represented only a handful of areas where this raw

material could be obtained in the Cumberland Plain and utilised by Aboriginal people for

stone tool production (ENSR 2008).

Richmond Road

Upgrade: Grange

Avenue to South

Creek: Aboriginal

Archaeological

Survey Report

KNC (2013)

Kelleher and Nightingale completed an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for the

Richmond Road upgrade from Grange Avenue to South Creek for Stockland. This

assessment included land on both side of the Richmond Road and Garfield Road West

intersection. The study found a total of four surface artefact sites (45-5-4172, 4173, 4175

and 0584) would be impacted by the proposed road upgrade and would therefore require

an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) application and partial salvage excavation

(KNC 2013:16-19).

45-5-4173 (MPP-10) was subject to AHIP and archaeological salvage excavation in May

2014 by KNC. The excavation report has not yet been completed, as such the results of

this archaeological investigation are not yet fully known. However Aboriginal stakeholders

who participated in the excavation noted to ELA that no artefacts were recovered from the

excavation on the north side of Richmond Road and Garfield Road west (which corresponds

to the southern end of the current project area). As of early September 2014, this area is

now being developed; with heavy machinery and excavating occur in the project area south

of the southernmost drainage line. As such, the southern end of the study area was subject

to archaeological investigation by KNC for the road widening and development in this area

has now been actioned following an AHIP.

Archaeological

Report for 81

Riverstone Parade,

Riverstone

AHMS (2014)

AHMS prepared an archaeological report for 81 Riverstone Parade, Riverstone northwest

of the current study area. Riverstone Parade Pty Ltd propose to develop the area for

industrial and commercial development. The land is bound by Richmond railway line on the

east, Bandon Road and Riverstone Sewerage Processing Plant to the north, Eastern Creek

to west and Garfield Road to the south. The report was used to support an AHIP application

to the OEH to develop Riverstone West. The proposal has a riparian corridor 100m from

Eastern Creek that will not be developed, thus conserving sites 45-5-0580 (which also

comprises 45-5-3635 and 3642). Sites 45-5-2525 and 45-5-3633 will also be conserved

(AHMS, 2014: 116-117).

This report included a comprehensive desktop of work undertaken in the area and included

for the first time the results of the 2009 test excavation program completed by AHMS in the

area which involved test pits along four transects and one long machine strip trench along

the north bank of Eastern Creek to test for the existence of human burials.

The findings of the test excavation were than a total of 91 1m2 test pits were excavated

along the slopes and alluvial flats on the north side of Eastern Creek. Test pits were

excavated along five transects (A-E) at a regular spacing. A total of 610 artefacts were




recovered from the 91 test pits at an average of 6.5 artefacts / m2. Twelve test pits contained

>10 artefacts/m2 approaching a medium density, while 3 test pits had > 50 artefacts/m2 a

high density of artefacts (see Figure 7 for results of the test excavation program). These

three test pits were part of a row of 6 test pits (all contained >10 artefacts/m2) which had

sandy levee deposits adjacent to Eastern Creek at a distance of 90-100m from the creek

bank and are thought to relate to site 45-5-0580. The assemblage was dominated by

silcrete, thought to be of late Holocene in age and taken from the natural silcrete occurring

on nearby ridgelines and potentially river cobbles as well. (AHMS, 2014: 92-99).

No remains or burials were uncovered in the strip trench of 250m x 4.5m adjacent to Eastern

Creek. 26 stone artefacts were recovered from the strip trench, with an average density of

0.023/m2 of the strip trench, suggesting this method was far less likely to recover stone

artefacts from a large strip trench, with little, if none sieving of soil deposits using this

method.

AHMS determined that the test program showed the hill slopes were generally disturbed

and shallow at less than 20cm deep with some naturally occurring silcrete and some

Aboriginal objects. These sites were deemed to probably relate to #45-5-0313. The alluvial

flats contained deeper soils 50-80cm, with thick clay loam plough soil, overlying an A2

horizon, in turn over basal clays. (AHMS, 2014: 92-93).

Based on the findings of previous investigations and results of the test excavation program

completed in 2009 the study identifies an area of moderate potential for archaeological

material to be found within 100m of Eastern Creek and high potential for archaeological

material to be found on elevated terraces or levees within this 100m buffer from the creek

(AHMS, 2014: 112).

The development of the Riverstone Parade property will result in direct and indirect impact

to 10 Aboriginal objects/sites comprising 45-5-0312, 0313, 0582, 3637, 3641, 0360 (which

includes 2527), 2530, 2532, 2533, 3632, 3634, 3636 and 3640. Following issue of an AHIP

AHMS considered it unlikely that mitigation such as test or salvage excavation would be

required prior to construction, given the disturbed nature and low significance of these sites.

Site 4-5-0580 was determined to have high archaeological significance, which will be

avoided by the proposed works. If works would occur here, the study recommended that

the site should be salvaged (AHMS, 2014: 122).

Riverstone

Wastewater Lead-

ins Project,

Salvage of A7

Archaeological

Complex (45-5-

4311)

AAJV (2016)

AAJV conducted salvage excavations at archaeological site A7 Archaeological Complex

(AHIMS# 45-5-4311). Two areas of the site were expected to be impacted by the installation

of two wastewater lead-ins into the primary wastewater trunk located on First Ponds Creek.

This site is currently located south of our study areas on First Ponds Creek.

The excavations at Salvage area 1 resulted in the recovery of 126 artefacts consisting of

flakes, heat shatter debitage, and retouched flakes. Overall low artefact densities in

conjunction with the small artefact size and observed soil profiles indicate that this was a

secondary deposition with artefacts being washed into the area from another location.




Excavations at Salvage Area 2 revealed a disturbed soil profile and resulted in the recovery

of a single silcrete core. The low artefact number and the disturbed soil profile suggest that

the artefact bearing deposit was most likely removed sometime in the past (AAJV 2016).

S94 Stormwater

Infrastructure

Upgrades,

Riverstone and

Area 20 Precincts

ELA (2017)

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) has been engaged by the Blacktown City Council to prepare an

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) and accompanying

Archaeological Technical Report for the proposed stormwater infrastructure upgrade at

three locations at Riverstone, Schofields, and Rouse Hill NSW. Archaeological survey was

conducted at the three locations and testing was undertaken at Area 20 Basins at Rouse

Hill. The test excavation program consisted of thirty-seven (37) 50 x 50cm test pits

excavated along four transects in order to investigate the extent of site RH/SP16. The thirty

seven test pits were a combination of 31 Stage 1 and 6 Stage 2 excavation pits. The result

was the recovery of 75 artefacts for an average of 2 artefacts per 50cm2. An AHIP

application will be lodged with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the land

containing AHIMS site #45-5-2807. Application for an AHIP has been undertaken.



Figure 4: Soil landscapes and hydrology of the study area



3 Landscape context

An understanding of the physical landscape and environment is vital to understand the archaeology of an

area. The natural environment influences the distribution of archaeological material in a variety of ways.

The availability and distribution of resources influenced past land use. People need access to resources

of freshwater and food (edible plants and animals), plants for medicinal use, timber for woodworking and

quarry sites for tool manufacture.

Since the time of Aboriginal occupation, the environment and resources in many places is likely to have

changed. As such, archaeologists cannot always draw direct inferences from the current environment.

Historical land use and environmental degradation have impacted on the survival of material remains.

Acidic soils, if present, are less likely to have preserved fragile organic materials such as bone or shell.

Areas of heavy erosion, some agricultural practices or other earth disturbances are less likely to contain

in situ deposits of archaeological material. These factors need to be considered when undertaking

archaeological assessment and predictive modelling.

3.1 Landforms and topography

The study area is within the Cumberland Plain physiographic region. The Cumberland Plain is

characterised by gently undulating low hills and plains atop the Wianamatta Group of Triassic period

sedimentary shales. The topography within the study area is characterised by the gentle slopes and

floodplains of First ponds Creek.

3.2 Geology

The underlying geology within the vicinity of our study area consist mainly of Bringelly Shale. Common to

the Cumberland Plain, Bringelly Shale is part of the late Triassic Wianamattta group of shales. Quaternary

Alluvium can be found within portions our study area closer to First Ponds Creek. Quaternary Alluviums

is derived from the Wianamatta group of shales and is often associated with the creeks and floodplains

across the Cumberland Plain.

3.3 Soils

Soil landscapes are largely determined by the underlying geology. The soil landscape located within the

study area are of the Blacktown Residual soil landscape (Figure 4). The Blacktown soil landscape

consists of shallow to moderately deep soil with relatively low susceptibility to erosion. In general the soil

profile of this landscape is comprised of a friable brownish black loam (A1 horizon) typically to 30 cm

depth, followed in turn by hard setting brown clay loam (A2 horizon), strongly pedal, mottled brown light

clay (B horizon) and grey plastic mottled clay (B3 or C horizon) (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990:29-30).

3.4 Hydrology

The study area is located just to the east of First Ponds Creek. At this location First ponds Creek would

be considered a variable 2nd/3rd order stream. 2nd order streams are waterways with intermittent flow and

occasional pools resulting from rainfall. In order to maintain a permanent flow and to generate permanent

waterholes a junction of two 2nd order streams or a 3rd order stream is required. Third order streams and

above are likely to have a permanent stream flow and/or waterholes.



Therefore it may be concluded that depending on the time of year and the amount of water in the system

First Ponds Creek would have been a focus point for Aboriginal occupation providing abundant fresh

water, plant, and animal resources.



4 Regional character and predictive model

4.1 Regional character

Previous archaeological assessments within the region provide important data on Aboriginal

archaeological site distribution and typology from which an understanding of the archaeological landscape

within the study area can be developed. More than five thousand archaeological sites with evidence for

a variety of Aboriginal activities have been recorded so far in the Sydney region, illustrating the richness

of the regional archaeological record. Such evidence reveals the dynamic and changing nature of

Aboriginal life over the millennia that people have lived in the Sydney region.

Dates of the earliest occupation of the continent by Aboriginal people are subject to continued revision as

more research is undertaken. The oldest dated archaeological resource from the Sydney region comes

from artefacts found in gravels of the Cranebrook Terrace on the Nepean River, dated to 41,700 +3000/-

2000 BP (years before present) (Nanson et al. 1987; Stockton 1973; Stockton & Holland 1974), however

there is some dispute over the accuracy of the date of the deposits.

Site (RTA-G1), excavated by McDonald (2005) from the Parramatta Sand Sheet in the city centre of

Parramatta has been dated to 30,735 +/- 407 BP and is considered reliable. A rock shelter site north of

Penrith on the Nepean, known as Shaws Creek K2, is another reliably dated Pleistocene site, (14,700 +/-

250 BP) (Attenbrow 2010:18). More recently, a salvage excavation at Pitt Town on the banks of the

Hawkesbury River has the lowest deposits containing artefacts dated to 15,000 BP (Williams et al,

2012:95). Based on the material evidence and range of archaeological sites right across the Sydney

region, it is clear that Aboriginal people were utilising the land and its resources.

4.2 Predictive Model

Taking in consideration previous archaeological investigations and predictive models for the region, and

the land forms and environmental landscape of the study area ELA propose the following predictive model

for archaeological site types and locations:

• Artefact scatters are the most common Aboriginal site types in the wider study area and

across the Cumberland Plain.

• Silcrete artefacts are likely to occur across parts of the study area and with the raw material

likely to have been sourced from the Plumpton Ridge formation located to the west of the

study area, where a number of sites have previously been recorded.

• The highest density of archaeological sites are expected to be located within 100m of First

Ponds Creek, a variable 2nd/3rd order stream.

• Terraces are the landforms where the highest density of artefacts are expected to occur,

followed by lower slopes, creek flats and mid slopes (of equal likelihood) and last upper

slopes and ridge tops where density may be consistent with a background scatter.

• Artefact densities around first order streams are expected to be no more than a background

scatter.

• Subsurface context will vary depending on past land use, levels of existing native vegetation,

levels of disturbance and past major flood events.

• Water movement in alluvial landscapes is likely to have scoured archaeological material or

covered it with sediment, making them difficult to detect from surface inspection alone.



5 Research design and sampling strategy

5.1 Introduct ion

The purpose of a research design is to provide and direct a reasonable foundation for management

decisions of an archaeological or cultural heritage site or place as well as satisfying regulatory

requirements through a standardised process. All related future archaeological studies and analyses

stand to benefit if guided by clear linkage of study goals, relevant theory, data and methods. Application

of a research design is international best practice and plays a vital role in the planning process.

This research design follows a test excavation under the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation

of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010). The purpose of the test excavation is to

obtain information about nature and extent of subsurface artefacts and any archaeological features at this

location. This information will be used to better to understand the significance of the archaeology at this

location and to better guide its management.

5.2 Background

Lands within the study area stand to be impacted by the proposed development activities described in

Section 1 of this report. The purpose of the test excavation program was to collect further information

about the nature and extent of subsurface archaeological deposits that may be located within the study

area. A previous archaeological survey conducted by Apex Archaeology in early 2017 identified areas of

existing disturbance that were assessed as having low to nil archaeological potential. Subsequently they

also identified lands within the study area as having a moderate to high potential to contain subsurface

archaeological deposits.

An archaeological assessment was undertaken with RAP’s who were invited to participate in fieldwork to

support the technical assessment and provide advice on cultural issues relating to Aboriginal sites within

the study area. This excavation research design methodology provides a technical basis for undertaking

proposed excavation works under the Code of Practice.

The basis and justification for excavation has been established as part of analysis within the

Archaeological Technical Report (ATR) developed for the site. This methodology outlines the key

research questions to be considered as part of the excavation, how excavation will be undertaken, and

other technical and reporting requirements to guide and inform on how the field program is undertaken,

how data is captured and analysed, and key conclusions derived.

Results of the desktop assessment, archaeological survey, and test excavations will be presented in a

draft ACHAR and ATR. The ACHAR and ATR will include any areas of constraint that will require further

analysis and/or will support any avoidance or mitigation strategies with respect to possible impacts to

Aboriginal objects or other places of importance to the Aboriginal community. The reports will be made

available for the RAP’s to comment on with comments incorporated in the final reports. The reports may

support a future AHIP application to the OEH.

5.3 Research design

The survey and test excavation examined the relationship between the different landforms and any

artefact-bearing deposits were also examined for evidence of distribution pattern associated with distance

to water to test hypotheses around site utilisation and resource zones. The research questions outlined

below include broad questions that attempted to show the level of information the site might be expected

to reveal as well as questions specifically related to the site:



• What was the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the

study area?

• What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the assemblage?

• What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites?

• Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping

floors or other foci or activities areas?

• Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study

area?

• How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source?

• What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by Aboriginal

people?

• How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region?

• How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region?

The research design questions developed to guide the testing program are not limited to the questions

above and other pertinent questions may arise (or be fine-tuned) during the course of the work being

undertaken.



6 Methodology

6.1 Field Survey

Prior to test excavations ELA Archaeologist Tyler Beebe conducted an archaeological field survey over

the study area with assistance from Steve Randall from the Deerubbin LALC in order to identify any

previously unrecorded Aboriginal sites or objects. Areas of low, moderate, and high subsurface

archaeological potential identified in the previous assessment were also inspected. Proposed areas for

archaeological testing were subject to site survey and consideration.

The field survey methodology was as follows:

• The field survey was undertaken by ELA archaeologists Tyler Beebe with Steve Randall from

Deerubbin LALC on 23 August 2017.

• The field survey involved a pedestrian survey to identify any previously unrecorded sites and

areas of archaeological potential, and any areas of historical land use and disturbance;

• All landform units within the study area were sampled as part of the field survey

• Documentation of cultural information as provided by Aboriginal representatives.

• Any Aboriginal sites and / or PADs identified within the project area were recorded using a GPS

and photographed.

• Any new Aboriginal sites required the completion of an Aboriginal heritage site recording form

(AHIMS Site Card) as required by OEH.

6.2 Test excavat ions

ELA undertook archaeological test excavations under the Code of Practice for Archaeological

Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010a) in order to understand the presence, nature,

extent and significance of the Aboriginal archaeological resource and how best to manage it.

This section presents the methodology for the test excavation. The purpose of archaeological test

excavations was to collect information about the nature and extent of sub-surface Aboriginal objects,

based on a sample gathered from sub-surface investigations. According to the CoP “test excavations

should be sufficiently comprehensive to allow characterisation of the Aboriginal objects present without

having a significant impact on the archaeological value of the subject area.”

The test excavation methodology is as follows:

The work was undertaken by a team comprising archaeologists and representatives from the RAPs. The

initial approach to testing will include sampling from 50cm x 50cm test pits. The exact location (start and

end points) of the transects and test pits were selected in the field by the archaeologists and RAP

participating in the test excavations, dependent on surface ground conditions and suitability for answering

the research questions.

6.2.1 Lot 1 DP 30211

Transect C – ran southwest to northeast investigating an area of moderate potential within the northern

most portion of Lot 1. Seven test pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.



Transect D – ran southwest to northeast investigating an area of moderate potential within the northern

most portion of Lot 1. Transect D was placed parallel to and 15 m to the south of Transect C. Eight test

pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.

Transect E – ran southwest to northeast investigating a landform that has moderate archaeological

potential within the northern most portion of Lot 1. Nine test pits were placed along this transect at 10m

intervals.

Transect F – ran southwest to northeast investigating a landform that has moderate archaeological

potential within the northern most portion of Lot 1. Transect F was placed parallel to and 10m to the south

of Transect E. Nine test pits were placed along this transect at 10m intervals.



6.2.2 Stage 1 test pits

• The test pits were excavated by hand (inclusive of trowels, spades and other hand tools) along

transects C-F at intervals of 10m.

• The first test pit within the identified landform was excavated in 5cm spits; the subsequent test

pits conducted within the landform were then excavated in either 10cm spits or stratigraphic units

(whichever is smaller) to the base of Aboriginal object-bearing units being the removal of the A-

horizon soil deposit down to the sterile clay layer (B-horizon).

6.2.3 General procedures

• The Code of Practice dictates that the maximum surface area of all test excavation units must be

no greater than 0.5% of the PAD or landform unit area being investigated.

• All excavated soil was sieved in 5 mm sieves. Artefacts were collected and bagged according to

test pit location and spit or context number.

• Wet sieving was used for all excavated soils.

• Each test pit was recorded using standardised recording forms, coordinates collected using a

GPS, and photographed using a range pole.

• The stratigraphic / soil profile for each test pit was recorded in scale drawings as required by OEH

Code of Archaeological Practice recording requirements.

• Munsell colours were taken of the soils from the test pit program.

• Test excavation units were backfilled as soon as practicable.

• AHIMS site cards were prepared and submitted to the AHIMS Registrar for new sites identified

during test excavations.

• An AHIMS Site Impact Recording form will be completed and submitted to the AHIMS Registrar

for all sites impacted under an approved AHIP.

• In the unlikely event that suspected human remains were identified works would have

immediately ceased and the NSW Police and OEH would have been notified.

• Test excavations ceased when enough information* had been recovered to adequately

characterise the objects present with regard to their nature and significance.

*Enough information is defined by OEH as meaning “that the sample of excavated material clearly and

self-evidently demonstrates the deposit’s nature and significance. This may include things like locally or

regionally high object density: presence of rare or representative objects: presence of archaeological

features: or locally or regionally significant deposits stratified or not.” (DECCW 2010a).

6.3 Lithic Analysis

All collected materials were temporarily held at the ELA office, where they were analysed and catalogued

by Tyler Beebe, ELA Archaeology Consultant. Any artefacts that were particularly interesting or

representative were photographed and included in the report. The collection was analysed using the A

Record in Stone (Holdaway & Stern 2004).



6.4 Care and control

A strategy for management of Aboriginal artefacts recovered from the site would be developed through

consultation with the RAP. The RAP’s are invited to provide comment on the long term management of

artefacts.

Artefacts identified and collected during test excavations will be temporarily held at the ELA Sydney office

(Suite 1, Level 1, 101 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000) where they have been catalogued and analysed

by an ELA archaeologist / artefact specialist.

Following the completion of artefact cataloguing and analysis, after consultation with both the client and

RAPs it was determined that the artefact would be reburied within the dedicated conservation area of the

second development site located to the south at Lot 2 DP 1208526 in Schofields NSW. The artefact

reburial would coincide with the reburial of objects found at that location and would happen as soon as

practicable in accordance with:

• Requirement 26 “Stone artefact deposition and storage” in the Code of Practice for

Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (24 September 2010)

6.5 Reporting

Following completion of the test excavation program, the results have been presented in this report. The

results are used to revise the significance assessment of sites identified and provide guidance on

management of the heritage resource.



7 Results

7.1 Archaeological survey results

An archaeological survey was undertaken of Lot 1 and 8 DP 30211 on 23 August 2017 by ELA

Archaeologists Tyler Beebe, with the assistance of Steve Randall from the Deerubbin LALC. The full site

coverage survey consisted solely of a pedestrian walk over. The two lots were walked on foot with

opportunistic inspection of areas of surface exposure. Landforms identified as having a potential for

containing a subsurface archaeological deposit were identified. The archaeological survey was

undertaken in accordance with the OEH Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal

Objects in New South Wals 2010.

In accordance with the OEH the study area was surveyed according to survey units, landforms, and

landscapes. All survey units are described in Table 4.

Table 4: Survey coverage

Survey

Unit

(SU)

Landform

Survey Unit

Area (SUA)

(m2)

Visibility

(V) %

Exposure

(E) %

Effective

coverage area

(ECA)

Effective

coverage %

1 Lower slope 105,000 20 30 6300 60

2 Lower slope 20,000 0 40 0 0

During the course of the survey, areas of disturbance and areas of potential were recorded. The test

excavation will be targeting the areas within close proximity to freshwater and landforms that exhibited

lower levels of disturbance.

Table 5: Landform summary - sampled areas

Landform Landform area

(m2)

Area

effectively

surveyed (m2)

% landform

effectively

surveyed

Number of

Aboriginal

sites

Number of

artefacts or

features

Lower slope 125,000 6,300 5 0 0

7.1.1 Identified disturbances within the study area

Lots 1 and 8, DP 30211

The entirety of Lot 8 was significantly disturbed and contained low to nil archaeological potential. The

disturbances within Lot 8 were associated with current residential use, this includes the construction of

several buildings, the construction of a livestock paddock, and landscaping (Figure 5 & 6).



Figure 5: Lot 8, front of the lot looking towards the rear

Figure 6: Lot 8, livestock paddock at the rear of the property

A number of disturbances have been documented within Lot 1 DP30211. The degree of disturbance

identified within the lot range from low / moderate to high. The large majority of the lot is currently being

used as horse adjistment that has resulted in significant landscape disturbance. These disturbances

include wide scale erosion, landscape modifications associated with equestrian activities, the construction

of several buildings, and the construction of artificial dams (Figures 7-10). The eastern portion of Lot 1

was significantly disturbed by the residence at 14 Clarke St. Riverstone. The disturbances were a result

of the residential development, various outbuildings, rubbish, and abandoned cars towards the rear of the

property (Figures 11-12).

Figure 7: Lot 1, erosion associated with equestrian activities

Figure 8: Lot 1, landscape modifications



Figure 9: Lot 1, erosion and landscape modification

Figure 10: Lot 1, landscape modification

Figure 11: Lot 1, residential disturbance

Figure 12: Lot 1, residential disturbance, view towards rear of property



Figure 13: Survey units



Figure 14: Assessed disturbance level



7.2 Test excavat ion results

The archaeological test excavation was undertaken following approval from OEH. Test excavations were

conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects

in New South Wales (OEH 2010a), and within the archaeological research design and methodology.

The following section presents a summary of the test excavation results. The full artefact catalogue is

included as an appendix.

Figure 15: Excavation and sieving within Lot 1, Transect E

Figure 16: Looking back along Transect E

Summary of Key Findings

7.2.1 Soils and stratigraphy

Within Lot 1 DP 30211, one of the two testing locations (Transects C and D) was located on a hill crest in

the eastern portion of the lot and was located 400 metres east of First Ponds Creek and 100 metres west

of an unnamed drainage line. The area had been cleared of native vegetation in the past and is currently

vegetated with some regrowth eucalypts and long paddock grass and scrub. Surface disturbance included

occasional household rubbish and tree clearing wood piles. The area immediately south of the tested

area, although originally assessed as having low to moderate levels of disturbance, was found to be

significantly disturbed by the presence of abandoned vehicles, various outbuildings, and large rubbish

piles, preventing the archaeological testing of the area. Soils across the testing area generally consisted

of a compact dark yellow brown silty loam over a strong brown basal clay. Soil depths varied from 20-

30cmbs on average. Six artefacts were recovered from the 15 test excavation squares within this area

(Figure 27). Representative sections of test excavation units from Transect C and D are presented and

described below.



Figure 17: Transect C-1, north section

Transect C, test square 1 consisted of a very

compact dark yellow brown (10yr4/4) silty loam with

frequent ironstone gravel and charcoal flecking,

transitioning to a strong brown (7.5yr5/6) very

compact silt clay with occasional ironstone

inclusions.

Figure 18: Transect C-4, north section

Transect C, test square 4 was a moderately shallow

deposit consisting of a slightly compact dark yellow

brown with occasional charcoal flecking, ironstone

gravel increased in frequency with depth. The deposit

transitions to a moderately compact strong brown

basal clay with occasional ironstone inclusions.

Figure 19: Transect D-3, north section

Transect D, test square 3 consisted of a moderately

compact dark yellow brown silty loam with occasional

charcoal flecking and increasing ironstone gravel

frequency with depth. Transitions to a dry, cracked

strong brown clay base.



Figure 20: Transect D-6, north section

Transect D, test square 6 exhibited a disturbed

profile. The approximate top 10 cm of the deposit

consisted of red/while plastic clay capping over a

brown silty loam with charcoal flecking and small

ironstone gravels. Clay content increased with depth

transitioning to a strong brown cracked basal clay

The second testing location (Transect E and F) within Lot 1 was located on a gentle slope in the north

western portion of the lot overlooking an unnamed drainage line. The area was currently being used for

horse adjistment so there was very little grass cover. The area had been cleared in the past of all old

growth woodland and currently consisted of regrowth eucalypt. Soils in general were moderately deep

with increased gravel up slope. Only two artefacts were recovered from the 18 test excavation squares

located within this testing area (Figure 27). Representative sections of test excavation units from Transect

E and F are presented and described below.

Figure 21: Transect E-1, north section

Transect E, test square 1 was located toward the

bottom of the slope. It consisted of a compact dark

yellow brown fine silty loam with charcoal flecking

throughout and small rounded manganese nodules.

Clay content increased with depth transitioning to

compact strong brown clay.

Figure 22: Transect E-5, north section

Transect E, test square 5 was located at the midpoint

of the slope. The deposit consisted of a compact dark

yellow brown silty loam with charcoal flecking and

angular ironstone throughout, moderate bioturbation.

Clay increases with depth transitioning to a compact

strong brown clay base.



Figure 23: Transect E-9, east section

Transect E, test square 9 was located near the top of

the sloping landform. Soils were comprised of a dark

yellow brown silty loam with an extremely dense

shale and ironstone gravel lens. The gravel density

decreases with depth while the clay content

increases, transitioning to a strong brown basal clay

with occasional ironstone inclusions.

Figure 24: Transect F-7, north section

Transect F, test square 7 was located the furthest

down the slope closest to the drainage line. It

consisted of a moderately deep alluvial deposit of

homogenous dark yellow brown silty loam with small

manganese nodules, with a gentle transition to a

strong brown basal clay


Transect F, test square 3 was located at the midpoint

of the slope landform. The deposit consisted of a dark

yellow brown silt loam with a dense shale /ironstone

gravel lens 10cmbs. Gravel decreased with depth,

transitioning to a strong brown basal clay with

occasional gravel.


Transect F, test square 9 was located near the top of

the sloping landform. It consisted of a dark yellow

brown silty loam with a thick lens of angular shale at

the clay transition. The base consisted of a compact

strong brown clay.



Figure 27: Testing locations and transects



7.2.2 Test Pits

A total of 33 stage one test pits measuring 50cm x 50cm were excavated over the course of the excavation

program. The excavated test pits resulted in the recovery of 8 artefacts, for a mean artefact density of 0.2

artefact/ test pit across both testing locations. The test pits were distributed across areas identified as

having higher archaeological potential.

7.2.3 Lithics

The sole raw material used in the production of lithic artefacts found during the test excavations was

silcrete. This was unsurprising given the number of silcrete sources that can be found across the

Cumberland Plain.

The artefacts recovered from the test excavation program were predominantly small in size, with the most

common size being between 10-19mm (75%) and only two artefacts over 25mm in size. The two largest

artefacts in the assemblage included a silcrete flake (25-29 mm) and a silcrete core (40-44mm). The core

displayed no cortical surfaces and had been rotated during reduction, evident by the negative flake scars

on multiple surfaces and in opposing directions.

7.2.4 Identification of new Aboriginal sites and registration on AHIMS

The test excavation resulted in the identification of two previously unregistered sites.

Table 6: Identified sites within the study areas

Site ID Site name

Coordinates (GDA94 Zone 56)

Site Type Recorder and Year

Easting Northing

45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 304021 6271819 Artefact Scatter ELA 2017

45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 304175 6271903 Artefact Scatter ELA 2017

Figure 28: ID.12 Silcrete core



Figure 29: 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957 site extent



8 Analysis and discussion

8.1 Artefact Analysis

A detailed artefact analysis of all artefacts recovered from the test excavation program was conducted by

ELA Archaeologist Tyler Beebe. Please refer to Appendix B for further details.

8.2 Response to research design questions

8.2.1 What is the distribution of evidence of past Aboriginal peoples use and occupation within the study area?

The tested areas of Lot 1 exhibited a low subsurface archaeological deposit. Test excavations resulted in

the identification of two previously unregistered AHIMS sites, AHIMS #’s 45-5-4956 and 45-5-4957.

The highest number of artefacts found within the two testing locations was six. These artefacts were

recovered AHIMS site 45-5-4956 located on a hill crest between First Ponds Creek and an unnamed

drainage line.

Current predictive models for Aboriginal land use show that third order creeks and above were often the

locations of repeated and sustained occupation sites. Although at the testing location, First Ponds Creek

is a variable 2nd/3rd order creek, there is no evidence of repeated or sustained occupation there. The

dispersed low artefact density nature of the sites within a disturbed context indicate that the main body of

the site is likely elsewhere and the presence of the artefacts is mostly likely the result of erosional

processes or modern land use disturbances.

8.2.2 What types of raw materials, artefact types and tool types are present within the assemblage?

As expected based on the numerous source locations across the Cumberland Plain, silcrete was the

dominant raw material, accounting for all artefacts recovered (n=8).

Table 7: Artefact Types

Flakes Split

Flake

Proximal

Fragment

Medial

Fragment

Distal

Fragment

Angular

Fragment Core

Core

Fragment Total

2 1 2 - 1 1 1 - 8

Tool types present within the assemblage consisted of one silcrete core. No backed artefacts, a tool type

commonly found on the Cumberland Plain, were recovered from the test excavation program.

8.2.3 What types of stone tool technology are present within the sites?

The absence of large formalised tools (such as ground stone axes and flaked hatchets) indicate the

assemblage is representative of small tool tradition of the Bondaian phase of the Eastern Regional

Sequence. The Bondaian Phase dates to the mid to late Holocene, typically the last 5,000 years.



8.2.4 Has the test excavations revealed other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping floors or other foci or activities areas?

The test excavation program did not reveal other site types such as hearths, heating ovens, knapping

floors or other foci or activity areas.

8.2.5 Do the results of the test excavation demonstrate any evidence of disturbance within the study area?

The test excavations demonstrated evidence of disturbances from modern day land use, and natural

erosion.

The dense gravel lens’ found within the deposits on the sloping landform above the drainage line is an

indication of natural colluvial erosional processes.

The baked clay inclusions and charcoal flecking found within many of the test squares are most likely the

result of ground clearing/burning events.

8.2.6 How does artefact distribution vary regarding proximity to a water source?

Making any hypotheses on artefact distribution in relation to proximity to water is not possible due to the

extremely low number of artefacts found within the assemblage.

8.2.7 What can the artefact assemblage (or lack thereof) indicate about previous land use by Aboriginal people?

The artefact assemblage is only an indication that Aboriginal people used this landscape in the past.

Because of the very low density of artefacts recovered, speculating on what they may have been doing

is impossible.

8.2.8 How do the test excavation results compare with others in the region?

The test excavation results are comparable to the results of the salvage excavations undertaken within

the A7 Archaeological Complex site (AHIMS# 45-5-4311) by AAJV in 2016. The A7 Archaeological

Complex is located on First Ponds Creek south of Lot 1.

The salvage excavations resulted in an overall low artefact density. It was determined that because of the

small artefact size and observed soil profiles that the presence of artefacts at that location was the result

of secondary deposition with the artefacts being washed into the area from another location.

8.2.9 How does the pattern of landscape use compare to previous studies in the region?

Due to the extremely low artefact density identified during the test excavation program, identifying any

pattern of landscape use is not possible.



9 Scientific values and significance assessment

The Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Burra Charter 2013 provides

guidance for the assessment, conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural

heritage places). The Burra Charter provides a definition of cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic,

scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations”.

• Cultural heritage places or sites can be assessed through the application of these five

principle values.

• Social or cultural value (for Aboriginal sites this is assessed by Aboriginal people)

• Historical value

• Scientific/archaeological value (assessed mostly by archaeologists/heritage consultants)

• Spiritual Value (for Aboriginal sites this is assessed by Aboriginal people)

• Aesthetic value

While the Burra Charter does not include ‘archaeological value’ specifically it is noted that it can be

considered as a sub-set of scientific or other values (Australia ICOMOS Practice Note The-Burra-Charter-

and-Archaeological-Practice).

This section is a summary of scientific of archaeological values for the project area. The assessment for

social, historical and aesthetic value is presented in Section 5 of the ACHAR

9.1 Scient if ic Signif icance

Scientific or archaeological value may refer to the information content of a place and its ability to reveal

more about an aspect of the past through examination or investigation of the place, including the use of

archaeological techniques. The relative scientific value of a place is likely to depend on the importance of

the information or data involved, on its rarity, quality or representativeness, and its potential to contribute

further important information about the place itself or a type or class of place or to address important

research questions. To establish potential, it may be necessary to carry out some form of testing or

sampling. For example in the case of an archaeological site, this could be established by a test

excavation.

To appreciate scientific value, ask:

• Is it likely that further investigation of the place would have the potential to reveal substantial new

information and new understandings about people, places, processes or practices which are not

available from other sources?

Riverstone Road 1 (AHIMS# 45-5-4956)

Riverstone Road 1 is located on a hill crest 400 metres east of First Ponds Creek and 100 metres west

of an unnamed drainage line. Test excavations revealed the presence of a low density subsurface

archaeological deposit. A total of six artefacts were recovered from 15 test squares excavated at this

location. Riverstone Road 1 represents a commonly occurring site in the region in terms of site type and

topographical location. Site integrity is low with a low density subsurface archaeological deposit existing

at this location. The site was assessed as to having low archaeological and research potential, therefore



the site was determined to have low scientific significance. Further investigations would not contribute to

our understanding of Aboriginal landscape use in the region.

Riverstone Road 2 (AHIMS# 45-5-4957)

Riverstone Road 2 is located on a gentle slope overlooking an unnamed drainage line. Test excavations

revealed a low density subsurface archaeological deposit at this location. A total of two artefacts were

recovered from 18 test squares. Riverstone Road 2 represents a commonly occurring site in the region

in terms of site type and topographical location. Site integrity is low with a low density subsurface

archaeological deposit existing at this location. The site was assessed as to having low archaeological

and research potential, therefore the site was determined to have low scientific significance. Further

investigations would not contribute to our understanding of Aboriginal landscape use in the region.



10 Impact assessment

Elite International Development Pty Ltd propose residential development works within adjacent lots 1 and

8 DP 302121 in Riverstone NSW. The residential development is in response to the rapid growth and

development of Sidney’s Northwest Growth Centre. Activities associated with the proposed works include

earthworks, roadworks, and civil infrastructure works associated with the construction of residential

dwellings.

Assessed impacts to the Aboriginal sites identified within the study area are shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Assessed site impacts

Site ID Site Name Type of

harm

Degree of

harm Consequence of harm

Significance of

harm

45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 Direct Total Total loss of value Low

45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 Direct Total Total loss of value Low

Riverstone Road 1 is expected to be totally impacted by the proposed development. The consequence

of harm is assessed as low due to the low artefact density of the site and the low archaeological

significance.

Riverstone Road 2 is expected to be totally impacted by the proposed development. The consequence

of harm is assessed as low due to the low artefact density, low site integrity, and the low archaeological

significance of the site.



11 Management and mitigation measures

The identified sites within the study area have been considered in relation to the proposed residential

development works. Impacts to the site will be unavoidable due to the requirement for bulk earthworks

and associated activities. The recommended mitigation measures for the site within the study area is

shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Impacts and mitigation measures

Site ID Site Name Significance Recommended action

45-5-4956 Riverstone Road 1 Low

AHIP

Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) required prior to

commencement of works affecting the site.

45-5-4957 Riverstone Road 2 Low

AHIP

Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) required prior to

commencement of works affecting the site.



12 Conclusions and recommendations

12.1 Conclusions

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd was engaged by Elite International Development Pty Ltd to undertake an

Aboriginal archaeological test excavation program in response to the proposed residential development

of two parcels of land in Riverstone and Schofields NSW within the Riverstone East precinct of Sydney’s

Northwest Growth Centre. The increase in the residential development of the precinct is in response to

the continuing development of the growth centre.

The archaeological test excavation was undertaken following the Code of Practice for the Archaeological

Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010). A copy of the research design and

methodology for the archaeological test excavation program was provided to the Office of Environment &

Heritage (OEH) as a notification prior to the commencement of the test excavation.

The archaeological test excavation within Lot 1 in Riverstone NSW was completed over a period of 3

days by a team of ELA archaeologists and representatives from four different Aboriginal organisations.

The excavations took place the 6th-8th November 2017. Thirty-three (33) 50cm x 50cm test pits were

excavated along four transects at two different testing locations as part of the excavation program.

A total of 8 artefacts were recovered from the 33 test excavation squares over the course of the test

excavation program. The test excavation resulted in the identification of two previously unregistered

Aboriginal sites. These sites contained a low density subsurface archaeological deposit and was

assessed as having low archaeological significance.

12.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings of this archaeological investigation the following is recommended:

Recommendation 1 – Aboriginal sites are protected

All registered AHIMS sites are protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Unless they have

been granted a previous Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP), no earth works or soil disturbance in

these areas without an approved AHIP or defence under the Act.

Recommendation 2 – AHIP

An AHIP application will be lodged with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the portion of

Lot 1 DP 30211 containing Precinct B and the Aboriginal sites within (Riverstone Road 1 and Riverstone

Road 2).

Recommendation 3 – No AHIP, works can proceed with caution

The entirety of Lot 8 DP 30211 and the portion of Lot 1 DP 30211 containing Precinct A was found to be

heavily disturbed by residential development and current landscape use. No AHIP is warranted at this

location

Recommendation 4 – General Measures

• Aboriginal objects are protected under the NPW Act regardless if they are registered on AHIMS

or not. If suspected Aboriginal objects, such as stone artefacts are located during future works,

works must cease in the affected area and an archaeologist called in to assess the finds. If the



finds are found to be Aboriginal objects, the OEH must be notified under section 89A of the NPW

Act. Appropriate management and avoidance or approval under a section 90 AHIP should then

be sought if Aboriginal objects are to be moved or harmed.

• In the extremely unlikely event that human remains are found, works should immediately cease

and the NSW Police should be contacted. If the remains are suspected to be Aboriginal, the OEH

may also be contacted at this time to assist in determining appropriate management.



13 References

AAJV, 2016. Riverstone Wastewater Lead-ins Project, Salvage of A& Archaeological Complex (45-5-

4311): AHIP C0000794. Prepared for Sydney Water.

Bannerman, S.M. and Hazelton, P.A., 1990. Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet. Soil

Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Clark, N.R. and Jones, D.C., (Eds) 1991. Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Sheet 9030. New South Wales

Geological Survey, Sydney

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010a. Code of Practice for

Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Hurstville, NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010b. Aboriginal cultural heritage

consultation requirements for proponents 2010. Hurstville, NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), 2010c. Due Diligence Code of

Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, Hurstville, NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, 2010, Code of Practice for the

Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.

ENSR / AECOM 2008. Aboriginal Heritage Assessment – Alex Avenue and Riverstone Growth Precincts.

Report prepared for NSW Growth Centres Commission.

Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants. 2008. Riverstone West precinct, Sydney. Aboriginal

Archaeological Heritage Assessment. Report prepared for North West Transport Hub (NWTH).

Kelleher Nightingale Consulting Pty Ltd, 2013. Richmond Road Upgrade Grange Avenue to South Creek,

Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. .Prepared for Stockland

Kohen, J. 1986. An Archaeological Study of Aboriginal Sites within the City of Blacktown. Report to

Blacktown City Council.

Office of Environment and Heritage. 2011a. Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal

cultural heritage in NSW.



Appendix A – AHIMS search results



Re s i de n t ia l D e ve l o pm e nt o f T hr e e L o t s i n R i ve r s t o n e a n d S c ho f i e l d s NS W - AT R






Appendix B – Artefact Catalogue



#

Date

Excavate

d

Excavato

r

Tra

ns

ect

Te

st P

it

Te

st P

it Su

b

Sp

it

Sto

ne

Ty

pe

Co

lou

r1

Co

lou

r2

Arte

fact T

yp

e

Ma

ss (g

)

L (m

m)

W (m

m)

T (m

m)

Siz

e R

an

ge (m

m)

Co

rtex

Reto

uc

h

Ph

oto

Use-w

ear

Bip

ola

r

Heat

Co

mm

en

ts

1 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 1 1 Quartz milky Angular fragmenr

> 1 g 5-9mm 5-9mm 0-4mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n n n

2 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 1 2 Silcrete red purple distal fragment

> 1 g 13mm 10mm 3mm 10-14mm 0%

3 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 1 Silcrete red Flake > 1 g 15mm 12mm 3mm 15-19mm 0% n y n n yes

4 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete red yellow Flake > 1 g 7mm 9mm 2 5-9mm 0% n n n n yes

5 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete red distal fragment

> 1 g 8mm 8mm 2mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n yes heat fracture on dorsal surface

6 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 2 4 silcrete yellow Flake > 1 g 8mm 9mm 4mm 5-9mm 0% n n n n n

7 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 1 silcrete purple Flake > 1 g 15mm 14mm 4mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes

8 9/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 3 silcrete red Flake 16g 21mm 39mm 14mm 34-39mm 1-30% y y n n indeterm light retouch along lateral margin

9 10/11/2017 Andrew C A 4 d 1 silcrete brown Flake > 1 g 13mm 12mm 6mm 10-14mm 1-30% n n n n indeterm

10 9/11/2017 Tyler B B 1 3 silcrete red Core fragement

3g 19mm 13mm 11mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes

11 10/11/2017 Andrew C B 4 1 Tuff brown grey distal fragment

> 1g 8mm 10mm 3mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n

12 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 4 2 Silcrete pink Core 30g 44mm 27mm 14mm 40-44mm 0% n y n n yes rotated core, four negative scars

13 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 6 1 Silcrete red Proximal fragment

> 1g 12mm 7mm 2mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n

14 7/11/2017 Tyler B C 6 1 Silcrete pink yellow Proximal fragment

> 1g 13mm 12mm 4mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n yes

15 7/11/2017 Andrew C C 7 2 Silcrete red Split flake > 1g 16mm 10mm 3mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n indeterm

16 6/11/2017 Tyler B D 2 2 Silcrete pink distal fragment

>1g 13mm 17mm 6mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n yes

17 6/11/2017 Tyler B D 2 3 Silcrete pink Angular fragmenr

> 1g 11mm 7mm 5mm 10-14mm 0% n n n n n

18 8/11/2017 Tyler B E 8 1 Silcrete red Flake > 1g 16mm 12mm 7mm 15-19mm 0% n n n n n

19 8/11/2017 Tyler B E 8 2 Silcrete red Flake > 1g 29mm 17mm 7mm 25-29mm 0% n n n n yes

HEAD OFFICE

Suite 2, Level 3

668-672 Old Princes Highway

Sutherland NSW 2232

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Suite 1, Level 1

101 Sussex Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 8536 8650

F 02 9542 5622

HUSKISSON

Unit 1, 51 Owen Street

Huskisson NSW 2540

T 02 4201 2264

F 02 9542 5622

CANBERRA

Level 2

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 9542 5622

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 9542 5622

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4302 1266

F 02 9542 5622

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street

Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450

T 02 6651 5484

F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street

Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 8081 2685

F 02 9542 5622

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1

79 Market Street

Mudgee NSW 2850

T 02 4302 1234

F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2

49 Ord Street

West Perth WA 6005

T 08 9227 1070

F 02 9542 5622

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2

62 Moore Street

Austinmer NSW 2515

T 02 4201 2200

F 02 9542 5622

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One

1-5 Baker Street

Gosford NSW 2250

T 02 4302 1221

F 02 9542 5622

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard

Cullen Bay NT 0820

T 08 8989 5601

F 08 8941 1220

BRISBANE

Suite 1, Level 3

471 Adelaide Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7192

F 07 3854 0310

ADELAIDE

2, 70 Pirie Street

Adelaide SA 5000

T 08 8470 6650

F 02 9542 5622

1300 646 131

www.ecoaus.com.au

http://www.ecoaus.com.au/

Documents

Archaeological Technical Report - Blacktown City