Nepean River Fords Archaeology Handbook Revisedadmin.penrithlakes.com.au/content/2015/04/Nepean-River... · 2015. 4. 7. · Nepean Park. 16 Single used this ford to move stock between

Penrith Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 1

The Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes—Archaeo logy Handbook

1.0 Introduction

The Nepean River Fords are a series of five river crossings spread along a c7km stretch of the Nepean River, on the

western boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. From north

to south, these include Howell’s Ford, Single’s Ford, Jackson’s Lane Ford, Sheen’s Lane Ford and Long’s Lane Ford1 (Figures

1 and 2). The fords date to the early days of European

settlement in the Penrith region, when they served as the

primary means of access to the west bank of the Nepean

River. They played a particularly important role in the transport

of stock to the higher west bank pastures. Three of the fords are closely tied to historical laneways, Jackson’s Lane,

Sheen’s Lane and Long’s Lane, from which the fords take their

names. Indeed, during the early nineteenth century the fords

and laneways would have been closely linked, forming a local network connecting properties and nearby settlements, and

providing valuable access to the Nepean’s western bank and

the Blue Mountains beyond. One of the few lanes not ending in

a ford is Purcell’s Lane.

These laneways and fords were some of the least tangible

historic remains surviving within the study area. They, by their

very nature, are sites of low archaeological visibility

(particularly when compared to other sites like homesteads or cemeteries). Furthermore, they are vulnerable to disturbance

and have been significantly impacted by subsequent activities

in the study area and a range of site formation processes

(including aggressive alluvial actions). Today relatively little

physical evidence remains relating to the early use of the fords and lanes. The fords continue to be shallow crossing points

over the Nepean River with an exception of Single’s Ford,

which due to having been located at the point where the

riverbed is at its deepest, has gradually vanished under the force of the river’s currants (Figure 3). Until recently the

shallow crossings were used by four-wheel-drive enthusiasts

and locals. Quarrying activities have had a significant impact

on many of the lanes, but some minor portions of them do

survive in modern road alignments. Despite this, the fords and remaining laneways have the potential to provide information

on early settlement and land utilisation in the Castlereagh

region. These sites have a unique archaeological signature

and can be considered as part of the overall cultural landscape of the area.

Figure 1 General view across the Nepean River looking northwest. (Source: GML 2008)

Location

Various (see Figure 2).

Historic Use

Fords and associated approaches/lanes.

Present Use Informal crossing points/connecting roadways.

Associated People

The settlers after whom they are named.

Penrtih Lakes Archaeological Management Plan—Appendix A—Nepean River Fords and Associated Lanes Archaeology Handbook—August 2012 2

Figure 2 Map of the Penrith Lakes Scheme area (outlined in blue) showing the location of the sites of the Nepean River fords (circled in orange) and lanes. (Source: PLDC 2011)


2.0 Historical Background

The Nepean River has been an important source of resources

for Aboriginal people living along its banks for many thousands of years. The area that was to become the township of

Castlereagh formerly comprised part of a larger expanse of

land inhabited by the Darug people, who are known to have

favoured the Nepean’s riverbank terraces for habitation sites,

and who utilised a range of resources including riverbank yams and a variety of terrestrial and aquatic resources.2 The

first European settlers to the region also recognised the

importance of the Nepean, and the majority of original land grants faced onto the river.3 The Nepean was not only the

main water source, but also provided a reliable means of transport in the early period of European settlement in the

region.

Between 1795 and 1806 the basic layout of the locality took shape. Land portions, major roads and lanes were surveyed

in 1803, and by 1804 approximately 24 people and their families were settled in the Castlereagh area.4 Land use

during the mid 1790s focused on timber getting, with cedar and mahogany being cleared from along the banks of the Nepean River.5 This clearing altered the rate of run-off and

caused frequent flooding of the Nepean, resulting in changes

to the river’s course and the deposition of various alluvial

terraces and banks along the river’s edge. The largest of these is the eastern ‘high bank’, which in the late eighteenth century rose up to 50 feet in height.6 Inland from the high

bank, much of the Castlereagh region was low lying and flood

prone, and many of the early land grants were subject to catastrophic flooding. By 1810 Hawkesbury cedar had been

entirely cleared from along the river bank and silting of the river had become well established.7

European settlement also had other impacts. The raised river

terraces were favoured for habitation sites by both the area’s

local Indigenous population and subsequent European

settlers, creating competition for land and resources along the river.8 This resulted in a series of conflicts and reprisals

between European settlers and the local Indigenous

population up until 1816. By the early nineteenth century, land

use within the region began to shift, as the focus moved from

cropping to the grazing of stock. Governor Macquarie deliberately encouraged the running of cattle by offering

horned cattle from the Government herds for stock

improvement, and from 1809 onwards land grants focused on grazing lands.9 Thus, by the 1820s, stock rearing had become

widespread.10 It is likely that this shift in local land use was the

Figure 3 Looking northwest across the assumed original location of Single’s Ford. (Source: GML)

Key References

Bently F and J Birmingham 1981, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study: History of European Settlement, report prepared for PLDC.

Britton G and C Morris 1999, Castlereagh Cultural Landscape Study, report prepared for PLDC.

Fox and Associates, Heritage Study of the City of Penrith, prepared on behalf of Penrith City Council, March 1987.

Stedinger Associates 2006, European Heritage within the Penrith lakes Scheme, A Conservation Management Plan (Master Plan), prepared for PLDC.

Department of Environment and Planning, 1984, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study, Blake and Hargreaves Pty Ltd, Sydney.


catalyst for the development of the Nepean River fords, as

increasing cattle stocks pushed the search for suitable grazing

lands beyond the immediate locality. Thus, the establishment of the fords would have been closely related to changing land-

use patterns, enabling cattle to be taken to the higher west

bank pastures to feed.

The Nepean River fords would have been constructed by

laying river pebbles across a shallow, flat area of the river bed11, and thus are likely to have been particularly vulnerable

to changes in the river caused by periodic flooding.12 The construction date of the Nepean fords is unknown13, but the

historical continuity of these river crossings is likely to extend back to the nineteenth century.14

3.0 Single’s Ford

3.1 Description and Setting

Single’s Ford was located west of Nepean Park and Hadley

Park (E 283176, N 6269664) on the wide, open western

expanse of the Nepean River (Figures 4 & 5). At this location the river is at its deepest point with the high banks which are in

some places quite steep. There are no visible features that

would indicate the presence of the ford at the current level of

the river. Single’s Ford is listed as Site No. 63 in the Regional Environmental Study (RES).15

3.2 Historical Development

No construction date is known for Single’s Ford. The ford is

located in what was the most westerly portion of Mince’s Grant, a property which was later owned by John Single of Nepean Park.16 Single used this ford to move stock between

Nepean Park, where he lived, and his inland properties

(located over the Blue Mountains), driving stock ‘directly across the river and up the mountains via Single’s Ridge Road’.17 Single held stock on his Cumberland Plain property

before transferring it to Sydney’s markets.18

In their history of the region, Bently and Birmingham state that

Single’s Ford developed on the route of a track between

Hadley Farm and the river, and which continued on the western bank, becoming what is now Single’s Ridge Road.19

According to Bently and Birmingham, evidence of the track behind the Hadley farm was still visible in 1981.20 According to

Stedinger’s CMP, Single’s Ford remained in use until bridges

were constructed across the river, and this part of the river was quarried in the 1960s.21

Figure 3 View of the Long’s Lane looking northwest. River pebbles of the ford are shown in the foreground. (Source: GML 2008)

Figure 4 Looking west across the deep water section of the Nepean where the former Single’s Ford was located. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 5 View looking northwest showing both river banks at the approximate location of the former Single’s Ford. The densely vegetated western bank still contains the track of Single’s Ridge Road. (Source: GML 2011)


3.3 Current Condition

Today no evidence of the ford exists. The river here is

currently deep and no features indicating a crossing were observed up and down stream of the east bank. There is no

evidence of the track behind Hadley’s farm that was noted by

Bently and Birmingham in 1981. In the assumed ford’s location

the east river bank is quite steep and overgrown by vegetation. The site inspection conducted to inform this study did not

identify any tangible elements that could be associated with

the crossing/ford. The lack of any obvious signs along the river

banks, landscaping and the river flow could be explained by

previous quarrying activities and/or fluctuations in water levels and associated alluvial processes that may have swiped the

sand dune constituting the ford.

4.0 Jackson’s Lane and Jackson’s Lane Ford


Jackson’s Lane (RES Site No. 59) is an early route which runs

west from the old line of McCarthy’s Lane to the Nepean River (intersecting and crossing Old Castlereagh Road in between)

(Figure 2). Jackson’s Lane Ford (RES Site No. 62) is located

at the western end of what was Jackson’s Lane, where it

meets the Nepean River (E 282828, N 6266966). The ford is approximately 1.4km south of Single’s Ford, and is situated on

the same wide straight western reach of the Nepean River.

The ford has several possible crossing points, with a number

of large low islands scattered across the river at this point, and

a shallow, pebbly bottom. The river bank is vegetated by grasses, low shrubs and large native trees, and round river

pebbles occur on the river bank.


Jackson’s Lane formed part of the original subdivision of the area.22 Given the early significance of the Jackson’s

Lane/McCarthy’s Lane route, it is not surprising that a ford

developed at the end of the lane. Jackson’s Lane was a gravel surfaced road that, at its western end, descended through a cutting in the high bank to the river’s edge below.23

No construction date is known for the Jackson’s Lane Ford,

but it is likely to have developed relatively early in the

settlement of the area. The ford is really a continuation of what was Jackson’s Lane and reflects early land use of the region,

when the ford would have been important for the movement of stock to the western pastures.24 The ford is located in Portion

54, which is part of the original 100 acres granted in 1803 to

Figure 6 Looking west along the western end of Jackson’s Lane. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 7 Lower portion of Jackson’s Lane leading to the river ford. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 8 Looking northwest across Jackson’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)


Edward Field.25 The land was purchased in 1867 by John

Jackson.26

Inspection of the ford in 1981 recorded some evidence of a

cutting through the high bank, as well as early artefacts near the river.27 Observations in 2006 recorded the ford as

being ‘formed from river pebbles laid across a shallower flatter portion of the river.


Jackson’s lane nowadays presents as a track leading down to the ford on its east side. It is distinguished by a cutting into the

river bank that is now overgrown by heavy vegetation (Figures

6–7). Sporadic river pebbles can be observed along the track,

however no associated elements including artefacts can be identified due to the heavy overgrowth.

Jackson’s Lane Ford is still an ideal crossing point on the

Nepean River, as evidenced by its current use by vehicles fording the river. At this location the river is shallow and is

interrupted by a number of low islands and small pebble rapids

(Figures 8–9). Vehicles currently access the eastern bank of

the ford via a dirt road, which descends from the eastern high

bank terrace to the riverbank below (probably the ‘steep cutting in the high bank’ observed by Stedinger Associates in their 2006 study28). There is no evidence of surface artefacts in the

vicinity of the ford, as observed in 1981 and 2011.

5.0 Purcell’s Lane


Purcell’s Lane (RES Site No. 58) is located less than a

kilometre south of Jackson’s Lane, immediately north of ‘Bird’s

Eye Corner’ at a bend in the Nepean River. Similar to Jackson’s Lane, Purcell’s Lane is an early access route to the

river that was running on the same east-west alignment off Old

Castlereagh Road. Currently the west portion of the lane

serves as access way to a PLDC’s site compound; the rest of the original lane is no longer in use (Figures 10–11).


Purcell’s Lane dates back to the early settlement days and is part of the original subdivision when the main artery of the

area, Old Castlereagh Road, was also formed. The early road,

measuring one chain wide appears to have been part of a

group of road surveyed by John Meehan to provide access to

the river. Purcell’s lane was running off Old Castlereagh Road between John Pickering’s and Samuel Stanyard’s (later Purcell

Figure 9 Looking upstream (south) along the Nepean, from Jackson’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)

Figure 10 Looking east along a portion of Purcells Lane which is now sheeted with bitumen providing access to one of PLDC’s site compounds. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 11 Looking west along what could possibly be the westernmost end of Purcell’s Lane. (Source: GML 2011)


family’s) grants down to the river foreshore. It also provided a connection to early flour mills established in mid 1830’s29.


Purcell’s Lane is no longer accessible for most of its original

extent. The site survey undertaken to inform this study

included the smaller, west portion of the original lane which is now sheeted with bitumen and serving as an access and

parking zone for a PLDC’s site compound.

6.0 Sheen’s Lane and Sheen’s Lane Ford


Sheen’s Lane was one of the early lanes within the

Castlereagh district that provided an access route to the south

(RES Site No. 57). It is located amongst several fords at this

southern bent of the river, dating back to various historical periods30 (Figure 2).

At the lane’s southern end is Sheen’s Lane Ford (RES Site No.

61) situated on a bend in the river, known locally as Bird’s Eye Corner, approximately 2km south of Jackson’s Lane Ford (E

282992, N 6265301) (Figure 1). The ford lies on a narrowing

of the river, which up to that point is wide and free flowing to

the south. The ford comprises a series of small low islands which create a confluence. The river here is shallow and

gravelly. Natural river pebbles are scattered along the river

bank, which is vegetated with grasses, shrubs and large native

trees, particularly casuarinas.


Sheen’s Lane developed from what initially was a separation

line between two parcels created from the early grant held by

Mary Collette. The lane firstly provided access to the parcels and probably over the time a connection to the river itself. The

lane appears to have been named after Henry Sheen who was leasing a part of Colette’s grant from 188631.

The construction date of Sheen’s Lane Ford is unknown, but it

is one of several fords built during earlier periods to provide

access for the properties and roads adjoining the Nepean

River. Being situated to the south, Sheen’s Lane Ford gave the people of Castlereagh and its surrounds access to Emu Plains.32 The ford is marked on the Springwood 9030-IV-S

First Edition, where it is shown turning west as it meets the river.33

Sheen’s Lane Ford was inspected by Bently and Birmingham

during their 1981 study, at which time they observed ‘evidence

Figure 12 Looking southwest along the river end of Sheen’s Lane. Note the vehicle tracks indicating recent use of the lane. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 13 Looking west across Sheen’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)

Figure 14 Detail of Sheen’s Lane Ford, looking west, showing low vegetated islands and laid river pebbles at the river’s

edge. (Source: GML 2008)


of earlier pebble metalling further east, looking obliquely southeast to the Emu Plains Training School’.34 The ford was

not inspected during preparation of the CMP in 2006 due to inaccessible terrain.35


Today Sheen’s Lane remains a dirt vehicle track leading from the river’s edge on the eastern bank, which connects with an

access road on the high bank (Figure 12). Most of its

alignment is covered by dense vegetation which obstructs any

physical evidence of the road surface, edging, etc.

Sheen’s Lane Ford still remains an ideal fording point on this

southern portion of the Nepean, and has until recently been in

use by vehicles crossing this part of the river. There is evidence of laid river pebbles on the east bank of the river, and

at the time of inspection the bank was boggy, with fresh tyre

tracks leading from the water’s edge. The river upstream of

the ford (to the southeast) is wide and open, but at Sheen’s

Lane Ford it becomes shallow and narrow, with several low vegetated islands and built-up river pebbles altering the flow of

the river (Figures 13–15).

7.0 Long’s Lane and Long’s Lane Ford

7.1 Description and Settings

Long’s Lane (RES Site No. 56) was a small lane which runs

south from Castlereagh Road to the Nepean River (Figures 1

and 16). Long’s Lane Ford (E 285054, N 6265009) (RES Site

No. 60) is situated at the southern end of the line of the lane, on a gentle bend in the Nepean River at ‘Bird’s Eye Corner’, –

adjacent to a bend in the Nepean Rive where the river is

narrow and relatively slow flowing (Figures 1, 2). There is a

small area of shallow rapids, created by an accumulation of river pebbles. Both the north and south banks of the ford are

covered by reeds and grasses, and has quite boggy, marsh-

like ground with fewer pebbles than some of the fords further

downstream. The overlying vegetation canopy is dense and

enclosed.


Despite not being able to apply a construction date to the

Nepean River fords, both Bently and Birmingham and Fox and Associates state that Long’s Lane Ford is the earliest known Nepean River crossing.36 According to Bently and

Birmingham, the ford is located ‘where the old line of the

Castlereagh Road turned south to the river down the east side of Thomas Appledore’s grant (Portion 74)’.37 In order to

Figure 15 Looking downstream (west) from Sheen’s Ford. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 16 Looking south along the assumed location of Long’s Lane. Note a slight depression in the grass potentially indicating a road alignment. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 17 Looking southwest (upstream) across the Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2011)

Figure 18 Looking upstream (southwest) towards Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)


improve access to Emu Plains, the people of Castlereagh

requested in 1814 that a bridge be erected across the swamp, thus Long’s Lane Ford played an important role.38 The route

that was selected ran ‘through the Reverend Fulton’s

parsonage land to the Castlereagh plain, then probably via a

choice of lanes between portions to MaCarthy’s Lane and

Castlereagh Road, and on to the land’s Lane ford and Emu Plains’ (sic).39 Long’s Lane, which led to Mouquet Farm, is

thought to have possibly been constructed as early as 1795,

and was bordered on both sides with ‘old-style post and fencing’ from the 1870s and 1890s.40

Lavelle identified the ford by ‘depressions in the river bank on either side of the river’41, and Bently and Birmingham also

recoding ‘much evidence of earlier activity—early bricks and the line of a former track’ as well as flood activity at the ford.42


Long’s Lane alignment and associated road elements are no

longer discernible due to the excessive vegetation overgrowth and the most recent activities associated with quarrying

(Figure 16).

Long’s Lane Ford however survives in good condition, with no evidence of current-day vehicle use (probably due to the

presence of a modern bridge only a few hundred metres to the

west of the ford). There is some evidence of built up pebbles

stretching across the river and on the adjoining northern bank, creating a small area of rapids within the otherwise slowly

flowing river (Figures 17–20). The ford is currently accessed

by foot along a small track leading from the bridge to the west,

and remains relatively undisturbed.

8.0 Archaeological Potential

‘Archaeological potential’ refers to the likelihood of

archaeological remains to survive at a site. It should be

distinguished from ‘archaeological significance’ which refers

to the heritage values of any remains that may prove to have survived. Thus, there may be ‘low potential’ for certain

remains to survive, but if they do survive, they might be

assessed as being of ‘high significance’ (for example, if they

are rare examples from the convict period).

The potential for relics to survive at a site depends on the

‘site formation processes’ that have operated there. These

processes include the physical development of the site (for example, the phases of building construction) and the

activities that occurred there.

Figure 19 Looking upstream (southeast) from Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)

Figure 20 Looking downstream (southwest) across Long’s Lane Ford. (Source: GML 2008)

Gradings of Archaeological Potential

High

Historical research indicates that there was previous human activity or development in the area and that physical evidence of this activity would have been created. There has been little or no evidence of subsequent ground disturbance. There is a very good chance that physical evidence of this previous activity or development (archaeological remains) will survive in situ.

Moderate

Historical research indicates that there was previous human activity or development in the area and that physical evidence of this activity may have been created. There has been some ground disturbance in the area. There is some chance that physical evidence (archaeological remains) will survive in situ.

Low

Historical research indicates that there has been no human activity or development in the area, or that there would be little or no physical evidence of any former activity or development. The area has been subject to significant ground disturbance. It is unlikely that any physical evidence of previous activity or development (archaeological remains) would be present.


Ask: Have parts of the site been subject to actions that may have deposited relics (on the one hand)

or which might have destroyed relics (on the other hand)?

For example, a site that has been graded by earthmoving machinery may have low archaeological

potential because grading works often disturb or remove archaeological evidence. Some archaeological

remains are more vulnerable to disturbance (for example, botanical remains), while others are more

robust (for example, wall footings).

8.1 Site Formation Processes

The Nepean River fords are exposed to a range of site formation processes. The most significant of

these are the constant alluvial actions of the Nepean River itself: washing, erosion, sedimentation, fluctuating waters levels and flooding. These processes, along with the simple effect of constant

movement, water pressure and river currents, are likely to have had the most significant impact on the

archaeological potential of these sites. Any remains of original laid river crossings (either of pebbles or

other materials) and associated artefacts are likely to have been impacted by these processes and pushed downstream with the river’s current. The river banks are also certain to have been significantly

altered by alluvial erosion and deposition of sediments, river pebbles and other debris. Flooding is likely

to have disturbed the remains of the fords, and floodwaters would also have the potential to move

artefacts from their place of origin and redeposit them. If artefacts are found on the surface or near the

surface at any of the fords, these should not be regarded as in situ without other supporting evidence.

Sand and gravel mining would have disturbed or destroyed any archaeological remains in areas where

those activities have occurred. This is particularly relevant to Single’s Ford, which is thought to have

been quarried in the 1960s.

Current land use is also likely to have had significant impacts on the archaeological potential of the

Nepean River fords and associated laneways. The fords are known to have been used until recent

times by vehicles as a means of crossing the river (at the time of the first site inspection in 2008, a vehicle was observed crossing Jackson’s Lane Ford). Indeed, use of the fords by four-wheel-drive

enthusiasts crossing to the east bank was such a problem that, in an attempt to prevent members of the

public from accessing the quarry lands, PLDC staff had placed mounds of dirt and large rubber tyres at

the entrances to the fords on the eastern bank. This appeared not to have been an effective deterrent,

as the tyres have been burned and the deposited soil scaled. This type of continued use by large vehicles is likely to have altered the fords, particularly along the boggy banks which are especially

susceptible to impact and compaction from heavy vehicles. The deposition of soil mounds and tyres in

these areas (as well as subsequent burning and disturbance) is also likely to have compromised the

integrity of remaining archaeological deposits associated with the ford entrances and laneways. It is recommended that consideration be given to introducing more effective measures to address this issue.

The laneways associated with the Nepean River fords have been exposed to a range of site formation

processes which would have impacted on the archaeological potential of these sites. Laneways and roads are, by their very nature, sites of low archaeological visibility, and they are highly susceptible to

disturbance. Erosion, weathering and impact from quarrying traffic are likely to have reduced the

archaeological potential of these sites, and to have disturbed archaeological remains that do survive.

These laneways are also likely to have been altered by the construction of modern roads and

subsequent quarrying works in their vicinity.


8.2 Potential Archaeological Remains

Table 1 Potential archaeological remains associated with the Nepean River Fords and associated laneways.

Activity Potential Remains Integrity of Remains Archaeological Potential

Archaeological Significance at State Level

Early river crossings

Evidence of laid crossing surfaces, riverbank approaches, cuttings through river bank terraces.

Likely to have been disturbed by flooding, other alluvial processes, quarrying and current vehicle impacts.

Moderate High

Early land clearing around ford entrances

Tree roots, charcoal deposits, artefact scatters, soil deposits, evidence of camp sites etc.

Likely to have been removed/disturbed by subsequent activities.

Low High

Early animal management

Post holes on fence lines or remains of stock routes across fords.

Some disturbance associated with subsequent activities or structures in these areas.

Moderate High

Historic laneways/ roads

Road alignments, road surfaces and ditches, tree lines, fence posts, isolated artefacts.

Some disturbance from traffic, alterations to road alignments or construction of new roads. May have been obscured or disturbed by weathering processes and subsequent activities.

Low High

Artefact scatters

Miscellaneous fragments of pottery, glass, bone etc.

May have been periodically removed or disturbed by subsequent activities.

Low-to-Moderate High, depending on date

Note if any archaeological evidence relating to Aboriginal use of the site is discovered then the Office of

Environment and Heritage (OEH) must be notified immediately.

9.0 Archaeological Significance

‘Archaeological significance’ refers to the heritage significance of archaeological remains (known or

potential).

Assessments of heritage significance endeavour to establish why a place or item is considered important and why it is valued by a community. Significance assessments are carried out applying a range of criteria expressed in a variety of documents including The Burra Charter: the Australia

ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999 (for general application), the NSW

Heritage Manual (for assessing State and local significance) and the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cwth) (for places of National significance).

While all of the assessment criteria may be applied to archaeological remains, the most relevant

criteria relate to the research potential of the remains (that is, their ability to provide information), as

well as their associations with significant historical places, events or people. Remains that have higher research potential would generally have greater heritage significance.

Archaeological remains should be managed according to their significance, which can influence the

degree of impact that may be acceptable, or the level of investigation and recording that may be required. In some cases, the most appropriate management strategy may be to protect the remains

from any impact or to retain any exposed archaeological remains in situ.


9.1 Summary Statement of Significance

The following statement of significance is taken from the

Conservation Management Plan: Penrith Lakes Scheme,

2006, prepared by Stedinger Associates Heritage and

Archaeology. The CMP deals with only two of the Nepean

fords: Jackson’s Lane Ford (referred to in the CMP as Jackson’s Ford) and Single’s Ford:

Jackson’s Ford and the site of Single’s Ford were generally found

to be of high historical, aesthetic and social significance at a local

level. Jackson’s Ford and the site of Single’s Ford are important as

part of the overall locality settlement history, particularly in relation

to the role of the Nepean River. These river fords are early

examples of specialized land utilization. They constituted a part of

colonial travel routes and river crossings in the Castlereagh area.

Jackson’s Ford forms part of the cultural landscape of the Nepean

River and its conservation zone. It is one of only river [sic]

crossings surviving along the Nepean River and continues to be

used by some of the local community today, thereby demonstrating

continuity of its historical use. While Jackson’s Ford is considered

to be a good and intact example of a relatively early river crossing,

it is not likely to contribute new or important information.

No physical evidence was located of Single’s Ford. Single’s Ford

was reportedly removed in the 1960s or 1970s. The former site is

only accessible by boat along the Nepean River and no material

evidence was found during the present survey.

While this statement of significance relates only to Jackson’s Lane Ford and Single’s Ford, its theme can be equally applied

to the other fords along the Nepean River and their associated

laneways, which are similar in terms of their nature, setting and

overall significance within the cultural landscape of the area.

As a group, the Nepean River fords (and associated laneways) are examples of early specialised land utilisation, and are

important because they remain as evidence of early colonial

travel routes and river crossings in the district. The fords are

significant as part of the overall area’s settlement history, especially in relation to the role of the Nepean, and are of

considerable local significance.

Archaeological Significance

Archaeological remains are assessed as being of State or local significance under the Heritage Act.

Burra Charter

Article 1.2—Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.

Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.


10.0 Archaeological Research Design

The following research framework should be applied to any

archaeological investigation undertaken within the vicinity of any of the Nepean River fords or associated remnant

laneways.

10.1 Research Questions—General

• What physical evidence of former activities survives at

the site?

• What is the extent of the surviving archaeological evidence?

• What is the nature of extant archaeological features?

• What is the date of the identified features?

• What can the cultural evidence contribute to our

knowledge about this site or other sites?

10.2 Research Questions—Penrith Lakes Precinct

• What evidence is there of the pre-European

landscape?

• Is there physical evidence of Aboriginal and non-

Aboriginal contact?

• What does the archaeological evidence tell us about

the types of people that lived and worked in the area

(in terms of socio-economic groups, race, religion,

nationalities etc)?

• Does the archaeological resource shed any light on

relations between convicts and free settlers in the

area?

• What does the archaeological record tell us about

nineteenth century links between the rural west and

Sydney city?

10.3 Research Questions—Specific to the Nepean River Fords and Associated Laneways

• Is there archaeological evidence of the early

development and use of the Nepean River fords and

associated laneways?

• What evidence is there of the construction of the fords

and laneways?

• Is there any archaeological evidence of landscaping or

modification to the river banks around the fords? How

NSW Heritage Manual Criteria Criterion (a)—Important in the course, or pattern, of our cultural history.

Criterion (b)—Strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons.

Criterion (c)—Demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement.

Criterion (d)—Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Criterion (e)—Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of cultural history.

Criterion (f)—Possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of cultural history.

Criterion (g)—Important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places.

Other Assessment Criteria

1. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other resource can?

2. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other site can?

3. Is this knowledge relevant to general questions about human history or other substantive questions relating to Australian history, or does it contribute to other major research questions?

(Bickford A and S Sullivan 198443)


do they relate to the natural topography? How was the

natural topography modified to create the fords?

• What does the archaeological resource tell us about

specialised land utilisation and practices in this area?


the kinds of people who used the fords and associated

laneways?


the early travel routes of the region?

• What does the archaeological evidence tell us about the role and use of the Nepean River?


the role of the fords and laneways to the area’s settlement and development?

• Is there any evidence of a link between the Nepean

River fords and other historic items nearby?

11.0 Archaeological Management—General

The archaeological resources of the Nepean River fords and associated laneways make an important contribution to the

region’s overall cultural heritage values. At the time of first

non-Aboriginal settlement in the area the fords were on the

very edge of the colony’s settled areas. They held

considerable symbolic and functional significance for the early settlers.

Future masterplanning and design development will need to

take account of the location and significance of the potential archaeological resource. Proposed development requiring

ground disturbance may need to be preceded by

archaeological investigation, or modified where it will impact

significant archaeological remains.

It would be highly desirable for the location and function of the

fords and lanes to be interpreted to the public as part of a

wider program of interpretation and community engagement (see the Interpretation Strategy prepared by GML in 2008).

The sites of the fords must be managed in accordance with

their assessed significance. Generally, significant archaeological remains should not be disturbed and should be

retained in situ. However, the archaeological evidence of the

fords is particularly vulnerable to disturbance through natural

processes, especially erosion. As a result, the research

Need for a Research Framework

The archaeological remains at a site are a finite resource. Where subsurface disturbance or excavation is required and remains cannot be retained in situ (not disturbed or destroyed), it is essential that the research potential of the archaeological resource be fully realised.

An Archaeological Research Design (ARD) helps to ensure that this occurs. It provides a research framework for the archaeologist, including a range of ‘research questions’ that help the archaeologist formulate excavation methodologies prior to work commencing. A number of ‘historic themes’ have been developed to provide a framework for developing these research questions.

An ARD sets out the appropriate excavation methodologies for a proposed excavation. Excavation methodologies should be designed to best answer the research questions posed by the ARD, and to contribute to interpretation and other mitigative strategies.


potential of the fords is being lost and what remains is unlikely

to survive for much longer. Therefore, proactive research

excavation is justified at the site of the fords and laneways. The archaeological resource should be managed applying the

following general principles and specific methodologies

(Sections 11.0 and 12.0).

11.1 Roles and Responsibilities

• Penrith Lakes Development Corporation (PLDC) has

ultimate responsibility for the appropriate

management of archaeological resources within the Penrith Lakes Scheme.

• PLDC should appoint a Heritage Officer as the

primary point of contact and communication for the management of heritage issues within the Penrith

Lakes Scheme.

• The PLDC Heritage Officer should be consulted before ground disturbance is undertaken in areas

identified as being of archaeological sensitivity. If in

doubt—ask.

• The PLDC Heritage Officer must be responsible for

applying the principles and policies in this document.

The PLDC Heritage Officer should consult with

relevant heritage professionals and, where

appropriate, the Heritage Branch, NSW Department of Planning.

• Contractors involved in ground disturbance in

archaeologically sensitive areas must be informed of their obligations in relation to archaeological issues

by the PLDC Heritage Officer. A copy of this

Archaeology Handbook must be provided to site

contractors. Contractors are also responsible for the

appropriate management and treatment of the archaeological remains, in consultation with the

PLDC Heritage Officer.

• Where the development of the site is determined to be a ‘major project’ under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(NSW), the Minister for Planning would be the

consent authority for the project. The AMP should be submitted with the Concept Application and related

Project Applications. Consents should be

conditioned such that works carried out in

accordance with the provisions of this document

Statutory Framework If relics of National significance would be significantly impacted by works, it may be necessary to refer the matter to the Australian Government Minister for Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (applying the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).

The Penrith Lakes Scheme is implemented under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 11 (SREP 11).

In addition, the Penrith Lakes Scheme has been declared a ‘major project’ governed by Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). For extraction, rehabilitation or lake formation, the Minister for Planning will be the consent authority. The Minister for Planning can approve works and can condition that approval such that the works are undertaken in accordance with this AMP.

For other development proposals Penrith City Council is the consent authority.

For all other circumstances, the provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) would apply.

The Heritage Act provides automatic statutory protection to ‘relics’. The Heritage Act defines a ‘relic’ as:

Any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence:

relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales not being aboriginal settlement, and

is of State or local significance.

Sections 139–145 of the Heritage Act prevent the excavation of a relic, except in accordance with a gazetted exception or an excavation permit issued by the Heritage Council of NSW (except where specified by other prevailing legislation).

The site has the potential to contain historical archaeological relics as defined by the Heritage Act.

The management of the Penrith Lakes Scheme heritage resource is also governed by the provisions of a confidential Deed entered into between PLDC and State government in 1987, and the conditions of consent attaching to a number of DAs. Always consult these before commencing works that may impact on the archaeological resource.


require no further consents.

11.2 General Policies—Archaeological Management

The following policies should form the basis of archaeological management and relate to all areas of the Penrith Lakes

Scheme.

Prioritise Management of Historical Archaeological Remains —Appropriate management of historical

archaeological remains (known and potential) should be given

high priority in the management of the site’s heritage values.

Minimise Archaeological Impacts —Ground disturbance

should be minimised or avoided in areas of archaeological

potential, where possible.

In Situ Retention —Archaeological remains of State

significance should be retained in situ, where possible.

Site Protection —Strategies should be put in place to

minimise or avoid uncontrolled disturbance of areas of

archaeological potential (for example, restricted movement of

heavy machinery across these areas).

Archaeological Investigation —Where disturbance of areas

of archaeological potential is proposed, this disturbance should

be preceded by, or undertaken in conjunction with,

archaeological investigation and recording.

Underground Utility Services —Excavation or ground

disturbance for the purpose of exposing or accessing

underground utility services infrastructure is appropriate where

the excavation or disturbance would occur within an existing trench and the excavation or disturbance would not affect

known or potential archaeological remains (other than the

service infrastructure itself).

Suitably Qualified Personnel —Any archaeological

investigation or recording should be undertaken by suitably

qualified personnel. The archaeologist on site (Excavation

Director) must have the authority to stop or redirect works, as required, to allow archaeological remains to be appropriately

investigated or recorded.

Contractors and Subcontractors —Suitable clauses should

be included in all contractor and subcontractor contracts to ensure that on-site personnel are aware of their obligations in

relation to the site’s archaeological significance. Site

inductions should include a heritage component. Relevant

contracts should include provision for potential delays related

Consultation and Liaison If Aboriginal objects are exposed by ground disturbance, consult with those parties identified in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (this may include the Department of the Environment and Climate Change, Aboriginal community representatives and others). Consult the guidelines for consultation published by the DECC.

The PLDC Heritage Officer should consult with heritage professionals and/or the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, as appropriate.

The PLDC Heritage Officer may wish to involve community groups in the management of the archaeological resource.


to the discovery of unexpected archaeological remains.

Notification —The Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet,

should be notified of the commencement and completion of any archaeological investigations.

Reporting —The results of any archaeological investigation should be presented in an Archaeological

Excavation Report within 12 months of completion of the investigation and a copy of the report should be

submitted to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet and the

Mitchell Library.

Conservation and Storage of Artefacts —PLDC (or its successors) is responsible for the safekeeping

of relics recovered from the site unless alternative arrangements are negotiated with the Office of

Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. ‘Safekeeping’ may include

cleaning, stabilising, labelling, cataloguing and storing in an appropriate repository.

Interpretation —Interpretation of archaeological remains should occur within the Penrith Lakes Scheme

where appropriate and should be undertaken in accordance with the policies and recommendations

identified in the Penrith Lakes Scheme Interpretation Strategy (2008) and relevant Special Element

Interpretation Plans.

Unexpected Aboriginal Archaeological Objects —If any unexpected Aboriginal archaeological objects

are exposed during site works, work should cease and consultation with relevant Aboriginal community

representatives and the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet should be initiated.

Unexpected Remains of National Significance —If any unexpected remains of potentially National

heritage significance are encountered during site works, works should cease until a proper assessment has been made by a heritage professional. It may be necessary to make a ‘referral’ to the Australian

Government Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Disputes and Uncertainty —Should disagreement or uncertainty arise concerning the application of this

AMP, the matter should be referred to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of

Premier and Cabinet for determination.

12.0 Management of the Potential Archaeological Re source

12.1 Research Questions

The fords and laneways can be used to address the following research questions:

• Can the archaeological data be used to more accurately date the fords?

• Are the extant fords at historic locations or have they moved with the passage of time?

• How were the fords constructed? Were there changes in construction techniques over time?

12.2 Step 1—Surface Survey

Although the location of the fords and lanes has been previously recorded, a thorough surface survey,

which includes an analysis of landforms, artefact scatters etc, has not been undertaken.

No permit or other consent is required for a surface survey, provided no ground disturbance occurs.


If the data cannot be obtained from existing topographic plans, the surface survey should include the use

of an EDM to record elevations sufficient to generate contour plans of the fords and associated lanes

and their approaches.

The surface survey should aim to idetify the artefacts noted by Bently and Birmingham in past surveys,

and any other artefacts and related features that may be visible. The survey should aim at

comprehensive site coverage in a c20m x 20m square around each ford and its approaches inclusding associated lanes. A transect approach should be favoured, where vegetation etc allows. Any relics

identified during the survey should be located in space using an EDM and/or GPS. Given their

vulnerability to natural disturbance or destruction, it would be appropriate for relics to be collected,

conserved and stored.

Each ford and its approaches should be thoroughly recorded by photography.

A succinct report should be prepared at the conclusion of the survey presenting the results.

12.3 Step 2—Test Excavation

Given the vulnerability of the fords and their approaches including the associated lanes to natural

disturbance/destruction, it is highly desirable that all possible data relating to their age and construction techniques be obtained before they disappear entirely. A proactive research excavation would be

appropriate.

The following methodology should be observed:

• In relation to consents:

− If this AMP has been endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW, proceed with the

works by observing the methodology below.

− If the works do not form part of a Part 3A Major Project, and the AMP has not been endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW, proceed by way of an Exception application

to the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet

(the application should provide for the excavation methodology presented below).

− If the works form part of a Part 3A Major Project, and if the provisions of the Heritage

Act do not apply, proceed by way of the methodology below.

• At the location of each ford, a transect trench should be excavated, perpendicular to and

bisecting the ford/approaches. The trench should be located to best capture data relating to the construction techniques of the ford (proximity to in situ cobbles would therefore be

desirable). The trench need only be wide enough to create an informative section (for

example, 1–1.2 m). Where ownership allows it, a second trench should be excavated on the

right bank in the same manner.

• Test excavation of the associated laneways may include several transect trenches positioned

along the original alignment of the road to test for the original surface , width and condition as

well as the presence/absence of associated features (drains, culverts, curbs, etc.). The recommend test trench width would also be 1–1.2m.

• It would be appropriate to excavate the trenches by machine, monitored by an archaeologist.

Manual excavation (picks, shovels etc) may be necessary where relics are exposed.


• The archaeologist should excavate all deposits, applying the principles of stratigraphic

excavation.

• Any artefacts that are recovered should be washed, labelled and stored. Arrangements

should be made for appropriate conservation to occur where artefacts with particular

conservation requirements are found (for example, leather and metal artefacts). Artefacts

should be logged in a database that reflects current best-practice archaeological data recording.

• If archaeological evidence relating to Aboriginal use of the site is discovered, the Office of

Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet must be notified immediately, in accordance with Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

(NSW). Appropriate Aboriginal consultation must be undertaken consistent with provided

guidelines.

• On completion of the works, a succinct report should be prepared and submitted to the Office

of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet that presents the

results of the excavation, illustrated by photographs, survey plans and other drawings as

appropriate.

12.4 Interpretation

The archaeological evidence relating to the Nepean River fords and their approaches including the

associated lanes is vulnerable to disturbance/destruction by natural processes, especially erosion. It is not necessary to seek to stabilise or otherwise protect the resource. However, once the relevant

research data has been obtained (observing the above survey and excavation) it is highly desirable that

these significant features of the cultural landscape be interpreted to the wider community.

The results of any archaeological investigation of the fords and their approaches should inform the future

interpretation options presented in the GML Interpretation Strategy (2008) (eg, if the fords and

approaches and the associated lanes become a feature of a future Heritage Trail).

13.0 Endnotes

1 This handbook does not deal with Howell’s Ford, which lies outside the northern boundary of the Penrith Lakes Scheme. 2 Liston, Carol c1999, Research Towards a History of Castlereagh to 1906 (Draft), p 6, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006,

European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme, A Conservation Management Plan (Master Plan), report prepared for Penrith

Lakes Development Corporation Limited, p 35. 3 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study, Blake & Hargreaves Pty

Ltd, Sydney, pp 11–15. 4 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, Penrith Lakes Scheme Regional Environmental Study History of European Settlement,

report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited, pp 9–10. 5 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, pp 11–15. 6 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 8. 7 ibid, p 10. 8 ibid, p 11. 9 ibid, p 12. 10 Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, pp 11–15. 11 Stedinger Associates 2006, European Heritage within the Penrith Lakes Scheme, A Conservation Management Plan (Master

Plan), report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development Corporation Limited, p 246. 12 Fox & Associates 1987 (revised 1991), Heritage Study of the City of Penrith, Volume 3: Item Identification Sheets, for Penrith City

Council, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246.


13 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, DA4 Management

Study Heritage Assessment, Penrith Lakes Scheme Area, Castlereagh, NSW, report prepared for Penrith Lakes Development

Corporation—NSW Heritage Database Form, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 14 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246. 15 NSW Department of Environment and Planning 1984, op cit, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 247. 16 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 17 Britton, Geoffrey and Morris, Colleen 1999, Castlereagh Cultural Landscape Study: Assessment and Recommendations Final

Report, report prepared for the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, pp 48, 65, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 18 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 83. 19 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 20 ibid, p 73. 21 ibid, p 221. 22 ibid, p 221. 23 ibid, p 221. 24 ibid, p 221. 25 ibid, p 219. 26 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, op cit, cited in

Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 219. 27 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 28 ibid, p 221. 29 Kass Terry, Outline History of Portions 55, 56, 57, 72, 73, 301 Parish of Castlereagh, County Cumberland, Group 9, For Penrith

Lakes Corporation April 2011, p 9. 30 Bently Fran & Birmingham Judy 1981, op cit, p 76. 31 Kass Terry 2011, op cit, p 54 32 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 245. 33 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 73. 34 ibid, p 73. 35 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 246. 36 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82; and Fox & Associates 1987 (revised 1991), Heritage Study of the City of

Penrith, Volume 3: Item Identification Sheets, prepared for Penrith City Council, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 37 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82. 38 Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 39 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 14. 40 ibid, p 93, cited in Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 41 Lavelle, Siobhan, Anne Bickford & Associates and The Nepean District Historical Archaeology Group 1997, op cit, cited in

Stedinger Associates 2006, op cit, p 244. 42 Bently, Fran & Birmingham, Judy 1981, op cit, p 82. 43 Bickford, A and S Sullivan 1984, ‘Assessing the Research Significance of Historic Sites’, in Sullivan S and S Bowdler (eds) Site

Surveys and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology (Proceedings of the 1981 Springwood Conference on Australian

Prehistory), Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Documents

Nepean River Fords Archaeology Handbook Revisedadmin.penrithlakes.com.au/content/2015/04/Nepean-River... · 2015. 4. 7. · Nepean Park. 16 Single used this ford to move stock between