The Cranebrook Terrace revisited: recent excavations of an early Holocene alluvial deposit on the banks of the Nepean River, NSW, and their implications for future work in the region

Abstract

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. AbstractWe present the results of a compliance-based excavation on the banks of Peach Tree Creek within the alluvial margin of the Nepean River, Penrith, NSW. The excavations consisted of: i) Two mechanically excavated trenches (3x1 m) in controlled 20 cm spits to depths of 4 m below surface; and ii) a subsequent stage of manual salvage excavation (6 m 2 ) focussing on the artefact-bearing levels indicated by the testing phase. The excavations identified two sedimentary deposits, with the lowest being part of the Cranebrook Formation, a deep alluvial deposit within which artefacts dating to >40 ka have been previously reported. We recovered four indurated mudstone/tuff and two coarse silcrete artefacts, all having characteristics of the late Pleistocene/early Holocene, and which we have OSL dated to >9.5 ka from the upper portion of the Richmond Unit of the Cranebrook Formation (3.5-3.9 m below the surface). Along with a greater understanding of the formation (only a part of which was deposited during the last 50 ka) and recent archaeological discoveries, our results lend increasing support for visitation of the Nepean river corridor by Aboriginal people as part of the initial colonisation of Australia. It remained a key locale for occupation and visitation throughout the late Pleistocene. Finally, we discuss the current NSW State government guidelines for investigating archaeological deposits and identify concerns about their effectiveness and applicability when investigating areas of potentially deep stratigraphy along the banks of the Nepean River.

Disrupting paradise: Has Australian archaeology lost its way?

“…I argue here that this is indeed a sign of things to come in Australian archaeology, with increasing amounts of valuable research now being published that derives from CHM-driven projects rather than university-based projects (e.g. Bird and Rhoads 2020;Fullagar et al 2017;Huntley et al 2018;McDonald et al 2007;Slack et al 2009Slack et al , 2017Slack et al , 2018Wallis and Matthews 2016;White and McDonald 2010;Williams et al 2012Williams et al , 2017. Of course, translating CHM into research is not easy, as it requires the navigation of commercial and confidential arrangements, and not all clients are willing to support investigations that go beyond the minimal legislative requirements.…”

First Nations pre‐LGM ochre processing in Parramatta, NSW, Australia

“…On the Hawkesbury 134 First Nations pre-LGM ochre processing River, samples from elevated terraces comprising localised sand bodies at Pitt Town (PT-12) and Windsor (South Bank PAD W-SP #45-5-3581) have returned pre-LGM OSL age determinations of ∼36 ka (Austral Archaeology, 2011;Williams et al, 2012Williams et al, , 2014. Further south-west the Cranbrook Terrace yielded stone artefacts with associated sediments thermoluminescence dated to ∼40 ka (refer to discussions in Mulvaney & Kamminga, 1999;Nanson et al, 1987;Stockton & Nanson, 2004;Williams et al, 2017).…”

Tracking an exotic raw material: Aboriginal movement through the Blue Mountains, Sydney, NSW during the Terminal Pleistocene

“…These sites generally reflect brief, or intermittent visits, with increasing artefact numbers and technological attributes, indicative of longer occupation times, only in the last few thousand years. To the east, numerous academic and cultural heritage management (CHM) projects along the Hawkesbury-Nepean River corridor show fairly intense use of the region since c.35 ka continuing throughout the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and Holocene (Attenbrow 2010;Kohen et al 1984;McDonald 2008;Nanson et al 1987;White 2017;White and McDonald 2010;Williams et al 2012Williams et al , 2014Williams et al , 2017Williams et al , 2019. Excavations at Pitt Town (PT-12) and Windsor (South Bank PAD W-SP #45-5-3581) (Figure 1) suggest that the elevated terraces associated with the Hawkesbury-Nepean River were an ecological refuge through the LGM (21 ± 3 ka), with unchanging artefact attributes indicating economic and social behaviour adopted during this climatic downturn remained constant well into the Holocene period (AAJV 2017; Williams et al 2012Williams et al , 2014.…”

“…However, this distinct raw material has not been previously documented in any excavated archaeological sites across the Cumberland Plain -one of the most intensely archaeologically investigated areas in Australia -nor in the extensive Pleistocene and Holocene records from the banks of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River itself (e.g. AAJV 2017; Attenbrow 2010; McDonald 2008; White 2017; White and McDonald 2010;Williams et al 2012Williams et al , 2014Williams et al , 2017. Longdistance trade between Aboriginal groups is similarly unlikely to provide a plausible mechanism, with populations generally too low at this time for such networks (c. 1/120 km 2 )(Williams 2013;Williams et al 2015); and current archaeological evidence suggesting such interactions were largely late Holocene in origin (e.g McBryde 1987;Smith 2013;Smith and Veth 2004)…”