Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00408:front:0:p196
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00408
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 624646–627652

within the study area. The majority of the sites were scatters artefacts and it was observed that such sites are common within the Majura Valley and the ACT in general.

          5.3  The Campbell Precinct

       No Aboriginal sites have previously been recorded as occurring within the Campbell precinct study area.

          5.4  Regional Background for the Mitchell Precinct

       Archaeological surveys in the ACT have resulted in the location of numerous archaeological sites in northern Canberra. The most common site type is the open artefact scatter, however scarred trees, grinding grooves, a possible ochre source and lithic raw material sources have also been identified in the area. Surveys and investigations carried out in this area are summarised below.

       The Canberra Archaeological Society (CAS) conducted the first archaeological survey in the northern Canberra area in 1975-76. The survey located 'seven sites' and a larger number of 'less significant finds' (Bindon & Pike 1979). These results were re-assessed by Anutech (1984) who concluded that nine sites and fifteen isolated finds had been located by the CAS.

       Seven of the nine sites located by the CAS were located close to streamlines, and twelve of the fifteen isolated finds were located within 100-200 m of streamlines.

       Other surveys by the Canberra Archaeological Society added substantially to the database of both prehistoric and historic archaeological information for the area (Witter 1984; Winston-Gregson 1986).

       Witter (1980) surveyed a 20 m wide easement for a gas pipeline running between Dalton and Canberra. His survey crossed the Yass River and traversed hilly country in the centre of the Upper Yass River catchment. Eleven artefact scatters containing small silcrete flakes and some blades were recorded during the survey. The following year Witter (1981) fully excavated one site (DC2) and collected the surface artefacts from six sites (DC1, DC5, DC6, DC9, DC11 & DC12).

       More generalised studies were conducted for the EIS prepared for the Gungahlin development release area (Anutech 1984, NCDC 1989) and for the compilation of the Sites of Significance volume on Gungahlin and Belconnen (NCDC 1988). The Anutech investigation identified several general consistencies in site location. A majority of sites were classed as located on creek banks, on low- lying but well-drained areas, and within 150 m of the junction of two creeks. This was postulated to indicate a preference for topographically confined parts of valley floors where protection from wind is greatest. At a majority of sites, artefactual material was exposed as subsurface material eroding from A horizon sediments (Anutech 1984:24).

       Although this model was considered to be incorrect by some researchers (Access Archaeology 1991:8) further comparative work by Navin and Officer (1991, 1992) tended to confirm the locational model proposed by Anutech. The majority of open artefact scatters,