Reply

The following is a letter I received in reply to my concerns and those raised by Gary Dean:

Dear Mr White,

I'd like to address some of the issues that you have raised regarding the current works at part of the Glenrowan Revitalisation project.

The remains of the "Stump" were initially marked by the project archaeologist to ensure that it was not damaged by workers during landscaping in the area. The stump was covered with a piece of geotextile and then buried and the archaeologist has recorded the location. The stump has not been moved or damaged in any way and it was thought that this solution was the best passive conservation approach, which will enable a suitable management decision to be made when the works are completed.

With regard to the re-shaping of the creek line running through the NW portion of the rail reserve. The battering, as I understand it, is required for three reasons:

1.       public safety (previous formation had obscured and deep drops);
2.       stability - works further up the creekline means that water will enter this section at greater force and the steep and unprotected banks would have eroded and collapsed quicker that had occurred in the past;
3.       maintenance - the shallower batters reduce debris falling into the creekline and blocking it and make it easier to access to slash grass etc.

The main point, however, is that the creek alignment and soil deposits that made up the old banks were not original. Maps of the site (1911) provided by Gary Dean, show that the drainage lines looked very different to the present configuration. It is clear that the creek was re aligned along the northern border of the rail reserve and was straightened. The base of the creek was (and still is) a concrete V shaped channel, sitting on a large (approx 1.8 metre wide) reinforced concrete slab that runs the length of the creek line and under the so called original banks.

Observations made during the monitoring by the project archaeologist suggest that the majority of material removed during the battering exercise was derived and quite modern - of the very few artefacts observed most were items such as crisp packets, batteries, MacDonald drinks cups and straws etc. There was a low density of ceramic and glass frags but they were in highly disturbed strata and also appeared to be of 20th century date. There were no artefacts that could be attributed to the siege or to that period or indeed considered to be in situ.

I understand that the creek will be lined with geotextile and planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses as per the original specs (plans and specs that have been in the public domain for a long time). The main down side I think is that the battering works exposed the artificial nature of the creek alignment and base. In my opinion, however, the works have not significantly affected any historically 'pristine' landscape or archaeological deposit and I believe that the appearance of the site will improve greatly over the next 6 months.

I agree that it would be useful for Council to have some plan or "artists impression" which would demonstrate to the public how the site will look once the works are finished and established.

I would like you to be assured that a quality archaeological process has been undertaken to protect the values of the site. Heritage Victoria is very aware of the significant historical and archaeological values of this place, and is working closely with the Council, community groups and local owners to ensure positive outcomes for the site.

Regards,

Jeremy Smith
Senior Archaeologist

Heritage Victoria
7/8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne   3002
Ph: 9637 9773