ARTICLE

Remade ground: modelling historical elevation change across Melbourne’sHoddle Grid

Q7 Greg Hila , Susan Lawrencea and Diana Smithb

aDepartment of Archaeology and History, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; bVictoria Department of Premier andCabinet, Aboriginal Victoria,Q1 Australia

Q2

ABSTRACTUrbanisation is a transformative process that can dramatically reshape land surfaces.Archaeologists working in urban environments are often required to relate the outcomes ofthis process to the archaeological record. This is particularly true for pre-European Aboriginalcultural heritage, where the enduring presence of pre-contact ground surfaces has importantimplications for cultural heritage management. Accurately predicting which parts of a cityhave increased or decreased in elevation historically could provide archaeologists with anew means of assessing archaeological potential. In this paper we present a methodologyfor modelling historical landscape change using nineteenth century topographic maps andGIS. To demonstrate the approach, changes in elevation between 1853 and 1895 weremodelled across Melbourne’s central business district (the Hoddle Grid). The results of thatmodelling were then related to contemporary heritage inventories. When coupled with his-torical research, this form of landscape modelling could produce valuable insights about cityformation, industrial era activity, and the ways city dwellers domesticate space in theAnthropocene.

Abbreviations: DEM: Digital Elevation Models; SfM: Structure from Motion; GCP: groundcontrol points; MMBW: Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works; LiDAR: Light Detection andRanging; DoD: DEM of Difference; CHMP: Cultural Heritage Management Plan; VAHR:Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register; PESA: Post-European Settlement Alluvium; GPR:ground-penetrating radar

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 27 June 2020Accepted 19 October 2020

KEYWORDSGIS; urban archaeology;Aboriginal cultural heritagemanagement; historicaltopographic reconstruction;industrial eralandscape change

Introduction

Archaeology in urban contexts benefits from arobust understanding of pre-urban ground levels.Knowing where previous hills, valleys and waterbodies were facilitates more accurate prediction ofwhere archaeological deposits have been retainedand where they may have already been lost. Inpost-colonial contexts such as Australia, the earlybeginnings of modern urban centres were oftenwell-documented by historians and surveyors. Earlymaps from this period can contain a wealth ofinformation about contact era topography and, insome cases, can even enable the digital reconstruc-tion of historical landscapes. Digital ElevationModels (DEMs) derived from nineteenth-centurytopographic maps can be compared with morerecent records, providing an improved understand-ing of how landscape change processes, such asurbanisation, have altered ground surfaces. Thechanges revealed are further evidence of the exten-sive and ongoing landscape change in Australia as aresult of human intervention over millennia. In thispaper we present a methodology for producing

DEMs from nineteenth-century topographic mapsusing the Victorian city of Melbourne as a casestudy area and discuss the implications forimproved cultural heritage management ofAboriginal and non-Aboriginal archaeology in thecontext of urban development and landscapechange activities.

Studies of anthropogenic landscape change inAustralia have typically enlisted proxies such ascharcoal, pollen, soil chemistry, and plant and ani-mal remains (Cook 2019; Holdaway and Fanning2010; Lawrence and Davies 2018:238). Together,these have provided an archaeo-environmental evi-dence base for themes ranging from Aboriginal fireregimes, to the introduction of the dingo, and theenvironmental fallout of post-colonial industrialisa-tion (Hallam 1975; Koungoulos and Fillios 2020;Paterson 2018; Romanin et al. 2016). Another lessutilised proxy for socio-environmental interactionsare morphological changes to landforms. That is,the ways in which the Australian landscape wasphysically shaped by, or responded to, human activ-ities. Although broad-scale surrogates like changesin elevation are probably, retrospectively, one of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114CONTACT Greg Hil G.Hil@latrobe.edu.au Department of Archaeology and History, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, AustraliaQ3� 2020 AustralianQ4 Archaeological Association

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGYhttps://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2020.1840079

PROOF ONLY

most obvious markers of human influence on land-scape scales, until recently few Australian studieshad incorporated vertical changes to ground surfa-ces into their analyses. However, the value of volu-metric approaches for Australian archaeology isbecoming increasingly evident through a growingnumber of published examples (Byrne 2017; Davieset al. 2020; Emmitt et al. 2019; Tuffin et al. 2020).

Surface-to-surface comparisons of cultural land-scapes are an exciting and growing area of researchwith important implications for archaeology (Jameset al. 2012; Luberti 2018; Pacina et al. 2012;Pr€oschel and Lehmkuhl 2019; Wegmann et al.2012). These approaches are building upon signifi-cant progress made in this space over the past twodecades (Fonstad et al. 2013; McCoy and Ladefoged2009). Within cultural heritage management, noveluses of LiDAR, photogrammetry, and Structurefrom Motion (SfM) are enabling landscape changeprocesses to be assessed volumetrically (Espositoet al. 2018; James et al. 2012; Jones and Bickler2017; Risbøl et al. 2015). Applications have includedvolumetric calculations of erosion or vehicularimpacts to ancient landscape features (Kincey et al.2017; Landeschi et al. 2016). The modelling pre-sented in this paper provides a further example ofhow historical datasets can contribute to these formsof volumetric calculations.

Due to a lack of empirically collected groundheight data, digital reconstructions of pre-AD 1788landforms still require elements of conjecture.However, by the mid-nineteenth century, Australiansurveyors had mastered the use of theodolites andchains and had begun producing relatively accuratetopographic maps of the landscape (Moyal 2017).The 1850s are also marked by a period of height-ened interest in ‘landscape learning’, due to the thenrecent discovery of gold-rich deposits across SouthAustralia, New South Wales, and Victoria (Hardesty2003; Lawrence and Davies 2013). The knowledgeabout topography and geology obtained by the goldseekers provided the foundation for detailed map-ping in mining areas. In nascent cities such asMelbourne, contour maps provided a means ofplanning municipal drainage infrastructure around arapidly growing population (Dingle and Rasmussen1991). Consequently, contour maps produced duringthis period often precede dramatic transformationsto the landscape associated with post-colonial indus-try and urbanisation, thereby offering baseline datafor interpreting and modelling landscape change.

Calculating historical landscape change fromtopographic maps has a multitude of potential bene-fits. Firstly, areas showing an increase in elevationbetween the dates of modelled reconstruction aremore likely to retain well-preserved archaeological

deposits. Delineating such areas could have signifi-cant implications during the planning stages of cul-tural heritage management. For example, if a priorground surface was capped by an anthropogenicdeposit – a concept referred to as ‘made ground’ bythe British Geological Survey (Ford et al. 2010;McMillan and Powell 1999) – that location maycontain in situ archaeological material, includinghistorical deposits, pre-European Aboriginal culturalheritage, as well as each of the aforementionedproxies used for investigating socio-environmentalinteractions. Secondly, and conversely, identifyingareas that have decreased significantly in elevation(i.e. worked ground, see McMillan and Powell1999), could provide developers with alternativelocations for construction where works are lesslikely to impact prior ground surfaces or archaeo-logical deposits. Together, this type of analysis couldlead to the production of new predictive models forcultural heritage management.

In the case study presented here elevation changemodelling of Melbourne’s central business district(the Hoddle Grid) reveals the extent and location ofareas where land surfaces were either substantiallylower or higher in 1895 than the 1850s. Thisresearch builds on work undertaken by Sharon Laneand Alyssa Gilchrist as part of the VictorianHeritage Council-funded ‘Buried Block’ project(Lane and Gilchrist 2019) and on insights obtainedduring the 2017 excavations of the Jones Lane pre-cinct by Dr Vincent Clark & Associates (NegusCleary et al. 2019).

Melbourne’s ‘Hoddle Grid’

The City of Melbourne is well-suited to investiga-tions of nineteenth century landscape change. Here,‘change’ refers to the difference between two pointsin time – a before and an after. Melbourne’s‘before’, specifically 1800, represents a landscapeuntouched by European industry, an undulatingexpanse of grasslands, forests, wetlands, and riversmanaged and lived on by Aboriginal peoples for atleast 30,000 years (Goldfarb 2017; Presland 2008).Across that vast stretch of time, fluctuations in cli-mate and sea levels transitioned the area from aninland location to coastal hinterland. Aboriginaluses of the area would have also fluctuated, produc-ing, by 1800, a rich cultural landscape unscathed bysteel, yet far from unaltered (Canning and Thiele2010; Context Pty Ltd 2018). By 1900, this samearea was now known as ‘Marvellous’ Melbourne,one of the largest cities in the British Empire, and avast expanse of bricks and mortar, manicured parks,and blue stone paving (Davison 1978). This rapidtransformation bears testimony to the swiftness of

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

2 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

nineteenth century urbanisation, spurred on by theIndustrial Revolution – all the more accelerated,when one considers that Melbourne was foundednot in 1800, but some 37 years later.

Melbourne was established as a rectangular con-figuration of streets known today as the HoddleGrid (Figure 1). The newly formed township wasbound on its northwest and southeast by two wet-lands, with Batman’s Hill and the Yarra River form-ing its southwestern extent. Land sales commencedimmediately, and plots were quickly bought up andsubdivided. All buyers were required to erect a per-manent building worth at least £50 within one yearof purchase (Doyle et al. 2012:15; Lewis 1995:38–40)The eagerness of town planners to develop quickly,coupled with an ignorance of local conditions,would haunt residents for decades to come (Dingleand Rasmussen 1991). In typical colonial fashion,the newly formed streetscape had ignored local top-ography and traversed gullies and hillslopes alongperpendicular angles (Barteaux 2016:24; Woods2013:95,137). It would soon become apparent thatMelbourne’s natural drainage system was not fitfor purpose.

Newly laid roads disrupted the flow of water,causing it to settle in low-lying areas (Lane andGilchrist 2019:26). Without a subsurface sewerage ordrainage system, pools of stagnant water became agrowing public health concern. This is evidenced bythe large numbers of deaths at this time attributedto typhoid and other diseases now associated withill-managed bodily waste (Dingle and Rasmussen1991:32–41). In the 1850s, two acts of Victorian

parliament were passed in an effort to alleviatesome of these drainage issues. The first Act (Act 14,Victoria No 20 1850), was passed in 1850 andallowed the City Council to force landowners topermit the paving, levelling, or filling of privatelanes or footpaths. The second Act (Act 16 VictoriaNo 38 1853), gave City Council the ability to obligelandowners to raise the surface of their privateproperty to the level of the adjacent street. It hasrecently been discovered that, in some cases, thisresulted in the filling in and burying of built struc-tures and prior ground surfaces beneath metres ofearth. Archaeological excavations in 2017 at theJones Lane/Wesleyan Precinct (between Russell andExhibition Streets, north of Lonsdale Street) uncov-ered walls with windows and door openings beneathas much as 2m of imported fill (Lane and Gilchrist2019:52; Negus Cleary et al. 2019). Historicalresearch has suggested the material used for fillevents was sourced from undeveloped ground northof the city and through local works such as theexcavation of cellars (Lane and Gilchrist 2019:65).The insights produced from this historical and arch-aeological research have highlighted the need for abetter understanding of historical landscape changeas it relates to Aboriginal and historical culturalheritage and its management.

Joining widespread cut and fill events were othermodifications to Melbourne’s landscape includingthe removal of Batman’s Hill in the 1860s to makeroom for a railway terminus, which also providedmaterial for the reclamation of Melbourne’sWestern Swamp (Figure 2) (Giblett 2016; Presland

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

Figure 1. Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid (facing north) in 1854 by Nathaniel Whittock, produced just 17 years after the townshipwas founded (State Library of Victoria; Accession No: H34147). Batman’s Hill is the pyramid-shaped rise depicted in thecentre left.

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 3

PROOF ONLY

2008). The Yarra River was redirected, widened, andchannelised, and the rest of the city was progressivelyreshaped through the compounding rhythm of build-ing construction, renovation, and demolition (Doyleet al. 2012:39; Sima 2011; Victorian Low-LandsCommission 1873). The nineteenth century was thusmarked by a period of intensive landscape changeacross Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid. In the remainder ofthis paper we present an approach to model, visual-ise, and interpret some of those changes.

Materials and methods

Changes in elevation occurring between 1853 and1895 were modelled across Melbourne’s HoddleGrid through three stages of GIS-based analysis: (1)pre-processing (georeferencing and vectorisation);(2) DEM production; and (3) surface-to-sur-face comparison.

Pre-Processing (georeferencing andvectorisation)

High resolution scanned copies of the maps usedfor this analysis were retrieved from online data-bases (Table 1). Before these could be vectorised

(digitally transposed), they were first georeferencedwithin Esri’s ArcGIS Pro (version 2.4.1).Georeferencing is a process by which real-worldcoordinates are assigned to maps or aerial imagerythrough a series of user-inputted ground controlpoints (GCPs). These control points effectivelyanchor a given raster to an already spatially definedmap or aerial image at points of known commonal-ity. For the purposes of this study, street cornersand building footprints were used to align eachtopographic map to modern cadastral boundaries.Table 1 provides georeferencing metadata, includingthe Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) value, which isa measure of map alignment accuracy (Jameset al. 2012).

Vectorisation is a process by which raster data(digitised imagery) is converted into vector data(point, line, and polygon shapefiles). ClementHodgkinson’s 1853 map of the Hoddle Grid depictsheight data through contour lines depicted at four-foot intervals (1.219m) and through 212 elevationbenchmarks spread across the study area. Each ofthese sources of elevation data were mouse-tracedwithin ArcGIS Pro.

Height data from 1895 consisted of a mosaic of22 individual municipal plans known as the

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

Figure 2. Painting produced of Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid in 1882 by Albert Cooke. The Railway Terminus now stands on theformer site of Batman’s Hill (bottom left). (State Library of Victoria; Accession No: H17929).

Table 1. Source and georeference metadata for the historical topographic maps used for this analysis (refer toReferences for full map citations).Map creator Date GCPs total RMSE avg (m) Map source

C. Hodgkinson (1853) 1853 75 0.7997 Public Records Office VictoriaMMBW (1895a, 1895b, 1895c) 1895a,b,c 194 0.3808 State Library of Victoria

4 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW)plans. These are highly detailed planned drawingscommissioned as part of an initiative to install asubsurface drainage system across the metropolitanarea in the 1890s (Dingle and Rasmussen 1991:53).Each plan typically portrays four city blocks and hasa scale of 1:480 (one inch to 40 feet), depicting anarea approximately 280 by 500m. Accurate georefer-encing of these plans was facilitated by the sur-veyor’s inclusion of benchmarks at every streetintersection. These allowed each MMBW plan to bereadily and faithfully realigned with its neighbour.The 1895 MMBW plans do not possess contourlines, but rather present their topographic datathrough elevation benchmarks. Building and cellarfootprints are also delineated across each plan andtypically contain one or more elevation values(Figure 3). For this project all footprints containingan elevation value were vectorised into polygonshapefiles. In total, 11,212 elevation benchmarks and5,404 building and cellar footprints were vectorisedacross the 22 MMBW plans.

Digital elevation model (DEM) production

The production of high resolution DEMs from nine-teenth century elevation data relies on the sameprinciples of predictive interpolation that are used

to create DEMs from LiDAR, borehole data, orphotogrammetric point clouds. When a topographicmap is georeferenced, every pixel (i.e. raster cell)receives a real-world x and y coordinate. Vectorisedelevation data in the form of contour lines or surveybenchmarks inherit that x and y data, while contri-buting their own z-values through annotated eleva-tion. The interpolation process uses averagingalgorithms to ‘fill in the gaps’ between each sourceof z data to produce a surface. For example, wheninterpolating contour data, elevation values arepropagated, in part, based on the distance betweeneach contour line (e.g. the smaller the distancebetween contours the greater the gradient). The endresult is a seamless digital surface known generallyas a DEM.

There are different forms of interpolation avail-able to spatial analysts including IDW (InverseDistance Weighted), Kriging, Natural Neighbour,and Spline (Arun 2013; Rui et al. 2016). For thisanalysis, two forms of interpolation were used,‘Topo to Raster’ for Hodgkinson’s 1853 contourmap and ‘Spline with Barriers’ for the 1895 MMBWplans. ‘Topo to Raster’ is a form of interpolationbased on the ANUDEM program developed byHutchinson (2008:151) and is the only interpolatorbundled with ArcGIS Pro specifically designed towork with contour data. It has been noted elsewhere

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

Figure 3. A close-up of an 1895 MMBW plan (1017) of the Hoddle Grid. Vectorised building and cellar footprints are outlinedin blue, with elevation benchmarks depicted through red points (MMBW 1895b).

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 5

PROOF ONLY

(Luberti 2018) that the tool’s preservation of naturalfeatures such as cliff edges or hillslopes makes thisinterpolator less suitable for modelling built-up,heavily modified urban areas. However, given thatMelbourne was still in the early stages of develop-ment during the early 1850s, a general retention ofnatural topographic features was deemed tenable(but note that ‘drainage’ was not enforced duringmodelling). Figure 4 presents a hillshaded version ofthe 1853 DEM with elevation values classifiedby colour.

The ‘Spline with Barriers’ tool enables barriers toprevent elevation averaging from taking place freelyacross the entire surface of a model during interpol-ation. By incorporating the 1895 MMBW plans’individually traced building and cellar footprints asbarriers, local elevation averaging was improved bypreventing the integration of meaningfully isolatedelevation values. In other words, this process inhib-ited the averaging of elevation values contained in acellar or building footprint with adjacent street sur-faces. The end result was an unconstrained 1895surface of the Hoddle Grid’s streets and otherwiseopen areas coupled with isolated surfaces containedwithin building and cellar footprints (Figure 5). AllDEMs produced for this analysis have a cell size of0.150 metres.

Surface-to-Surface comparisons

Following the production of each historical DEM,ArcGIS Pro’s ‘Raster Calculator’ was used to calcu-late volumetric differences through time across theHoddle Grid. This tool uses map algebra to quantifycell value change between two DEMs, producing anew DEM referred to as a DEM of Difference(DoD) (Brasington et al. 2003; James et al. 2012). Ifone hypothetical area within the Hoddle Grid was1m above sea level in 1853 and 3m above sea levelin 1895, the value of the DoD at that location wouldbe 2m – as the area increased in elevation by 2m.Alternatively, if an area was 7m above sea level in1853 and 3m above sea level in 1895, the resultingDoD value would be �4m. The model’s resultswere then reclassified to assign distinctive colours toincremental changes in elevation by applyingArcGIS Pro’s inbuilt symbology toolkit. This allowedareas of elevation increase to be visually distin-guished from areas of decrease.

Results

Historical landscape change (1853 to 1895)

Our modelling identified widespread changes to thetopography of Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid between

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

Figure 4. DEM derived from Hodgkinson’s 1853 map of the Hoddle Grid, with main road centrelines depicted through dottedlines. Batman’s Hill is the area of elevation increase in the bottom left.

6 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

1853 and 1895. The 1860s removal and subsequentlevelling of Batman’s Hill features prominentlywithin the DoD (Figure 6). Other areas of decreasedelevation possibly represent examples of ‘workedground’, and include numerous cellars spread acrossthe Grid’s city blocks.

Quantitatively, the greatest amount of modelledelevation decrease, being �11m, showing in themodel as dark red, occurred at the prior peak ofBatman’s Hill – with the area of greatest increase,þ4m (dark green), occurring at the southeasternbase of Batman’s Hill under the former offices ofthe Victorian Railway Department. Other areas ofnotable elevation increase include the former hos-pital (corner of Swanston and Lonsdale Street –between 1.5 and 3.3m), Custom House (corner ofWilliam and Flinders Street – between 1.4 to 2m),and the southeast corner of the Hoddle Grid whereFlinders Street meets Wellington Parade (up to3.7m of increase). Joining these locations are count-less other areas of localised elevation increase.Overall, 56% of the Grid experienced any elevationincrease versus 44% with any elevation decrease.Figure 7 provides a breakdown of elevation changeby percentage of the total surface area. More thanhalf (56.2%) of the Grid’s total surface area stayedwithin 0.5m of 1853 levels by 1895. Areas thatdecreased by more than 2m represent 7.5%, around

a third (2.6%) of which is the former Batman’s Hill.Just 0.74% of areas increased by more than 2m andit is these places that are likely to be of greatestarchaeological potential.

A high proportion, 75%, of the Hoddle Grid’smain roads (excluding alleys and laneways) werewithin 0.5m of their 1853 levels by 1895. This rela-tively close conformity substantiates historicalaccounts, which suggest that by 1867 road heightswere maintained to a particular level during worksunless otherwise specified (Lane and Gilchrist2019:73). Public works orders gazetted in localnewspapers provide numerous examples of approvedchanges to road heights, between the two modelleddates. The corners of Spencer and Little BourkeStreet (far centre left, Figure 6), for example, wereraised ‘about three feet and six inches’ (1.06 metres)with ‘a great quantity of earth’ sourced fromFlagstaff Hill (The Argus, 8 November 1856). TheDoD depicts 1.2m at the southern corner and 1.3mat the northern corner of this T-intersection. It isnoted that, regardless of modelled height difference,Melbourne’s roads were subjected to subsurfaceworks throughout the nineteenth century, particu-larly during the establishment of a subsurface sewer-age system in the 1890s (Dingle and Rasmussen1991). Therefore, Melbourne’s roads, whilst capableof retaining buried ground surfaces, may not

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

Figure 5. DEM derived from a mosaic of 22 MMBW plans of the Hoddle Grid from 1895. Also shown are all building and cel-lar footprints containing an elevation value and main road centrelines.

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 7

PROOF ONLY

necessarily be classifiable as ‘remade’ through eleva-tion change modelling alone.

In qualitative terms, there is some patterning evi-dent within the model’s results. Areas of height

reduction are concentrated along hillslopes in theform of terraced cellars. This is particularly apparentalong the southwestern corner of the modelnear the intersection of Collins and King Street

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

Figure 6. The Hoddle Grid DoD (1853 to 1895) overlaying the 1853 DEM. The removal of Batman’s Hill is apparent along thebottom left corner of the model. Shown also are main road centrelines, with 1895 building and cellar footprints as polygons.

Figure 7. Modelled elevation change between 1853 and 1895 by total surface area (out of 100%). The colour of each columnis paired with the equivalent elevation change category in Figure 6.

8 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

(Figure 6). Conversely, larger pockets of elevationincrease tend to be associated with areas that arelow-lying relative to their surroundings. Publicworks orders gazetted in local newspapers allowsome of these areas of increase to be attributed tospecific fill events, such as the Jones Lane andWesleyan Precinct where archaeological investiga-tions uncovered built structures beneath 2m ofimported fill (The Argus, 20 February 1855a; TheArgus, 16 October 1855b). This is the location thatprompted increased attention to Melbourne’s histor-ical landscape change and, excitingly, is an areawhere our modelling corroborates the findingsof historical and archaeological investigations(Figure 8). These results are a source of optimismand suggests that, in some cases, our modellingcould provide forewarning about the increased like-lihood for substantial archaeological deposits duringplanning stages of development.

Comparisons to existing heritage inventories

Whilst historical elevation change modelling canidentify areas with an increased likelihood of retain-ing archaeological deposits, Melbourne’s urban land-scape has not been static since 1895. The

construction of high-rise buildings and undergroundparking lots has undoubtedly affected some areas ofmodelled increase. A seemingly obvious solution tothis problem would be to use present day LiDAR toproduce an up-to-date DoD. Here, the 1853� 1895DoD could be compared with an 1895 – present-day DoD to model locations where archaeologicaldeposits are likely to persist. However, Melbourne’smodern urban environment is not suited to thistask. LiDAR is unable to capture elevation readingsfrom beneath buildings, and so, when a DEM wasproduced from LiDAR ground points collected in2007, it was found that building footprints repre-sented 62.5% of the study area’s surface. Theremaining 37.5% was mostly made up of street sur-faces, of which 97.5% were within 0.5m of 1895 ele-vation levels by 2007. Any elevation values showingbeneath buildings within the 2007 DEM were simplythe result of inaccurate interpolation. In essence, theinterpolator assumed that ground heights at theedges of buildings extended across a flat plane totheir other side, which is rarely the case. Moreover,the DEM produced from 2007 LiDAR could notinclude the location or heights of basements or his-torical cellars, nor could it factor-in modern high-rise buildings with deep foundations. As such, to

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

1024

1025

1026

Figure 8. A close-up of the DoD overlay on an 1895 MMBW plan (1019) of the Jones Lane/Wesleyan Precinct, which wasexcavated in 2017 by Dr Vincent Clark & Associates. A yellow polygon shows the extent of the development’s activity areaand the dashed blue rectangle demarcates the approximate location where structural remains were uncovered under metresof earth during the Jones Lane excavations (MMBW 1895c; Negus Cleary et al. 2019).

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 9

PROOF ONLY

compare our nineteenth century elevation changemodelling to the condition of modern ground surfa-ces a more nuanced approach was needed.

Fortunately, in the 1990s the VictorianArchaeology Survey (an earlier department thatundertook the administrative functions occupiedtoday by Aboriginal Victoria and Heritage Victoria)funded an assessment of archaeological potentialacross the entirety of the Hoddle Grid. The assess-ment dovetailed documentary research with a fieldsurvey to classify all areas as high, moderate, or lowarchaeological potential (Fels et al. 1992; Smith2018). These classifications were based primarily onthe development history of each block, with build-ings maintaining deep modern basements deemedthe lowest in archaeological potential. Areas ofmedium or high potential were those more likely totrigger archaeological investigations during futuredevelopment because of the likelihood that formerburied ground surfaces remain intact or have beenminimally impacted. The dataset produced as aresult of the assessment continues to be updatedand contributes to the management of HeritageVictoria’s Heritage Inventory.

Our DoD was clipped to an up-to-date version(February 2020) of the Heritage Inventory dataset.Figure 9 depicts all areas of enduring moderate orhigh archaeological potential and suggests that56.7% of the modelled study area is now deemed to

be of ‘low archaeological sensitivity’ due to develop-ment activities. These are areas where our elevationchange modelling is less likely to be indicative ofcurrent ground conditions. Figure 10 again providesa breakdown of elevation change values by theirproportion of the total remaining study area.Excluding the absence of significant elevationdecreases associated with the removal of Batman’sHill, Figures 7 and 10 are remarkably close. Thissuggests the area covered by Heritage Inventorycontains a representative sample of nineteenth cen-tury elevation change across the Grid.

Whilst our modelling has implications for themanagement of late-nineteenth century culturalheritage, the delineation of buried ground surfacesis also significant for the management of pre-European Aboriginal cultural heritage. Identifyinglocations where pre-European ground surfaces mayhave persisted by 1895 could help archaeologists toanticipate the potential for in situ Aboriginal cul-tural deposits. In Victoria, Aboriginal cultural heri-tage is managed and protected under separatelegislation than non-Aboriginal cultural heritage(Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, amended 2016; andthe Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018). Whilst allforms of Aboriginal cultural heritage are protectedupon discovery, development proponents are notrequired to prepare a mandatory Cultural HeritageManagement Plan (CHMP) (an investigatory report

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

Figure 9. The Hoddle Grid’s DoD overlaying the 1853 DEM, clipped to Heritage Victoria’s Heritage Inventory. Areas deemed tobe of low archaeological potential are shown in grey with areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity in blue.

10 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

that considers Aboriginal cultural heritage and pro-vides contingencies in case of discovery) prior toworks, unless the development’s footprint includesan ‘Area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity’ (e.g. loca-tions within 200m of a named waterway or areasproven to have a higher likelihood of having cul-tural heritage present) (these areas are shown inblue in Figure 9). If the location of a developmentactivity is proven to have experienced ‘significantground disturbance’ through a ‘high impact activity’then cultural heritage sensitivity is superseded, anda management plan is not required (although manydevelopers do opt to undertake voluntary CHMPs).The identification of potentially capped ground sur-faces or examples of worked ground may haveimplications for whether Aboriginal cultural heritagecould have been affected by impactful activities sub-sequent to 1895. The Victorian Aboriginal HeritageRegister (VAHR) is the Aboriginal cultural heritageequivalent of Heritage Victoria’s Heritage Inventoryand its archaeological reports provide a valuablemeans of ground truthing the study area’s elevationchange modelling.

Of the Aboriginal cultural heritage that has beenencountered and recorded across the study area dur-ing archaeological excavations, all have been identi-fied as ‘stone artefacts’ and a majority have beenfound either in situ, in prior ground surfaces (e.g.‘natural soils’), or within historical fill deposits.Figure 11 provides an example of a CHMP from2017 (Between William and Queen Streets, south of

Lonsdale Street in Figure 9) where a low-densityartefact distribution (i.e. up to ten stone artefactswithin a 10 by 10m area) was identified between0.75–1.28 m in depth (Holzheimer 2018). Of the sixprovenanced silcrete artefacts uncovered during theexcavation, three were discovered within or at theinterface of historical and natural deposits (0.75–0.9m in depth) and three were discovered in situwithin prior ground surfaces (1.03–1.28 m in depth)(Holzheimer 2018). These depths are consistent withthe findings of our elevation change modelling,where between 0.75–1m of historical material isshown. The 2017 excavation took place prior to ourmodelling, but represents another location wherethe DoD could have informed cultural heritagemanagement assessment decisions prior to works.

Discussion

The DoD’s results appear to align closely with theoutcomes of historical and archaeological investiga-tions across Melbourne’s Hoddle Grid. The model-ling suggests that at least 56% of the Grid may havemaintained buried pre-1850s ground surfaces, orpost-1850s archaeological deposits, by 1895. Whilstit is unlikely that all areas showing an increase inelevation by 1895 remain at those modelled heightstoday, Heritage Victoria’s Heritage Inventory sug-gests 45.8% (25.5% of the total study area) are stilllocations of moderate-to-high archaeological sensi-tivity (Fels et al. 1992; Smith 2018). If an area

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

Figure 10. Modelled elevation change between 1853 and 1895 across all areas within Heritage Victoria’s Heritage Inventoryby total surface area (out of 100%).

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 11

PROOF ONLY

remains higher than its 1853 levels, that area, for allintents and purposes, could fit into the BritishGeological Survey’s concept of ‘made ground’.However, we would like to instead suggest that, inacknowledgement of pre-colonial Aboriginal landmanagement, this classification could be more aptlyreferred to as ‘remade ground’. Areas that were sig-nificantly lower in 1895 than 1853 could be consid-ered ‘worked ground’ using the same classificationsystem. Delineating between remade and workedground could provide archaeologists and heritageplanners with a valuable aid in predicting archaeo-logical potential during cultural heritage assess-ments. These classifications could have implicationsfrom a regulatory perspective. For example, aVictorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)has ruled that ‘high impact activities’, which nullifyAboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity must haveaffected the ‘original’ ground surface (Colquhoun &Ors v Yarra CC [2010] VCAT 1710). In cases ofremade ground, this implies that prior acts of‘significant ground disturbance’ must have beengreater in depth than any overlying anthropo-genic deposits.

These presented methods of investigatinganthropogenic landscape change are not limited inapplication or specific to Melbourne or Victoria.

Industrial era activities often resulted in the move-ment of large quantities of earth (Davies andLawrence 2019). When excavations took place his-torically, such as through the digging of cellars ormine shafts, the excavator was left with a materialvolume equalling the size of the works. In the nine-teenth century, before the advent of articulateddump or rock trucks, the costs associated withtransporting that material were not insignificant. Asa result, earth movement tended to be localised andpatterned. Outside of Melbourne in other Victoriancities such as Ballarat, there are numerous examplesof historical earth moving activities, such as the con-struction of a railway embankment from materialexcavated from an adjacent reserve. In the 1860s,sections of Ballarat’s Main Road were purportedlyraised over 3m through fill (Bate 1978:101; Hilet al. 2020; Spielvogel 1981:20). In Victoria’s gold-field areas, the dumping of waste sediments intowaterways resulted in the capping of ground surfa-ces downstream of mining activities (a phenomenonknown as ‘sludge’) (Davies et al. 2018; Lawrenceand Davies 2014, 2019). These earth moving activ-ities are joined by countless other examples such asreclamation projects, railway construction, Post-European Settlement Alluvium (PESA), or the redir-ection of waterways, to name just a few (Davies and

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

1338

1339

1340

1341

1342

1343

1344

1345

1346

1347

1348

1349

1350

1351

1352

1353

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1360

1361

1362

1363

1364

1365

1366

1367

1368

Figure 11. A close-up of the DoD overlaying an 1895 MMBW plan at a location where Aboriginal cultural heritage was uncov-ered by Andrew Long and Associates within and beneath between 750 and 900mm of historical fill. As shown, the model’sresults align closely to the results of the excavation (Holzheimer 2018).

12 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

Lawrence 2019; Portenga et al. 2016). In short,changes to historical landscapes are not one-off,idiosyncratic events and their study is highly rele-vant to archaeologists, particularly those inAustralian cultural heritage management.

The outcome of these and other landscapechange activities are cultural landscapes comprisedboth of removed and buried former ground surfa-ces. Delineating between those areas could improvethe efficacy of cultural heritage management.Although GIS-based landscape modelling provides anovel means of predicting those outcomes, there areother methods of artificial ground classificationavailable to archaeologists, including the use ofaugers, excavation, ground-penetrating radar (GPR),and documentary research. Together these investiga-tory approaches could elevate prior ‘land-use’ inter-pretations found in cultural heritage assessmentsfrom descriptive statements to quantitative determi-nations. In other words, formally linking an area’sstratigraphy to prior ‘land-use’ during all stages ofarchaeological inquiry. This could enable strati-graphic deposits associated with historical events toact as chronostratigraphic markers, ultimatelyimproving our understanding of an archaeologicallandscape from a site formation perspective (Schiffer1972, 1975, 1987).

Conclusion

In summary, archaeological landscapes are not staticentities. In colonial outposts, such as Australia andNew Zealand, the formation of contemporary urbancentres coincides with the production of nineteenthcentury topographic maps. Comparisons betweenelevation data presented within those documentsand subsequent datasets can produce valuableinsights about industrial era landscape change.Objectively captured elevation change data couldcontribute to the production of new predictive mod-els that specifically benefit cultural heritage manage-ment in urban environments – whether that meansan increased allocation of investigatory resources, ora retention of archaeological fabric through strat-egies such as avoidance. When combined with con-cepts such as remade ground and worked ground,this approach could contribute to increasinglyrefined views of archaeological landscapes that areiterative and improve through time.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge theTraditional Custodians of Melbourne’s metropolitanregion. This research is a preliminary output of ongoingPhD research at La Trobe University and is taking placein accordance with the conditions set forth in Cultural

Heritage Permit F20/102, allowing archival research onAboriginal cultural heritage in the metropolitan area. Theauthors would also like to acknowledge our anonymousreviewers for their insightful comments as well as numer-ous discussions with Jeremy Smith (Heritage Victoria),Michelle Negus Cleary (Dr Vincent Clark & Associates)and David Thomas (Aboriginal Victoria) and thank themfor their assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict Q8of interest was reported bythe author(s).

Funding

This Q5research is also part of the broader Rivers of Goldproject jointly funded by La Trobe University, AboriginalVictoria, and the Australian Research Council (Lawrenceet al. 2018, Grove et al. 2019).

ORCID

Greg Hil http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0420-5276

References

Arun, P.V. 2013 A comparative analysis of different DEMinterpolation methods. The Egyptian Journal of RemoteSensing and Space Science 16(2):133–139.

Barteaux, J. 2016 Urban planning as colonial marketingstrategy for the Swan River Settlement, WesternAustralia. Australasian Historical Archaeology 34:22–31.

Bate, W. 1978 Lucky City: The First Generation atBallarat, 1851–1901. Carlton South, Vic: MelbourneUniversity Press.

Brasington, J., J. Langham and B. Rumsby 2003Methodological sensitivity of morphometric estimatesof coarse fluvial sediment transport. Geomorphology53(3–4):299–316.

Byrne, D. 2017 Remembering the Elizabeth Bay reclam-ation and the Holocene sunset in Sydney Harbour.Environmental Humanities 9(1):40–59.

Canning, S., and F. Thiele 2010 Indigenous CulturalHeritage and History within the MetropolitanMelbourne Investigation Area. Unpublished report toVictorian Environmental Assessment Council.

Context Pty Ltd 2018 Hoddle Grid Heritage Review:Volume 5: Pre-Contact Aboriginal Archaeology ofHoddle Grid. Unpublished report prepared for the Cityof Melbourne.

Cook, D.E. 2019 Butzer ‘down under’: Debates onanthropogenic erosion in early colonial Australia.Geomorphology 331:160–174.

Davies, P., and S. Lawrence 2019 Engineered landscapesof the southern Murray–Darling Basin: Anthropocenearchaeology in Australia. The Anthropocene Review6(3):179–206.

Davies, P., S. Lawrence, J. Turnbull, I. Rutherfurd, J.Grove, E. Silvester, D. Baldwin and M. Macklin 2018Reconstruction of historical riverine sediment produc-tion on the goldfields of Victoria. Australia.Anthropocene 21:1–15.

1369

1370

1371

1372

1373

1374

1375

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1382

1383

1384

1385

1386

1387

1388

1389

1390

1391

1392

1393

1394

1395

1396

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

1410

1411

1412

1413

1414

1415

1416

1417

1418

1419

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

1430

1431

1432

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

1441

1442

1443

1444

1445

1446

1447

1448

1449

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1455

1456

1457

1458

1459

1460

1461

1462

1463

1464

1465

1466

1467

1468

1469

1470

1471

1472

1473

1474

1475

1476

1477

1478

1479

1480

1481

1482

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 13

PROOF ONLY

Davies, P., S. Lawrence, J. Turnbull, I. Rutherfurd, J.Grove, E. Silvester and M. Macklin 2020 Mining modi-fication of river systems: A case study from theAustralian gold rush. Geoarchaeology 35(3):384–399.

Davison, G. 1978 The Rise and Fall of MarvellousMelbourne. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Dingle, A.E., and C. Rasmussen 1991 Vital Connections:Melbourne and its Board of Works, 1891–1991.Melbourne: McPhee Gribble.

Doyle, H., N. Schmeder, L. Homan, C. Johnston and J.Walker 2012 Thematic History – A History of the Cityof Melbourne’s Urban Environment, Planning forFuture Growth. Unpublished report to Context Pty Ltdfor the City of Melbourne.

Emmitt, J., J. Littleton, R. Young and R. Phillipps 2019Digitizing Roonka: The creation of a 3D representationfrom archival records. Digital Applications inArchaeology and Cultural Heritage 13:e00094.

Esposito, G., F. Matano and M. Sacchi 2018 Detectionand geometrical characterization of a buried landfillsite by integrating land use historical analysis, digitalphotogrammetry and airborne LiDAR data. Geosciences8(9):348–362.

Fels, M.S., S. Lavelle and D. Mider 1992 MelbourneCentral Activities District Archaeological ManagementPlan. 3 vols. Unpublished report for the VictoriaArchaeological Survey.

Fonstad, M.A., J. T. Dietrich, B.C. Courville, J.L. Jensenand P.E. Carbonneau 2013 Topographic structure frommotion: A new development in photogrammetric meas-urement. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38(4):421–430.

Ford, J., H. Kessler, A. Cooper, S.J. Price and A.J.Humpage 2010 An Enhanced Classification forArtificial Ground. British Geological Survey OpenReport, OR/10/036.

Giblett, R. 2016 Lost and found wetlands of Melbourne.Victorian Historical Journal 87(1):135–156.

Goldfarb, A. 2017 Melbourne Metro Rail Project: CulturalHeritage Management Plan (13967). Unpublishedreport to Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register.

Grove, J., J. Turnbull, S. Lawrence, P. Davies, I.Rutherfurd, E. Silvester, F. Colombi and M. Macklin2019 Mining to mud: A multidisciplinary approach tounderstanding Victoria’s riverine landscape as a prod-uct of historical gold mining. Preview 2019(200):44–56.

Hallam, S. 1975 Fire and Hearth: A Study of AboriginalUsage and European Usurpation in South-WesternAustralia. Canberra: Australian Institute of AboriginalStudies.

Hardesty, D.L. 2003 Mining rushes and landscape learn-ing in the modern world. In M. Rockman and J. Steele(eds), Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: TheArchaeology of Adaptation, pp.81–95. London:Routledge.

Hil, G., S. Lawrence and D. Smith 2020 Going over oldground: Modeling historical landscape change inVictoria using GIS. In C. Spry, D. Frankel, S.Lawrence, E. Foley, I. Berelov and S. Canning (eds),Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management inVictoria, pp.91–97. Vol. 9. Melbourne: La TrobeUniversity.

Hodgkinson, C. 1853 Contour Plan of Melbourne. PublicRecords Office Victoria, VPRS 8168/P05, MELBRL-15-1.

Holdaway, S.J., and P.C. Fanning 2010 Geoarchaeologyin Australia: Understanding human-environment

interactions. Geological Society, London, SpecialPublications 346(1):71–85.

Holzheimer, C. 2018 Equity Chambers Building, ProposedHotel Development 472-478 Bourke Street, Melbourne,Cultural Heritage Management Plan (15444).Unpublished report to Victorian Aboriginal HeritageRegister.

Hutchinson, M. 2008 Adding the Z-dimension. In J.P.Wilson and A.S. Fotheringham (eds), The Handbook ofGeographic Information Science, pp.144–168. Carlton,Vic: Blackwell.

James, L.A., M.E. Hodgson, S. Ghoshal and M.M.Latiolais 2012 Geomorphic change detection using his-toric maps and DEM differencing: The temporaldimension of geospatial analysis. Geomorphology137(1):181–198.

Jones, B., and S.H. Bickler 2017 High resolution LiDARdata for landscape archaeology in New Zealand.Archaeology in New Zealand 60:35–44.

Kincey, M., C. Gerrard and J. Warburton 2017Quantifying erosion of ‘at risk’ archaeological sitesusing repeat terrestrial laser scanning. Journal ofArchaeological Science: Reports 12:405–424.

Koungoulos, L., and M. Fillios 2020 Hunting dogs downunder? On the Aboriginal use of tame dingoes in diet-ary game acquisition and its relevance to Australianprehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 58:101146.

Landeschi, G., B. Nilsson and N. Dell’Unto 2016Assessing the damage of an archaeological site: Newcontributions from the combination of image-based 3Dmodelling techniques and GIS. Journal ofArchaeological Science: Reports 10:431–440.

Lane, S., and A. Gilchrist 2019 Heritage in Ruins: AnInvestigation into Melbourne’s ‘Buried Blocks.’Unpublished report to Heritage Council Victoria (pro-ject PR180502).

Lawrence, S., and P. Davies 2013 Landscape learning incolonial Australia: Technologies of water managementon the Central Highlands goldfields. In D. Frankel, J.Webb and S. Lawrence (eds), Archaeology inEnvironment and Technology: Intersections andTransformations, pp.149–166. London: Routledge.

Lawrence, S., and P. Davies 2014 The sludge question –The regulation of mine tailings in nineteenth-centuryVictoria. Environment and History 20(3):385–410.

Lawrence, S., and P. Davies 2019 Sludge: Disaster onVictoria’s Goldfields. Melbourne: Black Inc.

Lawrence, S., J. Moon and P. Davies 2018 Post-Europeanenvironmental change and its potential impact on arch-aeological sites. In C. Spry, D. Frankel, S. Lawrence, I.Berelov and S. Canning (eds), Excavations, Surveys andHeritage Management in Victoria, pp.47–52. Vol. 7.Melbourne: La Trobe University.

Lawrence, S., and P. Davies 2018 Archaeology and theAnthropocene in the study of settler Australia. In M.Torres de Souza and D. Menezes (eds), HistoricalArchaeology and Environment, pp.229–251. Cham:Springer International Publishing.

Lewis, M. 1995 Melbourne: The City’s History andDevelopment. Melbourne: City of Melbourne.

Luberti, G.M. 2018 Computation of modern anthropo-genic-deposit thicknesses in urban areas: A case studyin Rome, Italy. The Anthropocene Review 5(1):2–27.

McCoy, M.D., and T.N. Ladefoged 2009 New develop-ments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Research 17(3):263–295.

1483

1484

1485

1486

1487

1488

1489

1490

1491

1492

1493

1494

1495

1496

1497

1498

1499

1500

1501

1502

1503

1504

1505

1506

1507

1508

1509

1510

1511

1512

1513

1514

1515

1516

1517

1518

1519

1520

1521

1522

1523

1524

1525

1526

1527

1528

1529

1530

1531

1532

1533

1534

1535

1536

1537

1538

1539

1540

1541

1542

1543

1544

1545

1546

1547

1548

1549

1550

1551

1552

1553

1554

1555

1556

1557

1558

1559

1560

1561

1562

1563

1564

1565

1566

1567

1568

1569

1570

1571

1572

1573

1574

1575

1576

1577

1578

1579

1580

1581

1582

1583

1584

1585

1586

1587

1588

1589

1590

1591

1592

1593

1594

1595

1596

14 G. HIL ET AL.

PROOF ONLY

McMillan, A.A., and J.H. Powell 1999 BGS RockClassification Scheme: Volume 4: Classification ofArtificial (Man-Made) Ground and Natural SuperficialDeposits: Applications to Geological Maps andDatasets in the UK. British Geological Survey ResearchReport, RR 99–04.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works 1895aMelbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works DetailPlan. 1016. City of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved26 September 2020 from <http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/115995>.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works 1895bMelbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works DetailPlan. 1017. City of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved26 September 2020 from <http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/115998>.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works 1895cMelbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works DetailPlan. 1019. City of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved26 September 2020 from <http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/109248>.

Moyal, A. 2017 Surveyors: Mapping the distance, earlysurveying in Australia. In Australian Dictionary ofBiography. National Centre of Biography, AustralianNational University. Retrieved 12 June 2020 from<http://adb.anu.edu.au/essay/22/text34969>.Q6

Negus Cleary, M., N. Bajzelj, J. Scibilla and M. Hass 2019Beneath the clay: The mid-19th century raising ofstreet and property levels in Jones Lane and LittleLonsdale Street, Melbourne. In C. Spry, D. Frankel, S.Lawrence, E. Foley, I. Berelov and S. Canning (eds),Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Management inVictoria, pp.17–28. Vol. 8. Melbourne: La TrobeUniversity.

Pacina, J., K. Nov�ak and J. Popelka 2012 Georelief trans-figuration in areas affected by open-cast mining.Transactions in GIS 16(5):663–679.

Paterson, A. 2018 Once were foragers: The archaeology ofagrarian Australia and the fate of Aboriginal land man-agement. Quaternary International 489:4–16.

Portenga, E.W., P. Bishop, D.B. Gore and K.E. Westaway2016 Landscape preservation under post-Europeansettlement alluvium in the south-eastern Australiantablelands, inferred from portable OSL reader data.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41(12):1697–1707.

Presland, G. 2008 The Place for a Village: How Naturehas Shaped the City of Melbourne. Melbourne: MuseumVictoria.

Pr€oschel, B., and F. Lehmkuhl 2019 Paleotopography andanthropogenic deposition thickness of the city ofAachen, Germany. Journal of Maps 15(2):269–277.

Risbøl, O., C. Briese, M. Doneus and A. Nesbakken 2015Monitoring cultural heritage by comparing DEMsderived from historical aerial photographs and airbornelaser scanning. Journal of Cultural Heritage 16(2):202–209.

Romanin, L.M., F. Hopf, S.G. Haberle, and D.M. andD.M. Bowman 2016 Fire regime and vegetation changein the transition from Aboriginal to European landmanagement in a Tasmanian eucalypt savannah.Australian Journal of Botany 64(5):427–440.

Rui, X.-P., X.T. Yu, J. Lu, M.A. Ashraf and X.-F. Song2016 An algorithm for generation of DEMs from con-tour lines considering geomorphic features. EarthSciences Research Journal 20(2):1–9.

Schiffer, M.B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemiccontext. American Antiquity 37(2):156–165.

Schiffer, M.B. 1975 Archaeology as behavioral science.American Anthropologist 77(4):836–848.

Schiffer, M.B. 1987 Formation Processes of theArchaeological Record. Albuquerque, NM: University ofNew Mexico Press.

Sima, Y. 2011 The Evolution of Central Melbourne: AMorphological Analysis 1837–2011. Unpublished PhDthesis, Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning,The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Smith, J. 2018 The city revealed: Reflections on 25 yearsof archaeology in Melbourne: Lessons from the pastand future challenges. International Journal ofHistorical Archaeology 22(1):67–77.

Spielvogel, N.F. 1981 Spielvogel Papers: Volume Two. P.G.Mansfield (ed.), Ballarat: Ballarat Historical Society.

The Argus, 1855a Tuesday, 20 February 1855 p.5.Retrieved 26 September 2020 from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4804665>.

The Argus, 1855b Tuesday, 16 October 1855 p.5.Retrieved 26 September 2020 from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4820993>.

The Argus, 1856 Saturday, 8 November 1856 p.5.Retrieved 26 September 2020 from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article7139744>.

Tuffin, R., D. Roe, M. Gibbs, D. Clark and M. Clark 2020Landscapes of production and punishment: LiDAR andthe process of feature identification and analysis at aTasmanian convict station. Australian Archaeology86(1):37–56.

Victorian Low-Lands Commission. 1873 Low-landsCommission: Progress Report. Melbourne: John Ferres,Government Printer.

Wegmann, K.W., D.R. Bohnenstiehl, J.D. Bowman, J.A.Homburg, J.D. Windingstad and D. Beery 2012Assessing coastal landscape change for archaeologicalpurposes: Integrating shallow geophysics, historicalarchives and geomorphology at Port Angeles,Washington, USA. Archaeological Prospection 19(4):229–252.

Woods, N. 2013 Artefacts and CommunityTransformations: The Material Culture of Nineteenth-Century North Dunedin. Unpublished MA thesis,Department of Anthropology and Archaeology,University of Otago, Dunedin.

1597

1598

1599

1600

1601

1602

1603

1604

1605

1606

1607

1608

1609

1610

1611

1612

1613

1614

1615

1616

1617

1618

1619

1620

1621

1622

1623

1624

1625

1626

1627

1628

1629

1630

1631

1632

1633

1634

1635

1636

1637

1638

1639

1640

1641

1642

1643

1644

1645

1646

1647

1648

1649

1650

1651

1652

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1658

1659

1660

1661

1662

1663

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

1669

1670

1671

1672

1673

1674

1675

1676

1677

1678

1679

1680

1681

1682

1683

1684

1685

1686

1687

1688

1689

1690

1691

1692

1693

1694

1695

1696

1697

1698

1699

1700

1701

1702

1703

1704

1705

1706

1707

1708

1709

1710

AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 15

PROOF ONLY