Heritage survey report for the proposed WESTGATE …projects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/200902 Tarlton Kromdraai... · Heritage survey report for the proposed WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI

Heritage survey report for the proposed

WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI POWERLINE ANDSUBSTATION, RANDFONTEIN AND KRUGERSDORP

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS, GAUTENG

Heritage Survey Westgate-Tarlton-Kromdraai Powerline

i

THE PROJECT:Development of a powerline and substation.

THIS REPORT:Heritage survey report forTHE PROPOSED WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI POWERLINE AND SUBSTATION,RANDFONTEIN AND KRUGERSDORP MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS, GAUTENG

Report No: 2007/JvS/065Status: FinalRevision No: 1Date: September 2008

Prepared for:ARCUS GIBB (Pty) LtdRepresentative: Ms. A Strong

Postal Address: P O Box 2700, Rivonia, 2128Tel: (011) 519 4701E-mail: [email protected]

Prepared by:J van Schalkwyk (D Litt et Phil), Heritage ConsultantASAPA Registration No. 164Principal Investigator: Iron Age, Colonial Period, Industrial Heritage

Postal Address: 62 Coetzer Ave, Monument Park, 0181Tel: 076 790 6777E-mail: [email protected]


ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HERITAGE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI POWERLINE AND SUBSTATION, RANDFONTEIN ANDKRUGERSDORP MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS, GAUTENG

The aim of the survey was to locate, identify, evaluate and document sites, objects andstructures of cultural significance found within the area in which it is proposed to develop anelectricity power line and substation.

Eight different corridors were identified. Three of these would link the existing Westgate andTarlton Substations and the other five would link the existing Tarlton Substation to theproposed new Kromdraai Substation.

Past activities in the study area consisted of farming activities. In recent times, the area wassubjected to intense urbanisation, which would have destroyed any heritage features thatmight have occurred in the region. Conversely, it also brought about the establishment of alarge number of features that currently qualify as heritage sites.

As a result, a variety of heritage resources occur in the larger geographical area. However,according to current knowledge and understanding, it is unlikely that any might occur in theproposed corridors. The only area of concern is in the northern section, in the vicinity of thenew Kromdraai Substation and the corridors leading from that station. In this region, a numberof early hominid and palaeontological sites are located. However, these sites are welldocumented and it would be easy to avoid them. Also, the management measures set out inSection 7 would assist in minimizing possible future impacts.

Based on what was found and its evaluation, it is anticipated that the development can takeplace in any of the corridors, although the preferred corridors would be: Corridor 5 for the Tarlton - Kromdraai section; and Corridor 1 for the Westgate – Tarlton section.

However, this selection is based on condition of acceptance of the management measures asset out in Section 7 of this report. The most important of this would be the conducting of a fullPhase 1 archaeological survey of the selected corridor in accordance with the requirements ofSection 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).

In the case where resources do occur, assessing of the potential impact of the developmentcan only be done once a final corridor has been selected. Mitigation of heritage sites impliesfirst of all total avoidance, or, secondly, the recovery of sufficient data from the site in orderthat it can be studied and understood at a later stage. This latter scenario is not necessarilynegative as science stands to benefit from such actions.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................iii

LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................iii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................... iv

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE ...................................................................................................1

3. DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................1

4. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .....................................................................2

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................3

6. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND ASSESSMENT .......................................................................10

7. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................13

8. RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................15

9. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX 1: CONVENTIONS USED TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF PROJECTS ON

HERITAGE RESOURCES.......................................................................................................18

APPENDIX 2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION ..............................................................................20

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Fig. 1 & 2. Maps showing the location of the substations and alternative corridors ..................4

Fig. 3. Prof R Clark, discoverer of the Little Foot early hominid remains at Sterkfontein Caves,pointing out a feature to a visitor from India.......................................................................5

Fig. 4. Fine line engraving of an eland.......................................................................................6

Fig. 5. Late Iron Age stone walled site.......................................................................................7

Fig. 6. Semi-detached houses in Luipaard Road.......................................................................8

Fig. 7. Headstone of a local man who died during the Anglo Boer War. ...................................9

Fig. 8. Water storage facilities, West Village. ..........................................................................10

Fig. 9. Combined map of the various alternatives. ..................................................................11

Fig. 10 Map showing the location of known sites of cultural significance (red dots) in relationto the various alternative corridors...................................................................................12


iv

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

STONE AGEEarly Stone Age 2 000 000 - 150 000 Before PresentMiddle Stone Age 150 000 - 30 000 BPLate Stone Age 30 000 - until c. AD 200

IRON AGEEarly Iron Age AD 200 - AD 1000Late Iron Age AD 1000 - AD 1830

HISTORIC PERIODSince the arrival of the white settlers - c. AD 1840 in this part of the country

ADRC Archaeological Data Recording Centre

ASAPA Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists

EIA Early Iron Age

ESA Early Stone Age

GOSP Gauteng Open Spaces Project

LIA Late Iron Age

LSA Late Stone Age

MSA Middle Stone Age

NASA National Archives of South Africa

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act

PHRA Provincial Heritage Resources Agency

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency


1

HERITAGE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI POWERLINE AND SUBSTATION,RANDFONTEIN AND KRUGERSDORP MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS,GAUTENG

1. INTRODUCTION

An independent heritage consultant was appointed by ARCUS GIBB (Pty) Ltd. to conduct asurvey to locate, identify, evaluate and document sites, objects and structures of culturalimportance found within the boundaries of an area in which it is proposed to develop anelectricity power line and substation.

Eight different corridors were identified. Three of these would link the existing Westgate andTarlton Substations and the other five would link the existing Tarlton Substation to theproposed new Kromdraai Substation. The various corridors and substations are indicated inFigs. 1, 2 & 9.

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The scope of work consisted of conducting a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the site inaccordance with the requirements of Section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act(Act 25 of 1999).

This included: Conducting a desk-top investigation of the area A visit to the proposed development site

The objectives were to: Identify possible archaeological, cultural and historic sites within the proposed

development areas; Evaluate the potential impacts of construction, operation and maintenance of the

proposed development on archaeological, cultural and historical resources; Recommend mitigation measures to ameliorate any negative impacts on areas of

archaeological, cultural or historical importance.

3. DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following aspects have a direct bearing on the survey and the resulting report:

Cultural resources are all non-physical and physical human-made occurrences, aswell as natural occurrences that are associated with human activity. These include allsites, structures and artefacts of importance, either individually or in groups, in thehistory, architecture and archaeology of human (cultural) development.

The significance of the sites and artefacts are determined by means of their historical,social, aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to their uniqueness,condition of preservation and research potential. It must be kept in mind that the


2

various aspects are not mutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any site is donewith reference to any number of these.

Sites regarded as having low significance have already been recorded in full andrequire no further mitigation. Sites with medium to high significance require furthermitigation.

The latitude and longitude of archaeological sites are to be treated as sensitiveinformation by the developer and should not be disclosed to members of the public.

4. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Extent of the Study

This survey and impact assessment covers the area as presented in Section 5 and asillustrated in Figure 1 and 2.

4.2 Methodology

4.2.1 Preliminary investigation

4.2.1.1 Survey of the literatureA survey of the relevant literature was conducted with the aim of reviewing the previousresearch done and determining the potential of the area. In this regard, variousanthropological, archaeological and historical sources, as well as survey reports, wereconsulted - see the list of references below.

4.2.1.2 Data basesThe Heritage Sites Database and the Environmental Potential Atlas was consulted.

4.2.1.3 Other sourcesAerial photographs and topocadastral and other maps were also studied - see the list ofreferences below.

4.2.2 Field survey

The field survey was done according to generally accepted archaeological practices, and wasaimed at locating all possible sites, objects and structures. The area that had to beinvestigated was identified by ARCUS GIB (Pty) Ltd. by means of maps. As it is a lineardevelopment, the survey was done by travelling the total extent of the route, either by foot orby vehicle, depending on circumstances. Special attention was given to topographicaloccurrences such as trenches, holes, outcrops and clusters of trees.

4.2.3 Documentation

All sites, objects and structures that are identified are documented according to the generalminimum standards accepted by the archaeological profession. Coordinates of individual


3

localities are determined by means of the Global Positioning System (GPS)1

and plotted on amap. This information is added to the description in order to facilitate the identification of eachlocality.

Map datum used: Hartebeeshoek 94 (WGS84).

4.3 Limitations

Sections of the study area were densely vegetated during the field survey. This seriouslyaffected the archaeological visibility.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Site location

The study area, being linear in nature, follows different routes from an area north of MogaleCity (formerly Krugersdorp), passing to the west of the town, and then east again, skirting thenorthern edge of the town of Randfontein (see Figs. 1 & 2). As such it falls into twomagisterial districts – Krugersdorp and Randfontein.

The various corridors can be described as follows:

1. Corridor 1 (shown in red): begins at the existing Westgate Substation, travels

westwards to Randfontein Estates, then meanders north-westwards to end at the

existing Tarlton substation.

2. Corridor 2 (shown in purple): is an alternative alignment for a portion of corridor 1.

3. Corridor 3 (shown in light blue): is a crossover alternative between corridor 1 and 2.

4. Corridor 4 (shown in orange): is between the existing Tarlton substation to the

proposed Kromdraai substation that begins by first travelling northwards and then

meandering east- to north-eastwards to the site of the proposed Kromdraai

substation.

5. Corridor 5 (shown in pink): is an alternative alignment for a portion of corridor 4

slightly further northwards.

6. Corridor 6 (shown in blue): is a linkage between corridor 1 and 4.

7. Corridor 7 (shown in green) is primarily a combination of existing alignments with an

added section through the Krugersdorp Nature Reserve.

8. Corridor 8 (shown in dark blue) use some sections of other alignments, but includes a

section south of Tarlton substation and another section south of the proposed

Kromdraai substation to the north of the Krugersdorp Nature Reserve.

1According to the manufacturer a certain deviation may be expected for each reading. Care was, however, taken to

obtain as accurate a reading as possible, and then to correlate it with reference to the physical environment beforeplotting it on the map.


4

Fig. 1 & 2. Maps showing the location of the substations and alternative corridors


5

5.2 Site description

The geology is made up of dolomite in the north and quartzite in the south. The originalvegetation is classified as Rocky Highveld Grassland. However, most of the area was usedfirst used for agricultural activities, and later subdivided into agricultural small holdings. Thiswould have destroyed any heritage features that might have occurred here in the past.

5.3 Regional overview

5.3.1 Stone Age

Fig. 3. Prof R Clark, discoverer of the Little Foot early hominid remains at Sterkfontein Caves,pointing out a feature to a visitor from India.

The larger Mogale City area has been inhabited by different hominids since early Pliocenetimes, but it was only from about 2.5 million years ago that they started to produce stonetools, effectively beginning the Early Stone Age (ESA). Tools dating to this period are mostly,although not exclusively, found in the vicinity of watercourses – only one site containing in situassemblage of ESA material is known from the area, namely Sterkfontein (Fig. 3) (Kuman


6

2003). The oldest of these tools, belong to the Olduwan industry and are known as choppers.They are crudely produced from large pebbles found in river beds. Later, Homo erectus (nowcalled Homo ergaster) and early Homo sapiens people made tools shaped on both sides, calledbifaces. This is one of the longest-lasting technologies the world has known, spanning a period ofmore than 1,5 million years.

During Middle Stone Age (MSA) times (c. 150 000 - 30 000 BP), people became more mobile,occupying areas formerly avoided. The MSA is identified as a technological stagecharacterized by flakes and flake-blades with faceted platforms, produced from preparedcores, as distinct from the core tool-based ESA technology (Thackeray 1992). Open siteswere still preferred near watercourses. These people were adept at exploiting the huge herdsof animals that passed through the area on their seasonal migration.

Late Stone Age (LSA) people had even more advanced technology than the MSA people andtherefore succeeded in occupying even more diverse habitats. Also, for the first time we nowget evidence of people’s activities derived from material other than stone tools. Ostricheggshell beads, ground bone arrowheads, small bored stones and wood fragments withincised markings are traditionally linked with the LSA. A number of sites dating to this periodhave been studied by Wadley (1987) in the Magaliesberg area. In the case of the LSA people,they have also left us with a rich legacy of rock art, which is an expression of their complexsocial and spiritual believes. Some rock engravings occur near Hekpoort (Fig. 4).

LSA people preferred, though not exclusively, to occupy rock shelters and caves, of which afew smaller ones are know from the WHS area. It is this type of sealed context that makes itpossible for us to learn much more about them than is the case with earlier periods.

Fig. 4. Fine line engraving of an eland.


7

5.3.2 Iron Age

Iron Age people started to settle in southern Africa c. AD 300, with one of the oldest knownsites at Broederstroom, dating to AD 470, located south of Hartebeespoort Dam area. Havingonly had cereals (sorghum, millet) that need summer rainfall, Early Iron Age (EIA) people didnot move outside this rainfall zone, and neither did they occupy the central interior highveldarea (Huffman 1993).

Fig. 5. Late Iron Age stone walled site.

The occupation of the region by Iron Age communities did not start much before the 1500s.Due to climatic fluctuations, bringing about colder and drier conditions, people were forced toavoid this area. Following a dry spell that ended just before the turn of the millennium theclimate became better again until about AD 1300. This coincided with the arrival of theancestors of the present day Sotho-, Tswana- and Nguni-speakers in southern Africa, forcingthem to avoid large sections of the interior.

By approximately AD 1500 the climate again changed for the better and we found that earlySotho-Tswana speakers moved into areas formerly avoided. The climate become warmer andwetter, creating conditions that allowed Late Iron Age (LIA) farmers to occupy areaspreviously unsuitable, for example the Witwatersrand and the Free State. At the same time,new cereal crops, e.g. maize, was introduced from Maputo and grown extensively. Thisincrease in food production probably led to increased populations in coastal area as well asthe central highveld interior by the beginning of the 19th century.


8

This wet period came to an end sometime between 1800 and 1820 by a major drought lasting 3to 5 years. The drought must have caused an agricultural collapse on a large, subcontinentscale.

This was also a period of great military tension. Qriqua and Korana raiders were active in thenorthern Cape and Orange Free State by about 1790. The Xhosa were raiding across theOrange River about 1805. Military pressure from Zululand spilled onto the highveld by at least1821. Various marauding groups of displaced Tswana moved across the plateau in the 1820s.Mzilikazi raided the plateau extensively between 1825 and 1837. The Boers trekked into thisarea in the 1830s.

Recent research has indicated that some of the stone walled sites, e.g. those at Doornspruit,appear similar to Zulu settlements in plan and can most likely be associated with Mzilikazi andthe Ndebele (Huffman 2004).

As a result of this troubled period, Tswana people concentrated into large towns for defensivepurposes. Because of the lack of trees they built their settlements in stone (Fig. 5). From the air,these homesteads and towns are easily recognised and it is also possible to determinevariations in smaller detail.

5.3.3 Historic period

Fig. 6. Semi-detached houses in Luipaard Road.


9

Originally the trekkers who settled in the area occupied themselves with farming. After thediscovery of gold on the Witwatersrand, exploration also started in this area, e.g. the well-known Harry and Fred Struben were exploring in the Sterkfontein area during 1884. One ofthe oldest gold mines was established in 1874 at Blaauwbank and another in 1891 on thefarm Kromdraai. By this time the fossil-bearing caves were already known and lime quarryingstarted about 1895. However, it was more than forty years later, in 1936, that Robert Broomfirst identified the remains of a number of fossil hominids.

During the Anglo-Boer War, a number of skimishes took place in the area. The biggest battlewas in the vicinity of Krugersdorp at Nooitgedacht (Magaliesberg range) on 13 December1900. Krugersdorp was captured in June 1900 by Gen. Hunter.

Most histories are still under presented in terms of contemporary history. Although it might beto recent and therefore hold a lot of pain for people that were involved, communities shouldbe approach and sounded out as to appropriate commemoration and memorialization ofrecent events.

Fig. 7. Headstone of a local man who died during the Anglo Boer War.


10

Fig. 8. Water storage facilities, West Village.

6. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND ASSESSMENT

Impact analysis of cultural resources under threat of the proposed development, are based onthe present understanding of the development.

The significance of a heritage site and artefacts is determined by it historical, social,aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to the uniqueness, condition ofpreservation and research potential. It must be kept in mind that the various aspects are notmutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any site is done with reference to any number ofthese.

Sites regarded as having low significance are viewed as been recorded in full afteridentification and would require no further mitigation. Impact from the development wouldtherefore be judged to be low. Sites with a medium to high significance would thereforerequire mitigation. Mitigation, in most cases the excavation of a site, is in essence destructiveand therefore the impact can be viewed as high and as permanent.


11

Although a large number of heritage resources are known to exist in the region, based oncurrent knowledge, few would be impacted on by the proposed development. The only area ofconcern is in the northern section, in the vicinity of the new Kromdraai Substation and thecorridors leading from that station. In this region, a number of early hominid andpalaeontological sites are located. However, these sites are well documented and it would beeasy to avoid them. Also, the management measures set out below in Section 8 would assistin minimizing possible future impacts.

Fig. 9. Combined map of the various alternatives.


12

Fig. 10 Map showing the location of known sites of cultural significance (red dots) in relationto the various alternative corridors

(Map 2627BA, 2627BB: Government Printer, Pretoria).


13

6.1 Impact assessment methodology

Prediction of impacts (before mitigation)

Impact Nature Intensity Extent Duration Probability ConfidenceDestruction ofheritage resources

Negative Low Local Permanent Probable High

Prediction of impacts (after mitigation)

Impact Nature Intensity Extent Duration Probability ConfidenceDestruction ofheritage resources

Negative Low Local Permanent Probable High

With mitigation Negative Low Local Permanent Improbable High

Assigning a consequence rating

Impact Nature Consequence Probability ConfidenceDestruction of heritageresources

Negative Low Improbable High

With mitigation Negative Low Improbable High

Assigning a significance rating

Impact Consequence Probability Significance ConfidenceDestruction of heritageresources

Low Improbable Low High

With mitigation Low Improbable Low High

7. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Heritage sites are fixed features in the environment, occurring within specific spatial confines.Any impact upon them is permanent and non-reversible. Those resources that cannot beavoided and that are directly impacted by the development can be excavated/recorded and amanagement plan can be developed for future action. Those sites that are not impacted on,can be written into the management plan, whence they can be avoided or cared for in thefuture.

7.1 Objectives

Protection of archaeological, historical and any other site or land considered being of culturalvalue within the project boundary against vandalism, destruction and theft.

The preservation and appropriate management of new discoveries in accordance with theNational Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), should these be discovered duringconstruction.


14

7.2.1 Construction phase

General management objectives and commitments:

To avoid disturbing sites of heritage importance; and

To avoid disturbing burial sites.

The following shall apply:

The contractors and workers should be notified that archaeological sites might beexposed during the construction work.

Should any heritage artefacts be exposed during excavation, work on the area where theartefacts were discovered, shall cease immediately and the Environmental Control Officershall be notified as soon as possible;

All discoveries shall be reported immediately to a museum, preferably one at which anarchaeologist is available, so that an investigation and evaluation of the finds can bemade. Acting upon advice from these specialists, the Environmental Control Officer willadvise the necessary actions to be taken;

Under no circumstances shall any artefacts be removed, destroyed or interfered with byanyone on the site; and

Contractors and workers shall be advised of the penalties associated with the unlawfulremoval of cultural, historical, archaeological or palaeontological artefacts, as set out inthe National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), Section 51. (1).

7.2.2 Operation phase

General management objectives and commitments:

To avoid disturbing sites of heritage importance.

The following shall apply:

Continued care should be taken to observe discovery of any sites of heritage significanceduring operation. Should any archaeological artifacts and palaeontological remains beexposed during operations, work on the area where the artefacts were found, shall ceaseimmediately and the appropriate person shall be notified as soon as possible;

Upon receipt of such notification, an Archaeologist or Palaeontologist shall investigate thesite as soon as practicable. Acting upon advice from these specialists, the necessaryactions shall be taken;

Under no circumstances shall archaeological or palaeontological artefacts be removed,destroyed or interfered with by anyone on the site during operations; and

The powerline operator shall advise its workers of the penalties associated with theunlawful removal of cultural, historical, archaeological or palaeontological artefacts, as setout in the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), Section 51(1).

7.2.3 Impact minimization

Impact analysis and resultant management of cultural resources under threat of the proposeddevelopment, are based on the present understanding of the construction and operation of atransmission line. The following objectives and design standards, if adhered to, can eliminate,minimize or enhance potential impacts.

The developer must ensure that an archaeologist inspects each site selected for theerection of a pole structure. If a particular pole structure impacts on a heritage site butcannot be shifted, mitigation measures, i.e. the controlled excavation of the site prior to


15

development, can be implemented. This can only be done by a qualified archaeologistafter obtaining a valid permit from SAHRA.

The same action holds true for any infrastructure development such as access routes,construction campsites, etc.

In the past, people used to settle near water sources. Therefore riverbanks, rims of pansand smaller watercourses should be avoided as far as possible.

In this particular part of the country, Iron Age people also preferred to settle on the saddle(or neck) between mountains (hills/outcrops). These areas should also be avoided.

Avoid all patches bare of vegetation unless previously inspected by an archaeologist.These might be old settlement sites.

Rock outcrops might contain rock shelters, engravings or stone walled settlements, andshould therefore be avoided unless previously inspected by an archaeologist.

Communities living close to the proposed corridor should be consulted as to the existenceof sites of cultural significance, e.g. graves, as well as sites that do not show anystructures but have emotional significance, such as battlefields, etc.

All graves or cemeteries should be avoided, unless when totally impossible. The correctprocedure, i.e. notification of intent to relocate them, consultation with descendants andpermit application, should then be followed in relocating the graves. If any of the gravesare older than 60 years, they can only be exhumed by an archaeologist. Graves of victimsof conflict requires additional permits from SAHRA before they can be relocated.

Archaeological material, by its very nature, occurs below ground. The developer shouldtherefore keep in mind that archaeological sites might be exposed during the constructionwork. If anything is noticed, work in that area should be stopped and the occurrenceshould immediately be reported to a museum, preferably one at which an archaeologist isavailable. The archaeologist should then investigate and evaluate the find.

Any mitigation measures applied by an archaeologist, in the sense of excavation anddocumentation, should be published in order to bring this information into the publicdomain.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim of the survey was to locate, identify, evaluate and document sites, objects andstructures of cultural significance found within the area in which it is proposed to develop anelectricity power line and substation.

Eight different corridors were identified. Three of these would link the existing Westgate andTarlton Substations and the other five would link the existing Tarlton Substation to theproposed new Kromdraai Substation.

Past activities in the study area consisted of farming activities. In recent times, the area wassubjected to intense urbanisation, which would have destroyed any heritage features thatmight have occurred in the region. Conversely, it also brought about the establishment of alarge number of features that currently qualify as heritage sites.

As a result, a variety of heritage resources occur in the larger geographical area. However,according to current knowledge and understanding, it is unlikely that any might occur in the


16

proposed corridors. The only area of concern is in the northern section, in the vicinity of thenew Kromdraai Substation and the corridors leading from that station. In this region, a numberof early hominid and palaeontological sites are located. However, these sites are welldocumented and it would be easy to avoid them. Also, the management measures set out inSection 7 would assist in minimizing possible future impacts.Based on what was found and its evaluation, it is anticipated that the development can takeplace in any of the corridors, although the preferred corridors would be: Corridor 5 for the Tarlton - Kromdraai section; and Corridor 1 for the Westgate – Tarlton section.

However, this selection is based on condition of acceptance of the management measures asset out in Section 7 of this report. The most important of this would be the conducting of a fullPhase 1 archaeological survey of the selected corridor in accordance with the requirements ofSection 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).

In the case where resources do occur, assessing of the potential impact of the developmentcan only be done once a final corridor has been selected. Mitigation of heritage sites impliesfirst of all total avoidance, or, secondly, the recovery of sufficient data from the site in orderthat it can be studied and understood at a later stage. This latter scenario is not necessarilynegative as science stands to benefit from such actions.


17

9. REFERENCES

9.1 Data bases

Heritage Sites Database, Pretoria.

Environmental Potential Atlas, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

National Archives of South Africa

9.2 Literature

Acocks, J.P.H. 1975. Veld Types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of SouthAfrica, No. 40. Pretoria: Botanical Research Institute.

Huffman, T.N. 1993. Broederstroom and the Central Cattle Pattern. South African Journal ofScience 89:220-226.

Huffman, T.N. 2004. The archaeology of the Nguni past. Southern African Humanities 16:79-111.

Kuman K. 2003. Site formation in the early South African Stone Age sites and its influence onthe archaeological record. South African Journal of Science 99:251-254.

Mason, R.J. 1986. Origins of the Black People of Johannesburg and the southern westerncentral Transvaal AD 350-1880. Occasional Paper No. 16. Johannesburg: ArchaeologicalResearch Unit, University of the Witwatersrand.

Raper, P.E. 2004. South African place names. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Richardson, D. 2001. Historic sites of South Africa. Cape Town: Struik Publishers.

Thackeray, A.I. 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the Limpopo River. Journal of WorldPrehistory 6(4):385-440.

Van Vuuren, C.J. 2005. Survey report of sites of cultural significance in the Mogale CityMunicipal area, Gauteng. Unpublished Report. Pretoria: African Centre for Arts, Culture andHeritage Studies, University of South Africa

Wadley, L. 1988. Stone Age sites in the Magaliesberg. In Evers, T.M., Huffman, T.N. &Wadley, L. (eds.) Guide to Archaeological sites in the Transvaal. Johannesburg: Dept. ofArchaeology, University of the Witwatersrand. Pp. 9-39.

9.3 Maps

1: 50 000 Topocadastral maps – 2627BA, 2627BB


18

APPENDIX 1: CONVENTIONS USED TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF PROJECTSON HERITAGE RESOURCES

SignificanceThe significance of the sites and artefacts are determined by means of their historical, social,aesthetic, technological and scientific value in relation to their uniqueness, condition ofpreservation and research potential. It must be kept in mind that the various aspects are notmutually exclusive, and that the evaluation of any site is done with reference to any number ofthese.

Matrix used for assessing the significance of each identified site/feature

1. Historic valueIs it important in the community, or pattern of historyDoes it have strong or special association with the life or work of a person,group or organisation of importance in historyDoes it have significance relating to the history of slavery2. Aesthetic valueIt is important in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by acommunity or cultural group3. Scientific valueDoes it have potential to yield information that will contribute to anunderstanding of natural or cultural heritageIs it important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technicalachievement at aparticular period4. Social valueDoes it have strong or special association with a particular community orcultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons5. RarityDoes it possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of natural or culturalheritage6. RepresentivityIs it important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particularclass of natural or cultural places or objectsImportance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a range oflandscapes or environments, the attributes of which identify it as beingcharacteristic of its classImportance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of human activities(including way of life, philosophy, custom, process, land-use, function, designor technique) in the environment of the nation, province, region or locality.7. Sphere of Significance High Medium LowInternationalNationalProvincialRegionalLocalSpecific community8. Significance rating of feature1. Low2. Medium3. High

Significance of impact:


19

- low where the impact will not have an influence on or require to be significantlyaccommodated in the project design

- medium where the impact could have an influence which will require modification ofthe project design or alternative mitigation

- high where it would have a “no-go” implication on the project regardless of anymitigation

Certainty of prediction:- Definite: More than 90% sure of a particular fact. Substantial supportive data to verify

assessment- Probable: More than 70% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of that impact

occurring- Possible: Only more than 40% sure of a particular fact, or of the likelihood of an

impact occurring- Unsure: Less than 40% sure of a particular fact, or the likelihood of an impact

occurring

Recommended management action:For each impact, the recommended practically attainable mitigation actions which wouldresult in a measurable reduction of the impact, must be identified. This is expressedaccording to the following:

1 = no further investigation/action necessary2 = controlled sampling and/or mapping of the site necessary3 = preserve site if possible, otherwise extensive salvage excavation and/or mappingnecessary4 = preserve site at all costs

Legal requirements:Identify and list the specific legislation and permit requirements which potentially could beinfringed upon by the proposed project, if mitigation is necessary.


20

APPENDIX 2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

All archaeological and palaeontological sites, and meteorites are protected by the NationalHeritage Resources Act (Act no 25 of 1999) as stated in Section 35:

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 8, the protection of archaeological andpalaeontological sites and material and meteorites is the responsibility of a provincialheritage resources authority: Provided that the protection of any wreck in the territorial watersand the maritime cultural zone shall be the responsibility of SAHRA.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (8)(a), all archaeological objects,palaeontological material and meteorites are the property of the State. The responsibleheritage authority must, on behalf of the State, at its discretion ensure that such objects arelodged with a museum or other public institution that has a collection policy acceptable to theheritage resources authority and may in so doing establish such terms and conditions as itsees fit for the conservation of such objects.

(3) Any person who discovers archaeological or palaeontological objects or material or ameteorite in the course of development or agricultural activity must immediately report the findto the responsible heritage resources authority, or to the nearest local authority offices ormuseum, which must immediately notify such heritage resources authority.

(4) No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resourcesauthority-

(a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeologicalor palaeontological site or any meteorite;(b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own anyarchaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite;(c) trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the Republic anycategory of archaeological or palaeontological material or object, or any meteorite; or(d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavationequipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals orarchaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment forthe recovery of meteorites.

The National Heritage Resources Act (Act no 25 of 1999) stipulates the assessment criteriaand grading of archaeological sites. The following categories are distinguished in Section 7 ofthe Act:

- Grade I: Heritage resources with qualities so exceptional that they are of specialnational significance;

- Grade II: Heritage resources which, although forming part of the national estate, canbe considered to have special qualities which make them significant within thecontext of a province or a region; and

- Grade III: Other heritage resources worthy of conservation, and which prescribesheritage resources assessment criteria, consistent with the criteria set out in section3(3), which must be used by a heritage resources authority or a local authority toassess the intrinsic, comparative and contextual significance of a heritage resourceand the relative benefits and costs of its protection, so that the appropriate level ofgrading of the resource and the consequent responsibility for its management may beallocated in terms of section 8.

Heritage survey report for the proposed WESTGATE …projects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/projects/200902 Tarlton Kromdraai... · Heritage survey report for the proposed WESTGATE-TARLTON-KROMDRAAI

Documents