A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION (WITH CONDITIONS) FOR THE EXEMPTION OFA FULL PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THEPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION 1 OF THEFARM STUURMANSKOP NO. 55, PATENSIE, KOUGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, SARAHBAARTMAN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

Prepared for: Ectheca Environmental ServicesTel: 041 585 1715Fax: 086 546 5466Cell: 082 854 6926Contact person: Mr Jesse JegelsEmail: jesse.jegels@gmail.com

Compiled by: Ms Celeste Bootht/a Booth Heritage Consulting5 Queens Terrace12 Chapel StreetGrahamstown6139Tel: 082 062 4655Email: cbooth670@gmail.comContact person: Ms Celeste Booth

Date: June 2016

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3.1.1. The type of development 3.1.2. Applicant 3.1.3. Consultant 4.1.4. Terms of reference 4.1.5. Declaration of Independence and Qualifications 4.1.6. Brief Summary of Findings 5.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 5.2.1. Location data 5.2.2. Map 5.

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 12.3.1. Methodology 12.3.2. Results of Survey 12.

4. RELEVANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 16.5. REFERENCES 20.6. LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION 20.7. RECOMMENDATIONS 21.8. GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS 21.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1:50 000 topographic map 3324 DB COCKSCOMB showing the location of the proposedresidential and mixed use development on the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55. 7.Figure 2. Aerial view showing the location of the proposed residential and mixed use developmenton Portion 1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55 showing the towns situated within the wider region.

8.Figure 3. Close-up aerial view of the location of the proposed residential and mixed use developmenton Portion 1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55 in relation to the centre of the town of Patensie andCyril Ramaphosa Village (shown as Noorshoek on the Google Earth generated map). 9.Figure 4. Close-up aerial view of the location of the proposed residential and mixed use developmentshowing the contemporary dwellings and buildings as well as the location of an open air Churchservice area and formal cemetery area. 10.Figure 5. Proposed layout of the residential and mixed used development on Portion 1 of the FarmStuurmanskop No.55 (courtesy of Ectheca Environmental Services). 11.Figure 6. View of the proposed development area facing west from Stuurman Street. 13.Figure 7. View of the proposed development facing North West from Stuurman Street. 13.Figure 8. View of the proposed development area facing south west. 14.Figure 9. View of contemporary dwellings situated on the southern boundary of the proposeddevelopment area. 14.Figure 10. View of the area used for open air Church services facing east. 15.Figure 11. View of the area used for open air Church services facing west. 15.

2

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: GPS CO-ORDINATES FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT ON PORTION 1 OF THE FARM STUURMANSKOP NO. 55, PATENSIE, KOUGALOCAL MUNICIPALITY, SARAH BAARTMAN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPEPROVINCE. 6.

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: HERITAGE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 22.APPENDIX B: GRADING SYSTEM 25.APPENDIX C: IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND MATERIALFROM INLAND AREAS: guidelines and procedures for developers 26.

3

A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION (WITH CONDITIONS) FOR THE EXEMPTION OFA FULL PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THEPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON PORTION 1 OF THEFARM STUURMANSKOP NO. 55, PATENSIE, KOUGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, SARAHBAARTMAN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

NOTE: An archaeological impact assessment was required as a requisite of the NationalHeritage Resources Act 25 of 1999, Section 38 (1)(a), (c)(i), (d):

38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intendsto undertake a development categorized as –(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of

linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length;(c) any development or other activity which will change the character of the site –

(i) exceeding 5000 m2 in extent, or(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or

This report follows the minimum standard guidelines required by the South AfricanHeritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage ResourcesAgency (ECPHRA) for compiling a Letter of Recommendation for the Exemption of a FullPhase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. The type of development

The Kouga Local Municipality proposes to develop approximately 12 ha of portion 1 of theFarm Stuurmanskop No. 55 for the following land uses:

Residential Business Community Open Space

The development will include associated infrastructure and services, namely roads (5 to12 meters wide), domestic water, effluent management, electricity and stormwatermanagement.

1.2. Applicant

Kouga Local Municipality

4

1.3. Consultant

Ectheca Environmental ServicesTel: 041 585 1715Fax: 086 546 5466Cell: 082 854 6926Contact person: Mr Jesse JegelsEmail: jesse.jegels@gmail.com

1.4. Terms of reference

The purpose of the study was to conduct a phase 1 archaeological impact assessment(AIA) for the proposed Residential and Mixed Use Development on Portion 1 of the FarmStuurmanskop No. 55, Patensie, Kouga Local Municipality, Sarah Baartman DistrictMunicipality, Eastern Cape Province.

The survey was conducted to:

establish the range and importance of the exposed and in situ archaeologicalheritage materials remains, sites, and features;

establish the potential impact of the development; and make recommendations to minimize possible damage to the archaeological

heritage.

1.5. Declaration of Independence and Qualifications

This section confirms a declaration of independence that archaeological heritage specialist,Ms Celeste Booth, has no financial or any other personal interests in the project for theproposed Residential and Mixed Use Development on Portion 1 of the Farm StuurmanskopNo. 55. Ms Celeste Booth was appointed on a strictly professional basis to conduct a Phase1 Archaeological Impact Assessment in line with the South African national heritagelegislation, the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA 25 of 1999) and inresponse to the recommendations provided by the Department of Environmental Affairsand according to the environmental impact assessment regulations.

Ms Celeste Booth (BSc Honours: Archaeology) is an archaeologist who has had eight yearsof full time experience in Cultural Resource Management in the Eastern Cape and sectionsof the Northern Cape and Western Cape. Ms Booth has conducted several ArchaeologicalDesktop Studies and Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessments within the Eastern Capeand in the Karoo region across the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and Western Cape.

5

1.6. Brief Summary of Findings

No archaeological heritage remains, features, or sites were observed within the proposedresidential and mixed use development area. It must be noted that the investigation waslimited to the surface as well as the exposed and disturbed surface areas. Archaeologicalvisibility was relatively good over the disturbed southern half of the proposed developmentarea. The majority of the area is covered in dense grass and bush vegetation that obscuredarchaeological visibility. Exposed surface areas, for example, internal gravel roads,footpaths and diggings were investigated for possible archaeological heritage remains.

The site was visited on a Sunday from about 13:45. It was found that a portion of the areain the southern half of the proposed development area was used for open air churchservices. The author enquired about the area from some of the church members, whoseem to be mainly of Zimbabwean nationality, about possible graves and cemeteries thatmay be situated in the proposed development area. None were alluded to. The maincemetery associated with Cyril Ramaphosa Village situated opposite the proposeddevelopment area is located on the rising hill north of Stuurman Street.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

2.1. Location data

The site is situated on the southern half of Portion 1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55which is located opposite the Cyril Ramaphosa Village and west of the citrus farm Keurkloof56. The area is about 2.8 km west from the centre of the town of Patensie. The site canbe accessed along the regional R331 road through Patensie and then north along StuurmanStreet that leads to Cyril Ramaphosa Village. The Elandsberge Mountain Range runsparallel to the north of the site and the Gamtoos River 3.7 km to the south.

2.2. Map

1:50 000 topographic map: 3224 DB COCKSCOMB, 2002 Edition (Figure 1).

6

TABLE 1: GPS CO-ORDINATES FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT ON PORTION 1 OF THE FARM STUURMANSKOP NO. 55, PATENSIE,KOUGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, SARAH BAARTMAN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY,EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

Reference Description Coordinate HeritageGrading

SKProposed residential and mixeduse area 33°44’12.47”S; 24°48’05.41”E N/A

SK_D1Eastern extent of existingdwellings 33°44’23.24”S; 24°48’05.52”E N/A

SK_D2Western extent of existingdwellings 33°44’20.09”S; 24°48’01.17”E N/A

SK_BE Municipal Building 33°44’25.92”S; 24°48’07.42”E N/A

SK_OAC Open Air Church Service Area 33°44’22.59”S; 24°48’10.41”E Not graded

SK_G1 Formal Cemetery 33°44’33.89”S; 24°48’10.20”E Not graded

7

Figure 1. 1:50 000 topographic map 3324 DB COCKSCOMB showing the location of theproposed residential and mixed use development on the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55.

8

Figure 2. Aerial view showing the location of the proposed residential and mixed use development on Portion 1 of the Farm StuurmanskopNo. 55 showing the towns situated within the wider region.

9

Figure 3. Close-up aerial view of the location of the proposed residential and mixed use development on Portion 1 of the FarmStuurmanskop No. 55 in relation to the centre of the town of Patensie and Cyril Ramaphosa Village (shown as Noorshoek on the GoogleEarth generated map).

10

Figure 4. Close-up aerial view of the location of the proposed residential and mixed use development showing the contemporary dwellingsand buildings as well as the location of an open air Church service area and formal cemetery area.

11

Figure 5. Proposed layout of the residential and mixed used development on Portion 1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No.55(courtesy of Ectheca Environmental Services).

12

13

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1. Methodology

The archaeological investigation was conducted on foot. The proposed development areawas investigated for possible archaeological heritage remains, features, and sites. Thegeneral area is mostly covered in dense grass and bush vegetation that obscuredarchaeological visibility over most of the northern half of the area. The few surface exposedand disturbed areas, were investigated for the occurrence of possible archaeologicalheritage remains.

Photographs and the GPS co-ordinates were taken using a Garmin Oregon 650. Thecoordinates have been plotted on Google Earth and these images have been used in thereport. The information and map from the project’s background information document(BID) have also been included.

3.2. Results of the Archaeological Survey

No archaeological heritage remains, features, or sites were observed within the proposedresidential and mixed use development area. The area is currently undeveloped andcomprises of slight gradient hills (Figures 6-7). It must be noted that the investigation waslimited to the surface as well as the exposed and disturbed surface areas. Archaeologicalvisibility was relatively good over the disturbed southern half of the proposed developmentarea (Figure 8). The majority of the area is covered in dense grass and bush vegetationthat obscured archaeological visibility. Exposed surface areas, for example, internal gravelroads, footpaths and diggings were investigated for possible archaeological heritageremains. Contemporary dwellings area situated on the southern boundary of the proposeddevelopment area (Figure 9).

The site was visited on a Sunday from about 13:45. It was found that a portion of the areain the southern half of the proposed development area was used for open air churchservices (Figures 10-11). The author enquired about the area from some of the churchmembers, who seem to be mainly of Zimbabwean nationality, about possible graves andcemeteries that may be situated in the proposed development area. None were alludedto. The main cemetery associated with Cyril Ramaphosa Village situated opposite theproposed development area is located on the rising hill north of Stuurman Street.

14

Figure 6. View of the proposed development area facing west fromStuurman Street.

Figure 7. View of the proposed development facing North West fromStuurman Street.

15

Figure 8. View of the proposed development area facing south west.

Figure 9. View of contemporary dwellings situated on the southernboundary of the proposed development area.

16

Figure 10. View of the area used for open air Church services facing east.

Figure 11. View of the area used for open air Church services facing west.

17

4. RELEVANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Very little systematic archaeological research has been conducted within the immediateand surrounding areas proposed for the residential and mixed use development on Portion1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55. Some rock art research has been conducted withinthe Baviaanskloof Mountain Range to the west as well as in the Groendal Mountains nearUitenhage. Archaeological research excavations have also been conducted towards thecoastal region and around Hankey and in the Kouga Mountains between Kareedouw andJoubertina.

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Reports, such as archaeological and heritage impactassessments, make up main site recording method surrounding the proposed developmentarea and assist in attempting to predict the archaeological and heritage resources thatmay occur within the proposed development areas. The following surveys have beenconducted and reports compiled within the surrounding area of the proposed area for thedevelopment.

Anderson, G. 2010. Heritage Survey of the proposed Melkhout – Oyster Bay DistributionLine.

Anderson, G. 2011. Heritage Survey of the Proposed 66 kV Line Between St Francis andRed Cap Kouga Wind Farm, Eastern Cape.

Binneman, JNF. 2002. Archaeological Heritage Sensitivity Investigation of the ProposedBurial Site of Sarah Baartman at Hankey, Kouga Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2006a. Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the ProposedDevelopment of Portion A of the Farm Zeekoe River No. 793 in the HumansdorpDistrict.

Binneman, JNF. 2006b. Letter of Recommendation for the Exemption of a Full Phase 1Archaeological heritage Impact Assessment on Portion 60 (Part of Portion 57) of theFarm Klein Zeekoe Rivier No. 355, Humansdorp District (Kouga Municipality),concerning the Application and Approval of Mining Rights.

Binneman, JNF. 2006c. Letter of Recommendation for the Exemption of a Full Phase 1Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment on Portion 60 (part of Portion 57) OF theFarm Klein Zeekoe Rivier No. 335, Humansdorp District (Kouga Municipality),concerning the Application and Approval of Mining Rights.

Binneman, JNF. 2006d. Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemption ofa Full Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Hankey Sewer Pipeline,Hankey (Kouga Municipality).

Binneman, JNF. 2006e. Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemption ofa Full Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the Rezoning andSubdivision of Portion 32 of the Farm Reeboksfontein No. 346, Humansdorp District,Kouga Municipality, from Agricultural Use to Special Rural Residential Purposes andto Divide it into 21 Units.

Binneman, JNF. 2006f. Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemption ofa Full Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the Rezoning of Portion4 of the Farm “Keurkloof” No. 65, in the Patensie District, (Kouga Municipality), from

18

Agricultural Use to Open Space Zone III and the Development of +- 40 Footprints ofResort Zone II on the Property.

Binneman, JNF. 2007a. Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemption ofa Full Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed HankeyGolf Estate Development on Erf 1435, Hankey, Kouga Municipality, Eastern Cape.

Binneman, JNF. 2007b. Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment of theProposed Development of a Hotel and Resort on Erf 6338, Jeffreys Bay, KougaMunicipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2008a. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment of theProposed Establishment of Eco-Residential Units of Portion 2 of Farm Swan Lake No.755, Aston Bay, Kouga Municipality, Eastern Cape province.

Binneman, JNF. 2008b. Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for theProposed “St Francis Coastal Reserve” on Portions of the Remainder of the Farm NewPapiesfontein No. 320, Kouga Municipality, District of Humansdorp, Eastern Cape.

Binneman, JNF. 2008c. Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for theProposed Wind Energy Project near Jeffreys Bay, Kouga Municipality, District ofHumansdorp.

Binneman, JNF. 2009a. An Archaeological Desktop Study for the Proposed Deep RiverWind Energy Facility, Kou-Kamma Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern CapeProvince.

Binneman, JNF. 2009b. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment of theProposed Cob Creek Estate Development on Portion 21 of the Farm Kabeljauws RiverNo. 321, Jeffreys Bay, Kouga Municipality, Easter Cape Province

Binneman, JNF. 2009c. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for theProposed Residential Development of the Farm Zeekoei River No. 793, KougaMunicipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape.

Binneman, JNF. 2010a. A Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemptionof a Full Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for the ProposedConstruction of the Waste Water Treatment Works at the Weston Residential Area,Hankey, Kouga Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2010b. An Archaeological Desktop Study for the Proposed Oster Bay WindEnergy Facility, Local Kouga Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern CapeProvince.

Binneman, JNF. 2010c. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment of theProposed Residential and Mixed-Use Development on Erf 17 and Erf 1480, WestonResidential Area, Hankey, Kouga Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2010d. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for theProposed Deep River Wind Energy Facility Project, Kouga Municipality, District ofHumansdorp, Eastern Cape province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011a. A Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemptionof a Full Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Drilling of aBorehole on Portion 78 of Ongegund Vryheid 746, Cape St. Francis, KougaMunicipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province.

19

Binneman, JNF. 2011b. A Letter of Recommendation (with conditions) for the Exemptionof a Full Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Shallow DrillingProgramme (5 boreholes) at Cape St. Francis, Kouga Municipality, HumansdorpDistrict, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011c. An Amended Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of theProposed Rezoning of Portion 6 of the Farm Mentorskraal No. 336, from AgricultureZone 1 to Subdivisional Area to Develop a Township and Associated Infrastructure,Kouga Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011d. An Archaeological Desktop Study of the Proposed TsitsikammaCommunity Wind Energy Facility, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District,Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011e. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the ProposedConstruction of a Communal Jetty on the Northern Bank of the Kromme RiverEstuary, Kouga Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011f. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the ProposedDevelopment of the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitor Centre on a Remainder of Portion6 of the Farm Kabeljous River No. 328, Jeffreys Bay, Kouga Local Municipality,Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011g. A Phase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment for theProposed Happy Valley wind Energy Facility near Humansdorp, Kouga LocalMunicipality, District of Humansdorp, Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011h. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the ProposedOyster Bay Wind Energy Facility, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District,Eastern Cape Province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011i. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the ProposedSubdivision and Rezoning of Portion 176 of the Farm Goedgeloof No. 745, fromAgriculture Zone 1 to Special Zone for Rural residential Purposes in St. Francis Bay,Kouga Local Municipality, Eastern Cape province.

Binneman, JNF. 2011j. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the ProposedTsitsikamma Wind Energy Facility, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District,Eastern Cape province.

Binneman, JNF. & Booth, C. 2010. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for theProposed 20MW Wind Farm on Three Alternative Sites: Erf 121, Driftsands (SiteAlternative 1), Bushy Park Farm, Remainder of Erf 26, as well as Portions 5, 6, 7Thereof (Site Alternative 2) and Rietfontein farm, Erf 594, Van Stadens East (SiteAlternative 3), Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality, Port Elizabeth, EasternCape province.

Booth, C. 2010. An Archaeological “Ground-Truthing’ Survey of the Footprint for theProposed Metrowind Wind Energy Facility on the farm Rietfontein, Van Stadens,Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape province.

Booth, C. 2013. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) for the ProposedMining Right Application for the Mining of Dolomite and Limestone over portions ofthe Farm Limebank 174, Portions 2, 4, 5, 36, 37, 38 and 53 of the Farm Kleinfontein172, Kouga Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

20

Nilssen, P. 2013. Heritage / Archaeological Impact Assessment Proposed Gibson Bay WindFarm Grid Connection, Kou-kamma and Kouga Local Municipalities, HumansdorpDistrict, Eastern Cape Province.

Sealy, J. 2006. Report on Skeleton Recovered from Dunes at Jeffreys Bay, September2005.

Silberbauer, F. B. 2012. Phase 1 Heritage Assessment Report: for Site No. 46, RivertideShaveblock Scheme, situated on Portion 4 of the Farm Osbosch, Kromme River,Humansdorp Rd, Kouga Municipality, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape Province.

Van Ryneveld, K. 2010. Establishment of a Commercial Wind Farm, Kouga LocalMunicipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Van Ryneveld, K. 2012a. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment: Mining RightApplication: Farms Klein Rivier (713-32) and Buffelsbosch (742-14), HumansdorpDistrict, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Van Ryneveld, K. 2012b. Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Micrositing and Phase 2Archaeological Test Pitting, Turbine Line 33-36, Red Cap Kouga Wind Farm, CentralCluster, Oyster Bay, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Van Ryneveld, K. 2013a. Phase 1b Archaeological Monitoring: The Melkhout – Oyster BayPowerline: Phase 1B, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Van Ryneveld, K. 2013b. Tsitsikamma Wind Farm – Borrow Pits Project, HumansdorpRegistration Division, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Van Schalkwyk, J. 2007. Heritage Survey Report for the Proposed Marina VillageDevelopment, Jeffreys Bay, Humansdorp Magisterial District, Eastern Cape province.

Van Schalkwyk, L. O. 2009a. Final Draft Report: Heritage Impact Assessment of ThyspuntNuclear 400 kV Integration Project: Northern Corridor, Cape St Francis / Uitenhage/ Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

Van Schalkwyk, L. O. 2009b. Final Draft Report: Heritage Impact Assessment of ThyspuntNuclear 400kV Integration Project: Southern Corridor, Cape St. Francis / PortElizabeth, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

Van Schalkwyk, L. O. & Wahl, E. 2012. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report:132kV Power Line and Substation Infrastructure, Dieprivier – Kareedouw, KougaLocal Municipality, Cacadu District Municipality, Eastern Cape Province.

Van Schalkwyk, L. O. & Wahl, E. 2013. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Report:Proposed 132kV Power Lines and Substation Infrastructure, Melkhout – Patensie,Kouga Local Municipality, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.

Webley, L. 2006a. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Along the St Francis BayBeach.

Webley, L. 2006b. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment – Portion 2 of the Farm Osbosch707, St Francis Bay.

Webley, L. 2009. Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment: Caravan Park Development at VanStadens River Mouth, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape

21

5. REFERENCES

National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA 25 of 1999)South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) Database.Kouga Local Municipality. Terms of Reference.

22

6. LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the area for the proposed Residential and Mixed UseDevelopment on Portion 1 of the Farm Stuurmanskop No. 55, Patensie, KougaLocal Municipality, Sarah Baartman District Municipality, Eastern Cape Province,is exempted from a full Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment. Theproposed area for development is of low archaeological cultural sensitivity. Noarchaeological heritage sites, features, or remains were documented during thesurvey, although it is possible that archaeological heritage material may occurbelow the surface. Taking into consideration the recommendation below, thedevelopment may proceed as planned.

There were no archaeological artefacts located during the phase 1 archaeological impactassessment carried out. If any archaeological or heritage material were to be discoveredit is very unlikely that it would be in situ. However, there is always a possibility that humanremains or other archaeological and historical material may be uncovered during thedevelopment. Such material must be reported to the Eastern Cape Provincial HeritageResources Agency (ECPHRA) (043 745 0888) or the Albany Museum (046 622 2312) ifexposed.

Note: This letter of recommendation only exempts the proposed development from a fullPhase 1 Archaeological Heritage Impact Assessment, but not for other heritage impactassessments.

It must also be clear that this letter of recommendation for exemption of a full Phase 1archaeological heritage impact assessment will be assessed by the relevant heritageresources authority. The final decision rests with the heritage resources authority, whichshould give a permit or a formal letter of permission for the destruction of any culturalsites.

The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999, section 35) requires afull Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in order that all heritage resources, thatis, all places or objects of aesthetics, architectural, historic, scientific, social,spiritual linguistic or technological value or significance are protected. Thus anyassessment should make provision for the protection of all these heritagecomponents, including archaeology, shipwrecks, battlefields, graves, andstructures older than 60 years, living heritage, historical settlements,landscapes, geological sites, palaeontological sites and objects.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Although no archaeological heritage remains, features, and sites were encountered duringthe survey, the following recommendations should be considered before developmentproceeds:

23

1. The environmental control officer (ECO) as well as the constructionmanagers/foremen should be informed before construction starts on the possibletypes of heritage sites and cultural material they may encounter and the proceduresto follow when they find sites.

2. If concentrations of archaeological and/or historical heritage material, marine shells,and / or human remains are uncovered during construction, all work must ceaseimmediately and be reported to the Albany Museum (046 622 2312) and/or theEastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Agency (ECPHRA) (043 745 0888) sothat systematic and professional investigation/ excavation can be undertaken.

3. The local community (Cyril Ramaphosa Village) must be consulted with regards tospace being used as an open air Church service area.

8. GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS

It must be emphasised that this letter of recommendation for exemption of a full Phase 1archaeological heritage impact assessment is based on the visibility of archaeologicalsites/material and may not, therefore, reflect the true state of affairs. Sites and materialmay be covered by soil and vegetation and will only be located once this has beenremoved. In the unlikely event of such finds being uncovered, (during any phase ofconstruction work), archaeologists must be informed immediately so that they caninvestigate the importance of the sites and excavate or collect material before it isdestroyed (see attached list of possible archaeological sites and material). The onus is onthe developer to ensure that this agreement is honoured in accordance with the NationalHeritage Act No. 25 of 1999.

APPENDIX A: HERITAGE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Parts of sections 3(1)(2)(3), 34(1), 35(4), 36(3) and 38(1)(8) of the National HeritageResources Act 25 of 1999 apply:

S3. National estate

24

3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, those heritage resources of South Africa which are ofcultural significance or other special value for the present community and for futuregenerations must be considered part of the national estate and fall within the sphere ofoperations of heritage resources authorities.3. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may include –(a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance;(b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;(c) historical settlements and townscapes;(d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance;(f) archaeological and palaeontological sites;(g) graves and burial grounds, including –

(i) ancestral graves;(ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders;(iii) graves and victims of conflict;(iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;(v) historical graves and cemeteries; and(vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue

Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of 1983);(h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa;(i) movable objects, including –

(i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, includingarchaeological and palaeontological specimens;

(ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated withliving heritage;

(iii) ethnographic art and objects;(iv) military objects;(v) objects of decorative or fine art;(vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and(vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic,

film or video material or sound recordings, excluding those that are publicrecords as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South AfricaAct (Act No. 43 of 1996).

3. (3) Without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), a place or object is to beconsidered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special valuebecause of –(a) its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history;(b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural orcultural heritage;(c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of SouthAfrica’s natural or cultural heritage;

19

25

(d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class ofSouth Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects;(e) its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a communityor cultural group;(f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement ata particular period;(g) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisationof importance in the history of South Africa; and(i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.

S34. Structures

34. (1) No person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure which is olderthan 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant provincial heritage resourcesauthority.

S35. Archaeology, palaeontology and meteorites

35 (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;

(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.

S36. Burial grounds and graves

36. (3) (a) No person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritageresources authority—(a) destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise

disturb the grave of a victim of conflict, or any burial ground or part thereof whichcontains such graves;

(b) destroy, damage, alter, exhume, remove from its original position or otherwisedisturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years which is situated outside aformal cemetery administered by a local authority; or

(c) bring onto or use at a burial ground or grave referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) anyexcavation equipment, or any equipment which assists in the detection or recovery ofmetals.

20

26

S38. Heritage resources management

38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intendsto undertake a development categorized as –(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of

linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length;(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length;(c) any development or other activity which will change the character of the site –

(i) exceeding 5000 m2 in extent, or(ii) involving three or more erven or subdivisions thereof; or(iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been

consolidated within the past five years; or(iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA, or a

provincial resources authority;(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or(e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial

heritage resources authority, must as the very earliest stages of initiating such adevelopment, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it withdetails regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development.

27

APPENDIX B: GRADING SYSTEM

The NHRA stipulates the assessment criteria and grading of archaeological sites. Thefollowing categories are distinguished in Section 7 of the Act and the South AfricanHeritage Resources Agency: National: This site is suggested to be considered of Grade 1 significance and should be

nominated as such. Heritage resources with qualities so exceptional that they are ofspecial national significance.

Provincial: This site is suggested to be considered of Grade II significance and shouldbe nominated as such. Heritage resources which, although forming part of the nationalestate, can be considered to have special qualities which make them significant withinthe context of a province or a region

Local: This site is suggested to be Grade IIIA significance. This site should be retainedas a heritage register site (High significance) and so mitigation as part of thedevelopment process is not advised.

Local: This site is suggested to be Grade IIIB significance. It could be mitigated and(part) retained as a heritage register site (High significance).

‘General’ Protection A (Field Rating IV A): This site should be mitigated beforedestruction (usually High/Medium significance).

‘General’ Protection B (Field Rating IV B): This site should be recorded beforedestruction (usually Medium significance).

‘General Protection C (Field Rating IV C): This site has been sufficiently recorded (inthe Phase 1). It requires no further recording before destruction (usually Lowsignificance).

28

APPENDIX C: IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND MATERIALFROM INLAND AREAS: guidelines and procedures for developers

1. Human Skeletal material

Human remains, whether the complete remains of an individual buried during the past, orscattered human remains resulting from disturbance of the grave, should be reported. Ingeneral the remains are buried in a flexed position on their sides, but are also found buriedin a sitting position with a flat stone capping and developers are requested to be on thealert for this.

2. Freshwater mussel middens

Freshwater mussels are found in the muddy banks of rivers and streams and were collectedby people in the past as a food resource. Freshwater mussel shell middens areaccumulations of mussel shell and are usually found close to rivers and streams. Theseshell middens frequently contain stone tools, pottery, bone, and occasionally humanremains. Shell middens may be of various sizes and depths, but an accumulation whichexceeds 1 m2 in extent, should be reported to an archaeologist.

3. Stone artefacts

These are difficult for the layman to identify. However, large accumulations of flakedstones which do not appear to have been distributed naturally should be reported. If thestone tools are associated with bone remains, development should be halted immediatelyand archaeologists notified

4. Fossil bone

Fossil bones may be found embedded in geological deposits. Any concentrations of bones,whether fossilized or not, should be reported.

5. Large stone features

They come in different forms and sizes, but are easy to identify. The most common areroughly circular stone walls (mostly collapsed) and may represent stock enclosures,remains of wind breaks or cooking shelters. Others consist of large piles of stones ofdifferent sizes and heights and are known as isisivane. They are usually near river andmountain crossings. Their purpose and meaning is not fully understood, however, someare thought to represent burial cairns while others may have symbolic value.

6. Historical artefacts or features

These are easy to identified and include foundations of buildings or other constructionfeatures and items from domestic and military activities.